Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 1

February 5, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 Monday, 5 February 2024 1 the proceedings, and as I said , I will dismiss his
2 (10.30 am) 2 application on the papers.
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Just a few preliminaries from me before 3 So, we are here to resolve what I’ve defined
4 we get going, Mr Hough. 4 as ”the identity issue”, namely whether Dr Wright is or
5 Housekeeping 5 was the person who adopted the pseudonym
6 First of all , it ’s nice and warm in here, isn’t it ? 6 Satoshi Nakamoto and wrote and published
7 We’ve got a very large number of people from all over 7 the Bitcoin White Paper.
8 the world who have requested and should have received 8 Now, the final point to mention is that my clerk
9 a remote link to these proceedings. I understand 9 received an email on Friday night from someone who said
10 the number is now approaching 400. My thanks go to 10 he was the creator of the Satoshi Nakamoto character and
11 the court staff , and especially my clerk, Susan, for 11 one unusual feature of this email was that the sender
12 organising and facilitating all the remote access. 12 provided PGP keys for six individuals whose names have
13 Each person who has requested a remote link should 13 been linked to the early days of Bitcoin. This email
14 have been sent a copy of the order I made last week 14 was forwarded to the parties on Saturday and they will
15 concerning the conditions on which remote access is 15 make of it what they will.
16 granted. Those conditions apply to everyone observing 16 Now, the timetable for today is roughly as
17 these proceedings whether remotely, in this court or in 17 follows : we’ ll start with the opening submissions from
18 the overflow court which is court 9. 18 Mr Hough KC for COPA; Mr Gunning KC for the developers
19 In summary, you’re not permitted to take any 19 will follow with a short opening of 15 to 20 minutes,
20 photographs or video of the proceedings, nor to record 20 which should take us to about 1 pm. In the afternoon,
21 any sound. Screen grabs of the remote feed are also 21 Lord Grabiner KC will make opening submissions for
22 prohibited . Breach of these conditions is a contempt of 22 Dr Wright until roughly around 3.45, and at that point
23 court and I don’t expect to have to remind anyone 23 I will hear argument on some outstanding issues which
24 observing of those conditions. 24 need to be resolved before we start hearing evidence,
25 Second, I thank the three legal teams for their very 25 and the aim is to start Dr Wright’s evidence first thing

1 3

1 useful opening skeleton arguments which have guided my 1 tomorrow morning.

2 pre−reading. 2 So Mr Hough.
3 Third, I also thank counsel for their helpful 3 MR HOUGH: My Lord, you are familiar with
4 responses on Friday to the points I raised about 4 the representation , but for the record, I appear with
5 the order of play for today and their skeletons 5 Mr Moss for COPA, Lord Grabiner KC and Mr Orr KC appear
6 yesterday for the issues which will be addressed later . 6 with Mr Baiou, Mr Goldfarb and Mr Greenberg for
7 Fourth, over the period when I’ve been involved in 7 Dr Wright, and Mr Gunning KC and Ms Collett appear for
8 these cases, people have been sending me various books. 8 the developer defendants.
9 They appear to relate to the issue . I say ”appear”, 9 Opening submissions by MR HOUGH
10 because I haven’t read any of them, and I won’t. I have 10 Our case, COPA’s case is that Dr Wright’s claim to
11 to decide the identity issue on the basis of 11 be Satoshi Nakamoto is a brazen lie, an elaborate false
12 the evidence and submissions which will be made to me in 12 narrative supported by forgery on an industrial scale .
13 this trial . 13 In our submission, there are elements of Dr Wright’s
14 The fifth point is , last week, a Mr Paul Lamb from 14 conduct which stray into the realm of farce .
15 Northern Ireland issued an application notice in 15 To take three examples, first , we say that he was
16 the COPA action, and in his application notice he seeks 16 actively forging a disk image, the BDO Drive, on
17 a declaration about Satoshi Nakamoto. Mr Lamb is 17 19 September last year, the very day when your Lordship
18 clearly interested in what goes on in this trial , but 18 was hearing our application for further information
19 there are three main reasons why I must dismiss his 19 about his existing materials .
20 application : first , he doesn’t have a sufficient 20 Secondly, there are clear signs that he used
21 interest to be joined to these proceedings; second, 21 ChatGPT to forge documents on that BDO Drive. That was,
22 joinder would be unnecessarily disruptive ; and third, 22 in our submission, probably because of the pressure of
23 it ’s far too late for him to apply to join in this 23 time to produce so many forged documents in
24 action. 24 September 2023.
25 He’s been sent a remote link and is free to observe 25 Thirdly, in September 2023, he searched up an

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 internet Q&A about whether the Bitcoin White Paper had 1 take the issues in the form and order in which
2 been written with the programme LaTeX. Then, in 2 your Lordship distilled from them from the pleadings in
3 October 2023, he claimed to have written it in LaTeX, 3 the judgment of 3 October 2023. May we please have on
4 and then proceeded to forge a supposed LaTeX original. 4 screen {B/25/18}.
5 However, my Lord, Dr Wright’s conduct is also deadly 5 Your Lordship will recall distilling a series of
6 serious . On the basis of his dishonest claim to be 6 issues from the pleadings. I propose to take that as my
7 Satoshi, he has pursued claims he puts at hundreds of 7 structure today.
8 billions of dollars , including against numerous private 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
9 individuals . He has sought over social media to 9 MR HOUGH: The first is the −− the first topic is
10 terrorise Bitcoin developers and bloggers who have 10 the authorship of the Bitcoin White Paper, and
11 disputed his claim with barrages of methods threatening 11 the central issue in this case is whether Dr Wright
12 bankruptcy, prison and death. This has been done with 12 wrote that paper. As pointed out in the October
13 the very extensive financial backing and active support 13 judgment, this involves looking at whether Dr Wright’s
14 of the wealthy gambling entrepreneur Calvin Ayre. COPA 14 purported drafts of the paper are authentic and also
15 has brought this claim to bring a stop to this conduct 15 whether he can demonstrate a sequence of developing
16 by establishing that Dr Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto 16 concepts of the Bitcoin system. In addressing this ,
17 and by obtaining appropriate relief . 17 I ’ ll be −− this will be the longest part of the opening
18 We have set out our case in some detail in our 18 submissions.
19 opening skeleton. As we say there, we present our case 19 Under this topic may we begin with Dr Wright’s claim
20 in three broad parts. First , Dr Wright has produced 20 that he wrote the Bitcoin White Paper in LaTeX and that
21 a very large number of false and forged documents in 21 his Overleaf account contains an authentic LaTeX draft.
22 support of his claim to be Satoshi. Remarkably, his own 22 May we go, please, to Ms Field’s witness statement
23 experts agree, in the great majority of cases, that key 23 {E/24/7}. Your Lordship may recall this witness
24 documents he has nominated as primary reliance documents 24 statement. In this part, Ms Field explained what
25 for his claim have been manipulated. We say that he 25 Dr Wright said was the significance of the LaTeX files.

5 7

1 cannot point to any verifiable and reliable documents 1 Then, if we go over the page to {E/24/8},
2 which genuinely support his claim to be Satoshi, and in 2 paragraph 19.2.6, we see that she says:
3 his skeleton, it is significant that at paragraph 152(4) 3 ”I am informed by Dr Wright that the Bitcoin
4 he ultimately relies on just three handwritten 4 Folder ... ”
5 documents, which of course contain no metadata for 5 That’s the folder on Overleaf:
6 analysis , and there are problems even with those, as 6 ” ... contained certain LaTeX files which, when
7 I shall mention later. 7 the code contained on them is compiled in Overleaf (or
8 Secondly, over a period of nearly ten years , 8 another LaTeX compiler), produce a copy of
9 Dr Wright has had the strongest incentives to prove his 9 the Bitcoin White Paper ... Dr Wright instructs me that
10 claim to be Satoshi: he has been under contractual 10 the versions of the White Paper produced in this way are
11 obligations , has had the prospect of huge financial 11 materially identical to the Bitcoin White Paper
12 gain, has received urgings from colleagues. But he has 12 published by Satoshi Nakamoto.”
13 singularly failed to give that proof. What’s more, each 13 Your Lordship will recall from the PTR this being
14 of his attempts to offer proof has been an abject 14 described as a ” digital watermark”.
15 failure . 15 Dr Wright’s story of drafting the White Paper in
16 Thirdly, in numerous respects, Dr Wright’s story of 16 LaTeX is also the basis for his excuses for drafts of
17 devising and introducing the Bitcoin system is 17 the White Paper in his original reliance documents
18 inconsistent with established facts or reliable evidence 18 having signs of manipulation, such as those ending with
19 from people who have no reason to lie. 19 the ID numbers ending with 254 and 536. And for
20 We should be clear about this at the start . On our 20 example, in appendix B to Wright 11, he maintains that
21 case, Dr Wright has committed multiple contempts in 21 various signs of the result of both the White Paper and
22 signing his witness statements, repeatedly perjured 22 the reliance document having been authored in draft in
23 himself in several legal actions and brought a series of 23 LaTeX. And for my Lord’s note −− we need not go to it
24 proceedings founded on a fraud. My Lord, in these 24 now −− {CSW/2/26}, paragraph 7.6 is an example.
25 opening submissions, by way of structure, I propose to 25 Dr Wright’s account, we say, has now been shown to

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 be a lie by the agreed conclusions of both sides’ 1 document, we can see that MacFarlanes, for
2 experts, Mr Rosendahl and Mr Lynch. May we go to their 2 the developers, plotted that editing history into
3 joint statement at {Q/5/1}, and there are four critical 3 a table showing the project history had editing also on
4 agreed conclusions. Paragraph 2: 4 22 and 24 November and on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th
5 ”The experts agree that the original 5 and 12th December. Not coincidentally, my Lord,
6 Bitcoin White Paper ... was created −− [in] 6 the editing ended the day before Dr Wright finally
7 OpenOffice 2.4 and not LaTeX.” 7 complied with our request to provide the PDF output of
8 Of course, OpenOffice 2.4 is the program which the 8 the LaTeX files. So while we were pressing for
9 Bitcoin White Paper’s metadata say was used to create 9 disclosure of the LaTeX files and being given
10 it . 10 Dr Wright’s excuses based on a confidentiality we said
11 Paragraph 3, the experts agree that despite 11 was spurious, he, we say, was actively editing
12 resembling the Bitcoin White Paper, the PDF file which 12 the files .
13 would be produced by Dr Wright’s nominated file from his 13 My Lord, the importance of these points on the LaTeX
14 Overleaf account is not the Bitcoin White Paper, it 14 files cannot be overstated. It is not just another
15 contains substantial discrepancies , including in 15 instance of what we say is dishonesty and forgery by
16 spacing, content as rendered, symbols in formulae and 16 Dr Wright; the real Satoshi would know that
17 punctuation. 17 the Bitcoin White Paper was not written in LaTeX.
18 Further, none of the other files in Dr Wright’s 18 By contrast, Dr Wright came up with a false
19 Overleaf folder is the Bitcoin White Paper. 19 narrative of having written the Bitcoin White Paper in
20 May we go over the page, please {Q/5/2}. So that’s 20 LaTeX as part of a desperate reaction to the findings of
21 the second critical conclusion. 21 the Madden report of September 2023 that discredited his
22 The third critical conclusion is at paragraph 4: 22 first set of reliance documents. We can trace what
23 ”On the subject of reverse engineering, the experts 23 happened. First of all , he performed an internet search
24 agree that it is not too difficult to reverse engineer 24 on whether the Bitcoin White Paper had been written in
25 the [Bitcoin White Paper] to create a LaTeX source file 25 LaTeX and saw the Q&A response. May we have on screen

9 11

1 that compiles to a PDF ... similar to Dr Wright’s ... ” 1 {L20/195/1}. This is a tweet posted by Mr Ager−Hanssen,
2 And then paragraph 5, the experts agree that 2 but Dr Wright has accepted in a witness statement in
3 the only reason why Dr Wright’s LaTeX files produce 3 the Tulip case that he accessed the site shown. We know
4 anything resembling the Bitcoin White Paper is that they 4 it was in September because Mr Ager−Hanssen’s tweet was
5 use software packages and options that, based on public 5 on 30 September and Dr Wright says that he did this and
6 records, did not exist when the Bitcoin White Paper was 6 the other internet searches after service of
7 authored. 7 the Madden report. That’s in Wright 3.
8 In addition, the project history on Overleaf, which 8 Next, having performed that search, ”Was anything in
9 was finally obtained after some effort, demonstrated 9 Satoshi Nakamoto’s original Bitcoin paper compiled in
10 that the file which Dr Wright had nominated as the one 10 LaTeX”, having performed that and having never
11 which would uniquely compile into 11 previously said that the Bitcoin White Paper was written
12 the Bitcoin White Paper had been extensively edited on 12 in LaTeX, he mentioned the use of LaTeX in his fourth
13 his Overleaf account on 19 to 20 November, just a week 13 witness statement in October 2023. May we have {E/4/5}.
14 before his solicitors first wrote to COPA on 14 This is paragraph 6(c), answering a question about the
15 the subject. 15 production of the White Paper. Point (i):
16 May we please go to {M1/2/105}. This is 16 ”The White Paper’s development involved a complex
17 a spreadsheet called ”the chunks xlsx file ” produced by 17 workflow utilising various software platforms, including
18 Dr Wright’s experts, showing the project history on 18 LaTeX, OpenOffice and Microsoft Word.”
19 Overleaf. If we go to {M1/2/106}, expand, please, 19 There had been no mention of LaTeX in the first
20 the last fifth or so −− the bottom fifth or so of 20 witness statement about how the White Paper had been
21 the page. We can see a series of entries showing an 21 produced, despite its supposed importance by the time of
22 editing history on 19 November 2023, and over the page 22 December.
23 {M1/2/107}, we can see that that editing history 23 Then he created the LaTeX files, and the project
24 continues on 19 and 20 November 2023. 24 history indicates he kept editing them right up to
25 If we go back to page 103 {M1/2/103} of the same 25 12 December, when he had to disclose their output. It

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 is striking , my Lord, that Lord Grabiner has no answer 1 Mr Lynch then turned to address the BDO raw image,
2 to these points in his skeleton argument. At page 8 to 2 BDOPC.RAW, taken from the image of the Samsung Drive.
3 9 {R/14/8−9}, paragraph 5(10), he addresses them simply 3 If we may move to page {I/51/18}, paragraph 70, he
4 by recording the opposing views of Dr Wright on the one 4 established that the last time of use of the computer
5 hand, and both experts on the other, and then says that: 5 from which the image was taken was 5 July 2007. That’s
6 ”These issues will need to be explored at trial .” 6 the computer from which the original was ultimately
7 We can take that document off screen. 7 taken.
8 Next, I should address another set of recently 8 Then page {I/51/19}, paragraph 72, he says this:
9 disclosed documents on which Dr Wright relies as early 9 ”In conducting our analysis of the BDO Image,
10 drafts of the Bitcoin White Paper and related papers. 10 Stroz Friedberg reviewed the image for any evidence that
11 This set is the BDO Drive and its contents. It’s 11 the image had been accessed and modified in the days
12 significant , it of course represents , by now, half of 12 leading up to 20 September 2023. Our analysis revealed
13 Dr Wright’s reliance documents. 13 evidence that in the days prior to 20 September 2023,
14 As my Lord is aware, the BDO Drive is an image that 14 when the Samsung Drive containing the BDO Image was
15 was stored on a Samsung USB drive. Dr Wright claimed 15 preserved, someone engaged in substantial efforts to
16 that the drive image was captured on 31 October 2007, 16 modify the contents of the BDO Image, and to do so in
17 that it was later transferred to the Samsung USB drive, 17 a way to hide when that activity was occurring and make
18 that that drive was omitted from being imaged for 18 it appear as if it had occurred in 2007.”
19 disclosure in any of Dr Wright’s proceedings and that he 19 And he goes on to refer to the clock manipulations.
20 discovered it by happy chance in a drawer at his home on 20 {I/5/20}, paragraphs 75 to 76, he addresses
21 15 September 2023. He claimed that it was protected by 21 transaction logs and identifies a series of anomalies in
22 a layer of encryption. He insisted that he hadn’t 22 time recordings with the table between the two
23 accessed the Samsung Drive except on the one occasion 23 paragraphs, and then we can see from paragraph 76(a)
24 and to check that it was working. That’s, for my Lord’s 24 that what he established was that the BDO image had been
25 note, {E/20/7}, paragraphs 22 to 23 in his fifth 25 mounted on a computer so as to allow it to be opened on

13 15

1 statement. 1 17 September.
2 At the PTR, he claimed that this drive contained 2 Then paragraph 76(b), the clock had been backdated
3 a host of documents dating from 2007 and earlier, 3 so that it reflected dates in October 2007.
4 including precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper and 4 (c), new transaction logs were then created to bear
5 drafts of the paper, or sections of it . He claimed that 5 the date reflected by the manipulated clock.
6 these documents had a special status because the −− 6 Then over the page {I/5/21}, the computer clock −−
7 precisely because the drive was a kind of time capsule 7 this is 76(d) −− was changed at least two other times,
8 sealed in 2007. As your Lordship is aware, there are 8 and we see reference to the manipulation of the clock.
9 a series of problems with Dr Wright’s story and his 9 And paragraph 78 and following, further down
10 convenient discovery of this cache of new documents 10 the page, Mr Lynch finds that at least some files on
11 shortly after the Madden report had discredited his 11 the BDO image are known to have been changed, and others
12 original reliance documents. We addressed those at 12 have timestamps of 19th, 30th or 31st October 2007,
13 the PTR and I’ll address them again with Dr Wright in 13 which mean that they must have been backdated given that
14 his evidence. 14 the computer from which the drive was originally taken
15 But the important point for present purposes is what 15 was last used before that time and these were the dates
16 the expert evidence revealed about the BDO Drive and its 16 of the backdating.
17 contents. May we begin with Dr Wright’s expert, 17 May we now go to what Mr Madden says −− Mr Madden,
18 Mr Lynch, whose report is at {I/5/1}. At page 16 18 COPA’s expert −− on the same subject, {G/6/1}, please.
19 {I/51/16}, Mr Lynch sets out, paragraph 64, his 19 Mr Madden reached essentially the same conclusions as
20 ”Conclusions from the analysis of the Samsung Drive”. 20 Mr Lynch but went a little further in some respects, and
21 As we see there, following analysis of the image drive 21 as we’ ll see, there was then agreement.
22 and notably its recycle bin, Mr Lynch established that 22 Page {G/6/26}, please, paragraph 74. In addition to
23 the drive was accessed on or after 17 September 2023, 23 Mr Lynch’s findings, Mr Madden found that 145 files in
24 during which time data was deleted and timestamps were 24 the BDO raw image postdated the last date of use of
25 manipulated. 25 the computer from which the image had been originally

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 taken. And then he anatomised those files in 1 Page {G/6/41}, please, paragraph 134. He found that
2 a schedule, at paragraph 75(f), he noted that 71 of 2 of the 97 new reliance documents which Dr Wright had
3 the files , which postdated 6 July, were among the 97 new 3 nominated as principal reliance documents from
4 reliance documents which Dr Wright had nominated. 4 the BDO Drive, 17 existed on InfoDef09.raw in slightly
5 Then at {G/6/27}, paragraph 77, Mr Madden concludes 5 different versions , and he found that comparison of
6 that the 71 new reliance documents had timestamps 6 the documents showed that the edits made appeared to
7 consistent with their being copied onto BDOPC.RAW when 7 relate to this case and the provenance of the image,
8 the computer clock was set back to 31 October 2007, so 8 such as changes to dates and wording relating to
9 the image was seeded with those new reliance documents 9 Bitcoin. So that allowed him to establish the purpose
10 with its computer clock backdated. 10 of the editing of the documents with which BDOPC.RAW was
11 If we go to {G/6/30}, please, paragraph 93(d), 11 seeded.
12 Mr Madden investigated security identifiers which were 12 Page 42, please {G/6/42}, upper half of the page, we
13 associated with documents in the recycle bin, and he 13 see one example of this editing with the version on
14 found that the identifier linked with the 71 new 14 InfoDef09.raw, on the right, containing
15 reliance documents that had been added, which was an 15 the words ”the original Bitcoin White Paper”, and
16 SID ending 1002, was different from the user profile 16 the version on BDOPC.RAW, the ultimate version,
17 assigned to Dr Wright while he was an employee at BDO 17 containing the words ”the proposed Timecoin system”. We
18 and presumably creating the real documents on the drive 18 say the significance is obvious: Dr Wright edited
19 in 2007. 19 a document postdating the release of
20 And page 31 {G/6/31}, from paragraph −− we see that 20 the Bitcoin White Paper to make it appear to be work he
21 confirmed also at paragraph 94, at the top of the page. 21 had done leading up to his supposed release of that
22 Further down, at paragraph 99, Mr Madden examined 22 paper.
23 metadata on the NT file system in the form of object 23 Then if we go down the page to paragraph 135, we see
24 identifiers . They are specific to this file system; 24 that he concludes that InfoDef09.raw was a prior version
25 they’re not assigned to every file but they are assigned 25 of BDOPC.RAW, although it wasn’t the ultimate original

17 19

1 with certain actions . And if we go to paragraph 103 on 1 from 2007 and it was later edited to remove content that
2 {G/6/32}, he found that there were 44 of these object 2 wouldn’t seem authentic to 2007.
3 identifiers from after 6 July 2007, the last use of 3 Then page 44, please {G/6/44}, paragraph 136(f),
4 the computer on which the original image had been 4 using InfoDef09.raw, he established a timeline of
5 captured, 44 of them, with 26 timed at 30 October 2007 5 mounting and editing of InfoDef09.raw between 17 and
6 and the remainder between 17 and 19 September 2023, and 6 19 September 2023.
7 all were encoded with that SID ending 1002. 7 Now, the conclusions can be taken neatly from
8 Then, over the page to {G/6/33} at paragraph 105, he 8 the start of his report on page 8 {G/6/8}, paragraph 13.
9 found that since the 2007 dates could be established to 9 There were two previous iterations of the raw image
10 have been recorded anachronistically after the 2023 10 which was presented to the court which showed that it
11 dates, all those files were added to and/or modified on 11 went through multiple versions during which editing took
12 BDOPC.RAW in that period of time from 17 to 12 place.
13 19 September 2023, and there were boot times indicating 13 Secondly, the file content had been manipulated.
14 eight restarts over that period. So it was with this 14 Thirdly, the manipulation was recent, specifically
15 analysis that he was able to establish a timeline of 15 to the period from 12 September 2023, but with
16 editing . 16 backdating by computer clock manipulation.
17 He was also able, we see from {G/6/37}, he was able 17 Fourthly, over the page {G/6/9}, there’s an
18 to recover two deleted image files from 18 encrypted zip file which contains an identical copy of
19 the Samsung Drive. These were Image.raw and 19 the deleted prior raw image InfoDef09.raw, but that
20 InfoDef09.raw. {G/6/38}, paragraph 121, he found that 20 can’t be inspected directly because the passwords aren’t
21 these were identical to each other, paragraph 121(b), 21 available .
22 apart from blank space, and were 99.98% similar to −− 22 Fifthly , hundreds of gigabytes were deleted from
23 identical to BDOPC.RAW, which helped him to identify 23 the Samsung drive in 2023.
24 that these were predecessors in a chain of construction 24 Sixthly , 71 of the new reliance documents were added
25 of the new drive that was presented to the court. 25 some time after 2007 and for about a quarter of them

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 there were forensic signs of their having been edited in 1 {H/267/18}. Mr Madden addresses this document towards
2 September 2023, the editing included changes relevant to 2 the bottom of the page.
3 this case. 3 Over the page {H/267/19}, at paragraph 82, he says
4 Seventhly, in the deleted copies of some there were 4 he has identified a previous version of the document on
5 indications of ChatGPT having been used to create them. 5 the recovered InfoDef09.raw image and found significant
6 And eighthly, h {G/6/10}, there are further 6 differences between that version and the BDO image
7 indications of clock manipulation. 7 showing active editing . He gives details on page
8 After Mr Lynch had seen Mr Madden’s additional 8 {H/278/20}, and we see that references −− if we compare
9 analysis , the experts conferred and produced a joint 9 the two columns, we can see that references to Bitcoin
10 statement, which we see at {Q/6/1}. Page 3 {Q/6/3}, 10 have been changed to ”Hashcoin” and ”Timecoin” to give
11 paragraph 6(a), the experts agreed that the content of 11 the impression of a document referring to prior names
12 the BDO image was not authentic and had been actively 12 for the Bitcoin White Paper which Dr Wright claims to
13 edited by a user, not simply by automated processes, 13 have used.
14 from 17 to 19 September 2023. 14 If we go over to {H/278/22} at paragraph 86, we see
15 (b) the content of BDO image and the Samsung Drive 15 that this document, NG3.tex, in fact consisted of
16 had been significantly manipulated and subject to 16 several sections , the seventh of which had been given
17 multiple clock and timestamp manipulations actions. 17 the ID number 004724.
18 (c), the recycle bin had been emptied on or after 18 If we go to page 25, at the bottom {H/278/25},
19 17 September 2023. 19 paragraph 92, Mr Madden considers that section 7
20 Then at paragraphs 7 to 8, Mr Lynch hadn’t carried 20 ID_004724.
21 out the analysis which Mr Madden had carried out on 21 Then at page 26 {H/278/26}, he says that he found an
22 the apparent predecessor images but had no reason to 22 equivalent version of it in the prior recovered disk
23 doubt any of it . 23 image, InfoDef09.raw, and by comparing the two, he saw
24 Paragraph 9, Dr Wright’s attempts to explain away 24 that some text at the top had been deleted:
25 these findings in his witness statements had no effect 25 ”Certainly , here’s the LaTeX code for Section 7,

21 23

1 upon the experts’ conclusions. My Lord will see that at 1 which covers Recommendations.”
2 paragraph 9 and its subparagraphs on this page {Q/6/3} 2 Then three back ticks and the word ”latex”.
3 and then over to the following page {Q/6/4}. (g): 3 If we go to page {H/278/27}, over the following
4 ”The information supplied in the witness statements 4 paragraphs, he explains that documents which have been
5 of Dr Wright does not change any of our conclusions.” 5 prepared by ChatGPT, the AI application, typically use
6 The experts also reviewed the new reliance documents 6 this form of introduction, ”Certainly , here’s ... ”, and
7 and found, on page {Q/6/5}, that 71 of them had been 7 the three back ticks are also distinctive of that
8 manipulated. My Lord, we challenge Dr Wright’s team 8 application .
9 during the course of this trial to say that any of 9 Page {H/278/33}, he made a request of ChatGPT for
10 the other 26 documents, other than these 71 in the 97 10 a LaTeX template similar −− relating to recommendations,
11 new reliance documents, really provide positive support 11 and he received a document structured in a way which was
12 to Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi, because in our 12 similar to that part of NG3.tex with the ”Certainly!”
13 submission, these 71 contain all the ones which would, 13 continuing. So this is one of the documents we say
14 on their face, provide real support for his claim. 14 bears signs of Dr Wright forging documents with the aid
15 In addition, Mr Madden established that a series of 15 of AI.
16 the new reliance documents bore clear forensic signs of 16 My Lord, having now addressed the new reliance
17 recent manipulation. Let me take one example, which is 17 documents that purport to be drafts of the White Paper
18 NG3.tex at {L1/175/1}. I’ve got the ID reference as 18 and related the work, may I go back to one of the key
19 well if it helps, ID_004715. Thank you very much. As 19 White Paper drafts on which Dr Wright originally relied,
20 we see, this purports to be a LaTeX source of a paper 20 which is the so−called Timecoin White Paper ID_000254.
21 entitled , ”An In−depth Analysis of Proof−of−Work 21 We may look at that, it’s {L2/441/1}. This presents as
22 Calculations in the Hashcoin White Paper ...”. It ’s one 22 if it were a version of the Bitcoin White Paper in
23 of the 71 documents which the experts agree was 23 OpenOffice with the abstract proposing the same basic
24 manipulated. 24 system but using the Timecoin label and giving
25 If we then go to Mr Madden’s appendix PM46 at 25 Dr Wright’s contact details at the top. It ’s

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 a reliance document, it’s one of our 20 original pleaded 1 agrees with Mr Madden that this and other features show
2 forgeries . 2 this document to have been manipulated, they regard them
3 Mr Madden found that an embedded timestamp in 3 as clear signs of manipulation.
4 the document dates it to 6 May 2008, and of course if 4 If we go over the page in this appendix PM2 to
5 this document were authentic to May 2008, it would 5 page 8 {H/17/8}, Mr Madden makes a further finding −− if
6 support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi. In Dr Wright’s 6 we go down the page, please −− of a curious character
7 chain of custody information, which, for everyone’s 7 with the letters ”OBJ” surrounded by dots, which appears
8 note, is {K/11/1}, row 71, Dr Wright claimed that this 8 below the text where, in the equivalent part of
9 version was written by him and that it’s a later version 9 the White Paper, there’s a flowchart. Mr Madden
10 of the Hashcash and Time Chain papers that he also 10 observes that that is an object replacement character,
11 wrote. In the schedule attached to his fourth witness 11 which is typically inserted into a document
12 statement, he maintained that this was an authentic 12 automatically when the document is converted from
13 document. Again, for everyone’s note, it ’s {L19/257/4}, 13 a source containing embedded objects that can’t be
14 top row on the page. So if his story was correct, this 14 displayed in text form. He makes that point at page 10,
15 would be a version of the Bitcoin White Paper 15 paragraph 28. {H/17/10}. So this is indicative of
16 pre−dating, by some months, the one released in 16 a process of conversion from a different document which
17 October 2008. 17 throws up this object replacement character. As we
18 Now, Mr Madden found a number of indications that 18 read it , Dr Wright’s excuses in appendix B of Wright 11
19 this document had been created by taking a copy of 19 {CSW/2/1} don’t account for this character; a LaTeX
20 the Bitcoin White Paper as published, converting it back 20 original , which he posits, would of course compile in
21 from PDF and editing it. May we please go to {H/17/1}. 21 accordance with its instructions rather than producing
22 This is the appendix PM2, which deals with it. On 22 this character.
23 page 5 {H/17/5}, first of all , he finds that notes which 23 Further down page 10, Mr Madden makes his third
24 appear below the text are in a font, the font Arial , 24 finding , that indentations in the empty lines which are
25 which is different from the font of the main text, 25 above and below the notes precisely match

25 27

1 Century Schoolbook, and is also different from the font 1 the indentation of the flowchart in
2 attributed to the empty lines immediately above and 2 the Bitcoin White Paper as published. So if we look at
3 below the notes. And Mr Madden concludes, on page 3 paragraph 29 and the image below, he identifies what
4 {H/17/7}, paragraph 21, the characteristics of this 4 those indentations are, and then, in the lower half of
5 font, of the fonts matching in this way −− I’m sorry, 5 the page, below paragraph 30 {H/17/11}, he shows that
6 start again. 6 the real Bitcoin White Paper has a flowchart in
7 Mr Madden considers that that’s consistent with 7 precisely the position indicated by those indentations.
8 the Arial font having been derived from the font of 8 At page 12 {H/17/12}, towards the bottom, he finds
9 a flowchart which happens to appear here in the real 9 that the object replacement character has the same
10 Bitcoin White Paper where the notes have been added in 10 indentation. And at pages {H/17/13} to {H/17/14}, if we
11 this one. So that indicates that somebody has taken 11 scan down them, we’ll see he finds a series of further
12 the original Bitcoin White Paper which has that font 12 examples of this phenomenon taking place. As my Lord
13 attributed to an existing flowchart there, has taken out 13 will see from even a cursory view, the indentations vary
14 the flowchart and replaced it with notes suggesting that 14 as between the different pages of the document, but they
15 they were about to put the charts in. 15 are always the same as the indentations which make space
16 Now, Dr Wright’s excuse for this and for other 16 for the specific flow charts that appear in
17 anomalous features in his appendix B at paragraph 7.5 17 the published Bitcoin White Paper.
18 and following, is that this document and 18 At page {H/17/15}, paragraph 37, Mr Madden makes
19 the Bitcoin White Paper were produced from earlier LaTeX 19 a point which is perhaps more one of common sense than
20 files and compilation of this version into a PDF gave 20 expert evidence, that it would be extraordinary for
21 rise to anomalous features of this kind. My Lord, there 21 a writer to predict the various indentations for future
22 are at least three problems with that excuse. First , 22 flow charts and make them in blank spaces of a precursor
23 the Bitcoin White Paper wasn’t written in LaTeX, as 23 document before those flow charts had been produced.
24 the experts have agreed. Secondly, no reliable earlier 24 Again, as we read it , Dr Wright’s excuse does not
25 LaTeX file has been disclosed. And thirdly, Dr Placks 25 account for the indentations since they mean that

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 the flow charts must have been produced as images so 1 paragraph 7.16 onwards {CSW/2/28}:
2 that their sizes were known. LaTeX diagrams are not 2 ” ... this document contains text that matches
3 placed by indentations but by coordinates on a page, and 3 the 2009 version of the Bitcoin White Paper but which
4 that’s a point made good by Mr Rosendahl’s report at 4 does not match [that of] the October 2008 ...
5 paragraph 139 {G/7/47}. 5 [ version ]. ”
6 The fourth point Mr Madden makes is that he has 6 And that is of course passing strange because this
7 found a series of examples of irregular hyphenation, and 7 is supposed to be a precursor to the October 2008 one.
8 we see that from paragraph 38 and following {H/17/15}. 8 Dr Wright’s answer is that he had multiple versions of
9 For example, the words ”proof of work”, written with 9 the Bitcoin White Paper, that he had an early version in
10 the first but not the second hyphen, and 10 which the text just happened to match that in
11 the word ”non−reversible” appears without a hyphen. 11 the published 2009 version but that he later reverted to
12 Significantly , this is not just a minor typographical 12 the original draft . So we have here the remarkable
13 point. He explains that each time this happened −− this 13 coincidence of a document which contains the March 2009
14 is paragraph 39 −− it corresponded to the word crossing 14 text and has every sign of having been converted from
15 a line in the published Bitcoin White Paper, and he 15 a PDF of the March 2009 final version. In our
16 makes that good over the following paragraphs. And then 16 submission, the simple truth, consistent with
17 at paragraph −− page {H/17/17}, paragraph 44, he says 17 the forensic findings , is that this is a backdated
18 again that this would be consistent with conversion of 18 forgery .
19 a document from PDF to Word. If we blow that up so 19 There is a further point we can make by looking at
20 the entire paragraph can be seen, please. My Lord will 20 the references section at the end of the document
21 see that he establishes that this would happen as 21 {L2/441/7}. This is the document with its references
22 a result of conversion from PDF to Word and he actually 22 section at the end. We see Wei Dai’s ”b−money” paper
23 performs a test at subparagraph (f), at the bottom of 23 with a 1998 publication date as number [1].
24 the page and over to page {H/17/18}. 24 Then over the page {L2/441/8}, Dr Adam Back’s
25 My Lord, even if this and the Bitcoin White Paper 25 Hashcash paper from 2002 as item [6].

29 31

1 had been created from a common set of LaTeX originators, 1 In fact , my Lord, we know that the real Satoshi only
2 which of course we say they were not, which is 2 became aware of the b−money proposal on 21 August 2008.
3 Dr Wright’s excuse, that would not, as far as we can 3 We know that from previously unpublished emails that
4 see, account for this irregularity . 4 Dr Back has provided in this litigation , and so
5 The fifth point that Mr Madden makes is that this 5 a precursor draft , pre−dating August 2008, which this is
6 document omits formulae in various places and noted that 6 supposed to be, this is supposed to be from May 2008,
7 the formulae which appeared in these places in 7 couldn’t possibly have had the reference to the Wei Dai
8 the published Bitcoin White Paper would be such as to 8 paper if written by Satoshi. We can make that good if
9 corrupt on conversion of the document from PDF to Word. 9 we look at {D/76/1}. This is one of
10 We see that from paragraph 45, at the bottom of 10 the Adam Back/Satoshi emails, and if we look at
11 page {H/17/18}. Some of the formulae didn’t import well 11 the arrowed section, that’s Dr Back’s email:
12 into Word, and they are ones which have been omitted, 12 ”[Your] citation looks fine , I ’ ll take a look at
13 and he shows that with screenshots on page {H/17/19}. 13 your paper. You maybe aware of the ’B−money’ proposal,
14 Then, sixthly , Mr Madden notes that there were 14 I guess google can find it for you, by Wei Dai which
15 irregularities in line breaks and the structuring of 15 sounds to be somewhat related to your paper.
16 tables , which appeared to be artefacts of conversion of 16 (The b−money idea is just described concisely on his web
17 the document from a PDF original. He makes that point 17 page, he didn’t write up a paper).”
18 at paragraph −− from paragraphs 49 onwards, but he 18 Then, at the top of the page, Satoshi says:
19 summarises it at page {H/17/21}. We can see an image at 19 ”Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the b−money page, but my
20 the top where, in the document we’re considering, 20 ideas start from exactly that point. I ’ ll e−mail him to
21 Dr Wright’s reliance document, on the right−hand column, 21 confirm the year of publication so I can credit him.”
22 the table structure has been lost, and he concludes that 22 So Satoshi would not have been writing a document in
23 that is likely to be an artefact of conversion as well . 23 May referencing Wei Dai’s b−money page.
24 Now, there is a further point, which is accepted by 24 My Lord, from reliance documents running to over
25 Dr Wright in appendix B of Wright 11, from 25 200, Dr Wright’s team, as I say, focus on just three

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 handwritten documents in the skeleton argument as 1 The secondhand written document which is relied upon
2 supposedly supporting the claim. May I address each of 2 is ID_003994, which is at {L1/317/1}, and this is an
3 those briefly . 3 18−page draft with the title, ”Non−Sparse Random
4 The first is ID_004012 at {L2/158/1}. Now, this is 4 Graphs”, where the text begins:
5 a 78−page set of notes supposedly resembling a −− 5 ”Hofstad, Hooghiemstra and Znamenski ... offers
6 representing a first draft of the Bitcoin White Paper, 6 a robust derivation ... ”
7 which Dr Wright says he began writing in August 2007, 7 That, my Lord, is just a handwritten equivalent of
8 continuing for a marathon 17 months and then adding 8 another document in disclosure which the experts agree
9 notes in red later . Of course, because these are 9 is manipulated and backdated. We can see that original
10 manuscript notes, they can’t be authenticated by digital 10 at {L3/230/1}, and if my Lord just reads the first
11 features . But what they do contain are numerous 11 words, my Lord can see that they are identical .
12 references to other aspects of Dr Wright’s story which 12 The experts’ agreement that it’s manipulated, for
13 we have discredited. Let me give just two examples. 13 everybody’s note, is at {Q/2/6}.
14 Page 5 {L2/158/5}, in the middle: 14 And the third handwritten document out of those put
15 ”Micro payments and small online token payments have 15 forward from the skeleton is ID_004009, which is at
16 been promised for decades (Tim May −− BlackNet −− 16 {L1/115/1}, and this document presents as if it were
17 Spyder).” 17 a set of early development notes for Bitcoin drafted in
18 Now, this, in our submission, is plainly a reference 18 Dr Wright’s handwriting on notepaper from his company
19 to Dr Wright’s account given in his various statements 19 DeMorgan. There are a number of problems with it; I’m
20 that he developed a payment token system in projects he 20 going to mention one now. If we go to page {L1/115/37}
21 called BlackNet and Spyder, which derived ultimately 21 −− I’m sorry, I think I have a wrong reference for that.
22 from work by Tim May, who had a project BlackNet. As 22 If we can −− 35, I’m sorry {L1/115/35}. Thank you very
23 explained in our skeleton argument, Dr Wright’s BlackNet 23 much. We see the text in red:
24 and Spyder projects didn’t extend to a payment system, 24 ”DSA/RSA
25 authentic versions of documents about those projects 25 ”Key size is too large .

33 35

1 didn’t have the token system included, and it is only 1 ”Need to try ECDSA.
2 documents which have been shown to be manipulated that 2 ”Schnorr/EDDSA.”
3 included those, plus we have, as I ’ ll go on to say, 3 Now, DSA/RSA, ECDSA and EDDSA are all forms of
4 documents dating back to Dr Wright’s tax claims which 4 digital signature algorithm and ECDSA was the one
5 show that the documents he actually presented in 5 selected by Satoshi for use in Bitcoin. So this reads
6 the early noughties did not involve a token system. 6 as if it were a note showing Dr Wright as Satoshi
7 Then page {L2/158/12} of this handwritten paper, you 7 weighing up the options and selecting, or moving towards
8 see in the second line in brackets: 8 selecting a form of digital signature while he −−
9 ”Northumbria −− if this is not user 2 user, it would 9 digital signature algorithm while he was creating
10 be likely a Postal Rule exchange in UK law.” 10 Bitcoin. Unfortunately for him, EDDSA was first
11 My Lord, we will say that that is plainly 11 announced in 2011, as COPA’s witness Professor Bernstein
12 a reference to Dr Wright’s claim, again repeated through 12 attests . So, after COPA had served the witness
13 his statements, that he included a summary of 13 statement of Professor Bernstein, Dr Wright produced
14 the Bitcoin system in a part of his LLM dissertation 14 a chain of custody schedule saying that this document
15 proposal at Northumbria University which addressed 15 was originally written in 2002, but some parts of it ,
16 the postal acceptance rule which is so beloved of UK 16 notably those in red ink, were written in 2011 or later ,
17 contract law students. My Lord, no less than three 17 and we don’t need to go to it, but for everyone’s
18 versions of that dissertation proposal, with those 18 reference it ’s {K/11/1}, row 90. The problem with that
19 parts , have been agreed by Mr Madden and Dr Placks to be 19 explanation is that these notes make no sense any more,
20 manipulated documents. They are the documents ending in 20 ”Need to try ECDSA” makes no sense if the writer had
21 references 199, 217 and 3702. The actual published 21 chosen ECDSA at least three years previously.
22 dissertation , as opposed to the spurious proposal 22 My Lord, I’m about halfway through and I have
23 documents, contain nothing linking it to Bitcoin or 23 reached a natural break. I wonder if that would be
24 the digital currency, although it did contain a useful 24 a convenient moment for a short shorthand writer break.
25 passage on the postal rule in more general terms. 25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, let’s take five minutes. Thank

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 you. 1 variation iterations .

2 (11.35 am) 2 And over the page at {L17/327/98), from line 6 and
3 (A short break) 3 following , he was asked who he’d shared that with and he
4 (11.52 am) 4 said :
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So a slightly elastic five minutes, but 5 ” ... Wei Dai ... Gareth Williams, Zoren [ Illievich ],
6 I gather Opus had a bit of a problem. Hopefully 6 some of the people at uni, Allan Granger, Don.”
7 resolved . 7 Presumably Don Lynam:
8 MR HOUGH: I gather so. 8 ”Dave Kleiman got a copy ... Wei Dai got a copy.
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, good. 9 Adam Back got a copy, and there are a few others as
10 MR HOUGH: My Lord, turning to the next issue framed in the 10 well .”
11 October judgment, that was whether Dr Wright had shared 11 Now, thanks to the court’s order of 3 October,
12 drafts of the Bitcoin White Paper with individuals in 12 Dr Wright had to answer our RFI and commit to a list of
13 August 2008, prior to its public release , and the first 13 those to whom he’d produced −− to whom he provided
14 point to be made is that despite naming 21 people in his 14 pre−issue drafts of the White Paper in his own name and
15 fourth statement to whom he claims to have sent 15 he gave that answer at {E/4/21}. May we run through
16 the White Paper in draft before its release , neither 16 these.
17 Dr Wright, nor any of those people has ever proffered 17 Danielle DeMorgan. That’s Dr Wright’s sister. She
18 a reliable email, original soft copy or original hard 18 wasn’t mentioned by him in Kleiman. She’s given
19 copy draft to support the story . 19 a statement in this action in which she says nothing
20 As to Dr Wright’s drafting and sharing of 20 about receiving the White Paper.
21 the White Paper, he addressed that topic in his evidence 21 Second, Shane Patterson. We believe an employee of
22 in the Kleiman litigation on 21 November 2021. May we 22 Centrebet, not mentioned in Kleiman, no evidence from
23 bring that on screen, please. It ’s {O2/10/95}. I can 23 him to support Dr Wright’s account.
24 give another reference. It ’s {L17/327/95}. There we 24 Third, Stefan Matthews, Dr Wright’s financial
25 are. At line 6, Dr Wright was asked when he had a first 25 backer. I ’ ll return to him in a moment.

37 39

1 draft of the White Paper, and he said around March 2008. 1 Dave Kleiman, Dr Wright’s collaborator who died in
2 He said he reduced that to a typed version in April or 2 2013 and who never gave an account.
3 May 2008. He said the first version was about 40 pages 3 Lynn Wright, Dr Wright’s ex−wife. In her evidence
4 and then the second version, reduced to typed script , 4 in Kleiman, which was served under a hearsay notice,
5 was 20 pages. 5 when asked about Dr Wright’s work on digital currency,
6 From line 19 and following, he was asked who he 6 she said she could only recall one off−hand remark about
7 shared these versions with and he shared, first −− he 7 the subject in general, and it ’s clear from her evidence
8 said : 8 that she did not recall him sharing this foundational
9 ”I shared that, first of all , with Don, my uncle, 9 text with her.
10 and Max, a cousin. I also shared a copy −− I showed it 10 Don Lynam, who is Dr Wright’s uncle. I’ll return to
11 to a person called Zoren Illievich and a couple [of] 11 him too in a moment.
12 other people from universities I was with.” 12 Max Lynam is Dr Wright’s cousin. He gave evidence
13 Page {L17/327/96} then, line 17 and following, he’s 13 in the Granath case that he could not recall receiving
14 asked about the second version. He reminded the court 14 the Bitcoin White Paper, had not read it and would not
15 that that was the 20−page version produced in April or 15 know what it looks like .
16 May of 2008. He was asked who he shared that one with, 16 Edward Archer. I think it may be Edwin Archer,
17 and then, over the page, he said {L17/327/97}: 17 a mystery person who isn’t otherwise mentioned.
18 ”I would have given that to Gareth Williams ... also 18 Shoaib Yousuf, a fellow student of Dr Wright who
19 ... to some people at the university I was with in 19 later worked in his companies. He’s produced
20 Newcastle, Australia. My wife at the time.” 20 a statement in this case that he and Dr Wright discussed
21 That’s Lynn Wright: 21 digital currency networks in general terms, but he said
22 ”And I showed people at BDO at that stage as well.” 22 they didn’t discuss any technical specifics , and in his
23 And he said not Dave Kleiman. 23 evidence in the Granath case, he could not remember
24 Then, from page 97, line 18, he described producing 24 receiving the Bitcoin White Paper.
25 a third version , which he said was ten pages long in 25 Hector Mabborang, a colleague of Dr Wright at BDO,

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 not somebody named by him in Kleiman specifically, not 1 challenge the reliability of both their stories . As for
2 somebody who’s ever given an account supportive of 2 to Mr Matthews, we say his account in this respect isn’t
3 Dr Wright, as far as we’re aware. 3 credible for a series of reasons we’ ll address in
4 Neville Sinclair , a partner at BDO, not mentioned by 4 cross−examination, but at this stage I’d just like to
5 name in Kleiman. He told the court in Granath that he 5 refer to a WhatsApp exchange that he had with
6 had first discussed Bitcoin with Dr Wright in 2011. 6 Christen Ager−Hanssen on 25 September 2023 but which has
7 Andrew Sommer, that’s Dr Wright’s lawyer at 7 been made public by Mr Ager−Hanssen. That is at
8 Clayton Utz, who is not mentioned by him in Kleiman and 8 {L20/183/1}. Mr Ager−Hanssen WhatsApped Mr Matthews,
9 has never given an account supporting Dr Wright’s. 9 sharing some screenshots showing Dr Wright’s browsing
10 John Chesher, an accountant who worked for 10 history in connection with the BDO Drive, describing
11 Dr Wright, somebody who was not mentioned by him in 11 Dr Wright as the ”Biggest fake ever”, to which
12 Kleiman. He’s also given a witness statement in 12 Mr Matthews responds:
13 the Coinbase litigation which, for everyone’s note, is 13 ”Fuck.
14 {C/26/2}, in which he says he first met Dr Wright in 14 ”WTF is wrong with him.
15 2010, which of course was well after publication of 15 ”Well, we have NCH ...”
16 the Bitcoin White Paper. 16 Which is an abbreviation for their company, nChain:
17 ”Mark Archibald”, who worked at Lasseter’s Casino 17 ” ... to focus on, that’s not fake.”
18 and had contact with Dr Wright, somebody not mentioned 18 Mr Matthews accepts that this exchange is a genuine
19 by him in Kleiman, who’s given a statement in this case 19 one and his explanation is that he wrote those three
20 in which he makes no mention of receiving 20 messages at the bottom of the screen which suggests that
21 the Bitcoin White Paper. 21 Dr Wright was a fake not in order to fob off
22 Gareth Williams, an agent of the UK 22 Mr Ager−Hanssen, not because he really thought Dr Wright
23 security services whose body was found in a bag and 23 was a fake. And my Lord, I need only describe that
24 whose death was subject to −− the subject of extensive 24 explanation to make clear that it is one we will
25 press coverage. Dr Wright has claimed to have links 25 dispute.

41 43

1 with him but with no corroboration whatever, and he 1 As for Mr Don Lynam, his account takes the form of
2 obviously never gave an account supporting Dr Wright’s. 2 some short sections from a deposition he gave in
3 David Bridges, a former CIO of Qudos Bank, again 3 the Kleiman case. He is not to give live evidence in
4 somebody not mentioned by Dr Wright in Kleiman. He’s 4 this case because he is in poor health. His account was
5 given a statement in this case in which he makes no 5 vague and in this respect wasn’t tested in
6 mention of receiving the Bitcoin White Paper. 6 cross−examination, and that was no doubt because
7 Steve Atkinson, another, to us, mystery person who’s 7 Ira Kleiman’s huge claim against Dr Wright was based on
8 not otherwise mentioned. 8 Dr Wright and Dave Kleiman having created Bitcoin
9 Rana Paula −− we think this may be Rana Pala, 9 together, and that was in turn based on what Dr Wright
10 a partner at BDO, not mentioned by name in Kleiman, not 10 had told the Kleimans. Now, we shall address
11 somebody who’s ever supported Dr Wright’s account, to 11 Don Lynam’s account further in closing, both by
12 our knowledge. 12 reference to the transcript and other documents, but we
13 Nick Rishbeth, another, to us, mystery person not 13 submit that it should be rejected.
14 otherwise mentioned. 14 The next topic identified in the October judgment
15 Robert Jenkins, a manager at Vodafone, somebody not 15 was authorship of the Bitcoin source code, and Dr Wright
16 mentioned by Dr Wright in Kleiman, who has given 16 described supposedly writing that source code at
17 a statement in this case in which he makes no mention of 17 paragraph 75 to 77 of his witness statement −− of his
18 receiving the Bitcoin White Paper. 18 first witness statement. And we requested, naturally,
19 And Lloyd Peacock, an employee we understand of 19 that documents be identified which were referred to in
20 Centrebet, again, not named by Dr Wright in Kleiman, not 20 those paragraphs as early source code items. And in
21 somebody who’s ever supported his account. 21 response −− and for everyone’s note this is {M/2/352} −−
22 So that leaves two out of 21 who have, at one time 22 Dr Wright identified just two documents as representing
23 or another, actually supported Dr Wright’s account of 23 this early source code, ID_004014 and ID_004015. Let me
24 receiving the White Paper from him. His financial 24 take those in order.
25 backer, Mr Matthews and his uncle, Don Lynam. We 25 {L2/242/1}, please. This is ID_004014. It’s

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 a two−page scanned document. We can see a mark of 1 16 November 2008, and he refers to the fact that he’s
2 a stapler in the top left −hand corner. It’s not 2 going to have to paste the various parts of these files
3 actually a copy of source code as such. If we look 3 in multiple messages because the forum software only
4 down, we can see that it presents as a ”read me” 4 allows limited size for posts. So the length of these
5 document, a set of initial set up notes for the Bitcoin 5 sections was because the forum had a size limit for each
6 system. If my Lord looks at the bottom, by line 53: 6 post, so the division is for an arbitrary technical
7 ”Setup 7 reason, not because the code naturally divides in
8 ”Unpack the files into a directory and run 8 a particular way.
9 TCecash.exe. 9 If we then go to {L20/206/12} and look the bottom of
10 ”The software automatically finds other nodes to 10 the page, we see:
11 connect to. You should set your firewall to ... 11 ”This is the first half of main.cpp. I ’m going to
12 port 8333 to your computer so you can receive incoming 12 post it in two halves, because the forum software allows
13 connections, otherwise the nodes you can connect with 13 a bit less than 66K in one post.”
14 will be limited .” 14 We see it begins with:
15 If we now go to {L4/15/1}, these are the read me set 15 ”Copyright (c) 2008 Satoshi Nakamoto.”
16 up notes released publicly by Satoshi in January 2009. 16 Then if we go to page 25 {L20/206/25}, please, at
17 If my Lord looks at the section under ”setup”, my Lord 17 the bottom of the page, we see that this first half ,
18 will see the same text that we just saw in Dr Wright’s 18 the first section of main.cpp ends with exactly the same
19 document. The technical sections of the disclosed 19 set of lines as appeared at the end of Dr Wright’s
20 document largely mirror the publicly released Satoshi 20 version . So, not only would it have been perfectly
21 version and it would of course have been straightforward 21 straightforward for Dr Wright to take the publicly
22 to amend the publicly available document to produce 22 available code, amend it, print , add manuscript notes
23 this . And equally, of course, Dr Wright’s document 23 and scan to PDF, there is also the point that
24 can’t be verified forensically , because it is a scan of 24 Dr Wright’s code section happens to break off at exactly
25 a hard copy printout. In our submission, it proves 25 the point that the section posted online breaks off ,

45 47

1 nothing in relation to Dr Wright having authored 1 even though the online section broke at that point
2 source code. 2 because of the adventitious feature of the size of post
3 The next −− the second of the two documents 3 permitted on the forum.
4 identified , supposedly demonstrating Dr Wright authoring 4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can we just see the second half?
5 the source code is ID_004015 which, we find at 5 MR HOUGH: Yes, if we go to the next page we’ll see
6 {L2/243/1}. This is another scanned document, with two 6 the start of that {L20/206/26}.
7 stapler marks, presenting as a section of 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And how long does it continue for?
8 the Bitcoin Code with manuscript notes by Dr Wright. We 8 MR HOUGH: It continues for I think about another 12 pages.
9 see the words ”Main.CPP” are written at the top. 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Thank you.
10 Now, if we then go to {L2/243/23} of this document 10 MR HOUGH: My Lord, in addition to those documents that were
11 we’ ll see the last section of code in the document. And 11 identified by Dr Wright’s team as the two documents
12 if my Lord just reads line 1320: 12 relating to his source code claim, there are other
13 ”//Now process any orphan blocks ...” 13 documents in disclosure which appear to be versions of
14 And so on. 14 the windows Bitcoin executable software in which
15 Line 1331: 15 Dr Wright’s name appears in place of Satoshi’s in
16 ”mapOrphanBlocksByPrev.erase(hash).” 16 the copyright notice. One example is ID_000739, which
17 And line 1333: 17 is one of our core 20 pleaded forgeries . Mr Madden
18 ”return true.” 18 deals with it in PM12 at {H/68/1}. May we go to that.
19 And just keeps those in mind for the moment. 19 Page 2 {H/68/2}, from paragraph 5, he finds that
20 If we then go to {L20/206/1}. This is an internet 20 the metadata for ID_000739 are ”irregular”. So he
21 posting on the Cryddit site . It is a web capture from 21 identifies the metadata in paragraph 6 and he says that:
22 2014, as my Lord will see from the header, and it was 22 ” ... [the] characteristics are irregular and not
23 posted −− it was a forum post issued in December 2013. 23 achievable under typical operating conditions.
24 As we can see from the first two lines of the post, 24 The ’Last Accessed’ date and time stamp typically does
25 the poster is providing Bitcoin sources from 25 follow ... the ’Last Modified’ timestamp, both of which

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 are updated when the content of a file is modified.” 1 ”Proof is something simple, like a credit card
2 But that shouldn’t pre−date the creation date of 2 statement saying that you actually bought
3 the file . So if we go up, we can see the times. If we 3 the Bitcoin.com −− sorry, Bitcoin.org domain, but not
4 go up the page, we can see the times. I wonder if we 4 Bitcoin.com, and paid for the Satoshi email account ...
5 can have {H/68/1} and {H/68/2} on screen together so 5 because back then you couldn’t pay with Bitcoin.”
6 that we can see the different −− the two parts of 6 He rams the point home two pages later at page 36
7 the table . I appreciate that I ’m taxing the operator 7 {O4/25/36}, towards the bottom of the page, after
8 here. So 739 is the far left , and we can see that 8 discrediting or dismissing cryptographic proof as an
9 the creation time is six years later than the modified 9 idea, he says, right at the bottom:
10 and accessed times, and Mr Madden finds that irregular. 10 ”But, see, I ’m an evil little prick , I ’ve got bank
11 If we go to page {H/68/3}, he compares this 11 statements and credit card statements and all of this
12 executable file to versions of the Satoshi’s executable 12 stuff and, you know, the bank has to keep those for
13 file in disclosure . That’s from, I think, the bottom of 13 25 years.”
14 page 3, paragraph 10, just to see what he’s doing. 14 Over the page {O4/25/37}:
15 And then at the top of {H/68/5}, we see some of 15 ”So, I can’t fraudulently change them ...
16 the fruits of this work, that the copyright notice has 16 ”The bank issues a statement ...
17 been changed from ”2009 Satoshi Nakamoto” on the right, 17 ” ... the court checks, that’s it .”
18 to ”2008 Dr Craig Wright” on the left, and this is 18 In our submission, the meaning of this interview is
19 agreed to be a manipulated document. For everyone’s 19 clear . He bought the bitcoin.org domain and the Satoshi
20 note {Q/4/4}. Now, Dr Wright −− I don’t need to go into 20 email account, he paid by credit card and he had
21 this in great detail because Dr Wright accepts that this 21 the records to prove it .
22 document has been hex edited in the way that Mr Madden 22 There is another article he posted around the same
23 found, but he claims that it was a document leaked by an 23 time that makes the point, which I’ ll put to him in
24 ex−employee of his companies to Ira Kleiman and deployed 24 cross−examination as well.
25 against him in the Kleiman proceedings, and that’s 25 In these proceedings, he disclosed an email of

49 51

1 pages 56 and 57 of appendix B to Wright 11 1 June 2019, so shortly after that interview , from him to
2 {CWS/2/56−57}. 2 his colleague, Jimmy Nguyen, including two screenshots.
3 He also says, as we understand it, that if it were 3 May we have {H/78/1}, and this is the email shown in
4 him, he could have forged the document much more 4 Mr Madden’s appendix and I’m showing it here because, on
5 impressively by compiling it from scratch. In our 5 the system, the email is broken up into the email and
6 submission, neither of those excuses has any weight. 6 the two screenshots are separate documents, but this is
7 The idea that the Kleimans would have deployed a forged 7 how it would have appeared, and we have the email with
8 document presenting Dr Wright as the sole author of 8 the subject line being a credit card number:
9 the exe file is a nonsense, quite apart from the fact 9 ”Anonymous speech is vistomail.
10 that there is no evidence at all for this tail of 10 ”[This number] is my old credit card.
11 forgery and leaking. Meanwhile, the idea that Dr Wright 11 ”All the credit card shows is ’AnonymousSpeech’.
12 would not perpetrate a forgery that could be easily 12 ”You need to have the Vistomail document as well.”
13 discovered is , we will say, belied by the fact that he 13 And AnonymousSpeech was a brokerage which could be
14 has done so, and many times. 14 used for people to obtain websites and email addresses,
15 The next topic in the October judgment is the −− is 15 as the title says, anonymously.
16 control over the bitcoin .org website and the Satoshi 16 If we go down to the next page {H/78/2}, we can see
17 email addresses, and in our submission, Dr Wright’s 17 that the first of the screenshots appears to show
18 evidence of having controlled the website and the email 18 a transaction, a payment to AnonymousSpeech from
19 addresses, including the Vistomail address, has been 19 Dr Wright’s credit card account. So this email appears
20 thoroughly discredited . He started by claiming that he 20 to be telling the reader that these are screenshots
21 could prove it by credit card statements. May we go to 21 relating to a credit card number and that the bank
22 {O4/25/34}. This is an interview Dr Wright gave in 22 records refer to AnonymousSpeech but that means
23 April 2019, and if we look at the transcript by 23 Vistomail, which in context is a plain reference to
24 letter F, he’s talking about proof and being disparaging 24 the Satoshi email account.
25 about cryptographic proof, and he says: 25 Now, when disclosing that email, Dr Wright didn’t

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 suggest that there was anything questionable about it. 1 If we pause there, this is the start of the video.
2 Mr Madden established that those records couldn’t be 2 My Lord will see a copyright notice in the footer at
3 authentic, including because the bank didn’t keep 3 the bottom,”Copyright 1996−2009 Anonymousspeech.com”.
4 records for as long as the story suggested. And in 4 If we play to the end, please.
5 response, Dr Wright accepted that the records were fakes 5 (Video footage played)
6 and he came up with a cover story through his third 6 Then Dr Wright holds up his passport to show his
7 witness statement in the BTC Core case, which is at 7 involvement.
8 {E1/4/2}. 8 May we then go to what Mr Madden found out about
9 In paragraph 3, he claimed that the screenshots had 9 this , PM45 at {H/241/1}. Page 12 of this document
10 been sent to him by his now deceased US lawyer, 10 {H/241/12}, from paragraph 22, Dr Wright [sic] explains
11 Ms McGovern of Rivero Mestre, by a WhatsApp message 11 that the copyright statement, based on his researches,
12 which he hasn’t disclosed. He claimed that 12 was updated in the footer each year and that the form of
13 the screenshots had been sent to her by a mysterious 13 footer we saw there in the video would not have been in
14 Reddit user through a communication which hasn’t been 14 use after 2009.
15 disclosed . 15 In the table which follows, he identifies a series
16 At paragraph 4, he claimed that on receiving 16 of differences in the form of footer in the video and
17 the screenshots, he didn’t think that they were genuine, 17 those in use after 2009. So if we just go through,
18 so straight away he emailed them by the email we’ve seen 18 we’ ll see the various different AnonymousSpeech footer
19 to Mr Nguyen to check. He later said in his fourth 19 designs which he found at various different points in
20 witness statement in the COPA that he doesn’t recall how 20 time. So if Dr Wright had been accessing the account
21 he bought the domain name bitcoin.org, which of course 21 live in June 2019, it would not have displayed
22 we say is at odds with what he’d said in interview. 22 the footer that we saw. And for completeness, Mr Madden
23 Now, there are a series of problems with this 23 also established that an old page of the website could
24 account which I’ ll address in Dr Wright’s evidence, but 24 have been taken from the internet archive and easily
25 to give just a few. First of all , the email on its face 25 edited. That’s paragraphs 15 and following of this same

53 55

1 was presenting the bank records as genuine and certainly 1 appendix {H/241/7}.
2 said nothing to suggest that these were fakes to be 2 May I then move to the next topic from the October
3 checked. 3 judgment, which is the signing sessions of March and
4 Secondly, the timing, shortly after his interview , 4 April 2016. We’ve addressed those in detail in our
5 strongly suggests that this was the proof which he had 5 skeleton from page 99, paragraph 252 {R/11/99}. Let me
6 in mind to deploy. 6 just make three points about them in advance of
7 Thirdly, if he is right that these were highly toxic 7 the evidence.
8 fakes which had been planted on him, it is extraordinary 8 First , Dr Wright adopted complex procedures which
9 that he disclosed them in these proceedings without any 9 were entirely unnecessary. He, for each of these, on
10 comment at all on their authenticity . 10 his own account, would download the Bitcoin Core
11 So that proof having been debunked, Dr Wright then 11 software and an entire copy of the Bitcoin blockchain.
12 sought to remedy the lack of proof that he controlled 12 He’d produce a supposed signed message on one system,
13 bitcoin .org or the email addresses by exhibiting videos 13 either a separate computer or a separate windows system,
14 to Wright 4 which he said showed him accessing 14 then transfer it across to a second system, which would
15 the Satoshi Vistomail account. And if we look at 15 either be a distinct computer or a virtual machine
16 {E/4/11}, we see at paragraph 20 he exhibits videos 16 running on the same computer. He’d then verify it using
17 which he says show him accessing the Vistomail account 17 software he claimed to be a download of the Electrum
18 on various occasions and he claimed that he was 18 wallet software.
19 accessing the account in June 2019, but had lost access 19 But crucially , the participant would never be given
20 later so he couldn’t repeat the exercise now. 20 the signature to verify for themselves on their
21 May we please play one of the videos. It ’s very 21 computer.
22 short , just 18 seconds long. It ’s {F/155/1}, and this 22 Professor Meiklejohn addresses Dr Wright’s measures
23 is {CSW/12/1}. If we can play and then pause right at 23 at paragraph 118 of her report. May we look at that,
24 the start . 24 please. It ’s {G/2/49}. Professor Meiklejohn says this
25 (Pause). 25 about Dr Wright:

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 ” ... Dr Wright mentions that the use of the methods 1 witness statement, which was provided in response to an
2 he describes limits the risk of exposing one’s private 2 order of the court that he give full details , no checks
3 key. I disagree that this is a particular feature of 3 were carried out to ensure that didn’t happen.
4 the methods he describes over any other methods for 4 Then at paragraph 133, she addresses the session
5 signing and verification : the purpose of a digital 5 with Mr Andresen, who wanted the verification done on
6 signature is to be given out freely (for example, you 6 a computer other than Dr Wright’s, and she explains that
7 see multiple signatures from a website operator every 7 there were various technically straightforward ways to
8 time you visit a website secured using SSL/TLS), so 8 subvert that session , including using an altered version
9 there is no risk of exposing your private key by giving 9 of Electrum, using a program to interfere with genuine
10 out signatures . Also, as I have explained above, 10 Electrum software, or interfering with the process
11 the integrity of the process is not bolstered by 11 through the internet connection, which appears to have
12 splitting the signing and verification processes across 12 been in the basement room of the Covent Garden Hotel
13 different systems, as the integrity of the process 13 with a Wifi hot spot. Those two paragraphs, 132 and
14 depends solely on the integrity of the setting in which 14 133, about the ease of subverting those signing sessions
15 verification is performed.” 15 are, we understand, agreed by Dr Wright’s expert,
16 I need not go on into the interesting terminological 16 Mr Gao, based on the joint report at {Q/3/2−3}.
17 debate about decentralising. 17 Thirdly, the only session of which we have any
18 My Lord, nobody has yet explained properly why 18 detailed account is the one concerning Mr Andresen, and
19 Dr Wright couldn’t simply adopt a much easier and 19 it is notable for that one that his account of it ,
20 properly verifiable procedure, sign a new message, for 20 Mr Andresen’s, given in the Kleiman litigation , differs
21 example that day’s headline, with one of the private 21 from Dr Wright on the two points which would have been
22 keys associated with the early Bitcoin blocks, then 22 crucial to staging the session .
23 transfer the signature and the message onto a clean 23 First , Dr Wright says that Mr Andresen did
24 USB stick, and finally hand over the USB stick and let 24 the download of the Electrum software while Mr Andresen
25 the other person verify the signature for themselves on 25 says that Dr Wright did so. We’ll look at the Kleiman

57 59

1 their own trusted computer with their own trusted 1 transcript with Dr Wright, but for my Lord’s note, it ’s
2 software. As we understand it, Dr Wright’s come up with 2 {E/17/74}.
3 two explanations for not following that course. There 3 Secondly, Dr Wright says that the download of
4 may be more, but there are two we discern. 4 Electrum was hash verified, whereas Mr Andresen says
5 The first is that, in doing that, he would have 5 not, and again, we’ ll look at the Kleiman transcript,
6 demonstrated control over the private keys. But of 6 but it ’s {E/17/77} for my Lord’s note.
7 course, this was somebody who was doing interviews with 7 Gavin Andresen offered the opinion several times
8 a series of periodicals intending it to be published 8 during his Kleiman deposition that he might have been
9 that he had control over these private keys. So that 9 bamboozled in this session. I wonder if we can look
10 explanation doesn’t watch. 10 briefly at his evidence {E/17/115}, line 10, Mr Andresen
11 The second is a concern about exposing his private 11 was asked what he thought now, and he said:
12 key. But as Professor Meiklejohn here explains, if 12 ”I ’m not sure what to think. I am −− I might have
13 the private key could be discerned from the message and 13 been bamboozled.”
14 the public key, then the entire cryptographic basis of 14 So the signing sessions weren’t monitored or
15 Bitcoin is worthless. 15 recorded, they used a complex process which could
16 The second point we make about the signing sessions 16 readily have been staged, they deliberately avoided
17 is that Dr Wright’s procedures could be very easily 17 the use of a simple process which it would have been
18 faked. May we go to page 59 of this same report of 18 much, much harder to fake, and when Dr Wright was put to
19 Professor Meiklejohn {G/2/59}, paragraph 132. She first 19 the test of providing a signed message publicly, he
20 addresses the signing sessions with the journalists and 20 failed that test . And that’s what I propose to come to
21 Mr Matonis and they were performed in the way Dr Wright 21 next, because the next topic in the October judgment is
22 had prescribed. She explains that it would have been 22 the Sartre blogpost of 2 May 2016.
23 very easy indeed to write a program that would simply 23 As my Lord will recall , the main event of his
24 produce a false positive and she says that, based on 24 carefully choreographed big reveal to the media in
25 the description of the procedure in Dr Wright’s second 25 mid−2016 was the issuing of a blogpost which in

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 the event was called ”Jean−Paul Sartre, Signing and 1 Dr Wright ... to demonstrate the process by which
2 Significance”. It was carefully planned. May we go to 2 a message could be signed on the Bitcoin Blockchain
3 {L13/40/1}. This is an email from Ms Brooks of 3 using a private key and then verified by
4 Milk Publicity , one of the two publicity agencies hired 4 the corresponding public key; and ... to act as
5 by Dr Wright’s backers at this time, to Dr Wright, 5 a riposte , in particular to those who were taunting him
6 Robert MacGregor and others, setting out a timeline for 6 for supposedly not provid[ing] so−called ’cryptographic
7 the day of the big reveal , 2 May 2016. We see that 7 proof’ that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.”
8 Dr Wright’s blog was to go live at 7.59, and at the same 8 Then there’s a denial that identity can be proved
9 date, he was going to sign block 9. For my Lord’s note, 9 cryptographically .
10 the same timeline was given by email on the day itself 10 But, my Lord, that stands in contrast to what his
11 at {L13/150/1}, although we don’t need to go to that as 11 team at the time expected, including Mr Ayre and
12 well . 12 Mr Matthews, as can be seen from their reaction on
13 The Sartre blogpost was then issued in a form we see 13 the spot when the post was shown not to be a valid
14 at {L18/257/1}. We’ve put this on the agreed reading 14 proof.
15 list . It ’s a relatively short document, so 15 If we look at {L13/97/1}, please, and these emails
16 your Lordship may be familiar with it . But if we go to 16 depict the moment it all dawns. Mr MacGregor, on
17 {L18/257/2}, the opening words are a quotation from 17 the morning of 2 May, says, right at the bottom, please:
18 Jean−Paul Sartre, and a reflection on that, ending with: 18 ”The signature −− the fundamental part of the entire
19 ” If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if 19 story −− has fallen apart. This has to be corrected
20 I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.” 20 right now, or there will be no way your ...”
21 Then, from page 3 onwards {L18/257/3}, under ”Key 21 Directed to Dr Wright:
22 verification ”, the post explains that it will explain 22 ” ... your reputation or the project can come back
23 the process of key verification . It then uses a very 23 from this. It ’s mid−morning already in NYC and that
24 complicated method involving the open SSL software, 24 media coverage is already souring badly.”
25 rather than a simple method using Electrum, which anyone 25 The response from C, which is Mr Ayre:

61 63

1 experienced in these matters would have expected. 1 ”How could the signature fall apart?”
2 At page {L18/257/11}, it sets outs the signature to 2 If we scroll up to see who responds, Dr Wright
3 be verified : 3 responds:
4 ”The signature file we will be verifying contains 4 ”The wrong copy was uploaded.”
5 the following data.” 5 Mr Ayre responds:
6 Everyone thought that that would be a new message 6 ”Let’s fix that immediately then as its on our
7 signed by one of the Satoshi private keys. But it ’s now 7 system.”
8 agreed that Dr Wright had taken a signature from 8 And then Mr MacGregor responds by attaching a new
9 the public blockchain and that the post therefore proved 9 draft post, and we’ll look at that with Dr Wright, but
10 nothing. That was established quickly by online 10 it was a draft proposing signatures to be performed
11 commentators, who debunked the blogpost within hours, 11 using the keys for the Genesis Block and block 9.
12 although they did have to do a certain amount of work in 12 But it ’s also noteworthy that Dr Wright’s excuse
13 order to do so, it wasn’t entirely straightforward to 13 about the wrong copy being uploaded was not accepted by
14 find it out. 14 his colleagues . If we go to {L13/101/1}, Mr Ayre,
15 Dr Wright now says that this wasn’t intended to 15 perhaps understandably, responds to that last message by
16 offer any proof of possession of keys showing that he 16 saying:
17 was Satoshi and he makes his case in the defence at 17 ” If its only a clerical error what are we waiting
18 {A/3/15}, and paragraph 41, he says: 18 for at all ? Why not just correct?”
19 ”It is denied that the 2 May Post was intended by 19 And Mr MacGregor then gives the explanation:
20 Dr Wright to prove that he was Satoshi Nakamoto or 20 ”It ’s not a clerical error at all .
21 otherwise had control over any of the private keys 21 ”We posted a multi−page and convoluted way to
22 associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. Nowhere in the post 22 validate a key, which could have been a paragraph, then
23 did Dr Wright state that that was its purpose. In 23 tripped over that complexity.”
24 the 2 May Post, Dr Wright did not purport to sign 24 Mr Andresen put it even more clearly in his evidence
25 the Sartre message. The 2 May Post was intended by 25 in Kleiman. May we have {E/17/154}, line 18. Asked

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 about what he really believed now, Mr Andresen said: 1 a nonsense, but the point I ’m making at the moment was
2 ”He certainly deceived me about what kind of blog 2 that Dr Wright was, at that stage, supportive of
3 post he was going to publish, and that gobbledygook 3 the idea of moving coin to demonstrate control of
4 proof that he published was certainly deception, if not 4 addresses, although it ’s something that he and
5 an outright lie . So at the very at least , that, 5 Mr Matthews now say was beyond the pale.
6 I consider, you know, that −− he bamboozled me there.” 6 In line with that proposal to move coin Mr Matthews
7 Dr Wright has tried to maintain the position that 7 arranged for Mr Cellan−Jones of the BBC and Mr Andresen
8 the post differed from what he’d originally intended and 8 to send Bitcoin to addresses linked to the early blocks,
9 that Mr MacGregor, whom he now paints as a villain, 9 promising that Bitcoin would be sent back to them,
10 altered it . Now, my Lord, that’s a hopeless excuse. 10 though that never happened.
11 First of all , as we’ve seen, the whole team expected 11 On 4 May 2016, the new extraordinary proof blogpost
12 this to be a blog including a valid signature. 12 was issued which promised a series of dramatic proofs of
13 Secondly, we have Dr Wright’s draft of the blog, dated 13 Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi. That’s at {L13/263/1}:
14 29 April 2016, which we also put on the agreed reading 14 ”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
15 list . That’s {L14/327/1}. We see from the opening 15 My Lord will be familiar from the −− our pleading
16 paragraph that he refers to the closed door signing 16 what this post promised. Now, Dr Wright has sought to
17 sessions . He says he won’t provide an account of what 17 distance himself from this post because it made promises
18 occurred in those and it ’s always preferable to have 18 which he, of course, never satisfied . It was certainly
19 evidence first −hand. He then says that he will explain 19 written by Mr MacGregor, but it was sent to Dr Wright
20 the process of verifying a set of keys. And then, at 20 and his wife and it was approved enthusiastically in an
21 the bottom of the page, we have the Sartre quotation and 21 email she wrote, which we can see at {L13/249/1}. This
22 the comment, on page {L14/237/2}, that if he signs as 22 is her email commenting on the blogpost:
23 Craig Wright, it ’s not the same as if he signs as Craig 23 ”Ok Satoshi.”
24 Wright, Satoshi. 24 Addressed to Mr MacGregor calling him Satoshi:
25 So there are some differences in the introduction, 25 ”Your writing is REALLY impressive.”

65 67

1 but what then follows are a series of steps which use 1 Block capitals for ” really ”. In the event, my Lord,
2 the same method of cryptographic proof, or supposed 2 no further proofs came. On the afternoon of 4 May 2016,
3 cryptographic proof as in the published blog. On page 6 3 it appears that Dr Wright cut his neck in the bathroom
4 {L14/327/6}, at the bottom, we see the same signature 4 of his house and was taken to hospital. Very
5 which was publicly discredited on 2 May 2016. So even 5 thankfully , the injuries don’t appear to have been very
6 if this draft blogpost had been used without 6 serious and he was released that day, and with that,
7 the alteration of the introduction, it would still have 7 the big reveal came to an end.
8 disappointed expectations just as dramatically. 8 My Lord, the next topic addressed in my Lord’s
9 What followed the debacle of this blogpost is also 9 judgment was the BlackNet abstract. In the particulars
10 important. Over the following days, Dr Wright was 10 of claim, we placed reliance on an extraordinary Twitter
11 pressed by his supporters to produce some sort of 11 post by Dr Wright, dated 10 February 2019. That’s at
12 objectively verifiable proof: a key signature, moving 12 {L14/294/1}:
13 Bitcoin to and from an address linked to an early block, 13 ”My stupidest mistake was going to the Australian
14 provision of early Satoshi emails. His colleagues were 14 government in 2001 and filing this shit .”
15 open to ideas. He himself even promised at one stage to 15 We see on the right page −− the right of
16 engage in the Bitcoin transfer proposal, something which 16 the document, the front page of a DeMorgan ITOL Project
17 he and Mr Matthews now claim he was never prepared to 17 BlackNet paper with its abstract matching
18 contemplate. We can see that at {L13/261/1}, an email 18 the Bitcoin White Paper. On page 2 {L14/294/2}, we can
19 he sent to Mr Andresen in response to Mr Andresen’s 19 see that it matches the Bitcoin White Paper, because
20 subject line , ”What’s with the funky ’proof’?”: 20 the abstract here is shown at a more legible size :
21 ”There will be a post soon. It is in review to 21 ”A purely peer−to−peer version transaction
22 ensure it is all Ok. 22 system ... ”
23 ”We are going to move coin as well, but we need to 23 Etc. We can see obvious linguistic parallels with
24 get the trust permissions in place.” 24 the Bitcoin White Paper.
25 Now we will say those trust permissions were 25 Now, we’ve pointed out that this abstract can’t date

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 from 2001 because it contains changes which were made to 1 language and concepts had been grafted.
2 the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper between 2 My Lord, the penultimate topic in the October
3 the versions of the abstract which was shared by Satoshi 3 judgment was the Kleiman email. In February 2014,
4 with Dr Back and others, in August 08, and the final 4 Dr Wright made contact with Louis Kleiman, Dave’s
5 release of the paper. Also, and incidentally , it ’s 5 father , to claim that he and Dave had been involved in
6 inconsistent with Dr Wright’s present account of writing 6 the creation of Bitcoin. He may well have done so to
7 the Bitcoin White Paper from 2007, because he included 7 obtain some support for his tax claims in which he was
8 such an abstract which, in many ways, perfectly 8 involving Dave Kleiman and Bitcoin mining in
9 pre−figured the 2009 abstract in a paper which he filed 9 the narrative . Of course the initiative backfired
10 supposedly in 2001. 10 because it led to the Kleiman litigation .
11 Now, Dr Wright responded to that in his defence at 11 We then have an email, dated 6 March 2014,
12 paragraphs 45 to 46. He says, as my Lord will recall , 12 apparently showing Dr Wright forwarding to Ira Kleiman
13 that he first submitted the BlackNet paper to 13 an email from him to Dave Kleiman, dated 12 March 2008,
14 Oz industry in 2001, obtaining rebates as a result , that 14 asking for help editing the Bitcoin White Paper. That’s
15 he later unsuccessfully sought funding and rebates in 15 at {L8/446/1}. The last paragraph of the email we’re
16 2009 and 2010, that early applications didn’t contain 16 looking at is :
17 the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper, but later 17 ”I cannot release it as me. GMX, vistomail and Tor.
18 unsuccessful applications did. He says that he didn’t 18 I need your help and I need a version of me to make this
19 mean to say by this Twitter post that the extract was 19 work that is better than me.”
20 from the 2001 paper and so we glean that it’s supposed 20 We see from the email header that it was from
21 to come from one of the 2009/10 applications. 21 craig .wright@information−defense.com. Now, we pleaded
22 But there are a number of serious problems with that 22 the text of this message in our particulars of claim, at
23 story . First and most obviously, his post said that he 23 paragraph 28 {A/2/10}, and the text matches the text
24 filed this document, or filed ”this shit ” with 24 here, including the last paragraph. We pleaded that
25 the Australian government in 2001, the apparent 25 Dr Wright had claimed in the Kleiman litigation to have

69 71

1 implication being that he should never have revealed his 1 sent this email, but it must be backdated because
2 secret identity to them. It would have been positively 2 the email domain ”information−defense” wasn’t created
3 misleading to write that if the screenshots accompanying 3 until January 2009.
4 it didn’t represent what he actually filed . 4 Dr Wright replied, at paragraph 49 of his defence,
5 Secondly, the image of the paper, including 5 saying that the email pleaded wasn’t an identical copy
6 the words ”version 1.0”, matches perfectly one of 6 of an email he sent on 12 March 2008. He then said in
7 Dr Wright’s reliance documents which has been found by 7 his defence that the body of the email was the same as
8 Mr Madden to be manipulated. That’s ID_001379. That 8 the one he’d sent, but the header was different . He
9 document was dated in its footer to 2002. Its abstract 9 said the difference was due to a move of servers.
10 matches word for word the abstract in the 2019 Twitter 10 In response, Mr Madden has explained in one of his
11 post. Furthermore, Dr Wright, in his chain of custody 11 appendices that changes of server wouldn’t alter
12 schedule, dated that document to 2002, yet, as we have 12 the transmission header as Dr Wright has suggested.
13 seen from the defence, he says that this abstract in 13 Dr Wright then answered a series of questions put in
14 the manipulated document dated to 2002, he says that 14 the RFI in his fourth witness statement, at paragraph 93
15 that only featured in versions of the paper filed in 15 {E/4/31}, confirming that he’d sent this email, but from
16 2009. 16 a Ridges account which was different. He then gave
17 The third problem with the story is that we know 17 a convoluted explanation for the domain name changing
18 that at least some of the documents −− we know at least 18 due to a change of servers.
19 some of the documents that Dr Wright did file with 19 Dr Placks found a series of anomalies with this
20 the ATO in relation to his personal tax claim in 20 email, including the timestamps as well as the domain
21 the 08/09 year, and they did include documents relating 21 name, so he then agreed with Mr Madden that the document
22 to a Project BlackNet, but those documents show that 22 was manipulated.
23 BlackNet was simply an IT security project with nothing 23 Then, in Dr Wright’s 11th statement, we have an
24 to do with Bitcoin or digital currency. Dr Wright only 24 entirely new explanation, where he says that the email
25 later produced the BlackNet documents into which Bitcoin 25 he sent was different because it didn’t include

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 the final paragraph: 1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Please, yes, carry on.

2 ”I cannot release it as me.” 2 MR HOUGH: So the version −− the web page entry includes
3 Etc. That’s page 7 of his appendix C {CSW/3/7}, and 3 the item, ”Date Written: August 21, 2008”, directly
4 page 44 of his appendix B {CSW/2/44}. 4 above the abstract, and we say that ”date written” is
5 In the appendix B, he refers to another version of 5 significant . It ’s the day immediately after Satoshi
6 the same email which had the same text, but a different 6 provided the Bitcoin White Paper via an upload.AE web
7 header with a different anachronistic domain name. We 7 link to Wei Dai, as Dr Wright would have known from
8 have pleaded that separately as being a forgery . And 8 publicly available emails. I think in fact it may have
9 what he says about that is that he did send an email to 9 been the day before, we’ ll check that, but it ’s directly
10 Dave Kleiman on 12 March 2008, that the email didn’t 10 proximal to that.
11 contain the final paragraph we’re looking at, that 11 In our particulars of claim, we pleaded that two
12 the document to which we have pleaded, ID_000464, was 12 versions of the Bitcoin White Paper have been posted to
13 obtained from Ira Kleiman −− by Ira Kleiman from the ATO 13 SSRN by Dr Wright and that both have timestamp
14 and then disclosed in the Kleiman proceedings. He says 14 irregularities . Mr Madden has established that
15 that the original real email was on a QNAP server to 15 the version of the White Paper now available from SSRN,
16 which he no longer has access; he claims the document 16 or available when he was doing his work at any rate, is
17 was fabricated and that was the result of a hack; he 17 not in Dr Wright’s disclosure , but there is a version in
18 says that this and other documents came from disgruntled 18 disclosure which matches it in other respects but has
19 former staff members of his companies subsequently 19 been backdated to 2008. That backdated version includes
20 working against him; and he sticks to the story that 20 a footer stating that it ’s available from SSRN.
21 the change of header was due to server moves, not 21 The version, for my Lord’s note, is {L5/28/1}, and
22 the supposed hack. So Dr Wright has been doubly 22 Mr Madden’s findings are at {H/20/47}, paragraphs 141 to
23 unfortunate with this document that it has been altered 23 144.
24 both deliberately and inadvertently. He says that 24 But nevertheless, my Lord, the technical findings ,
25 a version of this email appeared in the litigation in 25 although interesting , are by the by, because in

73 75

1 Florida and he took the view that it was fabricated. 1 Wright 11, appendix B {CSW/2/1}, Dr Wright agrees that
2 Of course, if that is right , it defies belief that 2 both uploads were produced by him in 2019 using the copy
3 he repeatedly confirmed on oath in this case that he 3 of the White Paper released by Satoshi. He seeks to
4 sent an email with precisely and fully the same content 4 explain the metadata abnormalities on the basis that
5 that we see here. It also , and incidentally , defies 5 both derived from LaTeX originals of
6 belief that we have multiple versions of the email with 6 the Bitcoin White Paper. My Lord, that explanation
7 this content, but the mythical original , with 7 takes us back neatly to the beginning of these
8 the content Dr Wright now claims it had, has, to our 8 submissions: the Bitcoin White Paper was not written in
9 knowledge, never been produced. The simple explanation, 9 LaTeX, so the answer makes no sense. The reality is
10 in our submission, is that Dr Wright has forged this 10 that Dr Wright doctored and backdated a copy of
11 email apparently in multiple iterations . It ’s 11 the Bitcoin White Paper before uploading it to SSRN to
12 a document which, if real, would strongly support his 12 support his claims.
13 claim to be Satoshi, and the idea that it was faked by 13 So, my Lord, with apologies to Mr Gunning for not
14 his enemies simply makes no sense, quite apart from it 14 having finished about ten minutes earlier , those are my
15 not being supported with a shred of evidence. 15 submissions. For all the reasons that we have given,
16 The final point from the October judgment which 16 the analysis under each of those points leads to
17 I address is the set of documents uploaded to 17 the conclusion that I put to my Lord at the start, that
18 the SSRN website. Now, in August 2009, Dr Wright 18 Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is a lie.
19 uploaded to the SSRN website a version of 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you very much.
20 the White Paper bearing his contact details. That’s 20 Mr Gunning −−
21 {L15/185/1}. I think the system may be having 21 MR GUNNING: We will obviously rise for lunch, but if
22 difficulties . May I summarise the point? 22 I might prevail upon your Lordship to take ten minutes
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. The system’s probably overheating! 23 after lunch, I will limit myself to that.
24 MR HOUGH: I’m sure it’s suffering the same effects as 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can people bear starting at 1.50?
25 the rest of us, my Lord. 25 LORD GRABINER: We have absolutely no problem with that and

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 I ’m still very confident that we will conclude today’s 1 Dr Wright. In our development of the story, we focused
2 business, you know, at the usual time, or before 2 on the period when Dr Wright first started talking about
3 the usual time, actually . 3 Bitcoin in public . Now, on Dr Wright’s case, that would
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, good. 4 be a rather momentous thing, because on his case, that
5 Well, let ’s start at 1.50 and then we can see if we 5 would amount to Satoshi Nakamoto returning to
6 can get Mr Gunning finished by 2 o’clock. 6 the spotlight to talk publicly about Bitcoin, albeit
7 LORD GRABINER: I don’t think it matters actually. I am 7 under the name Craig Wright, and that would be just
8 entirely confident that if we start at 2 o’clock we’ ll 8 a few months after he had bowed out of any development
9 be done. 9 activity on Bitcoin. But as your Lordship will have
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 10 seen from our skeleton, when Dr Wright first started
11 LORD GRABINER: Especially if we can find a cool room 11 talking about Bitcoin, he didn’t come across as someone
12 between now and 2 o’clock! 12 who knew a great deal about Bitcoin or indeed how to
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, well, based on that assurance, 13 spell Bitcoin.
14 we’ ll start at 2, because we need all the time we can 14 Moreover, your Lordship will have seen that when
15 get to cool down, I think. 15 Dr Wright returned to talking about Bitcoin in his
16 You very much. 16 private dealings with the Kleiman family in early 2014,
17 (1.00 pm) 17 he presented the inventors of Bitcoin as a sort of
18 (The short adjournment) 18 multi−headed hydra in which the other two heads were
19 (2.00 pm) 19 recently deceased. Indeed, you will have seen that
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Is it just me or is it getting hotter in 20 the recently deceased seem to form a rather important
21 here? 21 part of Dr Wright’s Bitcoin story, Dave Kleiman,
22 MR GUNNING: It’s not just you, my Lord, it’s, I think, all 22 Gareth Williams, Professor Rees, Amanda McGovern.
23 of us. I think it ’s probably our presence in here that 23 More importantly, over the course of the next
24 is assisting in it getting hotter, unfortunately. 24 six weeks, indeed possibly over the next hour or so,
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: We’re going to see if we can do 25 you’re going to be asked to focus on Dr Wright’s account

77 79

1 something about it, so ... 1 of his dealings from the pre−2011 period. And when you
2 Okay, Mr Gunning. 2 come back to consider that evidence at the end of
3 MR GUNNING: I’m getting a little bit of reverb from 3 the case, you’re going to want to try to fit it with
4 something. I don’t know whether your Lordship can hear 4 Dr Wright’s Bitcoin story as he told it when he first
5 that? 5 told it , and you’re going to have to examine whether it
6 LORD GRABINER: We can’t hear you. 6 fits . That’s the first thematic point.
7 MR GUNNING: I’m getting a reverb from something. Maybe 7 The second point that I wanted to pick up was
8 that speaker there. 8 the suggestion in Dr Wright’s skeleton argument that
9 My Lord, do you want me to continue? It’s going to 9 Dr Wright is a natural fit for Satoshi Nakamoto because
10 be extremely annoying for everybody I think. It may be 10 he has all of the background, a PhD in computer science
11 annoying anyway. 11 and so on. Now, you’re going to have to be a little bit
12 (Pause). 12 careful about that. You will come to see that Dr Wright
13 That does seem to have gone. 13 loves talking about his qualifications . There’s no
14 Opening submissions by MR GUNNING 14 doubt about that. But no great care has been taken to
15 My Lord, I was only going to make five points in 15 talk you through the sequence of those qualifications in
16 oral opening anyway. 16 chronological order, so we may have to come back to
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 17 that. But the PhD that they’re talking about, for
18 MR GUNNING: And I was going to take them pretty briskly. 18 example, which your Lordship might actually want to look
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 19 at at some point to see what it’s actually about, didn’t
20 MR GUNNING: They’re thematic points that your Lordship can 20 come until 2016, and that’s eight to ten years after
21 cogitate over during the course of the trial and come 21 Satoshi would have been writing the Bitcoin code.
22 back to at the end of it . 22 For those of us who have had to grind through
23 The first of them is this , that your Lordship will 23 Dr Wright’s output in chronological order, what actually
24 have seen that the focus of our skeleton was a bit 24 stands out was that at the time of publication of
25 different to the focus of the skeletons of both COPA and 25 the Bitcoin White Paper, his focus was on information

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 security and forensic analysis . That’s what his 1 ” ... please identify the operating system used.”
2 certificates are about, that’s what the book that he 2 We say it’s not clear what that means. Assuming
3 contributes to was about, that was his job at BDO, 3 that it ’s the operating system used by the custodian,
4 that’s how he described himself to the tax authorities , 4 the relevant documents −− and if we go over the page
5 that’s what’s in his CVs and in his applications for 5 {A/13/24}:
6 jobs. But on his own account, he doesn’t seem to be 6 ” ... not entitled ...
7 even very good at information security, because it ’s an 7 ” ... not reasonably necessary ...
8 essential part of his story that he’s repeatedly hacked 8 ” ... not proportionate ...
9 and that he’s lost access to or destroyed files or 9 ” ... in any event, irrelevant .”
10 passwords that would decrypt them. So that’s the second 10 It ’s said .
11 thematic point, Dr Wright’s natural fit or not. 11 Now contrast that with his eight witness statement
12 The third thematic point relates to 12 and his tenth witness statement. He now seems to regard
13 reliance documents. Now I want to make an initial 13 it as essential to understand his operating systems,
14 observation about those before turning to his present 14 which he says included Windows and ROX Linux systems as
15 treatment of them. The purpose behind requiring 15 well as his use of virtual machines to understand why
16 Dr Wright to identify his reliance documents was to pin 16 the documents contain inauthentic metadata. So that’s
17 him down as to the documents he would advance to support 17 the first point.
18 his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. That was against 18 The second point, the technical question of whether
19 a background in which he had presented and then 19 Dr Wright’s computing environment is an available answer
20 disclaimed documents in Kleiman and then he had 20 to the evidence of inauthenticity is a matter of expert
21 presented and had disproven documents in Granath. 21 evidence. And your Lordship has seen some of that
22 Dr Wright doesn’t, however, seem to have regarded 22 already and I dare say we’ ll hear more of it in due
23 the identification of his reliance documents as an 23 course, but the experts, at this stage at least , seem to
24 exercise in providing clarity as to the documents upon 24 be agreed that it isn ’ t an answer.
25 which he seeks to support his claim to the identity of 25 The third point is that this point about operating

81 83

1 Satoshi Nakamoto. Instead, he’s treated it as a moving 1 environments doesn’t apply to the Overleaf files and nor
2 target , or a sort of game of whack a mole in which 2 could it apply to the content of any of the other
3 reliance documents appear and disappear, seemingly 3 relevant files . By ”content” there, I mean
4 totally at random. That is a subversion of the process 4 the expressions and concepts that he used in those
5 by which the court determined that this trial should 5 files , as opposed to the metadata related to them. So
6 proceed, and your Lordship will have seen that there is 6 time permitting, we’re going to have to look at what
7 a seemingly never−ending seepage of documents coming 7 some of those documents are actually about. But even
8 from Dr Wright’s side. 8 leaving all of that to one side, at the end of this case
9 But leaving that all to one side, you’re going to be 9 your Lordship’s going to have to ask yourself : why has
10 hearing delphic excuses over the next few days for 10 Dr Wright presented as his reliance documents, documents
11 the anachronistic metadata and content in those 11 with those failings ? It wasn’t COPA who chose these
12 documents, and Dr Wright is going to have you believe 12 documents, it wasn’t us who chose the documents; we
13 that this is in large part because of the varying 13 didn’t know which documents he would be choosing. The
14 operating systems and the environments in which those 14 single connecting factor between those documents is that
15 documents were held. Now, I would just like to stress 15 they purport to provide direct support for Dr Wright’s
16 three points at this stage. 16 claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Indeed, none of
17 The first is that you can gauge the availability of 17 the remaining documents, other than those that are
18 that position to Dr Wright by reference to {A/13/23}. 18 challenged, provide that direct support, and
19 COPA served a request for further information, including 19 your Lordship’s going to be able to draw inferences from
20 about the operating systems that Dr Wright used in 20 that fact as to how and why it is that they contain
21 relation to the documents in his DRD, and that was 21 those anachronisms.
22 served −− the response to it was served on 11 September, 22 The fourth point that I wanted to pick up concerns
23 which is ten days after Mr Madden’s first report. And 23 a difference in the position of COPA and the developers,
24 if you look at the foot of the page, for each document 24 which is that whilst COPA is a claimant seeking relief
25 source of the defendant which is referred to in the DRD: 25 from Dr Wright, Dr Wright is the claimant in

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 the proceedings against the developers, and one 1 watermark.”

2 important consequence of that is a shift in the burden 2 Then, if we go to {I/5/130}, Mr Lynch −− this is
3 of proof. Dr Wright must prove in the BTC Core claim 3 Dr Wright’s expert −− it should be page 130, I think −−
4 that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, and in many ways, of 4 maybe it’s page 30 {I/5/30}. That’s it, thank you. At
5 course, the present case is a highly unusual one, 5 paragraph 110, this is Mr Lynch on behalf of Dr Wright
6 because it concerns a question of identity . I don’t 6 −− refers to this −− the implementation of this
7 know of other cases that come before this court: is this 7 watermark and says:
8 person that person? But imagine that somebody came 8 ”The author introduces non−standard spacing by
9 forward and said that they were your Lordship, right? 9 employing the ’\;’ command at different points within
10 They sought to claim hundreds of billions of pounds on 10 paragraphs ... ”
11 the basis that they were your Lordship. And the issue 11 And your Lordship will have seen our letter
12 of whether they were your Lordship was then put in 12 {M1/2/156}, which points out that those were introduced
13 issue . The trial judge would expect that person to 13 into the files that were produced to us between 17 and
14 adduce evidence that they were your Lordship. They 14 19 November of 2023. So, the digital watermark is not
15 would expect a birth certificate maybe, or a passport, 15 Satoshi’s digital watermark. Indeed, I sometimes think
16 historic fingerprints , something like that. Certainly 16 it ’s kind of interesting , if you stand back from this
17 more, something more than biographical details that 17 case and look at things that Dr Wright is doing and try
18 could you find about your Lordship on the internet. 18 and replace his name with Satoshi Nakamoto, do you think
19 If it then emerged that the birth certificate and 19 Satoshi Nakamoto would be furiously putting in back
20 the passport were a fake and that the fingerprints had 20 slash or forward slash , semi colons in White Paper LaTeX
21 only been taken a few months ago by the claimant, 21 files on 17 and 19 November? I somewhat doubt it.
22 the trial judge is likely to think one of two 22 Anyway ...
23 things: well , either this claimant is lying to me when 23 So, no fingerprints that are of any use to Dr Wright
24 they say that they’re Mr Justice Mellor, or 24 here.
25 alternatively they’re going to think: how on earth am 25 To be clear, we adopt COPA’s position generally

85 87

1 I meant to decide this case in circumstances where this 1 which is that we’re confident that your Lordship is
2 person has so corrupted the documentary record that I’m 2 going to conclude by the end of the case that Dr Wright
3 forced to try to guess what the true identity is ? 3 is a fabulist and that this isn ’ t going to be a case
4 Now, the first of those points is essentially 4 that turns on the burden of proof at all . But even if
5 the position that’s taken by COPA here. For birth 5 your Lordship is caused to hesitate before reaching any
6 certificate , think of the supposed preparatory works for 6 particular conclusion in this case, the extent of
7 the White Paper. For the passport, think of 7 the contamination of the documentary record here is
8 the White Paper LaTeX files. For the fingerprints , 8 unprecedented.
9 think of the mysterious digital watermark on the LaTeX 9 Now, my Lord, that bleeds straight into
10 files . Whilst we’re on that, my learned friend took you 10 paragraphs 116 to 125 {R/13/51} of our opening about
11 to the chunks spreadsheet, which is obviously the chunks 11 the powers available to the court in the event that
12 spreadsheet related to the Bitcoin project on 12 forgery is admitted or established, and your Lordship’s
13 the Overleaf −− on Overleaf. Your Lordship will 13 heard from me about that in the Tulip Trading case and
14 remember, when I was last in front of your Lordship with 14 in our skeleton for the PTR, so I’m not going to take up
15 my learned friend Mr Orr, we were arguing about trying 15 more time about that. But you’ll recall the leading
16 to get the back history of that, and we had identified 16 case of Arrow Nominees was a case where Mr Tobias had
17 that there was a further project in existence , the maths 17 actually come clean to say that he had forged some of
18 old project , and your Lordship will have seen that −− 18 the documents. Dr Wright doesn’t do that here. He
19 the evidence that has emerged from that. Your Lordship 19 can’t do it , because he knows that if he were to admit
20 will recall from Ms Field’s first witness statement −− 20 to forgery , it would be terminal for his attempt to
21 it ’s at {E/24/10}, if we could bring that up, at 21 claim that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.
22 paragraph 29, that Dr Wright had instructed her that: 22 So that’s my fourth point.
23 ” ... in drafting the text of the Bitcoin White Paper 23 The fifth and final point is just to remind
24 using LaTeX, he used instructions for non−standard 24 your Lordship that I represent a group of individuals ,
25 formatting ... in effect as a form of digital 25 individual Bitcoin developers, who are facing a quite

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 staggering claim; it ’s staggering in its size , 1 that I ought to emphasise that point at the outset.
2 staggering in its plausibility . This is not a fight 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can I just ask, when Dr Wright’s giving
3 that they have brought upon themselves, they’ve just had 3 evidence, is there someone observing him who would be
4 to stand by whilst they’ve been publicly traduced by 4 able to pick up on potential dysregulation better than
5 Dr Wright and his Praetorian guard of supporters, and 5 I , perhaps?
6 it ’s time now to draw a line in the sand and to examine 6 LORD GRABINER: Well, his wife will be in court and she will
7 and expose the false evidential basis to Dr Wright’s 7 be observing and I think she’s probably the best person
8 case. 8 to evaluate that.
9 My Lord, those were my five points. 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right.
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you very much. 10 LORD GRABINER: But if there is any such moment, then it
11 MR GUNNING: 15 minutes! 11 will hopefully be drawn to our attention and then,
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Lord Grabiner. 12 through us, to your Lordship.
13 LORD GRABINER: Thank you, my Lord. 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, good.
14 Opening submissions by LORD GRABINER 14 LORD GRABINER: And then the next point I want to say
15 My Lord, there are just a few matters that I’d like 15 something about is the −− if you like, the philosophical
16 to address by way of opening. The first point is 16 difference between the respective parties . We say that
17 concerning Dr Wright’s disability . 17 there is a −− or Dr Wright says that there is a basic
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 18 philosophical difference of approach to Bitcoin between
19 LORD GRABINER: Your Lordship will have seen the medical 19 the parties . Dr Wright holds the view that the concept
20 evidence to the effect that Dr Wright has been diagnosed 20 of Bitcoin, as provided for in the White Paper, should
21 with autism spectrum disorder, or ASD. The fact of 21 not be departed from, and the way he puts it −− and
22 the diagnosis is common ground between the parties, and 22 I quote:
23 we’ve seen the reports of Professor Michael Craig for 23 ”The core design was set in stone for the rest of
24 the claimants and Professor Seena Fazel on behalf of my 24 its lifetime .”
25 client . Both psychiatrists have looked at the question, 25 Dr Wright believes that COPA and the developers

89 91

1 ”What, if any, special adjustments should be made for 1 involved in the Bitcoin Core version have departed from
2 Dr Wright when he gives evidence”, and you will have 2 that design so as to make the system anonymous rather
3 seen Professor Craig’s opinion, particularly at 3 than pseudonymous. His vision and his intention was and
4 paragraphs 74 to 78 of his report {G/4/25−26} −− I’m not 4 is to have a digital cash system which would enable
5 asking you to turn them up, I’m sure you’re familiar 5 private transactions rather than anonymous ones, and
6 with them −− and Professor Fazel’s report at 6 these transactions would be publicly recorded on
7 paragraphs 6.1 to 6.11 {I/3/9}. There’s also, 7 blockchain. Thus, in Dr Wright’s mind, Bitcoin
8 helpfully , a joint statement of both professors, dated 8 transactions could be, and should be, both transparent
9 30 November 2023 {Q/1/1}. I won’t take your Lordship 9 and traceable.
10 through that document either, but the key paragraphs are 10 Next, the point I want to come to is −−
11 4 to 8 of the joint statement, but I would respectfully 11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sorry, can I just ask you about that −−
12 invite your Lordship to bear those paragraphs in mind 12 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, yes.
13 throughout the trial , as I know that you will. 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− philosophical difference you’ve just
14 I should emphasise paragraph 7 of the joint 14 identified , because what you seem to be talking about is
15 statement {Q/1/2}, which deals with questions in 15 the difference between what Dr Wright says was
16 cross−examination which might lead to what 16 the initial design −−
17 the psychiatrists call ”emotional dysregulation”. If 17 LORD GRABINER: Yes.
18 Dr Wright feels that −− and I quote: 18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− and what’s happened subsequently.
19 ” ... his morals are being questioned or when he 19 LORD GRABINER: Yes.
20 thinks that the person asking the question is not trying 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Why does that help me decide
21 to understand the point being made.” 21 the identity issue?
22 Now, given the claimant’s pleaded case, I anticipate 22 LORD GRABINER: I don’t think it does.
23 that there will be such −− inevitably, I’m afraid, there 23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
24 will be such moments when we get to 24 LORD GRABINER: I mean, except in this sense, that he says
25 the cross−examination, and for that reason I do feel 25 that, as Satoshi, his philosophical concept was

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 different , and is different , from the way he perceives 1 work that was being done then had some limitations
2 the approach being adopted by, for example, 2 inevitably , because it was a development process. But
3 the claimants. But, I mean, if your Lordship were to 3 in particular , nobody had solved the −− what’s
4 take the view that that was inherent in the original 4 called ”the double spending problem”. In the typical
5 White Paper approach, then that would be a factor no 5 transaction that we are all familiar with, where
6 doubt in his favour. 6 the bank acts as an intermediary, there is no double
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, surely anybody reading 7 spending problem because the bank is the record−keeper
8 the original Bitcoin White Paper and thinking about it 8 of the state of the relevant bank account at all times.
9 would understand what the original philosophy was? 9 The genius of blockchain is that it resolves that
10 LORD GRABINER: Well, I respectfully agree. 10 problem without the need for the intermediary bank.
11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 11 Blockchain is an immutable record of every Bitcoin
12 LORD GRABINER: So, next, can I say something about 12 transaction going all the way back to the beginning and
13 Dr Wright’s background. 13 the nodes perform the function of verifying new
14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Mm−hm. 14 transactions . They ensure that Bitcoin used in a new
15 LORD GRABINER: I think that my learned friend Mr Gunning, 15 transaction is available and has not already been spent.
16 a few moments ago, did anticipate the point, but 16 The traditional bank acting as the intermediary is
17 I nevertheless , notwithstanding his anticipation of it , 17 therefore made redundant, and the best explanation of
18 I ’m just going to go through it, but I can deal with it 18 this , of course, is in the White Paper which, as we
19 quite quickly . 19 know, was published in October of 2008.
20 Now, what I’ve described as the philosophical 20 The next thing I want briefly to talk about is
21 difference is important, because it ties in with 21 Dr Wright’s LLM work and I should explain the relevance
22 Dr Wright’s educational background and what he calls his 22 of his LLM. His studies included an assignment on
23 ”precursor work”, which shows a deep and developing 23 documentary credits in a commercial transaction, for
24 interest in solving issues of trust and transparency in 24 example an international sale of goods matter.
25 digital transactions . And it’s also relevant to an 25 The example I can use is that the seller is obliged to

93 95

1 understanding of what might otherwise be some unusual 1 ship the goods from, say, Taiwan to London, and he wants
2 features of Dr Wright’s behaviour, for example his 2 to be sure that he’s going to be paid. By parity of
3 refusal to provide a public proof, and I’ ll say 3 reasoning, the buyer wants to be sure, before he
4 something about that shortly. 4 releases the payment, that he will get the goods and
5 Dr Wright’s educational background, his skills , 5 that the goods are contractually compliant. The problem
6 qualifications and his precursor work are important also 6 is resolved by the documentary letter of credit , whereby
7 because the creator of Bitcoin would necessarily have 7 the buyer irrevocably appoints a reputable bank to pay
8 had these or very similar talents , so that, for example, 8 the contract price to the seller against
9 Dr Wright worked with a bank, Qudos, in Australia, he 9 the presentation by the seller of specified documents
10 worked with online casinos, and he worked with Vodafone, 10 which evidence that the goods have been shipped and that
11 he studied law with a focus on electronic contracting, 11 they are in strict conformity with the requirements of
12 he has experience with cryptography and secured data 12 the contract and that at the point of shipment they are
13 systems and with the precursor features of blockchain. 13 contractually compliant.
14 COPA says that there are thousands of individuals who 14 The payment arrangements on the example I’ve been
15 share similar qualifications and for that reason could 15 giving would be effected through the issuing bank in
16 also claim to be Satoshi. They say that in their 16 London, the home of the buyer, and a correspondent bank
17 skeleton argument at paragraph 123 {R/11/51}. But that, 17 appointed by the issuing bank in Taiwan, the home of
18 we suggest, is mere assertion. Dr Wright possesses an 18 the seller , where he would expect to be paid. And if
19 unusual combination of multi−disciplinary talents and 19 the documents are in order −− and of course, they have
20 experience which intersect finance, law and 20 to be strictly compliant −− the paying bank in Taiwan is
21 cryptography, and Satoshi uniquely brought these things 21 then obliged to make the payment to the seller without
22 together in the White Paper. 22 more ado. It’s an autonomous transaction which protects
23 Now, it’s well known that the concept of digital 23 both parties and is a long−established and effective
24 cash or digital currency was being thought about and had 24 payment mechanism.
25 been worked on, certainly since the early 1990s, but the 25 Now, Bitcoin provides an analogous payment mechanism

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 which is governed by strictly enforced smart contracts 1 the identity issue must be presumed, and certainly can
2 generating irreversible transactions . Dr Wright’s LLM 2 be presumed, to be aware of this litigation .
3 thesis was entitled −− and I quote, ”The impact of 3 Now, even if we speculate that the person is no
4 internet intermediary liability ”, it ’s dated 4 longer alive , it is very likely that he worked with
5 February 2008. It was disclosed in these proceedings in 5 other people who could have come forward, but nobody
6 digital form in March ’23. Shortly before service of 6 has. It is striking , given the public interest and
7 Wright 11, the original hard copy of the dissertation 7 the unlimited resources deployed by COPA in these
8 was found in a box of documents delivered by Ontier −− 8 proceedings, that COPA has been unable to point to any
9 they were solicitors previously instructed by my client 9 direct evidence that Dr Wright is not Satoshi.
10 −− and Ontier sent the documents to those instructing me 10 Can I next say something about the private tests
11 in December ’23. The dissertation was attached to 11 which were referred to by my learned friend Mr Hough
12 a letter from the University of Northumbria to Ontier, 12 this morning. And I should say something about what
13 together with a copy of the university marker sheet. 13 he’s called −− it’s called ”the reveal”, as
14 Now, there is no suggestion that Dr Wright’s LLM thesis 14 your Lordship knows.
15 is forged or wrongly dated. The subject matter of 15 In 2016, Dr Wright demonstrated his possession of
16 the thesis has obvious similarities to 16 private keys to some of the original blocks attributed
17 the Bitcoin blockchain thinking that Dr Wright was 17 to Satoshi. I think they’re the numbers 1 to 11, but
18 focused upon in and prior to 2008. His focus was to 18 they’re sometimes referred to as ”numbers 1 to 9” of
19 devise a digital currency system which could dispense 19 the blockchain. Now, he did this in some private
20 with the involvement of intermediaries , and hence 20 sessions . There were demonstration was Mr Andresen and
21 the first sentence of the abstract to 21 Jon Matonis, both of whom are well known figures in
22 the Bitcoin White Paper states −− and I quote: 22 the Bitcoin world. This is dealt with −− and there’s no
23 ”A purely peer−to−peer version of electronic cash 23 need to turn it up, but for the transcript , in Wright
24 would allow online payments to be sent directly from one 24 witness statement 1 at paragraphs 191 to 207, and
25 party to another without the burdens of going through 25 the reference in the bundle is {E/1/34}.

97 99

1 a financial institution .” 1 There were also demonstrations with Andrew O’Hagan,

2 The reference for that −− but I don’t invite 2 an author who was following the progress of the nChain
3 your Lordship to look at it −− is {L3/231/1}. 3 group of companies. This is dealt with in Dr Wright’s
4 The next point I want to make is really a rather 4 first witness statement, paragraphs 188 to 190. That’s
5 self −evident point, but it ’s a curious point which 5 {E/1/33}.
6 I call ”no competing claim”. An interesting feature of 6 Also with Rory Cellan−Jones of the BBC, and that’s
7 this case is the non−appearance of a competing 7 in Cellan−Jones’ witness statement 1 at paragraph 10,
8 Satoshi Nakamoto. It’s a sort of Hamlet without 8 and the reference there is {C/5/3}. And with
9 the prince point. For many years since 2016, there’s 9 a gentleman called Ludwig Siegele −− and I apologise if
10 been significant and well publicised debate and media 10 I ’ve not pronounced it properly −− that’s dealt with in
11 interest as to the identity of the person sitting behind 11 Wright 1 at paragraph 212, and the bundle reference is
12 that pseudonym. There have also been multiple sets of 12 {E/1/36}. Mr Siegele is a journalist with the −− or was
13 legal proceedings, both here and abroad. Now, if 13 at the time, with The Economist.
14 the claimants are right , your Lordship may think it 14 In each demonstration, Dr Wright showed that he had
15 surprising that the real Satoshi has never identified 15 access to private keys associated with the early blocks,
16 himself or herself or themselves. The claimants aren’t 16 and I’d like , if I may, to show your Lordship a couple
17 Satoshi. That’s one thing they’re not contending for. 17 of documents on this. The first is bundle reference
18 They are exclusively concerned to undermine Dr Wright’s 18 {L18/410/3}. This is a transcript of Mr Cellan−Jones’
19 claim. 19 interview of Mr Matonis, which is exhibited to
20 Moreover, they don’t claim to know who it is. Even 20 Mr Cellan−Jones’ witness statement. So Cellan−Jones
21 if we assume that the real Satoshi prefers to remain in 21 says:
22 the shadows, he could have instructed solicitors to 22 ”Okay, Jon Matonis, you’ve seen that demo? What was
23 communicate with the parties and the court, and he could 23 your conclusion, at the end, of it ?”
24 have declared himself anonymously. That hasn’t 24 And Matonis says:
25 happened, although everybody interested in Bitcoin and 25 ”My conclusion is that I am 100% convinced that

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi. I also had the pleasure 1 Now, the bit that you were not shown in the same
2 of seeing the signing and verification of a message 2 transcript is at page {E/17/164}, and in particular
3 using block number one newly generated coins and block 3 lines 1 to 12. Mr Kass says:
4 number nine newly generated coins, which were the coins 4 ”Object to form.”
5 that were used in the original Hal Finney transaction.” 5 And then he’s taken back to that exchange that I’ve
6 The next document is a very similar effect and 6 just shown your Lordship:
7 perhaps that can be put up. It ’s {L12/492/1}. This is 7 ”What did you mean by that?
8 a press release about Dr Wright’s public reveal as 8 ”Answer: I meant that he bamboozled me about
9 Satoshi, and you heard a little bit about that this 9 the gobbledygook proof, but I still think it ’s most
10 morning before the short adjournment. If your Lordship 10 likely that he did not bamboozle me during the signing
11 goes to the second page {L12/492/2}, or if we can be 11 ceremony.
12 shown the second page, there is a statement which is 12 ”Question: And he really does have possession of
13 attributed to Mr Matonis. Can I ask your Lordship to 13 the private key to block 9?
14 read that statement. It will save me reading it. 14 ”Answer: I still think it ’s more likely than not
15 (Pause). 15 that he does.”
16 It does go all the way to the bottom of the page, 16 So that gives you a more complete picture of
17 and perhaps that’s the point that your Lordship’s eye 17 the point, but you weren’t shown that this morning.
18 can go to straight away. It concludes −− and I quote: 18 Now, these private proof sessions , we say,
19 ” ... the proof is conclusive and I have no doubt 19 respectfully , they’re significant because Dr Wright
20 that [Dr Wright is implicitly the person] is the person 20 thereafter lost access to the private keys, and I’ ll
21 behind ... Bitcoin ... ” 21 come back to that point.
22 Now, we say the fact that Mr Andresen and Mr Matonis 22 The next point I’d like to address is ”no public
23 were persuaded that Dr Wright was Satoshi is credible 23 proof”. So, following the private reveal , Dr Wright’s
24 and it ’s also significant . Both were undisputed experts 24 team made plans for a public revelation by Dr Wright of
25 in the field . Mr Andresen had taken over stewardship of 25 his possession of private keys which were known to be

101 103

1 the Bitcoin system, I think in around 2011, when Satoshi 1 held by Satoshi Nakamoto. There was a posting which
2 announced that he was moving on to other things, and 2 gave rise to controversy, and that’s dealt with in
3 I get that quote from −− and, again, we don’t need to 3 Wright 1 at paragraphs 216 to 225, and the bundle
4 turn it up −− {L7/220/1}. Mr Matonis was a founding 4 reference is {E/1/37}. Dr Wright’s position is that
5 director of the Bitcoin Foundation, and we can see that 5 this was never intended to prove that he was Satoshi,
6 from {L12/492/2}, and neither has retracted what they 6 but rather to express his adherence to what he
7 say they saw. 7 considered a foundational principle underpinning
8 Now, this morning, when my learned friend Mr Hough 8 Bitcoin, namely that merely possession of private keys
9 was addressing you, he showed your Lordship −− and we 9 was not proof of identity . And he deals with this point
10 can go straight to this morning’s transcript , if we can 10 in a couple of places, but I ’ ll give references −−
11 show that −− well, actually, no, we don’t need to 11 again, we don’t need to look at them −− Wright 1,
12 trouble with that. If your Lordship can be shown 12 paragraphs 219 to 220 at {E/1/37}, and Wright 11,
13 {E/17/115}, line 10, this, you will remember, was an 13 paragraphs 217 to 219, and the bundle reference
14 extract from Mr Andresen’s deposition. Yes, he said: 14 {CSW/1/42}.
15 ”And what do you think now?” 15 Now, Dr Wright was thereafter strongly pressed by
16 And then the lawyer says, well , object −− the lawyer 16 his team to use Satoshi’s private keys to reveal himself
17 is objecting to form; a sort of classic US lawyer 17 publicly , and in particular he was pressed by
18 intervention . Answer: 18 a Mr MacGregor. I turn then to deal with the next item
19 ”I ’m not sure what to think. I am −− I might have 19 on my list , which is Mr MacGregor and the suicide
20 been bamboozled.” 20 attempt.
21 And then he replies, if you look at −− ”I’m not sure 21 Mr MacGregor was an investor in Dr Wright’s business
22 what” −− he says: 22 ventures. He had been introduced to him through
23 ”I ’m not sure what to think. I am −− I might have 23 Mr Matthews, and we’ve heard reference to him this
24 been bamboozled.” 24 morning. Mr MacGregor was involved in setting up nChain
25 Yes, we’ve got that bit . 25 as a company to develop Dr Wright’s business ideas after

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 Dr Wright had moved from Australia to 1 perhaps unfairly , that this is not credible . COPA seek
2 the United Kingdom. Dr Wright deals with this in 2 to diminish or downplay the seriousness of Dr Wright’s
3 paragraphs −− in Wright 1, paragraphs 149 to 160, and 3 attempted suicide. If we could just have a quick look
4 the bundle reference is {E/1/28}. Dr Wright says it was 4 at the COPA skeleton, paragraph 64. {R/11/25}.
5 Mr MacGregor who persuaded him to participate in 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: It’s on screen, Lord Grabiner.
6 the private proof sessions , and he says that 6 LORD GRABINER: I’m very grateful. Thanks to the person
7 Mr MacGregor applied immense pressure on him and 7 who’s doing this:
8 promised that the sessions were necessary in order to 8 ”During the afternoon and evening of 3 May and
9 resolve Dr Wright’s tax issues in Australia and to 9 the morning of 4 May ... email exchanges continued about
10 correct what was being said about him publicly, and 10 various forms of proof which Dr Wright might provide ...
11 Dr Wright explains this in Wright 1, paragraph 184, and 11 further discussions at [ his ] home ... according to
12 that’s bundle reference {E/1/33}. 12 Dr Wright ... MacGregor repeatedly sought to pressure
13 It was also Mr MacGregor who then pressured 13 him into moving Bitcoin from block 9 ... Matthews
14 Dr Wright to participate in a public proof and Dr Wright 14 describes Dr Wright speaking over the phone to
15 did not want to do this. Now, as I have mentioned, he 15 Mr Andresen ... to suggest ... there was a technical
16 says it was contrary to his core beliefs about digital 16 reason ... Andresen is said to have replied that
17 currency that private keys should not be used for 17 the suggested problem should not arise. At that point,
18 the purpose of proving identity . This led to a heated 18 Dr Wright apparently ...”
19 argument with Mr MacGregor on 3 May 2016. This was 19 Which is designed to give the impression that he may
20 the day after a blogpost attributed to Dr Wright and 20 not have done:
21 referred to as ”the Sartre message”, which, again, we 21 ”At that point, Dr Wright apparently went up to
22 heard about this morning, the day after that had been 22 the bathroom and cut his neck with a knife. He was
23 published, but which Dr Wright maintains was edited 23 taken to hospital and treated with the record showing
24 without his consent. 24 that he suffered ’ bilateral abrasions’ with ’no blood
25 Mr MacGregor threatened Dr Wright in a very 25 loss ’ and that he was released later that day.”

105 107

1 unpleasant way at that meeting, and Dr Wright deals with 1 Now, your Lordship should look at −− and I’ll look
2 that in Wright 1, paragraphs 223 to 224, and the bundle 2 at this document −− bundle reference {L13/360/1}. Now,
3 reference {E/1/38}. The next day, 4 May, Dr Wright and 3 this is the accident and emergency record for 4 May 2016
4 Mr MacGregor had another contentious meeting at 4 at St George’s Hospital, and that’s down in Tooting.
5 Dr Wright’s home, and this is of course in England. 5 And your Lordship sees that, first of all , at the bottom
6 Mr MacGregor acted in a threatening and aggressive 6 of that first page, it ’s in very small print :
7 manner. Amidst this pressure Dr Wright suffered 7 ”Reason For Visit: Major Trauma.”
8 a breakdown. He left the meeting, he went upstairs and 8 And then you go over some blank pages which contain
9 he attempted suicide in his shower. This is dealt with 9 some confidential information, no doubt. But then,
10 by Dr Wright in Wright 1, paragraphs 230 to 235, and 10 the one that’s on the screen −− I think it’s sideways
11 the bundle reference is {E/1/38}. 11 on, is it possible to make it landscape rather than
12 Now, it was on or around this date that Dr Wright 12 portrait ? That’s very helpful . Thank you very much.
13 destroyed the hard drive which contained Satoshi’s 13 So, again, the writing is small. We think this is
14 private keys. He does not recall the precise date, 14 a note made by the nurse who was attending him. I think
15 putting it as ”early May”, but he does say it was at his 15 that appears from the face of the document. It doesn’t
16 home and was the result of an emotional response to 16 spring to light , but it will do. So you can see that
17 Mr MacGregor. It is likely to have been around the time 17 the patient ’s name is shown in the top left−hand block.
18 of the arguments on 3 and 4 May. Dr Wright felt 18 And then on the right−hand side you can see, on
19 betrayed by Mr MacGregor’s behaviour and he was very 19 the right−hand sort of human image, a ”1cm stab wound”
20 distressed . He acted on impulse and without proper 20 on each side of the neck. Your Lordship sees that?
21 consideration of the consequences of his action and he 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
22 describes this episode in his witness statement 22 LORD GRABINER: ”Assessed (on monitor on floor and ...”
23 number 4, in paragraphs 33 to 36, and the bundle 23 I can’t read that:
24 reference is {E/4/16}. 24 ”Pulled into bedroom for space (held head up ...”
25 Now, COPA suggests, I would respectfully suggest, 25 Well, I think you get the thrust of what’s

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 happening. 1 the information −− guarded, thanks very much, in

2 Then in the left −hand block: 2 the information they would give ... ”
3 ”Suicide attempt. Found by wife. Stabbed himself 3 Telling the consultant doctor ... there’s a doctor
4 both sides of neck while in shower @ home on top floor.” 4 consultant there, Dason, it looks like :
5 So he said he’d gone upstairs, your Lordship will 5 ” ... that he was regretful [and] his suicide attempt
6 remember: 6 had failed ; he had written a suicide note but apparently
7 ”No obvious signs of blood loss @ seen ... ” 7 [the] Police took it .”
8 I suppose wrongly spelt, but ”on the spot”: 8 And we’ve certainly not found any copy of that:
9 ” ... but shower running ...” 9 ”In essence it appears that Mr Wright, wife and
10 So the implication being that the shower had watered 10 three children ... moved to [the] UK from Australia in
11 away the blood, that was the point. 11 December 2015. Mr Wright advised he was due to sign
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 12 a deal today worth in excess of 4 million pounds but he
13 LORD GRABINER: And there was no evidence of, I think, drugs 13 knew that the deal would lead to him receiving
14 or alcohol . 14 press/media coverage that he did not want; he leads
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I think the reference to ”@ seen”, what 15 a team of 30 people & struggled with walking away from
16 they mean is when seen at the hospital. 16 deal due to impact on others & impulsively decided way
17 LORD GRABINER: I’m sorry, my Lord? 17 out was to end his life . He ... now realises that he
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I think it means when seen at 18 should have [not] walked away −− but he has not slept
19 the hospital . 19 ... has felt enormous stress.”
20 LORD GRABINER: What, that ”@” sign means when, does it? 20 I don’t think the next page adds anything
21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well −− 21 {L13/360/5}, there’s a little bit there, a very short
22 LORD GRABINER: Okay when seen, anyway. 22 piece:
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− it’s just an interpretation. 23 ” ... however he felt confident that he will secure
24 LORD GRABINER: That would explain the correct spelling 24 other employment. He declined to go into detail about
25 of ”seen” as opposed to the other scene, yes. 25 his work but suggested that if we google him we would

109 111

1 Then you can see that whoever has recorded this 1 secure info . Details on line relate to his involvement
2 document has round quotation marks that says: 2 ... etc ... [with] ’ bitcoin ’ .”
3 ”’ I do not want to be Satoshi’.” 3 And I don’t think there’s anything else in
4 Then also, just to the left of there: 4 the document that I need to refer to.
5 ”Suicide note left [nearby] ... ” 5 So, what we have seen is a contemporaneous record of
6 I don’t think −− 6 what he told the specialist nurse, and what he’s
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: ”Damp from shower”, I think. 7 recorded as having said, in my submission, is consistent
8 LORD GRABINER: Yes. I think there is a suggestion −− if 8 with his evidence in Wright 1, and in that context what
9 you then go forward a couple of pages, there’s 9 he has said in these proceedings about destroying
10 a manuscript sort of one and a half page note, which, 10 the hard drive , which on its face seems incredible , is ,
11 again, I think has been made by the liaison {L13/360/6}. 11 I would suggest, believable and consistent with
12 Yes, it ’s that page, that’s where it starts . The other 12 the evidence concerning his state of mind as at
13 page is a follow on from this page. The liaison 13 May 2016.
14 psychiatry service : 14 My Lord, the only other point I want to address in
15 ”Attended with colleague given ... ” 15 opening is the relief claimed, and I can do it very
16 Doesn’t matter: 16 briefly .
17 ” ... Specialist Nurse. 17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
18 ”Met with Mr Wright and his wife Ramona (full 18 LORD GRABINER: Finally, I should say something about that
19 details ... 19 issue . If your Lordship were to conclude, of course,
20 ”[Dr] Wright advised ... he is relieved attempt did 20 that Dr Wright is who he says he is, there would be no
21 not work ... ’Feel freer , not awaiting consequences 21 need for any relief . If , on the other hand, you
22 I have walked away from billion dollar deal’ ... it was 22 conclude he isn’t Satoshi, then we would say that
23 a ’spur of the moment thing’.” 23 there’s no need for any declaratory relief because
24 In quotes: 24 the judgment would speak for itself.
25 ”Mr Wright and his wife were [something] in 25 Also, an injunction should not be granted. It would

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 be an obvious infringement of Dr Wright’s human rights 1 determination as to whether or not Dr Wright should now
2 and a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on 2 be permitted to rely on those additional documents.
3 Human Rights, which is a core right in the Convention. 3 So, if your Lordship rejects our application in
4 Furthermore, we simply don’t understand the claim 4 respect of those documents, the relevant paragraphs or
5 for a so−called dissemination order, which is prayed 5 passages in the paragraphs will fall away. If
6 for . COPA would be free to disseminate and publish 6 your Lordship gives leave in respect of those documents,
7 the judgment throughout the world, and I’m sure 7 the paragraphs or the objected to sentences will remain.
8 your Lordship is aware that membership of COPA includes 8 Now, I will apply to your Lordship for permission
9 Meta, that is Mr Zuckerberg. Meta is the largest social 9 for Dr Wright to rely on those additional documents.
10 media company in the world as the owner of Facebook, 10 That is the documents referred to in Wright 11 {CSW/1/1}
11 Instagram and WhatsApp, and so our respectful submission 11 and Wright 12 {CSW/7/1}. There are six categories of
12 is that there would be absolutely no utility in any of 12 documents, and I’ll come back to them a moment.
13 this relief . They would be able to waive 13 The other point of disagreement is that
14 your Lordship’s judgment about to their heart’s content 14 your Lordship should read −− forgive me, agreement, is
15 across the world, and so we do respectfully suggest 15 that your Lordship should read Wright 11 de bene esse
16 there’s no need for any relief to be granted. 16 and adopt your Lordship’s own view on questions of
17 My Lord, that’s all that I was proposing to say in 17 relevance and admissibility . Your Lordship may take
18 opening. 18 the view that parts of Wright 11 are relevant, or as
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good, thank you very much. Very 19 the case may be irrelevant, and that would be a matter
20 helpful . 20 for your Lordship when you come to give judgment and
21 So we come to the applications that we’ve got to 21 we’re entirely relaxed about that.
22 resolve today. 22 There are two other issues, both of which concern
23 MR HOUGH: I think it’s been agreed that Dr Wright’s team 23 Dr Wright’s response to specific forgery allegations .
24 will go first in relation to those. 24 The other sides say that Dr Wright is seeking to give
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 25 expert evidence without permission. We don’t agree with

113 115

1 Application by LORD GRABINER 1 that, but it ’s important that your Lordship should
2 LORD GRABINER: So your Lordship will have seen, I hope, 2 understand the context as well as the content of
3 the −− a very unfair intrusion on the weekend, but 3 the evidence that we’re concerned with. The two issues
4 your Lordship will have seen the exchange of skeleton 4 are, first of all , what we call ”the Abacus emails”
5 arguments on this issue. 5 which relate to the incorporation and acquisition of
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 6 Dr Wright’s Seychelles companies. One is called WIIL,
7 LORD GRABINER: You will, as a result, I’m sure, be familiar 7 that’s Wright International, and the other is called
8 with the issues , and, again, I hope I can deal with them 8 TTL, which is the Tulip company, and so that’s the first
9 quite succinctly . 9 issue .
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 10 The second issue is concerns the MYOB accounting
11 LORD GRABINER: Now, the claimants make various objections 11 software, which is relevant , I think, only to
12 to passages in Dr Wright’s 11th witness statement 12 Wright International.
13 {CSW/1/1}. They say it contains irrelevant and 13 Now, I’ ll deal, first of all , if I may, with
14 repetitive material as well as some inappropriate 14 the Abacus emails point. It ’s a bit convoluted but
15 allegations against COPA. They say it also contains an 15 I think your Lordship probably, you know, is already
16 attempt to introduce expert evidence without permission, 16 grasping the convolution, but I ’ ll go through it just so
17 and that Dr Wright seeks to rely on documents for which 17 that we’re all understanding what we’re talking about.
18 permission has not as yet been granted. 18 In its 31 October 2023 pleading, the other side
19 There has been some good conversation between 19 alleged that Dr Wright acquired those two companies,
20 the parties , it has been agreed on our side that we will 20 which were then aged shelf companies only in 2014, and
21 not repeat in our submissions the allegations that COPA 21 that documents which he had previously disclosed
22 finds objectionable. It has also been agreed that those 22 suggesting that they had in fact been acquired by him
23 paragraphs in Wright 11 where Dr Wright seeks to rely on 23 years before were forgeries . And this is all dealt with
24 documents for which currently he has no permission 24 in the forgery schedule, just for the record, at
25 should stand or fall in light of your Lordship’s 25 pages 74, 76, 79 and 96. Dr Wright’s reply evidence is

114 116

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 Wright 11, which was and is his first opportunity to 1 ”The technical explanations and methodology detailed
2 respond to that allegation . And that’s an important 2 within those paragraphs offers a plausible theory to
3 point because there never was any order for an amended 3 provide an indication on whether a mail server at that
4 defence, so that, as I think your Lordship knows, 4 time was hosted with Google or otherwise.”
5 probably has well in mind, effectively this was 5 Now, we would, of course, have no objection to COPA,
6 Dr Wright’s response to those allegations . In 6 if they are so advised, adducing expert testimony in
7 Wright 11, Dr Wright says that emails which purport to 7 response to the latest Stroz report. But the key point,
8 date the acquisition of those two companies to 2014 were 8 we suggest, is that Dr Wright should be permitted to
9 manipulated to undermine Dr Wright’s case in the Kleiman 9 respond to COPA’s case that the 2014 emails are genuine,
10 proceedings. In those proceedings, Mr Ira Kleiman was 10 and this is effectively his opportunity to do that, and
11 alleging a partnership between his late brother, 11 that’s why we respectfully suggest that it ’s an
12 Mr David Kleiman, and Dr Wright, and an entitlement to 12 important point.
13 a share of Dr Wright’s Bitcoin assets. So that’s what 13 Now, that really is the Abacus point, and we’ll come
14 that case was about. 14 back to the individual items on documents later on −−
15 Mr Kleiman’s case against Dr Wright required him to 15 not too long.
16 deny that there had been any assignment to the company 16 Could I turn now to say something about the MYOB
17 of Dr Wright’s Bitcoin assets prior to 2014, because his 17 software point. MYOB is a popular Australian accounting
18 argument is that that was always Dr Wright’s asset and 18 system. In a nutshell , COPA says that MYOB database
19 that’s why he was entitled to share it , but if in fact 19 records, which appear to show transactions relating to
20 it had been assigned or transferred to some corporate 20 Wright International from 2009, must be forgeries
21 entity in some years prior to then, that would have 21 because they contain metadata from 2020 and 2023.
22 obviously had an impact on his ability to get the money, 22 Again, none of that was originally alleged , and because
23 I suppose subject to some tracing argument. I don’t 23 there never was an amended defence, Dr Wright has not
24 know. 24 been able to address that allegation in his −− until his
25 Dr Wright says he did not turn his mind to 25 reply evidence.

117 119

1 the authenticity of the 2014 emails until they were 1 In paragraphs 301 to 312 of Wright 11 {CSW/1/56−58},
2 relied on by COPA to make the forgery allegation not in 2 Dr Wright explains how his MYOB accounting software
3 respect of those 2014 emails, but in respect of other 3 works. He tells us that MYOB software updates
4 documents he had disclosed and which dated his 4 automatically and this results in metadata being added
5 acquisition of those two companies respectively to 2009 5 to files which postdate the creation date of the file .
6 and 2011. In the face of the COPA forgery allegations 6 So you’ve got an early creation date and then there’s an
7 in respect of the 2009 and 2011 documents, Dr Wright 7 automatic update which finds its way into the metadata.
8 examined the 2014 emails and his conclusion is that they 8 This is Dr Wright’s factual account of his use of
9 had been manipulated. He explains this in Wright 11 9 the MYOB software.
10 which, as I say, was his first opportunity to do so. 10 Now, in our submission, it is not accurate to
11 Your Lordship will bear in mind that there never was any 11 characterise this as expert evidence. To the extent
12 order for Dr Wright to plead an amended defence, and we 12 that Dr Wright’s explanation requires any special
13 accept that that would have been the obvious place to 13 expertise , it is really the expertise of a MYOB user,
14 deal with it , but as I have explained a few moments ago 14 which he certainly is .
15 and as your Lordship knows, that didn’t happen. 15 Could I also pray in aid the fact that when, at
16 Now, Dr Wright’s evidence on the Abacus emails gains 16 the PTR, we objected to the admissibility of the
17 some support, we suggest, from a report by 17 evidence of Messrs Hinnant, Loretan and MacFarlane,
18 Stroz Friedberg dated 2 February. Now, we’ve provided 18 your Lordship will recall this , on the basis that each
19 the other side with a copy. Stroz reviewed 19 was a statement of expert evidence for which no
20 paragraphs 41 to 53 of Wright 11 {CSW/1/7−11} and their 20 permission had been given, your Lordship took the view
21 conclusion was −− and I can quote from it, but I suspect 21 that those witness statements should be admitted for
22 your Lordship is looking for that now −− 22 pragmatic reasons, given the context of this case.
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, carry on. 23 That’s in your Lordship’s PTR judgment at paragraphs 80
24 LORD GRABINER: Maybe not. Anyway, their conclusion was 24 to 82, and again, we don’t need to look at that, but
25 that −− and I quote: 25 it ’s in the bundle, reference {B/28/24}.

118 120

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 Now, that brings me to our application to vary 1 Dr Wright’s previously disclosed documents, dating
2 the certificate for compliance with PD57AC. 2 the acquisition to before 2011, are forgeries .
3 The application notice −− I’m not going to turn it up, 3 Dr Wright wants to rely on the four invoices to
4 but for the record −− is at {CSW/4/1} and it’s a short 4 rebut the allegation of forgery . He says they are
5 point. Wright 11 is drafted in Dr Wright’s own words, 5 authentic. He has commissioned a report from
6 as is required under the rules . However, Dr Wright’s 6 Stroz Friedberg, of 29 January, which concludes that
7 solicitors do not feel able to certify that this witness 7 the invoices have digital signatures dating from 2009 to
8 statement complies strictly with the practice direction . 8 2011 without indicating any manipulation. A copy of
9 In those circumstances, Dr Wright’s solicitors ask 9 that report is exhibited to Wright 13, and, again, I ’m
10 your Lordship to vary the certificate to confirm, and 10 not going to it , but the bundle reference is {F/170/3}.
11 the language that we want to be able to use is as 11 The documents are important and COPA should be able to
12 follows , that: 12 deal with them at trial . Indeed, in his 20th witness
13 ”The solicitors have sought to the best of their 13 statement, Mr Sherrell has dealt with them very
14 ability to ensure compliance with the practice 14 comprehensively, and all the points made by Mr Sherrell
15 direction .” 15 can be put to Dr Wright in cross−examination. We would
16 That was the intention when the application notice 16 not object, of course, to COPA adducing their own expert
17 and the draft order were prepared, but I ’m afraid 17 evidence on the point if they wish to do so.
18 I think that the language deployed does not achieve 18 For some reason, I have got a reference to have
19 the desired purpose. The language starts, for some 19 a look at Mr Sherrell’s 20th witness statement at
20 reason, with the words ”to the best of my ability”, 20 paragraph 40. If your Lordship will bear with me for
21 which rather throws out the meaning and you don’t really 21 a second. (Pause).
22 follow it . But the language that I have put forward 22 My Lord, I haven’t got a bundle reference as I ’m on
23 just a few moments ago is the language that we would 23 my feet, but it ’s paragraph 40.
24 rely upon. So that’s what I want to say about that. 24 MR HOUGH: It’s {P1/20/20}.
25 Could I now turn, finally , to the six categories of 25 LORD GRABINER: I’m grateful.

121 123

1 documents, which are referred to in Wright 11 and 12 in 1 If you look, it ’s about six lines down. There’s
2 respect of which Dr Wright needs your Lordship’s 2 a sentence that starts four lines down:
3 permission. The application notice is at {AB−D/1/1}, 3 ”I am aware that this is an extraordinary conclusion
4 and it ’s supported by Dr Wright’s 13th witness 4 ... stress that it is advanced not on the basis of my
5 statement, which is {E/32/1}. All these documents were 5 own technical expertise , but as a matter of logical
6 disclosed when Dr Wright served his 11th and 12th 6 deduction based on the matters set out above. COPA
7 witness statements. The documents referred to in 7 would of course wish to ensure that they are explored in
8 Wright 11 were disclosed on 12 January, and the two 8 detail by Mr Madden, should this new evidence be
9 documents referred to in Wright 12 were disclosed on 9 admitted.”
10 17 January, so the other side have had a good period of 10 Well, we respectfully agree. There’s no reason at
11 time to look at this material. 11 all why that couldn’t be dealt with by −− in
12 Now, first of all , the Abacus invoices. That’s 12 cross−examination, and also it’s pretty obvious from
13 the first category. It consists of four invoices 13 the detail in Mr Sherrell’s 20th witness statement that
14 relating to the incorporation of the two companies, TTL 14 they’re well ahead of the game, as you would expect, and
15 and WIIL. The invoices are from Abacus, a Seychelles 15 so they would be in a position to deal with it in
16 corporate services provider . The invoices date 16 the trial without any delay. And as I say, if they wish
17 the acquisition of the two companies to 2011. They’re 17 to adduce any further expert evidence, we couldn’t and
18 described in a table in Dr Wright’s 11th witness 18 wouldn’t object.
19 statement, paragraph 292, {CSW/1/53}. At paragraphs 269 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
20 to 288 {CSW/1/50−53}, Dr Wright tells us how these 20 LORD GRABINER: Now, the other sides say that the invoices
21 invoices came to be sent to him by a Mr Mayaka, formally 21 should have been disclosed earlier . Well, perhaps they
22 employed by Abacus, on 10 September 2023. The invoices 22 should have been. But the reality is that their
23 are relevant because COPA’s forgery schedule, served on 23 evidence −− or their relevance was not appreciated until
24 31 October 2023, alleges that Dr Wright acquired those 24 the preparation of Wright 11 and Dr Wright’s response to
25 two companies as aged shelf companies in 2014 and that 25 the forgery allegations relating to the acquisition of

122 124

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 those two companies. This was a period when the legal 1 2013. Dr Wright relies on these documents as evidencing
2 team was heavily engaged in preparing for the PTR and 2 his work in 2016. He says this explains why he was
3 Dr Wright’s application, and thereafter with meeting 3 reluctant to discuss Bitcoin technology with Mr Hearn at
4 deadlines for evidence in an extremely compressed 4 a dinner on 9 July 2016. Dr Wright says Mr Matthews
5 schedule. Given the issues in this case, the view was 5 advised him not to discuss matters with Mr Hearn because
6 taken that it wouldn’t be sensible to disclose documents 6 Mr Hearn worked for a competitor and the conversations
7 without understanding exactly what they were. This took 7 might jeopardise some patent filings being pursued by
8 time, as I ’m sure your Lordship will appreciate, and 8 nChain. Dr Wright’s explanation for the late disclosure
9 they were not −− they were certainly not deliberately 9 of these documents is that their relevance was not
10 withheld. 10 appreciated prior to Dr Wright preparing his response to
11 The next item is the Timecoin document. That’s 11 Mr Hearn’s evidence.
12 the second category. It comprises a single document 12 The fifth category consists of documents which
13 called ”TimeDoc2.pdf”. Dr Wright says that this was 13 Dr Wright says evidence his use of virtual machines,
14 sent to him by Mr Mayaka on 10 September ’23. Dr Wright 14 both for his work at BDO and when he captured
15 wishes to rely on it as a version of the Timecoin 15 the computer disk image known as ”the BDO Drive”.
16 White Paper. This is significant because COPA alleges 16 Dr Wright wishes to rely on these documents to support
17 that a previously disclosed version of the Timecoin 17 his case that the metadata anomalies identified by
18 White Paper is a forgery based on metadata anomalies, 18 the experts in his disclosed documents were likely
19 and that’s in pages 16 to 17 of COPA’s forgery schedule. 19 caused by his computer environment, the way he worked,
20 Dr Wright says that he originally sent this version 20 including his use of virtual machines.
21 of the Timecoin White Paper to Mr Mayaka in or around 21 And the sixth and final category is emails from 2013
22 August 2009, when, he says, Wright International was 22 between Dr Wright and a Mr Hardy, an assistant
23 incorporated. He says this was to demonstrate 23 commissioner of the Australian Tax Office. The email
24 the nature of the business that Wright International 24 shows Dr Wright offering to demonstrate to Mr Hardy his
25 would conduct and he says this version is unlikely to 25 possession of Satoshi’s private keys. Dr Wright relies

125 127

1 suffer from the metadata anomalies because it was −− or 1 on the emails in support of his claim to be Satoshi.
2 it is a password protected file . Again, this is an 2 Now, can I just make two points in conclusion.
3 important document. It is Dr Wright’s answer to 3 First of all , I would emphasise our answer to
4 a forgery allegation . COPA, we respectfully suggest, 4 Mr Sherrell’s complaint about lateness, Dr Wright’s
5 can deal with it and Dr Wright should be able to respond 5 witness statement is his reply to lately made, very
6 to meet the allegation made against him. 6 serious allegations .
7 The third category is in relation to the LLM 7 Then finally this . If Mr Sherrell is right in all
8 documents and it relates to his LLM in international 8 the points he makes in his witness statement 20, he
9 commercial law. It includes his LLM proposal. These 9 should actually be welcoming the further material which,
10 documents were recently discovered during 10 as he repeatedly tells us, prove his client ’s case.
11 the preparation of Wright 11. They were found in a box 11 Also, as I say, we don’t object to him producing more
12 of papers sent by Ontier to Shoosmiths on 12 expert evidence or taking more time in
13 4 December 2023. I mentioned that a little earlier . 13 cross−examination. They could, I suppose, take less
14 Your Lordship may recall that the LLM proposal is 14 time with other witnesses if necessary, but we’re
15 significant , because it contains language similar to 15 confident that these matters could be dealt with within
16 that used in the Bitcoin White Paper. COPA alleges that 16 the allotted time without extending the trial period.
17 the previously disclosed versions of this document are 17 So I do respectfully suggest that if there is force in
18 forgeries . They say that in pages 11 to 13 of their 18 what Mr Sherrell says, he should welcome this material
19 October forgery schedule, and item 2 in the December 19 and he shouldn’t be trying to keep it out.
20 forgery schedule. The hard copy of the LLM proposal is 20 My Lord, those are my submissions.
21 relied on by Dr Wright, both to rebut the forgery and in 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
22 furtherance of his positive case that he is Satoshi. 22 Just before we have a short break, a couple of
23 The fourth category consists of two documents that 23 references in your skeleton that I −−
24 concern a software system called Intelligent Daemon or 24 MR HOUGH: Did we get them wrong over the weekend?
25 iDaemon, which Dr Wright says he worked on from around 25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− put a question mark next to.

126 128

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 The first one is Glaxo, paragraphs 5 to 15. That 1 My learned friend makes a lot of the fact that
2 doesn’t really make sense in the context of the cited 2 the Wright 11 responds to COPA’s forgery allegations,
3 judgment, so can you check that? 3 and it ’s been repeatedly said that this was Dr Wright’s
4 The other one is La Micro. I couldn’t find that 4 first opportunity to raise some of these points and
5 online , so ... 5 we’ ll address that in detail by reference to
6 It may not be critical , but I just thought I’d ask 6 the individual documents.
7 if someone can do a little bit of digging. 7 But let me make two general points, first of all .
8 MR HOUGH: It didn’t come from ChatGPT. 8 There was no order for an amended defence, because
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Well, hopefully the Opus system 9 Dr Wright didn’t want to have to plead an amended
10 is working and we won’t need more than five minutes, so 10 defence addressing all of COPA’s forgery allegations.
11 I ’ ll say five minutes. 11 And, secondly, of course, Dr Wright could have addressed
12 Thank you. 12 anything he wanted to in Wright 9, which was the first
13 (3.20 pm) 13 instalment of his reply evidence that was provided at
14 (A short break) 14 the end of December. But as I say, there will also be
15 (3.29 pm) 15 reason to address individual documents as to why they
16 MR HOUGH: My Lord, can I provide the references. The Micro 16 could and should have been addressed earlier and aspects
17 Group is in the bundles at {PTR−G/1/382}. 17 of his evidence which could have been brought out
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 18 earlier .
19 MR HOUGH: The Glaxo case, I’m afraid there was a typo, it 19 Let me then turn to the two parts of Wright 11 which
20 should be RPC 26, not 25. It’s Lord Justice Arnold at 20 are the subject of admissibility disputes for now.
21 first instance and the neutral citation is EWHC [2019] 21 The first is the section at paragraphs 42 to 53
22 1528, that’s Ch. 22 concerning the authenticity of the Abacus emails.
23 Just for the fact that our citation of Glaxo v 23 That’s page 5 of our skeleton {R/21/5}, and the relevant
24 Sandoz is articulating a proposition that’s common 24 section of the statement is {CSW/1/8}. Our submissions
25 ground, it was cited for the same proposition in 25 are as follows .

129 131

1 Lord Grabiner’s skeleton for the PTR at {R/2/21}, 1 First of all , this part of Wright 11 plainly
2 footnotes 42 and 43, so I don’t think we’re citing it −− 2 provides expert evidence. Dr Wright is not merely
3 we can be said to be citing it for an illegitimate 3 delivering his evidence of primary fact, what he did and
4 purpose. 4 observed, while passing opinions in the course of doing
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, that’s fine. 5 so. That, we accept, is permissible . This part of
6 Submissions by MR HOUGH 6 the statement is a forensic documents examination report
7 MR HOUGH: My Lord, I’m going to take matters in the same 7 in miniature. Dr Wright is claiming to examine
8 order as Lord Grabiner. 8 a document and give an opinion on its authenticity based
9 Wright 11, we submit, is a most unsatisfactory 9 on researches and his interpretation of research
10 statement, but the parties have achieved quite a lot in 10 findings . And there are two aspects to this . First of
11 coming to the court with a pragmatic way of dealing 11 all , there’s his reading of the DNS history and the mail
12 with it . There’s one aspect of that pragmatic solution 12 exchange records at paragraph 43 to 49. In respect of
13 which is summarised in paragraph 4 of our skeleton that 13 those, he presents an opinion that a gap in
14 I ought to address before I get into the meat of 14 the DNS record history means that Abacus could not have
15 the submissions, which is that it ’s been agreed that 15 been using Gmail in 2014 rather than there being a gap
16 various allegations Dr Wright makes against people, 16 for any other reason. And the second aspect which is
17 which are mostly irrelevant and we would say 17 expert evidence is a DKIM authentication which he
18 prejudicial , are not going to appear in submissions, and 18 carries out, which is a test , it ’s an experiment or test
19 that’s been agreed. 19 of the kind an expert would perform.
20 We did ask for agreement by correspondence recently 20 Now, the fact that these parts of the statement
21 that they should also not appear in copies of 21 provide expert evidence can be seen from the short
22 the witness statement which are posted or put out, and 22 report of Stroz Friedberg, in the executive summary
23 I hope that can be agreed too, and perhaps that can just 23 section , which my Lord has been provided with. I don’t
24 be confirmed in reply . 24 think I have an Opus reference for that, but
25 Let me then turn to the points which are at issue . 25 the executive summary is at page 4. The reason I don’t

130 132

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 have a reference is that it was only provided at the end 1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
2 of last week. There’s no complaint about that. Now, in 2 Can I just ask you a question, because I get
3 relation to the authenticity of the emails, 3 the impression that Mr Madden is able to work pretty
4 Stroz Friedberg make the following point in the first to 4 fast .
5 third bullets of their executive summary. First of all , 5 MR HOUGH: He is.
6 they say that the email headers might provide more 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And the question I have for you is,
7 information, but they don’t have access to them, they 7 could Mr Madden respond to the ”expert evidence” that
8 say that the DNS mail exchange records could be 8 you are objecting to? Could he respond in time?
9 inaccurate or outdated, and they say that in any case, 9 MR HOUGH: The answer is I don’t know. I don’t know how
10 the period covered by 2014 is just missing from 10 much work it would take to perform
11 the history and there may be many reasons for that gap. 11 the DKIM authentication in a way that’s reliable.
12 In relation to the DKIM authentication, in their 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right.
13 last bullet , Stroz Friedberg explain that this is a test 13 MR HOUGH: I don’t know, also, how much research would be
14 which Stroz Friedberg would have to carry out for 14 required to look into the DNS records and why gaps of
15 themselves, with reference to the email header, to 15 this kind might emerge.
16 validate in an independent way. What those passages 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You see, Mr Sherrell’s 20th witness
17 show is that to interpret the records −− point one −− 17 statement, as Lord Grabiner observed, it makes it look
18 and to perform the authentication −− point two −− as 18 like your side are well on top of these allegations .
19 Dr Wright purports to have done involves the work of an 19 MR HOUGH: Well, this one is quite −−
20 expert and the application of expertise , and there is 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I know this one’s different.
21 a reason why that sort of thing is done by an 21 MR HOUGH: This one is.
22 independent expert, not by somebody who entirely lacks 22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You’ve got an open offer to file further
23 independence. 23 expert evidence, and your point is it will be seriously
24 But secondly, and relatedly , the Stroz Friedberg 24 prejudicial if you −− if Mr Madden has to work on that.
25 report demonstrates that this part of Wright 11 wouldn’t 25 MR HOUGH: Sure.

133 135

1 have any probative value. How would the court deal with 1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Now, I remember you telling me there’s
2 this ? How could the court find that this 2014 email −− 2 a revised trial timetable somewhere.
3 and it , presumably, will be argued all other 2014 emails 3 MR HOUGH: There is.
4 from Abacus at this address −− are forgeries on 4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I’m not sure I’ve seen it.
5 the basis of a gap in the DNS records when, on 5 MR HOUGH: Let me hand it up.
6 Stroz Friedberg’s evidence, put before the court, there 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
7 are many potential reasons for the gap and no particular 7 MR HOUGH: This is the version as agreed yesterday, so it’s
8 justification for preferring Dr Wright’s −− his chosen 8 hot off the press .
9 reason? How could the court find that all these emails 9 (Handed).
10 were forgeries based on the DKIM authentication when it 10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. But the question is, when is
11 is the purported result of a test not performed by an 11 Mr Madden going to give evidence in relation to
12 independent expert and Dr Wright’s actual independent 12 Dr Wright’s cross−examination?
13 experts have made clear that they can’t validate it ? It 13 MR HOUGH: I’ve now handed over my one copy.
14 presents the court with an impossible position . It ’s 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, I thought you had.
15 being asked to make findings on the basis of expert 15 MR HOUGH: I’m reliant on my Lord.
16 evidence which should have been given, if at all , by 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Well, the answer to my question,
17 a properly independent expert but which, in this form, 17 he’s due to start on 22 February and to give evidence on
18 can take the court nowhere. 18 23 February. So Dr Wright’s cross−examination will
19 Thirdly, nevertheless , admitting this evidence would 19 finish on the 13th −− is due to finish on the 13th.
20 be unfairly prejudicial to COPA, because we would 20 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, forgive me interrupting. There are
21 obviously have to deal with it by trying to commission 21 also some non−sitting days identified here, on the 18th
22 another expert report and there is simply no time to do 22 and 19th −− sorry, forgive me, the 28/29 February, so
23 so at this stage. Mr Madden will be in court from 23 they could certainly be used, if it were necessary.
24 tomorrow listening to Dr Wright’s evidence. That’s what 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, but Mr Madden is being
25 I ’m sure my Lord would expect. 25 cross−examined before those days.

134 136

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 LORD GRABINER: He could carry on, or we could start later. 1 upon this particular part of the story , because we know
2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: True. We could adjust the timetable, 2 that on his own case he was sufficiently focused, in
3 you’re right . 3 mid−September, to procure the Papa Neema materials. He
4 You see, the other point that’s occurred to me is, 4 was taking significant time to prepare those on this
5 these Abacus invoices, I mean, one way to dispense with 5 specific subject. Obviously we say that they were
6 them is for you to withdraw the allegation of forgery 6 forged, but he says, taking his case, he was focused on
7 which engages them, but I sense you’re not prepared to 7 them at that point.
8 do that. 8 Now, the speed with which Stroz produced their
9 MR HOUGH: We’re not happy with doing that, because 9 report shows that if he had wanted to get a report at
10 the problem is that it does cast some light upon some of 10 that stage, when he was really focused on this aspect of
11 the Tulip documents, which are involved in the key 11 the case, to debunk all the Abacus emails, then he could
12 story . 12 have easily done so and served it four or five months
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Your response doesn’t come as 13 ago rather than proposing significant disruption of
14 a surprise . 14 the trial , proposing our expert producing a report
15 The other point is the MYOB accounting records. 15 during trial and being cross−examined out of order,
16 We’re already looking at the first set of MYOB 16 proposing our expert’s report coming after we’ve had our
17 accounting records, and this is sort of part 2 of 17 chance to cross−examine him, and so on. So that’s what
18 the same story? 18 we say in relation to the authentication −− authenticity
19 MR HOUGH: May I come to the MYOB records, because they’re 19 of Abacus emails point, which is, as I say, Wright 11,
20 next. Also, what we’re looking at at the moment in 20 paragraphs 42 to 53. {CSW/1/8}
21 relation to Abacus is not the Abacus invoices; that 21 The other point about admissibility concerns
22 comes into the document application. We’re, at this 22 the MYOB software, and that’s paragraphs 301 to 312
23 stage, looking at the part of Wright 11 that 23 {CSW/1/56} of Wright 11. Again, we say that this is
24 says: emails from Abacus in 2014, and that email address 24 expert evidence because Dr Wright is seeking to explain
25 can’t be genuine because the email address is bogus. 25 features of the functioning of MYOB software, asserting

137 139

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 1 that the effective downloading of a version to the live
2 MR HOUGH: Now, that’s something which −− if Dr Wright had 2 system causes the format to be updated, including
3 had a report from Stroz saying, ”This gap strongly 3 unspecified schemas. Now, this concerns an attempt to
4 suggests that the email address is bogus, and what’s 4 prop up not the original MYOB documents but
5 more, we have done the DKIM authentication ourselves and 5 the replacement MYOB documents, which were arrived at by
6 we support Dr Wright”, then I can see that there would 6 Dr Wright feeding his expert, Dr Placks, access to MYOB,
7 be real force in saying Mr Madden must work round 7 and that was of course in Dr Placks’ initial report.
8 the clock, and we must disrupt the trial and get a reply 8 Now, Dr Wright provides this evidence as a sort of
9 report at all costs . But the Stroz report that’s been 9 pseudo expert on the functioning of the software, but
10 provided gives no such support. It says that there may 10 the purpose of this evidence is important. The purpose
11 be many reasons for the gap, and it says that the −− 11 is to undermine conclusions about the authenticity of
12 that Stroz can’t validate the DKIM authentication. So 12 the second wave of MYOB documents, conclusions which are
13 that’s what we say in relation to that. It is not 13 agreed between Mr Madden and Dr Placks. This is an
14 justifiable to cause massive disruption over these 14 important point. It ’s the joint report {Q/2/9}. I’m
15 assertions , which are not supported by the Stroz report 15 very grateful to the operator. Last entry on the page:
16 which has been deployed. 16 ”New MYOB accounts and exhibits ... ”
17 And these are documents which Dr Wright could and 17 They’re from Dr Placks’ first report, and the tick
18 should have had his own experts deal with long before 18 is in a column for ”MT”, or manipulated timestamps, and
19 15 January 2024 when Wright 11 was served; they’re 19 in the second paragraph of the third column, it says:
20 documents from his own disclosure. He knew from early 20 ”Both experts agree that the two New MYOB Accounts
21 September 2023 that COPA was taking issue with 21 were created at some point after 10 May 2023 on
22 the documents showing WII and TTL to date from before 22 computing equipment that had the clock setback to
23 2014, because that was plain from the Madden report. 23 various dates between 2007 and 2013 while the database
24 But he also can’t say in this regard that 24 was populated with information.
25 the Madden report was very big so he wasn’t focusing 25 ”Both experts agree that the records generated from

138 140

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 the New MYOB Accounts ...” 1 should have leave to rely on them to ensure a fair
2 Over the page, please {Q/2/10}: 2 trial ?
3 ” ... do not contain accounting records created in 3 MR HOUGH: The reason I made the submission is that it was
4 any period before May 2023.” 4 made with great emphasis in the PTR submissions.
5 So, no doubt about it, Dr Wright is trying to 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Oh, yes, you’re absolutely right,
6 advance expert evidence to dispute that conclusion 6 there’s a difference in emphasis.
7 reached jointly by the experts. And the fact that it ’s 7 MR HOUGH: And what we say is, at that some point, a stop
8 expert evidence is also plain from Dr Wright having said 8 has to be placed upon Dr Wright bringing out rabbits
9 the solution to it is , again, for COPA to serve an 9 from hats and producing documents that require further
10 expert report in response. 10 analysis and give rise to yet further issues for
11 Looking at this, it ’s plain that Dr Wright’s 11 the court to resolve . Let me take the six categories in
12 proceeded in the wrong way. If he’d thought that 12 turn, as my learned friend did.
13 the functioning of MYOB software was important to 13 First of all , the Papa Neema emails, photographs and
14 the conclusions reached about these reports, he should 14 attachments. There are strong indications that
15 have ensured that Dr Placks was suitably instructed and 15 the documents are fakes. I appreciate that
16 let his expert form his independent views accordingly. 16 Lord Grabiner takes the point that Mr Sherrell is all
17 After all , Dr Wright is the one who fed this material to 17 over this stuff , but let me make those points, just so
18 Dr Placks. Again, he had ample time to do that. 18 they’re on board. For the emails, the time zone is
19 Instead, he waits for the experts to produce an agreed 19 wrong for the supposed sender, no provenance or
20 view, and then tries to undermine it by his 20 supportive evidence from Mr Mayaka has been provided,
21 non−independent expert evidence in a fact witness 21 and it ’s at least bizarre that a lawyer providing
22 statement. 22 material professionally should use an unsubstantiated
23 Moving on from that to our third point on this 23 private Gmail account with a different name from his
24 material. It ’s no answer to say that COPA can obtain 24 own.
25 another report, and it actually goes further than what 25 There are even stronger indications that the monitor

141 143

1 we had to say about the first passages, because here 1 screen photographs are fakes. They have tabs showing
2 Dr Placks would have to consider the material as well 2 Dr Wright’s own documents, his chain of custody
3 and the experts would need to have another discussion to 3 document, Spyder.rtf, a document found on the recovered
4 see if Dr Wright’s assertions affect the view that they 4 predecessor of the BDO Drive, and distinctive software
5 have jointly expressed, because I want to rely , 5 like Zotero.
6 naturally , upon the fact that the experts have agreed 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, I mean, I get all those points,
7 this point, so there will be a whole three rounds of 7 because I’ve read Sherrell 20. And, again, the point
8 expert process required to deal with this . 8 made against you is, I shouldn’t decide that sort of
9 Let me then turn to the application to rely on new 9 point summarily on this application, they are points for
10 documents. As I’ve submitted, the material has been 10 decision at trial .
11 disclosed and is being deployed very late , 11 MR HOUGH: I take that point. I’m not asking your Lordship
12 the application made less than a week before trial and 12 to do so. Those points are brought up for these
13 being addressed on day one. In most cases −− and in 13 reasons.
14 fact we would say in all cases −− there’s no good reason 14 First of all , this isn ’ t material which is just
15 for late disclosure and deployment, and it is not, by 15 going to be waved through as reliable, it would require
16 contrast with the PTR, being argued for Dr Wright that 16 a series of satellite issues to be addressed, and again,
17 this material is necessary for a fair trial , and that is 17 additional expert evidence to challenge their
18 an important difference between the debate at the PTR, 18 authenticity . Mr Madden −− Madden 5, or 4.5, would have
19 which was that literally hundreds of critical 19 to deal with all these points as well . If Dr Placks or
20 reliance documents were wanted to be put before 20 Mr Lynch were to have their say, which I can imagine
21 the court. 21 will also be put as a matter of fairness , they would
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I’m not sure that submission’s right, 22 have to be dealing with the points as well while we’re
23 because the point that’s being put against you is he 23 hearing Dr Wright’s evidence, and there would have to be
24 wants to rely on these documents to rebut your 24 expert discussions and conclusions, all being produced
25 allegations of forgery and surely that indicates he 25 at a time when it would be very difficult to put them to

142 144

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 Dr Wright, unless we were to recall him right at the end 1 at DeMorgan to someone else at DeMorgan attaching
2 of trial . I appreciate that’s possible , but it ’s very 2 a 351−page project paper for a supposed transaction
3 undesirable. 3 management system. We can’t see that these documents
4 But also, the suggestion that this material couldn’t 4 have any probative value at all . Dr Wright’s position
5 have been deployed earlier , or Dr Wright couldn’t have 5 is that they support his case that in his dinner with
6 been expected to deploy it earlier , is wrong on 6 Mike Hearn, when Mr Matthews shut him up, that was
7 Dr Wright’s own evidence, which is that he obtained it 7 because he was being drawn into matters that concerned
8 in mid−September 2023, at which time he thought it was 8 his patents and his −− the work he was doing over those
9 really important. Now, that, of course, was before his 9 years . But Mr Hearn’s evidence is that his questions
10 various deployments of the other new documents, and 10 were about the original features of the Bitcoin system.
11 the suggestion that he didn’t appreciate 11 If we put on screen briefly {C/22/6}, paragraph 26, we
12 the authenticity of the Abacus material was particularly 12 see that what he describes is asking about the mode used
13 significant −− or that the timing of incorporation of −− 13 in −− one of the modes used in the signing protocol of
14 or not incorporation, but his acquisition of WII and TTL 14 the original Bitcoin system. Now, if that evidence is
15 would be an issue, the suggestion that he didn’t 15 right , then the iDemon documents are irrelevant. If
16 appreciate that until late in the day is wrong. It ’s 16 it ’s wrong and his questions were really about
17 been an issue throughout the Tulip Trading case, 17 Dr Wright’s new work, then the iDemon documents are
18 the authenticity of these documents was at issue in 18 unnecessary. And it’s certainly not said , for example,
19 Kleiman, they’re a focus of a standalone Madden 19 in Wright 13, that there’s some aspect of that 351−page
20 appendix, PM4, and as I say, Dr Wright himself was doing 20 paper that has a specific resonance for this question.
21 a lot of work on them in mid−September. 21 May we then move on to the VMware documents. These
22 Let me then deal with the LLM documents, which I can 22 are VMware settings files which Dr Wright says were
23 deal with, I think, more quickly, which is that 23 downloaded from his MyDigital Drive, and he’s put them
24 the letter from Northumbria University and its contents 24 forward in support of an explanation he tried to give in
25 are of no significance at all . What they show is that 25 Wright 12, pre−empting his own expert’s findings about

145 147

1 the university sent Dr Wright a copy of his dissertation 1 the BDO Drive, suggesting that his use of virtual
2 and its marking sheet. The dissertation is already 2 machines led to the creation of additional disk images.
3 a public document. I’m going to ask Dr Wright about it. 3 My Lord, the experts have addressed this explanation in
4 It ’s one of the exhibits to Ms Pearson’s witness 4 their joint report at {Q/6/3−4}. If my Lord looks down
5 statement. It says nothing about Bitcoin or 5 at paragraph 9, the experts record they have discussed
6 cryptocurrency concepts. Dr Wright doesn’t need to add 6 the contents of the witness statements of Dr Wright in
7 it through this form. 7 relation to aspects of his technical infrastructure , and
8 As for the LLM dissertation proposal, all this is is 8 they say at (b) that:
9 a scan of a hard copy of a document we already have in 9 ”The BDO Image itself does not include any of
10 disclosure which has been found by both sides’ experts 10 the drivers or hallmark indications of being configured
11 to be manipulated. So what does this add? It’s 11 to boot in VM Ware or Citrix.”
12 suggested, as we understand it, that this copy has 12 (c):
13 a special significance because it ’s a paper copy that 13 ”The VMWare records specified in Dr Wright’s 12th
14 was in a box of documents sent from Ontier to 14 statement indicate connections to ’Image.raw’ and
15 Shoosmiths. Now, with great respect, we simply don’t 15 ’ Prior PC’ both of which exist as deleted items on
16 understand the submission that that gives it any 16 the Samsung drive, and those records do not refer to
17 evidential significance . If we had a statement from 17 BDOPC.raw.
18 a solicitor from Ontier saying, ”This is its provenance 18 ”The VMWare records referred to in Dr Wright’s 12th
19 and this is why it has a special significance ”, I would 19 statement specifically indicate a setting to alter
20 understand the point, but I simply don’t see that it 20 the clock from the real time to a date that is
21 goes anywhere. And that’s not asking the court to make 21 associated with many of the manipulated documents and
22 some decision on a point at issue , it ’s just that 22 activities recorded.”
23 the material, such as it is , is already before 23 Then if we go down to (g):
24 the court. 24 ”The information supplied in the witness statements
25 The iDemon documents: that’s an email from someone 25 of Dr Wright does not change any of our conclusions.”

146 148

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 So what Dr Wright is asking is for the court to 1 be before the court, handled as the parties have
2 admit to let him deploy late a set of documents to 2 sensibly agreed, but without there being a certificate
3 support a technical narrative which on agreed expert 3 of compliance that’s signed. A certificate saying that
4 evidence is irrelevant . 4 the solicitor has done his or her honest best to achieve
5 There’s then the emails from Dr Wright’s time at 5 compliance tells the court and the other parties
6 BDO, which are emails for a different computer so that 6 nothing.
7 he could use virtual machines. As we understand it, 7 Now, I don’t want to cast any slur on Shoosmiths,
8 Dr Wright relies on these to show he has used virtual 8 because as far as we can tell , throughout this, they’ve
9 machines. We don’t dispute that he has used virtual 9 behaved in the conscientious and highly competent way we
10 machines. We can’t stipulate to all the details of his 10 would all expect of them. But the court has no basis to
11 evidence about his computer systems and environment, but 11 investigate or find that they have done their best to
12 based on Wright 13, what he says in Wright 13, these 12 persuade Dr Wright to produce a compliant statement and
13 emails are being put forward surely to make −− solely to 13 the court shouldn’t be getting into those sorts of
14 make the proposition that Dr Wright used VMs, virtual 14 questions. In our submission, granting this application
15 machines, and that proposition itself is not in dispute. 15 would do nothing more than set a bad precedent for
16 If he is seeking to use these emails to make some more 16 rendering the certificate a dead letter .
17 specific point about his IT environment, that’s not 17 We also, in this regard, gratefully adopt
18 something he says in Wright 13. 18 the submissions of the developers, that the cases in
19 Finally , of the documents at issue, an email 19 which some variation of the certificate has been
20 exchanged with the ATO regarding a private ruling 20 permitted −− I think one of them may be a case of
21 request. For this , Dr Wright says, in Wright 13 at 21 my Lord’s −−
22 paragraph 31, that the exchange is relevant because it 22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
23 shows, in 2013, that he was communicating with the ATO 23 MR HOUGH: −− provide no support for this application,
24 and saying that he’d been mining and using Bitcoin for 24 because they’re very different sets of facts .
25 some time. Again, my Lord, that’s not in dispute, and 25 Finally , and quickly, we drew attention in our

149 151

1 if the email is being put forward to establish any 1 skeleton to a matter of concern which arose from Friday
2 further facts , that’s not been explained, and once 2 evening and I do have to mention that.
3 again, there’s simply no reason for the late disclosure . 3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
4 So that’s what we say in relation to the various 4 MR HOUGH: Which is that Dr Wright posted two tweets quoting
5 items of late documentation deployment. 5 from emails between Satoshi and Mr Malmi as part of his
6 May I deal briefly with the certificate of 6 social media claim to assert his claim as Satoshi.
7 compliance and the release application. 7 The emails had been disclosed by COPA and exhibited to
8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 8 Mr Malmi’s statement. Mr Malmi himself says in that
9 MR HOUGH: Now, here, as I say, the parties have reached 9 statement that they’ve never been published before.
10 a sensible compromise about how Wright 11 can be dealt 10 That’s paragraph 12 of his first statement. Dr Wright
11 with in most respects, and I should say, we also 11 himself didn’t disclose the emails, although of course
12 understand and sympathise with the position of 12 he’d have had to if he’d had them in his possession or
13 Dr Wright’s lawyers, as articulated in part C of 13 control . A tweet in reply to Dr Wright asked whether
14 the application . 14 the emails were public and he said, ”They will be soon
15 The release application , as Lord Grabiner very 15 and verified ”.
16 fairly made clear, effectively concedes that Wright 11 16 We took the view, based on those facts, that this
17 doesn’t comply with the practice direction , and we say 17 represented a breach of 31.22, and a serious one, so we
18 it ’s seriously in breach, that we are struggling to find 18 informed Shoosmiths on Saturday and asked for an
19 a rule it hasn’t breached. The reason we resist 19 explanation. With genuinely commendable promptness,
20 the application is that it would make the certificate 20 they replied that day. They said that their client had
21 meaningless. The purpose of the certificate is to have 21 denied any breach, saying that the relevant material had
22 a solicitor , that’s to say an officer of the court, 22 been in the public domain since 2009/10, having been
23 certify that the requirements have been satisfied. Now, 23 published on the Listcultures website in
24 here, the fact is Shoosmiths can’t do that. The right 24 the section ”MoneyLab”. Shoosmiths explained that
25 response in these circumstances is for the statement to 25 the website required a subscription , so they hadn’t been

150 152

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 able to check, but their enquiries were ongoing. 1 opinion evidence from Dr Wright very briefly, just to
2 Meanwhile, Bird & Bird made enquiries and found that 2 add two points.
3 the MoneyLab mailing list was not operating until 2013. 3 The first is that at various points in Dr Wright’s
4 We also obtained a statement from the mailing list 4 submissions it ’s suggested that Dr Wright should be
5 operator, Mr Lovink, confirming that fact and also 5 entitled to adduce expert opinion evidence because
6 saying that the text of the two messages was nowhere on 6 you’ve allowed COPA’s factual witnesses to give
7 the MoneyLab archive. I understand that while we’ve 7 quasi expert evidence. But with the greatest of respect
8 been in court today another letter has come in 8 to Dr Wright, there just is no comparison between
9 suggesting that Dr Wright says that the material may 9 the evidence of COPA’s witnesses and the evidence that
10 have been on another variant of the mailing list , and 10 Dr Wright is seeking to adduce. For example, Mr Hinnant
11 obviously that will be looked into. 11 was the lead designer and author of the Chronotime
12 At this stage, all we would like to do is emphasise 12 utility in the C++ library. He gives evidence about
13 the importance of compliance with that rule, and also, 13 what it is and when it is published. That is factual
14 relatedly , the importance of Dr Wright restraining 14 evidence. It has a technical layer to it , but it ’s
15 himself from social media during the course of his 15 factual .
16 evidence and complying with the rules about not 16 Dr Wright purports to give evidence about a variety
17 discussing the contents of his , or subject matter of his 17 of matters to which my learned friend has taken you,
18 evidence in any forum from the time he starts giving 18 including about the functioning of the MYOB software.
19 evidence until the end. 19 He didn’t author the MYOB software, he doesn’t provide
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 20 any evidence that would make him competent to be an
21 MR HOUGH: My Lord, thank you. 21 expert on it , and he is not independent, so he is
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Mr Gunning. 22 obviously not entitled to provide that evidence.
23 Submissions by MR GUNNING 23 The second point is that there are a combination of
24 MR GUNNING: My Lord, I will be relatively brief on these 24 points in my learned friend’s skeleton at paragraphs 10
25 points, as we were in our skeleton. On that latter 25 and 15 −− my learned friend Lord Grabiner’s skeleton at

153 155

1 point, it was a matter of concern to us that this 1 paragraphs 10 {R/22/5} and 15 {R/22/6}. First, they say
2 material was being tweeted by Dr Wright obviously in 2 that the witness statement was an opportunity to respond
3 breach of the CPR. It was particularly ironic , because 3 to the forgery schedule, and second, that the evidence
4 Dr Wright had insisted that we, the developers, and COPA 4 is technical evidence, but this is a technical case.
5 all sign up to terms on which the confidentiality of 5 But as my learned friend Mr Hough has identified to you,
6 the fake LaTeX files was waived on terms that we 6 he had the opportunity to adduce expert evidence, there
7 ourselves comply with that particular rule , so there’s 7 has been a round of expert reports on 18 January since
8 an irony that, straight afterwards, he was doing that. 8 the forgery schedule was put in, and he took
9 I have to say, my immediate guess was that he would 9 the opportunity to adduce expert evidence in relation to
10 say, ”Oh, that doesn’t apply to me, because of course 10 the MYOB data and there has been an expert agreement on
11 I wrote those emails”, and that is in fact what 11 that. It ’s far too late for this material to be coming
12 Shoosmiths have said to us in that second letter today. 12 in in Dr Wright’s witness statement now.
13 I mean, it’s absurd, actually , what has happened here. 13 Second point on the fresh evidence. I just want to
14 An explanation has been given as to the presence of this 14 add a point on the Abacus invoices and then on the ATO
15 thing on a specific list and that was not true. 15 email. On the Abacus invoices, I was going to make two
16 The brazenness of the behaviour at issue here is such 16 points. The first is that it ’s been a feature of
17 that your Lordship should put down a marker requiring 17 Dr Wright’s case before that Mr Mayaka produces
18 compliance with those rules straight away. We can come 18 documents to him at the eleventh hour. When
19 back to the detail of it in due course, but I thought 19 the mysterious bonded courier failed to arrive with
20 I should mention that. The −− and I should say, my 20 the key slices for Dr Wright, a message purporting to be
21 instructions at the moment are that we have also looked 21 from Mr Mayaka identifying Dr Wright’s Bitcoin
22 at the other list that Shoosmiths have mentioned and 22 addresses, the CSW file list , arrived instead −−
23 it ’s not there either , so it conforms with Mr Malmi 23 your Lordship will have seen that in our skeleton at
24 saying that he hadn’t published them before. 24 paragraph 103(h) {R/13/43} −− and Dr Wright asserted
25 Can I just deal with the application to rely on 25 under oath that that list was genuine, and we’ve given

154 156

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 you the reference to that in our skeleton as well . 1 Well, as it happens, the attached file is an
2 Now, that list turned out to be garbage. It ’s not 2 RSA encrypted message, not a signature, and not using
3 a question of pulling rabbits from hats, it ’s garbage 3 ECC, but leave aside the fact that there’s an error in
4 from bins that we’re talking about here, and 4 the message. It then says:
5 your Lordship will have seen that, because, when 5 ”I did a validation and exchange with the solicitors
6 the CSW filed list came, it emerged that a number of 6 earlier . We do want to do what is needed to ’register’
7 people whose addresses were on that list responded to it 7 our keys. It would be possible to sign addresses if
8 by signing messages saying that Dr Wright was a liar and 8 there is a means to keep this confidential in the ATO.”
9 a fraud, and when that happened, Dr Wright then 9 Now, we know what that’s about, because
10 backtracked about the email, although he had sworn under 10 your Lordship may recall this from Tulip. If we go to
11 oath that it was authentic, or sworn under oath that 11 {L8/283/38}, you’ll see that there was a statutory
12 the information in it was authentic. So that’s 12 declaration signed on 11 October, so just very shortly
13 the first point, that there’s a history with Mr Mayaka 13 before this email to Mr Hardy, from a Stephen D’Emilio,
14 being put forward as an explanation. 14 who was a −− who is, I think, still a solicitor in
15 And the second point is this , that when we got that 15 Sydney, and in it he declared that Dr Wright could
16 material, we raised a number of pertinent questions with 16 control various addresses, and your Lordship will
17 Shoosmiths about it. My Lord, it’s at {M1/2/78}. We 17 recognise ”1Feex” from the Tulip case, because we went
18 raised questions, to start with, about, you know, when 18 to this previously . But it also had on it ”16cou”,
19 were these documents received and why were they withheld 19 which we know isn’t Dr Wright’s, and that’s also been
20 until the last minute. We then asked questions about 20 signed saying that Dr Wright is a liar and a fraud.
21 the fact that one of the documents had a supposedly lost 21 This is not about the Satoshi’s keys at all , so I don’t
22 password. Now, actually, we’ve worked out what that 22 know why my learned friend Lord Grabiner has said that
23 password is, that’s ”Bitcoin 11”. It ’s pathetic. 23 it is about that.
24 If we then go on to the next page, we’ll find that 24 Now, I can understand your Lordship saying, ”Well,
25 we also pointed out that there were non−native copies. 25 that’s all very interesting , but it just shows that

157 159

1 We were provided with those. And then we identified 1 we’re able to deal with this document, so it should go
2 that there were a series of other emails that must exist 2 in”. But it doesn’t show that, it shows two things. It
3 that they hadn’t provided to us and we asked for native 3 shows a misdescription of what these documents are, as
4 originals of those. We haven’t received those. We then 4 a means of getting them before your Lordship, and
5 pointed out that if ”papaneema@gmail.com” was an address 5 the absence of any underlying substantive basis for this
6 associated with Mr Mayaka, then get the necessary 6 stuff coming in at all . And as my learned friend
7 consents from Google for us to have a look at all of 7 Mr Hough says, a line has to be drawn somewhere.
8 that, because Mr Mayaka is supposedly very keen to help 8 The developers are just receiving endless −− what
9 Dr Wright. We haven’t had a response to that. We 9 appears to be endless volumes, from Dr Wright’s side, of
10 pointed out the weird coincidence between the receipt of 10 additional documents and it’s just not fair .
11 those messages and the mock trial, and raised questions 11 Let me turn then, finally , to the question of
12 about whether they had arisen there. Again, silence . 12 the certificate . Your Lordship’s seen our submissions
13 So, my Lord, if ever there was a case in which you 13 about the application.
14 can’t withhold documents and then dump it on the other 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
15 side just before the beginning of a trial , this is 15 MR GUNNING: And there has been some development in
16 a good example of it. 16 the sense that in my learned friend’s submissions
17 The Hardy email, if I can come to that, the ATO one, 17 they’ve accepted that it was deficient −− that
18 which my learned friend Lord Grabiner said was an email 18 the witness statement is deficient in various ways, and
19 in which there had been a discussion about proving that 19 they explain that they couldn’t have rectified those
20 Dr Wright had Satoshi’s keys. It does no such thing. 20 without putting improper pressure on Dr Wright, but
21 It ’s not even about that. It ’s a total dead end, this 21 actually , they don’t wrestle with which parts of
22 point. If we go to the document. It’s at {CSW/19/1}. 22 the statement it is that are affected by non−compliance
23 So, it ’s the top email that’s most relied upon: 23 at all , so you just have an enormous long statement
24 ”Attached is a digital signature. This is completed 24 which, as your Lordship will have seen, is so repetitive
25 under the Bitcoin wallet using ECC.” 25 and so argumentative in many respects that it plainly

158 160

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 doesn’t comply across many of its paragraphs. 1 relation to this case more widely, that non−compliance
2 But there was one point that I wanted to add, and it 2 of this kind is registered , not ignored, and that
3 involves a bit of a digression , but it does explain why 3 solicitors observing such non−compliance shouldn’t be
4 it ’s important that your Lordship should not address 4 required to associate themselves with it in the manner
5 the requirements in PD57AC in the manner that’s been 5 that this application supposes.
6 proposed, the casual manner that’s been proposed. 6 My Lord, that was the point that I was going to add.
7 The digression is this , and it comes from 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you.
8 the perspective of being counsel for the developers, who 8 Lord Grabiner.
9 are individuals who are being pursued in what we regard 9 Reply submissions by LORD GRABINER
10 as a fraudulent claim. I was listening recently to 10 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I’m grateful.
11 someone who had been the defendant to what might be 11 My Lord, could I deal with that certification point
12 called a slap . It was a claim that was wholly without 12 straight away. With great respect to my learned friend
13 merit that was struck out, but when speaking about it, 13 Mr Gunning, he really does rather miss the point
14 the defendant made the point, forcefully , that they 14 completely as to what the function of that certificate
15 couldn’t understand how the lawyers, the solicitors and 15 is and the way it works. The application of
16 barristers in that case, had allowed the claim to 16 the certificate in that language is mandatory under
17 proceed. And the response had of course been that 17 the rules , but there is a power in the court to relieve
18 access to justice requires one to represent people 18 the solicitor from having to make that statement. And
19 without regard to whether you believe what they’re 19 there is a fundamental reason for that, because there is
20 saying is correct . 20 built within the rule an unhappy potential collision .
21 You may say, what’s that got to do with this 21 On the one hand, there is a very strict requirement that
22 application? And it is this . That access to justice , 22 so far as possible the language of the witness statement
23 through solicitors and counsel, comes with guardrails, 23 should be the language of the witness, or the client , as
24 and those guardrails include the fact that solicitors 24 the case may be, and on the other hand, an obligation
25 and counsel have duties to the court, and this 25 upon the lawyers, the solicitor , to make sure that

161 163

1 application touches on those duties. The court does not 1 the statement doesn’t contain prolix , unnecessary,
2 require solicitors to sign a statement of truth 2 tedious, repetitive , blah blah blah, and all the rest of
3 confirming that they believe what their client is 3 it material.
4 saying, because that would infringe upon Dr Wright’s 4 Now, there is a fundamental conflict between those
5 access to justice , but it does now require solicitors to 5 two propositions which arises , quite conveniently,
6 sign a certificate of compliance confirming that 6 happily, in this case. Now, it is obvious that those
7 the evidence that’s presented has been prepared in 7 instructing me cannot sign that certificate and will
8 a proper way, and the signature of that certificate is 8 not. I have given them that advice and they have taken
9 part of the execution of a duty to the court, and it is 9 that position . And if there is some kind of implicit
10 greatly to Shoosmiths’ credit in this case, if I might 10 suggestion in what Mr Gunning has suggested that there’s
11 say so, that they’ve accepted they cannot sign 11 anything other going on here than complete propriety, it
12 the certificate , as required by PD57AC. 12 is resented and it ’s rejected .
13 But the court shouldn’t regard the solution to that 13 MR GUNNING: My Lord, I said the absolute opposite.
14 as being one in which you just allow a fudge, in a kind 14 LORD GRABINER: Well, that’s fine. Okay. Don’t interrupt.
15 of casual way, to get around the non−compliance. Where 15 MR GUNNING: I said the absolute opposite.
16 a solicitor is unable to certify that the statement has 16 LORD GRABINER: Best not to interrupt.
17 been prepared in accordance with the practice direction 17 The position is really this , that those instructing
18 and the statement of best practice, and is unable to 18 me have got this problem, which is why we’re asking for
19 explain precisely why that is the case, then 19 the variation of the certificate in the circumstances
20 the statement should remain uncertified. You cannot, 20 which, actually , must be obvious to every single person
21 and you must not, associate the client ’s failure to 21 in this room. And in those circumstances −− and of
22 comply with the practice direction with the solicitor by 22 course your Lordship will be entitled to draw any
23 fudging the certificate to include meaningless words 23 inference you like from the fact that we are asking for
24 regarding the solicitor ’s abilities . To the contrary, 24 this amendment to be made. But in my submission,
25 it ’s in the interests of administration of justice , in 25 the proper way forward is the language that we have

162 164

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 respectfully suggested as an alternative to the language 1 had these documents since 12 January. Your Lordship may
2 in the court rules , and in those circumstances, I do 2 be confident that not only has Mr Sherrell got his head
3 respectfully invite your Lordship to make that order. 3 round it , as I think my learned friend Mr Hough said,
4 Otherwise there will be no certificate at all , and that 4 ”Mr Sherrell is all over this ”. Absolutely right .
5 is not a very satisfactory way of proceeding. But if 5 I would venture to suggest that Mr Madden is all over
6 these solicitors say, ”Well, we’ve done our very best to 6 this as well . It will take him no time at all to put
7 achieve what we have done”, then that should give 7 pen to paper, if he has not already done so. Of course,
8 the court at least a good degree of comfort. 8 I ’m not privy to what goes on between Mr Madden and his
9 My Lord, could I go back on the matters then that 9 solicitors , but your Lordship, surely , can proceed on
10 were addressed by my learned friend Mr Hough, and I’ll 10 the sensible assumption that they will be able to deal
11 try to do them in the order in which he dealt with them 11 with these matters quite comfortably.
12 and I’ ll try to be speedy, because I’m conscious of 12 The reason I say that many of the points that were
13 the time. 13 made by my learned friend Mr Hough involve shooting
14 First of all , we can’t agree to delete passages from 14 himself in the foot is that he persists in telling us
15 Wright 11 on the basis I think Mr Hough was focused upon 15 how irrelevant this material is and how little it does
16 the suggestion that if these documents get out onto 16 to advance my client’s case. Well, the real test of
17 the internet , then they will contain offending 17 that is : well , let it in . Why shouldn’t it come in, and
18 sentences. My client is not prepared to agree to delete 18 you can cross−examine my client to your heart’s content,
19 the sentences, and I don’t myself think there’s any 19 and if you’re right that this material has no substance,
20 legal basis for anyone to do anything about that in any 20 then you will win on the relevant points. Not
21 event, so I ’m afraid I can’t agree to that on 21 a problem. But you can’t have it both ways. They can’t
22 instructions . 22 say, ”This material is irrelevant and nonsense”, and at
23 Next, I do emphasise the point, which I know 23 the same time say, ”And for that reason it should be
24 your Lordship has well in mind so I won’t bang on 24 excluded”. They should be much more concerned about
25 about it , that this substantially −− it may be it could 25 material which is possibly damaging to their case and

165 167

1 have been done a little bit earlier , but substantially , 1 advances my client’s case, but of course none of that
2 Wright 11 is Dr Wright’s response to allegations made 2 has been suggested. What they’re saying is that they
3 which are of a very serious nature in the forgery 3 will be prejudiced by having to cross−examine him about
4 allegations and so on, and in my respectful submission, 4 material which they say adds nothing to my client’s
5 he should be allowed to make whatever argument he wants 5 case, and if they’re to be taken at face value,
6 to make on the basis of it . 6 the point has absolutely no worth whatsoever.
7 Next, the point is made that Wright 11 contains 7 The other point that objection or complaint is made
8 expert evidence. In my submission, that is really 8 about is the Stroz report. What you were told by my
9 rather an over−technical analysis of what those bits of 9 learned friend Mr Hough was that Stroz doesn’t help.
10 evidence really are about. It ’s pretty obvious, 10 Well, if Stroz doesn’t help, then let it in . If I were
11 the points that he’s seeking to make. I mean, it may be 11 sitting on that side of the court, I ’d say, ”Bring it
12 they do have some technicality associated with them, but 12 on; why not”? But they’re telling us at one and
13 they can hardly be said to be expert evidence in 13 the same time: Stroz tells you nothing, Stroz doesn’t
14 the sense that we understand that expression to mean. 14 help your case, but please, my Lord, exclude
15 The other point is this , that there is absolutely no 15 the material. I mean, this is nonsense. This is pure
16 prejudice to the other side that they would, for 16 nonsense. And also they say −− I mean, one of
17 example, be unable to make the points that they want to 17 the quotes from my learned friend Mr Hough, as
18 make, and in this sense, much of what my learned 18 I struggled to scribble at speed, he says that the Stroz
19 friends , particularly Mr Hough, argued really consisted 19 evidence takes the court nowhere. Well, if that’s
20 of arguments which, if I may respectfully say so, were 20 right , then let it in . There can be no downside
21 shooting himself in the foot. 21 whatsoever.
22 First of all , we’ve got a very long and very 22 My Lord, in my respectful submission, there is no
23 meticulously prepared witness statement from Mr Sherrell 23 prejudice whatever to my learned friends’ clients in
24 that pretty well deals with all the points we are 24 this case if all this material goes in, and at the same
25 concerned with in a deep and careful manner. They’ve 25 time my client won’t be able to complain that he has not

166 168

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 been able to have a fair crack of the whip, and that is 1 these, but hopefully you will be able to deal with
2 the short and simple point in this case. No prejudice 2 everything.
3 to the other side , and we will be in a position to put 3 MR HOUGH: I can say I’ll try to avoid that arising,
4 forward whatever material it is that Dr Wright wishes to 4 naturally .
5 rely upon to advance his case. And at the end of 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
6 the day, if they’re right , they’ ll win, and if they’re 6 MR HOUGH: In answer to a point, a point that was made,
7 wrong, they won’t win. 7 Mr Madden has not started work on this, and it will be
8 My Lord, I don’t think there’s anything else that 8 difficult for him to do so before the end of Dr Wright’s
9 I want to add. 9 evidence.
10 There was just one other point and that is this , 10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, I understand that.
11 that my learned friend Mr Gunning tells us that they’ve 11 MR HOUGH: But he’ll do his best and we’ll find out
12 worked out what the password is. Now, that rather 12 overnight what the realistic proposal that we can make
13 indicates they’ve got nothing else to do. I don’t know 13 is .
14 how quick or difficult it is to do such an exercise, but 14 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I’m still on my feet only in
15 they have worked out what the password is, it’s 15 respect of your Lordship’s second point, because
16 brilliant . But the idea that they haven’t had an 16 the effect of what you’ve said is that we will not be
17 opportunity, since 12 January, to analyse the further 17 able to give any certificate in respect of Wright 11.
18 documents they’ve been provided with is actually not 18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I know.
19 credible , with great respect. 19 LORD GRABINER: Then that’s fine.
20 My Lord, that’s all I wanted to say. 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I’ve got one other point to raise with 21 Well, I ’ ll see you all in the morning at 10.30.
22 you. What about the complaint of the alleged breach of 22 Hopefully this court will be slightly cooler tomorrow.
23 CPR 31.22? 23 Thank you very much.
24 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I’ve got no instructions on that, 24 (4.32 pm)
25 I ’m afraid. I ’m not able even to comment upon it. 25 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Tuesday,

169 171

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 1 6 February 2024)

2 Well, it ’s been a very long and hot day, so I ’m 2
3 going to give you the result of these applications and 3
4 I ’ ll give you a swift ruling in the morning. 4
5 I ’m going to allow −− I’m going to give Dr Wright 5
6 permission to rely on all the additional documents, even 6
7 though some of them appear to have very little 7
8 relevance. I ’m going to refuse his application for 8
9 a revised certificate of compliance, and I’m going to 9
10 refuse COPA’s application to exclude the two passages, 10
11 even though they are undoubtedly expert evidence. 11
12 LORD GRABINER: Sorry, my Lord, I don’t know if you’ve 12
13 finished or ... You’ve summarised. 13
14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, I think that’s my decision. 14
15 LORD GRABINER: That’s the nutshell. 15
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I thought I’d give it to you −− 16
17 LORD GRABINER: That’s helpful. 17
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− so you can plan accordingly. I’m 18
19 going to give COPA permission to adduce a further expert 19
20 report, so please have a think about how long it will 20
21 take, and also when Dr Placks and Mr Madden may be able 21
22 to meet to discuss that further report. 22
23 I mean, if necessary, if you feel unable to deal 23
24 with these points in the first round of Dr Wright’s 24
25 evidence, I will contemplate recalling him to deal with 25

170 172

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

1 INDEX
2
3 Housekeeping .........................................1
4 Opening submissions by MR HOUGH ......................4
5 Opening submissions by MR GUNNING ...................78
6 Opening submissions by LORD GRABINER ................89
7 Application by LORD GRABINER .......................114
8 Submissions by MR HOUGH ............................130
9 Submissions by MR GUNNING ..........................153
10 Reply submissions by LORD GRABINER .................163
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

173

174

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

actions (3) 6:23 18:1 21:17 60:5 102:3 104:11 105:21 117:18 125:3 133:20 137:22 assisting (1) 77:24 115:12 119:14 154:19
A
active (2) 5:13 23:7 108:13 110:11 114:8 amanda (1) 79:22 142:9,12 144:9 associate (2) 162:21 163:4 165:9

a1323 (1) 82:18 actively (3) 4:16 11:11 21:12 119:22 120:24 123:9 126:2 amend (2) 45:22 47:22 150:7,14,15,20 151:14,23 associated (7) 17:13 57:22 backdated (9) 16:2,13 17:10

a1324 (1) 83:5 activities (1) 148:22 139:23 141:9,18 144:7,16 amended (5) 117:3 118:12 154:25 160:13 161:22 62:22 100:15 148:21 158:6 31:17 35:9 72:1 75:19,19

a210 (1) 71:23 activity (2) 15:17 79:9 149:25 150:3 158:12 119:23 131:8,9 162:1 163:5,15 170:8,10 166:12 76:10

a315 (1) 62:18 acts (1) 95:6 against (13) 5:8 44:7 49:25 amendment (1) 164:24 173:7 assume (1) 98:21 backdating (2) 16:16 20:16

abacus (19) 116:4,14 118:16 actual (2) 34:21 134:12 73:20 81:18 85:1 96:8 amidst (1) 106:7 applications (6) 69:16,18,21 assuming (1) 83:2 backer (2) 39:25 42:25

119:13 122:12,15,22 actually (21) 29:22 34:5 114:15 117:15 126:6 among (1) 17:3 81:5 113:21 170:3 assumption (1) 167:10 backers (1) 61:5

131:22 132:14 134:4 42:23 45:3 51:2 70:4 130:16 142:23 144:8 amount (2) 62:12 79:5 applied (1) 105:7 assurance (1) 77:13 backfired (1) 71:9

137:5,21,21,24 139:11,19 77:3,7 80:18,19,23 84:7 aged (2) 116:20 122:25 ample (1) 141:18 apply (6) 1:16 2:23 84:1,2 atkinson (1) 42:7 background (5) 80:10 81:19

145:12 156:14,15 88:17 102:11 128:9 141:25 agencies (1) 61:4 anachronisms (1) 84:21 115:8 154:10 ato (7) 70:20 73:13 93:13,22 94:5

abbreviation (1) 43:16 154:13 157:22 160:21 agent (1) 41:22 anachronistic (2) 73:7 82:11 appointed (1) 96:17 149:20,23 156:14 158:17 backing (1) 5:13

abd11 (1) 122:3 164:20 169:18 agerhanssen (5) 12:1 anachronistically (1) 18:10 appoints (1) 96:7 159:8 backs (2) 31:24 32:11

abilities (1) 162:24 adam (3) 31:24 32:10 39:9 43:6,7,8,22 analogous (1) 96:25 appreciate (6) 49:7 125:8 attached (4) 25:11 97:11 backsatoshi (1) 32:10

ability (3) 117:22 121:14,20 add (8) 47:22 146:6,11 155:2 agerhanssens (1) 12:4 analyse (1) 169:17 143:15 145:2,11,16 158:24 159:1 backtracked (1) 157:10

abject (1) 6:14 156:14 161:2 163:6 169:9 aggressive (1) 106:6 analysis (13) 6:6 14:20,21 appreciated (2) 124:23 attaching (2) 64:8 147:1 bad (1) 151:15

able (21) 18:15,17,17 84:19 added (5) 17:15 18:11 20:24 ago (5) 85:21 93:16 118:14 15:9,12 18:15 21:9,21 127:10 attachments (1) 143:14 badly (1) 63:24

91:4 113:13 119:24 26:10 120:4 121:23 139:13 22:21 76:16 81:1 143:10 approach (3) 91:18 93:2,5 attempt (7) 88:20 104:20 bag (1) 41:23

121:7,11 123:11 126:5 adding (1) 33:8 agree (15) 5:23 9:5,11,24 166:9 approaching (1) 1:10 109:3 110:20 111:5 114:16 baiou (1) 4:6

135:3 153:1 160:1 167:10 addition (4) 10:8 16:22 10:2 22:23 35:8 93:10 anatomised (1) 17:1 appropriate (1) 5:17 140:3 bamboozle (1) 103:10

168:25 169:1,25 170:21 22:15 48:10 115:25 124:10 140:20,25 andor (1) 18:11 approved (1) 67:20 attempted (2) 106:9 107:3 bamboozled (6) 60:9,13 65:6

171:1,17 additional (7) 21:8 115:2,9 165:14,18,21 andresen (16) 59:5,18,23,24 april (5) 38:2,15 50:23 56:4 attempts (2) 6:14 21:24 102:20,24 103:8

abnormalities (1) 76:4 144:17 148:2 160:10 170:6 agreed (24) 9:1,4 21:11 60:4,7,10 64:24 65:1 66:19 65:14 attended (1) 110:15 bang (1) 165:24

above (5) 26:2 27:25 57:10 address (23) 13:8 14:13 15:1 26:24 34:19 49:19 59:15 67:7 99:20 101:22,25 arbitrary (1) 47:6 attending (1) 108:14 bank (18) 42:3 51:10,12,16

75:4 124:6 33:2 43:3 44:10 50:19 61:14 62:8 65:14 72:21 107:15,16 archer (2) 40:16,16 attention (2) 91:11 151:25 52:21 53:3 54:1 94:9

abrasions (1) 107:24 53:24 66:13 74:17 89:16 83:24 113:23 114:20,22 andresens (3) 59:20 66:19 archibald (1) 41:17 attests (1) 36:12 95:6,7,8,10,16

abroad (1) 98:13 103:22 112:14 119:24 130:15,19,23 136:7 140:13 102:14 archive (2) 55:24 153:7 attributed (5) 26:2,13 99:16 96:7,15,16,17,20

absence (1) 160:5 130:14 131:5,15 134:4 141:19 142:6 149:3 151:2 andrew (2) 41:7 100:1 arent (2) 20:20 98:16 101:13 105:20 bankruptcy (1) 5:12

absolute (2) 164:13,15 137:24,25 138:4 158:5 agreement (5) 16:21 35:12 announced (2) 36:11 102:2 argued (3) 134:3 142:16 august (8) 32:2,5 33:7 37:13 barrages (1) 5:11

absolutely (6) 76:25 113:12 161:4 115:14 130:20 156:10 annoying (2) 78:10,11 166:19 69:4 74:18 75:3 125:22 barristers (1) 161:16

143:5 166:15 167:4 168:6 addressed (14) 2:6 14:12 agrees (2) 27:1 76:1 anomalies (5) 15:21 72:19 arguing (1) 86:15 australia (5) 38:20 94:9 based (14) 10:5 11:10 44:7,9

abstract (15) 24:23 24:16 34:15 37:21 56:4 ahead (1) 124:14 125:18 126:1 127:17 argument (10) 3:23 13:2 105:1,9 111:10 55:11 58:24 59:16 77:13

68:9,17,20,25 67:24 68:8 131:11,16 ai (2) 24:5,15 anomalous (2) 26:17,21 33:1,23 80:8 94:17 105:19 australian (4) 68:13 69:25 124:6 125:18 132:8 134:10

69:2,3,8,9,17 70:9,10,13 142:13 144:16 148:3 aid (2) 24:14 120:15 anonymous (3) 52:9 92:2,5 117:18,23 166:5 119:17 127:23 149:12 152:16

75:4 97:21 165:10 aim (1) 3:25 anonymously (2) 52:15 98:24 argumentative (1) 160:25 authentic (11) 7:14,21 20:2 basement (1) 59:12

absurd (1) 154:13 addresses (16) 13:3 15:20 albeit (1) 79:6 anonymousspeech (5) arguments (4) 2:1 106:18 21:12 25:5,12 33:25 53:3 basic (2) 24:23 91:17

accept (2) 118:13 132:5 23:1 50:17,19 52:14 54:13 alcohol (1) 109:14 52:11,13,18,22 55:18 114:5 166:20 123:5 157:11,12 basis (16) 2:11 5:6 8:16

acceptance (1) 34:16 56:22 58:20 59:4 67:4,8 algorithm (2) 36:4,9 anonymousspeechcom (1) arial (2) 25:24 26:8 authenticated (1) 33:10 58:14 76:4 85:11 89:7

accepted (6) 12:2 30:24 53:5 156:22 157:7 159:7,16 alive (1) 99:4 55:3 arise (1) 107:17 authentication (8) 132:17 120:18 124:4 134:5,15

64:13 160:17 162:11 addressing (3) 7:16 102:9 allan (1) 39:6 another (19) 8:8 11:14 13:8 arisen (1) 158:12 133:12,18 134:10 135:11 151:10 160:5 165:15,20

accepts (2) 43:18 49:21 131:10 allegation (7) 117:2 118:2 35:8 37:24 42:7,13,23 46:6 arises (1) 164:5 138:5,12 139:18 166:6

access (12) 1:12,15 54:19 adds (2) 111:20 168:4 119:24 123:4 126:4,6 48:8 51:22 73:5 97:25 arising (1) 171:3 authenticity (10) 54:10 bathroom (2) 68:3 107:22

73:16 81:9 100:15 103:20 adduce (7) 85:14 124:17 137:6 106:4 134:22 141:25 142:3 arnold (1) 129:20 118:1 131:22 132:8 133:3 bbc (2) 67:7 100:6

133:7 140:6 161:18,22 155:5,10 156:6,9 170:19 allegations (14) 114:15,21 153:8,10 arose (1) 152:1 139:18 140:11 144:18 bdo (29) 4:16,21 13:11,14

162:5 adducing (2) 119:6 123:16 115:23 117:6 118:6 124:25 answer (16) 13:1 31:8 around (9) 3:22 38:1 51:22 145:12,18 14:16 15:1,9,14,16,24

accessed (6) 12:3 13:23 adherence (1) 104:6 128:6 130:16 131:2,10 39:12,15 76:9 83:19,24 102:1 106:12,17 125:21 author (5) 50:8 87:8 100:2 16:11,24 17:17 19:4

14:23 15:11 48:24 49:10 adjourned (1) 171:25 135:18 142:25 166:2,4 102:18 103:8,14 126:3 126:25 162:15 155:11,19 21:12,15 23:6 38:22 40:25

accessing (4) 54:14,17,19 adjournment (2) 77:18 alleged (3) 116:19 119:22 128:3 135:9 136:16 141:24 arranged (1) 67:7 authored (3) 8:22 10:7 46:1 41:4 42:10 43:10 81:3

55:20 101:10 169:22 171:6 arrangements (1) 96:14 authoring (1) 46:4 127:14,15 144:4 148:1,9

accident (1) 108:3 adjust (1) 137:2 alleges (3) 122:24 125:16 answered (1) 72:13 arrive (1) 156:19 authorities (1) 81:4 149:6

accompanying (1) 70:3 adjustments (1) 90:1 126:16 answering (1) 12:14 arrived (2) 140:5 156:22 authorship (2) 7:10 44:15 bdopcraw (8) 15:2 17:7

accordance (2) 27:21 162:17 administration (1) 162:25 alleging (1) 117:11 anticipate (2) 90:22 93:16 arrow (1) 88:16 autism (1) 89:21 18:12,23 19:10,16,25

according (1) 107:11 admissibility (4) 115:17 allotted (1) 128:16 anticipation (1) 93:17 arrowed (1) 32:11 automated (1) 21:13 148:17

accordingly (2) 141:16 120:16 131:20 139:21 allow (4) 15:25 97:24 162:14 anybody (1) 93:7 artefact (1) 30:23 automatic (1) 120:7 bear (5) 16:4 76:24 90:12

170:18 admit (2) 88:19 149:2 170:5 anyone (3) 1:23 61:25 artefacts (1) 30:16 automatically (3) 27:12 118:11 123:20

account (40) 7:21 8:25 9:14 admitted (3) 88:12 120:21 allowed (4) 19:9 155:6 165:20 article (2) 51:22 113:2 45:10 120:4 bearing (1) 74:20

10:13 27:19 28:25 30:4 124:9 161:16 166:5 anything (9) 10:4 12:8 53:1 articulated (1) 150:13 autonomous (1) 96:22 bears (1) 24:14

33:19 39:23 40:2 41:2,9 admitting (1) 134:19 allows (2) 47:4,12 111:20 112:3 131:12 articulating (1) 129:24 availability (1) 82:17 became (1) 32:2

42:2,11,21,23 43:2 ado (1) 96:22 already (10) 63:23,24 83:22 164:11 165:20 169:8 asd (1) 89:21 available (10) 20:21 45:22 bedroom (1) 108:24

44:1,4,11 51:4,20 52:19,24 adopt (4) 57:19 87:25 95:15 116:15 137:16 anyway (5) 78:11,16 87:22 aside (1) 159:3 47:22 75:8,15,16,20 83:19 before (37) 1:3 3:24 10:14

53:24 54:15,17,19 55:20 115:16 151:17 146:2,9,23 167:7 109:22 118:24 ask (9) 84:9 91:2 92:11 88:11 95:15 11:6 16:15 28:23 37:16

56:10 59:18,19 65:17 69:6 adopted (3) 3:5 56:8 93:2 also (61) 1:21 2:3 5:5 7:14 anywhere (1) 146:21 101:13 121:9 129:6 130:20 avoid (1) 171:3 75:9 76:11 77:2 81:14 85:7

72:16 79:25 81:6 95:8 advance (5) 56:6 81:17 8:16 11:3 17:21 18:17 22:6 apart (5) 18:22 50:9 63:19 135:2 146:3 avoided (1) 60:16 88:5 96:3 97:6 101:10

120:8 143:23 141:6 167:16 169:5 24:7 25:10 26:1 38:10,18 64:1 74:14 asked (14) 37:25 38:6,14,16 awaiting (1) 110:21 116:23 123:2 128:22

accountant (1) 41:10 advanced (1) 124:4 41:12 47:23 50:3 55:23 apologies (1) 76:13 39:3 40:5 60:11 64:25 aware (9) 13:14 14:8 130:14 134:6 136:25

accounting (6) 116:10 advances (1) 168:1 57:10 64:12 65:14 66:9 apologise (1) 100:9 79:25 134:15 152:13,18 32:2,13,19 41:3 99:2 113:8 138:18,22 141:4 142:12,20

119:17 120:2 137:15,17 adventitious (1) 48:2 69:5 74:5 90:7 93:25 apparent (2) 21:22 69:25 157:20 158:3 124:3 145:9 146:23 151:1 152:9

141:3 advice (1) 164:8 94:6,16 98:12 100:1,6 apparently (5) 71:12 74:11 asking (9) 71:14 90:5,20 away (10) 21:24 53:18 154:24 156:17 158:15

accounts (3) 140:16,20 advised (4) 110:20 111:11 101:1,24 105:13 110:4 107:18,21 111:6 144:11 146:21 147:12 101:18 109:11 110:22 159:13 160:4 171:8

141:1 119:6 127:5 112:25 114:15,22 120:15 appear (17) 2:9,9 4:4,5,7 149:1 164:18,23 111:15,18 115:5 154:18 began (1) 33:7

accurate (1) 120:10 affect (1) 142:4 124:12 128:11 130:21 15:18 19:20 25:24 26:9 aspect (4) 130:12 132:16 163:12 begin (2) 7:19 14:17

achievable (1) 48:23 affected (1) 160:22 131:14 135:13 136:21 28:16 48:13 68:5 82:3 139:10 147:19 ayre (5) 5:14 63:11,25 beginning (3) 76:7 95:12

achieve (3) 121:18 151:4 afraid (5) 90:23 121:17 137:20 138:24 141:8 119:19 130:18,21 170:7 aspects (4) 33:12 131:16 64:5,14 158:15

165:7 129:19 165:21 169:25 144:21 145:4 150:11 appeared (6) 19:6 30:7,16 132:10 148:7 begins (2) 35:4 47:14

achieved (1) 130:10 after (27) 10:9 12:6 14:11,23 151:17 153:4,5,13 154:21 47:19 52:7 73:25 assert (1) 152:6 B behalf (2) 87:5 89:24

acquired (3) 116:19,22 18:3,10 20:25 21:8,18 157:25 159:18,19 168:16 appears (10) 27:7 29:11 asserted (1) 156:24 behaved (1) 151:9

122:24 36:12 41:15 51:7 52:1 54:4 170:21 48:15 52:17,19 59:11 68:3 asserting (1) 139:25 b (10) 8:20 21:15 26:17 behaviour (3) 94:2 106:19

acquisition (7) 116:5 117:8 55:14,17 75:5 76:23 79:8 alter (2) 72:11 148:19 108:15 111:9 160:9 assertion (1) 94:18 27:18 30:25 50:1 73:4,5 154:16

118:5 122:17 123:2 124:25 80:20 82:23 104:25 alteration (1) 66:7 appendices (1) 72:11 assertions (2) 138:15 142:4 76:1 148:8 behind (3) 81:15 98:11

145:14 105:20,22 139:16 140:21 altered (3) 59:8 65:10 73:23 appendix (15) 8:20 22:25 assessed (1) 108:22 b2518 (1) 7:4 101:21

across (5) 56:14 57:12 79:11 141:17 alternative (1) 165:1 25:22 26:17 27:4,18 30:25 asset (1) 117:18 b2824 (1) 120:25 being (38) 8:13 11:9 13:18

113:15 161:1 afternoon (3) 3:20 68:2 alternatively (1) 85:25 50:1 52:4 56:1 73:3,4,5 assets (2) 117:13,17 back (27) 10:25 17:8 17:7 50:24 52:8 64:13 70:1

acted (2) 106:6,20 107:8 although (9) 19:25 34:24 76:1 145:20 assigned (4) 17:17,25,25 24:2,7,18 25:20 32:4 34:4 73:8 74:15 90:19,21 93:2

acting (1) 95:16 afterwards (1) 154:8 61:11 62:12 67:4 75:25 application (34) 2:15,16,20 117:20 39:9 51:5 63:22 67:9 69:4 94:24 95:1 105:10 109:10

action (4) 2:16,24 39:19 again (27) 14:13 25:13 26:6 98:25 152:11 157:10 3:2 4:18 24:5,8 114:1 assignment (2) 95:22 117:16 76:7 78:22 80:2,16 86:16 120:4 127:7 132:15 134:15

106:21 28:24 29:18 34:12 42:3,20 always (3) 28:15 65:18 115:3 121:1,3,16 122:3 assistant (1) 127:22 87:16,19 95:12 103:5,21 136:24 139:15

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

142:11,13,16,23 144:24 63:2 92:7 94:13 95:9,11 c262 (1) 41:14 charts (5) 26:15 28:16,22,23 comes (3) 137:22 161:7,23 concisely (1) 32:16 116:2 120:22 129:2
147:7 148:10 149:13 150:1 97:17 99:19 c53 (1) 100:8 29:1 comfort (1) 165:8 conclude (4) 77:1 88:2 continue (2) 48:7 78:9
151:2 154:2 157:14 blocks (5) 46:13 57:22 67:8 cache (1) 14:10 chatgpt (5) 4:21 21:5 24:5,9 comfortably (1) 167:11 112:19,22 continued (1) 107:9
161:8,9 162:14 99:16 100:15 calculations (1) 22:22 129:8 coming (5) 82:7 130:11 concludes (6) 17:5 19:24 continues (2) 10:24 48:8
belied (1) 50:13 blog (5) 61:8 65:2,12,13 66:3 call (3) 90:17 98:6 116:4 check (5) 13:24 53:19 75:9 139:16 156:11 160:6 26:3 30:22 101:18 123:6 continuing (2) 24:13 33:8
belief (2) 74:2,6 bloggers (1) 5:10 called (13) 10:17 33:21 129:3 153:1 command (1) 87:9 conclusion (12) 9:21,22 contract (3) 34:17 96:8,12
beliefs (1) 105:16 blogpost (9) 60:22,25 61:13 38:11 61:1 95:4 99:13,13 checked (1) 54:3 commendable (1) 152:19 76:17 88:6 100:23,25 contracting (1) 94:11
believable (1) 112:11 62:11 66:6,9 67:11,22 100:9 116:6,7 125:13 checks (2) 51:17 59:2 comment (3) 54:10 65:22 118:8,21,24 124:3 128:2 contracts (1) 97:1
believe (4) 39:21 82:12 105:20 126:24 161:12 chesher (1) 41:10 169:25 141:6 contractual (1) 6:10
161:19 162:3 blood (3) 107:24 109:7,11 calling (1) 67:24 children (1) 111:10 commentators (1) 62:11 conclusions (12) 9:1,4 14:20 contractually (2) 96:5,13
believed (1) 65:1 blow (1) 29:19 calls (1) 93:22 choosing (1) 84:13 commenting (1) 67:22 16:19 20:7 22:1,5 contrary (2) 105:16 162:24
believes (1) 91:25 bmoney (6) 31:22 calvin (1) 5:14 choreographed (1) 60:24 commercial (2) 95:23 126:9 140:11,12 141:14 144:24 contrast (4) 11:18 63:10
beloved (1) 34:16 32:2,13,16,19,23 came (8) 11:18 53:6 68:2,7 chose (2) 84:11,12 commission (1) 134:21 148:25 83:11 142:16
below (6) 25:24 26:3 27:8,25 board (1) 143:18 73:18 85:8 122:21 157:6 chosen (2) 36:21 134:8 commissioned (1) 123:5 conclusive (1) 101:19 contributes (1) 81:3
28:3,5 body (2) 41:23 72:7 cannot (7) 6:1 11:14 71:17 christen (1) 43:6 commissioner (1) 127:23 conditions (5) 1:15,16,22,24 control (7) 50:16 58:6,9
bene (1) 115:15 bogus (2) 137:25 138:4 73:2 162:11,20 164:7 chronological (2) 80:16,23 commit (1) 39:12 48:23 62:21 67:3 152:13 159:16
bernstein (2) 36:11,13 bolstered (1) 57:11 cant (21) 20:20 27:13 33:10 chronotime (1) 155:11 committed (1) 6:21 conduct (4) 4:14 5:5,15 controlled (2) 50:18 54:12
best (10) 91:7 95:17 bonded (1) 156:19 45:24 51:15 68:25 78:6 chunks (3) 10:17 86:11,11 common (4) 28:19 30:1 125:25 controversy (1) 104:2
121:13,20 151:4,11 162:18 book (1) 81:2 88:19 108:23 134:13 cio (1) 42:3 89:22 129:24 conducting (1) 15:9 convenient (2) 14:10 36:24
164:16 165:6 171:11 books (1) 2:8 137:25 138:12,24 147:3 circumstances (6) 86:1 121:9 communicate (1) 98:23 conferred (1) 21:9 conveniently (1) 164:5
betrayed (1) 106:19 boot (2) 18:13 148:11 149:10 150:24 158:14 150:25 164:19,21 165:2 communicating (1) 149:23 confident (6) 77:1,8 88:1 convention (2) 113:2,3
better (2) 71:19 91:4 bore (1) 22:16 165:14,21 167:21,21 citation (3) 32:12 129:21,23 communication (1) 53:14 111:23 128:15 167:2 conversation (1) 114:19
between (24) 15:22 18:6 both (27) 8:21 9:1 13:5 43:1 capitals (1) 68:1 cited (2) 129:2,25 companies (14) 40:19 49:24 confidential (2) 108:9 159:8 conversations (1) 127:6
20:5 23:6 28:14 69:2 77:12 44:11 48:25 73:24 75:13 capsule (1) 14:7 citing (2) 130:2,3 73:19 100:3 116:6,19,20 confidentiality (2) 11:10 conversion (6) 27:16
84:14 87:13 89:22 76:2,5 78:25 89:25 90:8 capture (1) 46:21 citrix (1) 148:11 117:8 118:5 154:5 29:18,22 30:9,16,23
91:16,18 92:15 114:19 92:8 96:23 98:13 99:21 captured (3) 13:16 18:5 claimant (4) 84:24,25 122:14,17,25,25 125:1 configured (1) 148:10 converted (2) 27:12 31:14
117:11 127:22 140:13,23 101:24 109:4 115:22 127:14 85:21,23 company (6) 35:18 43:16 confirm (2) 32:21 121:10 converting (1) 25:20
142:18 152:5 155:8 158:10 126:21 127:14 140:20,25 card (9) 50:21 51:1,11,20 claimants (6) 89:24 90:22 104:25 113:10 116:8 confirmed (3) 17:21 74:3 convinced (1) 100:25
164:4 167:8 146:10 148:15 167:21 52:8,10,11,19,21 93:3 98:14,16 114:11 117:16 130:24 convoluted (3) 64:21 72:17
beyond (1) 67:5 bottom (18) 10:20 23:2,18 care (1) 80:14 claimed (14) 5:3 13:15,21 compare (1) 23:8 confirming (4) 72:15 153:5 116:14
big (4) 60:24 61:7 68:7 28:8 29:23 30:10 43:20 careful (2) 80:12 166:25 14:2,5 25:8 41:25 compares (1) 49:11 162:3,6 convolution (1) 116:16
138:25 45:6 47:9,17 49:13 51:7,9 carefully (2) 60:24 61:2 53:9,12,16 54:18 56:17 comparing (1) 23:23 conflict (1) 164:4 cool (2) 77:11,15
biggest (1) 43:11 63:17 65:21 66:4 101:16 carried (3) 21:20,21 59:3 71:25 112:15 comparison (2) 19:5 155:8 conformity (1) 96:11 cooler (1) 171:22
bilateral (1) 107:24 108:5 carries (1) 132:18 claiming (2) 50:20 132:7 competent (2) 151:9 155:20 conforms (1) 154:23 coordinates (1) 29:3
billion (1) 110:22 bottomcopyright (1) 55:3 carry (4) 75:1 118:23 133:14 claims (10) 5:7 23:12 34:4 competing (2) 98:6,7 connect (2) 45:11,13 copa (41) 2:16 3:18 4:5 5:14
billions (2) 5:8 85:10 bought (3) 51:2,19 53:21 137:1 37:15 49:23 67:14 71:7 competitor (1) 127:6 connecting (1) 84:14 10:14 36:12 53:20 78:25
bin (3) 14:22 17:13 21:18 bowed (1) 79:8 cases (6) 2:8 5:23 85:7 73:16 74:8 76:12 compilation (1) 26:20 connection (2) 43:10 59:11 82:19 84:11,23,24 86:5
bins (1) 157:4 box (3) 97:8 126:11 146:14 142:13,14 151:18 clarity (1) 81:24 compile (2) 10:11 27:20 connections (2) 45:13 91:25 94:14 99:7,8 106:25
biographical (1) 85:17 brackets (1) 34:8 cash (3) 92:4 94:24 97:23 classic (1) 102:17 compiled (2) 8:7 12:9 148:14 107:1,4 113:6,8 114:15,21
bird (2) 153:2,2 brazen (1) 4:11 casino (1) 41:17 clayton (1) 41:8 compiler (1) 8:8 conscientious (1) 151:9 118:2,6 119:5,18
birth (3) 85:15,19 86:5 brazenness (1) 154:16 casinos (1) 94:10 clean (2) 57:23 88:17 compiles (1) 10:1 conscious (1) 165:12 123:11,16 124:6 125:16
bit (13) 37:6 47:13 78:3,24 breach (7) 1:22 113:2 150:18 cast (2) 137:10 151:7 clear (11) 4:20 6:20 22:16 compiling (1) 50:5 consent (1) 105:24 126:4,16 134:20 138:21
80:11 101:9 102:25 103:1 152:17,21 154:3 169:22 casual (2) 161:6 162:15 27:3 40:7 43:24 51:19 83:2 complain (1) 168:25 consents (1) 158:7 141:9,24 152:7 154:4
111:21 116:14 129:7 161:3 breached (1) 150:19 categories (3) 115:11 121:25 87:25 134:13 150:16 complaint (4) 128:4 133:2 consequence (1) 85:2 170:19
166:1 break (6) 36:23,24 37:3 143:11 clearly (2) 2:18 64:24 168:7 169:22 consequences (2) 106:21 copas (12) 4:10 16:18 36:11
bitcoin (138) 3:7,13 5:1,10 47:24 128:22 129:14 category (6) 122:13 125:12 clerical (2) 64:17,20 complete (2) 103:16 164:11 110:21 87:25 119:9 122:23 125:19
6:17 7:10,16,20 8:3,9,11 breakdown (1) 106:8 126:7,23 127:12,21 clerk (2) 1:11 3:8 completed (1) 158:24 consider (3) 65:6 80:2 142:2 131:2,10 155:6,9 170:10
9:6,9,12,14,19,25 breaks (2) 30:15 47:25 cause (1) 138:14 client (8) 89:25 97:9 152:20 completely (1) 163:14 consideration (1) 106:21 copied (1) 17:7
10:4,6,12 11:17,19,24 bridges (1) 42:3 caused (2) 88:5 127:19 162:3 163:23 165:18 completeness (1) 55:22 considered (1) 104:7 copies (3) 21:4 130:21
12:9,11 13:10 14:4 brief (1) 153:24 causes (1) 140:2 167:18 168:25 complex (3) 12:16 56:8 considering (1) 30:20 157:25
19:9,15,20 23:9,12 24:22 briefly (7) 33:3 60:10 95:20 cellanjones (6) 67:7 clients (6) 128:10 162:21 60:15 considers (2) 23:19 26:7 copy (29) 1:14 8:8 20:18
25:15,20 26:10,12,19,23 112:16 147:11 150:6 155:1 100:6,7,18,20,20 167:16 168:1,4,23 complexity (1) 64:23 consisted (2) 23:15 166:19 25:19 37:18,19 38:10
28:2,6,17 29:15,25 30:8 brilliant (1) 169:16 central (1) 7:11 clock (13) 15:19 16:2,5,6,8 compliance (9) 121:2,14 consistent (6) 17:7 26:7 39:8,8,9 45:3,25 56:11
31:3,9 33:6 34:14,23 35:17 bring (4) 5:15 37:23 86:21 centrebet (2) 39:22 42:20 17:8,10 20:16 21:7,17 150:7 151:3,5 153:13 29:18 31:16 112:7,11 64:4,13 72:5 76:2,10
36:5,10 37:12 40:14,24 168:11 century (1) 26:1 138:8 140:22 148:20 154:18 162:6 170:9 consists (3) 122:13 126:23 97:7,13 111:8 118:19
41:6,16,21 42:6,18 44:8,15 bringing (1) 143:8 ceremony (1) 103:11 closed (1) 65:16 compliant (4) 96:5,13,20 127:12 123:8 126:20 136:13
45:5 46:8,25 48:14 51:5 brings (1) 121:1 certain (3) 8:6 18:1 62:12 closing (1) 44:11 151:12 construction (1) 18:24 146:1,9,12,13
56:10,11 57:22 58:15 63:2 briskly (1) 78:18 certificate (24) 85:15,19 code (16) 8:7 23:25 complicated (1) 61:24 consultant (2) 111:3,4 copyright (5) 47:15 48:16
66:13,16 67:8,9 broad (1) 5:20 86:6 121:2,10 150:6,20,21 44:15,16,20,23 45:3 complied (1) 11:7 contact (4) 24:25 41:18 71:4 49:16 55:2,11
68:18,19,24 69:2,7,17 broke (1) 48:1 151:2,3,16,19 160:12 46:2,5,8,11 47:7,22,24 complies (1) 121:8 74:20 core (8) 48:17 53:7 56:10
70:24,25 71:6,8,14 75:6,12 broken (1) 52:5 162:6,8,12,23 163:14,16 48:12 80:21 comply (4) 150:17 154:7 contain (14) 6:5 22:13 33:11 85:3 91:23 92:1 105:16
76:6,8,11 brokerage (1) 52:13 164:7,19 165:4 170:9 cogitate (1) 78:21 161:1 162:22 34:23,24 69:16 73:11 113:3
79:3,6,9,11,12,13,15,17,21 brooks (1) 61:3 171:17 coin (3) 66:23 67:3,6 complying (1) 153:16 83:16 84:20 108:8 119:21 corner (1) 45:2
80:4,21,25 86:12,23 88:25 brother (1) 117:11 certificates (1) 81:2 coinbase (1) 41:13 comprehensively (1) 123:14 141:3 164:1 165:17 corporate (2) 117:20 122:16
91:18,20 92:1,7 93:8 94:7 brought (6) 5:15 6:23 89:3 certification (1) 163:11 coincidence (2) 31:13 158:10 compressed (1) 125:4 contained (4) 8:6,7 14:2 correct (5) 25:14 64:18
95:11,14 96:25 97:17,22 94:21 131:17 144:12 certify (3) 121:7 150:23 coincidentally (1) 11:5 comprises (1) 125:12 106:13 105:10 109:24 161:20
98:25 99:22 101:21 browsing (1) 43:9 162:16 coins (3) 101:3,4,4 compromise (1) 150:10 containing (4) 15:14 corrected (1) 63:19
102:1,5 104:8 107:13 btc (2) 53:7 85:3 ch (1) 129:22 collaborator (1) 40:1 computer (22) 15:4,6,25 19:14,17 27:13 corresponded (1) 29:14
112:2 117:13,17 126:16 built (1) 163:20 chain (6) 18:24 25:7,10 colleague (3) 40:25 52:2 16:6,14,25 17:8,10 18:4 contains (11) 7:21 9:15 correspondence (1) 130:20
127:3 146:5 147:10,14 bullet (1) 133:13 36:14 70:11 144:2 110:15 20:16 45:12 20:18 31:2,13 62:4 69:1 correspondent (1) 96:16
149:24 156:21 157:23 bullets (1) 133:5 challenge (3) 22:8 43:1 colleagues (3) 6:12 64:14 56:13,15,16,21 58:1 59:6 114:13,15 126:15 166:7 corresponding (1) 63:4
158:25 bundle (14) 99:25 100:11,17 144:17 66:14 80:10 127:15,19 149:6,11 contamination (1) 88:7 corroboration (1) 42:1
bitcoincom (2) 51:3,4 104:3,13 105:4,12 challenged (1) 84:18 collett (1) 4:7 computing (2) 83:19 140:22 contemplate (2) 66:18 corrupt (1) 30:9
bitcoinorg (5) 50:16 51:3,19 106:2,11,23 108:2 120:25 chance (2) 13:20 139:17 collision (1) 163:20 concedes (1) 150:16 170:25 corrupted (1) 86:2
53:21 54:13 123:10,22 change (5) 22:5 51:15 72:18 colons (1) 87:20 concept (3) 91:19 92:25 contemporaneous (1) 112:5 costs (1) 138:9
bits (1) 166:9 bundles (1) 129:17 73:21 148:25 column (3) 30:21 140:18,19 94:23 contempt (1) 1:22 couldnt (12) 32:7 51:5 53:2
bizarre (1) 143:21 burden (2) 85:2 88:4 changed (4) 16:7,11 23:10 columns (1) 23:9 concepts (4) 7:16 71:1 84:4 contempts (1) 6:21 54:20 57:19 124:11,17
blacknet (10) 33:16,21,22,23 burdens (1) 97:25 49:17 combination (2) 94:19 146:6 contending (1) 98:17 129:4 145:4,5 160:19
68:9,17 69:13 70:22,23,25 business (4) 77:2 104:21,25 changes (4) 19:8 21:2 69:1 155:23 concern (5) 58:11 115:22 content (15) 9:16 20:1,13 161:15
blah (3) 164:2,2,2 125:24 72:11 come (26) 58:2 60:20 63:22 126:24 152:1 154:1 21:11,15 49:1 74:4,7,8 counsel (4) 2:3 161:8,23,25
blank (3) 18:22 28:22 108:8 buyer (3) 96:3,7,16 changing (1) 72:17 69:21 78:21 79:11 concerned (5) 98:18 116:3 82:11 84:2,3 113:14 116:2 couple (5) 38:11 100:16
bleeds (1) 88:9 character (7) 3:10 80:2,12,16,20 85:7 88:17 147:7 166:25 167:24 167:18 104:10 110:9 128:22
C
block (11) 61:9 64:11,11 27:6,10,17,19,22 28:9 92:10 99:5 103:21 113:21 concerning (5) 1:15 59:18 contentious (1) 106:4 courier (1) 156:19
66:13 68:1 101:3,3 103:13 c (8) 16:4 21:18 47:15 63:25 characterise (1) 120:11 115:12,20 119:13 129:8 89:17 112:12 131:22 contents (6) 13:11 14:17 course (41) 6:5 9:8 13:12
107:13 108:17 109:2 73:3 148:12 150:13 155:12 characteristics (2) 26:4 137:13,19 153:8 154:18 concerns (5) 84:22 85:6 15:16 145:24 148:6 153:17 22:9 25:4 27:20 30:2 31:6
blockchain (9) 56:11 62:9 c226 (1) 147:11 48:22 158:17 167:17 116:10 139:21 140:3 context (5) 52:23 112:8 33:9 41:15 45:21,23 53:21

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

58:3,7 67:18 71:9 74:2 D defies (2) 74:2,5 73:10 79:11 80:19 84:13 dispute (5) 43:25 141:6 154:10 155:19 160:2 161:1 93:13,22 94:2,5,9,18 95:21
78:21 79:23 83:23 85:5 defined (1) 3:3 118:15 129:8 131:9 149:9,15,25 164:1 168:9,10,13 97:2,14,17 98:18 99:9,15
95:18 96:19 106:5 112:19 d761 (1) 32:9 degree (1) 165:8 145:11,15 152:11 155:19 disputed (1) 5:11 doing (11) 49:14 58:5,7 100:3,14 101:8,20,23
119:5 123:16 124:7 131:11 daemon (1) 126:24 delay (1) 124:16 died (1) 40:1 disputes (1) 131:20 75:16 87:17 107:7 132:4 103:19,23,24
132:4 140:7 145:9 152:11 dai (5) 32:7,14 39:5,8 75:7 delete (2) 165:14,18 differed (1) 65:8 disrupt (1) 138:8 137:9 145:20 147:8 154:8 104:4,15,21,25
153:15 154:10,19 161:17 dais (2) 31:22 32:23 deleted (7) 14:24 18:18 difference (9) 72:9 84:23 disruption (2) 138:14 139:13 dollar (1) 110:22 105:1,2,4,9,11,14,14,20,23,25
164:22 167:7 168:1 damaging (1) 167:25 20:19,22 21:4 23:24 91:16,18 92:13,15 93:21 disruptive (1) 2:22 dollars (1) 5:8 106:1,3,5,7,10,12,18
courts (1) 39:11 damp (1) 110:7 148:15 142:18 143:6 disseminate (1) 113:6 domain (8) 51:3,19 53:21 107:2,10,12,14,18,21
cousin (2) 38:10 40:12 danielle (1) 39:17 deliberately (3) 60:16 73:24 differences (3) 23:6 55:16 dissemination (1) 113:5 72:2,17,20 73:7 152:22 110:20 112:20 113:1,23
covent (1) 59:12 dare (1) 83:22 125:9 65:25 dissertation (8) 34:14,18,22 don (7) 38:9 39:6,7 40:10 114:12,17,23
cover (1) 53:6 dason (1) 111:4 delivered (1) 97:8 different (23) 17:16 19:5 97:7,11 146:1,2,8 42:25 44:1,11 115:1,9,23,24 116:6,19,25
coverage (3) 41:25 63:24 data (4) 14:24 62:5 94:12 delivering (1) 132:3 25:25 26:1 27:16 28:14 distance (1) 67:17 done (18) 5:12 19:21 50:14 117:6,7,9,12,13,15,17,18,25
111:14 156:10 delphic (1) 82:10 49:6 55:18,19 57:13 distilled (1) 7:2 59:5 71:6 77:9 95:1 107:20 118:7,12,16 119:8,23
covered (1) 133:10 database (2) 119:18 140:23 demilio (1) 159:13 72:8,16,25 73:6,7 78:25 distilling (1) 7:5 133:19,21 138:5 139:12 120:2,8,12 121:5,6,9
covers (1) 24:1 date (17) 16:5,24 31:23 demo (1) 100:22 87:9 93:1,1 135:20 143:23 distinct (1) 56:15 151:4,11 165:6,7 166:1 122:2,4,6,18,20,24
cpr (2) 154:3 169:23 48:24 49:2 61:9 68:25 demonstrate (5) 7:15 63:1 149:6 151:24 distinctive (2) 24:7 144:4 167:7 123:1,3,15 124:24
crack (1) 169:1 75:3,4 106:12,14 117:8 67:3 125:23 127:24 differs (1) 59:20 distressed (1) 106:20 dont (42) 1:23 27:19 36:17 125:3,13,14,20
craig (8) 49:18 61:19,20 120:5,6 122:16 138:22 demonstrated (3) 10:9 58:6 difficult (4) 9:24 144:25 divides (1) 47:7 49:20 61:11 68:5 77:7 78:4 126:3,5,21,25
65:23,23 79:7 89:23 101:1 148:20 99:15 169:14 171:8 division (1) 47:6 85:6 92:22 98:2,20 127:1,4,8,10,13,16,22,24,25
craigs (1) 90:3 dated (12) 65:13 68:11 demonstrates (1) 133:25 difficulties (1) 74:22 dkim (6) 132:17 133:12 102:3,11 104:11 110:6 128:4 130:16 131:3,9,11
craigwrightinformationdefensecom 70:9,12,14 71:11,13 90:8 demonstrating (1) 46:4 digging (1) 129:7 134:10 135:11 138:5,12 111:20 112:3 113:4 115:25 132:2,7 133:19
(1) 71:21 97:4,15 118:4,18 demonstration (2) 99:20 digital (23) 8:14 33:10 34:24 dns (5) 132:11,14 133:8 117:23 120:24 121:21 134:8,12,24 136:12,18
create (3) 9:9,25 21:5 dates (7) 16:3,15 18:9,11 100:14 36:4,8,9 40:5,21 57:5 134:5 135:14 128:11 130:2 132:23,25 138:2,6,17 139:24
created (9) 9:6 12:23 16:4 19:8 25:4 140:23 demonstrations (1) 100:1 70:24 86:9,25 87:14,15 doctor (2) 111:3,3 133:7 135:9,9,13 140:6,6,7,8,13,17
25:19 30:1 44:8 72:2 dating (4) 14:3 34:4 123:1,7 demorgan (5) 35:19 39:17 92:4 93:25 94:23,24 doctored (1) 76:10 146:15,20 149:9 151:7 141:5,8,11,15,17,18
140:21 141:3 dave (9) 38:23 39:8 40:1 68:16 147:1,1 97:6,19 105:16 123:7 document (83) 8:22 11:1 159:21 160:21 164:14 142:2,4,16 143:8
creating (2) 17:18 36:9 44:8 71:5,8,13 73:10 79:21 denial (1) 63:8 158:24 13:7 19:19 23:1,4,11,15 165:19 169:8,13 170:12 144:2,19,23 145:1,5,7,20
creation (6) 49:2,9 71:6 daves (1) 71:4 denied (2) 62:19 152:21 digression (2) 161:3,7 24:11 25:1,4,5,13,19 26:18 door (1) 65:16 146:1,3,6 147:4,17,22
120:5,6 148:2 david (2) 42:3 117:12 deny (1) 117:16 diminish (1) 107:2 27:2,11,12,16 28:14,23 dots (1) 27:7 148:6,13,18,25
creator (2) 3:10 94:7 dawns (1) 63:16 departed (2) 91:21 92:1 dinner (2) 127:4 147:5 29:19 30:6,9,17,20,21 double (2) 95:4,6 149:1,5,8,14,21 150:13
credible (4) 43:3 101:23 day (16) 4:17 11:6 61:7,10 depends (1) 57:14 direct (3) 84:15,18 99:9 31:2,13,20,21 32:22 doubly (1) 73:22 151:12 152:4,10,13
107:1 169:19 68:6 75:5,9 105:20,22 depict (1) 63:16 directed (1) 63:21 35:1,8,14,16 36:14 doubt (8) 21:23 44:6 80:14 153:9,14 154:2,4
credit (12) 32:21 50:21 106:3 107:25 142:13 deploy (3) 54:6 145:6 149:2 direction (5) 121:8,15 45:1,5,19,20,22,23 87:21 93:6 101:19 108:9 155:1,3,4,8,10,16
51:1,11,20 145:16 152:20 169:6 170:2 deployed (7) 49:24 50:7 99:7 150:17 162:17,22 46:6,10,11 49:19,22,23 141:5 156:12,17,20,21,24
52:8,10,11,19,21 96:6 days (9) 3:13 15:11,13 57:21 121:18 138:16 142:11 directly (4) 20:20 75:3,9 50:4,8 52:12 55:9 61:15 down (16) 16:9 17:22 19:23 157:8,9 158:9,20
162:10 66:10 82:10,23 136:21,25 145:5 97:24 68:16 69:24 70:9,12,14 27:6,23 28:11 45:4 52:16 159:15,19,20 160:9,20
credits (1) 95:23 de (1) 115:15 deployment (2) 142:15 150:5 director (1) 102:5 72:21 73:12,16,23 74:12 77:15 81:17 108:4 124:1,2 162:4 166:2 169:4
critical (5) 9:3,21,22 129:6 dead (2) 151:16 158:21 deployments (1) 145:10 directory (1) 45:8 82:24 90:10 101:6 148:4,23 154:17 170:5,21,24 171:8
142:19 deadlines (1) 125:4 deposition (3) 44:2 60:8 disability (1) 89:17 108:2,15 110:2 112:4 download (4) 56:10,17 59:24 draft (14) 7:21 8:22 31:12
crossexamination (10) 43:4 deadly (1) 5:5 102:14 disagree (1) 57:3 125:11,12 126:3,17 132:8 60:3 32:5 33:6 35:3 37:16,19
44:6 51:24 90:16,25 deal (28) 79:12 93:18 104:18 derivation (1) 35:6 disagreement (1) 115:13 137:22 144:3,3 146:3,9 downloaded (1) 147:23 38:1 64:9,10 65:13 66:6
123:15 124:12 128:13 110:22 111:12,13,16 114:8 derived (3) 26:8 33:21 76:5 disappear (1) 82:3 158:22 160:1 downloading (1) 140:1 121:17
136:12,18 116:13 118:14 123:12 describe (1) 43:23 disappointed (1) 66:8 documentary (4) 86:2 88:7 downplay (1) 107:2 drafted (2) 35:17 121:5
crossexamine (3) 139:17 124:15 126:5 134:1,21 described (7) 8:14 32:16 discern (1) 58:4 95:23 96:6 downside (1) 168:20 drafting (3) 8:15 37:20 86:23
167:18 168:3 138:18 142:8 144:19 38:24 44:16 81:4 93:20 discerned (1) 58:13 documentation (1) 150:5 dr (449) 3:4,22,25 4:7,10,13 drafts (8) 7:14 8:16 13:10
crossexamined (2) 136:25 145:22,23 150:6 154:25 122:18 disclaimed (1) 81:20 documents (153) 4:21,23 5:5,16,20 6:9,16,21 14:5 24:17,19 37:12 39:14
139:15 160:1 163:11 167:10 describes (5) 57:2,4 106:22 disclose (3) 12:25 125:6 5:21,24,24 6:1,5 8:17 7:11,13,19,25 8:3,9,15,25 dramatic (1) 67:12
crossing (1) 29:14 170:23,25 171:1 107:14 147:12 152:11 11:22 13:9,13 14:3,6,10,12 9:13,18 10:1,3,10,18 dramatically (1) 66:8
crucial (1) 59:22 dealing (2) 130:11 144:22 describing (1) 43:10 disclosed (21) 13:9 26:25 17:4,6,9,13,15,18 11:6,10,16,18 12:2,5 draw (3) 84:19 89:6 164:22
crucially (1) 56:19 dealings (2) 79:16 80:1 description (1) 58:25 45:19 51:25 53:12,15 54:9 19:2,3,6,10 20:24 13:4,9,13,15,19 14:9,13,17 drawer (1) 13:20
cryddit (1) 46:21 deals (7) 25:22 48:18 90:15 design (3) 91:23 92:2,16 73:14 97:5 116:21 118:4 22:6,10,11,16,23 17:4,17 19:2,18 21:24 drawn (3) 91:11 147:7 160:7
cryptocurrency (1) 146:6 104:9 105:2 106:1 166:24 designed (1) 107:19 122:6,8,9 123:1 124:21 24:4,13,14,17 32:24 22:5,8,12 23:12 drd (2) 82:21,25
cryptographic (6) 50:25 51:8 dealt (11) 99:22 100:3,10 designer (1) 155:11 125:17 126:17 127:18 33:1,25 34:2,4,5,20,20,23 24:14,19,25 25:6,6,8 drew (1) 151:25
58:14 63:6 66:2,3 104:2 106:9 116:23 123:13 designs (1) 55:19 142:11 152:7 44:12,19,22 46:3 26:16,25 27:18 28:24 drive (32) 4:16,21
cryptographically (1) 63:9 124:11 128:15 150:10 desired (1) 121:19 disclosing (1) 52:25 48:10,11,13 52:6 30:3,21,25 31:8,24 13:11,14,15,16,17,18,23
cryptography (2) 94:12,21 165:11 desperate (1) 11:20 disclosure (12) 11:9 13:19 70:7,18,19,21,22,25 73:18 32:4,11,25 33:7,12,19,23 14:2,7,16,20,21,23 15:2,14
csw (2) 156:22 157:6 death (2) 5:12 41:24 despite (3) 9:11 12:21 37:14 35:8 48:13 49:13 75:17,18 74:17 34:4,12,19 35:18 36:6,13 16:14 17:18 18:19,25 19:4
csw11 (2) 114:13 115:10 debacle (1) 66:9 destroyed (2) 81:9 106:13 127:8 138:20 142:15 81:13,16,17,20,21,23,24 37:11,17,20,25 20:23 21:15 43:10 106:13
csw121 (1) 54:23 debate (3) 57:17 98:10 destroying (1) 112:9 146:10 150:3 82:3,7,12,15,21 83:4,16 39:12,17,23,24 112:10 127:15 144:4
csw142 (1) 104:14 142:18 detail (8) 5:18 49:21 56:4 discovered (3) 13:20 50:13 84:7,10,10,12,12,13,14,17 40:1,3,5,10,12,18,20,25 147:23 148:1,16
csw15053 (1) 122:20 debunk (1) 139:11 111:24 124:8,13 131:5 126:10 88:18 96:9,19 97:8,10 41:3,6,7,9,11,14,18,25 drivers (1) 148:10
csw153 (1) 122:19 debunked (2) 54:11 62:11 154:19 discovery (1) 14:10 100:17 114:17,24 42:2,4,11,16,20,23 drugs (1) 109:13
csw156 (1) 139:23 decades (1) 33:16 detailed (2) 59:18 119:1 discredited (5) 11:21 14:11 115:2,4,6,9,10,12 116:21 43:9,11,21,22 dsarsa (2) 35:24 36:3
csw15658 (1) 120:1 deceased (3) 53:10 79:19,20 details (8) 23:7 24:25 59:2 33:13 50:20 66:5 118:4,7 119:14 122:1,5,7,9 44:7,8,9,15,22 45:18,23 due (9) 72:9,18 73:21 83:22
csw1711 (1) 118:20 deceived (1) 65:2 74:20 85:17 110:19 112:1 discrediting (1) 51:8 123:1,11 125:6 46:1,4,8 47:19,21,24 111:11,16 136:17,19
csw18 (2) 131:24 139:20 december (9) 11:5 12:22,25 149:10 discrepancies (1) 9:15 126:8,10,23 48:11,15 49:18,20,21 154:19
csw191 (1) 158:22 46:23 97:11 111:11 determination (1) 115:1 discuss (4) 40:22 127:3,5 127:1,9,12,16,18 131:6,15 50:8,11,17,22 52:19,25 dump (1) 158:14
csw21 (2) 27:19 76:1 126:13,19 131:14 determined (1) 82:5 170:22 132:6 137:11 138:17,20,22 53:5,24 54:11 55:6,10,20 during (10) 14:24 20:11 22:9
csw226 (1) 8:24 decentralising (1) 57:17 develop (1) 104:25 discussed (3) 40:20 41:6 140:4,5,12 142:10,20,24 56:8,22,25 57:1,19 60:8 78:21 103:10 107:8
csw228 (1) 31:1 deception (1) 65:4 developed (1) 33:20 148:5 143:9,15 144:2 58:2,17,21,25 126:10 139:15 153:15
csw244 (1) 73:4 decide (4) 2:11 86:1 92:20 developer (1) 4:8 discussing (1) 153:17 145:10,18,22 146:14,25 59:6,15,21,23,25 60:1,3,18 duties (2) 161:25 162:1
csw37 (1) 73:3 144:8 developers (11) 3:18 5:10 discussion (2) 142:3 158:19 147:3,15,17,21 148:21 61:5,5,8 62:8,15,20,23,24 duty (1) 162:9
csw41 (1) 121:4 decided (1) 111:16 11:2 84:23 85:1 88:25 discussions (2) 107:11 149:2,19 156:18 157:19,21 63:1,21 64:2,9,12 65:7,13 dysregulation (2) 90:17 91:4
csw71 (1) 115:11 decision (3) 144:10 146:22 91:25 151:18 154:4 160:8 144:24 158:14 160:3,10 165:16 66:10 67:2,13,16,19
E
curious (2) 27:6 98:5 170:14 161:8 disgruntled (1) 73:18 167:1 169:18 170:6 68:3,11 69:4,6,11
currency (7) 34:24 40:5,21 declaration (2) 2:17 159:12 developing (2) 7:15 93:23 dishonest (1) 5:6 does (25) 22:5 28:24 31:4 70:7,11,19,24 71:4,12,25 e128 (1) 105:4
70:24 94:24 97:19 105:17 declaratory (1) 112:23 development (6) 12:16 35:17 dishonesty (1) 11:15 48:7,24 78:13 92:20,22 72:4,12,13,19,23 73:22 e133 (2) 100:5 105:12
currently (1) 114:24 declared (2) 98:24 159:15 79:1,8 95:2 160:15 disk (4) 4:16 23:22 127:15 101:16 103:12,15 74:8,10,18 75:7,13,17 e134 (1) 99:25
cursory (1) 28:13 declined (1) 111:24 devise (1) 97:19 148:2 106:14,15 109:20 121:18 76:1,10,18 e136 (1) 100:12
custodian (1) 83:3 decrypt (1) 81:10 devising (1) 6:17 dismiss (2) 2:19 3:1 137:10 146:11 148:9,25 79:1,2,3,10,15,21,25 e137 (2) 104:4,12
custody (4) 25:7 36:14 70:11 deduction (1) 124:6 diagnosed (1) 89:20 dismissing (1) 51:8 158:20 161:3 162:1,5 80:4,8,9,12,23 81:11,16,22 e138 (2) 106:3,11
144:2 deep (2) 93:23 166:25 diagnosis (1) 89:22 disorder (1) 89:21 163:13 167:15 82:8,12,18,20 83:19 e142 (1) 53:8
cut (2) 68:3 107:22 defendant (3) 82:25 diagrams (1) 29:2 disparaging (1) 50:24 doesnt (21) 2:20 53:20 84:10,15,25,25 85:3 86:22 e17115 (2) 60:10 102:13
cvs (1) 81:5 161:11,14 didnt (24) 30:11 32:17 33:24 dispense (2) 97:19 137:5 58:10 81:6,22 84:1 88:18 87:3,5,17,23 88:2,18 e17154 (1) 64:25
cws25657 (1) 50:2 defendants (1) 4:8 34:1 40:22 52:25 53:3,17 displayed (2) 27:14 55:21 108:15 110:16 129:2 89:5,7,17,20 90:2,18 e17164 (1) 103:2
deficient (2) 160:17,18 59:3 69:16,18 70:4 72:25 disproven (1) 81:21 137:13 146:6 150:17 91:2,17,19,25 92:7,15 e1774 (1) 60:2

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

e1777 (1) 60:6 emerge (1) 135:15 83:9 88:11 165:21 expectations (1) 66:8 fakes (5) 53:5 54:2,8 143:15 170:13 102:17 103:4 134:17
e207 (1) 13:25 emerged (3) 85:19 86:19 ever (6) 37:17 41:2 42:11,21 expected (4) 62:1 63:11 144:1 finney (1) 101:5 141:16 146:7
e2410 (1) 86:21 157:6 43:11 158:13 65:11 145:6 fall (3) 64:1 114:25 115:5 firewall (1) 45:11 formally (1) 122:21
e247 (1) 7:23 emergency (1) 108:3 every (5) 17:25 31:14 57:7 experience (2) 94:12,20 fallen (1) 63:19 first (87) 1:6 2:20 3:25 4:15 format (1) 140:2
e248 (1) 8:1 emotional (2) 90:17 106:16 95:11 164:20 experienced (1) 62:1 false (5) 4:11 5:21 11:18 5:20 7:9,9 10:14 11:22,23 formatting (1) 86:25
e321 (1) 122:5 emphasis (2) 143:4,6 everybody (2) 78:10 98:25 experiment (1) 132:18 58:24 89:7 12:19 25:23 26:22 29:10 former (2) 42:3 73:19
e411 (1) 54:16 emphasise (5) 90:14 91:1 everybodys (1) 35:13 expert (51) 14:16,17 16:18 familiar (6) 4:3 61:16 67:15 33:4,6 35:10 36:10 forms (2) 36:3 107:10
e416 (1) 106:24 128:3 153:12 165:23 everyone (2) 1:16 62:6 28:20 59:15 83:20 87:3 90:5 95:5 114:7 37:13,25 38:3,7,9 41:6,14 formulae (4) 9:16 30:6,7,11
e421 (1) 39:15 employed (1) 122:22 everyones (6) 25:7,13 36:17 114:16 115:25 119:6 family (1) 79:16 44:18 46:24 47:11,17,18 forum (6) 46:23 47:3,5,12
e431 (1) 72:15 employee (3) 17:17 39:21 41:13 44:21 49:19 120:11,19 123:16 124:17 far (7) 2:23 30:3 41:3 49:8 52:17 53:25 56:8 58:5,19 48:3 153:18
e45 (1) 12:13 42:19 everything (1) 171:2 128:12 132:2,17,19,21 151:8 156:11 163:22 59:23 65:11 69:13,23 forward (12) 35:15 85:9
earlier (12) 14:3 26:19,24 employing (1) 87:9 evidence (108) 2:12 3:24,25 133:20,22 134:12,15,17,22 farce (1) 4:14 78:23 79:2,10 80:4,6 87:20 99:5 110:9 121:22
76:14 124:21 126:13 employment (1) 111:24 6:18 14:14,16 15:10,13 135:7,23 139:14,24 fast (1) 135:4 82:17,23 83:17 86:4,20 147:24 149:13 150:1
131:16,18 145:5,6 159:6 emptied (1) 21:18 28:20 37:21 39:22 140:6,9 141:6,8,10,16,21 father (1) 71:5 89:16 97:21 100:4,17 157:14 164:25 169:4
166:1 empty (2) 26:2 27:24 40:3,7,12,23 44:3 50:10,18 142:8 144:17,24 149:3 favour (1) 93:6 108:5,6 113:24 116:4,8,13 forwarded (1) 3:14
early (18) 3:13 13:9 31:9 enable (1) 92:4 53:24 56:7 60:10 64:24 155:5,7,21 156:6,7,9,10 fazel (1) 89:24 117:1 118:10 122:12,13 forwarding (1) 71:12
34:6 35:17 44:20,23 57:22 encoded (1) 18:7 65:19 74:15 80:2 83:20,21 166:8,13 170:11,19 fazels (1) 90:6 128:3 129:1,21 found (26) 16:23 17:14
66:13,14 67:8 69:16 79:16 encrypted (2) 20:18 159:2 85:14 86:19 89:20 90:2 expertise (4) 120:13,13 feature (5) 3:11 48:2 57:3 131:4,7,12,21 132:1,10 18:2,9,20 19:1,5 22:7
94:25 100:15 106:15 120:6 encryption (1) 13:22 91:3 96:10 99:9 109:13 124:5 133:20 98:6 156:16 133:4,5 137:16 140:17 23:5,21 25:3,18 29:7 41:23
138:20 end (18) 31:20,22 47:19 55:4 112:8,12 114:16 115:25 experts (32) 5:23 featured (1) 70:15 142:1 143:13 144:14 49:23 55:8,19 70:7 72:19
earth (1) 85:25 68:7 78:22 80:2 84:8 88:2 116:3,25 118:16 119:25 9:2,5,11,23 10:2,18 13:5 features (8) 26:17,21 27:1 152:10 155:3 156:1,16 97:8 109:3 111:8 126:11
ease (1) 59:14 100:23 111:17 131:14 120:11,17,19 123:17 21:9,11 22:1,6,23 26:24 33:11 94:2,13 139:25 157:13 165:14 166:22 144:3 146:10 153:2
easier (1) 57:19 133:1 145:1 153:19 158:21 124:8,17,23 125:4 35:8,12 83:23 101:24 147:10 170:24 foundation (1) 102:5
easily (4) 50:12 55:24 58:17 169:5 171:8 127:11,13 128:12 127:18 134:13 138:18 february (9) 1:1 68:11 71:3 firsthand (1) 65:19 foundational (2) 40:8 104:7
139:12 ended (1) 11:6 131:13,17 132:2,3,17,21 139:16 140:20,25 141:7,19 97:5 118:18 136:17,18,22 fit (3) 80:3,9 81:11 founded (1) 6:24
easy (1) 58:23 ending (6) 8:18,19 17:16 134:6,16,19,24 135:7,23 142:3,6 146:10 147:25 172:1 fits (1) 80:6 founding (1) 102:4
ecc (2) 158:25 159:3 18:7 34:20 61:18 136:11,17 139:24 140:8,10 148:3,5 fed (1) 141:17 five (7) 36:25 37:5 78:15 four (5) 9:3 122:13 123:3
ecdsa (5) 36:1,3,4,20,21 endless (2) 160:8,9 141:6,8,21 143:20 explain (11) 21:24 61:22 feed (1) 1:21 89:9 129:10,11 139:12 124:2 139:12
economist (1) 100:13 ends (1) 47:18 144:17,23 145:7 147:9,14 65:19 76:4 95:21 109:24 feeding (1) 140:6 fix (1) 64:6 fourth (10) 2:7 12:12 25:11
eddsa (2) 36:3,10 enemies (1) 74:14 149:4,11 153:16,18,19 133:13 139:24 160:19 feel (4) 90:25 110:21 121:7 floor (2) 108:22 109:4 29:6 37:15 53:19 72:14
edited (8) 10:12 19:18 20:1 enforced (1) 97:1 155:1,5,7,9,9,12,14,16,20,22 161:3 162:19 170:23 florida (1) 74:1 84:22 88:22 126:23
21:1,13 49:22 55:25 engage (1) 66:16 156:3,4,6,9,13 162:7 explained (8) 7:24 33:23 feels (1) 90:18 flow (4) 28:16,22,23 29:1 fourthly (1) 20:17
105:23 engaged (2) 15:15 125:2 166:8,10,13 168:19 57:10,18 72:10 118:14 feet (2) 123:23 171:14 flowchart (6) 26:9,13,14 27:9 framed (1) 37:10
editing (16) 10:22,23 engages (1) 137:7 170:11,25 171:9 150:2 152:24 fellow (1) 40:18 28:1,6 fraud (3) 6:24 157:9 159:20
11:2,3,6,11 12:24 18:16 engineer (1) 9:24 evidencing (1) 127:1 explains (11) 24:4 29:13 felt (3) 106:18 111:19,23 fob (1) 43:21 fraudulent (1) 161:10
19:10,13 20:5,11 21:2 23:7 engineering (1) 9:23 evidential (2) 89:7 146:17 55:10 58:12,22 59:6 61:22 few (10) 1:3 39:9 53:25 79:8 focus (9) 32:25 43:17 fraudulently (1) 51:15
25:21 71:14 england (1) 106:5 evil (1) 51:10 105:11 118:9 120:2 127:2 82:10 85:21 89:15 93:16 78:24,25 79:25 80:25 free (2) 2:25 113:6
edits (1) 19:6 enormous (2) 111:19 160:23 ewhc (1) 129:21 explanation (17) 36:19 118:14 121:23 94:11 97:18 145:19 freely (1) 57:6
educational (2) 93:22 94:5 enquiries (2) 153:1,2 exactly (4) 32:20 47:18,24 43:19,24 58:10 64:19 field (2) 7:24 101:25 focused (6) 79:1 97:18 freer (1) 110:21
edward (1) 40:16 ensure (6) 59:3 66:22 95:14 125:7 72:17,24 74:9 76:6 95:17 fields (2) 7:22 86:20 139:2,6,10 165:15 fresh (1) 156:13
edwin (1) 40:16 121:14 124:7 143:1 examination (1) 132:6 120:12 127:8 147:24 148:3 fifth (7) 2:14 10:20,20 13:25 focusing (1) 138:25 friday (3) 2:4 3:9 152:1
effect (5) 21:25 86:25 89:20 ensured (1) 141:15 examine (3) 80:5 89:6 132:7 152:19 154:14 157:14 30:5 88:23 127:12 folder (3) 8:4,5 9:19 friedberg (8) 15:10 118:18
101:6 171:16 enthusiastically (1) 67:20 examined (2) 17:22 118:8 explanations (2) 58:3 119:1 fifthly (1) 20:22 follow (4) 3:19 48:25 110:13 123:6 132:22
effected (1) 96:15 entire (4) 29:20 56:11 58:14 example (19) 8:20,24 19:13 explored (2) 13:6 124:7 fight (1) 89:2 121:22 133:4,13,14,24
effective (2) 96:23 140:1 63:18 22:17 29:9 48:16 57:6,21 expose (1) 89:7 figures (1) 99:21 followed (1) 66:9 friedbergs (1) 134:6
effectively (3) 117:5 119:10 entirely (6) 56:9 62:13 72:24 80:18 93:2 94:2,8 95:24,25 exposing (3) 57:2,9 58:11 file (23) 9:12,13,25 10:10,17 following (17) 14:21 16:9 friends (4) 155:24 160:16
150:16 77:8 115:21 133:22 96:14 147:18 155:10 express (1) 104:6 17:23,24,25 20:13,18 22:3 24:3 26:18 29:8,16 166:19 168:23
effects (1) 74:24 entitled (7) 22:21 83:6 97:3 158:16 166:17 expressed (1) 142:5 26:25 49:1,3,12,13 50:9 38:6,13 39:3 55:25 58:3 front (2) 68:16 86:14
effort (1) 10:9 117:19 155:5,22 164:22 examples (4) 4:15 28:12 expression (1) 166:14 62:4 70:19 120:5 126:2 62:5 66:10 100:2 103:23 fruits (1) 49:16
efforts (1) 15:15 entitlement (1) 117:12 29:7 33:13 expressions (1) 84:4 135:22 156:22 159:1 133:4 fuck (1) 43:13
eight (3) 18:14 80:20 83:11 entity (1) 117:21 except (2) 13:23 92:24 extend (1) 33:24 filed (6) 69:9,24,24 70:4,15 follows (5) 3:17 55:15 66:1 fudge (1) 162:14
eighthly (1) 21:6 entrepreneur (1) 5:14 excess (1) 111:12 extending (1) 128:16 157:6 121:12 131:25 fudging (1) 162:23
either (5) 56:13,15 85:23 entries (1) 10:21 exchange (9) 34:10 43:5,18 extensive (2) 5:13 41:24 files (29) 7:25 8:6 9:18 10:3 font (8) 25:24,24,25 full (2) 59:2 110:18
90:10 154:23 entry (2) 75:2 140:15 103:5 114:4 132:12 133:8 extensively (1) 10:12 11:8,9,12,14 12:23 26:1,5,8,8,12 fully (1) 74:4
elaborate (1) 4:11 environment (4) 83:19 149:22 159:5 extent (2) 88:6 120:11 16:10,23 17:1,3 18:11,18 fonts (1) 26:5 function (2) 95:13 163:14
elastic (1) 37:5 127:19 149:11,17 exchanged (1) 149:20 extract (2) 69:19 102:14 26:20 45:8 47:2 81:9 foot (3) 82:24 166:21 167:14 functioning (4) 139:25 140:9
electronic (2) 94:11 97:23 environments (2) 82:14 84:1 exchanges (1) 107:9 extraordinary (7) 28:20 54:8 84:1,3,5 86:8,10 87:13,21 footage (1) 55:5 141:13 155:18
electrum (6) 56:17 episode (1) 106:22 exclude (2) 168:14 170:10 67:11,14,14 68:10 124:3 120:5 147:22 154:6 footer (8) fundamental (3) 63:18
59:9,10,24 60:4 61:25 equally (1) 45:23 excluded (1) 167:24 extremely (2) 78:10 125:4 filing (1) 68:14 55:2,12,13,16,18,22 70:9 163:19 164:4
elements (1) 4:13 equipment (1) 140:22 exclusively (1) 98:18 exwife (1) 40:3 filings (1) 127:7 75:20 funding (1) 69:15
eleventh (1) 156:18 equivalent (3) 23:22 27:8 excuse (6) 26:16,22 28:24 eye (1) 101:17 final (8) 3:8 31:15 69:4 footnotes (1) 130:2 funky (1) 66:20
else (4) 112:3 147:1 169:8,13 35:7 30:3 64:12 65:10 73:1,11 74:16 88:23 force (2) 128:17 138:7 furiously (1) 87:19
F
email (65) 3:9,11,13 error (3) 64:17,20 159:3 excuses (5) 8:16 11:10 27:18 127:21 forced (1) 86:3 further (26) 4:18 9:18
32:11,20 37:18 50:17,18 especially (2) 1:11 77:11 50:6 82:10 f (2) 29:23 50:24 finally (9) 10:9 11:6 57:24 forcefully (1) 161:14 16:9,20 17:22 21:6 27:5,23
51:4,20,25 esse (1) 115:15 exe (1) 50:9 f1551 (1) 54:22 112:18 121:25 128:7 forensic (5) 21:1 22:16 31:17 28:11 30:24 31:19 44:11
52:3,5,5,7,14,19,24,25 essence (1) 111:9 executable (3) 48:14 f1703 (1) 123:10 149:19 151:25 160:11 81:1 132:6 68:2 82:19 86:17 107:11
53:18,25 54:13 61:3,10 essential (2) 81:8 83:13 49:12,12 fabricated (2) 73:17 74:1 finance (1) 94:20 forensically (1) 45:24 124:17 128:9 135:22
66:18 67:21,22 essentially (2) 16:19 86:4 execution (1) 162:9 fabulist (1) 88:3 financial (5) 5:13 6:11 39:24 forge (2) 4:21 5:4 141:25 143:9,10 150:2
71:3,11,13,15,20 establish (3) 18:15 19:9 executive (3) 132:22,25 face (6) 22:14 53:25 108:15 42:24 98:1 forged (8) 4:23 5:21 50:4,7 169:17 170:19,22
72:1,2,5,6,7,15,20,24 150:1 133:5 112:10 118:6 168:5 find (12) 32:14 46:5 62:14 74:10 88:17 97:15 139:6 furtherance (1) 126:22
73:6,9,10,15,25 74:4,6,11 established (12) 6:18 14:22 exemployee (1) 49:24 facebook (1) 113:10 77:11 85:18 129:4 134:2,9 forgeries (8) 25:2 48:17 furthermore (2) 70:11 113:4
107:9 127:23 133:6,15 15:4,24 18:9 20:4 22:15 exercise (3) 54:20 81:24 facilitating (1) 1:12 150:18 151:11 157:24 116:23 119:20 123:2 future (1) 28:21
134:2 137:24,25 138:4 53:2 55:23 62:10 75:14 169:14 facing (1) 88:25 171:11 126:18 134:4,10
G
146:25 149:19 150:1 88:12 exhibited (3) 100:19 123:9 factor (2) 84:14 93:5 finding (2) 27:5,24 forgery (28) 4:12 11:15
156:15 157:10 establishes (1) 29:21 152:7 factual (4) 120:8 155:6,13,15 findings (9) 11:20 16:23 31:18 50:11,12 73:8 g (2) 22:3 148:23
158:17,18,23 159:13 establishing (1) 5:16 exhibiting (1) 54:13 failed (4) 6:13 60:20 111:6 21:25 31:17 75:22,24 88:12,20 115:23 116:24 g249 (1) 56:24
emailed (1) 53:18 etc (3) 68:23 73:3 112:2 exhibits (3) 54:16 140:16 156:19 132:10 134:15 147:25 118:2,6 122:23 123:4 g259 (1) 58:19
emails (34) 32:3,10 63:15 european (1) 113:2 146:4 failings (1) 84:11 finds (9) 16:10 25:23 28:8,11 124:25 125:18,19 g42526 (1) 90:4
66:14 75:8 116:4,14 117:7 evaluate (1) 91:8 exist (3) 10:6 148:15 158:2 failure (2) 6:15 162:21 45:10 48:19 49:10 114:22 126:4,19,20,21 131:2,10 g61 (1) 16:18
118:1,3,8,16 119:9 127:21 even (17) 6:6 28:13 29:25 existed (1) 19:4 fair (4) 142:17 143:1 160:10 120:7 137:6 142:25 156:3,8 g610 (1) 21:6
128:1 131:22 133:3 48:1 64:24 66:5,15 81:7 existence (1) 86:17 169:1 fine (4) 32:12 130:5 164:14 166:3 g626 (1) 16:22
134:3,9 137:24 139:11,19 84:7 88:4 98:20 99:3 existing (2) 4:19 26:13 fairly (1) 150:16 171:19 forging (2) 4:16 24:14 g627 (1) 17:5
143:13,18 149:5,6,13,16 143:25 158:21 169:25 expand (1) 10:19 fairness (1) 144:21 fingerprints (4) 85:16,20 forgive (3) 115:14 136:20,22 g630 (1) 17:11
152:5,7,11,14 154:11 170:6,11 expect (7) 1:23 85:13,15 fake (7) 43:11,17,21,23 86:8 87:23 form (17) 7:1 17:23 24:6 g631 (1) 17:20
158:2 evening (2) 107:8 152:2 96:18 124:14 134:25 60:18 85:20 154:6 finish (2) 136:19,19 27:14 36:8 44:1 55:12,16 g632 (1) 18:2
embedded (2) 25:3 27:13 event (6) 60:23 61:1 68:1 151:10 faked (2) 58:18 74:13 finished (3) 76:14 77:6 61:13 79:20 86:25 97:6 g633 (1) 18:8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

g637 (1) 18:17 77:4 81:7 91:13 113:19 h682 (2) 48:19 49:5 here (25) 1:6 3:3 26:9 31:12 id000739 (2) 48:16,20 impressive (1) 67:25 98:22 141:15
g638 (1) 18:20 114:19 122:10 142:14 h683 (1) 49:11 49:8 52:4 58:12 68:20 id001379 (1) 70:8 impressively (1) 50:5 instructing (3) 97:10
g641 (1) 19:1 158:16 165:8 h685 (1) 49:15 71:24 74:5 77:21,23 86:5 id003994 (1) 35:2 improper (1) 160:20 164:7,17
g642 (1) 19:12 goods (5) 95:24 96:1,4,5,10 h781 (1) 52:3 87:24 88:7,18 98:13 id004009 (1) 35:15 impulse (1) 106:20 instructions (5) 27:21 86:24
g644 (1) 20:3 google (4) 32:14 111:25 h782 (1) 52:16 136:21 142:1 150:9,24 id004012 (1) 33:4 impulsively (1) 111:16 154:21 165:22 169:24
g68 (1) 20:8 119:4 158:7 hack (2) 73:17,22 154:13,16 157:4 164:11 id004014 (2) 44:23,25 inaccurate (1) 133:9 instructs (1) 8:9
g69 (1) 20:17 governed (1) 97:1 hacked (1) 81:8 heres (2) 23:25 24:6 id004015 (2) 44:23 46:5 inadvertently (1) 73:24 integrity (3) 57:11,13,14
g747 (1) 29:5 government (2) 68:14 69:25 hadnt (5) 13:22 21:20 herself (1) 98:16 id004715 (1) 22:19 inappropriate (1) 114:14 intelligent (1) 126:24
gain (1) 6:12 grabiner (61) 3:21 4:5 13:1 152:25 154:24 158:3 hes (18) 2:25 38:13 40:19 id004724 (1) 23:20 inauthentic (1) 83:16 intended (5) 62:15,19,25
gains (1) 118:16 76:25 77:7,11 78:6 hal (1) 101:5 41:12 42:4 47:1 49:14 idaemon (1) 126:25 inauthenticity (1) 83:20 65:8 104:5
gambling (1) 5:14 89:12,13,14,19 91:6,10,14 half (7) 13:12 19:12 28:4 50:24 81:8,9 82:1 96:2 idea (7) 32:16 50:7,11 51:9 incentives (1) 6:9 intending (1) 58:8
game (2) 82:2 124:14 92:12,17,19,22,24 47:11,17 48:4 110:10 99:13 103:5 112:6 136:17 67:3 74:13 169:16 incidentally (2) 69:5 74:5 intention (2) 92:3 121:16
gao (1) 59:16 93:10,12,15 107:5,6 halfway (1) 36:22 147:23 166:11 ideas (3) 32:20 66:15 104:25 include (5) 70:21 72:25 interest (4) 2:21 93:24 98:11
gap (7) 132:13,15 133:11 108:22 109:13,17,20,22,24 hallmark (1) 148:10 hesitate (1) 88:5 idemon (3) 146:25 147:15,17 148:9 161:24 162:23 99:6
134:5,7 138:3,11 110:8 112:18 114:1,2,7,11 halves (1) 47:12 hex (1) 49:22 identical (6) 8:11 18:21,23 included (7) 21:2 34:1,3,13 interested (2) 2:18 98:25
gaps (1) 135:14 118:24 123:25 124:20 hamlet (1) 98:8 hide (1) 15:17 20:18 35:11 72:5 69:7 83:14 95:22 interesting (5) 57:16 75:25
garbage (2) 157:2,3 130:8 135:17 136:20 137:1 hand (6) 13:5 57:24 112:21 highly (3) 54:7 85:5 151:9 identification (1) 81:23 includes (4) 75:2,19 113:8 87:16 98:6 159:25
garden (1) 59:12 143:16 150:15 158:18 136:5 163:21,24 himself (14) 6:23 66:15 identified (13) 23:4 126:9 interests (1) 162:25
gareth (4) 38:18 39:5 41:22 159:22 163:8,9,10 handed (2) 136:9,13 67:17 81:4 98:16,24 44:14,19,22 46:4 48:11 including (17) 5:8 9:15 12:17 interfere (1) 59:9
79:22 164:14,16 169:24 handled (1) 151:1 104:16 109:3 145:20 86:16 92:14 98:15 127:17 14:4 50:19 52:2 53:3 59:8 interfering (1) 59:10
gather (2) 37:6,8 170:12,15,17 171:14,19 handwriting (1) 35:18 152:8,11 153:15 166:21 136:21 156:5 158:1 63:11 65:12 70:5 71:24 intermediaries (1) 97:20
gauge (1) 82:17 173:6,7,10 handwritten (5) 6:4 33:1 167:14 identifier (1) 17:14 72:20 82:19 127:20 140:2 intermediary (4) 95:6,10,16
gave (9) 26:20 39:15 40:2,12 grabiners (2) 130:1 155:25 34:7 35:7,14 hinnant (2) 120:17 155:10 identifiers (3) 17:12,24 18:3 155:18 97:4
42:2 44:2 50:22 72:16 grabs (1) 1:21 happen (3) 29:21 59:3 hired (1) 61:4 identifies (4) 15:21 28:3 incoming (1) 45:12 international (7) 95:24
104:2 grafted (1) 71:1 118:15 historic (1) 85:16 48:21 55:15 inconsistent (2) 6:18 69:6 116:7,12 119:20 125:22,24
gavin (1) 60:7 granath (4) 40:13,23 41:5 happened (8) 11:23 29:13 history (13) 10:8,18,22,23 identify (3) 18:23 81:16 83:1 incorporated (1) 125:23 126:8
general (4) 34:25 40:7,21 81:21 31:10 67:10 92:18 98:25 11:2,3 12:24 43:10 86:16 identifying (1) 156:21 incorporation (4) 116:5 internet (9) 5:1 11:23 12:6
131:7 granger (1) 39:6 154:13 157:9 132:11,14 133:11 157:13 identity (12) 2:11 3:4 63:8 122:14 145:13,14 46:20 55:24 59:11 85:18
generally (1) 87:25 granted (4) 1:16 112:25 happening (1) 109:1 hofstad (1) 35:5 70:2 81:25 85:6 86:3 92:21 incredible (1) 112:10 97:4 165:17
generated (3) 101:3,4 140:25 113:16 114:18 happens (3) 26:9 47:24 holds (2) 55:6 91:19 98:11 99:1 104:9 105:18 indentation (2) 28:1,10 interpret (1) 133:17
generating (1) 97:2 granting (1) 151:14 159:1 home (8) 13:20 51:6 ignored (1) 163:2 indentations (8) 27:24 interpretation (2) 109:23
genesis (1) 64:11 graphs (1) 35:4 happily (1) 164:6 96:16,17 106:5,16 107:11 ill (22) 7:17 14:13 32:12,20 28:4,7,13,15,21,25 29:3 132:9
genius (1) 95:9 grasping (1) 116:16 happy (2) 13:20 137:9 109:4 34:3 39:25 40:10 51:23 independence (1) 133:23 interrupt (2) 164:14,16
gentleman (1) 100:9 grateful (4) 107:6 123:25 hard (7) 37:18 45:25 97:7 honest (1) 151:4 53:24 94:3 103:20 104:10 independent (7) 133:16,22 interrupting (1) 136:20
genuine (7) 43:18 53:17 54:1 140:15 163:10 106:13 112:10 126:20 hooghiemstra (1) 35:5 108:1 115:12 116:13,16 134:12,12,17 141:16 intersect (1) 94:20
59:9 119:9 137:25 156:25 gratefully (1) 151:17 146:9 hope (3) 114:2,8 130:23 129:11 165:10,12 170:4 155:21 intervention (1) 102:18
genuinely (2) 6:2 152:19 great (8) 5:23 49:21 79:12 harder (1) 60:18 hopefully (5) 37:6 91:11 171:3,21 indepth (1) 22:21 interview (6) 50:22 51:18
georges (1) 108:4 80:14 143:4 146:15 163:12 hardly (1) 166:13 129:9 171:1,22 illegitimate (1) 130:3 index (1) 173:1 52:1 53:22 54:4 100:19
get (19) 1:4 66:24 77:6,15 169:19 hardy (4) 127:22,24 158:17 hopeless (1) 65:10 illievich (2) 38:11 39:5 indicate (2) 148:14,19 interviews (1) 58:7
86:16 90:24 96:4 102:3 greatest (1) 155:7 159:13 hospital (5) 68:4 107:23 im (56) 26:5 35:19,21,22 indicated (1) 28:7 into (23) 4:14 10:11 11:2
108:25 117:22 128:24 greatly (1) 162:10 hash (1) 60:4 108:4 109:16,19 36:22 47:11 49:7 51:10 indicates (4) 12:24 26:11 26:20 27:11 30:12 45:8
130:14 135:2 138:8 139:9 greenberg (1) 4:6 hashcash (2) 25:10 31:25 host (1) 14:3 52:4 60:12 67:1 74:24 77:1 142:25 169:13 49:20 52:5 57:16 70:25
144:6 158:6 162:15 165:16 grind (1) 80:22 hashcoin (2) 22:22 23:10 hosted (1) 119:4 78:3,7 86:2 88:14 indicating (2) 18:13 123:8 87:13 88:9 107:13 108:24
getting (6) 77:20,24 78:3,7 ground (2) 89:22 129:25 hasnt (4) 53:12,14 98:24 hotel (1) 59:12 90:4,5,23 93:18 indication (1) 119:3 111:24 120:7 130:14
151:13 160:4 group (3) 88:24 100:3 129:17 150:19 hotter (2) 77:20,24 102:19,21,23 107:6 109:17 indications (6) 21:5,7 25:18 135:14 137:22 147:7
gigabytes (1) 20:22 guard (1) 89:5 hats (2) 143:9 157:3 hough (58) 1:4 3:18 4:2,3,9 113:7 114:7 121:3,17 143:14,25 148:10 151:13 153:11
give (26) 6:13 23:10 33:13 guarded (1) 111:1 havent (5) 2:10 123:22 7:9 37:8,10 48:5,8,10 123:9,22,25 125:8 129:19 indicative (1) 27:15 introduce (1) 114:16
37:24 44:3 53:25 59:2 guardrails (2) 161:23,24 158:4,9 169:16 74:24 75:2 99:11 102:8 130:7 134:25 136:4,15 individual (4) 88:25 119:14 introduced (2) 87:12 104:22
104:10 107:19 111:2 guess (3) 32:14 86:3 154:9 having (22) 8:18,22 11:19 113:23 123:24 128:24 140:14 142:22 144:11 131:6,15 introduces (1) 87:8
115:20,24 132:8 136:11,17 guided (1) 2:1 12:8,10,10 21:1,5 24:16 129:8,16,19 130:6,7 146:3 163:10 165:12,21 individuals (6) 3:12 5:9 introducing (1) 6:17
143:10 147:24 155:6,16 gunning (26) 3:18 4:7 26:8 31:14 44:8 46:1 50:18 135:5,9,13,19,21,25 167:8 169:25,25 37:12 88:24 94:14 161:9 introduction (3) 24:6 65:25
165:7 170:3,4,5,16,19 76:13,20,21 77:6,22 54:11 74:21 76:14 112:7 136:3,5,7,13,15 137:9,19 170:2,5,5,8,9,18 171:14 industrial (1) 4:12 66:7
171:17 78:2,3,7,14,18,20 89:11 141:8 152:22 163:18 168:3 138:2 143:3,7 144:11 image (33) 4:16 13:14,16 industry (1) 69:14 intrusion (1) 114:3
given (27) 11:9 16:13 23:16 93:15 153:22,23,24 160:15 head (2) 108:24 167:2 150:9 151:23 152:4 153:21 14:21 inevitably (2) 90:23 95:2 inventors (1) 79:17
33:19 38:18 39:18 163:13 164:10,13,15 header (7) 46:22 71:20 156:5 160:7 165:10,15 15:1,2,5,9,10,11,14,16,24 inference (1) 164:23 investigate (1) 151:11
41:2,9,12,19 42:5,16 56:19 169:11 173:5,9 72:8,12 73:7,21 133:15 166:19 167:3,13 168:9,17 16:11,24,25 17:9 18:4,18 inferences (1) 84:19 investigated (1) 17:12
57:6 59:20 61:10 76:15 headers (1) 133:6 171:3,6,11 173:4,8 19:7 20:9,19 21:12,15 info (1) 112:1 investor (1) 104:21
H
90:22 99:6 110:15 headline (1) 57:21 hour (2) 79:24 156:18 23:5,6,23 28:3 30:19 70:5 infodef09raw (9) 18:20 invite (3) 90:12 98:2 165:3
120:20,22 125:5 134:16 h (1) 21:6 heads (1) 79:18 hours (1) 62:11 108:19 127:15 148:9 19:4,14,24 20:4,5,19 invoices (13)
154:14 156:25 164:8 h171 (1) 25:21 health (1) 44:4 house (1) 68:4 imaged (1) 13:18 23:5,23 122:12,13,15,16,21,22
gives (8) 23:7 64:19 90:2 h1710 (1) 27:15 hear (4) 3:23 78:4,6 83:22 housekeeping (2) 1:5 173:3 imageraw (2) 18:19 148:14 information (13) 4:18 22:4 123:3,7 124:20 137:5,21
103:16 115:6 138:10 h1711 (1) 28:5 heard (4) 88:13 101:9 104:23 however (4) 5:5 81:22 images (3) 21:22 29:1 148:2 25:7 80:25 81:7 82:19 156:14,15
146:16 155:12 h1712 (1) 28:8 105:22 111:23 121:6 imagine (2) 85:8 144:20 108:9 111:1,2 133:7 involve (2) 34:6 167:13
giving (5) 24:24 57:9 91:2 h1713 (1) 28:10 hearing (4) 3:24 4:18 82:10 huge (2) 6:11 44:7 immediate (1) 154:9 140:24 148:24 157:12 involved (6) 2:7 12:16 71:5
96:15 153:18 h1714 (1) 28:10 144:23 human (3) 108:19 113:1,3 immediately (3) 26:2 64:6 informationdefense (1) 72:2 92:1 104:24 137:11
glaxo (3) 129:1,19,23 h1715 (2) 28:18 29:8 hearn (4) 127:3,5,6 147:6 hundreds (4) 5:7 20:22 75:5 informed (2) 8:3 152:18 involvement (3) 55:7 97:20
glean (1) 69:20 h1717 (1) 29:17 hearns (2) 127:11 147:9 85:10 142:19 immense (1) 105:7 infrastructure (1) 148:7 112:1
gmail (2) 132:15 143:23 h1718 (2) 29:24 30:11 hearsay (1) 40:4 hydra (1) 79:18 immutable (1) 95:11 infringe (1) 162:4 involves (3) 7:13 133:19
gmx (1) 71:17 h1719 (1) 30:13 hearts (2) 113:14 167:18 hyphen (2) 29:10,11 impact (3) 97:3 111:16 infringement (1) 113:1 161:3
gobbledygook (2) 65:3 103:9 h1721 (1) 30:19 heated (1) 105:18 hyphenation (1) 29:7 117:22 inherent (1) 93:4 involving (2) 61:24 71:8
goes (7) 2:18 15:19 101:11 h175 (1) 25:23 heavily (1) 125:2 implementation (1) 87:6 initial (4) 45:5 81:13 92:16 ira (6) 44:7 49:24 71:12
I
141:25 146:21 167:8 h177 (1) 26:4 hector (1) 40:25 implication (2) 70:1 109:10 140:7 73:13,13 117:10
168:24 h178 (1) 27:5 hed (13) 39:3,13 53:22 i39 (1) 90:7 implicit (1) 164:9 initiative (1) 71:9 ireland (1) 2:15
going (45) 1:4 35:20 47:2,11 h2047 (1) 75:22 56:12,16 65:8 72:8,15 i51 (1) 14:18 implicitly (1) 101:20 injunction (1) 112:25 ironic (1) 154:3
61:9 65:3 66:23 68:13 h2411 (1) 55:9 109:5 141:12 149:24 i5116 (1) 14:19 import (1) 30:11 injuries (1) 68:5 irony (1) 154:8
77:25 78:9,15,18 79:25 h24112 (1) 55:10 152:12,12 i5118 (1) 15:3 importance (4) 11:13 12:21 ink (1) 36:16 irregular (4) 29:7 48:20,22
80:3,5,11 82:9,12 h2417 (1) 56:1 held (3) 82:15 104:1 108:24 i5119 (1) 15:8 153:13,14 inserted (1) 27:11 49:10
84:6,9,19 85:25 88:2,3,14 h26718 (1) 23:1 hell (1) 171:11 i5130 (1) 87:2 important (17) 14:15 66:10 insisted (2) 13:22 154:4 irregularities (2) 30:15 75:14
93:18 95:12 96:2 97:25 h26719 (1) 23:3 help (7) 71:14,18 92:20 i520 (1) 15:20 79:20 85:2 93:21 94:6 inspected (1) 20:20 irregularity (1) 30:4
121:3 123:10 130:7,18 h27820 (1) 23:8 158:8 168:9,10,14 i521 (1) 16:6 116:1 117:2 119:12 123:11 instagram (1) 113:11 irrelevant (8) 83:9 114:13
136:11 144:15 146:3 h27822 (1) 23:14 helped (1) 18:23 i530 (1) 87:4 126:3 140:10,14 141:13 instalment (1) 131:13 115:19 130:17 147:15
156:15 163:6 164:11 h27825 (1) 23:18 helpful (4) 2:3 108:12 113:20 id (10) 8:19 22:18 23:17 142:18 145:9 161:4 instance (2) 11:15 129:21 149:4 167:15,22
170:3,5,5,8,9,19 h27826 (1) 23:21 170:17 43:4 89:15 100:16 103:22 importantly (1) 79:23 instead (3) 82:1 141:19 irreversible (1) 97:2
goldfarb (1) 4:6 h27827 (1) 24:3 helpfully (1) 90:8 129:6 168:11 170:16 impossible (1) 134:14 156:22 irrevocably (1) 96:7
gone (2) 78:13 109:5 h27833 (1) 24:9 helps (1) 22:19 id000254 (1) 24:20 impression (3) 23:11 107:19 institution (1) 98:1 isnt (8) 1:6 40:17 43:2 83:24
good (13) 29:4,16 32:8 37:9 h681 (2) 48:18 49:5 hence (1) 97:20 id000464 (1) 73:12 135:3 instructed (4) 86:22 97:9 88:3 112:22 144:14 159:19

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

issued (4) 2:15 46:23 61:13 kass (1) 103:3 l2020626 (1) 48:6 legible (1) 68:20 124:1 135:14,17 158:7 140:13 144:18,18 145:19 mean (16) 16:13 28:25 69:19
67:12 kc (6) 3:18,18,21 4:5,5,7 l21581 (1) 33:4 length (1) 47:4 looked (3) 89:25 153:11 167:5,8 170:21 171:7 84:3 92:24 93:3 103:7
issues (14) 2:6 3:23 7:1,6 keen (1) 158:8 l215812 (1) 34:7 less (4) 34:17 47:13 128:13 154:21 maddens (5) 21:8 22:25 52:4 109:16 137:5 144:6 154:13
13:6 51:16 93:24 105:9 keep (4) 51:12 53:3 128:19 l21585 (1) 33:14 142:12 looking (9) 7:13 31:19 71:16 75:22 82:23 166:11,14 168:15,16
114:8 115:22 116:3 125:5 159:8 l22421 (1) 44:25 let (19) 22:17 33:13 44:23 73:11 118:22 137:16,20,23 mail (3) 119:3 132:11 133:8 170:23
143:10 144:16 keeps (1) 46:19 l22431 (1) 46:6 56:5 57:24 130:25 141:11 mailing (3) 153:3,4,10 meaning (2) 51:18 121:21
issuing (3) 60:25 96:15,17 kept (1) 12:24 l224323 (1) 46:10 131:7,19 136:5 141:16 looks (6) 32:12 40:15 main (3) 2:19 25:25 60:23 meaningless (2) 150:21
item (5) 31:25 75:3 104:18 key (19) 5:23 24:18 35:25 l24411 (1) 24:21 142:9 143:11,17 145:22 45:6,17 111:4 148:4 maincpp (3) 46:9 47:11,18 162:23
125:11 126:19 57:3,9 58:12,13,14 l24417 (1) 31:21 149:2 160:11 167:17 lords (8) 8:23 13:24 60:1,6 maintain (1) 65:7 means (7) 52:22 83:2
items (4) 44:20 119:14 61:21,23 63:3,4 64:22 l24418 (1) 31:24 168:10,20 61:9 68:8 75:21 151:21 maintained (1) 25:12 109:18,20 132:14 159:8
148:15 150:5 66:12 90:10 103:13 119:7 l32301 (1) 35:10 lets (3) 36:25 64:6 77:5 lordship (85) 4:17 7:2,5,23 maintains (2) 8:20 105:23 160:4
iterations (3) 20:9 39:1 137:11 156:20 l32311 (1) 98:3 letter (8) 50:24 87:11 96:6 8:13 14:8 61:16 76:22 major (1) 108:7 meant (2) 86:1 103:8
74:11 keys (21) 3:12 57:22 58:6,9 l4151 (1) 45:15 97:12 145:24 151:16 153:8 78:4,20,23 79:9,14 80:18 majority (1) 5:23 meanwhile (2) 50:11 153:2
itol (1) 68:16 62:7,16,21 64:11 65:20 l5281 (1) 75:21 154:12 82:6 83:21 makes (20) 27:5,14,23 28:18 measures (1) 56:22
its (146) 1:6 2:23 12:21 99:16 100:15 103:20,25 l72201 (1) 102:4 letters (1) 27:7 85:9,11,12,14,18 29:6,16 30:5,17 36:20 meat (1) 130:14
13:11,11 14:16,22 17:10 104:8,16 105:17 106:14 l828338 (1) 159:11 liability (1) 97:4 86:13,14,18,19 87:11 41:20 42:5,17 51:23 62:17 mechanism (2) 96:24,25
22:2,22 24:21,25 25:1,9,13 127:25 158:20 159:7,21 l84461 (1) 71:15 liaison (2) 110:11,13 88:1,5,24 89:19 90:9,12 74:14 76:9 128:8 130:16 media (7) 5:9 60:24 63:24
27:21 31:21 35:12 36:18 kind (9) 14:7 26:21 65:2 la (1) 129:4 liar (2) 157:8 159:20 91:12 93:3 98:3,14 99:14 131:1 135:17 98:10 113:10 152:6 153:15
37:13,16,23,24 40:7 44:25 87:16 132:19 135:15 label (1) 24:24 library (1) 155:12 100:16 101:10,13 102:9,12 making (1) 67:1 medical (1) 89:19
45:2 53:25 54:21,22 56:24 162:14 163:2 164:9 lack (1) 54:12 lie (5) 4:11 6:19 9:1 65:5 103:6 108:1,5,20 109:5 malmi (3) 152:5,8 154:23 meet (2) 126:6 170:22
60:1,6 61:15 62:7,23 63:23 kingdom (1) 105:2 lacks (1) 133:22 76:18 112:19 113:8 114:2,4 malmis (1) 152:8 meeting (4) 106:1,4,8 125:3
64:6,12,17,20 65:18,23 kleiman (43) 37:22 38:23 lamb (2) 2:14,17 life (1) 111:17 115:3,6,8,14,15,17,20 management (1) 147:3 meiklejohn (4) 56:22,24
67:4 68:17 69:5,20 70:9,9 39:8,18,22 40:1,4 landscape (1) 108:11 lifetime (1) 91:24 116:1,15 117:4 manager (1) 42:15 58:12,19
74:11,24 75:5,9,20 41:1,5,8,12,19 language (12) 71:1 light (3) 108:16 114:25 118:11,15,22 120:18,20 mandatory (1) 163:16 mellor (89) 1:3 7:8 36:25
77:22,22,23 78:9 80:19 42:4,10,16,20 44:3,8 121:11,18,19,22,23 126:15 137:10 121:10 123:20 125:8 manipulated (21) 5:25 14:25 37:5,9 48:4,7,9 74:23 75:1
81:7 83:2,3,10 86:21 49:24,25 59:20,25 60:5,8 163:16,22,23 164:25 165:1 like (14) 40:15 43:4 51:1 126:14 144:11 154:17 16:5 20:13 21:16 22:8,24 76:19,24 77:4,10,13,20,25
87:4,16 89:1,1,2,6 91:24 64:25 71:3,4,8,10,12,13,25 large (4) 1:7 5:21 35:25 82:15 85:16 89:15 91:15 156:23 157:5 159:10,16,24 27:2 34:2,20 35:9,12 49:19 78:17,19 85:24
93:25 94:23 96:22 97:4 73:10,13,13,14 79:16,21 82:13 100:16 103:22 111:4 160:4,24 161:4 164:22 70:8,14 72:22 117:9 118:9 89:10,12,18 91:2,9,13
98:5,8 99:13 101:7,24 81:20 117:9,10,12 145:19 largely (1) 45:20 135:18 144:5 153:12 165:3,24 167:1,9 140:18 146:11 148:21 92:11,13,18,20,23
103:9,14 107:5 108:6,10 kleimans (4) 44:7,10 50:7 largest (1) 113:9 164:23 lordships (11) 84:9,19 88:12 manipulation (8) 8:18 16:8 93:7,11,14 107:5 108:21
109:23 110:12 112:10 117:15 lasseters (1) 41:17 likely (8) 30:23 34:10 85:22 101:17 113:14 114:25 20:14,16 21:7 22:17 27:3 109:12,15,18,21,23 110:7
113:23 116:1,14,18 119:11 knew (3) 79:12 111:13 last (19) 1:14 2:14 4:17 99:4 103:10,14 106:17 115:16 120:23 122:2 123:8 112:17 113:19,25 114:6,10
120:7,25 121:4 122:4 138:20 10:20 15:4 16:15,24 18:3 127:18 160:12 171:15 manipulations (2) 15:19 118:23 124:19 128:21,25
123:23,24 124:1,12 129:20 knife (1) 107:22 46:11 48:24,25 64:15 limit (2) 47:5 76:23 loretan (1) 120:17 21:17 129:9,18 130:5
130:15 131:3 132:8,18 know (31) 11:16 12:3 32:1,3 71:15,24 86:14 133:2,13 limitations (1) 95:1 loss (2) 107:25 109:7 manner (5) 106:7 161:5,6 135:1,6,12,16,20,22
134:14 136:7 140:14 40:15 51:12 65:6 70:17,18 140:15 157:20 limited (2) 45:14 47:4 lost (5) 30:22 54:19 81:9 163:4 166:25 136:1,4,6,10,14,16,24
141:7,11,24 143:21 77:2 78:4 84:13 85:7 90:13 late (10) 2:23 117:11 127:8 limits (1) 57:2 103:20 157:21 manuscript (4) 33:10 46:8 137:2,13 138:1 142:22
145:2,16,24 95:19 98:20 116:15 117:24 142:11,15 145:16 149:2 line (21) 29:15 30:15 34:8 lot (3) 130:10 131:1 145:21 47:22 110:10 143:5 144:6 150:8 151:22
146:2,4,11,13,18,22 135:9,9,13,20 139:1 150:3,5 156:11 37:25 38:6,13,24 39:2 45:6 louis (1) 71:4 many (12) 4:23 50:14 69:8 152:3 153:20,22 160:14
147:16,18 150:18 157:18 159:9,19,22 165:23 lately (1) 128:5 46:12,15,17 52:8 60:10 loves (1) 80:13 85:4 98:9 133:11 134:7 163:7 169:21
154:13,23 155:4,14 169:13 170:12 171:18 lateness (1) 128:4 64:25 66:20 67:6 89:6 lovink (1) 153:5 138:11 148:21 160:25 170:1,14,16,18
156:11,16 157:2,3,17,23 knowledge (2) 42:12 74:9 later (19) 2:6 6:7 13:17 20:1 102:13 112:1 160:7 lower (1) 28:4 161:1 167:12 171:5,10,18,20
158:21,21,22,23 160:10 known (7) 16:11 29:2 75:7 25:9 31:11 33:9 36:16 lines (7) 26:2 27:24 46:24 ludwig (1) 100:9 maporphanblocksbypreverasehash members (1) 73:19
161:1,4 162:25 164:12 94:23 99:21 103:25 127:15 40:19 49:9 51:6 53:19 47:19 103:3 124:1,2 lunch (2) 76:21,23 (1) 46:16 membership (1) 113:8
166:10 169:15 170:2 knows (4) 88:19 99:14 117:4 54:20 69:15,17 70:25 linguistic (1) 68:23 lying (1) 85:23 marathon (1) 33:8 mention (9) 3:8 6:7 12:19
itself (4) 61:10 112:24 148:9 118:15 107:25 119:14 137:1 link (4) 1:9,13 2:25 75:7 lynam (5) 39:7 40:10,12 march (9) 31:13,15 38:1 56:3 35:20 41:20 42:6,17 152:2
149:15 latest (1) 119:7 linked (4) 3:13 17:14 66:13 42:25 44:1 71:11,13 72:6 73:10 97:6 154:20
L
ive (14) 2:7 3:3 22:18 51:10 latex (42) 5:2,3,4 7:20,21,25 67:8 lynams (1) 44:11 mark (3) 41:17 45:1 128:25 mentioned (16) 12:12
93:20 96:14 100:10 103:5 l11151 (1) 35:16 8:6,8,16,23 9:7,25 10:3 linking (1) 34:23 lynch (12) 9:2 14:18,19,22 marker (2) 97:13 154:17 39:18,22 40:17
136:4,13 142:10 144:7 l111535 (1) 35:22 11:8,9,13,17,20,25 links (1) 41:25 15:1 16:10,20 21:8,20 marking (1) 146:2 41:4,8,11,18
169:21,24 l111537 (1) 35:20 12:10,12,12,18,19,23 linux (1) 83:14 87:2,5 144:20 marks (2) 46:7 110:2 42:4,8,10,14,16 105:15

l11751 (1) 22:18 22:20 23:25 24:2,10 list (14) 39:12 61:15 65:15 lynchs (1) 16:23 massive (1) 138:14 126:13 154:22
J 26:19,23,25 27:19 29:2 104:19 153:3,4,10 lynn (2) 38:21 40:3 match (3) 27:25 31:4,10 mentions (1) 57:1
l124921 (1) 101:7
l124922 (2) 101:11 102:6 30:1 76:5,9 86:8,9,24 154:15,22 156:22,25 matches (6) 31:2 68:19 mere (1) 94:18
january (9) 45:16 72:3
l131011 (1) 64:14 87:20 154:6 157:2,6,7 M 70:6,10 71:23 75:18 merely (2) 104:8 132:2
122:8,10 123:6 138:19
l131501 (1) 61:11 latter (1) 153:25 listcultures (1) 152:23 matching (2) 26:5 68:17 merit (1) 161:13
156:7 167:1 169:17
l13171 (1) 35:2 lawyer (6) 41:7 53:10 listening (2) 134:24 161:10 m12103 (1) 10:25 material (28) 114:14 122:11 message (16) 53:11 56:12
jeanpaul (2) 61:1,18
l132491 (1) 67:21 102:16,16,17 143:21 literally (1) 142:19 m12105 (1) 10:16 128:9,18 141:17,24 57:20,23 58:13 60:19
jenkins (1) 42:15
l132611 (1) 66:18 lawyers (3) 150:13 161:15 litigation (8) 32:4 37:22 m12106 (1) 10:19 142:2,10,17 143:22 144:14 62:6,25 63:2 64:15 71:22
jeopardise (1) 127:7
l132631 (1) 67:13 163:25 41:13 59:20 71:10,25 m12107 (1) 10:23 145:4,12 146:23 152:21 101:2 105:21 156:20
jimmy (1) 52:2
l133601 (1) 108:2 layer (2) 13:22 155:14 73:25 99:2 m12156 (1) 87:12 153:9 154:2 156:11 157:16 159:2,4
job (1) 81:3
l133605 (1) 111:21 lead (3) 90:16 111:13 155:11 little (11) 16:20 51:10 78:3 m1278 (1) 157:17 164:3 167:15,19,22,25 messages (5) 43:20 47:3
jobs (1) 81:6
l133606 (1) 110:11 leading (3) 15:12 19:21 80:11 101:9 111:21 126:13 m2352 (1) 44:21 168:4,15,24 169:4 153:6 157:8 158:11
john (1) 41:10
l13401 (1) 61:3 88:15 129:7 166:1 167:15 170:7 mabborang (1) 40:25 materially (1) 8:11 messrs (1) 120:17
join (1) 2:23
l13971 (1) 63:15 leads (2) 76:16 111:14 live (4) 44:3 55:21 61:8 macfarlane (1) 120:17 materials (2) 4:19 139:3 mestre (1) 53:11
joinder (1) 2:22
l142372 (1) 65:22 leaked (1) 49:23 140:1 macfarlanes (1) 11:1 maths (1) 86:17 met (2) 41:14 110:18
joined (1) 2:21
l142941 (1) 68:12 leaking (1) 50:11 llm (12) 34:14 95:21,22 macgregor (20) 61:6 63:16 matonis (8) 58:21 99:21 meta (2) 113:9,9
joint (8) 9:3 21:9 59:16
l142942 (1) 68:18 learned (24) 86:10,15 93:15 97:2,14 126:7,8,9,14,20 64:8,19 65:9 67:19,24 100:19,22,24 101:13,22 metadata (15) 6:5 9:9 17:23
90:8,11,14 140:14 148:4
l143271 (1) 65:15 99:11 102:8 131:1 143:12 145:22 146:8 104:18,19,21,24 102:4 48:20,21 76:4 82:11 83:16
jointly (2) 141:7 142:5
l143276 (1) 66:4 155:17,24,25 156:5 158:18 lloyd (1) 42:19 105:5,7,13,19,25 matter (10) 83:20 95:24 84:5 119:21 120:4,7
jon (2) 99:21 100:22
l151851 (1) 74:21 159:22 160:6,16 163:12 logical (1) 124:5 106:4,6,17 107:12 97:15 110:16 115:19 124:5 125:18 126:1 127:17
journalist (1) 100:12
l1732795 (1) 37:24 165:10 166:18 167:3,13 logs (2) 15:21 16:4 macgregors (1) 106:19 144:21 152:1 153:17 154:1 method (3) 61:24,25 66:2
journalists (1) 58:20
l1732796 (1) 38:13 168:9,17,23 169:11 london (2) 96:1,16 machine (1) 56:15 matters (11) 62:1 77:7 89:15 methodology (1) 119:1
judge (2) 85:13,22
l1732797 (1) 38:17 least (10) 16:7,10 26:22 long (10) 38:25 48:7 53:4 machines (8) 83:15 124:6 127:5 128:15 130:7 methods (4) 5:11 57:1,4,4
judgment (16) 7:3,13 37:11
l1732798 (1) 39:2 36:21 65:5 70:18,18 83:23 54:22 119:15 138:18 127:13,20 148:2 147:7 155:17 165:9 167:11 meticulously (1) 166:23
44:14 50:15 56:3 60:21
l182571 (1) 61:14 143:21 165:8 160:23 166:22 170:2,20 149:7,9,10,15 matthews (14) 39:24 42:25 michael (1) 89:23
68:9 71:3 74:16 112:24
l1825711 (1) 62:2 leave (3) 115:6 143:1 159:3 longer (2) 73:16 99:4 madden (55) 11:21 12:7 43:2,8,12,18 63:12 66:17 micro (3) 33:15 129:4,16
113:7,14 115:20 120:23
l182572 (1) 61:17 leaves (1) 42:22 longest (1) 7:17 14:11 16:17,17,19,23 67:5,6 104:23 107:13 microsoft (1) 12:18
129:3
l182573 (1) 61:21 leaving (2) 82:9 84:8 longestablished (1) 96:23 17:5,12,22 21:21 22:15 127:4 147:6 mid2016 (1) 60:25
july (4) 15:5 17:3 18:3 127:4
l184103 (1) 100:18 led (3) 71:10 105:18 148:2 look (32) 24:21 28:2 23:1,19 25:3,18 26:3,7 max (2) 38:10 40:12 middle (1) 33:14
june (3) 52:1 54:19 55:21
l192574 (1) 25:13 left (5) 49:8,18 106:8 32:9,10,12 45:3 47:9 50:23 27:1,5,9,23 28:18 29:6 mayaka (9) 122:21 midmorning (1) 63:23
justifiable (1) 138:14
l201831 (1) 43:8 110:4,5 54:15 56:23 59:25 60:5,9 30:5,14 34:19 48:17 125:14,21 143:20 midseptember (3) 139:3
justification (1) 134:8
l201951 (1) 12:1 lefthand (3) 45:2 108:17 63:15 64:9 80:18 82:24 49:10,22 53:2 55:8,22 70:8 156:17,21 157:13 158:6,8 145:8,21

l202061 (1) 46:20 109:2 84:6 87:17 98:3 102:21 72:10,21 75:14 124:8 maybe (5) 32:13 78:7 85:15 might (14) 60:8,12 76:22
K
l2020612 (1) 47:9 legal (5) 1:25 6:23 98:13 104:11 107:3 108:1,1 134:23 135:3,7,24 87:4 118:24 80:18 90:16 94:1

k111 (2) 25:8 36:18 l2020625 (1) 47:16 125:1 165:20 120:24 122:11 123:19 136:11,24 138:7,23,25 mcgovern (2) 53:11 79:22 102:19,23 107:10 127:7

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

133:6 135:15 161:11 164:20 nominated (5) 5:24 9:13 obtain (3) 52:14 71:7 141:24 165:3,11 75:6,12,15 76:3,6,8,11 payment (8) 33:20,24 52:18
162:10 mydigital (1) 147:23 10:10 17:4 19:3 obtained (4) 10:9 73:13 organising (1) 1:12 80:25 86:7,8,23 87:20 96:4,14,21,24,25
mike (1) 147:6 myob (24) 116:10 nominees (1) 88:16 145:7 153:4 original (28) 5:4 8:17 9:5 91:20 93:5,8 94:22 95:18 payments (3) 33:15,15 97:24
milk (1) 61:4 119:16,17,18 120:2,3,9,13 nonappearance (1) 98:7 obtaining (2) 5:17 69:14 12:9 14:12 15:6 18:4 97:22 125:16,18,21 126:16 pc (1) 148:15
million (1) 111:12 137:15,16,19 139:22,25 noncompliance (4) 160:22 obvious (10) 19:18 68:23 19:15,25 25:1 26:12 27:20 146:13 147:2,20 167:7 pd57ac (3) 121:2 161:5
mind (9) 46:19 54:6 90:12 140:4,5,6,12,16,20 162:15 163:1,3 97:16 109:7 113:1 118:13 30:17 31:12 35:9 37:18,18 papers (6) 3:2 9:9 12:16 162:12
92:7 112:12 117:5,25 141:1,13 155:18,19 156:10 none (4) 9:18 84:16 119:22 124:12 164:6,20 166:10 73:15 74:7 93:4,8,9 97:7 13:10 25:10 126:12 pdf (11) 9:12 10:1 11:7
118:11 165:24 myself (2) 76:23 165:19 168:1 obviously (10) 42:2 69:23 99:16 101:5 140:4 paragraph (92) 6:3 8:2,24 25:21 26:20 29:19,22
miniature (1) 132:7 mysterious (3) 53:13 86:9 nonindependent (1) 141:21 76:21 86:11 117:22 134:21 147:10,14 9:4,11,22 10:2 12:14 13:3 30:9,17 31:15 47:23
mining (2) 71:8 149:24 156:19 nonnative (1) 157:25 139:5 153:11 154:2 155:22 originally (7) 16:14,25 24:19 14:19 15:3,8,23 16:2,9,22 peacock (1) 42:19
minor (1) 29:12 mystery (3) 40:17 42:7,13 nonreversible (1) 29:11 occasion (1) 13:23 36:15 65:8 119:22 125:20 17:2,5,11,20,21,22 pearsons (1) 146:4
minute (1) 157:20 mythical (1) 74:7 nonsense (5) 50:9 67:1 occasions (1) 54:18 originals (2) 76:5 158:4 18:1,8,20,21 19:1,23 peertopeer (2) 68:21 97:23
minutes (8) 3:19 36:25 37:5 167:22 168:15,16 occurred (3) 15:18 65:18 originators (1) 30:1 20:3,8 21:11,24 22:2 pen (1) 167:7
N
76:14,22 89:11 129:10,11 nonsitting (1) 136:21 137:4 orphan (1) 46:13 23:3,14,19 26:4,17 27:15 penultimate (1) 71:2
mirror (1) 45:20 nakamoto (23) 2:17 3:6,10 nonsparse (1) 35:3 occurring (1) 15:17 orr (2) 4:5 86:15 28:3,5,18 people (16) 1:7 2:8 6:19
misdescription (1) 160:3 4:11 5:16 8:12 47:15 49:17 nonstandard (2) 86:24 87:8 oclock (3) 77:6,8,12 others (5) 16:11 39:9 61:6 29:5,8,14,17,17,20 37:14,17 38:12,19,22 39:6
misleading (1) 70:3 62:20,22 63:7 76:18 79:5 nor (3) 1:20 37:17 84:1 october (25) 5:3 7:3,12 69:4 111:16 30:10,18 31:1 44:17 52:14 76:24 99:5 111:15
miss (1) 163:13 80:9 81:18 82:1 84:16 85:4 northern (1) 2:15 12:13 13:16 16:3,12 17:8 otherwise (8) 40:17 42:8,14 48:19,21 49:14 53:9,16 130:16 157:7 161:18
missing (1) 133:10 87:18,19 88:21 98:8 104:1 northumbria (4) 34:9,15 18:5 25:17 31:4,7 37:11 45:13 62:21 94:1 119:4 54:16 55:10 56:5,23 58:19 perceives (1) 93:1
mistake (1) 68:13 nakamotos (1) 12:9 97:12 145:24 39:11 44:14 50:15 56:2 165:4 59:4 62:18 64:22 65:16 perfectly (3) 47:20 69:8 70:6
mmhm (1) 93:14 name (12) 39:14 41:5 42:10 notable (1) 59:19 60:21 71:2 74:16 95:19 ought (2) 91:1 130:14 71:15,23,24 72:4,14 perform (4) 95:13 132:19
mock (1) 158:11 48:15 53:21 72:17,21 73:7 notably (2) 14:22 36:16 116:18 122:24 126:19 ourselves (2) 138:5 154:7 73:1,11 86:22 87:5 90:14 133:18 135:10
mode (1) 147:12 79:7 87:18 108:17 143:23 note (17) 8:23 13:25 25:8,13 159:12 outdated (1) 133:9 94:17 100:7,11 105:11 performed (7) 11:23 12:8,10
modes (1) 147:13 named (2) 41:1 42:20 35:13 36:6 41:13 44:21 odds (1) 53:22 output (3) 11:7 12:25 80:23 107:4 122:19 123:20,23 57:15 58:21 64:10 134:11
modified (5) 15:11 18:11 namely (2) 3:4 104:8 49:20 60:1,6 61:9 75:21 offending (1) 165:17 outright (1) 65:5 130:13 132:12 140:19 performs (1) 29:23
48:25 49:1,9 names (2) 3:12 23:11 108:14 110:5,10 111:6 offer (3) 6:14 62:16 135:22 outs (1) 62:2 147:11 148:5 149:22 perhaps (8) 28:19 64:15 91:5
modify (1) 15:16 naming (1) 37:14 noted (2) 17:2 30:6 offered (1) 60:7 outset (1) 91:1 152:10 156:24 101:7,17 107:1 124:21
mole (1) 82:2 narrative (4) 4:12 11:19 71:9 notepaper (1) 35:18 offering (1) 127:24 outstanding (1) 3:23 paragraphs (44) 13:25 130:23
moment (11) 36:24 39:25 149:3 notes (15) 25:23 26:3,10,14 offers (2) 35:5 119:2 over (47) 1:7 2:7 5:9 6:8 8:1 15:20,23 21:20 24:4 29:16 period (12) 2:7 6:8 18:12,14
40:11 46:19 63:16 67:1 native (1) 158:3 27:25 30:14 33:5,9,10 offhand (1) 40:6 9:20 10:22 16:6 18:8,14 30:18 44:20 55:25 59:13 20:15 79:2 80:1 122:10
91:10 110:23 115:12 natural (3) 36:23 80:9 81:11 35:17 36:19 45:5,16 46:8 office (1) 127:23 20:17 22:3 23:3,14 24:3 69:12 75:22 87:10 88:10 125:1 128:16 133:10 141:4
137:20 154:21 naturally (4) 44:18 47:7 47:22 officer (1) 150:22 27:4 29:16,24 31:24 32:24 90:4,7,10,12 99:24 100:4 periodicals (1) 58:8
momentous (1) 79:4 142:6 171:4 noteworthy (1) 64:12 oh (2) 143:5 154:10 38:17 39:2 50:16 51:14 104:3,12,13 105:3,3 perjured (1) 6:22
moments (4) 90:24 93:16 nature (2) 125:24 166:3 nothing (12) 34:23 39:19 ohagan (1) 100:1 57:4,24 58:6,9 62:21 64:23 106:2,10,23 114:23 permissible (1) 132:5
118:14 121:23 nch (1) 43:15 46:1 54:2 62:10 70:23 ok (2) 66:22 67:23 66:10 78:21 79:23,24 115:4,5,7 118:20 119:2 permission (9) 114:16,18,24
monday (1) 1:1 nchain (4) 43:16 100:2 146:5 151:6,15 168:4,13 okay (26) 7:8 37:9 48:9 82:10 83:4 101:25 107:14 120:1,23 122:19 129:1 115:8,25 120:20 122:3
money (1) 117:22 104:24 127:8 169:13 76:19 77:4,10,13 78:2,17 108:8 128:24 136:13 131:21 139:20,22 155:24 170:6,19
moneylab (3) 152:24 153:3,7 nearby (1) 110:5 notice (9) 2:15,16 40:4 48:16 91:13 92:23 93:11 100:22 138:14 141:2 143:17 147:8 156:1 161:1 permissions (2) 66:24,25
monitor (2) 108:22 143:25 nearly (1) 6:8 49:16 55:2 121:3,16 122:3 109:22 124:19 129:9,18 167:4,5 parallels (1) 68:23 permitted (5) 1:19 48:3
monitored (1) 60:14 neatly (2) 20:7 76:7 notwithstanding (1) 93:17 136:6,10,16 144:6 153:20 overflow (1) 1:18 parity (1) 96:2 115:2 119:8 151:20
months (5) 25:16 33:8 79:8 necessarily (1) 94:7 noughties (1) 34:6 163:7 164:14 170:1 171:20 overheating (1) 74:23 part (19) 7:17,24 11:20 permitting (1) 84:6
85:21 139:12 necessary (7) 83:7 105:8 november (9) 10:13,22,24 old (3) 52:10 55:23 86:18 overleaf (11) 7:21 8:5,7 24:12 27:8 34:14 63:18 perpetrate (1) 50:12
morals (1) 90:19 128:14 136:23 142:17 11:4 37:22 47:1 87:14,21 omits (1) 30:6 9:14,19 10:8,13,19 84:1 79:21 81:8 82:13 132:1,5 persists (1) 167:14
more (26) 6:13 28:19 34:25 158:6 170:23 90:9 omitted (2) 13:18 30:12 86:13,13 133:25 137:17,23 139:1 person (19) 1:13 3:5 38:11
36:19 50:4 58:4 64:24 neck (4) 68:3 107:22 108:20 nowhere (4) 62:22 134:18 once (1) 150:2 overnight (1) 171:12 150:13 152:5 162:9 40:17 42:7,13 57:25
68:20 79:23 83:22 109:4 153:6 168:19 ones (5) 22:13 30:12 57:2 overstated (1) 11:14 participant (1) 56:19 85:8,8,13 86:2 90:20 91:7
85:17,17 88:15 96:22 need (28) 3:24 8:23 13:6 nt (1) 17:23 92:5 135:20 overtechnical (1) 166:9 participate (2) 105:5,14 98:11 99:3 101:20,20
103:14,16 128:11,12 36:1,17,20 43:23 49:20 number (16) 1:7,10 5:21 ongoing (1) 153:1 own (17) 5:22 39:14 56:10 particular (10) 47:8 57:3 107:6 164:20
129:10 133:6 138:5 145:23 52:12 57:16 61:11 66:23 23:17 25:18 31:23 35:19 online (7) 33:15 47:25 48:1 58:1,1 81:6 115:16 121:5 63:5 88:6 95:3 103:2 personal (1) 70:20
149:16 151:15 163:1 71:18,18 77:14 95:10 52:8,10,21 69:22 101:3,4 62:10 94:10 97:24 129:5 123:16 124:5 138:18,20 104:17 134:7 139:1 154:7 perspective (1) 161:8
167:24 99:23 102:3,11 104:11 106:23 157:6,16 ontier (6) 97:8,10,12 126:12 139:2 143:24 144:2 145:7 particularly (4) 90:3 145:12 persuade (1) 151:12
moreover (2) 79:14 98:20 112:4,21,23 113:16 120:24 numbers (3) 8:19 99:17,18 146:14,18 147:25 154:3 166:19 persuaded (2) 101:23 105:5
morning (11) 4:1 63:17 129:10 142:3 146:6 numerous (3) 5:8 6:16 33:11 onto (3) 17:7 57:23 165:16 owner (1) 113:10 particulars (3) 68:9 71:22 pertinent (1) 157:16
99:12 101:10 102:8 103:17 needed (1) 159:6 nurse (3) 108:14 110:17 onwards (3) 30:18 31:1 oz (1) 69:14 75:11 pgp (1) 3:12
104:24 105:22 107:9 170:4 needs (1) 122:2 112:6 61:21 parties (11) 3:14 89:22 phd (2) 80:10,17
P
171:21 neema (2) 139:3 143:13 nutshell (2) 119:18 170:15 open (3) 61:24 66:15 135:22 91:16,19 96:23 98:23 phenomenon (1) 28:12
mornings (1) 102:10 neither (3) 37:16 50:6 102:6 nyc (1) 63:23 opened (1) 15:25 p12020 (1) 123:24 114:20 130:10 150:9 philosophical (5) 91:15,18
moss (1) 4:5 networks (1) 40:21 opening (20) 2:1 3:17,19,21 packages (1) 10:5 151:1,5 92:13,25 93:20
O
most (6) 69:23 103:9 130:9 neutral (1) 129:21 4:9 5:19 6:25 7:17 61:17 pages (13) 28:10,14 partner (2) 41:4 42:10 philosophy (1) 93:9
142:13 150:11 158:23 never (16) 12:10 40:2 41:9 o21095 (1) 37:23 65:15 78:14,16 88:10 38:3,5,25 48:8 50:1 51:6 partnership (1) 117:11 phone (1) 107:14
mostly (1) 130:17 42:2 56:19 66:17 67:10,18 o42534 (1) 50:22 89:14,16 112:15 113:18 108:8 110:9 116:25 125:19 parts (9) 5:20 34:19 36:15 photographs (3) 1:20 143:13
mounted (1) 15:25 70:1 74:9 98:15 104:5 o42536 (1) 51:7 173:4,5,6 126:18 47:2 49:6 115:18 131:19 144:1
mounting (1) 20:5 117:3 118:11 119:23 152:9 o42537 (1) 51:14 openoffice (4) 9:7,8 12:18 paid (4) 51:4,20 96:2,18 132:20 160:21 pick (3) 80:7 84:22 91:4
move (6) 15:3 56:2 66:23 neverending (1) 82:7 oath (4) 74:3 156:25 24:23 paints (1) 65:9 party (1) 97:25 picture (1) 103:16
67:6 72:9 147:21 nevertheless (3) 75:24 93:17 157:11,11 operating (8) 48:23 82:14,20 pala (1) 42:9 passage (1) 34:25 piece (1) 111:22
moved (2) 105:1 111:10 134:19 obj (1) 27:7 83:1,3,13,25 153:3 pale (1) 67:5 passages (6) 114:12 115:5 pin (1) 81:16
moves (1) 73:21 neville (1) 41:4 object (10) 17:23 18:2 operator (4) 49:7 57:7 papa (2) 139:3 143:13 133:16 142:1 165:14 place (5) 20:12 28:12 48:15
moving (7) 36:7 66:12 67:3 newcastle (1) 38:20 27:10,17 28:9 102:16 140:15 153:5 papaneemagmailcom (1) 170:10 66:24 118:13
82:1 102:2 107:13 141:23 newly (2) 101:3,4 103:4 123:16 124:18 opinion (6) 60:7 90:3 158:5 passing (2) 31:6 132:4 placed (3) 29:3 68:10 143:8
ms (7) 4:7 7:22,24 53:11 next (32) 12:8 13:8 37:10 128:11 132:8,13 155:1,5 paper (117) 3:7 5:1 passport (4) 55:6 85:15,20 places (3) 30:6,7 104:10
61:3 86:20 146:4 44:14 46:3 48:5 50:15 objected (2) 115:7 120:16 opinions (1) 132:4 7:10,12,14,20 86:7 placks (12) 26:25 34:19
mt (1) 140:18 52:16 56:2 60:21,21 68:8 objecting (2) 102:17 135:8 opportunity (8) 117:1 118:10 8:9,10,11,15,17,21 password (5) 126:2 72:19 140:6,7,13,17
much (17) 22:19 35:23 50:4 79:23,24 82:10 91:14 objection (2) 119:5 168:7 119:10 131:4 156:2,6,9 9:6,12,14,19,25 10:4,6,12 157:22,23 169:12,15 141:15,18 142:2 144:19
57:19 60:18,18 76:19 92:10 93:12 95:20 98:4 objectionable (1) 114:22 169:17 11:17,19,24 12:9,11,15,20 passwords (2) 20:20 81:10 170:21
77:16 89:10 108:12 111:1 99:10 101:6 103:22 104:18 objections (1) 114:11 opposed (3) 34:22 84:5 13:10 14:4,5 19:15,20,22 paste (1) 47:2 plain (4) 52:23 138:23
113:19 135:10,13 166:18 106:3 111:20 125:11 objectively (1) 66:12 109:25 22:20,22 23:12 patent (1) 127:7 141:8,11
167:24 171:23 128:25 137:20 157:24 objects (1) 27:13 opposing (1) 13:4 24:17,19,20,22 25:15,20 patents (1) 147:8 plainly (4) 33:18 34:11 132:1
multidisciplinary (1) 94:19 165:23 166:7 obligation (1) 163:24 opposite (2) 164:13,15 26:10,12,19,23 27:9 pathetic (1) 157:23 160:25
multiheaded (1) 79:18 ng3tex (3) 22:18 23:15 24:12 obligations (1) 6:11 options (2) 10:5 36:7 28:2,6,17 29:15,25 30:8 patients (1) 108:17 plan (1) 170:18
multipage (1) 64:21 nguyen (2) 52:2 53:19 obliged (2) 95:25 96:21 opus (3) 37:6 129:9 132:24 31:3,9,22,25 32:8,13,15,17 patterson (1) 39:21 planned (1) 61:2
multiple (9) 6:21 20:11 nice (1) 1:6 observation (1) 81:14 oral (1) 78:16 33:6 34:7 37:12,16,21 38:1 paul (1) 2:14 plans (1) 103:24
21:17 31:8 47:3 57:7 nick (1) 42:13 observe (1) 2:25 order (21) 1:14 2:5 7:1 39:11 39:14,20 40:14,24 paula (1) 42:9 planted (1) 54:8
74:6,11 98:12 night (1) 3:9 observed (2) 132:4 135:17 43:21 44:24 59:2 62:13 41:16,21 42:6,18,24 pause (6) 54:23,25 55:1 platforms (1) 12:17
must (12) 2:19 16:13 29:1 nine (1) 101:4 observes (1) 27:10 80:16,23 96:19 105:8 68:17,18,19,24 78:12 101:15 123:21 plausibility (1) 89:2
72:1 85:3 99:1 119:20 nobody (3) 57:18 95:3 99:5 observing (5) 1:16,24 91:3,7 113:5 117:3 118:12 121:17 69:2,5,7,9,13,17,20 pay (2) 51:5 96:7 plausible (1) 119:2
138:7,8 158:2 162:21 nodes (3) 45:10,13 95:13 163:3 130:8 131:8 139:15 70:5,15 71:14 74:20 paying (1) 96:20 play (4) 2:5 54:21,23 55:4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

played (1) 55:5 precise (1) 106:14 problems (6) 6:6 14:9 26:22 proved (2) 62:9 63:8 qualifications (4) 80:13,15 reasoning (1) 96:3 32:15 84:5 86:12
plead (2) 118:12 131:9 precisely (5) 14:7 27:25 28:7 35:19 53:23 69:22 provenance (3) 19:7 143:19 94:6,15 reasons (8) 2:19 43:3 76:15 relatedly (2) 133:24 153:14
pleaded (9) 25:1 48:17 74:4 162:19 procedure (2) 57:20 58:25 146:18 quarter (1) 20:25 120:22 133:11 134:7 relates (2) 81:12 126:8
71:21,24 72:5 73:8,12 precursor (7) 14:4 28:22 procedures (2) 56:8 58:17 proves (1) 45:25 quasi (1) 155:7 138:11 144:13 relating (8) 19:8 24:10 48:12
75:11 90:22 31:7 32:5 93:23 94:6,13 proceed (3) 82:6 161:17 provide (15) 11:7 22:11,14 qudos (2) 42:3 94:9 rebates (2) 69:14,15 52:21 70:21 119:19 122:14
pleading (2) 67:15 116:18 predate (1) 49:2 167:9 65:17 84:15,18 94:3 question (14) 12:14 83:18 rebut (3) 123:4 126:21 124:25
pleadings (2) 7:2,6 predating (2) 25:16 32:5 proceeded (2) 5:4 141:12 107:10 119:3 129:16 85:6 89:25 90:20 103:12 142:24 relation (15) 46:1 70:20
please (27) 7:3,22 9:20 predecessor (2) 21:22 144:4 proceeding (1) 165:5 132:21 133:6 151:23 128:25 135:2,6 136:10,16 recall (16) 7:5,23 8:13 82:21 113:24 126:7
10:16,19 16:18,22 17:11 predecessors (1) 18:24 proceedings (18) 1:9,17,20 155:19,22 147:20 157:3 160:11 40:6,8,13 53:20 60:23 133:3,12 136:11 137:21
19:1,12 20:3 25:21 27:6 predict (1) 28:21 2:21 3:1 6:24 13:19 49:25 provided (15) 3:12 32:4 questionable (1) 53:1 69:12 86:20 88:15 106:14 138:13 139:18 148:7 150:4
29:20 37:23 44:25 47:16 preempting (1) 147:25 51:25 54:9 73:14 85:1 97:5 39:13 59:1 75:6 91:20 questioned (1) 90:19 120:18 126:14 145:1 156:9 163:1
54:21 55:4 56:24 63:15,17 preferable (1) 65:18 98:13 99:8 112:9 118:18 131:13 132:23 questions (10) 72:13 90:15 159:10 relatively (2) 61:15 153:24
75:1 83:1 141:2 168:14 preferring (1) 134:8 117:10,10 133:1 138:10 143:20 115:16 147:9,16 151:14 recalling (1) 170:25 relaxed (1) 115:21
170:20 prefers (1) 98:21 process (13) 27:16 46:13 158:1,3 169:18 157:16,18,20 158:11 receipt (1) 158:10 release (10) 19:19,21
pleasure (1) 101:1 prefigured (1) 69:9 57:11,13 59:10 60:15,17 provider (1) 122:16 quick (2) 107:3 169:14 receive (1) 45:12 37:13,16 69:5 71:17 73:2
plotted (1) 11:2 preissue (1) 39:14 61:23 63:1 65:20 82:4 95:2 provides (3) 96:25 132:2 quickly (4) 62:10 93:19 received (6) 1:8 3:9 6:12 101:8 150:7,15
plus (1) 34:3 prejudice (3) 166:16 168:23 142:8 140:8 145:23 151:25 24:11 157:19 158:4 released (6) 25:16 45:16,20
pm (6) 3:20 77:17,19 169:2 processes (2) 21:13 57:12 providing (5) 46:25 60:19 quite (9) 50:9 74:14 88:25 receiving (10) 39:20 68:6 76:3 107:25
129:13,15 171:24 prejudiced (1) 168:3 procure (1) 139:3 63:6 81:24 143:21 93:19 114:9 130:10 135:19 40:13,24 41:20 42:6,18,24 releases (1) 96:4
pm12 (1) 48:18 prejudicial (3) 130:18 134:20 produce (9) 4:23 8:8 10:3 proving (2) 105:18 158:19 164:5 167:11 53:16 111:13 160:8 relevance (5) 95:21 115:17
pm2 (2) 25:22 27:4 135:24 45:22 56:12 58:24 66:11 provision (1) 66:14 quotation (3) 61:17 65:21 recent (2) 20:14 22:17 124:23 127:9 170:8
pm4 (1) 145:20 preliminaries (1) 1:3 141:19 151:12 proximal (1) 75:10 110:2 recently (6) 13:8 79:19,20 relevant (13) 21:2 83:4 84:3
pm45 (1) 55:9 preparation (2) 124:24 produced (19) 5:20 8:10 9:13 pseudo (1) 140:9 quote (8) 90:18 91:22 126:10 130:20 161:10 93:25 95:8 115:4,18
pm46 (1) 22:25 126:11 10:17 12:21 21:9 26:19 pseudonym (2) 3:5 98:12 97:3,22 101:18 102:3 recognise (1) 159:17 116:11 122:23 131:23
pointed (5) 7:12 68:25 preparatory (1) 86:6 28:23 29:1 36:13 38:15 pseudonymous (1) 92:3 118:21,25 recommendations (2) 149:22 152:21 167:20
157:25 158:5,10 prepare (1) 139:4 39:13 40:19 70:25 74:9 psychiatrists (2) 89:25 90:17 quotes (2) 110:24 168:17 24:1,10 reliability (1) 43:1
points (37) 2:4 11:13 13:2 prepared (8) 24:5 66:17 76:2 87:13 139:8 144:24 psychiatry (1) 110:14 quoting (1) 152:4 record (12) 1:20 4:4 86:2 reliable (6) 6:1,18 26:24
55:19 56:6 59:21 76:16 121:17 137:7 162:7,17 produces (1) 156:17 ptr (11) 8:13 14:2,13 88:14 88:7 95:11 107:23 108:3 37:18 135:11 144:15
R
78:15,20 82:16 86:4 165:18 166:23 producing (5) 27:21 38:24 120:16,23 125:2 130:1 112:5 116:24 121:4 132:14 reliance (28) 5:24 8:17,22
87:9,12 89:9 123:14 preparing (2) 125:2 127:10 128:11 139:14 143:9 142:16,18 143:4 r1125 (1) 107:4 148:5 11:22 13:13 14:12
128:2,8 130:25 131:4,7 prereading (1) 2:2 production (1) 12:15 ptrg1382 (1) 129:17 r1151 (1) 94:17 recorded (6) 18:10 60:15 17:4,6,9,15 19:2,3 20:24
143:17 144:6,9,12,19,22 prescribed (1) 58:22 professionally (1) 143:22 public (16) 10:5 37:13 43:7 r1199 (1) 56:5 92:6 110:1 112:7 148:22 22:6,11,16 24:16 25:1
153:25 155:2,3,24 156:16 presence (2) 77:23 154:14 professor (11) 36:11,13 58:14 62:9 63:4 79:3 94:3 r1343 (1) 156:24 recording (1) 13:4 30:21 32:24 68:10 70:7
166:11,17,24 167:12,20 present (5) 5:19 14:15 69:6 56:22,24 58:12,19 79:22 99:6 101:8 103:22,24 r1351 (1) 88:10 recordings (1) 15:22 81:13,16,23 82:3 84:10
170:24 81:14 85:5 89:23,24 90:3,6 105:14 146:3 152:14,22 r1489 (1) 13:3 recordkeeper (1) 95:7 142:20
police (1) 111:7 presentation (1) 96:9 professors (1) 90:8 publication (4) 31:23 32:21 r215 (1) 131:23 records (21) 10:6 51:21 reliant (1) 136:15
poor (1) 44:4 presented (8) 18:25 20:10 proffered (1) 37:17 41:15 80:24 r221 (1) 130:1 52:22 53:2,4,5 54:1 119:19 relied (5) 24:19 35:1 118:2
popular (1) 119:17 34:5 79:17 81:19,21 84:10 profile (1) 17:16 publicised (1) 98:10 r225 (1) 156:1 132:12 133:8,17 134:5 126:21 158:23
populated (1) 140:24 162:7 program (3) 9:8 58:23 59:9 publicity (2) 61:4,4 r226 (1) 156:1 135:14 137:15,17,19 relief (7) 5:17 84:24
port (1) 45:12 presenting (3) 46:7 50:8 54:1 programme (1) 5:2 publicly (12) 45:16,20,22 rabbits (2) 143:8 157:3 140:25 141:3 148:13,16,18 112:15,21,23 113:13,16
portrait (1) 108:12 presents (5) 24:21 35:16 progress (1) 100:2 47:21 60:19 66:5 75:8 79:6 raise (2) 131:4 169:21 recover (1) 18:18 relies (5) 6:4 13:9 127:1,25
position (14) 28:7 65:7 45:4 132:13 134:14 prohibited (1) 1:22 89:4 92:6 104:17 105:10 raised (4) 2:4 157:16,18 recovered (3) 23:5,22 144:3 149:8
82:18 84:23 86:5 87:25 preserved (1) 15:15 project (13) 10:8,18 11:3 publish (2) 65:3 113:6 158:11 rectified (1) 160:19 relieve (1) 163:17
104:4 124:15 134:14 147:4 press (3) 41:25 101:8 136:8 12:23 33:22 63:22 68:16 published (18) 3:6 8:12 ramona (1) 110:18 recycle (3) 14:22 17:13 21:18 relieved (1) 110:20
150:12 164:9,17 169:3 pressed (3) 66:11 104:15,17 70:22,23 86:12,17,18 25:20 28:2,17 29:15 30:8 rams (1) 51:6 red (3) 33:9 35:23 36:16 reluctant (1) 127:3
positive (3) 22:11 58:24 pressing (1) 11:8 147:2 31:11 34:21 58:8 65:4 66:3 rana (2) 42:9,9 reddit (1) 53:14 rely (15) 114:17,23 115:2,9
126:22 pressmedia (1) 111:14 projects (3) 33:20,24,25 95:19 105:23 152:9,23 random (2) 35:3 82:4 reduced (2) 38:2,4 121:24 123:3 125:15
positively (1) 70:2 pressure (5) 4:22 105:7 prolix (1) 164:1 154:24 155:13 rate (1) 75:16 redundant (1) 95:17 127:16 142:5,9,24 143:1
posits (1) 27:20 106:7 107:12 160:20 promised (5) 33:16 66:15 pulled (1) 108:24 rather (15) 27:21 61:25 rees (1) 79:22 154:25 169:5 170:6
possesses (1) 94:18 pressured (1) 105:13 67:12,16 105:8 pulling (1) 157:3 79:4,20 92:2,5 98:4 104:6 refer (5) 15:19 43:5 52:22 remain (3) 98:21 115:7
possession (7) 62:16 99:15 presumably (3) 17:18 39:7 promises (1) 67:17 punctuation (1) 9:17 108:11 121:21 132:15 112:4 148:16 162:20
103:12,25 104:8 127:25 134:3 promising (1) 67:9 pure (1) 168:15 139:13 163:13 166:9 reference (35) 16:8 22:18 remainder (1) 18:6
152:12 presumed (2) 99:1,2 promptness (1) 152:19 purely (2) 68:21 97:23 169:12 32:7 33:18 34:12 35:21 remaining (1) 84:17
possible (4) 108:11 145:2 pretty (5) 78:18 124:12 pronounced (1) 100:10 purport (4) 24:17 62:24 raw (4) 15:1 16:24 20:9,19 36:18 37:24 44:12 52:23 remark (1) 40:6
159:7 163:22 135:3 166:10,24 proof (31) 6:13,14 29:9 84:15 117:7 reached (5) 16:19 36:23 82:18 98:2 99:25 remarkable (1) 31:12
possibly (3) 32:7 79:24 prevail (1) 76:22 50:24,25 51:1,8 54:5,11,12 purported (2) 7:14 134:11 141:7,14 150:9 100:8,11,17 104:4,13,23 remarkably (1) 5:22
167:25 previous (2) 20:9 23:4 62:16 63:7,14 65:4 purporting (1) 156:20 reaching (1) 88:5 105:4,12 106:3,11,24 remedy (1) 54:12
post (23) 46:23,24 previously (9) 12:11 32:3 66:2,3,12,20 67:11,14 85:3 purports (3) 22:20 133:19 reaction (2) 11:20 63:12 108:2 109:15 120:25 remember (5) 40:23 86:14
47:6,12,13 48:2 61:22 36:21 97:9 116:21 123:1 88:4 94:3 101:19 155:16 read (11) 2:10 27:18 28:24 123:10,18,22 131:5 132:24 102:13 109:6 136:1
62:9,19,22,24,25 63:13 125:17 126:17 159:18 103:9,18,23 104:9 purpose (10) 19:9 57:5 40:14 45:4,15 101:14 133:1,15 157:1 remind (2) 1:23 88:23
64:9 65:3,8 66:21 67:16,17 price (1) 96:8 105:6,14 107:10 62:23 81:15 105:18 121:19 108:23 115:14,15 144:7 references (9) 23:8,9 reminded (1) 38:14
68:11 69:19,23 70:11 prick (1) 51:10 proofofwork (1) 22:21 130:4 140:10,10 150:21 reader (1) 52:20 31:20,21 33:12 34:21 remote (6) 1:9,12,13,15,21
postal (3) 34:10,16,25 primary (2) 5:24 132:3 proofs (2) 67:12 68:2 purposes (1) 14:15 readily (1) 60:16 104:10 128:23 129:16 2:25
postdate (1) 120:5 prince (1) 98:9 prop (1) 140:4 pursued (3) 5:7 127:7 161:9 reading (5) 61:14 65:14 93:7 referencing (1) 32:23 remotely (1) 1:17
postdated (2) 16:24 17:3 principal (1) 19:3 proper (3) 106:20 162:8 puts (2) 5:7 91:21 101:14 132:11 referred (10) 44:19 82:25 remove (1) 20:1
postdating (1) 19:19 principle (1) 104:7 164:25 putting (3) 87:19 106:15 reads (3) 35:10 36:5 46:12 99:11,18 105:21 115:10 rendered (1) 9:16
posted (8) 12:1 46:23 47:25 print (2) 47:22 108:6 properly (4) 57:18,20 100:10 160:20 real (13) 11:16 17:18 22:14 122:1,7,9 148:18 rendering (1) 151:16
51:22 64:21 75:12 130:22 printout (1) 45:25 134:17 26:9 28:6 32:1 73:15 74:12 referring (1) 23:11 repeat (2) 54:20 114:21
152:4 prior (11) 15:13 19:24 20:19 proportionate (1) 83:8 Q 98:15,21 138:7 148:20 refers (4) 47:1 65:16 73:5 repeated (1) 34:12
poster (1) 46:25 23:11,22 37:13 97:18 proposal (12) 32:2,13 167:16 87:6 repeatedly (6) 6:22 74:3
posting (2) 46:21 104:1 117:17,21 127:10 148:15 34:15,18,22 66:16 67:6 q11 (1) 90:9 realises (1) 111:17 reflected (2) 16:3,5 81:8 107:12 128:10 131:3
posts (1) 47:4 prison (1) 5:12 126:9,14,20 146:8 171:12 q12 (1) 90:15 realistic (1) 171:12 reflection (1) 61:18 repetitive (3) 114:14 160:24
potential (3) 91:4 134:7 private (30) 5:8 57:2,9,21 propose (3) 6:25 7:6 60:20 q210 (1) 141:2 reality (2) 76:9 124:22 refusal (1) 94:3 164:2
163:20 58:6,9,11,13 62:7,21 63:3 proposed (3) 19:17 161:6,6 q26 (1) 35:13 really (19) 22:11 43:22 65:1 refuse (2) 170:8,10 replace (1) 87:18
pounds (2) 85:10 111:12 79:16 92:5 99:10,16,19 proposing (6) 24:23 64:10 q29 (1) 140:14 67:25 68:1 98:4 103:12 regard (7) 27:2 83:12 138:24 replaced (1) 26:14
power (1) 163:17 100:15 103:13,18,20,23,25 113:17 139:13,14,16 q323 (1) 59:16 119:13 120:13 121:21 151:17 161:9,19 162:13 replacement (4) 27:10,17
powers (1) 88:11 104:8,16 105:6,17 106:14 proposition (4) 129:24,25 q44 (1) 49:20 129:2 139:10 145:9 147:16 regarded (1) 81:22 28:9 140:5
practice (6) 121:8,14 150:17 127:25 143:23 149:20 149:14,15 q51 (1) 9:3 163:13 164:17 166:8,10,19 regarding (2) 149:20 162:24 replied (3) 72:4 107:16
162:17,18,22 privy (1) 167:8 propositions (1) 164:5 q52 (1) 9:20 realm (1) 4:14 register (1) 159:6 152:20
praetorian (1) 89:5 probably (6) 4:22 74:23 propriety (1) 164:11 q61 (1) 21:10 reason (23) 6:19 10:3 21:22 registered (1) 163:2 replies (1) 102:21
pragmatic (3) 120:22 77:23 91:7 116:15 117:5 prospect (1) 6:11 q63 (2) 21:10 22:2 47:7 90:25 94:15 107:16 regretful (1) 111:5 reply (9) 116:25 119:25
130:11,12 probative (2) 134:1 147:4 protected (2) 13:21 126:2 q634 (1) 148:4 108:7 121:20 123:18 rejected (2) 44:13 164:12 128:5 130:24 131:13 138:8
pray (1) 120:15 problem (12) 36:18 37:6 protects (1) 96:22 q64 (1) 22:3 124:10 131:15 132:16,25 rejects (1) 115:3 152:13 163:9 173:10
prayed (1) 113:5 70:17 76:25 95:4,7,10 96:5 protocol (1) 147:13 q65 (1) 22:7 133:21 134:9 142:14 143:3 relate (4) 2:9 19:7 112:1 report (39) 11:21 12:7
pre2011 (1) 80:1 107:17 137:10 164:18 prove (7) 6:9 50:21 51:21 qa (2) 5:1 11:25 150:3,19 163:19 167:12,23 116:5 14:11,18 20:8 29:4 56:23
precedent (1) 151:15 167:21 62:20 85:3 104:5 128:10 qnap (1) 73:15 reasonably (1) 83:7 related (5) 13:10 24:18 58:18 59:16 82:23 90:4,6

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

118:17 119:7 123:5,9 review (1) 66:21 scanned (2) 45:1 46:6 seepage (1) 82:7 shift (1) 85:2 signing (14) 6:22 56:3 somewhere (2) 136:2 160:7
132:6,22 133:25 134:22 reviewed (3) 15:10 22:6 scene (1) 109:25 sees (2) 108:5,20 ship (1) 96:1 57:5,12 58:16,20 59:14 sommer (1) 41:7
138:3,9,9,15,23,25 118:19 schedule (12) 17:2 25:11 selected (1) 36:5 shipment (1) 96:12 60:14 61:1 65:16 101:2 soon (2) 66:21 152:14
139:9,9,14,16 140:7,14,17 revised (2) 136:2 170:9 36:14 70:12 116:24 122:23 selecting (2) 36:7,8 shipped (1) 96:10 103:10 147:13 157:8 sort (11) 66:11 79:17 82:2
141:10,25 148:4 168:8 rfi (2) 39:12 72:14 125:5,19 126:19,20 selfevident (1) 98:5 shit (2) 68:14 69:24 signs (10) 4:20 8:18,21 21:1 98:8 102:17 108:19 110:10
170:20,22 ridges (1) 72:16 156:3,8 seller (5) 95:25 96:8,9,18,21 shoaib (1) 40:18 22:16 24:14 27:3 65:22,23 133:21 137:17 140:8 144:8
reports (3) 89:23 141:14 righthand (3) 30:21 schemas (1) 140:3 semi (1) 87:20 shoosmiths (10) 126:12 109:7 sorts (1) 151:13
156:7 108:18,19 schnorreddsa (1) 36:2 send (2) 67:8 73:9 146:15 150:24 151:7 silence (1) 158:12 sought (7) 5:9 54:12 67:16
represent (3) 70:4 88:24 rights (2) 113:1,3 schoolbook (1) 26:1 sender (2) 3:11 143:19 152:18,24 154:12,22 similar (8) 10:1 18:22 69:15 85:10 107:12 121:13
161:18 riposte (1) 63:5 science (1) 80:10 sending (1) 2:8 157:17 162:10 24:10,12 94:8,15 101:6 sound (1) 1:21
representation (1) 4:4 rise (4) 26:21 76:21 104:2 scratch (1) 50:5 sense (11) 28:19 36:19,20 shooting (2) 166:21 167:13 126:15 sounds (1) 32:15
represented (1) 152:17 143:10 screen (11) 1:21 7:4 11:25 74:14 76:9 92:24 129:2 short (14) 3:19 36:24 37:3 similarities (1) 97:16 source (12) 9:25 22:20 27:13
representing (2) 33:6 44:22 rishbeth (1) 42:13 13:7 37:23 43:20 49:5 137:7 160:16 166:14,18 44:2 54:22 61:15 77:18 simple (6) 31:16 51:1 60:17 44:15,16,20,23 45:3 46:2,5
represents (1) 13:12 risk (2) 57:2,9 107:5 108:10 144:1 147:11 sensible (3) 125:6 150:10 101:10 111:21 121:4 61:25 74:9 169:2 48:12 82:25
reputable (1) 96:7 rivero (1) 53:11 screenshots (10) 30:13 43:9 167:10 128:22 129:14 132:21 since (8) 18:9 28:25 94:25 sources (1) 46:25
reputation (1) 63:22 robert (2) 42:15 61:6 52:2,6,17,20 53:9,13,17 sensibly (1) 151:2 169:2 98:9 152:22 156:7 167:1 souring (1) 63:24
request (4) 11:7 24:9 82:19 robust (1) 35:6 70:3 sent (22) 1:14 2:25 37:15 shorthand (1) 36:24 169:17 space (3) 18:22 28:15 108:24
149:21 room (3) 59:12 77:11 164:21 scribble (1) 168:18 53:10,13 66:19 67:9,19 shortly (6) 14:11 52:1 54:4 sinclair (1) 41:4 spaces (1) 28:22
requested (3) 1:8,13 44:18 rory (1) 100:6 script (1) 38:4 72:1,6,8,15,25 74:4 94:4 97:6 159:12 single (3) 84:14 125:12 spacing (2) 9:16 87:8
require (5) 67:14 143:9 rosendahl (1) 9:2 scroll (1) 64:2 97:10,24 122:21 125:14,20 should (57) 1:8,13 3:20 6:20 164:20 speak (1) 112:24
144:15 162:2,5 rosendahls (1) 29:4 sealed (1) 14:8 126:12 146:1,14 13:8 44:13 45:11 70:1 82:5 singularly (1) 6:13 speaker (1) 78:8
required (7) 117:15 121:6 roughly (2) 3:16,22 search (2) 11:23 12:8 sentence (2) 97:21 124:2 87:3 90:1,14 91:20 92:8 sister (1) 39:17 speaking (2) 107:14 161:13
135:14 142:8 152:25 round (5) 110:2 138:7 156:7 searched (1) 4:25 sentences (3) 115:7 95:21 99:12 105:17 107:17 site (2) 12:3 46:21 special (5) 14:6 90:1 120:12
162:12 163:4 167:3 170:24 searches (1) 12:6 165:18,19 108:1 111:18 112:18,25 sitting (2) 98:11 168:11 146:13,19
requirement (1) 163:21 rounds (1) 142:7 second (31) 1:25 2:21 9:21 separate (3) 52:6 56:13,13 114:25 115:1,14,15 116:1 six (7) 3:12 49:9 79:24 specialist (2) 110:17 112:6
requirements (3) 96:11 row (3) 25:8,14 36:18 29:10 34:8 38:4,14 39:21 separately (1) 73:8 119:8 120:21 123:11 115:11 121:25 124:1 specific (7) 17:24 28:16
150:23 161:5 rox (1) 83:14 46:3 48:4 56:14 september (23) 4:17,24,25 124:8,21,22 126:5 143:11 115:23 139:5 147:20
requires (2) 120:12 161:18 rpc (1) 129:20 58:11,16,25 80:7 81:10 11:21 12:4,5 13:21 14:23 128:9,18 129:20 130:21 sixth (1) 127:21 149:17 154:15
requiring (2) 81:15 154:17 rsa (1) 159:2 83:18 101:11,12 116:10 15:12,13 16:1 18:6,13 131:16 134:16 138:18 sixthly (2) 20:24 30:14 specifically (3) 20:14 41:1
research (2) 132:9 135:13 rules (5) 121:6 153:16 123:21 125:12 132:16 20:6,15 21:2,14,19 43:6 141:14 143:1,22 150:11 size (6) 35:25 47:4,5 48:2 148:19
researches (2) 55:11 132:9 154:18 163:17 165:2 140:12,19 154:12 155:23 82:22 122:22 125:14 154:17,20,20 155:4 160:1 68:20 89:1 specifics (1) 40:22
resembling (3) 9:12 10:4 ruling (2) 149:20 170:4 156:3,13 157:15 171:15 138:21 161:4 162:20 163:23 165:7 sizes (1) 29:2 specified (2) 96:9 148:13
33:5 run (2) 39:15 45:8 secondhand (1) 35:1 sequence (2) 7:15 80:15 166:5 167:23,24 skeleton (25) 2:1 5:19 6:3 spectrum (1) 89:21
resented (1) 164:12 running (3) 32:24 56:16 secondly (10) 4:20 6:8 20:13 series (18) 6:23 7:5 10:21 shouldnt (7) 49:2 128:19 13:2 33:1,23 35:15 56:5 speculate (1) 99:3
resist (1) 150:19 109:9 26:24 54:4 60:3 65:13 70:5 14:9 15:21 22:15 28:11 144:8 151:13 162:13 163:3 78:24 79:10 80:8 88:14 speech (1) 52:9
resolve (4) 3:3 105:9 113:22 131:11 133:24 29:7 43:3 53:23 55:15 58:8 167:17 94:17 107:4 114:4 128:23 speed (2) 139:8 168:18
S
143:11 seconds (1) 54:22 66:1 67:12 72:13,19 show (13) 27:1 34:5 52:17 130:1,13 131:23 152:1 speedy (1) 165:12
resolved (3) 3:24 37:7 96:6 sale (1) 95:24 secret (1) 70:2 144:16 158:2 54:17 55:6 70:22 100:16 153:25 155:24,25 156:23 spell (1) 79:13
resolves (1) 95:9 same (30) 10:25 16:18,19 section (16) 23:19,25 serious (6) 5:6 68:6 69:22 102:11 119:19 133:17 157:1 spelling (1) 109:24
resonance (1) 147:20 24:23 28:9,15 45:18 47:18 31:20,22 32:11 45:17 128:6 152:17 166:3 145:25 149:8 160:2 skeletons (2) 2:5 78:25 spelt (1) 109:8
resources (1) 99:7 51:22 55:25 56:16 58:18 46:7,11 47:18,24,25 48:1 seriously (2) 135:23 150:18 showed (7) 19:6 20:10 skills (1) 94:5 spending (2) 95:4,7
respect (15) 43:2 44:5 61:8,10,19 65:23 66:2,4 131:21,24 132:23 152:24 seriousness (1) 107:2 38:10,22 54:14 100:14 slap (1) 161:12 spent (1) 95:15
115:4,6 118:3,3,7 122:2 72:7 73:6,6 74:4,24 103:1 sections (5) 14:5 23:16 44:2 serve (1) 141:9 102:9 slash (2) 87:20,20 splitting (1) 57:12
132:12 146:15 155:7 129:25 130:7 137:18 45:19 47:5 served (9) 36:12 40:4 shower (5) 106:9 109:4,9,10 slept (1) 111:18 spot (3) 59:13 63:13 109:8
163:12 169:19 171:15,17 167:23 168:13,24 secure (2) 111:23 112:1 82:19,22,22 122:6,23 110:7 slices (1) 156:20 spotlight (1) 79:6
respectful (3) 113:11 166:4 samsung (10) 13:15,17,23 secured (2) 57:8 94:12 138:19 139:12 showing (12) 10:18,21 11:3 slightly (3) 19:4 37:5 171:22 spreadsheet (3) 10:17
168:22 14:20 15:2,14 18:19 20:23 security (5) 17:12 41:23 server (4) 72:11 73:15,21 23:7 36:6 43:9 52:4 62:16 slur (1) 151:7 86:11,12
respectfully (12) 90:11 93:10 21:15 148:16 70:23 81:1,7 119:3 71:12 107:23 138:22 144:1 small (3) 33:15 108:6,13 spring (1) 108:16
103:19 106:25 113:15 sand (1) 89:6 see (83) 8:2 10:21,23 11:1 servers (2) 72:9,18 shown (12) 8:25 12:3 34:2 smart (1) 97:1 spur (1) 110:23
119:11 124:10 126:4 sandoz (1) 129:24 14:21 15:23 16:8,21 17:20 service (3) 12:6 97:6 110:14 52:3 63:13 68:20 101:12 socalled (3) 24:20 63:6 113:5 spurious (2) 11:11 34:22
128:17 165:1,3 166:20 sartre (7) 60:22 61:1,13,18 18:17 19:13,23 21:10 services (2) 41:23 122:16 102:12 103:1,6,17 108:17 social (4) 5:9 113:9 152:6 spyder (3) 33:17,21,24
respective (1) 91:16 62:25 65:21 105:21 22:1,20 23:8,9,14 28:11,13 session (5) 59:4,8,17,22 60:9 shows (10) 28:5 30:13 52:11 153:15 spyderrtf (1) 144:3
respectively (1) 118:5 satellite (1) 144:16 29:8,21 30:4,10,19 31:22 sessions (10) 56:3 58:16,20 93:23 127:24 139:9 149:23 soft (1) 37:18 ssl (1) 61:24
respects (5) 6:16 16:20 satisfactory (1) 165:5 34:8 35:9,11,23 45:1,4,18 59:14 60:14 65:17 99:20 159:25 160:2,3 software (26) 10:5 12:17 ssltls (1) 57:8
75:18 150:11 160:25 satisfied (2) 67:18 150:23 46:9,11,22,24 47:10,14,17 103:18 105:6,8 shred (1) 74:15 45:10 47:3,12 48:14 ssrn (6) 74:18,19
respond (6) 117:2 119:9 satoshi (76) 2:17 3:6,10 4:11 48:4,5 49:3,4,6,8,14,15 set (20) 5:18 11:22 13:8,11 shut (1) 147:6 56:11,17,18 58:2 59:10,24 75:13,15,20 76:11
126:5 135:7,8 156:2 5:7,16,22 6:2,10 8:12 51:10 52:16 54:16 55:2,18 17:8 30:1 33:5 35:17 sic (1) 55:10 61:24 116:11 119:17 st (1) 108:4
responded (2) 69:11 157:7 11:16 12:9 22:12 25:6 57:7 61:7,13 64:2 65:15 45:5,5,11,15 47:19 65:20 sid (2) 17:16 18:7 120:2,3,9 126:24 stab (1) 108:19
responds (7) 43:12 32:1,8,18,22 36:5,6 66:4,18 67:21 68:15,19,23 74:17 91:23 124:6 137:16 side (15) 82:8,9 84:8 139:22,25 140:9 141:13 stabbed (1) 109:3
64:2,3,5,8,15 131:2 45:16,20 47:15 49:17 71:20 74:5 77:5,25 149:2 151:15 108:18,20 114:20 116:18 144:4 155:18,19 staff (2) 1:11 73:19
response (20) 11:25 44:21 50:16 51:4,19 52:24 54:15 80:12,19 102:5 108:16,18 setback (1) 140:22 118:19 122:10 135:18 sole (1) 50:8 stage (10) 38:22 43:4 66:15
53:5 59:1 63:25 66:19 61:20 62:7,17,20,22 63:7 110:1 135:16 137:4 138:6 sets (4) 14:19 62:2 98:12 158:15 160:9 166:16 solely (2) 57:14 149:13 67:2 82:16 83:23 134:23
72:10 82:22 106:16 115:23 65:24 66:14 67:13,23,24 142:4 146:20 147:3,12 151:24 168:11 169:3 solicitor (8) 146:18 150:22 137:23 139:10 153:12
117:6 119:7 124:24 127:10 69:3 74:13 75:5 76:3,18 159:11 171:21 setting (4) 57:14 61:6 sides (5) 9:1 109:4 115:24 151:4 159:14 162:16,22 staged (1) 60:16
137:13 141:10 150:25 79:5 80:9,21 81:18 82:1 seeded (2) 17:9 19:11 104:24 148:19 124:20 146:10 163:18,25 staggering (3) 89:1,1,2
158:9 161:17 166:2 84:16 85:4 87:18,19 88:21 seeing (1) 101:2 settings (1) 147:22 sideways (1) 108:10 solicitors (16) 10:14 97:9 staging (1) 59:22
responses (1) 2:4 92:25 94:16,21 seek (1) 107:1 setup (2) 45:7,17 siegele (2) 100:9,12 98:22 121:7,9,13 159:5 stamp (1) 48:24
rest (3) 74:25 91:23 164:2 98:8,15,17,21 99:9,17 seeking (6) 84:24 115:24 seventh (1) 23:16 sign (14) 31:14 57:20 161:15,23,24 162:2,5,24 stand (3) 87:16 89:4 114:25
restarts (1) 18:14 101:1,9,23 102:1 104:1,5 139:24 149:16 155:10 seventhly (1) 21:4 61:9,19,20 62:24 109:20 163:3 165:6 167:9 standalone (1) 145:19
restraining (1) 153:14 110:3 112:22 126:22 128:1 166:11 several (3) 6:23 23:16 60:7 111:11 154:5 159:7 solution (3) 130:12 141:9 stands (2) 63:10 80:24
result (8) 8:21 29:22 69:14 152:5,6 seeks (5) 2:16 76:3 81:25 seychelles (2) 116:6 122:15 162:2,6,11 164:7 162:13 stapler (2) 45:2 46:7
73:17 106:16 114:7 134:11 satoshis (8) 48:15 49:12 114:17,23 shadows (1) 98:22 signature (18) 36:4,8,9 solved (1) 95:3 start (17) 3:17,24,25 6:20
170:3 87:15 104:16 106:13 seem (7) 20:2 78:13 79:20 shall (2) 6:7 44:10 56:20 57:6,23,25 62:2,4,8 solving (1) 93:24 20:8 26:6 32:20 48:6 54:24
results (1) 120:4 127:25 158:20 159:21 81:6,22 83:23 92:14 shane (1) 39:21 63:18 64:1 65:12 66:4,12 somebody (12) 26:11 55:1 76:17 77:5,8,14
retracted (1) 102:6 saturday (2) 3:14 152:18 seemingly (2) 82:3,7 share (3) 94:15 117:13,19 158:24 159:2 162:8 41:1,2,11,18 42:4,11,15,21 136:17 137:1 157:18
return (3) 39:25 40:10 46:18 save (1) 101:14 seems (2) 83:12 112:10 shared (8) 37:11 signatures (4) 57:7,10 64:10 58:7 85:8 133:22 started (4) 50:20 79:2,10
returned (1) 79:15 saw (6) 11:25 23:23 45:18 seen (33) 21:8 29:20 53:18 38:7,7,9,10,16 39:3 69:3 123:7 someone (8) 3:9 15:15 79:11 171:7
returning (1) 79:5 55:13,22 102:7 63:12 65:11 70:13 78:24 sharing (3) 37:20 40:8 43:9 signed (7) 56:12 60:19 62:7 91:3 129:7 146:25 147:1 starting (1) 76:24
reveal (7) 60:24 61:7 68:7 saying (18) 36:14 51:2 64:16 79:10,14,19 82:6 83:21 sheet (2) 97:13 146:2 63:2 151:3 159:12,20 161:11 starts (4) 110:12 121:19
99:13 101:8 103:23 104:16 72:5 138:3,7 146:18 86:18 87:11 89:19,23 90:3 shelf (2) 116:20 122:25 significance (7) 7:25 19:18 something (18) 51:1 66:16 124:2 153:18
revealed (3) 14:16 15:12 149:24 151:3 152:21 153:6 100:22 sherrell (9) 123:13,14 61:2 145:25 146:13,17,19 67:4 78:1,4,7 85:16,17 statement (80) 7:22,24 9:3
70:1 154:24 157:8 159:20,24 109:7,15,16,18,22,25 128:7,18 143:16 144:7 significant (12) 6:3 13:12 91:15 93:12 94:4 99:10,12 12:2,13,20 14:1 21:10
revelation (1) 103:24 161:20 162:4 168:2 112:5 114:2,4 132:21 166:23 167:2,4 23:5 75:5 98:10 101:24 110:25 112:18 119:16 25:12 36:13 37:15 39:19
reverb (2) 78:3,7 scale (1) 4:12 136:4 156:23 157:5 sherrells (4) 123:19 124:13 103:19 125:16 126:15 138:2 149:18 40:20 41:12,19 42:5,17
reverse (2) 9:23,24 scan (4) 28:11 45:24 47:23 160:12,24 128:4 135:16 139:4,13 145:13 sometimes (2) 87:15 99:18 44:17,18 51:2,16 53:7,20
reverted (1) 31:11 146:9 seena (1) 89:24 shes (2) 39:18 91:7 significantly (2) 21:16 29:12 somewhat (2) 32:15 87:21 55:11 59:1 72:14,23

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

83:11,12 86:20 90:8,11,15 166:1 134:24 135:11 137:4 143:18 144:25 145:8 87:17 165:11,12 171:3 updated (3) 49:1 55:12
T
99:24 100:4,7,20 substantive (1) 160:5 138:2,9,13 139:17,22 148:20 149:5,25 153:18 trying (5) 86:15 90:20 140:2
101:12,14 106:22 114:12 subversion (1) 82:4 table (6) 11:3 15:22 30:22 142:23 145:2 146:21,25 165:13 167:6,23 168:13,25 128:19 134:21 141:5 updates (1) 120:3
120:19 121:8 122:5,19 subvert (1) 59:8 49:7 55:15 122:18 149:17,25 150:2,4,22 timecoin (8) 19:17 23:10 ttl (4) 116:8 122:14 138:22 uploadae (1) 75:6
123:13,19 124:13 128:5,8 subverting (1) 59:14 tables (1) 30:16 151:3 152:10 157:12,23 24:20,24 125:11,15,17,21 145:14 uploaded (4) 64:4,13
130:10,22 131:24 132:6,20 succinctly (1) 114:9 tabs (1) 144:1 158:23 159:9,19,25 timed (1) 18:5 tuesday (1) 171:25 74:17,19
135:17 141:22 146:5,17 suffer (1) 126:1 tail (1) 50:10 161:5,6 162:7 164:14 timedoc2pdf (1) 125:13 tulip (7) 12:3 88:13 116:8 uploading (1) 76:11
148:14,19 150:25 151:12 suffered (2) 106:7 107:24 taiwan (3) 96:1,17,20 168:19 169:20 timeline (4) 18:15 20:4 137:11 145:17 159:10,17 uploads (1) 76:2
152:8,9,10 153:4 156:2,12 suffering (1) 74:24 taken (21) 15:2,5,7 16:14 170:14,15,17 171:19 61:6,10 turn (14) 44:9 90:5 99:23 upon (17) 22:1 35:1 76:22
160:18,22,23 sufficient (1) 2:20 17:1 20:7 26:11,13 55:24 thematic (4) 78:20 80:6 times (8) 16:7 18:13 102:4 104:18 117:25 81:24 89:3 97:18 121:24
162:2,16,18,20 163:18,22 sufficiently (1) 139:2 62:8 68:4 80:14 85:21 86:5 81:11,12 49:3,4,10 50:14 60:7 95:8 119:16 121:3,25 130:25 137:10 139:1 142:6 143:8
164:1 166:23 suggest (13) 53:1 54:2 94:18 101:25 103:5 107:23 125:6 themselves (6) 56:20 57:25 timestamp (4) 21:17 25:3 131:19 142:9 143:12 158:23 162:4 163:25
statements (12) 6:22 21:25 106:25 107:15 112:11 155:17 164:8 168:5 89:3 98:16 133:15 163:4 48:25 75:13 160:11 165:15 169:5,25
22:4 33:19 34:13 50:21 113:15 118:17 119:8,11 takes (4) 44:1 76:7 143:16 theory (1) 119:2 timestamps (5) 14:24 16:12 turned (2) 15:1 157:2 upper (1) 19:12
51:11,11 120:21 122:7 126:4 128:17 167:5 168:19 thereafter (3) 103:20 104:15 17:6 72:20 140:18 turning (2) 37:10 81:14 upstairs (2) 106:8 109:5
148:6,24 suggested (9) 53:4 72:12 taking (6) 25:19 28:12 125:3 timetable (3) 3:16 136:2 turns (1) 88:4 urgings (1) 6:12
states (1) 97:22 107:17 111:25 146:12 128:12 138:21 139:4,6 therefore (2) 62:9 95:17 137:2 tweet (3) 12:1,4 152:13 usb (4) 13:15,17 57:24,24
stating (1) 75:20 155:4 164:10 165:1 168:2 talents (2) 94:8,19 theres (31) 20:17 27:9 63:8 timing (2) 54:4 145:13 tweeted (1) 154:2 used (23) 4:20 9:9 16:15
status (1) 14:6 suggesting (4) 26:14 116:22 talk (3) 79:6 80:15 95:20 80:13 90:7 98:9 99:22 title (2) 35:3 52:15 tweets (1) 152:4 21:5 23:13 52:14 60:15
statutory (1) 159:11 148:1 153:9 talking (9) 50:24 79:2,11,15 110:9 111:3,21 112:3,23 tobias (1) 88:16 twitter (3) 68:10 69:19 70:10 66:6 82:20 83:1,3 84:4
stefan (1) 39:24 suggestion (8) 80:8 97:14 80:13,17 92:14 116:17 113:16 120:6 124:1,10 today (7) 2:5 3:16 7:7 twopage (1) 45:1 86:24 95:14 101:5 105:17
stephen (1) 159:13 110:8 145:4,11,15 164:10 157:4 130:12 132:11 133:2 136:1 111:12 113:22 153:8 typed (2) 38:2,4 126:16 136:23 147:12,13
steps (1) 66:1 165:16 target (1) 82:2 142:14 143:6 147:19 149:5 154:12 typical (2) 48:23 95:4 149:8,9,14
steve (1) 42:7 suggests (4) 43:20 54:5 taunting (1) 63:5 150:3 154:7 157:13 159:3 todays (1) 77:1 typically (3) 24:5 27:11 useful (2) 2:1 34:24
steven (1) 101:1 106:25 138:4 tax (6) 34:4 70:20 71:7 81:4 164:10 165:19 169:8 together (4) 44:9 49:5 94:22 48:24 user (6) 17:16 21:13 34:9,9
stewardship (1) 101:25 suicide (7) 104:19 106:9 105:9 127:23 thesis (3) 97:3,14,16 97:13 typo (1) 129:19 53:14 120:13
stick (2) 57:24,24 107:3 109:3 110:5 111:5,6 taxing (1) 49:7 theyll (1) 169:6 token (4) 33:15,20 34:1,6 typographical (1) 29:12 uses (1) 61:23
sticks (1) 73:20 suitably (1) 141:15 tcecashexe (1) 45:9 theyre (23) 17:25 78:20 told (6) 41:5 44:10 80:4,5 using (16) 20:4 24:24 56:16
U
still (6) 66:7 77:1 103:9,14 summarily (1) 144:9 team (10) 22:8 32:25 48:11 80:17 85:24,25 98:17 112:6 168:8 57:8 59:8,9 61:25 63:3
159:14 171:14 summarise (1) 74:22 63:11 65:11 103:24 104:16 99:17,18 103:19 122:17 tomorrow (3) 4:1 134:24 uk (4) 34:10,16 41:22 111:10 64:11 76:2 86:24 101:3
stipulate (1) 149:10 summarised (2) 130:13 111:15 113:23 125:2 124:14 137:19 138:19 171:22 ultimate (2) 19:16,25 132:15 149:24 158:25
stone (1) 91:23 170:13 teams (1) 1:25 140:17 143:18 145:19 too (7) 2:23 9:24 35:25 ultimately (3) 6:4 15:6 33:21 159:2
stop (2) 5:15 143:7 summarises (1) 30:19 technical (13) 40:22 45:19 151:24 161:19 168:2,5,12 40:11 119:15 130:23 unable (5) 99:8 162:16,18 usual (2) 77:2,3
stored (1) 13:15 summary (5) 1:19 34:13 47:6 75:24 83:18 107:15 169:6,6 156:11 166:17 170:23 utilising (1) 12:17
stories (1) 43:1 132:22,25 133:5 119:1 124:5 148:7 149:3 theyve (10) 89:3,4 151:8 took (8) 20:11 74:1 86:10 uncertified (1) 162:20 utility (2) 113:12 155:12
story (19) 6:16 8:15 14:9 supplied (2) 22:4 148:24 155:14 156:4,4 152:9 160:17 162:11 111:7 120:20 125:7 152:16 uncle (3) 38:9 40:10 42:25 utz (1) 41:8
25:14 33:12 37:19 53:4,6 support (24) 5:13,22 6:2 technicality (1) 166:12 166:25 169:11,13,18 156:8 underlying (1) 160:5
63:19 69:23 70:17 73:20 22:11,14 25:6 37:19 39:23 technically (1) 59:7 thing (8) 3:25 79:4 95:20 tooting (1) 108:4 undermine (4) 98:18 117:9 V
79:1,21 80:4 81:8 71:7 74:12 76:12 81:17,25 technology (1) 127:3 98:17 110:23 133:21 topic (9) 7:9,19 37:21 44:14 140:11 141:20
137:12,18 139:1 84:15,18 118:17 127:16 tedious (1) 164:2 154:15 158:20 50:15 56:2 60:21 68:8 71:2 underpinning (1) 104:7 v (1) 129:23
straight (7) 53:18 88:9 128:1 138:6,10 147:5,24 telling (5) 52:20 111:3 136:1 thinking (2) 93:8 97:17 tor (1) 71:17 understand (21) 1:9 42:19 vague (1) 44:5
101:18 102:10 154:8,18 149:3 151:23 167:14 168:12 thinks (1) 90:20 total (1) 158:21 50:3 58:2 59:15 83:13,15 valid (2) 63:13 65:12
163:12 supported (7) 4:12 tells (6) 120:3 122:20 128:10 third (15) 2:3,22 9:22 27:23 totally (1) 82:4 90:21 93:9 113:4 116:2 validate (4) 64:22 133:16
straightforward (4) 45:21 42:11,21,23 74:15 122:4 151:5 168:13 169:11 35:14 38:25 39:24 53:6 touches (1) 162:1 146:12,16,20 149:7 150:12 134:13 138:12
47:21 59:7 62:13 138:15 template (1) 24:10 70:17 81:12 83:25 126:7 towards (4) 23:1 28:8 36:7 153:7 159:24 161:15 validation (1) 159:5
strange (1) 31:6 supporters (2) 66:11 89:5 ten (6) 6:8 38:25 76:14,22 133:5 140:19 141:23 51:7 166:14 171:10 value (3) 134:1 147:4 168:5
stray (1) 4:14 supporting (3) 33:2 41:9 80:20 82:23 thirdly (7) 4:25 6:16 20:14 toxic (1) 54:7 understandably (1) 64:15 variant (1) 153:10
stress (3) 82:15 111:19 124:4 42:2 tenth (1) 83:12 26:25 54:7 59:17 134:19 trace (1) 11:22 understanding (3) 94:1 variation (3) 39:1 151:19
strict (2) 96:11 163:21 supportive (3) 41:2 67:2 terminal (1) 88:20 thoroughly (1) 50:20 traceable (1) 92:9 116:17 125:7 164:19
strictly (3) 96:20 97:1 121:8 143:20 terminological (1) 57:16 though (4) 48:1 67:10 tracing (1) 117:23 undesirable (1) 145:3 variety (1) 155:16
striking (2) 13:1 99:6 suppose (3) 109:8 117:23 terms (4) 34:25 40:21 170:7,11 trading (2) 88:13 145:17 undisputed (1) 101:24 various (20) 2:8 8:21 12:17
strong (1) 143:14 128:13 154:5,6 thought (10) 43:22 60:11 traditional (1) 95:16 undoubtedly (1) 170:11 28:21 30:6 33:19 47:2
stronger (1) 143:25 supposed (13) 5:4 12:21 terrorise (1) 5:10 62:6 94:24 129:6 136:14 traduced (1) 89:4 unfair (1) 114:3 54:18 55:18,19 59:7
strongest (1) 6:9 19:21 31:7 32:6,6 56:12 test (8) 29:23 60:19,20 141:12 145:8 154:19 transaction (11) 15:21 16:4 unfairly (2) 107:1 134:20 107:10 114:11 130:16
strongly (4) 54:5 74:12 66:2 69:20 73:22 86:6 132:18,18 133:13 134:11 170:16 52:18 68:21 95:5,12,15,23 unfortunate (1) 73:23 140:23 145:10 150:4 155:3
104:15 138:3 143:19 147:2 167:16 thousands (1) 94:14 96:22 101:5 147:2 unfortunately (2) 36:10 159:16 160:18
stroz (22) 15:10 118:18,19 supposedly (8) 33:2,5 44:16 tested (1) 44:5 threatened (1) 105:25 transactions (7) 92:5,6,8 77:24 vary (3) 28:13 121:1,10
119:7 123:6 132:22 46:4 63:6 69:10 157:21 testimony (1) 119:6 threatening (2) 5:11 106:6 93:25 95:14 97:2 119:19 unhappy (1) 163:20 varying (1) 82:13
133:4,13,14,24 134:6 158:8 tests (1) 99:10 three (16) 1:25 2:19 4:15 transcript (8) 44:12 50:23 uni (1) 39:6 venture (1) 167:5
138:3,9,12,15 139:8 supposes (1) 163:5 text (18) 23:24 25:24,25 5:20 6:4 24:2,7 26:22 60:1,5 99:23 100:18 uniquely (2) 10:11 94:21 ventures (1) 104:22
168:8,9,10,13,13,18 sure (16) 60:12 74:24 90:5 27:8,14 31:2,10,14 35:4,23 32:25 34:17 36:21 43:19 102:10 103:2 united (1) 105:2 verifiable (3) 6:1 57:20 66:12
struck (1) 161:13 96:2,3 102:19,21,23 113:7 40:9 45:18 71:22,23,23 56:6 82:16 111:10 142:7 transfer (3) 56:14 57:23 universities (1) 38:12 verification (7) 57:5,12,15
structure (3) 6:25 7:7 30:22 114:7 125:8 134:25 135:25 73:6 86:23 153:6 through (20) 20:11 34:12 66:16 university (6) 34:15 38:19 59:5 61:22,23 101:2
structured (1) 24:11 136:4 142:22 163:25 thank (17) 1:25 2:3 22:19 36:22 39:15 53:6,14 55:17 transferred (2) 13:17 117:20 97:12,13 145:24 146:1 verified (5) 45:24 60:4 62:3
structuring (1) 30:15 surely (4) 93:7 142:25 35:22 36:25 48:9 76:19 59:11 80:15,22 90:10 transmission (1) 72:12 unless (1) 145:1 63:3 152:15
struggled (2) 111:15 168:18 149:13 167:9 87:4 89:10,13 108:12 91:12 93:18 96:15 97:25 transparency (1) 93:24 unlikely (1) 125:25 verify (3) 56:16,20 57:25
struggling (1) 150:18 surprise (1) 137:14 113:19 128:21 129:12 104:22 116:16 144:15 transparent (1) 92:8 unlimited (1) 99:7 verifying (3) 62:4 65:20
student (1) 40:18 surprising (1) 98:15 153:21 163:7 171:23 146:7 161:23 trauma (1) 108:7 unnecessarily (1) 2:22 95:13
students (1) 34:17 surrounded (1) 27:7 thankfully (1) 68:5 throughout (4) 90:13 113:7 treated (2) 82:1 107:23 unnecessary (3) 56:9 147:18 version (45) 19:13,16,16,24
studied (1) 94:11 susan (1) 1:11 thanks (5) 1:10 32:19 39:11 145:17 151:8 treatment (1) 81:15 164:1 23:4,6,22 24:22 25:9,9,15
studies (1) 95:22 suspect (1) 118:21 107:6 111:1 throws (2) 27:17 121:21 trial (23) 2:13,18 13:6 22:9 unpack (1) 45:8 26:20 31:3,5,9,11,15
stuff (3) 51:12 143:17 160:6 swift (1) 170:4 thats (99) 8:5 9:20 12:7 thrust (1) 108:25 78:21 82:5 85:13,22 90:13 unpleasant (1) 106:1 38:2,3,4,14,15,25 45:21
stupidest (1) 68:13 sworn (2) 157:10,11 13:24 15:5 26:7 29:4 32:11 thus (1) 92:7 123:12 124:16 128:16 unprecedented (1) 88:8 47:20 59:8 68:21 70:6
subject (14) 9:23 10:15 sydney (1) 159:15 38:21 39:17 41:7 43:17 tick (1) 140:17 136:2 138:8 139:14,15 unpublished (1) 32:3 71:18 73:5,25 74:19
16:18 21:16 40:7 41:24,24 symbols (1) 9:16 49:13,25 51:17 55:25 ticks (2) 24:2,7 142:12,17 143:2 144:10 unsatisfactory (1) 130:9 75:2,15,17,19,21 92:1
52:8 66:20 97:15 117:23 sympathise (1) 150:12 60:20 65:10,15 67:13 ties (1) 93:21 145:2 158:11,15 unspecified (1) 140:3 97:23 125:15,17,20,25
131:20 139:5 153:17 system (32) 6:17 7:16 68:11 70:8 71:14 73:3 tim (2) 33:16,22 tried (2) 65:7 147:24 unsubstantiated (1) 143:22 136:7 140:1
submit (2) 44:13 130:9 17:23,24 19:17 24:24 74:20 80:6,20 time (51) 4:23 12:21 14:7,24 tries (1) 141:20 unsuccessful (1) 69:18 versions (14) 8:10 19:5
submitted (2) 69:13 142:10 33:20,24 34:1,6,14 45:6 81:1,2,4,5,10 83:16 86:5 15:4,22 16:15 18:12 20:25 tripped (1) 64:23 unsuccessfully (1) 69:15 20:11 31:8 33:25 34:18
subparagraph (1) 29:23 52:5 56:12,13,14 64:7 87:4 88:22 98:17 25:10 29:13 38:20 42:22 trouble (1) 102:12 until (11) 3:22 72:3 80:20 38:7 48:13 49:12 69:3
subparagraphs (1) 22:2 68:22 74:21 83:1,3 92:2,4 100:4,6,10 101:17 104:2 48:24 49:9 51:23 55:20 true (4) 46:18 86:3 137:2 118:1 119:24 124:23 70:15 74:6 75:12 126:17
subscription (1) 152:25 97:19 102:1 119:18 126:24 105:12 108:4,10,12 110:12 57:8 61:5 63:11 77:2,3,14 154:15 145:16 153:3,19 157:20 via (1) 75:6
subsequently (2) 73:19 92:18 129:9 140:2 147:3,10,14 113:17 116:7,8 80:24 84:6 88:15 89:6 trust (3) 66:24,25 93:24 171:25 video (5) 1:20 55:1,5,13,16
substance (1) 167:19 systems (8) 57:13 74:23 117:2,13,19 119:11 120:23 100:13 106:17 119:4 trusted (2) 58:1,1 unusual (4) 3:11 85:5 videos (3) 54:13,16,21
substantial (2) 9:15 15:15 82:14,20 83:13,14 94:13 121:24 122:12 125:11,19 122:11 125:8 128:12,14,16 truth (2) 31:16 162:2 94:1,19 views (2) 13:4 141:16
substantially (2) 165:25 149:11 129:22,24 130:5,19 131:23 134:22 135:8 139:4 141:18 try (8) 36:1,20 80:3 86:3 update (1) 120:7 villain (1) 65:9

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

virtual (9) 56:15 83:15 white (95) 3:7 5:1 7:10,20 8:3,9,20 10:10 11:6,16,18 122:4,18 123:1 124:24 122:1,8 124:24 126:11,18 200 (2) 32:25 77:19 39:11 49:14 53:9 61:21
127:13,20 148:1 8:9,10,11,15,17,21 12:2,5,7 13:4,9,15 14:13 125:3 126:3 127:8 128:4 130:9 131:2,19 132:1 2001 (6) 68:14 105:19 106:18 107:8
149:7,8,9,14 9:6,9,12,14,19,25 17:4,17 19:2,18 22:5 23:12 131:3 134:8,12,24 133:25 137:23 138:19 69:1,10,14,20,25 30 (6) 12:5 18:5 28:5 87:4
vision (1) 92:3 10:4,6,12 11:17,19,24 24:14,19 25:8 27:18 136:12,18 141:11 142:4 139:19,23 150:10,16 2002 (5) 31:25 36:15 90:9 111:15
visit (2) 57:8 108:7 12:11,15,16,20 13:10 14:4 30:25,25 33:7 36:6,13 144:2,23 145:7 147:4,17 157:23 159:12 165:15 70:9,12,14 301 (2) 120:1 139:22
vistomail (7) 50:19 19:15,20 22:22 23:12 37:11,17,25 38:21 39:12 148:13,18 149:5 150:13 166:2,7 171:17 2007 (18) 13:16 14:3,8 30th (1) 16:12
52:9,12,23 54:15,17 71:17 24:17,19,20,22 25:15,20 40:3,18,20,25 155:3 156:12,17,21 159:19 110 (1) 87:5 15:5,18 16:3,12 17:8,19 31 (6) 13:16 17:8,20 116:18
vm (1) 148:11 26:10,12,19,23 27:9 41:3,6,11,14,18,25 160:9 162:4 166:2 170:24 1135 (1) 37:2 18:3,5,9 20:1,2,25 33:7 122:24 149:22
vms (1) 149:14 28:2,6,17 29:15,25 30:8 42:4,16,20 43:11,21,22 171:8 114 (1) 173:7 69:7 140:23 312 (2) 120:1 139:22
vmware (4) 147:21,22 31:3,9 33:6 37:12,16,21 44:7,8,9,15,22 46:1,4,8 write (3) 32:17 58:23 70:3 1152 (1) 37:4 2008 (23) 25:4,5,17 31:4,7 3122 (2) 152:17 169:23
148:13,18 38:1 39:14,20 40:14,24 47:21 49:18,20,21 writer (3) 28:21 36:20,24 116 (1) 88:10 32:2,5,6 37:13 38:1,3,16 31st (1) 16:12
vodafone (2) 42:15 94:10 41:16,21 42:6,18,24 50:1,8,11,22 52:25 53:5 writing (7) 32:22 33:7 44:16 118 (1) 56:23 47:1,15 49:18 71:13 72:6 320 (1) 129:13
volumes (1) 160:9 68:18,19,24 69:2,7,17 54:11,14 55:6,10,20 67:25 69:6 80:21 108:13 11th (4) 72:23 114:12 73:10 75:3,19 95:19 329 (1) 129:15
71:14 74:20 75:6,12,15 56:8,25 57:1,19 58:21 written (19) 5:2,3 122:6,18 97:5,18 33 (1) 106:23
W 76:3,6,8,11 80:25 59:21,23,25 60:1,3,18 11:17,19,24 12:11 25:9 12 (17) 12:25 20:15 28:8 2009 (18) 31:3,11,13,15 345 (1) 3:22
86:7,8,23 87:20 91:20 61:5,19,20 26:23 29:9 32:8 35:1 48:8 55:9 71:13 72:6 73:10 45:16 49:17 55:14,17 35 (1) 35:22

waiting (1) 64:17 93:5,8 94:22 95:18 97:22 62:8,15,20,23,24 63:1,21 36:15,16 46:9 67:19 75:3,4 103:3 115:11 122:1,8,9 69:9,16 70:16 72:3 74:18 351page (2) 147:2,19

waits (1) 141:19 125:16,18,21 126:16 64:2,9 65:7,23,24 66:10 76:8 111:6 147:25 152:10 167:1 118:5,7 119:20 123:7 36 (2) 51:6 106:23

waive (1) 113:13 whoever (1) 110:1 67:2,16,19 68:3,11 69:11 wrong (11) 35:21 43:14 169:17 125:22 37 (1) 28:18

waived (1) 154:6 whole (2) 65:11 142:7 70:11,19,24 71:4,12,25 64:4,13 128:24 141:12 121 (1) 18:20 200910 (2) 69:21 152:22 3702 (1) 34:21

walked (2) 110:22 111:18 wholly (1) 161:12 72:4,12,13 73:22 143:19 145:6,16 147:16 121b (1) 18:21 2010 (2) 41:15 69:16 38 (1) 29:8

walking (1) 111:15 whom (5) 37:15 39:13,13 74:8,10,18 75:7,13 169:7 123 (1) 94:17 2011 (9) 36:11,16 41:6 102:1 39 (1) 29:14

wallet (2) 56:18 158:25 65:9 99:21 76:1,1,10 79:1,2,7,10,15 wrongly (2) 97:15 109:8 125 (1) 88:10 118:6,7 122:17 123:2,8

wants (5) 96:1,3 123:3 whos (6) 41:2,19 42:7,11,21 80:9,12 81:16,22 wrote (8) 3:6 7:12,20 10:14 12th (4) 11:5 122:6 2013 (7) 40:2 46:23 127:1,21 4

142:24 166:5 107:7 82:12,18,20 84:10,25,25 25:11 43:19 67:21 154:11 148:13,18 140:23 149:23 153:3
whose (5) 3:12 14:18 85:3 86:22 87:5,17,23 wtf (1) 43:14 13 (8) 20:8 123:9 126:18 2014 (18) 46:22 71:3,11 4 (16) 9:22 53:16 54:14
ware (1) 148:11
41:23,24 157:7 88:2,18 89:5,20 90:2,18 147:19 149:12,12,18,21 79:16 116:20 117:8,17 67:11 68:2 90:11
warm (1) 1:6
widely (1) 163:1 91:17,19,25 92:15 94:9,18 X 130 (2) 87:3 173:8 118:1,3,8 119:9 122:25 106:3,18,23 107:9 108:3
wasnt (12) 19:25 26:23
wife (7) 38:20 67:20 91:6 97:7,17 99:9,15,23 132 (2) 58:19 59:13 132:15 133:10 134:2,3 111:12 126:13 130:13
32:19 39:18 44:5 62:13,15
xlsx (1) 10:17 132:25 173:4
72:2,5 84:11,12 138:25 109:3 110:18,25 111:9 100:11,14 101:1,20,23 1320 (1) 46:12 137:24 138:23
wifi (1) 59:13 103:19,24 104:3,11,12,15 133 (2) 59:4,14 2015 (1) 111:11 40 (3) 38:3 123:20,23
watch (1) 58:10 Y
wii (2) 138:22 145:14 105:1,2,3,4,11,11,14,14,20,23,25 1331 (1) 46:15 2016 (15) 56:4 60:22 61:7 400 (1) 1:10
watered (1) 109:10
wiil (2) 116:6 122:15 106:1,2,3,7,10,10,12,18 1333 (1) 46:17 65:14 66:5 67:11 68:2 41 (2) 62:18 118:20
watermark (6) 8:14 86:9 year (4) 4:17 32:21 55:12
williams (4) 38:18 39:5 107:10,12,14,18,21 134 (1) 19:1 80:20 98:9 99:15 105:19 42 (4) 19:12 130:2 131:21
87:1,7,14,15 70:21
41:22 79:22 110:18,20,25 111:9,11 135 (1) 19:23 108:3 112:13 127:2,4 139:20
wave (1) 140:12 years (9) 6:8 36:21 49:9
win (3) 167:20 169:6,7 112:8,20 114:17,23,23 136f (1) 20:3 2019 (8) 50:23 52:1 54:19 43 (2) 130:2 132:12
waved (1) 144:15 51:13 80:20 98:9 116:23
windows (3) 48:14 56:13 115:1,9,10,11,15,18,24 139 (1) 29:5 55:21 68:11 70:10 76:2 432 (1) 171:24
way (30) 6:25 8:10 15:17 117:21 147:9
83:14 116:7,12,19 13th (3) 122:4 136:19,19 129:21 44 (5) 18:2,5 20:3 29:17 73:4
24:11 26:5 47:8 49:22 yesterday (2) 2:6 136:7
wish (3) 123:17 124:7,16 117:1,7,7,12,15,25 141 (1) 75:22 2020 (1) 119:21 45 (3) 30:10 69:12 144:18
58:21 63:20 64:21 89:16 yet (4) 57:18 70:12 114:18
wishes (3) 125:15 127:16 118:7,9,12,20 119:8,20,23 144 (1) 75:23 2021 (1) 37:22 46 (1) 69:12
91:21 93:1 95:12 101:16 143:10
169:4 120:1,2 121:5 145 (1) 16:23 2023 (33) 4:24,25 5:3 7:3 49 (3) 30:18 72:4 132:12
106:1 111:16 120:7 127:19 youll (2) 88:15 159:11
withdraw (1) 137:6 122:1,2,6,8,9,20,24 149 (1) 105:3 10:22,24 11:21 12:13 4th (1) 11:4
130:11 133:16 135:11 youre (11) 1:19 79:25
137:5 141:12 151:9 withheld (2) 125:10 157:19 123:3,9,15 124:24 15 (8) 3:19 13:21 55:25 13:21 14:23 15:12,13
80:3,5,11 82:9 90:5
withhold (1) 158:14 125:13,14,20,22,24 89:11 129:1 138:19 155:25 18:6,10,13 20:6,15,23 5
162:8,15 163:15 164:25 137:3,7 143:5 167:19
165:5 witness (49) 6:22 7:22,23 126:5,11,21,25 156:1 21:2,14,19 43:6 87:14 90:9
yourself (1) 84:9 5 (9) 1:1 10:2 15:5 25:23
ways (5) 59:7 69:8 85:4 12:2,13,20 21:25 22:4 127:1,4,10,13,16,22,24,25 150 (2) 76:24 77:5 116:18 119:21 122:22,24
yousuf (1) 40:18 33:14 48:19 129:1 131:23
160:18 167:21 25:11 36:11,12 41:12 130:9,16 131:2,9,11,12,19 1524 (1) 6:3 126:13 138:21 140:21
youve (8) 92:13 100:22 144:18
wealthy (1) 5:14 44:17,18 53:7,20 59:1 132:1,2,7 133:19,25 1528 (1) 129:22 141:4 145:8
120:6 135:22 155:6 510 (1) 13:3
web (4) 32:16 46:21 75:2,6 72:14 83:11,12 86:20 137:23 138:2,6,17,19 153 (1) 173:9 2024 (3) 1:1 138:19 172:1
170:12,13 171:16 53 (4) 45:6 118:20 131:21
website (9) 50:16,18 55:23 99:24 100:4,7,20 106:22 139:19,23,24 140:6,8 16 (3) 14:18 47:1 125:19 207 (1) 99:24
139:20
57:7,8 74:18,19 152:23,25 114:12 120:21 121:7 141:5,8,17 142:16 143:8 Z 160 (1) 105:3 20page (1) 38:15
536 (1) 8:19
websites (1) 52:14 122:4,7,18 123:12,19 145:1,5,20 146:1,3,6 163 (1) 173:10 20th (4) 123:12,19 124:13
zip (1) 20:18 56 (1) 50:1
week (5) 1:14 2:14 10:13 124:13 128:5,8 130:22 147:19,22,25 148:6,25 16cou (1) 159:18 135:16
znamenski (1) 35:5 57 (1) 50:1
133:2 142:12 135:16 141:21 146:4 149:1,8,12,12,14,18,21,21 17 (14) 14:23 16:1 18:6,12 21 (6) 26:4 32:2 37:14,22
zone (1) 143:18 59 (1) 58:18
weekend (2) 114:3 128:24 148:6,24 156:2,12 160:18 150:10,16 151:12 19:4 20:5 21:14,19 33:8 42:22 75:3
zoren (2) 38:11 39:5 5th (1) 11:4
weeks (1) 79:24 163:22,23 166:23 152:4,10,13 153:9,14 38:13 87:13,21 122:10 212 (1) 100:11
witnesses (3) 128:14 155:6,9 154:2,4 155:1,4,8,10,16 zotero (1) 144:5 125:19 216 (1) 104:3
wei (7) 31:22 32:7,14,23
zuckerberg (1) 113:9 6
39:5,8 75:7 wonder (3) 36:23 49:4 60:9 156:20,24 157:8,9 18 (4) 38:24 54:22 64:25 217 (2) 34:21 104:13

weighing (1) 36:7 wont (7) 2:10 65:17 90:9 158:9,20 159:15,20 160:20 156:7 219 (2) 104:12,13
6 (10) 17:3 18:3 25:4 31:25
129:10 165:24 168:25 165:15 166:2,7 169:4 0 184 (1) 105:11 22 (4) 11:4 13:25 55:10
weight (1) 50:6 37:25 39:2 48:21 66:3
weird (1) 158:10 169:7 170:5 171:17 188 (1) 100:4 136:17
004724 (1) 23:17 71:11 172:1
welcome (1) 128:18 wording (1) 19:8 wrights (162) 3:25 4:10,13 18page (1) 35:3 220 (1) 104:12
08 (1) 69:4 61 (1) 90:7
welcoming (1) 128:9 work (27) 14:4 19:20 24:18 5:5 6:16 7:13,19 8:15,25 18th (1) 136:21 223 (1) 106:2
0809 (1) 70:21 611 (1) 90:7
went (5) 16:20 20:11 106:8 29:9 33:22 40:5 49:16 9:13,18 10:1,3,18 11:10 19 (11) 4:17 10:13,22,24 224 (1) 106:2
64 (2) 14:19 107:4
107:21 159:17 62:12 71:19 75:16 93:23 13:13,19 14:9,17 21:24 18:6,13 20:6 21:14 38:6 225 (1) 104:3
1 66k (1) 47:13
werent (2) 60:14 103:17 94:6 95:1,21 110:21 22:8,12 24:25 25:6,6 26:16 87:14,21 23 (5) 13:25 97:6,11 125:14
6a (1) 21:11
weve (18) 1:7 53:18 56:4 111:25 127:2,14 133:19 27:18 28:24 30:3,21 31:8 1 (16) 3:20 31:23 190 (1) 100:4 136:18
6c (1) 12:14
61:14 65:11 68:25 89:23 135:3,10,24 138:7 145:21 32:25 33:12,19,23 34:4,12 99:17,18,24 100:7,11 191 (1) 99:24 230 (1) 106:10
6th (1) 11:4
102:25 104:23 111:8 147:8,17 171:7 35:18 37:20 39:17,23,24 103:3 104:3,11 105:3,11 1926 (1) 8:2 235 (1) 106:10

113:21 118:18 139:16 worked (14) 40:19 41:10,17 40:1,3,5,10,12 41:7,9 106:2,10 112:8 173:3 199 (1) 34:21 24 (3) 9:7,8 11:4
7
153:7 156:25 157:22 165:6 94:9,10,10,25 99:4 126:25 42:2,11,23 43:9 45:18,23 10 (14) 27:14,23 49:14 60:10 1990s (1) 94:25 25 (5) 23:18 43:6 47:16

166:22 127:6,19 157:22 169:12,15 47:19,24 48:11,15 50:17 68:11 70:6 100:7 102:13 19962009 (1) 55:3 51:13 129:20 7 (5) 21:20 23:19,25 73:3
whack (1) 82:2 workflow (1) 12:17 52:19 53:24 56:22 113:2 122:22 125:14 1998 (1) 31:23 252 (1) 56:5 90:14
whatever (4) 42:1 166:5 working (3) 13:24 73:20 58:2,17,25 59:6,15 61:5,8 140:21 155:24 156:1 19th (2) 16:12 136:22 254 (1) 8:19 70 (1) 15:3
168:23 169:4 129:10 64:12 65:13 67:13 69:6 100 (2) 77:17 100:25 1cm (1) 108:19 26 (5) 18:5 22:10 23:21 71 (9) 17:2,6,14 20:24
whats (8) 6:13 66:20 81:5 works (3) 86:6 120:3 163:15 70:7 72:23 75:17 76:18 1002 (2) 17:16 18:7 1feex (1) 159:17 129:20 147:11 22:7,10,13,23 25:8
92:18 95:3 108:25 138:4 world (5) 1:8 99:22 79:3,21,25 80:4,8,23 81:11 103 (2) 10:25 18:1 1st (1) 11:4 269 (1) 122:19 716 (1) 31:1
161:21 113:7,10,15 82:8 83:19 84:15 87:3 1030 (3) 1:2 171:21,25 28 (2) 27:15 71:23 72 (1) 15:8
2
whatsapp (3) 43:5 53:11 worth (2) 111:12 168:6 89:7,17 91:2 92:7 93:13,22 103h (1) 156:24 2829 (1) 136:22 739 (1) 49:8
113:11 worthless (1) 58:15 94:2,5 95:21 97:2,14 98:18 105 (1) 18:8 2 (18) 9:4 34:9 48:19 60:22 288 (1) 122:20 74 (3) 16:22 90:4 116:25
whatsapped (1) 43:8 wouldnt (5) 20:2 72:11 100:3 101:8 103:23 10th (1) 11:4 61:7 62:19,24,25 63:17 29 (4) 28:3 65:14 86:22 75 (3) 15:20 26:17 44:17
whatsoever (2) 168:6,21 124:18 125:6 133:25 104:4,21,25 105:9 106:5 11 (41) 8:20 27:18 30:25 66:5 68:18 77:6,8,12,14 123:6 759 (1) 61:8
whereas (1) 60:4 wound (1) 108:19 107:2 113:1,23 114:12 50:1 76:1 82:22 97:7 99:17 118:18 126:19 137:17 292 (1) 122:19 75f (1) 17:2
whereby (1) 96:6 wrestle (1) 160:21 115:23 116:6,25 104:12 114:23 20 (11) 3:19 10:13,24 76 (3) 8:24 15:20 116:25
3
whilst (3) 84:24 86:10 89:4 wright (345) 3:4,22 4:7 117:6,9,13,17,18 118:16 115:10,15,18 117:1,7 15:12,13 25:1 38:5 48:17 76a (1) 15:23
whip (1) 169:1 5:16,20 6:9,21 7:11,25 120:8,12 121:5,6,9 118:9,20 120:1 121:5 54:16 128:8 144:7 3 (11) 7:3 9:11 12:7 21:10 76b (1) 16:2

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 5, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 1

76d (1) 16:7

77 (2) 17:5 44:17
78 (3) 16:9 90:4 173:5
78page (1) 33:5
79 (1) 116:25

8 (5) 13:2 20:8 21:20 27:5

90:11
80 (1) 120:23
82 (2) 23:3 120:24
8333 (1) 45:12
86 (1) 23:14
89 (1) 173:6

9 (12) 1:18 13:3 21:24 22:2

61:9 64:11 99:18 103:13
107:13 127:4 131:12 148:5
90 (1) 36:18
92 (1) 23:19
93 (1) 72:14
93d (1) 17:11
94 (1) 17:21
96 (1) 116:25
97 (4) 17:3 19:2 22:10 38:24
99 (2) 17:22 56:5
9998 (1) 18:22

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 2

February 6, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 Tuesday, 6 February 2024 1 submissions. Now, those are 17 passages which are
2 (10.30 am) 2 referred to in correspondence.
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I’m going to give my ruling first and 3 My Lord, may I just explain the importance of
4 then we can discuss housekeeping matters. 4 ensuring that those allegations which are not to be
5 Ruling (excised for approval) 5 repeated in submissions by agreement should not simply
6 I think we’ve got a few housekeeping points to 6 be given the oxygen of publicity by being excerpted in
7 consider. 7 the witness statement and then posted on social media?
8 MR HOUGH: Yes, my Lord. 8 May I hand up a document which is page 79 of Wright 11,
9 Housekeeping 9 which I’m asking not to be put on the screen.
10 Two matters on our side. 10 (Handed).
11 First of all , we do ask for permission for Mr Madden 11 Now, for reasons which will become obvious, I’m not
12 to produce a report and −− on the various items which 12 asking for this to go on screen, but at paragraph 418,
13 were the subject of the disputed sections of the witness 13 Dr Wright makes a serious allegation against an
14 statement and the disputed documents. If it helps, 14 individual .
15 I can go through what those matters are, just so it ’s 15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
16 clear what Mr Madden’s report should address. 16 MR HOUGH: If Dr Wright made that allegation on
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I think I’m just going to leave it in 17 Hyde Park Corner or in a letter to a newspaper, he’d be
18 your −− in Bird & Bird’s capable hands. They know what 18 open to a defamation claim. If he is permitted simply
19 they want to respond to and they understand the time 19 to tweet this part of the witness statement and it’s
20 pressures , I ’m sure. 20 then picked up by a news publication or an online
21 MR HOUGH: Well, in that case, could we have, please, 21 commentator, then he’s protected against any defamation
22 permission to adduce a further report from Mr Madden on 22 action. And as I say, there are 17 examples of that.
23 matters arising from those disputed sections and those 23 And the parties, very sensibly , have agreed that
24 disputed documents? 24 those sections should not be repeated in submissions for
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 25 precisely that reason. But Lord Grabiner, perfectly

1 3

1 MR HOUGH: In terms of timing −− 1 properly, yesterday relayed his instructions that his
2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 2 client wouldn’t agree to a self −denying ordinance not to
3 MR HOUGH: −− we can produce that by 4 pm on Friday, 3 post sections of Wright 11.
4 16 February −− that is a week Friday −− provided that, 4 To be clear, ordinarily , statements, once a witness
5 by 9 February −− that’s this Friday −− we get some basic 5 has attested to them, go out to the world, and
6 chain of custody information in relation to 6 the reason for that is that the statement has then been
7 the documents such as can be provided by the disclosure 7 admitted as evidence−in−chief. This statement is in an
8 providers , and we’ve set that out in a letter . 8 unusual category, because the court has not yet decided
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. I’ve seen your letter, yes. 9 that it is admissible and my Lord has indicated in
10 MR HOUGH: We stress, we’re not asking for any chain of 10 the ruling just now that much of it is likely to be
11 custody information from Dr Wright personally, because 11 inadmissible . So the usual principle that it should go
12 he won’t be able to give it before Friday, since he’ ll 12 before the world at large because the court has admitted
13 be in the witness box. 13 it into evidence doesn’t apply.
14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 14 In those circumstances, the consequence of
15 MR HOUGH: So that’s the first point we raise. 15 the parties ’ sensible agreement not to give the oxygen
16 The second point concerns the publication of 16 of publicity to these sections in a document,
17 Wright 11, and this was alluded to in submissions 17 the admissibility of which the court hasn’t decided,
18 yesterday. We ask for a direction , first of all , that 18 should carry through to the way the court treats
19 under 32.13, that that witness statement not be open to 19 the publication of the witness statement.
20 inspection by the public . And secondly, a direction 20 Now, we’re content for appendices A and B to go to
21 that it not be made public by any of the parties to 21 the world, because they don’t contain any of these
22 these proceedings, either the body of the statement as 22 allegations . We would be content for Wright 11, with
23 a whole, or at the very least those parts of 23 the passages redacted, to go to the world at large .
24 the statement which contain the allegations that 24 I should say, in relation to Wright 11, appendix B,
25 Dr Wright’s legal team have agreed not to repeat in 25 that if it goes to the world, that section 3 which has

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 been ruled out by agreement should come out. But in 1 yesterday, there isn ’ t any lawful basis for saying that
2 relation to the statement, we’d be content for 2 it shouldn’t be published that we’re aware of. For
3 the statement to be seen by others, but provided that 3 example, just to take the instance identified by my
4 those 17 passages were blacked out. Of course, we 4 learned friend through that paragraph 418, the only
5 accept that if we were to go to a passage in 5 person who could properly complain about defamatory
6 cross−examination, then it’s out there. 6 statement would be the person identified there, not
7 Sorry, I ’m just getting a note. Sorry, it ’s 7 the claimants. I ’m not trying to be difficult , but that
8 appendices B and C to Wright 11, I think I may have 8 is the reality , and at the moment I’ve got no
9 said ”A and B”. 9 instructions that permit me to agree to the proposal.
10 So that’s the concern we have in relation to that 10 What I’d like to do is to take instructions on
11 statement. 11 the other suggestion made by my learned friend Mr Hough,
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 12 which is the blanking out suggestion.
13 Lord Grabiner. 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
14 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, yes. 14 LORD GRABINER: And I wonder if I might take instructions
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Are you in a position to respond to 15 about that. I don’t think −− well, I think probably
16 that? 16 I ought to deal with that now, if I may do that, but
17 LORD GRABINER: Yes, I’ll do my best. 17 I think it will be done quite quickly.
18 First of all , we’re entirely content with my learned 18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
19 friend ’s suggestion that Mr Madden should be able to 19 LORD GRABINER: I should at least try to do that, because
20 provide a further witness statement. 20 I think that would accommodate the court’s concern −−
21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, or rather expert report. 21 right concern, and my learned friend’s client ’s concern.
22 LORD GRABINER: Forgive me, my Lord? 22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. No, I’ll certainly give you
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: An expert report. 23 the opportunity, because it struck me that redaction of
24 LORD GRABINER: An expert report, yes. 24 those 17 passages would be quite a good solution.
25 It might be best if it were −− I think 25 Shall I rise for a few minutes and you can take

5 7

1 the suggestion was 16 February, but maybe best 1 instructions ?

2 endeavours before then would be helpful. 2 LORD GRABINER: That would be helpful, my Lord.
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, yes. 3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Because I’m very keen to keep the trial
4 LORD GRABINER: Chain of custody information from our side 4 moving.
5 we think is an entirely reasonable request. 5 LORD GRABINER: So are we all.
6 On the question of Wright 11, I think I probably 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good. I’ll rise for a short time.
7 ought to draw your Lordship’s attention to the rules . 7 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I’m grateful.
8 If you look at volume 1 of the White Book, or you get 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Let me know when you’re ready.
9 access to it , it ’s 3213−1, page 1033, bottom of 9 (11.00 am)
10 the page. So the starting point is −− 10 (A short break)
11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Open to inspection unless I direct 11 (11.04 am)
12 otherwise. 12 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I’m happy to say that my client is
13 LORD GRABINER: Yes, exactly right. 13 content that those I think 17 items should be redacted
14 And then the considerations that would impact on 14 so that if Wright 11 is published publicly , it will be
15 whether or not the court will make a direction are 15 −− it will carry redactions on that basis .
16 specified in subparagraph 3, and your Lordship sees what 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
17 those five possibilities are. 17 LORD GRABINER: I think it’s quite important that there is
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 18 agreement between the solicitors as to −− so that they
19 LORD GRABINER: So, provided your Lordship is happy to be 19 identify exactly what those points are. I don’t think
20 within one or other of those paragraphs or 20 there’s going to be any dispute about that.
21 subparagraphs, then that’s a matter for your Lordship, 21 And the other point is that we would wish to provide
22 but it ’s within your Lordship’s discretion , but it ’s got 22 Dr Wright with a copy of that in redacted version and we
23 to be exercised in relation to those matters. 23 would want to communicate that to him whilst he’s giving
24 The concern about the publicity of it is that, on 24 evidence.
25 the face of it , as I think I indicated in my submissions 25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sure.

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 LORD GRABINER: But we obviously wouldn’t do anything more 1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
2 than provide him with that copy. 2 A. Thank you.
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 3 LORD GRABINER: I think the microphone probably should be
4 If I may say so, that’s a very helpful 4 adjusted as well .
5 accommodation. Until you’ve agreed that redacted 5 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER
6 version , I will order pro tem that Wright 11 is not to 6 (Handed).
7 be open to inspection. 7 A. Thank you.
8 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, yes. 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you.
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: As I understand it, the 17 passages are 9 LORD GRABINER: Dr Wright, I’m going to draw to your
10 agreed in correspondence? 10 attention the 12 witness statements that you have made
11 MR HOUGH: They’ve been very specifically set out and agreed 11 in these proceedings and I’m going to ask you to confirm
12 in correspondence. 12 the fact that you’ve signed each of them and that
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So there shouldn’t be too much 13 the contents of those statements are true. Do you
14 difficulty in agreeing the redacted version. Good, 14 understand?
15 that’s a very helpful way forward. Good, okay. 15 A. I do.
16 LORD GRABINER: So we’ve reached the stage actually of 16 Q. Would your Lordship like me to have them put on
17 Dr Wright coming to give evidence, my Lord. 17 the screen as we go one by one or not bother?
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, let’s put them on screen.
19 LORD GRABINER: Perhaps he could be called. 19 LORD GRABINER: I think it probably is important.
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 20 So Wright 1 is {E/1/44}, and if you can go in each
21 LORD GRABINER: He’ll be sworn first and then I’ll −− well, 21 case −− yes, thank you very much −− to the signature
22 your Lordship knows he has made 14 witness statements. 22 page.
23 It ’s quite an unusual number. 23 So you see the signature there. Dr Wright, I’m not
24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 24 going to −− I’m just going to show you those signature
25 LORD GRABINER: And I’m in your Lordship’s hands as to how 25 pages 14 times, okay?

9 11

1 I go about doing this. I could either go to each of 1 A. Yes.

2 the signature pages and then ask a sort of compendious 2 Q. Then the second statement is {E/2/18}.
3 question at the end or I could do it one by one. I ’m 3 The third is {E/3/7}.
4 entirely relaxed about how to do it. 4 The fourth is {E/4/36}.
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I’d do it compendiously. 5 The fifth is {E/20/10}.
6 LORD GRABINER: Very good. 6 The fifth [ sic ] is {E/21/4}.
7 MR HOUGH: I’ve indicated we have no difficulty with that. 7 The sixth is {E/22/8} −− I think that was
8 No doubt Dr Wright knows his witness statements very 8 the seventh, actually .
9 well . 9 The 8th is {E/23/24−25}.
10 MR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (sworn) 10 The ninth is {E/26/29}.
11 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER. 11 The tenth is {E/31/29}.
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you, Dr Wright. Do sit down. 12 The 11th is {CSW/1/244}.
13 Just before we proceed, Dr Wright, I have again this 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: It’s in a different folder.
14 morning reminded myself of the joint statement between 14 LORD GRABINER: Yes. I see.
15 the two experts on ASD, and what I’m going to propose is 15 The 12th is {CSW/7/6}. That’s a different one −−
16 that, because of what they agreed, that we should aim 16 oh, sorry , I ’m sorry.
17 for a short break every hour. I know your wife will be 17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: We’re not on the 11th yet.
18 observing you and she will tell us if there’s any sign 18 LORD GRABINER: I’m ahead of this, yes, I’m so sorry.
19 of you dysregulating. 19 You’ve done the 11th, I think.
20 I think −− I don’t know if you want a pad of paper 20 The 12th is {CSW/7/6}.
21 to make notes, but you can certainly have one if you 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: We haven’t done the 11th yet.
22 want. 22 MR HOUGH: We did.
23 A. Can I have one, please, my Lord? 23 LORD GRABINER: I thought you did 11. Yes. There’s the −−
24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sorry? 24 that’s the 12th.
25 A. May I have one, my Lord? 25 The 13th is {E/32/9}.

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 And, finally , the 14th is {E/33/5}. 1 the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym, and may we please play
2 Thanks very much indeed. 2 a video, which is at {L16/86}, and we’re going to play
3 Now, Dr Wright, in each case, is that your 3 the first 30 or 40 seconds of this video.
4 signature? 4 (Video footage played)
5 A. Yes, in each case I have agreed to be bound. 5 If we just pause there, please.
6 Q. And are the contents of those statements true? 6 Do you accept that that was an interview you gave in
7 A. They all are. 7 late 2019 on the Modern Consensus website?
8 LORD GRABINER: Thank you very much. 8 A. I gave the interview. I don’t recall the date.
9 MR GUNNING: My Lord, there are also three statements in 9 Q. May we go to an article from that interview {L16/47/1},
10 the BTC Core claim which probably also ought to be −− 10 please. That’s an article dating, we see, to
11 LORD GRABINER: I’m sorry? 11 December 19, 2019. Would it make sense to you, would
12 MR GUNNING: There are three statements in the BTC Core 12 you accept if it were put to you that the interview was
13 claim as well . 13 at about that time?
14 LORD GRABINER: Oh, really? How could I forget that! 14 A. Around that time.
15 Whereabouts? Can you give us the references? 15 Q. Would you accept that the document you held up was
16 MR GUNNING: {E1/1} and {E1/2} and {E1/3} and I confirm I’m 16 a Monumenta Nipponica article from JSTOR, which is an
17 also content for those to be taken compendiously. 17 academic journal database about Tominaga Nakamoto,
18 LORD GRABINER: So {E1/1/32}. So you see your signature 18 a Japanese rationalist philosopher?
19 there, Dr Wright? 19 A. I would.
20 And the second one was, what, {E1/2/3}. 20 Q. And if we look at the top part of that page and we
21 Is that your signature as well? 21 recall what you were saying on the video, did it bear
22 A. Yes. 22 handwritten notes saying:
23 Q. And the third one? 23 ”Nakamoto is the Japanese Adam Smith. Honest ledger
24 MR GUNNING: {E1/4}. 24 [plus] micro cash. Satoshi is intelligent history . Not
25 LORD GRABINER: {E1/4/3}. 25 too hard!”

13 15

1 A. Yes. 1 A. It did.
2 Q. And that’s your signature. 2 Q. Were those your notes?
3 And are the contents of those statements true? 3 A. Yes.
4 A. They are true. 4 Q. If we go to {L16/47/3}, please. May we look at
5 LORD GRABINER: Thank you very much. 5 the focused image at the bottom of the screen −− bottom
6 I ’m grateful to my learned friend. 6 of the page. Do we see there the heading with the words
7 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH 7 at the bottom of the image: ”Accessed: 05/01/2008,
8 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, have you ever forged or falsified 8 11:17”?
9 a document in support of your claim to be 9 A. I see that.
10 Satoshi Nakamoto? 10 Q. Is it right that you were holding up this article to
11 A. No. 11 demonstrate your interest in Nakamoto dating from that
12 Q. Have you ever knowingly presented a forged or falsified 12 time?
13 document in support of your claim to be 13 A. I was holding up the article to basically reference
14 Satoshi Nakamoto? 14 Nakamoto’s origin and the, I guess, name origin.
15 A. I have not. 15 Q. You were doing so to show you’d had that interest in
16 Q. Over the next couple of days, we’re going to look at 16 Nakamoto as the basis for the Satoshi Nakamoto
17 a series of what COPA says are forged documents which 17 pseudonym?
18 you’ve knowingly put forward in support of your claim to 18 A. I was saying that’s why it was chosen, yes.
19 be Satoshi Nakamoto. Do you understand? 19 Q. Now, can you see and accept, just from the image here,
20 A. I understand. 20 that in the date, 05/01/2008, the numerals ”08” are
21 Q. Do you also understand that we’ll consider some other 21 slightly smaller than the numerals ”20”?
22 documents whose authenticity COPA challenges? Do you 22 A. I can.
23 understand? 23 Q. May we then go to the document disclosed in these
24 A. Yes. 24 proceedings {L2/245/1}.
25 Q. May we begin with a document concerning 25 Is this a copy of the document you were holding up?

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 A. It looks like it , yes. Or a scan of. 1 being visibly different . Again, would you accept that
2 Q. Yes. 2 as a matter of visual impression?
3 Is it right that you’ve always insisted that this 3 A. I would.
4 was an authentic document? 4 Q. Mr Madden also analysed a publicly available version of
5 A. It ’s a document that I’ve got in my drawer that I have 5 the document which he found on the Wayback Machine, and
6 had in my drawer for a long time −− 6 we can see that at {H/44/1}. Now, this is a document
7 Q. You’ve −− go on, please. 7 Mr Madden says was captured on the Wayback Machine in
8 A. I don’t know who printed it for me. I have people work 8 2016. Do we see that that has a date on the front,
9 for me. 9 ”Accessed: 05/01/2015”?
10 Q. But you’ve always maintained that this is, to your 10 A. I see what it says, yes.
11 knowledge, an authentic document, not one that’s ever 11 Q. And then may we go back to his report at his appendix
12 been tampered with? 12 PM6 at {H/40/22}, and in the upper half of the page, he
13 A. I have no knowledge of it being tampered with. 13 compares the figures on this version with the figures on
14 Q. Well, just to clear this up, may we have {L20/181/4} on 14 the version you held up. Would you accept, again, just
15 screen, please. And if we look at the middle of that 15 as a matter of visual impression, that the figures in
16 page, this is a set of Twitter exchanges. 16 the date from the 2015 version are aligned by contrast
17 Do you see that somebody with a tag 17 with those on your document?
18 beginning ”Bronze Age” has asked: 18 A. Yes, I see they’re aligned.
19 ”Was the 2008 JSTOR printout of 19 Q. Mr Madden has also considered designs of footers from
20 the Tominaga Nakamoto article authentic or tampered 20 JSTOR documents from different eras. May we look
21 with?” 21 further down {H/40/22}, towards the bottom of the page
22 And your Twitter handle is recorded as answering: 22 we see on screen.
23 ”Authentic.” 23 Do we see that he compares there the footer on
24 Is that a question you answered in that way in March 24 the document you held up with the document that was
25 of last year? 25 downloaded having been captured in 2016?

17 19

1 A. I don’t recall . My Twitter isn’t just myself. 1 A. I can see it .

2 Q. If you had been asked that question at that time, would 2 Q. And then if we go over to {H/40/25}, please, what he
3 you have answered it in that way? 3 does is to compare the design of JSTOR footers, footers
4 A. I don’t recall , but I would say that the document is 4 of JSTOR documents, from samples at different points in
5 authentic, yes. 5 time, and he finds that the footer from the document
6 Q. You don’t know whether you’d agree it was authentic? 6 which you held up didn’t match any of those from
7 A. No, I said I would agree it was authentic. 7 the 2008 era, but matched those from significantly later
8 Q. Thank you. 8 eras ; do you see that?
9 A. But I don’t know if I would answer that way on Twitter. 9 A. I can see it . What I also note is that he’s comparing
10 Q. May we now go to {H/40/1}. 10 different repositories .
11 Now, this is an appendix to Mr Madden’s first report 11 Q. He’s comparing footers from documents downloaded from
12 where he addresses this document. I’m going to put some 12 the JSTOR database, isn’t he?
13 of his findings to you for you to comment on. 13 A. There’s not a −− sorry, there’s not a JSTOR database.
14 Page 3, please {H/40/3}. He makes some observations 14 There are multiple repositories . Each of these,
15 about the document. We can see that he’s referring to 15 including the Nipponica, are held separately and update
16 it . It ’s a document numbered ID_004019. What I want to 16 separately , so you cannot take one from one era and
17 put to you is on {H/40/4}. If you show the whole page 17 compare it. So, no, I don’t agree.
18 on screen. He identifies irregularities in the numerals 18 Q. Have you or your expert identified any JSTOR documents
19 in the accessed date and time with the numerals ”08” not 19 from any repository with a footer matching yours in form
20 being aligned or the same size as the ”20” figure . 20 which is dated to the 2008 era?
21 Again, would you accept that as a matter of visual 21 A. I don’t know what Mr Placks has done, but other
22 impression? 22 documents had ones like mine, yes.
23 A. Yes. 23 Q. I ’m going to suggest to you −− and no doubt I can be
24 Q. And if we go over the page {H/40/5}, he also identifies 24 corrected on this if I ’m wrong −− that no document from
25 irregularities in the ”11:17” with the ”11” and the ”17” 25 the JSTOR database with a footer matching yours

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 authentically from the 2008 era has been provided. Are 1 was to try and discredit me by putting me out into
2 you able to agree or disagree with that? 2 the media and then having people immediately, within
3 A. I disagree. 3 minutes, try and discredit things saying that some of my
4 Q. But you’re not able to identify the document? 4 −− my papers were false, etc. As an example,
5 A. No. I can’t really discuss what has been done in 5 Mr Maxwell, minutes after WIRED produced things, had
6 privilege with lawyers. 6 a double digit length paper discrediting falsely my PGP
7 Q. Now, Mr Madden’s conclusion is that the document which 7 keys that were done seconds after the articles went up,
8 he found captured in 2016 was a likely source of your 8 something that would take days to write.
9 document, that’s to say a publicly available document 9 Q. Well, we’re not going to address that latter point now,
10 with the access date and time matching those of your 10 but what I am going to address with you is this. Your
11 document other than the irregular figures . Do you agree 11 account is that your document with the 2008 date numbers
12 or disagree with that conclusion? 12 misaligned is the authentic document, whereas
13 A. I completely disagree. The document that he has sourced 13 the document with the numerals properly aligned is
14 is from Gwern. Gwern was an individual who worked with 14 a document that’s been planted for use against you;
15 Ira Kleiman to out me in 2015. Ira Kleiman had been 15 correct?
16 shown that document in 2014. Gwern produced it with 16 A. What you’re arguing is a printout on a cheap printer has
17 helping people as part of the 2015 doxing, where he 17 misalignment, which is correct . Printers do that. If
18 provided information to WIRED and Gizmodo. So that 18 you edit a PDF, you don’t change fonts. So what
19 document was provided to Ira Kleiman in 2014. 19 Mr Madden has failed to note is, if I went in with, say,
20 Q. So this document, dated 2015, was provided to 20 Soda or Adobe and I edited, my Lord, a document, there
21 Ira Kleiman in 2014? 21 is no way that you will naturally change the font.
22 A. No, my document was provided to Ira Kleiman. Gwern, who 22 The font only will change if you do something like
23 basically put things out to WIRED, provided that and put 23 printing it . So, the argument not being presented by
24 it up there afterwards. 24 Mr Madden is very simple. He has failed to note that
25 Q. So your document from 2008, which nobody’s found 25 a printout that has been scanned isn’t a native PDF.

21 23

1 directly on the internet , was put out to −− from Gwern 1 Q. That’s not a point made by your expert, is it , in
2 to Ira Kleiman; correct? Is that what you’re saying? 2 relation to this document?
3 A. I ’m saying that Gwern loaded it, and you shouldn’t find 3 A. I don’t know what my expert’s done.
4 it on the internet because that’s actually a breach of 4 Q. The reality is that this is a document which you edited,
5 copyright. It ’s a document owned by JSTOR, and loading 5 as Mr Madden established, from a publicly available
6 it and publishing it that way is actually a breach of 6 version to suggest an interest in Tominaga Nakamoto from
7 the intellectual property associated with that document. 7 2008?
8 Q. Your account then is that the document which was 8 A. I also presented this to people at
9 captured in 2016 bearing a date of 2015 was 9 the Australian Stock Exchange in 2013 when I was talking
10 a manipulated document; is that right? Is that what 10 to them. I mentioned it to Ira Kleiman, so I can tell
11 you’re saying? 11 you the exact source of why that’s out there is
12 A. I ’m saying it was loaded on that date by Gwern, who put 12 Mr Ira Kleiman and Gwern.
13 these things up. 13 Q. You’ve never −− again, you can tell me if I’m wrong and
14 Q. And why are you saying that was done? 14 then this can be checked, but you’ve never provided any
15 A. Part of all of this with Mr Kleiman was to try and 15 evidence in support of any of those propositions that
16 discredit me. Other people involved in COPA were also 16 you provided this document to
17 part of this , including Mr Maxwell. 17 the Australian Stock Exchange or that Ira Kleiman
18 Q. But it wouldn’t be a very effective way of discrediting 18 received it , have you?
19 you to do this before you had made the public 19 A. I have no evidence that I’ve shown it to someone at
20 commitment, in December 2019, that this document which 20 the −− at there, but I have noted this for the Kleiman
21 you were holding up was the source of the Satoshi 21 case that I showed a variety of documents, including
22 pseudonym, would it? 22 this one. So in the Kleiman case, where I was talking
23 A. It would, actually , because I’d already spoken to 23 about this as my evidence, that is because I’d given it
24 Ira Kleiman in 2014 and Ira Kleiman had already started 24 to Ira Kleiman.
25 planning his case against me. On top of that, the idea 25 Q. But there’s no evidence, is there, that you −− for

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 example, an email, that you provided this specific 1 ”This is the source of Vistomail and registration of
2 document to Ira Kleiman, is there? 2 the domain bitcoin.org.”
3 A. I don’t know if there’s something in relativity or not. 3 Then over the page {L14/451/4}:
4 I don’t have any of my earlier emails. A lot of my 4 ”What you don’t realise yet is that I used my credit
5 data’s been lost , a lot of it ’s been deleted, and 5 card. Yes, as crazy as it might seem to you, I used my
6 finding things in relativity is very difficult . So my 6 credit card to purchase anonymous services. I even
7 answer is very simple: this came from Gwern. Gwern is 7 claimed it on my tax.”
8 part of the outing in 2015 that doxed me. 8 And so on.
9 Q. The answer is much simpler: this is a document forged by 9 You wrote that, did you?
10 you as part of the origin myth, isn’t it ? 10 A. I did.
11 A. If I ’d forged that document then it would be perfect. 11 Q. Now over the page to {L14/451/5}, please, middle of
12 It ’s very simple. If you go into Adobe, my Lord, and 12 the page:
13 I change everything, there’s not going to be a font 13 ”Argue all you want about the nature of evidence,
14 error . The curve that you note, or don’t note, where 14 but there is one simple point I can categorically prove:
15 things aren’t printed correctly because there’s a curve 15 ”The source of the funds that went to pay for
16 doesn’t happen apart from print errors. 16 the bitcoin .org domain registration on AnonymousSpeech
17 So I’m sorry again, that’s false . 17 ... derived from my credit card. More importantly,
18 Q. That can be put to Mr Madden in due course. 18 the same records remain current and valid.”
19 May we move on to another document, moving from 19 You wrote that, did you?
20 Satoshi’s name to Satoshi’s email address. 20 A. Yes, I did.
21 It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that one of the email 21 Q. So you were saying that you’d obtained the Vistomail
22 addresses linked to Satoshi when he was operating was 22 address and the bitcoin.org domain registration from
23 satoshi@vistomail.com? Yes? 23 Anonymous Speech with a credit card payment for which
24 A. Yes. 24 you had records?
25 Q. You claim to have used that email in 2008, having bought 25 A. I did.

25 27

1 the domain, don’t you? 1 Q. Then {O4/25/34}, please.

2 A. I do. 2 This is a transcript taken from an interview you
3 Q. You previously also identified Vistomail with 3 gave in April 2019 with somebody called Fred Schebesta.
4 the company −− the brokerage Anonymous Speech, haven’t 4 Do you remember that interview?
5 you? 5 A. No, I do not. Sorry.
6 A. Yes. 6 Q. If we go down to {A4/25/34}, please. Go down to
7 Q. You’ve claimed publicly that you purchased both 7 letter F. Do we see that, after a discussion of
8 the Vistomail email domain and the bitcoin.org website 8 cryptographic proof, you’re recorded as saying:
9 domain from Anonymous Speech, haven’t you? 9 ”Proof is something simple, like a credit card
10 A. I have. 10 statement saying that you actually bought
11 Q. May we go to an article that you published, {L14/451/1}. 11 the Bitcoin.com −− sorry, Bitcoin.org domain, but not
12 Is this article , ”Evidence and law”, an article by you 12 Bitcoin.com, and paid for the Satoshi email account ... ”
13 from April 2018? 13 Do you recall that is something you said?
14 A. I wrote it . I don’t publish my blogs so ... But I wrote 14 A. No, this was transcribed incorrectly .
15 it , yes. 15 Q. Okay, well, we can bring up the video after a break, but
16 Q. Page 3 {L14/451/3}: 16 what do you say was said wrong −−
17 ”I used AnonymousSpeech.com for many years, and held 17 A. It ’s close , but it ’s not quite right .
18 copies of the SecureAnonymousSurfing software. 18 Q. What do you say is wrong?
19 I started using it when I was investigating malware 19 A. Just the way that it ’s written. Some of the things are
20 breaches and peer−to−peer copyright violations. It 20 wrong. But it’s close enough.
21 enabled me to track and analyse people breaching 21 Q. Well, page 36 {O4/25/36}, bottom of the page, please.
22 software licenses and media licenses and such people who 22 Just by letter H, after another discussion of
23 were attacking my clients, that is , cyber criminals . 23 cryptographic proof, you’re recorded as saying:
24 I used the service as it stopped the cyber criminals 24 ”See, I ’m an evil little prick , I ’ve got bank
25 from being able to find out who I really was. 25 statements and credit card statements and all of this

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 stuff and, you know, the bank has to keep those for 1 Was that the number for your old credit card?
2 25 years.” 2 A. No, I had a debit card, and that was actually cancelled
3 Over the page {O4/25/37}: 3 in 2005. So this was part of why I was pointing out
4 ”So, I can’t fraudulently change them. 4 the problem.
5 ”The bank issues a statement −− 5 Q. So you were writing, ”This number is my old credit
6 ”−− the court checks, that’s it.” 6 card”, to say that that was a number that wasn’t
7 Do you recall saying that or words to that effect ? 7 associated with any credit card you’d ever held?
8 A. To that effect , yes. 8 A. I was doing a point form of what Amanda had received,
9 Q. Would you accept that the message you were giving was 9 which basically said , from an anonymous Reddit person,
10 that you had bought the bitcoin.org email domain and 10 that this was my old credit card buying the Bitcoin
11 the Satoshi email account, you’d paid by credit card and 11 domain.
12 you had the records to prove it in court? 12 Q. Just looking at this email on its face, without your
13 A. Yes. 13 back story that you’re giving us, the first line tells
14 Q. May we now go to {L1/100/1}. Sorry, I’ve got a wrong 14 the reader, doesn’t it , that Anonymous Speech is
15 reference . 15 connected with Vistomail?
16 May we please have {H/78/1}. This is appendix PM17 16 A. No, it ’s putting a point form of response, so it is not
17 to Mr Madden’s first report, but in the bottom half of 17 saying that. Anonymous Speech is linked to Vistomail,
18 the screen, we see an email you wrote with screenshots 18 but they are separate things.
19 in the email. Do you recognise this as an email you 19 Q. And read naturally, giving a number and saying, ”that is
20 wrote to Jimmy Nguyen on 10 June 2019? 20 my old credit card”, would mean you were saying that
21 A. Yes, Jimmy was acting as my legal counsel and was 21 that’s the number for your old credit card?
22 representing me in the UK as part of the Kleiman 22 A. No, I was asked by Jimmy to put down point form.
23 proceedings. 23 Q. And:
24 Q. He is also somebody who worked as a colleague of yours 24 ”All the credit card shows is ’AnonymousSpeech’.”
25 in companies and helped to promote your claim to be 25 Read naturally, says that all the credit card receipt or

29 31

1 Satoshi, didn’t he? 1 credit card record will show is a reference to

2 A. No. He was working as my legal counsel on this. 2 Anonymous Speech?
3 Q. Do you recall that he introduced you in an Oxford Union 3 A. No, again, my Westpac credit card shows the purchase of
4 speech earlier in 2019 in which you promoted your claim? 4 the product that you had on the other screen, which was
5 A. Yes, I talked in an Oxford Union speech. 5 the Anonymous Surfer product which is from
6 Q. So he wasn’t just acting as a lawyer for you, he was 6 Anonymous Speech. That, up until 2005/6, was paid for
7 also helping you in more general terms to put forward 7 with my Westpac credit card, it doesn’t list the same
8 your claim? 8 way. So, in my actual credit card, where I did purchase
9 A. No. He was acting as my lawyer in this. 9 this , it doesn’t say the same thing.
10 Q. The number at the top of the email, the number 10 Q. Just to be clear with the answer you have just given,
11 consisting of four sets of four digits , is that a credit 11 you say that you did purchase the Satoshi Vistomail
12 card number? 12 email and bitcoin.org with your Westpac credit card?
13 A. I don’t know. It ’s not mine. I mean, what I’m saying, 13 A. No, I said I purchased the Anonymous Surfer VPN software
14 ”my old credit card”, this isn ’ t actually a credit card, 14 and I applied payments to that site until 2006 using
15 it was a debit, so where this is linked is −− is wrong. 15 Westpac. After 2006, I used my WebMoney New Zealand
16 What I was sending to Jimmy is what I got from Amanda, 16 account.
17 basically it was a summary of information. 17 Q. So you’re saying you used your WebMoney New Zealand
18 Q. We’ll come to that in a moment, but you’re saying it’s 18 account to purchase the Vistomail domain and
19 a debit card number, are you? 19 the bitcoin .org domain?
20 A. I had a debit card number, but this was put down in 20 A. Yes. The New Zealand company ran a credit/debit card
21 the message to Amanda as my old credit card. 21 system linked to Liberty Reserve. In some of my
22 Q. We see that the email says: 22 communications with Martti Malmi, which is in his emails
23 ”Anonymous Speech is vistomail.” 23 as well , I explained Liberty Reserve, I explained
24 Then that number which is at the top of the screen: 24 WebMoney and I helped him set up an exchange where he
25 ” ... is my old credit card.” 25 actually linked that the same way I’d been doing this.

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 This isn ’ t the first time I ’ve said it . In my 2020 1 A. I told my various solicitors , including other ones, both
2 blog, I explained Liberty Reserve and WebMoney. 2 in Rivero and otherwise, this was false .
3 Q. Next page, please {H/78/2}. 3 Q. Who do you say you told that this was false? Just
4 You see that you had included in that email 4 Ms McGovern or other individual lawyers?
5 a screenshot which appears to show a credit card 5 A. I told other individual lawyers, but I ’ve been told not
6 transaction from the number in the email to 6 to name solicitors or attorneys, so I don’t know ...
7 Anonymous Speech of $687. 7 Do I or don’t I , my Lord?
8 A. I do. 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You should identify them. If they told
9 Q. And I suggest to you the natural meaning of this email 9 you not to reveal something, you should identify them.
10 in the context of your article and your interview is 10 A. Johnny −− I probably don’t remember Johnny’s name,
11 that you’re putting forward those documents as 11 I haven’t dealt with him in a while −− he’s a Sikh. Can
12 the banking records showing your purchase of the Satoshi 12 I get back to you on his last name?
13 Vistomail account. 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Which firm was he from?
14 A. No, I was pointing out the falsity of it because Amanda 14 A. He’s an American firm that was basically dealing with
15 had received these and we needed to answer that 15 one of the American entity companies. He’s a corporate
16 question, because any even adverse documents need to go 16 lawyer. But I can get his name next break very quickly,
17 into court. 17 I just can’t remember it off the top of my head.
18 Q. Let’s go through your story. You claim that these 18 Jimmy Nguyen, Amanda McGovern and one of her
19 screenshots were sent to you by your US law firm, 19 juniors , but I can’t −− if I can get back to you on
20 specifically by Amanda McGovern, in the context of 20 the name of the junior as well .
21 the Kleiman litigation ? 21 MR HOUGH: And you say, don’t you, that they were sent to
22 A. Yes. 22 you by WhatsApp?
23 Q. You first made this claim after Ms McGovern had died, 23 A. I said that they were sent to me, I believe , by
24 didn’t you? 24 WhatsApp, yes. I can’t recall exactly , but I don’t have
25 A. I didn’t plan her dying, and I didn’t have any other −− 25 any other applications any more, I don’t have Facebook,

33 35

1 there was nothing to respond to. So, no, I didn’t make 1 I don’t have anything else, so it would be WhatsApp.
2 this claim first . This was part of the Kleiman 2 Q. And you don’t have the WhatsApp message captured
3 litigation . In privileged communications with Jimmy, 3 anywhere?
4 which, if you look at the other emails in this thread, 4 A. No, I don’t.
5 basically support that, saying to take this offline to 5 Q. You say that the screenshots had been sent to
6 communicate. 6 Ms McGovern using a direct message from a pseudonymous
7 Q. You first gave this account which you’re now giving in 7 Reddit user whose identity remains undisclosed; is that
8 any sort of public forum after Ms McGovern had died, 8 right?
9 didn’t you? 9 A. That’s what she told me, yes.
10 A. I don’t discuss my legally privileged communications in 10 Q. You’ve never provided, have you, a copy of the Reddit
11 public forums. This only came out because Ontier 11 message?
12 accidentally released privileged documents. 12 A. There was no reason to.
13 Q. Is the answer to my question ”yes”? 13 Q. You say that after you received the bank statements from
14 A. It depends on what you consider a public forum. It was 14 Ms McGovern, you didn’t think they were genuine and you
15 mentioned in the Kleiman litigation. Some of that was 15 immediately sent them on to Jimmy Nguyen to check?
16 in a closed court, but that is still public . 16 A. Again, I gave instructions to lawyers over here.
17 Q. So you’re saying that the story of these screenshots 17 I don’t know, my Lord, what I should do when it comes to
18 being sent to you was mentioned in the Kleiman 18 privileged −−
19 litigation in court? 19 Q. Let’s put on screen the witness statement where you
20 A. I don’t know if it was in public . Some of the things we 20 address this . It ’s {E1/4/2}. It’s one of the witness
21 had in Kleiman were closed. 21 statements you’ve confirmed.
22 Q. Are you saying that the account you have given of these 22 A. Yes.
23 screenshots being dumped on you was something said in 23 Q. So this is your third witness statement in the BTC Core
24 the Kleiman litigation in court, bearing in mind that 24 case. What you say is, at paragraph 3:
25 this can be checked, even if it was in a closed session? 25 ”The two screenshots ... were sent to me by

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 Rivero Mestre ... I recollect that Amanda McGovern sent 1 planted on you, did you think that this was being done
2 these screenshots to me using WhatsApp, on the 9th or 2 to help you or harm you?
3 10th of June 2019 ...” 3 A. I don’t know. I have a lot of people who are −− think
4 Then paragraph 4: 4 that they’re helping me that actually harm me. They
5 ”As I did not think these were genuine, 5 think that they’re helping when they do things, but
6 I immediately emailed them to Jimmy Nguyen to check on 6 they’re not.
7 10th June 2019 ...” 7 Q. When your lawyers in these proceedings disclosed this
8 Do you see that? 8 document, this email, they didn’t mention, did they,
9 A. I do. 9 that it was a set of false documents which had been
10 Q. Then you refer to the document reference for the email 10 planted on you?
11 we have just looked at; correct? 11 A. They didn’t mention that it was a privileged
12 A. I do. 12 communication either.
13 Q. Now, you go on to say that you didn’t think that 13 Q. Well, answer the question that I ’m asking, please.
14 the screenshots −− or you thought the screenshots 14 When your lawyers disclosed these documents in these
15 couldn’t have been yours because you didn’t have access 15 proceedings, they didn’t mention that they were false
16 to NAB, the bank, when the screenshots were made, 16 documents which had been planted on you, did they?
17 because your account had been closed for about 17 A. I have no idea what Ontier did. I do know that they
18 ten years? 18 didn’t tell you that they were privileged .
19 A. Yes. 19 Q. If your disclosure that you were giving in these
20 Q. Now, if your story about Ms McGovern receiving these 20 proceedings, these important proceedings, had contained
21 screenshots from some anonymous Redditer had been true, 21 the results , the products of faked documents which had
22 surely the natural thing for you to do would have been 22 been considered so carefully in your previous
23 to speak to her about it , or to communicate with your 23 litigation , that would have been mentioned, wouldn’t it?
24 bank? 24 A. We actually did. I noted that many of the computers
25 A. Why would I communicate with an old bank that I don’t 25 were from ex−staff members, including ones who had

37 39

1 use any more? 1 intentionally tried to sabotage my company and that were
2 Q. Well, because some records are being shown as supposedly 2 working with Mr Ira Kleiman.
3 genuine which are false . 3 Q. Ontier did not mention that these documents were fakes
4 A. Again, why would I communicate with the bank about 4 and they were first admitted to be fakes on
5 false −− pretending to be records? I’ve worked with 5 27 September 2023; that’s right, isn ’ t it ?
6 banks before. No bank’s going to go, ”Oh, well, that’s 6 A. I don’t know when you were given instructions from my
7 a fabricated PDF” or, ”That’s an image”, and care. It 7 lawyers. I told my lawyers immediately. I don’t know
8 doesn’t show access to a bank account. 8 what happened. I’m sorry.
9 Q. Surely the one thing you wouldn’t do, as an expert in 9 Q. Immediately when?
10 documentary −− document forensics, as you claim, is to 10 A. When I first got these, these were part of the Kleiman
11 have them checked by Mr Nguyen, who’s just a lawyer? 11 litigation .
12 A. Actually I would. The first thing I would do if I ’m in 12 Q. When did you first −− well, do you say that you told
13 litigation is I would go to my lawyers and, as I did, 13 Ontier materially , before September 2023, that these
14 have my lawyers instructed to pull the files to verify 14 documents were fakes?
15 what I’m saying. 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Well, you’re shown some documents which you’re convinced 16 Q. And Ontier then sat on that information and didn’t tell
17 can’t be genuine and you send them to a lawyer to check? 17 the other parties ; is that what you’re saying?
18 That’s a bizarre thing to do, isn ’ t it ? 18 A. I have no idea what Ontier did.
19 A. No, I was in litigation . Under American litigation, I ’m 19 Q. But if the other parties weren’t told by Ontier, they
20 required to send everything I get, including staff 20 were sitting on that information and allowing the other
21 material, which is why some of these laptops are there, 21 parties to be misled; that’s right , isn ’ t it ?
22 including things from ex−staff, and anything, even if 22 A. I have no idea what Ontier did.
23 it ’s adverse, that I −− I get has to go to my lawyers. 23 Q. Now, you’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Madden’s first
24 So, yes, I was required to do that. 24 report established that these screenshots had to be
25 Q. Now, when you saw that these false documents were being 25 inauthentic, including because the NAB records couldn’t

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 have been accessed after more than ten years? You’re 1 Q. And the story you’ve told in the statement we’ve looked
2 aware of that, aren’t you? 2 at and we’re looking at on screen now is just a tissue
3 A. That’s actually not correct . In Australian law you can 3 of lies , isn ’ t it ?
4 actually access records because they’re connected to 4 A. No, it ’s not.
5 a home loan. 5 Q. May we now go to Wright 11 at {CSW/1/34}.
6 So, my Lord, what he’s doing is reporting under 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Mr Hough, I think it’s time for a short
7 the credit history , but in Australia , when it is 7 break at some suitable moment.
8 associated −− and these were connected directly to 8 MR HOUGH: I’ll pick a time immediately after this question.
9 the home loan, it’s 25 years. So the records were 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
10 legally required to be kept 25 years, not because 10 MR HOUGH: Wright 11 {CSW/1/34}.
11 they’re a credit card, but the other. But despite that, 11 If you look at the top of the page, paragraph 171:
12 I agree, they are not real , but it ’s not real for 12 ”Registering Bitcoin.org was a preliminary practical
13 the wrong reason. 13 step.”
14 Q. Well, let ’s −− I’m not going to take you through 14 A. Yes.
15 Mr Madden’s report, because you accept that they’re 15 Q. Do you recall that in that part of your statement you
16 inauthentic, that they’re fakes . 16 were saying that, as Satoshi, you registered
17 A. Yes. 17 bitcoin .org?
18 Q. Mr Madden’s report found that they were fakes, 18 A. Well, using the pseudonym Satoshi on email isn’t
19 didn’t it ? 19 the same as registering . I registered using the account
20 A. Yes, I ’d expect him to. 20 Secura, which is a different account, and so the way
21 Q. And you first −− your solicitors first publicly 21 you’ve just premised it is not quite correct , but I did
22 recognised that they were fakes after that report had 22 register the domain at that time.
23 come in, didn’t they? 23 Q. You see the footnote number is 112?
24 A. I have no idea when my −− when Ontier said anything to 24 A. Yes.
25 you. 25 Q. Can we go down to the bottom of the page where that is,

41 43

1 Q. What happened is that you forged or had someone forge 1 112:

2 these screenshots to provide proof of your purchase of 2 ”Bitcoin.org purchase ID_003455.”
3 the Vistomail domain, didn’t you? 3 You see that?
4 A. No. As I stated, the purchase of the Anonymous Speech 4 A. I do.
5 software was done, my Lord, by Westpac. Those are in 5 Q. So you were citing in support of that, document number
6 evidence. That shows me buying from that company for 6 ID_003455; do you see that?
7 several years . What I don’t have, that I wanted to get, 7 A. I do.
8 is the WebMoney New Zealand account, because 8 Q. Then can we go, please, to ID_3455 {L15/100/1}.
9 unfortunately that company has gone into liquidation. 9 That was the document which you cited, on 15 January
10 Q. You claimed, in April 2019, that you had credit card 10 this year, as proof of purchase of bitcoin .org,
11 records to demonstrate your purchase of these domains, 11 isn ’ t it ?
12 didn’t you? 12 A. No, it ’s not.
13 A. Yes, at that stage, the New Zealand company was still 13 Q. Well, that’s ID_003455.
14 active and had not liquidated. 14 A. Well, that should be the −− that’s the wrong number.
15 Q. You then, in June 2019, sent an email to Mr Nguyen 15 That should not be that.
16 which, on its face, was very clearly presenting these 16 Q. What document do you say should have been footnoted?
17 records as genuine, didn’t you? 17 A. It should have been an image of the Vistomail site.
18 A. No. I communicated with my legal counsel, and that’s 18 MR HOUGH: Thank you very much.
19 why these weren’t brought into the American case. 19 Would that be a convenient moment for the break?
20 Q. You then disclosed the proceedings −− these documents in 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
21 these proceedings to back up your claim? 21 Dr Wright, we’re going to have a short break, but
22 A. No. No such claim was ever made. 22 I ’ ll be repeating this numerous times, please do not
23 Q. And then you only abandoned them through your lawyers 23 talk to anybody until you’ve finished giving evidence
24 after Mr Madden had successfully discredited them? 24 about your evidence in this case?
25 A. They were never reliance documents, for that reason. 25 A. I understand very well, my Lord.

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good, thank you. 1 account I used.

2 We’ll take a short break. 2 Q. And the reason that you have come up with this
3 Dr Wright, feel free to go for a little wander. 3 recollection in court today is to make sense of what you
4 A. Thank you. 4 had said in April 2019, that you had the records to
5 (12.01 pm) 5 prove it , which conveniently then fell out of your
6 (A short break) 6 access?
7 (12.09 pm) 7 A. No, the company closed. As I noted in one of my other
8 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, you told us before the break that you 8 witness statements, the company closed, so I cannot now
9 do recall now how you purchased the domain name, don’t 9 grab which particular account I used, or exactly where
10 you? The means of payment used. 10 the funds came, whether it was WebMoney or
11 A. The means of payment, yes. 11 Liberty Reserve direct .
12 Q. Remind us what that was, the means of payment used? 12 Q. Carrying on in this statement, may we look at
13 A. It was a card associated with a WebMoney account. 13 paragraph 19, towards the bottom of the page. You say
14 I don’t recall which one, there are multiples . 14 here:
15 Q. May we have {E/4/10} on screen, please. 15 ”With regard to Vistomail, Simon Cohen, then
16 So this is the tenth page of your fourth witness 16 a Managing Associate at Ontier LLP, accessed my
17 statement. Paragraph 16, you say: 17 Vistomail before it was discontinued. When he did,
18 ”Returning to creating the Bitcoin.org Website, I do 18 I understand that he saw records and communications
19 not recall how I purchased the domain name. I had 19 pertaining to the purchase and operation of
20 various payment methods available to me then, including 20 the bitcoin .org domain and site. For the avoidance of
21 accounts with Liberty Reserve and overseas credit cards 21 doubt, my solicitors have asked me to emphasise that
22 from companies I formerly operated. If I were to have 22 this is not a waiver of privilege .”
23 used by Liberty Reserve account, I may have used 23 Mr Cohen has never provided written confirmation of
24 LRD ...” 24 that story by a statement or any other means, has he?
25 And so on. 25 A. No.

45 47

1 So when you wrote that witness statement in October 1 Q. If the story had been true, it would have been
2 last year, you couldn’t remember the payment method, 2 straightforward to have your former solicitor confirm
3 could you? 3 it , wouldn’t it?
4 A. Like I said , I used the other. But WebMoney, natively, 4 A. No, it wouldn’t, because I fired that −− those −−
5 LRD are two different things. So when I’m saying I used 5 Ontier, and everyone keeps telling me not to waive
6 one of the cards, I didn’t say I used a particular card. 6 privilege .
7 I don’t recall which one. I know that it was a WebMoney 7 Q. This wouldn’t be a waiver of privilege . If your
8 account; that could be WebMoney directly, it could be 8 solicitor had accessed this material, he could have
9 Liberty Reserve tied to it , or it could be one of 9 confirmed what he had done without going into any
10 a number of Visa and Mastercards that were tied by that 10 matters of legal advice, couldn’t he?
11 company. 11 A. That’s not what I’ve been advised.
12 Q. You said in your fourth statement that you couldn’t 12 Q. That’s just another fiction told at the expense of
13 remember the payment means and you’ve now remembered it 13 Ontier, isn ’ t it ?
14 by the time of your evidence, haven’t you? 14 A. No, it isn ’ t .
15 A. No, that’s exactly the same. I just said I don’t 15 Q. May we move to some videos you provided showing supposed
16 remember which particular card I used, so that’s 16 access to the Vistomail account and may we go to
17 still ... 17 the next paragraph in this statement which we’ve got on
18 Q. No, you’re saying here that you couldn’t remember, from 18 screen {E/4/10}. You exhibited four videos, didn’t you,
19 a whole range of payment methods, rather than you can 19 which you said showed you accessing the Vistomail −−
20 remember the level of detail which you’ve told the court 20 the Satoshi Vistomail account live in June 2019?
21 today. 21 A. No, I said it was the Secura(?) Vistomail account that
22 A. Let me give you an analogy. I have a Wise account now. 22 had the Satoshi email.
23 In Wise, I have a euro, a US dollar and a GBT −− B−− 23 Q. Paragraph 21, you say that the membership date on
24 sort of account. If I use Wise, that doesn’t mean I’d 24 the top right states that you had membership until −−
25 know which −− a year later, which particular payment 25 I think that’s 7 December 2009, but that’s just when

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 your subscription ended and you continued to use 1 the site . After giving access to my solicitors ,
2 the free version after that; correct? 2 the server closed.
3 A. Vistomail allowed you to send more emails if you paid, 3 Q. But there’s no captures from the Wayback Machine or
4 so yes. 4 anything like that, nothing equivalent to what
5 Q. Based on their file names, the videos all date from 5 Mr Madden’s done, is there?
6 7 June 2019. Does that accord with your recollection of 6 A. There can’t be.
7 when they were filmed? 7 My Lord, what they’re confusing is the external site
8 A. Yes. 8 and the internal site , and they’re arguing that because
9 Q. May we play again a video we played yesterday {F/155/1}, 9 there isn ’ t a public capture of a private site , that
10 which is {CSW/12/1}. May we play −− if we can get 10 there’s nothing. But that’s like saying, on Gmail,
11 the video on screen and pause right at the start . 11 you’ ll have a different front page from when you log in
12 I think we’ve lost it from the screen. If we can go 12 and when you don’t log−in, which I agree with, you will
13 back to the start and pause right at the start , please. 13 have a different front page.
14 Do you see that at the start there’s a footer text : 14 Q. You weren’t genuinely accessing the site in the videos,
15 ”Copyright 1996−2009 AnonymousSpeech.com.”? 15 were you?
16 A. Yes. 16 A. I was.
17 Q. Play to the end, please. 17 Q. We were seeing an old page of the website taken from
18 (Video footage played) 18 a source, such as the Wayback Machine, and edited,
19 Pause there, please. Can we get it so that we can 19 weren’t we?
20 see the passport clearly . 20 A. No, you weren’t.
21 You should see your passport held up with 21 Q. Would you accept this, that in the four videos, you
22 the passport number of N2511450 and an issue date of 22 don’t see at any point the address bar?
23 23 June 2010? 23 A. I don’t know. I don’t recall .
24 A. I did. 24 Q. I ’m going to put this to you. They don’t show
25 Q. May we now go to {H/241/1}. This is appendix PM45 to 25 the address bar. They don’t show any live navigation

49 51

1 Mr Madden’s second report, and at paragraph 22 on 1 from any −− from one page to another.
2 {H/241/12}, he explains that from his researches, 2 A. If you’re trying to argue accessing the Wayback Machine
3 the copyright statement on Anonymous Speech, on 3 and altering that, first of all , there’s no
4 the website, was updated in the footer each year, and 4 Wayback Machine capture of internal data. Then, next,
5 this form of footer wouldn’t have been in use after 5 the argument would be altering that, and if there was
6 2009; he identifies several differences from the former 6 a capture on the machine, then that would still be
7 footer in the video and those in use after 2009. 7 a log−in, and at that point I could get a log−in to that
8 Are you aware of those findings he made? 8 site , so I ’m not sure what your point is.
9 A. I ’m aware of them. 9 Q. I ’m putting to you that you recorded separate videos,
10 Q. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that if you’d been accessing 10 each showing separate pages, rather than a single video
11 the account live in June 2019, it wouldn’t have 11 showing navigation from page to page because you weren’t
12 displayed this footer , would it? 12 accessing a live site .
13 A. No, actually it would have. Mr Madden has taken 13 A. No, I’m telling you I was.
14 the main site without logging in, and Vistomail was not 14 Q. Why do you say that you recorded a separate video for
15 the most highly advanced site, and many of the aspects 15 each web page then?
16 didn’t update. 16 A. Because I was asked by my attorneys in the US case to
17 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that your expert agreed with 17 capture the site .
18 Mr Madden about the inauthenticity of the original set 18 Q. Why record a separate video for each page then? Why not
19 of NAB records, aren’t you? 19 navigate between them on the video?
20 A. Yes. 20 A. Because then you have to put down your phone and move
21 Q. And you’re aware, aren’t you, that there is no evidence 21 round.
22 put in before the court that Anonymous Speech retained 22 Q. You can’t operate a mouse and a phone at the same time?
23 old copyright notices in later years? No evidence of 23 Is that your evidence?
24 what you’ve just said , is there? 24 A. And hold the thing still ? No.
25 A. Because they closed down, so you can’t log into 25 Q. As a forensic documents expert, would you accept that

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 this is all exactly what someone would do if they were 1 the court, so I admit that.
2 presenting fake videos? 2 Q. And in fact, in the next question and answer, you were
3 A. No, actually , if you were going to do it as a fake 3 asked whether you tried logging in to
4 video, my Lord, what you would do, as someone skilled as 4 the Anonymous Speech account to provide documents for
5 I am, is you would go to the sort of developer bar and 5 this case, and, drawing no distinction at all , you said:
6 access and change online live . Now, what he wants to 6 ”Anonymous Speech and Vistomail are the same server.
7 say is , then that will have the header bar, etc, but you 7 If you have Satoshi@vistomail.com anything and
8 could actually do that. That’s why I gave the access 8 Satoshi@anonymousspeech.com, anything, they are the same
9 and log−in to solicitors from Ontier, who did log in. 9 account.”
10 Q. Now let’s compare your account that you’ve given now 10 A. Yes, I did say that.
11 about accessing the Vistomail account in June 2019 with 11 Q. May we then look at {L15/133/1}.
12 what you told the Florida court in Kleiman. May we have 12 This is a response of your lawyers to a request for
13 on screen {L16/272/1}, which is a transcript of your 13 production of documents and it’s dated 2 July 2019,
14 deposition on 18 March 2020, and page {L16/272/192}, 14 the date we find on page {L15/133/38}, if we bring that
15 please. 15 up quickly. Dated, at the bottom, July 2, 2019.
16 If we look towards the bottom, do we see you were 16 Then page 5, lower half, please {L15/133/5},
17 asked if you’d tried to log in to the Satoshi’s 17 question 2 asks for :
18 Vistomail account to collect documents for this case. 18 ”A copy of all emails contained in
19 That’s right at the bottom of the screen. 19 the Satoshi Nakamoto email accounts ...”
20 A. Yes. 20 Giving a time period from 2008 to 2013.
21 Q. Then over the page, please, {L16/272/193}, you say you 21 The response, first of all , makes the point that
22 didn’t . Question: 22 the request is overbroad. And then, at the bottom,
23 ”Why not? 23 states :
24 ”Answer: Because I have not logged into there for 24 ”Dr Wright further notes ... ”
25 ages and Vistomail requires payment. Without payment 25 Then over the page {L15/133/6}:

53 55

1 the account goes into lockdown and basically you end up 1 ” ... that he no longer has access to those email
2 not being able to log in . 2 accounts and that he has not maintained copies of
3 ”Question: Can you pay and log back in? 3 the emails contained in those accounts.”
4 ”Answer: No. Vistomail is not a standard open 4 Do you see that?
5 thing where you can communicate with anyone properly. 5 A. I do.
6 It is run by a bunch of anarchists who −− yes, well, 6 Q. So, your position throughout the Kleiman litigation was
7 they are anarchists . On top of that the site was taken 7 that the Vistomail account was something you didn’t have
8 over in 2013. A new company bought the site and 8 access to and you didn’t draw a distinction between
9 re−enabled a new version, so the disabled accounts no 9 having access to certain parts of it , did you?
10 longer exist .” 10 A. As I noted, the Secura(?) account was the main account
11 You were saying there, weren’t you, that the site 11 that linked into the email. I no longer had access to
12 was no longer accessible , you hadn’t accessed it in ages 12 the Satoshi emails, and I was being particularly
13 and in fact it hadn’t been accessible since 2013? 13 difficult . I ’m not doing that for this court,
14 A. No, what I was saying there is that the Satoshi emails 14 your Honour −− my Lord. I did get really annoyed with
15 were no longer accessible . So there are separate parts 15 that case and I didn’t lie , but I didn’t give
16 to the site . One is domain management, one is purchase 16 information about the site . So you’re correct .
17 of VPS services. Both of those were still showing, but 17 Q. So you may have told the truth and nothing but the
18 they couldn’t be changed. The other was the Satoshi 18 truth, you say, but not the whole truth?
19 email system. So, what I couldn’t get −− gain access to 19 A. I wasn’t asked the rest of the question, and I’m doing
20 any more was the original emails that I would have had 20 beyond what I need to now. I should have actually said
21 as Satoshi. 21 how it worked. I didn’t .
22 Q. You didn’t draw that distinction in that −− when you 22 Q. Can we now go to some documents which were supposedly
23 were giving evidence in that case, did you? 23 precursor work for Bitcoin. First of all , {L1/79/1}.
24 A. No. I was very hostile , I was very upset, I felt 24 Do you see that this is a document headed:
25 betrayed by Ira Kleiman and I reacted badly in 25 ”DeMorgan

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 ”Commercial in Confidence 1 we’d been working on with what we now call ”Metanet”, at
2 ”ITOL 2 the time I called it BlackNet, and that research was
3 ”Project ’BlackNet’ 3 ongoing.
4 ”Version 1.0 4 Q. This is a document that was created in PDF form in 2014,
5 ”Prepared by 5 wasn’t it ?
6 ”Craig S Wright 6 A. I don’t know when the PDF was created. The original
7 ”Lynn Wright 7 would have been a doc or something else. If it ’s been
8 ”Dave Dornbrack” 8 converted into a PDF, I don’t know.
9 A. I do. 9 Q. {CSW/2/59}, please.
10 Q. Are you aware that this document is listed as one of 10 Now, you’ve just told us you weren’t sure about this
11 those primarily relied upon by you in support of your 11 document’s −− when this document was created.
12 claim to be Satoshi? 12 Paragraph 17.2, appendix B to your 11th statement, you
13 A. I do. 13 assert , with apparent confidence, that it ’s a 2014
14 Q. If we look at the footer , do we see it says, 14 document; is that right?
15 ”Version 1.2, Thursday, 3 October 2002”? 15 A. No, I said I know when the document was created.
16 A. I do. 16 The PDF is an iteration, a printout of the same
17 Q. May we then go to {H/219/26}. 17 document. If I scan a document, I still have
18 Right at the bottom, what Mr Madden has done is to 18 the document. If I convert a document, I still have
19 transcribe chain of custody information from your 19 the document.
20 schedule. Now, we can look at the schedule if you like , 20 Q. Your chain of custody was referring to this particular
21 but it ’s easier to read in this form which we see on 21 copy of a document. You said that it had been captured
22 page 27 {H/219/27}. Your schedule gives the originator 22 in 2002 and that that was the particular copy you were
23 of the document as you, Lynn Wright, using your notes or 23 talking about. That’s wrong, isn’t it ?
24 dictation software, and Dave Dornbrack; do you see that? 24 A. I ’m saying the document, as filed to AusIndustry, was
25 A. I do. 25 materially the same. I ’m not going into the metadata of

57 59

1 Q. Under, ”Any Further Detail”, it says, among other 1 the document I filed with a government agency in 2002.
2 things, that the files were copied from a server owned 2 I filed that as part of ongoing research.
3 by DeMorgan to one owned by Ridge Estates in 2002, 3 Q. So, when you said the particular copy dated from 2002,
4 before describing further transmission; do you see that? 4 you’re now saying that something materially the same
5 A. I do. 5 existed in 2002? Materially the same.
6 Q. Under ”Further Comments”, do you see that it says that 6 A. I ’m saying there are other versions of this document.
7 many people had access to this particular copy from 2002 7 Those other versions have been accessed as well. There
8 onwards? 8 are documents that have 2002 metadata. This document is
9 A. I do. 9 the same text, the same formatting, the same everything
10 Q. So, the information was saying that this particular 10 else . So your argument is that because the presentation
11 copy, dated from 2002, had been copied from the DeMorgan 11 of the document and the use of a different tool, it ’s
12 server in 2002? 12 a different document. I disagree.
13 A. Around that time, yes. 13 Q. Back to the document, please {L1/79/1}.
14 Q. Next page, please {H/219/28}, paragraph 64, Mr Madden 14 ITOL is Information Technology Online, an Australian
15 observes, in relation to this entry, that he and 15 government grant programme, isn’t it?
16 Dr Placks agreed that the document doesn’t date from 16 A. It is .
17 2002 and that it was created in 2014, based on internal 17 Q. So this document is presenting, at any rate, as a paper
18 metadata. Do you agree or disagree with their 18 in support of a government grant application?
19 conclusion? 19 A. Yes.
20 A. I disagree. 20 Q. Page 4, please {L1/79/4}.
21 Q. You say that it was a document dating from 2002, do you? 21 The abstract reads:
22 A. I say that the original of the document was filed with 22 ”A purely peer−to−peer version transaction system
23 ITOL in 2002. The document was available to a variety 23 would allow online consideration to be sent directly
24 of staff . This document would have been accessed by at 24 from one party to another without going through an
25 least 300 plus staff over the years . The idea is what 25 (un)trusted intermediary.”

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 And so on. 1 Q. Page 6 {L1/79/6}, please.

2 This abstract contains a whole series of details 2 This part describes the overall objective of
3 which directly reflect the Bitcoin White Paper, 3 Project BlackNet:
4 doesn’t it ? 4 ”The BlackNet project’s objective will be to
5 A. No, it reflects Timecoin. 5 integrate a number of off the shelf products in a clever
6 Q. Would you accept that a good bit of this abstract 6 and unique way to develop a product that will provide
7 directly reflects language and concepts which are in 7 Fire−walling, IPSEC VPN’s, Intrusion Detection and SSL
8 the Bitcoin White Paper? 8 Acceleration Management. Once complete the Spyder
9 A. Going back to BlackNet, Tim May had an idea for an 9 appliance will provide organisations with alternatives
10 encrypted secure internet . The concept required crypto 10 when interconnecting their offices with one another.
11 credits . Crypto credits are the equivalent of Bitcoin. 11 This alternative will use the Internet to provide this
12 The distinction is that Tim and others, including myself 12 connectivity , instead of the widely accepted ISDN or DDS
13 in the 90s, believed the system needed to be anonymous. 13 or ATM lines, which are much more expensive.”
14 I don’t. I ’ve come to learn, through working in gaming 14 Then if we look down the ”Project Activities”, we
15 industries and other things, that the system needs to be 15 see reference to a number of those elements in the early
16 pseudonymous and traceable. 16 stages.
17 This references work that I was doing with people 17 This part of the paper, page 6, read on its own,
18 like Vodafone, or companies like Vodafone, with 18 simply describes a set of IT security features for an
19 Lasseter’s etc. At that point, it was a secure recorded 19 integrated business network, doesn’t it ?
20 system for logging, maintaining the integrity of 20 A. No, actually it doesn’t. One of patents we have, for
21 documents, etc −− 21 instance, is the tripwire area. What we do is we take
22 Q. Reading −− 22 a binary tree structure of all the files , the logs ,
23 A. Sorry. 23 the data on the system, and we embed them over time.
24 Q. Reading this abstract, you would think that the paper 24 Now, the problem with the early version of tripwire is
25 was about a transaction system without a central trusted 25 you can’t do it remotely. Someone would have to go out

61 63

1 intermediary, wouldn’t you? 1 and put a disk in and they would have to change systems.
2 A. That was the purpose of what BlackNet is about. It is 2 What we have integrated with the timestamp server is
3 a transaction system. But transaction system, my Lord, 3 a way of, for instance, having every change analysed.
4 is more than just money, it is logs and information. 4 That can’t be done in a distributed system otherwise.
5 And in fact, in May 2009, I believe it was, 5 So the health checks, monitoring, the ability for
6 Martti Malmi, one of the reasons he came and started 6 a peer−to−peer system to control all of this,
7 working on Bitcoin was he wanted to do exactly this. He 7 the stateful filters downloaded from multiple servers
8 wanted to have the probity of files to be able to record 8 simultaneously. For instance, in Hoyts, the Australian
9 them, to know them. 9 company −−
10 Q. But this is talking about transactions, the transaction 10 Q. Can I just pause you there, because you’ve given
11 system with online consideration being spent and 11 the answer and now you’re going into further details and
12 avoiding double spending. It ’s a transaction system. 12 we need to make some progress.
13 A. But you don’t seem to understand what ”transaction” 13 The abstract talks all about transaction systems and
14 means. If I send a log, that’s a transaction. When 14 this talks all about IT security features . They’re
15 I go to a web server and I do something, that is 15 different things, aren’t they?
16 a transaction. When I send an email, that is 16 A. No, actually , when you’re talking about firewalls and
17 technically a transaction. The term ”transaction” means 17 stateful firewalls , then you’re monitoring transaction
18 those things. So, online consideration was necessary as 18 streams. So the analysis here is a transaction stream
19 well . The idea, if you don’t have economic cost, no 19 that is costed so that we can basically make sure that
20 economic cost means you’re easy to spam, to DDoS. How 20 it doesn’t get abused. The example is the quick fraud
21 do you stop these attacks? The biggest attacks we have 21 stuff that I was talking to Microsoft from February to
22 in the internet are because they’re not economic, they 22 October 2008. When we’re doing this, click fraud is
23 don’t have a cost, and that asymmetry is what I’ve been 23 expensive only because it ’s so cheap. If we can make it
24 working on for years , the asymmetry being: attacker 24 so that it ’s a thousandth of a cent every time the user
25 costs a lot , user costs a little . 25 clicks , the user is going to spend a day having a cent

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 and Microsoft could give them a cent every day, but the 1 A. Sorry. I like my system.
2 attacker, then spending millions of fake things, would 2 Q. Of course you want to talk.
3 spend a lot of money. 3 Page 8, please, ”Part B” {L1/79/8}. At (a) and (b)
4 Q. Okay. 4 there is reference to a Spyder appliance with VPN and
5 If we look down the set of project activities and 5 firewalling capabilities . They’re all IT security
6 over to the next page {L1/79/7}, up to the completion of 6 features , aren’t they?
7 stage 3 says nothing about a pseudonymous transaction 7 A. Yes, so is Bitcoin. The structure here, once again,
8 system, does it? 8 business−to−business transactions. So, the appliance
9 A. Actually, it does. In the last page, you had 9 that I had at these companies was actually an AISG−type
10 ”Anti−Spam”. Now, if you go back to Mr −− Dr Back’s 10 device that we had integrated that pulled its firewall
11 page, the whole purpose of Hashcash was anti−spam. So 11 rules securely , integrated IPsec so that it was using
12 you’re basically analysing your own people here going, 12 EDC −− EDCSA [sic] signatures, validating transactions
13 ”Oh, it applies to them, but not me”. Health alerts, 13 and reporting in a way that if there was a compromise,
14 monitoring, database, testing , managing this. 14 we knew about it instantly.
15 A pseud −− anonymous transaction system will use 15 One of the problems, my Lord, is, in a security
16 a peer−to−peer distributor protocol. So all of these 16 situation , logs get changed; the first thing hackers do
17 are actually in there −− 17 is they delete logs . This created a way that we could
18 Q. Just pause there. I ’m treating up to the end of stage 3 18 have an immutable log server. All of the logs would be
19 it ’s all standard IT security features that you’d find 19 distributed across different organisations encrypted,
20 in an IT security project from this time, aren’t they? 20 and this is how I got Lasseter’s to be −−
21 A. No, they’re not. The existence of tripwire as a single 21 Q. Okay, can I just pause you there because, once again,
22 system, the inability to manage peer firewalls, none of 22 you’re going slightly off subject.
23 that was done this way. 23 Page 11, please {L1/79/11}, the budget. If we look
24 So the work, for instance, in the NIPPA network in 24 down through −− across page 11, ”Stage 1”, ”Stage 2” and
25 the Australian Stock Exchange, what we did with as we 25 ”Stage 3”, yes?

65 67

1 integrated brokers, because they weren’t a company then, 1 A. Yes.

2 it was a mutual, and every single broker, no matter how 2 Q. Then page 12 {L1/79/12}, just so we can see
3 small, had to get the packet at the same time. So we 3 the completion of the table. There’s no reference to
4 had to not only broadcast but do it in a way that went 4 stage 4, which is BlackNet and the transaction system,
5 round the whole of Australia, and Australia’s big, 5 in the budget, is there?
6 I mean, it’s like Europe, and someone in Perth and 6 A. No, because this is the individual first stage. So, in
7 Brisbane had to get it at the same time as Sydney. So 7 the first stage of building these, we only do for that
8 our NIPPA network and the protocol had to create a 8 year’s area. So, until we had the base systems, we
9 peer network to send these transactions, 9 couldn’t even go further.
10 the transactions being the shares, the brokers, 10 Q. And then further down this page 12, if we see that
11 the people actually making bids and orders. So −− 11 stage 3, which is the bit before BlackNet and
12 Q. Can I just pause you there, because this says nothing 12 the transaction system, is described as the ”Final
13 about the NIPPA network, does it? 13 Phase”, isn’t it ?
14 A. Oh, no, this was used in the NIPPA network. So, this 14 A. It ’s the final phase for the ITOL. On top of that, we
15 was 2002. I was actually building this for NIPPA and 15 also had AusIndustry funding. ITOL is a grant,
16 ASX. So, I don’t need to say ”NIPPA network”, but that 16 AusIndustry is a tax rebate, so these were different .
17 was where I was deploying is. So when you look at 17 For the ITOL, we’re seeking a grant for the year. So,
18 the ASX documents that I’ve also got you’ll see that 18 basically , what we’re asking for is a 12−month grant.
19 the firewall and the structure was there. I mean, I 19 Q. Stage 3 was described as the final phase because it was
20 actually it was beautiful. I mean, we had a distributed 20 the final phase in the actual project , wasn’t it ?
21 network sending on very low high latency networks across 21 A. No, it was actually very early , and basically had to
22 the whole of Australia at a time that no one believed 22 then continue into each of these. The grant is to
23 it . We had, at Lasseter’s, a system −− 23 commercialise the Spyder Project, not all of the rest .
24 Q. Just pause there, because you’ve disagreed with me; 24 Q. Then may we go to a new document, {L1/80/1}. Do we see
25 that’s fine , we can move on. 25 that that’s a document, this time an MS Word document,

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 so a little more verifiable in its metadata, also dated 1 Q. Well, let me suggest to you that the reason that
2 to Thursday, 3 October 2002. Would you accept that, 2 the authentic document doesn’t have the transaction
3 from its front page, it seems to be the same document? 3 system is the same as the reason that both documents
4 A. I don’t know if it ’s the same document. There were 4 don’t include stage 4 in the budget: stage 4 was added
5 multiple versions of BlackNet document. 5 by you later , wasn’t it ?
6 Q. Ah, well, let ’s go to the version control tables then. 6 A. No, stage 4 happened afterwards. This was an
7 Can we go to the last document, {L1/79/2}: 7 ITOL application that we didn’t get. The way that these
8 ”Version Control: 1.0. 8 work, as I noted before, is it ’s a grant, not a tax
9 ”Craig S Wright. 9 rebate. So, you only get a grant for what you’re going
10 ”03 October 2002.” 10 to do in that year, so the finality is everything you
11 Do you see that? 11 finish in the 12−month period.
12 A. I do. 12 Q. May we go, please, to your evidence in Kleiman
13 Q. Then the document we were just looking at {L1/80/2}. 13 {O2/10/93} {L17/327/93}. Lower half of the page, you
14 The ”Version control” indicates that it ’s the same 14 were asked about your creation of
15 document, doesn’t it? 15 the Bitcoin White Paper and you said:
16 A. No, it just means we haven’t updated it. Version 16 ”There were −− fragments of the paper [that] go back
17 control on our documents wasn’t terribly good. 17 to my 2002 AusIndustry filings for research and
18 Q. So you’re saying the version control may be wrong? 18 development. The first filings I had for a project
19 A. It definitely is wrong. If you have a look there it 19 I called −− which was BlackNet ... go back to that date.
20 says ”Version: 1.0”, and it says ”Version 1.2” at 20 So the origins of tokens and crypto credits , and some of
21 the bottom. So, just on the page you’re showing shows 21 the bits that I self −plagiarized go back that far.”
22 that the version control is screwed. 22 You were saying there, weren’t you, that there were
23 Q. Now, this document has internal metadata −− an internal 23 parts of the Bitcoin White Paper and sections concerning
24 metadata timestamp from 8 October 2002 and Mr Madden has 24 crypto credits that went back to 2002 AusIndustry
25 accepted it as an authentic document. I’m just putting 25 filings , not 2009 ones?

69 71

1 that to you so you know that is the premise for your −− 1 A. I ’m saying that the original project that led to Bitcoin
2 for the next questions. 2 started around that time. It would have actually have
3 Page 4, please {L1/80/4}. Do you see that 3 been 2001, but in 2001 nothing was complete. It also
4 the abstract of this document was left blank? You see 4 involved other research, including Lasseter’s from 1999
5 that? 5 and the Australian Stock Exchange from 1998, all of
6 A. I do. 6 which got rolled into this . The original origin of
7 Q. And page {L1/80/5}, do we see that the objective, as 7 tokens that I used was based on a digital equipment
8 described, and the IT security features are all 8 cooperation product −− not really product, but code −−
9 identical ? 9 but that changed significantly over time as well .
10 A. Well, I can’t compare the two of them. 10 Q. So, you are saying that the original versions of your
11 Q. We can put them on screen next to each other. Can we 11 documents didn’t include the latter stages, but then at
12 have on screen {L1/79/5} and L1/80/5 {L1/80/6}. There 12 some later stage you produced versions which did?
13 we go. They look the same, don’t they? 13 A. No, that’s not what I’m saying at all .
14 A. Yes, they do. 14 Q. Do you say −− do you accept, first of all, that
15 Q. And then may we go to the next page of each one 15 the document I showed you without Stage 4 in it is an
16 {L1/80/7} {L1/79/7}, if that’s possible. Do we see that 16 authentic document?
17 the difference is that the sections concerning 17 A. I ’m saying both are authentic documents. The Stage 4
18 a transaction system, rather than IT security features , 18 document is incomplete. It is not a document that would
19 are present in {L1/79} and not in {L1/80}? 19 have been sent off to AusIndustry. It is the document
20 A. So, yes, what I see is there’s an incomplete version of 20 that needed the abstract and other material completed
21 the document where there are blank fields, that would 21 before it sends.
22 need to be filled out before it ’s submitted, and no 22 Q. The document to which −− in which Stage 4 did appear,
23 abstract, that would need to be inserted before it was 23 when was that first filed with AusIndustry?
24 finished . So, it basically shows an earlier version of 24 A. That would have been filed in 2002 and then in 2003. In
25 the document. 25 neither instance did we get any feedback from them −−

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 positive feedback. 1 The overall objective is described as establishing an

2 Q. May we go, please, to {L1/113/1}. Do you recognise this 2 encrypted network, nothing about digital currency or
3 as documents relating to a tax concession application 3 crypto credits ?
4 you made to AusIndustry? 4 A. That’s actually not correct . BlackNet is an encrypted
5 A. Yes, that’s an AusIndustry filing , not an ITOL filing. 5 network based on crypto credits. If you read
6 They’re separate. 6 the concept of what BlackNet is, it is an end−to−end
7 Q. Page 2, please {L1/113/2}. Do you see an application 7 encrypted network system that has economic security
8 form? 8 through what Tim May called ”crypto credits”.
9 A. I do. 9 Q. And page 16, please {L1/113/16}. The project phases
10 Q. Page {L1/113/4}, please, top half. Do we see that 10 include the three phases with no reference to
11 there’s a description of Project Spyder which says 11 the supposed additional stage which you added to
12 nothing about digital currency, or crypto credits or 12 the documents you forged?
13 transactions? 13 A. Firstly , I didn’t forge a document.
14 A. Yes, as I noted, the first stage was developing the base 14 But, secondly, actually you’re wrong. In stage 3,
15 products. In a tax application , you can only file to 15 final phase, what you’ll see is , ”Leads to BlackNet
16 get money that you’ve actually spent. The document you 16 integration”. BlackNet 4 was listed as the separate
17 provided for ITOL was an ongoing project. So what we 17 filing in the tax. The initial stage of the fourth
18 have is the first stage of a project . 18 phase, which was BlackNet 4, was loaded in the earlier
19 Q. You describe activities undertaken in 2002/2003 as 19 part of your AusIndustry filing and it is referenced
20 including a final phase, stage 3, yes? 20 here. So ”leads to” is basically saying: in this tax
21 A. Yes, that leads to BlackNet integration. 21 year we will not finish this , but it leads into that.
22 Q. And then bottom of the page, TripleS −− 22 Q. May we go, please, to {L7/211/1}. This is another
23 A. Yes. 23 document in your disclosure from a company −− one of
24 Q. −− is described as being a desktop security project 24 your companies called Integyrs?
25 title , and that, too, has a final phase of stage 3, 25 A. ”Integyrs”.

73 75

1 doesn’t it ? 1 Q. ”Integyrs”, sorry .

2 A. In that one, yes. That was all you can claim in 2 Project Spyder, Version 1.1, this one from
3 the year. That then would then have to extend into 3 March 2009; do you see that?
4 the BlackNet project after they’re completed. 4 A. I do.
5 Q. And then at the bottom, BlackNet: 5 Q. Page 2 {L7/211/3}, ”Version Control” presents it as
6 ”Short Project Title : Enhanced Encrypted Network 6 a second version with the first dated to 1 March 2009?
7 Project ... 7 A. I do.
8 ”Project Technical Objective. 8 Q. Page 4 {L7/211/4}, ”Summary of Project Details”.
9 ”To create an easily ... ” 9 A. Yes.
10 I think that might be ”managed”: 10 Q. And page 6 {L7/211/6}, you see the project is divided
11 ” ... secure End to end encrypted network − full 11 into four subprojects: ”Spyder”, ”Redback”,
12 definition in 2001/2002 RandD submission.” 12 ”TripleS” and ”BlackNet”?
13 A. Yes. 13 A. Yes, and I forgot to update the dates.
14 Q. And then page 8, please {L1/113/8}, a Project Spyder 14 Q. BlackNet finish date, 30 June 2004, yes?
15 document, ”Version 1.2”, dated Thursday, 15 A. Like I said , I didn’t update the date. It ’s 2009.
16 9 November 2002, yes? 16 Q. Then page 7, please {L7/211/7}, ”Project Plan”. Again,
17 A. Yes. 17 you see a description , the description we’re familiar
18 Q. You filed that, did you, with AusIndustry? 18 with, of an IT security project with firewalls and so
19 A. AusIndustry have multiple departments, but, yes, we 19 on, yes?
20 filed it with one of them. 20 A. No. Again, you’re ignoring the terms BlackNet, etc,
21 Q. Next, page 9, please {L1/113/10}. This is now −− 21 which had a specific use. It is not a standard thing.
22 the ”Version Control” table has been updated to 22 It wasn’t just deploying firewalls . The R&D process
23 19 September 2002, version 1.2; do you see that? 23 requires new knowledge. So when we’re talking about
24 A. I do. 24 this , it ’s not just even developing known code. To file
25 Q. And then page 16 −− sorry, page 12, please {L1/113/12}. 25 for an R&D project, you need to create something that

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 has not been done before. So, no, this is not 1 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I’m entirely sympathetic.
2 a standard IT project, it was the project used at 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, what I’ve said is we’re going to
3 Centrebet, Lasseter’s and others, to actually do 3 monitor progress. We won’t be able to move to another
4 something new. 4 court until probably Friday, but we’ ll see if we can.
5 Q. Page 9, please {L7/1211/9}, the ”Technical objectives”, 5 LORD GRABINER: Well, at this rate, in three or four weeks’
6 project stages shown as before, and stage 3 was shown 6 time, none of us will be alive , that’s the problem.
7 again as the ”Final Phase”, wasn’t it? 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, we’ll have certainly lost quite
8 A. Of that, once again, leading to BlackNet integration. 8 a bit of weight.
9 Q. Page 13, please {L7/211/13}, a table of the ”Project 9 LORD GRABINER: That’s true.
10 Activities ” are identical to the previous two documents 10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you. See you at 2 o’clock.
11 ending with the completion of stage 3? 11 (1.01 pm)
12 A. Again, this is the Spyder product. The Spyder product 12 (The short adjournment)
13 was a firewall and logging device that integrated with 13 (2.00 pm)
14 BlackNet, ie Bitcoin. 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you.
15 Q. This wasn’t just describing Spyder, was it , it set out 15 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, may we come back to a couple of topics
16 all the other stages and the costs of all the other 16 that I addressed with you this morning.
17 aspects of the project , didn’t it ? 17 A. Certainly .
18 A. No, this is Spyder. 18 Q. Do you recall that I asked you about your email to
19 Q. Now, I’m about to move on to a related, but slightly 19 Jimmy Nguyen in June 2019?
20 different topic . I ’m aware that we’re nearly at 1 pm, 20 A. I do.
21 so perhaps we could pause there. 21 Q. About the −− with the subject ”4557−0256−7578−1583”?
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, we’ll break now and resume at 22 A. Yes.
23 2 o’clock. 23 Q. And as I understood your evidence, you said that that
24 Dr Wright, as I mentioned, please don’t talk to 24 number was from a debit card, not a credit card, and
25 anyone about your evidence over the break. 25 you’d had that cancelled in 2005?

77 79

1 A. Of course, my Lord. 1 A. Thereabouts. It was a card linked to the home loan

2 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, before we rise, can I say that 2 provided by NAB. So we had a home loan with a card
3 I must say, speaking for myself, I find that the working 3 associated with it . The card wasn’t technically
4 atmosphere in this room is extremely oppressive and it ’s 4 a credit card, it was a redraw facility on the loan as
5 not a great advert for the system that we’re trying to 5 a debit.
6 run here. 6 Q. You said quite clearly that it was not a credit card,
7 I also think that it ’s a rather unhealthy 7 a debit card that was cancelled in 2005. Is that right
8 atmosphere. There’s no air in the room, it’s 8 or are you moving from that?
9 intolerable . I suspect that I ’m speaking for others and 9 A. No, I’m saying about that stage, we stopped using that
10 maybe for your Lordship as well, but I ’m not sure what, 10 card some time around then, and as I said, it was
11 if anything, can be done about it. 11 a debit card against the home loan redraw.
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Lord Grabiner, I raised almost 12 Q. May we have on screen {L7/390/1}.
13 the identical points with those in charge of this 13 This is an NAB statement which your solicitors have
14 building . I have enquired as to whether we can move to 14 disclosed . Do you see that it refers , at the top, to
15 another supercourt which will be cooler, but 15 being a statement for an ”NAB Low Rate Visa” card?
16 I understand that the problems relate to the power 16 A. Yes.
17 supply problems that arose from the Christmas shutdown. 17 Q. Do you see that the statement period is 7 August 2008 to
18 So, these other court −− the temperature in the other 18 5 September 2008?
19 supercourts are being monitored, and if they are lower 19 A. Yes.
20 than in here, then I ’m going to move at the drop of 20 Q. Do you see that the card number is the same as the one
21 a hat. 21 at the top of the email?
22 LORD GRABINER: I’m grateful, my Lord, but it is not a very 22 A. I do.
23 satisfactory state of affairs . 23 Q. That it’s got a credit limit ?
24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I know. I tell you, it’s hotter up here 24 A. Yes.
25 than it is down there. 25 Q. Do you see that there’s payment information below

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 showing it in use? 1 A. Yes.

2 A. Payments coming back, yes. 2 Q. And do you recall that you said that you couldn’t
3 Q. That number, as this account shows, is for an NAB visa 3 practically navigate with the mouse properly while you
4 credit card, isn ’ t it ? 4 were also filming?
5 A. No, as I said , it was attached to the home loan. It’s 5 A. I didn’t want to do it, no. I found it easier just to
6 a visa , but ”visa” doesn’t mean credit card. 6 do one at a time.
7 Q. And far from being cancelled in 2005, or thereabouts, 7 Q. May we have, please, {L19/271/1}, which is one of
8 that was still in use in 2008? 8 the videos you took. It ’s {CSW/13} for the lawyers.
9 A. No, it was being paid off, but we weren’t meant to use 9 {L19/271/1}. It’s very short, so pause there. Pause,
10 it . 10 please.
11 Q. {L5/70/38}, please. 11 Now, this is one of your videos, isn ’ t it ?
12 These are some receipts of yours which have been 12 A. It is .
13 disclosed by your solicitors . Can you see, in 13 Q. And it’s supposedly showing the Satoshi email part of
14 the bottom left, a payment made ”Lee Rowans Garden”, 14 the Vistomail site , isn ’ t it ?
15 something or other, and do you see −− 15 A. No, it ’s not. This is not showing any of the emails,
16 A. Sorry, where am I looking? 16 this is just where you actually have the email account.
17 Q. Just over on the left : 17 So that it ’s separate things again. What you’re
18 ”Commonwealth Bank, EFTPOS, Lee Rowans Garden.” 18 confusing is the options that were there with
19 A. Ah, yes. Mm−hm. 19 the storage of email. As I said , the email was not
20 Q. And do you see that the card number has the first four 20 there at that stage.
21 digits and last four digits from the account we were 21 Q. Well, I have to suggest to you that this is just more
22 just looking at 4557 and 1583? 22 fiction to explain this morning’s fiction .
23 A. It has account details , yes. 23 A. You can make up whatever answer you want.
24 Q. And do you see, at the bottom, that the payment out is 24 Q. If we play on to the end, we’ ll see how it’s used.
25 dated 3 May 2009 at 12.47? 25 (Video footage played)

81 83

1 A. I do. 1 The inbox folder, spam box, sent folder and so on,
2 Q. And it’s described as an NAB visa credit card? 2 you were presenting this as an accessible email page,
3 A. Yes. 3 weren’t you?
4 Q. So you’re wrong, aren’t you, to deny that that was 4 A. No, I was saying that was a page. None of the other
5 a number for a visa credit card which you were actively 5 things had any email in them. As I said , no storage
6 using well after 2005? 6 was there.
7 A. No. My wife did obviously use it . It wasn’t meant to 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: But you were logged into the email
8 be used. We had been told by the bank we weren’t meant 8 account, weren’t you?
9 to use it . 9 A. I was logged into the secure account that linked to
10 Q. You said it had been cancelled in 2005. How was your 10 the email, but because I hadn’t paid and it had changed,
11 wife using it in 2009? 11 all of the storage had gone. So, any of the 2009 or ’10
12 A. We still had the home loan. 12 emails that I had sent had expired and gone. So what
13 Q. May we −− may I also ask you a couple of questions about 13 I ’m explaining is , while I had the ability to send a new
14 the videos you took of accessing the Vistomail site , or 14 email, I couldn’t access any of the old ones, hence why
15 supposedly doing so. 15 I didn’t give anything in court, because there was
16 A. Yes. 16 nothing to give.
17 Q. Do you recall that when I asked you about those and put 17 MR HOUGH: So when you said earlier that the Satoshi email
18 to you some evidence you’d given in the Kleiman case, 18 system was no longer accessible on the site , you’re
19 you said that the purchase services part of 19 qualifying that now?
20 the Vistomail site was available in June 2019 but the 20 A. No, I mean the Satoshi emails. You were talking about
21 Satoshi email system on that site wasn’t? 21 why I didn’t give these into court, because I didn’t
22 A. That’s correct . 22 have anything to give. There was nothing in the Florida
23 Q. Do you recall that I also asked you why there was 23 case for me to send a new email. It wasn’t about
24 a different video for each page, each web page, rather 24 whether I was Satoshi in Florida . The issue wasn’t
25 than showing navigation between pages on a single video? 25 whether I could send an email in Florida . The issue:

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 did I have any 2009 emails. I did not. 1 is , Bitcoin wasn’t designed just to be digital money.
2 Q. Now, {L19/269/1}, please, which is CSW11. If we can go 2 As some of your other witnesses, like Martti Malmi,
3 back to the start and if we can play without moving 3 know, it was designed for far more. It was a timestamp
4 the cursor that you have, operator. Thank you. 4 server , it was an information recorder, it was an
5 (Video footage played) 5 ordering system.
6 We saw you moving the mouse around on that video, 6 Q. I ’m asking you about the language at the moment. Do you
7 didn’t we? We can watch it again if you’d like? 7 see in the second sentence it begins:
8 A. That’s why I ended up getting my other thing. It wasn’t 8 ”Digital signatures provide part of
9 −− I used my ELMO and ... yeah. I don’t like doing it. 9 the solution ... ”
10 The fact that I can try and do it doesn’t mean I like 10 A. Yes.
11 doing it . 11 Q. And do you see, in the penultimate paragraph, halfway
12 Q. I am just going to ask for it to be played again, and 12 down:
13 I ’m going to suggest to you that it carefully avoids 13 ”As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by
14 showing the address bar. So play on. It goes almost up 14 nodes ... ”
15 to the address bar, but not quite during the course of 15 A. Yes, that’s standard proof of work, yes.
16 this video. 16 Q. Can we now go to the Bitcoin White Paper as published in
17 (Video footage played) 17 October 2008 {L3/231/1}. And if we maximise
18 Like all the other −− as in all the other videos, 18 the abstract, do we see again, in the second sentence:
19 you were careful not to show the address bar, weren’t 19 ”Digital signatures provide part of
20 you, Dr Wright? 20 the solution ... ”
21 A. No, I was not. 21 A. Yes.
22 Q. We move now on. 22 Q. And further down, about two−thirds of the way down:
23 I ’d been asking you before lunch about your BlackNet 23 ”As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power
24 project and I’m now going to ask you about a Twitter 24 on the network ... ”
25 post you made about that, which is at {L14/294/1}: 25 Etc?

85 87

1 ”Doctor Craig S Wright 1 A. Yes.

2 ”My stupidest mistake was going to the Australian 2 Q. Would you accept that there are distinct reflections of
3 government in 2001 and filing this shit .” 3 language between the two documents?
4 Did you make that post? 4 A. Well, yes. I wrote them both.
5 A. I did. 5 Q. May we now look at drafts of the abstract shared with
6 Q. Do we see on the right−hand side the front page of your 6 others in August 2008 {L3/195/1}, please.
7 DeMorgan ITOL Project BlackNet paper? 7 Do we see that the abstract is at the bottom of
8 A. I do. 8 the page:
9 Q. With an abstract? 9 ”A purely peer−to−peer version of electronic
10 A. Yes. 10 cash ... ”
11 Q. Over the page {L14/294/2}, please, the abstract here is 11 A. Yes, I do.
12 shown at a more legible size and do we see that it’s 12 Q. That was sent by Satoshi on 22 August 2008, and we see:
13 referring to a peer−to−peer transaction system with 13 ”Digital signatures ... ”
14 various aspects of language which reflect those in 14 Over the page {L3/195/2}:
15 the Bitcoin White Paper? 15 ” ... offer part of the solution ... ”
16 A. It actually reflects BlackNet. As you demonstrated in 16 A. I do.
17 your skeleton, where you mention BlackNet and say 17 Q. And further down:
18 blockchain −− sorry, you mention blockchain saying that 18 ”As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power
19 Adam Back had used the term. What he was actually 19 on the network ... ”
20 referring to was BlackNet. So, when Adam Back, in that 20 A. I definitely do.
21 part of your skeleton where you say blockchain was used 21 Q. And then {L5/26/1}, please.
22 before I did, Adam was actually referencing blocks or 22 This is a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper as
23 chains of email remailers using Hashcash. What it was 23 published in March 2009. Do you see that the language
24 is an informational transaction exchange, not digital 24 of the sentence second sentence is:
25 money the way that people are saying now. The problem 25 ”Digital signatures provide part of

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 the solution ... ” 1 reuse it . That’s completely wrong. You’ll find in even
2 A. Yes, I had multiple versions . 2 the posts I ’ve done to your witnesses that I have block
3 Q. And then −− 3 quoted to Gavin, to Martti and to other people
4 A. I don’t have a linear way of working, so I have multiple 4 information. So I just cut and paste my own writing.
5 versions , yes. 5 That includes the abstract. So sometimes −− I don’t
6 Q. And two−thirds of the way down: 6 know how you write, but sometimes I write something and
7 ”As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by 7 I rewrite it and I rewrite it and I go back to
8 nodes ... ” 8 the original .
9 Do you see that? 9 Q. Can we go back to the tweet {L14/294/1}.
10 A. I do. 10 The Twitter post you made said that you made
11 Q. Would you accept then that your BlackNet abstract on 11 the filing in 2001; correct?
12 the tweet contains changes which were made to 12 A. No, it says:
13 the Bitcoin White Paper between October 2008 and 13 ”My stupidest mistake was going to the Australian
14 March 2009? 14 government in 2001 and filing ... ”
15 A. No, I would not. You’re again assuming that I have 15 That means I did my initial filing . The one you
16 a linear function of how I write, where I go basically 16 showed afterwards was 2002. I didn’t say I filed once;
17 straight away from one to the other. You’ll notice in 17 I filed multiple times, and I spent more on lawyers than
18 my LLM that the final version that you have in paper 18 I ever got from the government. That was the silly bit.
19 format is actually my first version and there are three 19 Q. And you set out in that tweet the abstract which you now
20 versions in the middle that are changed. So sometimes, 20 say had not been written in 2001?
21 when I’m writing, I change a whole lot of things and 21 A. No, I didn’t say that. While it hadn’t been, I didn’t
22 I go back to the original . I quite often do that. 22 say that at all . What I said is this is a mash up of
23 Q. May we go to your defence {A/3/16}, paragraphs 45 and 23 parts of different documents showing the timeline of my
24 onwards. 24 creation . Your presumption is that I’m plagiarising
25 Now, at paragraph 45, we see how you explained this 25 someone else’s work. I ’m not. I can cut and paste my

89 91

1 difference , this oddity of BlackNet −− the BlackNet 1 own work any time I want.
2 paper which you tweeted containing language which is in 2 Q. The natural meaning of this tweet is: I filed what I’m
3 the March 2009 version of the White Paper but not 3 showing here with the Australian government in 2001,
4 the August 2008 and October 2008 ones. You say: 4 isn ’ t it ? That’s the natural meaning of what you’ve
5 ”Dr Wright first submitted his Project BlackNet 5 written?
6 research paper to AUSIndustry in 2001 as part of an 6 A. I ’m better at code than words. So if you think that,
7 application for a research grant and R&D tax rebate. He 7 that’s the problem.
8 obtained R&D tax rebates from AUSIndustry (but not 8 Q. ”My stupidest mistake was going to the Australian
9 research grant funding) for Project BlackNet during 9 government in 2001 and filing this shit .”
10 the period 2001 to 2009. He subsequently and 10 And then a whole series of images. The meaning was
11 unsuccessfully sought research grant funding and R&D tax 11 perfectly clear : I filed this , that you see below you,
12 rebates in 2009 and 2010. Dr Wright updated his 12 in 2001, wasn’t it?
13 Project BlackNet research paper each year that he 13 A. I don’t see any emphasis on this. I didn’t put it in
14 submitted it to AUSIndustry. Early applications did not 14 italics , there are no parenthesis, there’s no asterisk ,
15 contain the abstract of the White Paper but later 15 it ’s not bold. So no, it isn ’ t ”this”, as you just
16 unsuccessful applications did. The image of 16 emphasised. That’s a completely different meaning.
17 the research paper published on Twitter is that used for 17 What it says is ”this”: my project that started in 2001,
18 a later application containing an abstract from 18 that you already demonstrated was running in 2002, that
19 the White Paper.” 19 you have demonstrated was running in 2008, that, an
20 Is that paragraph of your defence correct? 20 ongoing project that I spent over a decade trying to
21 A. Completely. What I put in the Twitter was a mash up of 21 solve . That is what I tweeted.
22 2001 to 2010, when everything was working, basically 22 Q. Just to be clear , Dr Wright, I haven’t put to you that
23 showing this is where I started , this is where I ended 23 you were developing this project over a period of years .
24 up. And the problem you seem to be having is, you have 24 I ’ve put to you that there are documents with different
25 this assumption that I write something and then don’t 25 dates about this project which have different contents.

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 It ’s different . Do you understand? 1 the abstract from the White Paper, so I’m sorry, you’re
2 A. You’ve put AusIndustry documents and related those that 2 mistaken.
3 have 2008. They are real documents and a real 3 Q. This is responding −−
4 government filing. On top of that, you know that I was 4 A. Would you like to put the abstract of the White Paper
5 filing and went into a court tribunal against the −− in 5 against one of these and compare them for me?
6 the AAT in Australia against the tax office because my 6 Q. Well, we can put it up. We can −−
7 2009 and ’10 filing led to a whole lot of disputes. So 7 A. I don’t believe Bitcoin White Paper’s abstract
8 you know that. 8 says ”BlackNet formation” at any point. This does, so
9 Q. Pause there. Would you accept now, looking at this 9 they’re clearly different .
10 document, that if you’re right and some of what appears 10 Q. It ’s your document that says that your later
11 did not exist in 2001, then this was a positively 11 applications , addressing these differences , it ’s your
12 misleading tweet? 12 document saying that later applications contained
13 A. No, not at all . I have stated that I have been working 13 the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper?
14 on this over a decade. Misleading would be trying to 14 A. Yes, and this is not the Bitcoin White Paper abstract.
15 tell someone, I just did this now, or I did it in 15 Can you please show me where in the abstract of
16 the past, or something else. My saying I have spent 16 the Bitcoin White Paper it says ”a BlackNet formation”?
17 well over 15 years of my life working, fighting , 17 Q. I ’m not putting to you that it did, I ’m putting to you
18 struggling , doing 30 degrees nearly, doing multiple 18 your own defence, Dr Wright.
19 doctorates, filing papers, spending every cent I’ve had, 19 A. I ’m sorry, you are. You are stating that, in 2009,
20 sometimes at the expense of my family −− love them, 20 where I said I had the Bitcoin abstract −− and I’ll
21 because they actually put up with me −− no, that’s not 21 emphasise that: Bitcoin abstract −− that it’s exactly
22 misleading. 22 the same. So, I did not say what you’re saying.
23 Q. Now, the document we looked at before {L1/79/1}, please, 23 Q. Just give me a moment.
24 can we have that on screen. 24 In the particulars of claim at {A/2/9},
25 This is the −− a document whose abstract perfectly 25 paragraph 27, we pleaded that:

93 95

1 matches that in the screenshot in the tweet. Would you 1 ”The BlackNet Abstract [was] copied from
2 accept that? 2 the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper.”
3 A. I haven’t compared them, so I don’t know. 3 And that there were differences of language between
4 Q. Well, let ’s put them alongside each other. {L1/79/2}. 4 the different iterations of the Bitcoin White Paper, and
5 Can we put that on screen alongside {L14/294/2}, and 5 your BlackNet abstract, supposedly produced long before
6 then can we go to the second page of −− I think it may 6 2008, contained those differences introduced in 2009; do
7 be the second ... {L1/79/4}. There we go. 7 you see that?
8 You see the abstract is the same? 8 A. I see that I say I amended it. The BlackNet abstract
9 A. I do. 9 is −−
10 Q. Now, you claim in your defence that the abstract was 10 Q. Just pause for a second. Do you accept that that’s what
11 only contained in the later applications in 2009/2010; 11 our pleading said , paragraph 27?
12 correct? 12 A. Mm−hm.
13 A. No, that’s not what I said. 13 Q. Then you responded to that in the paragraph we’ve looked
14 Q. ”Early applications did not contain the abstract of 14 at, {A/3/16}, paragraph 45, and you said that there were
15 the White Paper but later unsuccessful applications 15 versions of your paper submitted successfully in 2001
16 did.” 16 that didn’t contain the abstract of the White Paper but
17 A. That doesn’t contain the abstract of the White Paper. 17 your later successful applications did. That’s what you
18 What you have on screen is not the abstract of 18 were saying, wasn’t it ?
19 the White Paper. 19 A. As I just said , in 2001, it didn’t contain the Bitcoin
20 Q. Dr Wright, in your defence you said: 20 abstract. So the BlackNet research paper, right here,
21 ”Early applications ... ” 21 says it didn’t contain that. It didn’t say it didn’t
22 Meaning your applications to AusIndustry: 22 update it in 2002. It didn’t say it didn’t update it or
23 ” ... did not contain the abstract of the White Paper 23 have something similar. You’re now, again, trying to
24 but later unsuccessful applications did.” 24 say that I ’m saying something similar is the same. They
25 A. Yes, verbatim. That isn’t the application −− that isn’t 25 are not.

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 Q. So just to be clear what you’re saying now. You’re 1 A. I ’ ll take that from you.
2 saying that there exists somewhere an application from 2 Q. If it were authentic to that date, it would support your
3 2009/2010 in relation to Project BlackNet which 3 claim to be Satoshi, wouldn’t it?
4 contained a perfect simulacrum, a perfect replica of 4 A. It would support my BlackNet claim, but other things,
5 the Bitcoin White Paper abstract? 5 such as AusIndustry, do.
6 That’s how you interpret your defence? 6 Q. May we then go to what Mr Madden has to say about this
7 A. One of the versions of what I filed with the tax office 7 document {H/62/20}. This is appendix PM9. At
8 included the Timecoin paper. 8 paragraph 70, he notes that the encoded edit time, if we
9 Q. The project paper was also wrong in citing Lynn Wright 9 go over the page, the encoded edit time equates to
10 as an author, wasn’t it ? 10 8,000 years {H/62/21}; do you see that?
11 A. Well, she wasn’t an author, but she was one of 11 A. I do.
12 the executives in the firm. 12 Q. Then paragraph 72, he finds that the raw data −− he
13 Q. She had no idea what BlackNet was, did she? 13 finds in the raw data a set of PK zip file signatures
14 A. She did. 14 with XML formatted segments, which is a type of
15 Q. So when, in her deposition within the Kleiman 15 formatting typical of the .DOCX file format that didn’t
16 litigation , she said she had no idea what BlackNet was, 16 exist before 2007; do you see that?
17 she was lying, was she? 17 A. I see it .
18 A. No. Lynn Wright had just suffered a −− cancer and had 18 Q. Then paragraph 74, please. Do we see he finds a series
19 a double mastectomy. When you had that, what you’re 19 of references to MS Office schemas dating from 2006?
20 taking, she was on a lot of medication, she was in 20 A. Yes.
21 chemotherapy, radiotherapy, her breasts were still being 21 Q. Including 2012.
22 rebuilt , she was heavily sedated, she was on opioids, so 22 Then over the page to paragraphs 75 to 76 {H/62/22},
23 −− and she wasn’t terribly happy about being pulled in 23 do you see that he finds in the XML metadata, references
24 to be interviewed. 24 to the fonts Calibri Light and Nirmala UI, which didn’t
25 Q. Do you recall that it was ever submitted that she was 25 exist in 2002?

97 99

1 unfit to testify ? 1 A. I see.

2 A. That would be for her, and the other side didn’t ask. 2 Q. Then paragraphs 77 to 79, you see he finds an encoded
3 So Ira Kleiman’s lawyers never really tried to go into 3 Grammarly timestamp indicating that Grammarly interacted
4 her medical condition. They didn’t want to. 4 with the document in June 2016?
5 Q. Another document, please, in relation to your Spyder and 5 A. Yes.
6 BlackNet projects, {L1/91/1}, please. You see this is 6 Q. And finally , paragraph 80, he finds from the metadata
7 another Project Spyder document, version 1.2, prepared 7 that the last save was performed using a version of Word
8 by Craig S Wright, Lynn Wright, Dave Dornbrack, dated in 8 released in September 2015, yes?
9 the footer to 9 November 2002? 9 A. Yes, I see all that.
10 A. I do. 10 Q. This document was created in or after 2016 and
11 Q. And you see, at page 9 {L1/91/9}, this is one of 11 backdated, wasn’t it?
12 the versions which we see including a Stage 4 with 12 A. No, it wasn’t.
13 ”Digital cash”; do you see that? 13 Q. Each of those is a clear indication of a document which
14 A. I do. 14 has been backdated?
15 Q. Then page 10 {L1/91/10}, if we look halfway down, 15 A. Actually, it ’s not.
16 a ”mint system” referred to, again relating , apparently, 16 Q. May we compare this to another document in
17 to some form of digital currency and description of 17 the disclosure set , {L1/99/1}, also entitled,
18 the flaws of digicash? 18 ”Project ’Spyder’, Version 1.2”, dated to
19 A. Yes. 19 9 November 2002 in the footer; do you see that?
20 Q. And then page 11 {L1/91/11}, a seventh project, 20 A. I do.
21 ”Commercially Secret”, ”CSW”; do you see that? 21 Q. You can take it from me, its internal metadata give
22 A. I do. 22 creation and save times of 11 November 2002.
23 Q. Dr Wright, this is a document which is −− which has 23 Page 3, please {L1/99/3}, ”Version Control” gives
24 internal metadata dating it to November 2002. Will you 24 the final date of 19 September 2002; do you see that?
25 take that from me? 25 A. I do.

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 Q. Page 9 {L1/99/9}, the project stages are set out? 1 pleaded as one of our 50 forgeries , but not in the list
2 A. Mm−hm. 2 of 20, but the reason I was putting the last point is
3 Q. But with no reference to Stage 4? 3 that the earlier documents, where I had suggested that
4 A. Yes, different versions . 4 the BlackNet elements, that the BlackNet currency
5 Q. Page 10 {L1/99/10}, the section with the ”mint system” 5 elements were added later, are pleaded forgeries . So,
6 is absent? 6 ID_001379, {L1/79/1}, is one of our pleaded 20.
7 A. Mm−hm. 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
8 Q. Page 11 {L1/99/11}, the ”commercially secret” reference 8 MR HOUGH: So in putting to Dr Wright the general
9 is missing? 9 proposition that he was adding Stage 4 to these
10 A. Yes, ends in BlackNet. 10 documents, I am doing something entirely consistent with
11 Q. Now, we have here a document in which Mr Madden finds no 11 our pleading.
12 sign of inauthenticity , okay? 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, in any case, I’m going to give you
13 A. Mm−hm. 13 a bit of latitude on these issues , because the reason
14 Q. Are you just very unfortunate that the document which 14 why you were cut down from your original 50 was because
15 shows all the digital currency elements has many signs 15 of the late disclosure by Dr Wright. So Lord Grabiner
16 of inauthenticity , but this one, which doesn’t, has no 16 can make objections, but I’m going to give you some
17 sign of inauthenticity ? 17 latitude , okay?
18 A. No, I’m very fortunate because this actually is 18 MR HOUGH: Thank you, my Lord.
19 authentic saying ”BlackNet” and that links to the other 19 May we now go to an email at {L7/213/1}. That is an
20 documents saying ”BlackNet”. And BlackNet, as your own 20 email purportedly from you to Lynn Wright, dated
21 expert −− sorry, witness, Adam Back, says, is linked to 21 27 March 2011, attaching a document ID_004516. May we
22 a blockchain concept and it is linked to crypto credits , 22 go to the document ID_004516. It’s another of
23 and the whole concept −− the only concept of BlackNet is 23 the Project Spyder documents. If we can carry on
24 what leads to Bitcoin. So, what you have just said is 24 through the pages, I think it ’s page 6 {L1/91/6}.
25 you have a 2002 document saying that Craig Wright was 25 Page 7, please {L1/91/7}, please. Page 8 {L1/91/8}.

101 103

1 working on the precursor to Bitcoin with no one being 1 Page 9 {L1/91/9}.

2 able to find any problems with it. 2 So this is one of the documents which included
3 Q. Well, once again, the reason the document with all 3 the digital cash element; do you see that?
4 the signs of backdating and inauthenticity is the one 4 A. I do.
5 containing the references to digital currency is that 5 Q. And Mr −− as I say, we have the email dated 27 March of
6 you added those elements in later and tried to make it 6 2011 attaching this.
7 seem like an original . 7 And then Mr Madden’s report, PM9, addresses this
8 A. It ’s right there on this document you just said is not 8 {H/62/2}, and he found a number of anomalies with this
9 forged. It says, number 6, ”Black Net”. 9 email. Do you see that, first of all , paragraph 9, on
10 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, my friend has just put in effect 10 page 3 {H/62/3}, he found that the ”from” email address
11 a forgery allegation . This document is not in 11 wasn’t a properly formatted email address, but text
12 the schedule of 20 forgeries , and it ’s a matter for my 12 which had been typed in and that could be seen just by
13 friend how he conducts his cross−examination, but 13 hovering over it with a mouse; do you see that?
14 I don’t think that was a basis upon which we were 14 A. I do.
15 proceeding. 15 Q. Paragraph 15 on {H/62/5}, please, do you see he found
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I think the question was put on 16 that the recipient address was also irregular in
17 the basis of inauthenticity . 17 formatting, suggesting corruption or manipulation?
18 LORD GRABINER: I’m sorry, my Lord, I’m afraid I didn’t hear 18 A. I do.
19 you. 19 Q. Page {H/62/7}, paragraph 20, the internal metadata
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: The question was put on the basis of 20 recorded your RCJBR email address as the recipient and
21 inauthenticity . 21 not Lynn Wright as it should have been; do you see that?
22 LORD GRABINER: Well, I mean, maybe, but I mean, is my 22 A. I see what it says there, yes.
23 friend saying this was a forgery but it ’s not on his 23 Q. Page 8, paragraph 22 {H/62/8}, you see he discovered
24 list of 20? I think he is . 24 internal metadata timestamps appearing to suggest
25 MR HOUGH: In fairness to my learned friend, it is −− it was 25 creation and editing times of July 2020; do you see

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 that? 1 Q. They nominated these documents on your instructions,

2 A. I do. 2 didn’t they?
3 Q. Paragraph 25, further down the page, do we see that he 3 A. They gave me a list and I signed off .
4 found that internal metadata recorded MS Outlook 16, 4 Q. That’s a list you still subscribe to, though, isn’ t it ?
5 a 2015 version, having been used to author the email? 5 A. This is a document that I wrote, if that’s what you’re
6 A. I do. 6 saying, yes.
7 Q. Sixthly , page 9, paragraph 29 {H/62/9}, do you see that 7 Q. I didn’t ask that question. I said : do you still
8 he found the transmission header has tags indicating 8 subscribe to the list of documents your solicitors have
9 further messages in the body of the email had been 9 nominated as those you primarily rely upon for your
10 removed, including one with an external server 10 claim to be Satoshi, a list they endorsed just a few
11 identified as ”michieshehadie”? 11 weeks ago?
12 A. Mm−hm. 12 A. I ’m sorry, I ’m not sure what you mean, the way you’re
13 Q. Seventhly, paragraph 34 on page 10 {H/62/10}, do we see 13 putting that.
14 he found that the metadata included a field indicative 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: It’s a simple question, Dr Wright.
15 of editing? 15 A. Do I rely on these documents? Yes.
16 A. I do. 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: That wasn’t quite the question. Please
17 Q. Eighthly, at page 17 {H/62/17}, paragraph 57, do you see 17 listen to the question and answer it.
18 that the Outlook metadata in relation to the attachment 18 Counsel, try again.
19 file for this email were recorded in July −− 17 July 19 MR HOUGH: Your solicitors −− you were ordered to provide
20 2020, nine years after the supposed date of the email, 20 a list of those documents on which you primarily relied
21 which he also found to be irregular ? 21 for your claim to be Satoshi; do you understand?
22 A. Yes. 22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Would you accept that all these signs on this email are 23 Q. Your solicitors produced such a list on your behalf; do
24 that it ’s a late creation , forged and backdated email? 24 you understand?
25 A. I wouldn’t say that from that. I don’t know what I’d 25 A. Yes.

105 107

1 say without more analysis. What I would say is I don’t 1 Q. They endorsed that list and added to it just a few weeks
2 use Outlook. 2 ago; do you understand?
3 Q. All these signs indicate that this is an email which you 3 A. I do.
4 produced to give legitimacy to the document? 4 Q. Is that a list you yourself still subscribe to as
5 A. I produced every file that I had, effectively , so 5 documents on which you primarily rely for your claim to
6 I didn’t produce anything for any legitimacy. 6 be Satoshi?
7 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, for the record, I make the same 7 A. If you mean do I still stand by these documents, yes.
8 objection, but I note what your Lordship has already 8 MR HOUGH: Well, my Lord, I’m not sure I can ask −−
9 said . 9 A. ”Subscribe” has a different meaning.
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 10 Q. Can you take it from me that the internal metadata for
11 MR HOUGH: May we move on to another document. This is 11 this document gives created and last saved dates of
12 {L2/148/1}. 12 July 2007 and December 2008 respectively?
13 Do you see that this is ”Bond Percolation in 13 A. I ’ ll take it from you.
14 timecoin” and would you accept from me that it’s one of 14 Q. We don’t need to go into the detail, but is it right
15 your primary reliance documents? 15 that this paper presents as a work on network theory in
16 A. I ’ ll accept that’s one of my documents. I don’t think 16 the context of something called Timecoin?
17 I would call it ”primary”. 17 A. Correct.
18 Q. It ’s one of the documents you’ve nominated as one on 18 Q. And Timecoin, is this right , it ’s a label you’ve claimed
19 which you primarily rely for your claim to be Satoshi? 19 to have given to Bitcoin before the release of
20 A. It ’s a reliance document. 20 the Bitcoin White Paper?
21 Q. Well, the order asked you to nominate documents on which 21 A. Before and after.
22 you primarily relied for your claim to be Satoshi, and 22 Q. So if the metadata were correct and this document was
23 this was one of those you nominated; correct? 23 authentic, it would support your claim to be Satoshi,
24 A. Well, I didn’t nominate it, but my lawyers went through 24 wouldn’t it?
25 lists and pulled out ones, but ... 25 A. Not necessarily . Metadata isn’t going to stay the same

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 over time. Your presumption is that over 15 to 20 years 1 A. No, actually , if you use MathType, if you use other
2 of use and access by multiple people that files are 2 applications , including the server version , if you have
3 exactly the same. Having forensic experience, I would 3 LaTeX as a print version, if you have the grind −
4 say the anomaly would be ever finding a file that hasn’t 4 Grinder, or whatever it is , the LaTeX embedded
5 changed. 5 application in Word, all of this will embed documents
6 Q. If this document had been authentic to its stated 6 this way. So, in fact , it ’s the other way round. If
7 metadata as something created in July 2007 and in your 7 you open this and it ’s a Word embedded application, that
8 hands, it would support your claim to be Satoshi, 8 won’t happen. It will give an object error instead.
9 wouldn’t it? 9 So, there’s categorically no way that you can actually
10 A. No. The material and the knowledge supports my claim to 10 simulate what the expert has stated. There’s a reason
11 be Satoshi. The fact that I wrote this , did this 11 he hasn’t simulated it or done it : because he can’t.
12 research, was researching this area, is what I’m stating 12 Q. {H/219/7}, please.
13 to be my claim. 13 You see at the bottom of the page in this
14 Q. Mr Madden has found that this document has a Grammarly 14 appendix 43 of Mr Madden, he’s set out the chain of
15 encoded timestamp of 16 January 2020, and on that basis 15 custody information you provided, and do you see there
16 he concludes that this has been backdated. 16 that you claimed for this document, 525, the document
17 Dr Placks agrees it ’s a backdated document. 17 was drafted by you, typed by Lynn Wright or former
18 Do you agree with that? 18 assistants and originally written using OpenOffice and
19 A. No. As I’ve noted in other things, that is only 19 LaTeX?
20 a Grammarly timestamp that comes from certain versions 20 A. Yes.
21 of Grammarly opened in certain ways. If you normally 21 Q. Do you see that −− can we go back to the previous page,
22 run Grammarly on a machine, it won’t be embedded. 22 please {H/219/7}. You see that in ”Any Further Detail”,
23 The −− that just means somebody has opened or looked at 23 you recall that:
24 the document, without saving it, on a machine that has 24 ” ... between 2005 and 2015, CD backups of certain
25 the Enterprise version of Grammarly. 25 files were made, and updated, on a regular basis”?

109 111

1 Q. Well, I have to put to you that you’re wrong in point of 1 A. I do.

2 fact , as the experts have found that a Grammarly tag is 2 Q. And then, over the page {H/219/8}, CD back−ups were kept
3 not attached simply by opening a document and not 3 which were later updated by various people working for
4 interacting with it or saving it . 4 Hotwire and DeMorgan companies?
5 A. I ’ ll put it to you that neither expert looked at any 5 A. Yes.
6 Enterprise version of Grammarly, or even the business 6 Q. You claim that the CDs were transferred from DeMorgan to
7 version , and neither of them showed how Grammarly tags 7 nChain in 2016, and then stored by nChain before being
8 get embedded. When you even save a document running 8 sent to your wife by an unknown person and then provided
9 Grammarly, that tag is never embedded. Neither of 9 to Alix Partners?
10 the experts decided to open a document, run Grammarly, 10 A. That does not say that at all .
11 save it . If they did, as I showed in my own witness 11 Q. ” ... CDs were kept in nChain’s offices”?
12 statement, that doesn’t happen. 12 A. Is correct .
13 Q. Looking at the second paragraph, can we zoom in on that, 13 Q. ” ... had been sent from DeMorgan Limited to nChain in
14 we see that there are equations which are very different 14 2016”?
15 in form from the surrounding text. They don’t seem to 15 A. If you read:
16 be the same font and text. 16 ” ... a programme called Virtual CD [would] save
17 A. Yes. 17 ISO files ... ”
18 Q. Mr Madden’s concluded that they’ve been rendered as 18 CDs would be rewritten. This does not say that
19 embedded pictures, suggesting that this document was 19 a CD was written in 2000 or something like this, it says
20 created in a later version of Word and then converted 20 that file servers had files and that eventually CD
21 back to the 2003 version. Are you aware of that 21 copies were made.
22 finding? 22 Q. Back to the previous page, please {H/219/7}:
23 A. I ’m aware of that finding. 23 ” ... between 2005 and 2015, CD backups of certain
24 Q. That’s another sign of backdating this document, 24 files were made, and updated on a regular basis ...”
25 isn ’ t it ? 25 Yes?

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 A. Yes, they were replaced. A CD would be made, CDs 1 compares this document to one at exhibit 43.4, which is
2 have life span, CD−Rs. A new CD would be made to 2 a DOCX document with the same heading as this one which
3 replace it . 3 was attached to a Slack post from your CSW account in
4 Q. You give a collection device of ”Verbatim CD−R”. That’s 4 January 2020. Do you recall posting on Slack a version
5 a form of rewritable CD, isn’t it ? 5 of this document in January 2020?
6 A. Yes. 6 A. I know around that time I posted something, yes.
7 Q. You give a collection date of January 2020? 7 Q. And he found that they were identical in content and
8 A. Yes. 8 contained the same Grammarly timestamps down to
9 Q. And in ”Further Comments”, you say: 9 100 nanosecond level {H/219/11}. You recall that
10 ”This document is believed to be from 2008.” 10 finding?
11 A. Yes, the document’s from 2008. When it was written to 11 A. I do.
12 the CD, I don’t know. 12 Q. Paragraph 25 on {H/219/12}, please.
13 Q. Now, at page 9, please, of the same document −− sorry, 13 He refers back to the conclusion he previously made
14 further down page 8, I think. Mr Madden finds a number 14 that, from all the signs , this document was created from
15 of difficulties with your account, which we’ll see set 15 a .DOCX file which he didn’t have. Do you recall that
16 out on page {H/219/9}. First of all, the structure of 16 finding?
17 a .DOCX file and an ODT file are very different. 17 A. I recall what he said, yes.
18 The artefacts he observed are consistent with this 18 Q. So he had found that this was likely created from
19 document being created from a DOCX file, not from an 19 a .DOCX file and then he subsequently finds that just
20 OpenOffice file , as your chain of custody information 20 such a document is attached to your Slack post of
21 indicated . 21 January 2020, the time of the changes. Is that an
22 So I put −− what I’m putting to you is that this was 22 extraordinary coincidence?
23 not created from an OpenOffice file, as you said. 23 A. No, it ’s extraordinarily bad analysis . The reason being
24 A. I mentioned LaTeX. 24 that if you were to actually cut and paste from
25 Q. Well, as I say, the point I ’m putting to you is that 25 a DOC file into OpenOffice and save as ODT, none of that

113 115

1 this was created from a .DOCX file, as Mr Madden found 1 would happen. If he had done a good forensic job, he
2 from his forensic findings? 2 would have tested that, but he has a biased sort of
3 A. No, he didn’t. What he’s saying is ODT is very 3 outlook.
4 different . He’s not noting LaTeX or how it builds. 4 The next part is , around that time, as I said ,
5 Q. You referred to OpenOffice as one of the programs used 5 LaTeX, you can save in many different formats, including
6 in creating this document, didn’t you? 6 DOCX, and like I’ve demonstrated already, metadata,
7 A. And LaTeX. 7 including dates, is set by code in LaTeX. So if
8 Q. At paragraph 19(c), he explains that your account 8 a document’s written from LaTeX, it will be the same
9 wouldn’t explain the Grammarly type stamp postdating 9 down to depending −− milliseconds or nanoseconds,
10 the internal last saved date; that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 10 depending what you’ve typed in, and the document will
11 A. My account would, because if someone’s opened it in 11 have basically the same information.
12 nChain and had a look at the document they were saving, 12 So, no, what I’ ll say is , when I was asked about
13 that would make that timestamp. 13 documents and given some from the Kleiman case, I posted
14 Q. Related to that, he found that the root entry of 14 some of my old documents that were being used.
15 the file , 19 December 2008, shouldn’t pre−date 15 Q. In paragraph 27, he makes the further point that
16 the Grammarly timestamp? 16 the chain of custody information isn’t consistent with
17 A. Again, if you open it up in an Enterprise version of 17 his findings because documents which had been written to
18 Grammarly, it is different to the home user version of 18 a CD rewritable disk before 2015 simply couldn’t contain
19 Grammarly. Very much so. 19 this information dating to 2020, and that’s obviously
20 Q. Well, no doubt that’s something that can be put to 20 right , isn ’ t it ?
21 Mr Madden, but I suggest to you that you’re wrong about 21 A. No, because the chain of custody does not say any such
22 that. 22 thing. The chain of custody mentions a virtual ISO. It
23 A. I suggest that he has never, ever touched the Enterprise 23 says ”disk files ”. Now, that means it’s not written to
24 version . 24 a CD. What that chain of custody says is that a digital
25 Q. Then page 10, please {H/219/10}, and paragraph 22. He 25 file has been held on a file server . The file server

114 116

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 copies have migrated. Periodically , they are written to 1 a document called, ”Phase transitions in block
2 a CD. Sometime after nChain started, which would be 2 propagation networks”. Will you take it from me that
3 after 2016, somebody has written a disk. That could be 3 it ’s another of your reliance documents?
4 ’16, ’17, ’18, ’19, or when I asked for it in ’20. 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Well, it will be a matter for the Judge to interpret 5 Q. You said in your chain of custody information that this
6 that chain of custody, but my suggestion is that that 6 document was originally drafted by you in 2008; is that
7 was making clear that this document had been burned to 7 right?
8 a rewritable disk before 2015. 8 A. Thereabouts, yes.
9 A. The chain of custody specifies virtual CD and ISO image. 9 Q. The first paragraph of this document says:
10 Virtual CD is software. Not a physical CD. Not as 10 ”A phase transition event derives as a function of
11 Mr Madden has incorrectly analysed. It is a virtual , 11 small world networks such as bitcoin.”
12 disk−based, saved on a file server image. 12 And then, if you look down to the second paragraph,
13 Q. Here, the Grammarly timestamp perfectly matches the date 13 there’s reference , in the final sentence, to
14 you shared the identical document because of the editing 14 ”percolation theory”; do you see that? Last sentence of
15 and backdating that’s taken place, doesn’t it ? 15 the second paragraph:
16 A. No. 16 ”We will later extend this to using percolation
17 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for 17 theory ... ”
18 a five −minute break? 18 A. Yes, I do.
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, we’ll take five minutes. Thank 19 Q. Then if we go down to the last two lines on page 1:
20 you. 20 ”The structure within bitcoin differs from
21 (3.00 pm) 21 a standard random graph as introduced by Erdos & Renyi
22 (A short break) 22 (ER). Random graphs are constructed when pairs of
23 (3.07 pm) 23 vertices of the graph with probability p connect.”
24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you. 24 Over the page, {L3/200/2}.
25 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, may we go back to one point from 25 A. Mm−hm.

117 119

1 before the break {L16/116/8}. 1 Q. ”The ER model demonstrated that when a critical value
2 A. Certainly . 2 with [an equation following] is exceeded, a giant
3 Q. This is the deposition of Lynn Wright. Do you remember 3 component forms within the network ...”
4 you saying that when Lynn Wright gave evidence in this 4 Do you see that?
5 deposition, she was basically unfit to give proper 5 A. I do.
6 evidence? 6 Q. Do you see then the references −−
7 A. I do. 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you see that she was asked at line 6: 8 Q. −− Barabasi et al, ”Mean field theory ...”?
9 ”Do you have any medical conditions that affect your 9 A. Yes.
10 ability to provide truthful and accurate testimony 10 Q. Newman, ”The structure and function of complex
11 today?” 11 networks”?
12 A. I do. 12 A. I do.
13 Q. You see she said, ”No”? 13 Q. Olfati−Saber and Murray, ”Consensus problems are
14 A. Yes, I think it ’s a silly question to ask someone who 14 networks of agents ... ”?
15 has just gone through a double mastectomy who happens to 15 A. Mm−hm.
16 be on opioids. 16 Q. Saber and Murray, ”Consensus protocols for
17 Q. It wasn’t suggested by her or anyone for that she was 17 networks ... ”?
18 unable to give truthful and complete evidence, and in 18 A. Yes.
19 fact she said the opposite, didn’t she? 19 Q. Watts and Stogatz, ”Collective dynamics of ’small world’
20 A. Like I said , if you’d just gone through a double 20 networks”, do you see that?
21 mastectomy that you were on opioids because of, it’s 21 A. I do.
22 unlikely that you’re going to be thinking straight 22 Q. Simplifying hugely, this document would appear to show
23 enough to basically argue with the people who want to 23 a link between academic work on small world networks and
24 grab you into giving testimony you don’t want to give. 24 Bitcoin, would you accept that?
25 Q. Moving to another document, {L3/200/1}, this is 25 A. Yes.

118 120

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 Q. And would you also accept that in your witness 1 ”Ultrafast consensus in Small−World Networks.”
2 statements, you suggest that your own work in small 2 By Olfati−Saber. This was a document identified by
3 world networks was fundamental to the design of Bitcoin? 3 Mr Madden.
4 A. It was. 4 Do you recognise this paper?
5 Q. So on its face, that document would appear to give 5 A. I do.
6 support to your evidence, wouldn’t it? 6 Q. If we go to the second column, last paragraph in
7 A. I would still link it to other people, including 7 the second column:
8 Ignatius Pang, and go into the research I was doing with 8 ”One of the first class of complex networks are
9 others. 9 random graphs introduced by Erdos & Renyi ... nearly
10 Q. May we go to Mr Madden’s PM40 appendix {H/156/2}. 10 50 years ago. A random graph can be constructed by
11 Looking at this document, he studied the raw data and 11 connecting any pairs of vertices of the graph with
12 found a string of text in OLE format, that’s object 12 probability p. Random graphs are perhaps the most
13 linking and embedding, the compound format used by 13 well−studied model of random networks. The unique
14 MS.DOC and MSG files. Do you recall that finding? 14 feature of the ER model ...”
15 A. I do. 15 Over the page {H/123/2}:
16 Q. And may we go to page {H/156/10−11}. Page 10, first of 16 ” ... is that beyond a critical value [then
17 all . You see that Mr Madden concluded that the equation 17 the equation] a giant connected component forms in
18 he analysed in the document was created using a version 18 the network ... ”
19 of MathType? 19 Then references 9 and 40.
20 A. Yes, I see what he says. 20 There’s a striking similarity , isn ’ t there, between
21 Q. And do you see that he concluded that it was created 21 that paragraph and the paragraph we looked at in your
22 using MathType 6.9. If we find that in paragraph 27 on 22 document?
23 the next page? 23 A. I ’ve used this document multiple times. I’ve read it
24 A. I see the conclusion. 24 many times.
25 Q. Which was released in February 2013. 25 Q. The document you created was created by taking sections

121 123

1 Are you aware that, having received this appendix, 1 of this and modifying it to insert references to
2 Dr Placks agreed that the metadata in this document had 2 Bitcoin?
3 been manipulated? 3 A. No, it was not.
4 A. He said it was inauthentic. 4 Q. If we go to the references section , which I think is on
5 Q. He found that the timestamps had been manipulated, 5 the next page of this document {H/123/3}. If we can go
6 didn’t he? 6 to the last page of the document, I think we’ll find
7 A. I believe it was more inauthentic. I don’t know if he 7 the references {H/123/8}. Yes.
8 quite said −− 8 Do we see reference 2, Barabasi et al .
9 Q. {Q/2/6}, please. 9 Reference 28, reference 33, 35 and 42 are simply −− are
10 Now, the document we have been talking about is 10 identical to references in your document?
11 000371 and we see that the experts have jointly ticked 11 A. As you would expect. These are references in
12 the first column against that, which is manipulated 12 practically every document on the formation of giant
13 timestamps? 13 nodes.
14 A. Yes, my understanding of that wasn’t the way you were 14 Q. Let’s go back to your document, please, at {L3/200/2}
15 putting it , though. 15 and to the paragraph we looked at −− the section we
16 Q. Well, I said Dr Placks −− 16 looked at at the bottom of {L3/200/1} over to
17 A. As in inauthentic or not real . 17 {L3/200/2}. It has references, in the second line , 9
18 Q. Dr Placks, I said , had agreed that it had been 18 and 40; do you see that?
19 manipulated and that’s what that finding signifies , 19 A. Yes.
20 isn ’ t it ? 20 Q. You don’t have 40 references in your paper, do you?
21 A. My understanding from communication with everyone isn’t. 21 A. Not this one, no.
22 It is that it has been changed at some time. 22 Q. Go back to the Olfati−Saber paper, the equivalent
23 Q. {H/123/1}, please. 23 section at the bottom of page 1 {H/123/1} over to page 2
24 This is a publicly available academic paper from 24 {H/123/2}.
25 2005: 25 A. That doesn’t say 9 and 40 by the way you’re doing it,

122 124

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 though. That says ”9, page 40”. 1 relating to Lynn Wright but for 22 October 2008; do you
2 Q. Let’s just look at page 1 over to page 2. ” [9], [40]”? 2 see that?
3 It ’s a lift , isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? 3 A. I do.
4 A. No, it is not. What I have done is I’ve used this in my 4 Q. On that basis, he concluded that those timestamps from
5 research. When I look at papers, I write my own notes. 5 before that date must have been modified; would you
6 When I publish a paper, I make sure that I go through 6 accept that?
7 and rewrite everything and credit it . If you’re saying 7 A. No, I wouldn’t.
8 do I copy people’s things sometimes in chunks in my own 8 Q. So you’d once again disagree with him and Dr Placks,
9 notes, yes. But those don’t end up in published papers, 9 that the metadata timestamps were manipulated?
10 they don’t end up in patents, but I do use them. 10 A. Yes, in both cases they’re assuming a home user
11 Q. Well, we’ ll see later if your copying ends up in 11 environment.
12 published documents. 12 Q. Now, what you’ve said in your 11th witness statement,
13 Just looking at this one, somebody has constructed 13 and you can confirm whether I’m putting this right, is
14 this document, in 2013 or later, using significant 14 that the document could have been accessed in
15 chunks of the Olfati−Saber paper, haven’t they? 15 December 2008 and that just accessing it would have
16 A. I ’ve used the paper, which I said . ”Ultrafast Consensus 16 embedded this text string.
17 in Small−World Networks” was one of the main areas I was 17 A. That’s correct . We used a combination of virtual
18 researching to get to Bitcoin. 18 machines and Citrix servers.
19 Q. Next document, ID_000396, which is at {L3/203/1}. 19 Q. What I have to put to you is that a document wouldn’t be
20 Another of your primary reliance documents, and for my 20 altered in this way and a text string added in this way
21 learned friend , this is in the list of 20 forgeries . 21 merely as a result of being accessed?
22 You’ve said that this document −− you have said in 22 A. Actually, I ’ve done exactly this and demonstrated that
23 your chain of custody information that this document was 23 it does, just the same as in my witness statement
24 originally drafted by you in 2008. Is that −− that’s 24 I demonstrated how Xcopy works and demonstrated that
25 something you would stick to now? 25 things were wrong. So, no, I ’ve also seen and repeated

125 127

1 A. That’s about when I first did that. 1 independent expert evidence, and also other people
2 Q. Do we see that it’s a document discussing game theory 2 I know and talked to people who are developers, and I’ve
3 and referring to Bitcoin? 3 seen this replicated many times already.
4 A. Yes. 4 Q. But all your non−specific hearsay is up against two
5 Q. Do we see it contains exactly the same five references 5 independent experts in this case, isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?
6 as the last document we looked at? 6 A. No, it ’s against the people who are the experts in this
7 A. They look the same, yes. 7 case.
8 Q. And they also are the references we saw that appeared in 8 Q. Are you suggesting they’re not independent, Mr Madden
9 the Olfati−Saber paper? 9 and Dr Placks?
10 A. Well, no, they’re some of the references, and saying 10 A. I don’t see them as terribly independent, but anyway.
11 whether you had the same, in that sort of paper, is to 11 Q. Why do you say that Dr Placks, your own expert, isn’t
12 be expected. 12 independent?
13 Q. The internal metadata for this document gave creation 13 A. I didn’t choose Dr Placks. I didn’t want Dr Placks.
14 and last saved dates of 10 September 2008. We can see 14 Q. Do you consider that Dr Placks is incompetent?
15 that at {H/122/2}. 15 A. I consider Dr Placks is a psychologist. He has a degree
16 This is in Mr Madden’s PM27 appendix, and do you see 16 in psychology, he has no qualifications in information
17 that he has identified creation and last saved dates −− 17 security . He has not done SANS, neither has Mr Madden.
18 A. I do. 18 Neither of them have done a single IT security, IT
19 Q. −− of 10 September 2008? 19 forensics or other certification , course or training .
20 The internal metadata dates I am referring to, 20 Q. So is it your position that your expert, the expert
21 my Lord. 21 that’s being called on your side, Dr Placks, is not
22 And then over to page {H/122/12} of this document, 22 a suitably qualified expert to give evidence on what he
23 we find, at paragraph 29, that Mr Madden found that 23 covers in his reports?
24 there was embedded text in the document’s metadata, 24 A. If you’re asking that −− that directly, yes.
25 a text string , which contained a date and time reference 25 Q. So my suggestion to you in relation to this document

126 128

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 that we’ve been looking at is that this is a document 1 created in .DOCX format in a later version of MS Word
2 which has been backdated with your knowledge, put 2 than the dates suggest and then imported into this
3 forward by you and it’s a forgery . 3 document, weren’t they?
4 A. No. 4 A. No, that’s incorrect .
5 Q. Moving on, please, to {L2/149/1}. 5 Q. That’s because the .DOC format, which this document
6 This is a document called, ”Defining the possible 6 appears primarily created in , structures data as
7 Graph Structures”. Will you accept that this is one of 7 OLE linked objects, not in the XML format found here,
8 your primary reliance documents? 8 unlike .DOCX format documents?
9 A. Yes, it ’s one of my reliance documents. It is . 9 A. No, the statement that I made earlier and that I ’ve got
10 Q. And again, a document you’ve said was originally drafted 10 in my witness statement is that the software that I have
11 by you in 2008? 11 with Word, which has been around since at least 1998,
12 A. Yes. 12 saves in XML and XBRL format. The reason I used XML and
13 Q. It reads, again, doesn’t it , as a document discussing 13 XBRL format was I would actually import audit data as
14 Bitcoin in the context of network theory and small world 14 well so I could work on it. While I was an auditor,
15 networks? 15 XML and XBRL allowed me to capture information and have
16 A. Yes. This is some of the work I was doing and why 16 it automatically update in some of the things I did in
17 I hired Ignatius in ’7/’8. 17 other documents for reports.
18 Q. {H/137/2}, please. 18 So, you’re saying this is unusual. Well, all of my
19 This is Mr Madden’s analysis of the document, and we 19 tools are basically unusual.
20 see that he records that the internal metadata have 20 Q. If Mr Madden’s right, then writing a document in one
21 a creation date of 14 July 2007 and a last saved date of 21 format and waiting years and importing equations from
22 11 October 2008: do you see those entries for ID_000462? 22 another document would be bizarre to the point of
23 A. I do. 23 absurdity, wouldn’t it?
24 Q. So that amounts to a recorded edit time of 455 days, 24 A. No. If Madden was actually doing his job, he would run
25 doesn’t it ? 25 up what I said and check. He would analyse a Citrix

129 131

1 A. It does. 1 machine and see what happens even after two weeks of
2 Q. And if we look at the revision number entry, we can see 2 running. Now −− which I have done. So if you do have
3 it ’s revision number 2? 3 a document and you do leave it, even when it’s not in
4 A. Yes. 4 the forefront , because of the way Citrix works,
5 Q. It ’s unusual, isn ’ t it , to work on a document for 5 the application keeps the edit time running.
6 455 days and only save it twice? 6 Q. Dr Wright, I’m not going to address your comments about
7 A. Not when you’re accessing it on a Citrix application . 7 your private tests , because those have been ruled
8 The Citrix application will open Word and save 8 inadmissible by the court. What I’m going to address
9 the document. So where you’re talking about saving it, 9 with you is the expert evidence that has been put in,
10 you don’t need to. It is the same as using 10 and I suggest to you that that suggests clearly , as
11 Google Documents now. So rather than having to save as 11 Mr Madden found, that the computer clock was manipulated
12 a file , you just leave it running in the application . 12 in the production of this document?
13 Q. Page 5 then {H/137/5}, paragraphs 15 to 16, Mr Madden 13 A. Actually, no. As I just said , I ’ve personally seen it ,
14 made findings that the equations that we saw on the page 14 I know how it works, I’ve been running Citrix servers
15 had underlying dated structured in XML formats, which 15 and been certified in the past, though didn’t keep it ,
16 isn ’ t typical of documents in .DOC format and it’s not 16 since ’97 or so, back when it was a different product.
17 how such images are stored from the version of MS Word 17 So, I totally disagree. And if I had edited the clock,
18 recorded for this document. We see that finding at 18 there are other markers in Word that would have been
19 paragraph 17. Do you see that? 19 there.
20 A. Yes. Unfortunately, again, the tools that I say that 20 Q. Moving on, please, to the next document {L3/237/1}.
21 I use, he hasn’t actually looked at, and those tools 21 This is , Dr Wright, another of your primary reliance
22 that I did mention save in this format. Those tools 22 documents. Do you recognise it?
23 have been doing that since actually the ’90s, before any 23 A. I recognise it .
24 of these other formats existed. 24 Q. This is , again, one of our core list of 20 forgeries .
25 Q. The reality is that, as he finds , these equations were 25 Would you accept again that in your chain of custody

130 132

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 information you said that this was drafted by you in 1 Q. Now, Mr Madden’s conclusion is that somebody has changed
2 2008? 2 a document written years after the release of Bitcoin to
3 A. Yes. 3 suggest its creation shortly before that release .
4 Q. The document has a last saved timestamp of 4 You’re aware of that finding , aren’t you?
5 21 December 2008 in its internal metadata. We can see 5 A. I ’m aware of it, yes.
6 that at {H/1/2}. 6 Q. And that’s correct, isn ’ t it ?
7 Do you see that, the internal metadata properties, 7 A. No, it ’s not correct . What you have here is a shared
8 last saved timestamp of 21 December 08? 8 environment where a completely different file , the file
9 A. I do. 9 that you have there is unrelated to the earlier
10 Q. May we go back to the document itself {L3/237/3} and 10 research, has been merged. The particular note that was
11 page 3. Do we see that in the introduction, 11 later was to do with a −− a sort of explanation that was
12 the document explains that it’s drawing a connection −− 12 given to the Australian Tax Office that has nothing to
13 this is the fourth paragraph the document is drawing 13 do with any of the SAIRC(?) information; it’s to do with
14 a connection between the modelling of deaths in models 14 the legal aspects of Bitcoin. If someone was to
15 concerned with epidemics and the failure of nodes in 15 completely fabricate a document, then they wouldn’t have
16 the Bitcoin network? 16 merged documents. For instance, if I setback
17 A. I do. 17 a computer, ran an old version of software, cut and
18 Q. And if we go to page {L3/237/4}, ”What is BitCoin?”, do 18 paste from text, formatted, did this , then it would be
19 we see that the second paragraph says that: 19 perfect . So the irony is , if I was to manipulate and
20 ”BitCoin will first launch in 2009.” 20 fabricate documents, they would be perfect.
21 And that you have released it online as an anonymous 21 Q. Well, you keep saying that, Dr Wright, but I’m putting
22 programmer; do you see that? 22 to you that the findings of so many of your documents
23 A. Yes. 23 bearing signs of inauthenticity and manipulation, which
24 Q. Then bottom of the page, ”Mining”. And over the page 24 you have to explain in many different ways, suggests
25 {L3/237/5}: 25 that you’re not quite as good at forgery as you’re

133 135

1 ”The mining process involves the BitCoin network 1 postulating you might be?
2 updating a shared public ledger or log on the BitCoin 2 A. No, because I didn’t forge anything.
3 network.” 3 Q. Now −−
4 Do you see that? 4 A. As I suggested and as I’ve stated, I have had multiple
5 A. I do. 5 companies over the years, I have had several hundred
6 Q. Then page {L3/237/27}, do you see the document has four 6 staff , files are shared, because we do research, and
7 references with dates from 1964 to 2005? 7 that research has led to what has now been over 4,000,
8 A. I do. 8 approaching 5,000 patents being filed, none of which
9 Q. May we now go to Mr Madden’s findings, first of all 9 could be done just by cutting and pasting.
10 a document {H/4/1}. Mr Madden examined the raw data for 10 Q. Your excuse for this document is that it’s become
11 this .DOC file and found embedded text showing a remnant 11 corrupted by a process of two documents merging?
12 version , which is recorded here; do you see that? 12 A. Someone probably had two different documents open
13 A. I do. 13 simultaneously. When you have Citrix and other such
14 Q. Page {H/4/2}, please, under ”Overview”: 14 environments, this is uncommon, but it does occur.
15 ”Bitcoin is a ’crypto−currency’, a form of digital 15 Q. Well, I ’m going to put to you, on the basis of what
16 or virtual currency ... 16 the experts will say, it doesn’t occur, and certainly
17 ”Bitcoin was first launched in 2009 ... ” 17 does not occur to create a document which opens just
18 Then under, ”Mining”, just halfway down: 18 perfectly and looks syntactically just fine ?
19 ”In its May 2013 report ...” 19 A. I ’ ll put it simply. Neither is an expert in any of
20 And so on. Do you see that? 20 the technology I’ve mentioned.
21 A. I do. 21 Q. Just setting aside the technology for a moment. If you
22 Q. And then the ”References” section on page 13 {H/4/13}. 22 had a process of accidental corruption, it would be an
23 Do we see a series of references to web pages and so on 23 extraordinary coincidence for it just to happen to
24 postdating 2008? 24 create a document which looked as though it was the same
25 A. I can see it , yes. 25 thing but looking ahead at Bitcoin rather than looking

134 136

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 at it in the past. That would be a remarkable 1 Senate ... ” really doesn’t follow with the other part of
2 coincidence, wouldn’t it , Dr Wright? 2 the document. They’re unrelated documents.
3 A. No, it wouldn’t. It meant −− I would say that someone’s 3 Q. The 2013 report was removed because it would be an
4 updated or not saved the document the same way and that 4 anachronistic to a document of 2008. That’s the reason,
5 the server has had a partial image at the same time. It 5 isn ’ t it ?
6 would be an immense anomaly to find a group of 15−year 6 A. No, if you look just above it, ” ... following
7 old files with no anomalies. I ’ve never seen it before. 7 ’phases’ ... ”, so it ’s talking about something
8 Q. Let’s put it simply. If you mashed two documents 8 different . So, the controls , the rate , etc, it ’s
9 together completely randomly, even speaking without any 9 actually different . So the ”mining” in its other sort
10 technical expertise , you wouldn’t produce something that 10 of ”Senate” thing is a different area in a different
11 just happened to read as perfect English but looking at 11 document talking about a different thing. It ’s part of
12 Bitcoin as an established fact , rather than something in 12 a submission that was given to the Australian tax
13 the future . 13 authorities .
14 A. There are different parts of what you’re saying. One, 14 Q. There’s a difference , because it ’s under a different
15 there’s an edit on this document, and two, there is 15 heading, ”Mining”. But in other respects, this
16 a completely separate document. The completely separate 16 document, all the changes that we see are changes to
17 document that is a legal document on Bitcoin is tacked 17 remove references to Bitcoin already existing and to
18 on at the end. The other document is an edit that 18 events postdating 2008. So we see:
19 hasn’t saved properly. 19 ”To date, over 17 million Bitcoin are estimated to
20 Q. The only explanation you gave for these anomalies in 20 be in circulation . However, a Bitcoin ... ”
21 your appendix B to your 11th statement is that there was 21 And then that’s edited to:
22 a simple corruption between two documents; that’s right, 22 ”This will force low power nodes out of
23 isn ’ t it ? 23 the system ... ”
24 A. That is a corruption between two documents. There’s an 24 To remove a reference to something that’s −− that
25 edit that hasn’t happened correctly on one of them, and 25 dates it to much after 2008.

137 139

1 there’s a merge of another document, which has also led 1 That’s not an accidental change, is it , Dr Wright?
2 to other corruptions at the end, where you have 2 A. Again, I don’t know how the change happened. This is
3 the references then followed up by other terms. 3 two different documents. How the parts are merged into
4 Q. I suggest to you that a corruption −− a simple 4 one, I can’t answer. These documents are given to
5 corruption by accident would not produce this document 5 different staff at all of my companies so that we can
6 that opens perfectly readably and has a perfectly 6 actually create and file the research that we do.
7 syntactically sound construction. 7 Q. May we then go to {H/16/1}.
8 A. I suggest that the format in Word documents allows for 8 We see that’s a web page from the SSRN website
9 the embedding of other information and this can occur. 9 describing an article with the same title as this one
10 One example of how this occurs is the tool strip wire 10 written by you in March 2017?
11 made by Dan Kaminsky, who commented on Bitcoin and code. 11 A. No, that was posted at that date.
12 In analysing strip wire, what he did was he found a hash 12 Q. It says, ”Posted: ... April 2018.
13 collision in MD5. The way that he did that, including 13 ”Date written: March 28, 2017.”
14 in PDF and Word documents, was to embed extra text so 14 Is that wrong?
15 that the original document appeared to be exactly 15 A. That just means when it started being loaded and it
16 correct and that the extra text would not be shown. So, 16 doesn’t go into when it’s initially there. So, I ’m not
17 it is well known that PDFs and Word documents can have 17 sure who loaded things in −− I don’t actually manage
18 embedded text added, either intentionally or 18 SSRN, but I don’t know who did at the time. I can’t
19 unintentionally , and not alter their display . 19 recall .
20 Q. {H/14/1}, please. Then if we go to page 4 {H/14/4} of 20 Q. {H/15/1}. This is a copy of the document which is −−
21 that document, please. 21 which can be downloaded from that website. Is this
22 This is a document where Mr Madden has compared 22 a document you wrote?
23 the two documents to show the changes made. 23 A. That’s based on a document I wrote.
24 A. And as you’ll see, the documents have no relation. The 24 Q. But the one that was uploaded was different in some way,
25 ”Mining in [the] May 2013 report [in] the United States 25 was it?

138 140

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 A. I don’t actually know. I basically give documents to −− 1 Q. And then, in addition, as a further finding , Mr Madden
2 well , now, Sebastian; before it could have been Andy, 2 found, at page 22 {H/1/22}, that the metadata of
3 and they handle editing and getting things on SSRN and 3 the document contained references to Microsoft schemas
4 other sites . 4 dating from 2010 and later and references to Grammarly,
5 Q. If we go to page 3 {H/15/3}, ”What is Bitcoin?”: 5 which was released in 2009. Do you see those findings?
6 ”Bitcoin is a ’crypto−currency’, a form of digital 6 A. I do.
7 or virtual currency using cryptography to control its 7 Q. So it happens, along with all these other findings , to
8 creation and operation. 8 have those signs of alteration as well , doesn’t it ?
9 ”Bitcoin was first launched in 2009 ... ” 9 A. It does. Like I said , shared environment.
10 That’s the same as the remnant text which Mr Madden 10 Q. Then {H/156/12}, please.
11 found in the data underlying your reliance document, 11 Mr Madden found that there were many documents in
12 isn ’ t it ? 12 the disclosure set with MathType OLE streams in their
13 A. I ’m not sure. I didn’t read that, but −− 13 headers and that it was possible to identify
14 Q. Well, I read it out −− (overspeaking) −− 14 the MathType version. Do you see that finding he made?
15 A. −− (inaudible) that document. 15 A. I do.
16 Q. We can go back to it, if it helps. I read it out in 16 Q. And do you see that in the table, five lines from
17 court, but would you take it from me −− 17 the bottom, this document is identified with a MathType
18 A. I ’ ll take it from you, yes. 18 version from February 2013?
19 Q. I ’m sure I’ ll be corrected. 19 A. I do.
20 A. I ’ ll take it from you that you’re ... yes. 20 Q. That was yet another sign of this document being a later
21 Q. So the suggestion that I put to you is that you’ve taken 21 backdated forgery, isn ’ t it ?
22 a document which you wrote years later and edited it 22 A. No, it ’s a sign that someone has opened up the document,
23 back. 23 probably with MathType server, at a later date.
24 A. No, but that’s got to be edited out. 24 Q. This is a document you created to try to support your
25 Q. {H/1/12}, please. 25 claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto by manipulation and

141 143

1 Mr Madden also conducts a separate analysis and, at 1 backdating, isn ’ t it ?

2 the bottom of the page, he notes that it’s an MS Word 2 A. No, it is not.
3 document, and then over the page {H/1/13}, he shows that 3 Q. May we go back to the document, please {L3/237/1}. Can
4 the equations weren’t written in Word, but once again 4 we go to page 10, please {L/3/237/10}.
5 were imported as images which he finds was as the result 5 Do we see at paragraph −− footnote 6, you had added
6 of later conversion; do you see that? 6 to this document:
7 A. Yes. Again, I don’t use the Word tools. 7 ”Need to Thank Ignatius Pang for his help with
8 Q. Page {H/1/21}, please. Sorry, page 19, please {H/1/19}. 8 the Geomi software.”
9 We see that he’s found a whole series of equations which 9 Yes?
10 have been corrupted, if you compare the −− your 10 A. Yes.
11 reliance document on the left with the SSRN version on 11 Q. So if the court does conclude that this is a manipulated
12 the right . Do you see those? 12 document, it’s a manipulated document into which you’ve
13 A. I see them, yes. 13 added that little nugget of detail to support your
14 Q. These are classic signs of a conversion error , not using 14 history , isn ’ t it ?
15 a different and carefully chosen tool to input the 15 A. No.
16 equations, aren’t they? 16 Q. The next document, please {L3/185/1}, another of your
17 A. I disagree on that one, once again. 17 primary reliance documents, and again in our core list
18 Q. So you say that you chose a tool specifically in order 18 of 20 forgeries .
19 to put the equations in and they came out as this −− 19 Do you recognise this as a document, like
20 well , with respect, junk in the left −hand column? 20 the previous one, applying models developed for
21 A. No, but if you’ve got something that isn’t loaded 21 epidemics to Bitcoin?
22 correctly , it can. It ’s not conversion. What I do know 22 A. Yes.
23 is obviously someone has added something I don’t want 23 Q. Is this right , on this occasion, the modelling is
24 because of the cryptocurrency bit in my document that 24 apparently being applied to transactions rather than
25 I need to take down. 25 node failures ?

142 144

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 A. No, it says ”block diffusion ”. This is not transaction 1 A. I ’d have to look through it to determine −−
2 tracing , this is block diffusion . 2 Q. Let’s through it page by page. Page 1 {L3/185/1}.
3 Q. You said in your chain of custody information that 3 Page 2 {L3/185/2}.
4 the document was originally drafted by you in 2008. Is 4 A. No.
5 that a version you stick to now? 5 Q. Page 3 {L3/185/3}.
6 A. It is . 6 A. No.
7 Q. Its internal metadata give created and last saved dates 7 Q. Page 4 {L3/185/4}.
8 of 15 August and 8 September 2008 respectively. Again, 8 A. No.
9 will you take that from me? I can show you −− 9 Q. No equations there.
10 A. I will . 10 And then on the last page {L3/185/4}, we see there’s
11 Q. −− the relevant part of Mr Madden’s 30th appendix. 11 a series of 15 references and none of them are later
12 If we go down under ”Introduction”, do you see 12 than 2008; do you see that?
13 the third sentence begins: 13 A. I do.
14 ”In developing and understanding ...”? 14 Q. May we now go to {H/130/1}. This is a document
15 A. Yes. 15 Mr Madden found online, a ResearchGate article which, we
16 Q. Do you see that? 16 see from the header, was received, revised and accepted
17 A. I do. 17 in April 2012; do you see that?
18 Q. ”In developing and understanding of the preservation and 18 A. I do.
19 control of epidemics, researchers such as Wein et al ... 19 Q. Thank you.
20 Wein et al ... Craft et al ... Kaplan et al ... and 20 A. It was published in the Huawei network, submitted in
21 Matsuura et al ... and Shi and Dong have created models 21 2011 from earlier publications given in China in 2009.
22 of the spread of infectious diseases ... ” 22 Q. This is an article on small−world analysis to address
23 Etc. 23 epidemic diffusion problems, isn ’ t it ?
24 Do you see that? 24 A. It is .
25 A. I do. 25 Q. It doesn’t say anything about Bitcoin or the blockchain?

145 147

1 Q. Do you see that there are reference numbers after those 1 A. No.
2 names for all except the last one, Shi and Dong? 2 Q. May we look under the introduction and at the second
3 A. I see that, yes. 3 paragraph and the second sentence:
4 Q. If we go down this page and look to the end of the red 4 ”Actually, many recent research efforts have been
5 text on the following page {L3/185/2}, we see that 5 devoted to understanding the prevention and control of
6 there’s a discussion of epidemic modelling with some 6 epidemics, such as those of Wein et al, Wein et al,
7 scattered references to Bitcoin? 7 Craft et al , Kaplan et al, and Matsuura et al.”
8 A. I see that, yes. 8 Would you accept there’s a clear parallel with
9 Q. Then if we look at the last paragraph on {L3/185/1}. So 9 the passage we reviewed in your paper?
10 back to page 1: 10 A. Yes, I used their work when I was studying at Newcastle.
11 ”Saramaki and Kaski used the SIR model to represent 11 The university is in medical epidemiology and medical
12 the spreading process of randomly contagious diseases 12 statistics , so when I was doing my statistics degrees,
13 including influenza . This model was established using a 13 I engaged with a lot of researchers . I get pre−done
14 dynamic small−world network. Masuda and Konno produced 14 papers and I don’t publish them as my own, I used my
15 a multistate epidemic method created using a complex 15 research, basically .
16 network model.” 16 Q. And do you see that the Shi and Dong article has
17 Do you see that? 17 a reference number in this one? That’s a difference .
18 A. I do. 18 It ’s got a reference number 7.
19 Q. And then page {L3/185/3}, please, you see it refers to: 19 A. Yes, it was released at this point.
20 ”Notations used in the following sections ... ” 20 Q. And then at page {H/130/13}, please, we can see that
21 With a series of letters which might ordinarily 21 number [7] is an article published in 2012?
22 feature in equations? 22 A. That version. There’s an earlier one as well .
23 A. Yes, these are standard definitions in most SAIR sort of 23 Q. And page 3, please {H/130/3}. At the bottom of the page
24 texts , etc, in the order that they are. 24 we see the notations, and, again, I can put the two
25 Q. But no equations actually appear in this paper, do they? 25 documents on the screen alongside each other, but

146 148

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 they’re the same as yours, aren’t they? 1 the five works which postdated 2008.
2 A. Yes. As I said , when I was working at Newcastle 2 A. Other people were also working and collaborating.
3 studying statistics as a postgrad, I dealt with people 3 Q. So you say that you just happened to have
4 in China quite a lot . 4 pre−publication versions of four of those five papers?
5 Q. And then over the page, please {H/130/4}. Unlike in 5 A. I was studying as a postgraduate in a medical research
6 your document, there are lots of equations in this one, 6 university doing a masters in statistics in a university
7 aren’t there? 7 that specialises in epidemiology and medical research.
8 A. Yes. That’s a finished version . 8 So, yes, researchers share.
9 Q. {H/129/9}, please. What Mr Madden has done, in 9 Q. This paper doesn’t just replicate ideas , does it , it
10 the lower part of this page and over the page, is to 10 replicates whole sections?
11 compare sections of your paper against the equivalent 11 A. Because I used other people’s papers, and pre−release.
12 sections of the ResearchGate paper. May we go to 12 People ask me for papers, I send them my pre−release
13 page 10, please {H/129/10}, the section beginning just 13 work, all the time.
14 over halfway down: 14 Q. Page 14, please, of the same document {H/129/14},
15 ”Hsu and Shih ...” 15 appendix PM30. At paragraphs 19 to 20, Mr Madden found
16 The section from your paper is virtually identical 16 that your paper contained fonts from the Minion font
17 to the section in the published article , isn ’ t it ? 17 family, which aren’t included by default in
18 A. No. The paragraph is in about the same place. 18 Microsoft Word but were present in the ResearchGate
19 Q. I can read out these two paragraphs, the one in black 19 paper. Are you aware of that finding?
20 and the one in red, but I ’m putting to you that they are 20 A. That’s because it came from the researcher’s paper.
21 virtually identical to each other. Are you accepting 21 Q. So you had a pre−publication paper from several years
22 that? 22 beforehand which contained these passages which are so
23 A. What I’m saying is I took work from these authors in my 23 similar to your document and in the same font?
24 research. I didn’t publish it , because I didn’t finish 24 A. When you write a document and you publish it, you don’t
25 it . When I make my notes, I do use other people’s work. 25 just publish it in a large−scale publication first , this

149 151

1 Q. I appreciate you’re trying to give your excuse and make 1 was published first in China. So, yes, two years later
2 your argument, but the question at the moment is 2 it got published there. Earlier , it was published in
3 a simple one: those two passages are virtually 3 China.
4 identical , aren’t they? 4 Q. Was it published in English or Chinese?
5 A. They’re very close . They’re not quite exactly the same. 5 A. English.
6 Q. They’re almost word−for−word identical. 6 Q. Have you ever disclosed it to anybody?
7 A. Almost isn’t. 7 A. That’s it there.
8 Q. Point out a difference . 8 Q. Have you −− no, the pre−publication papers which you
9 A. ”Ref”. A different reference number. A couple of other 9 said you had which fed into this, have you of shown them
10 bits like that. 10 to anybody?
11 Q. Anything else, other than the two reference numbers 11 A. No, I’ve edited them. That’s what I have left.
12 being changed? 12 Q. So the explanation for this remarkable similarity is
13 A. They’re the main bits, but, yes. 13 that you happened to have pre−publication copies of not
14 Q. It ’s a word−for−word copy, isn’t it, Dr Wright? 14 just the ResearchGate article but four of the five
15 A. Yes. I took other people’s work in my notes. 15 papers cited in it which were produced after 2009?
16 Q. And then if we go to page 11, please {H/129/11}, we can 16 That’s what you’re telling the court?
17 see, at paragraph 14, Mr Madden concludes that 17 A. What I’m telling the court is , as a medical researcher
18 the references in your paper are identical to those in 18 doing statistics in a medical research university ,
19 the Yu Xiao(?) paper, except that five in the latter one 19 I engaged with a lot of people and took lots of papers.
20 don’t appear in yours, which are of course 20 It can be years between writing and publication, and
21 the references from 2009 to 2012. Now, I gather, from 21 then rewriting and publication in a better journal can
22 what you’ve been saying so far, you’d accept that? 22 be years later again.
23 A. Yes, I would. 23 Q. I have to pin you down on this so that we can cite it ,
24 Q. But he found that although these weren’t explicitly 24 in due course, in closing argument. Your evidence to
25 referenced, the text contained references to four of 25 the court is that you happened to have a pre−publication

150 152

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 version of not just the ResearchGate article, when you 1 A. I do.

2 produced your document in 2008, but four of the five 2 Q. Next page, please {L1/323/2}. The contents page has one
3 papers cited in it which postdate −− 3 substantive item, ”Poisson competing process”; do you
4 A. They were cited in another paper. You’re asking me do 4 see that?
5 I have the cited papers from someone else’s cited paper. 5 A. I do.
6 I have the paper where they cited that. Other Chinese 6 Q. Then page 3 {L1/323/3} begins the substantive content.
7 people −− academics, also share. 7 You see that it reads:
8 MR HOUGH: My Lord, I appreciate we’ve been going for about 8 ”We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to
9 an hour since the last break. Would that be 9 generate an alternate chain of time rounds faster than
10 a convenient moment for five minutes? 10 the honest TSA chain.”
11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, I think I need to cool down a bit. 11 That, and subsequent parts of the text, have clear
12 Yes, we’ ll have a short break, three/four minutes. 12 features in common with concepts of the blockchain and
13 (4.01 pm) 13 the way of avoiding an attacker subverting the chain,
14 (A short break) 14 don’t they?
15 (4.07 pm) 15 A. They do.
16 A. My Lord, can I take my jacket off? 16 Q. And it also uses the language of ”time rounds”, which
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Please do. I’m amazed you’ve managed to 17 might appear to echo your statements that you sometimes
18 keep a three piece suit on, actually . 18 referred to Bitcoin as ”Timecoin”?
19 MR HOUGH: Whatever else, we’ve all been impressed with 19 A. Yes. And rounds were a different sort of format than
20 managing a three piece suit in these conditions. 20 a block, but similar .
21 Dr Wright, it may have been −− I’m sure it will have 21 Q. Now, you have −− in the past, you’ve claimed that parts
22 been clear from the previous questions, but just let me 22 of the Bitcoin White Paper included work which was in
23 put this to you for completeness. This document which 23 your MStat degree, haven’t you?
24 you’ve produced was created by you, forged by you, 24 A. I have.
25 taking text from the ResearchGate article and backdating 25 Q. May we look then at {H/145/11}, and this is a section of

153 155

1 it ; that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 1 Mr Madden’s appendix PM38 where he considers the section
2 A. No, it is not. 2 of text we’ve just been looking at, and this is in
3 Q. May we move on to another document {L1/232/1}. This is 3 the bottom half of the page; do you see that?
4 ID 000073. It’s a document that’s not among your 4 A. I do.
5 primary reliance documents. It is , however, a pleaded 5 Q. And he makes a comparison between this text and
6 forgery and in the core list of 20. 6 a section of the Bitcoin White Paper. Do we see that in
7 Do you recognise this as a document disclosed on 7 the second paragraph we see that the Bitcoin White Paper
8 your behalf which appears to be an assignment for your 8 passage began:
9 masters in statistics course in October 2005? 9 ”The race between the honest chain and an [attacker]
10 A. I do. 10 ... chain ... ”
11 Q. And can you take it from me that it’s a Word document 11 A. I do.
12 with external metadata giving creation and last saved 12 Q. And over the page, please {H/145/12}, do we see that he
13 dates in September 2005? 13 then makes a comparison between your document and that
14 A. I can. 14 passage, and the edited version reads:
15 Q. Do you see that it gives −− the document, on its face, 15 ”The race between the honest change of rounds and an
16 cites your lecturer and tutor as Richard Gerlach? 16 attacking TSA nodes chain ...”
17 A. Yes. 17 Do you see that?
18 Q. A ”Date due/time” of an unspecified date, ”XXX” and 18 A. I do.
19 ”October, 2005”? 19 Q. Then at paragraph 18, at the bottom of the page, he
20 A. Yes. 20 finds that there are some groups of text embedded within
21 Q. There’s a signature, ”CSW”, at the bottom, and ”28th Oct 21 the raw content of ID 000073, the document we’ve been
22 2005”? 22 looking at; do you see that?
23 A. I see it . 23 A. I do.
24 Q. Then the course number is given as ”STAT6640”; do you 24 Q. And then if we go to the −− to page 13 {H/145/13}, in
25 see that? 25 the second row of the table we see that the words,

154 156

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 ”Value out of thin air taking money that never belonged 1 the previous iterations of work I was doing. Many of
2 to the attacker ... ”, which appear in 2 the calculations are the same, the sort of proof−of−work
3 the Bitcoin White Paper, aren’t in the statistics 3 is the same, but the solutions on how it actually works
4 assignment; do you see that? 4 are different .
5 A. I do. 5 Q. And if your explanation is right , then your prior
6 Q. Then paragraph 20(c), further down the page, you see he 6 version would have had to have a line break
7 makes the further observation that in the raw content 7 between ”gamblers” and ”ruin” in precisely the same
8 there’s a line break between the words ”gamblers” 8 place as in the actual Bitcoin White Paper, wouldn’t it?
9 and ”ruin” which corresponds to a line break at that 9 A. Not necessarily , no.
10 point in the Bitcoin White Paper but not a line break in 10 Q. May we now go to {L1/337/1}, which is a statistics
11 the document; do you see that? 11 assignment on the same form with the same signature and
12 A. I do. 12 date at the bottom; do you see that?
13 Q. Now, Mr Madden’s conclusion is that sections of the text 13 A. I do.
14 from the Bitcoin White Paper have been inserted into 14 Q. And this, if you can take it from me, has a metadata
15 this document but then edited to produce the version 15 creation date of 22 March 2005 and a last saved date of
16 that we see here, and what I suggest to you is that that 16 28 October 2005. Can you take that from me?
17 is the natural conclusion of the embedded text that he 17 A. I can.
18 found. 18 Q. We see from the first page of the document that
19 A. I disagree. 19 the tutor is again Professor Gerlach, but there is
20 Q. What you’ve said in your appendix B to your 11th witness 20 a difference in that the date due has actually been
21 statement is that there was a precursor document, other 21 completed to 5.00 pm on Friday, 28 October?
22 than the Bitcoin White Paper, from which you pasted 22 A. Yes.
23 these sections . Am I getting that right? 23 Q. Then if we go to page 2 {L1/337/2}, we can see that
24 A. That’s correct . 24 there are five questions set out there; do you see that?
25 Q. You haven’t ever disclosed that precursor document, have 25 A. I do.

157 159

1 you? 1 Q. And then, for example, if we go along to question 3(e),

2 A. As I’ve noted before, this is many years later and 2 which I think is about page 27 or so {L1/337/27}. Move
3 the majority of documents don’t exist any more. 3 on, please {L1/337/28}. Well, let’s go back to question
4 Q. May we go back to the previous page where we see 4 3 at the start of this , page 27 {L1/337/27}. This
5 the comparison {H/145/12}. Now, there are obviously 5 looks, when we look at the question, like a classic
6 differences between the Bitcoin White Paper and this 6 question given to a university student, doesn’t it ?
7 document, but if that’s right , then before 2005 you had 7 A. It is .
8 a working document which contained a number of passages 8 Q. And this document doesn’t contain any reference to
9 which found their way word−for−word into 9 Bitcoin or the blockchain, does it?
10 the Bitcoin White Paper; would you accept that? 10 A. No.
11 A. Yes, I would. 11 Q. And no text in common with the Bitcoin White Paper?
12 Q. And you’d have had that document on your systems in late 12 A. No.
13 2005? 13 Q. Is it an actual statistics assignment you completed in
14 A. I ’m not sure of the exact date of that course, but ’5 or 14 2005?
15 ’ 6, whatever it is . 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you recall that you said in your first witness 16 Q. Now, may we then go to {H/145/8}, paragraph 11.
17 statement that you began drafting 17 Mr Madden found embedded content within the document we
18 the Bitcoin White Paper in March 2007? 18 were previously looking at, ID 000073, which was not
19 A. Yes, but I don’t consider this part of the drafting of 19 present on its face but which reflected content in this
20 the Bitcoin White Paper. 20 genuine statistics assignment. Are you aware of that
21 Q. The fact that you had a document, on your case, which 21 finding?
22 was so similar is not consistent with your evidence that 22 A. I ’ve seen his results , yes.
23 you started writing the document two or three years 23 Q. And page 9 {H/145/9}, if we look at the last boxes on
24 later , is it ? 24 the text , we can see that he −− that various of
25 A. No, that’s actually wrong. This is to do with 25 the standard university student questions appear in

158 160

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 embedded form within the document you’ve got, talking 1 two separate things. For a masters student, you sit in
2 about a precursor to Bitcoin? 2 on the undergraduate course, you complete all of that at
3 A. Yes, this is the undergraduate level questions. 3 a higher level , and then you also do project work. So,
4 Q. So Mr Madden concludes, perhaps unsurprisingly, that 4 apart from the normal everyday undergraduate
5 the document which refers to Bitcoin was produced by 5 assignments, you complete a project.
6 editing the real statistics assignment to include text 6 Q. If we look at the content of this document, page 3
7 from the Bitcoin White Paper and backdating it. You’re 7 {L1/323/3}, this document assumes, doesn’t it, that
8 aware of that finding? 8 the reader knows something about your time chain system,
9 A. I ’m aware of the finding. 9 doesn’t it ?
10 Q. And that’s the natural conclusion of the various 10 A. It ’s not complete.
11 different forensic findings he made, isn’t it ? 11 Q. It wouldn’t make any sense as a document unless
12 A. That’s what he states. 12 the reader knew all about your time chain system?
13 Q. But it’s the natural conclusion, isn ’ t it ? 13 A. That’s incorrect . It ’s a Poisson competing process.
14 A. No, actually it ’s not. 14 A person who has information about a Poisson competing
15 Q. Now, again, I’m going to put to you what I understand to 15 process, as a statistician , should be able to work out
16 be your excuse based on appendix B to Wright 11. As 16 what it’s talking about.
17 I understand it, you say that there was a precursor 17 Q. Well, how would a statistician , uninformed about your
18 document, different from both of these, which you edited 18 time chain system, understand this concept of competing
19 to produce both of them. 19 nodes producing separate chains? They would need to
20 A. Hence why the date is before the course here, so, yes. 20 know about your time chain system, wouldn’t they?
21 Q. You’ve never provided that precursor document, have you? 21 A. This doesn’t actually talk about separate chains, it
22 A. I don’t have it . 22 talks about the race from an attacker. In that, it ’s
23 Q. ID 000073 is an apparently complete assignment with 23 talking about a Poisson process, which is a standard
24 the same layout, course number and signature date as 24 competing process. There has been research for the last
25 the other document, isn’t it? 25 60 years on Poisson competing processes. It’s

161 163

1 A. Sorry, which one are we talking about? 1 a standard state−based system. So, what we’re talking
2 Q. The document you are relying on. The one that makes 2 about, a round of chains, is actually well known too.
3 reference to Bitcoin, {L1/323/1}. This looks like 3 So when we’re talking about, sort of, block rounds, etc,
4 a complete assignment with the same layout, course 4 this is standard within computer science and statistics .
5 number, and you’ve given it a signature at the bottom. 5 Now, in this, I talk about a ”Binomial Random Walk”.
6 A. No, it ’s not a complete, it has image files and other 6 I haven’t gone into the process of defining it , but what
7 things. It ’s a working document. 7 we have is a state−based system. So this would be
8 Q. I ’m so sorry, I asked that question with reference to 8 defined in engineering or computer science as a state,
9 the wrong document. I’m so sorry. Let me go back and 9 and the state table would have, basically , circles
10 be clear . 10 drawn, with arrows going to each one, with probability
11 {L1/337/1}, please. This is the multi−page document 11 between each.
12 which I’ve put to you and you’ve accepted was a real 12 Q. As we’ve seen, this document is −− borrows very heavily,
13 assignment; do you see that? 13 or has very significant content in common with
14 A. It is . 14 the Bitcoin White Paper. For somebody to understand
15 Q. Now, that looks like a complete assignment, doesn’t it? 15 what’s being said here, they would need to understand
16 A. That’s a completed assignment, yes. 16 the system that’s being talked about.
17 Q. And then the other document that we were looking at 17 A. No, you’re implying that they need to understand Bitcoin
18 earlier , {L1/323/1}, is a very odd document, isn’t it, 18 to understand a competing process. The competing
19 it ’s not a complete assignment? 19 process can stand alone. So, the state tables can be
20 A. There are two questions there. No, it ’s not an odd 20 drawn and a process can be modelled without
21 document, it’s a working document. And it’s not an 21 understanding why you’re having a competing process. So
22 assignment in the same way. 22 that’s actually incorrect .
23 The courses, 22−whatever, is an undergraduate 23 Q. Well, the Judge can form his own view, but what
24 course, taken at a postgraduate level, which Dr Gerlach 24 I suggest to you is that this whole description of
25 ran. 6640 is the postgraduate phase. What you have are 25 honest nodes not accepting a block of rounds based on

162 164

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

1 a chain of message digests and attackers trying to 1 INDEX

2 create a new chain is something that only makes sense if 2
3 you understand the blockchain system which Satoshi 3 Ruling (excised for approval) ........................1
4 developed. 4 Housekeeping .........................................1
5 A. I would suggest that there is data on this going back to 5 MR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (sworn) ......................10
6 the 1970s. I could bring in a textbook demonstrating 6 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER. ..........10
7 this process very easily , as in one from the 70s. 7 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER ...........11
8 Q. The natural explanation, Dr Wright, is not that you 8 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH ...................14
9 happened to produce this very weird document for your 9
10 MStat degree, it is that this is another confected 10
11 document, another forgery to try to support your 11
12 narrative of having produced the Bitcoin system years 12
13 before. 13
14 A. No. 14
15 Q. Now, Professor Gerlach has made a statement in which he 15
16 says that he doesn’t recognise the type of work 16
17 addressed in this document at all, whereas of course 17
18 the other is a realistic assignment. If the court 18
19 accepts that evidence, would you accept that it’s 19
20 consistent with this document, {L1/323}, being false? 20
21 A. No. Professor Gerlach stated that he did 21
22 the undergraduate component. He noted that I was 22
23 a masters student, that I did the undergraduate 23
24 component with him, including all of the normal 24
25 extended, sort of, level of assignments, etc, and exams, 25

165 167

1 and that masters students did other things he wasn’t 168

2 involved with. I ’ ll accept what he said, which is
3 correct .
4 Q. Page 1, please {L1/323/1}. Last question of the day,
5 unless the Judge wants me to carry on. This assessment
6 referred to Richard Gerlach as the lecturer and tutor
7 responsible for this as well , didn’t it ?
8 A. Yes, but he manages all of that and gives it over.
9 Probably Darfiana Nur or one of the others, actually do
10 the marking, but the way that it worked is that he would
11 handle both undergraduate and postgraduate students, and
12 then the postgraduate component would be done
13 separately .
14 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment to
15 break off?
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Certainly.
17 Dr Wright, one of the advantages of being in
18 the witness box is you’re not going to be bothered by
19 lawyers, so have a restful evening and see you back here
20 at 10.30 tomorrow.
21 A. Thank you, my Lord.
22 (4.29 pm)
23 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday,
24 7 February 2024)
25

166

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

86:16,19,22 89:19 93:21 al (12) 120:8 124:8 anyone (3) 54:5 77:25 assessment (1) 166:5 143:21 bit (7) 61:6 68:11 79:8 91:18
A
100:15 101:18 111:1,9 145:19,20,20,20,21 118:17 assignment (14) 154:8 157:4 backdating (6) 102:4 110:24 103:13 142:24 153:11

a29 (1) 95:24 115:24 127:22 130:21,23 148:6,6,7,7,7 anything (14) 9:1 36:1 38:22 159:11 160:13,20 161:6,23 117:15 144:1 153:25 161:7 bitcoin (82) 31:10 56:23

a316 (2) 89:23 96:14 131:13,24 132:13 139:9 alerts (1) 65:13 41:24 51:4 55:7,8 78:11 162:4,13,15,16,19,22 backs (1) 65:10 61:3,8,11 62:7 67:7

a42534 (1) 28:6 140:6,17 141:1 146:25 aligned (4) 18:20 19:16,18 84:15,22 106:6 136:2 165:18 backups (3) 111:24 112:2,23 71:15,23 72:1 77:14 86:15

aat (1) 93:6 148:4 153:18 158:25 23:13 147:25 150:11 assignments (2) 163:5 bad (1) 115:23 87:1,16 88:22 89:13

abandoned (1) 42:23 159:3,20 161:14 163:21 alive (1) 79:6 anyway (1) 128:10 165:25 badly (1) 54:25 95:7,13,14,16,20,21

ability (3) 64:5 84:13 118:10 164:2,22 166:9 alix (1) 112:9 anywhere (1) 36:3 assistants (1) 111:18 bank (11) 28:24 29:1,5 36:13 96:2,4,19 97:5 101:24

able (10) 2:12 5:19 21:2,4 adam (5) 15:23 86:19,20,22 allegation (3) 3:13,16 102:11 apart (2) 25:16 163:4 associate (1) 47:16 37:16,24,25 38:4,8 81:18 102:1 108:19,20 119:11,20

26:25 54:2 62:8 79:3 102:2 101:21 allegations (3) 2:24 3:4 4:22 apparent (1) 59:13 associated (5) 22:7 31:7 82:8 120:24 121:3 124:2 125:18

163:15 added (10) 71:4 75:11 102:6 allow (1) 60:23 apparently (3) 98:16 144:24 41:8 45:13 80:3 banking (1) 33:12 126:3 129:14 133:16,18,20

above (1) 139:6 103:5 108:1 127:20 138:18 allowed (2) 49:3 131:15 161:23 assumes (1) 163:7 banks (2) 38:6,6 134:1,2,15,17 135:2,14

absent (1) 101:6 142:23 144:5,13 allowing (1) 40:20 appear (8) 72:22 120:22 assuming (2) 89:15 127:10 bar (7) 51:22,25 53:5,7 136:25 137:12,17 138:11

abstract (40) 60:21 adding (1) 103:9 allows (1) 138:8 121:5 146:25 150:20 assumption (1) 90:25 85:14,15,19 139:17,19,20 141:5,6,9

61:2,6,24 64:13 70:4,23 addition (1) 143:1 alluded (1) 2:17 155:17 157:2 160:25 asterisk (1) 92:14 barabasi (2) 120:8 124:8 144:21 146:7 147:25

72:20 86:9,11 87:18 88:5,7 additional (1) 75:11 almost (4) 78:12 85:14 appeared (2) 126:8 138:15 asx (2) 66:16,18 base (2) 68:8 73:14 155:18,22 156:6,7

89:11 90:15,18 91:5,19 address (18) 1:16 23:9,10 150:6,7 appearing (1) 104:24 asymmetry (2) 62:23,24 based (7) 49:5 58:17 72:7 157:3,10,14,22

93:25 94:8,10,14,17,18,23 25:20 27:22 36:20 alone (1) 164:19 appears (4) 33:5 93:10 131:6 atm (1) 63:13 75:5 140:23 161:16 164:25 158:6,10,18,20 159:8

95:1,4,7,13,14,15,20,21 51:22,25 85:14,15,19 along (2) 143:7 160:1 154:8 atmosphere (2) 78:4,8 basic (1) 2:5 160:9,11 161:2,5,7 162:3

96:1,2,5,8,16,20 97:5 104:10,11,16,20 132:6,8 alongside (3) 94:4,5 148:25 appendices (2) 4:20 5:8 attached (4) 81:5 110:3 basically (22) 16:13 21:23 164:14,17 165:12

absurdity (1) 131:23 147:22 already (7) 22:23,24 92:18 appendix (17) 4:24 18:11 115:3,20 30:17 31:9 34:5 35:14 54:1 bitcoincom (2) 28:11,12

abused (1) 64:20 addressed (2) 79:16 165:17 106:8 116:6 128:3 139:17 19:11 29:16 49:25 59:12 attaching (2) 103:21 104:6 64:19 65:12 68:18,21 bitcoinorg (14) 26:8

academic (3) 15:17 120:23 addresses (3) 18:12 25:22 also (35) 13:9,10,17 14:21 99:7 111:14 121:10 122:1 attachment (1) 105:18 70:24 75:20 89:16 90:22 27:2,16,22 28:11 29:10

122:24 104:7 18:24 19:4,19 20:9 22:16 126:16 137:21 145:11 attacker (7) 62:24 65:2 116:11 118:5,23 131:19 32:12,19 43:12,17 44:2,10

academics (1) 153:7 addressing (1) 95:11 24:8 26:3 29:24 30:7 66:18 151:15 156:1 157:20 155:8,13 156:9 157:2 141:1 148:15 164:9 45:18 47:20

acceleration (1) 63:8 adduce (1) 1:22 68:15 69:1 72:3 78:7 161:16 163:22 basis (11) 7:1 8:15 16:16 bits (3) 71:21 150:10,13

accept (33) 5:5 15:6,12,15 adjourned (1) 166:23 82:13,23 83:4 97:9 100:17 appliance (3) 63:9 67:4,8 attackers (1) 165:1 102:14,17,20 109:15 bizarre (2) 38:18 131:22

16:19 18:21 19:1,14 29:9 adjournment (1) 79:12 104:16 105:21 121:1 126:8 application (15) 60:18 71:7 attacking (2) 26:23 156:16 111:25 112:24 127:4 black (2) 102:9 149:19

41:15 51:21 52:25 61:6 adjusted (1) 11:4 127:25 128:1 138:1 142:1 73:3,7,15 90:7,18 94:25 attacks (2) 62:21,21 136:15 blacked (1) 5:4

69:2 72:14 88:2 89:11 93:9 admissibility (1) 4:17 151:2 153:7 155:16 163:3 97:2 111:5,7 130:7,8,12 attention (2) 6:7 11:10 bear (1) 15:21 blacknet (52) 57:3 59:2 61:9

94:2 96:10 105:23 admissible (1) 4:9 alter (1) 138:19 132:5 attested (1) 4:5 bearing (3) 22:9 34:24 62:2 63:3,4 68:4,11 69:5

106:14,16 120:24 121:1 admit (1) 55:1 alteration (1) 143:8 applications (13) 35:25 attorneys (2) 35:6 52:16 135:23 71:19 73:21 74:4,5

127:6 129:7 132:25 148:8 admitted (3) 4:7,12 40:4 altered (1) 127:20 90:14,16 audit (1) 131:13 beautiful (1) 66:20 75:4,6,15,16,18

150:22 158:10 165:19 adobe (2) 23:20 25:12 altering (2) 52:3,5 94:11,14,15,21,22,24 auditor (1) 131:14 become (2) 3:11 136:10 76:12,14,20 77:8,14 85:23

166:2 advanced (1) 50:15 alternate (1) 155:9 95:11,12 96:17 111:2 august (5) 80:17 88:6,12 before (39) 2:12 4:12 6:2 86:7,16,17,20 89:11

accepted (4) 63:12 69:25 advantages (1) 166:17 alternative (1) 63:11 applied (2) 32:14 144:24 90:4 145:8 10:13 22:19 38:6 40:13 90:1,1,5,9,13 95:8,16

147:16 162:12 adverse (2) 33:16 38:23 alternatives (1) 63:9 applies (1) 65:13 ausindustry (18) 59:24 45:8 47:17 50:22 58:4 96:1,5,8,20 97:3,13,16

accepting (2) 149:21 164:25 advert (1) 78:5 although (1) 150:24 apply (1) 4:13 68:15,16 71:17,24 68:11 70:22,23 71:8 72:21 98:6 99:4

accepts (1) 165:19 advice (1) 48:10 always (2) 17:3,10 applying (1) 144:20 72:19,23 73:4,5 74:18,19 77:1,6 78:2 85:23 86:22 101:10,19,20,20,23

access (18) 6:9 21:10 37:15 advised (1) 48:11 amanda (7) 30:16,21 31:8 appreciate (2) 150:1 153:8 75:19 90:6,8,14 93:2 94:22 93:23 96:5 99:16 103:4,4

38:8 41:4 47:6 48:16 51:1 affairs (1) 78:23 33:14,20 35:18 37:1 approaching (1) 136:8 99:5 108:19,21 112:7 116:18 blank (2) 70:4,21

53:6,8 54:19 56:1,8,9,11 affect (1) 118:9 amazed (1) 153:17 approval (2) 1:5 167:3 australia (4) 41:7 66:5,22 117:8 118:1 127:5 130:23 blanking (1) 7:12

58:7 84:14 109:2 afraid (1) 102:18 amended (1) 96:8 april (6) 26:13 28:3 42:10 93:6 135:3 137:7 141:2 158:2,7 block (7) 91:2 119:1 145:1,2

accessed (11) 16:7 18:19 after (29) 23:5,7 28:7,15,22 american (4) 35:14,15 38:19 47:4 140:12 147:17 australian (13) 24:9,17 41:3 161:20 165:13 155:20 164:3,25

19:9 41:1 47:16 48:8 54:12 32:15 33:23 34:8 36:13 42:19 area (4) 63:21 68:8 109:12 60:14 64:8 65:25 72:5 86:2 beforehand (1) 151:22 blockchain (8) 86:18,18,21

58:24 60:7 127:14,21 41:1,22 42:24 43:8 49:2 among (2) 58:1 154:4 139:10 91:13 92:3,8 135:12 began (2) 156:8 158:17 101:22 147:25 155:12

accessible (5) 54:12,13,15 50:5,7 51:1 74:4 82:6 amounts (1) 129:24 areas (1) 125:17 139:12 begin (1) 14:25 160:9 165:3

84:2,18 100:10 105:20 108:21 anachronistic (1) 139:4 arent (17) 25:15 40:23 41:2 australias (1) 66:5 beginning (2) 17:18 149:13 blocks (1) 86:22

accessing (9) 48:19 50:10 117:2,3 132:1 135:2 analogy (1) 46:22 50:17,19,21 64:15 65:20 authentic (16) 17:4,11,20,23 begins (3) 87:7 145:13 155:6 blog (1) 33:2

51:14 52:2,12 53:11 82:14 139:25 146:1 152:15 analyse (2) 26:21 131:25 67:6 82:4 135:4 142:16 18:5,6,7 23:12 69:25 71:2 behalf (2) 107:23 154:8 blogs (1) 26:14

127:15 130:7 afterwards (3) 21:24 71:6 analysed (4) 19:4 64:3 149:1,7 150:4 151:17 72:16,17 99:2 101:19 being (39) 3:6 17:13 18:20 body (2) 2:22 105:9

accident (1) 138:5 91:16 117:11 121:18 157:3 108:23 109:6 19:1 23:23 26:25 34:18,23 bold (1) 92:15

accidental (2) 136:22 140:1 again (43) 10:13 18:21 analysing (2) 65:12 138:12 argue (3) 27:13 52:2 118:23 authentically (1) 21:1 38:2,25 39:1 54:2 56:12 bond (1) 106:13

accidentally (1) 34:12 19:1,14 24:13 25:17 32:3 analysis (6) 64:18 106:1 arguing (2) 23:16 51:8 authenticity (1) 14:22 62:11,24 66:10 73:24 book (1) 6:8

accommodate (1) 7:20 36:16 38:4 49:9 67:7,21 115:23 129:19 142:1 argument (5) 23:23 52:5 author (3) 97:10,11 105:5 78:19 80:15 81:7,9 borrows (1) 164:12

accommodation (1) 9:5 76:16,20 77:7,8,12 83:17 147:22 60:10 150:2 152:24 authorities (1) 139:13 97:21,23 102:1 112:7 both (10) 26:7 35:1 54:17

accord (1) 49:6 85:7,12 87:18 89:15 96:23 anarchists (2) 54:6,7 arising (1) 1:23 authors (1) 149:23 113:19 115:23 116:14 71:3 72:17 88:4 127:10

account (44) 22:8 23:11 98:16 102:3 107:18 114:17 andy (1) 141:2 arose (1) 78:17 automatically (1) 131:16 127:21 128:21 136:8 161:18,19 166:11

28:12 29:11 32:16,18 127:8 129:10,13 130:20 annoyed (1) 56:14 around (8) 15:14 58:13 72:2 available (7) 19:4 21:9 24:5 140:15 143:20 144:24 bother (1) 11:17

33:13 34:7,22 37:17 38:8 132:24,25 140:2 anomalies (3) 104:8 137:7,20 80:10 85:6 115:6 116:4 45:20 58:23 82:20 122:24 150:12 164:15,16 165:20 bothered (1) 166:18

42:8 43:19,20 45:13,23 142:4,7,17 144:17 145:8 anomaly (2) 109:4 137:6 131:11 avoidance (1) 47:20 166:17 bottom (32) 6:9 16:5,5,7

46:8,22,24 47:1,9 148:24 152:22 159:19 anonymous (22) 26:4,9 arrows (1) 164:10 avoiding (2) 62:12 155:13 believe (4) 35:23 62:5 95:7 19:21 28:21 29:17 43:25

48:16,20,21 50:11 161:15 27:6,23 30:23 31:9,14,17 artefacts (1) 113:18 avoids (1) 85:13 122:7 47:13 53:16,19 55:15,22

53:10,11,18 54:1 55:4,9 against (12) 3:13,21 22:25 32:2,5,6,13 33:7 37:21 article (19) 15:9,10,16 aware (18) 7:2 40:23 41:2 believed (3) 61:13 66:22 57:18 69:21 73:22 74:5

56:7,10,10 81:3,21,23 23:14 80:11 93:5,6 95:5 42:4 50:3,22 55:4,6 61:13 16:10,13 17:20 50:8,9,17,21 57:10 77:20 113:10 81:14,24 88:7 111:13

83:16 84:8,9 113:15 122:12 128:4,6 149:11 65:15 133:21 26:11,12,12 33:10 140:9 110:21,23 122:1 135:4,5 belonged (1) 157:1 124:16,23 133:24 142:2

114:8,11 115:3 age (1) 17:18 anonymousspeech (2) 27:16 147:15,22 148:16,21 151:19 160:20 161:8,9 below (2) 80:25 92:11 143:17 148:23 154:21

accounts (5) 45:21 54:9 agency (1) 60:1 31:24 149:17 152:14 153:1,25 away (1) 89:17 best (3) 5:17,25 6:1 156:3,19 159:12 162:5

55:19 56:2,3 agents (1) 120:14 anonymousspeechcom (2) articles (1) 23:7 betrayed (1) 54:25 bought (4) 25:25 28:10
B
accurate (1) 118:10 ages (2) 53:25 54:12 26:17 49:15 asd (1) 10:15 better (2) 92:6 152:21 29:10 54:8

across (3) 66:21 67:19,24 ago (3) 107:11 108:2 123:10 another (27) 25:19 28:22 aside (1) 136:21 b (11) 4:20,24 5:8,9 46:23 between (24) 8:18 10:14 bound (1) 13:5

acting (3) 29:21 30:6,9 agree (11) 4:2 7:9 18:6,7 48:12 52:1 60:24 63:10 ask (12) 1:11 2:18 10:2 59:12 67:3,3 137:21 52:19 56:8 82:25 88:3 box (3) 2:13 84:1 166:18

action (1) 3:22 20:17 21:2,11 41:12 51:12 75:22 78:15 79:3 98:5,7 11:11 82:13 85:12,24 98:2 157:20 161:16 89:13 96:3 111:24 112:23 boxes (1) 160:23

active (1) 42:14 58:18 109:18 100:16 103:22 106:11 107:7 108:8 118:14 151:12 back (41) 19:11 31:13 120:23 123:20 133:14 breach (2) 22:4,6

actively (1) 82:5 agreed (11) 2:25 3:23 110:24 118:25 119:3 asked (17) 17:18 18:2 31:22 35:12,19 42:21 49:13 54:3 137:22,24 152:20 breaches (1) 26:20

activities (4) 63:14 65:5 9:5,10,11 10:16 13:5 50:17 125:20 131:22 132:21 47:21 52:16 53:17 55:3 60:13 61:9 65:10 156:5,9,13,15 157:8 158:6 breaching (1) 26:21

73:19 77:10 58:16 122:2,18 138:1 143:20 144:16 153:4 56:19 71:14 79:18 71:16,19,21,24 79:15 81:2 159:7 164:11 break (23) 8:10 10:17 28:15

actual (4) 32:8 68:20 159:8 agreeing (1) 9:14 154:3 165:10,11 82:17,23 106:21 116:12 85:3 86:19,20 89:22 91:7,9 beyond (2) 56:20 123:16 35:16 43:7 44:19,21

160:13 agreement (4) 3:5 4:15 5:1 answer (14) 18:9 25:7,9 117:4 118:8 162:8 101:21 110:21 111:21 biased (1) 116:2 45:2,6,8 77:22,25

actually (64) 9:16 12:8 8:18 32:10 33:15 34:13 39:13 asking (9) 2:10 3:9,12 39:13 112:22 115:13 117:25 bids (1) 66:11 117:18,22 118:1

22:4,6,23 28:10 30:14 31:2 agrees (1) 109:17 53:24 54:4 55:2 64:11 68:18 85:23 87:6 128:24 124:14,22 132:16 133:10 big (1) 66:5 153:9,12,14 157:8,9,10

32:25 38:12 39:4,24 41:3,4 ah (2) 69:6 81:19 83:23 107:17 140:4 153:4 141:16,23 144:3 146:10 biggest (1) 62:21 159:6 166:15

50:13 53:3,8 56:20 63:20 ahead (2) 12:18 136:25 answered (2) 17:24 18:3 asks (1) 55:17 158:4 160:3 162:9 165:5 binary (1) 63:22 breasts (1) 97:21

64:16 65:9,17 66:11,15,20 aim (1) 10:16 answering (1) 17:22 aspects (4) 50:15 77:17 166:19 binomial (1) 164:5 bring (3) 28:15 55:14 165:6

67:9 68:21 72:2 73:16 air (2) 78:8 157:1 antispam (2) 65:10,11 86:14 135:14 backdated (7) 100:11,14 bird (1) 1:18 brisbane (1) 66:7

75:4,14 77:3 83:16 aisgtype (1) 67:9 anybody (3) 44:23 152:6,10 assert (1) 59:13 105:24 109:16,17 129:2 birds (1) 1:18 broadcast (1) 66:4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

broker (1) 66:2 change (12) 23:18,21,22 communicate (6) 8:23 34:6 consider (7) 1:7 14:21 34:14 couldnt (12) 37:15 40:25 datas (1) 25:5 determine (1) 147:1
brokerage (1) 26:4 25:13 29:4 53:6 64:1,3 37:23,25 38:4 54:5 128:14,15 155:8 158:19 46:2,12,18 48:10 54:18,19 date (40) 15:8 16:20 18:19 develop (1) 63:6
brokers (2) 66:1,10 89:21 140:1,2 156:15 communicated (1) 42:18 consideration (3) 60:23 68:9 83:2 84:14 116:18 19:8,16 21:10 22:9,12 developed (2) 144:20 165:4
bronze (1) 17:18 changed (9) 54:18 67:16 communication (2) 39:12 62:11,18 counsel (4) 29:21 30:2 42:18 23:11 48:23 49:5,22 55:14 developer (1) 53:5
brought (1) 42:19 72:9 84:10 89:20 109:5 122:21 considerations (1) 6:14 107:18 58:16 71:19 76:14,15 99:2 developers (1) 128:2
btc (3) 13:10,12 36:23 122:22 135:1 150:12 communications (4) 32:22 considered (2) 19:19 39:22 couple (4) 14:16 79:15 82:13 100:24 105:20 113:7 developing (5) 73:14 76:24
budget (3) 67:23 68:5 71:4 changes (5) 89:12 115:21 34:3,10 47:18 considers (1) 156:1 150:9 114:10 117:13 126:25 92:23 145:14,18
building (3) 66:15 68:7 78:14 138:23 139:16,16 companies (9) 29:25 35:15 consistent (5) 103:10 113:18 course (17) 5:4 25:18 67:2 127:5 129:21,21 139:19 development (1) 71:18
builds (1) 114:4 charge (1) 78:13 45:22 61:18 67:9 75:24 116:16 158:22 165:20 78:1 85:15 128:19 150:20 140:11,13 143:23 device (3) 67:10 77:13 113:4
bunch (1) 54:6 cheap (2) 23:16 64:23 112:4 136:5 140:5 consisting (1) 30:11 152:24 154:9,24 158:14 154:18,18 158:14 devoted (1) 148:5
burned (1) 117:7 check (4) 36:15 37:6 38:17 company (13) 26:4 32:20 constructed (3) 119:22 161:20,24 162:4,24 163:2 159:12,15,15,20 161:20,24 dictation (1) 57:24
business (2) 63:19 110:6 131:25 40:1 42:6,9,13 46:11 123:10 125:13 165:17 dated (15) 20:20 21:20 didnt (73) 20:6 30:1
businesstobusiness (1) 67:8 checked (3) 24:14 34:25 47:7,8 54:8 64:9 66:1 construction (1) 138:7 courses (1) 162:23 55:13,15 58:11 60:3 69:1 33:24,25,25 34:1,9 36:14
buying (2) 31:10 42:6 38:11 75:23 contagious (1) 146:12 courts (1) 7:20 74:15 76:6 81:25 98:8 37:13,15 39:8,11,15,18
checks (2) 29:6 64:5 compare (8) 20:3,17 53:10 contain (11) 2:24 4:21 90:15 covers (1) 128:23 100:18 103:20 104:5 40:16 41:19,23 42:3,12,17
C chemotherapy (1) 97:21 70:10 95:5 100:16 142:10 94:14,17,23 96:16,19,21 cpu (4) 87:13,23 88:18 89:7 130:15 46:6 48:18 50:16 53:22
china (4) 147:21 149:4 149:11 116:18 160:8 craft (2) 145:20 148:7 dates (12) 76:13 92:25 54:22 56:7,8,15,15,21 71:7

c (1) 5:8 152:1,3 compared (2) 94:3 138:22 contained (14) 39:20 55:18 craig (7) 10:10 57:6 69:9 108:11 116:7 126:14,17,20 72:11 75:13 76:15 77:17

calculations (1) 159:2 chinese (2) 152:4 153:6 compares (3) 19:13,23 115:1 56:3 94:11 95:12 96:6 97:4 86:1 98:8 101:25 167:5 131:2 134:7 139:25 145:7 83:5 84:15,21,21 85:7

calibri (1) 99:24 choose (1) 128:13 comparing (2) 20:9,11 115:8 126:25 143:3 150:25 crazy (1) 27:5 154:13 91:16,21,21 92:13

call (2) 59:1 106:17 chose (1) 142:18 comparison (3) 156:5,13 151:16,22 158:8 create (7) 66:8 74:9 76:25 dating (7) 15:10 16:11 58:21 96:16,19,21,21,21,22,22

called (11) 9:19 28:3 59:2 chosen (2) 16:18 142:15 158:5 containing (3) 90:2,18 102:5 136:17,24 140:6 165:2 98:24 99:19 116:19 143:4 98:2,4 99:15,24 102:18

71:19 75:8,24 108:16 christmas (1) 78:17 compendious (1) 10:2 contains (3) 61:2 89:12 created (26) 58:17 dave (3) 57:8,24 98:8 106:6,24 107:2,7 114:3,6

112:16 119:1 128:21 129:6 chunks (2) 125:8,15 compendiously (2) 10:5 126:5 59:4,6,11,15 67:17 100:10 day (3) 64:25 65:1 166:4 115:15 118:19 122:6

came (6) 25:7 34:11 47:10 circles (1) 164:9 13:17 content (14) 4:20,22 5:2,18 108:11 109:7 110:20 days (4) 14:16 23:8 129:24 128:13,13 132:15 136:2

62:6 142:19 151:20 circulation (1) 139:20 competing (9) 155:3 8:13 13:17 115:7 155:6 113:19,23 114:1 115:14,18 130:6 141:13 149:24,24 166:7

cancelled (5) 31:2 79:25 circumstances (1) 4:14 163:13,14,18,24,25 156:21 157:7 160:17,19 121:18,21 123:25,25 ddos (1) 62:20 died (2) 33:23 34:8

80:7 81:7 82:10 cite (1) 152:23 164:18,18,21 163:6 164:13 131:1,6 143:24 145:7,21 dds (1) 63:12 difference (6) 70:17 90:1

cancer (1) 97:18 cited (7) 44:9 152:15 complain (1) 7:5 contents (5) 11:13 13:6 14:3 146:15 153:24 deal (1) 7:16 139:14 148:17 150:8

cannot (2) 20:16 47:8 153:3,4,5,5,6 complete (11) 63:8 72:3 92:25 155:2 creating (2) 45:18 114:6 dealing (1) 35:14 159:20

cant (15) 21:5 29:4 cites (1) 154:16 118:18 161:23 context (4) 33:10,20 108:16 creation (12) 71:14 91:24 dealt (2) 35:11 149:3 differences (5) 50:6 95:11

35:17,19,24 38:17 50:25 citing (2) 44:5 97:9 162:4,6,15,19 163:2,5,10 129:14 100:22 104:25 105:24 deaths (1) 133:14 96:3,6 158:6

51:6 52:22 63:25 64:4 citrix (7) 127:18 130:7,8 completed (5) 72:20 74:4 continue (1) 68:22 126:13,17 129:21 135:3 debit (8) 30:15,19,20 31:2 different (51) 12:13,15

70:10 111:11 140:4,18 131:25 132:4,14 136:13 159:21 160:13 162:16 continued (1) 49:1 141:8 154:12 159:15 79:24 80:5,7,11 19:1,20 20:4,10 43:20 46:5

capabilities (1) 67:5 claimants (1) 7:7 completely (9) 21:13 90:21 contrast (1) 19:16 credit (39) 27:4,6,17,23 decade (2) 92:20 93:14 51:11,13 60:11,12 64:15

capable (1) 1:18 claimed (6) 26:7 27:7 42:10 91:1 92:16 135:8,15 control (15) 64:6 28:9,25 29:11 december (8) 15:11 22:20 67:19 68:16 77:20 82:24

capture (5) 51:9 52:4,6,17 108:18 111:16 155:21 137:9,16,16 69:6,8,14,17,18,22 74:22 30:11,14,14,21,25 48:25 108:12 114:15 91:23 92:16,24,25 93:1

131:15 class (1) 123:8 completeness (1) 153:23 76:5 87:23 88:18 100:23 31:1,5,7,10,20,21,24,25 127:15 133:5,8 95:9 96:4 101:4 108:9

captured (6) 19:7,25 21:8 classic (2) 142:14 160:5 completion (3) 65:6 68:3 141:7 145:19 148:5 32:1,3,7,8,12 33:5 41:7,11 decided (3) 4:8,17 110:10 110:14 113:17 114:4,18

22:9 36:2 59:21 clear (13) 1:16 4:4 17:14 77:11 controlled (2) 87:13 89:7 42:10 45:21 79:24 defamation (2) 3:18,21 116:5 132:16 135:8,24

captures (1) 51:3 32:10 92:11,22 97:1 complex (3) 120:10 123:8 controls (1) 139:8 80:4,6,23 81:4,6 82:2,5 defamatory (1) 7:5 136:12 137:14

card (52) 27:5,6,17,23 100:13 117:7 148:8 153:22 146:15 convenient (4) 44:19 117:17 125:7 default (1) 151:17 139:8,9,10,10,11,14

28:9,25 29:11 155:11 162:10 component (5) 120:3 123:17 153:10 166:14 creditdebit (1) 32:20 defined (1) 164:8 140:3,5,24 142:15 150:9

30:12,14,14,19,20,21,25 clearly (5) 42:16 49:20 80:6 165:22,24 166:12 conveniently (1) 47:5 credits (9) 61:11,11 71:20,24 defining (2) 129:6 164:6 155:19 159:4 161:11,18

31:1,2,6,7,10,20,21,24,25 95:9 132:10 compound (1) 121:13 conversion (3) 142:6,14,22 73:12 75:3,5,8 101:22 definitely (2) 69:19 88:20 differs (1) 119:20

32:1,3,7,8,12,20 33:5 clever (1) 63:5 compromise (1) 67:13 convert (1) 59:18 criminals (2) 26:23,24 definition (1) 74:12 difficult (3) 7:7 25:6 56:13

41:11 42:10 45:13 46:6,16 click (1) 64:22 computer (4) 132:11 135:17 converted (2) 59:8 110:20 critical (2) 120:1 123:16 definitions (1) 146:23 difficulties (1) 113:15

79:24,24 clicks (1) 64:25 164:4,8 convinced (1) 38:16 crossexamination (4) 5:6 degree (3) 128:15 155:23 difficulty (2) 9:14 10:7

80:1,2,3,4,6,7,10,11,15,20 client (2) 4:2 8:12 computers (1) 39:24 cool (1) 153:11 14:7 102:13 167:8 165:10 diffusion (3) 145:1,2 147:23

81:4,6,20 82:2,5 clients (2) 7:21 26:23 concept (6) 61:10 75:6 cooler (1) 78:15 crypto (9) 61:10,11 71:20,24 degrees (2) 93:18 148:12 digests (1) 165:1

cards (2) 45:21 46:6 clock (2) 132:11,17 101:22,23,23 163:18 cooperation (1) 72:8 73:12 75:3,5,8 101:22 delete (1) 67:17 digicash (1) 98:18

care (1) 38:7 close (3) 28:17,20 150:5 concepts (2) 61:7 155:12 copa (3) 14:17,22 22:16 cryptocurrency (3) 134:15 deleted (1) 25:5 digit (1) 23:6

careful (1) 85:19 closed (8) 34:16,21,25 37:17 concern (5) 5:10 6:24 copied (3) 58:2,11 96:1 141:6 142:24 demonstrate (2) 16:11 42:11 digital (17) 72:7 73:12 75:2

carefully (3) 39:22 85:13 47:7,8 50:25 51:2 7:20,21,21 copies (5) 26:18 56:2 112:21 cryptographic (2) 28:8,23 demonstrated (8) 86:16 86:24 87:1,8,19 88:13,25

142:15 closing (1) 152:24 concerned (1) 133:15 117:1 152:13 cryptography (1) 141:7 92:18,19 116:6 120:1 98:13,17 101:15 102:5

carry (4) 4:18 8:15 103:23 code (5) 72:8 76:24 92:6 concerning (3) 14:25 70:17 copy (14) 8:22 9:2 16:25 csw (3) 98:21 115:3 154:21 127:22,24,24 104:3 116:24 134:15 141:6

166:5 116:7 138:11 71:23 36:10 55:18 58:7,11 csw11 (1) 85:2 demonstrating (1) 165:6 digits (3) 30:11 81:21,21

carrying (1) 47:12 cohen (2) 47:15,23 concerns (1) 2:16 59:21,22 60:3 88:22 125:8 csw121 (1) 49:10 demorgan (7) 56:25 58:3,11 direct (3) 6:11 36:6 47:11

cases (1) 127:10 coincidence (3) 115:22 concession (1) 73:3 140:20 150:14 csw1244 (1) 12:12 86:7 112:4,6,13 direction (3) 2:18,20 6:15

cash (4) 15:24 88:10 98:13 136:23 137:2 conclude (1) 144:11 copying (1) 125:11 csw13 (1) 83:8 deny (1) 82:4 directly (7) 22:1 41:8 46:8

104:3 collaborating (1) 151:2 concluded (4) 110:18 copyright (5) 22:5 26:20 csw134 (2) 43:5,10 departments (1) 74:19 60:23 61:3,7 128:24

categorically (2) 27:14 111:9 colleague (1) 29:24 121:17,21 127:4 49:15 50:3,23 csw259 (1) 59:9 depending (2) 116:9,10 disabled (1) 54:9

category (1) 4:8 collect (1) 53:18 concludes (3) 109:16 150:17 core (6) 13:10,12 36:23 csw76 (2) 12:15,20 depends (1) 34:14 disagree (11) 21:2,3,12,13

cd (16) 111:24 collection (2) 113:4,7 161:4 132:24 144:17 154:6 currency (8) 73:12 75:2 deploying (2) 66:17 76:22 58:18,20 60:12 127:8

112:2,16,19,20,23 collective (1) 120:19 conclusion (10) 21:7,12 corner (1) 3:17 98:17 101:15 102:5 103:4 deposition (4) 53:14 97:15 132:17 142:17 157:19

113:1,2,5,12 116:18,24 collision (1) 138:13 58:19 115:13 121:24 135:1 corporate (1) 35:15 134:16 141:7 118:3,5 disagreed (1) 66:24

117:2,9,10,10 column (4) 122:12 123:6,7 157:13,17 161:10,13 correct (23) 22:2 23:15,17 current (1) 27:18 derived (1) 27:17 disclosed (9) 16:23 39:7,14

cdr (1) 113:4 142:20 condition (1) 98:4 37:11 41:3 43:21 49:2 cursor (1) 85:4 derives (1) 119:10 42:20 80:14 81:13 152:6

cdrs (1) 113:2 combination (1) 127:17 conditions (2) 118:9 153:20 56:16 75:4 82:22 90:20 curve (2) 25:14,15 describe (1) 73:19 154:7 157:25

cds (4) 112:6,11,18 113:1 come (6) 5:1 30:18 41:23 conducts (2) 102:13 142:1 91:11 94:12 106:23 custody (17) 2:6,11 6:4 described (6) 68:12,19 70:8 disclosure (6) 2:7 39:19

cent (4) 64:24,25 65:1 93:19 47:2 61:14 79:15 confected (1) 165:10 108:17,22 112:12 127:17 57:19 59:20 111:15 113:20 73:24 75:1 82:2 75:23 100:17 103:15

central (1) 61:25 comes (2) 36:17 109:20 confidence (2) 57:1 59:13 135:6,7 138:16 157:24 116:16,21,22,24 117:6,9 describes (2) 63:2,18 143:12

centrebet (1) 77:3 coming (2) 9:17 81:2 confirm (4) 11:11 13:16 48:2 166:3 119:5 125:23 132:25 145:3 describing (3) 58:4 77:15 discontinued (1) 47:17

certain (5) 56:9 109:20,21 comment (1) 18:13 127:13 corrected (2) 20:24 141:19 cut (5) 91:4,25 103:14 140:9 discovered (1) 104:23

111:24 112:23 commentator (1) 3:21 confirmation (1) 47:23 correctly (3) 25:15 137:25 115:24 135:17 description (5) 73:11 discredit (3) 22:16 23:1,3

certification (1) 128:19 commented (1) 138:11 confirmed (2) 36:21 48:9 142:22 cutting (1) 136:9 76:17,17 98:17 164:24 discredited (1) 42:24

certified (1) 132:15 comments (3) 58:6 113:9 confusing (2) 51:7 83:18 correspondence (3) 3:2 cyber (2) 26:23,24 design (2) 20:3 121:3 discrediting (2) 22:18 23:6

chain (29) 2:6,10 6:4 57:19 132:6 connect (1) 119:23 9:10,12 designed (2) 87:1,3 discretion (1) 6:22
D
59:20 111:14 113:20 commercial (1) 57:1 connected (4) 31:15 41:4,8 corresponds (1) 157:9 designs (1) 19:19 discuss (3) 1:4 21:5 34:10

116:16,21,22,24 117:6,9 commercialise (1) 68:23 123:17 corrupted (2) 136:11 142:10 dan (1) 138:11 desktop (1) 73:24 discussing (2) 126:2 129:13

119:5 125:23 132:25 145:3 commercially (2) 98:21 connecting (1) 123:11 corruption (6) 104:17 136:22 darfiana (1) 166:9 despite (1) 41:11 discussion (3) 28:7,22 146:6

155:9,10,13 156:9,10,16 101:8 connection (2) 133:12,14 137:22,24 138:4,5 data (10) 52:4 63:23 detail (5) 46:20 58:1 108:14 diseases (2) 145:22 146:12

163:8,12,18,20 165:1,2 commitment (1) 22:20 connectivity (1) 63:12 corruptions (1) 138:2 99:12,13 121:11 131:6,13 111:22 144:13 disk (5) 64:1 116:18,23

chains (4) 86:23 163:19,21 common (3) 155:12 160:11 consensus (5) 15:7 cost (3) 62:19,20,23 134:10 141:11 165:5 details (4) 61:2 64:11 76:8 117:3,8

164:2 164:13 120:13,16 123:1 125:16 costed (1) 64:19 database (5) 15:17 81:23 diskbased (1) 117:12

challenges (1) 14:22 commonwealth (1) 81:18 consequence (1) 4:14 costs (3) 62:25,25 77:16 20:12,13,25 65:14 detection (1) 63:7 display (1) 138:19

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

displayed (1) 50:12 125:12,20 126:24 129:8,9 dr (57) 2:11,25 3:13,16 8:22 elements (5) 63:15 101:15 erdos (2) 119:21 123:9 136:16 filing (13) 73:5,5 75:17,19
dispute (1) 8:20 130:11,16 131:8,17 132:22 9:17 10:8,12,13 11:9,23 102:6 103:4,5 error (3) 25:14 111:8 142:14 expired (1) 84:12 86:3 91:11,14,15 92:9
disputed (4) 1:13,14,23,24 135:16,20,22 136:11,12 13:3,19 14:8 44:21 45:3,8 elmo (1) 85:9 errors (1) 25:16 explain (4) 3:3 83:22 114:9 93:4,5,7,19
disputes (1) 93:7 137:8,22,24 55:24 58:16 65:10 77:24 else (6) 36:1 59:7 60:10 established (4) 24:5 40:24 135:24 filings (3) 71:17,18,25
distinct (1) 88:2 138:8,14,17,23,24 139:2 79:15 85:20 90:5,12 92:22 93:16 150:11 153:19 137:12 146:13 explained (4) 32:23,23 33:2 filled (1) 70:22
distinction (4) 54:22 55:5 140:3,4 141:1 143:11 94:20 95:18 98:23 elses (2) 91:25 153:5 establishing (1) 75:1 89:25 filmed (1) 49:7
56:8 61:12 144:17 148:25 154:5 158:3 103:8,15 107:14 109:17 email (58) 25:1,20,21,25 estates (1) 58:3 explaining (1) 84:13 filming (1) 83:4
distributed (3) 64:4 66:20 docx (10) 99:15 113:17,19 117:25 122:2,16,18 125:3 26:8 28:12 estimated (1) 139:19 explains (3) 50:2 114:8 filters (1) 64:7
67:19 114:1 115:2,15,19 116:6 127:8 29:10,11,18,19,19 et (12) 120:8 124:8 133:12 final (11) 68:12,14,19,20
distributor (1) 65:16 131:1,8 128:5,9,11,13,13,14,15,21 30:10,22 31:12 32:12 145:19,20,20,20,21 explanation (5) 135:11 73:20,25 75:15 77:7 89:18
divided (1) 76:10 does (17) 20:3 49:6 65:8,9 132:6,21 135:21 137:2 33:4,6,9 37:10 39:8 42:15 148:6,6,7,7,7 137:20 152:12 159:5 165:8 100:24 119:13
doc (5) 59:7 115:25 130:16 66:13 95:8 112:10,18 140:1 150:14 153:21 43:18 48:22 54:19 55:19 etc (11) 23:4 53:7 61:19,21 explicitly (1) 150:24 finality (1) 71:10
131:5 134:11 116:21 127:23 130:1 162:24 165:8 166:17 56:1,11 62:16 79:18 80:21 76:20 87:25 139:8 145:23 exstaff (2) 38:22 39:25 finally (2) 13:1 100:6
doctor (1) 86:1 136:14,17 143:9 144:11 drafted (6) 111:17 119:6 82:21 83:13,16,19,19 146:24 164:3 165:25 extend (2) 74:3 119:16 find (11) 22:3 26:25 55:14
doctorates (1) 93:19 151:9 160:9 125:24 129:10 133:1 145:4 84:2,5,7,10,14,17,23,25 euro (1) 46:23 extended (1) 165:25 65:19 78:3 91:1 102:2
document (297) 3:8 4:16 doesnt (37) 4:13 25:16 drafting (2) 158:17,19 86:23 103:19,20 europe (1) 66:6 external (3) 51:7 105:10 121:22 124:6 126:23 137:6
14:9,13,25 15:15 16:23,25 31:14 32:7,9 38:8 46:24 drafts (1) 88:5 104:5,9,10,11,20 even (12) 27:6 33:16 34:25 154:12 finding (16) 25:6 109:4
17:4,5,11 18:4,12,15,16 58:16 61:4 63:19,20 64:20 draw (4) 6:7 11:9 54:22 56:8 105:5,9,19,20,23,24 106:3 38:22 68:9 76:24 91:1 extra (2) 138:14,16 110:22,23 115:10,16
19:5,6,17,24,24 20:5,24 69:15 71:2 74:1 81:6 85:10 drawer (2) 17:5,6 emailed (1) 37:6 110:6,8 132:1,3 137:9 extraordinarily (1) 115:23 121:14 122:19 130:18
21:4,7,9,9,11,13,16,19,20,22,25 94:17 101:16 110:12 drawing (3) 55:5 133:12,13 emails (13) 25:4 32:22 34:4 evening (1) 166:19 extraordinary (2) 115:22 135:4 143:1,14 151:19
22:5,7,8,10,20 117:15 124:25 129:13,25 drawn (2) 164:10,20 49:3 54:14,20 55:18 event (1) 119:10 136:23 160:21 161:8,9
23:11,12,13,14,20 136:16 139:1 140:16 143:8 drop (1) 78:20 56:3,12 83:15 84:12,20 events (1) 139:18 extremely (1) 78:4 findings (10) 18:13 50:8
24:2,4,16 25:2,9,11,19 147:25 151:9 160:6,8 due (3) 25:18 152:24 159:20 85:1 eventually (1) 112:20 114:2 116:17 130:14 134:9
F
37:10 38:10 39:8 44:5,9,16 162:15 163:7,9,21 165:16 duetime (1) 154:18 embed (3) 63:23 111:5 ever (11) 14:8,12 17:11 31:7 135:22 143:5,7 161:11
56:24 doing (24) 10:1 16:15 31:8 dumped (1) 34:23 138:14 42:22 91:18 97:25 109:4 f (1) 28:7 finds (13) 20:5
57:10,23 58:16,21,22,23,24 32:25 41:6 56:13,19 61:17 during (2) 85:15 90:9 embedded (14) 109:22 114:23 152:6 157:25 f1551 (1) 49:9 99:12,13,18,23 100:2,6
59:4,11,14,15,17,17,18,18,19,21,2464:22 82:15 85:9,11 dying (1) 33:25 110:8,9,19 111:4,7 126:24 every (8) 10:17 64:3,24 65:1 fabricate (2) 135:15,20 101:11 113:14 115:19
60:1,6,8,11,12,13,17 93:18,18 103:10 121:8 dynamic (1) 146:14 127:16 134:11 138:18 66:2 93:19 106:5 124:12 fabricated (1) 38:7 130:25 142:5 156:20
68:24,25,25 124:25 129:16 130:23 dynamics (1) 120:19 156:20 157:17 160:17 everyday (1) 163:4 face (6) 6:25 31:12 42:16 fine (2) 66:25 136:18
69:3,4,5,7,13,15,23,25 131:24 148:12 151:6 dysregulating (1) 10:19 161:1 everyone (2) 48:5 122:21 121:5 154:15 160:19 finish (4) 71:11 75:21 76:14
70:4,21,25 71:2 152:18 159:1 embedding (2) 121:13 138:9 everything (6) 25:13 38:20 facebook (1) 35:25 149:24
72:15,16,18,18,19,22 dollar (1) 46:23 E emphasis (1) 92:13 60:9 71:10 90:22 125:7 facility (1) 80:4 finished (3) 44:23 70:24
73:16 74:15 75:13,23 domain (17) 26:1,8,9 emphasise (2) 47:21 95:21 evidence (31) 4:13 8:24 9:17 failed (2) 23:19,24 149:8
93:10,23,25 95:10,12 27:2,16,22 28:11 29:10 e11 (1) 13:16 emphasised (1) 92:16 24:15,19,23,25 26:12 failure (1) 133:15 fired (1) 48:4
98:5,7,23 99:7 31:11 32:18,19 42:3 43:22 e1132 (1) 13:18 enabled (1) 26:21 27:13 42:6 44:23,24 46:14 failures (1) 144:25 firewall (3) 66:19 67:10
100:4,10,13,16 45:9,19 47:20 54:16 e12 (1) 13:16 encoded (4) 99:8,9 100:2 50:21,23 52:23 54:23 fairness (1) 102:25 77:13
101:11,14,25 102:3,8,11 domains (1) 42:11 e123 (1) 13:20 109:15 71:12 77:25 79:23 82:18 fake (3) 53:2,3 65:2 firewalling (2) 63:7 67:5
103:21,22 106:4,11,20 done (28) 7:17 12:19,21 e13 (1) 13:16 encrypted (7) 61:10 67:19 118:4,6,18 121:6 128:1,22 faked (1) 39:21 firewalls (5) 64:16,17 65:22
107:5 108:11,22 20:21 21:5 22:14 23:7 24:3 e14 (1) 13:24 74:6,11 75:2,4,7 132:9 152:24 158:22 fakes (6) 40:3,4,14 76:18,22
109:6,14,17,24 39:1 42:5 48:9 51:5 57:18 e142 (1) 36:20 end (12) 10:3 49:17 54:1 165:19 41:16,18,22 firm (4) 33:19 35:13,14
110:3,8,10,19,24 64:4 65:23 77:1 78:11 91:2 e143 (1) 13:25 65:18 74:11,11 83:24 evidenceinchief (1) 4:7 false (10) 23:4 25:17 35:2,3 97:12
111:16,16 113:10,13,19 111:11 116:1 125:4 127:22 e144 (1) 11:20 125:9,10 137:18 138:2 evil (1) 28:24 38:3,5,25 39:9,15 165:20 first (51) 1:3,11 2:15,18 5:18
114:6,12 115:1,2,5,14,20 128:17,18 132:2 136:9 e2010 (1) 12:5 146:4 exact (2) 24:11 158:14 falsely (1) 23:6 9:21 15:3 18:11 29:17
116:10 117:7,14 118:25 149:9 166:12 e214 (1) 12:6 endeavours (1) 6:2 exactly (13) 6:13 8:19 35:24 falsified (2) 14:8,12 31:13 33:1,23 34:2,7 38:12
119:1,6,9 120:22 dong (3) 145:21 146:2 e218 (1) 12:2 ended (3) 49:1 85:8 90:23 46:15 47:9 53:1 62:7 95:21 falsity (1) 33:14 40:4,10,12,23 41:21,21
121:5,11,18 122:2,10 148:16 e228 (1) 12:7 ending (1) 77:11 109:3 126:5 127:22 138:15 familiar (1) 76:17 52:3 55:21 56:23 67:16
123:2,22,23,25 dont (93) 4:21 7:15 8:19 e232425 (1) 12:9 endorsed (2) 107:10 108:1 150:5 family (2) 93:20 151:17 68:6,7 71:18 72:14,23
124:5,6,10,12,14 10:20 15:8 17:8 18:1,4,6,9 e2629 (1) 12:10 ends (2) 101:10 125:11 examinationinchief (4) 10:11 far (4) 71:21 81:7 87:3 73:14,18 76:6 81:20 89:19
125:14,19,22,23 20:17,21 23:18 24:3 e3129 (1) 12:11 endtoend (1) 75:6 11:5 167:6,7 150:22 90:5 104:9 113:16 119:9
126:2,6,13,22 127:14,19 25:3,4,14 26:1,14 27:4 e329 (1) 12:25 engaged (2) 148:13 152:19 examined (1) 134:10 faster (1) 155:9 121:16 122:12 123:8 126:1
128:25 129:1,6,10,13,19 30:13 34:10,20 e335 (1) 13:1 engineering (1) 164:8 example (6) 7:3 23:4 25:1 feature (2) 123:14 146:22 133:20 134:9,17 141:9
130:5,9,18 131:3,5,20,22 35:6,7,10,21,24,25 e37 (1) 12:3 english (3) 137:11 152:4,5 64:20 138:10 160:1 features (7) 63:18 64:14 151:25 152:1 158:16
132:3,12,20 36:1,2,4,17 37:25 39:3 e410 (2) 45:15 48:18 enhanced (1) 74:6 examples (1) 3:22 65:19 67:6 70:8,18 155:12 159:18
133:4,10,12,13 134:6,10 40:6,7 42:7 45:9,14 e436 (1) 12:4 enough (2) 28:20 118:23 exams (1) 165:25 february (8) 1:1 2:4,5 6:1 firstly (1) 75:13
135:2,15 136:10,17,24 46:7,15 earlier (12) 25:4 30:4 70:24 enquired (1) 78:14 exceeded (1) 120:2 64:21 121:25 143:18 five (11) 6:17 117:19 126:5
137:4,15,16,17,17,18 51:12,22,23,23,24,25 75:18 84:17 103:3 131:9 ensuring (1) 3:4 except (2) 146:2 150:19 166:24 143:16 150:19 151:1,4
138:1,5,15,21,22 59:6,8 61:14 62:13,19,23 135:9 147:21 148:22 152:2 enterprise (4) 109:25 110:6 excerpted (1) 3:6 fed (1) 152:9 152:14 153:2,10 159:24
139:2,4,11,16 66:16 69:4 70:13 71:4 162:18 114:17,23 exchange (6) 24:9,17 32:24 feedback (2) 72:25 73:1 fiveminute (1) 117:18
140:20,22,23 141:11,15,22 77:24 85:9 89:4 90:25 91:5 early (6) 63:15,24 68:21 entirely (5) 5:18 6:5 10:4 65:25 72:5 86:24 feel (1) 45:3 flaws (1) 98:18
142:3,11,24 92:13 94:3 95:7 102:14 90:14 94:14,21 79:1 103:10 exchanges (1) 17:16 fell (1) 47:5 florida (4) 53:12 84:22,24,25
143:3,17,20,22,24 105:25 106:1,16 108:14 easier (2) 57:21 83:5 entitled (1) 100:17 excised (2) 1:5 167:3 felt (1) 54:24 focused (1) 16:5
144:3,6,12,12,16,19 145:4 110:15 113:12 118:24 easily (2) 74:9 165:7 entity (1) 35:15 excuse (3) 136:10 150:1 few (4) 1:6 7:25 107:10 folder (3) 12:13 84:1,1
147:14 149:6 151:14,23,24 122:7 124:20 125:9,10 easy (1) 62:20 entries (1) 129:22 161:16 108:1 follow (1) 139:1
153:2,23 154:3,4,7,11,15 128:10 130:10 140:2,17,18 echo (1) 155:17 entry (3) 58:15 114:14 130:2 executives (1) 97:12 fiction (3) 48:12 83:22,22 followed (1) 138:3
156:13,21 157:11,15,21,25 141:1 142:7,23 148:14 economic (4) 62:19,20,22 environment (3) 127:11 exercised (1) 6:23 field (2) 105:14 120:8 following (4) 120:2 139:6
158:7,8,12,21,23 159:18 150:20 151:24 155:14 75:7 135:8 143:9 exhibit (1) 115:1 fields (1) 70:21 146:5,20
160:8,17 161:1,5,18,21,25 158:3,19 161:22 edc (1) 67:12 environments (1) 136:14 exhibited (1) 48:18 fifth (2) 12:5,6 font (6) 23:21,22 25:13
162:2,7,9,11,17,18,21,21 dornbrack (3) 57:8,24 98:8 edcsa (1) 67:12 epidemic (3) 146:6,15 exist (5) 54:10 93:11 fighting (1) 93:17 110:16 151:16,23
163:6,7,11 164:12 double (5) 23:6 62:12 97:19 edit (8) 23:18 99:8,9 129:24 147:23 99:16,25 158:3 figure (1) 18:20 fonts (3) 23:18 99:24 151:16
165:9,11,17,20 118:15,20 132:5 137:15,18,25 epidemics (4) 133:15 144:21 existed (2) 60:5 130:24 figures (4) 19:13,13,15 21:11 footage (5) 15:4 49:18 83:25
documentary (1) 38:10 doubt (4) 10:8 20:23 47:21 edited (11) 23:20 24:4 51:18 145:19 148:6 existence (1) 65:21 file (28) 49:5 73:15 76:24 85:5,17
documents (99) 1:14,24 2:7 114:20 132:17 139:21 141:22,24 epidemiology (2) 148:11 existing (1) 139:17 99:13,15 105:19 106:5 footer (12) 19:23 20:5,19,25
14:17,22 19:20 down (35) 10:12 19:21 152:11 156:14 157:15 151:7 exists (1) 97:2 109:4 112:20 49:14 50:4,5,7,12 57:14
20:4,11,18,22 24:21 28:6,6 30:20 31:22 43:25 161:18 equates (1) 99:9 expect (2) 41:20 124:11 113:17,17,19,20,23 98:9 100:19
33:11,16 34:12 38:16,25 50:25 52:20 63:14 65:5 editing (5) 104:25 105:15 equation (3) 120:2 121:17 expected (1) 126:12 114:1,15 115:15,19,25 footers (4) 19:19 20:3,3,11
39:9,14,16,21 40:3,14 67:24 68:10 78:25 117:14 141:3 161:6 123:17 expense (2) 48:12 93:20 116:25,25,25 117:12 footnote (2) 43:23 144:5
42:20,25 52:25 53:18 87:12,22,22 88:17 89:6 effect (3) 29:7,8 102:10 equations (12) 110:14 expensive (2) 63:13 64:23 130:12 134:11 135:8,8 footnoted (1) 44:16
55:4,13 56:22 59:11 60:8 98:15 103:14 105:3 113:14 effective (1) 22:18 130:14,25 131:21 experience (1) 109:3 140:6 force (1) 139:22
61:21 66:18 69:17 71:3 115:8 116:9 119:12,19 effectively (1) 106:5 142:4,9,16,19 146:22,25 expert (18) 5:21,23,24 20:18 filed (14) 58:22 59:24 60:1,2 forefront (1) 132:4
72:11,17 73:3 75:12 77:10 134:18 142:25 145:12 efforts (1) 148:4 147:9 149:6 24:1 38:9 50:17 52:25 72:23,24 74:18,20 forensic (5) 52:25 109:3
88:3 91:23 92:24 93:2,3 146:4 149:14 152:23 eftpos (1) 81:18 equipment (1) 72:7 101:21 110:5 111:10 91:16,17 92:2,11 97:7 114:2 116:1 161:11
101:20 103:3,10,23 104:2 153:11 157:6 eighthly (1) 105:17 equivalent (4) 51:4 61:11 128:1,11,20,20,22 132:9 136:8 forensics (2) 38:10 128:19
106:15,16,18,21 downloaded (4) 19:25 20:11 either (4) 2:22 10:1 39:12 124:22 149:11 136:19 files (14) 38:14 58:2 62:8 forge (3) 42:1 75:13 136:2
107:1,8,15,20 108:5,7 64:7 140:21 138:18 er (3) 119:22 120:1 123:14 expertise (1) 137:10 63:22 109:2 111:25 forged (10) 14:8,12,17
111:5 113:11 doxed (1) 25:8 electronic (1) 88:9 era (4) 20:7,16,20 21:1 experts (8) 10:15 24:3 112:17,20,24 116:23 25:9,11 42:1 75:12 102:9
116:8,13,14,17 119:3 doxing (1) 21:17 element (1) 104:3 eras (2) 19:20 20:8 110:2,10 122:11 128:5,6 121:14 136:6 137:7 162:6 105:24 153:24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

forgeries (6) 102:12 103:1,5 gerlach (6) 154:16 159:19 h112 (1) 141:25 151:3 152:13,25 165:9 id (15) 7:10 10:5 22:23 24:23 include (4) 71:4 72:11 75:10 121:8 131:2 140:3,16
125:21 132:24 144:18 162:24 165:15,21 166:6 h113 (1) 142:3 happens (3) 118:15 132:1 25:11 32:25 41:20 46:24 161:6 144:12 152:9 157:14 158:9
forgery (7) 102:11,23 129:3 get (24) 2:5 6:8 35:12,16,19 h119 (1) 142:8 143:7 85:23 105:25 147:1 154:4 included (6) 33:4 97:8 104:2 164:6
135:25 143:21 154:6 38:20,23 42:7 49:10,19 h12 (1) 133:6 happy (3) 6:19 8:12 97:23 156:21 160:18 161:23 105:14 151:17 155:22 intolerable (1) 78:9
165:11 52:7 54:19 56:14 64:20 h121 (1) 142:8 hard (1) 15:25 id000396 (1) 125:19 includes (1) 91:5 introduced (4) 30:3 96:6
forget (1) 13:14 66:3,7 67:16 71:7,9 72:25 h122 (1) 143:2 harm (2) 39:2,4 id000462 (1) 129:22 including (22) 20:15 22:17 119:21 123:9
forgive (1) 5:22 73:16 110:8 125:18 148:13 h12212 (1) 126:22 hash (1) 138:12 id001379 (1) 103:6 24:21 35:1 38:20,22 39:25 introduction (3) 133:11
forgot (1) 76:13 getting (4) 5:7 85:8 141:3 h1222 (1) 126:15 hashcash (2) 65:11 86:23 id003455 (3) 44:2,6,13 40:25 45:20 61:12 72:4 145:12 148:2
form (16) 20:19 31:8,16,22 157:23 h1231 (2) 122:23 124:23 hasnt (6) 4:17 109:4 111:11 id004019 (1) 18:16 73:20 98:12 99:21 105:10 intrusion (1) 63:7
50:5 57:21 59:4 73:8 98:17 giant (3) 120:2 123:17 h1232 (2) 123:15 124:24 130:21 137:19,25 id004516 (2) 103:21,22 111:2 116:5,7 121:7 investigating (1) 26:19
110:15 113:5 134:15 141:6 124:12 h1233 (1) 124:5 hat (1) 78:21 id3455 (1) 44:8 138:13 146:13 165:24 involved (3) 22:16 72:4
159:11 161:1 164:23 give (29) 1:3 2:12 4:15 7:22 h1238 (1) 124:7 havent (12) 12:21 26:4,9 idea (10) 22:25 39:17 incompetent (1) 128:14 166:2
format (15) 89:19 99:15 9:17 13:15 46:22 56:15 h12910 (1) 149:13 35:11 46:14 69:16 92:22 40:18,22 41:24 58:25 61:9 incomplete (2) 70:20 72:18 involves (1) 134:1
121:12,13 130:16,22 65:1 84:15,16,21,22 95:23 h12911 (1) 150:16 94:3 125:15 155:23 157:25 62:19 97:13,16 incorrect (3) 131:4 163:13 ipsec (2) 63:7 67:11
131:1,5,7,8,12,13,21 138:8 100:21 103:12,16 106:4 h12914 (1) 151:14 164:6 ideas (1) 151:9 164:22 ira (16) 21:15,15,19,21,22
155:19 111:8 113:4,7 118:5,18,24 h1299 (1) 149:9 having (13) 19:25 23:2 25:25 identical (11) 70:9 77:10 incorrectly (2) 28:14 117:11 22:2,24,24 24:10,12,17,24
formation (3) 95:8,16 124:12 121:5 128:22 141:1 145:7 h1301 (1) 147:14 56:9 64:3,25 90:24 105:5 78:13 115:7 117:14 124:10 independent (5) 25:2 40:2 54:25 98:3
formats (3) 116:5 130:15,24 150:1 h13013 (1) 148:20 109:3 122:1 130:11 164:21 149:16,21 150:4,6,18 128:1,5,8,10,12 irony (1) 135:19
formatted (3) 99:14 104:11 given (17) 3:6 24:23 32:10 h1303 (1) 148:23 165:12 identified (8) 7:3,6 20:18 index (1) 167:1 irregular (3) 21:11 104:16
135:18 34:22 40:6 53:10 64:10 h1304 (1) 149:5 head (1) 35:17 26:3 105:11 123:2 126:17 indicate (1) 106:3 105:21
formatting (3) 60:9 99:15 82:18 108:19 116:13 h1372 (1) 129:18 headed (1) 56:24 143:17 indicated (4) 4:9 6:25 10:7 irregularities (2) 18:18,25
104:17 135:12 139:12 140:4 h1375 (1) 130:13 header (3) 53:7 105:8 147:16 identifies (3) 18:18,24 50:6 113:21 isdn (1) 63:12
former (3) 48:2 50:6 111:17 147:21 154:24 160:6 162:5 h141 (1) 138:20 headers (1) 143:13 identify (5) 8:19 21:4 35:8,9 indicates (1) 69:14 isnt (60) 7:1 18:1 20:12
formerly (1) 45:22 gives (5) 57:22 100:23 h144 (1) 138:20 heading (3) 16:6 115:2 143:13 indicating (2) 100:3 105:8 23:25 25:10,21 30:14 33:1
forms (2) 120:3 123:17 108:11 154:15 166:8 h14511 (1) 155:25 139:15 identity (1) 36:7 indication (1) 100:13 38:18 40:5,21 43:3,18
fortunate (1) 101:18 giving (12) 8:23 29:9 h14512 (2) 156:12 158:5 health (2) 64:5 65:13 ie (1) 77:14 indicative (1) 105:14 44:11 48:13,14 50:10 51:9
forum (2) 34:8,14 31:13,19 34:7 39:19 44:23 h14513 (1) 156:24 hear (1) 102:18 ignatius (3) 121:8 129:17 individual (5) 3:14 21:14 59:23 60:15 68:13 81:4
forums (1) 34:11 51:1 54:23 55:20 118:24 h1458 (1) 160:16 hearsay (1) 128:4 144:7 35:4,5 68:6 83:11,14 92:4,15 94:25,25
forward (5) 9:15 14:18 30:7 154:12 h1459 (1) 160:23 heavily (2) 97:22 164:12 ignoring (1) 76:20 industries (1) 61:15 107:4 108:25 110:25 113:5
33:11 129:3 gizmodo (1) 21:18 h151 (1) 140:20 hed (1) 3:17 ill (17) 5:17 7:22 8:6 9:21 infectious (1) 145:22 114:10 116:16,20
found (35) 19:5 21:8,25 gmail (1) 51:10 h153 (1) 141:5 held (9) 15:15 19:14,24 43:8 44:22 95:20 99:1 influenza (1) 146:13 122:20,21 123:20 125:3
41:18 83:5 104:8,10,15 goes (3) 4:25 54:1 85:14 h1561011 (1) 121:16 20:6,15 26:17 31:7 49:21 106:16 108:13 110:5 information (29) 2:6,11 6:4 128:5,11 130:5,16 135:6
105:4,8,14,21 109:14 going (49) 1:3,17 8:20 10:15 h15612 (1) 143:10 116:25 116:12 136:19 21:18 30:17 40:16,20 137:23 139:5 141:12
110:2 114:1,14 115:7,18 11:9,11,24,24 14:16 15:2 h1562 (1) 121:10 hell (2) 2:12 9:21 141:18,19,20 166:2 56:16 57:19 58:10 60:14 142:21 143:21 144:1,14
121:12 122:5 126:23 131:7 18:12 20:23 23:9,10 25:13 h161 (1) 140:7 help (2) 39:2 144:7 im (107) 1:3,17,20 3:9,11 62:4 80:25 87:4 91:4 147:23 149:17 150:7,14
132:11 134:11 138:12 38:6 41:14 44:21 48:9 h21910 (1) 114:25 helped (2) 29:25 32:24 5:7 7:7 8:3,7,12 9:25 111:15 113:20 154:1 161:11,13,25 162:18
141:11 142:9 143:2,11 51:24 53:3 59:25 60:24 h21911 (1) 115:9 helpful (4) 6:2 8:2 9:4,15 10:3,15 11:9,11,23,24 116:11,16,19 119:5 125:23 iso (3) 112:17 116:22 117:9
147:15 150:24 151:15 61:9 64:11,25 65:12 67:22 h21912 (1) 115:12 helping (4) 21:17 30:7 39:4,5 12:16,18,18 13:11,16 14:6 128:16 131:15 133:1 issues (2) 29:5 103:13
157:18 158:9 160:17 71:9 78:20 79:2 h21926 (1) 57:17 helps (2) 1:14 141:16 18:12 20:23,24 22:3,12 135:13 138:9 145:3 163:14 italics (1) 92:14
four (13) 30:11,11 48:18 85:12,13,24 86:2 91:13 h21927 (1) 57:22 hence (2) 84:14 161:20 24:13 25:17 28:24 30:13 informational (1) 86:24 item (1) 155:3
51:21 76:11 79:5 81:20,21 92:8 103:12,16 108:25 h21928 (1) 58:14 here (23) 16:19 36:16 46:18 38:12,15,19 39:13 40:8 initial (2) 75:17 91:15 items (2) 1:12 8:13
134:6 150:25 151:4 152:14 118:22 132:6,8 136:15 h2197 (3) 111:12,22 112:22 47:14 64:18 65:12 67:7 41:14 46:5 50:9 51:24 initially (1) 140:16 iteration (1) 59:16
153:2 153:8 161:15 164:10 165:5 h2198 (1) 112:2 75:20 78:6,20,24 86:11 52:8,9,13 56:13,19 input (1) 142:15 iterations (2) 96:4 159:1
fourth (5) 12:4 45:16 46:12 166:18 h2199 (1) 113:16 92:3 96:20 101:11 117:13 59:24,25 60:6 65:18 69:25 insert (1) 124:1 itol (10) 57:2 58:23 60:14
75:17 133:13 gone (6) 42:9 84:11,12 h2411 (1) 49:25 131:7 134:12 135:7 157:16 72:1,13,17 77:19,20 inserted (2) 70:23 157:14 68:14,15,17 71:7 73:5,17
fragments (1) 71:16 118:15,20 164:6 h24112 (1) 50:2 161:20 164:15 166:19 78:9,10,20,22 79:1 80:9 insisted (1) 17:3 86:7
fraud (2) 64:20,22 good (10) 7:24 8:6 9:14,15 h401 (1) 18:10 hes (13) 3:21 8:23 18:15 84:13 85:13,24 87:6 89:21 inspection (3) 2:20 6:11 9:7 its (145) 1:15 3:19 5:6,7
fraudulently (1) 29:4 10:6 45:1 61:6 69:17 116:1 h4022 (2) 19:12,21 20:9,11 35:11,14,15 41:6 91:24,25 92:2,6 instance (7) 7:3 63:21 64:3,8 6:9,22,22 8:17 9:23 12:13
fred (1) 28:3 135:25 h4025 (1) 20:2 111:14 114:3,4 142:9 95:1,17,17,19 96:24 65:24 72:25 135:16 17:5 18:16 22:5 25:5,12,21
free (2) 45:3 49:2 google (1) 130:11 h403 (1) 18:14 high (1) 66:21 101:18 102:18,18 instantly (1) 67:14 28:17,17,19,20 30:13,18
friday (6) 2:3,4,5,12 79:4 government (9) 60:1,15,18 h404 (1) 18:17 higher (1) 163:3 103:12,16 107:12,12 108:8 instead (2) 63:12 111:8 31:12,16 36:20,20 38:23
159:21 86:3 91:14,18 92:3,9 93:4 h405 (1) 18:24 highly (1) 50:15 109:12 110:23 113:22,25 instructed (1) 38:14 41:9,12 42:16 43:4,6 44:12
friends (2) 5:19 7:21 grab (2) 47:9 118:24 h41 (1) 134:10 hired (1) 129:17 127:13 132:6,8 135:5,21 instructions (8) 4:1 7:9,10,14 50:10 55:13 57:21 59:7,13
front (5) 19:8 51:11,13 69:3 grabiner (50) 3:25 h413 (1) 134:22 history (3) 15:24 41:7 144:14 136:15 140:16 141:13,19 8:1 36:16 40:6 107:1 60:11 62:12 63:17
86:6 5:13,14,17,22,24 6:4,13,19 h42 (1) 134:14 hold (1) 52:24 149:20,23 152:17 integrate (1) 63:5 64:23,24 65:19 66:6 67:10
full (1) 74:11 7:14,19 8:2,5,7,12,17 h441 (1) 19:6 holding (4) 16:10,13,25 153:17,21 158:14 161:9,15 integrated (6) 63:19 64:2 68:14 69:1,3,4,14 70:22
function (3) 89:16 119:10 9:1,8,16,19,21,25 10:6,11 h6210 (1) 105:13 22:21 162:8,9 66:1 67:10,11 77:13 71:8 76:15,24 78:4,7,8,24
120:10 11:3,5,9,19 12:14,18,23 h6217 (1) 105:17 home (9) 41:5,9 80:1,2,11 image (10) 16:5,7,19 38:7 integration (3) 73:21 75:16 80:23 81:5 82:2
fundamental (1) 121:3 13:8,11,14,18,25 14:5 h622 (1) 104:8 81:5 82:12 114:18 127:10 44:17 90:16 117:9,12 77:8 83:8,9,13,15,17,24 86:12
funding (3) 68:15 90:9,11 78:2,12,22 79:1,5,9 h6220 (1) 99:7 honest (7) 15:23 87:23 88:18 137:5 162:6 integrity (1) 61:20 92:15 93:1 95:10,11,21
funds (2) 27:15 47:10 102:10,18,22 103:15 106:7 h6221 (1) 99:10 155:10 156:9,15 164:25 images (3) 92:10 130:17 integyrs (3) 75:24,25 76:1 100:15,21 102:8,12,23
further (21) 1:22 5:20 19:21 167:6,7 h6222 (1) 99:22 honour (1) 56:14 142:5 intellectual (1) 22:7 103:22,24 105:24
55:24 58:1,4,6 64:11 grammarly (19) 100:3,3 h623 (1) 104:10 hostile (1) 54:24 immediately (6) 23:2 36:15 intelligent (1) 15:24 106:14,18,20 107:14
68:9,10 87:22 88:17 109:14,20,21,22,25 h625 (1) 104:15 hotter (1) 78:24 37:6 40:7,9 43:8 intentionally (2) 40:1 138:18 108:18 109:6,17 111:6,7
105:3,9 111:22 113:9,14 110:2,6,7,9,10 h627 (1) 104:19 hotwire (1) 112:4 immense (1) 137:6 interacted (1) 100:3 115:23 116:23 118:14,21
116:15 143:1 157:6,7 114:9,16,18,19 115:8 h628 (1) 104:23 hough (33) 1:8,21 immutable (1) 67:18 interacting (1) 110:4 119:3 121:5 125:3 126:2
future (1) 137:13 117:13 143:4 h629 (1) 105:7 2:1,3,10,15 3:16 7:11 9:11 impact (1) 6:14 interconnecting (1) 63:10 128:6 129:3,9 130:3,5,16
grant (11) 60:15,18 h781 (1) 29:16 10:7 12:22 14:7,8 35:21 implying (1) 164:17 interest (3) 16:11,15 24:6 132:3 133:5,12 134:19
G
68:15,17,18,22 71:8,9 h782 (1) 33:3 43:6,8,10 44:18 45:8 79:15 import (1) 131:13 intermediary (2) 60:25 62:1 135:3,7,13 136:10

gain (1) 54:19 90:7,9,11 hackers (1) 67:16 84:17 102:25 103:8,18 importance (1) 3:3 internal (18) 51:8 52:4 58:17 139:7,8,9,11,14 140:16

gamblers (2) 157:8 159:7 graph (5) 119:21,23 hadnt (4) 54:12,13 84:10 106:11 107:19 108:8 important (3) 8:17 11:19 69:23,23 98:24 100:21 141:7 142:2,22 143:22

game (1) 126:2 123:10,11 129:7 91:21 117:17,25 153:8,19 166:14 39:20 104:19,24 105:4 108:10 144:12 145:7 148:18

gaming (1) 61:14 graphs (3) 119:22 123:9,12 half (6) 19:12 29:17 55:16 167:8 importantly (1) 27:17 114:10 126:13,20 129:20 150:14 154:4,11,15 160:19

garden (2) 81:14,18 grateful (3) 8:7 14:6 78:22 71:13 73:10 156:3 hour (2) 10:17 153:9 imported (2) 131:2 142:5 133:5,7 145:7 161:13,14

gather (1) 150:21 great (1) 78:5 halfway (4) 87:11 98:15 housekeeping (4) 1:4,6,9 importing (1) 131:21 internet (5) 22:1,4 61:10 162:6,7,19,20,21,21

gave (10) 15:6,8 28:3 34:7 grind (1) 111:3 134:18 149:14 167:4 impressed (1) 153:19 62:22 63:11 163:10,13,16,22,25 165:19

36:16 53:8 107:3 118:4 grinder (1) 111:4 hand (1) 3:8 hovering (1) 104:13 impression (3) 18:22 19:2,15 interpret (2) 97:6 117:5 itself (1) 133:10

126:13 137:20 group (1) 137:6 handed (2) 3:10 11:6 however (2) 139:20 154:5 inability (1) 65:22 interview (7) 15:6,8,9,12 ive (37) 2:9 7:8 10:7 17:5

gavin (1) 91:3 groups (1) 156:20 handle (3) 17:22 141:3 hoyts (1) 64:8 inadmissible (2) 4:11 132:8 28:2,4 33:10 24:19 28:24 29:14 33:1

gbt (1) 46:23 guess (1) 16:14 166:11 hsu (1) 149:15 inaudible (1) 141:15 interviewed (1) 97:24 35:5 38:5 48:11 61:14

general (2) 30:7 103:8 gunning (4) 13:9,12,16,24 hands (3) 1:18 9:25 109:8 huawei (1) 147:20 inauthentic (5) 40:25 41:16 into (36) 4:13 23:1 25:12 62:23 66:18 79:2 91:2

generate (1) 155:9 gwern (10) 21:14,14,16,22 handwritten (1) 15:22 hugely (1) 120:22 122:4,7,17 33:17 42:9,19 48:9 50:25 92:24 93:19 109:19 116:6

genuine (6) 36:14 37:5 22:1,3,12 24:12 25:7,7 happen (5) 25:16 110:12 hundred (1) 136:5 inauthenticity (8) 50:18 53:24 54:1 56:11 59:8,25 123:23,23 125:4,16

38:3,17 42:17 160:20 111:8 116:1 136:23 hyde (1) 3:17 101:12,16,17 102:4,17,21 64:11 68:22 72:6 74:3 127:22,25 128:2 131:9
H
genuinely (1) 51:14 happened (10) 40:8 42:1 135:23 75:21 76:11 84:7,9,21 93:5 132:13,14 136:4,20 137:7

geomi (1) 144:8 h (1) 28:22 71:6 137:11,25 140:2 I inbox (1) 84:1 98:3 108:14 115:25 118:24 152:11 158:2 160:22

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

162:12 l133728 (1) 160:3 88:3,23 90:2 96:3 155:16 143:9 144:19 150:10 160:5 lynn (11) 57:7,23 97:9,18 maxwell (2) 22:17 23:5 mistaken (1) 95:2
l142941 (2) 85:25 91:9 laptops (1) 38:21 162:3,15 98:8 103:20 104:21 111:17 maybe (3) 6:1 78:10 102:22 mmhm (8) 81:19 96:12
J l142942 (2) 86:11 94:5 large (2) 4:12,23 likely (3) 4:10 21:8 115:18 118:3,4 127:1 mcgovern (9) 33:20,23 34:8 101:2,7,13 105:12 119:25
l144511 (1) 26:11 largescale (1) 151:25 limit (1) 80:23 35:4,18 36:6,14 37:1,20 120:15
jacket (1) 153:16 M
l144513 (1) 26:16 lasseters (5) 61:19 66:23 limited (1) 112:13 md5 (1) 138:13 model (6) 120:1 123:13,14
january (6) 44:9 109:15
l144514 (1) 27:3 67:20 72:4 77:3 line (7) 31:13 118:8 124:17 machine (10) 19:5,7 51:3,18 mean (14) 30:13 31:20 46:24 146:11,13,16
113:7 115:4,5,21
l144515 (1) 27:11 last (30) 17:25 35:12 46:2 157:8,9,10 159:6 52:2,4,6 109:22,24 132:1 66:6,19,20 81:6 84:20 modelled (1) 164:20
japanese (2) 15:18,23
l151001 (1) 44:8 65:9 69:7 81:21 100:7 linear (2) 89:4,16 machines (1) 127:18 85:10 102:22,22 107:12 modelling (3) 133:14 144:23
jimmy (9) 29:20,21 30:16
l151331 (1) 55:11 103:2 108:11 114:10 lines (3) 63:13 119:19 143:16 madden (44) 1:11,22 5:19 108:7 120:8 146:6
31:22 34:3 35:18 36:15
l1513338 (1) 55:14 119:14,19 123:6 124:6 link (2) 120:23 121:7 19:4,7,19 23:19,24 24:5 meaning (7) 33:9 models (3) 133:14 144:20
37:6 79:19
l151335 (1) 55:16 126:6,14,17 129:21 linked (11) 25:22 30:15 25:18 42:24 50:13,18 92:2,4,10,16 94:22 108:9 145:21
job (2) 116:1 131:24
l151336 (1) 55:25 133:4,8 145:7 146:2,9 31:17 32:21,25 56:11 80:1 57:18 58:14 69:24 99:6 means (13) 45:10,11,12 modern (1) 15:7
johnny (1) 35:10
l161168 (1) 118:1 147:10 153:9 154:12 84:9 101:21,22 131:7 101:11 109:14 111:14 46:13 47:24 62:14,17,20 modified (1) 127:5
johnnys (1) 35:10
l162721 (1) 53:13 159:15 160:23 163:24 linking (1) 121:13 113:14 114:1,21 117:11 69:16 91:15 109:23 116:23 modifying (1) 124:1
joint (1) 10:14
l16272192 (1) 53:14 166:4 links (1) 101:19 121:17 123:3 126:23 140:15 moment (11) 7:8 30:18 43:7
jointly (1) 122:11
l16272193 (1) 53:21 late (4) 15:7 103:15 105:24 liquidated (1) 42:14 128:8,17 130:13 131:24 meant (4) 81:9 82:7,8 137:3 44:19 87:6 95:23 117:17
journal (2) 15:17 152:21
l16471 (1) 15:9 158:12 liquidation (1) 42:9 132:11 134:10 138:22 media (3) 3:7 23:2 26:22 136:21 150:2 153:10
jstor (10) 15:16 17:19 19:20
l16473 (1) 16:4 latency (1) 66:21 list (15) 32:7 102:24 103:1 141:10 142:1 143:1,11 medical (8) 98:4 118:9 166:14
20:3,4,12,13,18,25 22:5
l1686 (1) 15:2 later (32) 20:7 46:25 50:23 107:3,4,8,10,20,23 108:1,4 147:15 149:9 150:17 148:11,11 151:5,7 money (6) 62:4 65:3 73:16
judge (3) 117:5 164:23 166:5
l1732793 (1) 71:13 71:5 72:12 90:15,18 125:21 132:24 144:17 151:15 160:17 161:4 152:17,18 86:25 87:1 157:1
july (8) 55:13,15 104:25
l179 (1) 70:19 94:11,15,24 95:10,12 154:6 maddens (20) 1:16 18:11 medication (1) 97:20 monitor (1) 79:3
105:19,19 108:12 109:7
l1791 (4) 56:23 60:13 93:23 96:17 102:6 103:5 110:20 listed (2) 57:10 75:16 21:7 29:17 40:23 41:15,18 mellor (63) 1:3,17,25 monitored (1) 78:19
129:21
103:6 112:3 119:16 125:11,14 listen (1) 107:17 50:1 51:5 104:7 110:18 2:2,9,14 3:15 monitoring (3) 64:5,17 65:14
june (13) 29:20 37:3,7 42:15
l17911 (1) 67:23 131:1 135:11 141:22 142:6 lists (1) 106:25 121:10 126:16 129:19 5:12,15,21,23 6:3,11,18 monumenta (1) 15:16
48:20 49:6,23 50:11 53:11
l17912 (1) 68:2 143:4,20,23 147:11 litigation (12) 33:21 131:20 134:9 135:1 145:11 7:13,18,22 8:3,6,8,16,25 more (18) 9:1 27:17 30:7
76:14 79:19 82:20 100:4
l1792 (2) 69:7 94:4 152:1,22 158:2,24 34:3,15,19,24 38:13,19,19 156:1 157:13 9:3,9,13,18,20,24 35:25 38:1 41:1 49:3 54:20
junior (1) 35:20
l1794 (2) 60:20 94:7 latex (9) 111:3,4,19 113:24 39:23 40:11 56:6 97:16 main (4) 50:14 56:10 125:17 10:5,12,24 11:1,8,18 62:4 63:13 69:1 83:21
juniors (1) 35:19
l1795 (1) 70:12 114:4,7 116:5,7,8 little (5) 28:24 45:3 62:25 150:13 12:13,17,21 35:8,13 43:6,9 86:12 87:3 91:17 106:1
junk (1) 142:20
l1796 (1) 63:1 latitude (2) 103:13,17 69:1 144:13 maintained (2) 17:10 56:2 44:20 45:1 77:22 78:12,24 122:7 158:3
l1797 (2) 65:6 70:16 latter (3) 23:9 72:11 150:19 live (5) 48:20 50:11 51:25 maintaining (1) 61:20 79:2,7,10,14 84:7 morning (2) 10:14 79:16
K
l1798 (1) 67:3 launch (1) 133:20 52:12 53:6 majority (3) 87:13 89:7 102:16,20 103:7,12 106:10 mornings (1) 83:22
l180 (1) 70:19 launched (2) 134:17 141:9 llm (1) 89:18 158:3 107:14,16 117:19,24 most (5) 50:15 87:23 88:18
kaminsky (1) 138:11
l1801 (1) 68:24 lawful (1) 7:1 llp (1) 47:16 makes (9) 3:13 18:14 55:21 153:11,17 166:16 123:12 146:23
kaplan (2) 145:20 148:7
l1802 (1) 69:13 lawyer (5) 30:6,9 35:16 loaded (6) 22:3,12 75:18 116:15 156:5,13 157:7 members (1) 39:25 mouse (4) 52:22 83:3 85:6
kaski (1) 146:11
l1804 (1) 70:3 38:11,17 140:15,17 142:21 162:2 165:2 membership (2) 48:23,24 104:13
keen (1) 8:3
l1805 (2) 70:7,12 lawyers (18) 21:6 35:4,5 loading (1) 22:5 making (2) 66:11 117:7 mention (7) 39:8,11,15 40:3 move (12) 25:19 48:15 52:20
keep (5) 8:3 29:1 132:15
l1806 (1) 70:12 36:16 38:13,14,23 39:7,14 loan (8) 41:5,9 80:1,2,4,11 malmi (3) 32:22 62:6 87:2 86:17,18 130:22 66:25 77:19 78:14,20 79:3
135:21 153:18
l1807 (1) 70:16 40:7,7 42:23 55:12 83:8 81:5 82:12 malware (1) 26:19 mentioned (7) 24:10 85:22 106:11 154:3 160:2
keeps (2) 48:5 132:5
l1911 (1) 98:6 91:17 98:3 106:24 166:19 lockdown (1) 54:1 manage (2) 65:22 140:17 34:15,18 39:23 77:24 moving (8) 8:4 25:19 80:8
kept (3) 41:10 112:2,11
l19110 (1) 98:15 layout (2) 161:24 162:4 log (9) 50:25 51:11 53:9,17 managed (2) 74:10 153:17 113:24 136:20 85:3,6 118:25 129:5
keys (1) 23:7
l19111 (1) 98:20 leading (1) 77:8 54:2,3 62:14 67:18 134:2 management (2) 54:16 63:8 mentions (1) 116:22 132:20
kleiman (32)
l1916 (1) 103:24 leads (5) 73:21 75:15,20,21 logged (3) 53:24 84:7,9 manages (1) 166:8 merely (1) 127:21 ms (12) 33:23 34:8 35:4
21:15,15,19,21,22
l1917 (1) 103:25 101:24 logging (4) 50:14 55:3 61:20 managing (3) 47:16 65:14 merge (1) 138:1 36:6,14 37:20 68:25 99:19
22:2,15,24,24
l1918 (1) 103:25 learn (1) 61:14 77:13 153:20 merged (3) 135:10,16 140:3 105:4 130:17 131:1 142:2
24:10,12,17,20,22,24 25:2
l1919 (2) 98:11 104:1 learned (7) 5:18 7:4,11,21 login (4) 51:12 52:7,7 53:9 manipulate (1) 135:19 merging (1) 136:11 msdoc (1) 121:14
29:22 33:21
l192691 (1) 85:2 14:6 102:25 125:21 logs (5) 62:4 63:22 manipulated (9) 22:10 message (6) 29:9 30:21 msg (1) 121:14
34:2,15,18,21,24 40:2,10
l192711 (2) 83:7,9 least (4) 2:23 7:19 58:25 67:16,17,18 122:3,5,12,19 127:9 36:2,6,11 165:1 mstat (2) 155:23 165:10
53:12 54:25 56:6 71:12
l1991 (1) 100:17 131:11 long (6) 17:6 87:13,23 88:18 132:11 144:11,12 messages (1) 105:9 much (11) 4:10 9:13 11:21
82:18 97:15 116:13
l19910 (1) 101:5 leave (3) 1:17 130:12 132:3 89:7 96:5 manipulation (3) 104:17 mestre (1) 37:1 13:2,8 14:5 25:9 44:18
kleimans (1) 98:3
l19911 (1) 101:8 lecturer (2) 154:16 166:6 longer (6) 54:10,12,15 135:23 143:25 metadata (32) 58:18 59:25 63:13 114:19 139:25
knew (2) 67:14 163:12
l1993 (1) 100:23 led (4) 72:1 93:7 136:7 138:1 56:1,11 84:18 many (14) 26:17 39:24 50:15 60:8 69:1,23,24 98:24 multipage (1) 162:11
know (45) 1:18 8:8 10:17,20
l1999 (1) 101:1 ledger (2) 15:23 134:2 look (36) 6:8 14:16 15:20 58:7 101:15 116:5 123:24 99:23 100:6,21 104:19,24 multiple (11) 20:14 64:7
17:8 18:6,9 20:21 24:3
l201814 (1) 17:14 lee (2) 81:14,18 16:4 17:15 19:20 34:4 128:3 135:22,24 143:11 105:4,14,18 108:10,22,25 69:5 74:19 89:2,4 91:17
25:3 29:1 30:13 34:20 35:6
l21481 (1) 106:12 left (5) 70:4 81:14,17 142:11 43:11 47:12 53:16 55:11 148:4 158:2 159:1 109:7 116:6 122:2 93:18 109:2 123:23 136:4
36:17 39:3,17 40:6,7
l21491 (1) 129:5 152:11 57:14,20 63:14 65:5 66:17 march (13) 17:24 53:14 126:13,20,24 127:9 129:20 multiples (1) 45:14
46:7,25 51:23 59:6,8,15
l22451 (1) 16:24 lefthand (1) 142:20 67:23 69:19 70:13 88:5 76:3,6 88:23 89:14 90:3 133:5,7 143:2 145:7 multistate (1) 146:15
62:9 69:4 70:1 78:24 87:3
l31851 (3) 144:16 146:9 legal (7) 2:25 29:21 30:2 98:15 114:12 119:12 103:21 104:5 140:10,13 154:12 159:14 murray (2) 120:13,16
91:6 93:4,8 94:3 105:25
147:2 42:18 48:10 135:14 137:17 125:2,5 126:7 130:2 139:6 158:18 159:15 metanet (1) 59:1 must (2) 78:3 127:5
113:12 115:6 122:7 128:2
l31852 (2) 146:5 147:3 legally (2) 34:10 41:10 146:4,9 147:1 148:2 markers (1) 132:18 method (2) 46:2 146:15 mutual (1) 66:2
132:14 140:2,18 141:1
l31853 (2) 146:19 147:5 legible (1) 86:12 155:25 160:5,23 163:6 marking (1) 166:10 methods (2) 45:20 46:19 myself (4) 10:14 18:1 61:12
142:22 163:20
l31854 (2) 147:7,10 legitimacy (2) 106:4,6 looked (12) 37:11 43:1 93:23 martti (4) 32:22 62:6 87:2 michieshehadie (1) 105:11 78:3
knowingly (2) 14:12,18
l31951 (1) 88:6 length (1) 23:6 96:13 109:23 110:5 123:21 91:3 micro (1) 15:24 myth (1) 25:10
knowledge (5) 17:11,13
l31952 (1) 88:14 let (5) 8:8 46:22 71:1 153:22 124:15,16 126:6 130:21 mash (2) 90:21 91:22 microphone (1) 11:3
76:23 109:10 129:2 N
l32001 (2) 118:25 124:16 162:9 136:24 mashed (1) 137:8 microsoft (4) 64:21 65:1
known (3) 76:24 138:17
l32002 (3) 119:24 124:14,17 lets (12) 11:18 33:18 36:19 looking (17) 31:12 43:2 mastectomy (3) 97:19 143:3 151:18 n2511450 (1) 49:22
164:2
l32031 (1) 125:19 41:14 53:10 69:6 94:4 69:13 81:16,22 93:9 118:15,21 middle (3) 17:15 27:11 89:20 nab (8) 37:16 40:25 50:19
knows (3) 9:22 10:8 163:8
l32311 (1) 87:17 124:14 125:2 137:8 147:2 110:13 121:11 125:13 mastercards (1) 46:10 might (7) 5:25 7:14 27:5 80:2,13,15 81:3 82:2
konno (1) 146:14
l32371 (2) 132:20 144:3 160:3 129:1 136:25,25 137:11 masters (5) 151:6 154:9 74:10 136:1 146:21 155:17 nakamoto (13) 14:10,14,19
l323710 (1) 144:4 letter (5) 2:8,9 3:17 28:7,22 156:2,22 160:18 162:17 163:1 165:23 166:1 migrated (1) 117:1 15:1,17,23 16:11,16,16
L
l323727 (1) 134:6 letters (1) 146:21 looks (5) 17:1 136:18 160:5 masuda (1) 146:14 million (1) 139:19 17:20 24:6 55:19 143:25
l11001 (1) 29:14 l32373 (1) 133:10 level (6) 46:20 115:9 161:3 162:3,15 match (1) 20:6 millions (1) 65:2 nakamotos (1) 16:14
l11131 (1) 73:2 l32374 (1) 133:18 162:24 163:3 165:25 lordship (7) 6:16,19,21 9:22 matched (1) 20:7 milliseconds (1) 116:9 name (9) 16:14 25:20
l111310 (1) 74:21 l32375 (1) 133:25 liberty (7) 32:21,23 33:2 11:16 78:10 106:8 matches (2) 94:1 117:13 mind (1) 34:24 35:6,10,12,16,20 45:9,19
l111312 (1) 74:25 l5261 (1) 88:21 45:21,23 46:9 47:11 lordships (3) 6:7,22 9:25 matching (3) 20:19,25 21:10 mine (2) 20:22 30:13 names (2) 49:5 146:2
l111316 (1) 75:9 l57038 (1) 81:11 licenses (2) 26:22,22 lost (3) 25:5 49:12 79:7 material (4) 38:21 48:8 mining (6) 133:24 134:1,18 nanosecond (1) 115:9
l11132 (1) 73:7 l712119 (1) 77:5 lie (1) 56:15 lot (11) 25:4,5 39:3 62:25 72:20 109:10 138:25 139:9,15 nanoseconds (1) 116:9
l11134 (1) 73:10 l72111 (1) 75:22 lies (1) 43:3 65:3 89:21 93:7 97:20 materially (4) 40:13 59:25 minion (1) 151:16 narrative (1) 165:12
l11138 (1) 74:14 l721113 (1) 77:9 life (2) 93:17 113:2 148:13 149:4 152:19 60:4,5 mint (2) 98:16 101:5 native (1) 23:25
l12321 (1) 154:3 l72113 (1) 76:5 lift (1) 125:3 lots (2) 149:6 152:19 mathtype (7) 111:1 minutes (6) 7:25 23:3,5 natively (1) 46:4
l1323 (1) 165:20 l72114 (1) 76:8 light (1) 99:24 love (1) 93:20 121:19,22 143:12,14,17,23 117:19 153:10,12 natural (8) 33:9 37:22 92:2,4
l13231 (3) 162:3,18 166:4 l72116 (1) 76:10 like (31) 7:10 11:16 17:1 low (3) 66:21 80:15 139:22 matsuura (2) 145:21 148:7 misaligned (1) 23:12 157:17 161:10,13 165:8
l13232 (1) 155:2 l72117 (1) 76:16 20:22 23:22 28:9 46:4 lower (4) 55:16 71:13 78:19 matter (7) 6:21 18:21 misalignment (1) 23:17 naturally (3) 23:21 31:19,25
l13233 (2) 155:6 163:7 l72131 (1) 103:19 51:4,10 57:20 61:18,18 149:10 19:2,15 66:2 102:12 117:5 misleading (3) 93:12,14,22 nature (1) 27:13
l13371 (2) 159:10 162:11 l73901 (1) 80:12 66:6 67:1 76:15 lrd (2) 45:24 46:5 matters (6) 1:4,10,15,23 misled (1) 40:21 navigate (2) 52:19 83:3
l13372 (1) 159:23 label (1) 108:18 85:7,9,10,18 87:2 95:4 lunch (1) 85:23 6:23 48:10 missing (1) 101:9 navigation (3) 51:25 52:11
l133727 (2) 160:2,4 language (8) 61:7 86:14 87:6 102:7 112:19 116:6 118:20 lying (1) 97:17 maximise (1) 87:17 mistake (3) 86:2 91:13 92:8 82:25

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

nchain (5) 112:7,7,13 114:12 113:14 130:2,3 opens (2) 136:17 138:6 papers (14) 23:4 93:19 95:7 119:14,16 78:13 102:2 120:13 147:23
117:2 148:17,18,21 150:9 154:24 operate (1) 52:22 125:5,9 148:14 perfect (6) 25:11 97:4,4 poisson (5) 155:3 proceed (1) 10:13
nchains (1) 112:11 158:8 161:24 162:5 operated (1) 45:22 151:4,11,12 152:8,15,19 135:19,20 137:11 163:13,14,23,25 proceeding (1) 102:15
nearly (3) 77:20 93:18 123:9 numbered (1) 18:16 operating (1) 25:22 153:3,5 perfectly (7) 3:25 92:11 position (3) 5:15 56:6 128:20 proceedings (10) 2:22 11:11
necessarily (2) 108:25 159:9 numbers (3) 23:11 146:1 operation (2) 47:19 141:8 paragraph (57) 3:12 7:4 93:25 117:13 136:18 positive (1) 73:1 16:24 29:23 39:7,15,20,20
necessary (1) 62:18 150:11 operator (1) 85:4 36:24 37:4 43:11 45:17 138:6,6 positively (1) 93:11 42:20,21
need (15) 33:16 56:20 64:12 numerals (5) 16:20,21 opioids (3) 97:22 118:16,21 47:13 48:17,23 50:1 58:14 performed (1) 100:7 possibilities (1) 6:17 process (16) 76:22 134:1
66:16 70:22,23 76:25 18:18,19 23:13 opportunity (1) 7:23 59:12 87:11 89:25 90:20 perhaps (4) 9:19 77:21 possible (3) 70:16 129:6 136:11,22 146:12 155:3
108:14 130:10 142:25 numerous (1) 44:22 opposite (1) 118:19 95:25 96:11,13,14 123:12 161:4 143:13 163:13,15,23,24
144:7 153:11 163:19 nur (1) 166:9 oppressive (1) 78:4 99:8,12,18 100:6 period (5) 55:20 71:11 80:17 post (6) 4:3 85:25 86:4 164:6,18,19,20,21 165:7
164:15,17 options (1) 83:18 104:9,15,19,23 90:10 92:23 91:10 115:3,20 processes (1) 163:25
needed (3) 33:15 61:13 O order (4) 9:6 106:21 142:18 105:3,7,13,17 110:13 periodically (1) 117:1 postdate (1) 153:3 produce (8) 1:12 2:3 106:6
72:20 146:24 114:8,25 115:12 116:15 permission (2) 1:11,22 postdated (1) 151:1 137:10 138:5 157:15
needs (1) 61:15 o21093 (1) 71:13 ordered (1) 107:19 119:9,12,15 121:22 permit (1) 7:9 postdating (3) 114:9 134:24 161:19 165:9
neither (7) 72:25 110:5,7,9 o42534 (1) 28:1 ordering (1) 87:5 123:6,21,21 124:15 126:23 permitted (1) 3:18 139:18 produced (13) 21:16 23:5
128:17,18 136:19 o42536 (1) 28:21 orders (1) 66:11 130:19 133:13,19 144:5 person (5) 7:5,6 31:9 112:8 posted (5) 3:7 115:6 116:13 72:12 96:5 106:4,5 107:23
net (1) 102:9 o42537 (1) 29:3 ordinance (1) 4:2 146:9 148:3 149:18 150:17 163:14 140:11,12 146:14 152:15 153:2,24
network (25) 63:19 65:24 object (2) 111:8 121:12 ordinarily (2) 4:4 146:21 156:7,19 157:6 160:16 personally (2) 2:11 132:13 postgrad (1) 149:3 161:5 165:12
66:8,9,13,14,16,21 74:6,11 objection (1) 106:8 organisations (2) 63:9 67:19 paragraphs (7) 6:20 89:23 pertaining (1) 47:19 postgraduate (5) 151:5 producing (1) 163:19
75:2,5,7 87:24 88:19 objections (1) 103:16 origin (4) 16:14,14 25:10 99:22 100:2 130:13 149:19 perth (1) 66:6 162:24,25 166:11,12 product (8) 32:4,5 63:6
108:15 120:3 123:18 objective (5) 63:2,4 70:7 72:6 151:15 pgp (1) 23:6 posting (1) 115:4 72:8,8 77:12,12 132:16
129:14 133:16 134:1,3 74:8 75:1 original (12) 50:18 54:20 parallel (1) 148:8 phase (12) 68:13,14,19,20 posts (1) 91:2 production (2) 55:13 132:12
146:14,16 147:20 objectives (1) 77:5 58:22 59:6 72:1,6,10 89:22 parenthesis (1) 92:14 73:20,25 75:15,18 77:7 postulating (1) 136:1 products (3) 39:21 63:5
networks (14) 66:21 objects (1) 131:7 91:8 102:7 103:14 138:15 park (1) 3:17 119:1,10 162:25 power (6) 78:16 87:13,23 73:15
119:2,11 observation (1) 157:7 originally (5) 111:18 119:6 part (31) 3:19 15:20 21:17 phases (3) 75:9,10 139:7 88:18 89:7 139:22 professor (3) 159:19
120:11,14,17,20,23 121:3 observations (1) 18:14 125:24 129:10 145:4 22:15,17 25:8,10 29:22 philosopher (1) 15:18 practical (1) 43:12 165:15,21
123:1,8,13 125:17 129:15 observed (1) 113:18 originator (1) 57:22 31:3 34:2 40:10 43:15 60:2 phone (2) 52:20,22 practically (2) 83:3 124:12 programme (2) 60:15 112:16
never (11) 24:13,14 36:10 observes (1) 58:15 origins (1) 71:20 63:2,17 67:3 75:19 82:19 physical (1) 117:10 precisely (2) 3:25 159:7 programmer (1) 133:22
42:25 47:23 98:3 110:9 observing (1) 10:18 others (7) 5:3 61:12 77:3 83:13 86:21 87:8,19 pick (1) 43:8 precursor (7) 56:23 102:1 programs (1) 114:5
114:23 137:7 157:1 161:21 obtained (2) 27:21 90:8 78:9 88:6 121:9 166:9 88:15,25 90:6 116:4 picked (1) 3:20 157:21,25 161:2,17,21 progress (2) 64:12 79:3
newcastle (2) 148:10 149:2 obvious (1) 3:11 otherwise (3) 6:12 35:2 64:4 139:1,11 145:11 149:10 pictures (1) 110:19 predate (1) 114:15 project (48) 57:3 63:3,14
newman (1) 120:10 obviously (5) 9:1 82:7 ought (3) 6:7 7:16 13:10 158:19 piece (2) 153:18,20 predone (1) 148:13 65:5,20 68:20,23 71:18
news (1) 3:20 116:19 142:23 158:5 outing (1) 25:8 partial (1) 137:5 pin (1) 152:23 preliminary (1) 43:12 72:1 73:11,17,18,24
newspaper (1) 3:17 occasion (1) 144:23 outlook (4) 105:4,18 106:2 particular (10) 46:6,16,25 pk (1) 99:13 premise (1) 70:1 74:4,6,7,8,14 75:9
next (19) 14:16 33:3 35:16 occur (4) 136:14,16,17 138:9 116:3 47:9 58:7,10 59:20,22 60:3 place (3) 117:15 149:18 premised (1) 43:21 76:2,8,10,16,18,25
48:17 52:4 55:2 58:14 65:6 occurs (1) 138:10 over (44) 14:16 18:24 20:2 135:10 159:8 prepared (2) 57:5 98:7 77:2,2,6,9,17 85:24 86:7
70:2,11,15 74:21 116:4 oclock (2) 77:23 79:10 27:3,11 29:3 36:16 53:21 particularly (1) 56:12 placks (14) 20:21 58:16 prepublication (5) 151:4,21 90:5,9,13 92:17,20,23,25
121:23 124:5 125:19 oct (1) 154:21 54:8 55:25 58:25 63:23 particulars (1) 95:24 109:17 122:2,16,18 127:8 152:8,13,25 97:3,9 98:7,20 100:18
132:20 144:16 155:2 october (15) 46:1 57:15 65:6 72:9 77:25 81:17 parties (6) 2:21 3:23 4:15 128:9,11,13,13,14,15,21 prerelease (2) 151:11,12 101:1 103:23 163:3,5
nguyen (7) 29:20 35:18 64:22 69:2,10,24 87:17 86:11 88:14 92:20,23 40:17,19,21 plagiarising (1) 91:24 present (3) 70:19 151:18 projects (2) 63:4 98:6
36:15 37:6 38:11 42:15 89:13 90:4 127:1 129:22 93:14,17 99:9,22 104:13 partners (1) 112:9 plan (2) 33:25 76:16 160:19 promote (1) 29:25
79:19 154:9,19 159:16,21 109:1,1 112:2 119:24 parts (9) 2:23 54:15 56:9 planning (1) 22:25 presentation (1) 60:10 promoted (1) 30:4
nine (1) 105:20 odd (2) 162:18,20 123:15 124:16,23 125:2 71:23 91:23 137:14 140:3 planted (4) 23:14 39:1,10,16 presented (3) 14:12 23:23 proof (6) 28:8,9,23 42:2
ninth (1) 12:10 oddity (1) 90:1 126:22 133:24 136:5,7 155:11,21 play (8) 15:1,2 49:9,10,17 24:8 44:10 87:15
nippa (6) 65:24 odt (3) 113:17 114:3 115:25 139:19 142:3 149:5,10,14 party (1) 60:24 83:24 85:3,14 presenting (4) 42:16 53:2 proofofwork (1) 159:2
66:8,13,14,15,16 offer (1) 88:15 156:12 166:8 passage (4) 5:5 148:9 played (7) 15:4 49:9,18 60:17 84:2 propagation (1) 119:2
nipponica (2) 15:16 20:15 office (4) 93:6 97:7 99:19 overall (2) 63:2 75:1 156:8,14 83:25 85:5,12,17 presents (2) 76:5 108:15 proper (1) 118:5
nirmala (1) 99:24 135:12 overbroad (1) 55:22 passages (8) 3:1 4:23 5:4 pleaded (5) 95:25 103:1,5,6 preservation (1) 145:18 properly (7) 4:1 7:5 23:13
nobodys (1) 21:25 offices (2) 63:10 112:11 overseas (1) 45:21 7:24 9:9 150:3 151:22 154:5 pressures (1) 1:20 54:5 83:3 104:11 137:19
node (1) 144:25 offline (1) 34:5 overspeaking (1) 141:14 158:8 pleading (2) 96:11 103:11 presumption (2) 91:24 109:1 properties (1) 133:7
nodes (10) 87:14,23 88:18 often (1) 89:22 overview (1) 134:14 passport (3) 49:20,21,22 please (100) 1:21 10:23 pretending (1) 38:5 property (1) 22:7
89:8 124:13 133:15 139:22 oh (5) 12:16 13:14 38:6 own (13) 63:17 65:12 91:4 past (4) 93:16 132:15 137:1 15:1,5,10 16:4 17:7,15 prevention (1) 148:5 proposal (1) 7:9
156:16 163:19 164:25 65:13 66:14 92:1 95:18 101:20 110:11 155:21 18:14 20:2 27:11 28:1,6,21 previous (8) 39:22 77:10 propose (1) 10:15
nominate (2) 106:21,24 okay (20) 2:14 5:12,21 6:3 121:2 125:5,8 128:11 paste (4) 91:4,25 115:24 29:16 33:3 39:13 44:8,22 111:21 112:22 144:20 proposition (1) 103:9
nominated (4) 106:18,23 7:18 8:16 9:3,15 11:8,25 148:14 164:23 135:18 45:15 49:13,17,19 153:22 158:4 159:1 propositions (1) 24:15
107:1,9 28:15 43:9 44:20 65:4 owned (3) 22:5 58:2,3 pasted (1) 157:22 53:15,21 55:16 58:14 59:9 previously (3) 26:3 115:13 protected (1) 3:21
none (6) 65:22 79:6 84:4 67:21 79:14 101:12 oxford (2) 30:3,5 pasting (1) 136:9 60:13,20 63:1 67:3,23 70:3 160:18 protocol (2) 65:16 66:8
115:25 136:8 147:11 103:7,17 106:10 oxygen (2) 3:6 4:15 patents (3) 63:20 125:10 71:12 73:2,7,10 prick (1) 28:24 protocols (1) 120:16
nonspecific (1) 128:4 old (15) 30:14,21,25 136:8 74:14,21,25 75:9,22 76:16 primarily (7) 57:11 106:19,22 prove (3) 27:14 29:12 47:5
P
normal (2) 163:4 165:24 31:1,5,10,20,21 37:25 pause (14) 15:5 49:11,13,19 77:5,9,24 81:11 83:7,10 107:9,20 108:5 131:6 provide (13) 5:20 8:21 9:2
normally (1) 109:21 50:23 51:17 84:14 116:14 p (2) 119:23 123:12 64:10 65:18 66:12,24 85:2 86:11 88:6,21 93:23 primary (7) 106:15,17 125:20 42:2 55:4 63:6,9,11
notations (2) 146:20 148:24 135:17 137:7 packet (1) 66:3 67:21 77:21 83:9,9 93:9 95:15 98:5,6 99:18 100:23 129:8 132:21 144:17 154:5 87:8,19 88:25 107:19
note (8) 5:7 20:9 23:19,24 ole (3) 121:12 131:7 143:12 pad (1) 10:20 96:10 103:25,25 104:15 107:16 principle (1) 4:11 118:10
25:14,14 106:8 135:10 olfatisaber (5) 120:13 123:2 pages (6) 10:2 11:25 52:10 pay (2) 27:15 54:3 111:12,22 112:22 113:13 print (2) 25:16 111:3 provided (21) 2:4,7 5:3 6:19
noted (9) 24:20 39:24 47:7 124:22 125:15 126:9 82:25 103:24 134:23 payment (14) 27:23 114:25 115:12 122:9,23 printed (2) 17:8 25:15 21:1,18,19,20,22,23
56:10 71:8 73:14 109:19 once (10) 4:4 63:8 67:7,21 paid (6) 28:12 29:11 32:6 45:10,11,12,20 124:14 129:5,18 132:20 printer (1) 23:16 24:14,16 25:1 36:10 47:23
158:2 165:22 77:8 91:16 102:3 127:8 49:3 81:9 84:10 46:2,13,19,25 53:25,25 134:14 138:20,21 141:25 printers (1) 23:17 48:15 73:17 80:2 111:15
notes (11) 10:21 15:22 16:2 142:4,17 pairs (2) 119:22 123:11 80:25 81:14,24 142:8,8 143:10 144:3,4,16 printing (1) 23:23 112:8 161:21
55:24 57:23 99:8 125:5,9 ones (7) 20:22 35:1 39:25 pang (2) 121:8 144:7 payments (2) 32:14 81:2 146:19 148:20,23 printout (4) 17:19 23:16,25 providers (1) 2:8
142:2 149:25 150:15 71:25 84:14 90:4 106:25 paper (81) 10:20 23:6 60:17 pdf (8) 23:18,25 38:7 149:5,9,13 150:16 151:14 59:16 pseud (1) 65:15
nothing (12) 34:1 51:4,10 ongoing (4) 59:3 60:2 73:17 61:3,8,24 63:17 59:4,6,8,16 138:14 153:17 155:2 156:12 160:3 prior (1) 159:5 pseudonym (4) 15:1 16:17
56:17 65:7 66:12 72:3 92:20 71:15,16,23 86:7,15 87:16 pdfs (1) 138:17 162:11 166:4 private (2) 51:9 132:7 22:22 43:18
73:12 75:2 84:16,22 online (8) 3:20 53:6 60:14,23 88:22 89:13,18 peer (2) 65:22 66:9 plus (2) 15:24 58:25 privilege (4) 21:6 47:22 pseudonymous (3) 36:6
135:12 62:11,18 133:21 147:15 90:2,3,6,13,15,17,19 peertopeer (6) 26:20 60:22 pm (12) 2:3 45:5,7 77:20 48:6,7 61:16 65:7
notice (1) 89:17 ontier (13) 34:11 39:17 94:15,17,19,23 64:6 65:16 86:13 88:9 79:11,13 117:21,23 privileged (6) 34:3,10,12 psychologist (1) 128:15
notices (1) 50:23 40:3,13,16,18,19,22 41:24 95:1,4,13,14,16 penultimate (1) 87:11 153:13,15 159:21 166:22 36:18 39:11,18 psychology (1) 128:16
noting (1) 114:4 47:16 48:5,13 53:9 96:2,4,15,16,20 97:5,8,9 people (26) 17:8 21:17 22:16 pm17 (1) 29:16 pro (1) 9:6 public (10) 2:20,21 22:19
november (5) 74:16 98:9,24 onwards (2) 58:8 89:24 108:15,20 122:24 123:4 23:2 24:8 26:21,22 39:3 pm27 (1) 126:16 probability (3) 119:23 34:8,11,14,16,20 51:9
100:19,22 open (10) 2:19 3:18 6:11 9:7 124:20,22 125:6,15,16 58:7 61:17 65:12 66:11 pm30 (1) 151:15 123:12 164:10 134:2
nugget (1) 144:13 54:4 110:10 111:7 114:17 126:9,11 146:25 148:9 86:25 91:3 109:2 112:3 pm38 (1) 156:1 probably (10) 6:6 7:15 publication (6) 2:16 3:20
number (38) 9:23 130:8 136:12 149:11,12,16 150:18,19 118:23 121:7 128:1,2,6 pm40 (1) 121:10 11:3,19 13:10 35:10 79:4 4:19 151:25 152:20,21
30:10,10,12,19,20,24 opened (4) 109:21,23 114:11 151:9,16,19,20,21 149:3 151:2,12 152:19 pm45 (1) 49:25 136:12 143:23 166:9 publications (1) 147:21
31:1,5,6,19,21 33:6 43:23 143:22 153:4,5,6 155:22 156:6,7 153:7 pm6 (1) 19:12 probity (1) 62:8 publicity (3) 3:6 4:16 6:24
44:5,14 46:10 49:22 opening (1) 110:3 157:3,10,14,22 peoples (4) 125:8 149:25 pm9 (2) 99:7 104:7 problem (6) 31:4 63:24 79:6 publicly (7) 8:14 19:4 21:9
63:5,15 79:24 80:20 openoffice (5) 111:18 158:6,10,18,20 159:8 150:15 151:11 pointing (2) 31:3 33:14 86:25 90:24 92:7 24:5 26:7 41:21 122:24
81:3,20 82:5 102:9 104:8 113:20,23 114:5 115:25 160:11 161:7 164:14 percolation (3) 106:13 points (4) 1:6 8:19 20:4 problems (6) 67:15 78:16,17 publish (6) 26:14 125:6

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

148:14 149:24 151:24,25 112:2,6,11,13,22 reached (1) 9:16 referred (5) 3:2 98:16 114:5 researcher (1) 152:17 33:12 43:16,18 48:20,22 128:17,18
published (15) 7:2 8:14 113:4,7,9,13,25 reacted (1) 54:25 155:18 166:6 researchers (4) 145:19 54:14,18,21 55:19 56:12 sedated (1) 97:22
26:11 87:16 88:23 90:17 114:5,8,14,20,25 read (12) 31:19,25 57:21 referring (6) 18:15 59:20 148:13 151:8,20 57:12 82:21 83:13 see (207) 11:23 12:14 13:18
125:9,12 147:20 148:21 115:7,12,18 116:15 63:17 75:5 112:15 123:23 86:13,20 126:3,20 researches (1) 50:2 84:17,20,24 88:12 99:3 15:10 16:6,9,19 17:17
149:17 152:1,2,2,4 117:5,13 118:3,8,13,17,25 137:11 141:13,14,16 refers (4) 80:14 115:13 researchgate (6) 147:15 106:19,22 107:10,21 18:15 19:6,8,10,18,22,23
publishing (1) 22:6 119:5,9,19 149:19 146:19 161:5 149:12 151:18 152:14 108:6,23 109:8,11 143:25 20:1,8,9 28:7,24 29:18
pull (1) 38:14 120:1,6,8,10,13,16,19,22 readably (1) 138:6 reflect (2) 61:3 86:14 153:1,25 165:3 30:22 33:4 37:8 43:23
pulled (3) 67:10 97:23 121:1,5,10,16,21,25 reader (3) 31:14 163:8,12 reflected (1) 160:19 researching (2) 109:12 satoshianonymousspeechcom 44:3,6 49:14,20,21 51:22
106:25 122:5,9,16,18,23 123:6,25 reading (2) 61:22,24 reflections (1) 88:2 125:18 (1) 55:8 53:16 56:4,24 57:14,21,24
purchase (14) 27:6 124:4,14,20,22 reads (4) 60:21 129:13 155:7 reflects (3) 61:5,7 86:16 reserve (7) 32:21,23 33:2 satoshis (3) 25:20,20 53:17 58:4,6 63:15 66:18
32:3,8,11,18 33:12 125:2,11,19 156:14 regard (1) 47:15 45:21,23 46:9 47:11 satoshivistomailcom (2) 68:2,10,24 69:11
42:2,4,11 44:2,10 47:19 126:2,5,8,13,19 ready (1) 8:8 register (1) 43:22 respect (1) 142:20 25:23 55:7 70:3,4,7,16,20 73:7,10
54:16 82:19 127:4,8,12,19 real (7) 41:12,12 93:3,3 registered (2) 43:16,19 respectively (2) 108:12 145:8 save (11) 100:7,22 110:8,11 74:23 75:15 76:3,10,17
purchased (4) 26:7 32:13 128:4,8,11,14,20,25 122:17 161:6 162:12 registering (2) 43:12,19 respects (1) 139:15 112:16 115:25 116:5 79:4,10 80:14,17,20,25
45:9,19 129:5,10,13,18,24 realise (1) 27:4 registration (3) 27:1,16,22 respond (3) 1:19 5:15 34:1 130:6,8,11,22 81:13,15,20,24 83:24
purely (2) 60:22 88:9 130:2,5,13,25 131:5,20 realistic (1) 165:18 regular (2) 111:25 112:24 responded (1) 96:13 saved (13) 108:11 114:10 86:6,12 87:7,11,18
purportedly (1) 103:20 132:6,20,24 reality (3) 7:8 24:4 130:25 relate (1) 78:16 responding (1) 95:3 117:12 126:14,17 129:21 88:7,12,23 89:9,25
purpose (2) 62:2 65:11 133:4,10,18,24 really (7) 13:14 21:5 26:25 related (3) 77:19 93:2 response (3) 31:16 55:12,21 133:4,8 137:4,19 145:7 92:11,13 94:8 96:7,8
putting (16) 23:1 31:16 134:6,9,14,22 135:1,6,21 56:14 72:8 98:3 139:1 114:14 responsible (1) 166:7 154:12 159:15 98:6,11,12,13,21
33:11 52:9 69:25 95:17,17 136:3,10,15,21 137:8,20 reason (15) 3:25 4:6 36:12 relating (3) 73:3 98:16 127:1 rest (2) 56:19 68:23 saves (1) 131:12 99:10,16,17,18,23
103:2,8 107:13 113:22,25 138:4,20 139:3,14 41:13 42:25 47:2 71:1,3 relation (12) 2:6 4:24 5:2,10 restful (1) 166:19 saving (4) 109:24 110:4 100:1,2,9,19,24
122:15 127:13 135:21 140:7,12,20,24 102:3 103:2,13 111:10 6:23 24:2 58:15 97:3 98:5 result (2) 127:21 142:5 114:12 130:9 104:3,9,13,15,21,22,23,25
149:20 141:5,14,16,19,21,25 115:23 131:12 139:4 105:18 128:25 138:24 results (2) 39:21 160:22 saw (5) 38:25 47:18 85:6 105:3,7,13,17 106:13
142:8,14,18 reasonable (1) 6:5 relativity (2) 25:3,6 resume (1) 77:22 126:8 130:14 110:14 111:13,15,21,22
Q
143:1,7,10,16,20,24 reasons (2) 3:11 62:6 relaxed (1) 10:4 retained (1) 50:22 saying (68) 7:1 15:21,22 113:15 118:8,13 119:14

q (568) 11:16 12:2 13:6,23 144:3,11,16,23 rebate (3) 68:16 71:9 90:7 relayed (1) 4:1 returning (1) 45:18 16:18 22:2,3,11,12,14 23:3 120:4,6,20

14:2,12,16,21,25 145:3,7,11,16,18 rebates (2) 90:8,12 release (3) 108:19 135:2,3 reuse (1) 91:1 27:21 28:8,10,23 29:7 121:17,20,21,24 122:11

15:9,15,20 146:1,4,9,19,25 rebuilt (1) 97:22 released (6) 34:12 100:8 reveal (1) 35:9 30:13,18 31:17,19,20 124:8,18 125:11

16:2,4,10,15,19,23 147:2,5,7,9,14,19,22,25 recall (27) 15:8,21 18:1,4 121:25 133:21 143:5 reviewed (1) 148:9 32:17 34:5,17,22 38:15 126:2,5,14,16 127:2

17:2,7,10,14 148:2,16,20,23 149:5,9,19 28:13 29:7 30:3 35:24 148:19 revised (1) 147:16 40:17 43:16 46:5,18 51:10 128:10 129:20,22

18:2,6,8,10,24 19:4,11,19 150:1,6,8,11,14,16,24 43:15 45:9,14,19 46:7 relevant (1) 145:11 revision (2) 130:2,3 54:11,14 58:10 59:24 130:2,18,19 132:1

20:2,11,18,23 21:4,7,20,25 151:3,9,14,21 51:23 79:18 82:17,23 83:2 reliance (12) 42:25 rewritable (3) 113:5 116:18 60:4,6 69:18 71:22 133:5,7,11,19,22

22:8,14,18 23:9 152:4,6,8,12,23 97:25 111:23 106:15,20 119:3 125:20 117:8 72:1,10,13,17 75:20 80:9 134:4,6,12,20,23,25

24:1,4,13,25 25:9,18,25 154:3,11,15,18,21,24 115:4,9,15,17 121:14 129:8,9 132:21 141:11 rewrite (3) 91:7,7 125:7 84:4 86:18,25 93:16 138:24 139:16,18 140:8

26:3,7,11,16 27:11,21 155:2,6,16,21,25 140:19 158:16 142:11 144:17 154:5 rewriting (1) 152:21 95:12,22 96:18,24 97:1,2 142:6,9,12,13 143:5,14,16

28:1,6,15,18,21 29:9,14,24 156:5,12,19,24 receipt (1) 31:25 relied (3) 57:11 106:22 rewritten (1) 112:18 101:19,20,25 102:23 107:6 144:5 145:12,16,24

30:3,6,10,18,22 157:6,13,20,25 receipts (1) 81:12 107:20 richard (2) 154:16 166:6 114:3 118:4 125:7 126:10 146:1,3,5,8,17,19

31:5,12,19,23 32:10,17 158:4,12,16,21 received (6) 24:18 31:8 rely (4) 106:19 107:9,15 ridge (1) 58:3 131:18 135:21 137:14 147:10,12,16,17

33:3,9,18,23 34:7,13,17,22 159:5,10,14,18,23 33:15 36:13 122:1 147:16 108:5 righthand (1) 86:6 149:23 150:22 148:16,20,24 150:17

35:3 36:2,5,10,13,19,23 160:1,8,11,13,16,23 receiving (1) 37:20 relying (1) 162:2 rise (3) 7:25 8:6 78:2 scan (2) 17:1 59:17 154:15,23,25 155:4,7

37:10,13,20 38:2,9,16,25 161:4,10,13,15,21,23 recent (1) 148:4 remailers (1) 86:23 rivero (2) 35:2 37:1 scanned (1) 23:25 156:3,6,7,12,17,22,25

39:7,13,19 162:2,8,15,17 163:6,11,17 recipient (2) 104:16,20 remain (1) 27:18 rolled (1) 72:6 scattered (1) 146:7 157:4,6,11,16 158:4

40:3,9,12,16,19,23 164:12,23 165:8,15 166:4 recognise (8) 29:19 73:2 remains (1) 36:7 room (2) 78:4,8 scenario (1) 155:8 159:12,18,23,24 160:24

41:14,18,21 q26 (1) 122:9 123:4 132:22,23 144:19 remarkable (2) 137:1 152:12 root (1) 114:14 schebesta (1) 28:3 162:13 166:19

42:1,10,15,20,23 qualifications (1) 128:16 154:7 165:16 remember (9) 28:4 35:10,17 round (4) 52:21 66:5 111:6 schedule (4) 57:20,20,22 seeing (1) 51:17

43:1,5,15,23,25 qualified (1) 128:22 recognised (1) 41:22 46:2,13,16,18,20 118:3 164:2 102:12 seeking (1) 68:17

44:5,8,13,16 45:12,15 qualifying (1) 84:19 recollect (1) 37:1 remembered (1) 46:13 rounds (6) 155:9,16,19 schemas (2) 99:19 143:3 seem (5) 27:5 62:13 90:24

46:12,18 47:2,12 question (27) 6:6 10:3 17:24 recollection (2) 47:3 49:6 remind (1) 45:12 156:15 164:3,25 science (2) 164:4,8 102:7 110:15

48:1,7,12,15,23 18:2 33:16 34:13 39:13 record (4) 32:1 52:18 62:8 reminded (1) 10:14 row (1) 156:25 screen (26) 3:9,12 11:17,18 seems (1) 69:3

49:5,9,17,25 50:10,17,21 43:8 53:22 54:3 55:2,17 106:7 remnant (2) 134:11 141:10 rowans (2) 81:14,18 16:5 17:15 18:18 19:22 seen (9) 2:9 5:3 104:12

51:3,14,17,21,24 56:19 102:16,20 recorded (12) 17:22 28:8,23 remotely (1) 63:25 ruin (2) 157:9 159:7 29:18 30:24 32:4 36:19 127:25 128:3 132:13 137:7

52:9,14,18,22,25 53:10,21 107:7,14,16,17 118:14 52:9,14 61:19 104:20 remove (2) 139:17,24 ruled (2) 5:1 132:7 43:2 45:15 48:18 49:11,12 160:22 164:12

54:22 55:2,11 56:6,17,22 150:2 160:1,3,5,6 162:8 105:4,19 129:24 130:18 removed (2) 105:10 139:3 rules (2) 6:7 67:11 53:13,19 70:11,12 80:12 sees (1) 6:16

57:10,14,17 166:4 134:12 rendered (1) 110:18 ruling (4) 1:3,5 4:10 167:3 93:24 94:5,18 148:25 segments (1) 99:14

58:1,6,10,14,21 59:4,9,20 questions (7) 70:2 82:13 recorder (1) 87:4 renyi (2) 119:21 123:9 run (5) 54:6 78:6 109:22 screenshot (2) 33:5 94:1 selfdenying (1) 4:2

60:3,13,17,20 61:6,22,24 153:22 159:24 160:25 records (15) 27:18,24 29:12 repeat (1) 2:25 110:10 131:24 screenshots (13) 29:18 33:19 selfplagiarized (1) 71:21

62:10 63:1 64:10 65:4,18 161:3 162:20 33:12 38:2,5 40:25 41:4,9 repeated (3) 3:5,24 127:25 running (7) 92:18,19 110:8 34:17,23 36:5,25 senate (2) 139:1,10

66:12,24 67:2,21 quick (1) 64:20 42:11,17 47:4,18 50:19 repeating (1) 44:22 130:12 132:2,5,14 37:2,14,14,16,21 40:24 send (10) 38:17,20 49:3

68:2,10,19,24 quickly (3) 7:17 35:16 55:15 129:20 replace (1) 113:3 42:2 62:14,16 66:9 84:13,23,25
S
69:6,13,18,23 70:7,11,15 quite (15) 7:17,24 8:17 9:23 red (2) 146:4 149:20 replaced (1) 113:1 screwed (1) 69:22 151:12

71:1,12 72:10,14,22 28:17 43:21 79:7 80:6 redacted (5) 4:23 8:13,22 replica (1) 97:4 s (4) 57:6 69:9 86:1 98:8 sebastian (1) 141:2 sending (2) 30:16 66:21

73:2,7,10,19,22,24 85:15 89:22 107:16 122:8 9:5,14 replicate (1) 151:9 saber (1) 120:16 second (22) 2:16 12:2 13:20 sends (1) 72:21

74:5,14,18,21,25 75:9,22 135:25 149:4 150:5 redaction (1) 7:23 replicated (1) 128:3 sabotage (1) 40:1 50:1 76:6 87:7,18 88:24 sense (4) 15:11 47:3 163:11

76:1,5,8,10,14,16 quoted (1) 91:3 redactions (1) 8:15 replicates (1) 151:10 sair (1) 146:23 94:6,7 96:10 110:13 165:2

77:5,9,15,19 79:18,21,23 redback (1) 76:11 report (18) 1:12,16,22 sairc (1) 135:13 119:12,15 123:6,7 124:17 sensible (1) 4:15
R
80:6,12,17,20,23,25 reddit (3) 31:9 36:7,10 5:21,23,24 18:11 19:11 same (60) 18:20 27:18 133:19 148:2,3 156:7,25 sensibly (1) 3:23

81:3,7,11,17,20,24 race (3) 156:9,15 163:22 redditer (1) 37:21 29:17 40:24 41:15,18,22 32:7,9,25 43:19 46:15 secondly (2) 2:20 75:14 sent (16) 33:19 34:18

82:2,4,10,13,17,23 radiotherapy (1) 97:21 redraw (2) 80:4,11 50:1 104:7 134:19 138:25 52:22 55:6,8 59:16,25 seconds (2) 15:3 23:7 35:21,23 36:5,15,25 37:1

83:2,7,13,21,24 85:2,12,22 raise (1) 2:15 reenabled (1) 54:9 139:3 60:4,5,9,9,9 66:3,7 secret (2) 98:21 101:8 42:15 60:23 72:19 84:1,12

86:6,9,11 87:6,11,16,22 raised (1) 78:12 ref (1) 150:9 reporting (2) 41:6 67:13 69:3,4,14 70:13 71:3 80:20 section (12) 4:25 101:5 88:12 112:8,13

88:2,5,12,17,21 ran (3) 32:20 135:17 162:25 refer (1) 37:10 reports (2) 128:23 131:17 94:8 95:22 96:24 106:7 124:4,15,23 134:22 sentence (8) 87:7,18

89:3,6,11,23 91:9,19 randd (1) 74:12 reference (24) 16:13 29:15 repositories (2) 20:10,14 108:25 109:3 110:16 149:13,16,17 155:25 88:24,24 119:13,14 145:13

92:2,8,22 93:9,23 random (7) 119:21,22 32:1 37:10 63:15 67:4 68:3 repository (1) 20:19 113:13 115:2,8 116:8,11 156:1,6 148:3

94:4,10,14,20 123:9,10,12,13 164:5 75:10 101:3,8 119:13 represent (1) 146:11 126:5,7,11 127:23 130:10 sections (14) 1:13,23 3:24 separate (15) 31:18

95:3,6,10,17,23 96:10,13 randomly (2) 137:9 146:12 124:8,9,9 126:25 139:24 representing (1) 29:22 136:24 137:4,5 140:9 4:3,16 70:17 71:23 123:25 52:9,10,14,18 54:15 73:6

97:1,9,13,15,25 range (1) 46:19 146:1 148:17,18 150:9,11 request (3) 6:5 55:12,22 141:10 149:1,18 150:5 146:20 149:11,12 151:10 75:16 83:17 137:16,16

98:5,11,15,20,23 rate (4) 60:17 79:5 80:15 160:8 162:3,8 required (4) 38:20,24 41:10 151:14,23 159:2,3,7,11,11 157:13,23 142:1 163:1,19,21

99:2,6,12,18,21 139:8 referenced (2) 75:19 150:25 61:10 161:24 162:4,22 secura (3) 43:20 48:21 56:10 separately (3) 20:15,16

100:2,6,10,13,16,21 rather (10) 5:21 46:19 52:10 references (29) 13:15 61:17 requires (2) 53:25 76:23 samples (1) 20:4 secure (4) 61:10,19 74:11 166:13

101:1,3,5,8,11,14 102:3 70:18 78:7 82:24 130:11 99:19,23 102:5 120:6 research (25) 59:2 60:2 sans (1) 128:17 84:9 september (10) 40:5,13

104:5,15,19,23 136:25 137:12 144:24 123:19 71:17 72:4 saramaki (1) 146:11 secureanonymoussurfing (1) 74:23 80:18 100:8,24

105:3,7,13,17,23 rationalist (1) 15:18 124:1,4,7,10,11,17,20 90:6,7,9,11,13,17 96:20 sat (1) 40:16 26:18 126:14,19 145:8 154:13

106:3,18,21 107:1,4,7,23 raw (6) 99:12,13 121:11 126:5,8,10 134:7,22,23 109:12 121:8 125:5 135:10 satisfactory (1) 78:23 securely (1) 67:11 series (8) 14:17 61:2 92:10

108:1,4,10,14,18,22 134:10 156:21 157:7 138:3 139:17 143:3,4 136:6,7 140:6 148:4,15 satoshi (40) 14:10,14,19 security (13) 63:18 64:14 99:18 134:23 142:9 146:21

109:6,14 110:1,13,18,24 rcjbr (1) 104:20 146:7 147:11 150:18,21,25 149:24 151:5,7 152:18 15:1,24 16:16 22:21 25:22 65:19,20 67:5,15 70:8,18 147:11

111:12,21 rd (5) 76:22,25 90:7,8,11 referencing (1) 86:22 163:24 28:12 29:11 30:1 32:11 73:24 75:7 76:18 serious (1) 3:13

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

server (15) 51:2 55:6 58:2,12 simplifying (1) 120:22 specifies (1) 117:9 stream (1) 64:18 87:5 98:16 101:5 139:23 125:24 126:1 127:17 tominaga (3) 15:17 17:20
62:15 64:2 67:18 87:4 simulacrum (1) 97:4 speech (16) 26:4,9 27:23 streams (2) 64:18 143:12 163:8,12,18,20 164:1,7,16 128:21 131:4,5 135:6 24:6
105:10 111:2 116:25,25 simulate (1) 111:10 30:4,5,23 31:14,17 32:2,6 stress (1) 2:10 165:3,12 137:22 139:4,21,24 tomorrow (1) 166:20
117:12 137:5 143:23 simulated (1) 111:11 33:7 42:4 50:3,22 55:4,6 striking (1) 123:20 systems (4) 64:1,13 68:8 140:1,8,23 141:10,24 too (4) 9:13 15:25 73:25
servers (4) 64:7 112:20 simultaneously (2) 64:8 spend (2) 64:25 65:3 string (4) 121:12 126:25 158:12 148:17 149:8 151:20 164:2
127:18 132:14 136:13 spending (3) 62:12 65:2 127:16,20 152:7,11,16 154:1,4 took (5) 82:14 83:8 149:23
T
service (1) 26:24 since (6) 2:12 54:13 130:23 93:19 strip (2) 138:10,12 157:24 158:7,25 161:10,12 150:15 152:19
services (3) 27:6 54:17 82:19 131:11 132:16 153:9 spent (5) 62:11 73:16 91:17 struck (1) 7:23 table (6) 68:3 74:22 77:9 162:16 163:13 164:16,22 tool (4) 60:11 138:10
session (1) 34:25 single (5) 52:10 65:21 66:2 92:20 93:16 structure (6) 63:22 66:19 143:16 156:25 164:9 theory (6) 108:15 119:14,17 142:15,18
set (18) 2:8 9:11 17:16 32:24 82:25 128:18 spoken (1) 22:23 67:7 113:16 119:20 120:10 tables (2) 69:6 164:19 120:8 126:2 129:14 tools (5) 130:20,21,22
39:9 50:18 63:18 65:5 sir (1) 146:11 spread (1) 145:22 structured (1) 130:15 tacked (1) 137:17 thereabouts (3) 80:1 81:7 131:19 142:7
77:15 91:19 99:13 100:17 sit (2) 10:12 163:1 spreading (1) 146:12 structures (2) 129:7 131:6 tag (3) 17:17 110:2,9 119:8 topic (1) 77:20
101:1 111:14 113:15 116:7 site (23) 32:14 44:17 47:20 spyder (15) 63:8 67:4 68:23 struggling (1) 93:18 tags (2) 105:8 110:7 theres (33) 8:20 10:18 12:23 topics (1) 79:15
143:12 159:24 50:14,15 51:1,7,8,9,14 73:11 74:14 76:2,11 student (4) 160:6,25 163:1 taken (8) 13:17 28:2 50:13 20:13,13 24:25 25:3,13,15 totally (1) 132:17
setback (1) 135:16 52:8,12,17 54:7,8,11,16 77:12,12,15,18 98:5,7 165:23 51:17 54:7 117:15 141:21 49:14 51:3,10 52:3 68:3 touched (1) 114:23
sets (1) 30:11 56:16 82:14,20,21 83:14 100:18 103:23 students (2) 166:1,11 162:24 70:20 73:11 78:8 80:25 towards (3) 19:21 47:13
setting (1) 136:21 84:18 ssl (1) 63:7 studied (1) 121:11 taking (4) 97:20 123:25 92:14 111:9,10 119:13 53:16
seventh (2) 12:8 98:20 sites (1) 141:4 ssrn (4) 140:8,18 141:3 studying (3) 148:10 149:3 153:25 157:1 123:20 137:15,24 138:1 traceable (1) 61:16
seventhly (1) 105:13 sitting (1) 40:20 142:11 151:5 talk (5) 44:23 67:2 77:24 139:14 146:6 147:10 tracing (1) 145:2
several (4) 42:7 50:6 136:5 situation (1) 67:16 staff (5) 38:20 58:24,25 stuff (2) 29:1 64:21 163:21 164:5 148:8,22 154:21 157:8 track (1) 26:21
151:21 sixth (1) 12:7 136:6 140:5 stupidest (3) 86:2 91:13 92:8 talked (3) 30:5 128:2 164:16 theyre (26) 19:18 39:4,5,6 training (1) 128:19
shall (1) 7:25 sixthly (1) 105:7 stage (33) 9:16 42:13 subject (3) 1:13 67:22 79:21 talking (18) 24:9,22 59:23 41:4,11,15,16 51:7,8 62:22 transaction (24) 33:6 60:22
share (2) 151:8 153:7 size (2) 18:20 86:12 65:7,18 67:24,24,25 submitted (6) 70:22 90:5,14 62:10 64:16,21 76:23 64:14 65:21 67:5 73:6 74:4 61:25
shared (6) 88:5 117:14 134:2 skeleton (2) 86:17,21 68:4,6,7,11,19 71:4,4,6 96:15 97:25 147:20 84:20 122:10 130:9 95:9 126:10 127:10 128:8 62:3,3,10,12,13,14,16,17,17
135:7 136:6 143:9 skilled (1) 53:4 72:12,15,17,22 subparagraph (1) 6:16 139:7,11 161:1 162:1 139:2 149:1 150:5,5,6,13 64:13,17,18 65:7,15
shares (1) 66:10 slack (3) 115:3,4,20 73:14,18,20,25 subparagraphs (1) 6:21 163:16,23 164:1,3 theyve (2) 9:11 110:18 68:4,12 70:18 71:2
shelf (1) 63:5 slightly (3) 16:21 67:22 75:11,14,17 77:6,11 80:9 subprojects (1) 76:11 talks (3) 64:13,14 163:22 thin (1) 157:1 86:13,24 145:1
shi (3) 145:21 146:2 148:16 77:19 83:20 98:12 101:3 103:9 subscribe (4) 107:4,8 108:4,9 tampered (3) 17:12,13,20 thing (14) 32:9 37:22 transactions (7) 62:10
shih (1) 149:15 small (6) 66:3 119:11 stages (5) 63:16 72:11 subscription (1) 49:1 tax (14) 27:7 68:16 71:8 38:9,12,18 52:24 54:5 66:9,10 67:8,12 73:13
shit (2) 86:3 92:9 120:19,23 121:2 129:14 77:6,16 101:1 subsequent (1) 155:11 73:3,15 75:17,20 90:7,8,11 67:16 76:21 85:8 116:22 144:24
short (13) 8:6,10 10:17 43:6 smaller (1) 16:21 stamp (1) 114:9 subsequently (2) 90:10 93:6 97:7 135:12 139:12 136:25 139:10,11 transcribe (1) 57:19
44:21 45:2,6 74:6 79:12 smallworld (4) 123:1 125:17 stand (2) 108:7 164:19 115:19 team (1) 2:25 thinking (1) 118:22 transcribed (1) 28:14
83:9 117:22 153:12,14 146:14 147:22 standard (11) 54:4 65:19 substantive (2) 155:3,6 technical (3) 74:8 77:5 third (4) 12:3 13:23 36:23 transcript (2) 28:2 53:13
shortly (1) 135:3 smith (1) 15:23 76:21 77:2 87:15 119:21 subverting (1) 155:13 137:10 145:13 transferred (1) 112:6
should (23) 1:16 3:5,24 social (1) 3:7 146:23 160:25 163:23 successful (1) 96:17 technically (2) 62:17 80:3 though (5) 107:4 122:15 transition (1) 119:10
4:11,18,24 5:1,19 7:19 soda (1) 23:20 164:1,4 successfully (2) 42:24 96:15 technology (3) 60:14 125:1 132:15 136:24 transitions (1) 119:1
8:13 10:16 11:3 35:8,9 software (9) 26:18,22 32:13 start (6) 49:11,13,13,14 85:3 suffered (1) 97:18 136:20,21 thought (2) 12:23 37:14 transmission (2) 58:4 105:8
36:17 44:14,15,16,17 42:5 57:24 117:10 131:10 160:4 suggest (18) 20:23 24:6 33:9 telling (4) 48:5 52:13 thousandth (1) 64:24 treating (1) 65:18
49:21 56:20 104:21 163:15 135:17 144:8 started (9) 22:24 26:19 62:6 71:1 83:21 85:13 104:24 152:16,17 thread (1) 34:4 treats (1) 4:18
shouldnt (4) 7:2 9:13 22:3 solicitor (2) 48:2,8 72:2 90:23 92:17 117:2 114:21,23 121:2 131:2 tells (1) 31:13 three (8) 13:9,12 75:10 79:5 tree (1) 63:22
114:15 solicitors (12) 8:18 35:1,6 140:15 158:23 132:10 135:3 138:4,8 tem (1) 9:6 89:19 153:18,20 158:23 trial (1) 8:3
show (13) 11:24 16:15 18:17 41:21 47:21 51:1 53:9 starting (1) 6:10 157:16 164:24 165:5 temperature (1) 78:18 threefour (1) 153:12 tribunal (1) 93:5
32:1 33:5 38:8 51:24,25 80:13 81:13 107:8,19,23 stat6640 (1) 154:24 suggested (3) 103:3 118:17 ten (2) 37:18 41:1 through (17) 1:15 4:18 7:4 tried (5) 40:1 53:17 55:3
85:19 95:15 120:22 138:23 solution (5) 7:24 87:9,20 statebased (2) 164:1,7 136:4 tenth (2) 12:11 45:16 33:18 41:14 42:23 60:24 98:3 102:6
145:9 88:15 89:1 stated (6) 42:4 93:13 109:6 suggesting (3) 104:17 term (2) 62:17 86:19 61:14 67:24 75:8 103:24 triples (2) 73:22 76:12
showed (6) 24:21 48:19 solutions (1) 159:3 111:10 136:4 165:21 110:19 128:8 terms (4) 2:1 30:7 76:20 106:24 118:15,20 125:6 tripwire (3) 63:21,24 65:21
72:15 91:16 110:7,11 solve (1) 92:21 stateful (2) 64:7,17 suggestion (7) 5:19 6:1 138:3 147:1,2 true (7) 11:13 13:6 14:3,4
showing (15) 33:12 48:15 somebody (8) 17:17 28:3 statement (42) 1:14 7:11,12 117:6 128:25 terribly (3) 69:17 97:23 throughout (1) 56:6 37:21 48:1 79:9
52:10,11 54:17 69:21 81:1 29:24 109:23 117:3 125:13 2:19,22,24 3:7,19 4:6,7,19 141:21 128:10 thursday (3) 57:15 69:2 trusted (1) 61:25
82:25 83:13,15 85:14 135:1 164:14 5:2,3,11,20 7:6 10:14 12:2 suggests (2) 132:10 135:24 tested (1) 116:2 74:15 truth (3) 56:17,18,18
90:23 91:23 92:3 134:11 someone (14) 24:19 42:1 28:10 29:5 36:19,23 suit (2) 153:18,20 testify (1) 98:1 ticked (1) 122:11 truthful (2) 118:10,18
shown (9) 21:16 24:19 53:1,4 63:25 66:6 91:25 43:1,15 45:17 46:1,12 suitable (1) 43:7 testimony (2) 118:10,24 tied (2) 46:9,10 try (8) 7:19 22:15 23:1,3
38:2,16 77:6,6 86:12 93:15 118:14 135:14 47:12,24 48:17 50:3 59:12 suitably (1) 128:22 testing (1) 65:14 tim (3) 61:9,12 75:8 85:10 107:18 143:24
138:16 152:9 136:12 142:23 143:22 80:13,15,17 110:12 summary (2) 30:17 76:8 tests (1) 132:7 time (51) 1:19 8:6 15:13,14 165:11
shows (8) 31:24 32:3 42:6 153:5 127:12,23 131:9,10 137:21 supercourt (1) 78:15 text (28) 49:14 60:9 104:11 16:12 17:6 18:2,19 20:5 trying (9) 7:7 52:2 78:5
69:21 70:24 81:3 101:15 someones (2) 114:11 137:3 157:21 158:17 165:15 supercourts (1) 78:19 110:15,16 121:12 21:10 33:1 43:6,8,22 46:14 92:20 93:14 96:23 150:1
142:3 something (34) 23:8,22 25:3 statements (16) 4:4 9:22 supply (1) 78:17 126:24,25 127:16,20 52:22 55:20 58:13 59:2 155:8 165:1
shutdown (1) 78:17 28:9,13 34:23 35:9 56:7 10:8 11:10,13 13:6,9,12 support (16) 14:9,13,18 134:11 135:18 63:23 64:24 65:20 tsa (2) 155:10 156:16
sic (2) 12:6 67:12 59:7 60:4 62:15 76:25 77:4 14:3 28:25,25 36:13,21 24:15 34:5 44:5 57:11 138:14,16,18 141:10 146:5 66:3,7,22 68:25 72:2,9 tuesday (1) 1:1
side (5) 1:10 6:4 86:6 98:2 81:15 90:25 91:6 93:16 47:8 121:2 155:17 60:18 99:2,4 108:23 109:8 150:25 153:25 155:11 79:6 80:10 83:6 92:1 tutor (3) 154:16 159:19
128:21 96:23,24 103:10 108:16 states (4) 48:24 55:23 121:6 143:24 144:13 156:2,5,20 157:13,17 99:8,9 109:1 115:6,21 166:6
sign (6) 10:18 101:12,17 109:7 112:19 114:20 115:6 138:25 161:12 165:11 160:11,24 161:6 116:4 122:22 126:25 tweet (7) 3:19 89:12 91:9,19
110:24 143:20,22 125:25 137:10,12 139:7,24 stating (2) 95:19 109:12 supports (1) 109:10 textbook (1) 165:6 129:24 132:5 137:5 140:18 92:2 93:12 94:1
signature (12) 10:2 142:21,23 163:8 165:2 statistician (2) 163:15,17 supposed (3) 48:15 75:11 texts (1) 146:24 151:13 155:9,16 tweeted (2) 90:2 92:21
11:21,23,24 13:4,18,21 sometime (1) 117:2 statistics (12) 148:12,12 105:20 thank (20) 10:12 11:2,7,8,21 163:8,12,18,20 twice (1) 130:6
14:2 154:21 159:11 161:24 sometimes (6) 89:20 91:5,6 149:3 151:6 152:18 154:9 supposedly (5) 38:2 56:22 13:8 14:5 18:8 44:18 timecoin (6) 61:5 97:8 twitter (8) 17:16,22 18:1,9
162:5 93:20 125:8 155:17 157:3 159:10 160:13,20 82:15 83:13 96:5 45:1,4 79:10,14 85:4 106:14 108:16,18 155:18 85:24 90:17,21 91:10
signatures (6) 67:12 87:8,19 somewhere (1) 97:2 161:6 164:4 sure (14) 1:20 8:25 52:8 103:18 117:19,24 144:7 timeline (1) 91:23 twothirds (2) 87:22 89:6
88:13,25 99:13 sort (13) 10:2 34:8 46:24 stay (1) 108:25 59:10 64:19 78:10 107:12 147:19 166:21 times (8) 11:25 44:22 91:17 type (3) 99:14 114:9 165:16
signed (2) 11:12 107:3 53:5 116:2 126:11 135:11 step (1) 43:13 108:8 125:6 140:17 thanks (1) 13:2 100:22 104:25 123:23,24 typed (3) 104:12 111:17
significant (2) 125:14 164:13 139:9 146:23 155:19 159:2 steven (2) 10:10 167:5 141:13,19 153:21 158:14 thats (105) 2:5,15 5:10 6:21 128:3 116:10
significantly (2) 20:7 72:9 164:3 165:25 stick (2) 125:25 145:5 surely (2) 37:22 38:9 9:4,15 12:15,24 14:2 15:10 timestamp (11) 64:2 69:24 typical (2) 99:15 130:16
signifies (1) 122:19 sought (1) 90:11 still (16) 34:16 42:13 46:17 surfer (2) 32:5,13 16:18 17:11 21:9 22:4 87:3 100:3 109:15,20
U
signs (8) 101:15 102:4 sound (1) 138:7 52:6,24 54:17 59:17,18 surrounding (1) 110:15 23:14 24:1,11 25:17 29:6 114:13,16 117:13 133:4,8
105:23 106:3 115:14 source (6) 21:8 22:21 24:11 81:8 82:12 97:21 107:4,7 suspect (1) 78:9 31:21 36:9 38:6,7,18 timestamps (6) 104:24 115:8 ui (1) 99:24
135:23 142:14 143:8 27:1,15 51:18 108:4,7 121:7 sworn (3) 9:21 10:10 167:5 40:5,21 41:3 42:18 122:5,13 127:4,9 uk (1) 29:22
sikh (1) 35:11 sourced (1) 21:13 stock (4) 24:9,17 65:25 72:5 sydney (1) 66:7 44:13,14 46:15,16 timing (1) 2:1 ultrafast (2) 123:1 125:16
silly (2) 91:18 118:14 spam (2) 62:20 84:1 stogatz (1) 120:19 sympathetic (1) 79:1 48:11,12,25,25 51:10 tissue (1) 43:2 unable (1) 118:18
similar (5) 96:23,24 151:23 span (1) 113:2 stop (1) 62:21 syntactically (2) 136:18 53:8,19 59:23 62:14 66:25 title (3) 73:25 74:6 140:9 uncommon (1) 136:14
155:20 158:22 speak (1) 37:23 stopped (2) 26:24 80:9 138:7 68:25 70:16 72:13 73:5 today (3) 46:21 47:3 118:11 undergraduate (7) 161:3
similarity (2) 123:20 152:12 speaking (3) 78:3,9 137:9 storage (3) 83:19 84:5,11 system (41) 32:21 54:19 75:4 79:6,9 82:22 85:8 together (1) 137:9 162:23 163:2,4 165:22,23
simon (1) 47:15 specialises (1) 151:7 stored (2) 112:7 130:17 60:22 61:13,15,20,25 87:15 91:1 92:4,7,16 93:21 tokens (2) 71:20 72:7 166:11
simple (9) 23:24 25:7,12 specific (2) 25:1 76:21 story (7) 31:13 33:18 34:17 62:3,3,11,12 63:23 64:4,6 94:13 96:10,17 97:6 told (17) 35:1,3,5,5,8 36:9 underlying (2) 130:15 141:11
27:14 28:9 107:14 137:22 specifically (3) 9:11 33:20 37:20 43:1 47:24 48:1 65:8,15,22 66:23 67:1 106:16 107:4,5 110:24 40:7,12,19 43:1 45:8 46:20 understand (23) 1:19 9:9
138:4 150:3 142:18 straight (2) 89:17 118:22 68:4,12 70:18 71:3 75:7 113:4 114:10,20 116:19 48:12 53:12 56:17 59:10 11:14 14:19,20,21,23
simpler (1) 25:9 specified (1) 6:16 straightforward (1) 48:2 78:5 82:21 84:18 86:13 117:15 121:12 122:19 82:8 44:25 47:18 62:13 78:16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

93:1 107:21,24 108:2 135:17 142:11 143:14,18 84:3,8 85:19 131:3 142:4 107:14 111:17 117:25 153:17,24 155:21 157:20 2 (14) 55:13,15,17 67:24 23 (1) 49:23
161:15,17 163:18 145:5 148:22 149:8 153:1 150:24 118:3,4 125:3 127:1 128:5 161:1,21 162:5,12 73:7 76:5 77:23 79:10 25 (5) 29:2 41:9,10 105:3
164:14,15,17,18 165:3 156:14 157:15 159:6 westpac (5) 32:3,7,12,15 132:6,21 135:21 137:2 yu (1) 150:19 124:8,23 125:2 130:3 115:12
understanding (6) 122:14,21 versions (14) 60:6,7 69:5 42:5 140:1 150:14 153:21 147:3 159:23 27 (10) 40:5 57:22 95:25
145:14,18 148:5 164:21 72:10,12 89:2,5,20 96:15 weve (13) 1:6 2:8 9:16 43:1 161:16 165:8 166:17 167:5 Z 20 (14) 16:21 18:20 96:11 103:21 104:5 116:15
understood (1) 79:23 97:7 98:12 101:4 109:20 48:17 49:12 96:13 129:1 wrights (1) 2:25 102:12,24 103:2,6 104:19 121:22 160:2,4
undertaken (1) 73:19 151:4 153:8,19 156:2,21 164:12 write (7) 23:8 89:16 90:25 zealand (5) 32:15,17,20 109:1 117:4 125:21 132:24 28 (4) 124:9 140:13
undisclosed (1) 36:7 vertices (2) 119:23 123:11 whatever (4) 83:23 111:4 91:6,6 125:5 151:24 42:8,13 144:18 151:15 154:6 159:16,21
unfit (2) 98:1 118:5 video (21) 15:2,3,4,21 28:15 153:19 158:15 writing (6) 31:5 89:21 91:4 zip (1) 99:13 200 (1) 79:13 28th (1) 154:21
unfortunate (1) 101:14 49:9,11,18 50:7 whats (1) 164:15 131:20 152:20 158:23 zoom (1) 110:13 2000 (1) 112:19 29 (2) 105:7 126:23
unfortunately (2) 42:9 52:10,14,18,19 53:4 whatsapp (5) 35:22,24 written (16) 28:19 47:23 2001 (16) 72:3,3 86:3
0
130:20 82:24,25 83:25 36:1,2 37:2 91:20 92:5 111:18 112:19 90:6,10,22 91:11,14,20 3
unhealthy (1) 78:7 85:5,6,16,17 whereabouts (1) 13:15 113:11 116:8,17,23 92:3,9,12,17 93:11
000073 (4) 154:4 156:21
uninformed (1) 163:17 videos (11) 48:15,18 49:5 whereas (2) 23:12 165:17 117:1,3 135:2 140:10,13 96:15,19 3 (27) 4:25 6:16 18:14 26:16
160:18 161:23
unintentionally (1) 138:19 51:14,21 52:9 53:2 82:14 whilst (1) 8:23 142:4 20012002 (1) 74:12 36:24 57:15 65:7,18 67:25
000371 (1) 122:11
union (2) 30:3,5 83:8,11 85:18 white (42) 6:8 61:3,8 wrong (22) 20:24 24:13 2002 (32) 57:15 68:11,19 69:2 73:20,25
03 (1) 69:10
unique (2) 63:6 123:13 violations (1) 26:20 71:15,23 86:15 87:16 28:16,18,20 29:14 30:15 58:3,7,11,12,17,21,23 75:14 77:6,11 81:25
05012008 (2) 16:7,20
united (1) 138:25 virtual (8) 112:16 116:22 88:22 89:13 90:3,15,19 41:13 44:14 59:23 59:22 60:1,3,5,8 66:15 100:23 104:10 133:11
05012015 (1) 19:9
university (6) 148:11 151:6,6 117:9,10,11 127:17 134:16 94:15,17,19,23 69:18,19 75:14 82:4 91:1 69:2,10,24 71:17,24 72:24 141:5 147:5 148:23 155:6
08 (3) 16:20 18:19 133:8
152:18 160:6,25 141:7 95:1,4,7,13,14,16 97:9 110:1 114:21 127:25 74:16,23 91:16 92:18 160:4 163:6
unknown (1) 112:8 virtually (3) 149:16,21 150:3 96:2,4,16 97:5 108:20 140:14 158:25 162:9 96:22 98:9,24 99:25 30 (3) 15:3 76:14 93:18
1
unless (3) 6:11 163:11 166:5 visa (7) 46:10 80:15 81:3,6,6 155:22 156:6,7 wrote (13) 26:14,14 27:9,19 100:19,22,24 101:25 300 (2) 58:25 117:21
unlike (2) 131:8 149:5 82:2,5 157:3,10,14,22 29:18,20 46:1 88:4 107:5 1 (13) 6:8 11:20 67:24 76:6 20022003 (1) 73:19 307 (1) 117:23
unlikely (1) 118:22 visibly (1) 19:1 158:6,10,18,20 159:8 109:11 140:22,23 141:22 77:20 119:19 124:23 125:2 2003 (2) 72:24 110:21 30th (1) 145:11
unrelated (2) 135:9 139:2 vistomail (29) 26:3,8 27:1,21 160:11 161:7 164:14 146:10 147:2 166:4 2004 (1) 76:14 3213 (1) 2:19
unspecified (1) 154:18 30:23 31:15,17 32:11,18 whole (15) 2:23 18:17 46:19 X 167:3,4 2005 (19) 31:3 79:25 80:7 32131 (1) 6:9
unsuccessful (3) 90:16 33:13 42:3 44:17 47:15,17 56:18 61:2 65:11 66:5,22 10 (17) 29:20 57:4 69:8,20 81:7 82:6,10 111:24 33 (1) 124:9
94:15,24 48:16,19,20,21 49:3 50:14 89:21 92:10 93:7 101:23 xbrl (3) 131:12,13,15 84:11 93:7 98:15 101:5 112:23 122:25 134:7 34 (1) 105:13
unsuccessfully (1) 90:11 53:11,18,25 54:4 55:6 56:7 142:9 151:10 164:24 xcopy (1) 127:24 105:13 114:25 121:16 154:9,13,19,22 158:7,13 35 (1) 124:9
unsurprisingly (1) 161:4 82:14,20 83:14 whos (1) 38:11 xiao (1) 150:19 126:14,19 144:4 149:13 159:15,16 160:14 36 (1) 28:21
until (8) 9:5 32:6,14 44:23 visual (3) 18:21 19:2,15 whose (3) 14:22 36:7 93:25 xml (7) 99:14,23 130:15 167:5,6 20056 (1) 32:6 3e (1) 160:1
48:24 68:8 79:4 166:23 vodafone (2) 61:18,18 widely (1) 63:12 131:7,12,12,15 100 (1) 115:9 2006 (3) 32:14,15 99:19
untrusted (1) 60:25 volume (1) 6:8 wife (4) 10:17 82:7,11 112:8 xxx (1) 154:18 101 (1) 79:11 2007 (5) 99:16 108:12 109:7 4
unusual (5) 4:8 9:23 130:5 vpn (2) 32:13 67:4 wire (2) 138:10,12 1030 (3) 1:2 166:20,23 129:21 158:18
131:18,19 vpns (1) 63:7 wired (3) 21:18,23 23:5 2008 (45) 17:19 20:7,20 4 (19) 2:3 37:4 60:20 68:4
Y 1033 (1) 6:9
update (7) 20:15 50:16 vps (1) 54:17 wise (3) 46:22,23,24 21:1,25 23:11 24:7 25:25 70:3 71:4,4,6 72:15,17,22
10th (2) 37:3,7
76:13,15 96:22,22 131:16 wish (1) 8:21 55:20 64:22 80:17,18 81:8 75:16,18 76:8 98:12 101:3
yeah (1) 85:9 11 (24) 2:17 3:8 4:3,22,24
W 103:9 138:20 147:7
updated (8) 50:4 69:16 witness (26) 1:13 2:13,19 year (10) 17:25 44:10 5:8 6:6 8:14 9:6 12:23 87:17 88:6,12 89:13 90:4,4
74:22 90:12 111:25 3:7,19 4:4,19 5:20 9:22 92:19 93:3 96:6 108:12 40 (7) 15:3 123:19
waiting (1) 131:21 46:2,25 50:4 68:17 71:10 18:25 43:5,10 67:23,24
112:3,24 137:4 10:8 11:10 36:19,20,23 113:10,11 114:15 119:6 124:18,20,25 125:1,2
waive (1) 48:5 74:3 75:21 90:13 76:2 98:20 100:22 101:8
updating (1) 134:2 45:16 46:1 47:8 101:21 125:24 126:14,19 127:1,15 4000 (1) 136:7
waiver (2) 47:22 48:7 years (29) 26:17 29:2 37:18 129:22 150:16 160:16
uploaded (1) 140:24 110:11 121:1 127:12,23 129:11,22 133:2,5 134:24 401 (1) 153:13
walk (1) 164:5 41:1,9,10 42:7 50:23 58:25 161:16 167:7
upon (3) 57:11 102:14 107:9 131:10 157:20 158:16 139:4,18,25 145:4,8 407 (1) 153:15
wander (1) 45:3 62:24 68:8 92:23 93:17 1100 (1) 8:9
upper (1) 19:12 166:18 147:12 151:1 153:2 418 (2) 3:12 7:4
wants (2) 53:6 166:5 99:10 105:20 109:1 123:10 1104 (1) 8:11
upset (1) 54:24 witnesses (2) 87:2 91:2 2009 (27) 48:25 50:6,7 62:5 42 (1) 124:9
wasnt (29) 30:6 31:6 56:19 131:21 135:2 136:5 141:22 1117 (2) 16:8 18:25
used (40) 25:25 26:17,24 wonder (1) 7:14 71:25 76:3,6,15 81:25 429 (1) 166:22
59:5 68:20 69:17 71:5 151:21 152:1,20,22 112 (2) 43:23 44:1
27:4,5 32:15,17 wont (4) 2:12 79:3 109:22 82:11 84:11 85:1 88:23 43 (1) 111:14
76:22 77:7,15 80:3 82:7,21 158:2,23 163:25 165:12 11th (8) 12:12,17,19,21
45:10,12,23,23 46:4,5,6,16 111:8 89:14 90:3,10,12 93:7 434 (1) 115:1
84:23,24 85:8 87:1 92:12 yesterday (4) 2:18 4:1 7:1 59:12 127:12 137:21
47:1,9 66:14 72:7 77:2 wordforword (3) 150:6,14 95:19 96:6 133:20 134:17 45 (3) 89:23,25 96:14
96:18 97:10,11,23 49:9 157:20
82:8 83:24 85:9 86:19,21 158:9 141:9 143:5 147:21 150:21 455 (2) 129:24 130:6
100:11,12 104:11 107:16 yet (5) 4:8 12:17,21 27:4 12 (10) 11:10 57:15 68:2,10
90:17 105:5 114:5 116:14 work (24) 17:8 56:23 61:17 152:15 4557 (1) 81:22
118:17 122:14 166:1 143:20 69:20 74:15,23,25 98:7
121:13 123:23 125:4,16 65:24 71:8 87:15 91:25 20092010 (2) 94:11 97:3 4557025675781583 (1)
watch (1) 85:7 youd (15) 16:15 18:6 27:21 100:18
127:17 131:12 146:11,20 92:1 108:15 120:23 121:2 2010 (4) 49:23 90:12,22 79:21
watts (1) 120:19 29:11 31:7 50:10 53:17 1201 (1) 45:5
148:10,14 151:11 way (39) 4:18 9:15 17:24 129:16 130:5 131:14 65:19 79:25 82:18 85:7 1209 (1) 45:7 143:4
5
user (6) 36:7 62:25 64:24,25 18:3,9 22:6,18 23:21 28:19 148:10 149:23,25 150:15 118:20 127:8 150:22 1247 (1) 81:25 2011 (3) 103:21 104:6
114:18 127:10 32:8,25 43:20 63:6 64:3 151:13 155:22 159:1 158:12 12month (2) 68:18 71:11 147:21
5 (4) 55:16 80:18 130:13
uses (1) 155:16 65:23 66:4 67:13,17 71:7 163:3,15 165:16 youll (6) 51:11 66:18 75:15 12th (3) 12:15,20,24 2012 (4) 99:21 147:17
158:14
using (23) 26:19 32:14 36:6 86:25 87:22 89:4,6 107:12 worked (5) 21:14 29:24 38:5 89:17 91:1 138:24 13 (3) 77:9 134:22 156:24 148:21 150:21
50 (3) 103:1,14 123:10
37:2 43:18,19 57:23 67:11 111:6,6,9 122:14 124:25 56:21 166:10 youre (69) 8:8 21:4 22:2,11 13th (1) 12:25 2013 (10) 24:9 54:8,13 55:20
500 (1) 159:21
80:9 82:6,11 86:23 100:7 127:20,20 132:4 137:4 working (18) 30:2 40:2 59:1 23:16 28:8,23 30:18 31:13 14 (6) 9:22 11:25 129:21 121:25 125:14 134:19
5000 (1) 136:8
111:18 119:16 121:18,22 138:13 140:24 155:13 61:14 62:7,24 78:3 89:4 32:17 33:11 34:7,17 150:17 151:14 167:8 138:25 139:3 143:18
525 (1) 111:16
125:14 130:10 141:7 158:9 162:22 166:10 90:22 93:13,17 102:1 38:16,16 40:17,23 41:1 14th (1) 13:1 2014 (7) 21:16,19,21 22:24
57 (1) 105:17
142:14 146:13,15 wayback (6) 19:5,7 51:3,18 112:3 149:2 151:2 158:8 46:18 50:17,21 52:2 56:16 15 (7) 44:9 93:17 104:15 58:17 59:4,13
usual (1) 4:11 52:2,4 162:7,21 60:4 62:20 64:11,16,17 109:1 130:13 145:8 147:11 2015 (12) 19:16 21:15,17,20
6
ways (2) 109:21 135:24 works (5) 127:24 132:4,14 65:12 67:22 69:18,21 71:9 1583 (1) 81:22 22:9 25:8 100:8 105:5
V
web (5) 52:15 62:15 82:24 151:1 159:3 75:14 76:20 82:4 83:17 15year (1) 137:6 111:24 112:23 116:18
6 (9) 1:1 63:1,17 76:10 102:9
valid (1) 27:18 134:23 140:8 world (10) 4:5,12,21,23,25 84:18 89:15 93:10 95:1,22 16 (9) 2:4 6:1 45:17 74:25 117:8
103:24 118:8 144:5 158:15
validating (1) 67:12 webmoney (10) 32:15,17,24 119:11 120:19,23 121:3 96:23 97:1,1,19 107:5,12 75:9 105:4 109:15 117:4 2016 (9) 19:8,25 21:8 22:9
60 (1) 163:25
value (3) 120:1 123:16 157:1 33:2 42:8 45:13 46:4,7,8 129:14 110:1 114:21 118:22 130:13 100:4,10 112:7,14 117:3
64 (1) 58:14
variety (2) 24:21 58:23 47:10 wouldnt (27) 4:2 9:1 22:18 124:25 125:7 128:24 17 (12) 3:1,22 5:4 7:24 8:13 2017 (2) 140:10,13
6640 (1) 162:25
various (7) 1:12 35:1 45:20 website (7) 15:7 26:8 45:18 38:9 39:23 48:3,4,7 130:7,9 131:18 9:9 18:25 105:17,19 117:4 2018 (2) 26:13 140:12
687 (1) 33:7
86:14 112:3 160:24 161:10 50:4 51:17 140:8,21 50:5,11 62:1 99:3 105:25 135:4,25,25 137:14 141:20 130:19 139:19 2019 (19) 15:7,11 22:20 28:3
69 (1) 121:22
verbatim (2) 94:25 113:4 wed (2) 5:2 59:1 108:24 109:9 114:9 121:6 150:1 152:16 153:4 161:7 171 (1) 43:11 29:20 30:4 37:3,7 42:10,15

verifiable (1) 69:1 wednesday (1) 166:23 127:7,19 131:23 135:15 164:17,21 166:18 172 (1) 59:12 47:4 48:20 49:6 50:11
7
verify (1) 38:14 week (1) 2:4 137:2,3,10 159:8 yours (7) 20:19,25 29:24 18 (3) 53:14 117:4 156:19 53:11 55:13,15 79:19

version (65) 8:22 9:6,14 weeks (4) 79:5 107:11 108:1 163:11,20 37:15 81:12 149:1 150:20 19 (8) 15:11 47:13 74:23 82:20 7 (8) 48:25 49:6 76:16 80:17
19:4,13,14,16 24:6 49:2 132:1 wright (72) 2:11,17 yourself (1) 108:4 100:24 114:15 117:4 142:8 2020 (10) 33:1 53:14 104:25 103:25 148:18,21 166:24
54:9 57:4,15 60:22 63:24 weight (1) 79:8 3:8,13,16 4:3,22,24 5:8 6:6 youve (43) 9:5 11:12 12:19 151:15 105:20 109:15 113:7 70 (1) 99:8
69:6,8,14,16,18,20,20,22 wein (4) 145:19,20 148:6,6 8:14,22 9:6,17 14:18 17:3,7,10 24:13,14 1964 (1) 134:7 115:4,5,21 116:19 70s (1) 165:7
70:20,24 74:15,22,23 weird (1) 165:9 10:8,10,12,13 11:9,20,23 26:7 36:10,21 43:1,21 1970s (1) 165:6 2023 (2) 40:5,13 72 (1) 99:12
76:2,5,6 88:9 89:18,19 wellstudied (1) 123:13 13:3,19 14:8 43:5,10 44:21 44:23 46:13,20 50:24 19962009 (1) 49:15 2024 (2) 1:1 166:24 74 (1) 99:18
90:3 98:7 100:7,18,23 went (7) 23:7,19 27:15 66:4 45:3,8 55:24 57:6,7,23 53:10 59:10 64:10 66:24 1998 (2) 72:5 131:11 20c (1) 157:6 75 (1) 99:22
105:5 109:25 71:24 93:5 106:24 69:9 77:24 79:15 85:20 73:16 92:4 93:2 106:18 1999 (1) 72:4 21 (3) 48:23 133:5,8 76 (1) 99:22
110:6,7,20,21 111:2,3 werent (18) 40:19 42:19 86:1 90:5,12 92:22 94:20 108:18 116:10 125:22 19c (1) 114:8 22 (7) 50:1 88:12 104:23 77 (1) 100:2
114:17,18,24 115:4 121:18 51:14,19,20 52:11 54:11 95:18 97:9,18 98:8,8,23 127:12 129:10 141:21 114:25 127:1 143:2 159:15 78 (1) 129:17
130:17 131:1 134:12 59:10 66:1 71:22 81:9 82:8 101:25 103:8,15,20 104:21 142:21 144:12 150:22 2 22whatever (1) 162:23 79 (2) 3:8 100:2

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 6, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 2

8 (7) 67:3 69:24 74:14

103:25 104:23 113:14
145:8
80 (1) 100:6
8000 (1) 99:10
8th (1) 12:9

9 (18) 2:5 74:16,21 77:5

98:9,11 100:19 101:1
104:1,9 105:7 113:13
123:19 124:17,25 125:1,2
160:23
90s (2) 61:13 130:23
97 (1) 132:16
9th (1) 37:2

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 3

February 7, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 Wednesday, 7 February 2024 1 ”I hold a BSc and PhD in Computer Science from
2 (10.30 am) 2 the University of Durham, and a LLM in
3 Housekeeping 3 IT & Telecommunications Law from the University of
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, one housekeeping matter from me. 4 Strathclyde. I have previously held forensic
5 You’ll be glad to know we won the competition for 5 certifications including the Certified Computer Examiner
6 the hottest court yesterday. There’s a possibility that 6 (CCE) and EnCase Certified Examiner ...”
7 we can move to court 26, maybe tomorrow, certainly for 7 Dr Wright, on the basis of that, you are wrong to
8 Friday. That court is 4 degrees cooler than this one, 8 say that Dr Placks is not properly qualified to give his
9 so 23/24 degrees is not brilliant , but it ’s better than 9 evidence, aren’t you?
10 28. So, I ’ ll find out at lunchtime when we can move to 10 A. No, I’m not. CCE, while an introductory certification ,
11 court 26, and hopefully conditions will be slightly more 11 doesn’t go into any of the issues . The certified
12 palatable there. 12 examiner −− the CNCE −− is a tool certification. It
13 MR HOUGH: We are all grateful, my Lord. 13 just means you can run the tool and take an image.
14 I should add that Lord Grabiner’s absence does not 14 His PhD is not in any related topic , it is in
15 betoken, as he feared, that he would expire from 15 the analysis of analysing communications to detect lying
16 the heat. 16 on chats, of which he determined that it isn’ t −− he
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, I know. He wrote −− he very kindly 17 couldn’t do it . In the two tests , he failed both times,
18 wrote −− 18 and he said you can’t detect −− his method didn’t detect
19 MR HOUGH: A prior commitment. No discourtesy is intended. 19 any lying or deception.
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− a short letter. Yes, okay. 20 Now, on top of that, to be an expert doesn’t
21 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued) 21 necessarily require forensic certification . What it
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good morning, Dr Wright. 22 would require is VMware, VMsphere, someone with that
23 A. Good morning, my Lord. 23 qualification , Citrix , metadata, analysing a Citrix
24 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued) 24 server . He has no experience or qualifications in
25 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, you recall yesterday, in relation to 25 Citrix or virtualised environments. He has no

1 3

1 Dr Placks, that you questioned his independence and said 1 certifications in ROX or CentOS. He has no experience
2 he wasn’t properly qualified to give evidence on 2 using virtualised machines running Linux. He has no
3 the matters he covers in his reports . Do you recall 3 experience and has never touched a metadata, Metaframe
4 that evidence? 4 system. He has never touched a SAN, a NAS, or
5 A. I do. 5 a corporate environment.
6 Q. May we bring on screen, please, {I/1/5}. This is 6 So my answer is no.
7 the introduction of Dr Placks’ report. Paragraph 1.04 7 Q. Dr Wright, this is a man who has been a senior and
8 to 1.06, he says this about his experience and 8 experienced digital forensic practitioners for 20 years.
9 qualifications : 9 Are you seriously suggesting that this man is not
10 ”I currently hold the role of Senior Managing 10 competent to express views on documents having regard to
11 Director at JS Held UK Limited where I am responsible 11 the possible use of virtualised systems?
12 for the Digital Investigations and Discovery practice in 12 A. Yes.
13 EMEA. I have previously led Digital Forensic teams at 13 Q. I suggest to you that you’re wrong in that regard.
14 Deloitte LLP and Ernst & Young LLP where my work 14 Turning to Mr Lynch, just so we can clear all this
15 included the provision of digital forensic services in 15 up in one go. May we have on screen {J/19/1}. This the
16 support of corporate investigations and cyber incident 16 Mr Lynch’s CV:
17 response. 17 ”Spencer Lynch is a Managing Director for Aon Cyber
18 ”I commenced my career as a Digital Forensic 18 Solutions and Stroz Friedberg and is the Head of Cyber
19 Practitioner in 2003 where I was employed by 19 Solutions in the UK. He regularly leads work for
20 Keith Borer Consultants ... as a Forensic Computing 20 the Investigations & Response business unit, which
21 Analyst. My work there involved providing expert 21 formed from the acquisition of Stroz Friedberg by Aon in
22 testimony on digital evidence used in criminal 22 2016, where he supervises digital forensics , incident
23 proceedings. I have previously been employed as 23 response, threat intelligence , investigations and
24 a Software Engineer at Logica UK Ltd and have been 24 electronic discovery/disclosure case work. He maintains
25 programming computers since 1993. 25 an active case load of litigation and data breach

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 investigations . Mr Lynch has been accepted as an expert 1 when Shoosmiths were your retained solicitors. Now,
2 witness in digital forensics by the High Court of 2 please don’t tell us anything about anything privileged,
3 England and Wales, and in multiple United States federal 3 but would you accept that as a matter of chronology?
4 courts. 4 A. Yes.
5 ”Prior to joining Stroz Friedberg, Mr Lynch worked 5 Q. Moving on then to the next document we need to consider,
6 for Ernst & Young in its Fraud Investigative and Dispute 6 this is {L3/219/1}, it’s ID_000227. It’s entitled ,
7 Services division . While there, he supervised digital 7 ”The Economics of central core BitCoin Nodes”.
8 forensic collections , participated in data mining 8 Do you accept, Dr Wright, that this is another on
9 efforts , and worked on the implementation of a hosted 9 your list of primary reliance documents?
10 eDisclosure review platform.” 10 A. I do accept that.
11 Then he sets out his various engagements; do you see 11 Q. My Lord, it’s a pleaded forgery and in the core list of
12 that? 12 20.
13 A. I do. 13 Dr Wright, would you accept that this presents, on
14 Q. Dr Wright, is Spencer Lynch an expert suitably qualified 14 its face, as a document modelling and predicting
15 and experienced to give evidence on the matters he 15 the economic effects of the development of
16 covers in his reports? 16 the Bitcoin System over coming years?
17 A. No, he is not. 17 A. I do.
18 Q. Well, I suggest to you again that he is a person, based 18 Q. Page 5, please {L3/219/5}, footnote 5, we see that in
19 on this CV, based on the contents of his reports, who is 19 the penultimate paragraph, the document discusses how
20 amply qualified and able to give evidence on digital 20 Bitcoin is expected to move away from a subsidy model
21 forensic investigations and digital forensic document 21 and towards a primarily fee−based transaction model; do
22 examination. 22 you see that?
23 A. It is this reason why the United States government, 23 A. I do.
24 a number of years ago, set up a cybersecurity and 24 Q. And then the last sentence says:
25 forensic framework with minimum levels of 25 ”By 2028 we expect that the percentage owned by

5 7

1 certifications : basic , medium and advanced. Mr Lynch 1 commercial node operations through fees will increase to
2 doesn’t meet even the basic level for the US Government 2 90% or more of the round reward.”
3 certification framework. So, no, I disagree. 3 A. Yes, I was very wrong on that, but, yes, I do.
4 Q. So all −− 4 Q. I ’m not at the moment asking you about your prediction.
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can I just ask a question. 5 But that prediction about the percentage owned by
6 Dr Wright, presumably you would have been able to 6 commercial node operations −− I think it might
7 point your solicitors in the direction of people who 7 be ”earned” by commercial node operations through fees,
8 were suitably qualified to undertake the forensic 8 that prediction has nothing to do with the footnote
9 analysis in this case? 9 itself , which refers to linking to laws, does it?
10 A. Unfortunately, Ali Zafar and Christen Ager−Hanssen were 10 A. No, actually , it does. So we’re talking about lost
11 signed up, without my permission, with Travers Smith, 11 income. So, the legal aspect is recovering lost income
12 and everyone I mentioned with a SANS qualification, or 12 from a node that refuses to follow and enforce in laws.
13 other things, were summarily dismissed. So every single 13 So my Lord, what I’m actually dictating here is how
14 person I recommended was dismissed, without telling me, 14 honest versus dishonest nodes could act. So the honest
15 to my lawyers, which created a conflict , which is why 15 node, even if there is a 51% dishonest node, could take
16 I had to change from Travers. 16 legal action to recover. So, you’re saying that this
17 MR HOUGH: So, Ontier rejected your instructions and gave 17 doesn’t apply because it’s legal , but of course it does;
18 you defective advice, and so did Travers Smith? 18 Bitcoin was never designed as a system acting outside of
19 A. Ontier were listening to −− 19 law. When I said that Bitcoin ends in server farms,
20 MR ORR: My Lord, if I can interject, that’s a question 20 server farms, my Lord, are easy to trace. As Satoshi,
21 about advice. We are straying into areas of privilege 21 in 2008, 2009 and 2010, I said data centres and server
22 and I do need to object. 22 farms.
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 23 Now, this idea that nodes can hide, that they can be
24 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, in terms of chronology at least, 24 a home user thing that disappears, that vanishes when it
25 Stroz Friedberg were introduced into this case at a time 25 ends in a server farm.

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 So my comment here is that you have civil liability . 1 the original design of Bitcoin.
2 Systems with billions of dollars of investment can 2 A. If I can finish . The original design of Bitcoin, and to
3 easily be taken to court, they can be easily shut down. 3 give the analogy to explain the difference , I will need
4 So, I ’m sorry, I disagree. 4 to do both. BTC Core has limited the transactions,
5 Q. The paragraph is referring to the straightforward move 5 having three to four transactions per second maximum.
6 from Bitcoin −− of Bitcoin from a subsidy system towards 6 That cap limits the number of transactions that can be
7 a primarily fee−based system, isn’t it? 7 taken. That makes them more expensive. Whenever you
8 A. No, it ’s more than that. So, to explain , what I’m 8 have an economic scarcity, the price goes up, and we’ve
9 talking about is the fee−based system can be attacked. 9 seen that. In BTC Core, £45 to £60 transaction fees.
10 Someone with 51% of the hash power, the proof−of−work 10 That means no micropayments. That means a limit.
11 power, investing in that as a dishonest node, could seek 11 Now, even if your fees are £60, you’re not going to
12 to, well , double spend or do something. But the Bitcoin 12 get them higher. You can’t push fees to thousands of
13 White Paper specifically says honest nodes will never 13 dollars , you can’t get them into −− going to thousands
14 accept an invalid block. That doesn’t mean that they 14 of dollars a transaction. That just doesn’t work, even
15 take a block, because, oh, you have 51%; it means never. 15 for criminal transactions .
16 Now, how do you recover? If you are the smaller 16 On the other hand, when you can limit nothing, when
17 chain, the one who hasn’t changed the protocol, and 17 the block size grows, as I envisioned for Bitcoin, then
18 someone has altered it, like BTC, how do you recover? 18 micropayments work. Even if you are a thousandth of
19 You need to take action. And those miners that are 19 a cent but you’re doing a million transactions a second,
20 being impacted, the ones that are now taken out of 20 that thousandth of a cent suddenly becomes valuable.
21 the game because they have 40%, say, against 60% of 21 That’s the difference .
22 dishonest players , can take legal action. And under 22 So in Bitcoin, it becomes that, because lots and
23 the Computer Misuse Act here in the UK, you can get an 23 lots of fees . In BTC, it’s all about push the price up.
24 order very quickly against a dishonest actor. 24 Q. I appreciate you’ve ridden a hobby horse for the last
25 Now, what this is saying is those people making 25 several sentences, but I just have to put it to you,

9 11

1 their money through validly putting fees in rather than 1 Dr Wright, that that’s not an answer to my question and
2 trying to squeeze the system, cheat, double spend, they 2 that this footnote about use of legal action does not
3 have legal recourse; so honest people, honest actors, 3 relate to the subject matter of the actual sentence.
4 honest server nodes, can take action and protect 4 A. Oh, of course it does. As we go in here, we say:
5 the node infrastructure and protect the chain. 5 ”In the attack model, the reward is static . That
6 Q. The Bitcoin White Paper envisaged Bitcoin being 6 is , the analysis is based on a fee reward excluding ... ”
7 resistant to attacks by its very design without 7 And we can keep reading. But what we’re saying,
8 discussing or going into any legal claims or any legal 8 the self corrected nature of this is such that if you’re
9 ramifications , didn’t it , Dr Wright? 9 dishonest, you cannot win, not just because you can make
10 A. No, that’s actually not correct . The terminology, 10 it for a small amount of time, which I mention in
11 ”honest”, ”dishonest”, and the node structure used, were 11 the White Paper, but because over the extended period of
12 ones I learned while I was here studying my LLM, doing 12 time, people can take action. There’s a 100 block −−
13 that in Northumbria. In that, I learned the actual 13 originally 120 −− reward time. That’s nearly a day.
14 terminology used in the Act. When I did those sort of 14 That’s enough time for the honest miners to go out there
15 areas, I used that in the White Paper. So the act of 15 before the dishonest one can spend their money. In that
16 stopping and just saying, ”Oh, I’m going to follow 16 one day, they can go out, they can get emergency
17 whatever the dishonest ... ”, no, they never follow , and 17 injunctions , they can start acting and the same −−
18 they have protection because of it . 18 the DNS attacks happened in under an hour that they got
19 Q. And, Dr Wright, the reason that Bitcoin will naturally 19 this . So in the future , when this business data
20 move towards a transaction−based system is that it is 20 centres, server farms, a global system, micropayments,
21 baked into the design that the reward will reduce over 21 allowing people to transmit money instantly, then we’re
22 time ultimately to nothing? 22 going to have a system that attacks can be stopped
23 A. That’s correct in Bitcoin. In BTC Core, that’s wrong. 23 instantly .
24 Now −− 24 Q. Dr Wright, we can deal with this with the independent
25 Q. We’re not talking about BTC Core, we’re talking about 25 experts, but let me put to you that the White Paper

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 makes clear that resistance to attack is hard−coded into 1 in a club, it naturally includes UK law. If I ’m running
2 the system, it ’s not dependent upon legal actions being 2 a cricket club, I can’t go, ”My club rules exclude
3 taken. 3 the British legal system and we can do whatever we
4 A. Again, you’re −− show me where it says that. It 4 want”. So rules, by definition , include legislation ,
5 doesn’t. What it says is an honest attack −− honest 5 laws and everything else in the protocol.
6 people against attackers . So, no. And the reason why 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
7 it does this is they can always catch up, and the reason 7 MR HOUGH: Just before we move on from this, would you at
8 they can always catch up is you can always stop 8 least accept this , Dr Wright, that the White Paper
9 the attacker. If the attacker could keep going just 9 itself says nothing about large actors taking
10 because they have more hash power, if a month from now 10 injunctions as a critical part of the protective
11 the attack’s still going, then the White Paper doesn’t 11 elements of the system?
12 work, very simply. The White Paper works because in 12 A. No, it doesn’t need to say that, because the system
13 that 100−block non−payment period, you can take action. 13 defines ”honest” and ”dishonest”, and those terms are
14 So, no, this is actually structured directly from 14 defined in British law.
15 British computer crime legislation. 15 Q. I think British law is a matter on which his Lordship
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, a couple of questions. 16 can take a view.
17 You’ve mentioned a couple of times that it would be easy 17 May we now move to Mr Madden’s conclusions on this
18 to obtain an order against a dishonest actor. 18 {H/121/4}. If we look from paragraph 12 onwards, do you
19 A. Yes. 19 recall that Mr Madden in this document found several ZIP
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: How do you identify a dishonest actor? 20 files embedded which he was able to extract and examine?
21 A. So there are only 13 actual nodes in BTC even. There 21 A. I do.
22 are 11 in Bitcoin. 22 Q. Do you recall that they included multiple references to
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: In Bitcoin, how do you identify 23 schemas dating from after 2008, including to 2014 and
24 a dishonest −− 24 ’15?
25 A. In Bitcoin in any form, the nodes form large data 25 A. I do.

13 15

1 centres. There are only a few of these. The small ones 1 Q. Mr Madden concluded, and Dr Placks agreed on the basis
2 don’t matter; the large ones do. The system breaks up 2 of these findings , that the document was backdated.
3 into a plurality of larger and small in a long tail . If 3 That’s the case, isn ’ t it ?
4 you have two or three large actors , each with, say, 20%, 4 A. No, it ’s not.
5 you can force −− put an order to them, and that 60% of 5 What I need to clarify , though, is , you seem to be
6 the network can now act. If you have even a 50% actor, 6 implying that my case is about proving metadata, or that
7 they’re going to be running on AWS, or something else. 7 these are reliance because of metadata. I’m going to
8 As an example, many −− probably 80% of the nodes run on 8 very simply say, I put these in in support of what I do,
9 AWS. I have had a lot of dealings with AWS. AWS will 9 the research I do. These documents are maintained on
10 act very quickly . If they see an attack in progress, 10 corporate servers . None of the ones you have have come
11 they will shut off the network. They will do that 11 from me directly; they’ve been taken from staff laptops
12 basically on an interim order, or even real evidence of 12 and images, all of which were given over when I sold
13 an attack if the network is defined properly. 13 IP to nChain in 2015. So, while you’re saying this ,
14 So, as an example, the main node operators would be 14 the thing to remember is, I never set up a time capsule,
15 able to be clearly and visibly seen. None of them are 15 nor said that I did. What I said was I have files that
16 hidden. Every single , even BTC supposedly secret node 16 I give to my staff members. I do that so that they can
17 is known. 17 take my ideas. The way that I work is, I create
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, second question. Is a dishonest 18 the research, I have an idea. That idea is then fleshed
19 actor anyone who is not following the rules? 19 out. Sometimes, when I say ”I created a document”, I,
20 A. By definition . So, if you look at how it’s defined in 20 on a voice recorder, speak to it , sometimes I write
21 the White Paper, the White Paper says that, well, you 21 handwritten notes, and then my staff do this for me.
22 follow the rules and you don’t change the protocol. You 22 So, what I’m basically saying, these are the origins
23 basically take the hard−coded protocol rules and follow 23 of the 350 White Papers that I’ve completed. These are
24 them. That, of course, means rules, and rules are more 24 the origins of the 1,900 OI papers, which are original
25 than just the agreement. For instance, if we have rules 25 idea papers. These are the origins of

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 the 1,040−something granted patents that I’ve created. 1 previous, and go to the start of the letter {M/1/712}.
2 These are the origins of the 4,000 plus filed patents 2 Okay, 712, sorry.
3 that are now public and the other ones that are in 3 Ontier complied with the order to nominate your
4 the 18−month, as my Lord will know, secret period where 4 principal and primary reliance documents in this letter .
5 we can change them. 5 If we just flick through the pages of the letter and see
6 So, what I’m saying is, this is not a time capsule 6 the numbers of the documents identified.
7 and I’m not saying it was and I never claimed that. 7 No suggestion in that letter , was there, that
8 Q. Dr Wright, we agreed yesterday that the court had 8 the documents’ metadata were likely to be unreliable as
9 ordered you to nominate those documents on which you 9 to when the documents themselves originated from, or
10 primarily relied in support of your claim to be Satoshi, 10 that any of them were fake or manipulated documents?
11 yes? 11 A. Again, ”fake” and ”manipulated” is wrong. The fact that
12 A. Yes. 12 they have been used or accessed by staff over many
13 Q. You’re aware that this, among many others, featured in 13 years , that’s actually noted. Whenever you look at this
14 that list ? 14 in Relativity , you will see the source, and the source
15 A. I am. 15 are not my laptops, they’re staff laptops. When
16 Q. And you’re aware that this, like many others in that 16 the source is a QNAP server, a NAS server, a corporate
17 list , contain metadata dating it to before the creation , 17 server , that’s not me.
18 or certainly the release of the Bitcoin System? 18 Q. And so −−
19 A. Yes, I am. 19 A. That doesn’t say that it ’s isolated , it says that it ’s
20 Q. And you’re aware, aren’t you, that your solicitors on 20 a system accessed by staff.
21 your behalf said nothing to suggest that the metadata 21 Q. Page 778, please {M/1/778}.
22 should be expected to be inaccurate, or that 22 This is the original chain of custody information
23 the documents had in fact been subject to alteration, 23 your solicitors provided on 11 May 2023.
24 deliberate and accidental, for many years since their 24 A. Yes.
25 creation? 25 Q. If we can go through this document, it refers to most of

17 19

1 A. Well, actually , if you check Relativity and other 1 these documents simply as having been drafted by you,
2 platforms that you have access to, what you’ll see is 2 typed by Lynn Wright. There’s no suggestion that these
3 the majority of these come from either corporate servers 3 documents were likely altered by other people in
4 or staff laptops; they don’t come from me. There are 4 the process of transmission, is there?
5 very few documents, apart from the later ones, that came 5 A. The files naturally alter . This is the issue I ’ve been
6 from me directly, so that was all in the chain of 6 saying. I ’ve done, in my career, before I did Bitcoin,
7 custody and it’s in Relativity . So at no point have 7 over a thousand engagements, and in a thousand
8 I ever said otherwise. 8 engagements, I have never once seen a file that is more
9 In the Kleiman case, I explicitly said that all of 9 than five years old that is pristine . The only way for
10 these came from file servers . The QNAP server that was 10 that to happen is an anomaly.
11 taken and not imaged well is −− was, when it was taken, 11 Now, what I’ve said in every one of these
12 a several hundred thousand pound rack system that was 12 is ”drafted by”. At no point did I say I typed it .
13 unfortunately taken with 250 terabytes worth of data 13 ”Drafted” can mean I sat with a voice recorder and
14 that I can’t access at the moment. 14 someone else transcribed. Right now, I have Alex at
15 So, what I’m telling you is , at no point did I say 15 nChain does that for me. My handwritten notes get
16 that this was a case about metadata from me. My case is 16 transcribed . So on top of this , nothing here says how,
17 different . My case is these are the origins of 17 other than I drafted the note, it came about. And at
18 the ideas I ’ve created, my Lord, these are the things 18 the beginning, in the first instance, it also
19 that led to how I have those patents. 19 said ”employees”, and then ”no further information”,
20 We, last year, did 79 patents at nChain. 20 because I don’t track it . I ’m not the IT manager.
21 Q. Can I just pause you there, Dr Wright, because I think 21 Q. Would you accept that the Bitcoin White Paper, in
22 you’ve gone quite a bit beyond the subject matter of my 22 the version that was published, is a pristine document
23 question. 23 in terms of its metadata, or do you not know?
24 May I show you on screen {M/1/716}. The previous 24 A. When you look at the original document, it’s fairly
25 page, I think {M/1/715}. And the previous, and the 25 close to pristine . The one embedded in the blockchain

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 is , but which version? There is actually −− 1 If we go to the next page {H/121/6}, in place of
2 Q. The one −− 2 the footnote we looked at earlier , there’s a hyperlink,
3 A. −− two different versions in April . There is another 3 and then if we look at paragraph 21, he found that
4 version in September that you haven’t put in. There’s 4 the hyperlink, if we go to the next page {H/121/7}, is
5 another version in October −− actually three −− 5 to an article with a submission history of April 2019.
6 November, December, January of the next year, and then 6 Are you aware of those findings?
7 there’s two in April . The one that you’re bringing up 7 A. I am, and that’s actually rather strange, because that
8 is one of many. So, again, each of those are different . 8 hyperlink has nothing to do with what the paper’s about,
9 Q. The ones that are used as the control copies and 9 interestingly enough.
10 referred to as the control copies by both sides, they’re 10 Q. Well, I ’ve already put to you that there isn ’ t a close
11 pristine documents, aren’t they? They bear no signs of 11 connection between the footnote you claim was there and
12 alteration ? 12 the text . But even if you’re right and it doesn’t have
13 A. They’re not used, they’re not accessed, they’re 13 a connection, that doesn’t suggest no edit, it suggests
14 downloaded fresh every time. There is a distinction . 14 it ’s perfectly consistent with a clumsy edit, isn ’ t it ,
15 None of these are on shared servers owned by staff, none 15 Dr Wright?
16 of these are part of a research effort . So, again, that 16 A. Well, once again, I keep mentioning this, we ran Citrix
17 is a different issue . 17 Metaframe and people edited files.
18 When I gave these files over, I didn’t think, in 18 Q. Again −−
19 2009, ”Hey, I’m going to be in court 15 years later 19 A. People accessed files .
20 saying ’ I ’m Satoshi’”. In fact , I never wanted to be 20 Q. Again, I need to ask you to answer the question. If
21 known as Satoshi. I didn’t want to come out at all. 21 there is a disconnect between this article and
22 Q. We’ll come to that later. You’ve made that point. But 22 the paragraph to which it was footnoted, that is equally
23 you did choose to identify these documents and you did 23 consistent with being a clumsy edit, isn ’ t it ?
24 choose to give chain of custody information which made 24 A. No, not at all . It ’s equally consistent with someone
25 no suggestion that they were altered by numerous members 25 opening up and not saving properly on Citrix Metaframe.

21 23

1 of staff , as you’re now telling us. 1 Q. You also say, in appendix B to Wright 11, that what
2 A. Again, ”altered” is wrong. Used. And, yes, if you 2 happened to this document was that copying of it in 2019
3 actually look in Relativity against those ID numbers, 3 caused fragments of other documents to be merged into
4 you will see laptops that aren’t mine that they came 4 it . Have I got that right?
5 from, you will see file servers that are corporate. So, 5 A. Yes, you do.
6 I ’m sorry if I −− I didn’t explain that, but I didn’t 6 Q. Now what I have to put to you, based on Mr Madden’s
7 think that I would need to explain that when a third 7 careful explanation in Madden 4, is that a process of
8 party document has been through multiple staff and 8 merger, or the use of templates, would not cause text to
9 employees, that I need to explain that it could be 9 be carried over to create a readable document, would it?
10 different . 10 A. That’s actually incorrect , and I’ve tested this . When
11 Q. Well, let me just put this point to you before we move 11 you actually use Citrix Metaframe, different versions of
12 back to the document and make some progress, and this is 12 Word and .M files, the templates will result in changes,
13 for the experts to address later . It ’s right , isn ’ t it , 13 even when you don’t save. This is especially prevalent
14 there are many documents in this case which are 14 when you have Linux as the back end rather than Windows.
15 pristine , like one of the BlackNet documents we looked 15 Q. And yet this basic characteristic eluded both
16 at yesterday, and like the real White Papers? 16 the experts?
17 A. Yes. Out of the many documents, some have been 17 A. Neither of the experts happens to be qualified in
18 untouched. I’m actually surprised . And I wouldn’t call 18 VMware, Linux or Citrix. The Citrix person I talked to,
19 them pristine; they’re not perfect , but they’re close . 19 who was a developer at Citrix −−
20 Q. Moving on to −− moving back to Mr Madden’s report 20 Q. I ’ ll pause you there, because I’m not −− the court has
21 {H/121/5}. 21 already ruled out, by agreement, your evidence of tests
22 Mr Madden also found hidden remnant text in the raw 22 and hearsay expert evidence.
23 data of this file , which he sets out in the table below 23 The obvious inference from all these findings is
24 paragraph 19, and the coloured blue and red text is 24 that this is a forgery for which you were responsible,
25 the difference between the two. 25 isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 A. No, it is not. 1 false . So the statement saying how Xcopy works is

2 Q. Next document {L3/286/1}, a document entitled, ”Economic 2 completely wrong and unchecked.
3 Security”. 3 Q. Page 4 {H/126/4}. We will wait, of course, Dr Wright,
4 Would you accept this is another of your primary 4 to see if your counsel put these points to the experts.
5 reliance documents? 5 Page 4, paragraph 9 onwards, Mr Madden, do you
6 A. I do. 6 recall , identified another version of this document in
7 Q. My Lord, it’s a pleaded forgery and in our core list of 7 its redundant space, which he explained would usually be
8 20. 8 a result , a remnant of editing history , so a prior
9 It presents, doesn’t it , Dr Wright, on its face, as 9 version of the document; do you recall that finding?
10 a document about the operation of Bitcoin including 10 A. I recall what he said, yes.
11 the double spending problem? 11 Q. Would you accept that the finding of another version of
12 A. It ’s a bit more than that, but, yes. 12 a document in its redundant space is at least consistent
13 Q. You’ve said in your chain of custody document that this 13 with it being a remnant of editing history?
14 document was originally drafted by you and believed to 14 A. No, I would not.
15 be from 2008; would you accept that? 15 Q. {H/127/1}, please.
16 A. I do. 16 Mr Madden also found online an article by you
17 Q. Its internal metadata give created and last saved dates 17 headed, ”Economic Security”, on the Medium website with
18 of 5 and 7 November 2008. Will you take that from me? 18 a publication date of May 2009 [sic]; do you see that?
19 A. I will . 19 A. I do.
20 Q. If we go then to {H/126/2}, this is Mr Madden’s laying 20 Q. Did you write that article ?
21 out of the metadata and this is the document in 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sorry, 2019.
22 the left −hand column, ID_000258, and do we see that 22 MR HOUGH: Sorry, 2019. I’m sorry, I mis−spoke, my Lord.
23 the edit time is just over −− right at the bottom of 23 A. Yes, I wrote the paper and that goes to an article .
24 the page, is just over 83,000 minutes, yes? 24 To explain how this works, my Lord, I have −−
25 A. Yes, persistence , yes. 25 I write papers and they go now to Sebastian, in the past

25 27

1 Q. Whereas the difference between the created and last 1 to other people, including Alex, and they run my blog.
2 saved times is just over 2,500 minutes? 2 I write the paper and they go into a list of what gets
3 A. Yes. 3 published and I send these documents. My backlog at
4 Q. And Mr Madden concludes, page 3, please, {H/126/3}, that 4 the moment is four years, where they publish weekly or
5 that indicates the use of computer clock manipulation as 5 so. So basically , there are −− every time I −− I do
6 would be used in backdating a document, and Dr Placks 6 a number −− I’m still in university, I ’m an Aspie, so
7 agrees; that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 7 I haven’t managed to get out of university yet, and I do
8 A. No, it ’s actually incorrect . The operation of Citrix 8 a lot of courses and I write at least one paper every
9 leads to persistence , as I ’ve stated, and the date on 9 two days. They go into a backlog, like these other
10 the file date when copying using Xcopy, as I showed in 10 papers, and they select them and they publish them.
11 my witness statement, leads to these changes. 11 Q. Can we move away from the fetching photograph of
12 Q. Are you aware that both of experts reject those 12 Al Yankovic in a tin foil hat to the comparison between
13 explanations? 13 this , your article , and the document, {H/128/1}.
14 A. The expert actually said that Xcopy can be used in 14 Now, this is a table in which Mr Madden’s compared
15 manipulating timestamps. 15 the face value of the document, the redundant draft and
16 My Lord, if you read the statement by Microsoft, 16 the medium hosted blog.
17 Xcopy was released in 1986. This tool was released 17 Would you accept that the redundant draft of
18 before timestamp was available. It has not been updated 18 the document closely matches your article which was
19 since then. So, to suggest that it can manipulate 19 posted, at any rate, in 2019 and speaks of Bitcoin as
20 timestamps rather than copy incorrectly, as my images 20 a system already in operation?
21 demonstrate, is false . 21 A. Yes. As I noted, my −− the employees at nChain who run
22 The reason I put those images is to show that anyone 22 this would have various versions of this document and
23 can validate this . Looking at the command, which 23 they would have chose one to load and probably edited
24 I trust Microsoft to actually not lie about how their 24 it .
25 command works, demonstrates categorically that that’s 25 Q. And would you accept the face value text is different

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 and speaks of Bitcoin in the future tense as a system 1 about the future, but it isn ’ t . The attacks that I were
2 yet to take effect ? 2 [ sic ] getting happened before the launch the Bitcoin.
3 A. Sorry, which one are we looking at? 3 My Lord, before I even launched Bitcoin, I was on
4 Q. The face value of the document is different and speaks 4 the mailing list and people like James Donald came up
5 of Bitcoin in the future tense −− 5 and started explaining why my system was wrong. They
6 A. Ah, the face value document, you mean? 6 talked about this idea it will −− I mean, I said it will
7 Q. Yes. 7 end in server farms, and they said, ”Oh, the government
8 A. Yes. 8 will take it over”, and they had rants and I had rants,
9 Q. May we go to {CSW/2/30}, paragraph 8.7. You give your 9 and my idea there was −− actually, I got quite annoyed,
10 explanation for this finding in appendix B to your 11th 10 that’s why I elided (?), and one of the few times
11 statement. You say: 11 a spelling mistake from Satoshi happened. And James
12 ”I have been asked to explain why this text has been 12 Donald and others were basically saying how my system
13 removed. By November I had already designed the system. 13 was wrong before I even launched it to try .
14 Lynn Wright did a lot of the editing of my documents. 14 Q. Pause there. {H/128/1} again, please.
15 I believe that it is likely that I sent the document to 15 These, the redundant draft and the medium hosted
16 Lynn Wright who would have taken out my rants and this 16 blog, if we look at these passages, describe a system
17 explains the content identified by Mr Madden.” 17 which is in operation and is being discussed by others,
18 Do you see that? 18 doesn’t it ?
19 A. I do. 19 A. No. The system was actually described and attacked
20 Q. Do you see that? 20 before it ever launched. The idea was out there and
21 A. I do. 21 people were already saying why it will fail , why big
22 Q. This presumes, doesn’t it, that you write, first of all , 22 blocks won’t work, why we need some distributed system
23 a version with present tense references to Bitcoin and 23 where every single person runs a node. I didn’t think
24 additional content, then Lynn Wright edits it to change 24 about that at the point. I thought it was obvious that,
25 to the future tense and removes some comments; correct? 25 well , if you have a plurality of nodes, corporations,

29 31

1 A. Not necessarily , no. 1 then it doesn’t matter. If you have 196 or so −− I’m
2 Q. Well, the remnant text speaks in the present tense, 2 not sure of the exact number now −− countries running
3 the face value text speaks in the future tense, so if 3 nodes, that that’s competition. But, unfortunately,
4 the face value document has been produced by editing 4 before I even launched Bitcoin, people started attacking
5 the remnant text, then the present tense references have 5 the system.
6 been changed to the future tense; correct? 6 Q. Dr Wright, these ever−expanding excuses are lies and
7 A. No, that’s not what I said there. What I’ve said is 7 this document is a forgery; that’s the position ,
8 those two documents are different. I didn’t say that 8 isn ’ t it ?
9 Lynn edited the first one to get the second one, I said 9 A. No, actually , as you just saw, in 8.6, I already
10 she edited the face value document. After that, it ’s 10 explained it .
11 been edited again. I don’t know which of my staff and 11 Q. Moving on to the next document ID_000551 which is at
12 when. It could have been right at the beginning. I had 12 {L3/184/1}, entitled, ”The study of complex networks”.
13 staff in 2009 and I’ve had staff now. So what I’m 13 Again, would you accept that this is one of your
14 saying is there are different versions of documents. 14 primary reliance documents?
15 Q. The explanation you give here of Lynn Wright taking 15 A. I do.
16 the remnant −− a document with the remnant text and then 16 Q. You’ve said in your chain of custody information that
17 editing it to change to the future tense would of course 17 the document was part of a research project started in
18 make no sense, on your account, wouldn’t it? 18 2005 linked to your MStat degree; is that right?
19 A. Not necessarily , no. 19 A. It is .
20 Q. And what you’ve done just now is to embellish the excuse 20 Q. And its internal metadata give created and last saved
21 by adding another layer of editing with other people, 21 times of August and December 2008 respectively. Will
22 which you didn’t even mention in your appendix B 22 you take that from me?
23 a couple of weeks ago? 23 A. I do.
24 A. I said I had employees. And even what you’re saying is 24 Q. Do you see that in the document itself, the first three
25 wrong. As I say at 8.6. What you’re saying is this is 25 paragraphs discuss features of network systems and

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 academic work on such systems, in general terms? 1 A. It is .

2 A. I do. 2 Q. This was obviously the source for the section of your
3 Q. And then the fourth paragraph says: 3 document we looked at, isn’t it?
4 ”Newman (2003) lists a large number of empirical 4 A. No, actually , van der Hofstad −− Professor −− started,
5 methods and features that we can use in describing 5 around ten years before this , teaching this topic . Now,
6 Bitcoin and the functions of the blockchain based 6 this book is actually an amalgamation of all the lecture
7 systems.” 7 notes and it has grown. So the version here is actually
8 Do you see that? 8 an earlier version and there are now two versions.
9 A. Yes. 9 My Lord, the person has taken their course notes,
10 Q. We see then, a few paragraphs discussing, in general, 10 which were available earlier , which I had access to,
11 network systems; do you see that? 11 because as I said , I was a postgraduate statistics
12 A. I do. 12 student, I was a researcher at a university , and
13 Q. And then, in the eighth paragraph down −− if we can see 13 I worked on these topics and, like most postgraduates,
14 the whole screen, please: 14 I grabbed every set of notes I could from every
15 ”In such a consideration of the Bitcoin network ... ” 15 professor I could in my topic. That included ones in my
16 We suddenly turn away from general discussions of 16 university and others, because postgrad is different
17 network systems to Bitcoin, yes? 17 from undergrad. When you’re a postgrad, you’re doing
18 A. No, that’s not suddenly turning away. The whole thing 18 research. So I found the lecture notes of this
19 is about a particular type of network system. 19 professor , which were turned into this book, and I used
20 The internet, for instance, doesn’t communicate this 20 them.
21 way. So this is a particular type of system. Now, in 21 Q. {H/141/8−9}, please.
22 the general, I ’m starting with the analogy of biological 22 Now, this is Mr Madden’s appendix PM35.
23 systems and the web, etc, but then I’m drilling down 23 Do you see that he found a series of closely similar
24 more and more. 24 passages between your book and the Hofstad book, just
25 Now, if you look at Newman 2003, paragraph 4, I’ve 25 accepting as a matter of fact that the same, or very

33 35

1 already started saying Bitcoin and blockchain systems. 1 similar , passages appeared in each?
2 Q. Yes, we saw you’d introduced it there. I made that 2 A. Yes, just like they’re in the notes, yes.
3 point. 3 Q. Then if we go to page 9, in the middle, do we see
4 Under, ”Defining Graph Connectivity”, do you see, 4 example 09, there is one section where the passage in
5 under the −− the second paragraph says: 5 the book gives an equation, but in your paper it ’s
6 ”A Graph, G=(V, E) is formed from a collection of 6 replaced with the legend ”Equation (1)”?
7 vertices (or nodes) that we will designate as the vertex 7 A. Yeah, I hadn’t typed it .
8 set (V). It also has a grouping of edges that we 8 Q. You just typed in ”Equation (1)”
9 designate as the edge set E.” 9 A. Because I hadn’t done the equation yet, yes.
10 A. I do. 10 Q. Now, Mr Madden’s researches told him that the first
11 Q. Do you recall that, or are you aware that Mr Madden 11 version of the book, which happened to contain all
12 found a book online by Remco van der Hofstad, ”Random 12 the passages reflected in yours, was the fifth edition
13 Graphs and Complex Networks”? 13 available online , produced in 2016, yes?
14 A. I do. 14 A. That’s what he said, yes.
15 Q. May we go to {H/142/1}, and at page 2 internally, please 15 Q. {H/141/10}, please.
16 −− sorry, page 20, which is internal page 2 {H/142/20}. 16 Paragraph 23, he sets out which of the common
17 Page 20 of the PDF, which is internal page 2. Thank you 17 passages appeared in different versions of the Hofstad
18 very much. 18 book in a table we see here. The first version to
19 If we look at the second sentence, it reads: 19 contain all the common passages on Mr Madden’s findings
20 ”A graph G= (V, E) consists of a collection of 20 was one published in 2016. Do you see that finding?
21 vertices , called vertex set , V and a collection of 21 A. I see it .
22 edges, called edge set, E.” 22 Q. And the previous version of 2014 didn’t contain them
23 Now, just this simple question, no need for any 23 all ?
24 digression : is that the same sentence that we saw 24 A. No, he hadn’t implemented all of his lecture notes.
25 earlier ? 25 The 2014 version does say that he had nearly done it,

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 and the 2007 version says that he is expanding and will 1 was drafted by you and part of a research project that
2 expect a new version soon. 2 started in 2005, again linked to your MStat degree −−
3 Q. These mythical lecture notes which you had many years 3 A. Yes.
4 earlier , between 2005 and 2008, which happened to 4 Q. −− is that evidence you stick to?
5 contain all the passages that made their way into his 5 A. It is .
6 2016 book, have you ever disclosed them in any piece of 6 Q. Do we see that the first sentences are as follows :
7 litigation ? 7 ”We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to
8 A. No. 8 generate an alternate chain faster than the honest
9 Q. This is another fairy story , isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? It’s 9 chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw
10 completely untrue. 10 the system open to arbitrary changes ... ”
11 A. No, and actually, if Mr Madden had done some research, 11 Would you accept that this and the following
12 he would have seen in the earlier versions of the book 12 sentences correspond to section 11 in
13 that Hofstad said that he was using his lecture notes. 13 the Bitcoin White Paper?
14 Q. I should make clear, before Mr Orr troubles himself to 14 A. I do.
15 stand up, that I ’m not asserting that this is a forgery 15 Q. So you put this forward as a reliance document on
16 because it is not in our list , but I am accusing 16 the basis that it showed work done by you before
17 Dr Wright of coming up with an implausible excuse for 17 the release of the White Paper which corresponded to
18 a finding of inauthenticity . 18 sections of it , didn’t you?
19 MR ORR: That is the point I was going to make. This is not 19 A. I did.
20 on the list of 20 forgeries . 20 Q. The document has internal metadata which give a creation
21 MR HOUGH: If we then go back to the document {L3/184/4}, we 21 date of 8 March 2008 and a last saved date of
22 see a series of equations which are visibly different in 22 9 March 2008. Will you take that from me?
23 typescript from the text surrounding them. Mr Madden 23 A. I will .
24 has commented their form suggests that they have first 24 Q. Now, Mr Madden made a number of findings that
25 been assembled in a later and more advanced version of 25 the document wasn’t authentic with which Dr Placks

37 39

1 Word before conversion of this document to this earlier 1 agreed. Let me put one of them to you, {H/107/9}.
2 version . Is that a finding you’re aware of, or would 2 If we look at paragraph 24, he found that
3 you like me to take you to it? 3 the metadata indicated that the document had been
4 A. I ’m aware of it. 4 created using the version 2.4 of the OpenOffice.org
5 Q. That’s a further clear sign of this document not being 5 software, which wasn’t released until some weeks after
6 authentic, isn ’ t it ? 6 the supposed creation date of the document. That dating
7 A. No, it ’s a sign of the mistake made by Mr Madden. 7 was then confirmed by evidence from Joost Andrae, which
8 Mr Madden has also noted the use of other systems, 8 Mr Madden received from Bird & Bird. Are you aware of
9 including MathType, my Lord. Now, if you’re using 9 those findings?
10 MathType, that means you’re not using Word equations. 10 A. I am.
11 Now, MathType uses XML ... 11 Q. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that it wouldn’t have been
12 Q. Can we pause and have that excuse when I ask you about 12 possible to generate those metadata tags before
13 a MathType example? 13 the creation of OpenOffice in that version, would it?
14 A. Oh, no, this is a MathType example. So if −− you just 14 A. No, actually , it ’s very possible . I ’m not saying that
15 made the comment that this is a later version of Word. 15 this happened in this case, but to do this , all you need
16 No. I ’m telling you this is a later version of other 16 to do is fill out a metadata tag. Now, when I used
17 editing software. I don’t use Word equation software, 17 OpenOffice, I also stated that I used LaTeX plugins.
18 as you already know. 18 Now, as I’ve demonstrated, the metadata in any document
19 Q. Moving on to another document, please, {L2/294/1}, which 19 in a LaTeX area can be set. Using the HTML ref, you can
20 is ID_000260. This is a pleaded forgery and in the core 20 put down any timeframe you want, any program, any
21 list of 20. 21 operating system.
22 Do you recognise this as one of your primary 22 In my 2007 forensic book and also then in my later
23 reliance documents, Dr Wright? 23 book on audit, one of the things I do note is changing
24 A. I do. 24 versions of systems. The reason I say this , my Lord, is
25 Q. In your chain of custody information, you said that it 25 attackers , well , basically , attack based on known

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 versions . So one of the things I would do back then 1 altering metadata was to demonstrate how that could be
2 would make funky versions. I used to teach this to my 2 done to students, isn ’ t it ?
3 students as well . So, things would actually −− it’s 3 A. One of the times I did it was students. I also did
4 difficult on Windows, because it doesn’t let you do it, 4 writing papers in books. So −−
5 but on Linux and applications that you build, for 5 Q. But you don’t say that in your appendix B, do you?
6 instance DNS software, if you change the version 6 A. I ’m giving an example of one of the times. I did not
7 information, it makes it so that attackers use the wrong 7 say every time I ’ve done it . At no point did I say it
8 attacks. And the same happens with other applications. 8 was every time that I ’ve ever done this.
9 So, in effect , with build information like this , 9 Q. Let me put to you, the clear implication of your
10 I would actually put in meta generation tags. 10 appendix B evidence is that your alteration of this
11 Q. Let’s just explore that by reference to what you say in 11 document was as a demonstration tool for students.
12 your appendix B and then we’ll have the break. 12 A. Again, it could have been. It could also be for
13 {CSW/2/33}, paragraphs 9.7 onwards: 13 the other purpose. On top of that, it could also be
14 ”In paragraphs 3 and 4 COPA note that this is an 14 that I changed the −− re−did the document from LaTeX at
15 OpenOffice document and contains data indicating it was 15 a later date and it could have even been that version of
16 created using OpenOffice version 2.4 ... ” 16 OpenOffice, because if I was to use LaTeX and timestamps
17 Then the internal version is given: 17 that are set and build it later , but I don’t have
18 ”I set the metadata in the document to refer to this 18 the original LaTeX code, so I can’t tell you.
19 internal version number using LaTeX. I am a programmer 19 Q. Dr Wright, just this question before the break. It
20 using LaTeX. I obscured the version number 20 beggars belief , doesn’t it , that the real Satoshi would
21 deliberately . I set the version number in this document 21 take a part of his document which he was issuing
22 using LaTeX so that it looks like I wrote this document 22 pseudonymously, mess with the metadata and use it as
23 in the future . 23 a demonstration tool for a group of random students?
24 ”I have taught the process of using versioning in 24 A. No, actually , this is another area you don’t understand,
25 this way to demonstrate aspects of making 25 I ’m sorry. Anonymous is not pseudonymous. So if we

41 43

1 a determination about a document difficult to students 1 look at many authors through history who have been known
2 in 2008 to 2012.” 2 pseudonymously, even recent ones like a certain author
3 That’s your evidence, is it ? 3 of Harry Potter, pseudonymous is not unknown. I was
4 A. Yes, and actually, one of my witnesses, Shoaib, when −− 4 pseudonymous, private. The tax office in Australia knew
5 well , a funny situation , I was both a student and −− 5 who I was, government officials knew who I was,
6 Q. Don’t tell me about that digression, just let ’s stick to 6 individuals at companies knew who I was; I just didn’t
7 the questions that you’re asked. 7 want to be public. There’s a big difference . So many
8 A. I did it with him. 8 people knew.
9 Q. You say you deliberately altered the metadata of this 9 Q. Pausing you there, and just to be clear that we dispute
10 document as a demonstration tool for students, right? 10 all of what you’ve just said , but it ’s right , isn ’ t it ,
11 A. I demonstrated many documents as demonstration tools to 11 that if the real Satoshi had wanted to stay even
12 students. 12 pseudonymous, it would have been absurd to reveal
13 Q. Again, that wasn’t the question. You’re saying that you 13 the entire game for a bunch of random students?
14 altered the metadata of this document as a demonstration 14 A. Not at all . They weren’t random students. One of these
15 tool for students? 15 people is Shoaib, who was my student, as well as being
16 A. That is not what I said. I said I used to do it for 16 a student with him. Shoaib, for instance, ended up
17 that. I also did it when I was writing my book on 17 working in my companies and being a director of one of
18 the topic . So which particular time I did these things, 18 them and had a lot of interaction. So, my Lord, a lot
19 I don’t remember. 19 of students ended up working with me. So, why would
20 Q. {L15/137/71}. Sorry, L −− I may have to come back to 20 I think hiding from them? I actually want my students
21 that point. 21 to know about my stuff. The fact is, then they trust me
22 Just before I −− I’ll come back to that after 22 and they know me. And people like Shoaib knew what
23 the break and we’ll get the right reference , but let me 23 I was doing for years , but he didn’t go out to the world
24 put this to you, Dr Wright. The suggestion you make in 24 and go, ”Hey, Craig’s Satoshi”. He worked on systems,
25 your appendix B is that the reason that you were 25 he sources them, he went and visited the companies. But

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 that’s different : people you can trust versus the world. 1 considering, the document you claim to have altered or
2 I didn’t care about being anonymous, I cared about being 2 modified, whatever language you want to use, for this
3 private . 3 purpose, it is another forgery for which you are
4 Q. Can you give us the name of all the other students, 4 responsible , isn ’ t it ?
5 other than Shoaib, who knew that you were Satoshi and 5 A. No, and I did not alter or modify it either . Altering
6 who will be giving evidence in this case? 6 means changing it. If I created it with a particular
7 A. Who will be giving he was in this case, David Bridges 7 set of metadata, then that’s not manipulation, it ’s
8 was also a student. 8 creation .
9 Q. Thank you very much. 9 Q. {L3/230/1}, please. This next document is ID_000504.
10 Any others? 10 It ’s a document entitled, ”Non−Sparse Random Graphs”.
11 A. We don’t have people giving evidence in the case, so 11 Dr Wright, do you accept this was another of your
12 that is a different question. If you’re looking at more 12 primary reliance documents that you listed?
13 people, that’s a different thing again. 13 A. I do.
14 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for 14 Q. My Lord, it’s a pleaded forgery, but not in our core
15 a break? 15 list of 20.
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, let’s take a five−minute break. 16 Do you recall saying in your chain of custody
17 Dr Wright, relax for a few minutes −− 17 information that this document was originally drafted by
18 A. Thank you. 18 you and is believed to be from 2008?
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− and we’ll see you back here in about 19 A. I do.
20 five minutes or so. 20 Q. Its internal metadata give created and last saved dates
21 (11.40 am) 21 of October and November 2008 respectively. Again, will
22 (A short break) 22 you take that from me?
23 (11.46 am) 23 A. I will .
24 MR HOUGH: May we have on screen, please, {L15/131/71}. 24 Q. Will you accept in, again, broad and simplified terms,
25 Dr Wright, this is a transcript of your evidence to 25 that it presents as analysis and modelling of

45 47

1 the court in the Kleiman case in June 2019. Line 16, 1 the Bitcoin network by reference to network theory?
2 you have been asked if you manipulated the metadata of 2 A. Yes, it is .
3 a document and you recall saying: 3 Q. {H/124/3}, please.
4 ”I do not manipulate metadata on things for any 4 In paragraphs 4 to 7, Mr Madden explains that he
5 purpose.” 5 found that the period −− the edit time in the internal
6 A. That is correct . 6 metadata exceeded the period between the creation and
7 Q. You’ve just told us before the break that you 7 last saved dates, which ought not to be possible without
8 manipulated metadata in a document as an aid to 8 manipulation. If you go through to the next page
9 tutorial ? 9 {H/124/4}, you’ll see those findings , that that’s
10 A. No, ”manipulation” means going in there and altering. 10 anomalous.
11 That’s a very different meaning to the word. I set 11 Is that a finding you’re aware of?
12 metadata as demonstrations. So where you’re saying 12 A. I am.
13 I manipulated, manipulation would be going in there with 13 Q. In addition, at {H/124/6}, please, paragraph 16 to 17,
14 a purpose of altering an existing document to have 14 he found internal references to MS Office schemas dating
15 something different. Setting is not the same thing. 15 from 2010, after its supposed authorship?
16 Q. ”I set the version number in this document ... so that 16 A. I do.
17 it looks like I wrote the document in the future”. 17 Q. As Mr Madden finds on this basis, and Dr Placks agreed,
18 {CSW/2/33}. 18 this is another backdated document, isn’t it?
19 That’s what you said in appendix B. That is pretty 19 A. No. Again, when using Metaframe and Citrix
20 much the definition of manipulation, isn ’ t it ? 20 applications , you have shared access to files .
21 A. No, it is not. The manipulation definition that you’re 21 Unfortunately, neither Mr Placks nor Mr Madden have ever
22 trying to give would be that I have already created it 22 taken even a basic Citrix course.
23 and that I ’ve opened up the Acrobat document, however 23 Q. Back to the document, please {L3/230/1}.
24 that is , and then changed it, in effect . 24 If we go through the document, we see that there are
25 Q. Dr Wright, to conclude on the document we were 25 various numerals and equations which are visibly

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 different from the surrounding text; would you agree? 1 and believed to date from 2008. Would you adhere to
2 A. I do. 2 that?
3 Q. Do you recall that Mr Madden concluded that they’re 3 A. Yes.
4 indicative of the document having been prepared in 4 Q. Its internal metadata gives created and last saved dates
5 a later version of Word before being converted to 5 of November and December 2008. Again, will you take
6 Word 2003? Do you remember that finding? 6 that from me?
7 A. Yes, I remember it. 7 A. I will .
8 Q. And again, what I suggest to you is that this document 8 Q. And without going into detail, would you accept that it
9 has been converted to fit with the backdating. 9 presents as a set of mathematical workings apparently
10 A. No, actually , if you did a conversion, it wouldn’t come 10 related to network theory?
11 out this way. The way that I use documents is that they 11 A. It ’s actually −− well, yes, the simple answer.
12 have other applications , including , like you’ve noted, 12 Q. {L3/288/3}, under, ”Small Worlds”, do we see, in
13 MathType. If you were to convert that into an earlier 13 the third sentence, there’s a reference to Bitcoin:
14 version , that would still remain true, whether it was 14 ”Like the internet , Bitcoin is a highly connected
15 created in LaTeX directly, or with plug−ins, such as 15 network ... ”
16 ”Grundy” −− I’m not even going pronounce it, 16 Etc. Yes?
17 Silicon Valley −− ”Grindley”, or whatever the hell it 17 A. Yes.
18 is , then these things will actually come out that way, 18 Q. Page 4 of the document, under, ”Measuring Biases”, third
19 basically when they’re not saved well. 19 paragraph, do you see:
20 Q. Once again, on the basis of agreed expert evidence, 20 ”In our analysis of the Bitcoin network from
21 I have to put to you that your explanations are wrong. 21 the time period of 20xx to 20xx we note that the system
22 {L1/317/1}, please. Sorry, I may have the wrong 22 exhibits strong sense of densification .”
23 reference there. Can we go to ID_000394. 23 There’s then a footnote at the bottom:
24 Are you familiar with this manuscript document 24 ”Need to use Snort and TCP dump.”
25 {L1/371/1}? 25 In simple terms, are those tools for monitoring

49 51

1 A. I am. 1 network traffic ?

2 Q. It ’s a manuscript version of the same document, 2 A. They are.
3 isn ’ t it ? 3 Q. Before we go to Mr Madden’s conclusions, can we go to
4 A. It is . 4 page 2 of the document {L3/288/2}. Second paragraph
5 Q. What I put to you simply is that this document, which 5 under, ”Graph Distances”, after a description of forks
6 can’t be analysed in the same way, is no more authentic 6 in a network, the document goes on:
7 than the electronic version , is it ? 7 ”That is, a separation such as that between BTC and
8 A. It can actually be analysed, and it was. Ontier had 8 BCH.”
9 done a handwriting and other paper analysis showing that 9 That’s a reference , isn ’ t it , to the hard fork in
10 it −− 10 the blockchain which created the Bitcoin cash
11 Q. Just −− 11 cryptocurrency implementation, isn’t it ?
12 A. −− several years old −− 12 A. I don’t know what that one is, but ...
13 Q. −− just be careful about relying upon things that are 13 Q. You claim a degree of expertise in cryptocurrency,
14 privileged and that haven’t been disclosed, Dr Wright. 14 Dr Wright; that’s the natural interpretation of that
15 I ’m just going to stop you there to give you 15 sentence, isn ’ t it ?
16 the opportunity not to go into privileged matters. 16 A. There are two points I need to answer there. One, I’m
17 Next document, please, ID_000549, which is 17 not an expert in cryptocurrency in the way you’ve said,
18 {L3/288/1}. This is a document pithily 18 although I’ve studied them. Bitcoin is a digital cash
19 entitled .”Maths”. Do you recognise this as another of 19 system, electronic cash, it isn ’ t a cryptocurrency.
20 your primary reliance documents? 20 While you can build a cryptocurrency in Bitcoin, it ’s
21 A. I do. 21 a different thing. So, that is a possible
22 Q. My Lord, it’s a pleaded forgery, but not in the core 22 interpretation , yes.
23 list of 20. 23 Q. The hard fork in the blockchain which created Bitcoin
24 You’ve said in your chain of custody information 24 Cash took place in 2017, didn’t it ?
25 that this document, again, was originally drafted by you 25 A. It did.

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 Q. This paper refers to that fork as an accomplished fact, 1 an impression that the document was drafted before
2 doesn’t it ? 2 the release of Bitcoin, isn ’ t it ?
3 A. It does. 3 A. No, it ’s not. It ’s basically a document that has been
4 Q. So it follows that this document, in at least this form, 4 used, and over time, researchers have accessed
5 must date from 2017 or later, mustn’t it? 5 the documents. I’ve never denied that.
6 A. It could have been updated, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to your LLM dissertation proposals. You’ve
7 Q. That is not something you said in your chain of custody, 7 told us that you took an LLM in Northumbria University,
8 is it ? 8 Northumbria in New South Wales; that’s right, isn’t it?
9 A. No. What I said was it was with employees and I don’t 9 A. Northumbria is in the UK, not New South Wales.
10 know what people are doing when they have the files. 10 Q. You took an LLM at Northumbria University in
11 Q. You said it was believed to date from 2008? 11 New South Wales?
12 A. The original document that I wrote and drafted was from 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, it’s Newcastle.
13 2008, yes. 13 MR HOUGH: I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry, that’s my mistake.
14 Q. Can you at least agree that this document in this form 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Don’t worry.
15 is not authentic to 2008? 15 MR HOUGH: And as a northerner, I ought to know!
16 A. None of them are from 2008, if you’re going to look at 16 Dr Wright, you took an LLM in New South Wales.
17 it that way, because they have all been accessed and all 17 Let’s keep it simple, yes?
18 used. 18 A. I took an LLM in Newcastle, Northumbria.
19 Q. So would you accept, on the basis of what you’ve just 19 Q. In the UK? I see, okay.
20 said , that none of your primary reliance documents are 20 In your deposition evidence in the Kleiman
21 authentic to their stated dates where they’re 2008? 21 litigation , you told the court that the first half of
22 A. No, I would not. Again, you’re −− 22 the Bitcoin White Paper was submitted in 2007 as part of
23 Q. Well, what did the last answer mean? 23 your LLM thesis proposal, didn’t you?
24 A. You’re misrepresenting what I said. I ’ve said I drafted 24 A. I did.
25 documents in 2008. I created systems and I’m using 25 Q. You said that the completed thesis was submitted and

53 55

1 these documents to show what I started researching 1 awarded in early 2008?

2 before the 350 White Papers that they led to, several 2 A. I did.
3 thousand patents, etc. These are the documents I gave 3 Q. And you’ve disclosed a number of copies of your thesis
4 to my staff members to work on that and to do that 4 proposal and nominated two of them as primary
5 project . 5 reliance documents; is that right?
6 Q. But if any of your lawyers were to say, look at 6 A. I did.
7 97 reliance documents as originally nominated, dating 7 Q. First one, please {L2/131/1}, ID_000217.
8 from 2008, showing metadata from 2008, referring to 8 My Lord, this is a pleaded forgery and in the core
9 Bitcoin concepts, that shows Dr Wright’s interest and 9 list of 20.
10 involvement in Bitcoin in 2008, you wouldn’t agree with 10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
11 that proposition , would you? 11 MR HOUGH: You’ve said in your chain of custody information
12 MR ORR: My Lord, I’m not sure it’s appropriate for 12 that this was originally drafted by you and is your LLM
13 the witness to be asked to comment on submissions that 13 proposal; is that right?
14 might or might not be made by his lawyers. 14 A. Yes.
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Move on, Mr Hough. 15 Q. The internal metadata give it a creation date of
16 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, moving on to {H/139/7} in Mr Madden’s 16 18 June 2007, and a last saved date of 28 October 2007.
17 forensic findings , paragraph 21. And the passage we 17 Will you take that from me?
18 were just looking at, Mr Madden found hidden embedded 18 A. I will .
19 text in the document, and in the passage we were just 19 Q. If we go to page 3 of the document {L2/131/3}, do we see
20 looking at, the hidden text is the same except that 20 that it sets out the objectives of the paper as
21 the dates are 2011 and 2018, rather than ”20xx and 21 addressing the effect of legal liability as pertaining
22 20xx”, and the footnote isn’t present; do you see that? 22 to internet intermediaries , notably internet service
23 A. I do. 23 providers?
24 Q. The obvious inference is that this document has been 24 A. Correct.
25 edited in such a way as to include those dates, giving 25 Q. Then page 6, please {L2/131/6}, under the heading:

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 ”The postal acceptance rule and payments on 1 trying to introduce now expert evidence for which there
2 the Internet .” 2 is no permission and for which none has been sought.
3 If you look at the first paragraph at the bottom of 3 Can you not talk, please, about analysis of paper
4 page 6, yes? 4 copies.
5 A. Yes. 5 Just answer the question. I ’ve put it to you that
6 Q. And then the next paragraph on {L2/131/7}. 6 this version has been backdated based on forensic
7 A. Yes. 7 findings that I ’ve explained to you. Do you accept that
8 Q. Will you accept that those simply describe the well 8 those forensic findings lead to that conclusion, without
9 known postal acceptance rule for English contract law? 9 referring to expert evidence which isn’t before
10 A. With some modifications from my writing, but, yes. 10 the court?
11 Q. And then, if we go down to the paragraph beginning: 11 A. Not at all . As I’ve noted multiple times, when you use
12 ”In a similar manner to the web, a purely 12 Metaframe, when people have access to documents, these
13 peer−to−peer version of electronic cash would allow 13 things change. Now, this version of document was on
14 online payments to be sent directly from one party to 14 employee machines and accessed, and the reason for that
15 another without going through a payment intermediary.” 15 is that I allowed them to access these things. To
16 That sentence has a clear parallel to the language 16 understand the purpose I had for Bitcoin, these files
17 of the start of the Bitcoin White Paper, doesn’t it? 17 were made available.
18 A. It does. 18 Q. But you say not changed?
19 Q. Next, please, {H/118/7}. This is Mr Madden’s findings 19 A. A system changes something by itself. So, if you’re
20 on this document, his appendix PM25. He found that 20 talking about changing a document, then the system does
21 the metadata for this document contained a timestamp 21 things like changing schemas, but that doesn’t mean
22 relating to the Grammarly software, which was released 22 a user did it , so that’s not manipulation.
23 in 2009; do you see that there? 23 Q. Are you able to say that all these many people who had
24 A. I do. 24 access to this document didn’t make any changes to
25 Q. And the timestamp had a date of 18 August 2009 [sic]; do 25 the text?

57 59

1 you see that at the bottom of the page? 1 A. Yes, this is the same. When you have a read only access
2 A. Yes. 2 but administrator access in Citrix , the document can
3 Q. Over to {H/118/10}, please. 3 update schemas and make changes in the background while
4 Do you see, at paragraph 20, he also found that 4 not letting the user make changes.
5 the raw data included references to the Calibri Light 5 Q. In your appendix B, your excuse was that the references
6 font and the Nirmala UI font, which weren’t released 6 to the anachronistic fonts and schema appeared because
7 before 2012. Do you recall those findings? 7 of your businesses having group policies that
8 A. I do. 8 implemented normal .M template files; that’s right,
9 Q. Paragraph 21, he found that the raw data also contained 9 isn ’ t it ?
10 reference to a Microsoft Schema published in 2012. You 10 A. That is correct , and when they’re implemented over
11 are aware of that finding? 11 the Citrix environment, this is how they react. So,
12 A. I am. 12 the normal .M is run as a domain administrator. That is
13 Q. Do you recall that on that basis that he and your own 13 a macro enabled template, and all of the corporate
14 expert, Dr Placks, found that your document was 14 updates happen. Now, that happens at the same time as
15 backdated? 15 the user accesses the file . But even if the user has
16 A. I recall what they said. 16 only read−only access, there’s a disparity between
17 Q. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that this document was produced by 17 the system having access and the user having access. So
18 editing , probably in 2019, and the edited version 18 the file won’t be updated by the user, but it can be by
19 backdated to 2007? 19 the system.
20 A. No. The paper copy you have was forensically tested 20 Q. I ’m going to put these points to you in response to that
21 and −− as with most of the paper copies, and they were 21 based on Mr Madden’s conclusions. It is simply wrong to
22 shown to be at least five years of age. Unfortunately, 22 say that making a change to a current template causes
23 they couldn’t go back further, which makes them 2014 or 23 existing or past documents to be altered in the way
24 older . 24 you’ve suggested, isn ’ t it ?
25 Q. Dr Wright, I’m just going to pause you there. You’re 25 A. No, that’s actually incorrect , and he’s talking about

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 a DOCX template. These, and, as you’ll notice, other 1 A. I ’m sorry, what do you mean by confused with the ...
2 ones, have ”.M”. .M is a macro enabled template. 2 Q. Well, you’ve got several possible people who drafted it,
3 My Lord, a macro enabled template, to explain, is 3 several possible original sources of the original text
4 a template with Visual Studio Code in it. So 4 and several possible native formats, haven’t you?
5 programming in there. So that enables the organisation 5 A. Yes.
6 to make updates and keep consistency across other 6 Q. So that leaves the reader rather confused about what
7 documents. It’s not designed for these documents, but 7 you’re really saying about this document, doesn’t it?
8 mainly for marketing documents and other such things. 8 A. No, it says basically that I wrote the document, but
9 Q. And it’s also nonsense to suggest that Grammarly, 9 the methodology I wrote it, over a decade ago, is
10 the Grammarly timestamp, would alter other than through 10 something that I didn’t note down and put notes of.
11 Grammarly interacting at a user’s command, isn’t it? 11 Q. Page 17, please {H/219/17}. Paragraph 41, Mr Madden
12 A. No, that’s, again, incorrect . The Grammarly system 12 compares the chain of custody with his analysis of
13 doesn’t embed a timestamp of this type on the normal 13 the document. At paragraph 41(a), he finds that
14 one. It ’s only done in the Enterprise version . 14 the metadata simply lists you as the author, and more
15 The reason I would put is that Mr Madden couldn’t 15 significantly , at 41(b), this was created ”based on
16 replicate this himself is he didn’t use the Enterprise 16 a DOCX donor document, not an OpenOffice document”.
17 version . The Enterprise version is a business version 17 Would you accept that finding?
18 that runs for the organisation . 18 A. No, I don’t.
19 Q. Next, moving to {H/219/16} −− and just to be clear, 19 Q. Page 18, please {H/219/18}, paragraph 45. Mr Madden
20 Dr Wright, we dispute that as a matter of expert 20 then compares this document to one at exhibit 43.8,
21 evidence based on the views of all the independent 21 which is a document with the same heading, which was
22 experts. 22 attached in a ZIP file to a Slack post from your CSW
23 {H/219/16}. In this part of his appendix PM43, 23 account on 18 August 2019.
24 Mr Madden sets out the information you provided about 24 May we go to {H/236/3}.
25 the chain of custody of this document. Do you see that 25 Middle of the page, do you recall you posted on

61 63

1 it says that it was: 1 Slack a copy of your LLM on 18 August 2018?

2 ”Drafted by Dr Wright (or by Lynn Wright or former 2 A. I did.
3 assistants of Dr Wright, using [either your] handwritten 3 Q. I think that might be a typo for 2019. We’ll just check
4 notes or dictation software).” 4 that. Yes, it is a typo for 2019 because we can see in
5 Yes? 5 the lozenge at the top of the page that it ’s
6 A. That’s correct , yes. 6 ”18 August 2019”.
7 Q. You say that it was collected for disclosure from 7 Now, Mr Madden finds, at paragraph 45 at {H/219/18},
8 a USB drive and that Stefan Matthews told you that 8 that the document you posted is hash identical, so
9 the USB had been sent to you in London from DeMorgan’s 9 a perfect copy of the document that we’ve been looking
10 offices in Australia ; correct? 10 at. Would you accept that?
11 A. Yes. 11 A. I do.
12 Q. In the ”Further Comments”, you say that: 12 Q. And he finds, if we go over the page {H/219/19}, that
13 ”Dr Wright used OpenOffice and converted certain 13 they include the same Grammarly timestamp of
14 files into Microsoft Word. Lynn Wright would take 14 18 August 2019 down to the 10 nanosecond level, yes?
15 information provided by Dr Wright and fix the errors 15 A. Yes.
16 produced through the transcription process when 16 Q. The document in the ZIP file attached to the Slack post
17 Dragon ...” 17 he found had a last accessed timestamp of 11.39 on
18 That’s Dragon Dictate? 18 18 August 2019, just a couple of hours after the timing
19 A. Yes. 19 of the Grammarly timestamp. Again, is that a finding
20 Q. ” ... converted voice files into text . 20 that you see?
21 ”Dr Wright is aware that this document may not [be] 21 A. I do.
22 the native document ...” 22 Q. Now, the natural conclusion from this as drawn by
23 Would you accept that this chain of custody 23 Mr Madden is that this document was created in this form
24 information is rather confused, with multiple different 24 between the embedded Grammarly timestamp and the last
25 draftspersons, sources and formats? 25 accessed timestamp of the document posted on Slack,

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 isn ’ t it ? 1 having the software which left all those tags showing
2 A. No. Actually, the way that it would have happened would 2 the documents to be backdated. That’s the truth,
3 have been that these files came from my solicitors and 3 isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?
4 some of them were opened, the handling wasn’t always 4 A. No, actually , as I noted, this shows the standard
5 good, hence why he also notes that there is a 5 version . If you open any document using Grammarly with
6 Simon Cohen, a solicitor from Ontier, marker in some 6 the standard version of the Word plugin, you don’t get
7 documents. Unfortunately, before they were loaded by 7 a tag of that sort . That sort −− that tag is only from
8 whoever it was, they’ve been opened, so the handling of 8 the Enterprise version . Now, being that this is
9 the documents by my solicitors wasn’t terribly good. 9 the standard version, that means this cannot be
10 Q. I see, so this , some of the abnormalities you think are 10 the version where it came from.
11 accounted for by handling errors by your solicitors ? 11 Q. That’s another thing missed by the experts, is it ,
12 A. Or other people at nChain as well. But, yes, 12 Dr Wright?
13 the document came to me after I’d been sent it and then 13 A. They did not look at the Enterprise version at all . In
14 I loaded it . 14 their documents, there is no mention of the other. What
15 Q. Page {H/219/21}, please, paragraphs 52 and following, 15 they did note is that it requires subscription and they
16 Mr Madden identified a further Slack post. We can go 16 didn’t have one. They also did not build a document,
17 straight to the Slack post, {H/236/5}, please. If we 17 run Grammarly and check that it is embedded. So, yes,
18 blow that up and keep the top of the page in view. 18 that is .
19 Would you accept that this was a Slack post you made 19 Q. Okay {H/120/1}.
20 on 17 August 2019, so the day before, showing two pages 20 There was a copy of this document hosted on the SSRN
21 of a document? 21 website, wasn’t there, Dr Wright?
22 A. I do. 22 A. I believe so. As I said , it ’s now Sebastian; I’m not
23 Q. And you then, if we go down the page, quote two 23 sure who posted at that stage.
24 paragraphs containing the content we saw above, yes? 24 Q. Well, we can see that the website records the document
25 A. Yes. 25 having been posted on 21 August 2019, with your name

65 67

1 Q. And after a further exchange, do we see that you write 1 attached to it , three days after that Grammarly
2 −− I think it’s the next page, or further down, 2 timestamp; correct?
3 the 17:11 entry: 3 A. Yes. I asked for it to be posted.
4 ”Signing just proves possession. 4 Q. And Mr Madden found that, the posted document, to be
5 ”Evidence is based on law.” 5 identical to the one in disclosure at ID_003702, apart
6 Yes? 6 from some formatting, which was itself identical to
7 A. Yes, that’s correct . 7 ID_000217. Do you recall those findings?
8 Q. So your message was, wasn’t it, that this evidence 8 A. I do.
9 supported your claim to be Satoshi, a document dating 9 Q. Now, next, please −− sorry, just before I go to the next
10 from 2007 and containing text of the White Paper? 10 document, would you accept that what was posted there
11 A. In part. What I was actually arguing was that there 11 was the proposal for your dissertation not
12 would be documents, such as the ones at Northumbria, 12 the dissertation itself ?
13 that had been out of −− like, cited and sent to 13 A. Both were actually posted, but this one is the proposal.
14 the university , and that this and my research are how 14 Q. This one posts the proposal, yes?
15 you prove. 15 May we now go to {CSW/2/18}, paragraph 5.9. You
16 Q. Page 6, please, {H/236/6}, can we have the screenshot 16 refer specifically to the document at exhibit 25.1, and
17 blown up. Do you see on this screenshot, the ”Open 17 you say:
18 Grammarly” button at the top left? 18 ”This document is the published version of my
19 A. I do. 19 dissertation and is therefore similar to my dissertation
20 Q. And that was the same software which left the embedded 20 proposal.”
21 timestamp in the backdated reliance document? 21 A. I see that.
22 A. No, actually , this is not the business version . 22 Q. That’s wrong, isn’t it , because exhibit 25.1 is
23 The Enterprise version is used in the organisation , but 23 the dissertation proposal, not the final dissertation ?
24 I don’t, at this point, have an nChain laptop. 24 Correct?
25 Q. The reality is that this screenshot shows your system 25 A. Yes.

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 Q. So at least you’re going to accept that that sentence is 1 forced under oath; the magistrate gave me an
2 wrong? 2 option: either answer the question did I create Bitcoin
3 A. Yes, the wrong exhibit reference was put down. 3 or not and say it ”yes” or ”no”, or be in contempt of
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, why would you post on SSRN 4 court. So, my gleeful, at that point, was saying what
5 your LLM proposal? 5 Bitcoin was about. I was forced under −− if I answer,
6 A. Because I had been working on this topic, so I posted 6 I either say ”no” and I perjure myself, or I −− in which
7 both my LLM and the proposal to show the differences. 7 case I would end the case. The case cost about
8 When I first started , my first thing was I put in 8 $100 million worth of fees and that would have stopped,
9 ”trusted third parties ” which was rejected by 9 no litigation , the end.
10 the university , because ”trusted third parties ” is 10 Conversely, by saying ”yes”, I spent several years
11 a term of art in computer science, but payment 11 in court, interrupted my business, pulled people away
12 intermediaries is in law. So I had been using the wrong 12 from real work, all to say that, yes, I invented
13 terms, but only because they mean the same thing. There 13 Bitcoin, which I didn’t need to say to actually do what
14 are a few other differences as well that I had to 14 I ’m doing.
15 remove. 15 Q. Dr Wright, first of all , we’re going to dispute that you
16 So, I put a full version of what I’d initially 16 first claimed to be Satoshi in the context of
17 proposed as well as my thesis. Part of the reason for 17 the Kleiman litigation and we’re also going to dispute
18 that is that that was the entirety of my marking. So, 18 that you were forced into it .
19 in British universities , for masters, that’s quite 19 A. I didn’t say first .
20 common. I’ve just submitted a proposal at University of 20 Q. But, Dr Wright, you have denied suing people for
21 London for another masters, and that follows with 21 hundreds of billions of dollars , so I have to put to you
22 the dissertation , which will be due in March, but both 22 {A1/1/2}. This is your claim form in the BTC Core
23 get marked. So, because one is 25% of the marks and 23 claim. Do you see, under ”Value”?:
24 the other’s the rest of the marks, I considered that 24 ”The Claimants ...” −−
25 the proposal and the dissertation should both be put up. 25 A. I do.

69 71

1 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, when you posted the dissertation on 1 Q. −− ”... estimate the financial value of this claim could
2 the Slack channel just a few days before the SSRN 2 be in the hundreds of billions of [ dollars ]. ”
3 upload, you were plainly using it to tout your claim to 3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Pounds.
4 be Satoshi, weren’t you? 4 MR HOUGH: Pounds. I’m sorry. I’m sorry, I’m getting
5 A. At that point, I ’d already been forced to say that 5 the wrong currency. The wrong country and then wrong
6 I was. So I wasn’t touting, I was. The −− I mean, when 6 currency, I ’m sorry.
7 you’re saying ”touting”, I ’m saying who I −− I’m saying 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Don’t worry. I’m not sure it makes much
8 what I designed Bitcoin for . 8 difference when you get that high.
9 Q. Your gleeful reference to the passages from the −− from 9 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, when you said you’re not suing people
10 that document, followed by your grandiose statement, 10 for hundreds of billions of dollars , you’re wrong,
11 ”Evidence is law”, that was touting your claim to be 11 aren’t you?
12 Satoshi, wasn’t it ? 12 A. No, actually , if I ’m correct −− which I am −− and all of
13 A. No, actually , it was more about the purpose of working. 13 the different aspects, including the patented material
14 The 2019 Kleiman case, my Lord, wasn’t about whether 14 that is granted patents that are in BTC Core’s products,
15 I was Satoshi, I was being sued for mining assets, 15 aren’t there, then this isn ’ t I get that money, this is
16 intellectual property, etc. The COPA team keep saying 16 how the market reacts. Right now, if it is found out,
17 about the billions of dollars I ’m suing for. I ’m not. 17 as I ’m saying, that nodes, aka pools, can be put under
18 The hundreds of billions of dollars that they say that 18 a legal constraint that the Sinaloa cartel can’t pass
19 I said is actually when I made a comment about what 19 money through them, that North Korea can’t pass money
20 I was being sued for. I was being sued for up to 20 through BCC, that it can be seized, that’s worth
21 $600 billion by Ira Kleiman. I, at no point, said that 21 hundreds of billions of dollars , not to me, to
22 the blockchain was worth $600 billion. I said I was 22 the industry .
23 being sued for that. 23 Q. Dr Wright −−
24 Now, in what we’re saying here, in this Kleiman case 24 A. So my claim is worth that, not that I get it , but the
25 bit , I did not want to say that I was Satoshi. I was 25 value of BTC will diminish.

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 Q. Dr Wright, this is a statement of value in a court claim 1 A. I do.

2 form in which a party who is bringing a claim says how 2 Q. If we look at {L2/130/6}, we can see that it has
3 much they want to recover. Did you not understand that 3 the same section on the postal acceptance rule, and then
4 that was the significance of the statement of value when 4 over the page on page 7 {L2/130/7}, the same use of
5 you endorsed this and other similar claim forms? 5 language as the Bitcoin White Paper but with some
6 A. The value has that in what I will personally lose , not 6 tracked changes.
7 that I get from you. 7 A. I see that.
8 My Lord −− 8 Q. I ’m just putting this to you very shortly . This
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can you answer the question, Dr Wright. 9 document was also found to have the same embedded
10 A. I ’m trying to, my Lord. 10 Grammarly timestamp of 18 August 2019. Are you aware of
11 What I’m saying is, I will lose , potentially , 11 that finding?
12 hundreds of billions of dollars , because if I ’m right 12 A. I am.
13 and I didn’t do everything the way that I’m doing and 13 Q. And I suggest to you again that this is another
14 I did the BTC Core way of doing it and I was an 14 backdated document.
15 anonymous Satoshi, I would be worth lots more money. 15 A. No.
16 The value is what diminishes. 16 Q. {H/118/11}, please.
17 MR HOUGH: So is your position now, Dr Wright, that, 17 Mr Madden found, in relation to the editing times of
18 the statements of value saying that your claims, 18 these documents, that the editing times for both of
19 including this one, are put at hundreds of billions of 19 the last documents we’ve looked at were unusually long,
20 pounds do not mean that you are trying to recover sums 20 and the edit time for the last one was longer than
21 of that amount, contrary to what anyone would understand 21 the period between the creation and the last saved date,
22 the court statement of value to mean? 22 which Mr Madden finds is impossible. Again, I put it to
23 A. No, I don’t think I would recover hundreds of billions 23 you that that’s another sign of manipulation of these
24 of dollars . I don’t think that would be possible. In 24 documents.
25 fact , the value would go down. 25 A. No, actually , it ’s not. As I have explained multiple

73 75

1 Q. Next page, please, {A1/1/3}. 1 times, the use of Citrix Metaframe, corporate
2 I ’m not going to ask you about privileged matters 2 environments and tools in PowerShell, such as Xcopy,
3 and please don’t tell me, but you signed a statement of 3 produce these results . The analysis being provided is
4 truth of this claim form bringing a claim which you were 4 under a presumption of a home user laptop.
5 putting at hundreds of billions of dollars −− pounds, 5 Q. {L15/441/1}, please.
6 didn’t you? 6 Do you recall sending this email to your mother on
7 A. I did. As I said , if value goes down, that’s still part 7 18 September 2019?
8 of a value. I ’ve worked in an accounting firm; negative 8 A. I do.
9 value is value. 9 Q. And that attached, didn’t it , an identical copy of
10 Q. May we now turn to a document at {L2/130/1}, which is 10 the LLM proposal?
11 another reliance document, and it’s a copy of your LLM 11 A. It did.
12 dissertation proposal with some tracked changes to 12 Q. And it described it as, ”The start of bitcoin”?
13 suggest editing of it . 13 A. That it did.
14 Now, do you recognise that document? 14 Q. So this was a further part of the pattern of you, around
15 A. I do. 15 that time, touting this document as establishing your
16 Before that, my Lord, can I remove my jacket? 16 credentials to be Satoshi?
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Of course, yes. 17 A. No, this was, again, the start of the litigation in
18 A. Thank you. 18 the Kleiman case, where it’s no good trying to say I ’m
19 MR HOUGH: You said in your chain of custody information 19 not Satoshi when I’m being pulled up in court and forced
20 that this document was originally drafted by you; is 20 to.
21 that right? 21 Q. May we move then to the actual dissertation,
22 A. Yes. 22 {L18/373/1}, please, page 2 {L18/373/2}.
23 Q. And do you take it from me that its internal metadata 23 Do you recognise this? It ’s an exhibit to
24 have a creation date of June ’07 and a last saved date 24 Ms Pearson’s statement as a published copy of your
25 of October ’07? 25 dissertation ?

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 A. I do. 1 that there are no intermediaries . They’re not trusted

2 Q. And at page 3, please {L18/373/3}, do we see that its 2 third parties . There is a distinction . Now, an
3 objectives were to consider the effects of legal 3 individual node cannot do anything in Bitcoin. In this ,
4 liability pertaining to internet intermediaries? 4 we have a corporate system, just like I said
5 A. I see that. 5 peer−to−peer for PayPal. The false narrative that has
6 Q. Page 4 of the document {L18/373/4}, page 3 internal, we 6 developed around nodes −− and, my Lord, what people call
7 see from the contents page that you addressed 7 ”nodes” now is very different to what is in
8 the changing nature of the internet and then liability 8 the White Paper. In the White Paper, nodes necessarily
9 for specific types of conduct? 9 create blocks. That’s in the sections there. So, nodes
10 A. I do. 10 are those entities that they call ”pools”, Meiklejohn
11 Q. Now, that 89−page document doesn’t anywhere use 11 calls pools −−
12 the language of the Bitcoin White Paper or refer to 12 Q. Can I just pause you −−
13 aspects of the Bitcoin system, does it? 13 A. −− pools are analogous.
14 A. That’s incorrect . I talk about payment intermediaries, 14 Q. Can I pause you there before you go into discussions why
15 peer−to−peer and a number of other areas. On top of 15 you disagree with Professor Meiklejohn on lots of
16 this , nodes are effectively a type of distributed 16 things.
17 intermediary, so the whole purpose of this is to 17 Your witness statement, your 11th witness statement,
18 actually look at what nodes are. So this entire 18 goes into great detail to say that passages in your LLM
19 document is taking the nature of Bitcoin and integrating 19 proposal had features of the Bitcoin White Paper in
20 it . So we’re looking at the nature of transgression . 20 them; correct?
21 If we have an immutable system, how do we stop things 21 A. Correct.
22 like child porn? One of the issues with a system like 22 Q. You do not say anywhere in that witness statement, you
23 Bitcoin, if it scales and people save information on it, 23 don’t cite any passages from the actual dissertation
24 how do we make sure what child porn isn’t propagated? 24 which corresponded to the Bitcoin White Paper or
25 Q. Can I just pause you there, because I think you’ve 25 the Bitcoin System, do you?

77 79

1 answered the question and I just need to make some 1 A. I would have, but I got it cut out.
2 progress. 2 Q. Well, I ’m not going to ask you about discussions with
3 Page 27, please {L18/373/27}, this is 26 internally , 3 your solicitors and please don’t tell me, but your
4 last paragraph: 4 witness statement draws lots of parallels between your
5 ”It was originally believed that digital cash or 5 proposal and the Bitcoin White Paper, but none at all
6 electronic money would be created or minted allowing for 6 between passages in the actual thesis and your −− or
7 some type of universal credit and would facilitate 7 dissertation ?
8 Internet transactions . Although a number of schemes did 8 A. No, I reference the whole thesis. So the whole thesis.
9 emerge, the vast majority of transactions that occur 9 Like, if you look here, the top paragraph:
10 across the Internet are made by means of traditional 10 ”As an example, if party A ... Singapore ... sign up
11 means such as credit cards. Rather than digital cash 11 for ... a licenced ... casino such as Lasseter’s ... ”
12 being minted, a new type of payment intermediary 12 Which I worked with, then you would need some way of
13 developed. Peer−to−peer payment systems, such as 13 ensuring trust . This directly references the code in
14 PayPal, emerged allowing individuals to receive 14 Bitcoin where there was an early poker stub. The first
15 [transmissions] directly , bypassing merchants and also 15 version alpha release of Bitcoin actually had poker in
16 act as a means of consolidating payment methods by 16 it . What I was actually planning was something like
17 providing a mechanism to interact with various banks and 17 Lasseter’s would be able to directly have people −−
18 payment card institutions directly .” 18 Q. Just −−
19 That was a passage in your dissertation, wasn’t it ? 19 A. −− build peer−to−peer.
20 A. It is . 20 Q. Can I stop you there and focus on the question I’m
21 Q. So, far from going in detail into the −− into 21 actually asking you.
22 a peer−to−peer, intermediary−free electronic cash 22 In your 11th witness statement, you spend six or
23 system, you sideline digital cash here, don’t you? 23 seven pages setting out what you say are linguistic
24 A. No, not at all . In the Bitcoin White Paper, we’re 24 parallels between the proposal and
25 talking about a distributed system. That doesn’t mean 25 the Bitcoin White Paper, but you don’t draw any similar

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 linguistic parallel between the Bitcoin White Paper and 1 MR HOUGH: Now, in your 11th witness statement, you discuss
2 the actual dissertation , do you? 2 your dissertation and you describe the university
3 A. No, not linguistic . What I note, as a whole. But 3 sending back to you, at your request, various documents.
4 I note that there was poker code and this exact area you 4 Just to be clear , those included the dissertation as
5 have here talks about that. 5 completed, which is in equivalent form to the one
6 Q. So, Dr Wright, on your account, you included references 6 published, or very similar , isn ’ t it ?
7 to your innovative new system that you were working on 7 A. There are actually two different versions . One has
8 in the proposal, but cut them all out when you came to 8 extra text and one got removed. You’ll note, in
9 the actual dissertation ? 9 the marker sheet, that it had to be corrected.
10 A. Yes. 10 Q. So just to be clear , neither version contained any
11 My Lord, as a person who has studied engineering 11 references similar to the proposal which directly
12 will know that when you have a system being mentioned, 12 pre−figured the Bitcoin System?
13 unless it ’s particularly the thing you’re working on, 13 A. No, because I used a whole lot of terms that needed to
14 when you’re writing a paper, you have to take them out 14 be changed. At one point I’d said ”trusted third
15 in academic terms. So when I first proposed this, 15 parties ”.
16 the first comment is, ”Well, you’re not writing about 16 Q. Just the answer is fine , Dr Wright.
17 a computer science project, you’re doing an intermediary 17 A. I ’m sorry, that was the answer.
18 project , so please write it based on that”. So, 18 Q. The documents sent back by the university didn’t include
19 I restructured my proposal from Northumbria into what 19 the proposal which you then go on to discuss at length
20 this ended up to be. 20 in the statement, did they?
21 Q. Pausing there, do you have any documents to evidence 21 A. I don’t know, I’ve got conflicting narratives on that
22 the university coming back to you and saying you needed 22 one, but that proposal should have been with the marked
23 to take this out? 23 copy.
24 A. No, I don’t have any of my Northumbria emails −− very 24 Q. Just to be clear , Dr Wright, in your 13th statement,
25 few of them. 25 I think it was, you made clear that you weren’t saying

81 83

1 Q. And presumably you don’t have any person who can back 1 that the proposal form came back in the letter from
2 you up on that? 2 the university ; that’s right , isn ’ t it ?
3 A. It has been quite a number of years. It was actually 3 A. What I’m saying is, we cannot verify because no one
4 surprising that Northumbria still had a copy of my 4 checked. No one opened the document and put down what
5 dissertation . 5 was actually there, so we don’t know what is in the −−
6 Q. Dr Wright, the reality is that you produced your 6 the contents of the envelope in that way.
7 dissertation in a version which didn’t make reference to 7 Q. The letter referred to what was in it, didn’t it ?
8 the Bitcoin System or pre−figure the Bitcoin White Paper 8 A. Which could have easily, as it was found when opened,
9 because you hadn’t written the Bitcoin System or 9 included that.
10 the Bitcoin White Paper, or thought about it when you 10 Q. Let’s look at the letter , please. I think it ’s
11 produced your dissertation? 11 ID_0006484, but I’ll need to check that, perhaps. Yes,
12 A. No, totally incorrect . The whole paper here is on 12 there we go. {CWS/23/1}.
13 the topic of intermediaries . The concept you tried to 13 The letter itself from the university in
14 say before was not related to nodes, because they’re 14 October 2019 only referred to enclosing the thesis ,
15 obviously not the ones in the White Paper. What I’m 15 the dissertation as published and the marker sheet,
16 talking about here is a digital cash system, an economy, 16 didn’t it ?
17 that can be run in a different format. Now, to 17 A. Yes.
18 understand that, I need to understand and write about 18 Q. It didn’t refer to enclosing anything else?
19 the liability that will be faced by these types of 19 A. It didn’t .
20 operators. 20 Q. And you cannot say, as you make very clear in your 13th
21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, it’s been a little bit over 21 witness statement, that it included the proposal?
22 an hour since our last break. Are you okay, or shall we 22 A. The first time I saw the document was when I opened
23 have a ...? 23 the envelope at Shoosmiths. When I opened it,
24 A. The fan’s good. I can go a little bit longer, my Lord. 24 the thesis had that document, the proposal, inside when
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Thanks. 25 you open the front cover. The first time that I had

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 accessed that was with people from Shoosmiths, so that 1 Q. Your LLM was a −− your dissertation was a document left
2 I −− I didn’t put anything in there. We opened 2 with the university which the university was able to
3 the envelope, that envelope had the thesis, but 3 send back; the proposal we’ve been looking at is
4 the front cover had the proposal inside . 4 a forgery which you deployed in 2019.
5 Q. There’s not a word of that story in your 11th or 13th 5 A. No. Both, as far as I ’m concerned, came from
6 witness statement, is there, Dr Wright? Not a word of 6 the university . I just can’t prove it , because no one
7 it . 7 checked inside the envelope properly.
8 A. The way that it worked was −− 8 Q. Next document {L3/202/1}, ID_000395. Do you recognise
9 Q. No, just an answer to that question before you digress , 9 this as an essay on letters of credit under the UCP 500
10 please. There’s not a word of that explanation in 10 written for your LLM?
11 either statement, is there? 11 A. I do.
12 A. As stated, I can’t say what happened before that 12 Q. Do you recall that this was listed as one of your
13 happened. 13 primary reliance documents?
14 Q. Again, I really have to press for an answer to 14 A. I do.
15 the question. The story you’ve just told about one 15 Q. And on page {L3/202/3}, if we look under ”Introduction”,
16 document being inside another, there’s not a word of it 16 we see that the first sentence reads:
17 in your 11th or is 13th statement, is there? 17 ”Documentary credits or ’letters of credit ’ act as
18 A. As far as I ’m concerned, my thesis includes the proposal 18 the ’crankshaft of modern commerce’.”
19 which I sent. So when I said ”the proposal” −− 19 Do you recognise that?
20 I wouldn’t have said ”the proposal”, I would have said 20 A. I do.
21 ”the thesis ”, and when I said ”the thesis as published”, 21 Q. What you said in your chain of custody document: that
22 that would include the proposal. That’s why I loaded 22 this was originally drafted by you and is believed to
23 both on the website. 23 date from 2008. Do you recall saying that?
24 Q. For the final time, your 11th and 13th witness 24 A. Probably, actually , 2007, but it could be a later
25 statements did not include a word of the story you’ve 25 version of original .

85 87

1 just told me about one document being inside another, 1 Q. Its internal metadata gives created and last saved dates
2 did they? 2 of 10 September 2008. Again, will you take that from
3 A. I did not say that my proposal was put inside my other 3 me?
4 document when it was marked. As far as I’m concerned, 4 A. I will .
5 the two documents are part of the one. Just like my 5 Q. If we go to the document at {L3/202/15}, go to
6 current one at University of London, they’re part of 6 the bottom, do you see a hyperlink there?
7 the one. 7 A. I do.
8 Q. Of course, they’re not, are they, because one was 8 Q. Page 20 {L3/202/20}, at the top, do you see another
9 published and one wasn’t? 9 hyperlink there?
10 A. No, they’re both published. 10 A. I do.
11 Q. One was published, originally , and then your 11 Q. Then {H/132/8}, please. Mr Madden found, as we see in
12 dissertation −− your proposal was published by you later 12 the top part of this page, that those hyperlinks don’t
13 to tout your claim to be Satoshi? 13 actually point to the websites in question but to links
14 A. No, actually , both were published at the same time. 14 on the Wayback Machine; do you see that?
15 They weren’t published by the university. 15 A. I do.
16 Q. They weren’t, sorry? 16 Q. His conclusion, at paragraph 29 on {H/132/10}, is that
17 A. They were not published by the university. 17 those were copied and pasted from a page on
18 Q. There is −− and I’ll be corrected if I ’m wrong −− 18 the Wayback Machine relating to the URLs which had an
19 nothing in any of your statements to describe 19 encoded timestamp of November 2015. Are you aware of
20 publication of your proposal to the wider world before 20 that finding?
21 recent years , is there, Dr Wright? 21 A. I am.
22 A. The first time I published my LLM was 2019. I didn’t 22 Q. Then page {H/132/12}, he goes on, doesn’t he, to find
23 publish −− I mean, I published fragments of it before 23 that both links appear on a blogpost by you, not just
24 that, but the first time I published it was both 24 the links , but also a capture of the blog having
25 documents in 2019. 25 the same timestamp associated with each link when

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 the mouse is hovered over it. We can see that from 1 other things, including the email to Professor Bradney.
2 further down, in paragraph 34? 2 So, my paper demonstrates that I was writing these
3 A. I do. 3 topics contemporaneously and that there’d be no reason
4 Q. And we see from the blogpost capture there that it 4 for me to edit metadata on my own document that is sent
5 begins with the same sentence as the essay; do you see 5 to other parties .
6 that? 6 Q. Well, Dr Wright, just focusing on the document that was
7 A. I do. 7 analysed, which you’ve accepted was edited, it would be
8 Q. Mr Madden found an embedded Grammarly timestamp in 8 a bit bizarre , wouldn’t it , for somebody at nChain, in
9 the metadata giving a date of 22 August 2019. That’s 9 2015 or afterwards, to be editing your LLM homework?
10 {H/132/14}, paragraphs 42 to 44. Are you aware of that 10 A. No, it actually wouldn’t. The documentary credit here
11 finding? 11 is still valid . So, one of the −− actually, an area
12 A. I am. 12 that we’ve got probably 40 patents granted on is
13 Q. That’s a document which was edited in recent years, 13 international trade and finance, and looking at this ,
14 isn ’ t it ? 14 this is a way of embedding into Bitcoin script, so we’re
15 A. No, it ’s not. 15 talking about the basics. So, for −− my homework is not
16 Q. It ’s not a document that was edited in recent years? 16 just my homework in university, it is a training session
17 A. No, it ’s not. 17 for staff ; people read this . So why was that updated?
18 Q. {CSW/3/16}, please, paragraph 7.5: 18 Probably because the site wasn’t available any more, so
19 ”Having reviewed this section of COPA’s forgery 19 that they’ve gone back and added one.
20 schedule I have concluded that ID_00395 is a document 20 Q. Well, his Lordship will be able to read this paper in
21 that has been viewed and edited by someone after 2015, 21 due course, but my suggestion to you is that this is not
22 probably by someone at nChain.” 22 a revolutionary piece of analysis , either technical or
23 ”Viewed and edited”, Dr Wright. 23 legal , it ’s LLM homework about documentary credits.
24 A. Correct. 24 NChain wouldn’t have needed to use this.
25 Q. So when you said previously that it hadn’t been edited 25 A. Again, you’re wrong. People in computer science don’t

89 91

1 in recent years , that was wrong, wasn’t it? 1 understand this topic .
2 A. 2015’s not recent. 2 My Lord, you are unique, like some of us, in that
3 Q. I see. 3 you’re an engineer and a computer scientist, but most of
4 But you accept that it’s been edited significantly 4 my staff are not, they have never studied law, they’ve
5 more recently than those supposed dates of creation? 5 never studied finance. So, why this topic? Very
6 A. It ’s been edited afterwards, and someone’s updated 6 simply, because I have a bunch of computer scientists
7 the link , yes. 7 who have to actually understand the real world.
8 Q. And what you say in that part of your appendix is that 8 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, Dr Wright, that the new
9 documents among those which were newly discovered and 9 documents that you came up with at the end of last year,
10 disclosed in late 2023 are the originals ? 10 including the emails you were just referring to, have
11 A. The document was written in 2008, and there’s an earlier 11 been found by your expert, Mr Lynch, to be unreliable
12 version of this one as well . 12 because of metadata anomalies in the emails? You’re
13 Q. Dr Wright, do you know that when you had the opportunity 13 aware of that finding , aren’t you?
14 to revise your list of primary reliance documents just 14 A. I saw the finding.
15 last month, you retained this one as one of your 15 Q. Is that another finding of an expert you dispute?
16 principal reliance documents, didn’t you? 16 A. It is . And a better way of doing it would be to
17 A. I did. 17 actually approach the person at the university .
18 Q. I suggest to you that it wouldn’t have been very 18 Q. Not something, of course, you’ve done for these
19 sensible to do that if it was one that had simply been 19 proceedings?
20 edited by someone else in 2015; it wouldn’t prove 20 A. I ’ve instructed my lawyers, but I’m not going to go into
21 anything. 21 that, but ...
22 A. No, actually , it does. This was a university paper that 22 Q. Next document, ID_000568, {L3/224/1}:
23 I ’d done that I then sent for publication at a −− 23 ”BITCOIN.
24 a college here in the UK, so my argument is not that 24 ”Notes vs Commodity.”
25 this has anything to do with metadata, and there are 25 Would you recognise this as a three−page document

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 apparently discussing some economic and some legal 1 A. I shall .

2 excepts apparently as relating to Bitcoin? 2 Q. And Mr Madden found that the equations which we see in
3 A. Yes, I mean law or −− law and economics are a joint 3 the document were embedded picture files typical of
4 area. Posner, etc. 4 the presentation of a document that had been converted
5 Q. Would you accept this is another of your primary 5 from Word −− to MS Word 2003 from a later version,
6 reliance documents? 6 because it ’s downgraded from the DOCX to the .DOC
7 A. I do. 7 format. Do you recall that finding?
8 MR HOUGH: My Lord, it’s a pleaded forgery, but not in 8 A. I know what he said, yes.
9 the core list of 20. 9 Q. And he also found, once again, that the raw data for
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 10 the document contained reference to Calibri Light, which
11 MR HOUGH: You’ve said in your chain of custody information 11 didn’t exist in 2008?
12 that this was originally drafted by you and is believed 12 A. Yes.
13 to be from 2008. Is that a story you stick to? 13 Q. Do you recall that finding?
14 A. It is . 14 A. I do.
15 Q. Its internal metadata give created and last saved dates 15 Q. Then {H/144/5}, please. Dr Wright, Mr Madden found an
16 of October 2008, and is that something you can take from 16 article which appears to have been by you on your
17 me? 17 website, posted in December 2018, or recorded as such,
18 A. It is . 18 containing much of the same content of this document, as
19 Q. {H/143/6}, please. In his report on this , PM36, 19 we see from a table that is at the bottom of the page −−
20 Mr Madden found, in the raw data, XML formatted streams 20 A. I do.
21 which refer to Calibri Light and Nirmala UI. We see 21 Q. −− and over {H/144/6}, as follows. Was that a post
22 that at paragraphs 8 to 9 {H/143/5}. 22 which you authored?
23 A. I do. 23 A. It ’s based on the original document. So, where you’re
24 Q. It ’s further up, I think. 24 saying I authored, the other document that you just
25 Those fonts weren’t released until 2012, were they? 25 showed me, the Word document, would have been used by

93 95

1 A. I ’m not exactly sure, but quite possibly . I ’ ll take 1 Sebastian, or Alex, or one of the others, they would
2 your word. 2 then edit that file and they post. So, right now, it ’s
3 Q. And he found a further schema from 2012, didn’t he? 3 Sebastian Ploetzender; he does all the posting on my
4 A. I believe so, yes. 4 blog. Alex used to. I don’t know the other staff
5 Q. This is another document that was created some time 5 members, I’m sorry. I should −− terrible boss! I don’t
6 after 2012, or certainly no earlier than 2012, and then 6 remember all their names, but those two I do; I deal
7 backdated, isn’t it ? 7 with them. But they would take the Word document, they
8 A. No, it is not. 8 will do whatever they do, put pictures, clean it up,
9 Q. ID_000569, please, which is {L3/264/1}. This is 9 edit , blogpost.
10 a one−page document headed, ”Bitcoin (law)”, again 10 Q. So we’re here faced with a document which has signs
11 listed as one of your primary reliance documents; 11 which at least are consistent with deliberate
12 correct , Dr Wright? 12 backdating, yes?
13 A. That is correct . 13 A. No, actually , you don’t.
14 MR HOUGH: It’s a pleaded forgery, my Lord, but not in 14 Q. And an article which shares content with an article you
15 the core list of 20. 15 happened to post in 2018?
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 16 A. No, that my staff, from material that they’ve been
17 MR HOUGH: In your chain of custody document you say that 17 given, posted.
18 this was originally drafted by you, that it relates to 18 Q. My suggestion to you, once again, is that this is not an
19 legal dimensions and challenges of digital cash and 19 authentic or reliable document.
20 private money, and that it represents studies you 20 A. No, not correct, and you can put it to Mr Matthews, who
21 started in 2005; is all that right? 21 is chairman of that organisation, whether that happens.
22 A. That’s correct . 22 MR HOUGH: Thank you very much. I’ll deal with what
23 Q. Its internal metadata give created and saved dates −− 23 Mr Matthews actually says in his evidence.
24 last saved dates of October 2008. Will you take that, 24 Dr Wright, I think that’s probably a convenient time
25 once again, from me? 25 to break.

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. We’ll return to these interesting 1 establish that they’re not authentic, and therefore
2 topics at 2 o’clock, Dr Wright. 2 I have to put them, and put Mr Madden’s findings, lest
3 MR ORR: My Lord −− 3 it be suggested that there’s a document that is
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I’ll just remind you, don’t talk to 4 authentic on which I haven’t challenged Dr Wright.
5 anybody over the short adjournment −− 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good. We seem to be in agreement on one
6 A. Certainly . 6 thing.
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− about your evidence. 7 See you at 2 o’clock.
8 MR ORR: My Lord, before your Lordship rises, can I just 8 (1.03 pm)
9 raise this point. We’ve had several documents in 9 (The short adjournment)
10 the course of this morning which are not on the list of 10 (2.00 pm)
11 20 forgeries −− 11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you.
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I know. 12 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, may we return to a couple of points
13 MR ORR: −− which your Lordship required COPA to limit 13 from this morning.
14 themselves to at this trial , and of course, we bear in 14 First of all , in relation to your LLM proposal, as
15 mind what your Lordship said yesterday. In my 15 distinct from the dissertation , you told the court that
16 submission, my learned friend is now over−straying 16 you thought it may well have been included in
17 the mark. It ’s −− in my submission, there’s no 17 the October 2019 letter from the university , but that
18 justification for relying on this number of documents 18 you couldn’t prove that definitively . That’s what you
19 that your Lordship has effectively ruled should not be 19 said , isn ’ t it ?
20 the foundation of forgery allegations . 20 A. Well, it wasn’t the letter , it was the envelope.
21 I just want to flag that it will be our position in 21 The letter , they put down the, basically , contents, and
22 closing submissions that your Lordship should be 22 what they listed was the thesis , and if it ’s inside
23 confining −− confining any forgery findings to those 23 the thesis , that’s my assumption.
24 documents that are in the list of −− the original list 24 Q. So you told the court you think it was probably included
25 of 20 and the list of 20 additional forgeries . 25 within the envelope, but you couldn’t prove that

97 99

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Mr Orr, one of your predecessors made 1 definitively ?

2 very clear to me the difference between an allegation of 2 A. That’s correct .
3 forgery and a challenge to authenticity of a document. 3 Q. May we have on screen {E/32/1}.
4 MR ORR: Yes. 4 Is that your 13th witness statement, do you see, at
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And as I understand your submission, 5 the top right−hand corner?
6 you’re not suggesting that COPA and the developers are 6 A. I do.
7 not entitled to pursue their allegations of 7 Q. Page 9, please {E/32/9}, and that’s the statement of
8 inauthenticity . 8 truth from 29 January 2024, which you verified
9 MR ORR: Understood, my Lord, and that is, in part, why 9 yesterday?
10 I have not objected to the actual questions that my 10 A. It is .
11 learned friend has put. But we would submit that, 11 Q. And page 6, please {E/32/6}. In paragraph 20, you
12 insofar as COPA were then to seek to found a forgery 12 discuss the letter and its contents. Subparagraph (d):
13 finding on these documents, then that is not permitted 13 ”The LLM Proposal.”
14 by your Lordship’s ruling . 14 A. Mm−hm.
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Indeed. 15 Q. ”Although this was not attached to the University of
16 MR HOUGH: My Lord, I can say that we agree that we shall 16 Northumbria Letter, I recall that I submitted this
17 not be asking your Lordship to make positive findings of 17 proposal in hard copy to the University of Northumbria
18 forgery , except in relation to those identified as such 18 in late 2007. I believe this must have been returned by
19 in the particulars of claim, the core list of 20 and 19 the university but I cannot now say when that happened.”
20 then the further list of 20, which I think is where 20 Do you see that?
21 the parties find common ground about what we’re entitled 21 A. I do.
22 to ask my Lord to do. 22 Q. You were saying there, confidently and clearly , to
23 The difficulty is that we’re faced with a whole 23 the court and all of us, that the proposal was not
24 series of documents which are relied upon as primary 24 attached to the University of Northumbria letter, not in
25 reliance documents. We have to establish, or we want to 25 that envelope, weren’t you?

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 A. No, I said it wasn’t attached to the letter . ”Attached 1 Is this a document you recognise as one of your
2 to the letter ” would mean something like stapled or 2 reliance documents, a set of minutes with handwriting on
3 something similar. Because it wasn’t stapled, I can’t 3 them in the form of a Quill pad?
4 say whether it is the same. 4 A. I do.
5 Q. Dr Wright, there is a simple and stark conflict between 5 Q. That’s one of your primary reliance documents, isn’t it ?
6 what you said in your statement and what you’ve told 6 A. It is .
7 the court today, isn ’ t there? 7 Q. My Lord, it’s a pleaded forgery in our core list of 20?
8 A. No, not at all . Inserted into the thesis , which 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
9 I believe it was, is basically exactly what I’ve just 9 MR HOUGH: Your position, Dr Wright, is that this is a set
10 said . Not attached to the letter is correct . 10 of minutes in your handwriting recording a meeting you
11 Q. If you’d wanted to say that, ”I think it was enclosed 11 had with Allan Granger, when you were both working at
12 with the letter , although not physically attached with 12 BDO in 2007.
13 a stapler ”, that would have been the place to say it, 13 A. It is .
14 wouldn’t it? 14 Q. You maintain that the date was August 2007?
15 A. No, it wouldn’t. 15 A. I do.
16 Q. This statement is setting out a version which is flatly 16 Q. And the time 9.15 am?
17 contrary to what you have said today and you are telling 17 A. I do.
18 the court lie after lie , aren’t you, Dr Wright? 18 Q. Do you see that the furthest entry says, ”Finish code”,
19 A. I have not lied at all . I apologise if I need to 19 and then a second entry, which I’ ll ask about in
20 clarify , but where I said it ’s not attached to 20 a moment, yes?
21 the letter , I mean the letter was standalone, it was 21 A. I do.
22 a single piece of paper. I believe that the stapled 22 Q. Entry 7 is , ”Write paper”, yes?
23 document was inside that other document. Certainly when 23 A. Correct.
24 I opened the envelope, those were all together. 24 Q. And is it right that your position is that this records
25 The only things in that envelope were the letter , my 25 you discussing the proposed Bitcoin concept and system

101 103

1 printed thesis and the proposal, and I have no reason to 1 with Allan Granger and others at BDO?
2 believe that someone slipped it in there, and 2 A. That was my −− basically what I would do in the thing.
3 I certainly don’t believe my solicitors would have done 3 So it ’s probably not what I would record afterwards.
4 something like that. 4 Generally, I would have meeting notes for what I wanted
5 Q. The second point I wanted to return to, Dr Wright. 5 to discuss .
6 You’ll recall that I ’ve put various findings by 6 Q. But these were notes you claim to have written in 2007;
7 Mr Madden to you in relation to root entry timestamps; 7 correct?
8 do you recall that? 8 A. That is correct .
9 A. I do. 9 Q. And you also claim in your chain of custody document
10 Q. I just ask you if you accept this basic proposition . If 10 that you stored these notes in your office from their
11 a −− with a .DOC file, if any change to the file at all 11 creation?
12 occurs which is committed to the file, whether content, 12 A. Various offices , but my office.
13 properties , internal tags, like Grammarly tags, the root 13 Q. And is it right that the purpose of this meeting, on
14 entry timestamp changes, doesn’t it? 14 your account, was to obtain funds and resources from BDO
15 A. No, it doesn’t need to. That’s only when you’re running 15 to run the Bitcoin System?
16 on a laptop in a standard mode. The behaviour on Citrix 16 A. ”Funds” is not correct . I was basically making it an
17 virtualised environments and other similar areas where 17 internal project of the company. So where you’re
18 there’s shared access is very different . In these, you 18 saying ”funds”, that would imply going to me. But
19 have a, basically , template file and schema that can be 19 I wanted the company to run it in their data centre.
20 loaded separately . When you open a file, the schema 20 Q. I ’ ll deal later with your story that you sought to pitch
21 file can be accessed separately, and that can be updated 21 Bitcoin in this way to BDO, but I’m just focusing on
22 without the document. 22 the document here.
23 Q. Thank you, Dr Wright. We’ll see if anybody else in 23 Do you recall, and I can show you the transcript if
24 the case agrees with you about that. 24 you’d like , that in the Granath trial , you said that
25 {L2/159/1}, please. 25 the second entry was, ”Finish POC”, meaning proof of

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 concept, an initial working version of the Bitcoin code? 1 muted.

2 A. Well, technically , it ’s Timecoin code, but, yes. 2 MR HOUGH: So it’s {C/17/1}, please.
3 Q. And do you recall that in the Kleiman trial , you said 3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thanks.
4 that the second entry was, ”Finish DOC”, document, and 4 MR HOUGH: I’m sorry, that was a wrong reference.
5 that it was a reference to the Bitcoin White Paper? 5 This is a letter provided by Mr Stathakis and Ms Li,
6 Would it help for me to show you that? 6 who described the history of the company, and they say
7 A. No, I think I made a mistake in that one, but it’s been 7 at paragraph 4 that:
8 many years, but I would say it ’s ”POC”. My own 8 ”The person who was responsible for managing
9 handwriting even escapes me sometimes. 9 the manufacture of [this] product is Ms Li ... ”
10 Q. Let’s look at that just briefly , {O2/10/86}. Thank you 10 Do you see that?
11 very much. 11 A. I do. I also see, at 2, how they weren’t at the time.
12 Now, do you see, at line 23, you were asked about 12 Q. Well, it says that Ms Li was responsible for managing
13 notes of a meeting in Allan Granger’s office ? 13 the manufacture of that product?
14 A. Yes. 14 A. Yes, but not then. She became the manager of that
15 Q. That was these notes, wasn’t it? 15 product after 2013.
16 A. It was. 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, do you have any personal
17 Q. And then over the page, page {L17/327/87}, also line 23, 17 knowledge of what happened to Quill, other than what is
18 you were asked: 18 stated in this letter ?
19 ”What is the second entry: ”Finish POC”? What does 19 A. I actually do. I used to work for Corporate Express,
20 that mean?” 20 which is now Staples, and other family members still do.
21 So POC was actually suggested to you; do you see 21 Quill and Bantex were both Australian companies. I have
22 that? 22 had dealings with both of them since the ’90s.
23 A. I do. 23 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, this piece of evidence from
24 Q. Then over the page, page 88 {L17/327/88}, and you said: 24 Mr Stathakis and Ms Li say:
25 ”That’s: ’ Finish doc’ ... When you said ’POC’ ... 25 ”Quill products have always been manufactured by

105 107

1 This is : ’ Finish doc’, which would be the whitepaper.” 1 Quill ’s own factory in Shenzhen ...”
2 And you agreed it was DOC, not POC. So you were 2 And Ms Li was responsible for managing
3 quite specific about that, weren’t you? 3 the manufacture of that product.
4 A. I was. 4 You’re saying by unattributed hearsay that she’s
5 Q. You can take that off screen. 5 wrong?
6 You’re aware, aren’t you, that we have evidence from 6 A. I ’m saying that they had a factory in Shenzhen, so did
7 Mr Stathakis and Ms Li, who are responsible for 7 Bantex. The two merged. If you actually check on
8 manufacturing this from of Quill notepad, that the first 8 the company site, you’ll find that.
9 version ever produced of this pad was produced in 9 Q. Then over the page to {C/17/2}, please.
10 March 2012? 10 Do you see that they confirm by this signed document
11 A. I ’ ll have to answer that in two parts. First of all , 11 that, ”The First Proof [of this document] was not
12 I ’m not aware that they were actually involved at all , 12 received by the Quill Shenzhen factory ...” where they
13 rather Quill was purchased by Bantex. The person you’re 13 had always been manufactured until 2011 and was first
14 talking about had no interaction with Quill and was only 14 released in 2012? Are you saying that they’re wrong
15 there after five years later . The Chinese factory that 15 about that?
16 Ms Li is from had nothing to do with the printing at 16 A. Yes. As it says in here, they believe , although there
17 that stage either , they were Bantex. They were merged 17 is evidence in the forensic analysis of this document
18 into another Chinese factory. The other part is that 18 that it ’s not the first version −−
19 the PDF, as Dr Placks showed, was not the first version, 19 Q. Are you referring there to forensic analysis which isn’t
20 so there were earlier versions . So, no, I can answer, 20 before the court?
21 that’s not correct . 21 A. No, I’m referring −− I’m going into the Placks and
22 Q. {C/16/2}, please. 22 Madden analysis of this document, which states that it
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can we just try and get rid of 23 isn ’ t the first version .
24 the interference in the feed. Is that coming from −− 24 Q. I ’m afraid we’re going to have to disagree about that
25 I ’ve already asked my clerk to make sure everybody’s 25 and the court will be able to look at what those experts

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 say. 1 larger than the other. It ’s not about pixelation.

2 What I’m putting to you, Dr Wright, is that your 2 That’s a scan.
3 account of this depends on you knowing more about 3 Q. I ’m going to suggest to you that, looking pretty clearly
4 the production of this form of pad than the people who 4 at the grid , it ’s a question of pixelation not size?
5 produced it. 5 A. No, very clearly , that’s why I drew the two lines in
6 A. No, they didn’t produce it. As you see at 6, they 6 there. It ’s a question of size .
7 ”checked relevant records” and the shipping of 7 Q. Then if we go to Mr Madden’s report {H/31/7}, please, he
8 the product. 8 compared the proof, MS1, against the minutes document
9 Q. And also −− 9 and proceeded to find that he was confident that
10 A. They don’t actually have them, because it’s a new 10 the document was produced on a pad of the same layout,
11 company. 11 but significantly , next page, please {H/31/8}, 22(d), he
12 Q. And also the personal knowledge of Ms Li? 12 explains that your document is scanned at a much lower
13 A. Yet he was the manager of Bantex until 2014. So what 13 resolution than the crisp detail of the proof, which is
14 you’re saying is the personal knowledge of someone who 14 consistent with it being scanned rather than a high
15 had nothing to do with the company. 15 quality print proof, and that’s the reason for
16 Q. Dr Wright, you are making this up as you go along 16 the difference of pixelation we saw, isn’t it ?
17 without any supportive evidence for a word of this , 17 A. I didn’t mention pixelation, I said size , and scanning
18 aren’t you? 18 will not change that. I would also note that that’s
19 A. Can we look at the first page? 19 a clear indication of overreach. When you have an
20 Q. Yes. {C/17/1}. 20 expert who goes into areas that he has no qualifications
21 A. Quill brands was not always owned by Hamelin Brands. 21 in and opines on them rather than saying, ”I’m not an
22 Before 2015, Quill was an independent company. At that 22 expert”, that demonstrates bias.
23 time Hamelin Brands was known as Bantex. Bantex 23 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to dispute very firmly that there’s
24 basically purchased Quill. The person involved was 24 any bias been shown by Mr Madden. There’s no sign of
25 a manager from the other company. He had nothing to do 25 bias in any of his documents, is there?

109 111

1 with Quill , they were competitors. 1 A. Oh, it ’s completely biased.

2 Q. Dr Wright, we’re going round in circles , but I ’m just 2 Q. Do you say that Dr Placks, who agreed with him on so
3 going to put to you again, this statement is perfectly 3 many conclusions, is also biased?
4 clear that the Quill product had been manufactured by 4 A. Unskilled .
5 the factory in Shenzhen, and Ms Li, who confirmed this 5 Q. Just unskilled ?
6 statement, was responsible for it . 6 A. More than that I don’t know.
7 A. To be perfectly clear : 7 Q. Maybe biased?
8 ”The person who managed our investigation from 8 A. I don’t know.
9 Australia ... [Mr] Stathakis, Sales Director, 9 Q. Then in your −− the part of your appendix B where you
10 Hamelin Brands.” 10 dealt with this , where you answered all the points in
11 Q. Well, the court has the point. I ’ ll move on to what you 11 COPA’s forgery schedule, which included Mr Stathakis and
12 say in your appendix B about this document, {CSW/2/66}, 12 Ms Li’s confirmation, you didn’t say anything about
13 please. 13 the researches you had supposedly performed to establish
14 You address this document in this part, don’t you? 14 that this proof was not produced in the way and in
15 A. I do. 15 the place that they said , did you?
16 Q. And if you go down the page, you see you refer to 16 A. I actually did. I put two images and I showed
17 the findings of the experts? 17 the difference in size .
18 A. I do. 18 Q. No, no, before that, before we got on to the images, you
19 Q. Then over the page {CSW/2/67}, you say that you’ve 19 had said that you disagreed with what Mr Stathakis and
20 noticed some differences between the proof, which 20 Ms Li were saying because you had some inside
21 Mr Stathakis and Ms Li provided, and your document? 21 information to show that they were wrong. Not a word of
22 A. I do. 22 that appeared in your appendix B, where you dealt with
23 Q. And we see that the first is a difference of −− between 23 this document and supposedly answered COPA’s forgery
24 a clear number 3 and a more pixelated number 3; correct? 24 schedule, did you −− did they?
25 A. No, it ’s a difference between size. One is slightly 25 A. The fact that I know that Bantex and Quill purchased

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 each other? It ’s stated in their document. 1 so I think that’s right .

2 Q. But you go further, don’t you, Dr Wright? You say that 2 Q. {L5/471/1}, please. The last one was 004077 and this is
3 Mr Stathakis and Ms Li are wrong in what they say in 3 004078 in ID numbers.
4 their confirmation about how, when and where this 4 Do we see this screenshot appears to be another one
5 document was produced based on information you have, 5 from the MYOB system showing a transfer on the −−
6 don’t you? That’s what you said before at the start of 6 another such transfer on 1 October 2009?
7 questions this afternoon? 7 A. Yes, I see that.
8 A. My CV, that is part of this , has that I worked at 8 Q. And do we see that, in the middle of the page, a value
9 Corporate Express. Corporate Express/Staples are one of 9 of $50 per Bitcoin is ascribed to the currency or
10 the global providers and suppliers of that brand. 10 the cryptocurrency?
11 MR HOUGH: Would your Lordship like the question asked 11 A. I do.
12 again? 12 Q. Then {L5/146/1}, ID_004079.
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sorry, I’ve got a speaker just above me. 13 This is a third MYOB screenshot, or purported to be,
14 MR HOUGH: I shall then. 14 appearing to show an intellectual property transfer for
15 When you were answering my questions earlier this 15 $250,000?
16 afternoon, you went further than talking about 16 A. I see it .
17 pixelation . You said that, based on information you 17 Q. You nominated all of these as primary
18 had, and you started to refer to sources, based on 18 reliance documents, didn’t you, Dr Wright?
19 information you had, Mr Stathakis and Ms Li are wrong in 19 A. I did.
20 what they said about how, when and where this pad was 20 Q. And was the reason that they were supposedly supporting
21 produced, didn’t you? 21 Bitcoin−related assets being mined by you and later
22 A. I did. 22 transferred between your corporate entities in 2009?
23 Q. And you did not include a word of that in the part of 23 A. No. It ’s only in the very first week that anything was
24 your appendix B where you had the opportunity to answer 24 mined by me. All of the mining was done by
25 COPA’s forgery schedule, which included reference to 25 Information Defence, and transfers from

113 115

1 the Stathakis and Li statement, did you? 1 Information Defence were made to the other company.
2 A. No, I didn’t . 2 The Australian company, Information Defence, was
3 Q. Thank you. 3 the entity right from January doing mining.
4 The reality is , Dr Wright, that the manufacturers do 4 Q. Just to be clear , that’s disputed.
5 know what they’re talking about and this is another 5 But going on, in your chain of custody, you said,
6 forged document from you, isn’t it? 6 didn’t you, that for each of the screenshots, it was
7 A. No. As I stated, the individual only came into Quill in 7 a screenshot of a non−live extract of the MYOB system?
8 2015. Both of them had no involvement with 8 A. That’s what it appears to be. I didn’t take them.
9 the manufacture of the product. All they’ve done is 9 The screenshots were taken by one of the partners of
10 looked at old files and found one, which Placks has 10 Ontier.
11 noted not to be the first . 11 Q. It ’s probably easiest if we go to the chain of custody
12 Q. Well, I ’m not −− I’m going to move on to another set of 12 document then. May we go to {K/11/1}, which is an Excel
13 documents, the MYOB records, {L5/150/1}. 13 spreadsheet, and we’ll need the native. And may we go
14 Do you recognise this as one of three supposed 14 to rows 98 to 100, which should be the rows for 4077 to
15 screenshots of the MYOB accounting system? 15 4079. There we go. Column G:
16 A. I do. 16 ”Dr Wright has confirmed this is a screenshot of
17 Q. On its face, this appears to show a transfer of node 17 a non−live extract of the MYOB Accounts System.”
18 assets from Information Defence to 18 Is that correct , you’d confirmed that?
19 Wright International Investments, doesn’t it ? 19 A. Yes, as it said , the capture, from C, was by Ontier.
20 A. It does. 20 They showed me the picture and I said yes.
21 Q. They’re both companies with which you’re associated, 21 Q. Column R states that for each document:
22 aren’t they, or have been? 22 ”Ontier was provided with a login to the MYOB live
23 A. I founded both of them, yes. 23 system and were talked through how to take screenshots
24 Q. The date given is 11 August 2009? 24 for evidence.
25 A. Yes, I think that’s −− I don’t think it’s American time, 25 ”The Ontier account was used to login and download

114 116

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 each of these and add them as evidence.” 1 Mr Madden, he had to find it like a needle in
2 Was that also information given on your 2 a haystack, didn’t he?
3 instructions ? 3 A. Why would he be pointed out to this email, I’m sorry?
4 A. I basically told the log−in to be given to several email 4 I ’m not sure what you mean by ”needle in a haystack”.
5 addresses of solicitors . Those solicitors had then 5 Q. It was on the basis of the ZIP file attached to this
6 a log−in to MYOB. I told them that I could get it 6 email that Mr Madden was able to generate a journal
7 online . For some reason they downloaded it. Both are 7 security audit and security session audit which provided
8 valid versions , I guess. 8 some rather important information about these documents,
9 Q. Then {L5/128/1}, please. 9 isn ’ t it ?
10 Do you recognise this as a related document also 10 A. No, it ’s not, because, as I said , this was a document
11 apparently from MYOB which you nominated as another of 11 I created for the purposes of the Florida litigation .
12 your primary reliance documents? 12 I don’t have administrative access to MYOB. I was
13 A. I do. Once again, it was taken by the solicitors and 13 required to give over information, so I was given an
14 shown to me. 14 extract , and I used that to build the system so that
15 Q. Can we go back to that chain of custody document 15 Mr Shadders could then analyse it.
16 {K/11/1}, row 28, please. Do we see at number 26, but 16 Q. Next, please, {H/53/1}.
17 row 28 −− so it’s number 26 −− ”ID_004090”: 17 This is the ”Journal Security Audit” which Mr Madden
18 ”Originated from MYOB Accounts System. 18 was able to produce, and we can see, can’t we, that it
19 ”Dr Wright has confirmed this is a screenshot of 19 showed the transactions which appeared on those
20 a non−live extract of the MYOB Accounts System.” 20 documents being added in sessions on 6 March 2020, and
21 Then column R, do you see that it says: 21 we can see the transactions for £795,000 and 88,400 that
22 ”Dr Wright has limited access to MYOB. He was 22 we saw in the screenshots; correct?
23 required to search files and extract information as part 23 A. It is .
24 of the case in Florida . As such, Dr Wright extracted 24 Q. Then {H/55/1}, he was able to carry out another security
25 information as a CSV file and imported this into a local 25 session audit, or produce another security session

117 119

1 version of MYOB. This file is not in the MYOB accounts 1 audit, which showed the log−on history, including
2 for the system and Dr Wright does not have direct access 2 several using the ID administrator and two unsuccessful
3 to those accounts.” 3 ones using an ID for your email address @panopticrypt;
4 Do you see that? 4 that’s right , isn ’ t it ?
5 A. I do. 5 A. It is .
6 Q. And you give a fairly detailed explanation there, didn’t 6 Q. Based on these findings, you are aware that he was able
7 you? 7 to establish that the transactions on those MYOB files
8 A. I do, but I can’t tell you, from looking at pictures , 8 were added to the system in early 2020, but given dates
9 which one’s which. 9 suggesting that they’d taken place a decade earlier ;
10 Q. You had every opportunity in that part of the chain of 10 that’s right , isn ’ t it ?
11 custody schedule to provide further information if you 11 A. No, it ’s not. As I stated, because I had to give
12 wanted to, didn’t you? 12 information to the American court but I have no access
13 A. Yes, I did. 13 as an administrator to the accounting system, I had an
14 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Madden found in 14 extract made and I made sure it was all correct before
15 the disclosure an email apparently from you to 15 giving it to Steve Shadders. This was done as part of
16 Stephen Shadders, a colleague at nChain, aren’t you? 16 the litigation to supply information in the American
17 A. I am. 17 case.
18 Q. {L16/332/1}, this is ID_004081. That contained an 18 Q. Now, just let ’s be clear about what you say about this
19 attachment, a ZIP file , ”WII.zip”, it was dated 19 in your appendix B {CSW/2/69}, please. Do you see
20 17 April 2020; that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 20 that’s a part of your appendix B where you address one
21 A. It is . 21 of these accounting screenshots? Yes?
22 Q. And that contained, didn’t it , an MYLX file in 22 A. Yes.
23 the database format used by the software? 23 Q. {CSW/2/70}, please, paragraphs 23.11 and following.
24 A. That’s correct . 24 You say that the experts:
25 Q. Just to be clear , this email wasn’t pointed out to 25 ” ... agreed that the individual records in this

118 120

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 .myox file were created in 2020 and backdated to dates 1 in a haystack is that you had people go through every
2 in the period 2009−2011. The reason for this is as 2 single email I have ever sent and looked for them. That
3 follows .” 3 was then part of the litigation in that case.
4 Pausing there, that paragraph indicates that you 4 Next, the log−in for the live version of MYOB was
5 agree that the individual records were created in 2020 5 provided to Ontier and AlixPartners in 2019. 2019
6 and backdated to dates in the period 2009 to 2011; 6 precedes this .
7 correct? 7 Q. Dr Wright, you presented these documents as primary
8 A. No. I said the experts agree. 8 reliance documents, without suggesting that they had
9 Q. But you said, ”The reason for this is as follows”. 9 been created by you in 2020 and weren’t authentic to
10 A. The reason for that, what happened, is as follows. 10 2009 at all , didn’t you?
11 I did not say the other. 11 A. As the chain of custody document says, the documents
12 Q. You then said that you were required to provide a list 12 were sourced directly from Ontier. Paralegals from
13 of your Bitcoin holdings? 13 Ontier captured the information using a live log−in.
14 A. That is correct . 14 Q. But Dr Wright, what you didn’t explain there was that
15 Q. That you asked for an extract of the MYOB accounts for 15 your part in all of this , in creating these documents,
16 Wright International, but didn’t have administrative 16 by putting in these entries in March 2020, that wasn’t
17 access to them, yes? 17 apparent from the chain of custody, was it?
18 A. That’s correct . 18 A. No, because I didn’t do that. Your error is you keep
19 Q. You say, at 23.13: 19 missing the fact that I said I had to create another
20 ”I can’t remember ... exactly how I got it , but 20 document.
21 someone organised an extract from the online MYOB 21 My Lord, the litigation in the US didn’t involve
22 accounting system to be provided to me in 22 Tulip Trading. If I was to bring that in , it would add
23 a ... (QIF) file ... an open specification file format 23 extra opportunity for Mr Kleiman to seek money from me.
24 for exporting financial data ... ” 24 So, what I did was separate it . I requested an offline
25 Correct? 25 copy so that I could make it so that no online copy of

121 123

1 A. Correct. 1 anything from Tulip Trading would go into the American

2 Q. Over the page {CSW/2/71}: 2 case.
3 ”I took the QIF file and then opened up a local 3 Q. Dr Wright, you presented what looked like genuine MYOB
4 version of MYOB on my computer. Then on 6 and 4 entries , created in 2009, albeit produced by your
5 7 March 2020, I transferred entries from the QIF file 5 solicitors , when they were in fact documents that you
6 into MYOB. I did this manually, to make sure that 6 had produced for yourself in 2020; that’s right , isn ’ t
7 everything was in MYOB that I wanted to be there. 7 it ?
8 I went through item−by−item and imported the entries in 8 A. No, it ’s not. The MYOB log−in details also show that
9 that way.” 9 the account was set up in 2009, not 2020.
10 Yes? 10 Q. Dr Wright, if Mr Madden had not stumbled across this
11 A. Yes. 11 needle in the haystack, you would happily have let
12 Q. Now, you presented these documents to the court as MYOB 12 the court and COPA continue in ignorance, wouldn’t you?
13 records which gave every impression of dating from 2009, 13 A. The court isn’t in ignorance. This document has nothing
14 didn’t you? 14 to do with this case. As I stated, it was never
15 A. No, I did not. The live extraction of those other files 15 anything to do with Wright or Tulip, it was created so
16 was done by Ontier. It has nothing to do with the files 16 that I could give the information that I was ordered by
17 in this . 17 the American court without bringing in the other
18 Q. What you’re saying is that in order to provide documents 18 company.
19 for , first of all , the Kleiman litigation and then for 19 Q. Do you say that none of those screenshots that we looked
20 these proceedings, you laboriously took entries from 20 at, 4077, 4078, 4079 or 4090, has anything to do with
21 a live version of MYOB and entered them in one by one 21 this case?
22 into a non−live version of MYOB and then produced some 22 A. I ’m saying that the screenshots taken by Ontier had
23 versions of that? 23 nothing to do with that file . That file was never given
24 A. No, in multiple ways. Firstly , these were never used in 24 to Ontier, so therefore Ontier could not have, at any
25 this proceedings. The reason you’re saying your needle 25 point, got screenshots from the file .

122 124

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 Q. Well, you said a moment ago that none of these documents 1 the software with the credentials given to them in late
2 had anything to do with this case. That’s what you 2 2019.
3 said . 3 Q. {L5/146/1}, the third screenshot.
4 A. No, as in the QIF −− sorry, the QIF, the MYOB and 4 The same question: is this a document which you say
5 the email. Sorry, I ’m not specific . 5 was produced as a result of −− or in this form as
6 Q. The documents that we looked at earlier, 4077, 4078, 6 a result of you having made those entries on 6 and
7 4079, that I put on screen, are they documents you say 7 7 March 2020?
8 have nothing to do with this case? 8 A. No. Again, this is a document which was produced
9 A. They are documents related to this case that have 9 because Ontier directly logged into the system using
10 nothing to do with the other MYOB file. 10 credentials that they were supplied with in late 2019.
11 Q. I ’m sorry, Dr Wright, do you say that those documents 11 Q. So why is this story of you making entries on 6 and
12 have relevance to this case and are probative of 12 7 March 2020 of any relevance to the findings of
13 anything in this case? 13 the experts?
14 A. As I just said , they’re documents related to this case 14 A. It isn ’ t . Basically , you have a file that was used in
15 −− I’ll emphasise that again. The screenshots taken by 15 creation of documents for legal proceedings that was
16 Ontier, when they downloaded, themselves, the online 16 used by my litigation team, that was produced as part of
17 version of this document that has nothing to do with 17 an order in an American court, that was noted to have
18 the one gave in to the American court case, are directly 18 nothing to do with the actual live accounts, because
19 related to this case. The ones that I created in 19 I don’t have an administrative access to that system,
20 response to Magistrate Reinhart and an order to do so, 20 and I had to respond to the magistrate despite the fact
21 they, on the other hand, have nothing to do with this 21 that I didn’t have that access.
22 case. 22 Q. Now, just to be clear , the findings of Mr Madden, agreed
23 Q. The documents you say that do have something to do with 23 by Dr Placks, were that the entries shown on these
24 this case, were created by you −− as a result of you 24 documents which we have just seen were as a result of
25 having transferred entries from a separate QIF file into 25 your entries on 6 and 7 March 2020. You dispute that,

125 127

1 MYOB on 6 and 7 March 2020, aren’t they? 1 do you?

2 A. No, they’re not. And as the chain of custody says, and 2 A. I do, because both of these −− or all of those images
3 it comes directly from Ontier, those files never touched 3 were taken by Ontier prior to that date, so that can’t
4 me. I didn’t have a log−in, I didn’t download the file , 4 be true.
5 I was never involved. It was directly by paralegals at 5 Q. The reality is that these documents resulted from
6 Ontier. 6 entries which you made in the system in March 2020 and
7 Q. Can we at least agree on this. Those documents, those 7 that they’re matters of your invention, aren’t they?
8 screenshots that we looked at earlier , on which −− in 8 A. No, they’re not. They’re from an account that I no
9 relation to which Mr Madden ran the two audits, those 9 longer have admin access to that dates back to 2009.
10 are documents which were generated as a result of and 10 Q. These documents, we saw, attribute a value of $50 per
11 after you had made entries on 6 and 7 March? 11 Bitcoin. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that in October 2009,
12 A. Can you show me which particular screenshots you’re 12 Bitcoin had no established value?
13 looking at and I will make a comment for them? There 13 A. No, that’s not actually correct . As your own witnesses
14 are multiple screenshots −− 14 will show, there were negotiations between myself,
15 Q. {L5/150/1}. 15 Martti Malmi and Joseph Vaughn Perling; even in 2009, we
16 A. That was made by Ontier. 16 were looking at setting things up.
17 Q. Was this −− had you made the entry which gave rise to it 17 Joseph Vaughn Perling had been setting up an exchange
18 on 6 or 7 March 2020? 18 between liberty dollars −− which were a silver dollar he
19 A. No, I did not. This was actually taken before that 19 got in trouble for in America for creating, because
20 date. 20 Americans don’t like you creating silver dollars −− and
21 Q. Next, please, {L5/471/1}. 21 Bitcoin, and there was an early valuation for it . I put
22 Is that a document which you accept was produced as 22 that value on and that was part of my dispute with
23 a result of your entries on 7 March and −− 6 and 23 the Australian Tax Office. The tax office said there
24 7 March 2020? 24 were no valuation −− it was overvalued, and that’s part
25 A. No, this was produced as a result of Ontier downloading 25 of why I won, because by the time that the trial

126 128

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 happened, the value of Bitcoin was far in excess. So 1 Mr Madden did, and that the timestamps for these
2 basically , the tribunal of three judges actually came up 2 transactions covered the period from 2009 to 2011.
3 with the idea to the tax office : wouldn’t it be better 3 A. Mm−hm.
4 just to charge tax on this? 4 Q. Do you remember that? That’s 9.32. Do you see that?
5 Q. In your appendix B, you said {CSW/2/69}: 5 A. I do.
6 ”I just gave the blocks a value I considered them to 6 Q. Then from paragraph 9.35, he discusses the Ridges R&D
7 be worth.” 7 file and describes the same review process, doesn’t he?
8 Without any −− citing any basis for that valuation, 8 A. He does.
9 didn’t you? 9 Q. And over the page {I/1/35}.
10 A. That’s correct . I just chose a number. I chose $1. 10 And then on page {I/1/37}, he refers −− may we go on
11 And that relates to what is in the code with the cent 11 a couple of pages {I/1/39}, he refers to a journal
12 marker in the early code. 12 security audit recording timestamps between August 2008
13 Q. So the documents, as well as being fakes, also provide 13 and March 2011; do you see that?
14 an entirely speculative and fake valuation of Bitcoin, 14 A. I do.
15 don’t they? 15 Q. Then over the following pages he refers to other entries
16 A. No, they’re a manufacturer, myself, putting a price on 16 apparently showing purchase of assets by
17 something. If I create a new product, it has no value 17 Information Defence and capturing audit logs from those,
18 until I put one on it. So, as an example, if you’re 18 doesn’t he?
19 a new barrister or solicitor and there’s no one in your 19 A. He does.
20 town, you put a price on your hours and you charge what 20 Q. If that material had been genuine, it would have
21 you think you’ ll get. And at the time, I thought $1 21 provided some support for your claim to be Satoshi,
22 sounds good, and at the time, it was wrong. 22 including the hosting cost of the bitcoin .org domain in
23 Q. Moving on to the new MYOB material {I/1/32}, please. 23 August 2008; correct?
24 This is the first report of Dr Placks. Paragraph −− let 24 A. It is genuine.
25 me check the page number. Paragraph 9.15. I may have 25 Q. {H/209/7}, please. This is Mr Madden’s review of

129 131

1 the wrong reference. {I/1/30}. Thank you very much. 1 the MYOB databases that Dr Placks had obtained. We can
2 Yes, page 30. 2 see he begins his analysis at the bottom of page 7.
3 At paragraph 9.15, he refers to having received two 3 Then page 9, please {H/209/9}, paragraph 31, we see
4 emails from MYOB inviting him to access MYOB databases. 4 he finds there anomalies in the log at SP9.6, if we go
5 He then describes having been given access to active 5 over the page {H/209/10} −− with log−in and log out
6 company files for Ridges R&D and 6 events for the same session which were separated by over
7 Wright International Investments. Are those other 7 12 years?
8 companies of yours? 8 A. It wasn’t used for a long time.
9 A. They’re ones that I’ve founded. They’re not mine. 9 Q. You see the images below paragraphs 32 and 33 which show
10 Q. He identifies the inviting individual as you. Did you 10 that difference of over 12 years between log−in and log
11 issue the invitation ? 11 out?
12 A. No, but my name’s on the account. 12 A. I do.
13 Q. Who did issue the invitation? 13 Q. And page 11 {H/209/11}, paragraph 37. This remarkable
14 A. Either the accountant, John Chesher, or my wife, one of 14 difference of time between log−in and log out of
15 the three. 15 individual sessions led him to suspect that that log had
16 Q. Was it done at your instruction and with your −− or with 16 been subject to time manipulation; correct?
17 your knowledge? 17 A. I don’t know what he assumed that on, but, no, it’s not
18 A. It was. 18 a remarkable. As I’ve noted before, the companies were
19 Q. Page 34 [sic ], please {I/1/32}, from paragraph 9.25, he 19 put into a sleep or dormant position awaiting 2020.
20 discusses the Wright International Investments file and 20 Q. And he also finds that the log entries were presented in
21 finds that it has entries matching those in 4077 to 21 the order of recorded timestamp since there were
22 4079. Are you aware of those findings he made? 22 multiple log−ins and log outs by the same user during
23 A. I am. 23 the 12−year period between the log−in and the log out of
24 Q. And page 36 [sic], paragraph 9.31 {I/1/34}, he refers to 24 the anomalous session, weren’t there?
25 having extracted the audit reports for these, as 25 A. That’s not actually correct . The way that the log−in

130 132

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 records individuals isn ’ t the way that he’s proposing. 1 information and one recorded the software version used
2 Q. If we go down to paragraph 40, further down the page, do 2 to interact with the databases. Do you recall that −−
3 we see that he reviewed history versions of the software 3 him doing that?
4 and found that versions pre−dating 2016 didn’t record 4 A. I do.
5 session IDs details in their security session logs at 5 Q. And then page 18, please {H/209/18}, do we see that
6 all , yes? 6 the first record ID that he found was dated to
7 A. I said −− I see what he says, yes. 7 August 2009, corresponding to the first log on the file ,
8 Q. And that led him, unsurprisingly, to conclude that 8 but the product version of the software was one from
9 the entries dating from 2008 to 2011, which had 9 2023?
10 session ID details were suspect. Do you say that 10 A. As I’ve noted, all of the schemas are updated.
11 versions pre−dating 2016 did record those details? 11 The log−in in MYOB requires updates, and if you don’t do
12 A. There are different versions , including the premier one. 12 them, you don’t access.
13 And on top of that, the information fills out other 13 Q. Dr Wright, if there was this automatic, across the board
14 details . So, if you have an old version of an 14 update, surely it would update the product version for
15 accounting software and you load it, it will fill things 15 all these different record IDs to the same product
16 in . That I’ve also validated , because I’ve got 16 version?
17 accounting files going back in MYOB to 2001. Those 17 A. No, it won’t. It will only do where schema changes
18 files I ’ve loaded and done the update on, you don’t have 18 happen in an entry.
19 a choice. With AccountRight, if you want to use the new 19 Q. Mr Madden goes on to record that the product version
20 file , it requires that you log−in to the server and that 20 2023.4.1.6 was one released in May 2023 and therefore
21 the information is updated, including new schemas. 21 narrows the period of use of the software to a period
22 Q. Just to the point that I was asking, do you say that 22 between 15 May and 7 June 2023, and you deny that that’s
23 there were versions pre−dating 2016 which recorded 23 a valid finding , don’t you?
24 session ID details ? 24 A. What I noted in my witness statement was a point from
25 A. Yes, but not in the way that you’re thinking about it . 25 MYOB. The MYOB accounting software company noted that

133 135

1 It was updated later. The accounts that I have on 1 there was a major update; they didn’t explain why, but
2 the MYOB site date back to −− I’m not actually sure, 2 they said no user could continue using the software
3 before 2007. The earliest online one that I still have 3 unless they accepted the changes to the schemas.
4 is 2007. When you use those, the mapping still occurs. 4 Q. And then from page 21, please, {H/209/21}, paragraph 65,
5 Q. Page 16, please {H/209/16}, paragraph 51. 5 he reviews an SQL exported table, user audit, and gives
6 What Mr Madden then did was to view the session logs 6 an excerpt we see here, and he notes that later in
7 in an SQL compact viewer, a tool which shows records in 7 the log −− this is paragraph 69 to 70 {H/209/22}:
8 the order that they were added, and he finds log−in and 8 ”Later in the log ... it is [recorded] when
9 log out records for the session ID which had given 9 the offline file was converted to a Live file ... ”
10 the anomalous records, now with the log−in and log out 10 With the user email address being shown and the user
11 records directly with each other but the timestamps out 11 ID is linked to your email address, isn ’ t it ?
12 of order; correct? 12 A. No, it ’s linked to the email address on the account. So
13 A. No. As I’ve noted before, the schema updates. This was 13 I have the payment account, but I don’t have
14 part of what I put in my witness statement pointing to 14 the administrator. So, what MYOB will do is still put
15 an MYOB site. The schema in MYOB will update entries 15 the primary account payer as the reference.
16 and any of these log entries will record when they have 16 Q. He went on to find −− make the same equivalent findings
17 been updated. 17 in relation to New Ridges accounts, didn’t he?
18 Q. Dr Wright, the fact is that all these findings were 18 A. Again −−
19 clearly indicative that the timestamps had been 19 Q. Except that the email address associated with
20 manipulated by clock manipulation, aren’t they? 20 the account was your wife’s?
21 A. No, they’re findings of someone who has never used an 21 A. Again, same thing, it ’s primary account holder.
22 accounting package, let alone an Australian accounting 22 Q. Now, you’re aware, aren’t you, that the experts reached
23 package called MYOB. 23 agreement about the dating of these MYOB records, didn’t
24 Q. Page 17 {H/209/17}, paragraph 53, he also was able to 24 they?
25 export raw data from the database record into tables of 25 A. I am −− I’ll agree that the individuals did. I don’t

134 136

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 agree that either of those people are experts in 1 this is bringing me to a point that I should make. One
2 accounting software, or MYOB. 2 of the reasons that Martti Malmi got into Bitcoin wasn’t
3 Q. Let me just put their agreement on screen so that you 3 digital cash, and it relates , it is trustworthiness of
4 can −− you have the opportunity to answer it {Q/2/9}. 4 online records. Why I created Bitcoin was to have
5 The last entry on the page, final column on the right, 5 a timestamp server, as I note, because there is nothing
6 second and third paragraphs: 6 on any system where metadata stays valid −−
7 ”Both experts agree that the two New MYOB Accounts 7 Q. Can I stop −−
8 were created at some point after 10 May 2023 on 8 A. −− for years.
9 computing equipment that had its clock set back to 9 MR HOUGH: Can I stop you there, Dr Wright, because this is
10 various dates between 2007 and 2013 while the database 10 a long way from the question.
11 was populated with information. 11 Would that be a convenient moment for a break,
12 ”Both experts agree that the records generated from 12 my Lord?
13 the New MYOB Accounts ...” 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
14 Over the page {Q/2/10}: 14 Let’s take ten minutes and see if we can get
15 ” ... do not contain accounting records created in 15 the court system sorted out, because it ’s quite
16 any period before May 2023.” 16 distracting , at least up here.
17 That’s right , isn ’ t it ? 17 (3.03 pm)
18 A. That −− sorry, that they said that, or ... 18 (A short break)
19 Q. Their conclusion is correct as a matter of analysis? 19 (3.17 pm)
20 A. No, it is not. As I stated, the update occurred at this 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
21 period. Now, I gave the log−in to Ontier and to 21 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, we’re now moving on to a number of
22 AlixPartners in late 2019. Each of them was given an 22 your documents which present as preliminary drafts of
23 individual log−in, so I ’m sorry, that can’t happen. 23 the Bitcoin White Paper. First of all , ID_000254,
24 Q. You have received, haven’t you, no supportive evidence 24 please {L2/441/1}. This is a pleaded forgery and one of
25 from Ontier or AlixPartners to say that they came across 25 the core 20.

137 139

1 genuine records from which they produced further 1 Dr Wright, do you recognise this as one of your
2 documents? 2 primary reliance documents?
3 A. That’s actually incorrect again. As the chain of 3 A. I do.
4 custody document you showed has, in early 2020, around 4 Q. Do you see that it presents as a version of
5 February, documents were captured by Ontier. If 5 the Bitcoin White Paper in OpenOffice ODT format, with
6 documents were captured by Ontier in February 2020, they 6 an abstract proposing the same basic system?
7 were the ones who captured them, they were the ones who 7 A. No, I recognise it as Timecoin. The similarities are
8 downloaded it. That is before this date. 8 there, but Bitcoin is only a partial implementation of
9 Q. But your latest story , that you had genuine records from 9 Timecoin. Timecoin went on to be the commercial
10 which Ontier captured material, neither they, nor 10 implementation of Bitcoin that I ran in places like
11 AlixPartners have provided any evidence in support of 11 Qudos Bank.
12 that, have they? 12 Q. I ’m going to disagree about you running Timecoin in
13 A. Again, you’re asking for waiving of privilege . 13 Qudos Bank, Dr Wright, but just for the moment, can we
14 Q. No, I’m asking you to accept as a matter of fact that 14 agree that it ’s a paper that shares some similarities at
15 they haven’t provided you with supportive evidence? 15 least with the Bitcoin White Paper but with the moniker
16 A. I ’m asking −− well, actually, they’re not my solicitors 16 ”Timecoin” added?
17 any more and you’re asking for waiving privilege . 17 A. It ’s a little bit different , it ’s not exactly the same.
18 Q. Dr Wright, just to conclude this passage and obviously 18 As I noted, this is a document based on Timecoin, and
19 this is subject to the evidence Mr Madden will be 19 Bitcoin was a limited subset of that.
20 producing on this subject in accordance with the court’s 20 Q. Can you take it from me that the embedded timestamp in
21 permission, this is another round of MYOB documents 21 the document is 6 May 2008, as Mr Madden found?
22 which the court can’t rely on which replace an original 22 A. I can.
23 set of forgeries ? 23 Q. And if that document were authentic to May 2008, that
24 A. Firstly , there were no set of forgeries . So if there’s 24 would support your claim to be Satoshi, wouldn’t it?
25 no forgeries , there can’t be anything to replace. But 25 A. It does.

138 140

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 Q. In your chain of custody information, you claim that 1 changed. That’s pulled from the internet. So sitting
2 this was written by you and a later version of some 2 there and going, ”They’re different”, well , of course
3 other papers that you wrote; is that right? 3 they are. IEEE controls it . So, no, I disagree
4 A. Yes. 4 completely.
5 Q. Mr Madden found a number of indications that this 5 Q. We’ll come to the LaTeX issues a little later , but
6 document had been created by editing a copy of 6 I have to put to you, based on what the experts said
7 the published Bitcoin White Paper and I’m going to put 7 from simply analysing the Bitcoin White Paper itself
8 each of those to you; do you understand? 8 without reference to your work, that document was not
9 A. I do. 9 written in LaTeX.
10 Q. {H/17/5}, please. 10 A. No, that’s incorrect , and if they were to say that, what
11 Now, he made the finding that the notes which 11 they would do, if they’re saying it ’s so simple to
12 appeared in this paper below the text were in a font 12 reproduce, would have been to, my Lord, reproduce one.
13 different from the font of the main text and different 13 They said it was so simple to do the exact thing, or to
14 from the font attributed to the empty lines above and 14 make the images, yet they didn’t.
15 below, but in the same font as that which appears in 15 Q. No, you’re missing the point I ’m making. Simplicity of
16 the real Bitcoin White Paper where a flowchart exists in 16 reproduction is another point they made. Their first
17 these places. Are you aware of those findings he made? 17 point was the Bitcoin White Paper just wasn’t written in
18 A. I ’m aware of them. 18 LaTeX, and that’s something you disagree with, is it?
19 Q. Is it right that your explanation or excuse for this , 19 A. I ’m saying that they had no testing of that. So they’ve
20 and some other features, is that both this document and 20 just made a comment because the metadata says
21 the Bitcoin White Paper were produced from earlier LaTeX 21 OpenOffice.
22 files ? 22 Q. No, they haven’t. With respect, Dr Wright, that’s
23 A. That is correct . 23 simply wrong. They’ve made that conclusion on the basis
24 Q. Is it your version that the compilation of this document 24 of a whole series of analyses, not just the metadata
25 into the PDF from LaTeX gave rise to anomalous features 25 information −−

141 143

1 of that kind? 1 A. A whole series of analyses that are based on things like
2 A. My belief is that was an ODT. Or am I mistaken? 2 the metadata.
3 Q. This is an ODT, the document we’re looking at −− we’re 3 Q. The second problem with your view of this is that, once
4 considering now? 4 again, these signs of manipulation, the fact that these
5 A. Yes, well , the −− then it’s not from a PDF. 5 are classic signs of the document having been edited
6 Q. Sorry, the Bitcoin White Paper was compiled into PDF, of 6 from the published version of the Bitcoin White Paper
7 course? 7 are all agreed between the experts, aren’t they?
8 A. Yes, it was. 8 A. I don’t know what they agree on that, but it’s not
9 Q. And there are two problems with this hypothesis at 9 a classic sign .
10 least , aren’t there? First of all , 10 Q. Page 8, please {H/17/8}.
11 the Bitcoin White Paper wasn’t written in LaTeX, was it? 11 In your document, in the lower box, we see that an
12 A. No, actually it was. 12 odd OBJ character appears below the text where, in
13 Q. And the experts on both sides in this case have agreed 13 the equivalent part of the Bitcoin White Paper,
14 with that proposition with a lot of clear detail , 14 a flowchart appears. Would you accept that?
15 haven’t they? 15 A. No, it ’s not a flowchart. It ’s a diagram of the others,
16 A. No, they haven’t. Despite my saying that Overleaf 16 but it ’s not a flowchart, so ...
17 doesn’t support OpenSymbol, they came up with a whole 17 Q. Happy to call it a diagram, Dr Wright. There’s a little
18 lot of things saying OpenSymbol isn’t supported. Now 18 OBJ character where the diagram appears?
19 OpenSymbol was supported on my tech, the version of 19 A. There’s an object field , yes.
20 compiler that I used for LaTeX supported OpenSymbol. 20 Q. And that’s an object replacement character, isn’t it ?
21 Now, that isn’t supported in the current online platform 21 A. No, it ’s where one would go. So it’s not a replacement
22 that I use. So to say that the formulas compile 22 character, it ’s a marker, an anchor.
23 differently , well , that’s actually taking what I said 23 Q. Well, I ’m telling you it ’s −− I’m putting to you that
24 and ignoring it . 24 it ’s an object replacement character and that it’s
25 Next, I pointed out that the IEEE referencing has 25 typically inserted into a document automatically when

142 144

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 the document is converted from one source containing 1 document. So that object file is because the PDF of
2 embedded objects which can’t be displayed in text form; 2 the embedded diagram hasn’t been found.
3 that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 3 Now, in the LaTeX files that they have, you’ ll note
4 A. No. There’s a couple of problems with that. 4 that there are also compiled versions of the images that
5 Number one, it’s not an embedded object in 5 are directly from the text, the TX, file . Those are
6 the Bitcoin White Paper. The diagram in 6 then embedded. So the reason that you don’t have errors
7 the Bitcoin White Paper has searchable text, my Lord. 7 like Verify , etc, and you have object, is that it is
8 The reason it has searchable text is , it is actually 8 embedded from a PDF and the PDF hasn’t been built before
9 a LaTeX−created document. It is not just, as you put 9 the ODT.
10 it , a flowchart or anything else . 10 Q. Well, moving on, I will just put to you that you’re
11 Now, if that was the case, it would not come up as 11 wrong about that and the experts are both correct.
12 an object file . Because you have that searchable text, 12 Moving on to page {H/17/10}, please, Mr Madden
13 and any of that can be searched, if you go to the actual 13 found, if we go down the page, please, or show
14 agreed White Paper, any version, you’ll be able to 14 the entire page, he found indentations in the empty
15 select and search on any of those. Even the verify and 15 lines above and below the notes, and we can see there’s
16 sign that are at 29 degrees −− I pick weird angles. 16 some examples of those on the next page {H/17/11}, which
17 The owner signature, etc, if you do a find and replace, 17 precisely match the indentation of the diagram in
18 will actually bring up, my Lord, so you can actually 18 the Bitcoin White Paper as it was published, and also
19 search on that. 19 that the OBJ character has that same indentation.
20 So unlike a diagram, where you can’t search, that’s 20 First of all , do you accept that those indentations
21 there. 21 were present?
22 So what you’re saying is that text would then be 22 A. I do.
23 there. If that was an object, then in that place, where 23 Q. He went on to find that the indentations varied between
24 objects is , there would be text. 24 pages of the document but were always the same as
25 Q. I put to you, Dr Wright, that’s simply wrong and this is 25 the indentations required to make space for the specific

145 147

1 a classic artefact of conversion from a document 1 diagrams in the published paper.

2 containing a diagram of that kind. 2 Again, is that a finding you accept as
3 A. I ’m putting to you that anyone with a mouse can click on 3 a proposition?
4 the Bitcoin White Paper, on Verify, and select text , and 4 A. I do.
5 they can cut and paste it , and they could go, 5 Q. As Mr Madden finds, it would be extraordinary, wouldn’t
6 ”Find: owner zero signature”. And if your proposition 6 it , for a writer to predict the various indentations
7 was correct, that would be wrong. If you had an image 7 required for future diagrams and then make those in
8 there, an image file embedded, and you tried to search 8 blank spaces?
9 it , you would not be able to do that. 9 A. No, I guess he’s not a writer . So, my Lord, if you
10 Q. But Dr Wright, if you −− based on your explanation, if 10 again look at my compiled text images that are in
11 this was a document written in LaTeX which would 11 the Overleaf files , I have those spaces. So without
12 compile, then it would compile in accordance with its 12 pre−empting your question and with this file here, some
13 instructions , it wouldn’t produce this OBJ character, 13 of them are like 7.81 centimetres, things like this , so
14 would it? 14 they are actually built into my LaTeX for
15 A. Actually, it would. When you’re compiling and you’re 15 the White Paper.
16 not going to PDF and there’s an error, that can happen. 16 Now, that is because I already compiled those
17 Now, the way that my LaTeX file is set up, my Lord, is 17 images. As I noted, they’re not an object file . I use
18 I haven’t got one. Each of the diagrams is separate so 18 LaTeX, but I compile into a PDF, or other format, and
19 that I could reuse them. So I have an image 1, image 2, 19 then I have that compiled into the document. So, how do
20 I can’t remember the names of the things, text file, and 20 I know? Because I wrote them. I have those images,
21 each of those are compiled separately and embedded. 21 I know the exact size of the images I created and
22 Now, the way that I have it is that I compile it into 22 I leave the space what they will be.
23 a PDF and do a compiled PDF, so when you convert into 23 Q. So this document has compiled from a LaTeX original
24 Word or into ODT, because it is no longer the standard 24 where you specified coordinates for empty space; is that
25 thing from the original PDF, it is now an embedded 25 right?

146 148

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 A. Yes. If you look at the LaTeX documents that I have, 1 account for this irregular hyphenation, would it?
2 I have actually specified line spacing and gaps. So, 2 A. It would, actually , because I don’t have a single
3 just like this , I have actually specified that’s how 3 document and I don’t work in a linear fashion. So
4 I do it . 4 I have multiple versions of all of the different
5 Q. So you went to the extraordinary effort of creating 5 documents −−
6 a LaTeX document which specifies coordinates for empty 6 Q. So you produced a coded copy of this document in LaTeX
7 space in this document; correct? 7 where you included the irregular hyphenation?
8 A. No, for where the image would go, and which is something 8 A. Some of it, yes.
9 in my CHFI forensic book that I note. In the section on 9 Q. And it just happened to fall at those points where there
10 steganography, I actually talk about doing this. That 10 are line breaks in the original of
11 was in a 2007 publication. 11 the Bitcoin White Paper? That’s pure chance?
12 Q. The fourth point, Mr Madden, at page 15 {H/17/15}, finds 12 A. No, that’s actually setting the −− the line spacing,
13 a series of examples of irregular hyphenation, including 13 etc. One of the reasons I note this , and I have
14 ”proof−of−work” written without the second hyphen and 14 a section in my book, the forensic one, noting that
15 ”non−reversible” with the hyphen deleted, and he found 15 doing some of these weird things as I ’ve got in my LaTeX
16 that each time that happened it corresponded to the word 16 files is a manner of actually using steganographic
17 crossing a line in the published Bitcoin White Paper. 17 watermarking. So while I was writing the White Paper,
18 Would you accept that those indicia are there in 18 I did a whole lot of stupid playing around because I was
19 the document? 19 also writing that other book.
20 A. Yes, I do. 20 Q. The reality is , Dr Wright, that this wasn’t irregular
21 Q. Now, that is at least consistent with conversion of 21 hyphenation inserted in some sort of clever playing
22 a document from PDF to Word, isn’t it? 22 around, it ’s simply an artefact of conversion?
23 A. No, actually , it isn ’ t . If I open up a PDF in something 23 A. No, it ’s in the reality , the same as I note in my book,
24 like Soda, which is the PDF sort of program I use, then 24 in the chapter on steganography and watermarking.
25 all of this will come out correctly. I can, for 25 Q. Well, it will be interesting to see if the experts are

149 151

1 instance, even download the PDF of the White Paper on my 1 cross−examined by reference to your book.
2 phone, open it in Word and it comes out correctly. So, 2 The sixth finding that −− sorry, the fifth finding
3 that’s not actually correct . Actually, if you −− 3 this Mr Madden made, page {H/17/20} of the document, was
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sorry, Dr Wright, when you say ”come out 4 that the document omitted formulae in various places and
5 correctly ”, what do you mean? 5 that the formulae which appeared in these places in
6 A. I mean the hyphenation will actually be correct. 6 the Bitcoin White Paper would corrupt on conversion of
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right. 7 the document from PDF.
8 A. So it doesn’t −− 8 That’s not a finding which is explained by your
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So how does that explain what Mr Madden 9 LaTeX story, is it ?
10 observed? 10 A. No, that’s actually a wrong story. You can actually
11 A. Basically , what they’re assuming is that there are 11 convert and keep all the formulas. So, not having
12 errors in the LaTeX where sometimes I’ve used per cent 12 formulas is not a good sort of answer. I use formulas
13 forward and things like this , done unusual things, and 13 in all my writing, so arguing I don’t have a formula is
14 not always do I hyphenate. So I have different sections 14 wrong.
15 of hyphenation and not hyphenation and they carry 15 Now, where you have the line break there, for
16 forward into other documents I create. 16 instance, with P, etc, and all bundled, that is
17 MR HOUGH: You referred to conversion from PDF. This is of 17 the natural formulation when you’re putting that code
18 course an ODT document, Dr Wright. 18 in . So, I use Sweave. Sweave, my Lord, is a package
19 A. No, conversion from LaTeX to ODT. 19 that integrates R, which is a coding language,
20 Q. You were saying to −− you were talking about PDF 20 statistical coding language, into LaTeX. What this does
21 conversion just a moment ago. 21 is it enables automatic update. So if I change one of
22 A. No, but when I’m talking about PDF, then that doesn’t 22 the values, for instance I make it P is 0.05 or
23 happen. That’s what I said. 23 something like this , it will recalculate and
24 Q. And if this and the Bitcoin White Paper had been created 24 the compiled document will have the new maths without me
25 from a common set of LaTeX originators, that wouldn’t 25 having to do it separately .

150 152

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 So where some of these don’t occur is because it’s 1 A. I do.

2 actually a combination of the LaTeX and Sweave 2 Q. Do you accept that’s a genuine email?
3 Q. So you use a special extra package which makes the table 3 A. I do.
4 look out of line and as if it ’s a conversion error? 4 Q. And do you see that the reference number Satoshi gives
5 A. No, actually , by default , it is out of line . So, when 5 is 5 −−
6 you run R, which is a statistical package, the default 6 A. I do.
7 output is to have it just in that sort of block. You 7 Q. −− from Adam Back’s paper?
8 have to then code it to actually say the tabulation. 8 Then {D/82/1}, please. {L3/194/1}. Do we see there
9 Q. Can we now move to something I think you agree about, 9 Mr Back’s response:
10 which is that this document contains text matching 10 ”Yes citation looks fine , I ’ ll take a look at your
11 the March 2009 version of the Bitcoin White Paper which 11 paper. You maybe aware of the ’B−money’ proposal,
12 doesn’t appear in earlier editions ; that’s right , isn ’ t 12 I guess Google can find it for you, by Wei Dai which
13 it ? 13 sounds to be somewhat related to your paper.
14 A. Once again, I don’t write things linearly . So you’re 14 (The b−money idea is just described concisely on his web
15 saying ” earlier edition”, so I disagree with that word. 15 page, he didn’t write up a paper).”
16 Q. Well, earlier in time. 16 A. Yes.
17 A. No, earlier in sending them to someone is a different 17 Q. Do you recognise that and is that a genuine email?
18 point. 18 A. It is .
19 Q. I see. 19 Q. {D/76/1} {L3/192/1}, please. You see that Satoshi
20 It contains text that matches the March 2009 version 20 replies the next day:
21 of the White Paper but does not match that of 21 ”Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the b−money page, but my
22 the October 2008 publicly issued version; correct? 22 ideas start from exactly that point. I ’ ll e−mail him to
23 A. Which is exactly the same as my LLM. 23 confirm the year of publication so I can credit him.”
24 So, my Lord, my LLM, the earlier version is the one 24 21 August. Do you accept that that’s a genuine
25 that’s published last , and there are versions in 25 email?

153 155

1 the middle that I have, once again, discarded and gone 1 A. I do.
2 back to the first . I don’t work linearly . 2 Q. And {L3/195/1}.
3 Q. So Dr Wright, this is a situation where both the content 3 This is a published email that was published in this
4 and forensic findings would suggest that this is 4 −− which has been in the public domain for some time,
5 a backdated forgery, but that’s just a coincidence? 5 from Satoshi to Wei Dai the next day, 22 August:
6 A. No, your presumption, that is false , is that I didn’t 6 ”I was very interested to read your b−money page.
7 write the White Paper, so therefore because I have 7 I ’m getting ready to release a paper that expands on
8 version of my text in there, it ’s not true. But the 8 your ideas into a complete working system. Adam Back
9 problem with that is, I did write the White Paper, so 9 (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed
10 I wrote all versions of it . 10 me to your site.
11 Q. Well, we’re certainly going to disagree about that, 11 ”I need to find out the year of publication of your
12 Dr Wright. 12 b−money page for the citation in my paper.”
13 {L2/441/7}, please. This is the last pages of this 13 Then he gives −− he or she or they give an example.
14 document. Page 7 to page 8 {L2/441/8}. Do we see 14 Again, do you accept that this is a genuine email?
15 a list of references at the bottom with Wei Dai’s 15 A. I do.
16 ”b−money” and a web page from 1998 cited as a reference? 16 Q. It ’s true, isn ’ t it , that the real Satoshi didn’t know
17 A. Mm, I do. 17 about the Wei Dai’s b−money page or paper at the time
18 Q. And over the page, {L2/441/8}, reference 6, Adam Back’s 18 that you claim you produced this document referencing
19 Hashcash paper, again with a web page reference, yes? 19 it ?
20 A. I do. 20 A. No. I knew about the email that had been sent to
21 Q. {D/80/1} {L3/190/1}, please. 21 the list . It was described by Mr Back −− or Dr Back as
22 This was Satoshi’s first email to Dr Back stating 22 a proposal. Now, what was actually there was a very
23 that he or she or they were getting ready to release 23 short, succinct area that was sent to a blogpost. So,
24 a paper referencing Dr Back’s Hashcash paper and wanted 24 back in now the late 1990s on the cypherpunk list, which
25 to check the citation ; do you see that? 25 at the time I was a member, Wei Dai had sent a nice,

154 156

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 well−structured email about something that he thought 1 actually different things. So, I knew about both, and
2 would be a good idea, in the same way that Tim May had 2 the Hashcash page and the paper, well, one was a −−
3 sent one about BlackNet. 3 well , basically email type blogpost and the other was
4 Now, what I did know of was the email that had been 4 a paper, a proposal. So my presumption was that in
5 posted, and I did know of the −− that it was there. 5 talking about this, you have paper/page. I know I’m
6 I believed , from the way that everyone was 6 pedantic, it ’s part of being an Aspie, it ’s ...
7 talking , ”proposal” etc, that he had taken it to more 7 Q. I ’m not accusing you of pedantry here, Dr Wright, I’m
8 than −− or basically a post on a web page that was an 8 accusing you of inconsistency , or total inconsistency
9 email. I thought it was an actual proper, fleshed out 9 with Satoshi’s knowledge and position.
10 version , but he never did that. 10 A. I ’m actually saying you’re wrong. It ’s very simple. If
11 Q. Dr Back made clear, didn’t he, in the emails we looked 11 you look at the area below, Hashcash paper and page are
12 at, that there was just a page, not a full paper? 12 two different things.
13 A. No, he didn’t make that clear. 13 Q. The real Satoshi didn’t say, ”Yeah, yeah, I know all
14 Q. Well −− 14 about Wei Dai, I’ve been profoundly influenced by his
15 A. He noted a proposal. 15 work for years , I didn’t know he’d gone further than
16 Q. We’ve been through the emails. He said that the full 16 producing a short document into producing a fuller
17 paper hadn’t been written, didn’t he? 17 paper”. He didn’t say that, did he?
18 A. Full paper, but he said ”proposal”. So, I ’ve written 18 A. He didn’t need to, but I didn’t realise he did.
19 a lot of proposals. I ’ve done them for the Department 19 The ideas that he posted initially were ones, with
20 of Homeland Security, I’ve done them for a number of 20 BlackNet, that got me started along this path, but he
21 government agencies, and a proposal isn’t generally an 21 didn’t produce anything further.
22 email. 22 Q. The reality is , Dr Wright, that you didn’t know about
23 Q. The distinction you draw between ”b−money page” and 23 the Satoshi/Adam Back email exchanges, which showed what
24 ”b−money paper” to try to explain this point away isn’t 24 Satoshi actually knew about Wei Dai’s work prior to
25 a distinction that Satoshi drew, is it ? 25 August 2008, namely nothing.

157 159

1 A. No, because I didn’t understand that there wasn’t 1 A. No, actually , I did. This is probably why some of your
2 something. I thought Wei would have actually finished 2 COPA members, who had access −−
3 it . He had worked a lot on the SSL code, so I made 3 Q. I think we −−
4 the presumption that if he put something out there he 4 A. −− to my communications with Adam Back didn’t release
5 would do it. 5 them.
6 Q. {D/74/1}, please. {L4/162/1}. Satoshi writes to 6 Q. I think we can stop there. There’s no point in
7 Adam Back: 7 digressing .
8 ”Thanks for the pointers you gave me to Wei Dai’s 8 ID_000536, next document. This is {L2/474/1}. I’m
9 b−money paper and others.” 9 sorry for the operator. This is a pleaded forgery and
10 The real Satoshi was treating the web page which 10 in the list of 20.
11 he’d accessed as the b−money paper, wasn’t he? 11 Do you recognise this as appearing to be a PDF
12 A. No, I’d just been told I could Google it, and I hadn’t 12 version of the Bitcoin White Paper with your details at
13 Googled it yet, and basically I ’m looking at this as 13 the top?
14 b−money paper, so I assumed that I would find a b−money 14 A. I do.
15 paper, which I didn’t . 15 Q. And you say in your exhibit to your fourth statement
16 Q. Dr Wright, you’re simply saying that black is white in 16 that this is an authentic draft of the White Paper with
17 relation to these emails, aren’t you? 17 a date of 21 May 2008.
18 A. No, I’m not. 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. It is perfectly plain from these emails that the real 19 Q. Is that a story you stick to?
20 Satoshi did not know about Wei Dai’s b−money paper 20 A. Yes.
21 before August 2008, isn’t it ? 21 Q. {H/20/27}, please.
22 A. No. Further down, you’ll also see, ”I ’m going to 22 This is where Mr Madden deals with this in his
23 release a paper that references your Hashcash paper”. 23 appendix PM3. The Adobe reader properties for this
24 In that, I note the Hashcash PDF. Now, there is 24 document, as we see from paragraph 90 and what follows,
25 a Hashcash page. I’ve noted that. So, those are 25 show a creation date of 24 January ’08 and a last

158 160

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 modification date of 21 May 2008? 1 A. Yes, I did. I actually find that less unlikely than
2 A. They do. 2 the option that you’re giving me of trying to set
3 Q. So if it were genuine and authentic to that period, it 3 something and sit there and wait until the time happens.
4 would support your claim to be Satoshi? 4 Q. Dr Wright, it would be extremely eccentric to enter some
5 A. Metadata is not that sort of thing, but, yes, it does. 5 LaTeX code in order to set a creation timestamp based on
6 Q. Mr Madden made a number of findings. First of all, he 6 another year’s document, but change part of it and not
7 found that the day, hour, minutes and seconds for 7 the rest . That is a very bizarre thing to do,
8 the times for the creation timestamp precisely matched 8 I suggest.
9 those of a control copy of the Bitcoin White Paper as 9 A. I suggest −− lots of people call me bizarre. I mean,
10 published in 2009, which he’d found to be authentic but 10 one thing, my Lord, inventors have never been known for
11 the year and month are different. That he found to be 11 being normal. I have over 1,000 patents now that are
12 either a remarkable coincidence or an instance of 12 granted, and 4,000 that are, well , pending, which
13 backdating; that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 13 I guess makes me an inventor, by definition. So,
14 A. No, actually , once again, I used LaTeX. My Lord, as 14 inventors through history have been known to be a bit
15 I have explained, you set the time in LaTeX. So, I can 15 bizarre . I ’m an Aspie; your expert, after a few minutes
16 actually put in the program used, for instance, in this 16 of being with me, determined that. I mean, there is
17 case, OpenOffice, and I can also say what the different 17 no −− we’re strange people, we’re unusual. I’m
18 create and modify times are. So, if I ’m going to change 18 currently doing multiple degrees while working and doing
19 those, I don’t need to change all of the settings . 19 a court case. Most people would consider that bizarre.
20 Now, the reason you do this in LaTeX is that you 20 Q. Dr Wright, the oddity which we found here is not as
21 have a control copy. So, when you’re printing and you 21 a result of some extremely eccentric use of LaTeX which
22 want to have something printed later, every version of 22 goes well beyond your fully accepted ASD condition, it
23 the PDF you create, even if you print it or compile it 23 is a sign of conversion and backdating, as Mr Madden
24 from LaTeX, will have the same information. So, for 24 found, isn ’ t it ?
25 instance, if I had the metadata in a file that I was 25 A. No, it ’s not. The only real problem I think he had in

161 163

1 printing as a marketing document, a year later, if 1 this document was the fact that it has Bitcoin actual
2 I compile it again, it will still come out with the same 2 text , so therefore it can’t be real , is the bit .
3 time and date. Now −− that is despite compiling it 3 But ... yes.
4 later . 4 Q. Why do you mean it can’t be real?
5 Now, when changing all of this information, and when 5 A. Well, the presumption and the bias is, you start with
6 I released in sort of 2009, I didn’t update every bit of 6 the presumption that Craig didn’t write Bitcoin and then
7 information. 7 you work backwards. That’s actually a bad, bad, bad,
8 Q. So you’re saying that you made a change to the metadata 8 unscientific way of approaching things.
9 using LaTeX code, but you bothered to change the year 9 Q. Let’s −− sorry, I hadn’t understood your answer. Let’s
10 and month, not the rest of the timestamp? 10 move on.
11 A. Yes, and it would be rather strange, in my opinion, to 11 Mr Madden further found that content in this version
12 actually try and set a clock on a computer, first of 12 matched the control copy of the Bitcoin White Paper as
13 all , to the create date, to get it down to the second 13 published in 2009, in respects where it differed from
14 and wait and go ”bang”, and then change the clock again 14 the Bitcoin White Paper as issued in October 2008. Are
15 to get the modified date at a separate thing. That 15 you prepared to accept that he made that finding and
16 would beggar belief, in my opinion. To actually sit 16 that that finding at least is accurate?
17 there and change clock times twice when all you can −− 17 A. Yes, I had multiple versions .
18 need do, from command line, using the Linux tool, or 18 Q. The obvious explanation, again, is not that you just
19 Windows imported tools, Touch, you can actually 19 happened to be using a version which perfectly
20 literally change that and you could actually do it on 20 replicated what you later published, it ’s that
21 the file . 21 the document was produced after the published 2009
22 Now, you −− 22 Bitcoin White Paper copying its content?
23 Q. You didn’t just leave the minutes the same, did you, 23 A. No, actually , that’s a sort of rather weird way of
24 minutes and seconds the same, you left the day and hour 24 thinking about it , because, once again, if you look at
25 the same as well, didn’t you? 25 the times, actually going in there and editing them

162 164

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 perfectly and setting a computer clock back and sitting 1 done in March, so ... And not on the date.
2 there and waiting and then doing some sort of 2 Q. Dr Wright, I’m putting to you a different point here,
3 modification to sit there again, I think that sounds 3 which is that if this has a tag in its raw data
4 rather weird. Maybe I am weird, but I think that 4 referring to nChain Limited, which didn’t come into
5 explanation you gave is incredibly weird. 5 being for years after that, it can’t be a document in
6 Q. Mr Madden also found TouchUp Text edit metadata tags 6 this form which dates to 2008?
7 indicating editing of this document in ways which 7 A. No, it means that a document has been opened, using,
8 corresponded to precisely the respects in which it 8 probably, Acrobat DC, at a later time. That is
9 differed from the 2009 Bitcoin White Paper. We can see 9 a different issue .
10 those at {H/27/1}. He found that the editing work, 10 Q. The specific contact details for nChain, which appear in
11 based on the ”Touchup Textedit” tag, indicated 11 the tag, are another indication of editing and
12 the editing of this document by that process and he 12 backdating the document.
13 depicts those edits in his PM4−appendix at {H/29/16}. 13 A. No, it ’s an indication that it was opened using probably
14 And do you see he has depicted, at the bottom of 14 Adobe DC.
15 the page, in yellow, the changes made with the −− 15 Q. Then paragraph 101, further down the page, Mr Madden
16 signified by the ”Touchup Textedit” tags? 16 found embedded font files, including 2017 copyright
17 A. I do. 17 information. That’s another indication, isn ’ t it , of
18 Q. And again, the natural conclusion of all this is that 18 the document being produced long after
19 this is a document created by editing from the published 19 the Bitcoin White Paper and being backdated?
20 version of the Bitcoin White Paper? 20 A. No, it ’s actually an indication that it ’s been opened.
21 A. No. The natural conclusion is it ’s my document and I’ve 21 If I was to edit the original White Paper and try and
22 edited my own document. 22 get away with what you’re saying, then there would be no
23 Q. Then PM3, please, {H/20/30}, paragraph 98, he found 23 changes.
24 a further ”Touchup Textedit” tag applied to the −− that 24 If , for instance, my Lord, I was to open in
25 wasn’t on the face of the document but could be coded 25 Acrobat Editor, then the fonts don’t change. The fonts

165 167

1 from examination of the raw data, which we see on 1 that are embedded in the document are used within Adobe.
2 the following page {H/20/31}, which referenced your 2 So, if you’re doing, like , an edit , like they’re saying,
3 contact details at nChain. Do you see that finding that 3 that doesn’t change.
4 he made? 4 Q. Well, I suggest to you that it does in the process of
5 A. I do. 5 editing from the White Paper at a time in 2017 or
6 Q. NChain didn’t exist in 2008, did it ? 6 afterwards.
7 A. No, it didn’t . 7 A. I −− no, it actually doesn’t. The fonts in
8 Q. So this document, including a tag in its raw data which 8 the Bitcoin White Paper are embedded, so it doesn’t load
9 referred to that, can’t date from 2008, can it? 9 new ones, so what you’re suggesting is something that’s
10 A. No, it can. What you’re saying is, if there’s been an 10 totally wrong. If you’re opening in Acrobat DC, it can
11 adjustment to my own document, that anyone altering that 11 actually make markers to new fonts, etc, but what you’re
12 can’t be real . 12 suggesting about changing things is actually wrong.
13 Q. So somebody else altered this document, did they? 13 Q. {H/20/32}, paragraph 104, Mr Madden found four internal
14 A. Again, I have people working for me to load things, etc. 14 metadata streams recording contradictory timestamps; do
15 If it ’s my document and I’m loading it on SSRN or 15 you see that?
16 something like this , it remains my document. 16 A. I do.
17 Q. This document, this copy of the document, you’re saying, 17 Q. Timestamps all over the place: 2009, 2019, 2008.
18 does not date, in this full form, from May 2008? 18 And over the page {H/20/33}. And go on, continuing
19 A. It dates to 2008. I don’t know the exact date because 19 {H/20/34}. And continuing {H/20/34}. And he found that
20 you set that in metadata. So, what I set in metadata 20 the observable characteristics couldn’t be achieved
21 and when I printed it are two different things. It 21 without manipulation of the computer clock, or manual
22 dates to 2008. 22 manipulation of the timestamps with the hex editor;
23 Q. You’ve just −− 23 that’s correct , isn ’ t it ?
24 A. The one from 2009, that you’re saying is your version 24 A. No, it ’s actually not. Once again, if you open this in
25 that everyone agrees, was not done in April 2009, it was 25 Acrobat DC, all of that’s something that happens.

166 168

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 Q. Then 35, please {H/20/35}. He also reviewed 1 Q. And will you take it from me that the metadata
2 the metadata information which recorded the version of 2 timestamps are equivalent to those of the document we
3 Adobe XMP Core software used to create this document and 3 just looked at?
4 found that that version information was invalid and 4 A. No, it ’s also got ”SSRN”, so it’s got other things
5 didn’t refer to any real world version ; do you see that 5 marked up from the site.
6 finding? 6 Q. But the metadata timestamps are the same, aren’t they?
7 A. I do. 7 A. I don’t know. I’m assuming they are, but I’ ll take it
8 Q. And he also observed that that supposed version 8 from you.
9 would postdate the creation date of the document in any 9 Q. If you take it from me.
10 event; yes? 10 For the lawyers, it ’s PM3, at {H/20/43}.
11 A. I see what he said, yes. 11 It matches the content of that document to the naked
12 Q. So he makes a whole series of independent findings, each 12 eye, except in the difference of title and that footer
13 of which, I suggest, indicates an edited and backdated 13 text referring to SSRN, doesn’t it?
14 document, doesn’t he, Dr Wright? 14 A. To the naked eye, yes.
15 A. No, he’s making an edited, not backdated. 15 Q. But the document doesn’t match the version which could
16 Q. Well, he said manipulation of timestamps. That’s 16 in fact be downloaded from that website either by hash
17 backdating, isn ’ t it ? 17 or by site , does it?
18 A. That’s what he said, but that’s not actually correct . 18 A. I ’m not sure. I don’t know what’s on the website.
19 Q. The natural inference from all of this is that this is 19 Q. That was the finding of Mr Madden, which is why I was
20 a document which has been forged by you to support your 20 putting it to you.
21 claim to be Satoshi. 21 Now, Mr Madden found that this document shared
22 A. No, that’s actually totally wrong. As I’ve already 22 a number of the same indications of backdating as
23 noted, I can print out a perfect version of a PDF at any 23 the previous one, metadata referenced to an invalid
24 time with any metadata and any date. So, stating that 24 version of XMP Core, the same ”Touchup Textedit” edit
25 I ’m going in and intentionally changing these things to 25 history , and a redundant metadata field for the creation

169 171

1 support my case is ridiculous . If I can go into, like , 1 date, matching that of the published White Paper, so his
2 Overleaf, my Lord, and print out a version, and I can 2 conclusion was that this version came after the previous
3 type in whatever date I want, I can type in whatever 3 one in a chain of editing . Is that a finding −− set of
4 version I want, I can type in whatever Office version 4 findings that you’re aware of?
5 I want, which I can do, and I’ve demonstrated, I find it 5 A. I ’ve read them, yes.
6 ridiculous to think that I ’m going to manipulate data in 6 Q. I ’m just going to put it to you that this is not an
7 this way to prove my case. 7 authentic document on that basis.
8 Q. Well, you wouldn’t have done that, because you forged 8 A. Again, I created the Bitcoin White Paper, I basically
9 this document before you came up with the idea that you 9 printed it , I authored it , so if the text is correct ,
10 produced the Bitcoin White Paper in LaTeX, didn’t you? 10 it ’s an authentic document. It is on SSRN because staff
11 A. No, actually , this document wasn’t even from me, this 11 members at nChain who manage the SSRN site loaded it.
12 document is one of the ones sourced by staff computers, 12 Q. Next, {L5/16/1}, which is ID_000538, another version of
13 once again. 13 the Bitcoin White Paper with your details at the top.
14 Q. Now, ID_000537, at {L5/28/1}, please. This is another 14 Are you aware that you’ve also said in your fourth
15 pleaded forgery, but not in the core list of 20. It 15 statement that this is an authentic draft of
16 comes across as a PDF version of the Bitcoin White Paper 16 the Bitcoin White Paper from May 2008?
17 with your details at the top and a spelling mistake in 17 A. That’s correct .
18 the title , doesn’t it ? 18 Q. {H/20/47}, please. Mr Madden found that it had metadata
19 A. It does. 19 timestamps which, if we look at the top of the page, had
20 Q. And you’ve said in your fourth witness statement exhibit 20 the same last modification date as the first of
21 that this is a draft of the White Paper and an authentic 21 the drafts we looked at, ID_000536, with a creation date
22 document? 22 of the −− sorry, the last modification date of
23 A. I have. 23 21 May 2008 but a different creation date of
24 Q. Dated to May 2008? 24 24 March 2009; do you see that?
25 A. Yes. 25 A. I do.

170 172

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 Q. Mr Madden found that to be irregular, because 1 the byte capacity different as a result of having
2 the creation date ought not to be later than the last 2 a different number of characters in this field , you risk
3 modification date. 3 the file being damaged, don’t you?
4 A. He did. 4 A. No, actually ; you can edit that and change it.
5 Q. And it was also identical to the creation date of 5 So, there’s a section in my book actually on
6 the control copy of the authentic Bitcoin White Paper, 6 carving. So, my Lord, in 2007, I wrote a forensic book,
7 wasn’t it , the one as published? 7 and part of that, I talked about data carving. Rather
8 A. The last one, yes. 8 than tools like EnCase, using raw carving techniques
9 Q. And Mr Madden found that this contained a number of 9 I showed how, on a disk, you could actually carve out
10 the same indications of backdating, including metadata 10 sections of files , recover deleted files , etc. Now, in
11 reference to an invalid version of XMP Core. Are you 11 doing that, you can reset the size of any hex. That
12 aware of that finding? 12 includes in such a document.
13 A. I am. 13 So, what I’m saying is, that would be something that
14 Q. Are you aware that he found, once again, 14 I wouldn’t even consider, especially when you can do it
15 a ”Touchup Textedit” history in common with ID_000536 15 in the application .
16 but which suggested an earlier stage in the chain of 16 Q. Pausing there. You are saying −− I’m not accepting this
17 editing? 17 is right , but you’re saying that it would be possible to
18 A. That’s what he said. 18 avoid file damage while having a different number of
19 Q. And page {H/20/56}, please. I’m going to put one 19 characters −−
20 particular finding to you. If we look under 20 A. Oh, of course. I mean −−
21 paragraph 162, do we see here that he found that 21 Q. −− but −− just listen to the question. If you don’t
22 the name entry field in the metadata had been edited 22 follow the technique which you’ve just described,
23 from ”Satoshi Nakamoto” to ”Craig S. Wright”, using full 23 wouldn’t you accept that there is a danger of file
24 stops in the name to make sure that it occupied the same 24 damage if you don’t retain the same number of
25 number of characters in the field −− the same number of 25 characters?

173 175

1 characters, so that the field remained identical in byte 1 A. No, actually , if I didn’t have the full stop after ”S”
2 capacity; do you see that? 2 and there was a blank space, that would be fine. If
3 A. I do. 3 you’re going longer and overwriting existing data in
4 Q. First of all , do you accept that that editing had 4 the file , that can corrupt. But if I had a shorter name
5 the effect that he said of ensuring that the field 5 and I didn’t put ”Craig.S Wright”, and ”Craig.”, that
6 remained identical in byte capacity? 6 dot wouldn’t be needed, so I could actually have
7 A. Not in the way that you’re saying, no, because there’s 7 a shorter version of my name and still have it not
8 no necessity to actually do that. While they are 8 corrupt. So the dots added, as an explanation, are
9 the same length, there’s no necessity to have them 9 wrong. So I could actually have ”Craig S −− no dot −−
10 the same length −− 10 Wright −− no dot”, and not corrupt it.
11 Q. That wasn’t the question. The first question was: do 11 Q. Once again, I’m going to disagree with you on that and
12 you accept that both of the fields are identical in byte 12 put to you that this is another sign of editing .
13 capacity? 13 A. Oh, I put it to you I could sit here and demonstrate it
14 A. I ’m saying they’re the same length. Byte capacity is 14 in court.
15 a little bit different , but they are the same length. 15 Q. Moving on to versions of the White Paper which aren’t
16 Q. Are they identical in byte capacity, both fields ? 16 reliance documents but which do contain some useful
17 A. It depends on what the formatting and compression is, so 17 metadata.
18 not necessarily . They are the same number of fields. 18 ID_0004010, which is at {L20/341/1}. Now, so far
19 Q. And this was a classic sign , wasn’t it , of an editing 19 we’ve been looking at documents which aren’t
20 taking place to ensure that the byte capacity wasn’t 20 reliance documents but which contain useful metadata.
21 altered and the file , as a result , not damaged? 21 We’re now moving to some primary reliance documents
22 A. No, actually , because you don’t need to do that. That 22 which don’t contain such metadata. Looking at this
23 would be not understanding how to edit a file, if that’s 23 document, Dr Wright, would you accept that it’s one of
24 your premise and −− that you have to have the same size. 24 the documents you’ve nominated as a primary
25 Q. Well, what I’m putting to you is that if you leave 25 reliance document?

174 176

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 A. I do. 1 Q. So, once again, that clearly indicates that this is

2 My Lord, can I ask that we have a break after this 2 a document produced in 2012 or later, doesn’t it?
3 document? 3 A. No, if doesn’t, because that symbol is actually in
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 4 multiple other things. In the LaTeX that you have
5 MR HOUGH: I’ll just be five minutes or so on this document. 5 captured, I ’ve actually got that symbol. Now, that’s
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 6 not only in Segoe. Going through the maybe 10,000
7 A. That’s fine . 7 different fonts until you find one is an effort I give
8 MR HOUGH: Is it right that in your chain of custody 8 him credit for , I mean, that’s persistence , but it ’s
9 information you said that this was a hard copy document 9 also one of several other fonts .
10 collected from your office drawer which you had 10 Q. So this −− the font in question is not the one Mr Madden
11 produced? 11 found, but some mystery further font, is it ?
12 A. That is correct . 12 A. No, it is not.
13 Q. And you’ve said that it ’s a draft of 13 Q. Go on.
14 the Bitcoin White Paper and an authentic document? 14 Well, he found that the relevant font was Segoe UI,
15 A. I did. 15 and that the character of three dots and a circle was
16 Q. Page 7 of the document {L20/341/7}, do we see, in 16 included in that, in Windows 8, released in August 2012.
17 the symbols −− sorry, in the equations, a symbol with 17 Which part of that do you disagree with?
18 a circle and three dots in the middle? 18 A. All of it . I mean, I don’t disagree that it was
19 A. I do. 19 included in that font, but saying that it is that font,
20 Q. May we now go to {H/20/64}. Do we see that Mr Madden 20 that it would embed, that if you convert you get an
21 found that lambda characters which appeared in 21 unusual Segoe font replacing Lambda, I mean, all of that
22 the original version of the Bitcoin White Paper, or in 22 beggars belief . I mean, Segoe, I’ve seen before, but
23 the published version of the Bitcoin White Paper, lambda 23 I ’ve never used in my life , so to expect that that
24 characters were replaced, in this document, with these 24 becomes a unicode character by default is ridiculous .
25 odd little symbols? 25 Next, the same circle with three dots is in a number

177 179

1 A. It ’s not an odd little symbol, it ’s in multiple 1 of symbol fonts, not just your one that you’re saying,
2 character sets . It ’s a modified version of an omega 2 but actually at least 20 different font types, and in
3 symbol that hasn’t come out correctly. 3 fact , in the symbols that you have in Openleaf, I have
4 Q. It doesn’t look very much like an omega at all; it ’s 4 it for Lambda.
5 a circle with three dots in the middle. 5 Q. Dr Wright, just this before we finish . Given that, on
6 A. It ’s supposed to be a line. 6 your account, all of these different independent
7 Q. The reality is that, as Mr Madden found, this is an 7 conclusions of alteration were so plainly wrong, are you
8 artefact suggesting conversion from PDF to a computer 8 surprised that Dr Placks agreed that on these −−
9 which didn’t have the font with the lambda symbol 9 the basis of these findings that the document had been
10 installed , isn ’ t it ? 10 manipulated?
11 A. No. Again, what computer doesn’t have the lambda symbol 11 A. Absolutely, yes, but for a different reason. I ’m
12 installed , would be my first question? 12 surprised in that anyone would allow themselves to go
13 Q. With the relevant font with the lambda symbol installed. 13 into such a level of expert overreach. We’re talking
14 That’s what I put to you. 14 about a printed paper document.
15 A. No, again, I don’t have a computer in the last 20 years 15 My Lord, neither of these people profess any
16 that hadn’t had the relevant font installed and that 16 expertise in −− I’m not even going to pronounce it, but
17 wouldn’t have infinity , or even the −− I mean, the thing 17 ligiographic (?) technology −− there, I did −− none of
18 is , you have the sum symbol in maths, so it is there. 18 them have any paper or printing experience, they haven’t
19 I mean, you cannot have the sum symbol in maths without 19 worked for printers , they know nothing about that, and
20 the lambda symbol. 20 what they’re doing is analysing a printed document as if
21 Q. Page {H/20/67}, please, paragraph 204 (d) to (e), he 21 it ’s a computer document. I mean, that beggars belief,
22 also found, didn’t he, that the character of three dots 22 in my opinion.
23 and a circle was first included in the Segoe UI font in 23 Next, your argument is that I have a paper document
24 2012 or later , didn’t he? 24 that I have converted and made an error of intentionally
25 A. He did. 25 years and years ago, which is ridiculous . So, I do say

178 180

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

1 that. 1 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Thursday,

2 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment? 2 8 February 2024)
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, thank you. 3
4 I have had a message this afternoon that 4
5 the engineers who are working in court 26, which is two 5
6 floors below here, will finish today, but not until 6
7 later this evening. What that means is Opus will only 7
8 be able to shift the equipment tomorrow morning, but 8
9 fingers crossed, we will sit in court 26 from tomorrow. 9
10 MR HOUGH: May I ask a logistical question, which is when it 10
11 would be helpful to have people here moving papers 11
12 downstairs? 12
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: How long do you need? 13
14 MR HOUGH: I think it will probably just take 15 or 14
15 20 minutes or so. 15
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You’re being nudged. 16
17 MR HOUGH: I’m told, and I’m always reluctant to disagree 17
18 with the bench, but I’m told that Opus have told my 18
19 instructing solicitors that they would require 19
20 five hours for set up. 20
21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Ah, okay. 21
22 MR HOUGH: I’m getting still more help. 22
23 A suggestion has been made that we might be able to 23
24 work around the engineers, but I don’t know how possible 24
25 that is . 25

181 183

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can I just talk to the Opus people in 1 INDEX

2 the corner. 2
3 Will it really take five hours to shift courts? 3 Housekeeping .........................................1
4 THE TECHNICIAN: I would imagine, my Lord. We’ve got 4 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued) ...................1
5 streaming, we have got lots of microphones, there have 5 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued) ........1
6 been sound issues in the room which we would be keen 6
7 to −− 7
8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 8
9 NEW SPEAKER: It may not take five hours, but to say it will 9
10 take much less than that ... 10
11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Understood. We may have to move at 11
12 the weekend then, so two more days in the sauna then. 12
13 Okay, well, apparently the temperature in court 26 13
14 was 4 degrees cooler than this . No guarantees that once 14
15 we put all the screens and all the bodies in there that 15
16 we don’t get up to a similar temperature, but I think 16
17 it ’s worth a try. But we will only move at the weekend 17
18 then. 18
19 Okay, Dr Wright, again, don’t talk to anybody about 19
20 your evidence over the break? 20
21 A. Yes, my Lord. 21
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Have a good rest and we’ll see you in 22
23 the morning. 23
24 A. Thank you. 24
25 (4.24 pm) 25

182 184

185

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

22:3,18 23:7 24:10,11 agree (14) 49:1 53:14 54:10 angles (1) 145:16 178:8 b (16) 24:1 29:10 30:22 163:11,16 167:5,18,19
A
26:8,14,24 31:9,19 32:9 98:16 121:5,8 126:7 annoyed (1) 31:9 article (10) 23:5,21 41:12 42:25 43:5,10 46:19 175:3 181:16

a112 (1) 71:22 35:4,6,7 37:11 40:14 136:25 137:1,7,12 140:14 anomalies (2) 92:12 132:4 27:16,20,23 28:13,18 60:5 110:12 112:9,22 belief (5) 43:20 142:2 162:16

a113 (1) 74:1 41:3,10 42:4 43:24 44:20 144:8 153:9 anomalous (4) 48:10 132:24 95:16 96:14,14 113:24 120:19,20 129:5 179:22 180:21

able (18) 5:20 6:6 14:15 49:10,18 50:8 51:11 60:25 agreed (13) 16:1 17:8 40:1 134:10 141:25 ascribed (1) 115:9 back (33) 22:12,20 24:14 believe (9) 29:15 67:22 94:4

15:20 59:23 80:17 87:2 65:2 66:11,22 67:4 68:13 48:17 49:20 106:2 112:2 anomaly (1) 20:10 asd (1) 163:22 37:21 41:1 42:20,22 45:19 100:18 101:9,22 102:2,3

91:20 108:25 119:6,18,24 70:13,19 71:13 72:12 120:25 127:22 142:13 anonymous (3) 43:25 45:2 ask (10) 6:5 23:20 38:12 48:23 58:23 81:22 82:1 108:16

120:6 134:24 145:14 146:9 75:25 77:18 80:15,16,21 144:7 145:14 180:8 73:15 74:2 80:2 98:22 102:10 83:3,18 84:1 87:3 91:19 believed (8) 25:14 47:18

181:8,23 82:3 83:7 84:5 86:14 87:24 agreement (5) 14:25 24:21 another (43) 7:8 21:3,5 25:4 103:19 177:2 181:10 117:15 128:9 133:17 134:2 51:1 53:11 78:5 87:22

abnormalities (1) 65:10 88:13 90:22 91:10,11 99:5 136:23 137:3 27:6,11 30:21 37:9 38:19 asked (10) 29:12 42:7 46:2 137:9 154:2,22 93:12 157:6

above (4) 65:24 113:13 92:7,17 96:13,23 105:21 agrees (3) 26:7 102:24 43:24 47:3,11 48:18 50:19 54:13 68:3 105:12,18 156:8,21,21,24 157:11 below (8) 22:23 132:9

141:14 147:15 106:12 107:19 108:7 166:25 57:15 67:11 69:21 74:11 106:25 113:11 121:15 158:7 159:23 160:4 165:1 141:12,15 144:12 147:15

absence (1) 1:14 109:10 112:16 126:19 ah (2) 29:6 181:21 75:13,23 85:16 86:1 88:8 asking (8) 8:4 80:21 98:17 backdated (15) 16:2 48:18 159:11 181:6

absolutely (1) 180:11 128:13 129:2 132:25 134:2 aid (1) 46:8 92:15 93:5 94:5 106:18 133:22 138:13,14,16,17 58:15,19 59:6 66:21 67:2 bench (1) 181:18

abstract (1) 140:6 138:3,16 142:12,23 aka (1) 72:17 114:5,12 115:4,6 117:11 aspect (1) 8:11 75:14 94:7 121:1,6 154:5 betoken (1) 1:15

absurd (1) 44:12 145:8,18,18 146:15 148:14 al (1) 28:12 119:24,25 123:19 138:21 aspects (3) 41:25 72:13 167:19 169:13,15 better (3) 1:9 92:16 129:3

academic (2) 33:1 81:15 149:2,3,10,23 150:3,3,6 albeit (1) 124:4 143:16 163:6 167:11,17 77:13 backdating (9) 26:6 49:9 between (33) 22:25 23:11,21

accept (43) 7:3,8,10,13 9:14 151:2,12,16 152:10,10 alex (4) 20:14 28:1 96:1,4 170:14 172:12 176:12 aspie (3) 28:6 159:6 163:15 96:12 161:13 163:23 26:1 28:12 35:24 37:4 48:6

15:8 20:21 25:4,15 27:11 153:2,5,8 156:22 158:2 ali (1) 6:10 answer (20) 4:6 12:1 23:20 assembled (1) 37:25 167:12 169:17 171:22 52:7 60:16 64:24 75:21

28:17,25 32:13 39:11 159:1,10,24 160:1 alixpartners (4) 123:5 51:11 52:16 53:23 59:5 asserting (1) 37:15 173:10 80:4,6,24 81:1 98:2 101:5

47:11,24 51:8 53:19 57:8 161:14,16 162:12,16,19,20 137:22,25 138:11 71:2,5 73:9 83:16,17 assets (4) 70:15 114:18 background (1) 60:3 110:20,23,25 115:22

59:7 62:23 63:17 64:10 163:1 164:7,23,25 167:20 allan (3) 103:11 104:1 85:9,14 106:11,20 113:24 115:21 131:16 backlog (2) 28:3,9 128:14,18 131:12

65:19 68:10 69:1 90:4 93:5 168:7,11,12,24 169:18,22 105:13 137:4 152:12 164:9 assistants (1) 62:3 backs (4) 154:18,24 155:7,9 132:10,14,23 135:22

102:10 126:22 138:14 170:11 174:8,22 175:4,5,9 allegation (1) 98:2 answered (3) 78:1 112:10,23 associated (3) 88:25 114:21 backwards (1) 164:7 137:10 144:7 147:23

144:14 147:20 148:2 176:1,6,9 179:3,5 180:2 allegations (2) 97:20 98:7 answering (1) 113:15 136:19 bad (3) 164:7,7,7 157:23

149:18 155:2,24 156:14 adam (5) 154:18 155:7 156:8 allow (2) 57:13 180:12 anybody (3) 97:5 102:23 assumed (2) 132:17 158:14 baked (1) 10:21 beyond (2) 18:22 163:22

164:15 174:4,12 175:23 158:7 160:4 allowed (1) 59:15 182:19 assuming (2) 150:11 171:7 bang (1) 162:14 bias (4) 111:22,24,25 164:5

176:23 add (3) 1:14 117:1 123:22 allowing (3) 12:21 78:6,14 anyone (6) 14:19 26:22 assumption (1) 99:23 bank (2) 140:11,13 biased (3) 112:1,3,7

acceptance (3) 57:1,9 75:3 added (6) 91:19 119:20 alone (1) 134:22 73:21 146:3 166:11 180:12 attached (12) 63:22 64:16 banks (1) 78:17 biases (1) 51:18

accepted (4) 5:1 91:7 136:3 120:8 134:8 140:16 176:8 along (2) 109:16 159:20 anything (17) 7:2,2 79:3 68:1 76:9 100:15,24 bantex (8) 106:13,17 107:21 big (2) 31:21 44:7

163:22 adding (1) 30:21 alpha (1) 80:15 84:18 85:2 90:21,25 101:1,1,10,12,20 119:5 108:7 109:13,23,23 112:25 billion (2) 70:21,22

accepting (2) 35:25 175:16 addition (1) 48:13 already (13) 23:10 24:21 112:12 115:23 124:1,15,20 attachment (1) 118:19 barrister (1) 129:19 billions (11) 9:2 70:17,18

access (25) 18:2,14 35:10 additional (2) 29:24 97:25 28:20 29:13 31:21 32:9 125:2,13 138:25 145:10 attack (6) 12:5 13:1,5 based (23) 5:18,19 12:6 24:6 71:21 72:2,10,21

48:20 59:12,15,24 address (8) 22:13 110:14 34:1 38:18 46:22 70:5 159:21 14:10,13 40:25 33:6 40:25 59:6 60:21 73:12,19,23 74:5

60:1,2,16,17,17 102:18 120:3,20 136:10,11,12,19 106:25 148:16 169:22 anywhere (2) 77:11 79:22 attacked (2) 9:9 31:19 61:21 63:15 66:5 81:18 biological (1) 33:22

117:22 118:2 119:12 addressed (1) 77:7 also (50) 20:18 22:22 24:1 aon (2) 4:17,21 attacker (3) 13:9,9 39:7 95:23 113:5,17,18 120:6 bird (2) 40:8,8

120:12 121:17 127:19,21 addresses (1) 117:5 27:16 34:8 38:8 40:17,22 apart (2) 18:5 68:5 attackers (3) 13:6 40:25 41:7 140:18 143:6 144:1 146:10 bit (11) 18:22 25:12 70:25

128:9 130:4,5 135:12 addressing (1) 56:21 42:17 43:3,12,13 45:8 apologise (1) 101:19 attacking (1) 32:4 163:5 165:11 82:21,24 91:8 140:17

160:2 adhere (1) 51:1 58:4,9 61:9 65:5 67:16 apparent (1) 123:17 attacks (6) 10:7 12:18,22 basic (6) 6:1,2 24:15 48:22 162:6 163:14 164:2 174:15

accessed (12) 19:12,20 adjourned (1) 183:1 71:17 75:9 78:15 88:24 apparently (7) 51:9 93:1,2 13:11 31:1 41:8 102:10 140:6 bitcoin (136) 7:7,16,20

21:13 23:19 53:17 55:4 adjournment (2) 97:5 99:9 95:9 104:9 105:17 107:11 117:11 118:15 131:16 attribute (1) 128:10 basically (23) 14:12,23 16:22 8:18,19 9:6,6,12

59:14 64:17,25 85:1 adjustment (1) 166:11 109:9,12 111:18 112:3 182:13 attributed (1) 141:14 28:5 31:12 40:25 49:19 10:6,6,19,23 11:1,2,17,22

102:21 158:11 admin (1) 128:9 117:2,10 124:8 129:13 appear (3) 88:23 153:12 audit (10) 40:23 55:3 63:8 99:21 101:9 13:22,23,25 17:18 20:6,21

accesses (1) 60:15 administrative (3) 119:12 132:20 133:16 134:24 167:10 119:7,7,17,25 120:1 102:19 104:2,16 109:24 25:10 28:19 29:1,5,23

accidental (1) 17:24 121:16 127:19 147:4,18 151:19 158:22 appeared (8) 36:1,17 60:6 130:25 131:12,17 136:5 117:4 127:14 129:2 150:11 31:2,3 32:4 33:6,15,17

accomplished (2) 39:9 53:1 administrator (5) 60:2,12 161:17 165:6 169:1,8 112:22 119:19 141:12 audits (1) 126:9 157:8 158:13 159:3 172:8 34:1 39:13 48:1

accordance (2) 138:20 120:2,13 136:14 171:4 172:14 173:5 178:22 152:5 177:21 august (21) 32:21 57:25 basics (1) 91:15 51:13,14,20

146:12 adobe (4) 160:23 167:14 179:9 appearing (2) 115:14 160:11 63:23 64:1,6,14,18 65:20 basis (12) 3:7 16:1 39:16 52:10,18,20,23 54:9,10

account (16) 30:18 63:23 168:1 169:3 alter (3) 20:5 47:5 61:10 appears (8) 95:16 114:17 67:25 75:10 89:9 103:14 48:17 49:20 53:19 58:13 55:2,22 57:17 59:16 70:8

81:6 104:14 109:3 116:25 advanced (2) 6:1 37:25 alteration (4) 17:23 21:12 115:4 116:8 141:15 114:24 131:12,23 135:7 119:5 129:8 143:23 172:7 71:2,5,13 75:5 76:12

124:9 128:8 130:12 advice (2) 6:18,21 43:10 180:7 144:12,14,18 155:24 156:5 158:21 180:9 77:12,13,19,23 78:24

136:12,13,15,20,21 151:1 afraid (1) 108:24 altered (10) 9:18 20:3 21:25 appendix (21) 24:1 29:10 159:25 179:16 bcc (1) 72:20 79:3,19,24,25

180:6 after (24) 15:23 30:10 40:5 22:2 42:9,14 47:1 60:23 30:22 35:22 41:12 42:25 australia (3) 44:4 62:10 bch (1) 52:8 80:5,14,15,25 81:1

accountant (1) 130:14 42:22 48:15 52:5 64:18 166:13 174:21 43:5,10 46:19 57:20 60:5 110:9 bdo (4) 103:12 104:1,14,21 82:8,8,9,10 83:12 91:14

accounted (1) 65:11 65:13 66:1 68:1 89:21 94:6 altering (5) 43:1 46:10,14 61:23 90:8 110:12 australian (4) 107:21 116:2 bear (2) 21:11 97:14 92:23 93:2 94:10 103:25

accounting (12) 74:8 114:15 101:18 106:15 107:15 47:5 166:11 112:9,22 113:24 120:19,20 128:23 134:22 became (1) 107:14 104:15,21 105:1,5 115:9

120:13,21 121:22 126:11 137:8 163:15 alternate (1) 39:8 129:5 160:23 authentic (19) 38:6 39:25 becomes (3) 11:20,22 179:24 121:13 128:11,12,21

133:15,17 134:22,22 164:21 167:5,18 172:2 although (5) 52:18 78:8 application (1) 175:15 50:6 53:15,21 96:19 99:1,4 before (54) 12:15 15:7 17:17 129:1,14 139:2,4,23

135:25 137:2,15 176:1 177:2 100:15 101:12 108:16 applications (4) 41:5,8 48:20 123:9 140:23 160:16 20:6 22:11 26:18 140:5,8,10,15,19

accountright (1) 133:19 afternoon (3) 113:7,16 181:4 always (10) 13:7,8,8 65:4 49:12 161:3,10 170:21 31:2,3,13,20 32:4 35:5 141:7,16,21 142:6,11

accounts (11) 116:17 afterwards (4) 90:6 91:9 107:25 108:13 109:21 applied (1) 165:24 172:7,10,15 173:6 177:14 37:14 38:1 39:16 40:12 143:7,17 144:6,13 145:6,7

117:18,20 118:1,3 121:15 104:3 168:6 147:24 150:14 181:17 apply (1) 8:17 authenticity (1) 98:3 42:22 43:19 46:7 49:5 52:3 146:4 147:18 149:17

127:18 134:1 136:17 again (69) 5:18 13:4 19:11 amalgamation (1) 35:6 appreciate (1) 11:24 author (2) 44:2 63:14 54:2 55:1 58:7 59:9 150:24 151:11 152:6

137:7,13 21:8,16 22:2 23:16,18,20 america (1) 128:19 approach (1) 92:17 authored (3) 95:22,24 172:9 65:7,20 68:9 70:2 74:16 153:11 160:12 161:9

accurate (1) 164:16 30:11 31:14 32:13 39:2 american (7) 114:25 approaching (1) 164:8 authors (1) 44:1 79:14 82:14 85:9,12 164:1,6,12,14,22 165:9,20

accusing (3) 37:16 159:7,8 42:13 43:12 45:13 120:12,16 124:1,17 125:18 appropriate (1) 54:12 authorship (1) 48:15 86:20,23 97:8 108:20 167:19 168:8 170:10,16

achieved (1) 168:20 47:21,24 48:19 49:8,20 127:17 april (5) 21:3,7 23:5 118:20 automatic (2) 135:13 152:21 109:22 112:18,18 113:6 172:8,13,16 173:6

acquisition (1) 4:21 50:25 51:5 53:22 61:12 americans (1) 128:20 166:25 automatically (1) 144:25 120:14 126:19 132:18 177:14,22,23

acrobat (5) 46:23 167:8,25 64:19 75:13,22 76:17 among (2) 17:13 90:9 arbitrary (1) 39:10 available (5) 26:18 35:10 134:3,13 137:16 138:8 bitcoinorg (1) 131:22

168:10,25 85:14 88:2 91:25 94:10,25 amount (2) 12:10 73:21 area (7) 40:19 43:24 81:4 36:13 59:17 91:18 147:8 158:21 170:9 179:22 bitcoinrelated (1) 115:21

across (6) 61:6 78:10 124:10 95:9 96:18 110:3 113:12 amply (1) 5:20 91:11 93:4 156:23 159:11 avoid (1) 175:18 180:5 bizarre (5) 91:8

135:13 137:25 170:16 117:13 125:15 127:8 anachronistic (1) 60:6 areas (5) 6:21 10:15 77:15 awaiting (1) 132:19 beggar (1) 162:16 163:7,9,15,19

acting (2) 8:18 12:17 136:18,21 138:3,13 144:4 analogous (1) 79:13 102:17 111:20 awarded (1) 56:1 beggars (3) 43:20 179:22 black (1) 158:16

action (7) 8:16 9:19,22 10:4 148:2,10 153:14 154:1,19 analogy (2) 11:3 33:22 arent (24) 3:9 17:20 21:11 aware (31) 17:13,16,20 23:6 180:21 blacknet (3) 22:15 157:3

12:2,12 13:13 156:14 161:14 162:2,14 analyse (1) 119:15 22:4 72:11,15 92:8,13 26:12 34:11 38:2,4 40:8 beginning (3) 20:18 30:12 159:20

actions (1) 13:2 164:18,24 165:3,18 166:14 analysed (3) 50:6,8 91:7 101:18 106:6 109:18 48:11 58:11 62:21 75:10 57:11 blank (2) 148:8 176:2

active (2) 4:25 130:5 168:24 170:13 172:8 analyses (2) 143:24 144:1 114:22 118:14,16 126:1 88:19 89:10 92:8,13 begins (2) 89:5 132:2 block (5) 9:14,15 11:17

actor (5) 9:24 13:18,20 173:14 176:11 178:11,15 analysing (4) 3:15,23 143:7 128:7 134:20 136:22 106:6,12 118:14 120:6 behalf (1) 17:21 12:12 153:7

14:6,19 179:1 182:19 180:20 142:10 144:7 158:17 171:6 130:22 136:22 141:17,18 behaviour (1) 102:16 blockchain (6) 20:25 33:6

actors (3) 10:3 14:4 15:9 against (6) 9:21,24 13:6,18 analysis (15) 3:15 6:9 12:6 176:15,19 155:11,21 172:4,14 being (36) 9:20 10:6 13:2 34:1 52:10,23 70:22

actual (13) 10:13 12:3 13:21 22:3 111:8 47:25 50:9 51:20 59:3 arguing (2) 66:11 152:13 173:12,14 23:23 27:13 31:17 38:5 blocks (3) 31:22 79:9 129:6

76:21 79:23 80:6 81:2,9 age (1) 58:22 63:12 76:3 91:22 argument (2) 90:24 180:23 away (7) 7:20 28:11 33:16,18 44:15,17 45:2,2 49:5 67:8 blog (5) 28:1,16 31:16 88:24

98:10 127:18 145:13 157:9 agencies (1) 157:21 108:17,19,22 132:2 137:19 around (7) 35:5 76:14 79:6 71:11 157:24 167:22 70:15,20,20,23 76:3,19 96:4

164:1 agerhanssen (1) 6:10 analyst (1) 2:21 138:4 151:18,22 181:24 aws (4) 14:7,9,9,9 78:12 81:12 85:16 86:1 blogpost (5) 88:23 89:4 96:9

actually (131) 8:10,13 10:10 ago (6) 5:24 30:23 63:9 anchor (1) 144:22 art (1) 69:11 111:14 115:21 119:20 156:23 159:3

13:14 18:1 19:13 21:1,5 125:1 150:21 180:25 andrae (1) 40:7 artefact (3) 146:1 151:22 B 129:13 136:10 159:6 blow (1) 65:18

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

blown (1) 66:17 119:18 121:20 128:3 cheat (1) 10:2 commerce (1) 87:18 consistency (1) 61:6 128:13 129:10 131:23 current (3) 60:22 86:6
blue (1) 22:24 137:23 138:22,25 145:2,20 check (7) 18:1 64:3 67:17 commercial (4) 8:1,6,7 140:9 consistent (7) 23:14,23,24 132:16,25 134:12 137:19 142:21
bmoney (14) 154:16 146:20 164:2,4 166:9,12 84:11 108:7 129:25 154:25 commitment (1) 1:19 27:12 96:11 111:14 149:21 141:23 146:7 147:11 149:7 currently (2) 2:10 163:18
155:11,14,21 156:6,12,17 167:5 checked (3) 84:4 87:7 109:7 committed (1) 102:12 consists (1) 34:20 150:3,6 153:22 168:23 custody (28) 18:7 19:22
157:23,24 cap (1) 11:6 chesher (1) 130:14 commodity (1) 92:24 consolidating (1) 78:16 169:18 172:9,17 177:12 21:24 25:13 32:16 38:25
158:9,11,14,14,20 capacity (7) chfi (1) 149:9 common (6) 36:16,19 69:20 constraint (1) 72:18 corrected (3) 12:8 83:9 47:16 50:24 53:7 56:11
board (1) 135:13 174:2,6,13,14,16,20 175:1 child (2) 77:22,24 98:21 150:25 173:15 consultants (1) 2:20 86:18 61:25 62:23 63:12 74:19
bodies (1) 182:15 capsule (2) 16:14 17:6 chinese (2) 106:15,18 communicate (1) 33:20 contact (2) 166:3 167:10 correctly (4) 149:25 150:2,5 87:21 93:11 94:17 104:9
book (20) 34:12 capture (3) 88:24 89:4 choice (1) 133:19 communications (2) 3:15 contain (9) 17:17 178:3 116:5,11 117:15 118:11
35:6,19,24,24 36:5,11,18 116:19 choose (2) 21:23,24 160:4 36:11,19,22 37:5 137:15 correspond (1) 39:12 123:11,17 126:2 138:4
37:6,12 40:22,23 42:17 captured (6) 123:13 chose (3) 28:23 129:10,10 compact (1) 134:7 176:16,20,22 corresponded (4) 39:17 141:1 177:8
149:9 151:14,19,23 152:1 138:5,6,7,10 179:5 christen (1) 6:10 companies (7) 44:6,17,25 contained (7) 57:21 58:9 79:24 149:16 165:8 cut (3) 80:1 81:8 146:5
175:5,6 capturing (1) 131:17 chronology (2) 6:24 7:3 107:21 114:21 130:8 83:10 95:10 118:18,22 corresponding (1) 135:7 cv (3) 4:16 5:19 113:8
books (1) 43:4 card (1) 78:18 circle (5) 177:18 178:5,23 132:18 173:9 corrupt (4) 152:6 176:4,8,10 cws231 (1) 84:12
borer (1) 2:20 cards (1) 78:11 179:15,25 company (13) 104:17,19 containing (5) 65:24 66:10 cost (2) 71:7 131:22 cyber (3) 2:16 4:17,18
boss (1) 96:5 care (1) 45:2 circles (1) 110:2 107:6 108:8 95:18 145:1 146:2 couldnt (6) 3:17 58:23 61:15 cybersecurity (1) 5:24
both (34) 3:17 11:4 21:10 cared (1) 45:2 citation (3) 154:25 155:10 109:11,15,22,25 116:1,2 contains (3) 41:15 153:10,20 99:18,25 168:20 cypherpunk (1) 156:24
24:15 26:12 42:5 68:13 career (2) 2:18 20:6 156:12 124:18 130:6 135:25 contemporaneously (1) 91:3 counsel (1) 27:4
D
69:7,22,25 75:18 85:23 careful (2) 24:7 50:13 cite (1) 79:23 compared (2) 28:14 111:8 contempt (1) 71:3 countries (1) 32:2
86:10,14,24 87:5 88:23 carried (1) 24:9 cited (2) 66:13 154:16 compares (2) 63:12,20 content (10) 29:17,24 65:24 country (1) 72:5 d (2) 100:12 178:21
103:11 107:21,22 carry (2) 119:24 150:15 citing (1) 129:8 comparison (1) 28:12 95:18 96:14 102:12 154:3 couple (7) 13:16,17 30:23 d741 (1) 158:6
114:8,21,23 117:7 128:2 cartel (1) 72:18 citrix (16) 3:23,23,25 competent (1) 4:10 164:11,22 171:11 64:18 99:12 131:11 145:4 d761 (1) 155:19
137:7,12 141:20 142:13 carve (1) 175:9 23:16,25 24:11,18,18,19 competition (2) 1:5 32:3 contents (5) 5:19 77:7 84:6 course (17) 8:17 12:4 14:24 d801 (1) 154:21
147:11 154:3 159:1 carving (3) 175:6,7,8 26:8 48:19,22 60:2,11 76:1 competitors (1) 110:1 99:21 100:12 27:3 30:17 35:9 48:22 d821 (1) 155:8
174:12,16 cash (12) 52:10,18,19,24 102:16 compilation (1) 141:24 context (1) 71:16 74:17 86:8 91:21 92:18 dai (4) 155:12 156:5,25
bothered (1) 162:9 57:13 78:5,11,22,23 82:16 civil (1) 9:1 compile (7) 142:22 continue (2) 124:12 136:2 97:10,14 142:7 143:2 159:14
bottom (9) 25:23 51:23 57:3 94:19 139:3 claimants (1) 71:24 146:12,12,22 148:18 continued (4) 1:21,24 150:18 175:20 dais (5) 154:15 156:17
58:1 88:6 95:19 132:2 casino (1) 80:11 claimed (2) 17:7 71:16 161:23 162:2 184:4,5 courses (1) 28:8 158:8,20 159:24
154:15 165:14 catch (2) 13:7,8 claims (2) 10:8 73:18 compiled (9) 142:6 continuing (2) 168:18,19 courts (3) 5:4 138:20 182:3 damage (2) 175:18,24
box (1) 144:11 categorically (1) 26:25 clarify (2) 16:5 101:20 146:21,23 147:4 contract (1) 57:9 cover (2) 84:25 85:4 damaged (2) 174:21 175:3
bradney (1) 91:1 cause (1) 24:8 classic (4) 144:5,9 146:1 148:10,16,19,23 152:24 contradictory (1) 168:14 covered (1) 131:2 danger (1) 175:23
brand (1) 113:10 caused (1) 24:3 174:19 compiler (1) 142:20 contrary (2) 73:21 101:17 covers (2) 2:3 5:16 data (21) 4:25 5:8 8:21
brands (4) 109:21,21,23 causes (1) 60:22 clean (1) 96:8 compiling (2) 146:15 162:3 control (6) 21:9,10 161:9,21 craig (6) 1:21 164:6 173:23 12:19 13:25 18:13 22:23
110:10 cce (2) 3:6,10 clear (25) 4:14 13:1 37:14 complete (1) 156:8 164:12 173:6 176:5,9 184:4 41:15 58:5,9 93:20 95:9
breach (1) 4:25 cent (4) 11:19,20 129:11 38:5 43:9 44:9 57:16 61:19 completed (3) 16:23 55:25 controls (1) 143:3 craigs (2) 44:24 176:5 104:19 121:24 134:25
break (14) 41:12 42:23 43:19 150:12 83:4,10,24,25 84:20 98:2 83:5 convenient (4) 45:14 96:24 crankshaft (1) 87:18 166:1,8 167:3 170:6 175:7
45:15,16,22 46:7 82:22 centimetres (1) 148:13 110:4,7,24 111:19 116:4 completely (4) 27:2 37:10 139:11 181:2 create (11) 16:17 24:9 71:2 176:3
96:25 139:11,18 152:15 centos (1) 4:1 118:25 120:18 127:22 112:1 143:4 conversely (1) 71:10 79:9 123:19 129:17 150:16 database (3) 118:23 134:25
177:2 182:20 central (1) 7:7 142:14 157:11,13 complex (2) 32:12 34:13 conversion (12) 38:1 49:10 161:18,23 162:13 169:3 137:10
breaks (2) 14:2 151:10 centre (1) 104:19 clearly (6) 14:15 100:22 complied (1) 19:3 146:1 149:21 150:17,19,21 created (40) 6:15 16:19 17:1 databases (3) 130:4 132:1
bridges (1) 45:7 centres (3) 8:21 12:20 14:1 111:3,5 134:19 179:1 compression (1) 174:17 151:22 152:6 153:4 163:23 18:18 25:17 26:1 32:20 135:2
briefly (1) 105:10 certain (2) 44:2 62:13 clerk (1) 106:25 computer (18) 3:1,5 9:23 178:8 40:4 41:16 46:22 47:6,20 date (45) 26:9,10 27:18
brilliant (1) 1:9 certification (4) 3:10,12,21 clever (1) 151:21 13:15 26:5 69:11 81:17 convert (4) 49:13 146:23 49:15 51:4 52:10,23 53:25 39:21,21 40:6 43:15 51:1
bring (3) 2:6 123:22 145:18 6:3 click (1) 146:3 91:25 92:3,6 122:4 162:12 152:11 179:20 63:15 64:23 78:6 88:1 53:5,11 56:15,16 57:25
bringing (5) 21:7 73:2 74:4 certifications (3) 3:5 4:1 6:1 clock (8) 26:5 134:20 137:9 165:1 168:21 178:8,11,15 converted (8) 49:5,9 93:15 94:5,23 119:11 74:24,24 75:21 87:23 89:9
124:17 139:1 certified (3) 3:5,6,11 162:12,14,17 165:1 168:21 180:21 62:13,20 95:4 136:9 145:1 121:1,5 123:9 124:4,15 103:14 114:24 126:20
british (5) 13:15 15:3,14,15 chain (34) 9:17 10:5 18:6 close (3) 20:25 22:19 23:10 computers (2) 2:25 170:12 180:24 125:19,24 137:8,15 139:4 128:3 134:2 138:8
69:19 19:22 21:24 25:13 32:16 closely (2) 28:18 35:23 computing (2) 2:20 137:9 cooler (2) 1:8 182:14 141:6 148:21 150:24 160:17,25 161:1
broad (1) 47:24 38:25 39:8,9 47:16 50:24 closing (1) 97:22 concept (3) 82:13 103:25 coordinates (2) 148:24 149:6 165:19 172:8 162:3,13,15 166:9,18,19
bsc (1) 3:1 53:7 56:11 61:25 62:23 club (3) 15:1,2,2 105:1 copa (7) 41:14 70:16 97:13 creating (4) 123:15 167:1 169:9,24 170:3
btc (13) 9:18 10:23,25 63:12 74:19 87:21 93:11 clumsy (2) 23:14,23 concepts (1) 54:9 98:6,12 124:12 160:2 128:19,20 149:5 172:1,20,21,22,23
11:4,9,23 13:21 14:16 52:7 94:17 104:9 116:5,11 cnce (1) 3:12 concerned (3) 85:18 86:4 copas (4) 89:19 112:11,23 creation (22) 17:17,25 39:20 173:2,3,5
71:22 72:14,25 73:14 117:15 118:10 123:11,17 code (14) 43:18 61:4 80:13 87:5 113:25 40:6,13 47:8 48:6 56:15 dated (3) 118:19 135:6
build (7) 41:5,9 43:17 52:20 126:2 138:3 141:1 172:3 81:4 103:18 105:1,2 concisely (1) 155:14 copied (1) 88:17 74:24 75:21 90:5 104:11 170:24
67:16 80:19 119:14 173:16 177:8 129:11,12 152:17 153:8 conclude (3) 46:25 133:8 copies (5) 21:9,10 56:3 127:15 160:25 161:8 163:5 dates (20) 25:17 47:20 48:7
built (2) 147:8 148:14 chairman (1) 96:21 158:3 162:9 163:5 138:18 58:21 59:4 169:9 171:25 172:21,23 51:4 53:21 54:21,25 88:1
bunch (2) 44:13 92:6 challenge (1) 98:3 coded (2) 151:6 165:25 concluded (3) 16:1 49:3 copy (21) 26:20 58:20 64:1,9 173:2,5 90:5 93:15 94:23,24 120:8
bundled (1) 152:16 challenged (1) 99:4 coding (2) 152:19,20 89:20 67:20 74:11 76:9,24 82:4 credentials (3) 76:16 121:1,6 128:9 137:10
business (5) 4:20 12:19 challenges (1) 94:19 cohen (1) 65:6 concludes (1) 26:4 83:23 100:17 123:25,25 127:1,10 166:19,22 167:6
61:17 66:22 71:11 chance (1) 151:11 coincidence (2) 154:5 161:12 conclusion (8) 59:8 64:22 141:6 151:6 161:9,21 credit (7) 78:7,11 87:9,17 dating (9) 15:23 17:17 40:6
businesses (1) 60:7 change (22) 6:16 14:22 17:5 colleague (1) 118:16 88:16 137:19 143:23 164:12 166:17 173:6 177:9 91:10 155:23 179:8 48:14 54:7 66:9 122:13
button (1) 66:18 29:24 30:17 41:6 59:13 collected (2) 62:7 177:10 165:18,21 172:2 copying (3) 24:2 26:10 credits (2) 87:17 91:23 133:9 136:23
bypassing (1) 78:15 60:22 102:11 111:18 collection (3) 34:6,20,21 conclusions (5) 15:17 52:3 164:22 cricket (1) 15:2 david (1) 45:7
byte (7) 174:1,6,12,14,16,20 152:21 161:18,19 collections (1) 5:8 60:21 112:3 180:7 copyright (1) 167:16 crime (1) 13:15 day (7) 12:13,16 65:20
175:1 162:8,9,14,17,20 163:6 college (1) 90:24 condition (1) 163:22 core (22) 7:7,11 10:23,25 criminal (2) 2:22 11:15 155:20 156:5 161:7 162:24
167:25 168:3 175:4 coloured (1) 22:24 conditions (1) 1:11 11:4,9 25:7 38:20 47:14 crisp (1) 111:13 days (4) 28:9 68:1 70:2
C
changed (7) 9:17 30:6 43:14 column (5) 25:22 116:15,21 conduct (1) 77:9 50:22 56:8 71:22 73:14 critical (1) 15:10 182:12
c (1) 116:19 46:24 59:18 83:14 143:1 117:21 137:5 confident (1) 111:9 93:9 94:15 98:19 103:7 crossed (1) 181:9 dc (4) 167:8,14 168:10,25
c162 (1) 106:22 changes (14) 24:12 26:11 combination (1) 153:2 confidently (1) 100:22 139:25 169:3 170:15 crossexamination (2) 1:24 deal (4) 12:24 96:6,22
c171 (2) 107:2 109:20 39:10 59:19,24 60:3,4 come (16) 16:10 18:3,4 confining (2) 97:23,23 171:24 173:11 184:5 104:20
c172 (1) 108:9 74:12 75:6 102:14 135:17 21:21,22 42:20,22 confirm (2) 108:10 155:23 cores (1) 72:14 crossexamined (1) 152:1 dealings (2) 14:9 107:22
calibri (3) 58:5 93:21 95:10 136:3 165:15 167:23 49:10,18 143:5 145:11 confirmation (2) 112:12 corner (2) 100:5 182:2 crossing (1) 149:17 deals (1) 160:22
call (5) 22:18 79:6,10 144:17 changing (8) 40:23 47:6 149:25 150:4 162:2 167:4 113:4 corporate (13) 2:16 4:5 cryptocurrency (6) dealt (2) 112:10,22
163:9 59:20,21 77:8 162:5 178:3 confirmed (5) 40:7 110:5 16:10 18:3 19:16 22:5 52:11,13,17,19,20 115:10 decade (2) 63:9 120:9
called (3) 34:21,22 134:23 168:12 169:25 comes (3) 126:3 150:2 116:16,18 117:19 60:13 76:1 79:4 107:19 csv (1) 117:25 december (4) 21:6 32:21
calls (1) 79:11 channel (1) 70:2 170:16 conflict (2) 6:15 101:5 113:9,9 115:22 csw (1) 63:22 51:5 95:17
came (18) 18:5,10 20:17 chapter (1) 151:24 coming (4) 7:16 37:17 81:22 conflicting (1) 83:21 corporations (1) 31:25 csw218 (1) 68:15 deception (1) 3:19
22:4 31:4 65:3,13 67:10 character (11) 106:24 confused (3) 62:24 63:1,6 correct (56) 10:10,23 29:25 csw230 (1) 29:9 default (3) 153:5,6 179:24
81:8 84:1 87:5 92:9 114:7 144:12,18,20,22,24 146:13 command (4) 26:23,25 61:11 connected (1) 51:14 30:6 46:6 56:24 60:10 csw233 (2) 41:13 46:18 defective (1) 6:18
129:2 137:25 142:17 170:9 147:19 178:2,22 179:15,24 162:18 connection (2) 23:11,13 62:6,10 66:7 68:2,24 72:12 csw266 (1) 110:12 defined (3) 14:13,20 15:14
172:2 characteristic (1) 24:15 commenced (1) 2:18 connectivity (1) 34:4 79:20,21 89:24 csw267 (1) 110:19 defines (1) 15:13
cannot (7) 12:9 67:9 79:3 characteristics (1) 168:20 comment (7) 9:1 38:15 consider (5) 7:5 39:7 77:3 94:12,13,22 96:20 100:2 csw269 (2) 120:19 129:5 defining (1) 34:4
84:3,20 100:19 178:19 characters (7) 173:25 174:1 54:13 70:19 81:16 126:13 163:19 175:14 101:10 103:23 104:7,8,16 csw270 (1) 120:23 definition (5) 14:20 15:4
cant (27) 3:18 11:12,13 15:2 175:2,19,25 177:21,24 143:20 consideration (1) 33:15 106:21 110:24 116:18 csw271 (1) 122:2 46:20,21 163:13
18:14 43:18 50:6 72:18,19 charge (2) 129:4,20 commented (1) 37:24 considered (2) 69:24 129:6 118:24 119:22 120:14 csw316 (1) 89:18 definitively (2) 99:18 100:1
85:12 87:6 101:3 118:8 chats (1) 3:16 comments (2) 29:25 62:12 considering (2) 47:1 142:4 121:7,14,18,25 122:1 currency (3) 72:5,6 115:9 degree (3) 32:18 39:2 52:13

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

degrees (5) 1:8,9 145:16 110:23,25 111:16 112:17 distracting (1) 139:16 128:5,10 129:13 23:15 24:25 25:9 26:6 27:3 editing (25) 27:8,13 29:14 entirety (1) 69:18
163:18 182:14 132:10,14 171:12 distributed (3) 31:22 77:16 138:2,5,6,21 139:22 140:2 32:6 37:9,17 38:23 39:25 30:4,17,21 38:17 58:18 entities (2) 79:10 115:22
deleted (2) 149:15 175:10 differences (3) 69:7,14 78:25 149:1 150:16 151:5 42:24 43:19 45:17,25 74:13 75:17,18 91:9 141:6 entitled (6) 7:6 25:2 32:12
deliberate (2) 17:24 96:11 110:20 division (1) 5:7 176:16,19,20,21,24 46:25 47:11 48:17 50:14 164:25 165:7,10,12,19 47:10 98:7,21
deliberately (2) 41:21 42:9 different (51) 18:17 dns (2) 12:18 41:6 docx (3) 61:1 63:16 95:6 52:14 54:9,16 55:16 167:11 168:5 172:3 173:17 entitledmaths (1) 50:19
deloitte (1) 2:14 21:3,8,17 22:10 24:11 doc (6) 95:6 102:11 105:4,25 does (30) 1:14 8:9,10,17 58:14,25 61:20 174:4,19 176:12 entity (1) 116:3
demonstrate (4) 26:21 41:25 28:25 29:4 30:8,14 35:16 106:1,2 12:2,4 13:7 20:15 36:25 62:2,3,13,15,21 67:3,12,21 edition (2) 36:12 153:15 entries (19) 122:5,8,20
43:1 176:13 36:17 37:22 45:1,12,13 document (292) 5:21 39:9 53:3 57:18 59:20 69:4 70:1 71:15,20 72:9,23 editions (1) 153:12 123:16 124:4 125:25
demonstrated (3) 40:18 46:11,15 49:1 52:21 62:24 7:5,14,19 15:19 16:2,19 77:13 90:22 96:3 105:19 73:1,9,17 81:6 82:6,21 editor (2) 167:25 168:22 126:11,23 127:6,11,23,25
42:11 170:5 72:13 79:7 82:17 83:7 19:25 20:22,24 22:8,12 114:20 118:2 131:8,19 83:16,24 85:6 86:21 89:23 edits (2) 29:24 165:13 128:6 130:21 131:15
demonstrates (3) 26:25 91:2 102:18 133:12 135:15 24:2,9 25:2,2,10,13,14,21 140:25 150:9 152:20 90:13 91:6 92:8 94:12 effect (5) 29:2 41:9 46:24 132:20 133:9 134:15,16
111:22 140:17 141:13,13 143:2 26:6 27:6,9,12 153:21 161:5 166:18 168:4 95:15 96:24 97:2 99:4,12 56:21 174:5 entry (13) 66:3 102:7,14
demonstration (5) 150:14 151:4 153:17 28:13,15,18,22 29:4,6,15 170:19 171:17 101:5,18 102:5,23 103:9 effectively (2) 77:16 97:19 103:18,19,22 104:25
42:10,11,14 43:11,23 159:1,12 161:11,17 166:21 30:4,10,16 32:7,11,17,24 doesnt (47) 3:11,20 6:2 8:17 106:19 107:16,23 109:2,16 effects (2) 7:15 77:3 105:4,19 126:17 135:18
demonstrations (1) 46:12 167:2,9 172:23 174:15 35:3 37:21 38:1,5,19 9:14 11:14 13:5,11 15:12 110:2 111:23 112:2 113:2 effort (3) 21:16 149:5 179:7 137:5 173:22
demorgans (1) 62:9 175:1,2,18 179:7 39:15,20,25 40:3,6,18 19:19 23:12,13 25:9 29:22 114:4 115:18 116:16 efforts (1) 5:9 envelope (10) 84:6,23 85:3,3
denied (2) 55:5 71:20 180:2,6,11 41:15,18,21,22 42:1,10,14 31:18 32:1 33:20 41:4 117:19,22,24 118:2 eighth (1) 33:13 87:7 99:20,25 100:25
densification (1) 51:22 differently (1) 142:23 43:11,14,21 43:20 53:2 57:17 59:21 123:7,14 124:3,10 125:11 either (12) 18:3 47:5 62:3 101:24,25
deny (1) 135:22 difficult (2) 41:4 42:1 46:3,8,14,16,17,23,25 61:13 63:7 77:11 78:25 127:23 129:24 132:1 71:2,6 85:11 91:22 106:17 environment (2) 4:5 60:11
department (1) 157:19 difficulty (1) 98:23 47:1,9,10,17 48:18,23,24 88:22 102:14,15 114:19 134:18 135:13 138:18 130:14 137:1 161:12 environments (3) 3:25 76:2
dependent (1) 13:2 digital (18) 2:12,13,15,18,22 49:4,8,24 50:2,5,17,18,25 131:7,18 142:17 150:8,22 139:9,21 140:1,13 143:22 171:16 102:17
depends (2) 109:3 174:17 4:8,22 5:2,7,20,21 52:18 51:18 52:4,6 53:4,12,14 153:12 168:3,7,8 169:14 144:17 145:25 146:10 electronic (6) 4:24 50:7 envisaged (1) 10:6
depicted (1) 165:14 78:5,11,23 82:16 94:19 54:19,24 55:1,3 56:19 170:18 171:13,15 178:4,11 150:4,18 151:20 52:19 57:13 78:6,22 envisioned (1) 11:17
depicts (1) 165:13 139:3 57:20,21 58:14,17 179:2,3 154:3,12,22,24 156:21 elements (1) 15:11 equally (2) 23:22,24
deployed (1) 87:4 digress (1) 85:9 59:13,20,24 60:2 61:25 doing (20) 10:12 11:19 35:17 157:11 158:16 159:7,22 elided (1) 31:10 equation (5) 36:5,6,8,9
deposition (1) 55:20 digressing (1) 160:7 62:21,22 44:23 53:10 71:14 163:4,20 167:2 169:14 else (8) 14:7 15:5 20:14 38:17
der (2) 34:12 35:4 digression (2) 34:24 42:6 63:7,8,13,16,16,20,21 73:13,14 81:17 92:16 176:23 180:5,8 182:19 84:18 90:20 102:23 145:10 equations (5) 37:22 38:10
describe (4) 31:16 57:8 83:2 dimensions (1) 94:19 64:8,9,16,23,25 65:13,21 116:3 135:3 149:10 151:15 184:4 166:13 48:25 95:2 177:17
86:19 diminish (1) 72:25 66:9,21 67:5,16,20,24 163:18,18 165:2 168:2 draft (7) 28:15,17 31:15 eluded (1) 24:15 equipment (2) 137:9 181:8
described (6) 31:19 76:12 diminishes (1) 73:16 68:4,10,16,18 70:10 175:11 180:20 160:16 170:21 172:15 email (28) 76:6 91:1 117:4 equivalent (4) 83:5 136:16
107:6 155:14 156:21 direct (1) 118:2 74:10,11,14,20 75:9,14 dollar (1) 128:18 177:13 118:15,25 119:3,6 120:3 144:13 171:2
175:22 direction (1) 6:7 76:15 77:6,11,19 dollars (14) 9:2 11:13,14 drafted (18) 20:1,12,13,17 123:2 125:5 ernst (2) 2:14 5:6
describes (2) 130:5 131:7 directly (17) 13:14 16:11 84:4,22,24 85:16 86:1,4 70:17,18 71:21 72:2,10,21 25:14 39:1 47:17 50:25 136:10,11,12,19 154:22 error (4) 123:18 146:16
describing (1) 33:5 18:6 49:15 57:14 78:15,18 87:1,8,21 88:5 89:13,16,20 73:12,24 74:5 128:18,20 53:12,24 55:1 56:12 62:2 155:2,17,22,25 153:4 180:24
description (1) 52:5 80:13,17 83:11 123:12 90:11 91:4,6 92:22,25 domain (3) 60:12 131:22 63:2 74:20 87:22 93:12 156:3,14,20 157:1,4,9,22 errors (4) 62:15 65:11 147:6
design (4) 10:7,21 11:1,2 125:18 126:3,5 127:9 94:5,10,17 156:4 94:18 159:3,23 150:12
designate (2) 34:7,9 134:11 147:5 95:3,4,10,18,23,24,25 donald (2) 31:4,12 drafts (2) 139:22 172:21 emails (8) 81:24 92:10,12 escapes (1) 105:9
designed (4) 8:18 29:13 61:7 director (4) 2:11 4:17 44:17 96:7,10,19 98:3 99:3 done (26) 20:6 30:20 36:9,25 draftspersons (1) 62:25 130:4 157:11,16 158:17,19 especially (2) 24:13 175:14
70:8 110:9 101:23,23 102:22 103:1 37:11 39:16 43:2,7,8 50:9 dragon (2) 62:17,18 embed (2) 61:13 179:20 essay (2) 87:9 89:5
despite (3) 127:20 142:16 disagree (13) 6:3 9:4 79:15 104:9,22 105:4 61:14 90:23 92:18 102:3 draw (2) 80:25 157:23 embedded (21) 15:20 20:25 establish (4) 98:25 99:1
162:3 108:24 140:12 143:3,18 108:10,11,17,22 114:9 115:24 120:15 drawer (1) 177:10 54:18 64:24 66:20 67:17 112:13 120:7
detail (5) 51:8 78:21 79:18 153:15 154:11 176:11 110:12,14,21 111:8,10,12 122:16 130:16 133:18 drawn (1) 64:22 75:9 89:8 95:3 140:20 established (1) 128:12
111:13 142:14 179:17,18 181:17 112:23 113:1,5 114:6 150:13 157:19,20 166:25 draws (1) 80:4 145:2,5 146:8,21,25 establishing (1) 76:15
detailed (1) 118:6 disagreed (1) 112:19 116:12,21 117:10,15 167:1 170:8 drew (2) 111:5 157:25 147:2,6,8 167:16 168:1,8 estimate (1) 72:1
details (11) 124:8 disappears (1) 8:24 119:10 123:11,20 124:13 donor (1) 63:16 drilling (1) 33:23 embedding (1) 91:14 etc (13) 33:23 51:16 54:3
133:5,10,11,14,24 160:12 discarded (1) 154:1 125:17 126:22 127:4,8 dont (80) 7:2 14:2,22 18:4 drive (1) 62:8 embellish (1) 30:20 70:16 93:4 145:17 147:7
166:3 167:10 170:17 disclosed (4) 37:6 50:14 56:3 138:4 140:18,21,23 20:20 24:13 30:11 38:17 due (2) 69:22 91:21 emea (1) 2:13 151:13 152:16 157:7
172:13 90:10 141:6,20,24 142:3 143:8 42:6,19 43:5,17,24 45:11 dump (1) 51:24 emerge (1) 78:9 166:14 168:11 175:10
detect (3) 3:15,18,18 disclosure (3) 62:7 68:5 144:5,11,25 145:1,9 52:12 53:9 55:14 63:18 durham (1) 3:2 emerged (1) 78:14 even (32) 6:2 8:15
determination (1) 42:1 118:15 146:1,11 147:1,24 66:24 67:6 72:7 73:23,24 during (1) 132:22 emergency (1) 12:16 11:11,14,18 13:21
determined (2) 3:16 163:16 disconnect (1) 23:21 148:19,23 149:6,7,19,22 74:3 78:23 79:23 80:3,25 emphasise (1) 125:15 14:6,12,16 23:12 24:13
developed (2) 78:13 79:6 discourtesy (1) 1:19 150:18 151:3,6 81:24 82:1 83:21 84:5 E empirical (1) 33:4 30:22,24 31:3,13 32:4 39:9
developer (1) 24:19 discovered (1) 90:9 152:3,4,7,24 153:10 88:12 91:25 96:4,5,13 97:4 employed (2) 2:19,23 43:15 44:2,11 48:22 49:16
developers (1) 98:6 discovery (1) 2:12 154:14 156:18 159:16 102:3 109:10 110:14 e (5) 34:6,9,20,22 178:21 employee (1) 59:14 60:15 105:9 128:15 145:15
development (1) 7:15 discoverydisclosure (1) 4:24 160:8,24 162:1 163:6 112:6,8 113:2,6 114:25 e321 (1) 100:3 employees (5) 20:19 22:9 150:1 161:23 170:11
diagram (8) 144:15,17,18 discuss (5) 32:25 83:1,19 164:1,21 119:12 127:19 128:20 e326 (1) 100:11 28:21 30:24 53:9 175:14 178:17 180:16
145:6,20 146:2 147:2,17 100:12 104:5 165:7,12,19,21,22,25 129:15 132:17 133:18 e329 (1) 100:7 empty (4) 141:14 147:14 evening (1) 181:7
diagrams (3) 146:18 148:1,7 discussed (1) 31:17 166:8,11,13,15,16,17,17 135:11,12,23 136:13,25 earlier (22) 23:2 34:25 148:24 149:6 event (1) 169:10
dictate (1) 62:18 discusses (3) 7:19 130:20 167:5,7,12,18 168:1 144:8 147:6 151:2,3 35:8,10 37:4,12 38:1 49:13 enabled (3) 60:13 61:2,3 events (1) 132:6
dictating (1) 8:13 131:6 169:3,9,14,20 152:13 153:1,14 154:2 90:11 94:6 106:20 113:15 enables (2) 61:5 152:21 ever (7) 18:8 31:20 37:6
dictation (1) 62:4 discussing (4) 10:8 33:10 170:9,11,12,22 161:19 166:19 167:25 120:9 125:6 126:8 141:21 encase (2) 3:6 175:8 43:8 48:21 106:9 123:2
didnt (93) 3:18 10:9 93:1 103:25 171:2,11,15,21 172:7,10 171:7,18 174:22 153:12,15,16,17,24 173:16 enclosed (1) 101:11 everexpanding (1) 32:6
21:18,21 22:6,6 30:8,22 discussions (3) 33:16 79:14 175:12 176:23,25 175:3,21,24 176:22 178:15 earliest (1) 134:3 enclosing (2) 84:14,18 every (16) 6:13 14:16 20:11
31:23 36:22 39:18 44:6,23 80:2 177:3,5,9,14,16,24 179:2 179:18 181:24 182:16,19 early (6) 56:1 80:14 120:8 encoded (1) 88:19 21:14 28:5,8 31:23
45:2 52:24 55:23 59:24 dishonest (14) 8:14,15 180:9,14,20,21,23 dormant (1) 132:19 128:21 129:12 138:4 end (5) 24:14 31:7 71:7,9 35:14,14 43:7,8 118:10
61:16 63:10 67:16 9:11,22,24 10:11,17 documentary (3) 87:17 dot (3) 176:6,9,10 earned (1) 8:7 92:9 122:13 123:1 161:22 162:6
71:13,19 73:13 74:6 76:9 12:9,15 13:18,20,24 14:18 91:10,23 dots (6) 176:8 177:18 easiest (1) 116:11 ended (3) 44:16,19 81:20 everybodys (1) 106:25
82:7 83:18 84:7,16,18,19 15:13 documents (111) 4:10 7:9 178:5,22 179:15,25 easily (3) 9:3,3 84:8 endorsed (1) 73:5 everyone (3) 6:12 157:6
85:2 86:22 90:16 94:3 disk (1) 175:9 16:9 17:9,23 18:5 double (3) 9:12 10:2 25:11 easy (2) 8:20 13:17 ends (2) 8:19,25 166:25
95:11 109:6 111:17 112:12 dismissed (2) 6:13,14 19:4,6,8,9,10 20:1,3 down (22) 9:3 33:13,23 eccentric (2) 163:4,21 enforce (1) 8:12 everything (3) 15:5 73:13
113:21 114:2 115:18 disparity (1) 60:16 21:11,23 22:14,15,17 24:3 40:20 57:11 63:10 64:14 economic (5) 7:15 11:8 25:2 engagements (3) 5:11 20:7,8 122:7
116:6,8 118:6,12,22 119:2 displayed (1) 145:2 25:5 28:3 29:14 30:8,14 65:23 66:2 69:3 73:25 74:7 27:17 93:1 engineer (2) 2:24 92:3 evidence (38) 2:2,4,22 3:9
121:16 122:14 dispute (9) 5:6 44:9 61:20 32:14 38:23 42:11 47:12 84:4 89:2 99:21 110:16 economics (2) 7:7 93:3 engineering (1) 81:11 5:15,20 14:12 24:21,22
123:10,14,18,21 126:4,4 71:15,17 92:15 111:23 49:11 50:20 53:20,25 133:2,2 147:13 158:22 economy (1) 82:16 engineers (2) 181:5,24 39:4 40:7 42:3 43:10
127:21 129:9 133:4 127:25 128:22 54:1,3,7 55:5 56:5 59:12 162:13 167:15 edge (2) 34:9,22 england (1) 5:3 45:6,11,25 49:20 55:20
136:1,17,23 143:14 154:6 disputed (1) 116:4 60:23 61:7,7,8 65:7,9 downgraded (1) 95:6 edges (2) 34:8,22 english (1) 57:9 59:1,9 61:21 66:5,8 70:11
155:15 156:16 dissertation (27) 55:6 66:12 67:2,14 75:18,19,24 download (3) 116:25 126:4 edisclosure (1) 5:10 enough (2) 12:14 23:9 81:21 96:23 97:7 106:6
157:11,13,17 158:1,15 68:11,12,19,19,23,23 81:21 83:3,18 86:5,25 150:1 edit (15) 23:13,14,23 25:23 ensure (1) 174:20 107:23 108:17 109:17
159:13,15,17,18,18,21,22 69:22,25 70:1 74:12 87:13 90:9,14,16 92:9 93:6 downloaded (5) 21:14 117:7 48:5 75:20 91:4 96:2,9 ensuring (2) 80:13 174:5 116:24 117:1 137:24
160:4 162:6,23,25 164:6 76:21,25 78:19 79:23 80:7 94:11 97:9,18,24 125:16 138:8 171:16 165:6 167:21 168:2 171:24 enter (1) 163:4 138:11,15,19 182:20
166:6,7 167:4 169:5 81:2,9 82:5,7,11 83:2,4 98:13,24,25 103:2,5 downloading (1) 126:25 174:23 175:4 entered (1) 122:21 exact (5) 32:2 81:4 143:13
170:10 176:1,5 84:15 86:12 87:1 99:15 111:25 114:13 115:18 downstairs (1) 181:12 edited (21) 23:17 28:23 enterprise (6) 61:14,16,17 148:21 166:19
178:9,22,24 distances (1) 52:5 117:12 119:8,20 122:12,18 dr (142) 1:21,22,25 2:1,7 30:9,10,11 54:25 58:18 66:23 67:8,13 exactly (6) 94:1 101:9
differed (2) 164:13 165:9 distinct (1) 99:15 123:7,8,11,15 124:5 3:7,8 4:7 5:14 6:6,24 89:13,16,21,23,25 entire (3) 44:13 77:18 121:20 140:17 153:23
difference (14) 11:3,21 22:25 distinction (4) 21:14 79:2 125:1,6,7,9,11,14,23 7:8,13 10:9,19 12:1,24 90:4,6,20 91:7 144:5 147:14 155:22
26:1 44:7 72:8 98:2 157:23,25 126:7,10 127:15,24 13:16 15:8 16:1 17:8 18:21 165:22 169:13,15 173:22 entirely (1) 129:14 examination (2) 5:22 166:1

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

examine (1) 15:20 factory (6) 106:15,18 102:6 110:17 120:6 94:14 97:20,23 98:3,12,18 155:2,17,24 156:14 161:3 h1187 (1) 57:19 100:19 107:17 121:10
examiner (3) 3:5,6,12 108:1,6,12 110:5 127:12,22 130:22 103:7 112:11,23 113:25 get (23) 9:23 11:12,13 12:16 h1201 (1) 67:19 129:1 149:16 151:9 164:19
example (9) 14:8,14 36:4 fail (1) 31:21 134:18,21 136:16 141:17 139:24 154:5 160:9 170:15 20:15 28:7 30:9 42:23 67:6 h1214 (1) 15:18 happens (6) 24:17 41:8
38:13,14 43:6 80:10 failed (1) 3:17 154:4 161:6 169:12 172:4 fork (3) 52:9,23 53:1 69:23 72:8,15,24 73:7 h1215 (1) 22:21 60:14 96:21 163:3 168:25
129:18 156:13 fairly (2) 20:24 118:6 180:9 forks (1) 52:5 106:23 117:6 129:21 h1216 (1) 23:1 happily (1) 124:11
examples (2) 147:16 149:13 fairy (1) 37:9 finds (11) 48:17 63:13 form (17) 13:25,25 37:24 139:14 162:13,15 167:22 h1217 (1) 23:4 happy (1) 144:17
exceeded (1) 48:6 fake (3) 19:10,11 129:14 64:7,12 75:22 130:21 53:4,14 64:23 71:22 73:2 179:20 182:16 h1243 (1) 48:3 hard (4) 52:9,23 100:17
excel (1) 116:12 fakes (1) 129:13 132:4,20 134:8 148:5 74:4 83:5 84:1 103:3 109:4 gets (1) 28:2 h1244 (1) 48:9 177:9
except (4) 54:20 98:18 fall (1) 151:9 149:12 127:5 145:2 166:18 167:6 getting (5) 31:2 72:4 154:23 h1246 (1) 48:13 hardcoded (2) 13:1 14:23
136:19 171:12 false (4) 26:21 27:1 79:5 fine (4) 83:16 155:10 176:2 format (6) 82:17 95:7 118:23 156:7 181:22 h1262 (1) 25:20 harry (1) 44:3
excepts (1) 93:2 154:6 177:7 121:23 140:5 148:18 give (25) 2:2 3:8 5:15,20 h1263 (1) 26:4 hash (4) 9:10 13:10 64:8
excerpt (1) 136:6 familiar (1) 49:24 fingers (1) 181:9 formats (2) 62:25 63:4 11:3 16:16 21:24 25:17 h1264 (1) 27:3 171:16
excess (1) 129:1 family (1) 107:20 finish (9) 11:2 103:18 104:25 formatted (1) 93:20 29:9 30:15 32:20 39:20 h1271 (1) 27:15 hashcash (7) 154:19,24
exchange (2) 66:1 128:17 fans (1) 82:24 105:4,19,25 106:1 180:5 formatting (2) 68:6 174:17 45:4 46:22 47:20 50:15 h1281 (2) 28:13 31:14 158:23,24,25 159:2,11
exchanges (1) 159:23 far (6) 78:21 85:18 86:4 87:5 181:6 formed (2) 4:21 34:6 56:15 93:15 94:23 118:6 h13210 (1) 88:16 hashcashorg (1) 156:9
exclude (1) 15:2 129:1 176:18 finished (1) 158:2 former (1) 62:2 119:13 120:11 124:16 h13212 (1) 88:22 hasnt (4) 9:17 147:2,8 178:3
excluding (1) 12:6 farm (1) 8:25 firm (1) 74:8 forms (1) 73:5 156:13 179:7 h13214 (1) 89:10 hat (1) 28:12
excuse (5) 30:20 37:17 38:12 farms (5) 8:19,20,22 12:20 firmly (1) 111:23 formula (1) 152:13 given (14) 16:12 41:17 96:17 h1328 (1) 88:11 havent (12) 21:4 28:7 50:14
60:5 141:19 31:7 first (53) 20:18 29:22 30:9 formulae (2) 152:4,5 114:24 117:2,4 119:13 h1397 (1) 54:16 63:4 99:4 137:24 138:15
excuses (1) 32:6 fashion (1) 151:3 32:24 36:10,18 37:24 39:6 formulas (4) 142:22 120:8 124:23 127:1 130:5 h14110 (1) 36:15 142:15,16 143:22 146:18
exhibit (7) 63:20 68:16,22 faster (1) 39:8 55:21 56:7 57:3 69:8,8 152:11,12,12 134:9 137:22 180:5 h14189 (1) 35:21 180:18
69:3 76:23 160:15 170:20 feared (1) 1:15 71:15,16,19 80:14 formulation (1) 152:17 gives (6) 36:5 51:4 88:1 h1421 (1) 34:15 having (21) 4:10 11:5 20:1
exhibits (1) 51:22 featured (1) 17:13 81:15,16 84:22,25 forward (3) 39:15 150:13,16 136:5 155:4 156:13 h14220 (1) 34:16 49:4 60:7,17,17 67:1,25
exist (2) 95:11 166:6 features (5) 32:25 33:5 86:22,24 87:16 99:14 found (64) 15:19 22:22 23:3 giving (8) 43:6 45:6,7,11 h1435 (1) 93:22 88:24 89:19 125:25 127:6
existing (3) 46:14 60:23 79:19 141:20,25 106:8,11,19 27:16 34:12 35:18,23 40:2 54:25 89:9 120:15 163:2 h1436 (1) 93:19 130:3,5,25 144:5
176:3 february (4) 1:1 138:5,6 108:11,13,18,23 109:19 48:5,14 54:18 57:20 glad (1) 1:5 h1445 (1) 95:15 152:11,25 175:1,18
exists (1) 141:16 183:2 110:23 114:11 115:23 58:4,9,14 64:17 68:4 72:16 gleeful (2) 70:9 71:4 h1446 (1) 95:21 haystack (4) 119:2,4 123:1
expanding (1) 37:1 federal (1) 5:3 122:19 129:24 135:6,7 75:9,17 84:8 88:11 89:8 global (2) 12:20 113:10 h1710 (1) 147:12 124:11
expands (1) 156:7 fee (1) 12:6 139:23 142:10 143:16 92:11 93:20 94:3 95:2,9,15 goes (9) 11:8 27:23 52:6 h1711 (1) 147:16 head (1) 4:18
expect (3) 7:25 37:2 179:23 feebased (3) 7:21 9:7,9 147:20 154:2,22 161:6 98:12 114:10 118:14 133:4 74:7 79:18 88:22 111:20 h1715 (1) 149:12 headed (2) 27:17 94:10
expected (2) 7:20 17:22 feed (1) 106:24 162:12 172:20 174:4,11 135:6 140:21 141:5 135:19 163:22 h1720 (1) 152:3 heading (2) 56:25 63:21
expensive (1) 11:7 fees (8) 8:1,7 10:1 178:12,23 147:2,13,14 149:15 going (53) 10:8,16 11:11,13 h175 (1) 141:10 hearsay (2) 24:22 108:4
experience (5) 2:8 3:24 4:1,3 11:9,11,12,23 71:8 firstly (2) 122:24 138:24 161:7,10,11 163:20,24 12:22 13:9,11 14:7 16:7 h178 (1) 144:10 heat (1) 1:16
180:18 fetching (1) 28:11 fit (1) 49:9 164:11 165:6,10,23 167:16 21:19 37:19 46:10,13 h2027 (1) 160:21 hed (3) 158:11 159:15
experienced (2) 4:8 5:15 few (9) 14:1 18:5 31:10 five (8) 20:9 45:20 58:22 168:13,19 169:4 171:21 49:16 50:15 51:8 53:16 h2030 (1) 165:23 161:10
expert (18) 2:21 3:20 5:1,14 33:10 45:17 69:14 70:2 106:15 177:5 181:20 172:18 173:1,9,14,21 57:15 58:25 60:20 69:1 h2031 (1) 166:2 held (2) 2:11 3:4
24:22 26:14 49:20 52:17 81:25 163:15 182:3,9 177:21 178:7,22 179:11,14 71:15,17 74:2 78:21 80:2 h2032 (1) 168:13 hell (1) 49:17
58:14 59:1,9 61:20 field (7) 144:19 171:25 fiveminute (1) 45:16 foundation (1) 97:20 92:20 104:18 108:21,24 h2033 (1) 168:18 help (2) 105:6 181:22
92:11,15 111:20,22 163:15 173:22,25 174:1,5 175:2 fix (1) 62:15 founded (2) 114:23 130:9 110:2,3 111:3,23 114:12 h2034 (2) 168:19,19 helpful (1) 181:11
180:13 fields (3) 174:12,16,18 flag (1) 97:21 four (3) 11:5 28:4 168:13 116:5 133:17 140:12 141:7 h2035 (1) 169:1 hence (1) 65:5
expertise (2) 52:13 180:16 fifth (2) 36:12 152:2 flatly (1) 101:16 fourth (5) 33:3 149:12 143:2 146:16 154:11 h2043 (1) 171:10 here (31) 8:13 9:1,23 10:12
experts (22) 12:25 22:13 file (55) 18:10 20:8 22:5,23 fleshed (2) 16:18 157:9 160:15 170:20 172:14 158:22 161:18 164:25 h2047 (1) 172:18 12:4 20:16 30:15 35:7
24:16,17 26:12 27:4 61:22 26:10 60:15,18 63:22 flick (1) 19:5 fragments (2) 24:3 86:23 169:25 170:6 172:6 173:19 h2056 (1) 173:19 36:18 45:19 70:24 78:23
67:11 108:25 110:17 64:16 96:2 floors (1) 181:6 framework (2) 5:25 6:3 176:3,11 179:6 180:16 h2064 (1) 177:20 80:9 81:5 82:12,16 90:24
120:24 121:8 127:13 102:11,11,12,19,20,21 florida (2) 117:24 119:11 fraud (1) 5:6 gone (4) 18:22 91:19 154:1 h2067 (1) 178:21 91:10 96:10 104:22 108:16
136:22 137:1,7,12 142:13 117:25 118:1,19,22 119:5 flowchart (5) 141:16 fresh (1) 21:14 159:15 h20910 (1) 132:5 136:6 139:16 148:12 159:7
143:6 144:7 147:11 151:25 121:1,23,23 122:3,5 144:14,15,16 145:10 friday (1) 1:8 good (11) 1:22,23 65:5,9 h20911 (1) 132:13 163:20 167:2 173:21
expire (1) 1:15 124:23,23,25 125:10,25 focus (1) 80:20 friedberg (4) 4:18,21 5:5 76:18 82:24 99:5 129:22 h20916 (1) 134:5 176:13 181:6,11
explain (12) 9:8 11:3 126:4 127:14 130:20 131:7 focusing (2) 91:6 104:21 6:25 152:12 157:2 182:22 h20917 (1) 134:24 hes (4) 60:25 133:1 148:9
22:6,7,9 27:24 29:12 61:3 133:20 135:7 136:9,9 foil (1) 28:12 front (2) 84:25 85:4 google (2) 155:12 158:12 h20918 (1) 135:5 169:15
123:14 136:1 150:9 157:24 145:12 146:8,17,20 follow (6) 8:12 10:16,17 full (7) 69:16 157:12,16,18 googled (1) 158:13 h20921 (1) 136:4 hex (2) 168:22 175:11
explained (6) 27:7 32:10 147:1,5 148:12,17 161:25 14:22,23 175:22 166:18 173:23 176:1 government (5) 5:23 6:2 h20922 (1) 136:7 hey (2) 21:19 44:24
59:7 75:25 152:8 161:15 162:21 174:21,23 followed (1) 70:10 fuller (1) 159:16 31:7 44:5 157:21 h2097 (1) 131:25 hidden (4) 14:16 22:22
explaining (1) 31:5 175:3,18,23 176:4 following (6) 14:19 39:11 fully (1) 163:22 grabbed (1) 35:14 h2099 (1) 132:3 54:18,20
explains (3) 29:17 48:4 filed (1) 17:2 65:15 120:23 131:15 166:2 functions (1) 33:6 grabiners (1) 1:14 h21916 (2) 61:19,23 hide (1) 8:23
111:12 files (31) 15:20 16:15 20:5 follows (8) 39:6 53:4 69:21 funds (3) 104:14,16,18 grammarly (15) 57:22 h21917 (1) 63:11 hiding (1) 44:20
explanation (10) 24:7 29:10 21:18 23:17,19 24:12 95:21 121:3,9,10 160:24 funky (1) 41:2 61:9,10,11,12 64:13,19,24 h21918 (2) 63:19 64:7 high (3) 5:2 72:8 111:14
30:15 85:10 118:6 141:19 48:20 53:10 59:16 60:8 font (18) 58:6,6 funny (1) 42:5 66:18 67:5,17 68:1 75:10 h21919 (1) 64:12 higher (1) 11:12
146:10 164:18 165:5 176:8 62:14,20 65:3 95:3 114:10 141:12,13,14,15 167:16 further (24) 20:19 38:5 89:8 102:13 h21921 (1) 65:15 highly (1) 51:14
explanations (2) 26:13 49:21 117:23 120:7 122:15,16 178:9,13,16,23 58:23 62:12 65:16 66:1,2 granath (1) 104:24 h2363 (1) 63:24 himself (2) 37:14 61:16
explicitly (1) 18:9 126:3 130:6 133:17,18 179:10,11,14,19,19,21 76:14 89:2 93:24 94:3 grandiose (1) 70:10 h2365 (1) 65:17 history (10) 23:5 27:8,13
explore (1) 41:11 141:22 147:3 148:11 180:2 98:20 113:2,16 118:11 granger (2) 103:11 104:1 h2366 (1) 66:16 44:1 107:6 120:1 133:3
export (1) 134:25 151:16 167:16 175:10,10 fonts (9) 60:6 93:25 133:2 138:1 158:22 grangers (1) 105:13 h271 (1) 165:10 163:14 171:25 173:15
exported (1) 136:5 fill (2) 40:16 133:15 167:25,25 168:7,11 159:15,21 164:11 165:24 granted (4) 17:1 72:14 91:12 h2916 (1) 165:13 hobby (1) 11:24
exporting (1) 121:24 fills (1) 133:13 179:7,9 180:1 167:15 179:11 163:12 h317 (1) 111:7 hofstad (5) 34:12 35:4,24
express (3) 4:10 107:19 final (3) 68:23 85:24 137:5 footer (1) 171:12 furthest (1) 103:18 graph (4) 34:4,6,20 52:5 h318 (1) 111:11 36:17 37:13
113:9 finance (2) 91:13 92:5 footnote (7) 7:18 8:8 12:2 future (11) 12:19 29:1,5,25 graphs (2) 34:13 47:10 h531 (1) 119:16 hold (2) 2:10 3:1
expressstaples (1) 113:9 financial (2) 72:1 121:24 23:2,11 51:23 54:22 30:3,6,17 31:1 41:23 46:17 grateful (1) 1:13 h551 (1) 119:24 holder (1) 136:21
extended (1) 12:11 find (16) 1:10 88:22 98:21 footnoted (1) 23:22 148:7 great (1) 79:18 hadnt (9) 36:7,9,24 82:9 holdings (1) 121:13
extra (3) 83:8 123:23 153:3 108:8 111:9 119:1 136:16 force (1) 14:5 grid (1) 111:4 89:25 157:17 158:12 164:9 home (2) 8:24 76:4
G
extract (9) 15:20 116:7,17 145:17 146:6 147:23 forced (5) 70:5 71:1,5,18 grindley (1) 49:17 178:16 homeland (1) 157:20
117:20,23 119:14 120:14 155:12 156:11 158:14 76:19 g (2) 34:20 116:15 ground (1) 98:21 half (1) 55:21 homework (4) 91:9,15,16,23
121:15,21 163:1 170:5 179:7 forensic (22) 2:13,15,18,20 game (2) 9:21 44:13 group (2) 43:23 60:7 hamelin (3) 109:21,23 honest (12) 8:14,14 9:13
extracted (2) 117:24 130:25 finding (34) 27:9,11 29:10 3:4,21 4:8 5:8,21,21,25 6:8 gaps (1) 149:2 grouping (1) 34:8 110:10 10:3,3,4,11 12:14 13:5,5
extraction (1) 122:15 36:20 37:18 38:2 48:11 40:22 54:17 59:6,8 gave (12) 6:17 21:18 54:3 grown (1) 35:7 hand (2) 11:16 125:21 15:13 39:8
extraordinary (2) 148:5 49:6 58:11 63:17 64:19 108:17,19 149:9 151:14 71:1 122:13 125:18 126:17 grows (1) 11:17 handling (3) 65:4,8,11 hopefully (1) 1:11
149:5 75:11 88:20 89:11 154:4 175:6 129:6 137:21 141:25 158:8 grundy (1) 49:16 handwriting (4) 50:9 horse (1) 11:24
extremely (2) 163:4,21 92:13,14,15 95:7,13 98:13 forensically (1) 58:20 165:5 guarantees (1) 182:14 103:2,10 105:9 hosted (4) 5:9 28:16 31:15
eye (2) 171:12,14 135:23 141:11 148:2 forensics (2) 4:22 5:2 general (4) 33:1,10,16,22 guess (4) 117:8 148:9 155:12 handwritten (3) 16:21 20:15 67:20
152:2,2,8 164:15,16 166:3 forged (3) 114:6 169:20 generally (2) 104:4 157:21 163:13 62:3 hosting (1) 131:22
F
169:6 171:19 172:3 170:8 generate (3) 39:8 40:12 gv (1) 34:6 happen (6) 20:10 60:14 hottest (1) 1:6

face (11) 7:14 25:9 28:15,25 173:12,20 forgeries (6) 37:20 97:11,25 119:6 135:18 137:23 146:16 hough (46) 1:13,19,24,25
H
29:4,6 30:3,4,10 114:17 findings (31) 16:2 23:6 24:23 138:23,24,25 generated (2) 126:10 137:12 150:23 6:17,24 15:7 27:22 37:21

165:25 36:19 39:24 40:9 48:9 forgery (27) 7:11 24:24 25:7 generation (1) 41:10 h1079 (1) 40:1 happened (18) 12:18 24:2 45:14,24 54:15,16

faced (3) 82:19 96:10 98:23 54:17 57:19 58:7 59:7,8 32:7 37:15 38:20 47:3,14 genuine (10) 124:3 h11810 (1) 58:3 31:2,11 36:11 37:4 40:15 55:13,15 56:11 70:1 72:4,9

facilitate (1) 78:7 68:7 97:23 98:17 99:2 50:22 56:8 87:4 89:19 93:8 131:20,24 138:1,9 h11811 (1) 75:16 65:2 85:12,13 96:15 73:17 74:19 83:1 93:8,11

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

94:14,17 96:22 98:16 49:16 50:15 52:16 53:25 173:10 24:3 28:2,9 35:19 37:5 119:10 120:11 124:8 l163321 (1) 118:18 143:5,9,18 146:11,17
99:12 103:9 107:2,4,23 54:12 55:13,13 58:25 indicative (2) 49:4 134:19 49:13 50:16 51:8 62:14,20 128:11 132:17 136:12,21 l1732787 (1) 105:17 147:3 148:14,18,23
113:11,14 139:9,21 150:17 60:20 63:1 67:22 indicia (1) 149:18 71:18 78:21,21 79:14,18 137:9 139:15 140:14,17,17 l1732788 (1) 105:24 149:1,6 150:12,19,25
177:5,8 181:2,10,14,17,22 70:7,7,17,17 71:14 individual (7) 79:3 114:7 81:19 91:14 92:20 101:8 142:5 143:11 l183731 (1) 76:22 151:6,15 152:9,20 153:2
184:5 72:4,4,4,6,7,12,17 120:25 121:5 130:10 106:18 108:21 111:20 144:8,15,15,16,21,21,22,23,24,24l183732 (1) 76:22 161:14,15,20,24 162:9
hour (4) 12:18 82:22 161:7 73:10,11,12,13 74:2 75:8 132:15 137:23 114:7 117:25 122:6,22 145:5 146:12 151:22,23 l1837327 (1) 78:3 163:5,21 170:10 179:4
162:24 76:18,19 80:2,20 82:15 individuals (4) 44:6 78:14 124:1 125:25 127:9 132:19 153:1,4 154:8 156:16 l183733 (1) 77:2 latexcreated (1) 145:9
hours (5) 64:18 129:20 83:17 84:3 85:18 86:4,18 133:1 136:25 134:25 139:2 141:25 142:6 159:6,6,10 163:25 l183734 (1) 77:6 launch (1) 31:2
181:20 182:3,9 87:5 92:20 94:1 96:5 industry (1) 72:22 144:25 146:22,23,24 164:20,22 165:21 166:8,15 l203411 (1) 176:18 launched (4) 31:3,13,20 32:4
housekeeping (3) 1:3,4 184:3 104:21 106:12 107:4 inference (3) 24:23 54:24 148:14,18,19 150:16 167:3,13,20,20 168:24 l203417 (1) 177:16 lawyers (5) 6:15 54:6,14
hovered (1) 89:1 108:6,21,21,24 109:2 169:19 152:20 156:8 159:16 167:4 171:4,4,10 172:10 176:23 l21301 (1) 74:10 92:20 171:10
however (1) 46:23 110:2 111:3,21,23 infinity (1) 178:17 170:1 180:13 177:13 178:1,1,2,4,6 179:8 l21306 (1) 75:2 layer (1) 30:21
html (1) 40:19 114:12,12 119:3,4 124:22 influenced (1) 159:14 introduce (1) 59:1 180:21 182:17 l21307 (1) 75:4 laying (1) 25:20
hundred (1) 18:12 125:5,11 134:2 137:23 information (48) 19:22 20:19 introduced (2) 6:25 34:2 itself (8) 8:9 15:9 32:24 l21311 (1) 56:7 layout (1) 111:10
hundreds (9) 70:18 71:21 138:14,16 140:12 141:7,18 21:24 32:16 38:25 41:7,9 introduction (2) 2:7 87:15 59:19 68:6,12 84:13 143:7 l21313 (1) 56:19 lead (1) 59:8
72:2,10,21 73:12,19,23 143:15,19 144:23,23 146:3 47:17 50:24 56:11 61:24 introductory (1) 3:10 ive (51) 16:23 17:1 18:18 l21316 (1) 56:25 leads (3) 4:19 26:9,11
74:5 150:22 156:7 158:13,18,22 62:15,24 74:19 77:23 invalid (4) 9:14 169:4 171:23 20:5,6,11 23:10 24:10 26:9 l21317 (1) 57:6 learned (4) 10:12,13 97:16
hyperlink (5) 23:2,4,8 88:6,9 159:5,7,7,10 160:8 161:18 93:11 112:21 113:5,17,19 173:11 30:7,13 33:25 40:18 43:7,8 l21591 (1) 102:25 98:11
hyperlinks (1) 88:12 163:15,17 166:15 167:2 114:18 115:25 116:1,2 invented (1) 71:12 46:23 52:18 53:24 55:5 l22941 (1) 38:19 least (16) 6:24 15:8 27:12
hyphen (2) 149:14,15 169:25 170:6 171:7,18 117:2,23,25 118:11 invention (1) 128:7 59:5,7,11 69:20 74:8 83:21 l24411 (1) 139:24 28:8 53:4,14 58:22 69:1
hyphenate (1) 150:14 172:6 173:19 174:14,25 119:8,13 120:12,16 123:13 inventor (1) 163:13 92:20 101:9 102:6 106:25 l24417 (1) 154:13 96:11 126:7 139:16 140:15
hyphenation (7) 149:13 175:13,16 176:11 124:16 131:17 133:13,21 inventors (2) 163:10,14 113:13 130:9 132:18 l24418 (2) 154:14,18 142:10 149:21 164:16
150:6,15,15 151:1,7,21 180:11,16 181:17,17,18,22 135:1 137:11 141:1 143:25 investigation (1) 110:8 133:16,16,18 134:13 l24741 (1) 160:8 180:2
hypothesis (1) 142:9 image (6) 3:13 146:7,8,19,19 161:24 162:5,7 167:17 investigations (6) 2:12,16 135:10 150:12 151:15 l31841 (1) 32:12 leave (3) 148:22 162:23
149:8 169:2,4 177:9 4:20,23 5:1,21 157:18,19,20 158:25 l31844 (1) 37:21 174:25
I
imaged (1) 18:11 infrastructure (1) 10:5 investigative (1) 5:6 159:14 165:21 169:22 l31901 (1) 154:21 leaves (1) 63:6

i130 (1) 130:1 images (13) 16:12 26:20,22 initial (1) 105:1 investing (1) 9:11 170:5 172:5 179:5,22,23 l31921 (1) 155:19 lecture (5) 35:6,18 36:24

i132 (2) 129:23 130:19 112:16,18 128:2 132:9 initially (2) 69:16 159:19 investment (1) 9:2 l31941 (1) 155:8 37:3,13
143:14 147:4 injunctions (2) 12:17 15:10 investments (3) 114:19 J l31951 (1) 156:2 led (5) 2:13 18:19 54:2
i134 (1) 130:24
i135 (1) 131:9 148:10,17,20,21 innovative (1) 81:7 130:7,20 l32021 (1) 87:8 132:15 133:8
imagine (1) 182:4 inserted (3) 101:8 144:25 invitation (2) 130:11,13 j191 (1) 4:15 l320215 (1) 88:5 left (5) 66:18,20 67:1 87:1
i137 (1) 131:10
immutable (1) 77:21 151:21 inviting (2) 130:4,10 jacket (1) 74:16 l320220 (1) 88:8 162:24
i139 (1) 131:11
impacted (1) 9:20 inside (9) 84:24 85:4,16 involve (1) 123:21 james (2) 31:4,11 l32023 (1) 87:15 lefthand (1) 25:22
i15 (1) 2:6
implausible (1) 37:17 86:1,3 87:7 99:22 101:23 involved (4) 2:21 106:12 january (4) 21:6 100:8 116:3 l32191 (1) 7:6 legal (17) 8:11,16,17 9:22
id (15) 22:3 65:13 69:16
implementation (4) 5:9 112:20 109:24 126:5 160:25 l32195 (1) 7:18 10:3,8,8 12:2 13:2 15:3
70:5 83:14 90:23 115:3
52:11 140:8,10 insofar (1) 98:12 involvement (2) 54:10 114:8 john (1) 130:14 l32241 (1) 92:22 56:21 72:18 77:3 91:23
120:2,3 133:10,24 134:9
implemented (3) 36:24 installed (4) 178:10,12,13,16 ip (1) 16:13 joining (1) 5:5 l32301 (2) 47:9 48:23 93:1 94:19 127:15
135:6 136:11 158:12
60:8,10 instance (12) 14:25 20:18 ira (1) 70:21 joint (1) 93:3 l32641 (1) 94:9 legend (1) 36:6
id000217 (2) 56:7 68:7
implication (1) 43:9 33:20 41:6 44:16 150:1 irregular (5) 149:13 joost (1) 40:7 l32861 (1) 25:2 legislation (2) 13:15 15:4
id000227 (1) 7:6
imply (1) 104:18 152:16,22 161:12,16,25 151:1,7,20 173:1 joseph (2) 128:15,17 l32881 (1) 50:18 length (5) 83:19
id000254 (1) 139:23
implying (1) 16:6 167:24 isnt (77) 3:16 9:7 16:3 22:13 journal (3) 119:6,17 131:11 l32882 (1) 52:4 174:9,10,14,15
id000258 (1) 25:22
important (1) 119:8 instantly (2) 12:21,23 23:10,14,23 24:25 26:7 js (1) 2:11 l32883 (1) 51:12 less (2) 163:1 182:10
id000260 (1) 38:20
imported (3) 117:25 122:8 institutions (1) 78:18 31:1 32:8 35:3 37:9 38:6 judges (1) 129:2 l41621 (1) 158:6 lest (1) 99:2
id000394 (1) 49:23
162:19 instructed (1) 92:20 40:11 43:2 44:10 46:20 june (4) 46:1 56:16 74:24 l51281 (1) 117:9 let (10) 12:25 22:11 40:1
id000395 (1) 87:8
impossible (1) 75:22 instructing (1) 181:19 47:4 48:18 50:3 135:22 l51461 (2) 115:12 127:3 41:4 42:23 43:9 124:11
id0004010 (1) 176:18
impression (2) 55:1 122:13 instruction (1) 130:16 52:9,11,15,19 54:22 55:2,8 justification (1) 97:18 l51501 (2) 114:13 126:15 129:24 134:22 137:3
id000504 (1) 47:9
id000536 (3) 160:8 172:21 inaccurate (1) 17:22 instructions (3) 6:17 117:3 58:17 59:9 60:9,24 61:11 l5161 (1) 172:12 lets (10) 41:11 42:6 45:16
K
173:15 inauthenticity (2) 37:18 98:8 146:13 65:1 67:3 68:22 72:15 l5281 (1) 170:14 55:17 84:10 105:10 120:18

id000537 (1) 170:14 incident (2) 2:16 4:22 integrates (1) 152:19 77:24 83:6 84:2 89:14 94:7 l54711 (2) 115:2 126:21 139:14 164:9,9
k111 (2) 116:12 117:16
id000538 (1) 172:12 include (7) 15:4 54:25 64:13 integrating (1) 77:19 99:19 101:7 103:5 laboriously (1) 122:20 letter (24) 1:20 19:1,4,5,7
keen (1) 182:6
id000549 (1) 50:17 83:18 85:22,25 113:23 intellectual (2) 70:16 115:14 108:19,23 111:16 114:6 lambda (8) 177:21,23 84:1,7,10,13 99:17,20,21
keep (9) 12:7 13:9 23:16
id000551 (1) 32:11 included (16) 2:15 15:22 intelligence (1) 4:23 118:20 119:9 120:4,10 178:9,11,13,20 179:21 100:12,16,24
55:17 61:6 65:18 70:16
id000568 (1) 92:22 35:15 58:5 81:6 83:4 intended (1) 1:19 124:6,13 127:14 128:11 180:4 101:1,2,10,12,21,21,25
123:18 152:11
id000569 (1) 94:9 84:9,21 99:16,24 112:11 intentionally (2) 169:25 133:1 136:11 137:17 language (6) 47:2 57:16 75:5 107:5,18
keith (1) 2:20
id0006484 (1) 84:11 113:25 151:7 178:23 180:24 142:18,21 144:20 145:3 77:12 152:19,20 letters (2) 87:9,17
kind (2) 142:1 146:2
id003702 (1) 68:5 179:16,19 interact (2) 78:17 135:2 149:22,23 153:12 156:16 laptop (3) 66:24 76:4 102:16 letting (1) 60:4
kindly (1) 1:17
id00395 (1) 89:20 includes (3) 15:1 85:18 interacting (1) 61:11 157:21,24 158:21 161:13 laptops (5) 16:11 18:4 level (3) 6:2 64:14 180:13
kleiman (11) 18:9 46:1 55:20
id004079 (1) 115:12 175:12 interaction (2) 44:18 106:14 163:24 167:17 168:23 19:15,15 22:4 levels (1) 5:25
70:14,21,24 71:17 76:18
id004081 (1) 118:18 including (18) 3:5 15:23 interest (1) 54:9 169:17 178:10 large (5) 13:25 14:2,4 15:9 li (14) 106:7,16
105:3 122:19 123:23
id004090 (1) 117:17 25:10 28:1 38:9 49:12 interested (1) 156:6 isolated (1) 19:19 33:4 107:5,9,12,24 108:2
knew (9) 44:4,5,6,8,22 45:5
idea (11) 8:23 16:18,18,25 72:13 73:19 91:1 92:10 interesting (2) 97:1 151:25 issued (2) 153:22 164:14 larger (2) 14:3 111:1 109:12 110:5,21 112:20
156:20 159:1,24
31:6,9,20 129:3 155:14 120:1 131:22 133:12,21 interestingly (1) 23:9 issues (4) 3:11 77:22 143:5 lasseters (2) 80:11,17 113:3,19 114:1
know (39) 1:5,17 17:4 20:23
157:2 170:9 149:13 166:8 167:16 interference (1) 106:24 182:6 last (35) 7:24 11:24 18:20 liability (5) 9:1 56:21 77:4,8
30:11 38:18 44:21,22
ideas (5) 16:17 18:18 155:22 173:10 interim (1) 14:12 issuing (1) 43:21 25:17 26:1 32:20 39:21 82:19
52:12 53:10 55:15 81:12
156:8 159:19 income (2) 8:11,11 interject (1) 6:20 itembyitem (1) 122:8 47:20 48:7 51:4 53:23 liberty (1) 128:18
83:21 84:5 90:13 95:8 96:4
identical (9) 64:8 68:5,6 inconsistency (2) 159:8,8 intermediaries (6) 56:22 its (165) 1:9 5:6 7:6,6,11,14 56:16 64:17,24 74:24 licenced (1) 80:11
97:12 112:6,8,25 114:5
76:9 173:5 174:1,6,12,16 incorrect (8) 24:10 26:8 69:12 77:4,14 79:1 82:13 8:17 9:8 10:7 11:23 13:2 75:19,20,21 78:4 82:22 lie (3) 26:24 101:18,18
132:17 144:8 148:20,21
identified (5) 19:6 27:6 60:25 61:12 77:14 82:12 intermediary (4) 57:15 77:17 14:20 16:4 18:7 19:19,19 88:1 90:15 92:9 93:15 lied (1) 101:19
156:16 157:4,5 158:20
29:17 65:16 98:18 138:3 143:10 78:12 81:17 20:23,24 22:13 23:14,24 94:24 115:2 137:5 153:25 lies (1) 32:6
159:5,13,15,22 166:19
identifies (1) 130:10 incorrectly (1) 26:20 intermediaryfree (1) 78:22 25:7,9,12,17 26:8 27:7,12 154:13 160:25 172:20,22 life (1) 179:23
171:7,18 180:19 181:24
identify (3) 13:20,23 21:23 increase (1) 8:1 internal (20) 25:17 32:20 30:10 32:20 36:5 37:9 38:7 173:2,8 178:15 light (3) 58:5 93:21 95:10
knowing (1) 109:3
ids (2) 133:5 135:15 incredibly (1) 165:5 34:16,17 39:20 41:17,19 40:11,14 41:3 44:10 late (6) 90:10 100:18 ligiographic (1) 180:17
knowledge (5) 107:17
ieee (2) 142:25 143:3 indentation (2) 147:17,19 47:20 48:5,14 51:4 56:15 47:7,10,14,20 48:15 127:1,10 137:22 156:24 like (48) 9:18 17:16 22:15,16
109:12,14 130:17 159:9
ignorance (2) 124:12,13 indentations (5) 74:23 77:6 88:1 93:15 50:2,22 51:4,11 52:20 later (32) 18:5 21:19,22 28:9 31:4 35:13 36:2 38:3
known (8) 14:17 21:21 40:25
ignoring (1) 142:24 147:14,20,23,25 148:6 94:23 102:13 104:17 54:12 55:3,3,12 58:17 22:13 37:25 38:15,16 41:9,22 44:2,22 46:17
44:1 57:9 109:23
ill (18) 1:10 24:20 42:22 independence (1) 2:1 168:13 61:7,9,14 64:5 66:2 67:22 40:22 43:15,17 49:5 53:5 49:12 51:14 59:21 66:13
163:10,14
84:11 86:18 94:1 96:22 independent (5) 12:24 61:21 internally (2) 34:15 78:3 74:11,23 75:25 76:18,23 86:12 87:24 95:5 104:20 77:22,22 79:4 80:9,16 86:5
korea (1) 72:19
97:4 103:19 104:20 106:11 109:22 169:12 180:6 international (5) 91:13 77:2 81:13 82:21 84:10 106:15 115:21 134:1 92:2 101:2 102:4,13

110:11 125:15 136:25 index (1) 184:1 114:19 121:16 130:7,20 88:1 89:15,16,17 90:4,6 136:6,8 141:2 143:5 104:24 113:11 119:1 124:3
L
155:10,22 171:7 177:5 indicated (2) 40:3 165:11 internet (10) 33:20 51:14 91:23 93:8,15,24 94:14,23 161:22 162:1,4 164:20 128:20 140:10 144:1 147:7

im (137) 3:10 8:4,13 9:4,8 indicates (4) 26:5 121:4 56:22,22 57:2 77:4,8 95:6,23 96:2 97:17 99:22 l (1) 42:20 167:8 173:2 178:24 179:2 148:13,13 149:3,24 150:13

10:16 15:1 16:7,22 17:6,7 169:13 179:1 78:8,10 143:1 100:12 101:20 103:7 104:3 l13171 (1) 49:22 181:7 152:23 166:16 168:2,2

18:15 20:20 21:19,20 indicating (2) 41:15 165:7 interpretation (2) 52:14,22 105:2,7,8 107:2 108:18 l13711 (1) 49:25 latest (1) 138:9 170:1 175:8 178:4

22:6,18 24:20 27:22 28:6,6 indication (5) 111:19 interrupted (1) 71:11 109:10 110:25 111:1,4,6 l1513171 (1) 45:24 latex (41) 40:17,19 likely (3) 19:8 20:3 29:15

30:13 32:1 33:22,23 37:15 167:11,13,17,20 into (56) 3:11 6:21,25 112:1 113:1 114:17,25 l1513771 (1) 42:20 41:19,20,22 43:14,16,18 limit (3) 11:10,16 97:13

38:4,16 40:14 43:6,25 indications (3) 141:5 171:22 10:8,21 11:13 13:1 14:3 115:23 116:11 117:17 l154411 (1) 76:5 49:15 141:21,25 142:11,20 limited (5) 2:11 11:4 117:22

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

140:19 167:4 126:13 128:16 142:3 manipulation (15) 26:5 98:1,5,15 99:5,11 103:8 money (10) 10:1 12:15,21 necessarily (5) 3:21 30:1,19 147:15
limits (1) 11:6 158:13 176:19,22 46:10,13,20,21 47:7 48:8 106:23 107:3,16 113:13 72:15,19,19 73:15 78:6 79:8 174:18 nothing (22) 8:8 10:22 11:16
line (12) 46:1 105:12,17 looks (3) 41:22 46:17 155:10 59:22 75:23 132:16 134:20 139:13,20 150:4,7,9 94:20 123:23 necessity (2) 174:8,9 15:9 17:21 20:16 23:8
149:2,17 151:10,12 152:15 lordship (9) 15:15 91:20 144:4 168:21,22 169:16 177:4,6 181:3,13,16,21 moniker (1) 140:15 need (28) 6:22 7:5 9:19 11:3 86:19 106:16 109:15,25
153:4,5 162:18 178:6 97:8,13,15,19,22 98:17 manner (2) 57:12 151:16 182:1,8,11,22 monitoring (1) 51:25 15:12 16:5 22:7,9 23:20 122:16 124:13,23
linear (1) 151:3 113:11 manual (1) 168:21 member (1) 156:25 month (4) 13:10 90:15 31:22 34:23 40:15 51:24 125:8,10,17,21 127:18
linearly (2) 153:14 154:2 lordships (1) 98:14 manually (1) 122:6 members (7) 16:16 21:25 161:11 162:10 52:16 71:13 78:1 80:12 139:5 159:25 180:19
lines (3) 111:5 141:14 147:15 lose (2) 73:6,11 manufacture (4) 107:9,13 54:4 96:5 107:20 160:2 more (25) 1:11 8:2 9:8 11:7 82:18 84:11 101:19 102:15 notice (1) 61:1
linguistic (3) 80:23 81:1,3 lost (2) 8:10,11 108:3 114:9 172:11 13:10 14:24 20:8 25:12 116:13 156:11 159:18 noticed (2) 110:20 156:9
link (2) 88:25 90:7 lot (11) 14:9 28:8 29:14 manufactured (3) 107:25 mention (4) 12:10 30:22 33:24,24 37:25 45:12 50:6 161:19 162:18 174:22 noting (1) 151:14
linked (4) 32:18 39:2 44:18,18 83:13 142:14,18 108:13 110:4 67:14 111:17 63:14 70:13 73:15 90:5 181:13 november (6) 21:6 25:18
136:11,12 151:18 157:19 158:3 manufacturer (1) 129:16 mentioned (3) 6:12 13:17 91:18 109:3 110:24 112:6 needed (4) 81:22 83:13 29:13 47:21 51:5 88:19
linking (1) 8:9 lots (7) 11:22,23 73:15 79:15 manufacturers (1) 114:4 81:12 138:17 157:7 181:22 91:24 176:6 nudged (1) 181:16
links (3) 88:13,23,24 80:4 163:9 182:5 manufacturing (1) 106:8 mentioning (1) 23:16 182:12 needle (4) 119:1,4 122:25 number (36) 5:24 11:6 28:6
linux (5) 4:2 24:14,18 41:5 lower (2) 111:12 144:11 manuscript (2) 49:24 50:2 merchants (1) 78:15 morning (6) 1:22,23 97:10 124:11 32:2 33:4 39:24
162:18 lozenge (1) 64:5 many (15) 14:8 17:13,16,24 merged (3) 24:3 106:17 99:13 181:8 182:23 negative (1) 74:8 41:19,20,21 46:16 56:3
lis (1) 112:12 ltd (1) 2:24 19:12 21:8 22:14,17 37:3 108:7 most (5) 19:25 35:13 58:21 negotiations (1) 128:14 77:15 78:8 82:3 97:18
list (29) 7:9,11 17:14,17 25:7 lunchtime (1) 1:10 42:11 44:1,7 59:23 105:8 merger (1) 24:8 92:3 163:19 neither (5) 24:17 48:21 110:24,24 117:16,17
28:2 31:4 37:16,20 38:21 lying (2) 3:15,19 112:3 mess (1) 43:22 mother (1) 76:6 83:10 138:10 180:15 129:10,25 139:21 141:5
47:15 50:23 56:9 90:14 lynch (7) 4:14,17 5:1,5,14 mapping (1) 134:4 message (2) 66:8 181:4 mouse (2) 89:1 146:3 network (15) 14:6,11,13 145:5 155:4 157:20 161:6
93:9 94:15 97:10,24,24,25 6:1 92:11 march (21) 39:21,22 69:22 meta (1) 41:10 move (17) 1:7,10 7:20 9:5 32:25 33:11,15,17,19 171:22 173:9,25,25 174:18
98:19,20 103:7 121:12 lynchs (1) 4:16 106:10 119:20 122:5 metadata (65) 3:23 4:3 10:20 15:7,17 22:11 28:11 48:1,1 51:10,15,20 52:1,6 175:2,18,24 179:25
154:15 156:21,24 160:10 lynn (8) 20:2 29:14,16,24 123:16 126:1,11,18,23,24 16:6,7 17:17,21 18:16 19:8 54:15 76:21 110:11 114:12 networks (2) 32:12 34:13 numbers (3) 19:6 22:3 115:3
170:15 30:9,15 62:2,14 127:7,12,25 128:6 131:13 20:23 25:17,21 32:20 153:9 164:10 182:11,17 never (22) 4:3,4 8:18 9:13,15 numerals (1) 48:25
listed (4) 47:12 87:12 94:11 153:11,20 167:1 172:24 39:20 40:3,12,16,18 41:18 moving (15) 7:5 22:20,20 10:17 16:14 17:7 20:8 numerous (1) 21:25
99:22 M mark (1) 97:17 42:9,14 43:1,22 32:11 38:19 54:16 55:6 21:20 55:5 92:4,5 122:24
listen (1) 175:21 marked (4) 69:23 83:22 86:4 46:2,4,8,12 47:7,20 48:6 61:19 129:23 139:21 124:14,23 126:3,5 134:21 O
listening (1) 6:19 m (5) 24:12 60:8,12 61:2,2 171:5 51:4 54:8 56:15 57:21 147:10,12 176:15,21 157:10 163:10 179:23
lists (2) 33:4 63:14 m1712 (1) 19:1 marker (5) 65:6 83:9 84:15 63:14 74:23 88:1 89:9 181:11 newcastle (2) 55:12,18 o21086 (1) 105:10
literally (1) 162:20 m1715 (1) 18:25 129:12 144:22 90:25 91:4 92:12 93:15 ms (17) 48:14 76:24 95:5 newly (1) 90:9 oath (1) 71:1
litigation (12) 4:25 37:7 m1716 (1) 18:24 markers (1) 168:11 94:23 139:6 143:20,24 106:7,16 107:5,9,12,24 newman (2) 33:4,25 obj (4) 144:12,18 146:13
55:21 71:9,17 76:17 m1778 (1) 19:21 market (1) 72:16 144:2 161:5,25 162:8 108:2 109:12 110:5,21 next (30) 7:5 21:6 23:1,4 147:19
119:11 120:16 122:19 machine (2) 88:14,18 marketing (2) 61:8 162:1 165:6 166:20,20 168:14 112:12,20 113:3,19 25:2 32:11 47:9 48:8 50:17 object (10) 6:22
123:3,21 127:16 machines (2) 4:2 59:14 marking (1) 69:18 169:2,24 171:1,6,23,25 ms1 (1) 111:8 57:6,19 61:19 66:2 68:9,9 144:19,20,24 145:5,12,23
little (8) 82:21,24 140:17 macro (3) 60:13 61:2,3 marks (2) 69:23,24 172:18 173:10,22 mstat (2) 32:18 39:2 74:1 87:8 92:22 111:11 147:1,7 148:17
143:5 144:17 174:15 madden (71) 15:19 16:1 martti (2) 128:15 139:2 176:17,20,22 much (12) 34:18 45:9 46:20 119:16 123:4 126:21 objected (1) 98:10
177:25 178:1 22:22 24:7 26:4 27:5,16 masters (2) 69:19,21 metaframe (7) 4:3 23:17,25 72:7 73:3 95:18 96:22 142:25 147:16 155:20 objectives (2) 56:20 77:3
live (7) 116:22 122:15,21 29:17 34:11 37:11,23 match (3) 147:17 153:21 24:11 48:19 59:12 76:1 105:11 111:12 130:1 178:4 156:5 160:8 172:12 179:25 objects (2) 145:2,24
123:4,13 127:18 136:9 38:7,8 39:24 40:8 171:15 method (1) 3:18 182:10 180:23 obscured (1) 41:20
llm (24) 3:2 10:12 48:4,17,21 49:3 54:18 matched (2) 161:8 164:12 methodology (1) 63:9 multiple (14) 5:3 15:22 22:8 nice (1) 156:25 observable (1) 168:20
55:6,7,10,16,18,23 56:12 61:15,24 63:11,19 64:7,23 matches (3) 28:18 153:20 methods (2) 33:5 78:16 59:11 62:24 75:25 122:24 nirmala (2) 58:6 93:21 observed (2) 150:10 169:8
64:1 69:5,7 74:11 76:10 65:16 68:4 75:17,22 88:11 171:11 micropayments (3) 11:10,18 126:14 132:22 151:4 node (14) 8:1,6,7,12,15,15 obtain (2) 13:18 104:14
79:18 86:22 87:1,10 89:8 93:20 95:2,15 102:7 matching (3) 130:21 153:10 12:20 163:18 164:17 178:1 179:4 9:11 10:5,11 14:14,16 obtained (1) 132:1
91:9,23 99:14 100:13 108:22 111:24 118:14 172:1 microphones (1) 182:5 must (2) 53:5 100:18 31:23 79:3 114:17 obvious (4) 24:23 31:24
153:23,24 119:1,6,17 124:10 126:9 material (5) 72:13 96:16 microsoft (4) 26:16,24 58:10 mustnt (1) 53:5 nodes (19) 7:7 8:14,23 9:13 54:24 164:18
llp (2) 2:14,14 127:22 131:1 134:6 135:19 129:23 131:20 138:10 62:14 muted (1) 107:1 10:4 13:21,25 14:8 31:25 obviously (3) 35:2 82:15
load (5) 4:25 28:23 133:15 138:19 140:21 141:5 mathematical (1) 51:9 middle (6) 36:3 63:25 115:8 mylx (1) 118:22 32:3 34:7 72:17 77:16,18 138:18
166:14 168:8 147:12 148:5 149:12 150:9 maths (3) 152:24 178:18,19 154:1 177:18 178:5 myob (48) 114:13,15 79:6,7,8,9 82:14 occupied (1) 173:24
loaded (6) 65:7,14 85:22 152:3 160:22 161:6 163:23 mathtype (6) might (5) 8:6 54:14,14 64:3 115:5,13 116:7,17,22 nominate (2) 17:9 19:3 occur (2) 78:9 153:1
102:20 133:18 172:11 164:11 165:6 167:15 38:9,10,11,13,14 49:13 181:23 117:6,11,18,20,22 118:1,1 nominated (5) 54:7 56:4 occurred (1) 137:20
loading (1) 166:15 168:13 171:19,21 172:18 matter (11) 1:4 7:3 12:3 million (2) 11:19 71:8 119:12 120:7 121:15,21 115:17 117:11 176:24 occurs (2) 102:12 134:4
local (2) 117:25 122:3 173:1,9 177:20 178:7 14:2 15:15 18:22 32:1 mind (1) 97:15 122:4,6,7,12,21,22 123:4 none (11) 14:15 16:10 oclock (2) 97:2 99:7
log (14) 179:10 35:25 61:20 137:19 138:14 mine (2) 22:4 130:9 124:3,8 125:4,10 126:1 21:15,15 53:16,20 59:2 october (12) 21:5 47:21
132:4,5,10,14,15,20,22,23 maddens (15) 15:17 22:20 matters (5) 2:3 5:15 50:16 mined (2) 115:21,24 129:23 130:4,4 132:1 80:5 124:19 125:1 180:17 56:16 74:25 84:14 93:16
134:9,10,16 135:7 136:7,8 24:6 25:20 28:14 35:22 74:2 128:7 miners (2) 9:19 12:14 133:17 134:2,15,15,23 nonlive (4) 116:7,17 117:20 94:24 99:17 115:6 128:11
logged (1) 127:9 36:10,19 52:3 54:16 57:19 matthews (3) 62:8 96:20,23 minimum (1) 5:25 135:11,25,25 136:14,23 122:22 153:22 164:14
logica (1) 2:24 60:21 99:2 111:7 131:25 maximum (1) 11:5 mining (4) 5:8 70:15 115:24 137:2,7,13 138:21 nonpayment (1) 13:13 odd (3) 144:12 177:25 178:1
login (19) 116:22,25 117:4,6 magistrate (3) 71:1 125:20 maybe (5) 1:7 112:7 155:11 116:3 myox (1) 121:1 nonreversible (1) 149:15 oddity (1) 163:20
123:4,13 124:8 126:4 127:20 165:4 179:6 minted (2) 78:6,12 myself (3) 71:6 128:14 nonsense (1) 61:9 odt (7) 140:5 142:2,3 146:24
132:5,10,14,23,25 133:20 mailing (1) 31:4 mean (31) 9:14 20:13 29:6 minutes (14) 25:24 26:2 129:16 nonsparse (1) 47:10 147:9 150:18,19
134:8,10 135:11 137:21,23 main (2) 14:14 141:13 31:6 53:23 59:21 63:1 45:17,20 103:2,10 111:8 mystery (1) 179:11 nor (3) 16:15 48:21 138:10 office (10) 44:4 48:14
logins (1) 132:22 mainly (1) 61:8 69:13 70:6 73:20,22 78:25 139:14 161:7 162:23,24 mythical (1) 37:3 normal (4) 60:8,12 61:13 104:10,12 105:13
logistical (1) 181:10 maintain (1) 103:14 86:23 93:3 101:2,21 163:15 177:5 181:15 163:11 128:23,23 129:3 170:4
N
logon (1) 120:1 maintained (1) 16:9 105:20 119:4 150:5,6 misrepresenting (1) 53:24 north (1) 72:19 177:10
logs (3) 131:17 133:5 134:6 maintains (1) 4:24 163:9,16 164:4 175:20 missed (1) 67:11 nakamoto (1) 173:23 northerner (1) 55:15 offices (2) 62:10 104:12
london (3) 62:9 69:21 86:6 major (1) 136:1 178:17,19 179:8,18,21,22 missing (2) 123:19 143:15 naked (2) 171:11,14 northumbria (13) 10:13 officials (1) 44:5
long (6) 14:3 75:19 132:8 majority (2) 18:3 78:9 180:21 misspoke (1) 27:22 name (6) 45:4 67:25 55:7,8,9,10,18 66:12 offline (2) 123:24 136:9
139:10 167:18 181:13 makes (8) 11:7 13:1 41:7 meaning (2) 46:11 104:25 mistake (5) 31:11 38:7 55:13 173:22,24 176:4,7 81:19,24 82:4 oh (8) 9:15 10:16 12:4 31:7
longer (5) 75:20 82:24 128:9 58:23 72:7 153:3 163:13 means (14) 3:13 9:15 105:7 170:17 namely (1) 159:25 100:16,17,24 38:14 112:1 175:20 176:13
146:24 176:3 169:12 11:10,10 14:24 38:10 mistaken (1) 142:2 names (3) 96:6 130:12 notably (1) 56:22 oi (1) 16:24
look (32) 14:20 15:18 19:13 making (8) 9:25 41:25 60:22 46:10 47:6 67:9 misuse (1) 9:23 146:20 note (16) 20:17 40:23 41:14 okay (15) 1:4,20 6:23 14:18
20:24 22:3 23:3 31:16 104:16 109:16 127:11 78:10,11,16 167:7 181:7 mm (1) 154:17 nanosecond (1) 64:14 51:21 63:10 67:15 81:3,4 19:2 55:19 67:19 82:22,25
33:25 34:19 40:2 44:1 143:15 169:15 measuring (1) 51:18 mmhm (2) 100:14 131:3 narrative (1) 79:5 83:8 111:18 139:5 147:3 99:11 177:6 181:21
53:16 54:6 57:3 67:13 75:2 malmi (2) 128:15 139:2 mechanism (1) 78:17 mode (1) 102:16 narratives (1) 83:21 149:9 151:13,23 158:24 182:8,13,19
77:18 80:9 84:10 87:15 man (2) 4:7,9 medium (4) 6:1 27:17 28:16 model (3) 7:20,21 12:5 narrows (1) 135:21 noted (18) 19:13 28:21 38:8 old (4) 20:9 50:12 114:10
105:10 108:25 109:19 manage (1) 172:11 31:15 modelling (2) 7:14 47:25 nas (2) 4:4 19:16 49:12 59:11 67:4 114:11 133:14
148:10 149:1 153:4 155:10 managed (2) 28:7 110:8 meet (1) 6:2 modern (1) 87:18 native (3) 62:22 63:4 116:13 127:17 132:18 134:13 older (1) 58:24
159:11 164:24 172:19 manager (4) 20:20 107:14 meeting (4) 103:10 104:4,13 modification (5) 161:1 165:3 natural (6) 52:14 64:22 135:10,24,25 140:18 omega (2) 178:2,4
173:20 178:4 109:13,25 105:13 172:20,22 173:3 152:17 165:18,21 169:19 148:17 157:15 158:25 omitted (1) 152:4
looked (13) 22:15 23:2 35:3 managing (5) 2:10 4:17 meiklejohn (2) 79:10,15 modifications (1) 57:10 naturally (3) 10:19 15:1 20:5 169:23 once (18) 20:8 23:16 49:20
75:19 114:10 123:2 107:8,12 108:2 mellor (56) 1:4,17,20,22 modified (3) 47:2 162:15 nature (4) 12:8 77:8,19,20 notepad (1) 106:8 94:25 95:9 96:18 117:13
124:3,19 125:6 126:8 manipulate (3) 26:19 46:4 6:5,23 13:16,20,23 14:18 178:2 nchain (15) 16:13 18:20 notes (22) 16:21 20:15 144:3 153:14 154:1 161:14
157:11 171:3 172:21 170:6 15:6 27:21 45:16,19 54:15 modify (2) 47:5 161:18 20:15 28:21 65:12 66:24 35:7,9,14,18 36:2,24 164:24 168:24 170:13
looking (17) 26:23 29:3 manipulated (7) 19:10,11 55:12,14 56:10 69:4 72:3,7 moment (10) 8:4 18:14 28:4 89:22 91:8,24 118:16 37:3,13 62:4 63:10 65:5 173:14 176:11 179:1
45:12 54:18,20 64:9 77:20 46:2,8,13 134:20 180:10 73:9 74:17 82:21,25 93:10 45:14 103:20 125:1 139:11 166:3,6 167:4,10 172:11 92:24 104:4,6,10 182:14
87:3 91:13 111:3 118:8 manipulating (1) 26:15 94:16 97:1,4,7,12 140:13 150:21 181:2 nearly (2) 12:13 36:25 105:13,15 136:6 141:11 onepage (1) 94:10

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

ones (22) 9:20 10:12 14:1,2 132:5,6,10 137:14 154:18 partial (1) 140:8 109:12,14 position (7) 32:7 73:17 97:21 private (3) 44:4 45:3 94:20 116:22 119:7 121:22 123:5
16:10 17:3 18:5 21:9 35:15 163:11 168:17,18 182:20 participated (1) 5:8 personally (1) 73:6 103:9,24 132:19 159:9 privilege (3) 6:21 138:13,17 131:21 138:11,15
44:2 61:2 66:12 82:15 overleaf (3) 142:16 148:11 particular (6) 33:19,21 42:18 pertaining (2) 56:21 77:4 positive (1) 98:17 privileged (4) 7:2 50:14,16 providers (2) 56:23 113:10
118:9 120:3 125:19 130:9 170:2 47:6 126:12 173:20 phd (2) 3:1,14 posner (1) 93:4 74:2 providing (2) 2:21 78:17
138:7,7 159:19 168:9 overreach (2) 111:19 180:13 particularly (1) 81:13 phone (1) 150:2 possession (1) 66:4 probably (15) 14:8 28:23 proving (1) 16:6
170:12 overstraying (1) 97:16 particulars (1) 98:19 photograph (1) 28:11 possibility (1) 1:6 58:18 87:24 89:22 provision (1) 2:15
online (11) 27:16 34:12 overvalued (1) 128:24 parties (6) 69:9,10 79:2 physically (1) 101:12 possible (11) 4:11 40:12,14 91:12,18 96:24 99:24 pseudonymous (4) 43:25
36:13 57:14 117:7 121:21 overwriting (1) 176:3 83:15 91:5 98:21 pick (1) 145:16 48:7 52:21 63:2,3,4 73:24 104:3 116:11 160:1 44:3,4,12
123:25 125:16 134:3 139:4 own (7) 58:13 91:4 105:8 partners (1) 116:9 picture (2) 95:3 116:20 175:17 181:24 167:8,13 181:14 pseudonymously (2) 43:22
142:21 108:1 128:13 165:22 parts (1) 106:11 pictures (2) 96:8 118:8 possibly (1) 94:1 probative (1) 125:12 44:2
ontier (28) 6:17,19 19:3 50:8 166:11 party (4) 22:8 57:14 73:2 piece (4) 37:6 91:22 101:22 post (10) 63:22 64:16 problem (4) 25:11 144:3 public (3) 17:3 44:7 156:4
65:6 116:10,19,22,25 owned (4) 7:25 8:5 21:15 80:10 107:23 65:16,17,19 69:4 95:21 154:9 163:25 publication (6) 27:18 86:20
122:16 123:5,12,13 109:21 pass (2) 72:18,19 pitch (1) 104:20 96:2,15 157:8 problems (2) 142:9 145:4 90:23 149:11 155:23
124:22,24,24 125:16 owner (2) 145:17 146:6 passage (5) 36:4 54:17,19 pithily (1) 50:18 postal (3) 57:1,9 75:3 proceeded (1) 111:9 156:11
126:3,6,16,25 127:9 128:3 78:19 138:18 pixelated (1) 110:24 postdate (1) 169:9 proceedings (5) 2:23 92:19 publicly (1) 153:22
P
137:21,25 138:5,6,10 passages (11) 31:16 35:24 pixelation (5) 111:1,4,16,17 posted (16) 28:19 63:25 122:20,25 127:15 publish (3) 28:4,10 86:23
onwards (3) 15:18 27:5 p (2) 152:16,22 36:1,12,17,19 37:5 70:9 113:17 64:8,25 67:23,25 process (7) 20:4 24:7 41:24 published (35) 20:22 28:3
41:13 package (5) 134:22,23 79:18,23 80:6 place (8) 23:1 52:24 101:13 68:3,4,10,13 69:6 70:1 62:16 131:7 165:12 168:4 36:20 58:10 68:18 76:24
open (10) 39:10 66:17 67:5 152:18 153:3,6 past (2) 27:25 60:23 112:15 120:9 145:23 95:17 96:17 157:5 159:19 produce (6) 76:3 109:6 83:6 84:15 85:21
84:25 102:20 121:23 pad (5) 103:3 106:9 109:4 paste (1) 146:5 168:17 174:20 postgrad (2) 35:16,17 119:18,25 146:13 159:21 86:9,10,11,12,14,15,17,22,23,24
149:23 150:2 167:24 111:10 113:20 pasted (1) 88:17 places (4) 140:10 141:17 postgraduate (1) 35:11 produced (30) 30:4 36:13 141:7 144:6 147:18 148:1
168:24 pages (7) 19:5 65:20 80:23 patented (1) 72:13 152:4,5 postgraduates (1) 35:13 58:17 62:16 82:6,11 149:17 153:25 156:3,3
opened (13) 46:23 65:4,8 131:11,15 147:24 154:13 patents (8) 17:1,2 18:19,20 placks (17) 2:1,7 3:8 16:1 posting (1) 96:3 106:9,9 109:5 111:10 161:10 164:13,20,21
84:4,8,22,23 85:2 101:24 palatable (1) 1:12 54:3 72:14 91:12 163:11 26:6 39:25 48:17,21 58:14 posts (1) 68:14 112:14 113:5,21 122:22 165:19 172:1 173:7 177:23
122:3 167:7,13,20 panopticrypt (1) 120:3 path (1) 159:20 106:19 108:21 112:2 potentially (1) 73:11 124:4,6 126:22,25 pulled (3) 71:11 76:19 143:1
opening (2) 23:25 168:10 paper (130) 9:13 10:6,15 pattern (1) 76:14 114:10 127:23 129:24 potter (1) 44:3 127:5,8,16 138:1 141:21 purchase (1) 131:16
openleaf (1) 180:3 12:11,25 13:11,12 pause (8) 18:21 24:20 31:14 132:1 180:8 pound (1) 18:12 151:6 156:18 164:21 purchased (3) 106:13 109:24
openoffice (10) 40:13,17 14:21,21 15:8 20:21 27:23 38:12 58:25 77:25 plain (1) 158:19 pounds (4) 72:3,4 73:20 74:5 167:18 170:10 177:11 112:25
41:15,16 43:16 62:13 28:2,8 36:5 39:13,17 50:9 79:12,14 plainly (2) 70:3 180:7 power (3) 9:10,11 13:10 179:2 pure (1) 151:11
63:16 140:5 143:21 161:17 53:1 55:22 56:20 57:17 pausing (4) 44:9 81:21 121:4 planning (1) 80:16 powershell (1) 76:2 producing (3) 138:20 purely (1) 57:12
openofficeorg (1) 40:4 58:20,21 59:3 66:10 75:5 175:16 platform (2) 5:10 142:21 practice (1) 2:12 159:16,16 purported (1) 115:13
opensymbol (4) 77:12 78:24 79:8,8,19,24 payer (1) 136:15 platforms (1) 18:2 practitioner (1) 2:19 product (12) 107:9,13,15 purpose (8) 43:13 46:5,14
142:17,18,19,20 80:5,25 81:1,14 payment (8) 57:15 69:11 players (1) 9:22 practitioners (1) 4:8 108:3 109:8 110:4 114:9 47:3 59:16 70:13 77:17
operating (1) 40:21 82:8,10,12,15 90:22 77:14 78:12,13,16,18 playing (2) 151:18,21 precedes (1) 123:6 129:17 135:8,14,15,19 104:13
operation (4) 25:10 26:8 91:2,20 101:22 103:22 136:13 pleaded (12) 7:11 25:7 38:20 precisely (3) 147:17 161:8 production (1) 109:4 purposes (1) 119:11
28:20 31:17 105:5 139:23 140:5,14,15 payments (2) 57:1,14 47:14 50:22 56:8 93:8 165:8 products (2) 72:14 107:25 pursue (1) 98:7
operations (3) 8:1,6,7 141:7,12,16,21 142:6,11 paypal (2) 78:14 79:5 94:14 103:7 139:24 160:9 predating (3) 133:4,11,23 profess (1) 180:15 push (2) 11:12,23
operator (1) 160:9 143:7,17 144:6,13 pdf (27) 34:17 106:19 170:15 predecessors (1) 98:1 professor (5) 35:4,15,19 putting (12) 10:1 74:5 75:8
operators (2) 14:14 82:20 145:6,7,14 146:4 147:18 141:25 142:5,6 please (86) 2:6 7:2,18 19:21 predict (1) 148:6 79:15 91:1 109:2 123:16 129:16
opines (1) 111:21 148:1,15 149:17 150:1,24 146:16,23,23,25 147:1,8,8 26:4 27:15 31:14 33:14 predicting (1) 7:14 profoundly (1) 159:14 144:23 146:3 152:17 167:2
opinion (3) 162:11,16 180:22 151:11,17 152:6 153:11,21 148:18 149:22,23,24 34:15 35:21 36:15 38:19 prediction (3) 8:4,5,8 program (3) 40:20 149:24 171:20 174:25
opportunity (6) 50:16 90:13 154:7,9,19,24,24 150:1,17,20,22 152:7 45:24 47:9 48:3,13,23 preempting (1) 148:12 161:16
Q
113:24 118:10 123:23 155:7,11,13,15 158:24 160:11 161:23 49:22 50:17 56:7,25 57:19 prefigure (1) 82:8 programmer (1) 41:19
137:4 156:7,12,17 169:23 170:16 178:8 58:3 59:3 63:11,19 prefigured (1) 83:12 programming (2) 2:25 61:5 q (558) 2:6 4:7,13 5:14,18
option (2) 71:2 163:2 157:12,17,18,24 pearsons (1) 76:24 65:15,17 66:16 68:9 74:1,3 preliminary (1) 139:22 progress (3) 14:10 22:12 6:4 7:5,11,18,24 8:4 9:5
opus (3) 181:7,18 182:1 158:9,11,14,15,20,23,23 pedantic (1) 159:6 75:16 76:5,22 77:2 78:3 premier (1) 133:12 78:2 10:6,19,25 11:24 12:24
order (12) 9:24 13:18 159:2,4,11,17 160:12,16 pedantry (1) 159:7 80:3 81:18 84:10 85:10 premise (1) 174:24 project (6) 32:17 39:1 54:5 15:15,22 16:1
14:5,12 19:3 122:18 161:9 164:12,14,22 peertopeer (6) 57:13 77:15 88:11 89:18 93:19 94:9 prepared (2) 49:4 164:15 81:17,18 104:17 17:8,13,16,20 18:21
125:20 127:17 132:21 165:9,20 167:19,21 78:13,22 79:5 80:19 95:15 100:7,11 102:25 present (6) 29:23 30:2,5 pronounce (2) 49:16 180:16 19:18,21,25 20:21
134:8,12 163:5 168:5,8 170:10,16,21 pending (1) 163:12 106:22 107:2 108:9 110:13 54:22 139:22 147:21 proof (7) 104:25 108:11 21:2,9,22 22:11,20
ordered (2) 17:9 124:16 172:1,8,13,16 173:6 penultimate (1) 7:19 111:7,11 115:2 117:9,16 presentation (1) 95:4 110:20 111:8,13,15 112:14 23:10,18,20 24:1,6,15,20
organisation (4) 61:5,18 176:15 177:14,22,23 people (44) 6:7 9:25 10:3 119:16 120:19,23 126:21 presented (4) 122:12 123:7 proofofwork (2) 9:10 149:14 25:2,7,13,17,20 26:1,4,12
66:23 96:21 180:14,18,23 12:12,21 13:6 20:3 129:23 130:19 131:25 124:3 132:20 propagated (1) 77:24 27:3,11,15,20 28:11,25
organised (1) 121:21 paperpage (1) 159:5 23:17,19 28:1 30:21 132:3 134:5 135:5 136:4 presents (5) 7:13 25:9 47:25 proper (1) 157:9 29:4,7,9,20,22 30:2,15,20
original (18) 11:1,2 16:24 papers (11) 16:23,24,25 31:4,21 32:4 44:8,15,22 139:24 141:10 144:10 51:9 140:4 properly (5) 2:2 3:8 14:13 31:14 32:6,11,16,20,24
19:22 20:24 43:18 53:12 22:16 23:8 27:25 28:10 45:1,11,13 53:10 59:12,23 147:12,13 154:13,21 press (1) 85:14 23:25 87:7 33:3,10,13 34:2,11,15
63:3,3 87:25 95:23 97:24 43:4 54:2 141:3 181:11 63:2 65:12 71:11,20 72:9 155:8,19 158:6 160:21 presumably (2) 6:6 82:1 properties (2) 102:13 160:23 35:2,21 36:3,8,10,15,22
138:22 146:25 148:23 paragraph (56) 2:7 7:19 9:5 77:23 79:6 80:17 85:1 165:23 169:1 170:14 presumes (1) 29:22 property (2) 70:16 115:14 37:3,9,14 38:5,12,19,25
151:10 167:21 177:22 15:18 22:24 23:3,22 27:5 91:17,25 109:4 123:1 172:18 173:19 178:21 presumption (6) 76:4 154:6 proposal (46) 55:23 56:4,13 39:4,6,15,20,24 40:11
originally (12) 12:13 25:14 29:9 33:3,13,25 34:5 36:16 137:1 163:9,17,19 166:14 ploetzender (1) 96:3 158:4 159:4 164:5,6 68:11,13,14,20,23 41:11 42:6,9,13,20
47:17 50:25 54:7 56:12 40:2 48:13 51:19 52:4 180:15 181:11 182:1 plugin (1) 67:6 pretty (2) 46:19 111:3 69:5,7,20,25 74:12 76:10 43:5,9,19 44:9 45:4,9
74:20 78:5 86:11 87:22 54:17 57:3,6,11 58:4,9 per (4) 11:5 115:9 128:10 plugins (2) 40:17 49:15 prevalent (1) 24:13 79:19 80:5,24 81:8,19 46:7,16,25 47:9,14,20,24
93:12 94:18 63:11,13,19 64:7 68:15 150:12 plurality (2) 14:3 31:25 previous (6) 18:24,25 19:1 83:11,19,22 84:1,21,24 48:3,13,17,23 49:3,8,20
originals (1) 90:10 78:4 80:9 88:16 89:2,18 percentage (2) 7:25 8:5 plus (1) 17:2 36:22 171:23 172:2 85:4,18,19,20,22 50:2,5,11,13,22
originated (2) 19:9 117:18 100:11 107:7 121:4 perfect (3) 22:19 64:9 pm (5) 99:8,10 139:17,19 previously (4) 2:13,23 3:4 86:3,12,20 87:3 99:14 51:4,8,12,18 52:3,13,23
originators (1) 150:25 129:24,25 130:3,19,24 169:23 182:25 89:25 100:13,17,23 102:1 155:11 53:1,4,7,11,14,19,23
origins (5) 16:22,24,25 17:2 131:6 132:3,13 133:2 perfectly (6) 23:14 110:3,7 pm25 (1) 57:20 price (4) 11:8,23 129:16,20 156:22 157:7,15,18,21 54:6,24 55:6,10,19,25
18:17 134:5,24 136:4,7 160:24 158:19 164:19 165:1 pm3 (3) 160:23 165:23 primarily (3) 7:21 9:7 17:10 159:4 56:3,7,15,19,25
orr (10) 6:20 37:14,19 54:12 165:23 167:15 168:13 performed (1) 112:13 171:10 primary (23) 7:9 19:4 25:4 proposals (2) 55:6 157:19 57:6,8,11,19,25
97:3,8,13 98:1,4,9 173:21 178:21 perhaps (1) 84:11 pm35 (1) 35:22 32:14 38:22 47:12 50:20 proposed (3) 69:17 81:15 58:3,9,13,17,25 59:18,23
others (11) 17:13,16 paragraphs (12) 32:25 33:10 period (16) 12:11 13:13 17:4 pm36 (1) 93:19 53:20 56:4 87:13 90:14 103:25 60:5,20 61:9,19 62:7,12,20
31:12,17 35:16 45:10 41:13,14 48:4 65:15,24 48:5,6 51:21 75:21 121:2,6 pm43 (1) 61:23 93:5 94:11 98:24 103:5 proposing (2) 133:1 140:6 63:2,6,11,19 64:3,12,16,22
69:24 96:1 104:1 144:15 89:10 93:22 120:23 132:9 131:2 132:23 135:21,21 pm4appendix (1) 165:13 115:17 117:12 123:7 proposition (5) 54:11 102:10 65:10,15,23
158:9 137:6 137:16,21 161:3 poc (6) 104:25 136:15,21 140:2 176:21,24 142:14 146:6 148:3 66:1,8,16,20,25
otherwise (1) 18:8 paralegals (2) 123:12 126:5 perjure (1) 71:6 105:8,19,21,25 106:2 principal (2) 19:4 90:16 protect (2) 10:4,5 67:11,19,24 68:4,9,14,22
ought (3) 48:7 55:15 173:2 parallel (2) 57:16 81:1 perling (2) 128:15,17 pointed (4) 118:25 119:3 print (4) 111:15 161:23 protection (1) 10:18 69:1 70:9 71:15,20 72:1,23
output (1) 153:7 parallels (2) 80:4,24 permission (3) 6:11 59:2 142:25 156:9 169:23 170:2 protective (1) 15:10 73:1 74:1,10,23
outs (1) 132:22 part (36) 15:10 21:16 32:17 138:21 pointers (1) 158:8 printed (6) 102:1 161:22 protocol (4) 9:17 14:22,23 75:2,8,13,16
outside (1) 8:18 39:1 43:21 55:22 61:23 permitted (1) 98:13 pointing (1) 134:14 166:21 172:9 180:14,20 15:5 76:5,9,12,14,21
over (39) 7:16 10:21 12:11 66:11 69:17 74:7 76:14 persistence (3) 25:25 26:9 points (6) 27:4 52:16 60:20 printers (1) 180:19 prove (6) 66:15 87:6 90:20 77:2,6,11,25 78:21
16:12 19:12 20:7 21:18 86:5,6 88:12 90:8 98:9 179:8 99:12 112:10 151:9 printing (4) 106:16 161:21 99:18,25 170:7 79:12,14,22 80:2,18,20
24:9 25:23,24 26:2 31:8 106:18 110:14 112:9 person (12) 5:18 6:14 24:18 poker (3) 80:14,15 81:4 162:1 180:18 proves (1) 66:4 81:6,21 82:1,6
55:4 58:3 60:10 63:9 64:12 113:8,23 117:23 118:10 31:23 35:9 81:11 82:1 policies (1) 60:7 prior (5) 1:19 5:5 27:8 128:3 provide (4) 118:11 121:12 83:10,16,18,24
75:4 82:21 89:1 95:21 97:5 120:15,20 123:3,15 127:16 92:17 106:13 107:8 109:24 pools (4) 72:17 79:10,11,13 159:24 122:18 129:13 84:7,10,18,20 85:5,9,14,24
105:17,24 108:9 110:19 128:22,24 134:14 144:13 110:8 populated (1) 137:11 pristine (6) 20:9,22,25 21:11 provided (13) 19:23 61:24 86:8,11,16,18
119:13 122:2 131:9,15 159:6 163:6 175:7 179:17 personal (3) 107:16 porn (2) 77:22,24 22:15,19 62:15 76:3 107:5 110:21 87:1,8,12,15,21

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

88:1,5,8,11,16,22 quill (15) 103:3 106:8,13,14 134:7,9,10,11 136:23 30:2,5,16,16 rox (1) 4:1 schemes (1) 78:8 separated (1) 132:6
89:4,8,13,16,18,25 107:17,21,25 108:12 137:12,15 138:1,9 139:4 remove (2) 69:15 74:16 ruled (2) 24:21 97:19 science (4) 3:1 69:11 81:17 separately (4) 102:20,21
90:3,8,13,18 91:6,20 109:21,22,24 110:1,4 recourse (1) 10:3 removed (2) 29:13 83:8 rules (8) 91:25 146:21 152:25
92:8,15,18,22 112:25 114:7 recover (7) 8:16 9:16,18 removes (1) 29:25 14:19,22,23,24,24,25 scientist (1) 92:3 separation (1) 52:7
93:5,15,19,24 94:3,5,9,23 quills (1) 108:1 73:3,20,23 175:10 replace (3) 138:22,25 145:17 15:2,4 scientists (1) 92:6 september (3) 21:4 76:7
95:2,9,13,15,21 quite (7) 18:22 31:9 69:19 recovering (1) 8:11 replaced (2) 36:6 177:24 ruling (1) 98:14 screen (9) 2:6 4:15 18:24 88:2
96:10,14,18 99:24 82:3 94:1 106:3 139:15 red (1) 22:24 replacement (3) run (10) 3:13 14:8 28:1,21 33:14 45:24 100:3 106:5 series (7) 35:23 37:22 98:24
100:3,7,11,15,22 quote (1) 65:23 redid (1) 43:14 144:20,21,24 60:12 67:17 82:17 125:7 137:3 143:24 144:1 149:13
101:5,11,16 102:5,10,23 reduce (1) 10:21 replacing (1) 179:21 104:15,19 153:6 screens (1) 182:15 169:12
103:5,7,14,16,18,22,24 R redundant (6) 27:7,12 replicate (1) 61:16 running (6) 4:2 14:7 15:1 screenshot (9) 66:16,17,25 seriously (1) 4:9
104:6,9,13,20 28:15,17 31:15 171:25 replicated (1) 164:20 32:2 102:15 140:12 115:4,13 116:7,16 117:19 server (14) 3:24
105:3,10,15,17,24 r (4) 116:21 117:21 152:19 ref (1) 40:19 replies (1) 155:20 runs (2) 31:23 61:18 127:3 8:19,20,21,25 10:4 12:20
106:5,22 107:12 153:6 refer (8) 41:18 68:16 77:12 report (5) 2:7 22:20 93:19 screenshots (13) 114:15 18:10 19:16,16,17 31:7
108:9,19,24 rack (1) 18:12 84:18 93:21 110:16 113:18 111:7 129:24 S 116:6,9,23 119:22 120:21 133:20 139:5
109:9,12,16,20 raise (1) 97:9 169:5 reports (4) 2:3 5:16,19 124:19,22,25 125:15 servers (5) 16:10 18:3,10
110:2,11,16,19,23 ramifications (1) 10:9 reference (24) 41:11 42:23 130:25 s (3) 173:23 176:1,9 126:8,12,14 21:15 22:5
111:3,7,23 112:2,5,7,9,18 ran (3) 23:16 126:9 140:10 48:1 49:23 51:13 52:9 represents (1) 94:20 sales (1) 110:9 script (1) 91:14 service (1) 56:22
113:2,23 random (5) 34:12 43:23 58:10 69:3 70:9 80:8 82:7 reproduce (2) 143:12,12 same (58) 12:17 34:24 35:25 search (5) 117:23 services (2) 2:15 5:7
114:3,12,17,21,24 44:13,14 47:10 95:10 105:5 107:4 113:25 reproduction (1) 143:16 41:8 46:15 50:2,6 54:20 145:15,19,20 146:8 session (12) 91:16
115:2,8,12,17,20 rants (3) 29:16 31:8,8 130:1 136:15 143:8 152:1 request (1) 83:3 60:1,14 63:21 64:13 66:20 searchable (3) 145:7,8,12 119:7,25,25 132:6,24
116:4,11,21 117:9,15 rate (1) 28:19 154:16,18,19 155:4 173:11 requested (1) 123:24 69:13 75:3,4,9 86:14 88:25 searched (1) 145:13 133:5,5,10,24 134:6,9
118:6,10,14,18,22,25 rather (16) 10:1 23:7 24:14 referenced (2) 166:2 171:23 require (3) 3:21,22 181:19 89:5 95:18 101:4 111:10 sebastian (4) 27:25 67:22 sessions (2) 119:20 132:15
119:5,16,24 120:6,18,23 26:20 54:21 62:24 63:6 references (11) 15:22 29:23 required (6) 97:13 117:23 127:4 131:7 132:6,22 96:1,3 set (32) 5:24 16:14
121:9,12,15,19 78:11 106:13 111:14,21 30:5 48:14 58:5 60:5 80:13 119:13 121:12 147:25 135:15 136:16,21 140:6,17 second (16) 11:5,19 14:18 34:8,9,21,22 35:14 40:19
122:2,12,18 123:7,14 119:8 162:11 164:23 165:4 81:6 83:11 154:15 158:23 148:7 141:15 147:19,24 151:23 30:9 34:5,19 52:4 102:5 41:18,21 43:17 46:11,16
124:3,10,19 125:1,6,11,23 175:7 referencing (3) 142:25 requires (3) 67:15 133:20 153:23 157:2 161:24 103:19 104:25 105:4,19 47:7 51:9 103:2,9 114:12
126:7,15,17,21 raw (10) 22:22 58:5,9 93:20 154:24 156:18 135:11 162:2,23,24,25 137:6 144:3 149:14 162:13 124:9 137:9 138:23,24
127:3,11,22 128:5,10 95:9 134:25 166:1,8 167:3 referred (5) 21:10 84:7,14 research (8) 16:9,18 21:16 171:6,22,24 172:20 seconds (2) 161:7 162:24 146:17 150:25 161:15
129:5,13,23 175:8 150:17 166:9 32:17 35:18 37:11 39:1 173:10,24,25 secret (2) 14:16 17:4 162:12 163:2,5 166:20,20
130:10,13,16,19,24 rd (2) 130:6 131:6 referring (8) 9:5 54:8 59:9 66:14 174:9,10,14,15,18,24 section (8) 35:2 36:4 39:12 172:3 181:20
131:4,6,9,15,20,25 reached (1) 136:22 92:10 108:19,21 167:4 researcher (1) 35:12 175:24 179:25 75:3 89:19 149:9 151:14 sets (6) 5:11 22:23 36:16
132:9,13,20 133:2,8,22 react (1) 60:11 171:13 researchers (1) 55:4 san (1) 4:4 175:5 56:20 61:24 178:2
134:5,18,24 135:5,13,19 reacts (1) 72:16 refers (8) 8:9 19:25 53:1 researches (2) 36:10 112:13 sans (1) 6:12 sections (4) 39:18 79:9 setting (7) 46:15 80:23
136:4,16,19,22 read (6) 26:16 60:1 91:17,20 130:3,24 131:10,11,15 researching (1) 54:1 sat (1) 20:13 150:14 175:10 101:16 128:16,17 151:12
137:3,19,24 138:9,14,18 156:6 172:5 reflected (1) 36:12 reset (1) 175:11 satoshi (34) 8:20 17:10 security (10) 25:3 27:17 165:1
139:7 140:4,12,20,23 readable (1) 24:9 refuses (1) 8:12 resistance (1) 13:1 21:20,21 31:11 43:20 119:7,7,17,24,25 131:12 settings (1) 161:19
141:1,5,10,19,24 reader (2) 63:6 160:23 regard (2) 4:10,13 resistant (1) 10:7 44:11,24 45:5 66:9 133:5 157:20 seven (1) 80:23
142:3,6,9,13 143:5,15,22 reading (1) 12:7 regularly (1) 4:19 resolution (1) 111:13 70:4,12,15,25 71:16 73:15 see (122) 5:11 7:18,22 14:10 several (13) 11:25 15:19
144:3,10,17,20,23 145:25 readonly (1) 60:16 reinhart (1) 125:20 resources (1) 104:14 76:16,19 86:13 131:21 18:2 19:5,14 22:4,5 25:22 18:12 50:12 54:2 63:2,3,4
146:10 147:10,23 148:5,23 reads (2) 34:19 87:16 reject (1) 26:12 respect (1) 143:22 140:24 155:4,19 156:5,16 27:4,18 29:18,20 32:24 71:10 97:9 117:4 120:2
149:5,12,21 150:20,24 ready (2) 154:23 156:7 rejected (2) 6:17 69:9 respectively (2) 32:21 47:21 157:25 158:6,10,20 33:8,10,11,13 34:4 35:23 179:9
151:6,9,20,25 real (16) 14:12 22:16 43:20 relate (1) 12:3 respects (2) 164:13 165:8 159:13,24 161:4 169:21 36:3,18,20,21 37:22 39:6 shadders (3) 118:16 119:15
153:3,9,16,19 44:11 71:12 92:7 141:16 related (8) 3:14 51:10 82:14 respond (1) 127:20 173:23 45:19 48:9,24 51:12,19 120:15
154:3,11,18,21 156:16 158:10,19 159:13 117:10 125:9,14,19 155:13 response (6) 2:17 4:20,23 satoshiadam (1) 159:23 54:22 55:19 56:19 57:23 shall (4) 82:22 95:1 98:16
155:2,4,7,17,19 156:2,16 163:25 164:2,4 166:12 relates (3) 94:18 129:11 60:20 125:20 155:9 satoshis (2) 154:22 159:9 58:1,4 61:25 64:4,20 65:10 113:14
157:11,14,16,23 169:5 139:3 responsible (8) 2:11 24:24 sauna (1) 182:12 66:1,17 67:24 68:21 71:23 shared (4) 21:15 48:20
158:6,16,19 159:7,13,22 realise (1) 159:18 relating (3) 57:22 88:18 93:2 47:4 106:7 107:8,12 108:2 save (2) 24:13 77:23 75:2,7 77:2,5,7 87:16 102:18 171:21
160:3,6,15,19,21 161:3,6 reality (8) 66:25 82:6 114:4 relation (8) 1:25 75:17 98:18 110:6 saved (15) 25:17 26:2 32:20 88:6,8,11,14 89:1,4,5 90:3 shares (2) 96:14 140:14
162:8,23 163:4,20 128:5 151:20,23 159:22 99:14 102:7 126:9 136:17 rest (4) 69:24 162:10 163:7 39:21 47:20 48:7 49:19 93:21 95:2,19 99:7 sheet (2) 83:9 84:15
164:4,9,18 165:6,18,23 178:7 158:17 182:22 51:4 56:16 74:24 75:21 100:4,20 102:23 103:18 shenzhen (4) 108:1,6,12
166:6,8,13,17,23 really (3) 63:7 85:14 182:3 relativity (4) 18:1,7 19:14 restructured (1) 81:19 88:1 93:15 94:23,24 105:12,21 107:10,11 110:5
167:2,10,15 168:4,13,17 reason (23) 5:23 10:19 22:3 result (12) 24:12 27:8 125:24 saving (1) 23:25 108:10 109:6 110:16,23 shes (1) 108:4
169:1,8,12,16,19 13:6,7 26:22 40:24 42:25 relax (1) 45:17 126:10,23,25 127:5,6,24 saw (9) 32:9 34:2,24 65:24 115:4,7,8,16 117:16,21 shift (2) 181:8 182:3
170:8,14,20,24 59:14 61:15 69:17 91:3 release (8) 17:18 39:17 55:2 163:21 174:21 175:1 84:22 92:14 111:16 119:22 118:4 119:18,21 120:19 shipping (1) 109:7
171:1,6,9,15,19 102:1 111:15 115:20 117:7 80:15 154:23 156:7 158:23 resulted (1) 128:5 128:10 131:4,13 132:2,3,9 133:3,7 shoaib (5) 42:4 44:15,16,22
172:6,12,18 121:2,9,10 122:25 145:8 160:4 results (1) 76:3 saying (71) 8:16 9:25 10:16 135:5 136:6 139:14 140:4 45:5
173:1,5,9,14,19 147:6 161:20 180:11 released (10) 26:17,17 40:5 retain (1) 175:24 12:7 16:13,22 17:6,7 20:6 144:11 147:15 151:25 shoosmiths (3) 7:1 84:23
174:4,11,16,19,25 reasons (2) 139:2 151:13 57:22 58:6 93:25 108:14 retained (2) 7:1 90:15 21:20 27:1 30:14,24,25 153:19 154:14,25 85:1
175:16,21 176:11,15 recalculate (1) 152:23 135:20 162:6 179:16 return (3) 97:1 99:12 102:5 31:12,21 34:1 40:14 42:13 155:4,8,19 158:22 160:24 short (7) 1:20 45:22 97:5
177:13,16,20 recall (27) 1:25 2:3 15:19,22 relevance (2) 125:12 127:12 returned (1) 100:18 46:3,12 47:16 63:7 165:9,14 166:1,3 168:15 99:9 139:18 156:23 159:16
178:4,7,13,21 179:1,10,13 27:6,9,10 34:11 46:3 47:16 relevant (4) 109:7 178:13,16 reuse (1) 146:19 70:7,7,7,16,24 71:4,10 169:5,11 172:24 173:21 shorter (2) 176:4,7
180:5 49:3 58:7,13,16 63:25 68:7 179:14 reveal (1) 44:12 72:17 73:11,18 81:22 174:2 177:16,20 182:22 shortly (1) 75:8
q210 (1) 137:14 76:6 87:12,23 95:7,13 reliable (1) 96:19 review (3) 5:10 131:7,25 83:25 84:3 87:23 95:24 seek (3) 9:11 98:12 123:23 should (10) 1:14 17:22 37:14
q29 (1) 137:4 100:16 102:6,8 104:23 reliance (30) 7:9 16:7 19:4 reviewed (3) 89:19 133:3 100:22 104:18 108:4,6,14 seem (2) 16:5 99:5 69:25 83:22 96:5 97:19,22
qif (6) 121:23 122:3,5 105:3 135:2 25:5 32:14 38:23 39:15 169:1 109:14 111:21 112:20 seen (6) 11:9 14:15 20:8 116:14 139:1
125:4,4,25 receive (1) 78:14 47:12 50:20 53:20 54:7 reviews (1) 136:5 122:18,25 124:22 37:12 127:24 179:22 show (16) 13:4 18:24 26:22
qnap (2) 18:10 19:16 received (4) 40:8 108:12 56:5 66:21 74:11 87:13 revise (1) 90:14 142:16,18 143:11,19 segoe (5) 178:23 54:1 69:7 104:23 105:6
qualification (2) 3:23 6:12 130:3 137:24 90:14,16 93:6 94:11 98:25 revolutionary (1) 91:22 145:22 150:20 153:15 179:6,14,21,22 112:21 114:17 115:14
qualifications (3) 2:9 3:24 recent (6) 44:2 86:21 103:2,5 115:18 117:12 reward (5) 8:2 10:21 158:16 159:10 162:8 seized (1) 72:20 124:8 126:12 128:14 132:9
111:20 89:13,16 90:1,2 123:8 140:2 12:5,6,13 166:10,17,24 167:22 168:2 select (3) 28:10 145:15 146:4 147:13 160:25
qualified (6) 2:2 3:8 5:14,20 recently (1) 90:5 176:16,20,21,25 rid (1) 106:23 174:7,14 175:13,16,17 self (1) 12:8 showed (11) 26:10 39:16
6:8 24:17 recognise (14) 38:22 50:19 relied (2) 17:10 98:24 ridden (1) 11:24 179:19 180:1 send (2) 28:3 87:3 95:25 106:19 112:16
quality (1) 111:15 74:14 76:23 87:8,19 92:25 reluctant (1) 181:17 ridges (3) 130:6 131:6 scales (1) 77:23 sending (3) 76:6 83:3 153:17 116:20 119:19 120:1 138:4
qudos (2) 140:11,13 103:1 114:14 117:10 rely (1) 138:22 136:17 scan (1) 111:2 senior (2) 2:10 4:7 159:23 175:9
question (30) 6:5,20 12:1 140:1,7 155:17 160:11 relying (2) 50:13 97:18 ridiculous (4) 170:1,6 179:24 scanned (2) 111:12,14 sense (2) 30:18 51:22 showing (6) 50:9 54:8 65:20
14:18 18:23 23:20 34:23 recommended (1) 6:14 remain (1) 49:14 180:25 scanning (1) 111:17 sensible (1) 90:19 67:1 115:5 131:16
42:13 43:19 45:12 59:5 record (8) 104:3 133:4,11 remained (2) 174:1,6 righthand (1) 100:5 scarcity (1) 11:8 sent (14) 29:15 57:14 62:9 shown (5) 58:22 111:24
71:2 73:9 78:1 80:20 134:16,25 135:6,15,19 remains (1) 166:16 rise (2) 126:17 141:25 scenario (1) 39:7 65:13 66:13 83:18 85:19 117:14 127:23 136:10
85:9,15 88:13 111:4,6 recorded (6) 95:17 132:21 remarkable (3) 132:13,18 rises (1) 97:8 schedule (5) 89:20 112:11,24 90:23 91:4 123:2 shows (4) 54:9 66:25 67:4
113:11 127:4 139:10 133:23 135:1 136:8 169:2 161:12 risk (1) 175:2 113:25 118:11 156:20,23,25 157:3 134:7
148:12 174:11,11 175:21 recorder (2) 16:20 20:13 remco (1) 34:12 role (1) 2:10 schema (8) 58:10 60:6 94:3 sentence (10) 7:24 12:3 shut (2) 9:3 14:11
178:12 179:10 181:10 recording (3) 103:10 131:12 remember (8) 16:14 42:19 room (1) 182:6 102:19,20 134:13,15 34:19,24 51:13 52:15 sic (5) 27:18 31:2 57:25
questioned (1) 2:1 168:14 49:6,7 96:6 121:20 131:4 root (2) 102:7,13 135:17 57:16 69:1 87:16 89:5 130:19,24
questions (5) 13:16 42:7 records (18) 67:24 103:24 146:20 round (3) 8:2 110:2 138:21 schemas (7) 15:23 48:14 sentences (3) 11:25 39:6,12 sideline (1) 78:23
98:10 113:7,15 109:7 114:13 120:25 121:5 remind (1) 97:4 row (2) 117:16,17 59:21 60:3 133:21 135:10 separate (4) 123:24 125:25 sides (2) 21:10 142:13
quickly (2) 9:24 14:10 122:13 133:1 remnant (7) 22:22 27:8,13 rows (2) 116:14,14 136:3 146:18 162:15 sign (10) 38:5,7 75:23 80:10

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

111:24 144:9 145:16 sounds (3) 129:22 155:13 151:24 142:18,19,20,21 telling (6) 6:14 18:15 22:1 theyre (39) 14:7 19:15 42:10,15 43:11,23 134:7
163:23 174:19 176:12 165:3 stephen (1) 118:16 supporting (1) 115:20 38:16 101:17 144:23 21:10,13,13,13 22:19,19 162:18
signature (2) 145:17 146:6 source (5) 19:14,14,16 35:2 steve (1) 120:15 supportive (3) 109:17 137:24 temperature (2) 182:13,16 36:2 49:3,19 53:21 60:10 tools (5) 42:11 51:25 76:2
signed (3) 6:11 74:3 108:10 145:1 steven (2) 1:21 184:4 138:15 template (8) 60:8,13,22 79:1 82:14 86:6,8,10 99:1 162:19 175:8
significance (1) 73:4 sourced (2) 123:12 170:12 stick (4) 39:4 42:6 93:13 supposed (6) 40:6 48:15 61:1,2,3,4 102:19 108:14 114:5,21 125:14 topic (8) 3:14 35:5,15 42:18
significantly (3) 63:15 90:4 sources (4) 44:25 62:25 63:3 160:19 90:5 114:14 169:8 178:6 templates (2) 24:8,12 126:2 128:7,8,8 129:16 69:6 82:13 92:1,5
111:11 113:18 still (13) 13:11 28:6 49:14 supposedly (4) 14:16 ten (2) 35:5 139:14 130:9,9 134:21 138:16 topics (3) 35:13 91:3 97:2
signified (1) 165:16 south (4) 55:8,9,11,16 74:7 82:4 91:11 107:20 112:13,23 115:20 tense (9) 29:1,5,23,25 143:2,11 148:17 150:11 total (1) 159:8
signing (1) 66:4 sp96 (1) 132:4 134:3,4 136:14 162:2 sure (13) 32:2 54:12 67:23 30:2,3,5,6,17 168:2 174:14 180:20 totally (3) 82:12 168:10
signs (4) 21:11 96:10 144:4,5 space (7) 27:7,12 147:25 176:7 181:22 72:7 77:24 94:1 106:25 terabytes (1) 18:13 theyve (8) 16:11 65:8 91:19 169:22
silicon (1) 49:17 148:22,24 149:7 176:2 stop (8) 13:8 50:15 77:21 119:4 120:14 122:6 134:2 term (1) 69:11 92:4 96:16 114:9 touch (1) 162:19
silver (2) 128:18,20 spaces (2) 148:8,11 80:20 139:7,9 160:6 176:1 171:18 173:24 terminology (2) 10:10,14 143:19,23 touched (3) 4:3,4 126:3
similar (11) 35:23 36:1 57:12 spacing (2) 149:2 151:12 stopped (2) 12:22 71:8 surely (1) 135:14 terms (9) 6:24 15:13 20:23 thing (20) 8:24 16:14 33:18 touchup (6) 165:6,11,16,24
68:19 73:5 80:25 83:6,11 speak (1) 16:20 stopping (1) 10:16 surprised (3) 22:18 180:8,12 33:1 47:24 51:25 69:13 45:13 46:15 52:21 67:11 171:24 173:15
101:3 102:17 182:16 speaker (2) 113:13 182:9 stops (1) 173:24 surprising (1) 82:4 81:15 83:13 69:8,13 81:13 99:6 104:2 tout (2) 70:3 86:13
similarities (3) 140:7,14 speaks (5) 28:19 29:1,4 stored (1) 104:10 surrounding (2) 37:23 49:1 terrible (1) 96:5 136:21 143:13 146:25 touting (4) 70:6,7,11 76:15
156:9 30:2,3 story (11) 37:9 85:5,15,25 suspect (2) 132:15 133:10 terribly (1) 65:9 161:5 162:15 163:7,10 towards (3) 7:21 9:6 10:20
simon (1) 65:6 special (1) 153:3 93:13 104:20 127:11 138:9 sweave (3) 152:18,18 153:2 tested (2) 24:10 58:20 178:17 town (1) 129:20
simple (8) 34:23 51:11,25 specific (5) 77:9 106:3 125:5 152:9,10 160:19 symbol (12) 177:17 testimony (1) 2:22 thinking (2) 133:25 164:24 trace (1) 8:20
55:17 101:5 143:11,13 147:25 167:10 straight (1) 65:17 178:1,3,9,11,13,18,19,20 testing (1) 143:19 third (10) 22:7 51:13,18 track (1) 20:20
159:10 specifically (2) 9:13 68:16 straightforward (1) 9:5 179:3,5 180:1 tests (2) 3:17 24:21 69:9,10 79:2 83:14 115:13 tracked (2) 74:12 75:6
simplicity (1) 143:15 specification (1) 121:23 strange (3) 23:7 162:11 symbols (3) 177:17,25 180:3 text (39) 22:22,24 23:12 127:3 137:6 trade (1) 91:13
simplified (1) 47:24 specified (3) 148:24 149:2,3 163:17 system (73) 4:4 7:16 8:18 24:8 28:25 29:12 though (1) 16:5 trading (2) 123:22 124:1
sinaloa (1) 72:18 specifies (1) 149:6 strathclyde (1) 3:4 9:6,7,9 10:2,20 12:20,22 30:2,3,5,16 37:23 49:1 thought (7) 31:24 82:10 traditional (1) 78:10
since (6) 2:25 17:24 26:19 speculative (1) 129:14 straying (1) 6:21 13:2 14:2 15:3,11,12 17:18 54:19,20 59:25 62:20 63:3 99:16 129:21 157:1,9 traffic (1) 52:1
82:22 107:22 132:21 spelling (2) 31:11 170:17 streaming (1) 182:5 18:12 19:20 28:20 29:1,13 66:10 83:8 141:12,13 158:2 training (1) 91:16
singapore (1) 80:10 spencer (2) 4:17 5:14 streams (2) 93:20 168:14 31:5,12,16,19,22 32:5 144:12 145:2,7,8,12,22,24 thousand (4) 18:12 20:7,7 transaction (3) 7:21 11:9,14
single (6) 6:13 14:16 31:23 spend (4) 9:12 10:2 12:15 strong (1) 51:22 33:19,21 39:10 40:21 146:4,20 147:5 148:10 54:3 transactionbased (1) 10:20
101:22 123:2 151:2 80:22 stroz (4) 4:18,21 5:5 6:25 51:21 52:19 59:19,20 153:10,20 154:8 164:2 thousands (2) 11:12,13 transactions (11)
sit (5) 162:16 163:3 165:3 spending (1) 25:11 structure (1) 10:11 60:17,19 61:12 66:25 165:6 171:13 172:9 thousandth (2) 11:18,20 11:4,5,6,15,19 78:8,9
176:13 181:9 spent (1) 71:10 structured (1) 13:14 77:13,21,22 78:23,25 textedit (5) 165:11,16,24 threat (1) 4:23 119:19,21 120:7 131:2
site (8) 91:18 108:8 134:2,15 spreadsheet (1) 116:13 stub (1) 80:14 79:4,25 81:7,12 82:8,9,16 171:24 173:15 three (13) 11:5 14:4 21:5 transcribed (2) 20:14,16
156:10 171:5,17 172:11 sql (2) 134:7 136:5 student (5) 35:12 42:5 83:12 103:25 104:15 thank (14) 15:6 34:17 32:24 68:1 114:14 129:2 transcript (2) 45:25 104:23
sitting (2) 143:1 165:1 squeeze (1) 10:2 44:15,16 45:8 114:15 115:5 116:7,17,23 45:9,18 74:18 96:22 99:11 130:15 177:18 178:5,22 transcription (1) 62:16
situation (2) 42:5 154:3 ssl (1) 158:3 students (14) 41:3 117:18,20 118:2 119:14 102:23 105:10 114:3 130:1 179:15,25 transfer (4) 114:17
six (1) 80:22 ssrn (8) 67:20 69:4 70:2 42:1,10,12,15 43:2,3,11,23 120:8,13 121:22 127:9,19 139:20 181:3 182:24 threepage (1) 92:25 115:5,6,14
sixth (1) 152:2 166:15 171:4,13 172:10,11 44:13,14,19,20 45:4 128:6 139:6,15 140:6 thanks (4) 82:25 107:3 through (20) 8:1,7 10:1 transferred (3) 115:22 122:5
size (9) 11:17 110:25 staff (20) 16:11,16,21 18:4 studied (4) 52:18 81:11 156:8 155:21 158:8 19:5,25 22:8 44:1 48:8,24 125:25
111:4,6,17 112:17 148:21 19:12,15,20 21:15 22:1,8 92:4,5 systems (14) 4:11 9:2 32:25 thats (127) 6:20 10:10,23,23 57:15 61:10 62:16 transfers (1) 115:25
174:24 175:11 30:11,13,13 54:4 91:17 studies (1) 94:20 33:1,7,11,17,23 34:1 38:8 11:21 12:1,13,14 16:3 72:19,20 116:23 122:8 transgression (1) 77:20
slack (8) 63:22 64:1,16,25 92:4 96:4,16 170:12 studio (1) 61:4 40:24 44:24 53:25 78:13 19:13,17 23:7 24:10 123:1 157:16 163:14 179:6 transmission (1) 20:4
65:16,17,19 70:2 172:10 study (1) 32:12 26:7,25 30:7 31:10 32:3,7 throw (1) 39:9 transmissions (1) 78:15
sleep (1) 132:19 stage (3) 67:23 106:17 studying (1) 10:12 T 33:18 36:14 38:5 42:3 thursday (1) 183:1 transmit (1) 12:21
slightly (2) 1:11 110:25 173:16 stuff (1) 44:21 45:1,13 46:11,19 47:7 48:9 tim (1) 157:2 travers (3) 6:11,16,18
slipped (1) 102:2 stand (1) 37:15 stumbled (1) 124:10 table (6) 22:23 28:14 36:18 52:9,14 55:8,13 59:22 time (49) 6:25 10:22 treating (1) 158:10
small (4) 12:10 14:1,3 51:12 standalone (1) 101:21 stupid (1) 151:18 95:19 136:5 153:3 60:8,25 61:12 62:6,18 66:7 12:10,12,13,14 16:14 17:6 trial (4) 97:14 104:24 105:3
smaller (1) 9:16 standard (5) 67:4,6,9 102:16 subject (6) 12:3 17:23 18:22 tables (1) 134:25 67:2,11 68:22 69:19 72:20 21:14 25:23 28:5 42:18 128:25
smith (2) 6:11,18 146:24 132:16 138:19,20 tabulation (1) 153:8 74:7 75:23 77:14 79:9 84:2 43:7,8 48:5 51:21 55:4 tribunal (1) 129:2
snort (1) 51:24 stapled (3) 101:2,3,22 submit (1) 98:11 tag (8) 40:16 67:7,7 85:22 89:9,13 94:22 96:24 60:14 75:20 76:15 tried (2) 82:13 146:8
soda (1) 149:24 stapler (1) 101:13 submitted (4) 55:22,25 165:11,24 166:8 167:3,11 99:18,23 100:2,7 102:15 84:22,25 85:24 trouble (1) 128:19
software (20) 2:24 38:17,17 staples (1) 107:20 69:20 100:16 tags (7) 40:12 41:10 67:1 103:5 105:25 106:21 86:14,22,24 94:5 96:24 troubles (1) 37:14
40:5 41:6 57:22 62:4 66:20 stark (1) 101:5 subparagraph (1) 100:12 102:13,13 165:6,16 111:2,5,15,18 113:6 103:16 107:11 109:23 true (4) 49:14 128:4 154:8
67:1 118:23 127:1 start (8) 12:17 19:1 57:17 subscription (1) 67:15 tail (1) 14:3 114:25 115:1 116:4,8 114:25 128:25 129:21,22 156:16
133:3,15 135:1,8,21,25 76:12,17 113:6 155:22 subset (1) 140:19 taken (19) 9:3,20 11:7 13:3 118:20,24 120:4,10,20 132:8,14,16 149:16 153:16 trust (4) 26:24 44:21 45:1
136:2 137:2 169:3 164:5 subsidy (2) 7:20 9:6 16:11 18:11,11,13 29:16 121:18 124:6 125:2 156:4,17,25 161:15 162:3 80:13
sold (1) 16:12 started (11) 31:5 32:4,17 succinct (1) 156:23 35:9 48:22 116:9 117:13 128:13,24 129:10 131:4 163:3 167:8 168:5 169:24 trusted (4) 69:9,10 79:1
solicitor (2) 65:6 129:19 34:1 35:4 39:2 54:1 69:8 suddenly (3) 11:20 33:16,18 120:9 124:22 125:15 132:25 135:22 137:17 timecoin (7) 105:2 83:14
solicitors (15) 6:7 7:1 17:20 94:21 113:18 159:20 sued (4) 70:15,20,20,23 126:19 128:3 157:7 138:3 142:23 140:7,9,9,12,16,18 trustworthiness (1) 139:3
19:23 65:3,9,11 80:3 102:3 starting (1) 33:22 suggest (16) 4:13 5:18 17:21 taking (5) 15:9 30:15 77:19 143:1,10,18,22 144:20 timeframe (1) 40:20 truth (3) 67:2 74:4 100:8
117:5,5,13 124:5 138:16 stated (10) 26:9 40:17 53:21 23:13 26:19 49:8 61:9 142:23 174:20 145:3,20,25 149:3 times (15) 3:17 13:17 26:2 try (6) 31:13 106:23 157:24
181:19 85:12 107:18 113:1 114:7 74:13 75:13 90:18 111:3 talk (6) 59:3 77:14 97:4 150:3,23 151:11,12 31:10 32:21 43:3,6 59:11 162:12 167:21 182:17
solutions (2) 4:18,19 120:11 124:14 137:20 154:4 163:8,9 168:4 149:10 182:1,19 152:8,10 153:12,25 154:5 75:17,18 76:1 161:8,18 trying (8) 10:2 39:7 46:22
somebody (2) 91:8 166:13 statement (34) 26:11,16 169:13 talked (4) 24:18 31:6 116:23 155:2,24 161:13 164:7,23 162:17 164:25 59:1 73:10,20 76:18 163:2
someone (13) 3:22 9:10,18 27:1 29:11 70:10 73:1,4,22 suggested (4) 60:24 99:3 175:7 167:17 168:9,23,25 timestamp (23) 26:18 tulip (3) 123:22 124:1,15
20:14 23:24 89:21,22 74:3 76:24 79:17,17,22 105:21 173:16 talking (17) 8:10 9:9 169:16,18,18,22 172:17 57:21,25 61:10,13 turn (2) 33:16 74:10
90:20 102:2 109:14 121:21 80:4,22 83:1,20,24 84:21 suggesting (7) 4:9 98:6 10:25,25 59:20 60:25 173:18 174:23 177:7 64:13,17,19,24,25 66:21 turned (1) 35:19
134:21 153:17 85:6,11,17 100:4,7 120:9 123:8 168:9,12 78:25 82:16 91:15 106:14 178:14 179:5,8 68:2 75:10 88:19,25 89:8 turning (2) 4:14 33:18
someones (1) 90:6 101:6,16 110:3,6 114:1 178:8 113:16 114:5 150:20,22 themselves (4) 19:9 97:14 102:14 132:21 139:5 tutorial (1) 46:9
something (28) 9:12 14:7 134:14 135:24 160:15 suggestion (7) 19:7 20:2 157:7 159:5 180:13 125:16 180:12 140:20 161:8 162:10 163:5 twice (1) 162:17
46:15 53:7 59:19 63:10 170:20 172:15 21:25 42:24 91:21 96:18 talks (1) 81:5 theory (2) 48:1 51:10 timestamps (15) 26:15,20 tx (1) 147:5
80:16 92:18 93:16 101:2,3 statements (3) 73:18 85:25 181:23 taught (1) 41:24 thered (1) 91:3 43:16 102:7 131:1,12 type (10) 33:19,21 61:13
102:4 125:23 129:17 86:19 suggests (2) 23:13 37:24 tax (5) 44:4 128:23,23 therefore (6) 68:19 99:1 134:11,19 168:14,17,22 77:16 78:7,12 159:3
143:18 149:8,23 152:23 states (4) 5:3,23 108:22 suing (3) 70:17 71:20 72:9 129:3,4 124:24 135:20 154:7 164:2 169:16 171:2,6 172:19 170:3,3,4
153:9 157:1 158:2,4 116:21 suitably (2) 5:14 6:8 tcp (1) 51:24 theres (31) 1:6 12:12 20:2 timing (1) 64:18 typed (4) 20:2,12 36:7,8
161:22 163:3 166:16 stathakis (10) 106:7 sum (2) 178:18,19 teach (1) 41:2 21:4,7 23:2 44:7 51:13,23 tin (1) 28:12 types (3) 77:9 82:19 180:2
168:9,25 175:13 107:5,24 110:9,21 summarily (1) 6:13 teaching (1) 35:5 60:16 85:5,10,16 90:11 title (2) 170:18 171:12 typescript (1) 37:23
sometimes (4) 16:19,20 112:11,19 113:3,19 114:1 sums (1) 73:20 team (2) 70:16 127:16 97:17 99:3 102:18 today (3) 101:7,17 181:6 typical (1) 95:3
105:9 150:12 static (1) 12:5 supervised (1) 5:7 teams (1) 2:13 111:23,24 129:19 138:24 together (1) 101:24 typically (1) 144:25
somewhat (1) 155:13 stating (2) 154:22 169:24 supervises (1) 4:22 tech (1) 142:19 144:17,19 145:4 146:16 told (16) 36:10 46:7 55:7,21 typo (2) 64:3,4
soon (1) 37:2 statistical (2) 152:20 153:6 supplied (1) 127:10 technical (1) 91:22 147:15 160:6 166:10 62:8 85:15 86:1 99:15,24
U
sort (11) 10:14 67:7,7 149:24 statistics (1) 35:11 suppliers (1) 113:10 technically (1) 105:2 174:7,9 175:5 101:6 117:4,6 158:12
151:21 152:12 153:7 161:5 stay (1) 44:11 supply (1) 120:16 technician (1) 182:4 thesis (17) 55:23,25 56:3 181:17,18,18 ucp (1) 87:9
162:6 164:23 165:2 stays (1) 139:6 support (10) 2:16 16:8 17:10 technique (1) 175:22 69:17 80:6,8,8 84:14,24 tomorrow (3) 1:7 181:8,9 ui (4) 58:6 93:21 178:23
sorted (1) 139:15 stefan (1) 62:8 131:21 138:11 140:24 techniques (1) 175:8 85:3,18,21,21 99:22,23 took (7) 52:24 55:7,10,16,18 179:14
sought (2) 59:2 104:20 steganographic (1) 151:16 142:17 161:4 169:20 170:1 technology (1) 180:17 101:8 102:1 122:3,20 uk (8) 2:11,24 4:19 9:23
sound (1) 182:6 steganography (2) 149:10 supported (5) 66:9 telecommunications (1) 3:3 theyd (1) 120:9 tool (9) 3:12,13 26:17 15:1 55:9,19 90:24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

ultimately (1) 10:22 validly (1) 10:1 50:6 52:17 53:17 54:25 44:24 74:8 80:12 85:8 76:2 100block (1) 13:13 2012 (12) 42:2 58:7,10 93:25
unattributed (1) 108:4 valley (1) 49:17 60:23 65:2 73:13,14 80:12 113:8 158:3 180:19 xml (2) 38:11 93:20 101 (1) 167:15 94:3,6,6 106:10 108:14
unchecked (1) 27:2 valuable (1) 11:20 84:6 85:8 91:14 92:16 working (12) 44:17,19 69:6 xmp (3) 169:3 171:24 173:11 103 (1) 99:8 178:24 179:2,16
undergrad (1) 35:17 valuation (4) 128:21,24 104:21 112:14 122:9 70:13 81:7,13 103:11 1030 (2) 1:2 183:1 2013 (2) 107:15 137:10
understand (11) 43:24 59:16 129:8,14 132:25 133:1,25 139:10 105:1 156:8 163:18 166:14 Y 104 (2) 2:7 168:13 2014 (5) 15:23 36:22,25
73:3,21 82:18,18 92:1,7 value (28) 28:15,25 29:4,6 146:17,22 157:2,6 181:5 1040something (1) 17:1 58:23 109:13
98:5 141:8 158:1 30:3,4,10 71:23 72:1,25 164:8,23 170:7 174:7 workings (1) 51:9 yankovic (1) 28:12 106 (1) 2:8 2015 (7) 16:13 88:19 89:21
understanding (1) 174:23 73:1,4,6,16,18,22,25 wayback (2) 88:14,18 works (4) 13:12 26:25 yeah (3) 36:7 159:13,13 11 (6) 13:22 19:23 24:1 90:20 91:9 109:22 114:8
understood (3) 98:9 164:9 74:7,8,9,9 115:8 ways (2) 122:24 165:7 27:1,24 year (8) 18:20 21:6 92:9 39:12 114:24 132:13 2015s (1) 90:2
182:11 128:10,12,22 129:1,6,17 web (7) 33:23 57:12 world (5) 44:23 45:1 86:20 155:23 156:11 161:11 1139 (1) 64:17 2016 (7) 4:22 36:13,20 37:6
undertake (1) 6:8 values (1) 152:22 154:16,19 155:14 157:8 92:7 169:5 162:1,9 1140 (1) 45:21 133:4,11,23
unfortunately (6) 6:10 18:13 van (2) 34:12 35:4 158:10 worlds (1) 51:12 years (30) 4:8 5:24 7:16 1146 (1) 45:23 2017 (4) 52:24 53:5 167:16
32:3 48:21 58:22 65:7 vanishes (1) 8:24 website (7) 27:17 67:21,24 worry (2) 55:14 72:7 17:24 19:13 20:9 21:19 11th (7) 29:10 79:17 80:22 168:5
unicode (1) 179:24 varied (1) 147:23 85:23 95:17 171:16,18 worth (8) 18:13 70:22 71:8 28:4 35:5 37:3 44:23 50:12 83:1 85:5,17,24 2018 (4) 54:21 64:1 95:17
unique (1) 92:2 various (10) 5:11 28:22 websites (1) 88:13 72:20,24 73:15 129:7 58:22 71:10 82:3 86:21 12 (3) 15:18 132:7,10 96:15
unit (1) 4:20 48:25 78:17 83:3 102:6 wednesday (1) 1:1 182:17 89:13,16 90:1 105:8 120 (1) 12:13 2019 (30) 23:5 24:2 27:21,22
united (2) 5:3,23 104:12 137:10 148:6 152:4 week (1) 115:23 wouldnt (24) 22:18 30:18 106:15 132:7,10 139:8 12year (1) 132:23 28:19 46:1 58:18 63:23
universal (1) 78:7 vast (1) 78:9 weekend (2) 182:12,17 40:11 49:10 54:10 85:20 159:15 163:6 167:5 178:15 13 (1) 13:21 64:3,4,6,14,18 65:20 67:25
universities (1) 69:19 vaughn (2) 128:15,17 weekly (1) 28:4 90:18,20 91:8,10,24 180:25,25 13th (6) 83:24 84:20 70:14 75:10 76:7 84:14
university (30) 3:2,3 28:6,7 verified (1) 100:8 weeks (2) 30:23 40:5 101:14,15 124:12 129:3 yellow (1) 165:15 85:5,17,24 100:4 86:22,25 87:4 89:9 99:17
35:12,16 55:7,10 66:14 verify (4) 84:3 145:15 146:4 wei (10) 154:15 155:12 140:24 146:13 148:5 yesterday (6) 1:6,25 17:8 15 (5) 15:24 21:19 135:22 123:5,5 127:2,10 137:22
69:10,20 81:22 83:2,18 147:7 156:5,17,25 158:2,8,20 150:25 170:8 175:14,23 22:16 97:15 100:9 149:12 181:14 168:17
84:2,13 86:6,15,17 version (112) 20:22 21:1,4,5 159:14,24 176:6 178:17 yet (7) 24:15 28:7 29:2 36:9 16 (3) 46:1 48:13 134:5 2020 (20) 118:20 119:20
87:2,2,6 90:22 91:16 92:17 27:6,9,11 29:23 35:7,8 weird (6) 145:16 151:15 wright (139) 1:21,22,25 3:7 109:13 143:14 158:13 162 (1) 173:21 120:8 121:1,5 122:5
99:17 100:15,17,19,24 36:11,18,22,25 37:1,2,25 164:23 165:4,4,5 4:7 5:14 6:6,24 7:8,13 youd (4) 34:2 101:11 104:24 17 (5) 48:13 63:11 65:20 123:9,16 124:6,9
unknown (1) 44:3 38:2,15,16 40:4,13 wellstructured (1) 157:1 10:9,19 12:1,24 13:16 15:8 116:18 118:20 134:24 126:1,18,24 127:7,12,25
unless (2) 81:13 136:3 41:6,16,17,19,20,21 43:15 went (7) 44:25 113:16 122:8 17:8 18:21 20:2 23:15 youll (11) 1:5 18:2 48:9 61:1 1711 (1) 66:3 128:6 132:19 138:4,6
unlike (1) 145:20 46:16 49:5,14 50:2,7 57:13 136:16 140:9 147:23 149:5 24:1,25 25:9 27:3 83:8 102:6 108:8 129:21 18 (11) 56:16 57:25 63:19,23 2023 (7) 19:23 90:10
unlikely (1) 163:1 58:18 59:6,13 werent (12) 44:14 58:6 70:4 29:14,16,24 30:15 32:6 145:14 147:3 158:22 64:1,6,14,18 75:10 76:7 135:9,20,22 137:8,16
unreliable (2) 19:8 92:11 61:14,17,17,17 66:22,23 83:25 86:15,16 93:25 37:9,17 38:23 42:24 43:19 young (2) 2:14 5:6 135:5 2023416 (1) 135:20
unscientific (1) 164:8 67:5,6,8,9,10,13 68:18 100:25 106:3 107:11 123:9 45:17,25 46:25 47:11 youre (88) 4:13 8:16 18month (1) 17:4 2024 (3) 1:1 100:8 183:2
unskilled (2) 112:4,5 69:16 80:15 82:7 83:10 132:24 50:14 52:14 54:16 55:16 11:11,19 12:8 13:4 16:13 19 (1) 22:24 2028 (1) 7:25
unsuccessful (1) 120:2 87:25 90:12 95:5 101:16 weve (9) 11:8 64:9 75:19 58:25 61:20 17:13,16,20 21:7 22:1 1900 (1) 16:24 204 (1) 178:21
unsurprisingly (1) 133:8 105:1 106:9,19 108:18,23 87:3 91:12 97:9 157:16 62:2,2,3,13,14,15,21 23:12 30:24,25 35:17,17 196 (1) 32:1 20xx (4) 51:21,21 54:21,22
until (9) 40:5 93:25 108:13 118:1 122:4,21,22 123:4 176:19 182:4 67:3,12,21 69:4 70:1 38:2,9,10 42:7,13 45:12 1986 (1) 26:17 21 (9) 23:3 54:17 58:9 67:25
109:13 129:18 163:3 179:7 125:17 133:14 whatever (8) 10:17 15:3 71:15,20 72:9,23 73:1,9,17 46:12,21 48:11 1990s (1) 156:24 136:4 155:24 160:17 161:1
181:6 183:1 135:1,8,14,16,19 140:4 47:2 49:17 96:8 170:3,3,4 81:6 82:6,21 83:16,24 85:6 53:16,22,24 58:25 59:19 1993 (1) 2:25 172:23
untouched (1) 22:18 141:2,24 142:19 144:6 whats (1) 171:18 86:21 89:23 90:13 91:6 63:7 69:1 70:7 72:9,10 1998 (1) 154:16 22 (2) 89:9 156:5
untrue (1) 37:10 145:14 153:11,20,22,24 whenever (2) 11:7 19:13 92:8 94:12 95:15 96:24 81:13,14,16,17 91:25 22d (1) 111:11
unusual (3) 150:13 163:17 154:8 157:10 160:12 whereas (1) 26:1 97:2 99:4,12 101:5,18 92:3,8,12 95:23 98:6 23 (3) 36:16 105:12,17
2
179:21 161:22 164:11,19 165:20 white (86) 9:13 10:6,15 102:5,23 103:9 107:16,23 102:15 104:17 106:6,13 2311 (1) 120:23
unusually (1) 75:19 166:24 169:2,4,5,8,23 12:11,25 13:11,12 109:2,16 110:2 111:23 108:4 109:14 114:21 2313 (1) 121:19
2 (9) 34:15,16,17 52:4 76:22
update (9) 60:3 133:18 170:2,4,4,16 171:15,24 14:21,21 15:8 16:23 20:21 113:2 114:4,19 115:18 118:14 122:18,25 126:12 2324 (1) 1:9
97:2 99:7 107:11 146:19
134:15 135:14,14 136:1 172:2,12 173:11 176:7 22:16 39:13,17 54:2 55:22 116:16 117:19,22,24 118:2 129:18 133:25 136:22 24 (5) 40:2,4 41:16 160:25
20 (28) 4:8 7:12 14:4 25:8
137:20 152:21 162:6 177:22,23 178:2 57:17 66:10 75:5 77:12 121:16 123:7,14 138:13,17 143:15 145:22 172:24
34:16,17 37:20 38:21
updated (10) 26:18 53:6 versioning (1) 41:24 78:24 79:8,8,19,24 80:5,25 124:3,10,15 125:11 146:15,15 147:10 152:17 25 (1) 69:23
47:15 50:23 56:9 58:4 88:8
60:18 90:6 91:17 102:21 versions (25) 21:3 24:11 81:1 82:8,10,15 105:5 130:7,20 134:18 135:13 153:14 158:16 159:10 250 (1) 18:13
93:9 94:15 97:11,25,25
133:21 134:1,17 135:10 28:22 30:14 35:8 36:17 139:23 140:5,15 138:18 139:9,21 140:1,13 161:21 162:8 163:2 2500 (1) 26:2
98:19,20 100:11 103:7
updates (4) 60:14 61:6 37:12 40:24 41:1,2 83:7 141:7,16,21 142:6,11 143:22 144:17 145:25 166:10,17,24 167:22 250000 (1) 115:15
139:25 160:10 170:15
134:13 135:11 106:20 117:8 122:23 143:7,17 144:6,13 146:10 150:4,18 151:20 168:2,9,10,11 172:4 174:7 251 (2) 68:16,22
178:15 180:2 181:15
upload (1) 70:3 133:3,4,11,12,23 147:4 145:6,7,14 146:4 147:18 154:3,12 158:16 159:7,22 175:17 176:3 180:1 181:16 26 (8) 1:7,11 78:3 117:16,17
200 (1) 99:10
upon (3) 13:2 50:13 98:24 151:4 153:25 154:10 148:15 149:17 150:1,24 163:4,20 167:2 169:14 yours (2) 36:12 130:8 181:5,9 182:13
2001 (1) 133:17
urls (1) 88:18 164:17 176:15 151:11,17 152:6 153:11,21 173:23 176:5,10,23 180:5 yourself (1) 124:6 27 (1) 78:3
2003 (5) 2:19 33:4,25 49:6
usb (2) 62:8,9 versus (2) 8:14 45:1 154:7,9 158:16 160:12,16 182:19 184:4 youve (32) 11:24 13:17 28 (4) 1:10 56:16 117:16,17
95:5
used (39) 2:22 10:11,14,15 vertex (2) 34:7,21 161:9 164:12,14,22 wrights (1) 54:9 18:22 21:22 25:13 30:20 29 (3) 88:16 100:8 145:16
2005 (4) 32:18 37:4 39:2
19:12 21:9,13 22:2 26:6,14 vertices (2) 34:7,21 165:9,20 167:19,21 write (15) 16:20 27:20,25 32:16 44:10 46:7 49:12
94:21
35:19 40:16,17 41:2 42:16 viewed (2) 89:21,23 168:5,8 170:10,16,21 28:2,8 29:22 66:1 81:18 50:24 52:17 53:19 55:6 3
2007 (17) 37:1 40:22 55:22
53:18 55:4 62:13 66:23 viewer (1) 134:7 172:1,8,13,16 173:6 82:18 103:22 153:14 56:3,11 60:24 63:2 77:25
56:16,16 58:19 66:10
85:15,25 91:7 92:18 93:11 3 (7) 26:4 41:14 56:19
83:13 95:25 96:4 107:19 views (2) 4:10 61:21 176:15 177:14,22,23 154:7,9 155:15 164:6 87:24 100:18 103:12,14
101:6 110:19 166:23 77:2,6 110:24,24
116:25 118:23 119:14 virtualised (4) 3:25 4:2,11 whitepaper (1) 106:1 writer (2) 148:6,9 104:6 134:3,4 137:10
170:20 172:14 175:22 30 (1) 130:2
122:24 127:14,16 132:8 102:17 whoever (1) 65:8 writes (1) 158:6 149:11 175:6
176:24 177:13 303 (1) 139:17
134:21 135:1 142:20 visibly (3) 14:15 37:22 48:25 whole (14) 33:14,18 77:17 writing (9) 42:17 43:4 57:10 2008 (51) 8:21 15:23
31 (1) 132:3
150:12 161:14,16 168:1 visited (1) 44:25 80:8,8 81:3 82:12 83:13 81:14,16 91:2 151:17,19 25:15,18 32:21 37:4
Z 317 (1) 139:19
169:3 179:23 visual (1) 61:4 98:23 142:17 143:24 144:1 152:13 39:21,22 42:2 47:18,21
32 (1) 132:9
useful (2) 176:16,20 vmsphere (1) 3:22 151:18 169:12 written (12) 82:9 87:10 51:1,5
zafar (1) 6:10 33 (1) 132:9
user (13) 8:24 59:22 vmware (2) 3:22 24:18 wider (1) 86:20 90:11 104:6 141:2 142:11 53:11,13,15,16,21,25
zero (1) 146:6 34 (2) 89:2 130:19
60:4,15,15,17,18 76:4 voice (3) 16:20 20:13 62:20 wife (1) 130:14 143:9,17 146:11 149:14 54:8,8,10 56:1 87:23 88:2
zip (5) 15:19 63:22 64:16 35 (1) 169:1
132:22 136:2,5,10,10 vs (1) 92:24 wifes (1) 136:20 157:17,18 90:11 93:13,16 94:24
118:19 119:5 350 (2) 16:23 54:2
users (1) 61:11 wiizip (1) 118:19 wrong (45) 3:7 4:13 8:3 95:11 131:12,23 133:9
W 36 (1) 130:24
uses (1) 38:11 win (1) 12:9 10:23 19:11 22:2 27:2 140:21,23 153:22 158:21
0 37 (1) 132:13
using (31) 4:2 26:10 37:13 wait (3) 27:3 162:14 163:3 windows (4) 24:14 41:4 30:25 31:5,13 41:7 159:25 160:17 161:1
38:9,10 40:4,19 waiting (1) 165:2 162:19 179:16 49:21,22 60:21 68:22 164:14 166:6,9,18,19,22
004077 (1) 115:2 4
41:16,19,20,22,24 48:19 waiving (2) 138:13,17 witness (16) 5:2 26:11 54:13 69:2,3,12 72:5,5,5,10 167:6 168:17 170:24
004078 (1) 115:3
53:25 62:3 67:5 69:12 70:3 wales (5) 5:3 55:8,9,11,16 79:17,17,22 80:4,22 83:1 86:18 90:1 91:25 107:4 172:16,23 4 (11) 1:8 24:7 27:3,5 33:25
005 (1) 152:22
120:2,3 123:13 127:9 wasnt (35) 2:2 39:25 40:5 84:21 85:6,24 100:4 108:5,14 112:21 113:3,19 2009 (30) 8:21 21:19 27:18 41:14 48:4 51:18 77:6
07 (2) 74:24,25
136:2 151:16 162:9,18 42:13 65:4,9 66:8 67:21 134:14 135:24 170:20 129:22 130:1 143:23 30:13 57:23,25 114:24 107:7 182:14
08 (1) 160:25
164:19 167:7,13 173:23 70:6,12,14 78:19 86:9 90:1 witnesses (2) 42:4 128:13 145:25 146:7 147:11 115:6,22 121:6 122:13 40 (3) 9:21 91:12 133:2
09 (1) 36:4
175:8 91:18 99:20 101:1,3 won (2) 1:5 128:25 152:10,14 159:10 123:10 124:4,9 4000 (2) 17:2 163:12
usually (1) 27:7 105:15 118:25 123:16 wont (3) 31:22 60:18 135:17 168:10,12 169:22 176:9 128:9,11,15 131:2 135:7 4077 (4) 116:14 124:20
1
132:8 139:2 142:11 143:17 work (22) 2:14,21 4:19,24 180:7 153:11,20 161:10 162:6 125:6 130:21
V
151:20 155:21 158:1,11 11:14,18 13:12 16:17 wrote (12) 1:17,18 27:23 1 (9) 36:6,8 115:6 129:10,21 164:13,21 165:9 166:24,25 4078 (2) 124:20 125:6
v (3) 34:8,20,21 165:25 170:11 173:7 31:22 33:1 39:16 54:4 41:22 46:17 53:12 63:8,9 146:19 184:3,4,5 168:17 172:24 4079 (4) 116:15 124:20
valid (4) 91:11 117:8 135:23 174:11,19,20 71:12 107:19 143:8 151:3 141:3 148:20 154:10 175:6 10 (3) 64:14 88:2 137:8 20092011 (1) 121:2 125:7 130:22
139:6 watermarking (2) 151:17,24 154:2 159:15,24 164:7 100 (3) 12:12 71:8 116:14 2010 (2) 8:21 48:15 4090 (1) 124:20
X
validate (1) 26:23 way (36) 16:17 20:9 33:21 165:10 181:24 1000 (1) 163:11 2011 (6) 54:21 108:13 121:6 41 (1) 63:11
validated (1) 133:16 37:5 41:25 49:11,11,18 worked (10) 5:5,9 35:13 xcopy (5) 26:10,14,17 27:1 10000 (1) 179:6 131:2,13 133:9 41a (1) 63:13

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 7, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 3

41b (1) 63:15

42 (1) 89:10
424 (1) 182:25
438 (1) 63:20
44 (1) 89:10
45 (3) 11:9 63:19 64:7

5 (4) 7:18,18 25:18 155:5

50 (3) 14:6 115:9 128:10
500 (1) 87:9
51 (4) 8:15 9:10,15 134:5
52 (1) 65:15
53 (1) 134:24
59 (1) 68:15

6 (16) 56:25 57:4 66:16

100:11 109:6 119:20 122:4
126:1,11,18,23
127:6,11,25 140:21 154:18
60 (4) 9:21 11:9,11 14:5
600 (2) 70:21,22
65 (1) 136:4
69 (1) 136:7

7 (18) 1:1 25:18 48:4 75:4

103:22 122:5
126:1,11,18,23,24
127:7,12,25 132:2 135:22
154:14 177:16
70 (1) 136:7
712 (1) 19:2
75 (1) 89:18
778 (1) 19:21
781 (1) 148:13
79 (1) 18:20
795000 (1) 119:21

8 (6) 39:21 93:22 144:10

154:14 179:16 183:2
80 (1) 14:8
83000 (1) 25:24
86 (2) 30:25 32:9
87 (1) 29:9
88 (1) 105:24
88400 (1) 119:21
89page (1) 77:11

9 (6) 27:5 36:3 39:22 93:22

100:7 132:3
90 (2) 8:2 160:24
90s (1) 107:22
915 (3) 103:16 129:25 130:3
925 (1) 130:19
931 (1) 130:24
932 (1) 131:4
935 (1) 131:6
97 (2) 41:13 54:7
98 (2) 116:14 165:23

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 4

February 8, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Thursday, 8 February 2024 1 On day one, I said I didn’t expect to have to remind
2 (10.30 am) 2 anyone observing of those conditions, but it ’s evident
3 Housekeeping 3 that I do. Remote access is a privilege . I would
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Just a couple of bits of housekeeping 4 advise you to use it wisely . I don’t propose to name
5 from me first. 5 the individual concerned at this juncture, because it ’s
6 Just a general enquiry, Mr Hough, as to 6 not clear whether he took the screenshot from the remote
7 the timetable. How are we doing? I mean, I’m not 7 feed himself , or whether someone else supplied it to
8 seeking to hurry you up at all , because these are very 8 him. However, if this happens again, those involved
9 detailed points that can’t be rushed. 9 will be named and they risk being the cause of remote
10 MR HOUGH: I had originally hoped to be finished with 10 links being cut for a large swathe of third parties ,
11 Dr Wright by lunchtime on Tuesday, thus giving 11 namely anyone who I assess cannot be trusted to abide by
12 Mr Gunning half a day. 12 the conditions set down in my order.
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 13 So, I trust that will not happen again.
14 MR HOUGH: Because he needs at least that much. 14 With that little intro , over to you.
15 For, I think, three reasons, I now anticipate 15 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued)
16 finishing around the end of Tuesday. 16 Good morning, Dr Wright.
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 17 A. Good morning, my Lord.
18 MR HOUGH: Those reasons are, first of all, some additional 18 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued)
19 material I need to deal with as a result of my Lord’s 19 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, may we return briefly to one matter
20 ruling . Secondly, the fact the ruling led to us 20 I was asking you about yesterday.
21 starting a little later . And thirdly, because Dr Wright 21 Do you recall that yesterday I asked you some
22 −− and this is not, at the moment, a criticism −− is 22 questions about documents which appeared to be
23 giving some quite long answers. We sought to allow for 23 screenshots of MYOB accounting system records?
24 that based on his previous evidence, but obviously this 24 A. I do.
25 is an inexact science . 25 Q. May we have on screen {L5/150/1}. That’s one example,

1 3

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, I completely understand. Okay, 1 ID_004077; you see that?
2 good. 2 A. I do.
3 MR HOUGH: There is, my Lord, slippage in the timetable 3 Q. Do you recall that yesterday you said that this and
4 already, and we’ll do our best to keep all parties 4 three other screenshots were taken by Ontier after they
5 informed of our anticipated progress. 5 were given access to the MYOB system?
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 6 A. Yes. This is explained in more detail in the later
7 The second point I have to raise concerns a breach 7 chain of custody that detailed all of this in −− more
8 of the conditions for remote access, because this 8 than the March one.
9 morning it was brought to my attention that yesterday 9 Q. We’ve been to that.
10 afternoon an individual posted on Twitter, or X, part of 10 You also insisted that the information in these
11 a screenshot of these proceedings showing a member of 11 screenshots was not affected by the inputting of
12 the public observing from, I think, the back row of 12 information you did on 6 and 7 March 2020 which showed
13 seats in this court. Now, the number of people who have 13 up in the audit logs found by Mr Madden; is that right?
14 requested a remote link has risen since the first day 14 A. That is correct .
15 and it ’s now over 650, so I will repeat my summary of 15 Q. And I showed you on screen this image at {L5/150/1}, and
16 the conditions which apply for anyone accessing a remote 16 I asked if you had made the entry which gave rise to
17 link . Each person who requested a remote link should 17 that record when you did your inputting on 6 and
18 have been sent a copy of the order I made last week 18 7 March 2020. Do you recall me asking that question?
19 concerning the conditions on which remote access is 19 A. I recall you asking.
20 granted. Those conditions apply to everyone observing 20 Q. Your answer was that you had not, and in support of that
21 these proceedings. 21 point you said that the screenshot, this one here, had
22 In summary, you are not permitted to take any 22 been produced before those dates; do you recall?
23 photograph or video of the proceedings and screen grabs 23 A. I do.
24 of the remote feed are also prohibited . Breach of those 24 Q. May we go to {H/47/2}. Now, this is an extract from
25 conditions is a contempt of court. 25 Mr Madden’s appendix PM7, where he gives the metadata

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 from the load file provided by Ontier, and in the left 1 the argument you’re presenting is somehow I must have
2 column, for this document, ID_004077, do you see that 2 got into the offices of Ontier, compromised their
3 the application , created and modified times are 3 computers and accessed an offline program.
4 9 March 2020? 4 Q. To be clear, I ’m not putting that to you. I ’m putting
5 A. Yes, I do. 5 to you that you modified the records in the way shown in
6 Q. Just for the moment accepting what it says before I ask 6 the audit logs that we looked at yesterday and that that
7 you for your explanations. 7 was the basis of the records which Ontier then produced
8 A. Certainly . I do. 8 to us.
9 Q. Next, please, {H/209/4}. This is a part of Mr Madden’s 9 A. No, you’re actually putting to me, being that this was
10 appendix PM42, and we see from paragraph 13 he addresses 10 done inside Ontier, as the chain of custody says, that
11 another document in the dataset immediately preceding 11 I accessed a computer in Ontier, that I ran a local
12 4077. It ’s 4076, which, as we see, is another in 12 version in Ontier somehow on one of the PR −−
13 the sequence of screenshots from MYOB; do you see that? 13 paralegals ’ computers and altered this without their
14 A. I do. 14 knowledge.
15 Q. Go to {H/209/5}, please, under subparagraph (d). Now, 15 Q. That wasn’t what I was putting to you, Dr Wright, but
16 do you see that in this screenshot, the date has not 16 we’ ll move on.
17 been cropped from the bottom, unlike in the others we 17 ID_003330, which is at {L5/227/1}. Sorry,
18 considered, and that date is 9 March 2020? 18 {L15/227/1}. I think, if it ’s difficult to come up, we
19 A. I do. 19 can bring up appendix PM44. I’m sorry, PM15.
20 Q. I can tell you that that’s a Monday. 20 My Lord, I discovered this this morning accessing
21 Now, bearing in mind that we’ll say this can be 21 Opus, there are some documents which appear to be
22 further confirmed with Ontier if necessary, would you 22 turning up as blanks.
23 now accept that these screenshots were created on 23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
24 9 March 2020? 24 MR HOUGH: If we move on, please, we will find in one of
25 A. No. I will accept that this other one was done. Those 25 the subsequent pages an image of 3330 {H/74/2}. There

5 7

1 or screenshots are not screenshots, they’re pdfs in −− 1 we go.

2 produced. So Ontier had earlier produced a series of 2 Now, Dr Wright, recognising that, unfortunately, we
3 documents. They then converted those into PDF documents 3 can’t bring up the document right now because of
4 at a later date. They also reaccessed at a later date. 4 the system, ID 3330 is a photograph, a part of which we
5 So they had downloaded into a local version and they had 5 see on the left −hand side of the screen, of the first
6 taken multiple screenshots. 6 page of a document. Do you recall that document?
7 Q. So you insist that those other screenshots, those other 7 A. Yes, I do.
8 documents were created before 9 March 2020? 8 Q. And do you recall it ’s a photograph of the first page of
9 A. Yes. 9 a version of the Bitcoin White Paper with your name at
10 Q. Are you able to say on what dates they were created? 10 the top?
11 A. No, I was not. The log−in was given to both 11 A. Yes, I do.
12 AlixPartners and to Ontier in late 2019. 12 Q. And I think the name is crossed out and there are some
13 Q. Let me put to you, on the basis of the information we 13 letters written alongside? Yes?
14 have from the load file and on the basis of this further 14 A. Yes.
15 document, that the shots were taken/produced on 9 March 15 Q. With yellow stains in that area and three staples on
16 and that the editing you did on 6 and 7 March was just 16 the side . We can see two of them in the image on
17 in time for them to take the screenshots of the system 17 the left ?
18 you’d edited. 18 A. Correct.
19 A. If you’re asking me a question, the answer is, no, I ’ve 19 Q. You put that forward as one of the documents on which
20 not edited anything. As I noted, the log−in was 20 you primarily rely for your claim to be Satoshi, don’t
21 provided to Ontier. None of this was in my control or 21 you?
22 possession, and if they’d downloaded a version onto 22 A. It is .
23 their own machine, I would have no way of accessing or 23 MR HOUGH: My Lord, this is a pleaded forgery, but not in
24 altering anything. When you download MYOB into a local 24 our core list of 20.
25 machine, what happens is it is offline . So, 25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 MR HOUGH: Mr Madden made findings establishing that this 1 Do you recognise this as a reply −− an amended reply
2 had been sent by WhatsApp on 4 September 2019, this 2 to the amended defence in Wright v McCormack?
3 image. I don’t think I need to go through those 3 A. I do.
4 findings because you accept that, don’t you? 4 Q. A pleading which you verified with a statement of truth?
5 A. I know what he wrote, yes. 5 A. I do.
6 Q. Next, please, {L2/234/1}. I hope we can bring this up. 6 Q. Page 4, please {L16/342/4}, paragraph 4B:
7 Very good. 7 ”Notwithstanding the foregoing, and that
8 This is ID_004011. Would you accept that that is 8 the Claimant puts the Defendant to strict proof
9 a copy of a −− an apparently complete document, 9 regarding the relevance of the averment, it is submitted
10 the first page of which corresponds to the document sent 10 that the Claimant is being funded by a third party in
11 by WhatsApp that we looked at a moment ago? 11 these proceedings, namely Calvin Ayre.”
12 A. I do. 12 You admitted in those proceedings, also concerning
13 Q. But on this occasion, there are some further annotations 13 your claim to be Satoshi, that you were funded by
14 added; do you see that? 14 Calvin Ayre, didn’t you?
15 A. I do. 15 A. No, what I’m saying is I took out a loan and I used
16 Q. At the bottom, do we see the note in red?: 16 the loan against assets . So, no, he’s not a funder.
17 ”Stefan −− Will Centrebet use a token that is 17 Q. ” ... it is admitted that the Claimant ...”
18 transferable + audited.” 18 That’s you:
19 A. Yes. 19 ” ... is being funded by a third party in these
20 Q. And that’s another of your primary reliance documents, 20 proceedings ... ”
21 isn ’ t it ? 21 You verified that with a statement of truth −−
22 A. It is . 22 A. As it says −−
23 MR HOUGH: My Lord, this is in our core list of 20. 23 Q. Wait a second −− and you now say that you were not being
24 And you say, in your fourth witness statement in its 24 funded by Mr Ayre in those proceedings?
25 exhibit , that this is a draft of the White Paper and an 25 A. As it exactly says here:

9 11

1 authentic document; is that right? 1 ”The Claimant has taken out a Bitcoin ...
2 A. I do. 2 denominated commercial loan against the Claimant’s and
3 Q. If this was a genuine document authentic to 2008, it 3 the Tulip Trust’s Bitcoin ... ”
4 would support your claim to be Satoshi, wouldn’t it? 4 So ...:
5 A. It ’s not what I would use just to support, but it helps. 5 ” ... [which] will be paid back to Mr Ayre.”
6 Q. May we go to {L15/453/1}. We see here that your 6 So I made a deal, a loan from the company, and
7 supporter, Mr Ayre, tweeted in the context of 7 the company paid him back. So, no, he wasn’t
8 the McCormack proceedings: 8 a litigation funder, he wasn’t funding. I took out
9 ” ... I have seen some of the boxes of historical 9 a commercial loan.
10 documents including old versions of the white paper in 10 Q. I suggest to you that in denying that you were being
11 Craigs handwriting and printed and with his notes and 11 funded by Mr Ayre, you are denying words which you
12 coffee on them and rusty staples.” 12 verified with a statement of truth.
13 Do you think that’s a reference to this document? 13 A. The words I said in the statement of truth, and I’ ll
14 A. I ’ve no idea. And two areas that you’re wrong. I mean, 14 explain if they’re not clear to you, are that I have
15 you’re saying my ”supporter”. Supporter, as in he says 15 taken out a loan that was held against my assets. That
16 things on tweets. But I think you’re implying that he 16 included, later , shareholdings. I ’ve sold some of those
17 is my financial backer. As you’ve seen multiple times, 17 assets and I’ve paid for that loan, but that loan is how
18 he’s an independent individual who has nothing more than 18 it was funded.
19 an investment in a company I founded. 19 Q. Was that loan recorded in a formal document?
20 Q. He’s given you financial support in some of your 20 A. It was, yes.
21 litigation , hasn’t he? 21 Q. Returning to the document we were looking at, ID_004011,
22 A. No, he is not a financial supporter at all . That’s 22 and may we now look at a different set of communications
23 a false statement. 23 {L17/390/118}. Now, this is an article which includes
24 Q. Well, let ’s deal with this quickly now {L16/342/1}, 24 an excerpt of an IRC chat. May we zoom in on the bottom
25 please. 25 part of that chat.

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Now, do you recognise this as an IRC chat in which 1 I deny their experts. Now, it should be like a paper.
2 you participated? 2 If I ’m writing an academic paper, I will have
3 A. No, I do not. 3 a methodology, and that methodology section then goes
4 Q. Now, the chat, as transcribed, refers , in 4 into results and then goes into discussion. What we
5 the highlighted sections , to Stefan having a copy of 5 have is a discussion . We jump from the introduction,
6 a pre−release version of the White Paper complete with 6 where we say, ”We’re going to do this test”, and then we
7 coffee stains . Do you now say that you did not write 7 go, ”The discussion is I ’ve got an opinion”.
8 those words? 8 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, I’m going to pause you there because
9 A. I wasn’t using IRC at all , and from 2013 on was the last 9 you’re argument −−
10 time I used IRC. 10 LORD GRABINER: He’s answering the judge’s question, with
11 Q. Moving then to Mr Madden’s analytical findings in 11 respect.
12 relation to this document {H/238/4}, please. 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, we will hear from Mr Madden in due
13 Now, do we see that Mr Madden noted that this 13 course.
14 document had the same unusual missing hyphen 14 A. Thank you, my Lord.
15 in ”peer−to−peer” that we saw in the document ID_000537 15 MR HOUGH: What I’m putting to you at the moment is that
16 that I asked you about yesterday? 16 what Mr Madden established was that by a simple process
17 A. Yes. 17 of removing a footer, one document, which had just
18 Q. And then page 9, please, {H/238/9}. 18 a couple of differences to another, became identical to
19 Do we see that Mr Madden made comparisons between 19 it visually . Are you denying that that was his finding
20 the contents of the documents ID_000537 and this 20 and that that’s what happens by removal of the footer?
21 document and found some −− just a couple of differences, 21 A. That doesn’t happen by removing the footer, and
22 one of which was the alignment of the table, as shown on 22 the argument of removing an SSRN footer, I think that’s
23 this page? Yes? 23 a little bit ridiculous . If I have the source document,
24 A. Yes. 24 which you’ve argued that I do, then why am I re−removing
25 Q. But he found −− and this is paragraph 28 −− that these 25 the footer? I mean, it just −− it starts to get

13 15

1 differences would disappear if ID_000537, which is a PDF 1 a little bit ridiculous .

2 document, was opened in Word and the footer referring to 2 Now, this is actually how things will come across if
3 SSRN was deleted. Are you aware of that finding? 3 they are tabulated in something like LaTeX, which I’ve
4 A. Yes. I ’m also aware that it is pure opinion. And what 4 said . The output from Sweave, as I’ve noted, will do
5 I would say is , rather than using a scientific process, 5 this . So this is also with page breaks which don’t
6 what he has done is provided no evidence. So rather 6 exist , so I disagree.
7 than having a scientific process with method that is 7 Q. Dr Wright, as Mr Madden found, the natural conclusion of
8 replicable , he has just put in a pure opinion of what 8 this finding is that this document, 004011, was created
9 happens. He hasn’t demonstrated anything, he hasn’t had 9 from editing 000537 in the way that he has described,
10 an experiment and he hasn’t made a procedure. 10 before being annotated, photographed, the hard copy
11 Now, as an example, I’ve demonstrated to other 11 further annotated and then scanned.
12 people that I can open up this on my phone even and 12 A. Again, what you mentioned is his findings, but he hasn’t
13 convert it to Word on my phone, which doesn’t have 13 actually put a methodology or anything like this, so
14 terribly many things, and keep that formatting. So, 14 there are no findings in this document; what it is is
15 what you’re saying is , basically , your expert has failed 15 pure opinion.
16 to follow the basic requirements of being an expert that 16 Now, the other point is, you noted that this
17 my Lord has mentioned in several cases in patents. 17 document has a later date, so if the later date on SSRN
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, do you dispute what he says 18 and this other date don’t match, that’s also a problem.
19 in paragraph 29? 19 On top of that, the argument sort of has other problems.
20 A. Completely. 20 So we start to get into the notion of actually
21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Have you done what he did? 21 intentionally going back, removing −− downloading from
22 A. I ’ve tried to do what he did, but I haven’t got the same 22 SSRN a file that I already have to make something
23 results . But unfortunately, there’s no methodology 23 happen, none of which is explained in any of Mr Madden’s
24 presented. Now, what I’m saying is, a scientific 24 reports , making it incredibly difficult to actually even
25 process should be used if you’re an expert. This is why 25 replicate what he’s done.

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Q. Would you accept that none of the findings that I’ve 1 A. I put notes on my document, that’s correct.
2 described, the analytical findings that I ’ve described, 2 Q. Now, is it right that your account is that you had
3 is disputed by Dr Placks? 3 a copy of this document in which the first page appeared
4 A. I would say that there are no findings at all . There is 4 as the image on ID_003300? That was the photograph with
5 pure opinion. We have jumped from an introduction 5 the slight shadow across it.
6 straight to discussion . There’s no findings . 6 A. That’s correct .
7 A definition of ”finding” in a scientific paper actually 7 Q. And then you took a photograph of that first page and
8 is something where I have replicated, I ’ve done an 8 sent it on by WhatsApp to somebody in 2019?
9 experiment. Now, that could be, here, I have opened 9 A. Yes, I sent it to the litigation team.
10 this document, here is a screenshot. I did one of these 10 Q. You then further made notes on the document in red and
11 in mine on Xcopy. I showed you Xcopy, I showed copying 11 blue ink, or continued to do so?
12 the file , I showed those images, and those images, 12 A. I did.
13 that’s a finding . So I’m debating the word 13 Q. May we go to the first page of the document {L2/234/1}.
14 here ”finding” because it is very clearly defined. I ’ve 14 Thank you very much.
15 done over 20 masters degrees now and it’s very simple in 15 If we look at the bottom, there’s the note that
16 this −− 16 I read to you earlier :
17 Q. Can I pause you there, because I think you’ve given me 17 ”Stefan −− Will Centrebet use a token that is
18 the substance of your answer. 18 transferable + audited.”
19 Dr Wright, the question I asked was whether 19 Now, you’ve given evidence in your first witness
20 Dr Placks, whose evidence is actually admissible, unlike 20 statement that, in 2008, you provided a hard copy of
21 your tests , whether Dr Placks has disputed any of 21 the Bitcoin White Paper to Mr Matthews hoping that he
22 the findings , the analytical findings −− or 22 would −− and I quote:
23 the analytical conclusions which are made in this 23 ” ... recognise the potential of Bitcoin and its
24 report? 24 underlying blockchain technology, particularly how
25 A. He hasn’t done any findings at all . So −− 25 a tokenised payment system could enhance and diversify

17 19

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, just let me interrupt 1 customer payment options at Centrebet.”
2 a moment. One of the advantages of having independent 2 Do you remember writing that?
3 expert witnesses is , if the court agrees that they have 3 A. I do.
4 given an objective , suitably supported opinion, 4 Q. Now, on its face, that note {L2/234/1}:
5 the court can rely on their opinions. So I suggest that 5 ”Stefan −− Will Centrebet use a token that is
6 you focus on their opinions, because at the moment, 6 transferable + audited.”
7 unless they are completely undermined, it’s likely I ’m 7 Would naturally read as a note asking Mr Matthews,
8 going to rely on them, okay? So instead of disputing 8 prospectively , whether Centrebet would be able to use
9 the process by which he reached these findings, 9 such a token, doesn’t it ?
10 I suggest you focus on the findings , okay? 10 A. No, it does not.
11 MR HOUGH: May we move on to the content of the document 11 Q. How do you say it naturally reads?
12 {L2/234/1}. 12 A. What I did was I took an image of the paper prior to
13 Now, you say, don’t you, Dr Wright, that this 13 sending it to the lawyers so that they had the original .
14 document’s a hard copy collected from your office 14 The US litigation had nothing to do with whether I was
15 drawer? 15 Satoshi or not, so what I had done was I put down notes
16 A. I do. 16 on my own paper as I was working on it and I referenced
17 Q. You say it was written in 2008 and that updates of black 17 areas that I needed to find. So, in part of trying to
18 ink were probably written in 2008 and 2009, yes? 18 discredit the attack, saying that Dave Kleiman owned
19 A. Some, yes. 19 half of everything I created, I put down notes about
20 Q. And that updates in red ink are more recent, dating to 20 the work I was doing and what I needed to find. So, in
21 2017 to 2020; is that right? 21 this , I put down a note and I put down, ”Will Centrebet
22 A. Yes. 22 use a token that is transferable + audited” because
23 Q. And it says −− your chain of custody document says that 23 I needed to find the references where I spoke to Stefan
24 those notes, those later notes were taken to send to 24 about this topic .
25 the US lawyers in the Kleiman litigation ; is that right? 25 That was then used when I was arguing in the US

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 litigation to say that I ’d been doing this with 1 tried to communicate with Tuomas Aura, a computer
2 Centrebet, I had been working on these areas, and 2 science professor , when preparing the White Paper, but
3 Dave Kleiman was not a party. 3 your efforts to reach him went unanswered and so, in
4 Q. This reads naturally as a note to Stefan, not a note to 4 default of that, you cited Mr Back’s paper. Do you
5 yourself about finding a reference , doesn’t it ? 5 recall giving that evidence?
6 A. No, it does not. 6 A. I do.
7 Q. Page 6, please {L2/234/6}. There’s a section 7 Q. Again, that reads naturally as an author’s note to
8 under ”Calculations”: 8 himself {L2/234/9} that he hasn’t received a response
9 ”The race between the honest chain and an attacker 9 from Professor Aura backing up that aspect of your
10 chain can be characterised as a Binomial Random Walk.” 10 story , doesn’t it , Dr Wright?
11 And the note in red is : 11 A. No, it does not. As I noted, I took photos of
12 ”Negative, should add more detail.” 12 the document before I wrote anything on it. I wasn’t
13 Yes? 13 expecting to use any of these documents as evidence, but
14 A. Yes. 14 I did take images that I sent off to my legal team so
15 Q. That reads naturally as an author’s note to himself to 15 that they had evidence of all the changes.
16 add more detail to the draft , doesn’t it ? 16 Where I note this, that is because I would have
17 A. No, it does not. This references a negative binomial 17 liked Aura to actually respond to say that I sent an
18 and the other work that I’ve done on that later . So in 18 email, I didn’t do it with Dave, so what I was doing is
19 the Kleiman case, we were not disputing the development 19 trying to get the litigation team in Florida to contact
20 of the White Paper, we were disputing the work that came 20 Aura and basically see if Aura would back up my story.
21 after . So it was in particular the mining in 2009 up to 21 Q. Dr Wright, taking all these notes on their face value,
22 2011. In that, I had written a number of other papers, 22 this was a document which you forged with these notes to
23 including ones on negative binomials and this 23 provide support for your back story, isn ’ t it ?
24 demonstrates that it was my writing alone. If I ’m not 24 A. No, it ’s a document I wrote on after taking
25 writing it with Mr Kleiman, then there’s no argument 25 a screenshot, or a photograph, of each of the pages so

21 23

1 that I ’m partly partnered with him to do all of this . 1 that I could send them off to my litigation team to note
2 So my notes are to find those other aspects of papers. 2 the original evidence, if it was needed.
3 Q. Page 9, please {L2/234/9}. May we look at the −− yes, 3 Q. Moving on to another topic: the SSRN upload,
4 if we’re looking at the top of the page {L2/234/8}: 4 {L15/185/1}, please.
5 ”Stefan Matthews, would Centrebet use this.” 5 This is a page from the Wayback Machine captured, as
6 That, again, reads as a note to Stefan Matthews 6 we see, in 2019, showing an abstract from the SSRN
7 rather than a note to yourself to find references , 7 website with the Bitcoin White Paper, or a version of
8 doesn’t it ? 8 it , uploaded; do you see that?
9 A. No, it does not. Stefan was one of the witnesses in 9 A. I do.
10 the trial and I had to use the areas. So what I was 10 Q. And do we see that it is −− it has the author name,
11 looking for were the areas where I’d had meetings with 11 Craig S Wright?
12 Mr Matthews, because what I need to search for is 12 A. I do.
13 the question: would you use this, Mr Matthews. So if 13 Q. And ”Date Written: August 21, 2008”?
14 I ’m searching for that area, I ’m putting a note to 14 A. I do.
15 myself on that. 15 Q. You know, don’t you, that it was shortly after that date
16 Q. Further down the page and over to the next page, I think 16 that Satoshi had his communications with Wei Dai based
17 {L2/234/9}, thank you, page 9. Do we see that there’s 17 on public materials?
18 a circle around the reference to Adam Back’s name? Yes? 18 A. No, I know because I was the person who sent those
19 A. That’s correct . 19 emails.
20 Q. And in red: 20 Q. Now, the version which was uploaded to this website,
21 ”Aura −− No response still.” 21 I think you agree, is a version which included changes
22 Yes? 22 which were made between versions produced in October −−
23 A. Yes. 23 August and October 2008 and the version issued publicly
24 Q. Now, in your witness statement, your first witness 24 in March 2009?
25 statement, at paragraph 90 {E/1/18}, you say that you 25 A. No, I disagree. As I’ve noted before, I had multiple

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 versions , so each of those were not linear the way that 1 I ’m saying I uploaded it, as an executive, that
2 you’re saying. I didn’t use a Word document where I go 2 basically means I instruct someone to do it.
3 in there and I alter a version and it doesn’t exist . 3 Q. Right.
4 The process that I used in LaTeX would be that I will 4 Next page, please {A/3/18}.
5 have multiple versions of the file and I can print out 5 Do we see, at paragraph 55, you accept that
6 any of them at any time. 6 the versions which you uploaded to SSRN?:
7 Q. Dr Wright, I can show you the various pieces of language 7 ” ... were created in [2009], based on the version of
8 from the documents, but would you accept that 8 the White Paper Dr Wright had uploaded to SourceForge
9 the version uploaded to this website shown here included 9 Bitcoin Project in March 2009.”
10 language which we see in the March 2009 version which is 10 A. I do.
11 different from the language in the October 2008 version? 11 Q. So after all that cavilling about which version it was
12 A. Again, I had multiple versions −− 12 based on or what language it contained, you accept,
13 Q. Do you accept that as a factual proposition? I know 13 would you, that the versions uploaded were based on
14 what your explanation is, but do you accept it as 14 the version issued in March 2009?
15 a factual proposition or shall I have to −− 15 A. ”Issued” is a different proposition . So, the version
16 A. I ’m denying the way that you’re versioning them. 16 that was issued on the site , I know I’m pedantic, but as
17 Q. Let me ask the question again. Do you accept as 17 I said , I created the version earlier .
18 a factual proposition , because I think you do in your 18 Q. Then:
19 defence, that the version uploaded to SSRN, linked from 19 ”Dr Wright’s purpose in uploading versions of
20 this site , included language which appeared in 20 the White Paper to [the website] was not ... to ’prove’
21 the March 2009 version which was different from language 21 that Dr Wright was the author of the White Paper.”
22 in the October 2008 version? 22 But to assert your authorship?
23 A. Let me rephrase −− 23 A. That is correct .
24 Q. Just that factual question and then you can give your 24 Q. Back to the SSRN upload, please. {L15/185/1}. This
25 explanation, Dr Wright. 25 stated that the document was yours and it gave a date

25 27

1 A. Again, you’re using the term ”version” and I don’t 1 written of August 21, 2008. The version that was
2 believe it ’s a version . I had multiple versions . 2 uploaded was not written on that date, was it?
3 The one that was published in 2009, you’re correct. But 3 A. I ’m not −− I’m not exactly sure which version was
4 that isn ’ t a version of that date. That one actually 4 written when. As I noted, the metadata on the dates was
5 predates going back to 2008. As I’ve noted many times, 5 actually typed into LaTeX and changed multiple times, so
6 sometimes I even go back to my first copy. That is 6 the exact date when it was written, I don’t recall . It
7 evidenced in my LLM. My LLM, the one that got 7 was 2008 and it would have been August.
8 published, was actually the first version I produced. 8 Q. You were −−
9 Strangely enough, I made a whole lot of changes and then 9 A. Now, the loading of this date was done by one of
10 I undid them. 10 the people at nChain, so as I ’ve noted, the exact date
11 Q. {A/3/17}, please. 11 is an estimate.
12 Now, this is part of your defence, and you admit, at 12 Q. You were perfectly clear in your defence, the document
13 paragraph 52, that you uploaded a version of 13 which you uploaded was produced in 2019 based upon
14 the White Paper to SSRN; do you see that? 14 a version issued to the public in March 2009, wasn’t it?
15 A. No −− 15 A. It was issued, yes, but it was produced and created
16 Q. Paragraph 52: 16 earlier . And, yes, it was given to people at nChain,
17 ”It is admitted and averred that on or about 17 who loaded it.
18 21 August 2019 Dr Wright uploaded a version of 18 Q. But it’s my turn to be precise now, Dr Wright.
19 the White Paper to SSRN.” 19 The version you uploaded was different from the version
20 Correct? 20 which was written by Satoshi in August 2009, wasn’t it?
21 A. Yes, but what I’m saying is I don’t individually upload 21 A. No, again, none of those −− that version you’re talking
22 it . I instruct other people to do it . So my upload, as 22 about, electronic cash, was not written in August 2009,
23 I ’ve noted, is −− I’m not sure who it was in 2019, but 23 it was written earlier . So, while I put that detail in
24 it ’s now Sebastian, probably Alex back then. So I give 24 it at that point and sent out different versions , again,
25 the document into nChain and nChain runs SSRN. So when 25 you’re taking that I have one version and I don’t change

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 these things. I don’t. 1 that you pitched Bitcoin, or a version of it , to

2 Q. You were trying to present this document, accessible 2 Centrebet; is that right?
3 here, as the original Bitcoin White Paper written by you 3 A. It ’s not a claim, it ’s a fact .
4 in August 2008, and that wasn’t true, was it? 4 Q. Dr Wright, I have to put to you that this is not −− that
5 A. What you’re saying isn’t true is correct . What I was 5 we, first of all , dispute many of the factual
6 trying to do was assert my authorship. I had just filed 6 propositions in this and that therefore it ’s not an
7 copyright, which was done in the US, and signed all of 7 early draft of the Bitcoin White Paper. It’s not an
8 that. Prior to this , I ’d been forced by a magistrate in 8 authentic document.
9 the US to admit that I was Satoshi. And because 9 A. No, it ’s completely authentic, and multiple people have
10 I admitted under oath, I started getting a number of 10 seen it .
11 attacks against my identity, etc. So, basically , if I ’m 11 Q. Next document, ID_00054, which is at {L3/326/1}.
12 going to be attacked for who I am and the fact that 12 My Lord, this is a code 2 flow source code flowchart
13 I have to say something under oath, then I may as well 13 and it ’s a pleaded forgery and in the core list of 20.
14 come out there and assert my authorship fully. 14 Dr Wright, do you recognise this as a document that
15 Q. Next document, ID_004012, which is {L2/158/1}. This is 15 you’ve identified as one of your primary
16 not a pleaded forgery, this is a matter of authenticity . 16 reliance documents?
17 Dr Wright, do you recognise this as the start of 17 A. I do.
18 a 78−page handwritten document? 18 Q. Is it possible to rotate the document clockwise?
19 A. I do. 19 Perfect.
20 Q. And is it right that you’ve claimed that you began 20 Do we see that it’s got the heading, ”BitCoin
21 writing this in August 2007, continuing for 17 months 21 main.h”?
22 and adding notes in red later ? 22 A. I do.
23 A. Correct. 23 Q. If we go down the page, can we just look at the bottom
24 Q. It ’s entirely in manuscript and a hard copy scan; that’s 24 and see the whole page. Do we see it’s got a footer
25 right , isn ’ t it ? 25 date ”9/06/2008”?

29 31

1 A. Sorry, what do you mean by ”in manuscript”? 1 A. I do.

2 Q. Well, it ’s in handwriting, it ’s not typed. 2 Q. ”11:24”.
3 A. Yes, that’s correct . 3 Will you take it from me that this document has
4 Q. And it’s a hard copy scan, isn ’ t it ? 4 external metadata timestamps dating it to December 2008?
5 A. Well, there’s a hard copy and it’s been scanned for 5 A. I take it , fine , yeah.
6 these proceedings, but the actual evidence would be 6 Q. Next {H/63/1}, to address Mr Madden’s findings. He
7 the hard copy. 7 concludes that this is a TIFF picture file ; would you
8 Q. And is it right , in broad summary, that it’s a document 8 accept that?
9 which contains some concepts from the Bitcoin System, 9 A. I do.
10 others referring to your supposed philosophies and 10 Q. It ’s been saved at a level of pixelation which means
11 details from your employment history? 11 that it ’s not legible ? I think we can all see that.
12 A. Technically it ’s all part of what is the larger 12 A. Yes.
13 Bitcoin System. My philosophies are part of Bitcoin. 13 Q. I think you have accepted in your appendix B, page 55
14 Q. Page 30 {L2/158/30}, please: 14 {CSW/2/55}, that it was created at about the time of
15 ”So much to do. 15 the footer , 9 June 2008; is that right?
16 ”Alan −− will BDO fund systems?” 16 A. The original document, yes. When the TIFF was created,
17 That was presumably a reference to you wanting 17 I ’m not sure. The document was part of the work being
18 Allan Granger to have BDO fund aspects of the operation 18 done in what started with Panopticrypt, went into
19 of the Bitcoin System? 19 Hotwire, then DeMorgan, where I had a team of
20 A. The funding of running nodes, yes. 20 individuals working on developing code for what became
21 Q. A little further down: 21 iDaemon and now Teranode. All of those individuals were
22 ”Would Centrebet and Sporting Bet use a token?” 22 working with the original code structures and they were
23 A. Yes. 23 building iDaemon so that it could scale to where it is
24 Q. In an echo of the −− one of the previous documents we 24 now, at 1 million plus transaction a second, 1.5 is
25 looked at, that was a reference to your supposed claim 25 the record, and provide the original code base support

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 so that it could scale . So the development teams had 1 but you can print the PDF and the metadata doesn’t
2 access to all of the source documents, and they had 2 change, so it ’s whatever’s set in the program.
3 other things such as that. 3 The reason that we use this in this way, my Lord, is
4 Q. It presents, doesn’t it , as a map of source code related 4 that what we’re doing is basing a system that scales on
5 to Bitcoin? 5 my original code, not the BTC changed code, the original
6 A. It is a map of source code related to Bitcoin. 6 system I developed.
7 Q. Now, Mr Madden finds, {H/63/4}, paragraph 7, that while 7 Q. Can I just stop you there, Dr Wright, because you’re now
8 the file format is consistent with this being taken from 8 going into something which is −− you’ve explained what
9 a hard copy that’s been scanned or faxed, there are 9 you say about how the document was created and I think
10 a series of features showing that the document wasn’t 10 you’re now going into an argument about BTC and BSV.
11 a scan from a hard copy. Do you accept that it wasn’t 11 A. No, I’m not, I’m just explaining why the original code
12 scanned from hard copy, it wasn’t produced in that way? 12 was used. Why, rather than having later code, my staff
13 A. I don’t think it was. I mean, a TIFF output doesn’t 13 had the original code base, so that when they built
14 mean scanned. 14 a system, it would match.
15 Q. Page 5 {H/63/5}, Mr Madden was able to find another 15 Q. So Dr Wright, you’re saying that years later −− because
16 document in your disclosure dataset which he considered 16 I think that’s what you say in your appendix B −− years
17 a close match. May we look at page 6, please {H/63/6}. 17 later , somebody on your staff produced a code map which
18 What Mr Madden has done is to show a visual comparison 18 looked virtually identical , or visually identical at
19 of the overview of the two documents, their headers and 19 this level of detail and had the same title and the same
20 their footers . Would you accept that the correspondence 20 date footer but was different?
21 between the two is clear and obvious? 21 A. There were slight updates and there were different
22 A. Certainly . The −− what do you call it? The file 22 versions of the code base.
23 repository and the coding things linked to Atlassian and 23 So one of the things, my Lord, is that I had both −−
24 other software development tools that my team used had 24 well , actually , there’s several versions of the changed
25 access to these files right up to that time. 25 code base. I turned off some of the opcodes, like code

33 35

1 The systems that you’re talking about only closed in 1 separator, because they needed to be fixed. So there
2 2017. So, Trupti and Olga and the other developers 2 are versions of the alpha code that have working opcodes
3 running the creation of iDaemon had access to all of 3 and there are others that have those abandoned. And
4 these files , hence why it was found on one of the staff 4 some of the testing we were doing for a scientific
5 computers. 5 process was: can we actually get those working, or do we
6 Q. Page 8, please {H/63/8}. 6 need to leave it the way it is ? So, the main things,
7 By zooming in on the other document, ID_000375, 7 like OP2 Mol(?), which is one of the opcodes to double
8 Mr Madden identified that it bore a copyright notice for 8 things, easy, turn that back on. But code separator,
9 Satoshi Nakamoto with the year 2009? 9 although I wanted it, it was one that we haven’t figured
10 A. Yes. 10 out how to actually get working without introducing
11 Q. In an area which looked, as far as was possible to 11 vulnerabilities . So, the team had to run all
12 examine, identical to ID_000554; do you see that? 12 the different versions that had been there in 2009 to
13 A. Yes, both would be the same; the code structures were 13 see what we could actually have working correctly.
14 the same. 14 Q. Dr Wright, that is a complete fiction , isn ’ t it ? This
15 Q. So if that’s right , then the copyright notice would 15 document, ID_000554, has been created from a prior
16 postdate the face dating of the document, wouldn’t it? 16 document in order to support your claim to be Satoshi.
17 A. No, once again, what you’re not understanding −− and let 17 A. No, once again, in my evidence, I supply the iDaemon
18 me explain this to you −− is these are software 18 document. That 300−and−something page document defines
19 development tools. So, the actual file is compiled as 19 that one node structure at a point in time. So, those
20 needed, including PDFs. So they’re held as a sort of 20 staff members were working to take my system and scale
21 source code analysis in LaTeX, and all of the data is 21 it , and to do that they needed my original code.
22 set in the sort of metadata frameworks of LaTeX. So, as 22 I didn’t want to do the BTC changed methodology,
23 someone prints or does this to get their sort of updated 23 I wanted my original code, so to do that, they needed to
24 code map, it will still print with the same metadata. 24 work on my original code.
25 This is not that I ’ve extracted that and here’s a PDF, 25 Q. And none of these employees has been prepared to give

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 evidence for you; correct? 1 the year. Mr Madden’s right, isn’t he, that that’s
2 A. Well, Stefan Matthews is actually an employee −− 2 indicative of editing?
3 Q. None of the employees who you say did the coding has 3 A. No, once again, if I actually opened something up, like
4 been prepared to give evidence for you? 4 he implies , in a hex editor , it doesn’t change any of
5 A. Ignatius Pang worked for me. Shoaib was a director of 5 the characters. So, where I’m saying this is wrong is,
6 my company and involved and saw this. Stefan oversaw 6 if I actually open up, say, UltraEdit, which is a hex
7 these people. So, actually , that’s not correct . These 7 editor I use, and I go in there and I change the code in
8 are people who were with the companies. 8 the PDF, then it doesn’t change any of the fonts around
9 Q. You say that there were specific people who produced 9 it . So, the structure here is , what you’re saying is
10 this document, who did the coding, you knew you were 10 that it ’s been edited and somehow someone has also done
11 facing an allegation of forgery in relation to it , and 11 it in a way to make it look like it ’s been edited.
12 the people who you say did the coding are not giving 12 Q. Page 12, please {H/63/12}, paragraph 33, he analyses
13 evidence for you, are they? 13 the raw metadata content of the PDF file and he finds
14 A. No, they’re not. 14 that that includes embedded fonts with copyright
15 Q. Moving on to the related document which Mr Madden could 15 notices , which, if we go over the page {H/63/13}, we see
16 analyse, ID_000375, which is back to his report 16 date to 2015. That separately confirms that this is
17 {H/63/9}, please. From this point on, he examines that 17 a document dating from much later which has been edited
18 document and do we see that he finds that the internal 18 back, doesn’t it ?
19 metadata gave creation and last modified dates of 9 June 19 A. No, it confirms that it ’s been opened. So, as you
20 −− well, we can find this on page 5, under paragraph 11 20 noted, Adobe Distiller ’s opened the program, and
21 {H/63/11}, the internal metadata gave creation and last 21 wherever you open something in Adobe Distiller, it
22 modified dates of 9 June 2008. Do you see that? 22 changes the program, which was also noted in some of
23 A. I do. 23 Madden’s findings.
24 Q. Back to page 10, please {H/63/10}. 24 Now, the document itself comes from Atlassian.
25 He found that parts of the text were encoded 25 The developer can pull down the document and they have

37 39

1 differently so that they couldn’t be copied and pasted 1 a PDF on their machine. I would prefer people actually
2 in Word and do you see he shows those characters in red 2 ran the web version, but people like to be able to take
3 on page {H/63/11}? 3 documents home. I prefer the web version, because we
4 A. Is this page 11? There’s nothing −− 4 have control. One of the problems we’ve had is I don’t
5 Q. We’re just going to see it on page 11. 5 know how to stop people taking documents home, but
6 Now, what he concludes is that the text in red, 6 that’s a normal corporate problem.
7 which is specifically encoded differently , is indicative 7 Q. Dr Wright, once again, I put it to you that the document
8 of the document having been edited in those respects. 8 would not contain this embedded font as a result of
9 Would you agree with that conclusion? 9 simply being opened up in the way you’ve suggested.
10 A. No, I don’t, but, again, this was sourced from a staff 10 A. Actually, I put it to you that Mr Madden has noted that
11 machine and the document is created through a process of 11 using that program does make that change just by opening
12 extracting from Atlassian. We used, at the time, 12 it .
13 Atlassian , I believe the team still does, to −− well, 13 Q. Then to the bottom of the page. Just to be clear,
14 basically manage the code development. The system that 14 that’s not accepted.
15 we’re talking about is a scalable distributed database 15 At the bottom of the page, Mr Madden also identifies
16 handling 1.5 million transactions a second. We broke 16 that there are, unusually, four document property
17 Amazon the other day, AWS. Now Facebook, Google and 17 streams, two pairs, and the internal raw metadata, which
18 Twitter combined do less than a third of that at peak. 18 have differences in the information recorded in
19 So this is important, because that means you need 19 the fields . Do you see that conclusion made there?
20 a management system for running the code. So that sits 20 A. I do.
21 on Atlassian and other systems, I don’t know all of them 21 Q. And then over the page {H/63/14}, paragraph 36(c), for
22 any more, I’m sorry, but for that, these individuals can 22 example, he finds that these indicate an earlier title
23 print out at will . 23 of ”code2flow − online interactive code to flowchart
24 Q. Dr Wright, we’ve got specific characters which are 24 converter” has been modified to ”bitcoin main.h”; do you
25 encoded differently and which relate to Bitcoin and 25 see that?

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 A. I do. 1 the process of development. In creating a distributed

2 Q. That’s a clear indication that this is a document which 2 system where, in Hotwire, we had at one point 50 plus
3 has been edited from an online converter tool which 3 staff in Australia and now we have several hundred in
4 Mr Madden later identifies? 4 Australia , including over 100 developers −− actually
5 A. No, it basically shows that code2flow, that is part of 5 more −− they need to be able to access all of this
6 the Atlassian tool set , has been used, which can 6 information and tools and run it as needed. The way
7 actually be updated to change the header as a program −− 7 that you set metadata in LaTeX files is so that you have
8 as it prints programs. So, this doesn’t actually say it 8 the searchable documents. If everyone produces them
9 the way you’re trying to say. 9 differently , the metadata updates over time, then you
10 Now, what I do say is, again, we use Atlassian, and 10 don’t know which versioning you’re going to be using.
11 the different area there, where it says ”Craig. Wright”, 11 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for
12 my account is just ”Craig”, but the Atlassian files that 12 a break?
13 are under my name are put as ”Craig. Wright” for 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, it would. Thank you.
14 historic reasons. So I don’t actually access Atlassian 14 Dr Wright, feel free to take your jacket off if you
15 any more, but all of the code documents that have been 15 feel more comfortable.
16 imported now to nChain still −− well, still retain that 16 A. Thank you, my Lord.
17 old marker. 17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: We’ll take five minutes. Thank you.
18 Q. Mr Madden finds, if we go to the next page {H/63/15}, 18 (11.37 am)
19 are you aware that he searched for and found a code2flow 19 (A short break)
20 converter online? Are you aware of that? 20 (11.47 am)
21 A. Yes, I am. 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
22 Q. And over the page {H/63/16}, we see he found that it 22 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, I’m now moving on to a document
23 produced code maps presented very similarly to this one? 23 entitled , ”Bitcoin.exe”, which is ID_000739. It’s an
24 A. No, they’re completely different . There are many tools 24 executable file so I ’m not going to ask for it to go on
25 that do code format and UML, but the output here is 25 screen.

41 43

1 nothing like the other one. 1 This is , my Lord, one of our pleaded forgeries and
2 Q. And he later finds , doesn’t he, that that online 2 in the core list of 20.
3 converter with the name which corresponds to 3 Do you recall, in your appendix B, commenting on
4 the metadata property was first produced in August 2012? 4 a Bitcoin executable file named Bitcoin.exe?
5 You’re aware of that, aren’t you? 5 A. I do.
6 A. Yes, Atlassian have changed programs from visual 6 Q. Now, do you recall from Mr Madden’s evidence that he
7 code2flow and other ones in the past. So Atlassian have 7 concluded that this document had been hex edited?
8 been around for longer, but as we’ve changed into 8 A. I do.
9 different programs, these have been updated. So, 9 Q. And in this respect, I think you agree with him?
10 I believe Atlassian does use code2flow, but it ’s going 10 A. I do.
11 to be different to the automated −− what you’re using 11 Q. {H/68/1}, please. This is his appendix 12. Page 3,
12 there. 12 please {H/68/3}. He begins to examine the file contents
13 Q. He also found, I think you’re aware, that the metadata 13 from paragraph 10 at the bottom.
14 of this document show that the version of Adobe XMP Core 14 Then if we go to page 4 {H/68/4}. Comparing this
15 used to create the PDF dates from 2016 and wasn’t 15 file ’s content against that of another exe file in
16 available in 2008? 16 the dataset, which is ID_000842, he found some
17 A. Well, that’s basically the version that’s been opened 17 differences −− a number of differences, including
18 up, because it ’s been opened with Adobe Distiller. So 18 the word ”bitcoins” being spelled with a small letter as
19 I don’t know why someone’s opened it with Distiller, but 19 against a capital , a difference in copyright information
20 that’s occurred. 20 between your name and Satoshi’s name −− that’s the top
21 Q. Dr Wright, all these separate indications go to show 21 of {H/68/5} −− and a difference in the IP address and
22 that this was a document created in or after 2016 as 22 the Bitcoin addresses; do you see that −−
23 the first process of producing the reliance document, 23 A. I do.
24 which is a forgery? 24 Q. −− further down? Thank you.
25 A. That’s incorrect . As I’ve noted, it ’s part of 25 And he found that despite the differences in text ,

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 the text in each area occupied the same number of 1 Q. And do I have this right , you say that the purpose of
2 character spaces, yes? 2 editing it and then deploying it in
3 A. I do. 3 the Kleiman litigation was to suggest that you could not
4 Q. And would you accept that’s consistent with binary 4 have compiled a version of the code?
5 editing of a file to avoid the file crashing? 5 A. That, and the IP address added, 203.57.21.7, that you
6 A. For an executable file , yes. There are other ways of 6 said , was a VPN that David Kleiman used into my company.
7 extending it , but a simple way of doing it would be to 7 So, I provided a VPN access to servers that he could run
8 overwrite using a hex editor . 8 and do some of his forensic work on, and by adding that
9 Q. One example at page 6 {H/68/6}, please, paragraph 13(c), 9 IP address, it would make it seem that Mr Kleiman was
10 your name is set out in such a way that it occupies 10 also sort of part of the code process and part of
11 exactly the same number of characters as Satoshi’s name, 11 the development of Bitcoin.
12 isn ’ t it . 12 Q. Now, when do you say that the ex−employee produced this
13 A. It is . 13 hex edited version?
14 Q. Page 8, please {H/68/8}. 14 A. Produced it? I don’t know. The interactions between
15 Mr Madden, if we go down to lower on page 8, 15 certain people in Hotwire and Ira Kleiman started in
16 downloaded files of Satoshi’s original code as released 16 2014. There were two different agendas. Some of those
17 in version 0.1.0 and found that the reference document, 17 staff members had made a deal where they were going to
18 ID_000842, so the one he’d compared to this, was 18 sell intellectual property, code that had been created
19 identical to it . Are you aware of that finding? 19 in Hotwire, to BNP Paribas(?). The deal was for about
20 A. I am. 20 $100 million for investment in companies, and scaling
21 Q. And he also obtained −− paragraph 17 {H/68/9} −− two 21 and tokenised solutions , IP that hadn’t been patented
22 files required to operate the executable file and ran 22 yet, but is now patented by nChain, as well as doing
23 those two files ; do you see that? 23 deals with backers for Mr Kleiman, so they were
24 A. I do. 24 basically sending information back and forwards with
25 Q. Then page 10 {H/68/10}, he found that, on running them, 25 Mr Kleiman from 2014 on. I don’t know any of what

45 47

1 ID_000739, the one we agree is hex edited, has your name 1 happened, because I’ve −− the only reason I have any of
2 in the copyright notice in 2008 in place of Satoshi’s? 2 this is we have one of the laptops of the ex−staff
3 A. And Alpha version change, yes. 3 members. Which is where this came from.
4 Q. Indeed. 4 Q. So you claim that an ex−employee went to the trouble of
5 And are you aware that Mr Madden also undertook an 5 hex editing a public version of the Bitcoin executable
6 examination to determine if this document had been 6 file to make it look like you’d written it ?
7 corrupted by editing by a checksum test? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. I do. 8 Q. And that he or she then provided it to Ira Kleiman in
9 Q. And are you aware that he found, by that test, that 9 order to advance a case that David Kleiman was in
10 the file bearing your name had been corrupted? 10 partnership with you?
11 A. That’s correct . 11 A. They actually did advance that case. The −−
12 Q. Now, your version, as I understand it from the −− from 12 Q. I know Ira Kleiman advanced that case, but you’re saying
13 your appendix B, part 16 {CSW/2/56}, is as follows, and 13 that it was provided to Ira Kleiman for that purpose?
14 you can tell me at each stage if I ’ve got it wrong. 14 A. That’s what it was used for, yes.
15 ID_000739 was created by hex editing, but you didn’t do 15 Q. In your appendix B, you don’t cite any evidence in
16 it ? 16 support of this account, do you?
17 A. That’s correct . 17 A. Actually, if you look at the chain of custody document,
18 Q. It ’s your account that it was done, that hex editing was 18 what you will note is that this came from an employee
19 done by an ex−employee of one of your Australian 19 laptop.
20 companies? 20 Q. But lots of your documents came from employee laptops,
21 A. That is correct . 21 Dr Wright. That doesn’t tell us or signify that this
22 Q. You go on to say that it was created and introduced into 22 has supposedly been faked by that employee, does it?
23 evidence in the Kleiman litigation in order to fabricate 23 A. Yes, it actually does. I ’m agreeing on this point with
24 the notion of a business partnership with Dave Kleiman? 24 Mr Madden, for once.
25 A. That is correct . 25 Q. Yes, but the story , that this is a document that was

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 faked by one of your disgruntled ex−employees and passed 1 Q. If you had been aware of this document on your system,
2 to Ira Kleiman for him to use against you, that’s 2 forged to set you up, you would have made very sure that
3 a story which wasn’t told when this document was 3 your solicitors identified it so that you wouldn’t face
4 disclosed , was it? 4 these sorts of questions, wouldn’t you, Dr Wright?
5 A. No, I’ve mentioned it multiple times. I ’ve actually 5 A. No, actually , this was brought up multiple times,
6 mentioned ex−employees in −− a number of times, 6 including in the Kleiman case. So, I would have
7 including my blog and in litigation in Florida and other 7 expected that you would have actually looked at that
8 ones over here, so it ’s not new. 8 litigation and known.
9 Q. Dr Wright, this is a document which was disclosed by you 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Were you cross−examined on this document
10 in these proceedings. That’s why it’s got an ID number 10 in the Kleiman −−
11 rather than a C number. Your −− 11 A. I was, my Lord.
12 A. Technically −− 12 MR HOUGH: There’s no reference in your appendix B to where
13 Q. −− your −− wait a second. It was in your disclosure and 13 you were cross−examined, is there?
14 your solicitors did not suggest that it should be 14 A. You’ve got access to the transcripts , I know that, so
15 treated with great care because it was actually, to your 15 I didn’t think I ’d need to put that. I ’m sorry if
16 knowledge, a faked document which had been deployed 16 I didn’t clarify that. I assumed that you would be
17 against you to harm you. 17 reading those documents.
18 A. You were given the chain of custody that said it came 18 Q. The simple explanation, Dr Wright, is that this is
19 from a third party. As was noted, American litigation 19 a forgery made by the only person who really had an
20 is , well , very extensive . This machine was not even in 20 interest in being identified as Satoshi, you; correct?
21 my control, my Lord, it was in an office my wife ran, 21 A. Is that a question, sorry?
22 and because I was a former director of the company and 22 Q. It ’s something I have to put to you, Dr Wright.
23 my wife was a current director, the American magistrate 23 A. No, it ’s not. And, my Lord, I used to teach visual
24 deemed that I still should give over those laptops. So, 24 coding −− sorry, Visual C using Microsoft. So Windows,
25 despite the fact that I said these had nothing to do 25 as everyone well knows, was written in a combination of

49 51

1 with myself or the litigation , the side −− Mr Kleiman’s 1 Boost, Visual C and MinGW, and if I have access to all
2 side had argued well enough that I had to give over that 2 of the source code, which I do, because the source code
3 laptop. 3 for Bitcoin is public , including all of the old files
4 Q. Let’s take this in stages. This document, this 4 that are not commonly known, I could have changed
5 EXE file, was disclosed on your behalf in these 5 anything in source code however I wanted and had
6 proceedings. Forget Kleiman, in these proceedings; 6 a perfect version . Compiling would make it look real.
7 correct? 7 So one of the arguments I keep making is, metadata can
8 A. No, the disclosure in these proceedings included all of 8 easily be changed. One of the reasons for Bitcoin is to
9 the disclosure from 2019. Because I now have access to 9 get around this problem.
10 all of those other files , including third party files −− 10 Q. Compiling a file from scratch would have been a greater
11 Q. Can I stop you there and ask you to answer the question 11 effort , wouldn’t it , than simply editing and producing
12 I originally asked. This document was disclosed in 12 this file , wouldn’t it?
13 these proceedings. You were going on to say why, but it 13 A. Oh, not at all . Now, all of the different functions of
14 was disclosed by you in these proceedings, wasn’t it ? 14 Visual Studio code are already set up, all of
15 A. It was disclosed by my solicitors , yes. 15 the documentation of how I did it is public . I −−
16 Q. And when they disclosed it, your solicitors did not draw 16 basically detailed what you need in Boost, where you get
17 attention to the fact that this document was in fact 17 all the code. I made it very simple for people. This
18 a piece of pure poison, that it was a document which had 18 was because, in 2009, in January, Hal Finney ran it and
19 been faked to harm you and should therefore be treated 19 the DLLs, the dynamic link libraries , didn’t load. Now,
20 with great care? 20 because they didn’t load, I had assumed that the Boost
21 A. The chain of custody notes that we had ex−employees who 21 libraries and other things would −− they’re on my
22 were fired and that the laptops where this came from 22 machine and I don’t think about other people’s machines,
23 were basically the source of that file . So explaining 23 he didn’t have them. Now, that meant I already knew all
24 every file that an employee has changed, I mean, we have 24 this , it ’s all public . I also have Visual Studio
25 in our chain of custody noted ex−employees. 25 running on my computer, I had Boost running on my

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 computer, I had MinGW running on my computer, which, 1 A. That’s a BT IP address.

2 from not only my BDO drive, but the download history 2 Q. That’s the IP address you have just accepted was yours?
3 shows it. So it would be instantaneous, I just click 3 A. No, the one I was accepting was the 129 address, sorry,
4 a button. Going in in a hex editor , on the other hand, 4 if you go back. So 129.45.46.171 was the one I was
5 and matching this up is very painstaking and careful . 5 saying was mine.
6 So to do a hex edit actually would take me a lot longer 6 Q. I read these out, so let me read them out again?
7 than just hitting ”compile” in Visual Studio. 7 A. My apologies if I got that wrong.
8 Q. Well, let ’s see what the experts say in due course. 8 Q. The IP address has been changed from 194.74.129.154 to
9 We’ll move on to the next document ID_000848, which 9 174.74.129.154 and what I put to you was that
10 is at {L4/188/1} which, my Lord, is a pleaded forgery 10 the original IP address, before amendment, was yours.
11 but not in our core list of 20. 11 You dispute that −−
12 Would you accept that this appears as a debug.log 12 A. 19 −− no, I don’t believe so.
13 file generated by using the Bitcoin software? 13 Q. So were you wrong a few moments ago when you said that
14 A. I do. 14 it had been changed from I think your home to your work,
15 Q. May we go, please, to {H/64/6} and I can put to you 15 did you say?
16 Mr Madden’s findings in relation to this . 16 A. I was looking at 12(c), my apologies.
17 At paragraph 12, he compared this against another 17 Q. I see.
18 log file in disclosure , ID_000840, and found that 18 A. I looked at the IP address 129 above and the 203 there.
19 the two were almost identical but had some textual 19 So my sincere apologies, I looked at the wrong field .
20 differences ; do you see that? 20 Q. Well, I ’ve put to you that the document at {L14/200/1}
21 A. I do. 21 showed a speed test for your internet IP address and
22 Q. One was your name appearing in the user file path in 22 you’ve disagreed, so we’re moving on.
23 place of admin; do you see that? 23 I ’m given another reference, {L14/203/1}. Do we see
24 A. I do. 24 that these speed tests appear in a series of Slack posts
25 Q. Another was the server name changing from ”hitchcock” to 25 by you from 2018?

53 55

1 ”ozemail”; do you see that? 1 A. I do.

2 A. I do. 2 Q. Page 2 −−
3 Q. And the IP address has been changed from 194.74.129.154 3 A. Under my name anyway, that’s correct.
4 to 174.74.129.154, so the ”9” changed to a ”7”; do you 4 Q. Page 201 {L14/201/1}, as the document title indicates,
5 see that? 5 a speed test posted by you?
6 A. I do. 6 A. No, posted by my account.
7 Q. Would you accept that the original email −− IP address, 7 Q. So are you saying that that was posted by someone on
8 before amendment, was yours? 8 your behalf or someone acting against your wishes?
9 A. Sorry, IP address? 9 A. I actually don’t know why that was posted and it’s
10 Q. The IP address was yours? 10 not −−
11 A. It ’s on a domain from my company, but it’s not mine. 11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Why does it say ”Craig” in the top
12 Q. L/14 −− 12 right , Dr Wright?
13 A. The original or the changed one, sorry? I missed what 13 MR HOUGH: ”Craig” in the top right.
14 you said. 14 A. Sorry, where am I looking, sorry?
15 Q. I ’m so sorry, the original address before amendment? 15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Top right. Why does it say ”Craig”
16 A. The original was actually mine. The changed one was 16 there?
17 actually in my company. 17 A. I don’t know. It also has an Apple Papers icon, so
18 Q. {L14/200/1}. This is a speed test document from your 18 I actually don’t know.
19 computer, isn’t it ? 19 MR HOUGH: Well, let me suggest to you that what’s happened
20 A. It doesn’t look like my ... I don’t know. No, it 20 here is that there’s been an amendment to change the IP
21 doesn’t have my Google log−in and that’s rather slow. 21 address for one which is in fact yours.
22 We’ve got gigabit internet , so I don’t know. 22 A. No, and it wouldn’t be mine anyway because, I mean, this
23 Q. We see the IP address below ”BT”, don’t we, just on 23 is in England. I didn’t have a BT English thing until
24 the bottom left of the dial , 194.74.129.154. That’s 24 2017.
25 yours, isn ’ t it ? 25 Q. Back to PM11, please. This is {H/64/12} now, please.

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Mr Madden also found, from paragraph 22, that this file 1 particular file .
2 exhibited irregularity in the metadata because 2 Q. Well, tell us now, Dr Wright.
3 the creation time was six years later than the last 3 A. I ’m not sure of the source on this one. You have to
4 modified and accessed times and he found that that 4 tell me which, in the later chain of custody, this comes
5 irregularity couldn’t be explained by any conventional 5 from.
6 process. Would you agree with him in that regard? 6 Q. Dr Wright, I’m reminded that the chain of custody
7 A. No, that could actually be explained by using Xcopy. 7 document won’t tell us anything about this document
8 Where the file came from, I can’t actually answer, but 8 because it ’s not a reliance document and so it doesn’t
9 using Xcopy will present that sort of change. 9 appear on the chain of custody. The chain of custody
10 Q. Page 13 {H/64/13}, from paragraph 27. Do you see that 10 was only required to be completed in relation to your
11 Mr Madden also found an error message in each of 11 reliance documents.
12 ID_000848 and 000840 referring to a ”failed” attempt to 12 A. Then I don’t know. I don’t memorise every document
13 make a connection with an IP address; do you see that? 13 that’s ever come across my view.
14 A. I do. 14 Q. This is a document disclosed by you which you’ve
15 Q. And he identified the IP address, at paragraph 30 on 15 accepted has been backdated and tampered with. Do you
16 the next page {H/64/14}, as relating to the URL 16 know by whom and for what purpose?
17 ”www.whatismyip.com”; do you see that? 17 A. No. I could make a guess, if it ’s from one of
18 A. I do. 18 the employee or ex−employee or something laptops, then
19 Q. And by his researches he found that that was active up 19 that would be a source of that. There are also, in my
20 to 2011. That’s paragraph 31(a) onwards, if we go down 20 sort of disclosure files that came from Ira Kleiman. So
21 the page and over the page {H/64/15}. And it was active 21 because of the way that the litigation works, when those
22 up to 2011; do you see that? 22 copies from Ira Kleiman and others were given to my
23 A. I do. 23 solicitors , they were put into Relativity , my Lord, and
24 Q. At page 16 {H/64/16}, inactive by 2013? 24 now I technically have all of my opposition’s files , and
25 A. I see that. 25 as I go through litigation , I seem to be growing a list

57 59

1 Q. In paragraph 34 on page 18 {H/64/16}, he reached what 1 of everyone else ’s files that I don’t actually want to
2 I suggest is the natural conclusion that the error 2 keep and I keep paying for keeping.
3 message was consistent with this software being run in 3 Q. Again, there was no indication when this document was
4 2013 or later , at which time that URL wouldn’t have been 4 disclosed that it was a document that had been tampered
5 accessible ; would you agree? 5 with, was there, Dr Wright?
6 A. Quite possibly, yes. 6 A. As we’ve noted, we had disclosed that I had litigation
7 Q. So that would suggest a creation time of 2013 or later , 7 and that documents from third parties, including ones
8 consistent with the 2015 creation time in the provided 8 who are hostile to me, had sent documents in.
9 metadata? 9 Q. Moving on to another set of documents, {L8/338/1},
10 A. Quite possibly, and I’ ll also note that the change from 10 please. This is a document which is a pleaded forgery
11 the IRC server to the Ozemail one, which is actually 11 and in our core list of 20.
12 the wrong domain name, would be wrong, because while 12 Now do you see, Dr Wright, that this is a document
13 I worked at Ozemail, back in the 1990s, the Ozemail IRC 13 which appears to be an email from Satoshi Nakamoto to an
14 server was closed in around 2004 or ’05. I don’t recall 14 addressee, ”Ut Ng”. Is that a reference to Uyen Nguyen?
15 exactly when, but it was definitely before Bitcoin. 15 A. Most likely . It ’s not my email, so I’m not actually
16 Q. Dr Wright, would you accept, at any rate, given 16 sure.
17 the metadata signs and all the other conclusions that 17 Q. It ’s dated 28 January 2014, and it says:
18 I ’ve put to you, including the last one, which you 18 ”Thank you for being on board.
19 agreed with, that these debug log files exhibit signs of 19 ”We will discuss plans later .
20 backdating? 20 ”We NEVER discuss this.
21 A. Oh, definitely . They’ve been tampered with. 21 ”Please do not bother replying ... This does not
22 Q. And are you able to provide a theory as to how these 22 exist .
23 were tampered with and by whom? 23 ”I value all you have done.”
24 A. If you have a look at the chain of custody document for 24 Yes?
25 this again, that will tell you the source of this 25 A. I do see that.

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Q. And if this email had been genuine, an email from 1 Q. And page 6, please {H/104/6}, looking at
2 Satoshi to your collaborator , Ms Nguyen, would support 2 the transmission hops, he found that the first
3 your claim to be Satoshi, wouldn’t it? 3 transmission hop −− from the first transmission hop in
4 A. Okay, I’m going to address the problems in what you’ve 4 the header that the email was authored on a computer,
5 just said one by one. Number one, Uyen was a person who 5 the network name for which was ”cwright”; do you see
6 was an intern at my companies that I was training. She 6 that?
7 was a university student in California that worked for 7 A. Potentially . You’ll note the web host, so it depends on
8 one of my companies and was given an opportunity. 8 how the application was configured, but that’s
9 Next, this was in 2014, so that was after Vistomail 9 a possibility . It ’s not an EHLO, it’s a ”helo” and with
10 had been sold and people from COPA started owning 10 HELO, anyone can type in any value.
11 Vistomail. So, no, that wouldn’t be either. 11 Q. Indeed.
12 Then, on top of that, it would have to have 12 At paragraph 18, he observes, doesn’t he, that
13 the original information. So if it was a 2008 or 2009 13 the delivery of the message included
14 email, it might be supportive of Uyen saying that she 14 the entry ”for craig@rcjbr .org”?
15 had spoken to Satoshi. Otherwise, it has no value. 15 A. I do.
16 Q. Well, we’re going to have to disagree about that, 16 Q. That’s your email address, isn ’ t it ?
17 because I suggest to you that a genuine email from 17 A. Yes.
18 Satoshi in 2014 to one of your colleagues or 18 Q. And over the page {H/140/7}, I think paragraph 19. He
19 collaborators with this content could support your claim 19 found that that was an indication that the message had
20 to be Satoshi. 20 been taken from that email inbox, or that mailbox.
21 A. I would again disagree. As I also covered in my paper 21 Would you accept that finding?
22 on digital signatures , identity doesn’t come from 22 A. I do.
23 possession. Identity , signatures exactly , require 23 Q. And then, further down, he found that checks using
24 knowledge of identity first . So you can’t create 24 the sender policy framework verification method
25 identity by saying, ”I own an email”. What you’re 25 indicated that the email hadn’t come from the Satoshi

61 63

1 basically claiming is that if I get someone’s password 1 Vistomail address, yes?

2 and username for Gmail and I start sending emails as 2 A. That’s correct .
3 them or spoof them and say that I’m someone, that I am 3 Q. And you agree, don’t you, that this was a spoofed email?
4 proving I ’m someone. 4 A. Completely.
5 My entire case has been premised on the fact that 5 Q. And you agree that it was among your disclosure
6 you cannot use a key, you cannot use an email, you 6 documents?
7 cannot just have a file and say, ”Hey, this is who 7 A. I agree that it was in the documents that have been
8 I am”. Rather, identity is a construct through time. 8 collected over the years , including ex−staff computers,
9 It involves work. My whole philosophy of proof−of−work 9 and this was on a computer that had access to my wife’s
10 is all my degrees, all my patents, all my 10 email, my wife’s personal email, my email, several other
11 qualifications . So, I sincerely disagree. 11 staff members’ emails, and other emails that it should
12 Q. {H/104/1}, please. This is Mr Madden’s report 12 not have had. It had information personal to me and my
13 addressing this document, among others, ID_001546, and 13 wife, including all our communications as husband and
14 he addresses it from this page. And he finds, on page 4 14 wife. So −− and it was on a staff laptop. So, no,
15 {H/104/4}, that when he selects the ”reply” option in 15 I was not terribly happy with it.
16 relation to this email, over the page, that he’s 16 Q. In your appendix B, you say, don’t you, that Ms Nguyen
17 presented with an email with two addresses that we see, 17 probably created the email?
18 one for Satoshi and one for you at Hotwire; do you see 18 A. That’s a possibility . I don’t actually know. What I do
19 that? 19 know is ”cwright” was never my computer, I don’t name my
20 A. I do. 20 computers that way, and the other information with
21 Q. He then investigates the transmission header and he 21 web box, etc, has nothing to do with the companies that
22 found that both the Satoshi address and the address with 22 I was associated with.
23 your name at Hotwire were in the ”Reply to” field; do 23 Q. You say in your appendix B {CSW/2/61} −− and we can put
24 you see that? 24 it up on screen if you like −− that it is likely that
25 A. I do. 25 Uyen Nguyen created this email?

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 A. What I’m saying is probabilistically . If we’re doing 1 when your solicitors gave disclosure in early 2023, are
2 balance of probabilities , then someone sending an email 2 you saying that they identified by document number those
3 to themself is the most likely outcome. 3 documents which came from compromised systems, were
4 Q. Is it your evidence, based on what you’ve said 4 unreliable , may have been altered materially to harm
5 previously , that whoever produced this had access to 5 you?
6 your email? 6 A. All I know is I filled out chain of custody information,
7 A. No, whoever received this particular one. So, someone 7 I provided information to my solicitors noting all of
8 having this email doesn’t mean that they produced −− 8 this . I stated that I didn’t want to give over third
9 they created it . So there are two different things. 9 party computers, I didn’t want to give over information
10 Someone created this email, which is spoofed, and it’s 10 that had been sent to the Australian Tax Office by third
11 on a compromised system. 11 parties on the internet . I said a whole lot of that
12 Q. A compromised system of yours? 12 stuff . What ended up being given to you, I don’t know,
13 A. No, not of mine. 13 I ’m not my solicitors.
14 Q. Of whose then? 14 Q. What I suggest to you −− and please don’t go into any
15 A. My email was compromised, but the compromised system had 15 privileged communications, but what I suggest to you is
16 mine and other people’s email. 16 that if you had been concerned about a whole series of
17 Q. And who do you say compromised this system and what 17 documents containing absolute poison, like the last −−
18 system do you say it was? 18 like the hex edited EXE file and these ones, you would
19 A. I ’d have to look at the chain of custody documents to 19 have been −− your solicitors would have taken every step
20 tell you which particular laptop, but there were 20 in this major litigation to make clear that these were
21 a number −− 21 unreliable faked documents.
22 Q. Again, this is not in the chain of custody because it’s 22 A. Being that I went through the Kleiman litigation, where
23 not a reliance document, Dr Wright. 23 all of this was challenged publicly , where I was
24 A. Well, then I could find that out by looking it up, but 24 questioned under oath before a jury on some of these
25 I can’t just tell you. I don’t have these memorised. 25 points, I thought it was public information. On top of

65 67

1 Q. When you disclosed this document, there was no 1 that, there’s a reason I ’m not using Ontier any more,
2 suggestion, was there, that this was a document which 2 but we won’t go there.
3 had been faked by spoofing and was therefore entirely 3 Q. {L9/441/1}, please, which is ID_002586, an email
4 unreliable ? 4 supposedly from satoshi@vistomail.com to
5 A. No, there was an indication that all these documents 5 michelle.m.seven@gmail.com, supposedly copied to
6 came from third parties, including machines that we 6 Craig S Wright, subject ”Digital Fire”, 6 June 2015:
7 noted, both in the Kleiman and other McCormack type 7 ”Email 1
8 cases that were third parties . 8 ”Before I fly .
9 Q. Do you say that your solicitors identified a number of 9 ”Please do not reply.
10 documents by number which were unreliable, or may have 10 ”The reply to is SN@anon
11 come from compromised sources? 11 ”but use this one and I may end up gone....
12 A. All of the ones from ex−staff laptops are unreliable 12 ”I will help all I can, but how do I know that you
13 sources, but I ’m still required to put them in court. 13 will keep your word?
14 Q. Do you say that when giving disclosure, your solicitors 14 ”I am a man and cannot play the role you seek.
15 identified by number those documents which were −− came 15 ”Craig.”
16 from compromised sources or were likely to be 16 Do you see that?
17 unreliable ? 17 A. I do.
18 A. My solicitors basically had all of the documents. 18 Q. Is it your evidence that this is also a spoofed email?
19 I argued that I should not have to put in third party 19 A. Definitely .
20 documents, I actually had a fight with my solicitors at 20 Q. That was another document from your disclosure which
21 one point, arguing that why should I put in 21 wasn’t identified as being fake when disclosed, wasn’t
22 a compromised laptop from an ex−staff member, why should 22 it ?
23 I give files that −− 23 A. No, actually I noted all of the staff and ex−employee
24 Q. Can I pause you there and ask you to answer the question 24 laptops, so that’s incorrect .
25 that I ’ve now asked at least once. The question is, 25 Q. Moving on then to the Kleiman emails, may we begin with

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 the first of those {L8/446/1}. Now, this is −− this 1 change through a server migration; that’s right , isn ’ t
2 presents as being an email from you to ”Ira K”, 2 it ?
3 Ira Kleiman, with the subject line , ”FW: Defamation and 3 A. No, I noted that there was a real email that had been
4 the difficulties of law on the Internet”, and the email 4 put through that. As with the Kleiman litigation , when
5 sent to Mr Kleiman on 6 March 2014. 5 this was brought before me, I noted that the email had
6 And do we see that it’s forwarding an original 6 been doctored and this email, purported to be from me,
7 message from ”Craig S Wright” with an email address 7 was introduced by Ira Kleiman. So, basically ,
8 ”craig .wright@information−defense.com”, dated 8 the source of some of these emails was, yes, I ’d asked
9 12 March 2008, to Dave Kleiman; do you see that? 9 Dave to be part of what I wanted to do; I had worked
10 A. I do. 10 with Dave for a number of years, he was my best friend
11 Q. Do we see that the text reads: 11 before he died, and I didn’t realise how sick he was,
12 ”I need your help editing a paper I am going to 12 though I had spent two and a half years trying to get
13 release later this year. I have been working on a new 13 him involved and at no point did he tell me that he
14 form of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin ... 14 couldn’t be because he was in hospital.
15 ”You are always there for me Dave. I want you to be 15 Now, Ira Kleiman then used the slightly modified
16 a part of it all . 16 version of what I’d sent to build the case around his
17 ”I cannot release it as me. GMX, vistomail and Tor. 17 brother with other things.
18 I need your help and I need a version of me to make 18 Q. You said, didn’t you, that the body of the email, so
19 this work that is better than me.” 19 the text of the email, is the same as that of the email
20 A. I see it . 20 which Dr Wright sent on 12 March 2008?
21 Q. You’ll be very familiar with this email, which was 21 A. Materially .
22 considered in the Kleiman litigation , and I think you’re 22 Q. No, ”the same”.
23 aware that this is quoted in this form in COPA’s 23 A. What I mean by that is materially the same.
24 particulars of claim? 24 Q. When you signed the statement of truth in that defence,
25 A. I am. 25 did you believe that the text of the email was different

69 71

1 Q. And are you aware that in its particulars of claim, COPA 1 in any respects, what the email actually said?
2 stated that in the Kleiman proceedings you’d asserted 2 A. I believed that it was materially the same.
3 that you’d sent an email to David Kleiman in these 3 Q. Did you believe that there were words, passages, whole
4 terms? Are you aware that’s what COPA said? 4 sentences different between the email that you said was
5 A. Yes, I am. 5 the same and the actual email?
6 Q. {A/3/17}. Well, actually, it ’s probably fair to show 6 A. I believed there were some changes. I had noted this in
7 you COPA’s particulars of claim {A/2/10}. So an excerpt 7 my testimony in Florida. So I believe that it was based
8 is taken from that email and COPA says that you 8 on my original email, but I don’t have the original
9 stated −− in the Kleiman proceedings, you asserted that 9 email, so I can’t tell you what the changes are.
10 you sent an email to Dave Kleiman showing you to be 10 Q. Dr Wright, you were clear in the re−amended defence,
11 the originator of the idea of Bitcoin in those terms; do 11 understanding the importance of this document, that
12 you see that? 12 the body of the email was the same, weren’t you?
13 A. I see what you’re saying, yes. 13 A. Most of it is . So what I’m saying by this is , I ’m
14 Q. Can we just then go to your defence, {A/3/17}, to see 14 saying I don’t actually have the original , but there are
15 what you reply. Paragraph 50: 15 bits that don’t sound right. So, the email was one that
16 ”While the body of the email is the same as that of 16 I sent. I did say to Dave at that time, I did make
17 the email which Dr Wright sent on 12 March 2008, 17 a comment to David Kleiman, ”I wanted you to be a part
18 the header is different . Dr Wright believes that 18 of this ”. But I don’t have that original email. And
19 the difference has arisen as a result of the original 19 while I ’ve told people about it, I don’t have the exact
20 email being moved from one exchange server to another.” 20 copy. That is materially the same.
21 That’s what you pleaded in the defence, isn’t it ? 21 Q. Let’s go to your fourth witness statement {E/4/31},
22 A. Yes. 22 please, paragraph 93, a question from the RFI asked you
23 Q. You didn’t say in the defence that the email content had 23 how you’d come to believe that the header was different,
24 been changed or that the email was a forgery, but that 24 as you’d said in the defence, setting out full detail .
25 it was a real email which had undergone an automatic 25 And you said there at 93:

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 ”I sent the email set out at paragraph 28 of 1 this a genuine document?

2 the Re−Re−Amended Particulars of Claim to David Kleiman 2 A. I don’t know. I didn’t forward it .
3 on 12 March 2008 using my wright_c@ridges−estate.com 3 Q. You didn’t forward it to Stefan Matthews?
4 email address.” 4 A. No, I did not.
5 You didn’t suggest there that you sent an email 5 Q. Are you able to give an explanation why a document
6 which was a bit like that one but you think was actually 6 appearing to be an email from you to Stefan Matthews
7 different in some respects. 7 forwarding that email is in disclosure ?
8 A. I apologise if I wasn’t clear , but in 53, you’re asking 8 A. Yes, I can.
9 a question as how I believe the header is different . 9 Q. Go on.
10 So, I didn’t explain anything else , because that’s not 10 A. Basically , as I ’ve noted, a number of emails were
11 part of the question. 11 compromised, mine and my wife’s and other senior people
12 Q. But this was another opportunity, if you thought that 12 in the company. One of the problems is, when you
13 the email was actually different from the one set out at 13 appoint people as system administrators, you trust them.
14 paragraph 28 of the re−re−amended particulars of claim 14 So, as much as we tried to run a secure operation, if
15 to note that difference , wasn’t it ? 15 you have a wolf in your hen house, things go wrong. So,
16 A. As I said , I said this under oath in the Florida court. 16 as I ’ve noted, there were a number of staff computers
17 I noted this , so I would presume that people know that 17 containing my wife’s personal emails, my personal emails
18 I ’m not claiming that this is an original . 18 and even things to do with our children. So, yes, there
19 Q. {L8/425/1}, please, looking at a couple of other 19 are a number of things happened right back from then.
20 versions of the email in disclosure . I can give 20 The engagement with Ira Kleiman started in 2014. By
21 the ID number if that would help. 21 2015, I ’d stopped engaging with him all together and he
22 That’s a further version of the same email in 22 started building a case. He started sending a variety
23 the different format but with the same ”From” address 23 of information out to journalists , including WIRED and
24 and content; do you see that? 24 Gizmodo, he started sending information out to others
25 A. I do. 25 I was involved with. So part of the doxing involved

73 75

1 Q. {L2/317/1}, another copy of the email, apparently 1 files that came from my computers, but also ones that
2 forwarded by you to yourself on the same day it was 2 were modified to look like they were from me.
3 written, 12 March 2008; do you see that? 3 Q. Dr Wright, this document which we have on screen at
4 A. Well, it says ”From: Craig S Wright” but you can put any 4 the moment is document ID_001711. Can you take that
5 header field in anything. 5 from me?
6 Q. And {L2/318/1}. Now, this is pleaded by COPA as 6 A. I can.
7 a forgery in its schedule and in the core list of 20, 7 Q. And you’re clear that this is a doctored document? It’s
8 my Lord. 8 not a real one?
9 It ’s a document which appears to be an original 9 A. I mean, it’s a forward from a compromised email address
10 email from you to Dave Kleiman but with your email 10 of mine. Part of the reason I purged and reset up my
11 address of ”craig@rcjbr .org” and a time of ”07:39”, as 11 email, losing a lot of information, in late 2015, was
12 compared with the 6.37 on the first email we looked at; 12 that once I figured out there was a compromise, I knew
13 do you see that? 13 that there could be malicious code or anything in my
14 A. I do. 14 email addresses, so I completely shut down my RCJBR
15 Q. And that’s, my Lord, pleaded as a forgery in 15 account for myself, my wife, and rebuilt it , losing all
16 the schedule because it’s the only version in disclosure 16 of the previous emails. So the reason for that, of
17 appearing to be the original . 17 course, is , if there’s malicious code and I run it , then
18 Are any of these emails, and perhaps focusing 18 I ’m going to be compromised again.
19 particularly on this one, the original email? 19 Q. You said −− and you can tell me if I’m wrong, and others
20 A. No. 20 can look at the transcript , but you said that this
21 Q. {L10/74/1}, please. This is an email, again in your 21 document was not a genuine email. The email, apparently
22 disclosure , from you at the rcjbr .org address to 22 from you to Stefan Matthews on 9 July 2015, is not
23 Stefan Matthews, 9 July 2015, 08:46. The text is: 23 a genuine email.
24 ”More history.” 24 A. No, that’s not what I said. What I was saying is that
25 Forwarding the Kleiman email of 12 March 2008. Is 25 I had a compromised account. So, a genuine email would

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 include my compromised account. So, if someone sent an 1 Q. {L10/74/1}, back to the document. Just to be clear, are
2 email using my Gmail, which now has two−factor 2 you saying now that the email we see here sent to
3 authentication but didn’t back then, then it ’s still 3 Stefan Matthews was one that you genuinely sent?
4 a genuine email, but not from me. 4 A. Is one, sorry?
5 Q. Okay. Do you say that you −− or do you accept that you 5 Q. Is one that you genuinely sent?
6 sent the email from Craig S Wright −− craigs@rcjbr.org 6 A. I genuinely sent?
7 to Stefan Matthews on 9 July 2015 with the content that 7 Q. Yes.
8 we see on this page? 8 A. No, I just stated that this was sent from my email
9 A. No, I accept that my email address was used. 9 account. Inside there, it says −−
10 Q. But you say that you did not send that email? 10 Q. But not by you?
11 A. No, I did not. 11 A. No, not by me, but it contains a message from
12 Q. {E/4/33}, please, your fourth witness statement, 12 Craig Wright, and here to Craig Wright to Craig Wright
13 paragraph 98: 13 and then to Dave Kleiman. So if you look at this one,
14 ”I have been provided to me by my solicitors 14 this is forwarding, from someone to Stefan Matthews, an
15 document ID_001711, a copy of which is at Exhibit CSW17. 15 email from Craig Wright to Craig Wright containing
16 This is an email to Stefan Matthews dated 9 July 2015 16 a message to David Kleiman.
17 ... in which I forward an email from me to 17 Q. We see that the email forwarded has the same content as
18 [Dave] Kleiman.” 18 the others, including the last paragraph:
19 A. Sorry, is that a question? 19 ”I cannot release it as me, GMX, vistomail and Tor.”
20 Q. Was that a falsehood, or was it a falsehood that you’ve 20 And so on, yes?
21 just told me? 21 A. I do.
22 A. No, I’m saying what it purports to be. 22 Q. We can take that off screen.
23 Q. No, no, no. At paragraph 98 you say that, ”This is an 23 You recall the ”information−defense” domain name
24 email ... in which I forwarded an email from me to 24 that we looked at on the first document?
25 [Dave] Kleiman”. That’s you saying, ”I sent the email”. 25 A. I do.

77 79

1 You’ve just told me that you didn’t send the email, so 1 Q. Mr Madden established that that was first registered in
2 which is right? 2 January 2009, according to both Australian official
3 A. No, if you read this , it says: 3 records and the WHOIS History service. Are those
4 ”This is an email to Stefan Matthews dated [that 4 conclusions you agree or disagree with?
5 date] ... ” 5 A. Completely, although −−
6 Comma: 6 Q. Completely agree or disagree?
7 ” ... in which I forward an email from me to 7 A. I agree. WHOIS is a valid use of how −− finding domain
8 [Dave] Kleiman.” 8 information, as I said in my other statement.
9 I ’m sorry if you don’t realise the meaning of 9 Q. Mr Madden found, and I think you also agree, that
10 a comma, but if you see this: 10 the rcjbr .org domain name was first registered in 2011?
11 ”This is an email to Stefan Matthews ... [date] ... 11 A. Yes, this was part of what I pointed out in the Kleiman
12 in which I forward an email from me to [Dave] Kleiman”. 12 case. Ira Kleiman was using this to support his case
13 Inside that is a forwarded email from me to 13 that Dave Kleiman, his brother, deceased, was my
14 Dave Kleiman. I apologise if I ’m not clear on this , but 14 partner, and I pointed out that ”RCJBR” means Ramona,
15 where I dated these two different bits , that’s 15 Craig, Josh, Ben, Rachel, and I only met my wife in
16 a separate thing. I did not say, ”I forwarded an email 16 2011, so arguing that this email, in court, which he
17 to Stefan Matthews that contains ...” 17 did, was evidence of his brother being a partner, was,
18 Q. Well, Dr Wright, I have to put it to you that there is 18 well , not good evidence.
19 a clear and stark contradiction between your evidence 19 Q. {H/83/27}, please. Mr Madden, looking at ID_00464,
20 today and what you attested to with a statement of truth 20 which was the version of the email supposedly forwarded
21 in this witness statement. 21 by you to yourself , examining that he found that
22 A. No, I disagree. As I state , ”This is an email to 22 the transmission timestamp for that email was
23 Stefan Matthews”, of that date. I did not say, ”This is 23 9 July 2015, at odds with the recorded date. He went on
24 an email I sent”. I ’m going to apologise if I ’m not 24 to find a whole series of further abnormalities. I can
25 clear on that, but I thought it was. 25 take you through them, but perhaps we can short−circuit

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 that by saying, do you accept that that email, the one 1 I ’m saying that I went from Ridge Estates,
2 supposedly forwarded by you to yourself, was not an 2 Ridge Estates ran a sort of domain in X500, and it
3 authentic email to its date? 3 changed to Information Defense, keeping the same active
4 A. What I’m saying is, if you look there, ”PCCSW01” isn’t 4 directory tree structure . Now, when that happens, it
5 me. The IP address, if Mr Madden had checked it, is in 5 changes all of the naming structures in Microsoft. So
6 the US. I was in Australia , now in Britain; I ’ve never 6 I did that at a later date, but I ’m saying that this
7 had a US IP address. And ”PDT”, which is −− well, 7 email isn ’ t that, that there are both: I did this on my
8 Atlantic Eastern Standard time, I believe . So, I agree 8 exchange servers, and, after giving sort of a view of
9 there’s a whole lot of funky alterations that happen to 9 this email to Ira , I ’ve got a fabricated one.
10 match where Mr Ira Kleiman would be. 10 Q. So, part of the difference between the real email and
11 Q. Page 36, please {H/83/36}, and paragraph 83. Mr Madden 11 the version forwarded to the ones that we have seen is
12 addresses the copy of the email forwarded by you to 12 due to a migration of servers in your actual systems?
13 Ira Kleiman, and he looked specifically at 13 A. Yes.
14 Information Defence, and he finds, as per the researches 14 Q. And part of the difference is due to somebody altering
15 that I mentioned earlier, that it was anachronistic to 15 the actual document?
16 the face date of the email, and I think you agree with 16 A. Ira probably would have seen the Information Defence,
17 that? 17 when it was changed, domain. But without any
18 A. Completely. As I noted, Ira Kleiman didn’t realise that 18 explanation of that it ’s quite possible , not knowing
19 I had Ridge Estates and closed it down in 2008 and moved 19 that I only set that up in January 2009, he didn’t
20 over to Information Defence; he only knew about 20 understand that it was originally sent on Ridge Estates.
21 the earlier company. So, when he was trying to get 21 Q. May we go back to page 30 in Mr Madden’s appendix PM18
22 evidence to, well , take half of everything I created, he 22 {H/83/30}. His evidence, at paragraph 71, addresses
23 didn’t understand some of the history that I know. 23 the explanation that the email domain name has changed
24 I know it because I lived it . I started and closed down 24 as a result of server migrations; do you see that?
25 Ridge Estates. 25 A. I do.

81 83

1 Q. Now, you say, don’t you, now that the email supposedly 1 Q. And he says that the explanation of server migrations
2 from you to Dave Kleiman on 12 March 2008 which was 2 don’t explain : first of all , the transmission headers
3 forwarded in this email to Ira Kleiman, or apparently 3 timing the email −− the sending of the email years after
4 so, is not a genuine email. That’s what you say, 4 the purported date; secondly, two different emails
5 isn ’ t it ? 5 having identical transmission headers; or, thirdly ,
6 A. I ’m not denying any of that. 6 the timestamps differing by two minutes, as we saw.
7 Q. And we can see that, amongst other things, from the fact 7 Those are all anomalies that aren’t explained by
8 that it uses a domain name which is an anachronistic, 8 the server migration, aren’t they, or the server
9 can’t we? 9 migration excuse?
10 A. We can. And my belief on that is, I had shown 10 A. It ’s not an excuse, it actually happened. As I’ve
11 a screenshot of the email to Mr Ira Kleiman which didn’t 11 noted, on the email I had, I never forwarded that email
12 show the domain. Like when you showed before, you could 12 to Ira Kleiman, I only allowed him to see it . So,
13 see the names. Now, from a screenshot, he wouldn’t be 13 the only way he could rebuild it , if I ’m saying I don’t
14 able to basically go into court and go, ”Well, I ’ve got 14 have it any more, is to rebuild it . And as I noted,
15 an email, I can prove Craig and Dave”. So, my personal 15 after the doxing I deleted all of my emails, all of my
16 belief is that he used the screenshot to try and 16 active directory , etc, emails on the company, all of my
17 fabricate one. 17 other ones, to purge anything that might be malicious.
18 Q. So just to be clear , you’re not saying that the domain 18 Q. {L20/252.79/1}, please. Do we see that this is an
19 −− you’re not now saying that the domain changed because 19 IP Address Lookup tool showing the IP address
20 of a process of genuine changes of server on your part, 20 103.39.121.201 being registered in Australia?
21 migrations of server , but because somebody, Ira Kleiman 21 A. Yes, it is .
22 or somebody working for him, edited the email? 22 Q. Can we have that alongside {H/83/27}.
23 A. No, I’m saying both. To be clear, I ’m actually giving 23 Now, do you see at the top, just under paragraph 60,
24 two different things. 24 in the transmission header for ID_000464, the IP address
25 I ’m not always clear, my Lord. 25 is shown received from ”PCCSW01” and there’s an IP

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 address ”103.39.121.201”, yes? 1 Brisbane, in Queensland, not Sydney, where I lived.

2 A. Yes. My apologies, I got this IP address mixed up. 2 Q. Dr Wright, it’s right , isn ’ t it , that when you were
3 Memorising IP addresses is why we have DNS, my Lord. 3 first answering the allegation that these Kleiman emails
4 I know what this one is. This is Brisbane, 4 were forgeries , you said simply that the domain name had
5 Australia . That was Jamie Wilson. Jamie Wilson was 5 changed as a result of server migration. That was
6 former CFO, chief financial officer , who was dismissed 6 the excuse or explanation given in your defence;
7 in 2013 and ended up helping Ira Kleiman. He was 7 correct?
8 dismissed because he tried to embezzle money and tried 8 A. Before I looked at them, I knew that I had, in the past,
9 to sell things. So, Jamie is the person who lives in 9 sent an email. So, basically what I’m stating is , if
10 Queensland. 10 the correct email that came from my domain was in there,
11 Q. I can see you’re trying to help my cross−examination by 11 this is how it would happen.
12 pre−empting my questions, Dr Wright, but let me ask 12 Q. And then −−
13 the question I was going to ask. 13 A. I did not, at any stage, analyse this email to see how
14 You’d fingered Ira Kleiman, of course, an American, 14 it was created.
15 for confecting this document, and the IP shows its 15 Q. And then, in your appendix B, you came up with
16 association with Australia , doesn’t it ? 16 the explanation that the original email as sent had
17 A. Yes, that’s correct . Both of them were working 17 different content because it didn’t contain the final
18 together. So, my first patent was created basically 18 paragraph about GMX, Vistomail or Tor. That’s your
19 with Jamie Wilson. We had a company, FASV, which was 19 account now, isn’t it ?
20 a vault system, started in 20 −− like, the idea started 20 A. Yes. I don’t have the original email, but I ’m very sure
21 in 2010, and the idea was to use Bitcoin with 21 that I did not say that.
22 a threshold key system, which Ms Meiklejohn talks about, 22 Q. And your account, just to be clear, is that all
23 that I patented in 2011, and Jamie Wilson wrote some 23 the versions of this email which we have in disclosure
24 false declarations saying that I assigned all of my 24 and which have been addressed by Mr Madden have been
25 rights to him for nothing, tried to sell some of my 25 manipulated?

85 87

1 assets to Google, and then ended up helping Ira Kleiman. 1 A. It is .

2 I collect lots of people like this . 2 Q. Now, you say in your appendix B that the real email was
3 Q. Back to Mr Madden’s report {H/83/30}, on screen. 3 tampered with by former employees of your companies who
4 Paragraphs 71(d) on page {H/83/31}, sorry. Do you see 4 were seeking to help Ira Kleiman?
5 that Mr Madden also found a number of other difficulties 5 A. Yes. As I said , Jamie Wilson was actually doctoring my
6 with the explanation that the domain had been changed as 6 signature, and other such things, which we caught him
7 a result of a change of servers, including , first of 7 out on. My first filed patent was actually assigned to
8 all , that he had never seen this happen in practice, 8 him, which I never did, I never have received any
9 71(d), and also that the information in the transmission 9 consideration and in fact never sold it .
10 header, such as the email address, is fixed such as 10 Q. Dr Wright, let me put it to you that there are several
11 would not change as a result of the change of server 11 points that give the lie to this latest excuse.
12 being used to view the email, and that’s correct , isn ’ t 12 First of all , it is directly at odds, isn ’ t it , with
13 it ? 13 what you said in the defence and your fourth statement,
14 A. No, actually there are multiple problems there. 14 that the email was the same in content as the real one?
15 First of all , Mr Madden isn’t qualified as an 15 A. No, it ’s materially the same.
16 exchange server administrator, let alone expert. So, 16 Q. Secondly, it ’s directly at odds with your evidence in
17 one, when you’re running Exchange Server and you have 17 your fourth statement that you sent the email to
18 active directory domains, particularly going back to 18 Stefan Matthews which included the content you now say
19 2008/9, etc, the X500 structure supersedes the IP 19 to be fake.
20 address internet structure . So, X500−type email differs 20 A. No, in my fourth statement −− I apologise, again, if I’m
21 from the internet SMTP structure of email, and when 21 not clear −− what I said, one, this is an email to
22 domains are updated, this will change. So that’s one 22 Stefan Matthews, in that, I did this . So it is an email
23 point. 23 to Stefan Matthews that forwards an email that I sent to
24 The next point is, what we have here is an email 24 David.
25 that is not from exchange but sent from an address in 25 Q. Finally , let me put it to you that while Ira Kleiman

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 certainly deployed that email, there was nothing about 1 proceedings?

2 the final paragraph that made it critically better for 2 A. I do.
3 his case against you in Florida , was there? 3 Q. Page 88, please {L17/431/88}. Do you see that
4 A. Actually, there was. The funding parties behind 4 the fourth reference on this page is to an EXE file and
5 Ira Kleiman are associated with BTC Core. Now, what 5 we can see from the third column from the right that
6 they wanted to do was have Ira be like the heir to 6 it ’s got the MD5 hash we were just looking at?
7 a dead Satoshi. So, Ira received tens of millions of 7 A. I do.
8 dollars in litigation funding from some of your clients 8 Q. And that’s given ”Bilag 57”, Bilag I think means volume,
9 purposely to make it that the dead brother was Satoshi, 9 and ”WR” for Wikborg Rein, the lawyers?
10 I was just the dumb businessman who had no idea and 10 A. I do.
11 couldn’t code, and that thus, Dave, who is dead and 11 Q. {L17/202/1}, please. Do you recognise this as
12 can’t argue, is now the heir to all of this and 12 a translation of a procedural document from
13 therefore we can do whatever we want. 13 Wikborg Rein?
14 MR HOUGH: My Lord, I appreciate that we’ve gone a little 14 A. I ’ ll take your word for that.
15 over the 1.00 pm break. Would that be a convenient 15 Q. Then page 8, please {L17/202/8}. Do we see the first
16 moment. 16 main paragraph writes −− says:
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 17 ”A number of documents have been collected from
18 The usual warning, Dr Wright. Just relax, but don’t 18 Wright in connection with lawsuits pending in other
19 talk to anybody about the case. 19 jurisdictions . Of relevance to this dispute, 71
20 A. I will . 20 documents are presented which substantiate that
21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you very much. 21 Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.”
22 (1.02 pm) 22 So this document was setting out reliance documents
23 (The short adjournment) 23 relied on by you for your claim to be Satoshi, wasn’t
24 (2.00 pm) 24 it ?
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good, thank you. 25 A. No, there’s no reliance documents in the Norway Court.

89 91

1 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, may I return to one matter that we 1 What this was was a demonstration, like, as it says,
2 were addressing this morning. Do you recall that 2 documents from other court cases. So, basically, as
3 I asked you some questions about a Bitcoin.exe file 3 with the other court case, this is a demonstration of
4 which you accepted was hex edited? 4 people editing files basically to manipulate things and
5 A. Yes. 5 show that they’re part of my history. So, when you’re
6 Q. For my Lord’s reference, that’s ID_000739, but that 6 talking about this as a reliance document, the reason
7 can’t go on screen. 7 I would rely on it is to demonstrate that there are
8 Do you recall saying that that was used against you 8 forgeries occurring, that simple things that I could
9 in Kleiman and that it’s not a document that’s been 9 rebuild are being altered to make it look like I ’m
10 relied on by you? 10 incompetent, and that happened multiple times.
11 A. Yes. 11 Q. Well, I suggest to you that’s wrong. This document was
12 Q. Now, we can’t show that document on screen, but we can 12 presenting documents being presented on your behalf to
13 show its MD5 hash. May we have on screen {A/2/124}, and 13 substantiate that you were Satoshi.
14 this is a list of MD5 hashes which was appended to 14 A. No. The case was actually not substantiating that I was
15 the schedule of forgeries , and my Lord, obviously they 15 Satoshi. The Granath defamation case was premised not
16 can be checked, but the penultimate entry is for this 16 the way I wanted, but as a −− what do you call it −−
17 document; do you see that, Dr Wright? 17 a hate crime type scenario where one is actively
18 A. I do. 18 inciting others to say things against me.
19 Q. And do you see −− I’m not going to read the whole thing 19 Q. Bottom the previous page, please {L17/202/7}:
20 out, but it begins ”e5e” and it ends ”b1ef”, or it may 20 ”The plaintiff has been asked to be informed whether
21 be ”blef”. 21 Wright possesses or can access other evidence that he is
22 A. Yes. 22 Satoshi Nakamoto, and indicated that Wright has a duty
23 Q. May we then turn to {L17/43/1}. (Pause). 23 to answer questions about real evidence.”
24 Sorry, I had a wrong reference. {L17/431/1}. Do 24 Then, following on from that, a number of documents
25 you recognise this as a report of KPMG for the Granath 25 were collected which were said to substantiate that you

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 were Satoshi Nakamoto. These were reliance documents, 1 I fired .

2 weren’t they, Dr Wright? 2 Q. And they identified a series of documents as documents
3 A. One, there’s no reliance documents in Norway, and as it 3 to substantiate you as Satoshi based on this document,
4 says: 4 didn’t they?
5 ”A number of documents have been collected from 5 A. No, I put in those documents to demonstrate that people
6 Wright in connection with lawsuits pending in other 6 were actually doing other things, such as trying to
7 jurisdictions . [They’re] of relevance to 7 falsify evidence against me.
8 [the] dispute ... ” 8 Q. Page 10, please {L17/202/10}. We can see that
9 So the 71 documents are there not for the reason 9 appendix 57, which is Bilag 57, is listed among these:
10 you’re pointing out. As I’ve demonstrated in 10 ”Original bitcoin v. 0.0.8 bitcoin software (pdf
11 the Kleiman litigation where this first came up, this 11 file information + exe. file ) [dated] January 4, 2009 at
12 was promoted by Ira Kleiman. 12 1:08 pm.”
13 Q. Page 7, please −− sorry, page 10 {L17/202/10}, please? 13 Do you see that?
14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, can I just ask. If these 71 14 A. I do.
15 documents were not being presented to substantiate that 15 Q. It ’s perfectly clear , isn ’ t it , that this , contrary to
16 you were Satoshi in the Norwegian proceedings, what were 16 what you said this morning, is a document on which you
17 they being presented for? 17 relied , among 71, in Granath to substantiate you being
18 A. Actually, the first lawyers I had in the Norwegian 18 Satoshi?
19 proceedings went down a complete different path as 19 A. Two points. In Granath, there was nothing about me
20 the way I wanted, which is why I dismissed them. What 20 substantiating that I was Satoshi. The case was Twitter
21 I wanted to do and what happened were two different 21 defamation, so the case had nothing to do with me being
22 things. They didn’t want to bring a case about being 22 Satoshi. I wanted it to be, and I got to a point where
23 Satoshi, and rather wanted to make it about human right 23 I actually fired my lawyers while in there and replaced
24 violations and hate crime on Twitter. The incitement 24 them. So, the first firm refused to actually run
25 aspect was where they put things. So, I didn’t actually 25 the case I wanted saying that, ”It ’s better if we do it

93 95

1 want a Twitter hate case, but that’s what I ended up 1 this way”, which is very different to over here, so
2 with. 2 I fired them unceremoniously and replaced them.
3 Q. Dr Wright, Wikborg Rein were your lawyers, weren’t they? 3 Q. The Judge has seen the document −− the court document
4 A. I don’t remember the name of the firm off the top of my 4 that was issued on your behalf by Wikborg Rein, a major
5 head. I know the people. Was this the first firm or 5 firm of lawyers.
6 the second firm, I ’m sorry? 6 You also said that this was a document used against
7 Q. I don’t know how many lawyers you went through in 7 you in the Kleiman litigation , this EXE file?
8 Norway, Dr Wright. This is a letter −− 8 A. It was.
9 A. What’s the date of this? 9 Q. Others can check, but the Kleiman exhibit lists are
10 Q. This is a letter from Wikborg Rein identifying, as 10 {L17/259/1} and {L17/254/1}. We don’t need to go to
11 the text makes clear, documents presented to 11 them.
12 substantiate you as Satoshi. 12 In fact , this document was not used as an exhibit by
13 A. Can you show the name of the solicitor from this 13 either side in Kleiman, was it, Dr Wright?
14 document and I’ll tell you? 14 A. No, it actually was. It was in the expert evidence.
15 Q. I don’t know, but we can go to the first page and see 15 Q. If it had been deployed by Ira Kleiman, as you suggest,
16 if −− {L17/202/1}. Yes, we see some representatives 16 it would appear in his exhibit list , wouldn’t it?
17 identified . You might recognise the surname Haukaas. 17 A. Actually, I don’t know. I’m not an expert on US law.
18 No, sorry. Sorry, Vangsnes. 18 But it was actually brought up in that case.
19 A. Yes, I think this is the first firm that I fired because 19 Q. May we now turn to various documents concerned with
20 they refused to do as I actually instructed . 20 Tulip Trust and Tulip Trading and I need to ask about
21 Q. So we can see from the front page of this that 21 these because some feature in your account of obtaining
22 Wikborg Rein were your lawyers, because it’s 22 private keys. Do you understand, Dr Wright?
23 ”Defendant”, your name, and then ”Process 23 A. I do.
24 representative”, Wikborg Rein, yes? 24 Q. Is it right that on your account, in 2011, you placed
25 A. If that’s the first firm, then, yes, they’re the ones 25 various assets , including Bitcoin and intellectual

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 property, in a trust to protect them against seizure by 1 ”It is a trust structure , an actual trust structure .
2 the ATO? 2 I had set up the trust ... ”
3 A. Basically , the way to describe this correctly is that 3 So, to be clear , you’re saying there that you’d set
4 I had assets that were held in corporate entities . Now, 4 up an actual legal trust?
5 I moved assets between corporate entities and then moved 5 A. Yes, I did.
6 the shares. The trust doesn’t own Bitcoin, like people 6 Q. Then page 99, please of the same −− if we just go
7 say, the trust owns shares, but the companies that I own 7 directly across the page, at line 9, you were asked to
8 shares in own Bitcoin. So Information Defense, which 8 look at page 285 of the trial bundle and a document
9 was a January 2009 company, nice and easy to check for 9 containing the words in the middle −− in the middle of
10 you, in Australia , moved assets due to a combination of 10 the page, ”All Bitcoin will return to Dr Wright ...”; do
11 the Australian Tax Office, who were trying to bankrupt 11 you see that?
12 me, and also the individual Christopher McArdle, who was 12 A. Sorry, what am I looking at?
13 trying to seek a judgment against me. 13 Q. Sorry, over on the right−hand side. I think
14 Q. Okay. 14 the operator is very kindly putting a cursor near it .
15 May we go to the Granath transcript to see what you 15 Line 9, on the right−hand side of the page, question:
16 said about your trust arrangements there, {O2/11/26}. 16 ” If you look at page 285, it says in the middle,
17 If we maximise the top left quadrant of page 26, 17 three paragraphs down from ’I acknowledge’: ’All Bitcoin
18 line 23, you were being asked about issues you’d had 18 will return to Dr Wright on January 1st, 2020’.”
19 with the tax office and you’d said −− the question you 19 A. I do.
20 were asked is that: 20 Q. So you were being asked about a document which contained
21 ” ... from August 2009, you were not able to access 21 those words and which is at page 285 of the bundle?
22 [ certain ] keys any more ...” 22 A. Which I answered, ”No, it is not.”
23 Do you see that? 23 If you look at my testimony there, I actually said
24 A. I do. 24 that that document wasn’t valid for that. And when I’m
25 Q. You said: 25 talking about a trust structure making things more

97 99

1 ”No, I am saying I had to go through extra 1 difficult , the trust actually had a provision saying,
2 processes. Those became more difficult in 2011 when 2 because of the bankruptcy proceedings that may have
3 I set up and moved everything into the trust structure.” 3 occurred, that until 2020, Dr Wright is not allowed to
4 Do you see that? 4 have any control of entities , any access to funds or any
5 A. I do. 5 ownership. Basically , that’s why I faced, in part,
6 Q. Page 97, please, further down. 6 the GAR panel, which is the General Anti−avoidance
7 Then you said you put a trust structure in place 7 Review panel, in Australia , because the argument was
8 which we moved your access to various things until 2020, 8 that if I won −− sorry, didn’t win and that bankruptcy
9 and you gave a reason in relation to the Australian Tax 9 proceedings had gone against me, I had moved assets to
10 Office ; do you see that? 10 avoid the situation . But because I won in the AAT,
11 A. I do. 11 I wasn’t bankrupted, so therefore I wasn’t guilty . It ’s
12 Q. And you were asked: 12 a funny situation .
13 ”I am just asking how it was more difficult to 13 But what I’m saying here is that I set up a trust
14 access the private keys.” 14 structure , the trust owned the shares, I was no longer
15 Pausing there, that was a question about accessing 15 the CEO of the company, I had no executive power, and
16 private keys to the early blocks of the bit of 16 the trust actually said that Craig Wright isn’t allowed
17 the blockchain associated with Satoshi; correct? 17 to interact with the companies until at least 2020.
18 A. Yes. 18 Q. Can we just look at the document that you were asked
19 Q. And you said: 19 about, page 285 of the bundle {S2/2.1/47}. Do you see
20 ”Trust structure .” 20 that this is a document with −− from the Granath trial
21 And the question −− then there was the question: 21 bundle, Utdrag 1, with the number ”285” page number at
22 ”So it is a legal thing that prevents it , or is it 22 the top with, in the middle of the page −−
23 more like an actual thing?” 23 LORD GRABINER: Can it be enlarged?
24 I think that may be a matter of language. But you 24 MR HOUGH: Which bit, the top or ...?
25 say: 25 LORD GRABINER: Well, the relevant bit you’re going to −−

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 MR HOUGH: Well, the bit that corresponds to what you were 1 A. When I produced it in 2011? Sorry, I’m not sure
2 being asked about was: 2 I understand what you mean there.
3 ”All Bitcoin will be returned to Dr Wright on 3 Q. Well, it ’s a document dated to 2011, which you said
4 Jan 01st 2020.” 4 you’d written the day before.
5 And that’s three paragraphs down from 5 A. Yes, I drafted. I don’t know whether I typed it or
6 ”I acknowledge”. 6 I said it and got it sent or anything like that. As
7 LORD GRABINER: Thanks very much. 7 I said , I was drunk.
8 A. I see the document, yes. 8 Q. And it’s a document you say you produced in 2011, you
9 MR HOUGH: So that was the document you were being asked 9 yourself ?
10 about? 10 A. As I said , I don’t know. I was talking to Dave at the
11 A. And that’s the one I said ”no” about, yes, that’s 11 time. I definitely drafted it , but as I ’ve said many
12 correct . 12 times, drafting a document can be I say it, I type it ,
13 Q. And then back to that transcript {O2/11/26}, please, to 13 I talk into Dragon VoiceType, it could be many other
14 see what you said about it. You were asked: 14 things. But I definitely was involved in production of
15 ”Is this what you are talking about?” 15 it in that way.
16 You said: 16 Q. If we go to {S2/2.1/47}, the copy of the document that
17 ”No, it is not. This was set up the day before. If 17 we looked at a moment ago, if the operator can bring
18 you read it , it is written terribly .” 18 that back up, and if we can show the whole document on
19 ”Question: Is this something you wrote the day 19 screen, we can see it ’s acknowledging a trust and
20 before you set up the actual trust ; is that what you’re 20 transfer of Bitcoins to the trust and referring to that
21 saying? 21 taking place on Thursday, 6 September 2011; do you see
22 ”Answer: Before I started setting up the actual 22 that?
23 trust , yes. It took a little while because of corporate 23 A. I do.
24 processes. When I wrote this, I was totally drunk.” 24 Q. And that refers to Dave Kleiman having received
25 Do you see that? 25 1.1 million Bitcoin from you and David Kleiman forming

101 103

1 A. I do. 1 a trust , yes?

2 Q. And was that −− is that evidence you adhere to now? 2 A. No, what it is is an acknowledgement for when it
3 A. Yes, I was totally drunk. 3 happened, so that never occurred.
4 Q. You wrote this document that was shown to you at that 4 Q. So you produced this document, but it never occurred?
5 time when you were totally drunk? 5 A. Well, when you write a contract, you fill out
6 A. I don’t fully recall it , because I had drunk a lot, but 6 the contract saying, ”I such and such agree ...”, etc,
7 I did write a document that I sent off to Dave. 7 and the same happens with a trust document. So, you
8 However, that wasn’t the actual trust document. 8 create a trust document, and like I said , I was
9 The trust took over an earlier entity that I set up, 9 completely drunk, off my nut, and the next day I made
10 WDI, that morphed into Craig Wright R&D, and later in 10 sure I actually did the correct one, which was
11 this 2011, Diane Pinder, a solicitor of Lloyds 11 a document created by Diane Pinder of Lloyds solicitors.
12 solicitors in Australia , set up the trust document. 12 Q. On the previous page, {S2/2.1/46}, you have an email,
13 That trust document formed the basis until 13 apparently from David Kleiman to you, Friday,
14 Baker & McKenzie rewrote the document in 2016. 14 24 June 2011?
15 Q. Over the page {O2/11/27}. It had been put to you that 15 A. Mm−hm.
16 the document appeared to have been written by 16 Q. With various attachments?
17 David Kleiman, not by you; do you see that? 17 A. Yes.
18 A. I do. 18 Q. ”Tulip Trust.pdf.asc”, ”Tulip Trust.pdf.tar .asc”,
19 Q. We’ll go back to the document in a moment. And you 19 ”Tulip Trust.pdf”:
20 maintained that you’d written it and had done so while 20 ”Craig,
21 drunk, yes? 21 ”I think you are mad and this is risky , but
22 A. Yes. 22 I believe in what we are trying to do.
23 Q. And you then said in the sections that follow that after 23 ”Respectfully.
24 you’d produced this document in 2011, there were further 24 ”Dave Kleiman.”
25 trust documents that followed? 25 Is that an email that was sent to you?

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 A. I actually don’t know. 1 This is a transcript of the Kleiman trial , Day 7

2 Q. That’s the email, 24 June 2011. 2 {L17/285/1}, as we see, yes?
3 May we now go on to {L8/17/1}, please. 3 A. Yes.
4 Now, this presents as a deed of trust between 4 Q. And then page 194, please {L17/285/194}, from line 6,
5 Wright International Investments and Tulip Trading 5 you were asked about plaintiff ’s exhibit number PO36,
6 Limited, dated 23 October 2012. Is this a document you 6 yes?
7 recognise? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. I recognise it , yes. 8 Q. And you were asked if you had sworn that that was an
9 Q. If we look at the entire page, do we see from the header 9 authentic document?
10 that it ’s a copy of a document from 10 A. It is an authentic document.
11 the Kleiman litigation ? 11 Q. And you were asked −− you said:
12 A. It is . 12 ” ... it was a copy of the trust document.”
13 Q. If look at the bottom of page 1, slightly obscured, 13 And you were asked:
14 the Kleiman litigation reference number is 14 ”Swore it was an authentic copy, Dr Wright?
15 ”DEF_00050985”? 15 ”Answer: An authentic copy is an authentic copy.
16 A. That is correct . 16 If I copy the file 50 times, if I print it 50 times, if
17 Q. Page 2, please {L8/17/2}. 17 I make it to a new print ... it is an authentic copy.”
18 Do we see that it provides for trustees who are to 18 A. Mm−hm. Yes.
19 be listed to act for both parties and hold various 19 Q. −−:
20 assets for them as beneficial owners? 20 ”Question: Did you swear it was an authentic copy?
21 A. I do. 21 Yes or no?
22 Q. And there follows a series of assets to be settled , 22 ”Answer: Yes.
23 including , at 3: 23 ”Question: Dr Wright, this purports to be a deed of
24 ” ... Bitcoin and associated ledger assets 24 trust . Do you see on the top it says: ’Deed of Trust’?”
25 transferred [from] Tulip Trading Ltd by Mr ... Kleiman 25 A. Yes.

105 107

1 on ... 10 June 2011 ...” 1 Q. −−:

2 A. I do. 2 ”Answer: It is what it says it is .”
3 Q. Including 1.1 million Bitcoin? 3 A. And if you go to the next page, I ’ ll ...
4 A. Yes. 4 Q. −−:
5 Q. Then page 4, please {L8/17/4}. Do we see it’s signed by 5 ”Question: Purports to be a deed of trust between
6 somebody for ”Savannah Ltd” and somebody for ”Abacus 6 Wright International Investments.”
7 (Seychelles) Limited”? 7 A. Yes, and like I say at 14, it ”purports to be a deed of
8 A. I do. 8 trust”.
9 Q. And page 5 {L8/17/5}, the trustees were identified as 9 Q. Well, no, that’s not you saying that, that’s −−
10 you, Uyen Nguyen, Panopticrypt, Dave Kleiman, ”Savanah” 10 A. And I do.
11 and the unnamed holders of three PGP key IDs, holder or 11 Q. −− the question to you.
12 holders, yes? 12 A. Yes, and I do. I do say ”it purports”.
13 A. I see that, yes. 13 Q. And then, 21:
14 Q. {L17/120/1}, please. 14 ”In fact , Dr Wright, not only did you swear that
15 Do we see that this is the ” Plaintiffs ’ Trial 15 this was an authentic copy, you also swore this document
16 Exhibit List” from Kleiman? 16 was executed in October of 2012, did you not?”
17 A. I do. 17 A. I did.
18 Q. Page 4, please {L17/120/4}. Item 36, do we see that 18 Q. Answer:
19 the document with reference DEF_00050985, ”Deed of Trust 19 ”It would have been that day. It ... it ’s my
20 for Tulip Trust”, was given a number 36 for the purposes 20 birthday so that’s I think why we did it.”
21 of trial ? 21 Yes?
22 A. Yes, I see that Ira Kleiman’s lawyers gave it 36 and 22 A. Mm−hm.
23 called it the deed of trust . 23 Q. Over the page again {L17/285/196}. Then they move on
24 Q. Now, {O2/6/194}. I’ve got a different reference that’s 24 from that document. So you’ve seen the full transcript
25 difficult . 25 there?

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 A. I do. 1 I can say that that looks like the person’s signature,
2 Q. You swore in Kleiman, didn’t you, that this was −− this 2 which I did. What I do know now, in that time period
3 document was authentic and signed by you on that date, 3 when I wasn’t engaged in the trust, is that this didn’t
4 yes? 4 happen.
5 A. Yes. 5 Q. What didn’t happen?
6 Q. And you recall that it was thought by Mr Kleiman’s 6 A. That document is not real.
7 expert to be a forgery , but that was denied by you? 7 Q. So this document, which you attested to as genuine in
8 A. Which? Sorry, which bit? 8 the Kleiman litigation which you denied was a forgery,
9 Q. This document was found by Mr Kleiman’s lawyer to be 9 it ’s not a real document?
10 a forgery , this October 2012 deed of trust? 10 A. It ’s a real document, but it’s not part of the trust .
11 A. Mm−hm. 11 There was never any agreement between
12 Q. You denied that it was a forgery, didn’t you? 12 Wright International and Tulip.
13 A. Yes, I didn’t actually know. I was not involved in 13 Now, as I stated, I set up the trust so that I had
14 anything, so, as I said , I had no knowledge. 14 no involvement until 2020, so until 2020 I was not able
15 Q. Well, I can bring up the reference if you’d like , but 15 to validate anything, whether I wanted to, had to or
16 you denied that it was a forgery, didn’t you? 16 not. I was nearly put into contempt of court in
17 A. My understanding was that it was a real document. 17 the American case, which I’ ll say, in a weird way, was
18 Q. {L17/292/185}, please, lines 23 and following: 18 one of the best things in my life , my Lord, because
19 ”Dr Wright, I asked you if this trust document ...” 19 I sought anger management. I threw down one of
20 We can see it’s referring to the same thing from 20 the documents in front of the justice and the court and
21 what’s said in the middle of the page: 21 he threatened me with contempt, and after that I’ve
22 ”Dr Wright, I asked you if this trust document was 22 spent several years doing anger management and I’m much
23 a forgery and you denied it. Do you recall? 23 better .
24 ”Answer: The trust document is not a forgery. It 24 So at that point, I had no knowledge. I said, ”This
25 was created by lawyers ... in 2012, not myself, and it 25 is a real document, it says it ’s a trust document,

109 111

1 has been in a 2012 Australian Tax Office court case.” 1 I don’t know anything that I can argue with”, and
2 Do you see that? 2 I didn’t at that point.
3 A. I do. 3 Q. And how do you say you discovered that it was not
4 Q. So you denied it was a forgery, didn’t you? 4 a genuine document −− or, sorry, that it did not reflect
5 A. I did. 5 a genuine agreement that had been entered into?
6 Q. So, is it your evidence now that this is a genuine 6 A. After 2020, actually in ’21, I believe , there was
7 document recording the terms of the trust and 7 a trust meeting held, per the terms of the trust , and
8 the trustees? 8 I was then allowed to actually get access to
9 A. No, it is not. 9 the original trust deed, the real one, which I was
10 Q. Why do you say it’s not a genuine document recording 10 precluded from having until 2020, at least . The meeting
11 the terms of trust and the trustees then? 11 required 70% or more sort of voting shareholding ability
12 A. Because, as my original statement said, in 2011, I set 12 of trust members for me to do that, and that was
13 up everything so that I had no involvement. When I was 13 accepted.
14 given the other document in 2012, I saw signatures by 14 Q. You say, at that point, you realised that this document
15 people I recognised from Savannah, but I was precluded 15 which you had sworn was authentic did not reflect an
16 from even asking them any information about the trust 16 agreement actually entered into. Do you say that at
17 until 2020. After the date in 2020, I validated that 17 that stage you discovered anything else about that
18 this is not sort of a valid document. 18 document?
19 Now, I did not know which documents were real or not 19 A. What I did say was it was an authentic document from
20 at that point. I was ordered by the American court to 20 a cache of documents that purported to be part of
21 give over any documents in my possession, which included 21 the trust . As I’d noted, I had no involvement in
22 staff laptops, to do with the trust . The comment I made 22 the trust from 2011 up until 2020. The idea was, if
23 many times to the Justice −− the magistrate was that 23 I won at the tribunal, the AAT, that all of those
24 I have no idea and I cannot actually vouch for anything 24 restrictions would be removed, but unfortunately the way
25 being completely real. I can look at a signature and 25 I set it up precluded that.

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Q. So you thought, after that supposed meeting, and you 1 sources.

2 think now, that this is −− that the document that we 2 A. No, I’d argue that actually taking multiple documents
3 looked at was still a complete, genuine document, but 3 and mish mashing them together makes a document. Now,
4 just didn’t reflect an agreement which was actually 4 whether you say that’s a coherent document is another
5 entered into? 5 thing. What I do argue is that this was a document
6 A. Well, there wasn’t an agreement between those two 6 purported to be a trust document that added more weight
7 companies, I know that. On top of that, I ’ve also 7 to Ira Kleiman saying that, well , his brother was my
8 spoken to some of the individuals named on the document 8 partner. So a lot of these things happened because of
9 and they said they didn’t sign . 9 that.
10 Q. Can we go back to the Granath transcript {O2/11/27}, 10 Q. Do you now say it was a fake document produced by
11 page 101, bottom left−hand quadrant. You were asked 11 Ira Kleiman in support of his case?
12 whether the trust document you began writing after 12 A. It was used that way.
13 the 2011 Dave Kleiman document you had been asked about 13 Q. Do you now say it was a fake document used by
14 was the one on page 304. Do you see that question being 14 Ira Kleiman in that way?
15 asked at lines 2 to 4? 15 A. Well, it has to be a fake document used by Ira Kleiman,
16 A. Yes. 16 because if it ’s used by Ira Kleiman and it’s a fake
17 Q. Then if we go to {S2/2.1/49}, we can see in the −− if we 17 document, then both of those apply. As I stated, there
18 can look at the whole page, please, we can see in 18 was no agreement ever made between Wright International
19 the Granath trial bundle that the document at page 304 19 and Tulip Trading, but between 2011, for over a decade,
20 is the same document that had the Kleiman header that we 20 I had no involvement in those companies, intentionally.
21 saw before; correct? 21 Q. Dr Wright, you swore in the Kleiman litigation that this
22 A. Yes. 22 was an authentic document and you are now saying it is
23 Q. Back to the Granath transcript {O2/11/27}, page 101, 23 a fake; correct?
24 line 5. Your answer was −− you were asked if that was 24 A. I swore in the Kleiman document −− sorry, litigation
25 the finished version : 25 that I had no knowledge of what the documents actually

113 115

1 ”No. This document is a number of documents put 1 were that this appears to be. Basically , when I went in
2 together, and my signature is not on it at all .” 2 there, I checked the signatures, they were signatures
3 A. That is correct . 3 from parties I know. It ’s a third party document. So
4 Q. −−: 4 I was asked in litigation to validate a document by
5 ”Question: So this is not −− is this what you call 5 third parties that I had never seen, and to the best of
6 a −− it is not a real document; is that what you’re 6 my knowledge, all of those signatures were
7 saying? 7 the signatures of the individuals . Unfortunately,
8 ”Answer: I am saying this is bits and pieces of 8 the terms of the trust precluded me from going to any of
9 documents that are put together as one, possibly scanned 9 those individuals and talking to them directly.
10 into like multiple documents that are scanned into one 10 Q. Line 19 on page 101 of the Granath transcript, it was
11 document or something.” 11 pointed out that −− if we go up to 102, it might be on
12 Do you see that? 12 102 −− sorry, it’s page 103, line 15. It was put back
13 A. That is correct . So this was after the sort of Kleiman 13 to you that you were saying that the document consisted
14 issue in 2019, and at this stage I ’d now found out that 14 of several , and then you were asked, ”there is a list of
15 someone had merged multiple documents together. Some of 15 trustees”, at page 308, that’s the final page of
16 the material involved the trust and others didn’t . 16 the document that we looked at earlier, yes?
17 Q. You told us just a few minutes ago that the document was 17 A. Yes.
18 a single coherent document, albeit not one that 18 Q. And the question was then asked:
19 reflected a real agreement, didn’t you? 19 ”Are these the trustees , or ...
20 A. It is a single coherent document made up of other 20 ”Answer: No, they are not. Uyen has never been
21 documents. 21 a trustee . Dave Kleiman has never been a trustee.
22 Q. Well, let me put to you, Dr Wright, that there is an 22 Panopticrypt was one of the trust companies. Savannah
23 inconsistency , a stark inconsistency between saying that 23 was related. You cannot have trustees by PGPQs.”
24 this is a single coherent document and saying that it’s 24 I think that might be ”PGP keys”.
25 a mish mash of multiple documents from different 25 A. Yes, I think it ’s an error there.

114 116

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Q. Yes. 1 action for me to actually start talking to them. So,

2 Now, part of your answer was to say the trustees 2 I ’m sort of in a rock and a hard place, and I accepted
3 can’t be right because you can’t have a trustee on 3 that it is a valid document in that pile. As far as
4 the basis that someone is a holder of PGP keys; correct? 4 I know, there’s nothing to say it was invalid at that
5 A. That is correct . 5 point.
6 Q. So you were able to see, simply by looking at 6 Q. Moving on to a related document, {L1/218/1}, please.
7 the document, that it couldn’t be genuine? 7 This is another document in your disclosure in this case
8 A. Well, later on I was. I studied this after the Kleiman 8 and it appears to be a copy of the email from
9 case. I hadn’t studied any Seychelles law to do with 9 Dave Kleiman to you, ”I think you are mad and this is
10 trusts or corporations, so I wasn’t actually sure at 10 risky ... ” email, but this one dated to 17 October 2014;
11 that point. But, no, you also need an identity , you 11 do you see that?
12 can’t just have a key. 12 A. I do.
13 Q. So you were able to say in Granath, just from the face 13 Q. Now, I presume we can agree, because Dave Kleiman sadly
14 of the document, that it couldn’t be real ; correct? 14 died in April 2013, that this can’t be a genuine email?
15 A. Not the face, the internals of the document, yes. 15 A. That is correct .
16 Q. And yet, that very same document, just five pages long, 16 Q. If we go to {L7/256/1}, do we see that’s what purports
17 you swore was genuine in Kleiman? 17 to be the attachment to that email?
18 A. No, what I swore was this document, that doesn’t involve 18 A. I do.
19 me, that I ’ve never seen or am not involved with, is 19 Q. And that’s materially the same as the Kleiman document
20 a document that is in a file , basically a folder of 20 from 2011 which we saw earlier, isn’t it ?
21 Tulip Trust documents. Now, as I wasn’t the trustee of 21 A. It is .
22 Tulip Trust and haven’t been a trustee of the trust 22 Q. Next, {H/73/2}.
23 since it was constructed in 2011, I was unable to 23 Mr Madden examined the document at ID_001386, which
24 actually say whether that was definitively correct . All 24 is the October ’14 version of the email, and at
25 I can do is look at these are correct trustees , 25 paragraph 5, he notes that the ”From” field has been

117 119

1 potentially the names. Savannah is a real company that 1 modified to include ”Dave Kleiman”; do you see that?
2 I founded, the person was the person I appointed, so 2 A. I do.
3 I couldn’t ask them, ”Are you the person here that 3 Q. Paragraph 9 on {H/73/3}, he observes that the metadata
4 signed this ”. 4 of the document records the sender and recipient as
5 Q. Just to be clear , you did not say in 5 ”craig@panopticrypt.com”; do you see that?
6 the Kleiman litigation , did you, that you simply weren’t 6 A. I do.
7 able to say one way or the other whether it was an 7 Q. And then, in the following pages he, sets out the full
8 authentic document? 8 XMP metadata, which give your email addresses as sender
9 A. Actually −− 9 and recipient?
10 Q. You didn’t say that, did you? 10 A. I see all that.
11 A. Well, no, actually I did. This is −− I said one of 11 Q. And he also, towards the bottom of page 5 {H/73/5}, at
12 the best things that happened to me in a roundabout way, 12 paragraph 11, notes a contradiction between the face
13 it ’s why I got anger management. I’ve −− I’m a terrible 13 dating of the document and metadata timestamps of
14 stoic , but I ’m trying. But what I did, my Lord, was 14 July 2011; do you see that?
15 I basically went to the magistrate and I actually threw 15 A. I certainly do.
16 the document on the ground because I −− I couldn’t do 16 Q. Page 6 {H/73/6}, paragraph 12, he refers to further
17 anything and I had to accept it in effect . Throwing 17 contradictory encoded timestamps; do you see that?
18 the document, I got cited because I threw a document in 18 A. I do.
19 his court, and I understand, and I’m incredibly 19 Q. Now, we’ve agreed that this document was manipulated and
20 apologetic and I’ ll never do that sort of thing in 20 it also , as we saw, included a reference to your email
21 a court again. But I had no sort of option. I knew it 21 address as sender. Is this a document whose provenance
22 was a document in a trust pile, I had no way of 22 you know anything about?
23 invalidating it , I was frustrated because I’m legally 23 A. Yes, actually , it is . This was sent −− well, one of
24 not allowed to talk to those people. Under Seychelles 24 the ex−employee laptops, which is listed in the chain of
25 law, when I set up that sort of trust , it ’s a criminal 25 custody document, but it was also sent from Ira Kleiman

118 120

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 to the Australian Tax Office. 1 administration, which occurred when Mt Gox collapsed and
2 Q. In fact , this was a document submitted to 2 I couldn’t sell Bitcoin, so we had a six−month period
3 the Australian Tax Office on behalf of your company, 3 where I had very little money and a lot of bills going
4 C01N Proprietary Limited, wasn’t it? 4 out, 50 staff are expensive. And some of the staff
5 A. C01N? No it should have been Coin X that that was 5 members had made a deal with Ira Kleiman and others, and
6 involved with. But Ira was actually a shareholder of 6 the belief that they had was that if the company goes
7 one of the companies and had been, well, basically 7 into liquidation , that all of the intellectual property
8 sending false information. 8 can be just taken. They didn’t understand that, even if
9 Q. {L11/354/1}, please. 9 it goes into liquidation , it ’s still property. So
10 Do you recognise this as a ”Reasons for decision” 10 the belief from Ira and other people was that
11 document produced by the ATO in relation to tax matters 11 the intellectual property created by the companies would
12 concerning C01N Pty Ltd for the period 2012 to 2013? 12 just be up for grabs and anyone could take it. So they
13 A. I do. 13 thought that they could liquidate the companies by
14 Q. Page 11, paragraph 109, please {L11/354/11}. 14 making false information about all of this to the ATO.
15 And C01N was a company associated with you, wasn’t 15 Q. Page 4 of the document, please {L11/354/4}.
16 it , Dr Wright? 16 Do we see how the ATO defined the term ”Taxpayer”
17 A. It was. 17 for the purpose of their document?
18 Q. Paragraph 109. I may have the wrong page number. Can 18 A. I do.
19 we try page 21 {L11/354/21}. Thank you very much. 19 Q. ”C01N Pty Ltd/Strasan Pty Limited”. Was Strasan a prior
20 The ATO records {L11/354/22}: 20 name for C01N?
21 ”A series of documents relating to the Tulip Trust 21 A. Yes, it was.
22 have been provided by the taxpayer and related entries, 22 Q. So when you say that the taxpayer in this document meant
23 including what appears to be a digitally signed document 23 DeMorgan and in fact, for the purpose of that document,
24 by Dave Kleiman indicating he held Bitcoin from 24 meant Ira Kleiman, that was wrong, wasn’t it?
25 Dr Wright and was going to establish a trust 25 A. No, because you would actually go one level beyond that.

121 123

1 (the ’Tulip Trust document’).” 1 Panopticrypt was the main holding company set up for my
2 We see there, do we not, footnote 117: 2 wife, myself and my children, and an entity that was
3 ”Attachment titled ’Tulip Trust.pdf’ to email from 3 the main owner of DeMorgan. So, the top of the pyramid
4 Dave Kleiman to Craig Wright sent on 24 June 2011 ...” 4 is actually Panopticrypt, although I didn’t run it that
5 Yes? 5 way, the limited company was DeMorgan.
6 A. I do. 6 Q. Dr Wright, the ATO are perfectly clear that ”Taxpayer”
7 Q. ”However, the taxpayer has provided two versions of 7 means C01N, and the taxpayer, C01N, submitted these two
8 the email from Mr Kleiman to which the Tulip Trust 8 documents.
9 document was purportedly attached. The emails are 9 A. No, it ’s part −−
10 identical except one is dated 24 June 2011 and the other 10 Q. That’s when the ATO decision says, isn’t it?
11 17 October 2014.” 11 A. It ’s part of a group. So when you’re in a grouped
12 That’s right , isn ’ t it , that those two documents 12 company, same as over here in the UK, the entities
13 were submitted to the ATO by the taxpayer, your company? 13 actually file together.
14 A. The taxpayer was technically DeMorgan Limited, which was 14 Q. Another document, please, {L7/377/1}.
15 the head group company. That owned both C01N and 15 We see here a ”Declaration of Trust”, dated
16 Coin X. That, thus, included Ira Kleiman as 16 21 July 2011, to Craig Steven Wright, Savannah Limited
17 a shareholder. 17 declaring :
18 Q. So you’re saying that Mr Kleiman submitted that 18 ”That we hold 100,000 shares of US$1 in
19 document? 19 Tulip Trading Limited and are the registered holder of
20 A. Yes, Mr Kleiman and other staff members of my companies 20 the Shares in our name as nominee and trustee for
21 were working together. The people who were working as 21 the Beneficial Owner.”
22 staff members believed that the administration event we 22 That term defined as you; do you see that?
23 had first could be pushed into liquidation , and if 23 A. I do.
24 I stopped the company from being −− I paid off all 24 Q. Do you say that this is a genuine document?
25 the 100−cents in the dollar and got the company out of 25 A. I do.

122 124

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Q. {H/73/1}, please. This is Mr Madden’s 14th appendix. 1 versions of documents given to us.
2 Page 40, 4−0. It’s ID_001925 and he addresses this, 2 Q. Dr Wright, the reality is that all these documents which
3 among others, in this part of the report. And if we go 3 look like 2011 documents settling up a trust structure
4 to page {H/73/42}, please, do we see that Mr Madden 4 and investing assets in Tulip Trading Limited, which
5 found that the metadata indicated a creation date of 5 bare signs of creation or alteration in 2014, tell
6 October 2014 and a modification date of November 2015? 6 a story of you, in 2014, trying to create a documentary
7 A. I do. 7 record, don’t they?
8 Q. Page {H/73/46}, please. 8 A. No, they basically show where we were locked out of our
9 Do we see that the signature block for 9 office and we had to rescan documents, reprint documents
10 Savannah Limited had been added as a graphic image and 10 and get the rest of the corporate documents for
11 then part of the signature added in later? 11 the other companies so that we could actually trade.
12 A. I do. 12 Q. Another instance of this , please, {L9/214/1}.
13 Q. Page 52, please {H/73/52}. 13 We see this is what appears to be an invoice from
14 Do we see that from a text shadow analysis, he found 14 Abacus (Seychelles) Limited, which I think is
15 that the document had been edited from an original with 15 a financial services consultancy; is that right?
16 some edited content likely added in November 2015, yes? 16 A. I don’t know if I ’d put it that way, but they’re
17 A. I see that. 17 a company in the Seychelles that offer corporate
18 Q. Do you dispute those findings? 18 registrations .
19 A. No, I don’t. 19 Q. And this one is dated October 17, 2014; do you see that?
20 Q. So it ’s a document which appears on its face to support 20 A. I do.
21 a story of assets being placed in Tulip Trading in 21 Q. And on this version it appears to be an invoice issued
22 mid−2011, but which isn’t actually authentic to that 22 to you for ”Management and trust accounting” for
23 date? 23 a Seychelles company identified, just on the right of
24 A. No, that’s not what it says. The document is a document 24 invoice , as Tulip Trading Limited; do you see that?
25 for shareholding. The −− Tulip Trading is a company, 25 A. I do.

125 127

1 not the Tulip Trust, and we have a nominee shareholder 1 Q. If we go to Mr Madden’s findings in relation to this
2 structure , or did back then. So, basically , the nominee 2 {H/29/37}. This is document ID_001421 that he’s
3 shareholder would provide a trust over the shares, which 3 addressing. And do we see on page 38 {H/29/38}, he
4 is what that document is about. In 2014, as I already 4 notes that he finds a Touchup Textedit tag showing
5 noted and as was stated in your ATO document, Hotwire 5 editing of the words ”Management trust and accounting”;
6 was under a deed of corporate arrangement, after coming 6 do you see that?
7 out of administration. Hotwire was the company that had 7 A. I do.
8 the lease . It had the lease on the premises where all 8 Q. Then, at paragraph 120, he notes that there is
9 the other companies were in. The lease had a provision 9 a document from which this was apparently created,
10 that if the company goes into administration or 10 ID_001397, and he finds that the original authentic
11 liquidation , that it can be cancelled. What happened 11 document includes the words ”Purchase of Seychelles 2011
12 was, even though the other companies weren’t in 12 shelf company”. We see that shown on that page, page 39
13 liquidation , and there were about ten other companies, 13 {H/29/39}; do you see that?
14 Hotwire was placed into administration, the only one, 14 A. I do.
15 and the premises were closed to us. We had to negotiate 15 Q. Now, as Mr Madden finds, the natural conclusion from
16 a new lease, and meanwhile we were locked out of 16 this is that the first document we looked at has been
17 the premises. During that time, we had no access to 17 text edited to suggest it was an invoice for services in
18 records or computers. On top of that, the individuals 18 relation to an existing company when in fact it’s
19 who owned the building believed that we would not be 19 a company which, according to this invoice, was
20 able to eventually pay the lease , which we happened to 20 purchased in October 2014; correct?
21 do, and they sold some of the equipment under 21 A. No, that’s his assumption. I would say neither
22 a bailment. So they took some of the furniture, they 22 documents are actually correct.
23 took some of the computers and they sold it. 23 Q. You can elaborate if you want.
24 We basically had to then contact the people from 24 A. Basically , part of the story Mr Kleiman was putting
25 Savannah and other companies and we had to get new 25 together was that I never moved any of the assets and

126 128

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 that everything went into the American company, W&K Info 1 wrong, the fonts are wrong, the whole thing’s edited.
2 Defense. There was an agreement between the Australian 2 Q. If we go to {H/73/56}, please. It’s ID_001930, it’s
3 company Information Defense Pty Ltd and the American 3 addressed by Mr Madden from paragraph 148 at the bottom.
4 company W&K Info Defense that never occurred. 4 And if you see over the page {H/73/57}, he
5 Basically , Dave Kleiman was hospitalised from an earlier 5 identifies metadata indicating editing and he shows
6 accident and he was a paraplegic, and because he was 6 the changes from pages 61 to 62. {H/73/61−62}. So he
7 hospitalised , the business that I wanted to set up never 7 notes a change to the ultimate beneficial owner, and
8 −− well, never eventuated. 8 from the data he sees, there has been a change to
9 The argument by Ira Kleiman was that intellectual 9 the director name and address as well as the ultimate
10 property had to basically stay in W&K and that other 10 beneficial owner, yes?
11 assets that would have occurred if Dave hadn’t been ill 11 A. Yes, it ’s listed .
12 had to be, well , accessible , and as such, part of 12 Q. And {H/73/65}, he identifies the similar document in
13 the fabrication there was saying that 13 the disclosure set , dated to October 2014; do you see
14 Tulip Trust/Tulip Trading, any of my companies overseas, 14 that?
15 didn’t exist . 15 A. I do.
16 Q. So do you say that he faked both these documents, or 16 Q. Attached to an email from you to a ”Denis”, I think
17 just one of them? 17 Denis Mayaka, of that date?
18 A. I ’m saying both of them are actually fake. 18 A. Well, no, that’s not actually from me and that wasn’t on
19 Q. Next, please, {L7/357/1}. 19 my computer. It says my name, but having a name in
20 Do you recognise here an Abacus incorporation form 20 a field is different .
21 for a Seychelles company? 21 Q. On page {H/73/66}, he makes a comparison between the two
22 A. I do. 22 documents in the disclosure set, ID_001930 and
23 Q. And on page {L7/357/5}, we see what appears to be your 23 ID_001395, yes?
24 signature with a date of 21 July 2011, yes? 24 A. Yes.
25 A. No, I don’t. What I see is a cut and paste where 25 Q. And we see he has made changes to your −− that there are

129 131

1 someone’s made a mess of it, and it’s also not my 1 changes between the two to your address as ultimate
2 signature. As part of the Kleiman proceedings, we had 2 beneficial owner, yes?
3 this analysed. When I sign, one of the few things 3 A. Mm−hm.
4 I always do that people will now know is a little trick , 4 Q. And over the page {H/73/46}, changes to directors,
5 I do the G separately. So I basically draw a ”J” and 5 the address for accounting records, and then, further
6 then draw a ”C”, and my signature has a little funky 6 down the page, contact details and date, yes?
7 thing for that; this doesn’t. It also doesn’t have an 7 A. And my signature is broken as well.
8 ”S”. So it ’s some sort of ”Craig Wright” without a −− 8 Q. Yes.
9 I ’ve always signed ”Craig S Wright”. We had 9 So all the indications are that a document from 2014
10 a handwriting analysis done of this and showed it wasn’t 10 has been edited to produce a document dated July 2011,
11 my signature. My signature’s messy, but it’s not that 11 aren’t they?
12 one. 12 A. I ’m saying both of them are doctored. Why the first one
13 Q. Was that a handwriting analysis report which you 13 exists is another question.
14 deployed in the Kleiman proceedings? 14 Q. Dr Wright, just this before the break. This is yet
15 A. No, none of this actually ended up happening because 15 another indication of you, in 2014, trying to doctor
16 the other side were fine with not going that way. 16 the record to create a document that suggests
17 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Madden has found that 17 the establishment of Tulip Trading and the trust
18 there are two versions of this document in disclosure, 18 structure in 2011.
19 one dating from July 2011 and one dating from 19 A. No, actually the trust structure was set up in the late
20 October 2014, yes? 20 ’90s. The trust actually had a domain name WDI.org, so
21 A. Yes. 21 that was probably back −− actually early ’90s. I think
22 Q. And you’re aware, aren’t you, that he’s found that there 22 it was −− I’d have to look it up, but WDR was set up way
23 are metadata indicating editing on the pages of this 23 back before I even set up DeMorgan version 1. So I had
24 document from 2011? 24 a trust already, multiples , that was first in Belize ,
25 A. There’s obvious editing . If you look at the email, it ’s 25 I believe , but I also had many other overseas

130 132

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 corporations. So, to set up a fake company, again, 1 the page, Denis thanks you. And back to page 3
2 I have no purpose. I have DeMorgan in Singapore, I have 2 {L9/190/3} so that we can see the email, gives details
3 multiple other companies in Panama, Antigua, Belize, 3 of fees . Yes?
4 Seychelles , Canada, Hong Kong, all dating from before 4 A. I see that.
5 any of this . So this is basically used as an attempt by 5 Q. Back to page 2 {L9/190/2}, we see he confirms that:
6 Mr Ira Kleiman in his litigation , where he wanted −− 6 ”The company has been reserved for you.”
7 this is , he believed, $600 billion was the figure . He 7 We can see the date of that email at the bottom of
8 was offered a settlement figure of US$3.4 billion , which 8 page 1 {L9/190/1}, Thursday, 16 October. And asking you
9 he turned down, as 50% cash −− 9 to fill in the attached form, yes?
10 MR HOUGH: Can I pause you there, Dr Wright, because I think 10 A. I do.
11 you’ve probably gone further than you need to in your 11 Q. And over to page 1 {L9/190/1}. We see further emails,
12 answer and I think you may even be going into matters of 12 17 October, about the payment and your emails saying
13 without prejudice privilege , but ... 13 when the payments will follow?
14 My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for 14 A. I do.
15 a break? 15 Q. And up to the top of the page, a transfer receipt
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, we’ll take a five−minute break, 16 attached to the top email?
17 thank you. 17 A. I do.
18 (3.06 pm) 18 Q. These emails would all be consistent with you reserving
19 (A short break) 19 Tulip Trading as an aged shelf company in October 2014,
20 (3.14 pm) 20 wouldn’t they?
21 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, do you recall that just before 21 A. No, they −− they wouldn’t be, because I’d already
22 the break I was asking you about two versions of 22 purchased the company in 2011. Now, at that point,
23 a company incorporation form in relation to 23 I had companies doing blockchain work going back to
24 Tulip Trading Limited? 24 January 2009, including overseas ones, so, no, this was
25 A. I do. 25 a pure fabrication basically to throw mud at everything

133 135

1 Q. One from 17 October 2014 and the other from 1 from Mr Kleiman and others.
2 21 July 2011? 2 Q. Next {L9/191/1}. This is the ”NetBank − Transfer
3 A. I do. 3 receipt” we see at the top −− the very top, if we show
4 Q. May we now go to {L9/190/3}. This is another document 4 the entire document on the screen −− which was
5 in disclosure , in your disclosure , which appears to 5 apparently attached dated 17 October 2014, yes?
6 be/presents as an email from Denis Mayaka of 6 A. Yes.
7 Abacus Offshore, dated Thursday, 16 October 2014, to 7 Q. Showing a transfer receipt of an Australian dollar sum
8 you: 8 equivalent to $1,650 US plus transfer fee?
9 ”Dear Craig 9 A. Yes.
10 ”We trust you are well. 10 Q. That also, if authentic, would be evidence of you
11 ”We received your message requesting for an aged 11 reserving the company at that time, wouldn’t it?
12 shelf company. 12 A. No, it wouldn’t. What you notice is it ’s ”Transfer
13 ”Please find attached list of our shelf companies. 13 from: DeMorgan ...”, not Hotwire. So DeMorgan, as you
14 ”Kindly let us know which company you would like to 14 can see, was running at this stage, we had bank
15 take.” 15 accounts, etc, and DeMorgan email was also available.
16 Do you see that? 16 Now, I wouldn’t be using Hotwire, a company in
17 A. I do. 17 administration, to make purchases. However, what I did
18 Q. Then further up the page, an email from you at Hotwire 18 have to do every year was pay administration fees. On
19 −− sorry, back to page 3, but in the middle of the page 19 top of that, the corporate fees for Abacus were far
20 −− identifying Tulip Trading Limited with an 20 higher than that, so if I was going to set up a company,
21 incorporation date of July 2011, yes? 21 it would probably actually cost me in the order of
22 A. I do. 22 $6,000/$7,000, Australian −− or US, because there’s
23 Q. And the IBC number given as [0]93344? 23 also , when you’re holding nominee shareholders, there’s
24 A. I do. 24 a requirement for shareholder and director indemnity.
25 Q. Then page 2 {L9/190/2}, do we see that, at the bottom of 25 So, not only do you do that, but you have to pay these

134 136

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 things. 1 which is the Australian Companies House.

2 On top of that, the registration of the companies 2 Now, in those documents, you’ll see that we had that
3 was done under financial services , that makes it more 3 event, we were locked out of the office , and at the same
4 expensive. So that would be incredibly cheap, and, no, 4 time we were facing action, like audit from
5 it ’s far too cheap even a decade before it. 5 the Australian Tax Office and we were required to
6 Q. Well, just so it ’s clear , Dr Wright, I’m disputing that 6 basically have all of our documentation constructed. So
7 this is , as you suggest, a fake document. 7 that was real documents that we went back to
8 A. I didn’t say this was a fake document. I did make 8 the providers for and asked for.
9 a payment. Every single year, I had to pay for nominee 9 Q. Dr Wright, it is no coincidence, is it , that Mr Madden
10 shareholding services from DeMorgan. 10 has found editing in the incorporation form and that
11 Q. I see, so the email which referred to this transfer 11 invoice to suggest the time for this registration being
12 receipt was fake, but the transfer receipt isn ’ t? 12 moved from 2014 to 2011? That’s no coincidence, is it?
13 A. There was a transfer done, that is correct . As noted, 13 A. No, it ’s not a coincidence. As I stated, because we had
14 the email was found on a third party server , which 14 an American case where people were trying to plant this
15 wasn’t mine and also had access to my wife’s and other 15 on us, when we had people sending false documents to
16 people’s emails. 16 the Australian Tax Office, the entirety of what I was
17 Q. {L9/287/1}, please, another document in your disclosure, 17 going through at this period were people trying to say
18 an email chain between you and Abacus, or at least 18 that everything was false . Mr Ira Kleiman and several
19 apparently so. 19 other people in the Australian companies all wanted them
20 A. Yes. 20 closed.
21 Q. Page 6, please {L9/287/6}, do we see that it begins, at 21 Q. Dr Wright, if that was the case, then Ira Kleiman would
22 the bottom of the page 6, with an email from 22 not have been producing documents, which you’ve accepted
23 Viveca Magnusson? 23 are fake, showing dates in 2011 which would accord
24 A. Mm−hm. 24 broadly with your story , he would just be producing
25 Q. Was she your executive assistant at Panopticrypt? 25 the 2014 documents, wouldn’t he?

137 139

1 A. At a variety of companies, but she was my EA, yes. 1 A. No, that’s because there were two sources. There is
2 Q. Then, over the page {L9/287/7}, we see that, by that 2 the documents that were sent by Ira Kleiman to
3 email, she is sending you a consent form to act as 3 the Australian Tax Office. They were part of
4 a director for Tulip, yes? 4 the litigation . They’re under ”DEF”, even though that’s
5 A. Yes. 5 me, because we were required to sign off on any
6 Q. And then back to page 6 {L9/287/6}, the bottom of 6 documents coming from the Australian Tax Office;
7 page 6, do you see the date of that email, 7 the Americans, like an American plaintiff , can’t do it .
8 24 October 2014, yes? 8 I was ordered by the judge to authorise
9 A. I see it . 9 the Australian Tax Office to release the files . That
10 Q. Then page 1, at the end of this chain {L9/287/1}, ends 10 included documents from Ira Kleiman.
11 with Abacus forwarding you the certificate of 11 On top of this, you will note in the chain of
12 incorporation and a series of other documents? 12 custody that there are employee laptops, or rather
13 A. Yes. 13 ex−employee laptops that contain the other. So, what we
14 Q. So there is a substantial documentary record showing 14 have is clear evidence that one of the employees was
15 that you, in late 2014, reserved Tulip Trading Limited 15 working with Mr Kleiman.
16 as an aged shelf company, isn’t there? 16 Q. First of all , Dr Wright, none of these documents even
17 A. No, there is not, and this document demonstrates what we 17 appears in the chain of custody, because none of them is
18 get basically every year. This, I had to sign for 18 a reliance document, so you’re just wrong in saying that
19 Panopticrypt, which became −− which was the director. 19 you look in the chain of custody document to find some
20 Panopticrypt was an Australian company that acted as one 20 answers, aren’t you?
21 of the directors of the overseas companies, so we were 21 A. No, actually , I filled out a full chain of custody
22 also , as I noted, locked out of our offices . That’s 22 document and all of these are in Relativity . I don’t
23 easily verifiable . There’s −− it was in administration 23 know what you can see −−
24 for a time, and the records of the administrator are all 24 Q. Just pause there, please, Dr Wright. Each time you
25 available and public as well . That’s also on ASIC, 25 refer to Relativity , you are referring to your

138 140

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 solicitors ’ privileged system, so I just want you to be 1 well . And there are no gaps the way you’re saying it.
2 very careful about making references to a system which 2 I mean, that would be basically going out there and not
3 is privileged so that you don’t waive privilege , okay? 3 just saying there could be gaps but demonstrating it.
4 A. No problem. 4 Now, what we’re talking about here is multiple sites
5 Q. Go on. As long as you’re talking about things which 5 having the same information, and I can actually go
6 have been disclosed between the parties, go on. 6 through more. I’ve downloaded the WHOIS server on 20
7 A. Well, I don’t know. What I have done is I’ve filled out 7 separate sites , including DNS report. There is no error
8 a complete chain of custody document stream. I do not 8 on any of those and every single one of them is correct .
9 know what the redacted version of that that you have is. 9 Now, on top of that, the Google information is
10 I have access to a platform that I ’m not discussing, 10 actually wrong in the email, so someone’s got it wrong,
11 obviously, and that has all of the information. 11 the details of all of the corporate set ups and email
12 However, what has or has not been attached with 12 are wrong. So I’m sorry, I don’t agree.
13 ID numbers, I actually don’t know. I mean, it’s in my 13 Q. You set out in your witness statement a DKIM, domain
14 view, but I don’t know what your view is, so I can’t say 14 keys identified email authentication test , don’t you?
15 whether you have it or not, obviously. 15 A. I do.
16 Q. You say in your 11th witness statement {CSW/1/9}, don’t 16 Q. And I’m going to suggest to you that you did not carry
17 you, that the emails from Abacus Offshore from 2014 with 17 out a reliable test establishing that this email
18 the email domain that we see here are all fakes, don’t 18 exchange is invalid , did you?
19 you? 19 A. No, actually , I did. I have a section of my textbook.
20 A. I do. 20 You might want to read it. It actually goes into this .
21 Q. And you say that on the basis that you say that there is 21 I have produced over 100 different reports, including
22 a gap in the DNS history, which covers the period 2014, 22 expert reports for the Department of Homeland Security
23 not recording an email provider for that period, don’t 23 for the Australian Federal Police , I trained
24 you? 24 the Australian Federal Police to this topic . I produced
25 A. No, I do not. The way that it works is records are 25 the judge/prosecutor training, my Lord, for

141 143

1 produced. It ’s not the gap that is the issue , it is 1 the Australian courts. I taught at the New South Wales
2 that no record of a change was made. So, you don’t have 2 Police Academy where I taught forensic analysis of this
3 a gap in the WHOIS, you have the times when changes are 3 very topic . I did a full analysis using not only that
4 produced. Now, looking at that, the time when 4 tool , I did a raw tool analysis , I downloaded the Google
5 the change is produced is 2015. 5 certificate directly . Google has all of their
6 In addition, the email server isn ’ t my company’s. 6 certificates saved, my Lord, so that you can take all of
7 The email server where this is going to and from isn’t 7 the certificates over time. I did each of those,
8 part of Hotwire, DeMorgan or any of my Australian 8 I validated them and they’re wrong.
9 companies. 9 I then did an SPK check and I went through it line
10 Q. Let’s take those two points in turn. You’re aware, 10 by line .
11 aren’t you, Dr Wright, that Stroz Friedberg have 11 Q. My Lord, that’s as far as I can go at the moment in
12 produced a report dealing with the relevant part of your 12 relation to that. I ’ve put my case, but obviously
13 11th witness statement? 13 I can’t go into the detail of an expert report which has
14 A. Yes. 14 yet to be produced. I’m hoping that it won’t be
15 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that they have said that there 15 necessary to recall Dr Wright to return to this .
16 may be many reasons for a gap and it’s not possible to 16 What all these documents show is that Tulip Trading
17 establish definitively from that gap that Abacus 17 was bought by you in 2014 as an aged shelf company and
18 offshore were not using this email address in 2014? 18 efforts were later made to create documents suggesting
19 A. I know what they said, yes. 19 that it had been bought in 2011. That’s the truth,
20 Q. Do you disagree with that? 20 isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?
21 A. Oh, completely. I have published papers on DNS going 21 A. No. What it suggests is, because I’m rather close to my
22 back 20 years. I ’ve worked on −− I’ve worked on code, 22 chest with most of my corporations and things −− or
23 I ’ve set up DNS for route−level providers, I ran them 23 I used to be; now everyone knows everything about me −−
24 for the southern hemisphere, I was associated with 24 I had a variety of companies that people didn’t know
25 APNIC, so, yes, I actually know how all this works very 25 about, so they didn’t realise that I actually had over

142 144

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 20 overseas corporations that were well documented, they 1 an Australian court. Ira Kleiman received
2 didn’t realise that I ’d already been in disputes over 2 the notification , that was found out in the thing, he
3 these companies, they didn’t realise that just shutting 3 just didn’t act on it . I ended up with a default
4 down a company doesn’t give you assets. I mean, that 4 judgment. Ira Kleiman could have challenged it before
5 was probably the most asinine bit. Ira and others 5 when it was in the court, but he didn’t .
6 actually believing that if they liquidated my companies 6 Q. Just pause there, Dr Wright. It ’s pretty extraordinary ,
7 they would somehow get my intellectual property. So, 7 isn ’ t it , for somebody who has gone down for
8 no, that’s what it was all about. 8 a nine−figure US jury verdict to say that they have had
9 Q. This is not just yet another elaborate conspiracy 9 a glorious success in a piece of litigation , isn ’ t it ?
10 against you by Ira Kleiman confecting huge numbers of 10 A. No, actually , I was sued for 600 billion , with a B. So
11 documents? 11 I just put this in context. 600 billion , 100 million .
12 A. No, it ’s not a conspiracy. Between 2017 and even today 12 So, we’re not even talking 0.1%. And a judgment where
13 I ’m still −− the appeals have only just finished in my 13 I have to be really nice to my ex−wife and my current
14 favour a few weeks ago. Now we have him with W&K, 14 wife, yeah.
15 because he only has one−third ownership and he wants 15 Q. But you’ve also said that Mr Kleiman controls part of
16 more, fighting . There’s 140 −− I think it’s 16 that company which has the judgment in its favour,
17 US$144 million judgment to that company, my Lord. My 17 haven’t you?
18 wife owns one−third of it, my ex−wife owns one−third of 18 A. No, I said he was a shareholder. So a 33% shareholder
19 it −− I don’t know if that’s an ideal situation −− and 19 has rights and I have to make sure that I don’t take
20 Ira owns one−third. So my sort of thing that I’ve 20 money out of the company, that I don’t move assets, that
21 talked to both my wife and my ex−wife about is that 21 I do these things. So I’ve said what I will do. We
22 we’re not going to liquidate and that the money will go 22 will make a non−profit and we will do these things, and
23 eventually to setting up a hospital in Kenya. So, 23 that is perfectly within the corporate rights of
24 I even will let Ira put his name on it. He’s disputing 24 a Florida company.
25 that still because he wants to take the cash. I ’ve 25 Q. Let’s move on to some documents you say you’ve obtained

145 147

1 decided that what we’re going to do with the money is 1 showing your registration of
2 we’re going to eventually , after all this litigation ’s 2 Wright International Investments and Tulip Trading in
3 gone, build a hospital and it will be non−profit. 3 2009. You’re aware, aren’t you, of the saga of
4 Q. Dr Wright, since you’ve gone into that, it ’s −− not 4 the Papa Neema emails that you tell in your 11th witness
5 suggesting that Mr Kleiman was successful on all his 5 statement?
6 claims, but it ’s right , isn ’ t it , that in 6 A. I don’t know if it ’s a saga, but I ’m aware of the email
7 the Kleiman litigation , you were made the subject of an 7 chain.
8 adverse judgment of over USD 100 million? 8 Q. Well, the narrative of the Papa Neema emails, yes?
9 A. Yes, to a company that my wife and my ex−wife control. 9 A. I ’m aware of the narrative, yes.
10 I was given a conversion claim. Now, the reason, 10 Q. Let me just see if I can unpick the narrative and if
11 my Lord, for the conversion was that I argued that, 11 I ’ve got it right .
12 because David had never actually done any work, that 12 First of all , is it right that you say that on
13 the IP assets that I ’d transferred into the company 13 8 September, you told Christen Ager−Hanssen, the then
14 should go back. The jury found that a conversion 14 CEO of nChain, that you would request invoices from
15 happened because the amount of the assets has now gone 15 Denis Mayaka, formerly of Abacus Seychelles, to show
16 up quite a lot . There’s probably 20 different areas of 16 your registration of these companies in 2009?
17 intellectual property out of my thousand that were 17 A. Yes, that’s correct .
18 transferred , and they’re involving mainly SCADA systems, 18 Q. Then do you say that Mr Ager−Hanssen, you understand,
19 which is supervisory control and access, they’re 19 called Mr Mayaka on 9 September 2023, telling him to
20 designed like IOT−type systems for high security areas, 20 expect an email from Maze Cyber and send it on to you?
21 running nuclear power plants, that sort of thing, and 21 A. I do.
22 that intellectual property is now technically still with 22 Q. Then is this right , you say that on 10 September,
23 the American company, and I will use those funds in that 23 Mr Mayaka receives an email from Maze Cyber attaching
24 way. I mean, I am not challenging the conversion, 24 screenshots of invoices?
25 I probably should have done it better. I had filed with 25 A. Yes.

146 148

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Q. Then do you say that later that day, Mr Mayaka emailed 1 below, we can see a number of tabs along the bottom,
2 Stefan Matthews with an email under 2 can’t we, yes?
3 the name ”papa neema@gmail”? 3 A. We can.
4 A. Well, that’s the email address, it ’s not the name. 4 Q. Including ”Spyder.rtf”, ”Chain of C ... ” and so on?
5 Q. But the from the email address ”papa.neema@gmail.com”? 5 A. We can.
6 A. Yes. 6 Q. Then if we go to the facing page {P1/20/9}, we have
7 Q. With a ZIP file containing some screenshots? 7 there two photographs showing the tabs on the bottom of
8 A. Yes. 8 the screen in each of the two photographs, yes?
9 Q. And that was copied to you? 9 A. We do.
10 A. It was. 10 Q. On each of two of the photographs.
11 Q. You say you then emailed him asking for original 11 And do we see they include a logo
12 invoices and he agreed? 12 entitled ”DragonBar”, yes?
13 A. Correct. 13 A. Yes, we do.
14 Q. And your position is that the invoices shown in 14 Q. A logo with a ”Z” and ”Discussion”?
15 the screenshots are real ? 15 A. We do.
16 A. They appear to be, yes. 16 Q. And then those tabs that we saw earlier, just to
17 Q. Do you believe, do you understand that the screenshots 17 the right of those?
18 were photographs taken by Mr Mayaka? 18 A. Yes, we see a number of tabs in a Windows 10 computer.
19 A. No, actually , he got them. The screenshots are ones he 19 Q. Now, you insist, don’t you, in your 11th witness
20 received from Christen Ager−Hanssen, or a representative 20 statement that whatever else, these are not photographs
21 thereof . 21 of your monitor?
22 Q. So you think Mr Ager−Hanssen sent Mr Mayaka 22 A. No. They are photographs of what I think Christen
23 the screenshots which contained real invoices and were 23 believed my monitor to be. He’s seen videos, etc, but
24 then sent on to you? 24 what he didn’t realise is I don’t run the standard build
25 A. I don’t actually know if they were real , but he had been 25 for nChain. My laptop is a bespoke system, I have it

149 151

1 talking to Denis. Because he was the CEO of nChain, 1 custom made. So while it is Lenovo, it isn ’ t the same
2 Denis believed that he should be able to listen to him 2 as the other ones. And it is still corporate policy at
3 and trust him −− which is a silly thing, but then we all 3 nChain to run Windows 10 because of some applications we
4 do silly things −− and then, when he received those, 4 have, but I ’m a special case and I run Windows 11. So
5 well , screenshots, he forwarded those on to Stefan. 5 this is basically someone who believes. It was later
6 After I received that, I went back to Denis and I went, 6 discovered that Mr Ager−Hanssen had used a policy update
7 ”Why are you sending us screenshots?”, in effect, 7 from a VPN that was applied to put malware onto my
8 I don’t remember my exact wording, and questioned him 8 computer. That wasn’t discovered until September.
9 about that, because I wanted the invoices. 9 Mr Ager−Hanssen was fired from nChain and any day now
10 Q. May we please go to Sherrell 20, which is I think −− 10 he’ ll be facing criminal action.
11 I ’ ll just get the reference −− I’m hoping the operator 11 Q. Dr Wright, taking those tabs in turn that were shown on
12 may be able to find it quicker than my note. The 20th 12 the bottom of the screen. ”Chain of C ... ” gives
13 statement of Mr Sherrell. {P1/20/1}. And if we go, 13 the impression of being the start of a document
14 please, to {P1/20/8} and maximise the image on 14 entitled ”Chain of Custody”, doesn’t it?
15 the screen, is this one of the screen photographs −− 15 A. It does.
16 a photo of a screenshot, but it ’s a photograph of 16 Q. You have a chain of custody document in the context of
17 a monitor screen; correct? 17 these proceedings, don’t you?
18 A. It is . 18 A. I do.
19 Q. Is this one of the monitor screen photographs that you 19 Q. ”Spyder.rtf” is the name, isn’t it , of a deleted file
20 received? 20 from the Samsung Drive which you provided which
21 A. It is . 21 Mr Madden recovered and which had been backdated to
22 Q. And this is showing a document you think is genuine? 22 2017; correct?
23 A. I don’t actually know. I know it looks like the other 23 A. I don’t know if it ’s a deleted file on that, but I know
24 document. More than that, I cannot say. 24 what Spyder.rtf is .
25 Q. And then if we look at the bottom of the image, just 25 Q. What sort of document do you say it is?

150 152

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 A. The original would have been a corporate policy document 1 AMEX black card function was basically something he
2 about Spyder. The one on that screen, I don’t actually 2 arranged, he paid to be there, and one of the things
3 know. 3 I found out, like other American lawyers, he spikes
4 Q. So it ’s certainly a document you associate with 4 drinks . So, my wife remembers how utterly drunk I was.
5 yourself ? 5 I didn’t think I had drunk so much, but neither did
6 A. Oh, it ’s one −− I mean, the name is one that I created. 6 Kyle Roche. When you walk away from Mr Ager−Hanssen,
7 Whether it’s that version or not, I don’t know. 7 you find you have been drinking more than you realised.
8 Q. Then there’s a tab for ”University ... ”, yes? 8 He actually admitted that in an interview, thinking it
9 A. Yes. 9 was funny.
10 Q. For a set of files for university . 10 Now, you’ll also notice in one of the Sherrell
11 A tab for ”DragonBar” as well? 11 witness statements that there are captures of my screen,
12 A. Yes. 12 my files , my browsing history live . Mr Ager−Hanssen
13 Q. Dragon Dictate is a form of software you use, isn ’ t it ? 13 tweeted, compromising my computer, basically as
14 A. Yes, but I use a different version than that one. 14 a ”Craig Wright is such a joke, I can break into his
15 The one being displayed and the one that I have are 15 computer”.
16 different . 16 Now, Maze Cyber happen to be a hacker group. Now,
17 Q. Then the ”Z” is a logo for the software Zotero, 17 as he has boasted before this , our friend
18 isn ’ t it ? 18 Mr Ager−Hanssen has extensive dealings with a number of
19 A. That’s correct . 19 hacker groups and he has done this multiple times.
20 Q. And Zotero is another software you use, isn’t it ? 20 Unfortunately, I was stupid enough to trust him and then
21 A. It is . 21 find all my files end up all over the place.
22 Q. In addition, if you go, please, to page 16, towards 22 Q. So this is another elaborate set up job, this time not
23 the top {P1/20/16}, do you see the −− a photograph 23 by Mr Kleiman or disgruntled employees or people from
24 showing the type of monitor and the shiny metallic bar 24 BTC Core, but by Christen Ager−Hanssen?
25 underneath and the position of the wires and so on? 25 A. Yes and no. What I do know is he has links to both

153 155

1 A. I do. 1 Algorand and BTC Core, hence why, after all of this
2 Q. Then if you go to page 17 {P1/20/17}, this is a −− in 2 started going down, he started tweeting proficiently
3 the of the page, we see a zoom in on one frame from 3 about how ”fake Toshi” was going down and how I’d faked
4 a video you took, exhibit CSW11; do you recognise that? 4 everything.
5 A. Yes, and as you’ ll notice, the cables are slightly 5 Q. Dr Wright, you’re just making up these allegations as
6 different . In this picture , they’re not the same as 6 you go along, aren’t you?
7 the other one. The two cable bars are different . 7 A. No, it ’s actually in one of your witness statements from
8 Christen should have done his homework better. 8 Sherrell . Mr Sherrell has actually produced this for
9 Q. It ’s a cable conduit, isn ’ t it , in both cases? 9 me. I was not able to capture the tweets in time,
10 A. Yes, but they’re different ones. 10 but −−
11 Q. Perfectly consistent? 11 Q. Your allegations linking Mr Ager−Hanssen to all sorts of
12 A. No, actually , it ’s not. If you bring up the other image 12 other people are just you making it up as you go along,
13 again −− 13 aren’t they?
14 Q. Put them alongside each other −− 14 A. No, actually , Mr Ager−Hanssen is using a third party
15 A. −− and put them side by side, I’ll demonstrate. 15 laptop, he is not a skilled hacker, so for someone to
16 Q. There we go {P1/20/16} {P1/20/17}. 16 actually be displaying my live browsing history , and
17 A. So you look at the two there and you can see they’re 17 I mean live, remotely on a screen and tweeting it, well ,
18 actually different cable conduits. 18 that demonstrates complete control of my computer. And
19 Q. We can take those off screen. 19 Mr Ager−Hanssen has no ability to do that, so there are
20 It ’s no coincidence, is it , Dr Wright, that we have 20 third parties .
21 a monitor of the same model as yours, with tabs −− 21 Q. So you say he has set up a computer to look like yours,
22 a whole series of tabs for programs and files associated 22 put a document on that looks actually genuine and
23 with you? 23 supportive of your position , taken a photograph of it
24 A. No, it isn ’ t a coincidence. Mr Ager−Hanssen provided an 24 and arranged for it to be sent to Mr Mayaka with a view
25 interview a while back noting that how he met me at an 25 to it ultimately going to you?

154 156

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 A. Yes. I had actually, first of all , told Stefan, look, 1 Q. Do you say that it’s a document that you’ve disclosed in
2 this is getting ridiculous , why don’t I just go to Denis 2 these proceedings and sought to rely upon them?
3 and ask for the invoices directly . I said that to 3 A. I ’m not sure whether it’s been disclosed or not.
4 Ali Zafar KC, who was a person who set up the false, 4 I mean, in my original −− to quote my Lord −− rambling
5 fake trial thing, pretending to be a −− with someone 5 witness statement, I had a lot of stuff already cut
6 pretending to be a judge, which I found really 6 down. So my rambling was even more rambling. But
7 abhorrent. And then, when I told him this, he said , 7 thankfully , I ’ve got very good barristers .
8 ”There’s no way you can do that, you can’t get those 8 Q. I ’ve double and treble−checked this −− and I’m sure
9 documents, you cannot put them in”. I did it anyway and 9 I can agree that your counsel team’s excellent ,
10 had them sent, but before I reached out to Denis, 10 Dr Wright, but I’ve double and treble−checked this and
11 I discovered that he’d already reached out to Denis. 11 no such Norwegian court interview has been disclosed in
12 And then I spoke to Travers, and Christen I found at 12 these proceedings. I put that to you.
13 that point had added his name to my case somehow. 13 A. That’s unfortunate, but it is a public document.
14 Christen Ager−Hanssen told Travers Smith that he was 14 Q. Moving on then to a new document ID_004009, which is at
15 working for Calvin Ayre and Calvin was my funder, and 15 {L1/115/1}. Now, this is one of your
16 thus, as the litigation funder, and his representative , 16 reliance documents. It’s not a pleaded forgery. I ’m
17 he has to, well , basically sign off on all of my 17 addressing it in relation to authenticity .
18 documents, which led to Travers Smith having a conflict. 18 Dr Wright, do you recognise this as one of your
19 I actually quite liked Travers Smith, I really did. 19 primary reliance documents?
20 Q. Please don’t tell us about your how your conflict with 20 A. I do.
21 Travers Smith emerged, because I’m sure your lawyers 21 Q. It ’s a set of manuscript notes on a DeMorgan company
22 will consider that privileged . 22 pad?
23 A. So anyway, as I was noting, Mr Ager−Hanssen went into 23 A. It is .
24 a big panic when I said that I could get documents from 24 Q. Can we agree this, at least the bulk of these notes are
25 Denis. I listened to him and didn’t −− but didn’t 25 written as if they were development notes on Bitcoin or

157 159

1 basically act straight away. Ali Zafar KC then told me 1 a concept like it before the release of Bitcoin?
2 I couldn’t use these documents, no court would accept 2 A. It was the early version of BlackNet.
3 them. I then went −− I don’t know why, I mean, they’re 3 Q. Now, if we go to page 16 {L1/115/16}, we can see some
4 directly from Denis. Lawyers believed, because 4 examples of that referring to addressing the double
5 a KC said it , and we’re where we are. 5 spend problem, yes?
6 Q. Dr Wright, I’m just going to put it to you again, 6 A. Yes. Just the same as Wei Dai’s b−money, which,
7 I think I ’ve probably put it to you already, this is 7 ironically , references Tim May and BlackNet. I know you
8 just an elaborate fiction , these were photographs taken 8 said it didn’t , but if you read the paper, it does.
9 by you of your monitor. 9 Q. I didn’t put that to you, Dr Wright.
10 A. No. As I stated, Christen actually then went and did an 10 A. Well, you said BlackNet, as a concept, had nothing to do
11 interview right after this with a Norwegian court, where 11 with anything and it’s just basic information security .
12 he said basically that he set everything up in the first 12 Q. I put it to you that your BlackNet paper, in its
13 place to get me, to get into nChain, and then said, at 13 authentic form, did not contain anything to do with
14 the end of this , he was either going to own all 14 transaction −− with digital currency transactions and
15 the intellectual property in nChain or destroy it . And 15 that it was a straight IT security project in all
16 then he started tweeting to BTC Core and engaging with 16 the versions which are authentic.
17 COPA members, and had a number of files that shouldn’t 17 A. No, once again I put to you that BlackNet wasn’t
18 be with him. 18 a digital currency system, it was an encrypted internet
19 Q. You didn’t add any of this detail about Mr Ager−Hanssen 19 that used digital currency as an economic system.
20 giving this interview and providing this information to 20 That’s in Tim May’s work.
21 a Norwegian court when you wrote any of your witness 21 Q. I ’m not going to get into an argument.
22 statements, did you? 22 Page 35 {L1/115/35}. Do we see here the entries
23 A. It ’s a public document. I’m not sure. I think I linked 23 have been written:
24 it at one point, but in the back and forth, I have had 24 ”DSA/RSA.
25 a number of things withdrawn. 25 ”Key size is too large .

158 160

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 ”Need to try ECDSA. 1 which is number 88, ID_004009. So, column F says that
2 ”Schnorr/EDDSA.” 2 it was produced as part of work you were doing in 2002;
3 And so on? 3 correct?
4 A. I do. 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And after these notes had been disclosed in this 5 Q. Column G says that the document is a set of handwritten
6 litigation , you received statements from COPA, didn’t 6 notes made between 2005 and 2013?
7 you? 7 A. That should actually say ”2” and ”13”, but anyway.
8 A. Yes. 8 Q. I see. We can see correct that to ”2002 to 2013”, can
9 Q. And those included a statement from Daniel Bernstein, 9 we?
10 whose team had developed the digital signature scheme 10 A. Yes.
11 known as EDDSA, didn’t they? 11 Q. Then column R, originally written in 2002, updates in
12 A. The current version of Schnorr signatures, yes. 12 2011, notes in red ink, yes?
13 Q. But they developed the scheme which has the moniker 13 A. Yes.
14 ”EDDSA”? 14 Q. And you say it was a 2002 R&D document linked to an ITOL
15 A. Correct. 15 filing in 2002?
16 Q. And you’re aware his statement, which you received in 16 A. Yes.
17 the middle of last year, said that that abbreviation was 17 Q. Well, go back to the document, please, to page 35
18 first used in 2011? 18 {L1/115/35}, which we were looking at earlier. It’s
19 A. Yes. 19 right , isn ’ t it , that, ”DSA”, ”RSA”, ”ECDSA” and
20 Q. And is it right that in your chain of custody 20 ”EDDSA” are all forms of digital signature algorithm?
21 information, after the provision of that statement, you 21 A. Well, it ’s a bit more complicated than that. ECDSA and
22 gave some information about this document? 22 EDDSA are digital signature algorithms. DSA is of
23 A. I did. 23 course that as well . RSA is a combined
24 Q. And you said in that document, didn’t you, for the first 24 encryption/ digital signature algorithm.
25 time, that this document −− that different parts of this 25 Q. Yes.

161 163

1 document were written at very different times? 1 A. It enables both signing and end encryption. ECDSA
2 A. I did. And if you go back to page 1 of this document 2 doesn’t.
3 {l1/115/1} you’ll see ”RRD4”. RRD4 is my filing for 3 Q. These notes −− sorry, the ECDSA is the cryptographic
4 research and development in 2011. That is in the second 4 algorithm which was selected by Satoshi for use in
5 half of 2011. So, the note in red pen for ”RRD4” 5 Bitcoin, wasn’t it ?
6 references a 2011 filing . 6 A. That is correct .
7 Q. Dr Wright, I’m not disputing that this is written in or 7 Q. And in writing, ”Need to try ECDSA”, that naturally
8 after 2011. 8 suggests that the writer is explaining wanting to try
9 A. Only the red part. 9 that for the incipient Bitcoin system, doesn’t it ?
10 Q. But you say that the document was produced as part of 10 A. No, actually , what RRD4 was about was a zero knowledge
11 work you were doing in 2002; correct? 11 proof system that’s actually now filed for patent, but
12 A. Mm. That’s when I started it. 12 the concept is that you have a key and you can link
13 Q. You said that the handwritten notes were made between 13 something like ECC and ECDSA so that you can have an
14 2005 and 2013? This is from your chain of custody. We 14 encryption function and the ability to access files .
15 can go to it? 15 Now, in Bitcoin, what we would do is we would link
16 A. What I’m saying is I’ve updated there, but the 16 the payment and the key such that you can encrypt a file
17 handwritten notes includes the red stuff and there’s two 17 and sent it to someone with a time lock so they can get
18 separate parts . 18 it back. If the payment goes through, though, it will
19 Q. You’ve said that the document −− this is, again, from 19 unlock the file .
20 your chain of custody −− was originally written in 2002, 20 So for instance, if I sold you a digital book,
21 but you made further notes in red ink at a later time 21 the digital book could be encrypted. I send you
22 referring to dates in 2011? 22 the encrypted file . Now, if you sign, that also
23 A. Yes. 23 releases and decrypts the file , but, at the same time,
24 Q. In fact , it ’s probably best if we go to the chain of 24 does the payment. So I could actually, for instance,
25 custody. It ’s K11, row 90 {K/11/1} −− row 90, 9−0 −− 25 send you an item and give you item 1, 2 and 3, and you

162 164

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 could choose one, or we could have an encrypted 1 sorry , doesn’t fit . Now −−
2 contract. Now, by −− 2 Q. And this elaborate story of this document being produced
3 Q. Can I pause you there, because I think you’ve probably 3 over a space of nine years , these manuscript notes being
4 addressed the question. 4 produced over a period of nine years, was first arrived
5 It was public knowledge, wasn’t it, from published 5 at after Mr Bernstein’s evidence was produced, wasn’t
6 emails between Satoshi and Mike Hearn that he, she or 6 it ?
7 they, Satoshi, chose ECDSA over RSA in part because 7 A. I don’t know when it was. I told everyone about it.
8 RSA’s huge keys were out of the question; correct? 8 I ’ve mentioned −−
9 A. Oh, I mean, it’s public knowledge from a number of 9 Q. So in your −−
10 communications, including Hal Finney. But you don’t 10 A. −− all of this −−
11 actually need to know −− 11 Q. It was in your chain of custody information, which was
12 Q. Just answer that question for a start , Dr Wright. 12 first provided in October 2023 after Mr Bernstein’s
13 A. I would say you even go beyond that into −− so, 13 evidence had been produced, yes?
14 I wouldn’t actually say that’s why it would be known. 14 A. That’s the time for that document chain, yes.
15 It is well known in the industry, where I even taught, 15 Q. May we move on, please.
16 that ECDSA is far more efficient than RSA for the same 16 My Lord, I don’t think I need to put that it ’s
17 level of security . 17 inauthentic based on the questions that I ’ve asked.
18 Q. {L18/440/2}. If we look at the first page, we can see 18 Next document, ID_000856, {L4/371/1}. This is
19 what this document is, an email from Satoshi Nakamoto to 19 a reliance −− one of the primary reliance documents, but
20 Mike Hearn, 10 January 2011. This has been in 20 not a pleaded forgery.
21 the public domain for quite some time, hasn’t it? 21 Dr Wright, do you recognise this as one of your
22 A. It has. 22 primary reliance documents?
23 Q. Next page {L18/440/2}, second paragraph down, in 23 A. I do.
24 relation to the choice of ECDSA, Satoshi writes: 24 Q. And it appears to be, doesn’t it , a memo template
25 ”RSA’s huge keys were out of the question.” 25 setting out board notes for the company

165 167

1 Yes? 1 Information Defense dated 2 January 2009?

2 A. Yes. 2 A. I see that.
3 Q. It was common knowledge that part of Satoshi’s 3 Q. And under ”Purpose”, we see that it’s got an entry for
4 motivation for choosing ECDSA over RSA was the huge keys 4 extending BlackNet using the time chain concept?
5 associated with RSA being out of the question? 5 A. I do.
6 A. No, it ’s not the huge keys, the way you’re putting it . 6 Q. And:
7 I would actually say that it ’s more mobile devices and 7 ”Model scale version of bitcoin on Xcase ...”
8 other such things. ECDSA is far more efficient. So 8 Yes?
9 it ’s not just ”huge keys”, the way you’re saying, it ’s 9 A. I do.
10 actually more a question of processing size and 10 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Madden has compared
11 the computation. So it is huge, but it ’s 11 the memo template used for this document to the current
12 the computation time. Now, when you’re talking about −− 12 Word template, and templates, dating from February and
13 Q. Can I just pause you there. I think, again, we’ve 13 May 2009 which Dr Placks identified, yes?
14 covered the topic. 14 A. I do.
15 Back to the document, page 35 {L1/115/35}. Now, 15 Q. And you’re aware, aren’t you, that he’s found it to be
16 just on the language of what’s written, ”DSA/RSA key 16 much more consistent with the current template?
17 size is too large ; need to try ECDSA”, gives every 17 A. No, he said that the consistency is the Microsoft
18 impression of a note from Satoshi to himself looking 18 templates. What he didn’t look at was, Microsoft bought
19 forward to the release of Bitcoin and contemplating 19 other companies. Lynn Wright, my ex−wife and the person
20 different signature algorithms to choose between, 20 doing this sort of admin, used a third party tool . That
21 doesn’t it ? 21 company was purchased by Microsoft, and those different
22 A. No, it actually perfectly matches up with RRD4. RRD4 is 22 templates were then made into part of the template
23 on page number 1 {L1/115/1}. Now, being that I’ve 23 stream.
24 mentioned RRD4, which is a 2011 project, which is 24 Q. PM41, at {H/208/13}, please, paragraph 40. In his
25 actually doing what I’m talking about, then that just , 25 appendix PM41 Mr Madden concludes that this disclosed

166 168

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 document is much more consistent with the current 1 positively consider it to be authentic, based on what
2 MS Word template than templates dating from 2009. Do 2 you know of it?
3 you disagree with that conclusion? 3 A. I know the text is what I would have told Lynn. All of
4 A. Completely. As I’ve noted, the templates actually came 4 the material is there. Lynn took all the notes in
5 from a third party company that was purchased by 5 January 2009. I didn’t interact with any of those notes
6 Microsoft. 6 until , sort of, I got them back in 2012.
7 Q. {Q/2/7}, please. This is the joint report of Mr Madden 7 Q. Moving on, please, {L2/243/1}, which is ID_004015. Now,
8 and Dr Placks, their first joint report. In relation to 8 this is a reliance document, not a pleaded forgery. Do
9 this template, do you see that Mr Madden finds it to be 9 you recognise this as one of your primary
10 manipulated, on the basis of his conclusions, yes? 10 reliance documents, Dr Wright?
11 A. Yes, I see that. 11 A. I do.
12 Q. And Dr Placks finds that it’s not possible to 12 Q. And it appears to be a section of Bitcoin Code with
13 authenticate it ? 13 notes by you, scanned to PDF, and headed, ”Copyright ...
14 A. He says it ’s −− 14 2008 Craig Wright”?
15 Q. It ’s unreliable . 15 A. I do.
16 A. Well, no, what he says −− which one are you looking at, 16 Q. And words, ”main.cpp” are written at the top?
17 sorry? Which number? 17 A. That’s correct .
18 Q. 000856. 18 Q. Is that your handwriting?
19 A. Mm−hm. Okay. 19 A. It looks like it , yes.
20 Q. And he concludes that it’s unreliable , doesn’t he? 20 Q. Now, if we go down to page {L2/243/23}, you see the last
21 A. No, he says he’s ”unable to attribute document to any 21 section of code in the document, looking from line 1320:
22 specific template given the quality of the scan”. So, 22 ”// Now process any orphan blocks ...”
23 basically , as he says there, ”modify layouts and 23 And so on. Can you see what that contains?
24 day−to−day editing”, he can’t actually do it. But what 24 A. I do. I can see it .
25 I ’m saying is it came from a third party tool, software 25 Q. Is it your position that this document represents an

169 171

1 repository . So, he doesn’t say it ’s inauthentic, he 1 early copy of the Bitcoin source code which you wrote?
2 says that he is unable to say whether it matches. It ’s 2 A. Well, it ’s definitely an early copy of the Bitcoin
3 a scanned document. 3 source code, and, yes, I wrote it .
4 Q. Well, I ’m putting to you, on the basis of Mr Madden’s 4 Q. And when do you say it dates from?
5 findings , that this document is not authentic to 2009, 5 A. I don’t actually know. On some of my own copies of
6 is it ? 6 documents that I would have printed, I may not have
7 A. I received it in 2012, but I have no reason to believe 7 updated the copyright. So all I know is this is
8 that it ’s not in −− inauthentic. The notes were done by 8 a printout that has been in my files since Australia .
9 Lynn Wright. Cloudcroft was a company that she was 9 Q. So since December 2015?
10 running. It took over Information Defense. 10 A. It would have been earlier than that. It would date −−
11 Information Defense was facing problems with the Tax 11 I mean, it’s pre−Panopticrypt and Panopticrypt was 2011.
12 Office that I later had to go to the tribunal for . 12 Q. So before 2011?
13 Cloudcroft took over the business of that company, 13 A. Well, no, before the mid 2011, is all I could say.
14 including all the records. Lynn Wright, my ex−wife, 14 Q. Are you aware that your solicitors answered questions
15 came into problems with the Tax Office herself, who 15 asking for documents mentioned in your first witness
16 targeted her because of me, and she shut down that 16 statement?
17 company. I purchased it −− that is Cloudcroft −− which 17 A. ”Answered questions asking for documents”? Sorry?
18 owned Information Defense then, into Panopticrypt, but 18 Q. Your solicitors answered questions for −− concerning
19 that was done in 2012, I believe . 19 documents mentioned in your first witness statement.
20 Q. Just to be −− 20 Are you aware that that happened?
21 A. The records are on ASIC. The public company records are 21 A. I know they ask and answer questions. I’m not sure what
22 there. 22 you mean by the ...
23 Q. Just to be clear , Dr Wright, based on the start of that 23 Q. {M/2/348}, please.
24 answer, it ’s your position , is it , that you have no 24 (Pause)
25 reason to believe it inauthentic rather than that you 25 I may have the wrong reference. May we go to

170 172

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 {M/2/345}. 1 those documents, but they won’t be the same as last year
2 (Pause) 2 in look, or feel , or anything else .
3 There may have been a problem with some page numbers 3 So, would I say that they’re the same documents?
4 changing. 4 Yes. Would I say that this is my code that I started in
5 {M/2/351}, please. Sorry. Thank you very much. 5 2008? Yes.
6 Now, this is a schedule of answers given by your 6 Q. So, is it your position now that this document is
7 solicitors , Shoosmiths, to requests concerning documents 7 a hard copy produced some time after 2008 which you say
8 referred to in different parts of your first witness 8 is a further version , with some development, of code you
9 statement; do you see this? 9 had in 2008?
10 A. I do. 10 A. I don’t actually know when I printed it out. I know
11 Q. And if we go to the next page {M/2/352}, can we see that 11 that it goes back to pre−Panopticrypt, but more than
12 paragraphs 75 and 77 of your first witness statement 12 that I can’t say. At that time, I was moving out of
13 referred to working copies of the Bitcoin Code developed 13 home from, like, my ex−wife, and starting a new life and
14 by early 2008? 14 so on, so I don’t have proper documentation of which
15 A. I do. 15 documents were printed when.
16 Q. And do you see that your solicitors have identified two 16 Q. So you then can’t say that this document was the same −−
17 documents falling within the description of such items, 17 shows that it is the same in content as a version of
18 yes? 18 the code you say you had in early 2008?
19 A. I do. 19 A. No, what I can say is I started coding this in 2008, and
20 Q. One of them is this one, 004015, and the other is 20 I have an online version of document, and as I’m working
21 004014? 21 on it , I will periodically print it .
22 A. I do. 22 Q. So this document is itself not evidence of what the code
23 Q. So, is it your position that this document was produced 23 was in fact in 2008?
24 by early 2008? 24 A. I ’m not saying it is . The 2008 code is actually still
25 A. No, my position is as I ’ve stated. I started creating 25 publicly , if difficult to find , available . The SVN had

173 175

1 the code and had a working version in 2008. Now, 1 all of that. So, I ’m not sitting there going the code
2 the way that an SVN like −− and I use TortoiseSVN, but 2 proves anything. The code was public. My proof has
3 SVN works is that you don’t have a local copy, so you do 3 never been I have the secret source and the code. My
4 updates and you do updates, etc. So each time I changed 4 proof is , a company such as nChain can do 79 patents
5 the document, I’m basically updating and building on 5 a year. I ’ve done 1,000 blockchain patents, 4,000
6 the document. That doesn’t mean that I automatically 6 pending patents, 350 White Papers.
7 change the copyright. So, when I’m working on 7 Q. Just pause there. You said in your statement that you
8 a document and I print it, even if I ’m printing it in 8 had a preliminary version of the code by early 2008?
9 2009 or ’10, it ’s an extension of my 2008 work. 9 A. I did.
10 Q. So is it your position that you in fact don’t have any 10 Q. Your solicitors were then asked for, by way of document,
11 documents reflecting, or which represent what you 11 that early version of the code, and you −−
12 produced in 2008 in the sense that it ’s either 12 A. (Overspeaking).
13 a printout from 2008 or it’s a code document dating from 13 Q. −− now say −− just a second −− you now say that
14 2008? 14 the document that was identified was not one of those
15 A. Again, that’s not correct . Even if I start the work and 15 early versions of the code but something you produced
16 have it mostly done, but update it, then it ’s still my 16 later , which may have changed since 2008?
17 work from 2008. 17 A. No. Again, every line of code doesn’t change. So, if
18 Q. So this is asking for documents referred to, and 18 I ’ve gone there and updated something, the same way as
19 the document that’s being referred to is a preliminary 19 companies update invoices, then the majority of it is
20 version of the code which you had in 2008? 20 still the same code. So, early code is still early
21 A. Which has been updated, as I said. 21 code. I cannot say when it’s been updated; I don’t have
22 Now, as an example, if I’m a corporation and I have 22 any records, I didn’t write the date on the top. I ’ve
23 invoices , and a year later I change all the fonts , and 23 been schooled on that one now, and every time I write
24 the look, and the corporate logo, and I’m asked by HMRC 24 a paper document, I now have the date and other markers,
25 to print out last year’s invoices , then I will print out 25 but I didn’t at the time.

174 176

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

1 Q. {L20/206/1}, please. You will recall , Dr Wright, me 1 MR HOUGH: Well, let’s end on agreement. A high point,
2 putting this on screen in opening submissions on Monday, 2 my Lord.
3 yes? 3 Would that be a convenient moment?
4 A. I do. 4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, good.
5 Q. And it’s the −− a post by Cryditt on the Bitcoin Forum 5 Dr Wright, as usual, don’t talk too anybody about
6 posting sections of the Bitcoin source code as is stood 6 your evidence, but have a good rest and we’ll see you at
7 in November 2008, yes? 7 10.30 in the morning.
8 A. Yes. 8 A. Thank you, my Lord.
9 Q. And if we go to page {L20/206/12}, we can see, at 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thanks.
10 the bottom of the page, that that included the main 10 (4.28 pm)
11 CPP file divided into two halves because of the capacity 11 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Friday,
12 allowed for each post by the forum software, yes? 12 9 February 2024)
13 A. Yes, that’s the code that I sent Ray back in 2008. 13
14 Q. And page 25, please {L20/206/25}. We can see that 14
15 the code happens to break off precisely at the same 15
16 point which yours does, in terms of the point in 16
17 the code where the forum post ends; correct? 17
18 A. I ’d have to see both of them next to each other. 18
19 Q. Well, let ’s do that. If we put that on screen alongside 19
20 −− I’ll just finish this last question. 20
21 Lord Grabiner is , perfectly fairly , saying that we 21
22 should now be drawing to an end. 22
23 The operator has pre−empted me. We’ve got on screen 23
24 {L20/206/25} and, against it, {L2/243/23}. Do you see 24
25 that the last section of code on each is the same? 25

177 179

1 A. Not quite. Actually, if you look at how the formatting 1 INDEX

2 is after ”now process”, as the last comment block, it 2
3 doesn’t follow the same way. 3 Housekeeping .........................................1
4 Q. I think it ’s got the same content, hasn’t it? 4 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued) ...................3
5 A. No, actually , that indentation is content, so they’re 5 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued) ........3
6 not the same. 6
7 Q. Dr Wright, the reason why your document breaks off at 7
8 precisely the same point as the Cryditt document, with 8
9 −− the size of which is determined by the size of 9
10 the forum post, is that you have taken yours from 10
11 the Cryditt version ; correct? 11
12 A. No. That person is Ray Dillinger . Interesting name. 12
13 But Ray and I have talked a few bits. Ray was a friend 13
14 of Hal Finney’s. Ray was sent that, as well as 14
15 Hal Finney, before the full version was done in 15
16 November 2008. 16
17 Q. Dr Wright, can we at least agree on this, that it would 17
18 have been perfectly straightforward for you to take 18
19 the publicly available code, amend it, print , and scan 19
20 to PDF to produce your document? 20
21 A. Actually, all of the code is public . SourceForge, in 21
22 2013, was still available . Gavin has all the code. 22
23 Many of the code repositories have been copied in to 23
24 GitHub. So, I mean, the argument is: could I have 24
25 printed code at any time? Of course I do. 25

178 180

181

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

100:1,16 104:10 105:1 aged (4) 134:11 135:19 analysis (7) 34:21 125:14 115:2,5 australian (24) 46:19 67:10 62:1 66:18 71:7 75:10
A
109:13 110:24 112:6,8,16 138:16 144:17 130:10,13 144:2,3,4 argued (4) 15:24 50:2 66:19 80:2 97:11 98:9 110:1 82:14 85:18 87:9 92:2,4

a210 (1) 70:7 113:4 115:2,25 117:10,24 agendas (1) 47:16 analytical (4) 13:11 146:11 121:1,3 129:2 136:7,22 97:3 100:5 116:1 117:20

a2124 (1) 90:13 118:9,11,15 119:1 120:23 agerhanssen (17) 148:13,18 17:2,22,23 arguing (3) 20:25 66:21 138:20 139:1,5,16,19 118:15 121:7 126:2,24

a317 (3) 26:11 70:6,14 121:6 123:25 124:4,13 149:20,22 152:6,9 154:24 anger (3) 111:19,22 118:13 80:16 140:3,6,9 142:8 143:23,24 127:8 128:24 129:5,10

a318 (1) 27:4 125:22 127:11 128:22 155:6,12,18,24 annotated (2) 16:10,11 argument (10) 7:1 15:9,22 144:1 147:1 130:5 133:5 135:25 138:18

aat (2) 100:10 112:23 129:18 130:15 131:18 156:11,14,19 157:14,23 annotations (1) 9:13 16:19 21:25 35:10 100:7 authentic (25) 10:1,3 31:8,9 139:6 143:2 152:5

abacus (10) 106:6 127:14 132:19,20,21 136:21 158:19 anomalies (1) 84:7 129:9 160:21 178:24 81:3 155:1,13 157:17 158:1,12

129:20 134:7 136:19 140:21 141:13 142:25 ago (5) 9:11 55:13 103:17 another (26) 5:11,12 9:20 arguments (1) 52:7 107:9,10,14,15,15,17,20 169:23 174:5

137:18 138:11 141:17 143:5,10,19,20 144:25 114:17 145:14 15:18 24:3 33:15 44:15 arisen (1) 70:19 108:15 109:3 112:15,19 basing (1) 35:4

142:17 148:15 145:6 146:12 147:10 agree (21) 24:21 38:9 44:9 53:17,25 55:23 60:9 68:20 around (7) 1:16 22:18 39:8 115:22 118:8 125:22 basis (8) 6:13,14 7:7 102:13

abandoned (1) 36:3 149:19,25 150:23 153:2 46:1 57:6 58:5 64:3,5,7 70:20 73:12 74:1 115:4 42:8 52:9 58:14 71:16 128:10 136:10 160:13,16 117:4 141:21 169:10 170:4

abbreviation (1) 161:17 154:12,18 155:8 80:4,6,7,9 81:8,16 104:6 119:7 124:14 127:12 arranged (2) 155:2 156:24 170:5 171:1 bdo (3) 30:16,18 53:2

abhorrent (1) 157:7 156:7,8,14,16,22 157:1,19 119:13 143:12 159:9,24 132:13,15 134:4 137:17 arrangement (1) 126:6 authenticate (1) 169:13 bearing (2) 5:21 46:10

abide (1) 3:11 158:10 163:7 164:10,11,24 178:17 145:9 153:20 155:22 arrangements (1) 97:16 authentication (2) 77:3 became (4) 15:18 32:20 98:2

ability (3) 112:11 156:19 165:11,14 166:7,10,22,25 agreed (3) 58:19 120:19 answer (21) 4:20 6:19 17:18 arrived (1) 167:4 143:14 138:19

164:14 169:4,24 172:5 175:10,24 149:12 50:11 57:8 66:24 92:23 article (1) 12:23 authenticity (2) 29:16 before (33) 4:22 5:6 6:8

able (17) 6:10 20:8 33:15 178:1,5,21 agreeing (1) 48:23 101:22 107:15,22 108:2,18 asic (2) 138:25 170:21 159:17 16:10 23:12 24:25 54:8,15

40:2 43:5 58:22 75:5 82:14 adam (1) 22:18 agreement (9) 111:11 109:24 113:24 114:8 asinine (1) 145:5 author (2) 24:10 27:21 55:10 58:15 67:24 68:8

97:21 111:14 117:6,13 add (3) 21:12,16 158:19 112:5,16 113:4,6 114:19 116:20 117:2 133:12 ask (12) 5:6 25:17 43:24 authored (1) 63:4 71:5,11 82:12 87:8

118:7 126:20 150:2,12 added (7) 9:14 47:5 115:6 115:18 129:2 179:1 165:12 170:24 172:21 50:11 66:24 85:12,13 authorise (1) 140:8 101:17,20,22 103:4 113:21

156:9 125:10,11,16 157:13 agrees (1) 18:3 answered (4) 99:22 93:14 96:20 118:3 157:3 authors (2) 21:15 23:7 132:14,23 133:4,21 137:5

abnormalities (1) 80:24 adding (2) 29:22 47:8 alan (1) 30:16 172:14,17,18 172:21 authorship (3) 27:22 29:6,14 147:4 155:17 157:10 160:1

above (1) 55:18 addition (2) 142:6 153:22 albeit (1) 114:18 answering (2) 15:10 87:3 asked (36) 3:21 4:16 13:16 automated (1) 42:11 172:12,13 178:15

absolute (1) 67:17 additional (1) 1:18 alex (1) 26:24 answers (3) 1:23 140:20 17:19 50:12 66:25 71:8 automatic (1) 70:25 began (2) 29:20 113:12

abstract (1) 24:6 address (49) 32:6 44:21 algorand (1) 156:1 173:6 72:22 90:3 92:20 97:18,20 automatically (1) 174:6 begin (1) 68:25

academic (1) 15:2 47:5,9 54:3,7,9,10,15,23 algorithm (3) 163:20,24 antiavoidance (1) 100:6 98:12 99:7,20 100:18 available (6) 42:16 136:15 begins (3) 44:12 90:20

academy (1) 144:2 55:1,2,3,8,10,18,21 56:21 164:4 anticipate (1) 1:15 101:2,9,14 107:5,8,11,13 138:25 175:25 178:19,22 137:21

accept (24) 5:23,25 9:4,8 57:13,15 61:4 62:22,22 algorithms (2) 163:22 166:20 anticipated (1) 2:5 109:19,22 113:11,13,15,24 averment (1) 11:9 behalf (5) 50:5 56:8 92:12

17:1 25:8,13,14,17 27:5,12 63:16 64:1 69:7 73:4,23 ali (2) 157:4 158:1 antigua (1) 133:3 116:4,14,18 139:8 167:17 averred (1) 26:17 96:4 121:3

32:8 33:11,20 45:4 53:12 74:11,22 76:9 77:9 81:5,7 alignment (1) 13:22 anybody (2) 89:19 179:5 174:24 176:10 avoid (2) 45:5 100:10 behind (1) 89:4

54:7 58:16 63:21 77:5,9 84:19,19,24 85:1,2 alixpartners (1) 6:12 anyone (5) 2:16 3:2,11 63:10 asking (14) 3:20 4:18,19 aware (25) 14:3,4 41:19,20 being (47) 3:9,10 7:9

81:1 118:17 158:2 86:10,20,25 120:21 131:9 allan (1) 30:18 123:12 6:19 20:7 73:8 98:13 42:5,13 45:19 46:5,9 51:1 11:10,19,23 12:10 14:16

accepted (8) 32:13 40:14 132:1,5 142:18 149:4,5 allegation (2) 37:11 87:3 anything (23) 6:20,24 14:9 110:16 133:22 135:8 69:23 70:1,4 130:17,22 16:10 32:17 33:8 40:9

55:2 59:15 90:4 112:13 addressed (3) 87:24 131:3 allegations (2) 156:5,11 16:13 23:12 52:5 59:7 149:11 172:15,17 174:18 142:10,15 148:3,6,9 44:18 51:20 58:3 60:18

119:2 139:22 165:4 allow (1) 1:23 73:10 74:5 76:13 84:17 aspect (2) 23:9 93:25 161:16 168:10,15 67:12,22 68:21 69:2 70:20

accepting (2) 5:6 55:3 addressee (1) 60:14 allowed (6) 84:12 100:3,16 103:6 109:14 110:24 aspects (2) 22:2 30:18 172:14,20 80:17 84:20 86:12 92:9,12

access (26) 2:8,19 3:3 4:5 addresses (10) 5:10 44:22 112:8 118:24 177:12 111:15 112:1,17 118:17 assert (3) 27:22 29:6,14 away (2) 155:6 158:1 93:15,17,22 95:17,21

33:2,25 34:3 41:14 43:5 62:14,17 76:14 81:12 almost (1) 53:19 120:22 160:11,13 175:2 asserted (2) 70:2,9 aws (1) 38:17 97:18 99:20 101:2,9

47:7 50:9 51:14 52:1 64:9 83:22 85:3 120:8 125:2 alone (2) 21:24 86:16 176:2 assess (1) 3:11 ayre (7) 10:7 11:11,14,24 110:25 113:14 122:24

65:5 92:21 97:21 98:8,14 addressing (5) 62:13 90:2 along (3) 151:1 156:6,12 anyway (5) 56:3,22 157:9,23 assets (20) 11:16 12:15,17 12:5,11 157:15 125:21 139:11 152:13

100:4 112:8 126:17 137:15 128:3 159:17 160:4 alongside (4) 8:13 84:22 163:7 86:1 96:25 97:4,5,10 100:9 153:15 166:5,23 167:2,3
B
141:10 146:19 164:14 adhere (1) 102:2 154:14 177:19 apnic (1) 142:25 105:20,22,24 125:21 127:4 174:19

accessed (3) 7:3,11 57:4 adjourned (1) 179:11 alpha (2) 36:2 46:3 apologetic (1) 118:20 128:25 129:11 145:4 b (11) 32:13 35:16 44:3 belief (4) 82:10,16 123:6,10

accessible (3) 29:2 58:5 adjournment (1) 89:23 already (11) 2:4 16:22 apologies (4) 55:7,16,19 85:2 146:13,15 147:20 46:13 48:15 51:12 believe (17) 26:2 38:13

129:12 admin (2) 53:23 168:20 52:14,23 126:4 132:24 apologise (4) 73:8 78:14,24 assigned (2) 85:24 88:7 64:16,23 87:15 88:2 42:10 55:12 71:25

accessing (4) 2:16 6:23 7:20 administration (8) 122:22 135:21 145:2 157:11 158:7 88:20 assistant (1) 137:25 147:10 72:3,7,23 73:9 81:8 104:22

98:15 123:1 126:7,10,14 159:5 apparently (8) 9:9 74:1 associate (1) 153:4 b1ef (1) 90:20 112:6 132:25 149:17

accident (1) 129:6 136:17,18 138:23 also (46) 2:24 4:10 6:4 11:12 76:21 82:3 104:13 128:9 associated (8) 64:22 89:5 back (51) 2:12 12:5,7 16:21 170:7,19,25

accord (1) 139:23 administrator (2) 86:16 14:4 16:5,18 39:10,22 136:5 137:19 98:17 105:24 121:15 23:20,23 26:5,6,24 27:24 believed (8) 72:2,6 122:22

according (2) 80:2 128:19 138:24 40:15 42:13 45:21 46:5 appeals (1) 145:13 142:24 154:22 166:5 36:8 37:16,24 39:18 47:24 126:19 133:7 150:2 151:23

account (13) 19:2 41:12 administrators (1) 75:13 47:10 52:24 56:17 57:1,11 appear (5) 7:21 55:24 59:9 association (1) 85:16 55:4 56:25 58:13 75:19 158:4

46:18 48:16 56:6 76:15,25 admissible (1) 17:20 58:10 59:19 61:21 68:18 96:16 149:16 assumed (2) 51:16 52:20 77:3 79:1 83:21 86:3,18 believes (2) 70:18 152:5

77:1 79:9 87:19,22 admit (2) 26:12 29:9 76:1 80:9 86:5,9 96:6 appeared (4) 3:22 19:3 assumption (1) 128:21 101:13 102:19 103:18 believing (1) 145:6

96:21,24 admitted (5) 11:12,17 26:17 97:12 108:15 113:7 117:11 25:20 102:16 atlantic (1) 81:8 113:10,23 116:12 126:2 belize (2) 132:24 133:3

accounting (4) 3:23 127:22 29:10 155:8 120:11,20,25 130:1,7 appearing (3) 53:22 74:17 atlassian (12) 33:23 132:21,23 134:19 below (2) 54:23 151:1

128:5 132:5 adobe (4) 39:20,21 42:14,18 132:25 136:10,15,23 75:6 38:12,13,21 39:24 135:1,5,23 138:6 139:7 ben (1) 80:15

accounts (1) 136:15 advance (2) 48:9,11 137:15 138:22,25 147:15 appears (14) 53:12 60:13 41:6,10,12,14 42:6,7,10 142:22 146:14 150:6 beneficial (5) 105:20 124:21

acknowledge (2) 99:17 101:6 advanced (1) 48:12 155:10 164:22 74:9 116:1 119:8 121:23 ato (9) 97:2 121:11,20 154:25 158:24 162:2 131:7,10 132:2

acknowledgement (1) 104:2 advantages (1) 18:2 alter (1) 25:3 125:20 127:13,21 129:23 122:13 123:14,16 124:6,10 163:17 164:18 166:15 bepresents (1) 134:6

acknowledging (1) 103:19 adverse (1) 146:8 alteration (1) 127:5 134:5 140:17 167:24 126:5 171:6 175:11 177:13 bernstein (1) 161:9

across (4) 16:2 19:5 59:13 advise (1) 3:4 alterations (1) 81:9 171:12 attached (7) 122:9 131:16 backdated (2) 59:15 152:21 bernsteins (2) 167:5,12

99:7 affected (1) 4:11 altered (3) 7:13 67:4 92:9 appended (1) 90:14 134:13 135:9,16 136:5 backdating (1) 58:20 bespoke (1) 151:25

acted (1) 138:20 after (30) 4:4 21:21 23:24 altering (2) 6:24 83:14 appendix (18) 4:25 5:10 7:19 141:12 backer (1) 10:17 best (6) 2:4 71:10 111:18

acting (1) 56:8 24:15 27:11 42:22 61:9 although (3) 36:9 80:5 124:4 32:13 35:16 44:3,11 46:13 attaching (1) 148:23 backers (1) 47:23 116:5 118:12 162:24

action (3) 119:1 139:4 83:8 84:3,15 102:23 always (4) 69:15 82:25 48:15 51:12 64:16,23 attachment (2) 119:17 122:3 backing (1) 23:9 bet (1) 30:22

152:10 110:17 111:21 112:6 130:4,9 83:21 87:15 88:2 95:9 attachments (1) 104:16 backs (2) 22:18 23:4 better (6) 69:19 89:2 95:25

active (5) 57:19,21 83:3 113:1,12 114:13 117:8 amazon (1) 38:17 125:1 168:25 attack (1) 20:18 bailment (1) 126:22 111:23 146:25 154:8

84:16 86:18 126:6 146:2 150:6 156:1 amend (1) 178:19 apple (1) 56:17 attacked (1) 29:12 baker (1) 102:14 between (28) 13:19 21:9

actively (1) 92:17 158:11 161:5,21 162:8 amended (2) 11:1,2 application (2) 5:3 63:8 attacker (1) 21:9 balance (1) 65:2 24:22 33:21 44:20 47:14

actual (11) 30:6 34:19 72:5 167:5,12 175:7 178:2 amendment (4) 54:8,15 applications (1) 152:3 attacks (1) 29:11 bank (1) 136:14 72:4 78:19 83:10 97:5

83:12,15 98:23 99:1,4 afternoon (1) 2:10 55:10 56:20 applied (1) 152:7 attempt (2) 57:12 133:5 bankrupt (1) 97:11 105:4 108:5 111:11 113:6

101:20,22 102:8 again (34) 3:8,13 16:12 22:6 american (11) 49:19,23 apply (3) 2:16,20 115:17 attention (2) 2:9 50:17 bankruptcy (2) 100:2,8 114:23 115:18,19 120:12

actually (144) 7:9 23:7 25:12,17 26:1 85:14 110:20 111:17 appoint (1) 75:13 attested (2) 78:20 111:7 bankrupted (1) 100:11 129:2 131:21 132:1 137:18

16:2,13,20,24 17:7,20 28:21,24 34:17 36:17 129:1,3 139:14 140:7 appointed (1) 118:2 attribute (1) 169:21 bar (1) 153:24 141:6 145:12 162:13 163:6

23:17 26:4,8 28:5 35:24 38:10 39:3 40:7 41:10 55:6 146:23 155:3 appreciate (1) 89:14 audit (3) 4:13 7:6 139:4 bare (1) 127:5 165:6 166:20

36:5,10,13 37:2,7 39:3,6 58:25 60:3 61:21 65:22 americans (1) 140:7 april (1) 119:14 audited (4) 9:18 19:18 barristers (1) 159:7 beyond (2) 123:25 165:13

40:1,10 41:7,8,14 43:4 74:21 76:18 88:20 108:23 amex (1) 155:1 area (5) 8:15 22:14 34:11 20:6,22 bars (1) 154:7 big (1) 157:24

48:11,17,23 49:5,15 51:5,7 118:21 133:1 154:13 158:6 among (5) 62:13 64:5 41:11 45:1 august (11) 24:13,23 26:18 base (4) 32:25 35:13,22,25 bilag (3) 91:8,8 95:9

53:6 54:16,17 56:9,18 160:17 162:19 166:13 95:9,17 125:3 areas (7) 10:14 20:17 21:2 28:1,7,20,22 29:4,21 42:4 based (12) 1:24 24:16 billion (4) 133:7,8 147:10,11

57:7,8 58:11 60:1,15 64:18 174:15 176:17 amongst (1) 82:7 22:10,11 146:16,20 97:21 27:7,12,13 28:13 65:4 72:7 bills (1) 123:3

66:20 68:23 70:6 72:1,14 against (20) 11:16 12:2,15 amount (1) 146:15 arent (14) 42:5 84:7,8 aura (6) 22:21 95:3 167:17 170:23 171:1 binary (1) 45:4

73:6,13 82:23 84:10 86:14 29:11 44:15,19 49:2,17 anachronistic (2) 81:15 82:8 130:17,22 132:11 140:20 23:1,9,17,20,20 basic (2) 14:16 160:11 binomial (2) 21:10,17

88:5,7 89:4 92:14 93:18,25 53:17 56:8 89:3 90:8 92:18 analyse (2) 37:16 87:13 142:11,15 148:3 156:6,13 australia (10) 43:3,4 81:6 basically (45) 14:15 23:20 binomials (1) 21:23

94:20 95:6,23,24 95:7 96:6 97:1,13 100:9 analysed (1) 130:3 168:10,15 84:20 85:5,16 97:10 100:7 27:2 29:11 38:14 41:5 birthday (1) 108:20

96:14,17,18 99:23 145:10 177:24 analyses (1) 39:12 argue (4) 89:12 112:1 102:12 172:8 42:17 47:24 50:23 52:16 bit (11) 15:23 16:1 69:14

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

73:6 98:16 100:24,25 170:13 chat (4) 12:24,25 13:1,4 commenting (1) 44:3 conflict (2) 157:18,20 correct (58) 4:14 8:18 19:1,6 140:12,17,19,21 141:8
101:1 109:8 145:5 163:21 businessman (1) 89:10 cheap (2) 137:4,5 commercial (2) 12:2,9 connection (3) 57:13 91:18 22:19 26:3,20 27:23 152:14,16 161:20
bitcoin (56) 8:9 12:1,3 button (1) 53:4 check (3) 96:9 97:9 144:9 common (1) 166:3 93:6 29:5,23 30:3 37:1,7 162:14,20,25 167:11
19:21,23 24:7 27:9 29:3 checked (3) 81:5 90:16 116:2 commonly (1) 52:4 consent (1) 138:3 46:11,17,21,25 50:7 51:20 custom (1) 152:1
C
30:9,13,13,19 31:1,7,20 checks (1) 63:23 communicate (1) 23:1 consider (2) 157:22 171:1 56:3 64:2 85:17 86:12 customer (1) 20:1
33:5,6 38:25 40:24 44:4,22 c (6) 49:11 51:24 52:1 130:6 checksum (1) 46:7 communications (5) 12:22 consideration (1) 88:9 87:7,10 98:17 101:12 cut (3) 3:10 129:25 159:5
47:11 48:5 52:3,8 53:13 151:4 152:12 chest (1) 144:22 24:16 64:13 67:15 165:10 considered (3) 5:18 33:16 104:10 105:16 113:21 cwright (2) 63:5 64:19
58:15 69:14 70:11 85:21 c01n (9) 121:4,5,12,15 chief (1) 85:6 companies (37) 37:8 46:20 69:22 114:3,13 115:23 cyber (3) 148:20,23 155:16
95:10,10 96:25 97:6,8 122:15 123:19,20 124:7,7 children (2) 75:18 124:2 47:20 61:6,8 64:21 88:3 consisted (1) 116:13 117:4,5,14,24,25 119:15
99:10,17 101:3 103:25 cable (3) 154:7,9,18 choice (1) 165:24 97:7 100:17 113:7 115:20 consistency (1) 168:17 128:20,22 137:13 143:8 D
105:24 106:3 121:24 123:2 cables (1) 154:5 choose (2) 165:1 166:20 116:22 121:7 122:20 consistent (8) 33:8 45:4 148:17 149:13 150:17
159:25 160:1 164:5,9,15 cache (1) 112:20 choosing (1) 166:4 123:11,13 126:9,12,13,25 58:3,8 135:18 154:11 152:22 153:19 161:15 d (1) 5:15
166:19 168:7 171:12 calculations (1) 21:8 chose (1) 165:7 127:11 129:14 133:3 168:16 169:1 162:11 163:3,8 164:6 dai (1) 24:16
172:1,2 173:13 177:5,6 california (1) 61:7 christen (8) 148:13 149:20 134:13 135:23 137:2 conspiracy (2) 145:9,12 165:8 171:17 174:15 dais (1) 160:6
bitcoinexe (3) 43:23 44:4 call (3) 33:22 92:16 114:5 151:22 154:8 155:24 138:1,21 139:1,19 142:9 construct (1) 62:8 177:17 178:11 daniel (1) 161:9
90:3 called (2) 106:23 148:19 157:12,14 158:10 144:24 145:3,6 148:16 constructed (2) 117:23 139:6 correctly (2) 36:13 97:3 data (2) 34:21 131:8
bitcoins (2) 44:18 103:20 calvin (4) 11:11,14 157:15,15 christopher (1) 97:12 168:19 176:19 consultancy (1) 127:15 correspondence (1) 33:20 database (1) 38:15
bits (5) 1:4 72:15 78:15 came (18) 21:20 48:3,18,20 circle (1) 22:18 company (67) 10:19 12:6,7 contact (3) 23:19 126:24 corresponds (3) 9:10 42:3 dataset (3) 5:11 33:16 44:16
114:8 178:13 49:18 50:22 57:8 59:20 cite (1) 48:15 37:6 47:6 49:22 54:11,17 132:6 101:1 date (41) 5:16,18 6:4,4
black (2) 18:17 155:1 66:6,15 67:3 76:1 87:10,15 cited (2) 23:4 118:18 75:12 81:21 84:16 85:19 contain (4) 40:8 87:17 corrupted (2) 46:7,10 16:17,17,18 24:13,15 26:4
blacknet (6) 93:11 169:4,25 170:15 claimant (4) 11:8,10,17 12:1 97:9 100:15 118:1 140:13 160:13 cost (1) 136:21 27:25 28:2,6,9,10 31:25
160:2,7,10,12,17 168:4 canada (1) 133:4 claimants (1) 12:2 121:3,15 122:13,15,24,25 contained (3) 27:12 99:20 couldnt (10) 38:1 57:5 71:14 35:20 39:16 78:5,11,23
blanks (1) 7:22 cancelled (1) 126:11 claimed (1) 29:20 123:6 124:1,5,12 125:25 149:23 89:11 117:7,14 118:3,16 80:23 81:3,16 83:6 84:4
blef (1) 90:21 cannot (12) 3:11 62:6,6,7 claiming (2) 62:1 73:18 126:7,10 127:17,23 containing (5) 67:17 75:17 123:2 158:2 94:9 109:3 110:17
block (2) 125:9 178:2 68:14 69:17 79:19 110:24 claims (1) 146:6 128:12,18,19 129:1,3,4,21 79:15 99:9 149:7 counsel (1) 159:9 125:5,6,23 129:24 131:17
blockchain (4) 19:24 98:17 116:23 150:24 157:9 clarify (1) 51:16 133:1,23 134:12,14 contains (4) 30:9 78:17 couple (4) 1:4 13:21 15:18 132:6 134:21 135:7 138:7
135:23 176:5 176:21 clear (28) 3:6 7:4 12:14 135:6,19,22 136:11,16,20 79:11 171:23 73:19 172:10 176:22,24
blocks (2) 98:16 171:22 cant (22) 1:9 8:3 57:8 61:24 28:12 33:21 40:13 41:2 138:16,20 144:17 145:4,17 contemplating (1) 166:19 course (6) 15:13 53:8 76:17 dated (17) 60:17 69:8 77:16
blog (1) 49:7 65:25 72:9 82:9 89:12 67:20 72:10 73:8 76:7 146:9,13,23 147:16,20,24 contempt (3) 2:25 111:16,21 85:14 163:23 178:25 78:4,15 95:11 103:3 105:6
blue (1) 19:11 90:7,12 117:3,3,12 119:14 78:14,19,25 79:1 159:21 167:25 168:21 content (15) 18:11 39:13 courts (1) 144:1 119:10 122:10 124:15
bmoney (1) 160:6 140:7 141:14 144:13 151:2 82:18,23,25 87:22 88:21 169:5 170:9,13,17,21 44:15 61:19 70:23 73:24 covered (2) 61:21 166:14 127:19 131:13 132:10
bnp (1) 47:19 157:8 169:24 175:12,16 94:11 95:15 99:3 118:5 176:4 77:7 79:17 87:17 88:14,18 covers (1) 141:22 134:7 136:5 168:1
board (2) 60:18 167:25 capacity (1) 177:11 124:6 137:6 140:14 170:23 companys (1) 142:6 125:16 175:17 178:4,5 cpp (1) 177:11 dates (9) 4:22 6:10 28:4
boasted (1) 155:17 capital (1) 44:19 clearly (1) 17:14 compared (4) 45:18 53:17 contents (2) 13:20 44:12 craig (32) 3:15 24:11 37:19,22 42:15 139:23
body (3) 70:16 71:18 72:12 capture (1) 156:9 click (1) 53:3 74:12 168:10 context (3) 10:7 147:11 41:11,12,13 56:11,13,15 162:22 172:4
book (2) 164:20,21 captured (1) 24:5 clients (1) 89:8 comparing (1) 44:14 152:16 68:6,15 69:7 74:4 77:6 dating (11) 18:20 32:4 34:16
boost (4) 52:1,16,20,25 captures (1) 155:11 clockwise (1) 31:18 comparison (2) 33:18 131:21 continued (5) 3:15,18 19:11 79:12,12,12,15,15 80:15 39:17 120:13 130:19,19
bore (1) 34:8 card (1) 155:1 close (2) 33:17 144:21 comparisons (1) 13:19 180:4,5 82:15 91:21 100:16 102:10 133:4 168:12 169:2 174:13
both (20) 6:11 34:13 35:23 care (2) 49:15 50:20 closed (6) 34:1 58:14 compile (1) 53:7 continuing (1) 29:21 104:20 122:4 124:16 dave (35) 20:18 21:3 23:18
62:22 66:7 80:2 82:23 83:7 careful (2) 53:5 141:2 81:19,24 126:15 139:20 compiled (2) 34:19 47:4 contract (3) 104:5,6 165:2 130:8,9 134:9 155:14 46:24 69:9,15 70:10
85:17 105:19 115:17 carry (1) 143:16 cloudcroft (3) 170:9,13,17 compiling (2) 52:6,10 contradiction (2) 78:19 171:14 180:4 71:9,10 72:16 74:10
122:15 129:16,18 132:12 cases (4) 14:17 66:8 92:2 code (77) 31:12,12 complete (7) 9:9 13:6 36:14 120:12 craigpanopticryptcom (1) 77:18,25 78:8,12,14 79:13
145:21 154:9 155:25 164:1 154:9 32:20,22,25 33:4,6 93:19 113:3 141:8 156:18 contradictory (1) 120:17 120:5 80:13 82:2,15 89:11 102:7
177:18 cash (4) 28:22 69:14 133:9 34:13,21,24 completed (1) 59:10 contrary (1) 95:15 craigrcjbrorg (2) 63:14 74:11 103:10,24 104:24 106:10
bother (1) 60:21 145:25 35:5,5,11,12,13,17,22,25,25 completely (14) 2:1 14:20 control (7) 6:21 40:4 49:21 craigs (1) 10:11 113:13 116:21 119:9,13
bottom (23) 5:17 9:16 12:24 caught (1) 88:6 36:2,8,21,23,24 38:14,20 18:7 31:9 41:24 64:4 76:14 100:4 146:9,19 156:18 craigsrcjbrorg (1) 77:6 120:1 121:24 122:4
19:15 31:23 40:13,15 cause (1) 3:9 39:7 40:23 41:15,23,25 80:5,6 81:18 104:9 110:25 controls (1) 147:15 craigwrightinformationdefensecom 129:5,11
44:13 54:24 92:19 105:13 cavilling (1) 27:11 45:16 47:4,10,18 142:21 169:4 convenient (4) 43:11 89:15 (1) 69:8 david (11) 47:6 48:9 70:3
113:11 120:11 131:3 centrebet (10) 9:17 19:17 52:2,2,5,14,17 76:13,17 complicated (1) 163:21 133:14 179:3 crashing (1) 45:5 72:17 73:2 79:16 88:24
134:25 135:7 137:22 138:6 20:1,5,8,21 21:2 22:5 89:11 142:22 171:12,21 compromise (1) 76:12 conventional (1) 57:5 create (6) 42:15 61:24 104:8 102:17 103:25 104:13
150:25 151:1,7 152:12 30:22 31:2 172:1,3 173:13 compromised (15) 7:2 conversion (4) 127:6 132:16 144:18 146:12
177:10 ceo (3) 100:15 148:14 150:1 174:1,13,20 65:11,12,15,15,17 146:10,11,14,24 created (30) 5:3,23 6:8,10 day (13) 1:12 2:14 3:1 38:17
bought (3) 144:17,19 168:18 certain (2) 47:15 97:22 175:4,8,18,22,24 66:11,16,22 67:3 75:11 convert (1) 14:13 16:8 20:19 27:7,17 28:15 74:2 101:17,19 103:4
box (1) 64:21 certificate (2) 138:11 144:5 176:1,2,3,8,11,15,17,20,20,21 76:9,18,25 77:1 converted (1) 6:3 32:14,16 35:9 36:15 38:11 104:9 107:1 108:19 149:1
boxes (1) 10:9 certificates (2) 144:6,7 177:6,13,15,17,25 compromising (1) 155:13 converter (4) 40:24 41:3,20 42:22 46:15,22 47:18 152:9
breach (2) 2:7,24 cfo (1) 85:6 178:19,21,22,23,25 computation (2) 166:11,12 42:3 64:17,25 65:9,10 81:22 daytoday (1) 169:24
break (10) 43:12,19 89:15 chain (37) 4:7 7:10 18:23 code2flow (5) 40:23 41:5,19 computer (16) 7:11 23:1 copa (7) 61:10 70:1,4,8 74:6 85:18 87:14 104:11 109:25 dead (3) 89:7,9,11
132:14 133:15,16,19,22 21:9,10 48:17 49:18 42:7,10 52:25 53:1,1 54:19 63:4 158:17 161:6 123:11 128:9 153:6 deal (6) 1:19 10:24 12:6
155:14 177:15 50:21,25 58:24 59:4,6,9,9 coding (6) 33:23 37:3,10,12 64:9,19 131:19 151:18 copas (2) 69:23 70:7 creating (2) 43:1 173:25 47:17,19 123:5
breaks (2) 16:5 178:7 65:19,22 67:6 120:24 51:24 175:19 152:8 155:13,15 156:18,21 copied (4) 38:1 68:5 149:9 creation (8) 34:3 37:19,21 dealing (1) 142:12
briefly (1) 3:19 137:18 138:10 coffee (2) 10:12 13:7 computers (10) 7:3,13 34:5 178:23 57:3 58:7,8 125:5 127:5 dealings (1) 155:18
bring (7) 7:19 8:3 9:6 93:22 140:11,17,19,21 141:8 coherent (4) 114:18,20,24 64:8,20 67:9 75:16 76:1 copies (3) 59:22 172:5 crime (2) 92:17 93:24 deals (1) 47:23
103:17 109:15 154:12 148:7 151:4 152:12,14,16 115:4 126:18,23 173:13 criminal (2) 118:25 152:10 dear (1) 134:9
brisbane (2) 85:4 87:1 161:20 162:14,20,24 coin (2) 121:5 122:16 concept (4) 160:1,10 164:12 copy (34) 2:18 9:9 13:5 critically (1) 89:2 debating (1) 17:13
britain (1) 81:6 167:11,14 168:4 coincidence (5) 139:9,12,13 168:4 16:10 18:14 19:3,20 26:6 criticism (1) 1:22 debug (1) 58:19
broad (1) 30:8 challenged (2) 67:23 147:4 154:20,24 concepts (1) 30:9 29:24 30:4,5,7 33:9,11,12 cropped (1) 5:17 debuglog (1) 53:12
broadly (1) 139:24 challenging (1) 146:24 collaborator (1) 61:2 concerned (3) 3:5 67:16 72:20 74:1 77:15 81:12 crossed (1) 8:12 decade (2) 115:19 137:5
broke (1) 38:16 change (23) 28:25 35:2 collaborators (1) 61:19 96:19 103:16 105:10 crossexamination (3) 3:18 deceased (1) 80:13
broken (1) 132:7 39:4,7,8 40:11 41:7 46:3 collapsed (1) 123:1 concerning (5) 2:19 11:12 107:12,14,15,15,16,17,20 85:11 180:5 december (2) 32:4 172:9
brother (5) 71:17 80:13,17 56:20 57:9 58:10 71:1 colleagues (1) 61:18 121:12 172:18 173:7 108:15 119:8 172:1,2 crossexamined (2) 51:9,13 decided (1) 146:1
89:9 115:7 86:7,11,11,22 131:7,8 collect (1) 86:2 concerns (1) 2:7 174:3 175:7 cryditt (3) 177:5 178:8,11 decision (2) 121:10 124:10
brought (4) 2:9 51:5 71:5 142:2,5 174:7,23 176:17 collected (5) 18:14 64:8 concluded (1) 44:7 copying (1) 17:11 cryptographic (1) 164:3 declaration (1) 124:15
96:18 changed (24) 28:5 35:5,24 91:17 92:25 93:5 concludes (4) 32:7 38:6 copyright (9) 29:7 34:8,15 csw11 (1) 154:4 declarations (1) 85:24
browsing (2) 155:12 156:16 36:22 42:6,8 50:24 52:4,8 column (5) 5:2 91:5 168:25 169:20 39:14 44:19 46:2 171:13 csw17 (1) 77:15 declaring (1) 124:17
bsv (1) 35:10 54:3,4,13,16 55:8,14 70:24 163:1,5,11 conclusion (6) 16:7 38:9 172:7 174:7 csw19 (1) 141:16 decrypts (1) 164:23
bt (3) 54:23 55:1 56:23 82:19 83:3,17,23 86:6 87:5 combination (2) 51:25 97:10 40:19 58:2 128:15 169:3 core (12) 8:24 9:23 31:13 csw255 (1) 32:14 deed (10) 105:4 106:19,23
btc (7) 35:5,10 36:22 89:5 174:4 176:16 combined (2) 38:18 163:23 conclusions (4) 17:23 58:17 42:14 44:2 53:11 60:11 csw256 (1) 46:13 107:23,24 108:5,7 109:10
155:24 156:1 158:16 changes (13) 23:15 24:21 come (8) 7:18 16:2 29:14 80:4 169:10 74:7 89:5 155:24 156:1 csw261 (1) 64:23 112:9 126:6
build (3) 71:16 146:3 151:24 26:9 39:22 72:6,9 82:20 59:13 61:22 63:25 66:11 conditions (7) 158:16 currency (3) 160:14,18,19 deemed (1) 49:24
building (4) 32:23 75:22 83:5 131:6,25 132:1,4 72:23 2:8,16,19,20,25 3:2,12 corporate (13) 40:6 97:4,5 current (6) 49:23 147:13 def (1) 140:4
126:19 174:5 142:3 comes (2) 39:24 59:4 conduit (1) 154:9 101:23 126:6 127:10,17 161:12 168:11,16 169:1 def00050985 (2) 105:15
built (1) 35:13 changing (2) 53:25 173:4 comfortable (1) 43:15 conduits (1) 154:18 136:19 143:11 147:23 cursor (1) 99:14 106:19
bulk (1) 159:24 character (1) 45:2 coming (2) 126:6 140:6 confecting (2) 85:15 145:10 152:2 153:1 174:24 custody (28) 4:7 7:10 18:23 defamation (3) 69:3 92:15
bundle (5) 99:8,21 100:19,21 characterised (1) 21:10 comma (2) 78:6,10 configured (1) 63:8 corporation (1) 174:22 48:17 49:18 50:21,25 95:21
113:19 characters (4) 38:2,24 39:5 comment (3) 72:17 110:22 confirmed (1) 5:22 corporations (4) 117:10 58:24 59:4,6,9,9 65:19,22 default (2) 23:4 147:3
business (3) 46:24 129:7 45:11 178:2 confirms (3) 39:16,19 135:5 133:1 144:22 145:1 67:6 120:25 defendant (2) 11:8 94:23

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

defense (9) 83:3 97:8 15:18 40:18 44:17,17,25 33:10,16 34:7,16 35:9 doesnt (40) 14:13 15:21 20:9 144:15,20 146:4 147:6 70:3,8,10,16,17,20,23,24,25 83:1,2,20
129:2,3,4 168:1 53:20 36:15,16,18,18 21:5,16 22:8 23:10 25:3 152:11 154:20 156:5 158:6 71:3,5,6,18,19,19,25 estimate (1) 28:11
170:10,11,18 different (47) 12:22 25:11,21 37:10,15,18 38:8,11 33:4,13 35:1 39:4,8,18 159:10,18 160:9 162:7 72:1,4,5,8,9,12,15,18 etc (8) 29:11 64:21 84:16
defined (3) 17:14 123:16 27:15 28:19,24 35:20,21 39:17,24,25 40:7,16 41:2 41:8 42:2 48:21 54:20,21 165:12 167:21 168:13 73:1,4,5,13,20,22 86:19 104:6 136:15 151:23
124:22 36:12 41:11,24 42:9,11 42:14,22,23 43:22 44:7 59:8 61:22 63:12 65:8 169:8,12 170:23 171:10 74:1,10,10,12,19,21,25 174:4
defines (1) 36:18 47:16 52:13 65:9 70:18 45:17 46:6 48:17,25 85:16 97:6 117:18 130:7,7 177:1 178:7,17 179:5 75:6,7 even (21) 14:12 16:24 26:6
definitely (6) 58:15,21 68:19 71:25 72:4,23 73:7,9,13,23 49:3,9,16 50:4,12,17,18 145:4 152:14 164:2,9 180:4 76:9,11,14,21,21,23,25 49:20 75:18 110:16 123:8
103:11,14 172:2 78:15 82:24 84:4 87:17 51:1,9 53:9 54:18 55:20 166:21 167:1,24 169:20 draft (3) 9:25 21:16 31:7 77:2,4,6,9,10,16,17,24,24,25 126:12 132:23 133:12
definition (1) 17:7 93:19,21 96:1 106:24 56:4 58:24 59:7,7,8,12,14 170:1 174:6 176:17 178:3 drafted (2) 103:5,11 78:1,4,7,11,12,13,16,22,24 137:5 140:4,16 145:12,24
definitively (2) 117:24 114:25 131:20 143:21 60:3,4,10,12 62:13 65:23 doing (16) 1:7 20:20 21:1 drafting (1) 103:12 79:2,8,15,17 80:16,20,22 147:12 159:6 165:13,15
142:17 146:16 153:14,16 66:1,2 67:2 68:20 72:11 23:18 35:4 36:4 45:7 47:22 dragon (2) 103:13 153:13 81:1,3,12,16 174:8,15
degrees (2) 17:15 62:10 154:6,7,10,18 161:25 74:9 75:1,5 76:3,4,7,21 65:1 95:6 111:22 135:23 dragonbar (2) 151:12 153:11 82:1,3,4,11,15,22 event (2) 122:22 139:3
deleted (4) 14:3 84:15 162:1 166:20 168:21 173:8 77:15 79:1,24 83:15 85:15 162:11 163:2 166:25 draw (3) 50:16 130:5,6 83:7,9,10,23 84:3,3,11,11 eventually (3) 126:20 145:23
152:19,23 differently (4) 38:1,7,25 43:9 90:9,12,17 91:12,22 168:20 drawer (1) 18:15 86:10,12,20,21,24 146:2
delivery (1) 63:13 differing (1) 84:6 92:6,11 94:14 95:3,16 dollar (2) 122:25 136:7 drawing (1) 177:22 87:9,10,13,16,20,23 eventuated (1) 129:8
demonstrate (3) 92:7 95:5 differs (1) 86:20 96:3,3,6,12 99:8,20,24 dollars (1) 89:8 drinking (1) 155:7 88:2,14,17,21,22,23 89:1 ever (2) 59:13 115:18
154:15 difficult (7) 7:18 16:24 100:18,20 101:8,9 domain (19) 54:11 58:12 drinks (1) 155:4 104:12,25 105:2 every (10) 50:24 59:12 67:19
demonstrated (3) 14:9,11 98:2,13 100:1 106:25 102:4,7,8,12,13,14,16,19,24 79:23 80:7,10 drive (2) 53:2 152:20 119:8,10,14,17,24 136:18 137:9 138:18 143:8
93:10 175:25 103:3,8,12,16,18 82:8,12,18,19 83:2,17,23 drunk (9) 101:24 120:8,20 122:3,8 130:25 166:17 176:17,23
demonstrates (3) 21:24 difficulties (2) 69:4 86:5 104:4,7,8,11 105:6,10 86:6 87:4,10 132:20 102:3,5,6,21 103:7 104:9 131:16 134:6,18 everyone (6) 2:20 43:8 51:25
138:17 156:18 digital (10) 61:22 68:6 106:19 107:9,10,12 141:18 143:13 165:21 155:4,5 135:2,7,16 136:15 60:1 144:23 167:7
demonstrating (1) 143:3 160:14,18,19 161:10 108:15,24 domains (2) 86:18,22 dsa (2) 163:19,22 137:11,14,18,22 138:3,7 everything (10) 20:19 81:22
demonstration (2) 92:1,3 163:20,22 164:20,21 109:3,9,17,19,22,24 done (32) 5:25 7:10 14:6,21 dsarsa (2) 160:24 166:16 141:18,23 142:6,7,18 98:3 110:13 129:1 135:25
demorgan (13) 32:19 122:14 digitally (1) 121:23 110:7,10,14,18 16:25 17:8,15,25 20:15 due (5) 15:12 53:8 83:12,14 143:10,11,14,17 139:18 144:23 156:4
123:23 124:3,5 132:23 dillinger (1) 178:12 111:6,7,9,10,25,25 21:18 28:9 29:7 32:18 97:10 148:6,20,23 149:2,4,5 158:12
133:2 136:13,13,15 137:10 directly (7) 88:12,16 99:7 112:4,14,18,19 33:18 39:10 46:18,19 dumb (1) 89:10 165:19 evidence (36) 1:24 14:6
142:8 159:21 116:9 144:5 157:3 158:4 113:2,3,8,12,13,19,20 60:23 102:20 130:10 during (1) 126:17 emailed (2) 149:1,11 17:20 19:19 23:5,13,15
denied (6) 109:7,12,16,23 director (7) 37:5 49:22,23 114:1,6,11,17,18,20,24 137:3,13 141:7 146:12,25 duty (1) 92:22 emails (24) 24:19 62:2 24:2 30:6 36:17 37:1,4,13
110:4 111:8 131:9 136:24 138:4,19 115:3,4,5,6,10,13,15,17,22,24 154:8 155:19 170:8,19 dynamic (1) 52:19 64:11,11 68:25 71:8 74:18 44:6 46:23 48:15 65:4
denis (13) 131:16,17 134:6 directors (2) 132:4 138:21 116:3,4,13,16 174:16 176:5 178:15 75:10,17,17 76:16 68:18 78:19 80:17,18
E
135:1 148:15 150:1,2,6 directory (3) 83:4 84:16 117:7,14,15,16,18,20 dont (105) 3:4 8:20 9:3,4 84:4,15,16 87:3 122:9 81:22 83:22 88:16
157:2,10,11,25 158:4 86:18 118:8,16,18,18,22 16:5,18 18:13 24:15 e118 (1) 22:25 135:11,12,18 137:16 92:21,23 95:7 96:14 102:2
denominated (1) 12:2 disagree (10) 16:6 24:25 119:3,6,7,19,23 26:1,21 28:6,25 29:1 33:13 e431 (1) 72:21 141:17 148:4,8 165:6 110:6 136:10 140:14
deny (1) 15:1 61:16,21 62:11 78:22 120:4,13,19,21,25 38:10,21 40:4 41:14 42:19 e433 (1) 77:12 embedded (2) 39:14 40:8 167:5,13 175:22 179:6
denying (5) 12:10,11 15:19 80:4,6 142:20 169:3 121:2,11,23 122:1,9,19 43:10 47:14,25 48:15 e5e (1) 90:20 embezzle (1) 85:8 evidenced (1) 26:7
25:16 82:6 disagreed (1) 55:22 123:15,17,22,23 124:14,24 52:22 54:20,22,23 55:12 ea (1) 138:1 emerged (1) 157:21 evident (1) 3:2
department (1) 143:22 disappear (1) 14:1 125:15,20,24,24 126:4,5 56:9,17,18 58:14 59:12,12 earlier (15) 6:2 19:16 27:17 employee (7) 37:2 exact (4) 28:6,10 72:19
depends (1) 63:7 disclosed (18) 49:4,9 128:2,9,11,16 130:18,24 60:1 64:3,16,18,19 65:25 28:16,23 40:22 81:15,21 48:18,20,22 50:24 59:18 150:8
deployed (4) 49:16 89:1 50:5,12,14,15,16 59:14 131:12 132:9,10,16 134:4 67:12,14 72:8,14,15,18,19 102:9 116:16 119:20 129:5 140:12 exactly (5) 11:25 28:3 45:11
96:15 130:14 60:4,6 66:1 68:21 141:6 136:4 137:7,8,17 138:17 75:2 78:9 82:1 84:2,13 151:16 163:18 172:10 employees (5) 36:25 37:3 58:15 61:23
deploying (1) 47:2 159:1,3,11 161:5 168:25 140:18,19,22 141:8 87:20 89:18 94:4,7,15 early (15) 31:7 67:1 98:16 88:3 140:14 155:23 examination (1) 46:6
describe (1) 97:3 disclosure (22) 33:16 49:13 150:22,24 152:13,16,25 96:10,17 102:6 103:5,10 132:21 160:2 172:1,2 employment (1) 30:11 examine (2) 34:12 44:12
described (3) 16:9 17:2,2 50:8,9 53:18 59:20 64:5 153:1,4 156:22 158:23 105:1 112:1 125:19 173:14,24 175:18 enables (1) 164:1 examined (1) 119:23
description (1) 173:17 66:14 67:1 68:20 73:20 159:1,13,14 161:22,24,25 127:7,16 129:25 140:22 176:8,11,15,20,20 encoded (4) 37:25 38:7,25 examines (1) 37:17
designed (1) 146:20 74:16,22 75:7 87:23 119:7 162:1,2,10,19 163:5,14,17 141:3,7,13,14,16,18,23 easily (2) 52:8 138:23 120:17 examining (1) 80:21
despite (2) 44:25 49:25 130:18 131:13,22 134:5,5 165:19 166:15 167:2,14,18 142:2 143:12,14 145:19 eastern (1) 81:8 encrypt (1) 164:16 example (5) 3:25 14:11
destroy (1) 158:15 137:17 168:11 169:1,21 170:3,5 147:19,20 148:6 149:25 easy (2) 36:8 97:9 encrypted (4) 160:18 40:22 45:9 174:22
detail (8) 4:6 21:12,16 28:23 discovered (6) 7:20 112:3,17 171:8,21,25 173:23 150:8,23 151:19,24 ecc (1) 164:13 164:21,22 165:1 examples (1) 160:4
35:19 72:24 144:13 158:19 152:6,8 157:11 174:5,6,8,13,19 152:17,23 153:2,7 ecdsa (13) 161:1 163:19,21 encryption (2) 164:1,14 excellent (1) 159:9
detailed (3) 1:9 4:7 52:16 discredit (1) 20:18 175:6,16,20,22 157:2,20 158:3 165:10 164:1,3,7,13 165:7,16,24 encryptiondigital (1) 163:24 except (1) 122:10
details (4) 30:11 132:6 135:2 discuss (2) 60:19,20 176:10,14,24 178:7,8,20 167:7,16 172:5 174:3,10 166:4,8,17 end (8) 1:16 68:11 138:10 excerpt (2) 12:24 70:7
143:11 discussing (1) 141:10 documentary (2) 127:6 175:10,14 176:21 179:5 echo (1) 30:24 155:21 158:14 164:1 exchange (6) 70:20 83:8
determine (1) 46:6 discussion (5) 15:4,5,7 17:6 138:14 double (4) 36:7 159:8,10 economic (1) 160:19 177:22 179:1 86:16,17,25 143:18
determined (1) 178:9 151:14 documentation (3) 52:15 160:4 eddsa (4) 161:11,14 ended (6) 67:12 85:7 86:1 excuse (4) 84:9,10 87:6
developed (4) 35:6 disgruntled (2) 49:1 155:23 139:6 175:14 down (31) 3:12 163:20,22 94:1 130:15 147:3 88:11
161:10,13 173:13 dismissed (3) 85:6,8 93:20 documented (1) 145:1 20:15,19,21,21 22:16 edit (1) 53:6 ends (3) 90:20 138:10 177:17 exe (5) 44:15 50:5 67:18
developer (1) 39:25 displayed (1) 153:15 documents (114) 3:22 30:21 31:23 39:25 44:24 edited (18) 6:18,20 38:8 engaged (1) 111:3 91:4 96:7
developers (2) 34:2 43:4 displaying (1) 156:16 6:3,3,8 7:21 8:19 9:20 45:15 57:20 63:23 76:14 39:10,11,17 41:3 44:7 46:1 engagement (1) 75:20 executable (5) 43:24 44:4
developing (1) 32:20 dispute (6) 14:18 31:5 55:11 10:10 13:20 18:14 23:13 81:19,24 93:19 98:6 99:17 47:13 67:18 82:22 90:4 engaging (2) 75:21 158:16 45:6,22 48:5
development (10) 21:19 91:19 93:8 125:18 25:8 30:24 31:16 33:2,19 101:5 111:19 132:6 133:9 125:15,16 128:17 131:1 england (1) 56:23 executed (1) 108:16
33:1,24 34:19 38:14 43:1 disputed (2) 17:3,21 40:3,5 41:15 43:8 48:20 145:4 147:7 156:2,3 159:6 132:10 english (1) 56:23 executive (3) 27:1 100:15
47:11 159:25 162:4 175:8 disputes (1) 145:2 51:17 59:11 60:7,8,9 165:23 170:16 171:20 editing (18) 6:16 16:9 39:2 enhance (1) 19:25 137:25
devices (1) 166:7 disputing (6) 18:8 21:19,20 64:6,7 65:19 download (2) 6:24 53:2 45:5 46:7,15,18 47:2 48:5 enlarged (1) 100:23 exefile (1) 95:11
dial (1) 54:24 137:6 145:24 162:7 66:5,10,15,18,20 downloaded (5) 6:5,22 45:16 52:11 69:12 92:4 128:5 enough (3) 26:9 50:2 155:20 exemployee (7) 46:19 47:12
diane (2) 102:11 104:11 distiller (3) 39:21 42:18,19 67:3,17,21 91:17,20,22,25 143:6 144:4 130:23,25 131:5 139:10 enquiry (1) 1:6 48:4 59:18 68:23 120:24
dictate (1) 153:13 distillers (1) 39:20 92:2,12,24 93:1,3,5,9,15 downloading (1) 16:21 169:24 entered (3) 112:5,16 113:5 140:13
didnt (69) 3:1 11:14 23:18 distributed (2) 38:15 43:1 94:11 95:2,2,5 96:19 doxing (2) 75:25 84:15 editor (4) 39:4,7 45:8 53:4 entire (3) 62:5 105:9 136:4 exemployees (4) 49:1,6
25:2 36:22 46:15 51:15,16 diversify (1) 19:25 102:25 110:19,21 111:20 dr (114) 1:11,21 3:15,16,19 effect (2) 118:17 150:7 entirely (2) 29:24 66:3 50:21,25
52:19,20,23 56:23 67:8,9 divided (1) 177:11 112:20 7:15 8:2 14:18 15:8 16:7 efficient (2) 165:16 166:8 entirety (1) 139:16 exhibit (9) 9:25 58:19 77:15
70:23 71:11,18 73:5,10 dkim (1) 143:13 114:1,9,10,15,21,25 17:3,19,20,21 18:1,13 effort (1) 52:11 entities (4) 97:4,5 100:4 96:9,12,16 106:16 107:5
75:2,3 77:3 78:1 81:18,23 dlls (1) 52:19 115:2,25 117:21 121:21 23:10,21 25:7,25 26:18 efforts (2) 23:3 144:18 124:12 154:4
82:11 83:19 87:17 dns (5) 85:3 141:22 122:12 124:8 27:8,19,21 28:18 29:17 ehlo (1) 63:9 entitled (3) 43:23 151:12 exhibited (1) 57:2
93:22,25 95:4 100:8 142:21,23 143:7 127:1,2,3,9,9,10 128:22 31:4,14 35:7,15 36:14 either (4) 61:11 96:13 152:14 exist (4) 16:6 25:3 60:22
109:2,12,13,16 110:4 doctor (1) 132:15 129:16 131:22 138:12 38:24 40:7 42:21 43:14,22 158:14 174:12 entity (2) 102:9 124:2 129:15
111:3,5 112:2 113:4,9 doctored (3) 71:6 76:7 139:2,7,15,22,25 48:21 49:9 51:4,18,22 elaborate (5) 128:23 145:9 entries (2) 121:22 160:22 existing (1) 128:18
114:16,19 118:10 123:8 132:12 140:2,6,10,16 144:16,18 56:12 58:16 59:2,6 60:5,12 155:22 158:8 167:2 entry (4) 4:16 63:14 90:16 exists (1) 132:13
124:4 129:15 137:8 doctoring (1) 88:5 145:11 147:25 157:9,18,24 65:23 70:17,18 71:20 electronic (2) 28:22 69:14 168:3 expect (2) 3:1 148:20
144:24,25 145:2,3 147:3,5 document (324) 5:2,11 6:15 158:2 159:16,19 167:19,22 72:10 76:3 78:18 85:12 else (5) 3:7 73:10 112:17 equipment (1) 126:21 expected (1) 51:7
151:24 155:5 157:25,25 8:3,6,6 9:9,10 10:1,3,13 171:10 172:6,15,17,19 87:2 88:10 89:18 90:1,17 151:20 175:2 equivalent (1) 136:8 expecting (1) 23:13
158:19 160:8,9 12:19,21 13:12,14,15,21 173:7,17 174:11,18 93:2,14 94:3,8 96:13,22 elses (1) 60:1 error (4) 57:11 58:2 116:25 expensive (2) 123:4 137:4
161:6,11,24 168:18 171:5 14:2 15:17,23 16:8,14,17 175:1,3,15 99:10,18 100:3 101:3 email (185) 23:18 54:7 143:7 experiment (2) 14:10 17:9
176:22,25 17:10 18:11,23 does (18) 20:10 21:6,17 22:9 107:14,23 108:14 60:13,15 61:1,1,14,17,25 establish (2) 121:25 142:17 expert (10) 14:15,16,25 18:3
died (2) 71:11 119:14 19:1,3,10,13 23:12,22,24 23:11 34:23 38:13 40:11 109:19,22 114:22 115:21 62:6,16,17 63:4,16,20,25 established (2) 15:16 80:1 86:16 96:14,17 109:7
difference (6) 44:19,21 70:19 25:2 26:25 27:25 28:12 42:10 48:22,23 56:11,15 121:16,25 124:6 127:2 64:3,10,10,10,17,25 establishing (2) 9:1 143:17 143:22 144:13
73:15 83:10,14 29:2,15,18 30:8 60:21 152:15 160:8 164:24 132:14 133:10,21 137:6 65:2,6,8,10,15,16 establishment (1) 132:17 experts (2) 15:1 53:8
differences (8) 13:21 14:1 31:8,11,14,18 32:3,16,17 177:16 139:9,21 140:16,24 142:11 68:3,7,18 69:2,4,7,21 estates (5) 81:19,25 explain (4) 12:14 34:18

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

73:10 84:2 62:7 67:18 90:3 91:4 95:11 footers (1) 33:20 gaps (2) 143:1,3 H 29:24 30:4,5,7 33:9,11,12 hospitalised (2) 129:5,7
explained (6) 4:6 16:23 35:8 96:7 107:16 117:20 124:13 footnote (1) 122:2 gar (1) 100:6 119:2 175:7 host (1) 63:7
57:5,7 84:7 149:7 152:19,23 forced (1) 29:8 gave (8) 4:16 27:25 37:19,21 h1041 (1) 62:12 harm (3) 49:17 50:19 67:4 hostile (1) 60:8
explaining (3) 35:11 50:23 164:16,19,22,23 177:11 foregoing (1) 11:7 67:1 98:9 106:22 161:22 h1044 (1) 62:15 hash (2) 90:13 91:6 hotwire (13) 32:19 43:2
164:8 filed (4) 29:6 88:7 146:25 forensic (2) 47:8 144:2 gavin (1) 178:22 h1046 (1) 63:1 hashes (1) 90:14 47:15,19 62:18,23
explanation (10) 25:14,25 164:11 forged (2) 23:22 51:2 general (2) 1:6 100:6 h1407 (1) 63:18 hasnt (9) 10:21 14:9,9,10 126:5,7,14 134:18
51:18 75:5 83:18,23 84:1 files (26) 33:25 34:4 41:12 forgeries (4) 44:1 87:4 90:15 generated (1) 53:13 h20813 (1) 168:24 16:12 17:25 23:8 165:21 136:13,16 142:8
86:6 87:6,16 43:7 44:15 45:16,22,23 92:8 genuine (22) 10:3 61:1,17 h2094 (1) 5:9 178:4 hough (28) 1:6,10,14,18 2:3
explanations (1) 5:7 50:10,10 52:3 58:19 forgery (22) 8:23 29:16 75:1 76:21,23,25 77:4 h2095 (1) 5:15 hate (3) 92:17 93:24 94:1 3:18,19 7:24 8:23 9:1,23
exstaff (4) 48:2 64:8 59:20,24 60:1 66:23 76:1 31:13 37:11 42:24 51:19 82:4,20 110:6,10 111:7 h2384 (1) 13:12 haukaas (1) 94:17 15:8,15 18:11 43:11,22
66:12,22 92:4 140:9 153:10 154:22 53:10 60:10 70:24 74:7,15 112:4,5 113:3 117:7,17 h2389 (1) 13:18 havent (4) 14:22 36:9 51:12 56:13,19 89:14 90:1
extending (2) 45:7 168:4 155:12,21 158:17 164:14 109:7,10,12,16,23,24 119:14 124:24 150:22 h2937 (1) 128:2 117:22 147:17 100:24 101:1,9 133:10,21
extension (1) 174:9 172:8 110:4 111:8 159:16 167:20 156:22 h2938 (1) 128:3 having (12) 13:5 14:7 18:2 179:1 180:5
extensive (2) 49:20 155:18 filing (3) 162:3,6 163:15 171:8 genuinely (3) 79:3,5,6 h2939 (1) 128:13 35:12 38:8 65:8 84:5 house (2) 75:15 139:1
external (1) 32:4 fill (2) 104:5 135:9 forget (1) 50:6 get (23) 15:25 16:20 23:19 h472 (1) 4:24 103:24 112:10 131:19 housekeeping (3) 1:3,4 180:3
extra (1) 98:1 filled (3) 67:6 140:21 141:7 form (9) 69:14,23 129:20 34:23 36:5,10 52:9,16 62:1 h631 (1) 32:6 143:5 157:18 however (6) 3:8 52:5 102:8
extract (1) 4:24 final (3) 87:17 89:2 116:15 133:23 135:9 138:3 139:10 71:12 81:21 112:8 126:25 h6310 (1) 37:24 head (2) 94:5 122:15 122:7 136:17 141:12
extracted (1) 34:25 finally (1) 88:25 153:13 160:13 127:10 138:18 145:7 h6311 (2) 37:21 38:3 headed (1) 171:13 huge (7) 145:10 165:8,25
extracting (1) 38:12 financial (6) 10:17,20,22 formal (1) 12:19 150:11 157:8,24 158:13,13 h6312 (1) 39:12 header (11) 41:7 62:21 63:4 166:4,6,9,11
extraordinary (1) 147:6 85:6 127:15 137:3 format (3) 33:8 41:25 73:23 160:21 164:17 h6313 (1) 39:15 70:18 72:23 73:9 74:5 human (1) 93:23
exwife (7) 145:18,21 146:9 find (16) 7:24 20:17,20,23 formatting (2) 14:14 178:1 getting (2) 29:10 157:2 h6314 (1) 40:21 84:24 86:10 105:9 113:20 hundred (1) 43:3
147:13 168:19 170:14 22:2,7 33:15 37:20 65:24 formed (1) 102:13 gigabit (1) 54:22 h6315 (1) 41:18 headers (3) 33:19 84:2,5 hurry (1) 1:8
175:13 80:24 134:13 140:19 former (3) 49:22 85:6 88:3 github (1) 178:24 h6316 (1) 41:22 heading (1) 31:20 husband (1) 64:13
150:12 155:7,21 175:25 formerly (1) 148:15 give (16) 25:24 26:24 36:25 h634 (1) 33:7 hear (1) 15:12 hyphen (1) 13:14
F
finding (10) 14:3 15:19 16:8 forming (1) 103:25 37:4 49:24 50:2 66:23 h635 (1) 33:15 hearn (2) 165:6,20
I
f (1) 163:1 17:7,13,14 21:5 45:19 forms (1) 163:20 67:8,9 73:20 75:5 88:11 h636 (1) 33:17 hed (2) 45:18 157:11

fabricate (2) 46:23 82:17 63:21 80:7 forth (1) 158:24 110:21 120:8 145:4 164:25 h638 (1) 34:6 heir (2) 89:6,12 ibc (1) 134:23
fabricated (1) 83:9 findings (20) 9:1,4 13:11 forum (4) 177:5,12,17 given (22) 4:5 6:11 10:20 h639 (1) 37:17 held (5) 12:15 34:20 97:4 icon (1) 56:17
fabrication (2) 129:13 16:12,14 178:10 17:17 18:4 19:19 28:16 h6412 (1) 56:25 112:7 121:24 id (22) 8:4 21:1 22:11 29:8
135:25 17:1,2,4,6,22,22,25 forward (8) 8:19 75:2,3 76:9 49:18 55:23 58:16 59:22 h6413 (1) 57:10 hell (1) 152:10 49:10 51:15 65:19 71:8,16
face (9) 20:4 23:21 34:16 18:9,10 32:6 39:23 53:16 77:17 78:7,12 166:19 61:8 67:12 87:6 91:8 h6414 (1) 57:16 helo (2) 63:9,10 73:21 75:21 112:21 114:14
51:3 81:16 117:13,15 125:18 128:1 170:5 forwarded (12) 74:2 77:24 106:20 110:14 127:1 h6415 (1) 57:21 help (6) 68:12 69:12,18 115:2 127:16 132:22
120:12 125:20 finds (13) 33:7 37:18 39:13 78:13,16 79:17 80:20 134:23 146:10 169:22 h6416 (2) 57:24 58:1 73:21 85:11 88:4 135:21 141:13 145:2
facebook (1) 38:17 40:22 41:18 42:2 62:14 81:2,12 82:3 83:11 84:11 173:6 h646 (1) 53:15 helping (2) 85:7 86:1 146:13 156:3 177:18
faced (1) 100:5 81:14 128:4,10,15 150:5 gives (4) 4:25 135:2 152:12 h681 (1) 44:11 helps (1) 10:5 id000375 (2) 34:7 37:16
facing (5) 37:11 139:4 151:6 169:9,12 forwarding (5) 69:6 74:25 166:17 h6810 (1) 45:25 hemisphere (1) 142:24 id000464 (1) 84:24
152:10 170:11 fine (2) 32:5 130:16 75:7 79:14 138:11 giving (8) 1:11,23 23:5 37:12 h683 (1) 44:12 hen (1) 75:15 id000537 (3) 13:15,20 14:1
factual (5) 25:13,15,18,24 fingered (1) 85:14 forwards (2) 47:24 88:23 66:14 82:23 83:8 158:20 h684 (1) 44:14 hence (2) 34:4 156:1 id00054 (1) 31:11
31:5 finish (1) 177:20 found (40) 4:13 13:21,25 gizmodo (1) 75:24 h685 (1) 44:21 here (24) 4:21 10:6 11:25 id000554 (2) 34:12 36:15
failed (2) 14:15 57:12 finished (3) 1:10 113:25 16:7 34:4 37:25 41:19,22 glorious (1) 147:9 h686 (1) 45:9 17:9,10,14 25:9 29:3 39:9 id000739 (4) 43:23 46:1,15
fair (1) 70:6 145:13 42:13 44:16,25 45:17,25 gmail (2) 62:2 77:2 h688 (1) 45:14 41:25 49:8 56:20 79:2,12 90:6
fairly (1) 177:21 finishing (1) 1:16 46:9 53:18 57:1,4,11,19 gmx (3) 69:17 79:19 87:18 h689 (1) 45:21 86:24 96:1 100:13 118:3 id000840 (1) 53:18
fake (15) 68:21 88:19 finney (3) 52:18 165:10 62:22 63:2,19,23 80:9,21 goes (8) 15:3,4 123:6,9 h731 (1) 125:1 124:12,15 129:20 141:18 id000842 (2) 44:16 45:18
115:10,13,15,16,23 129:18 178:15 86:5 109:9 114:14 126:10 143:20 164:18 h732 (1) 119:22 143:4 160:22 id000848 (2) 53:9 57:12
133:1 137:7,8,12 139:23 finneys (1) 178:14 125:5,14 130:17,22 137:14 175:11 h733 (1) 120:3 heres (1) 34:25 id000856 (1) 167:18
156:3 157:5 fire (1) 68:6 139:10 146:14 147:2 155:3 going (46) 15:6,8 16:21 18:8 h7342 (1) 125:4 herself (1) 170:15 id001386 (1) 119:23
faked (8) 48:22 49:1,16 fired (6) 50:22 94:19 95:1,23 157:6,12 168:15 26:5 29:12 35:8,10 38:5 h7346 (2) 125:8 132:4 hes (12) 10:18,20 11:16 id001395 (1) 131:23
50:19 66:3 67:21 129:16 96:2 152:9 founded (2) 10:19 118:2 42:10 43:10,24 47:17 h735 (1) 120:11 15:10 16:25 62:16 128:2 id001397 (1) 128:10
156:3 firm (7) 94:4,5,6,19,25 95:24 four (1) 40:16 50:13 53:4 61:4,16 69:12 h7352 (1) 125:13 130:22 145:24 151:23 id001421 (1) 128:2
fakes (1) 141:18 96:5 fourth (7) 9:24 72:21 77:12 76:18 78:24 85:13 86:18 h7356 (1) 131:2 168:15 169:21 id001546 (1) 62:13
falling (1) 173:17 first (57) 1:5,18 2:14 8:5,8 88:13,17,20 91:4 90:19 100:25 116:8 121:25 h7357 (1) 131:4 hex (13) 39:4,6 44:7 45:8 id001711 (2) 76:4 77:15
false (7) 10:23 85:24 121:8 9:10 19:3,7,13,19 22:24 frame (1) 154:3 123:3 130:16 133:12 h736 (1) 120:16 46:1,15,18 47:13 48:5 id001925 (1) 125:2
123:14 139:15,18 157:4 26:6,8 31:5 42:4,23 61:24 framework (1) 63:24 135:23 136:20 139:17 h736162 (1) 131:6 53:4,6 67:18 90:4 id001930 (2) 131:2,22
falsehood (2) 77:20,20 63:2,3 69:1 74:12 79:24 frameworks (1) 34:22 142:7,21 143:2,16 145:22 h7365 (1) 131:12 hey (1) 62:7 id002586 (1) 68:3
falsify (1) 95:7 80:1,10 84:2 85:18 86:7,15 free (1) 43:14 146:1,2 156:2,3,25 h7366 (1) 131:21 high (2) 146:20 179:1 id003300 (1) 19:4
familiar (1) 69:21 87:3 88:7,12 91:15 friday (2) 104:13 179:11 158:6,14 160:21 176:1 h742 (1) 7:25 higher (1) 136:20 id003330 (1) 7:17
far (7) 34:11 119:3 136:19 93:11,18 94:5,15,19,25 friedberg (1) 142:11 gone (9) 68:11 89:14 100:9 h8327 (2) 80:19 84:22 highlighted (1) 13:5 id004009 (2) 159:14 163:1
137:5 144:11 165:16 166:8 95:24 122:23 128:16 front (2) 94:21 111:20 133:11 146:3,4,15 147:7 h8330 (2) 83:22 86:3 himself (4) 3:7 21:15 23:8 id004011 (2) 9:8 12:21
fasv (1) 85:19 132:12,24 140:16 148:12 frustrated (1) 118:23 176:18 h8331 (1) 86:4 166:18 id004012 (1) 29:15
favour (2) 145:14 147:16 157:1 158:12 161:18,24 full (6) 72:24 108:24 120:7 good (9) 2:2 3:16,17 9:7 h8336 (1) 81:11 historic (1) 41:14 id004015 (1) 171:7
faxed (1) 33:9 165:18 167:4,12 169:8 140:21 144:3 178:15 80:18 89:25 159:7 179:4,6 hacker (3) 155:16,19 156:15 historical (1) 10:9 id004077 (2) 4:1 5:2
feature (1) 96:21 172:15,19 173:8,12 fully (2) 29:14 102:6 google (6) 38:17 54:21 86:1 hadnt (4) 47:21 63:25 117:9 history (9) 30:11 53:2 74:24 id00464 (1) 80:19
features (1) 33:10 fit (1) 167:1 function (2) 155:1 164:14 143:9 144:4,5 129:11 80:3 81:23 92:5 141:22 idaemon (4) 32:21,23 34:3
february (3) 1:1 168:12 five (2) 43:17 117:16 functions (1) 52:13 gox (1) 123:1 hal (4) 52:18 165:10 155:12 156:16 36:17
179:12 fiveminute (1) 133:16 fund (2) 30:16,18 grabiner (5) 15:10 100:23,25 178:14,15 hitchcock (1) 53:25 idea (7) 10:14 70:11
federal (2) 143:23,24 fixed (2) 36:1 86:10 funded (6) 11:10,13,19,24 101:7 177:21 half (5) 1:12 20:19 71:12 hitting (1) 53:7 85:20,21 89:10 110:24
fee (1) 136:8 florida (6) 23:19 49:7 72:7 12:11,18 grabs (2) 2:23 123:12 81:22 162:5 hmrc (1) 174:24 112:22
feed (2) 2:24 3:7 73:16 89:3 147:24 funder (4) 11:16 12:8 granath (11) 90:25 92:15 halves (1) 177:11 hold (2) 105:19 124:18 ideal (1) 145:19
feel (3) 43:14,15 175:2 flow (1) 31:12 157:15,16 95:17,19 97:15 100:20 hand (1) 53:4 holder (3) 106:11 117:4 identical (8) 15:18 34:12
fees (3) 135:3 136:18,19 flowchart (2) 31:12 40:23 funding (4) 12:8 30:20 113:10,19,23 116:10 handling (1) 38:16 124:19 35:18,18 45:19 53:19 84:5
few (5) 55:13 114:17 130:3 fly (1) 68:8 89:4,8 117:13 handwriting (5) 10:11 30:2 holders (2) 106:11,12 122:10
145:14 178:13 focus (2) 18:6,10 funds (2) 100:4 146:23 granger (1) 30:18 130:10,13 171:18 holding (2) 124:1 136:23 identified (17) 31:15 34:8
fiction (2) 36:14 158:8 focusing (1) 74:18 funky (2) 81:9 130:6 granted (1) 2:20 handwritten (4) 29:18 home (4) 40:3,5 55:14 51:3,20 57:15 66:9,15 67:2
field (5) 55:19 62:23 74:5 folder (1) 117:20 funny (2) 100:12 155:9 graphic (1) 125:10 162:13,17 163:5 175:13 68:21 94:17 95:2 106:9
119:25 131:20 follow (4) 14:16 102:23 furniture (1) 126:22 great (2) 49:15 50:20 happen (9) 3:13 15:21 16:23 homeland (1) 143:22 127:23 143:14 168:13
fields (1) 40:19 135:13 178:3 further (20) 5:22 6:14 9:13 greater (1) 52:10 81:9 86:8 87:11 111:4,5 homework (1) 154:8 173:16 176:14
fight (1) 66:20 followed (1) 102:25 16:11 19:10 22:16 30:21 ground (1) 118:16 155:16 honest (1) 21:9 identifies (4) 40:15 41:4
fighting (1) 145:16 following (3) 92:24 109:18 44:24 63:23 73:22 80:24 group (3) 122:15 124:11 happened (13) 48:1 56:19 hong (1) 133:4 131:5,12
figure (2) 133:7,8 120:7 98:6 102:24 120:16 132:5 155:16 75:19 84:10 92:10 93:21 hop (2) 63:3,3 identifying (2) 94:10 134:20
figured (2) 36:9 76:12 follows (2) 46:13 105:22 133:11 134:18 135:11 grouped (1) 124:11 104:3 115:8 118:12 hope (1) 9:6 identity (7) 29:11
file (48) 5:1 6:14 16:22 17:12 font (1) 40:8 162:21 175:8 groups (1) 155:19 126:11,20 146:15 172:20 hoped (1) 1:10 61:22,23,24,25 62:8
25:5 32:7 33:8,22 34:19 fonts (4) 39:8,14 131:1 fw (1) 69:3 growing (1) 59:25 happening (1) 130:15 hoping (3) 19:21 144:14 117:11
39:13 43:24 44:4,12,15 174:23 guess (1) 59:17 happens (7) 3:8 6:25 14:9 150:11 ids (1) 106:11
G
45:5,5,6,22 46:10 48:6 footer (9) 14:2 guilty (1) 100:11 15:20 83:4 104:7 177:15 hops (1) 63:2 ignatius (1) 37:5
50:5,23,24 52:10,12 15:17,20,21,22,25 31:24 g (2) 130:5 163:5 gunning (1) 1:12 happy (1) 64:15 hospital (3) 71:14 145:23 ill (11) 12:13 58:10 91:14
53:13,18,22 57:1,8 59:1 32:15 35:20 gap (5) 141:22 142:1,3,16,17 hard (12) 16:10 18:14 19:20 146:3 94:14 108:3 111:17 118:20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

129:11 150:11 154:15 individuals (7) 32:20,21 involves (1) 62:9 84:10 93:10 103:11 106:24 kleimans (4) 50:1 106:22 l224323 (2) 171:20 177:24 165:17
177:20 38:22 113:8 116:7,9 involving (1) 146:18 111:21 113:7 117:19 109:6,9 l23171 (1) 74:1 libraries (2) 52:19,21
im (113) 1:7 7:4,4,19 11:15 126:18 iottype (1) 146:20 118:13 130:9 141:7 knew (6) 37:10 52:23 76:12 l23181 (1) 74:6 lie (1) 88:11
14:4,24 15:2,8,15 17:13 industry (1) 165:15 ip (29) 44:21 47:5,9,21 142:22,22,23 143:6 144:12 81:20 87:8 118:21 l33261 (1) 31:11 life (2) 111:18 175:13
18:7 21:24 22:1,14,14 inexact (1) 1:25 54:3,7,9,10,23 145:20,25 147:21 148:11 know (77) 9:5 24:15,18 l41881 (1) 53:10 like (43) 15:1 16:3,13 35:25
25:16 26:21,23 27:1,16 info (2) 129:1,4 55:1,2,8,10,18,21 56:20 158:7 159:7,8,10 162:16 25:13 27:16 38:21 40:5 l43711 (1) 167:18 36:7 39:3,11 40:2 42:1
28:3,3 29:11 32:17 information (41) 4:10,12 57:13,15 81:5,7 166:23 167:8,17 169:4 42:19 43:10 47:14,25 l51501 (2) 3:25 4:15 48:6 54:20 64:24 67:17,18
35:11,11 38:22 39:5 6:13 40:18 43:6 44:19 84:19,19,24,25 85:2,3,15 173:25 176:5,18,22 48:12 51:14 54:20,22 l52271 (1) 7:17 73:6 76:2 82:12 85:20 86:2
43:22,24 48:23 51:15 47:24 61:13 64:12,20 86:19 146:13 56:9,17,18 59:12,16 l72561 (1) 119:16 89:6 92:1,9 97:6 98:23
54:15 55:23 59:3,6 60:15 67:6,7,9,25 75:23,24 76:11 ira (56) 47:15 48:8,12,13 J 64:18,19 67:6,12 68:12 l73571 (1) 129:19 103:6 104:8 108:7 109:15
61:4 62:3,4 65:1 66:13 80:8 81:14,20 83:3,16 86:9 49:2 59:20,22 69:2,3 73:17 75:2 81:23,24 85:4 l73575 (1) 129:23 111:1 114:10 127:3 134:14
67:13 68:1 72:13,13 73:18 95:11 97:8 110:16 121:8 71:7,15 75:20 80:12 j (1) 130:5 94:5,7,15 96:17 103:5,10 l73771 (1) 124:14 139:4 140:7 146:20 150:23
76:18,19 77:22 123:14 129:3 141:11 81:10,13,18 82:3,11,21 jacket (1) 43:14 105:1 109:13 110:19 111:2 l8171 (1) 105:3 155:3 156:21 160:1 164:13
78:9,14,24,24 81:4 143:5,9 158:20 160:11 83:9,16 84:12 85:7,14 86:1 jamie (6) 85:5,5,9,19,23 88:5 112:1 113:7 116:3 119:4 l8172 (1) 105:17 171:19 174:2 175:13
82:6,23,23,25 83:1,6 84:13 161:21,22 167:11 168:1 88:4,25 89:5,6,7 93:12 jan (1) 101:4 120:22 127:16 130:4 l8174 (1) 106:5 liked (2) 23:17 157:19
87:9,20 88:20 90:19 92:9 170:10,11,18 96:15 106:22 january (11) 52:18 60:17 134:14 140:23 l8175 (1) 106:9 likely (6) 18:7 60:15 64:24
94:6 96:17 99:24 100:13 informationdefense (1) 115:7,11,14,15,16 120:25 80:2 83:19 95:11 97:9 141:7,9,13,14 142:19,25 l83381 (1) 60:9 65:3 66:16 125:16
103:1 111:22 79:23 121:6 122:16 123:5,10,24 99:18 135:24 165:20 168:1 144:24 145:19 148:6 l84251 (1) 73:19 limited (15) 105:6 106:7
118:13,14,19,23 119:2 informed (2) 2:5 92:20 129:9 133:6 139:18,21 171:5 149:25 150:23,23 l84461 (1) 69:1 121:4 122:14 123:19
129:18 132:12 137:6 ink (5) 18:18,20 19:11 140:2,10 145:5,10,20,24 job (1) 155:22 152:23,23 153:3,7 155:25 l91901 (2) 135:8,11 124:5,16,19 125:10
141:10 143:12,16 162:21 163:12 147:1,4 joint (2) 169:7,8 158:3 160:7 165:11 167:7 l91902 (2) 134:25 135:5 127:4,14,24 133:24 134:20
144:14,21 145:13 148:6,9 inputting (2) 4:11,17 irc (6) 12:24 13:1,9,10 joke (1) 155:14 171:2,3 172:5,7,21 l91903 (2) 134:4 135:2 138:15
150:11 152:4 157:21 inside (3) 7:10 78:13 79:9 58:11,13 josh (1) 80:15 175:10,10 l91911 (1) 136:2 line (12) 69:3 97:18 99:7,15
158:6,23 159:3,8,16 insist (2) 6:7 151:19 ironically (1) 160:7 journalists (1) 75:23 knowing (1) 83:18 l92141 (1) 127:12 107:4 113:24 116:10,12
160:21 162:7,16 166:25 insisted (1) 4:10 irregularity (2) 57:2,5 judge (3) 96:3 140:8 157:6 knowledge (11) 7:14 49:16 l92871 (2) 137:17 138:10 144:9,10 171:21 176:17
169:25 170:4 172:21 instance (3) 127:12 isnt (44) 9:21 23:23 26:4 judgeprosecutor (1) 143:25 61:24 109:14 111:24 l92876 (2) 137:21 138:6 linear (1) 25:1
174:5,7,8,22,24 175:20,24 164:20,24 29:5,25 30:4 36:14 39:1 judges (1) 15:10 115:25 116:6 164:10 l92877 (1) 138:2 lines (2) 109:18 113:15
176:1 instantaneous (1) 53:3 45:12 54:19,25 63:16 judgment (6) 97:13 145:17 165:5,9 166:3 l94411 (1) 68:3 link (6) 2:14,17,17 52:19
image (10) 4:15 7:25 8:16 instead (1) 18:8 70:21 71:1 81:4 82:5 83:7 146:8 147:4,12,16 known (5) 51:8 52:4 161:11 language (8) 164:12,15
9:3 19:4 20:12 125:10 instruct (2) 26:22 27:2 86:12,15 87:2,19 88:12 july (12) 74:23 76:22 77:7,16 165:14,15 25:7,10,11,20,21 27:12 linked (4) 25:19 33:23
150:14,25 154:12 instructed (1) 94:20 95:15 100:16 119:20 80:23 120:14 124:16 knows (2) 51:25 144:23 98:24 166:16 158:23 163:14
images (3) 17:12,12 23:14 intellectual (9) 47:18 96:25 122:12 124:10 125:22 129:24 130:19 132:10 kong (1) 133:4 laptop (7) 48:19 50:3 64:14 linking (1) 156:11
immediately (1) 5:11 123:7,11 129:9 145:7 137:12 138:16 142:6,7 134:2,21 kpmg (1) 90:25 65:20 66:22 151:25 156:15 links (2) 3:10 155:25
implies (1) 39:4 146:17,22 158:15 144:20 146:6 147:7,9 jump (1) 15:5 kyle (1) 155:6 laptops (11) 48:2,20 49:24 liquidate (2) 123:13 145:22
implying (1) 10:16 intentionally (2) 16:21 152:1,19 153:13,18,20 jumped (1) 17:5 50:22 59:18 66:12 68:24 liquidated (1) 145:6
L
importance (1) 72:11 115:20 154:9,24 163:19 juncture (1) 3:5 110:22 120:24 140:12,13 liquidation (5) 122:23
important (1) 38:19 interact (2) 100:17 171:5 issued (8) 24:23 27:14,15,16 june (9) 32:15 37:19,22 68:6 l10741 (2) 74:21 79:1 large (3) 3:10 160:25 166:17 123:7,9 126:11,13
imported (1) 41:16 interactions (1) 47:14 28:14,15 96:4 127:21 104:14 105:2 106:1 l11151 (3) 159:15 162:3 larger (1) 30:12 list (13) 8:24 9:23 31:13
impression (2) 152:13 166:18 interactive (1) 40:23 issues (1) 97:18 122:4,10 166:23 last (15) 2:18 13:9 37:19,21 44:2 53:11 59:25 60:11
inactive (1) 57:24 interest (1) 51:20 item (3) 106:18 164:25,25 jurisdictions (2) 91:19 93:7 l111516 (1) 160:3 57:3 58:18 67:17 79:18 74:7 90:14 96:16 106:16
inauthentic (4) 167:17 interesting (1) 178:12 items (1) 173:17 jury (3) 67:24 146:14 147:8 l111535 (3) 160:22 163:18 161:17 171:20 174:25 116:14 134:13
170:1,8,25 intern (1) 61:6 itol (1) 163:14 166:15 175:1 177:20,25 178:2 listed (4) 95:9 105:19 120:24
inbox (1) 63:20 internal (3) 37:18,21 40:17 its (175) 2:15 3:2,5 5:12 K l113541 (1) 121:9 late (4) 6:12 76:11 132:19 131:11
incipient (1) 164:9 internals (1) 117:15 7:18 8:8 9:24 10:5 17:15 l1135411 (1) 121:14 138:15 listen (1) 150:2
incitement (1) 93:24 international (5) 105:5 108:6 18:7 19:23 20:4 23:24 k (1) 69:2 l1135421 (1) 121:19 later (33) 1:21 4:6 6:4,4 listened (1) 157:25
inciting (1) 92:18 111:12 115:18 148:2 26:2,24 28:18 29:24 k11 (1) 162:25 l1135422 (1) 121:20 12:16 16:17,17 18:24 lists (1) 96:9
include (3) 77:1 120:1 internet (7) 54:22 55:21 30:2,2,4,5,8,12 k111 (1) 162:25 l113544 (1) 123:15 21:18 29:22 35:12,15,17 litigation (37) 10:21 12:8
151:11 67:11 69:4 86:20,21 31:3,3,6,7,9,13,20,24 kc (3) 157:4 158:1,5 l12181 (1) 119:6 39:17 41:4 42:2 57:3 18:25 19:9 20:14 21:1
included (13) 12:16 24:21 160:18 32:10,11 35:2 39:10,11,19 keep (6) 2:4 14:14 52:7 l14 (1) 54:12 58:4,7 59:4 60:19 69:13 23:19 24:1 46:23 47:3
25:9,20 50:8 63:13 88:18 interrupt (1) 18:1 42:10,18,25 43:23 46:18 60:2,2 68:13 l142001 (2) 54:18 55:20 83:6 102:10 117:8 125:11 49:7,19 50:1 51:8 59:21,25
110:21 120:20 122:16 interview (5) 154:25 155:8 49:8,10 51:22,23 52:24 keeping (2) 60:2 83:3 l142011 (1) 56:4 144:18 149:1 152:5 162:21 60:6 67:20,22 69:22 71:4
140:10 161:9 177:10 158:11,20 159:11 54:11,11 56:9 59:8,17 kenya (1) 145:23 l142031 (1) 55:23 170:12 174:23 176:16 89:8 93:11 96:7 105:11,14
includes (4) 12:23 39:14 into (47) 6:3,5,24 7:2 15:4,4 60:15,17 63:9,9 65:10,22 key (8) 62:6 85:22 106:11 l151851 (2) 24:4 27:24 latest (1) 88:11 111:8 115:21,24 116:4
128:11 162:17 16:20 26:25 28:5 32:18 69:6 70:1,6 74:7,9,16 117:12 160:25 164:12,16 l152271 (1) 7:18 latex (6) 16:3 25:4 28:5 118:6 133:6 140:4 146:7
including (27) 10:10 21:23 35:8,10 42:8 46:22 47:6 76:7,9 77:3 81:3 83:18 166:16 l154531 (1) 10:6 34:21,22 43:7 147:9 157:16 161:6
34:20 43:4 44:17 49:7 59:23 67:14 82:14 98:3 84:10 85:15 87:2 88:15,16 keys (12) 96:22 97:22 l163421 (1) 10:24 lawsuits (2) 91:18 93:6 litigations (1) 146:2
50:10 51:6 52:3 58:18 60:7 102:10 103:13 111:16 90:9,13 91:6 94:22 98:14,16 116:24 117:4 l163424 (1) 11:6 lawyer (1) 109:9 little (10) 1:21 3:14 15:23
64:8,13 66:6 75:23 79:18 112:5,16 113:5 114:10,10 95:15,25 100:11 143:14 165:8,25 166:4,6,9 l171201 (1) 106:14 lawyers (14) 18:25 20:13 16:1 30:21 89:14 101:23
86:7 96:25 105:23 106:3 122:23 123:7,9 126:10,14 103:3,8,19 105:10 106:5 kindly (2) 99:14 134:14 l171204 (1) 106:18 91:9 93:18 94:3,7,22 95:23 123:3 130:4,6
121:23 135:24 143:7,21 129:1 133:12 143:20 108:19 109:20 110:10 kleiman (133) 18:25 20:18 l172021 (2) 91:11 94:16 96:5 106:22 109:25 155:3 live (3) 155:12 156:16,17
151:4 165:10 170:14 144:13 146:4,13 155:14 111:9,10,10,25 114:24 21:3,19,25 46:23,24 l1720210 (2) 93:13 95:8 157:21 158:4 lived (2) 81:24 87:1
incompetent (1) 92:10 157:23 158:13 160:21 115:16,16 116:3,12,25 47:3,6,9,15,23,25 l172027 (1) 92:19 layouts (1) 169:23 lives (1) 85:9
inconsistency (2) 114:23,23 165:13 168:22 170:15,18 118:13,25 123:9 124:9,11 48:8,9,12,13 49:2 50:6 l172028 (1) 91:15 lease (5) 126:8,8,9,16,20 llm (2) 26:7,7
incorporation (5) 129:20 177:11 125:2,20,20 128:18 51:6,10 59:20,22 66:7 l172541 (1) 96:10 least (7) 1:14 66:25 100:17 lloyds (2) 102:11 104:11
133:23 134:21 138:12 intro (1) 3:14 130:1,8,11,25 131:2,2,11 67:22 68:25 69:3,5,9,22 l172591 (1) 96:10 112:10 137:18 159:24 load (4) 5:1 6:14 52:19,20
139:10 introduced (2) 46:22 71:7 136:12 137:5,6 139:13 70:2,3,9,10 71:4,7,15 l172851 (1) 107:2 178:17 loaded (1) 28:17
incorrect (2) 42:25 68:24 introducing (1) 36:10 141:13 142:1,16 145:12,16 72:17 73:2 74:10,25 75:20 l17285194 (1) 107:4 leave (1) 36:6 loading (1) 28:9
incredibly (3) 16:24 118:19 introduction (2) 15:5 17:5 146:4,6 147:6,16 148:6 77:18,25 78:8,12,14 l17285196 (1) 108:23 led (2) 1:20 157:18 loan (9) 11:15,16
137:4 invalid (2) 119:4 143:18 149:4 150:16 152:23 79:13,16 80:11,12,13 l17292185 (1) 109:18 ledger (1) 105:24 12:2,6,9,15,17,17,19
indemnity (1) 136:24 invalidating (1) 118:23 153:4,6,7 154:9,12,20 81:10,13,18 82:2,3,11,21 l17390118 (1) 12:23 left (4) 5:1 8:17 54:24 97:17 local (4) 6:5,24 7:11 174:3
indentation (1) 178:5 investigates (1) 62:21 156:7 158:23 84:12 85:7,14 86:1 87:3 l17431 (1) 90:23 lefthand (2) 8:5 113:11 lock (1) 164:17
independent (2) 10:18 18:2 investing (1) 127:4 159:1,3,16,21 160:11,12 88:4,25 89:5 90:9 93:11,12 l174311 (1) 90:24 legal (3) 23:14 98:22 99:4 locked (4) 126:16 127:8
index (1) 180:1 investment (2) 10:19 47:20 162:24,25 163:18,21 165:9 96:7,9,13,15 102:17 l1743188 (1) 91:3 legally (1) 118:23 138:22 139:3
indicate (1) 40:22 investments (3) 105:5 108:6 166:6,7,9,9,11 167:16 103:24,25 104:13,24 l184402 (2) 165:18,23 legible (1) 32:11 log (2) 53:18 58:19
indicated (3) 63:25 92:22 148:2 168:3 169:12,14,15,20 105:11,14,25 106:10,16 l202061 (1) 177:1 lenovo (1) 152:1 login (3) 6:11,20 54:21
125:5 invoice (6) 127:13,21,24 170:1,2,8,24 172:2,11 107:1 109:2 111:8 l2020612 (1) 177:9 less (1) 38:18 logo (4) 151:11,14 153:17
indicates (1) 56:4 128:17,19 139:11 174:9,12,13,16 176:21 113:13,20 114:13 l2020625 (2) 177:14,24 let (15) 6:13 18:1 25:17,23 174:24
indicating (3) 121:24 130:23 invoices (10) 148:14,24 177:5 178:4 115:7,11,14,15,16,21,24 l20252791 (1) 84:18 34:17 55:6 56:19 85:12 logs (2) 4:13 7:6
131:5 149:12,14,23 150:9 157:3 itself (2) 39:24 175:22 116:21 117:8,17 118:6 l21581 (1) 29:15 86:16 88:10,25 114:22 long (3) 1:23 117:16 141:5
indication (5) 41:2 60:3 174:23,25 176:19 ive (65) 6:19 10:14 12:16,17 119:9,13,19 120:1,25 l215830 (1) 30:14 134:14 145:24 148:10 longer (3) 42:8 53:6 100:14
63:19 66:5 132:15 involve (1) 117:18 14:11,22 15:7 16:3,4 121:24 122:4,8,16,18,20 l22341 (4) 9:6 18:12 19:13 lets (8) 10:24 50:4 53:8 look (39) 12:22 19:15 22:3
indications (2) 42:21 132:9 involved (10) 3:8 37:6 71:13 17:1,2,8,14 21:18 24:25 123:5,24 128:24 129:5,9 20:4 72:21 142:10 147:25 31:23 33:17 39:11 48:6,17
indicative (2) 38:7 39:2 75:25,25 103:14 109:13 26:5,23 28:10 34:25 42:25 130:2,14 133:6 136:1 l22346 (1) 21:7 177:19 179:1 52:6 54:20 58:24 65:19
individual (4) 2:10 3:5 10:18 114:16 117:19 121:6 46:14 48:1 49:5,5 55:20 139:18,21 140:2,10,15 l22348 (1) 22:4 letter (3) 44:18 94:8,10 76:2,20 79:13 81:4 92:9
97:12 involvement (4) 110:13 58:18 66:25 72:19 145:10 146:5,7 147:1,4,15 l22349 (3) 22:3,17 23:8 letters (1) 8:13 99:8,16,23 100:18
individually (1) 26:21 111:14 112:21 115:20 75:10,16 81:6 82:14 83:9 155:23 l22431 (1) 171:7 level (4) 32:10 35:19 123:25 105:9,13 110:25 113:18

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

117:25 127:3 130:25 map (4) 33:4,6 34:24 35:17 methodology (5) 14:23 39:17 75:14 89:21 101:7 norway (3) 91:25 93:3 94:8 office (18) 18:14 49:21 67:10 135:24 138:21 145:1
132:22 140:19 150:25 maps (1) 41:23 15:3,3 16:13 36:22 111:22 121:19 155:5 norwegian (5) 93:16,18 97:11,19 98:10 110:1 overspeaking (1) 176:12
154:17 156:21 157:1 march (23) 4:8,12,18 michellemsevengmailcom 168:16 169:1 173:5 158:11,21 159:11 121:1,3 127:9 139:3,5,16 overview (1) 33:19
165:18 168:18 174:24 5:4,18,24 6:8,15,16 24:24 (1) 68:5 mud (1) 135:25 note (23) 9:16 19:15 140:3,6,9 170:12,15 overwrite (1) 45:8
175:2 178:1 25:10,21 27:9,14 28:14 microsoft (6) 51:24 83:5 multiple (19) 6:6 10:17 20:4,7,21 21:4,4,11,15 officer (1) 85:6 own (8) 6:23 20:16 61:25
looked (16) 7:6 9:11 30:25 69:5,9 70:17 71:20 73:3 168:17,18,21 169:6 24:25 25:5,12 26:2 28:5 22:6,7,14 23:7,16 24:1 offices (2) 7:2 138:22 97:6,7,8 158:14 172:5
34:11 35:18 51:7 55:18,19 74:3,25 82:2 mid (1) 172:13 31:9 49:5 51:5 86:14 92:10 48:18 58:10 63:7 73:15 official (1) 80:2 owned (5) 20:18 100:14
74:12 79:24 81:13 87:8 marker (1) 41:17 mid2011 (1) 125:22 114:10,15,25 115:2 133:3 140:11 150:12 162:5 offline (2) 6:25 7:3 122:15 126:19 170:18
103:17 113:3 116:16 markers (1) 176:24 middle (7) 99:9,9,16 100:22 143:4 155:19 166:18 offshore (3) 134:7 141:17 owner (5) 124:3,21 131:7,10
128:16 mash (1) 114:25 109:21 134:19 161:17 multiples (1) 132:24 noted (33) 6:20 13:13 142:18 132:2
looking (17) 12:21 22:4,11 mashing (1) 115:3 might (6) 61:14 84:17 94:17 must (1) 7:1 16:4,16 23:11 24:25 oh (5) 52:13 58:21 142:21 owners (1) 105:20
55:16 56:14 63:1 65:24 masters (1) 17:15 116:11,24 143:20 myob (4) 3:23 4:5 5:13 6:24 26:5,23 28:4,10 39:20,22 153:6 165:9 ownership (2) 100:5 145:15
73:19 80:19 91:6 99:12 match (4) 16:18 33:17 35:14 migration (5) 71:1 83:12 myself (5) 22:15 50:1 76:15 40:10 42:25 49:19 50:25 okay (12) 1:17 2:1,6 7:23 owning (1) 61:10
117:6 142:4 163:18 166:18 81:10 84:8,9 87:5 109:25 124:2 60:6 66:7 68:23 71:3,5 18:8,10 61:4 77:5 97:14 owns (4) 97:7 145:18,18,20
169:16 171:21 matches (2) 166:22 170:2 migrations (3) 82:21 83:24 72:6 73:17 75:10,16 81:18 141:3 169:19 179:4 ozemail (4) 54:1 58:11,13,13
N
looks (4) 111:1 150:23 matching (1) 53:5 84:1 84:11,14 112:21 126:5 old (3) 10:10 41:17 52:3
P
156:22 171:19 material (3) 1:19 114:16 mike (2) 165:6,20 nakamoto (6) 34:9 60:13 137:13 138:22 169:4 olga (1) 34:2
lookup (1) 84:19 171:4 million (8) 32:24 38:16 47:20 91:21 92:22 93:1 165:19 notes (33) 10:11 18:24,24 once (8) 34:17 36:17 39:3 p1201 (1) 150:13
lords (2) 1:19 90:6 materially (7) 67:4 71:21,23 103:25 106:3 145:17 146:8 name (41) 3:4 8:9,12 22:18 19:1,10 20:15,19 22:2 40:7 48:24 66:25 76:12 p12016 (2) 153:23 154:16
losing (2) 76:11,15 72:2,20 88:15 119:19 147:11 24:10 41:13 42:3 44:20,20 23:21,22 29:22 50:21 160:17 p12017 (2) 154:2,16
lot (10) 26:9 53:6 67:11 materials (1) 24:17 millions (1) 89:7 45:10,11 46:1,10 53:22,25 119:25 120:12 128:4,8 ones (14) 21:23 42:7 49:8 p1208 (1) 150:14
76:11 81:9 102:6 115:8 matter (4) 3:19 29:16 90:1 mind (1) 5:21 56:3 58:12 62:23 63:5 131:7 159:21,24,25 161:5 60:7 66:12 67:18 76:1 p1209 (1) 151:6
123:3 146:16 159:5 98:24 mine (10) 17:11 54:11,16 64:19 79:23 80:10 82:8 162:13,17,21 163:6,12 83:11 84:17 94:25 135:24 pad (1) 159:22
lots (2) 48:20 86:2 matters (2) 121:11 133:12 55:5 56:22 65:13,16 75:11 83:23 87:4 94:4,13,23 164:3 167:3,25 170:8 149:19 152:2 154:10 pages (6) 7:25 23:25 117:16
lower (1) 45:15 matthews (23) 19:21 20:7 76:10 137:15 123:20 124:20 131:9,19,19 171:4,5,13 onethird (4) 145:15,18,18,20 120:7 130:23 131:6
ltd (4) 105:25 106:6 121:12 22:5,6,12,13 37:2 74:23 mingw (2) 52:1 53:1 132:20 145:24 149:3,4 nothing (12) 10:18 20:14 online (5) 40:23 41:3,20 42:2 paid (5) 12:5,7,17 122:24
129:3 75:3,6 76:22 77:7,16 mining (1) 21:21 152:19 153:6 157:13 38:4 42:1 49:25 64:21 175:20 155:2
ltdstrasan (1) 123:19 78:4,11,17,23 79:3,14 minutes (3) 43:17 84:6 178:12 85:25 89:1 95:19,21 119:4 ontier (12) 4:4 5:1,22 painstaking (1) 53:5
lunchtime (1) 1:11 88:18,22,23 149:2 114:17 named (3) 3:9 44:4 113:8 160:10 6:2,12,21 7:2,7,10,11,12 pairs (1) 40:17
lynn (5) 168:19 170:9,14 maximise (2) 97:17 150:14 mish (2) 114:25 115:3 namely (2) 3:11 11:11 notice (6) 34:8,15 46:2 68:1 panama (1) 133:3
171:3,4 mayaka (9) 131:17 134:6 missed (1) 54:13 names (2) 82:13 118:1 136:12 154:5 155:10 onto (2) 6:22 152:7 panel (2) 100:6,7
148:15,19,23 149:1,18,22 missing (1) 13:14 naming (1) 83:5 notices (1) 39:15 onwards (1) 57:20 pang (1) 37:5
M
156:24 mixed (1) 85:2 narrative (3) 148:8,9,10 notification (1) 147:2 op2 (1) 36:7 panic (1) 157:24
m2345 (1) 173:1 mays (1) 160:20 mm (1) 162:12 natural (3) 16:7 58:2 128:15 noting (3) 67:7 154:25 opcodes (3) 35:25 36:2,7 panopticrypt (10) 32:18
m2348 (1) 172:23 maze (3) 148:20,23 155:16 mmhm (7) 104:15 107:18 naturally (6) 20:7,11 21:4,15 157:23 open (3) 14:12 39:6,21 106:10 116:22 124:1,4
m2351 (1) 173:5 mcardle (1) 97:12 108:22 109:11 132:3 23:7 164:7 notion (2) 16:20 46:24 opened (9) 14:2 17:9 137:25 138:19,20 170:18
m2352 (1) 173:11 mccormack (3) 10:8 11:2 137:24 169:19 nchain (14) 26:25,25 notwithstanding (1) 11:7 39:3,19,20 40:9 172:11
machine (7) 6:23,25 24:5 66:7 mobile (1) 166:7 28:10,16 41:16 47:22 november (4) 125:6,16 42:17,18,19 papa (3) 148:4,8 149:3
38:11 40:1 49:20 52:22 mckenzie (1) 102:14 model (2) 154:21 168:7 148:14 150:1 151:25 177:7 178:16 opening (2) 40:11 177:2 papaneemagmailcom (1)
machines (2) 52:22 66:6 md5 (3) 90:13,14 91:6 modification (1) 125:6 152:3,9 158:13,15 176:4 nuclear (1) 146:21 operate (1) 45:22 149:5
mad (2) 104:21 119:9 mean (25) 1:7 10:14 15:25 modified (9) 5:3 7:5 near (1) 99:14 number (41) 2:13 21:22 operation (2) 30:18 75:14 paper (26) 8:9 9:25 10:10
madden (40) 4:13 9:1 30:1 33:13,14 50:24 56:22 37:19,22 40:24 57:4 71:15 nearly (1) 111:16 29:10 44:17 45:1,11 operator (4) 99:14 103:17 13:6 15:1,2 17:7 19:21
13:13,19 15:12,16 16:7 65:8 71:23 76:9 103:2 76:2 120:1 necessary (2) 5:22 144:15 49:6,10,11 61:5 65:21 150:11 177:23 20:12,16 21:20 23:2,4 24:7
33:7,15,18 34:8 37:15 141:13 143:2 145:4 146:24 modify (1) 169:23 need (20) 1:19 9:3 22:12 66:9,10,15 67:2 71:10 opinion (6) 14:4,8 15:7 26:14,19 27:8,20,21 29:3
40:10,15 41:4,18 45:15 153:6 156:17 158:3 159:4 mol (1) 36:7 36:6 38:19 43:5 51:15 73:21 75:10,16,19 86:5 16:15 17:5 18:4 31:7 61:21 69:12 160:8,12
46:5 48:24 57:1,11 165:9 172:11,22 174:6 moment (14) 1:22 5:6 9:11 52:16 69:12,18,18 91:17 92:24 93:5 opinions (2) 18:5,6 176:24
80:1,9,19 81:5,11 86:5,15 178:24 15:15 18:2,6 43:11 76:4 96:10,20 117:11 133:11 100:21,21 105:14 106:20 opportunity (2) 61:8 73:12 papers (5) 21:22 22:2 56:17
87:24 119:23 125:4 128:15 meaning (1) 78:9 89:16 102:19 103:17 161:1 164:7 165:11 166:17 107:5 114:1 121:18 134:23 oppositions (1) 59:24 142:21 176:6
130:17 131:3 139:9 152:21 means (6) 27:2 32:10 38:19 133:14 144:11 179:3 167:16 151:1,18 155:18 158:17,25 option (2) 62:15 118:21 paragraph (46) 5:10 11:6
168:10,25 169:7,9 80:14 91:8 124:7 moments (1) 55:13 needed (9) 20:17,20,23 24:2 163:1 165:9 166:23 169:17 options (1) 20:1 13:25 14:19 22:25
maddens (15) 4:25 5:9 13:11 meant (3) 52:23 123:22,24 monday (2) 5:20 177:2 34:20 36:1,21,23 43:6 numbers (3) 141:13 145:10 opus (1) 7:21 26:13,16 27:5 33:7 37:20
16:23 32:6 39:1,23 44:6 meanwhile (1) 126:16 money (6) 69:14 85:8 123:3 needs (1) 1:14 173:3 order (6) 2:18 3:12 36:16 39:12 40:21 44:13 45:9,21
53:16 62:12 83:21 86:3 meeting (3) 112:7,10 113:1 145:22 146:1 147:20 neema (2) 148:4,8 nut (1) 104:9 46:23 48:9 136:21 53:17 57:1,10,15,20 58:1
125:1 128:1 170:4 meetings (1) 22:11 moniker (1) 161:13 neemagmail (1) 149:3 ordered (2) 110:20 140:8 63:12,18 70:15 72:22
magistrate (4) 29:8 49:23 meiklejohn (1) 85:22 monitor (7) 150:17,19 negative (3) 21:12,17,23 O original (40) 20:13 24:2 29:3 73:1,14 77:13,23 79:18
110:23 118:15 mellor (24) 1:4,13,17 2:1,6 151:21,23 153:24 154:21 negotiate (1) 126:15 32:16,22,25 35:5,5,11,13 81:11 83:22 84:23 87:18
magnusson (1) 137:23 7:23 8:25 14:18,21 15:12 158:9 neither (2) 128:21 155:5 o21126 (2) 97:16 101:13 36:21,23,24 45:16 89:2 91:16 119:25
mailbox (1) 63:20 18:1 43:13,17,21 51:9 months (1) 29:21 netbank (1) 136:2 o21127 (3) 102:15 113:10,23 54:7,13,15,16 55:10 61:13 120:3,12,16 121:14,18
main (5) 36:6 91:16 124:1,3 56:11,15 89:17,21,25 more (34) 4:6,7 10:18 18:20 network (1) 63:5 o26194 (1) 106:24 69:6 70:19 72:8,8,14,18 128:8 131:3 165:23 168:24
177:10 93:14 133:16 179:4,9 21:12,16 38:22 41:15 never (22) 60:20 64:19 81:6 oath (4) 29:10,13 67:24 73:18 74:9,17,19 87:16,20 paragraphs (4) 86:4 99:17
maincpp (1) 171:16 member (2) 2:11 66:22 43:5,15 68:1 74:24 84:14 84:11 86:8 88:8,8,9 73:16 95:10 110:12 112:9 125:15 101:5 173:12
mainh (2) 31:21 40:24 members (9) 36:20 47:17 97:22 98:2,13,23 99:25 104:3,4 111:11 objective (1) 18:4 128:10 149:11 153:1 159:4 paralegals (1) 7:13
mainly (1) 146:18 48:3 64:11 112:12 112:11 115:6 137:3 143:6 116:5,20,21 117:19 118:20 obscured (1) 105:13 originally (5) 1:10 50:12 paraplegic (1) 129:6
maintained (1) 102:20 122:20,22 123:5 158:17 145:16 150:24 155:7 159:6 128:25 129:4,7,8 146:12 observes (2) 63:12 120:3 83:20 162:20 163:11 paribas (1) 47:19
major (2) 67:20 96:4 memo (2) 167:24 168:11 163:21 165:16 166:7,8,10 176:3 observing (3) 2:12,20 3:2 originator (1) 70:11 part (46) 2:10 5:9 8:4 12:25
majority (1) 176:19 memorise (1) 59:12 168:16 169:1 175:11 next (21) 5:9 9:6 22:16 27:4 obtained (2) 45:21 147:25 orphan (1) 171:22 20:17 26:12 30:12,13
makes (4) 94:11 115:3 memorised (1) 65:25 morning (7) 2:9 3:16,17 7:20 29:15 31:11 32:6 41:18 obtaining (1) 96:21 others (15) 5:17 30:10 36:3 32:17 41:5 42:25 46:13
131:21 137:3 memorising (1) 85:3 90:2 95:16 179:7 53:9 57:16 61:9 86:24 obvious (2) 33:21 130:25 59:22 62:13 75:24 76:19 47:10,10 69:16 71:9 72:17
making (7) 16:24 52:7 99:25 mentioned (9) 14:17 16:12 morphed (1) 102:10 104:9 108:3 119:22 129:19 obviously (5) 1:24 90:15 79:18 92:18 96:9 114:16 73:11 75:25 76:10 80:11
123:14 141:2 156:5,12 49:5,6 81:15 166:24 167:8 most (5) 60:15 65:3 72:13 136:2 165:23 167:18 141:11,15 144:12 123:5 125:3 136:1 145:5 82:20 83:10,14 92:5 100:5
malicious (3) 76:13,17 84:17 172:15,19 144:22 145:5 173:11 177:18 occasion (1) 9:13 otherwise (1) 61:15 111:10 112:20 117:2
malware (1) 152:7 merged (1) 114:15 mostly (1) 174:16 ng (1) 60:14 occupied (1) 45:1 outcome (1) 65:3 124:9,11 125:3,11 128:24
man (1) 68:14 mess (1) 130:1 motivation (1) 166:4 nguyen (5) 60:14 61:2 occupies (1) 45:10 output (3) 16:4 33:13 41:25 129:12 130:2 140:3
manage (1) 38:14 message (8) 57:11 58:3 move (8) 7:16,24 18:11 53:9 64:16,25 106:10 occurred (7) 42:20 100:3 over (45) 2:15 3:14 17:15 142:8,12 147:15 162:9,10
management (6) 38:20 63:13,19 69:7 79:11,16 108:23 147:20,25 167:15 nice (2) 97:9 147:13 104:3,4 123:1 129:4,11 22:16 39:15 40:21 41:22 163:2 165:7 166:3 168:22
111:19,22 118:13 127:22 134:11 moved (10) 70:20 81:19 nine (2) 167:3,4 occurring (1) 92:8 43:4,9 49:8,24 50:2 57:21 participated (1) 13:2
128:5 messy (1) 130:11 97:5,5,10 98:3,8 100:9 ninefigure (1) 147:8 october (23) 24:22,23 62:16 63:18 64:8 67:8,9 particular (4) 21:21 59:1
manipulate (1) 92:4 met (2) 80:15 154:25 128:25 139:12 node (1) 36:19 25:11,22 105:6 108:16 81:20 89:15 96:1 99:13 65:7,20
manipulated (3) 87:25 metadata (24) 4:25 28:4 moving (11) 13:11 24:3 nodes (1) 30:20 109:10 119:10,24 122:11 102:9,15 108:23 110:21 particularly (3) 19:24 74:19
120:19 169:10 32:4 34:22,24 35:1 37:15 43:22 55:22 60:9 nominee (5) 124:20 126:1,2 125:6 127:19 128:20 115:19 124:12 126:3 131:4 86:18
manuscript (4) 29:24 30:1 37:19,21 39:13 40:17 68:25 119:6 159:14 171:7 136:23 137:9 130:20 131:13 134:1,7 132:4 135:11 138:2 143:21 particulars (5) 69:24 70:1,7
159:21 167:3 42:4,13 43:7,9 52:7 57:2 175:12 none (9) 6:21 16:23 17:1 135:8,12,19 136:5 138:8 144:7,25 145:2 146:8 73:2,14
many (11) 14:14 26:5 31:5 58:9,17 120:3,8,13 125:5 ms (4) 61:2 64:16 85:22 28:21 36:25 37:3 130:15 167:12 155:21 165:7 166:4 parties (12) 2:4 3:10 60:7
41:24 94:7 103:11,13 130:23 131:5 169:2 140:16,17 odds (3) 80:23 88:12,16 167:3,4 170:10,13 66:6,8 67:11 89:4 105:19
110:23 132:25 142:16 metallic (1) 153:24 mt (1) 123:1 nonprofit (2) 146:3 147:22 offer (1) 127:17 oversaw (1) 37:6 116:3,5 141:6 156:20
178:23 method (2) 14:7 63:24 much (13) 1:14 19:14 30:15 normal (1) 40:6 offered (1) 133:8 overseas (5) 129:14 132:25 partly (1) 22:1

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

partner (3) 80:14,17 115:8 piece (2) 50:18 147:9 preceding (1) 5:11 produces (1) 43:8 7:4,15 8:8,12,15,19 153:4,8,10,13,17,20,22 really (4) 51:19 147:13
partnered (1) 22:1 pieces (2) 25:7 114:8 precise (1) 28:18 producing (4) 42:23 52:11 9:6,13,16,20 10:3,6,20,24 154:2,9,11,14,16,19 157:6,19
partnership (2) 46:24 48:10 pile (2) 118:22 119:3 precisely (2) 177:15 178:8 139:22,24 11:4,6,17,23 12:10,19,21 155:22 156:5,11,21 157:20 reamended (1) 72:10
parts (4) 37:25 161:25 pinder (2) 102:11 104:11 precluded (4) 110:15 production (1) 103:14 13:4,11,18,25 16:7 17:1,17 158:6,19 159:1,8,14,21,24 reason (12) 35:3 48:1 68:1
162:18 173:8 pitched (1) 31:1 112:10,25 116:8 professor (2) 23:2,9 18:17,20,23 19:2,7,10,13 160:3,9,12,21 76:10,16 92:6 93:9 98:9
party (13) 11:10,19 21:3 pixelation (1) 32:10 predates (1) 26:5 proficiently (1) 156:2 20:4,11 21:4,7,15 161:5,9,13,16,20,24 146:10 170:7,25 178:7
49:19 50:10 66:19 67:9 place (7) 46:2 53:23 98:7 preempted (1) 177:23 program (6) 7:3 35:2 22:3,16,20,24 23:7,21 162:7,10,13,19,24 reasons (6) 1:15,18 41:14
116:3 137:14 156:14 103:21 119:2 155:21 preempting (1) 85:12 39:20,22 40:11 41:7 24:3,10,13,15,20 163:5,8,11,14,17,25 52:8 121:10 142:16
168:20 169:5,25 158:13 prefer (2) 40:1,3 programs (4) 41:8 42:6,9 25:7,13,17,24 26:11,16 164:3,7 165:3,12,18,23 rebuild (3) 84:13,14 92:9
passages (1) 72:3 placed (3) 96:24 125:21 prejudice (1) 133:13 154:22 27:3,11,18,24 28:8,12,18 166:3,13 167:2,9,11,15,24 rebuilt (1) 76:15
passed (1) 49:1 126:14 preliminary (2) 174:19 176:8 progress (1) 2:5 29:2,15,20,24 168:3,6,10,15,24 recall (21) 3:21 4:3,18,19,22
password (1) 62:1 placks (6) 17:3,20,21 168:13 premised (2) 62:5 92:15 prohibited (1) 2:24 30:2,4,8,14,21,24 169:7,12,15,18,20 8:6,8 23:5 28:6 44:3,6
past (2) 42:7 87:8 169:8,12 premises (3) 126:8,15,17 project (3) 27:9 160:15 31:4,11,18,23 32:2,6,10,13 170:4,20,23 58:14 79:23 90:2,8 102:6
paste (1) 129:25 plaintiff (2) 92:20 140:7 prepanopticrypt (2) 172:11 166:24 33:4,7,15 34:6,11,15 171:7,12,16,18,20,25 109:6,23 133:21 144:15
pasted (1) 38:1 plaintiffs (2) 106:15 107:5 175:11 promoted (1) 93:12 35:7,15 36:14,25 172:4,9,12,14,18,23 177:1
patent (3) 85:18 88:7 164:11 plans (1) 60:19 prepared (2) 36:25 37:4 proof (4) 11:8 164:11 37:3,9,15,24 38:5,24 39:12 173:11,16,20,23 174:10,18 receipt (5) 135:15 136:3,7
patented (3) 47:21,22 85:23 plant (1) 139:14 preparing (1) 23:2 176:2,4 40:7,13,21 41:2,18,22 175:6,16,22 176:7,10,13 137:12,12
patents (5) 14:17 62:10 plants (1) 146:21 prerelease (1) 13:6 proofofwork (1) 62:9 42:2,13,21 44:6,9,11,24 177:1,5,9,14,19 178:4,7,17 received (15) 23:8 65:7
176:4,5,6 platform (1) 141:10 present (2) 29:2 57:9 proper (1) 175:14 45:4,9,14,21,25 q27 (1) 169:7 84:25 88:8 89:7 103:24
path (2) 53:22 93:19 play (1) 68:14 presented (8) 14:24 41:23 property (12) 40:16 42:4 46:4,9,12,18,22 47:1,12 quadrant (2) 97:17 113:11 134:11 147:1 149:20
pause (12) 15:8 17:17 66:24 pleaded (12) 8:23 29:16 62:17 91:20 92:12 47:18 97:1 123:7,9,11 48:4,8,12,15,20,25 49:9,13 qualifications (1) 62:11 150:4,6,20 161:6,16 170:7
90:23 133:10 140:24 147:6 31:13 44:1 53:10 60:10 93:15,17 94:11 129:10 145:7 146:17,22 50:4,11,16 51:1,18,22 qualified (1) 86:15 receives (1) 148:23
165:3 166:13 172:24 173:2 70:21 74:6,15 159:16 presenting (2) 7:1 92:12 158:15 52:10 53:8,15,22,25 quality (1) 169:22 recent (1) 18:20
176:7 167:20 171:8 presents (3) 33:4 69:2 105:4 propose (1) 3:4 54:3,7,10,12,15,18,23 queensland (2) 85:10 87:1 recipient (2) 120:4,9
pausing (1) 98:15 pleading (1) 11:4 presumably (1) 30:17 proposition (4) 25:13,15,18 55:2,6,8,13,17,20 question (37) 4:18 6:19 recognise (16) 11:1 13:1
pay (4) 126:20 136:18,25 please (88) 5:9,15 7:24 9:6 presume (2) 73:17 119:13 27:15 56:2,4,7,25 57:10,15,19,24 15:10 17:19 22:13 19:23 29:17 31:14 90:25
137:9 10:25 11:6 13:12,18 21:7 pretending (2) 157:5,6 propositions (1) 31:6 58:1,7,16,22 59:2,6,14 25:17,24 50:11 51:21 91:11 94:17 105:7,8
paying (1) 60:2 22:3 24:4 26:11 27:4,24 pretty (1) 147:6 proprietary (1) 121:4 60:3,9,17 61:1,16 62:12,21 66:24,25 72:22 73:9,11 121:10 129:20 154:4
payment (7) 19:25 20:1 30:14 33:17 34:6 37:17,24 prevents (1) 98:22 prospectively (1) 20:8 63:1,11,16,18,23 77:19 85:13 97:19 159:18 167:21 171:9
135:12 137:9 164:16,18,24 39:12 44:11,12 45:9,14 previous (5) 1:24 30:24 protect (1) 97:1 64:3,5,16,23 98:15,21,21 99:15 101:19 recognised (1) 110:15
payments (1) 135:13 53:15 56:25,25 60:10,21 76:16 92:19 104:12 prove (2) 27:20 82:15 65:4,12,14,17,22 107:20,23 108:5,11 113:14 recognising (1) 8:2
pccsw01 (2) 81:4 84:25 62:12 63:1 67:14 68:3,9 previously (1) 65:5 provenance (1) 120:21 66:1,9,14,24 67:14 114:5 116:18 132:13 record (6) 4:17 32:25 127:7
pdf (11) 6:3 14:1 34:25 35:1 72:22 73:19 74:21 77:12 primarily (1) 8:20 proves (1) 176:2 68:3,18,20,25 69:11,21 165:4,8,12,25 166:5,10 132:16 138:14 142:2
39:8,13 40:1 42:15 95:10 80:19 81:11 84:18 primary (6) 9:20 31:15 provide (4) 23:23 32:25 70:1,6,14,23 71:18,22,24 177:20 recorded (3) 12:19 40:18
171:13 178:20 91:3,11,15 92:19 93:13,13 159:19 167:19,22 171:9 58:22 126:3 72:3,10,21 73:12,19 questioned (2) 67:24 150:8 80:23
pdfs (2) 6:1 34:20 95:8 98:6 99:6 101:13 print (11) 25:5 34:24 35:1 provided (15) 5:1 6:21 14:6 74:1,6,15,21 75:3,5,9 questions (10) 3:22 51:4 recording (3) 110:7,10
pdt (1) 81:7 105:3,17 106:5,14,18 38:23 107:16,17 19:20 47:7 48:8,13 58:8 76:3,7,19 77:5,10,12,20,23 85:12 90:3 92:23 167:17 141:23
peak (1) 38:18 107:4 109:18 113:18 119:6 174:8,25,25 175:21 178:19 67:7 77:14 121:22 122:7 78:18 79:1,5,7,10,17,22 172:14,17,18,21 records (14) 3:23 7:5,7 80:3
pedantic (1) 27:16 121:9,14 123:15 124:14 printed (5) 10:11 172:6 152:20 154:24 167:12 80:1,6,9,19 81:11 quicker (1) 150:12 120:4 121:20 126:18 132:5
peertopeer (1) 13:15 125:1,4,8,13 127:12 175:10,15 178:25 provider (1) 141:23 82:1,7,18 83:10,14,21 quickly (1) 10:24 138:24 141:25
pen (1) 162:5 129:19 131:2 134:13 printing (1) 174:8 providers (2) 139:8 142:23 84:1,18,22 85:11 86:3 quite (8) 1:23 58:6,10 83:18 170:14,21,21 176:22
pending (3) 91:18 93:6 176:6 137:17,21 140:24 printout (2) 172:8 174:13 provides (1) 105:18 87:2,12,15,22 146:16 157:19 165:21 recovered (1) 152:21
penultimate (1) 90:16 150:10,14 153:22 157:20 prints (2) 34:23 41:8 providing (1) 158:20 88:2,10,16,25 178:1 red (13) 9:16 18:20 19:10
people (38) 2:13 14:12 26:22 163:17 167:15 168:24 prior (4) 20:12 29:8 36:15 proving (1) 62:4 90:6,12,19,23 91:3,8,11,15 quote (2) 19:22 159:4 21:11 22:20 29:22 38:2,6
28:10,16 31:9 37:7,8,9,12 169:7 171:7 172:23 173:5 123:19 provision (3) 100:1 126:9 92:11,19 93:13 quoted (1) 69:23 162:5,9,17,21 163:12
40:1,2,5 47:15 52:17 61:10 177:1,14 private (3) 96:22 98:14,16 161:21 94:3,7,10,15,21 95:2,8,15 redacted (1) 141:9
R
72:19 73:17 75:11,13 86:2 plus (3) 32:24 43:2 136:8 privilege (3) 3:3 133:13 pty (4) 121:12 123:19,19 96:3,9,15,19,24 97:14,25 refer (1) 140:25
92:4 94:5 95:5 97:6 110:15 pm (7) 89:15,22,24 95:12 141:3 129:3 98:6,12,19 99:6,13,20 r (1) 163:11 reference (19) 10:13 21:5
118:24 122:21 123:10 133:18,20 179:10 privileged (4) 67:15 141:1,3 public (17) 2:12 24:17 28:14 100:18 101:13 race (1) 21:9 22:18 30:17,25 45:17
126:24 130:4 pm11 (1) 56:25 157:22 48:5 52:3,15,24 67:25 102:2,4,15,19,23 rachel (1) 80:15 51:12 55:23 60:14 90:6,24
139:14,15,17,19 144:24 pm15 (1) 7:19 probabilistically (1) 65:1 138:25 158:23 159:13 103:3,8,16,24 raise (1) 2:7 91:4 105:14 106:19,24
155:23 156:12 pm18 (1) 83:21 probabilities (1) 65:2 165:5,9,21 170:21 176:2 104:4,12,16,18 rambling (3) 159:4,6,6 109:15 120:20 150:11
peoples (3) 52:22 65:16 pm41 (2) 168:24,25 probably (14) 18:18 26:24 178:21 105:2,9,13,17,22 ramona (1) 80:14 172:25
137:16 pm42 (1) 5:10 64:17 70:6 83:16 132:21 publicly (4) 24:23 67:23 106:3,5,9,14,18,24 ran (7) 7:11 40:2 45:22 referenced (1) 20:16
per (2) 81:14 112:7 pm44 (1) 7:19 133:11 136:21 145:5 175:25 178:19 107:4,8,11,19 49:21 52:18 83:2 142:23 references (6) 20:23 21:17
perfect (2) 31:19 52:6 pm7 (1) 4:25 146:16,25 158:7 162:24 published (4) 26:3,8 142:21 108:1,4,9,11,13,18,23 random (1) 21:10 22:7 141:2 160:7 162:6
perfectly (8) 28:12 95:15 po36 (1) 107:5 165:3 165:5 109:2,6,9,12,15,18 rate (1) 58:16 referred (5) 137:11 173:8,13
124:6 147:23 154:11 pointed (3) 80:11,14 116:11 problem (6) 16:18 40:6 52:9 pull (1) 39:25 110:4,6,10 111:5,7 rather (11) 14:5,6 22:7 35:12 174:18,19
166:22 177:21 178:18 pointing (1) 93:10 141:4 160:5 173:3 purchase (1) 128:11 112:3,14 113:1,10,17,23 49:11 54:21 62:8 93:23 referring (8) 14:2 30:10
perhaps (2) 74:18 80:25 points (5) 1:9 67:25 88:11 problems (7) 16:19 40:4 61:4 purchased (5) 128:20 135:22 114:4,17,22 115:10,13,21 140:12 144:21 170:25 57:12 103:20 109:20
period (7) 111:2 121:12 95:19 142:10 75:12 86:14 170:11,15 168:21 169:5 170:17 116:10,18 117:1,6,13,16 raw (3) 39:13 40:17 144:4 140:25 160:4 162:22
123:2 139:17 141:22,23 poison (2) 50:18 67:17 procedural (1) 91:12 purchases (1) 136:17 118:5,10 ray (5) 177:13 refers (3) 13:4 103:24 120:16
167:4 police (3) 143:23,24 144:2 procedure (1) 14:10 pure (6) 14:4,8 16:15 17:5 119:6,13,16,19,22 178:12,13,13,14 reflect (3) 112:4,15 113:4
periodically (1) 175:21 policy (4) 63:24 152:2,6 proceedings (27) 2:11,21,23 50:18 135:25 120:3,7,11,16,19 rcjbr (2) 76:14 80:14 reflected (1) 114:19
permitted (1) 2:22 153:1 10:8 11:11,12,20,24 30:6 purge (1) 84:17 121:2,9,14,18 122:7,18 rcjbrorg (2) 74:22 80:10 reflecting (1) 174:11
person (11) 2:17 24:18 51:19 position (9) 149:14 153:25 49:10 50:6,6,8,13,14 purged (1) 76:10 123:15,19,22 rd (2) 102:10 163:14 refused (2) 94:20 95:24
61:5 85:9 118:2,2,3 157:4 156:23 170:24 171:25 70:2,9 91:1 93:16,19 purported (4) 71:6 84:4 124:6,10,14,24 reaccessed (1) 6:4 regard (1) 57:6
168:19 178:12 173:23,25 174:10 175:6 100:2,9 130:2,14 152:17 112:20 115:6 125:1,8,13,18,20 reach (1) 23:3 regarding (1) 11:9
personal (5) 64:10,12 positively (1) 171:1 159:2,12 purportedly (1) 122:9 127:2,12,19,21 reached (4) 18:9 58:1 registered (4) 80:1,10 84:20
75:17,17 82:15 possesses (1) 92:21 process (16) 14:5,7,25 15:16 purports (6) 77:22 107:23 128:1,8,15,23 157:10,11 124:19
persons (1) 111:1 possession (3) 6:22 61:23 18:9 25:4 36:5 38:11 42:23 108:5,7,12 119:16 129:16,19,23 130:13,17,22 read (9) 19:16 20:7 55:6,6 registration (4) 137:2 139:11
pgp (3) 106:11 116:24 117:4 110:21 43:1 47:10 57:6 82:20 purpose (8) 27:19 47:1 48:13 131:2,12,16,21,25 78:3 90:19 101:18 143:20 148:1,16
pgpqs (1) 116:23 possibility (2) 63:9 64:18 94:23 171:22 178:2 59:16 123:17,23 133:2 132:4,8,14 160:8 registrations (1) 127:18
philosophies (2) 30:10,13 possible (5) 31:18 34:11 processes (2) 98:2 101:24 168:3 134:1,4,18,23,25 reading (1) 51:17 rein (7) 91:9,13
philosophy (1) 62:9 83:18 142:16 169:12 processing (1) 166:10 purposely (1) 89:9 135:5,11,15,18 136:2,7,10 reads (6) 20:11 21:4,15 22:6 94:3,10,22,24 96:4
phone (2) 14:12,13 possibly (3) 58:6,10 114:9 produce (2) 132:10 178:20 purposes (1) 106:20 137:6,11,17,21,25 23:7 69:11 relate (1) 38:25
photo (1) 150:16 post (4) 177:5,12,17 178:10 produced (41) 4:22 6:2,2 7:7 pushed (1) 122:23 138:2,6,10,14 139:9,21 real (24) 52:6 70:25 71:3 related (6) 33:4,6 37:15
photograph (9) 2:23 8:4,8 postdate (1) 34:16 24:22 26:8 28:13,15 33:12 puts (1) 11:8 140:16,24 141:5,16,21 76:8 83:10 88:2,14 92:23 116:23 119:6 121:22
19:4,7 23:25 150:16 posted (5) 2:10 56:5,6,7,9 35:17 37:9 41:23 42:4 putting (11) 7:4,4,9,15 15:15 142:10,15,20 143:13,16 109:17 110:19,25 relating (2) 57:16 121:21
153:23 156:23 posting (1) 177:6 47:12,14 65:5,8 102:24 22:14 99:14 128:24 166:6 144:11 145:9 146:4 111:6,9,10,25 112:9 relation (14) 13:12 37:11
photographed (1) 16:10 posts (1) 55:24 103:1,8 104:4 115:10 170:4 177:2 147:6,15,25 114:6,19 117:14 118:1 53:16 59:10 62:16 98:9
photographs (9) 149:18 potential (1) 19:23 121:11 142:1,4,5,12 pyramid (1) 124:3 148:8,10,18,22 139:7 149:15,23,25 121:11 128:1,18 133:23
150:15,19 potentially (2) 63:7 118:1 143:21,24 144:14 156:8 149:1,5,7,9,11,14,17,22 realise (7) 71:11 78:9 81:18 144:12 159:17 165:24
Q
151:7,8,10,20,22 158:8 power (2) 100:15 146:21 162:10 163:2 167:2,4,5,13 150:10,19,22,25 144:25 145:2,3 151:24 169:8
photos (1) 23:11 pr (1) 7:12 173:23 174:12 175:7 q (593) 3:25 4:3,9,15,20,24 151:4,6,10,14,16,19 realised (2) 112:14 155:7 relativity (3) 59:23 140:22,25
picture (2) 32:7 154:6 practice (1) 86:8 176:15 5:6,9,15,20 6:7,10,13 152:11,16,19,25 reality (1) 127:2 relax (1) 89:18

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

release (6) 69:13,17 79:19 ridiculous (3) 15:23 16:1 140:18 143:1,3 162:16 135:2,4,5,7,11 136:3,14 shareholders (1) 136:23 154:5 114:14 136:14
140:9 160:1 166:19 157:2 166:9 169:25 175:24 137:11,21 138:2,7,9 139:2 shareholding (3) 112:11 slippage (1) 2:3 stages (1) 50:4
released (1) 45:16 righthand (2) 99:13,15 177:21 140:23 141:18 148:10 125:25 137:10 slow (1) 54:21 stains (2) 8:15 13:7
releases (1) 164:23 rights (3) 85:25 147:19,23 scada (1) 146:18 151:1,11,18 153:23 shareholdings (1) 12:16 small (1) 44:18 standard (2) 81:8 151:24
relevance (3) 11:9 91:19 rise (1) 4:16 scalable (1) 38:15 154:3,17 160:3,22 162:3 shares (7) 97:6,7,8 100:14 smith (4) 157:14,18,19,21 staples (2) 8:15 10:12
93:7 risen (1) 2:14 scale (4) 32:23 33:1 36:20 163:8,8 165:18 168:2,3 124:18,20 126:3 smtp (1) 86:21 stark (2) 78:19 114:23
relevant (2) 100:25 142:12 risk (1) 3:9 168:7 169:9,11 171:20,23,24 shelf (6) 128:12 134:12,13 snanon (1) 68:10 start (8) 16:20 29:17 62:2
reliable (1) 143:17 risky (2) 104:21 119:10 scales (1) 35:4 173:9,11,16 135:19 138:16 144:17 software (10) 33:24 34:18 119:1 152:13 165:12
reliance (19) 9:20 31:16 roche (1) 155:6 scaling (1) 47:20 177:9,14,18,24 179:6 sherrell (5) 150:10,13 155:10 53:13 58:3 95:10 170:23 174:15
42:23 59:8,11 65:23 rock (1) 119:2 scan (5) 29:24 30:4 33:11 seek (2) 68:14 97:13 156:8,8 153:13,17,20 169:25 started (19) 29:10 32:18
91:22,25 92:6 93:1,3 role (1) 68:14 169:22 178:19 seeking (2) 1:8 88:4 shiny (1) 153:24 177:12 47:15 61:10
140:18 159:16,19 rotate (1) 31:18 scanned (9) 16:11 30:5 seem (2) 47:9 59:25 shoaib (1) 37:5 sold (6) 12:16 61:10 88:9 75:20,22,22,24 81:24
167:19,19,22 171:8,10 roundabout (1) 118:12 33:9,12,14 114:9,10 170:3 seen (11) 10:9,17 31:10 shoosmiths (1) 173:7 126:21,23 164:20 85:20,20 101:22 156:2,2
relied (3) 90:10 91:23 95:17 routelevel (1) 142:23 171:13 83:11,16 86:8 96:3 108:24 short (3) 43:19 89:23 133:19 solicitor (2) 94:13 102:11 158:16 162:12 173:25
rely (5) 8:20 18:5,8 92:7 row (3) 2:12 162:25,25 scenario (1) 92:17 116:5 117:19 151:23 shortcircuit (1) 80:25 solicitors (22) 49:14 175:4,19
159:2 rrd4 (7) 162:3,3,5 164:10 schedule (4) 74:7,16 90:15 sees (1) 131:8 shortly (1) 24:15 50:15,16 51:3 59:23 starting (2) 1:21 175:13
remember (3) 20:2 94:4 166:22,22,24 173:6 seizure (1) 97:1 shots (1) 6:15 66:9,14,18,20 67:1,7,13,19 starts (1) 15:25
150:8 rsa (6) 163:19,23 165:7,16 scheme (2) 161:10,13 selected (1) 164:4 should (18) 2:17 14:25 15:1 77:14 102:12 104:11 141:1 stated (11) 27:25 67:8
remembers (1) 155:4 166:4,5 schnorr (1) 161:12 selects (1) 62:15 21:12 49:14,24 50:19 172:14,18 173:7,16 176:10 70:2,9 79:8 111:13 115:17
remind (1) 3:1 rsas (2) 165:8,25 schnorreddsa (1) 161:2 sell (4) 47:18 85:9,25 123:2 64:11 66:19,21,22 121:5 solutions (1) 47:21 126:5 139:13 158:10
reminded (1) 59:6 ruling (2) 1:20,20 schooled (1) 176:23 send (7) 18:24 24:1 77:10 146:14,25 150:2 154:8 somebody (8) 19:8 35:17 173:25
remote (9) run (11) 36:11 43:6 47:7 science (2) 1:25 23:2 78:1 148:20 164:21,25 163:7 177:22 82:21,22 83:14 106:6,6 statement (34) 9:24 10:23
2:8,14,16,17,19,24 3:3,6,9 58:3 75:14 76:17 95:24 scientific (5) 14:5,7,24 17:7 sender (4) 63:24 120:4,8,21 shouldnt (1) 158:17 147:7 11:4,21 12:12,13 19:20
remotely (1) 156:17 124:4 151:24 152:3,4 36:4 sending (11) 20:13 47:24 show (15) 25:7 33:18 somehow (5) 7:1,12 39:10 22:24,25 71:24 72:21
removal (1) 15:20 running (11) 30:20 34:3 scratch (1) 52:10 62:2 65:2 75:22,24 84:3 42:14,21 70:6 82:12 145:7 157:13 77:12 78:20,21 80:8
removed (1) 112:24 38:20 45:25 52:25,25 53:1 screen (27) 2:23 3:25 4:15 121:8 138:3 139:15 150:7 90:12,13 92:5 94:13 someone (19) 3:7 27:2 34:23 88:13,17,20 110:12 141:16
removing (4) 15:17,21,22 86:17 136:14 146:21 8:5 43:25 64:24 76:3 79:22 senior (1) 75:11 103:18 127:8 136:3 144:16 39:10 56:7,8 62:3,4 142:13 143:13 148:5
16:21 170:10 86:3 90:7,12,13 103:19 sense (1) 174:12 148:15 65:2,7,10 77:1 79:14 150:13 151:20 159:5
repeat (1) 2:15 runs (1) 26:25 136:4 150:15,15,17,19 sent (49) 2:18 9:2,10 19:8,9 showed (8) 4:12,15 114:15 117:4 152:5 156:15 161:9,16,21 172:16,19
rephrase (1) 25:23 rushed (1) 1:9 151:8 152:12 153:2 154:19 23:14,17 24:18 28:24 60:8 17:11,11,12 55:21 82:12 157:5 164:17 173:9,12 176:7
replaced (2) 95:23 96:2 rusty (1) 10:12 155:11 156:17 177:2,19,23 67:10 69:5 70:3,10,17 130:10 someones (4) 42:19 62:1 statements (4) 155:11 156:7
replicable (1) 14:8 screenshot (10) 2:11 3:6 71:16,20 72:16 73:1,5 showing (13) 2:11 24:6 130:1 143:10 158:22 161:6
replicate (1) 16:25 S 4:21 5:16 17:10 23:25 77:1,6,25 78:24 33:10 70:10 84:19 128:4 something (15) 16:3,22 17:8 stating (1) 87:9
replicated (1) 17:8 82:11,13,16 150:16 79:2,3,5,6,8 83:20 86:25 136:7 138:14 139:23 148:1 29:13 35:8 39:3,21 51:22 stay (1) 129:10
reply (7) 11:1,1 62:15,23 s (7) 24:11 68:6 69:7 74:4 screenshots (18) 3:23 4:4,11 87:9,16 88:17,23 102:7 150:22 151:7 153:24 59:18 101:19 114:11 155:1 stefan (29) 9:17 13:5 19:17
68:9,10 70:15 77:6 130:8,9 5:13,23 6:1,1,6,7,17 103:6 104:25 120:23,25 shown (9) 7:5 13:22 25:9 164:13 176:15,18 20:5,23 21:4 22:5,6,9
replying (1) 60:21 s22146 (1) 104:12 148:24 149:7,15,17,19,23 122:4 140:2 149:22,24 82:10 84:25 102:4 128:12 sometimes (1) 26:6 37:2,6 74:23 75:3,6 76:22
report (12) 17:24 37:16 s22147 (2) 100:19 103:16 150:5,7 156:24 157:10 164:17 149:14 152:11 sort (22) 16:19 34:20,22,23 77:7,16 78:4,11,17,23
62:12 86:3 90:25 125:3 s22149 (1) 113:17 search (1) 22:12 177:13 178:14 shows (6) 38:2 41:5 53:3 47:10 57:9 59:20 83:2,8 79:3,14 88:18,22,23 149:2
130:13 142:12 143:7 sadly (1) 119:13 searchable (1) 43:8 sentences (1) 72:4 85:15 131:5 175:17 110:18 112:11 114:13 150:5 157:1
144:13 169:7,8 saga (2) 148:3,6 searched (1) 41:19 separate (4) 42:21 78:16 shut (2) 76:14 170:16 118:20,21,25 119:2 130:8 step (1) 67:19
reports (3) 16:24 143:21,22 same (51) 13:14 14:22 searching (1) 22:14 143:7 162:18 shutting (1) 145:3 145:20 146:21 152:25 steven (3) 3:15 124:16 180:4
repositories (1) 178:23 34:13,14,24 35:19,19 seats (1) 2:13 separately (2) 39:16 130:5 sick (1) 71:11 168:20 171:6 still (19) 22:21 34:24 38:13
repository (2) 33:23 170:1 45:1,11 70:16 71:19,22,23 sebastian (1) 26:24 separator (2) 36:1,8 side (10) 8:5,16 50:1,2 96:13 sorts (2) 51:4 156:11 41:16,16 49:24 66:13 77:3
represent (1) 174:11 72:2,5,12,20 73:22,23 74:2 second (9) 2:7 11:23 32:24 september (6) 9:2 103:21 99:13,15 130:16 154:15,15 sought (3) 1:23 111:19 159:2 113:3 123:9 145:13,25
representative (3) 94:24 79:17 83:3 88:14,15 99:6 38:16 49:13 94:6 162:4 148:13,19,22 152:8 sign (6) 113:9 130:3 138:18 sound (1) 72:15 146:22 152:2 174:16
149:20 157:16 104:7 109:20 113:20 165:23 176:13 sequence (1) 5:13 140:5 157:17 164:22 source (18) 15:23 31:12 175:24 176:20,20 178:22
representatives (1) 94:16 117:16 119:19 124:12 secondly (3) 1:20 84:4 88:16 series (10) 6:2 33:10 55:24 signature (16) 88:6 110:25 33:2,4,6 34:21 50:23 stoic (1) 118:14
represents (1) 171:25 139:3 143:5 152:1 secret (1) 176:3 67:16 80:24 95:2 105:22 111:1 114:2 125:9,11 52:2,2,5 58:25 59:3,19 stood (1) 177:6
reprint (1) 127:9 154:6,21 160:6 164:23 section (6) 15:3 21:7 143:19 121:21 138:12 154:22 129:24 130:2,6,11 132:7 71:8 172:1,3 176:3 177:6 stop (3) 35:7 40:5 50:11
request (1) 148:14 165:16 175:1,3,16,17 171:12,21 177:25 server (19) 53:25 58:11,14 161:10 163:20,22,24 sourced (1) 38:10 stopped (2) 75:21 122:24
requested (2) 2:14,17 176:18,20 177:15,25 sections (3) 13:5 102:23 70:20 71:1 82:20,21 83:24 166:20 sourceforge (2) 27:8 178:21 story (10) 23:10,20,23 48:25
requesting (1) 134:11 178:3,4,6,8 177:6 84:1,8,8 86:11,16,17 87:5 signatures (9) 61:22,23 sources (5) 66:11,13,16 49:3 125:21 127:6 128:24
requests (1) 173:7 samsung (1) 152:20 secure (1) 75:14 137:14 142:6,7 143:6 110:14 116:2,2,6,7 130:11 115:1 140:1 139:24 167:2
require (1) 61:23 satoshi (41) 8:20 10:4 11:13 security (5) 143:22 146:20 servers (4) 47:7 83:8,12 86:7 161:12 south (1) 144:1 straight (3) 17:6 158:1
required (6) 45:22 59:10 20:15 24:16 28:20 29:9 160:11,15 165:17 service (1) 80:3 signed (7) 29:7 71:24 106:5 southern (1) 142:24 160:15
66:13 112:11 139:5 140:5 34:9 36:16 51:20 60:13 see (190) 4:1 5:2,10,12,13,16 services (4) 127:15 128:17 109:3 118:4 121:23 130:9 space (1) 167:3 straightforward (1) 178:18
requirement (1) 136:24 61:2,3,15,18,20 62:18,22 8:5,16 9:14,16 10:6 137:3,10 signify (1) 48:21 spaces (1) 45:2 strangely (1) 26:9
requirements (1) 14:16 63:25 89:7,9 91:21,23 13:13,19 22:17 23:20 set (44) 3:12 12:22 34:22 signing (1) 164:1 special (1) 152:4 strasan (1) 123:19
rereamended (2) 73:2,14 92:13,15,22 93:1,16,23 24:6,8,10 25:10 26:14 27:5 35:2 41:6 43:7 45:10 51:2 signs (3) 58:17,19 127:5 specific (3) 37:9 38:24 stream (2) 141:8 168:23
reremoving (1) 15:24 94:12 95:3,18,20,22 98:17 31:20,24,24 32:11 34:12 52:14 60:9 73:1,13 83:19 silly (2) 150:3,4 169:22 streams (1) 40:17
rescan (1) 127:9 164:4 165:6,7,19,24 36:13 37:18,22 38:2,5 98:3 99:2,3 100:13 similar (1) 131:12 specifically (2) 38:7 81:13 strict (1) 11:8
research (1) 162:4 166:18 39:15 40:19,25 41:22 101:17,20 102:9,12 110:12 similarly (1) 41:23 speed (4) 54:18 55:21,24 stroz (1) 142:11
researches (2) 57:19 81:14 satoshis (5) 44:20 45:11,16 44:22 45:23 53:8,20,23 111:13 112:25 118:25 simple (6) 15:16 17:15 45:7 56:5 structure (17) 36:19 39:9
reserved (2) 135:6 138:15 46:2 166:3 54:1,5,23 55:17,23 124:1 129:7 131:13,22 51:18 52:17 92:8 spelled (1) 44:18 83:4 86:19,20,21 98:3,7,20
reserving (2) 135:18 136:11 satoshivistomailcom (1) 68:4 57:10,13,17,22,25 132:19,22,23 133:1 136:20 since (6) 2:14 117:23 146:4 spend (1) 160:5 99:1,1,25 100:14 126:2
reset (1) 76:10 savanah (1) 106:10 60:12,25 62:17,18,24 63:5 142:23 143:11,13 153:10 172:8,9 176:16 spent (2) 71:12 111:22 127:3 132:18,19
respect (2) 15:11 44:9 savannah (7) 106:6 110:15 68:16 69:6,9,11,20 155:22 156:21 157:4 sincere (1) 55:19 spikes (1) 155:3 structures (3) 32:22 34:13
respectfully (1) 104:23 116:22 118:1 124:16 70:12,13,14 73:24 74:3,13 158:12 159:21 163:5 sincerely (1) 62:11 spk (1) 144:9 83:5
respects (3) 38:8 72:1 73:7 125:10 126:25 77:8 78:10 79:2,17 82:7,13 sets (1) 120:7 singapore (1) 133:2 spoke (2) 20:23 157:12 student (1) 61:7
respond (1) 23:17 saved (2) 32:10 144:6 83:24 84:12,18,23 85:11 setting (5) 72:24 91:22 single (5) 114:18,20,24 spoken (2) 61:15 113:8 studied (2) 117:8,9
response (2) 22:21 23:8 saw (8) 13:15 37:6 84:6 86:4 87:13 90:17,19 101:22 145:23 167:25 137:9 143:8 spoof (1) 62:3 studio (3) 52:14,24 53:7
rest (2) 127:10 179:6 110:14 113:21 119:20 91:3,5,15 94:15,16,21 settled (1) 105:22 site (2) 25:20 27:16 spoofed (3) 64:3 65:10 68:18 stuff (3) 67:12 159:5 162:17
restrictions (1) 112:24 120:20 151:16 95:8,13 97:15,23 98:4,10 settlement (1) 133:8 sites (2) 143:4,7 spoofing (1) 66:3 stupid (1) 155:20
result (7) 1:19 40:8 70:19 saying (64) 10:15 11:15 99:11 100:19 101:8,14,25 settling (1) 127:3 sits (1) 38:20 sporting (1) 30:22 subject (3) 68:6 69:3 146:7
83:24 86:7,11 87:5 14:15,24 20:18 25:2 26:21 102:17 103:19,21 105:9,18 several (8) 14:17 35:24 43:3 sitting (1) 176:1 spyder (1) 153:2 submitted (5) 11:9 121:2
results (2) 14:23 15:4 27:1 29:5 35:15 39:5,9 106:5,13,15,18,22 64:10 88:10 111:22 116:14 situation (3) 100:10,12 spyderrtf (3) 151:4 122:13,18 124:7
retain (1) 41:16 48:12 55:5 56:7 61:14,25 107:2,24 109:20 110:2 139:18 145:19 152:19,24 subparagraph (1) 5:15
return (5) 3:19 90:1 65:1 67:2 70:13 72:13,14 113:14,17,18 114:12 117:6 seychelles (10) 106:7 117:9 six (1) 57:3 ssrn (12) 14:3 15:22 subsequent (1) 7:25
99:10,18 144:15 76:24 77:22,25 79:2 81:1,4 119:11,16 118:24 127:14,17,23 sixmonth (1) 123:2 16:17,22 24:3,6 25:19 substance (1) 17:18
returned (1) 101:3 82:18,19,23 83:1,6 84:13 120:1,5,10,14,17 122:2 128:11 129:21 133:4 size (5) 160:25 166:10,17 26:14,19,25 27:6,24 substantial (1) 138:14
returning (1) 12:21 85:24 90:8 95:25 98:1 99:3 123:16 124:15,22 148:15 178:9,9 staff (16) 34:4 35:12,17 substantiate (7) 91:20
review (1) 100:7 100:1,13 101:21 104:6 125:4,9,14,17 shadow (2) 19:5 125:14 skilled (1) 156:15 36:20 38:10 43:3 47:17 92:13,25 93:15 94:12
rewrote (1) 102:14 108:9 114:7,8,23,24 127:13,19,24 shall (1) 25:15 slack (1) 55:24 64:11,14 68:23 75:16 95:3,17
rfi (1) 72:22 115:7,22 116:13 122:18 128:3,6,12,13 129:23,25 shareholder (7) 121:6 122:17 slight (2) 19:5 35:21 110:22 122:20,22 123:4,4 substantiating (2) 92:14
ridge (5) 81:19,25 83:1,2,20 129:13,18 132:12 135:12 131:4,13,25 134:16,25 126:1,3 136:24 147:18,18 slightly (3) 71:15 105:13 stage (5) 46:14 87:13 112:17 95:20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

success (1) 147:9 teach (1) 51:23 118:20 130:7 145:20 133:24 134:20 135:19 96:19 142:10 152:11 51:24 53:13 57:7,9 63:23 152:8 160:17 164:5 165:5
successful (1) 146:5 team (9) 19:9 23:14,19 24:1 146:21 147:2 150:3 157:5 138:15 144:16 148:2 turned (2) 35:25 133:9 68:1 73:3 77:2 80:12 167:5
sued (1) 147:10 32:19 33:24 36:11 38:13 thinking (1) 155:8 trained (1) 143:23 turning (1) 7:22 136:16 142:18 144:3 way (43) 6:23 7:5 16:9
suggest (18) 12:10 18:5,10 161:10 third (21) 3:10 11:10,19 training (2) 61:6 143:25 tweeted (2) 10:7 155:13 156:14 168:4 25:1,16 33:12 35:3 36:6
47:3 49:14 56:19 58:2,7 teams (2) 33:1 159:9 38:18 49:19 50:10 60:7 transaction (2) 32:24 160:14 tweeting (3) 156:2,17 158:16 usual (2) 89:18 179:5 39:11 40:9 41:9 43:6
61:17 67:14,15 73:5 92:11 technically (5) 30:12 49:12 66:6,8,19 67:8,10 91:5 transactions (2) 38:16 tweets (2) 10:16 156:9 ut (1) 60:14 45:7,10 59:21 64:20 84:13
96:15 128:17 137:7 139:11 59:24 122:14 146:22 116:3,5 137:14 156:14,20 160:14 twitter (5) 2:10 38:18 93:24 utdrag (1) 100:21 92:16 93:20 96:1 97:3
143:16 technology (1) 19:24 168:20 169:5,25 transcribed (1) 13:4 94:1 95:20 utterly (1) 155:4 103:15 111:17 112:24
suggested (1) 40:9 telling (1) 148:19 thirdly (2) 1:21 84:5 transcript (8) 76:20 97:15 twofactor (1) 77:2 uyen (6) 60:14 61:5,14 64:25 115:12,14 118:7,12,22
suggesting (2) 144:18 146:5 template (8) 167:24 though (4) 71:12 126:12 101:13 107:1 108:24 type (5) 63:10 66:7 92:17 106:10 116:20 124:5 127:16 130:16
suggestion (1) 66:2 168:11,12,16,22 140:4 164:18 113:10,23 116:10 103:12 153:24 132:22 141:25 143:1
suggests (3) 132:16 144:21 169:2,9,22 thought (6) 67:25 73:12 transcripts (1) 51:14 typed (3) 28:5 30:2 103:5 V 146:24 157:8 166:6,9
164:8 templates (5) 168:12,18,22 78:25 109:6 113:1 123:13 transfer (9) 103:20 135:15 174:2 176:10,18 178:3
U
suitably (1) 18:4 169:2,4 thousand (1) 146:17 136:2,7,8,12 137:11,12,13 v (2) 11:2 95:10 wayback (1) 24:5
sum (1) 136:7 ten (1) 126:13 threatened (1) 111:21 transferable (4) 9:18 19:18 uk (1) 124:12 valid (4) 80:7 99:24 110:18 ways (1) 45:6
summary (3) 2:15,22 30:8 tens (1) 89:7 three (6) 1:15 4:4 8:15 99:17 20:6,22 ultimate (3) 131:7,9 132:1 119:3 wdi (1) 102:10
supersedes (1) 86:19 teranode (1) 32:21 101:5 106:11 transferred (3) 105:25 ultimately (1) 156:25 validate (2) 111:15 116:4 wdiorg (1) 132:20
supervisory (1) 146:19 term (3) 26:1 123:16 124:22 threshold (1) 85:22 146:13,18 ultraedit (1) 39:6 validated (2) 110:17 144:8 wdr (1) 132:22
supplied (1) 3:7 terms (7) 70:4,11 110:7,11 threw (3) 111:19 118:15,18 translation (1) 91:12 uml (1) 41:25 value (4) 23:21 60:23 61:15 web (4) 40:2,3 63:7 64:21
supply (1) 36:17 112:7 116:8 177:16 through (14) 9:3 38:11 transmission (9) 62:21 unable (3) 117:23 169:21 63:10 website (4) 24:7,20 25:9
support (13) 4:20 10:4,5,20 terrible (1) 118:13 59:25 62:8 67:22 71:1,4 63:2,3,3 80:22 84:2,5,24 170:2 vangsnes (1) 94:18 27:20
23:23 32:25 36:16 48:16 terribly (3) 14:14 64:15 80:25 94:7 98:1 139:17 86:9 unanswered (1) 23:3 variety (3) 75:22 138:1 week (1) 2:18
61:2,19 80:12 115:11 101:18 143:6 144:9 164:18 travers (5) unceremoniously (1) 96:2 144:24 weeks (1) 145:14
125:20 test (8) 15:6 46:7,9 54:18 throw (1) 135:25 157:12,14,18,19,21 undergone (1) 70:25 various (6) 25:7 96:19,25 wei (2) 24:16 160:6
supported (1) 18:4 55:21 56:5 143:14,17 throwing (1) 118:17 treated (2) 49:15 50:19 underlying (1) 19:24 98:8 104:16 105:19 weight (1) 115:6
supporter (4) 10:7,15,15,22 testimony (2) 72:7 99:23 thursday (4) 1:1 103:21 treblechecked (2) 159:8,10 undermined (1) 18:7 vault (1) 85:20 weird (1) 111:17
supportive (2) 61:14 156:23 testing (1) 36:4 134:7 135:8 tree (1) 83:4 underneath (1) 153:25 verdict (1) 147:8 went (18) 23:3 32:18 48:4
supposed (3) 30:10,25 113:1 tests (2) 17:21 55:24 thus (4) 1:11 89:11 122:16 trial (8) 22:10 99:8 100:20 understand (10) 2:1 46:12 verifiable (1) 138:23 67:22 80:23 83:1 93:19
supposedly (6) 48:22 68:4,5 text (12) 37:25 38:6 44:25 157:16 106:15,21 107:1 113:19 81:23 83:20 96:22 103:2 verification (1) 63:24 94:7 116:1 118:15 129:1
80:20 81:2 82:1 45:1 69:11 71:19,25 74:23 tiff (3) 32:7,16 33:13 157:5 118:19 123:8 148:18 verified (3) 11:4,21 12:12 139:7 144:9 150:6,6
sure (16) 26:23 28:3 32:17 94:11 125:14 128:17 171:3 tim (2) 160:7,20 tribunal (2) 112:23 170:12 149:17 version (71) 6:5,22 7:12 8:9 157:23 158:3,10
51:2 59:3 60:16 87:20 textbook (1) 143:19 time (43) 6:17 13:10 25:6 trick (1) 130:4 understanding (3) 34:17 13:6 24:7,20,21,23 werent (5) 72:12 93:2 94:3
103:1 104:10 117:10 textedit (1) 128:4 32:14 33:25 36:19 38:12 tried (6) 14:22 23:1 75:14 72:11 109:17 25:3,9,10,11,19,21,22 118:6 126:12
147:19 157:21 158:23 textual (1) 53:19 43:9 57:3 58:4,7,8 62:8 85:8,8,25 undertook (1) 46:5 26:1,2,4,8,13,18 weve (10) 4:9 38:24 40:4
159:3,8 172:21 thank (15) 15:14 19:14 72:16 74:11 81:8 102:5 trouble (1) 48:4 undid (1) 26:10 27:7,11,14,15,17 42:8 54:22 60:6 89:14
surname (1) 94:17 22:17 43:13,16,17,21 103:11 111:2 126:17 true (2) 29:4,5 unfortunate (1) 159:13 28:1,3,14,19,19,21,25 31:1 120:19 166:13 177:23
svn (3) 174:2,3 175:25 44:24 60:18 89:21,25 136:11 138:24 139:4,11 trupti (1) 34:2 unfortunately (5) 8:2 14:23 40:2,3 42:14,17 45:17 whatever (2) 89:13 151:20
swathe (1) 3:10 121:19 133:17 173:5 179:8 140:24 142:4 144:7 155:22 trust (85) 3:13 75:13 96:20 112:24 116:7 155:20 46:3,12 47:4,13 48:5 52:6 whatevers (1) 35:2
swear (2) 107:20 108:14 thankfully (1) 159:7 156:9 161:25 162:21 97:1,6,7,16 98:3,7,20 university (3) 61:7 153:8,10 69:18 71:16 73:22 74:16 whats (4) 56:19 94:9 109:21
sweave (1) 16:4 thanks (3) 101:7 135:1 179:9 164:17,23 165:21 166:12 99:1,1,2,4,25 unless (1) 18:7 80:20 83:11 113:25 119:24 166:16
swore (7) 107:14 108:15 thats (106) 3:25 5:20 9:20 167:14 168:4 174:4 100:1,13,14,16 101:20,23 unlike (2) 5:17 17:20 127:21 132:23 141:9 whatsapp (3) 9:2,11 19:8
109:2 115:21,24 117:17,18 10:13,22 11:18 15:20,22 175:7,12 176:23,25 178:25 102:8,9,12,13,25 unlock (1) 164:19 153:7,14 160:2 161:12 wherever (1) 39:21
sworn (2) 107:8 112:15 16:18 17:13 19:1,6 22:19 times (16) 5:3 10:17 26:5 103:19,20 104:1,7,8 105:4 unnamed (1) 106:11 168:7 174:1,20 white (16) 8:9 9:25 10:10
sydney (1) 87:1 29:24 30:3 33:9 34:15 28:5 49:5,6 51:5 57:4 106:19,20,23 107:12,24,24 unpick (1) 148:10 175:8,17,20 176:8,11 13:6 19:21 21:20 23:2 24:7
system (31) 3:23 4:5 6:17 35:16 37:7 39:1 40:6,14 92:10 103:12 107:16,16 108:5,8 109:10,19,22,24 unreliable (8) 66:4,10,12,17 178:11,15 26:14,19 27:8,20,21 29:3
8:4 19:25 30:9,13,19 41:2 42:17,17,20,25 44:20 110:23 142:3 155:19 162:1 110:7,11,16,22 67:4,21 169:15,20 versioning (2) 25:16 43:10 31:7 176:6
35:4,6,14 36:20 38:14,20 45:4 46:11,17 48:14 timestamp (1) 80:22 111:3,10,13,25 until (13) 56:23 98:8 versions (22) 10:10 24:22 whoever (2) 65:5,7
43:2 51:1 49:2,10 54:21,24 55:1,2 timestamps (4) 32:4 84:6 112:7,7,9,12,21,22 113:12 100:3,17 102:13 110:17 25:1,5,12 26:2 27:6,13,19 whois (4) 80:3,7 142:3 143:6
65:11,12,15,17,18 75:13 56:3 57:20 59:13 63:8,16 120:13,17 114:16 115:6 116:8,22 111:14,14 112:10,22 152:8 28:24 35:22,24 36:2,12 whole (13) 26:9 31:24 62:9
85:20,22 141:1,2 151:25 64:2,18 68:24 70:4,21 71:1 timetable (2) 1:7 2:3 117:21,22,22 118:22,25 171:6 179:11 73:20 87:23 122:7 127:1 67:11,16 72:3 80:24 81:9
160:18,19 164:9,11 73:10,22 74:15 76:24 timing (1) 84:3 121:21,25 122:1,8 124:15 unusual (1) 13:14 130:18 133:22 160:16 90:19 103:18 113:18 131:1
systems (7) 30:16 34:1 38:21 77:25 78:15 82:4 85:17 title (3) 35:19 40:22 56:4 126:1,3 127:3,22 128:5 unusually (1) 40:16 176:15 154:22
67:3 83:12 146:18,20 86:12,22 87:18 90:6,9 91:8 titled (1) 122:3 132:17,19,20,24 134:10 update (3) 152:6 174:16 video (2) 2:23 154:4 whom (2) 58:23 59:16
92:11 94:1,25 100:5 today (2) 78:20 145:12 150:3 155:20 176:19 videos (1) 151:23 whose (4) 17:20 65:14
T
101:5,11,11 105:2 106:24 together (9) 75:21 85:18 trusted (1) 3:11 updated (9) 34:23 41:7 42:9 violations (1) 93:24 120:21 161:10

tab (2) 153:8,11 108:9,9,20 115:4 116:15 114:2,9,15 115:3 122:21 trustee (6) 116:21,21 86:22 162:16 172:7 174:21 virtually (1) 35:18 wife (12) 49:21,23 64:13,14

table (1) 13:22 119:16,19 122:12 124:10 124:13 128:25 117:3,21,22 124:20 176:18,21 vistomail (6) 61:9,11 64:1 76:15 80:15 124:2

tabs (7) 151:1,7,16,18 125:24 128:21 131:18 token (6) 9:17 19:17 trustees (9) 105:18 106:9 updates (7) 18:17,20 35:21 69:17 79:19 87:18 145:18,21 146:9 147:14

152:11 154:21,22 138:22,25 139:12 140:1,4 20:5,9,22 30:22 110:8,11 116:15,19,23 43:9 163:11 174:4,4 visual (8) 33:18 42:6 155:4

tabulated (1) 16:3 144:11,19 145:8,19 148:17 tokenised (2) 19:25 47:21 117:2,25 updating (1) 174:5 51:23,24 52:1,14,24 53:7 wifes (5) 64:9,10 75:11,17

tag (1) 128:4 149:4 153:19 159:13 told (12) 49:3 72:19 77:21 trustpdf (2) 104:19 122:3 upload (4) 24:3 26:21,22 visually (2) 15:19 35:18 137:15

taken (14) 4:4 6:6 12:1,15 160:20 162:12 164:11 78:1 114:17 148:13 trustpdfasc (1) 104:18 27:24 viveca (1) 137:23 wikborg (7) 91:9,13

18:24 33:8 63:20 67:19 165:14 167:14 171:17 157:1,7,14 158:1 167:7 trustpdftarasc (1) 104:18 uploaded (13) 24:8,20 voicetype (1) 103:13 94:3,10,22,24 96:4

70:8 123:8 149:18 156:23 174:15,19 177:13 171:3 trusts (2) 12:3 117:10 25:9,19 26:13,18 volume (1) 91:8 wilson (5) 85:5,5,19,23 88:5

158:8 178:10 themself (1) 65:3 too (4) 137:5 160:25 166:17 trusttulip (1) 129:14 27:1,6,8,13 28:2,13,19 voting (1) 112:11 win (1) 100:8

takenproduced (1) 6:15 theory (1) 58:22 179:5 truth (7) 11:4,21 12:12,13 uploading (1) 27:19 vouch (1) 110:24 windows (4) 51:24 151:18

taking (7) 23:21,24 28:25 therefore (5) 31:6 50:19 66:3 took (14) 3:6 11:15 12:8 71:24 78:20 144:19 upon (2) 28:13 159:2 vpn (3) 47:6,7 152:7 152:3,4

40:5 103:21 115:2 152:11 89:13 100:11 19:7 20:12 23:11 101:23 try (6) 82:16 121:19 161:1 ups (1) 143:11 vulnerabilities (1) 36:11 wired (1) 75:23

talk (4) 89:19 103:13 118:24 thereof (1) 149:21 102:9 126:22,23 154:4 164:7,8 166:17 url (2) 57:16 58:4 wires (1) 153:25

179:5 theres (27) 14:23 17:6 19:15 170:10,13 171:4 trying (17) 20:17 23:19 us1 (1) 124:18 W wisely (1) 3:4

talked (2) 145:21 178:13 21:7,25 22:17 30:5 35:24 tool (7) 41:3,6 84:19 144:4,4 29:2,6 41:9 71:12 81:21 us144 (1) 145:17 wishes (1) 56:8

talking (15) 28:21 34:1 38:15 38:4 51:12 56:20 68:1 168:20 169:25 85:11 95:6 97:11,13 us34 (1) 133:8 wait (2) 11:23 49:13 withdrawn (1) 158:25

92:6 99:25 101:15 103:10 76:17 81:9 84:25 91:25 tools (4) 33:24 34:19 41:24 104:22 118:14 127:6 usd (1) 146:8 waive (1) 141:3 witness (20) 9:24 19:19

116:9 119:1 141:5 143:4 93:3 119:4 130:25 43:6 132:15 139:14,17 used (31) 11:15 13:10 14:25 wales (1) 144:1 22:24,24 72:21 77:12

147:12 150:1 166:12,25 136:22,23 138:23 145:16 topic (5) 20:24 24:3 143:24 tuesday (2) 1:11,16 20:25 25:4 33:24 35:12 walk (2) 21:10 155:6 78:21 141:16 142:13

talks (1) 85:22 146:16 153:8 157:8 162:17 144:3 166:14 tulip (32) 12:3 96:20,20 38:12 41:6 42:15 47:6 wanting (2) 30:17 164:8 143:13 148:4 151:19

tampered (5) 58:21,23 59:15 theyd (1) 6:22 tor (3) 69:17 79:19 87:18 104:18,18,19 105:5,25 48:14 51:23 71:15 77:9 wants (2) 145:15,25 155:11 156:7 158:21 159:5

60:4 88:3 theyre (20) 6:1 12:14 34:20 tortoisesvn (1) 174:2 106:20 111:12 115:19 82:16 86:12 90:8 96:6,12 warning (1) 89:18 172:15,19 173:8,12

targeted (1) 170:16 37:14 41:24 52:21 92:5 toshi (1) 156:3 117:21,22 121:21 115:12,13,15,16 133:5 wasnt (38) 7:15 12:7,8 13:9 witnesses (2) 18:3 22:9

taught (3) 144:1,2 165:15 93:7 94:25 127:16 140:4 totally (3) 101:24 102:3,5 122:1,3,8 124:19 144:23 152:6 160:19 23:12 28:14,20 29:4 wk (4) 129:1,4,10 145:14

tax (15) 67:10 97:11,19 98:9 144:8 146:18,19 touchup (1) 128:4 125:21,25 126:1 127:4,24 161:18 168:11,20 33:10,11,12 42:15 49:3 wolf (1) 75:15

110:1 121:1,3,11 139:5,16 154:6,10,17 158:3 175:3 towards (2) 120:11 153:22 129:14 132:17 133:24 user (1) 53:22 50:14 68:21,21 73:8,15 won (3) 100:8,10 112:23

140:3,6,9 170:11,15 178:5 trade (1) 127:11 134:20 135:19 138:4,15 username (1) 62:2 91:23 99:24 100:11,11 wont (4) 59:7 68:2 144:14

taxpayer (8) 121:22 theyve (1) 58:21 trading (17) 96:20 105:5,25 144:16 148:2 uses (1) 82:8 102:8 111:3 113:6 175:1

122:7,13,14 123:16,22 thing (14) 56:23 78:16 90:19 115:19 124:19 125:21,25 tuomas (1) 23:1 using (21) 13:9 14:5 26:1 117:10,21 121:4,15 123:24 wording (1) 150:8

124:6,7 98:22,23 109:20 115:5 127:4,24 129:14 132:17 turn (6) 28:18 36:8 90:23 40:11 42:11 43:10 45:8 130:10 131:18 137:15 work (17) 20:20 21:18,20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 4

32:17 36:24 47:8 55:14 100000 (1) 124:18 117:23 119:20 120:14
Y 5
62:9 69:19 135:23 146:12 100cents (1) 122:25 122:4,10 124:16 127:3
160:20 162:11 163:2 101 (3) 113:11,23 116:10 128:11 129:24 130:19,24
yeah (2) 32:5 147:14 5 (6) 33:15 37:20 106:9
174:9,15,17 102 (3) 89:22 116:11,12 132:10,18 134:2,21 135:22
year (10) 34:9 39:1 69:13 113:24 119:25 120:11
worked (6) 37:5 58:13 61:7 103 (1) 116:12 139:12,23 144:19 161:18
136:18 137:9 138:18 50 (6) 43:2 70:15 107:16,16
71:9 142:22,22 1030 (3) 1:2 179:7,11 162:4,5,6,8,22 163:12
161:17 174:23 175:1 176:5 123:4 133:9
working (20) 20:16 21:2 10339121201 (2) 84:20 85:1 165:20 166:24
years (12) 35:15,16 57:3 52 (3) 26:13,16 125:13
32:20,22 36:2,5,10,13,20 108 (1) 95:12 172:11,12,13
64:8 71:10,12 84:3 111:22 53 (1) 73:8
69:13 82:22 85:17 109 (2) 121:14,18 2012 (11) 42:4 105:6 108:16
142:22 167:3,4 174:25 55 (2) 27:5 32:13
122:21,21 140:15 157:15 11 (8) 37:20 38:4,5 103:25 109:10,25 110:1,14 121:12
yellow (1) 8:15 57 (3) 91:8 95:9,9
173:13 174:1,7 175:20 106:3 120:12 121:14 152:4 170:7,19 171:6
yesterday (6) 2:9 3:20,21 4:3
works (4) 59:21 141:25 1124 (1) 32:2 2013 (11) 13:9 57:24 58:4,7
7:6 13:16 6
142:25 174:3 1137 (1) 43:18 85:7 119:14 121:12 162:14
yet (5) 47:22 117:16 132:14
wouldnt (19) 10:4 34:16 1147 (1) 43:20 163:6,8 178:22
144:14 145:9 6 (16) 4:12,17 6:16 21:7
51:3,4 52:11,12 56:22 58:4 117 (1) 122:2 2014 (31) 47:16,25 60:17
youd (14) 6:18 48:6 70:2,3 33:17 45:9 63:1 68:6 69:5
61:3,11 82:13 96:16 11th (4) 141:16 142:13 61:9,18 69:5 75:20 119:10
72:23,24 85:14 97:18,19 103:21 107:4 120:16
135:20,21 136:11,12,16 148:4 151:19 122:11 125:6 126:4
99:3 102:20,24 103:4 137:21,22 138:6,7
139:25 165:14 12 (11) 39:12 44:11 53:17 127:5,6,19 128:20 130:20
109:15 60 (1) 84:23
wr (1) 91:9 69:9 70:17 71:20 73:3 131:13 132:9,15 134:1,7
youll (6) 63:7 69:21 139:2 600 (3) 133:7 147:10,11
wright (141) 1:11,21 74:3,25 82:2 120:16 135:19 136:5 138:8,15
154:5 155:10 162:3 60007000 (1) 136:22
3:15,16,19 7:15 8:2 11:2 120 (1) 128:8 139:12,25 141:17,22
youre (61) 6:19 7:1,9 61 (1) 131:6
14:18 15:8 16:7 17:19 129 (2) 55:3,18 142:18 144:17
10:14,15,16 14:15,25 15:9 62 (1) 131:6
18:1,13 23:10,21 24:11 1294546171 (1) 55:4 2015 (14) 39:16 58:8 68:6
25:2,16 26:1,3 28:21,25 637 (1) 74:12
25:7,25 26:18 27:8,21 12c (1) 55:16 74:23 75:21 76:11,22
29:5 34:1,17 35:7,10,15 650 (1) 2:15
28:18 29:17 31:4,14 13 (3) 5:10 57:10 163:7 77:7,16 80:23 125:6,16
39:9 41:9 42:5,11,13 43:10
35:7,15 36:14 38:24 40:7 1320 (1) 171:21 142:5 172:9
48:12 61:25 69:22 70:13 7
41:11,13 42:21 43:14,22 13c (1) 45:9 2016 (3) 42:15,22 102:14
73:8 76:7 82:18,19 85:11
48:21 49:9 51:4,18,22 14 (2) 108:7 119:24 2017 (5) 18:21 34:2 56:24 7 (7) 4:12,18 6:16 33:7 54:4
86:17 92:5 93:10 99:3
56:12 58:16 59:2,6 60:5,12 140 (1) 145:16 145:12 152:22 93:13 107:1
100:25 101:20 114:6
65:23 68:6 69:7 70:17,18 148 (1) 131:3 2018 (1) 55:25 70 (1) 112:11
122:18 124:11 130:17,22
71:20 72:10 74:4 76:3 77:6 14th (1) 125:1 2019 (9) 6:12 9:2 19:8 24:6 71 (5) 83:22 91:19 93:9,14
136:23 140:18 141:5
78:18 79:12,12,12,15,15 15 (3) 32:24 38:16 116:12 26:18,23 28:13 50:9 95:17
142:10,15 143:1 148:3
85:12 87:2 88:10 89:18 16 (6) 46:13 57:24 134:7 114:14 71d (2) 86:4,9
156:5 161:16 166:6,9,12
90:1,17 91:18,21 92:21,22 135:8 153:22 160:3 2020 (19) 4:12,18 5:4,18,24 75 (1) 173:12
168:10,15
93:2,6,14 94:3,8 96:13,22 1650 (1) 136:8 6:8 18:21 98:8 99:18 77 (1) 173:12
yours (12) 27:25 54:8,10,25
99:10,18 100:3,16 101:3 17 (9) 29:21 45:21 119:10 100:3,17 101:4 110:17,17 78page (1) 29:18
55:2,10 56:21 65:12
102:10 105:5 107:14,23 122:11 127:19 134:1 111:14,14 112:6,10,22 79 (1) 176:4
154:21 156:21 177:16
108:6,14 109:19,22 111:12 135:12 136:5 154:2 2023 (3) 67:1 148:19 167:12
178:10
114:22 115:18,21 17474129154 (2) 54:4 55:9 2024 (2) 1:1 179:12 8
yourself (7) 21:5 22:7 74:2
121:16,25 122:4 124:6,16 18 (2) 58:1 63:12 203 (1) 55:18
80:21 81:2 103:9 153:5
127:2 130:8,9 132:14 19 (3) 55:12 63:18 116:10 20357217 (1) 47:5 8 (6) 1:1 34:6 45:14,15
youve (24) 10:17 15:24
133:10,21 137:6 139:9,21 194 (1) 107:4 20th (1) 150:12 91:15 148:13
17:17 19:19 29:20 31:15
140:16,24 142:11 19474129154 (3) 54:3,24 21 (9) 24:13 26:18 28:1 83 (1) 81:11
35:8 40:9 51:14 55:22
144:15,20 146:4 147:6 55:8 108:13 112:6 121:19 88 (2) 91:3 163:1
59:14 61:4 65:4 77:20 78:1
148:2 152:11 154:20 1990s (1) 58:13 124:16 129:24 134:2
108:24 133:11 139:22
155:14 156:5 158:6 1st (1) 99:18 22 (1) 57:1 9
146:4 147:15,25 159:1
159:10,18 160:9 162:7 23 (3) 97:18 105:6 109:18
162:19 165:3
2 9 (22) 5:4,18,24 6:8,15
165:12 167:21 168:19 24 (5) 104:14 105:2 122:4,10
170:9,14,23 171:10,14 Z 2 (9) 31:12 56:2 105:17 138:8 13:18 22:3,17 32:15
177:1 178:7,17 179:5 113:15 134:25 135:5 163:7 25 (1) 177:14 37:19,22 54:4 74:23 76:22
180:4 z (2) 151:14 153:17 26 (1) 97:17 77:7,16 80:23 99:7,15
164:25 168:1
wrightcridgesestatecom (1) zafar (2) 157:4 158:1 27 (1) 57:10 120:3 148:19 179:12
20 (14) 8:24 9:23 17:15
73:3 zero (1) 164:10 28 (4) 13:25 60:17 73:1,14 90 (4) 22:25 162:25,25,25
31:13 44:2 53:11 60:11
wrights (1) 27:19 zip (1) 149:7 285 (5) 99:8,16,21 100:19,21 9062008 (1) 31:25
74:7 85:20 142:22 143:6
write (5) 13:7 102:7 104:5 zoom (2) 12:24 154:3 29 (1) 14:19 90s (2) 132:20,21
145:1 146:16 150:10
176:22,23 zooming (1) 34:7 93 (2) 72:22,25
200 (1) 89:24
zotero (2) 153:17,20 3
writer (1) 164:8 2002 (7) 162:11,20 97 (1) 98:6
writes (2) 91:16 165:24 163:2,8,11,14,15 3 (7) 44:11 105:23 134:19 98 (2) 77:13,23
writing (7) 15:2 20:2 0 99 (1) 99:6
2004 (1) 58:14 135:1 164:25 180:4,5
21:24,25 29:21 113:12 2005 (2) 162:14 163:6 30 (3) 30:14 57:15 83:21
000537 (1) 16:9
164:7 2007 (1) 29:21 300andsomething (1) 36:18
000840 (1) 57:12
written (28) 8:13 18:17,18 2008 (48) 10:3 18:17,18 304 (2) 113:14,19
000856 (1) 169:18
21:22 24:13 19:20 24:13,23 25:11,22 306 (1) 133:18
004011 (1) 16:8
28:1,2,4,6,20,22,23 29:3 26:5 28:1,7 29:4 32:4,15 308 (1) 116:15
004014 (1) 173:21
48:6 51:25 74:3 101:18 37:22 42:16 46:2 61:13 314 (1) 133:20
004015 (1) 173:20
102:16,20 103:4 159:25 69:9 70:17 71:20 73:3 31a (1) 57:20
008 (1) 95:10
160:23 162:1,7,20 163:11 74:3,25 81:19 82:2 171:14 33 (2) 39:12 147:18
01 (1) 147:12
166:16 171:16 173:14,24 3330 (2) 7:25 8:4
010 (1) 45:17
wrong (22) 10:14 39:5 46:14 174:1,9,12,13,14,17,20 34 (1) 58:1
01st (1) 101:4
55:7,13,19 58:12,12 75:15 175:5,7,9,18,19,23,24 35 (3) 160:22 163:17 166:15
05 (1) 58:14
76:19 90:24 92:11 121:18 176:8,16 177:7,13 178:16 350 (1) 176:6
0739 (1) 74:11
123:24 131:1,1 140:18 20089 (1) 86:19 36 (4) 81:11 106:18,20,22
0846 (1) 74:23
143:10,10,12 144:8 172:25 2009 (30) 18:18 21:21 24:24 36c (1) 40:21
093344 (1) 134:23
wrote (10) 9:5 23:12,24 25:10,21 26:3 27:7,9,14 38 (1) 128:3
85:23 101:19,24 102:4 28:14,20,22 34:9 36:12 39 (1) 128:12
1
158:21 172:1,3 52:18 61:13 80:2 83:19
wwwwhatismyipcom (1) 4
1 (12) 32:24 68:7 100:21 95:11 97:9,21 135:24
57:17 105:13 132:23 135:8,11 148:3,16 168:1,13 169:2 4 (9) 9:2 11:6 44:14 62:14
138:10 162:2 164:25 170:5 171:5 174:9 95:11 106:5,18 113:15
X
166:23 180:3 201 (1) 56:4 123:15
x (3) 2:10 121:5 122:16 10 (11) 37:24 44:13 45:25 2010 (1) 85:21 40 (3) 125:2,2 168:24
x500 (2) 83:2 86:19 93:13 95:8 106:1 148:22 2011 (52) 21:22 57:20,22 4000 (1) 176:5
x500type (1) 86:20 151:18 152:3 165:20 174:9 80:10,16 85:23 96:24 98:2 4076 (1) 5:12
xcase (1) 168:7 100 (6) 43:4 47:20 89:15 102:11,24 103:1,3,8,21 4077 (1) 5:12
xcopy (4) 17:11,11 57:7,9 143:21 146:8 147:11 104:14 105:2 106:1 110:12 428 (1) 179:10
xmp (2) 42:14 120:8 1000 (1) 176:5 112:22 113:13 115:19 4b (1) 11:6

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 5

February 9, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 Friday, 9 February 2024 1 someone said, ”Are you stressed”, and −− as I was
2 (10.30 am) 2 walking out, and I said , ”No, I’m fine”, basically , and
3 (Proceedings delayed) 3 then I left . I didn’t think that would be a breach,
4 (10.35 am) 4 my Lord.
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right, yes, good morning. 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Do you recall saying, ”I thought it
6 MR HOUGH: Good morning, my Lord. 6 would be more stressful than it is , but it ’s tiring ,
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You’ll be glad to know that 7 that’s for sure”?
8 the temperature in court 26 is quite a lot lower than in 8 A. Possibly . I know I was tired at the end of the day.
9 here. It ’s also a bigger court, which should help as 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
10 well , so we will be in there from Monday. 10 A. I said something very briefly and just left , trying not
11 Housekeeping 11 to sound rude, was all I was trying to do.
12 MR HOUGH: My Lord, before I return to my cross−examination 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Well, you understand the concern
13 of Dr Wright, I need to raise a matter which I hope has 13 about speaking to anybody about your evidence, even
14 found its way to my Lord via your Lordship’s clerk 14 the conditions whilst you’re giving evidence?
15 concerning an Australian Financial Review piece. It may 15 A. Yes. I didn’t realise . I was just trying not to sound
16 not have done. 16 rude, my Lord.
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: It hasn’t done yet. 17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you.
18 MR HOUGH: It was copied to the other side. May I hand up 18 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued)
19 the −− 19 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued)
20 (Handed). 20 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, returning to −− briefly to a topic
21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: It may be because I had a particular 21 from yesterday, do you recall that yesterday we were
22 search term in my inbox. 22 looking at some log files and you gave evidence that
23 MR HOUGH: My Lord, what happened was that overnight, an 23 a certain IP address beginning 194 wasn’t yours?
24 article from the Australian Financial Review, which is 24 A. Yes, I don’t believe it is .
25 a mainstream media publication, came to our attention, 25 Q. We can see that IP address at {H/64/5}, and it’s

1 3

1 in which Dr Wright was said to have been speaking to 1 the bottom two lines in the box, around halfway down
2 the publication on the courtroom sidelines, and what 2 the page; you see that?
3 the article says is that: 3 A. I do.
4 ”Speaking to the AFR Weekend on the courtroom 4 Q. Do you remember giving evidence earlier in the week
5 sidelines , Dr Wright said that he was not stressed by 5 about an email you sent to Jimmy Nguyen, yes?
6 the extensive grilling , ’ I thought it would be more 6 A. Yes.
7 stressful than it is ’ , he said , ’but it ’s tiring , that’s 7 Q. If we go to {H/78/1}, we can see a copy of that email.
8 for sure’ .” [As read] 8 Your evidence was that you sent that email, wasn’t it?
9 Of course, we don’t know whether this discussion 9 A. It is .
10 went any further than that. Even if it went no further, 10 Q. Page 5, please {H/78/5}. This is Mr Madden’s
11 we still consider that it represents a breach of 11 reproduction of the header of the email, and we see:
12 the rule and my Lord’s warnings against a witness 12 ”Return−Path: <craig@rcjbr.org>.”
13 discussing their evidence, which we think would include 13 And then:
14 the experience of giving evidence while under oath, and 14 ”Received: from ... ”
15 therefore it ’s a matter my clients wanted brought to 15 An IP address; do you see that?
16 the court’s attention, because it ’s a matter of real 16 A. I do.
17 concern to them. 17 Q. It ’s the same, isn’t it ?
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you. 18 A. Yes. That would likely be nChain in that case.
19 Lord Grabiner, do you want to say anything on this? 19 Q. That seems to be associated with your RCJBR.org email,
20 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I know nothing about this, I’m 20 doesn’t it ?
21 afraid . 21 A. I used my computer, which was called ”Neo”, in
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 22 the nChain offices . So, yes, that would be my computer
23 Dr Wright, were you speaking to AFR Weekend whilst 23 being used there.
24 you’ve been giving evidence? 24 Q. Moving on from that, yesterday we looked at one of two
25 A. I don’t actually know. In the elevator yesterday, 25 documents which your solicitors had identified as

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 evidence of your 2008 work on the Bitcoin Code. May we 1 Q. {M/1/778}. This is the letter by which they did so. Do
2 look at the other one {L2/242/1}, which is ID_004014 2 you recognise that?
3 beginning: 3 A. I do.
4 ”TimeChain v0.0.2 ALPHA. 4 Q. And if we go to one example {M/1/787}, do we see that,
5 ”Copyright ... 2008 Craig Wright.” 5 for ID_001379, the BlackNet document we looked at
6 Do you see that? 6 earlier , the document stated that the document had been
7 A. I do. 7 collected and imaged from a laptop which, to your
8 Q. This reads as an initial set up notes, a readme file ; 8 recollection , wasn’t your device, but you believed to be
9 correct? 9 onward by DeMorgan; do you see that?
10 A. It does. 10 A. I do.
11 Q. And the set up notes, at the bottom, begin: 11 Q. And it said that the document had been drafted by you,
12 ”Unpack the files into a directory and run 12 Lynn Wright, and Dave Dornbrack?
13 TCecash.exe. 13 A. Originally , yes.
14 ”The software automatically finds other nodes to 14 Q. And gave no information at that stage about
15 connect to.” 15 the document?
16 And so on; do you see that? 16 A. No, I didn’t .
17 A. I do. 17 Q. At that stage, there was no suggestion that any of your
18 Q. Now, please, {L4/15/1}. This is the readme set up notes 18 reliance documents had been altered or tampered with or
19 for Bitcoin released by Satoshi Nakamoto in 19 might not be authentic to their original dates; correct?
20 January 2009. Will you accept that from me? 20 A. No, what we said there was it comes from a third party
21 A. Yes. Both of the projects used the same code. 21 laptop that I had no knowledge of how it got there. So,
22 Q. And if we go under ”Setup”, the notes, with 22 what I didn’t realise until yesterday was that
23 the exception of the EXE file name, are materially 23 the disclosure platform doesn’t give you as much
24 the same, aren’t they? 24 information as I thought it did. I didn’t realise that
25 A. They are. 25 the information in the disclosure platform didn’t go

5 7

1 Q. And it would have been technically straightforward to 1 across to you. I was under the understanding that it
2 take the publicly available text file and amend it to 2 did.
3 produce your document? 3 Q. In −−
4 A. Yes. 4 A. Can I just say one other thing, sorry?
5 Q. Moving on then −− we can take that off screen −− I’d 5 My Lord, I just wanted to make a correction from
6 like to ask you some general questions about your 6 yesterday. When I said about Mr Ager−Hanssen, I was
7 disclosure in your reliance documents. 7 talking about my court case and him giving an interview.
8 You had to identify primary documents on which you 8 Some time −− I apologise. I re−read the transcript, and
9 relied for your claim to be Satoshi in the Wright v 9 I recognise where sometimes I say things I’m not very
10 McCormack case in the UK, didn’t you? 10 clear , and what I was trying to say is , I was in a court
11 A. I did. 11 case and right afterwards, he gave an interview, but he
12 Q. You’ve agreed already that at the case management 12 wasn’t giving an interview in court. So I just −−
13 conference in this case, in September 2022, you were 13 sorry , I just thought I needed to clarify where I’m
14 ordered to do the same thing in these proceedings? 14 saying things that aren’t understandable.
15 A. I am. I ’m aware. 15 Sorry. I apologise.
16 Q. And we looked at the letter in April 2023 which 16 Q. And to whom do you say he gave that interview?
17 initially did that, and you recall that I put to you 17 A. It ’s a Norwegian newspaper.
18 that your solicitors , at that time, gave no indication 18 Q. Do you know the name of the Norwegian newspaper?
19 that any of the documents might have been tampered with 19 A. I can bring it in after lunchtime. It ’s hard to
20 or other than authentic originals ? 20 pronounce, so I’ ll need to write it down.
21 A. Yes. 21 Q. Well, we’ ll ask for a copy of that in due course. But
22 Q. Then in May 2023, do you recall that Ontier provided 22 for the moment, looking at this initial chain of
23 initial chain of custody information in relation to your 23 custody, this simply said , in relation to the BlackNet
24 reliance documents? 24 document, that it was collected from a laptop owned by
25 A. I do. 25 your company, DeMorgan; right?

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 A. It did. 1 would have had access to this document on the respective

2 Q. It didn’t cast any doubt on the document? 2 companies’ shared server.”
3 A. Well, it says it came from a third party and not me. 3 And so on. Do you see that?
4 Q. But it didn’t cast any doubt on the authenticity of 4 A. I do.
5 the document? Simple question, Dr Wright. 5 Q. And then at the bottom:
6 A. Well, if you don’t know anything other than it came from 6 ”Dr Wright is aware that this document is not
7 a third party, then that’s what you put. It wasn’t 7 the native document but a document which has been
8 analysed. 8 handled by a variety of custodians as described in
9 Q. And your first witness statement was served at the end 9 the document. The native document (where
10 of July 2023; do you recall that? 10 available ) shall be provided in accordance with
11 A. I do. 11 the letter from Shoosmiths ... dated 11 October ...”
12 Q. Do you recall that there’s nothing in that witness 12 So it was Shoosmiths.
13 statement to suggest that the documents you nominated as 13 So it ’s right to say, isn ’ t it , that in this
14 your primary reliance documents might well have been 14 document, for the first time, we received information
15 altered , having been handled by dozens of people? 15 from your side saying that there was reason to doubt
16 A. Not in my witness statement, no. 16 the authenticity of many of your reliance documents?
17 Q. Are you aware that your solicitors refused, initially , 17 A. I don’t think that’s actually a reason to doubt
18 to provide any more chain of custody information than 18 the authenticity , rather it ’s a file that has been used
19 what we see here? 19 across a corporation by multiple people in a research
20 A. I am not. 20 effort . As I gave an example yesterday, if I have an
21 Q. Then do you recall that the main report of Mr Madden was 21 invoice and I change the font and the set up, then
22 provided at the start of September 2023? 22 the data remains the same. So, even though the invoice
23 A. I am. 23 prints out with different headings, it ’s still the same
24 Q. And that after that, your solicitors agreed to provide 24 data and the same authentic invoice.
25 further chain of custody information, including 25 Q. Dr Wright, just look at what the document says. It says

9 11

1 intermediate custodians? 1 you can’t comment on the authenticity of these documents

2 A. Yes, that was Shoosmiths. I changed solicitors . 2 because many people had access to it or copied it from
3 Q. It was Travers Smith who gave that agreement on 3 the shared servers . That is plainly raising questions
4 11 September 2023, Dr Wright. 4 over the authenticity of the document, isn’t it?
5 A. Well, I changed them, too. I changed from Ontier to 5 A. No. What I can say is I can look at the text of
6 Travers, at first . 6 the document and I can say that’s correct. What I can’t
7 Q. Let’s just be clear , the agreement was given on your 7 say is −−
8 behalf by Travers on 11 September; correct? 8 Q. Pause there. Where do you say that in this document?
9 A. Yes. 9 A. No, that’s what I’m saying now. I’m telling you, I know
10 Q. And they then supplied your chain of custody information 10 my document, I can tell you my document, but I can’t say
11 schedule on 13 October, yes? 11 whether someone has changed a font or done something
12 A. I ’m not sure if that was them or Shoosmiths. I’m not 12 else . I don’t look at fonts or anything like that when
13 sure which one, sorry. I don’t know the dates and when 13 I read a document.
14 they supplied these things. 14 Q. And then on the −− we can take that down.
15 Q. Your solicitors did, at any rate? 15 It was on that occasion, in October 2023, that you
16 A. I ’ ll take your word for it . 16 first came up with the excuses of many of your documents
17 Q. {K/11/1}, please, row 34, item 32, do we see that’s 17 having been handled by many custodians who might have
18 the entry for the same document, ID_001379? 18 altered them?
19 A. I do. 19 A. No, that’s incorrect . I noted that these other laptops
20 Q. Column R, please: 20 had come from ex−employees back in the Kleiman case.
21 ”This document was drafted by Dr Wright as mentioned 21 That goes right back to 2018.
22 in column C. He cannot comment on the authenticity of 22 Q. But in these proceedings, Dr Wright, when you nominated
23 this particular copy as many people had access to it or 23 these primary documents relied upon for your claim to be
24 copied it from the shared servers from 2002 onwards. 24 Satoshi, you said nothing to question their
25 Upwards of 70 staff members from the various companies 25 authenticity , through your solicitors , until the chain

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 of custody document in mid−October 2023; correct? 1 handled by staff members and consultants in your various
2 A. No, actually , the solicitors at the time, Ontier, had 2 companies and there was no record of access or
3 been working on the British side of getting everything 3 amendment; is that correct?
4 ready for Rivero in the Kleiman case, so therefore they 4 A. For the most part, yes. There are now, but not then.
5 knew right from 2017. 5 Q. I see.
6 Q. Again, you’re not telling us anything that was actually 6 6(c)( viii ) {E/4/6}, you said you were:
7 communicated to COPA and the developers, are you? 7 ” ... unable to say whether the metadata or content
8 A. I can’t say what you were communicated from my 8 of the drafts [of the Bitcoin White Paper had] been
9 solicitors . I talk to them, they talk to you. I can 9 altered or amended (including saving new versions or
10 only say what I know they knew. 10 creating new documents).”
11 Q. On 23 October, you provided your fourth witness 11 Correct?
12 statement, didn’t you? 12 A. That is correct .
13 A. I believe that was the date. 13 Q. And so, is it right to say that you are unable to point
14 Q. {E/4/4}, please. 14 to a reliable , unamended version of
15 You answered questions asking you to identify 15 the Bitcoin White Paper from the 2007 to 2008 period?
16 authentic drafts of the Bitcoin White Paper in your 16 A. No, that’s not correct . The original handwritten
17 disclosure , didn’t you? 17 document is, and it’s been seen by multiple people.
18 A. I did. 18 Other documents are.
19 Q. At paragraph 5, you refer to CSW5 as a spreadsheet 19 Q. Which other documents?
20 setting out details of documents? 20 A. Other versions of it .
21 A. Yes. 21 Q. Which other versions?
22 Q. We’ll come to that in a moment. 22 A. I don’t know the ID numbers off the top of my head, I’m
23 Paragraph 6, you make certain observations, and on 23 sorry , I don’t memorise them.
24 page 5 {E/4/5}, paragraph 6(c)(i), you say: 24 Q. Well, you had the opportunity in this witness statement,
25 ”The White Paper’s development involved a complex 25 and on many other occasions, to say there are some

13 15

1 workflow utilising various software platforms, including 1 versions which I can absolutely vouch for, but instead
2 LaTeX, OpenOffice and Microsoft Word.” 2 you say −− you make here the general observation:
3 Do you see that? 3 ”I am ... unable to say ... ”
4 A. I do. 4 Of the Bitcoin White Paper drafts:
5 Q. That was the first time you had claimed in these 5 ” ... whether the metadata or content ... [had] been
6 proceedings to have written the Bitcoin White Paper with 6 altered or amended ...”
7 LaTeX, wasn’t it? 7 Correct?
8 A. No, actually , and the document that was provided 8 A. No. What I said is I don’t have memorised
9 initially in the Kleiman case that was in the disclosure 9 the ID numbers from the disclosure platform. I would be
10 platform right from the beginning, in handwriting, 10 able to go back and pull those numbers and say it, but
11 has ”LaTeX” written on it. So right back from before 11 I can’t do it without access to the platform. So, what
12 2019, I ’d already had documents saying the White Paper 12 I ’m saying is, I haven’t memorised every number of
13 was written in LaTeX. 13 evidence.
14 Q. Your first witness statement discussing the way 14 Q. Dr Wright, you are here answering questions generally
15 the White Paper was produced said nothing about LaTeX, 15 about drafts of the White Paper and you make this
16 did it ? It didn’t use the word. 16 general observation that you are unable to say whether
17 A. I ’m not sure, but the evidence that I provided in my 17 the metadata or contents of the drafts have been altered
18 handwritten notes does say it. 18 or amended. Is that −− (overspeaking) −−
19 Q. In the paragraph 6(c)(ii ), you said you didn’t apply 19 A. (Inaudible ).
20 a versioning system so it was challenging to say what 20 Q. Is that evidence, to which you put a statement of truth,
21 versions of the White Paper were in use when; correct? 21 correct or incorrect ?
22 A. Well −− 22 A. What I said is there may have been changes, such as
23 Q. You don’t need to elaborate, just ”yes” or ”no”? 23 fonts , there may have been metadata changes. Now, in
24 A. I didn’t apply a versioning system to documents. 24 saying the content, what I’m saying is I know
25 Q. ( iii ) to (v), you said that your research materials were 25 the content of the White Paper, that is correct .

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 The words in the White Paper are correct. If something, 1 isn ’ t ever interacted with, it ’s on a web server that it
2 such as a font, has changed over time, or someone has 2 gets downloaded on a local machine. It is never
3 re−saved my document, no, I haven’t checked that. 3 interacted with on the web server.
4 Q. So there is no version of the Bitcoin White Paper in 4 Now, alternatively , what we have is a corporate
5 electronic form which you can hold up and say this is 5 scenario . In a corporate scenario , people access files .
6 a pre−issue copy of the Bitcoin White Paper which 6 I can say that these people access files , because I give
7 I wrote, which hasn’t been −− which can’t have been 7 them access so that we do research. That’s how we have
8 mucked with by somebody else and potentially altered by 8 created intellectual property in this area, including
9 somebody else? 9 intellectual property such as −−
10 A. No, again, that’s incorrect . What I’m saying is 10 Q. Let me pause you there, because you’re digressing.
11 I cannot quote a number at the moment. I could look at 11 A. No, actually , I ’m not.
12 the Relativity platform, the disclosure platform, and 12 Q. May we go −− no, no −− may we −−
13 I could bring up the numbers. But without that in front 13 A. No, I’m answering how this is authentic and how you
14 of me, I cannot; I haven’t memorised them. So when 14 demonstrate authenticity.
15 I leave the court, I could go and pull the numbers for 15 Q. That wasn’t an answer to my question and I think you’ve
16 you and I could say, ”This one, this one and this one”, 16 digressed enough, Dr Wright.
17 but I cannot do that by memory. 17 Next question −−
18 Q. Dr Wright, you understand the importance of being able 18 A. I believe , actually , the question is whether there is an
19 to identify a reliable pre−issue version of 19 authentic document. I’m −−
20 the White Paper in your hands, don’t you? 20 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to stop you there. I ’m going to
21 A. Not in the way you’re saying. I actually −− 21 stop you there because you have been given
22 Q. It was one of the issues identified in his Lordship’s 22 the opportunity to answer my question and you’re now
23 judgment of October last year as one of the key issues 23 going entirely off topic .
24 in the case. 24 {L19/257/1}, please.
25 A. No, authorship was. So, what you’re saying and what I’m 25 Do you recognise this as exhibit CSW5, the table you

17 19

1 saying are two different things. What I’m saying is, 1 referred to in the part of your witness statement we
2 the proof of identity and authorship doesn’t come down 2 looked at a moment ago?
3 to a key, or holding a file . I could, at any time, 3 A. I do.
4 create a perfect copy of the White Paper. What I’m 4 Q. Page 2, please {L19/257/2}.
5 saying, though, is , evidence is always by actions. 5 If we count across to the seventh column, asking,
6 The same way that de Cervantes proved that he was 6 ”Has [the document] been altered, and if so, in what
7 the author of the Don Quixote −− many other authors 7 respects”, do you see that the answer is given:
8 through history have proved pseudonymous authorship, 8 ”This is a document which has been made available to
9 the same way that patent providers have done so. 9 research staff and consultants (see paragraph 6 of
10 Q. Pause there, let ’s −− 10 Dr Wright’s witness statement). He does not know if
11 A. You do it by work. 11 this document was accessed by them. If accessed,
12 Q. Let’s be clear about this. You are not asking the court 12 the metadata of the document and its content may have
13 to accept your claim to be Satoshi on the basis of any 13 been altered.”
14 document you say is reliable ; is that your position? 14 Do you see that?
15 A. No, it is not. 15 A. I do.
16 Q. So it ’s legitimate for us to ask you about whether 16 Q. And would you accept that that entry appears for all
17 documents which you have relied on in support of your 17 versions of the Bitcoin White Paper except printed and
18 claim are authentic or may have been mucked with; 18 imaged documents which have no meaningful metadata?
19 correct? 19 A. No, not in the way that you’re saying, once again.
20 A. Again, that is a misrepresentation of what I’ve said . 20 There are files that Mr Madden did not find any real
21 Let me explain that so I ’m clear. I have said that 21 problems with other than to say that the text of
22 the information in these documents is correct. I ’ve 22 the White Paper existed in them and because the text was
23 also noted that, apart from isolated servers that no one 23 in them, it can’t be real . So, what I’m saying is,
24 interacts with, metadata will never stay the same. You 24 those were accessible , and I’m saying that that was my
25 provided the example of the Bitcoin White Paper. That 25 text .

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 Q. Take that off screen now. 1 Q. Moving on. The new documents and the BDO drive.
2 Now, you recall that in your chain of custody 2 In mid−September last year, you claim to have
3 information, column R referred, in relation to 3 discovered a new drive containing material from your
4 the BlackNet document, to the native document being 4 time as an employee of BDO; correct?
5 provided where available, yes? 5 A. I didn’t discover it ; it was in a drawer. What I’d
6 A. I do. 6 noticed was it wasn’t listed as being imaged correctly
7 Q. And that was a reference to providing material from 7 by AlixPartners.
8 the new drives you claim to have found in 8 Q. And you claimed that it had been captured −− the drive
9 mid−September 2023; correct? 9 image had been captured originally on 31 October 2007;
10 A. I ’m not sure. I ’d have to look at which one you’re 10 correct?
11 talking about to ... 11 A. Yes. Let me explain that term. That doesn’t say that
12 Q. Well, we saw that in column R it’s stated: 12 it was cloned. A forensic image is a cloned image.
13 ”Dr Wright is aware that this document is not 13 A capture means a VMware. So I did an image using DD,
14 the native document but a document which has been 14 then I basically copied files back and forwards until
15 handled by a variety of custodians as described in this 15 I captured it into VMware, which was in October.
16 document. The native document (where available) shall 16 Q. 2007?
17 be provided in accordance with the letter from 17 A. That’s correct .
18 Shoosmiths to Bird and Bird ... dated 11 October 2023.” 18 Q. And you claim to have found it on a Samsung USB drive in
19 That was the letter, wasn’t it , by which Shoosmiths 19 a drawer at your home; correct?
20 described the discovery of your supposed new drives? 20 A. Well, it ’s actually −− I mean, it’s listed as Samsung
21 Yes? 21 USB drive, it has a USB access, but it’s −− I mean,
22 A. That was the letter noting that, yes. 22 I wouldn’t −− I’d describe it a bit more detailed, but
23 Q. So was that a reference to you providing better copies, 23 it is a USB connected drive.
24 as it were, or native copies, if available , from the new 24 Q. And you rely on 97 documents taken from that drive as
25 drives? 25 further primary reliance documents, yes?

21 23

1 A. No, it was a reference to providing information in those 1 A. I do.

2 drives , what was available. 2 Q. {G/5/8}, please. Section 2, I think, of Mr Madden’s
3 Q. Dr Wright, we’ve struggled to find any of your 3 third report. You see it sets out the formats of the 97
4 reliance documents from the new drives which correspond 4 documents relied on?
5 directly to your original reliance documents. Do you 5 A. I do.
6 understand? 6 Q. And if you go to page 9 {G/5/9}, paragraph 15, do you
7 A. I do. 7 see he explains that the great majority of those 97 are
8 Q. Do you accept that there are no, or very few documents 8 in formats such as TXT, image files and RTF; correct?
9 in the new drives which actually correspond in that way 9 A. Yes.
10 to documents in your first set of reliance documents? 10 Q. And he also explains that those formats contain
11 A. No, I don’t. 11 relatively very little metadata; correct?
12 Q. Before you received the Madden report, you presented, 12 A. No, actually , it ’s not correct . Now, when you’re
13 through all your communications to us, your first set of 13 analysing a drive , what happens is, every time you
14 107 reliance documents as authentic originals with no 14 delete and move a file, you actually create an image on
15 suggestion that they would or might have been altered; 15 the driver of parts . So there will be partial files
16 correct? 16 from overwriting, and that will be layered. Only
17 A. No. It was well known that I’d had challenges on some 17 the latest file will be visible , but parts of files can
18 of those documents in other courts, and those had been 18 be carved.
19 explained −− 19 Now, this is analogous to writing on a pad. When
20 Q. Since receiving that report, you’ve cast doubt on 20 I write on a pad and there’s a piece of paper over it ,
21 the reliability and authenticity of very many of them, 21 you can actually look at the writing and work out which
22 especially those forensically examined; correct? 22 handwriting was first , because −− the depth, etc. And
23 A. No, again, back to the Kleiman case. There were already 23 the same can be done on a drive. So you can actually
24 notifications put in that the various machines from 24 look at these files and say where they placed and you
25 third parties had been unrelated to myself. 25 can look at whether something has overwritten other

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 files and you can create a statistical history of all 1 the files are and the changes. Now, that is actually
2 deletions . 2 part of the text file . So you don’t take the text file
3 So, no, that’s actually completely incorrect . 3 in isolation and go, ”There’s nothing there”. When you
4 Q. Well, I ’m going to put it to you that the file types in 4 have the whole drive, not the text file itself , you now
5 the 97 new documents contain materially less usable 5 have information to match and analyse.
6 metadata for forensic analysis than the file types 6 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, are you aware that when this report
7 primarily coming up in your first set of 7 was written, we didn’t have access to the drive because
8 reliance documents. 8 we were being told by your side that we shouldn’t have
9 A. No −− sorry. Again, one of the main forensic 9 that access?
10 developments that happened in the noughties, from about 10 A. I don’t know when you got access to the drive.
11 2005 on, involved the carving of files . This was taught 11 Q. And focusing upon what material we had at the time and
12 extensively by SANS, the SANS Institute in America. 12 were being given access to at the time, the metadata in
13 Now, what that involves is actually carving and looking 13 the files , that contained materially less useful
14 at the integrity of files . The problem is that if you 14 information for analysis than that in the file types in
15 use a simple tool , like EnCase, and you’re just a tool 15 your original reliance documents. Can we agree on that?
16 jockey, you never see this . But analysing correctly , 16 A. No, actually , because there are files , such as Dragon
17 using forensic tools that will carve all of the deleted 17 files . Dragon files , while proprietary , have a lot of
18 files , allows you to start working out the order of 18 rich information, right down to voice recording. That
19 deletions and adds. So, by analysing this , you can 19 would enable extracting WAVE files that you could even
20 actually start working out whether a file had been added 20 replay the background information, and the background
21 or deleted. 21 information would provide details of where I might have
22 Now, you can then match that with other metadata. 22 been at the time or −−
23 On that drive, for instance, there is my web browsing 23 Q. If you’ve got the proprietary software?
24 history . I can’t fabricate that, because the web 24 A. The proprietary software can be purchased for £3 on
25 browsing history for secure sites involves certificates 25 eBay.

25 27

1 that are third party, for instance, Google, etc. So you 1 Q. Dr Wright, paragraph 16, I’m just going to ask you if
2 can actually match some of that information with that 2 this is factually correct :
3 other information, which would then give you a complete 3 ”I note that almost all of the filetypes in the 97
4 timeline of when files were added. 4 New Documents were not present in the original
5 Q. Paragraph −− 5 Reliance Documents. The original Reliance Documents did
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, I think you’re talking about 6 not contain any LaTeX, RTF, C++, HTM, TXT or DRA files
7 two different things. Counsel’s question was about 7 and only a small number of images ...”
8 metadata in the files themselves; you’re talking about 8 Are the contents of that paragraph factually
9 traces on the disk of older versions of the file that 9 correct?
10 may well have been partially or fully overwritten. 10 A. There were some RTF files, but for the most part, yes.
11 A. Ah. 11 Q. And the explanation for this significant difference is
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Now those are two different things, 12 that you had seen what Mr Madden had done to discredit
13 aren’t they? 13 your original documents and you had chosen a set of
14 A. No, actually , my Lord. In the −− 14 documents which had very little usable metadata for
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Hang on. Metadata in the file itself as 15 analysis , hadn’t you?
16 opposed to other traces on the disk. 16 A. No, that’s incorrect . The distinction is between third
17 A. I understand, my Lord. 17 party machines and laptops, which I’ve always stated,
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right. 18 right back to 2017, versus my own work habits. I work
19 A. Let me explain and be clear. 19 differently than other people, I use Dragon VoiceType,
20 The disk itself has a file log. 20 I use LaTeX, etc, so, my work habits are different to
21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes −− 21 others in the organisation .
22 A. So the file isn ’ t just the −− like, the Word document 22 Q. Are you also aware that many of your 97 new documents,
23 you see. The Word document, or the text document, 23 I think 11 of the 97, include supposed work on Quorum
24 actually links into logging information on the drive . 24 systems? Yes?
25 So that drive has information as to where on the drive 25 A. Yes.

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 Q. Do you know how many of your original reliance documents 1 chain of custody information, you were prompted to start
2 even mentioned the word ”quorum”? 2 searching your home in the week commencing
3 A. On my original? I don’t know. I don’t think so. 3 11 September 2023, yes?
4 Q. None of them. 4 A. Yes, that’s correct , because I didn’t see any of those
5 You’ve relied upon the work on Quorum systems in 5 drives listed , with that the information, that was.
6 the new documents as a key element of your precursor 6 Q. Would you accept this, that if you and your solicitors
7 work to the Bitcoin White Paper, haven’t you? 7 had been doing a proper job of disclosure in
8 A. I have. 8 the McCormack case, the Granath case or this case, you
9 Q. And that didn’t appear anywhere in your original 9 should have been checking to ensure that all your data
10 reliance documents, did it? 10 sources had been found and imaged? Would you accept
11 A. As I noted, none of the material came from my machines, 11 that?
12 so the third party machines that the original documents 12 A. No, actually , I ’d gone back multiple times and
13 were sourced from had limited information. 13 complained to my solicitors that very few of my files
14 The information from nChain concerning Quorum documents 14 were actually in evidence and I thought that was
15 wouldn’t be handed over because that’s basically leading 15 strange. I said that both in the Kleiman case and
16 to proprietary filings . So, while they have a lot of 16 the McCormack case. And in particular, I chased up
17 information, they won’t give it to me. 17 the QNAP server, which would have had a lot of
18 Q. That’s just a fiction made up on the spot, isn’t it , 18 the images. I was originally told that it was no longer
19 Dr Wright? 19 accessible and I only recently found out that
20 A. No, actually , it ’s to do with the fact that we have 20 AlixPartners didn’t have the equipment, so where they
21 several thousand pending patents. And as my Lord will 21 said they couldn’t access, they said , ”It ’s probably
22 understand, companies don’t like giving proprietary 22 just encrypted”. None of the images on that drive were
23 information that hasn’t been filed yet. In fact , I had 23 ever encrypted, because they were virtual machines, so
24 to rush people because of some of the things I’ve been 24 it was only in the last few weeks that I’ve discovered
25 mentioning here to get a patent filed , which was lodged 25 that AlixPartners just didn’t image a lot of things. It

29 31

1 on Monday. One of the areas that I communicated with, 1 was too hard, so they didn’t .
2 and will be answering, involves a patent that was only 2 Q. Did it not occur to you in the years between 2019 and
3 filed on Monday that the original OI goes back to 2008, 3 mid−2023, that there was some distinctive material,
4 but because it wasn’t considered top of the list −− 4 dozens of documents representing precursor work to
5 Q. Pause there, Dr Wright. I think you’re digressing quite 5 the Bitcoin White Paper, which you would have saved and
6 a way from the question. 6 hadn’t been disclosed?
7 {E/20/3}, please. 7 A. Yes, and it was only in October that I discovered,
8 This is your fifth witness statement in which you 8 talking to KLD, after we gave these drives in, that
9 describe the discovery of the new drives, and do you see 9 LaTeX files weren’t in the search and they were coming
10 that the ”Background” section begins at the bottom of 10 up as system files . I went back to Shoosmiths and said,
11 this page? 11 ”Where the hell are all the LaTeX files that I know are
12 A. I do. 12 on this drive”, because nothing was in the disclosure
13 Q. Next page {E/20/4}, please, paragraph 6, you say, don’t 13 platform, and KLD had to change the search so that
14 you, that you’re discussing two USB drives, 14 the LaTeX files were no longer seen as system files .
15 a MyDigital Drive and a Samsung Drive, which you say 15 Q. Dr Wright, didn’t it occur to you that these mythical
16 contained back−ups of old drive images and old material; 16 new documents, this trove of new documents might be in
17 correct? 17 one of these drives you had imaged onto hard drive
18 A. I do. 18 equipment in your home?
19 Q. You say you believe that these drives had been made 19 A. No, the QNAP server was taken. The QNAP server was half
20 available to AlixPartners for forensic imaging in 20 a petabyte worth of data storage, so that’s not a normal
21 connection with the Kleiman litigation in February 2019; 21 home server. I had a number of racks downstairs, part
22 correct? 22 of my basement was set up as a small data centre, and
23 A. I do. 23 I had computers that were in there. The promise from
24 Q. Then over the page to {E/20/6}, please, paragraph 16, 24 AlixPartners was that they could not do an image at my
25 you say that in the course of preparing that further 25 home because imaging 500 terabytes was outside of their

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 capability . They said they would take it away and that 1 drives in there by AlixPartners, as we went through
2 I would get it back. It is now several years later and 2 the sort of chain of custody list and developed it.
3 that several hundred thousand pound equipment is still 3 Q. Just asking about those. You presumed they hadn’t been
4 unused and sitting in a basement somewhere. 4 imaged because they didn’t have stickers?
5 Q. When you were nominating your original primary 5 A. That’s my first check, yes.
6 reliance documents in this case, did it not occur to you 6 Q. Page 7 {E/20/7}, paragraph 20.
7 to say, ”There’s a whole series of other documents which 7 You speculate here that AlixPartners may have failed
8 will be on a hard drive at my home which can be 8 to notice the encrypted partition , including the BDO
9 nominated, which can be looked at”? 9 drive , because they might have imaged it while it was
10 A. My understanding was that that drive had been imaged, 10 unplugged from an active source. That’s what you say
11 and I’m not proud of myself, but I had a yelling and 11 here, isn ’ t it ?
12 screaming match with my solicitors multiple times 12 A. Yes, it is . When they were given my laptop, it was
13 saying, ”Where the hell are my files”, and they kept 13 logged in and live .
14 telling me, ”They must be in Relativity, you just need 14 Q. Paragraphs 22 to 23, you say that after discovering
15 to learn how to use it better”. So ... 15 the hard drives , what you do is you plug them into your
16 Q. So it ’s another failure by Ontier, was it? 16 laptop to see if they’re still working; correct?
17 A. No, it ’s probably more a failure by me. I ’ve only 17 A. I did.
18 recently spent a lot of time learning how to use 18 Q. So:
19 Relativity properly. I −− I’m sorry, my Lord, but the 19 ”For the Samsung Drive, I plugged it into my laptop
20 only word is I was a complete arse and I treated some of 20 and ensured that the data diode software was available.
21 the paralegals terribly , going, ”You must find this”, 21 This generates a pop−up on my computer asking if I want
22 when I should have put it on myself to do it . And no 22 to unlock the drive . This confirmed for me that
23 I ’m not blaming them, I’m blaming myself. I was an arse 23 the drive was working.”
24 at the beginning and, rather than do it myself, 24 Correct?
25 I expected people to do it for me. 25 A. That’s correct .

33 35

1 Q. You say that you found the two USB drives in a drawer 1 Q. Then you say:
2 with other hard drives which you understood had been 2 ”For the MyDigital Drive, I simply connected it to
3 imaged by AlixPartners; correct? 3 power up.”
4 A. Yes, that’s correct . 4 Yes?
5 Q. You saw AlixPartners stickers on some, from which you 5 A. That’s correct as well .
6 understood that those had been imaged by AlixPartners; 6 Q. You say, you:
7 correct? 7 ” ... did not access the BDO Drive on the Samsung
8 A. No, what I found was some of the hard drives still had 8 Drive or any files on either Hard Drive ... ”
9 stickers from AlixPartners, but there were a number of 9 A. No, but I didn’t disconnect them right away either.
10 ones that were definitely in the imaged list that didn’t 10 Q. When did you disconnect them, Dr Wright?
11 have stickers as well . So there are a number of 11 A. I don’t actually recall . I ’d left them connected as
12 stickers and non−stickered hard drives in that list . 12 I went to do other things.
13 Q. Paragraph 18, please, if we can see paragraph 18 on 13 Q. Did you leave them open with the encryption down during
14 screen: 14 that period?
15 ” ... I was continuing to search my home for any 15 A. Probably not. I don’t think I actually actively logged
16 drives that AlixPartners had imaged when I found 16 out. At that period, I had other meetings I had to get
17 the Hard Drives in a drawer ... Some of those drives had 17 to, so I checked and left.
18 AlixPartners stickers on them which I presumed meant 18 Q. For somebody very concerned with IT security, it seems
19 they had in fact been imaged by AlixPartners. The Hard 19 like a fairly basic failure in the chain of custody that
20 Drives ... ” 20 you didn’t unplug them, having ensured that you were
21 So MyDigital and Samsung: 21 only looking at them strictly to check that they were
22 ” ... did not have AlixPartners stickers on ... 22 working?
23 I therefore presumed they had not been imaged.” 23 A. I agree. In this case, I did fail . I should have done
24 Is that correct? 24 that. My presumption was that my laptop was secure.
25 A. Yes, but on checking, I also found that there were other 25 I mean, I use two−factor authentication, etc, and it was

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 my belief that no one had access to my laptop, my own 1 You see on this page, Dr Wright, an image of a tweet
2 hubris , I guess. 2 by Mr Ager−Hanssen, attaching, on the left, an image of
3 Q. You didn’t say anything in your witness statement about 3 a message apparently by you?
4 leaving the drives plugged in, did you? 4 A. I do.
5 A. No, I hadn’t really thought about it. 5 Q. Is the image −− is the message shown in the image
6 Q. As you say, you don’t know how long you left them 6 a message you actually sent?
7 plugged in? 7 A. Sorry, which message are we talking about?
8 A. No, I didn’t concentrate on that, I ’m sorry. 8 Q. The full text is in the bottom half of the page.
9 Q. As we have seen, you say that AlixPartners would have 9 The image shown in the bottom half of this page, is that
10 had access to the USB drives, but you speculate on 10 a message you actually sent?
11 reasons why they didn’t image the BDO image; correct? 11 A. It looks like it , yes.
12 A. Yes. 12 Q. ”I found 2 of the drives in a drawer with 5 other drives
13 Q. You’re aware that AlixPartners themselves have told your 13 that had ... been imaged by AP. The 5 drives had serial
14 solicitors that they had no knowledge or awareness of 14 numbers and were matched with the spreadsheet and
15 the Samsung or MyDigital Drives when they did their work 15 contained data. Some have stickers from AP, some do not
16 in 2019? 16 as they had been moved around by my son who was given
17 A. Yes, I ’m aware that they said lots of things, including 17 access to these drives (to build his computers) after
18 that they failed on the QNAP server, and they’ve changed 18 they were imaged. I identified the Samsung as
19 their story multiple times. 19 I recognised it as being my personal drive.”
20 Q. So you are saying that they are telling a falsehood, if 20 Do you see that?
21 I can put it in that way, when they say that they had no 21 A. I do.
22 knowledge or awareness of these two hard drives? 22 Q. You say there, ”I found 2 of the drives in a drawer”.
23 A. Yes, because the serial numbers are actually listed in 23 A. Yes.
24 their list . And on top of that, with the QNAP server as 24 Q. Were you at that point putting forward to your team more
25 a perfect example, at first , they said it was damaged, 25 than two new drives?

37 39

1 then they said it was encrypted, and now they’re saying, 1 A. Actually, yes, but the other drives had definitely been
2 ”It ’s possibly encrypted, but we didn’t check ”. 2 done without any error. So, what I’m saying here:
3 Q. Would you accept this, that either your account is false 3 ”I found 2 of the drives if a drawer with 5 other
4 and the drives weren’t made available for imaging, or 4 drives that had all been imaged ...”
5 they failed to identify them in a review of your 5 So all seven of these are listed as being imaged, as
6 property, even though they were looking at other drives 6 far as I ’m concerned, but they have no information
7 in the same drawer? 7 recorded on the AlixPartners spreadsheet.
8 A. No, they weren’t looking at drives in the drawer; 8 Q. What were the other drives that you identified that you
9 the drawer was where I put the drives after they had 9 were intending to put forward?
10 accessed them. Most of those drives came from actual 10 A. Of the five drives , some of them have been imaged
11 computers where they pulled the drives out. In some 11 because they’re basically damaged. Those ones are
12 cases, it was a horrible job, because in one of 12 correct . Like, where AlixPartners have said, ”These
13 the other NAS servers, they had 12 drives that were in 13 click and don’t do anything”, that is correct , and they
14 a RAID array, and basically they pulled them out without 14 do, so there’s nothing to put forward. And other ones
15 taking the order. Now, if you understand what that 15 have been imaged in the way that they’re saying.
16 means, that means 12 factorial over 2 possible ways of 16 The two there have been imaged in a way that wasn’t
17 putting them back together to access that drive, so that 17 correct .
18 information was lost as well . What they said was they 18 Q. This suggests that you were putting forward to your team
19 don’t recall sort of how that could be put together and 19 more than two drives, whereas your witness statement was
20 it was an unusual configuration, which it was, but in 20 that you’d found two relevant drives; correct?
21 doing that, a standard forensic practice would be to 21 A. No, I found two drives that had no information that has
22 take a photo of the drive , list down the image order. 22 been captured −−
23 So what I’m saying is they did a complete cock up. 23 Q. You then write that some of the drives had stickers from
24 Q. {P1/18/15}, please. Just this last topic before 24 AlixPartners and some didn’t because they had been moved
25 the break, please. 25 around by your son. You agreed with that?

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 A. I do. 1 didn’t you?

2 Q. Now, in your statement, you said that the lack of an 2 A. Yes, that’s correct .
3 AlixPartners sticker on a USB drive made you 3 Q. And you insisted that they definitely took
4 think ”A−ha”, the content hadn’t been imaged by 4 the screenshots at 4077, 78 and 79 before 9 March 2020,
5 AlixPartners, while here you say that the lack of 5 which was the date I put to you?
6 a sticker made you think that it had been moved by your 6 A. My understanding was that they did, yes.
7 son. Which is right? 7 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to put to you a letter which your
8 A. No, that’s not correct . What I’m saying is, some of 8 solicitors , Shoosmiths, have sent to us this morning.
9 the stickers had come off. There were a number of 9 Paragraph 2 −− well, I’ll read the whole thing.
10 drives in there. Some were ones I wouldn’t care about, 10 Paragraph 1:
11 and I went through the entire drawer. 11 ”We refer to your letter dated 8 February 2024 to
12 Q. But if some had been moved around, you think, because of 12 Ontier where you requested information regarding
13 your son moving things, why did you say in your witness 13 ID_004077, 4076 to 4079 and when the screenshots within
14 statement that the lack of a sticker told you pretty 14 those were specifically made.” [As read]
15 clearly that the image hadn’t −− that the disk hadn’t −− 15 Paragraph 2:
16 drive hadn’t been imaged by AlixPartners? 16 ”Ontier has written to us and provided us with
17 A. I didn’t say it hadn’t been imaged, I said it hadn’t 17 the requested information. With the permission of
18 been imaged correctly. So what I’m referring to is 18 Mr Justice Mellor, we have sought out our client’s
19 the sticker associated −− well, the serial number 19 instructions . Our instructions are to disclose
20 associated with the Samsung Drive relates to a very 20 the information Ontier has provided to us. Ontier LLP
21 small partition . It ’s only in megabytes. Now, that 21 has stated as follows .
22 would match with the external partition, so my thought 22 ”’Dr Wright first provided this firm with log−in
23 was, you haven’t unencrypted this. Now, what I did do 23 details for the MYOB accounting software on 9 March 2020
24 was I matched, with my wife, all of the serial numbers 24 and we first accessed the software on that date. We did
25 in that drive . Even the ones that had been imaged, 25 not have access to MYOB in late 2019.” [As read]

41 43

1 I validated that they had been imaged and where 1 And then they make a reference to Bird & Bird’s
2 the information was in the disclosure platform or not. 2 letter :
3 If they had been imaged correctly, then I just put them 3 ”We created a series of screenshots from that system
4 back and ignored them. 4 on 9 and 10 March 2020, including screenshots that
5 Q. Dr Wright, digression aside, this is another 5 correlate with the screenshots which appear at doc IDs
6 contradiction of one of your witness statements, 6 4076, 4077, 4078 and 4079.” [As read]
7 isn ’ t it ? 7 And then they say that they’ve copied the letter to
8 A. No, it is not. 8 his Lordship’s clerk .
9 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for 9 It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that, as Ontier say, they were
10 a short break? 10 not provided with log−in details in late 2019, as you
11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 11 said yesterday?
12 Let’s take five minutes, Dr Wright. 12 A. No, and I’m going to be instructing them to release
13 (11.33 am) 13 information that is already in the disclosure platform,
14 (A short break) 14 including 2019 emails to AlixPartners and Ontier, giving
15 (11.42 am) 15 those access details . So, no, those emails are already
16 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, may we return to a topic I was asking 16 in disclosure .
17 you questions about yesterday, which is the MYOB 17 Q. And it’s correct , isn ’ t it , that they took
18 documents. 18 the screenshots on 9 and 10 March 2020?
19 A. Yes. 19 A. I wasn’t involved with them taking the screenshots.
20 Q. You told us yesterday, in relation to the screenshots at 20 What I do know is that they received the log−in details
21 ID_004077, 78 and 79, a number of documents I showed you 21 in 2019.
22 the screen −− 22 Q. You were very firm yesterday that those screenshots were
23 A. Yes. 23 not taken as late as 9 March 2020, weren’t you?
24 Q. −− that you’d given Ontier access to the MYOB accounting 24 A. I know what I was told by my solicitors at the time, and
25 software, the log−in details and so on, in late 2019, 25 I also know, and I have the emails in disclosure stating

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 that they had access from 2019. 1 that’s him.

2 Q. So you’re saying that you understood from your 2 Q. You don’t know whether Spencer Lynch is the expert
3 solicitors that those screenshots had been taken before 3 instructed on your behalf, the man from Stroz Friedberg?
4 9 March 2020? 4 A. That firm is correct , yes.
5 A. That is correct . 5 Q. Page 16, please {I/5/16}, paragraph 64. After analysis
6 Q. On that basis, they were either lying to you then or 6 of the imaged Samsung Drive and its recycle bin,
7 lying to the court now; correct? 7 Mr Lynch established that the drive was accessed on or
8 A. I have no idea. I know most of the people at Ontier who 8 off after 17 September 2023, during which time data was
9 were there are no longer there. 9 deleted and timestamps were manipulated.
10 Q. Another topic I’m afraid we need to return to. May 10 Are you aware of that finding?
11 I hand up a hard copy document, which I’ve shown to 11 A. I am.
12 the −− to Lord Grabiner. 12 Q. Page 18, please {I/5/18}, paragraph 70, Mr Lynch
13 (Handed). 13 established that the last time of use of the computer
14 And a copy to Dr Wright as well. 14 from which the image was taken was 5 July 2007.
15 (Handed). 15 Do you agree with that finding?
16 Dr Wright, you will recall that earlier I was asking 16 A. No, I don’t. That was the last time that it was booted
17 you about the IP address beginning 194, yes? 17 as a PC. As I noted, it was converted later into
18 A. Yes. 18 a VMware image. The way that you would run a VMware
19 Q. And you said that it was the IP address for nChain, yes? 19 image when you’re doing a capture is that you snapshot
20 A. Yes. 20 it and the snapshots update, but the base image doesn’t.
21 Q. According to an IP address look up facility , that IP 21 Q. {I/5/19}, paragraph 72:
22 address is identified as being located in Cobham; do you 22 ”In conducting our analysis of the BDO Image,
23 see that? 23 Stroz Friedberg reviewed the image for any evidence that
24 A. I do. 24 the image had been accessed and modified in the days
25 Q. That’s your home area, isn’t it ? 25 leading up to 20 September 2023. Our analysis revealed

45 47

1 A. It is . 1 evidence that in the days prior to 20 September 2023,

2 Q. NChain’s headquarters are in London, aren’t they? 2 when the Samsung Drive containing the BDO Imaged was
3 A. That’s −− well, actually they’re in Switzerland, but 3 preserved, someone engaged in substantial efforts to
4 there’s an office in London. 4 modify the contents of the BDO Image, and to do so in
5 Q. To be clear about this, the parent company is based in 5 a way to hide when that activity was occurring and make
6 Switzerland, but there’s a London company with 6 it appear as if it had occurred in 2007.”
7 a registered office ? 7 Dr Wright, do you agree with that finding?
8 A. Yes, there is . 8 A. No, I don’t. What they have done is said that because
9 Q. So, Dr Wright, you were wrong, weren’t you, to say that 9 there are unusual modify and create dates that the file
10 that IP address was associated with the company and not 10 must have been updated. As I’ve noted in one of my
11 with you personally? 11 other witness statements, I had two drives in my laptop
12 A. No, there are VPNs. What I do know is that I have 12 at the time. One of those drives was the main drive,
13 a BT fibre link and I have a range of IP addresses. 13 one was an external drive that was in the CD bay. Now,
14 I know what the range of IP addresses are. I don’t know 14 to be able to do this copy, what I needed to do when
15 what the VPNs or anything else that I have might be. 15 I moved and set up the new image was do one at a time.
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Mr Hough, we’ll call this document ”X1” 16 On the BDO Drive, there are examples of static linked
17 okay? 17 sort of static link points for these external drives
18 MR HOUGH: Thank you, my Lord. We’ll get a copy uploaded to 18 proving that they were there at the time. Those are
19 the system so that everything’s there. 19 created with the BDO SSID.
20 Moving on to the analysis that was performed of 20 Now, the process involved me taking one drive out,
21 the BDO Drive {I/5/1}, please. This is an expert −− 21 copying files , putting another drive in , etc, back and
22 the first expert report of Spencer Lynch, dated 22 forwards, multiple times. That was done on the new
23 18 January 2023. He’s the expert instructed on your 23 drive −− a new machine, which was a combination of Linux
24 behalf, isn ’ t he? 24 and VMs, and the copy process was mostly done using
25 A. I believe −− I’m not really sure of his name. I think 25 Xcopy, a command line tool. Now, that doesn’t change

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 timestamp files in the way noted, which I’ve also 1 Mr Lynch addresses the transaction logs and he
2 referenced the Microsoft −− what do you call it −− 2 identifies a series of anomalies in time recordings,
3 resource page. What it does do is it doesn’t properly 3 doesn’t he?
4 reference the modified time, because when the tool was 4 A. He does.
5 created in 1986, modified time wasn’t available. So 5 Q. And then he produces his deductions from those at
6 when you’re copying between different operating systems, 6 paragraph 76, that:
7 the create and the modified time can get out of whack, 7 ” ... the BDO Image was mounted on a computer running
8 meaning that you can have a create time and a modify 8 Windows Vista or later [on 17 September 2023] ...
9 time that are the wrong way around. I demonstrated this 9 The first time that the ... Image had been mounted
10 in my witness statement. 10 read−write by an operating system configured to use
11 Q. You’ve just described the process of creating the BDO 11 transaction logs ... ”
12 image as one not simply of capturing a drive image, but 12 Do you agree with that finding?
13 going through a series of iterations of image creations 13 A. No, actually , I don’t. Once again, if you go up
14 with alteration between them; is that correct? 14 a little bit on the page, just to display the top, what
15 A. No, you’re misusing the term ”captured”, I’m sorry. Let 15 you’ ll see is the created and modified times. Now,
16 me explain. In forensics , the term is ”cloning”. You’d 16 again, with drive copies, when you actually modify in
17 never use the term ”capture”. ”Capture” is a virtual 17 Linux, this can actually result in errors .
18 machine term. So when you say you captured a machine, 18 Now, the error being referenced is that this doesn’t
19 what you’re doing is to create a virtual machine. If 19 normally happen, but I don’t have a normal environment,
20 you are cloning the machine, which is effectively what 20 so when I’m copying between environments and running in
21 I did on July, then that’s a different process. So 21 VM, some of the modified times may not update, but
22 I captured the machine into a VM in October. I cloned 22 the create times can. The reason for this is I snapshot
23 the machine before that. In this process, because I had 23 the drive . So, the snapshot means I will then be able
24 external drives , I copied information from those 24 to run the image as a VM. But the way that it runs is
25 external drives into the main drive. I did specify this 25 so that the base image doesn’t change the files.

49 51

1 in my witness statements. 1 The reason I did this was, software like PaperMaster
2 Q. You didn’t specify it in any of your witness statements 2 had a lot of image files in EFX that I needed for both
3 −− or in your witness statement when you were describing 3 clients and others. PaperMaster was a scanning process
4 the initial discovery of the BDO Drive, did you? 4 like TIFF, but PaperMaster no longer exists. So to
5 A. I believe I did. Unfortunately, I didn’t think I needed 5 access those files , I needed to be able to run that
6 to be clear on the terminology. When I stated that 6 program. The only way to run and licence PaperMaster
7 I captured it , that doesn’t reference cloning it . 7 involved an internet key that needed to be updated. So,
8 I mean, I’m sometimes not clear but, I guess it ’s 8 once that software stopped running, you can never −− and
9 a theory of mind issue with being an Aspie, I assume you 9 because they don’t exist any more, you cannot reinstall
10 understand terms I do. I ’ve written textbooks on this 10 it on a new computer.
11 topic . So when I say ”clone”, I mean one thing, when 11 So to access it , I had to have a VM running and
12 I say ”captured”, I mean another. I’m pedantic on these 12 allow this .
13 sort of terms. 13 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, Dr Wright, that your witness
14 Q. We looked through the section of your fifth witness 14 statement describing your computer environment −− both
15 statement concerning the BDO Drive and the data it 15 your witness statements describing your computer
16 contained. You didn’t give any account, did you, in 16 environment to explain away these findings have been
17 that document of having produced it through this series 17 considered by both parties ’ experts? You’re aware of
18 of multiple iterations that you have just described, did 18 that, aren’t you?
19 you? 19 A. Yes, and neither of the experts are trained in virtual
20 A. Effectively , I did. I created a capture and the capture 20 machines.
21 was completed on the 31 October. So, what you’re saying 21 Q. And each of the experts agrees, you’re aware, that
22 is , I didn’t go through every file I copied and list 22 the computer environment you describe at great length in
23 them. No, I didn’t , but I wouldn’t be expected to 23 those statements does not affect their conclusions,
24 remember that after 15 years. 24 including this conclusion on which they agree. You’re
25 Q. Page 20, please, of Mr Lynch’s report {I/5/20}. 25 aware of that, aren’t you?

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 A. Yes, and they said that there’s no evidence of Citrix 1 validate what I’m saying is take an image, turn
2 being used. That is despite the fact that there is 2 the clock back and look at the transaction logs , and
3 a BDO Citrix profile in the image. If you actually go 3 when you do, you notice that this never occurs.
4 into the image, you’ ll find a Citrix ICA profile that is 4 The modified date is actually updated any time
5 a BDO one with the BDO SSIDs that can only be created 5 the create date is updated, and it won’t go backwards.
6 from the domain at BDO. That image contains that 6 So that doesn’t happen, that’s not a good explanation.
7 information, demonstrating that what they’ve just said 7 Q. Dr Wright, you’re aware, aren’t you, that before
8 ignores files that are actually on that device that 8 the pre−trial review last year, a memorandum was put in
9 couldn’t be created by me. 9 from Stroz Friedberg with some initial deflections on
10 Q. That’s, as I say, disputed. 10 the BDO Drive? Yes?
11 Paragraph 76(b), Mr Lynch concludes that: 11 A. Yes.
12 ”After the BDO Image was mounted and the transaction 12 Q. And for the lawyers, it ’s {L20/223/184}.
13 logs created, the clock on the computer ... was 13 And you’re aware that that found some signs of
14 backdated such that the clock reflected a date of 19 or 14 alteration of the drive , didn’t you −− aren’t you?
15 31 October 2007.” 15 A. On the Samsung Drive. That’s what they were talking
16 As shown in those transaction logs and as he 16 about primarily there.
17 correctly deduced; that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 17 Q. Well −−
18 A. No, actually , it ’s not. I ’ve done this myself to check, 18 A. They didn’t say any other things. And they also made
19 and if you backdate the clock, it changes the modified 19 statements, like they did in 77 {I/5/21}, that are not
20 time. So the simple sort of test would be to actually 20 correct , where they said that ”timestamps ... are not
21 do this and log it . But if you actually run this test , 21 affected by the use of tools like Xcopy”, which
22 you find that the modified time always updates after 22 I demonstrated in my witness statement is false.
23 the other. There is no way that I’ve found of turning 23 Q. And you had the opportunity, through your legal
24 the clock back and doing this. 24 representatives , after that, to ensure that a proper
25 Q. Then: 25 expert was instructed and that that expert was given

53 55

1 ”After the clock had been changed ...” 1 proper information about your systems; correct?
2 As we see, 76(c): 2 A. No, actually , I don’t believe so. The expert I wanted,
3 ” ... Windows created a new set of transaction logs 3 I −− my first instructions were any expert needs to be
4 that bear the date reflected by the manipulated system 4 SANS qualified.
5 clock ... ” 5 Q. Please, don’t tell us about anything privileged, please,
6 A. I see what he says, and, again, he’s wrong. 6 Dr Wright. It ’s up to you, but I ’m warning you against
7 The modified date in the transaction log, when you turn 7 telling us anything privileged .
8 the clock back, always −− and I emphasise, always −− is 8 A. Well, I ’m saying no.
9 later than −− or the same as the create date. So, if 9 Q. My question was that you had the opportunity, through
10 you did a simple test by actually running this and 10 your very capable and responsible legal team, to choose
11 logging a drive , you would find that happens. 11 a suitable expert and make sure that expert was properly
12 Q. And (d) {I/5/21}: 12 instructed , didn’t you? The opportunity.
13 ”The clock was changed at least 2 other times.” 13 A. No, I recommended someone who was a Citrix expert and
14 Mr Lynch finds, one of them: 14 they weren’t used. The timeframe for when Shoosmiths
15 ” ... changed the clock from 31 October ... to 15 came in was limited, so I don’t blame them for that.
16 30 October ... and that change occurred while 16 The mess with Travers Smith was a mess because of
17 information was being recorded in a transaction log. As 17 Christen. But back at the beginning, I expressly said
18 a result of that change, a transaction log that had been 18 I wanted someone SANS qualified.
19 recorded as being created on [the 31st] was recorded as 19 Q. No, but this was after the PTR, when the experts were
20 ... last modified on [the 30th] ... ” 20 brought in to look at the BDO Drive. At that stage,
21 Do you accept that finding? 21 everyone had to race around and find appropriate experts
22 A. No, once again, if −− rather than relying on theoretical 22 and get those experts instructed . You had
23 knowledge or something you get from a blog, you actually 23 the opportunity, at that time, to ensure that an expert
24 take an image yourself and you try this , you find that 24 was properly instructed and suitably qualified , didn’t
25 never happens. So, basically , all you need to do to 25 you?

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 A. No, I said categorically that the person who did 1 Q. Page 77 −− page 27, paragraph 77 {G/6/27}. All
2 the Citrix tests for me was an expert and I wanted them 2 the forensic findings indicated , didn’t they, that
3 used. 3 the 71 new reliance documents among these 145 had
4 I also said that I don’t think Stroz should be used 4 timestamps which were consistent with their being copied
5 because they have a conflict of interest . Over 30% of 5 to the raw image when the computer clock was setback to
6 their revenue, at the time, was gained through members 6 31 October 2007?
7 of COPA. I got told Chinese walls will be in place. My 7 A. No, actually , it doesn’t. If you had done that,
8 comment on that is I don’t believe Chinese walls ever 8 the modified and create date times wouldn’t be skewed.
9 work. So, Meta, who was a member of COPA until −− 9 The copying of a file with the clock setback doesn’t do
10 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, could I interrupt the witness, and 10 that. If you were to do that, that never leads to that
11 I apologise for doing so, but he’s actually giving 11 outcome. A simple test of actually loading a machine
12 privileged information, which is entirely inappropriate , 12 and doing that will show you.
13 but he ought to be warned about that. It is his 13 Now, on the other hand, simply copying those files
14 privilege , but he shouldn’t be asked about this and he 14 using Xcopy, as I demonstrated and put screenshots in my
15 certainly shouldn’t be answering it. 15 witness statement, does make those changes. The experts
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, he wasn’t asked about it, he was 16 have all said Xcopy changes file dates; Microsoft
17 asked about the opportunity. 17 disagrees .
18 LORD GRABINER: Forgive me, he might well have been 18 Q. Dr Wright, the court’s working on the basis of
19 tendering things that weren’t directly answering 19 the expert evidence in this case. You’re aware that
20 the question, but in any event, what he’s talking about 20 both experts agree with this finding , having considered
21 is privileged . 21 your lengthy witness statements explaining your computer
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, well, now he’s been warned. 22 environment; you’re aware of that, aren’t you?
23 MR HOUGH: My Lord, I was trying to walk a line between 23 A. I ’m aware they’ve said that, but I ’m also aware that
24 giving the warnings. 24 they said they couldn’t be bothered checking. My own −−
25 Next, Mr Madden’s report. I can’t put every finding 25 Q. That’s not what they said, is it , Dr Wright?

57 59

1 from Mr Madden’s fourth report to you, because that 1 A. Actually, it is . Stroz said in their report that they
2 would be disproportionate and we don’t have the time, 2 don’t need to check Xcopy because, ”I know how this
3 Dr Wright, but I’m going to put some particularly 3 works”. In their statement, they categorically said ,
4 salient ones to you to give you the opportunity to 4 ”We’re not going to check Xcopy because I know it can
5 answer them. 5 change these things”. Yet, if you read the page on
6 {G/6/1}, please. You see this is the fourth expert 6 Microsoft on how the tool works, what they stated is
7 report of Mr Madden, yes? 7 categorically false .
8 A. Yes. 8 On top of that, they refused to take any analysis of
9 Q. Page 26, please {G/6/26}. 9 this . As I said , I don’t believe some −− a company can
10 In addition to Mr Lynch’s findings, Mr Madden made 10 be firewalled using a Chinese wall. I really don’t.
11 the finding we see at paragraphs 74 and 75 that, based 11 Q. You’ve told us your view about the independence of Stroz
12 upon his forensic analysis , there were 145 files in 12 and you say they’re under a conflict of interest .
13 BDOPC.raw which postdated the 6 July 2007, the date 13 Paragraph −− page 30, please {G/6/30},
14 the experts agreed was the last date of use of 14 paragraph 93(d). You’re aware that, as well as
15 the computer from which the image was taken. Is that 15 the analysis that produced that result, Mr Madden
16 a finding you accept? 16 investigated security identifiers associated with
17 A. No. As I said , that was when I cloned the machine. 17 documents from the recycle bin on the drive, aren’t you?
18 I then did the capture afterwards. So, as I ’ve 18 A. Mm−hm. I am.
19 explained in my witness statement and here, I did 19 Q. And you’re aware, aren’t you, that he found that
20 a cloning, and then I converted the cloning, through 20 the identifier linked with the 71 new reliance documents
21 the process I ’ve described, to a virtual machine. In 21 which had been found to have been copied when the clock
22 that intervening period, I copied files . So, saying 22 was setback, the security identifiers for those
23 that these files were copied after July is , big deal, 23 documents had a number ending in 1002? You’re aware of
24 I copied them from my own machine in that timeframe in 24 that?
25 the period up to October. 25 A. No, the clock wasn’t set back. What I will note is ,

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 the SSIDs changed, because it was, one, on a new 1 Q. That S −− that SID number, 1002, I think we can agree,
2 computer where it was on a virtual machine, and, two, 2 was different from the user profile assigned to you
3 BDO Kendalls merged. So in the intervening period where 3 while you were an employee at BDO?
4 I ’m doing this, BDO merged to form a global firm. Each 4 A. Yes.
5 of the BDOs were separate in Australia at this point. 5 Q. So it is at least consistent , would you accept this
6 The Melbourne office took over to be the head IT area 6 much, with the story of these documents being added much
7 and new credentials were given. So we moved from a BDO 7 later ?
8 New South Wales domain into a BDO Australia domain. 8 A. No, it ’s not. It ’s consistent with a new computer. In
9 That basically changed all these SSIDs. 9 the new computer, I would have both admin and
10 Q. We’ll come back to the SSID in a moment. But you’re 10 Craig Wright local admin and the admin will have
11 saying then that these 71 documents were documents which 11 a different SSID, as it says on here, and the Craig will
12 you added in to the drive between July and October 2007; 12 have a different SSID. So when I put the drive as an
13 have I got you right? 13 image and mounted it using Mount Image Pro on the new
14 A. I can’t look at every single document you’re looking 14 computer, I don’t have the same SSID for my local
15 at at the moment, but, yes, during the period between 15 computer, so copying back and forwards will now have
16 July and October, I copied from my external drive, that 16 a different one; it must do.
17 is currently on the drive as an external link , but not 17 Q. Well, I just put to you that it was consistent,
18 linked because it ’s not a full machine any more, into 18 the difference in SID was consistent with the finding of
19 the drives so that I would have files . 19 copying years later ; that’s true, isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?
20 Q. You copied −− based on your story and based on 20 A. No, actually , it ’s consistent with the process that
21 the numbers we’re looking at, it was a relatively small 21 I just explained. If I ’m on a new computer using
22 number of files , it was 145? 22 a different log−in, I ’m going to have a different SSID.
23 A. I ’m not sure of the exact number, but I copied some that 23 And as I noted, I had the original domain log−in
24 were on my external drive, yes. 24 captured and used, and then I accessed using the other
25 Q. It included 71 of the 97 new reliance documents, yes? 25 machine that I copied to.

61 63

1 You agree −− 1 Q. Page 31, please {G/6/31}, paragraph 99. As a further

2 A. Possible , yes. 2 analysis , Mr Madden examined the metadata on the NT file
3 Q. You agree with me so far? 3 system in the form of object IDs, and it ’s right to say
4 Are you aware that those 71 are all those which 4 that object IDs are used to track files and folders ,
5 provide any positive support for your claim to be 5 they’re not assigned to every file , but are assigned as
6 Satoshi? 6 a result of certain actions. Can we agree on that?
7 A. That’s where they’d most likely be. As I noted, if you 7 A. For the most part.
8 look at it , it had an external drive , so the work and 8 Q. Page 32 {G/6/32}, paragraph 103, he found that there
9 research was on a data drive and when I moved from 9 were 44 ObjIDs from after 6 July 2007, 26 of them timed
10 the data drive into the BDO Drive, they would be copied. 10 31 October 2007, and the remainder 17 to
11 Q. So it just happened to be the case that between July and 11 19 September 2023. Do you accept those findings?
12 October 2007, half of the documents you carried over 12 A. In which area? Are we talking about the BDO Drive or
13 were 71 documents you would now rely upon which actually 13 the Samsung Drive?
14 provided any support for your claim to be Satoshi? 14 Q. Well, he found, from BDOPC.raw:
15 A. No, it didn’t just happen. It happened because they 15 ” ... 44 ObjIDs from after 6 July 2007, [with]
16 were documents I felt were valuable. So, in taking 16 the earliest ObjID date after that [as] 31 October ...
17 documents that I felt were valuable, I copied them from 17 ”The remaining ObjIDs [relating] to 17 18, and
18 my external drive. Other documents would have just been 18 19 September 2023.”
19 put into a file share. As an example of that, that’s 19 Do you accept those findings?
20 why I have a limited number of assignments. For 20 A. I can’t deny them at the moment, so I haven’t analysed
21 instance, in the Newcastle area, you pulled up 21 them in detail .
22 assignment 3 of one of my courses. In that, I had 12 22 Q. Page 33 {G/6/33}, paragraph 105.
23 different courses, each with four or five assignments. 23 And he deduced from that that the documents −− he
24 All of those aren’t available any more, because I didn’t 24 noted from that that the ObjIDs recorded eight different
25 copy them all. 25 date and timestamp sessions, including five from

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 September 2023; do you see that? 1 other apart from blank space and 99.98% identical to
2 A. I do. 2 BDOPC.raw, the BDO raw image which you put forward in
3 Q. And he deduced from that that the dates in 2007 were 3 these proceedings; correct?
4 recorded after the dates in 2023; do you see that 4 A. The BDO raw image isn’t InfoDef.raw, so they’re
5 conclusion? 5 different things. There is an encrypted and not
6 A. I do. 6 unencrypted drive on there called InfoDef, but there is
7 Q. And do you accept that conclusion? 7 a deleted image of a file , yes, that has been added.
8 A. With some caveats, but move on. 8 Q. And he found that 17 of the −− this is page 41 {G/6/41},
9 Q. And he then finds, as a result of that, that: 9 paragraph 134 −− he found that 17 of the 97 new
10 ” ... [the] documents were added to and/or modified 10 reliance documents existed on ID −− on InfoDef09.raw in
11 on BDOPC.raw over the course of three days ... between 11 slightly different versions . Were you aware of that?
12 17 and 19 September, but [with] the clock set back to 12 A. Not before Mr Madden pointed it out. As I said,
13 2007.” 13 the Samsung Drive was taken by KLD, so I haven’t been
14 That’s correct , isn ’ t it ? 14 able to do any analysis.
15 A. No, it ’s not. Whether it could be modified after that 15 Q. Does it surprise you to know that there is a deleted
16 time would be, the created and set there isn ’ t . So, 16 image file containing 17 of the 97 new
17 I would deny that it could have been created and/or 17 reliance documents existing in slightly different
18 modified, I would agree that it could have been 18 versions?
19 modified. 19 A. After the image that Sherrell has put in −−
20 Q. You’re agreeing that it could have been modified. Do 20 Mr Sherrell’s put in the witness statement, no. I would
21 you say that there were such modifications between those 21 have been highly shocked if Mr Ager−Hanssen hadn’t told
22 dates? 22 my wife and tried to sort of poison her against me and
23 A. Unfortunately, I don’t know. What I do know is that, 23 other people and using these images. Apart from that,
24 based on your own witness statement from Sherrell and 24 now I’m not.
25 Mr Ager−Hanssen, Mr Ager−Hanssen published pictures of 25 Q. So you say that this finding of slightly different

65 67

1 some of those files on that BDO Drive −− files he didn’t 1 versions of 17 of the 97 new reliance documents existing
2 have access −− well, clearly he did have access to, 2 in InfoDef09.raw is due to some sort of hack and
3 files he should not have had access to −− on a third 3 manipulation orchestrated by Mr Ager−Hanssen?
4 party computer, running Linux, showing my browsing 4 A. By someone working for Mr Ager−Hanssen. I don’t believe
5 history , my communications with my lawyers, my personal 5 that he would be able to do it himself . I also don’t
6 communications with my wife, all sorts of things. He 6 believe he’d be able to run a Linux laptop. I ’m not
7 had an access to that drive , yes. 7 trying to diss him that way, but he’s not a Linux person
8 Q. So you’re saying that you think he got access to your 8 and the laptop, in the screenshot he showed, running and
9 drive and modified files on it? 9 accessing my files , was Linux. That’s very clear from
10 A. I actually don’t know. The Samsung Drive was taken by 10 my explanations. You can look at that computer, it’s
11 KLD, so I haven’t been able to do a proper analysis. 11 a Linux computer.
12 I would like to. Because it’s been taken, I can’t do 12 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you −− you were just talking about
13 any further analysis . 13 what KLD had done with the Samsung Drive; you’re aware
14 Now, what I do know is that Mr Ager−Hanssen posted 14 that they returned it to your team some while ago,
15 extensively on Twitter, before taking down those Twitter 15 aren’t you?
16 posts, pictures of my browsing history on my current 16 A. No, I’m not. I don’t actually know where it is. I know
17 computer and pictures of file shares and the structure 17 they imaged it and I know I haven’t got it back.
18 that he didn’t have access to. We hadn’t released that 18 Q. {E/20/8}, please.
19 drive , it hadn’t been given to my lawyers properly even, 19 Paragraph 25, you describe KLD capturing a physical
20 and yet Mr Ager−Hanssen was displaying it. 20 forensic image of the hard drives, and then at the end,
21 Q. I ’ ll come back to that later. 21 you say that:
22 Page 37, please {G/6/37}, paragraph 117. 22 ”KLD Discovery then returned the Hard Drives to me.
23 Mr Madden was able to recover two deleted image 23 They left my home and I believe returned to their London
24 files from the Samsung Drive, image.raw and 24 office with the captured forensic images. Shoosmiths
25 InfoDef09.raw, which he concluded were identical to each 25 has since taken custody of the Hard Drives and they

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 remain in Shoosmiths’ possession.” 1 attack, I ’m good, but I keep getting compromised by

2 Is that right? 2 insiders , because I trust people.
3 A. Yes. I don’t know whether it’s with the lawyers or with 3 Q. So on your account, the findings which show forgery of
4 KLD or ... I don’t know where they actually are. I know 4 this drive based upon the transaction logs, the SIDs and
5 Shoosmiths have signed for them. 5 the ObjIDs are all findings made by experts who don’t
6 Q. What you say in this statement is rather different from 6 know what they’re doing; correct?
7 what you told us not a few moments ago, that you didn’t 7 A. They’re not qualified . They’re not specialised in
8 have and couldn’t have access to these drives . 8 VMware, they’re not specialised in Citrix . Generally
9 A. No, I can’t have access. I don’t have possession of 9 speaking, it ’s not that you can run an imaging and
10 them any more and no one’s going to give me access to 10 cloning tool that makes you an expert, it’s expertise in
11 after the trial . 11 the area. So you would have expertise in, like , VMware,
12 Q. These drives in the hands of your solicitors are not 12 if you’re going to talk about that. If you’re going to
13 documents to which you have access? 13 talk about persistence in Citrix , I ’d expect at least an
14 A. No, I don’t. 14 introductory Citrix qualification .
15 Q. Is that what you’re saying? 15 Q. And the findings which suggest forgery, based on
16 A. I ’m saying I have handed them over and I’m not going to 16 the edits , which you can’t explain away in that way, are
17 have them returned until after the trial . My solicitors 17 due to a hack by Mr Ager−Hanssen?
18 don’t want me to have access until after then −− 18 A. No, actually , I can explain them. Mr Ager−Hanssen was
19 Q. No, no, no, you said you couldn’t run tests on them for 19 silly enough to actually tweet pictures of my files
20 yourself because you didn’t have access to them. 20 before all this happened. On top of that, the comment
21 A. I don’t have access to them. 21 in 134(c), where he talks about ChatGPT, on both an
22 Q. Well, let me put it to you that if you instructed your 22 interview and in communications with some of
23 solicitors to provide those drives to you so that you 23 the BTC Core people, and in Twitter, he went round
24 could run tests on them, there would be nothing to 24 bragging, ”Craig uses ChatGPT to write all of his
25 prevent them complying with your instructions. 25 patents, therefore we can get them invalidated, not only

69 71

1 A. That’s not what I’ve been told. 1 will we win this case, we’re going to invalidate his
2 Q. Okay, well, I ’m not going to ask you to go into anything 2 patents”. Now, the problem, of course, with that is , my
3 privileged . 3 patents started being filed , first of all , in 2011 and
4 Back to Mr Madden’s conclusions, please, page 41 4 then 2016 −−
5 {G/6/41}. 5 Q. Dr Wright, I think you’re digressing into your patents,
6 Paragraph 134, Mr Madden also found that the edits 6 which we’re not concerned with.
7 shown on those documents were apparently relevant to 7 A. No, I’m answering that he had access, and he bragged
8 this case; do you see that? 8 about it .
9 A. I do. 9 Q. So Dr Wright, there are some findings of forgery which
10 Q. Page 42 {G/6/42}, we see that the difference between 10 you say are due to expert incompetence, and entirely
11 the version on InfoDef.raw and BDOPC.raw is 11 separate findings of forgery which you say are due to an
12 the difference between the words ”the original 12 unauthorised hack?
13 Bitcoin White Paper” on InfoDef and ”the proposed 13 A. I ’m saying that the experts have not checked a simple
14 Timecoin system” on BDOPC.raw? 14 validation . They haven’t done an experiment, which
15 A. I do. 15 I would expect from an expert.
16 Q. And would you accept that that is consistent with you 16 Q. And you say that the unauthorised hack was possible
17 editing the document to suggest that you’re speaking 17 because you, the great IT security expert, left this
18 about a prospective Timecoin system rather than an 18 drive plugged in, you say, you now accept, very
19 existing Bitcoin system? 19 unwisely?
20 A. No. The image that has been left there was something 20 A. I do. In part. I presumed that my computer was safe
21 that I ’d say Mr Ager−Hanssen or one of his people were 21 because I had two factor. What I didn’t expect was that
22 involved with. Unfortunately −− and I’ll say this again 22 the group policy update that was pushed from nChain
23 −− my own hubris. I get in trouble for this all 23 would also contain a back door. I assumed that Christen
24 the time; I believe that I know how to secure a system, 24 wasn’t working against the organisation.
25 so therefore I forget about insiders . From external 25 Q. And this detail of leaving the drive plugged in,

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 a security flaw on your part, was something you didn’t 1 hubris . I actually saw that he had images and I tried
2 see fit to mention in your fifth witness statement, 2 to excuse it away. I went to my solicitors ,
3 despite its obvious importance to the chain of custody 3 Travers Smith, and I said , ”There’s no way he could
4 and integrity of this drive? 4 access my machine, I have no −− I don’t know how he’s
5 A. It only became important after I figured out that my 5 got these images, but they can’t be from my computer”.
6 computer had been compromised. Prior to that, as 6 I made excuses. I was actually incredibly stupid.
7 I said , my own hubris, I was dumb enough to believe that 7 I refused to believe that anyone could break into my
8 everyone at nChain could be trusted. 8 computer, even someone who was an insider. I sat there
9 Q. Dr Wright, the reality is that these two previous 9 telling everyone that, ”No way, no one will ever break
10 iterations of the BDO raw image evidence you going 10 into my computer, no way he’s done this”, and it took me
11 through an editing process with multiple versions being 11 a while to actually accept that, well , he’s got images
12 created; that’s the truth, isn ’ t it ? 12 of my computer and he must have.
13 A. No, actually , if you analyse those two images, which 13 Q. Can you put a date, or a rough time, when it first
14 I would do if I had copy, what I −− the little I could 14 occurred to you that Mr Ager−Hanssen may have
15 see is that it appears that they are copies of 15 manipulated the content of the BDO Drive?
16 the BDO Drive. So it looks more like the BDO Drive has 16 A. I should have known around the 20−something −− by
17 been imaged and someone was manufacturing something from 17 23 September, but I refused to believe it .
18 there. 18 Q. When did it actually occur to you?
19 Q. The manipulation by you took place in 19 A. Probably not until December. Not when Stroz and things
20 mid−September 2023, as a whole series of independent 20 like that started giving me information back on
21 expert findings that I ’ve put to you indicate . 21 the drive . It got to a point where my wife talked to me
22 A. No, that’s not correct . Once again, I point to the fact 22 and said, ”Something here, you have to start thinking
23 that Mr Ager−Hanssen actually posted copies of the drive 23 about this”, and then it actually started dawning to me
24 on Twitter. 24 that I ’m a bit dumber at times than I think.
25 Q. And in the process of this exercise of forgery , you 25 Q. You didn’t say in any of your witness statements before

73 75

1 seeded the BDO Drive with 71 of the 97 new 1 the expert reports were produced on the BDO Drive that
2 reliance documents as the experts found? 2 it may have been edited, manipulated by Mr Ager−Hanssen,
3 A. No, that’s actually incorrect . As I’ve noted, it would 3 did you?
4 be a very, very, incredibly very easy test just to use 4 A. At that point, I didn’t believe he would be able to
5 Xcopy and validate what I’ve said, and it would be 5 access, even when I’d seen screenshots of my own files
6 a very easy test for any of the other things. 6 displayed on a remote computer. Again, my own hubris,
7 Q. When do you say you first became aware that 7 I just refused to believe that he could do it .
8 Mr Ager−Hanssen had hacked your system and might have 8 Q. You first came up with this story −− you have first come
9 manipulated or edited these drives? 9 up with this story following the experts’ conclusions in
10 A. Sorry, what was ...? 10 reports like this one we have on screen, didn’t you,
11 Q. When did you say you first became aware that 11 Dr Wright?
12 Mr Ager−Hanssen had accessed your system and may have 12 A. No, I didn’t come up with the story, but I accepted what
13 edited these drives? 13 had happened. It took me a lot to actually believe that
14 A. I can’t remember the exact date. It was after they’d 14 I could be compromised in that way.
15 been imaged. It was my wife had received a series of 15 Q. Let’s look at some documents from the BDO Drive,
16 WhatsApp messages from Mr Ager−Hanssen, basically, that 16 {L2/49/1} {PTR−F/52/1}, please. ID_004695. If it’s
17 started trying to cajole her, saying that we could work 17 easier to use the ID, it ’s 004695.
18 together and Craig’s an idiot . When she turned that 18 This is a file entitled ”The King2.rtf” and it
19 down, he started becoming abusive and saying that he was 19 presents as an article on network security and Quorum
20 going to destroy us all , effectively . 20 systems, simplifying hugely, doesn’t it , Dr Wright?
21 Q. You describe those events in one of your statements as 21 A. No, it ’s an exam that I had in −− actually, it was held
22 taking place in late September 2023. When do you say it 22 in Las Vegas, for some reason, but SANS were doing
23 first occurred to you that these −− that the BDO Drive 23 testing . I did one of my GSE, global security expert,
24 might have been manipulated by Mr Ager−Hanssen? 24 exams and one of the examinations, they had as a King’s
25 A. Not as early as it should have been. Again, my own 25 WiFi exercise, where I had to breach and work out how to

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 get into the WiFi. We were given a red team/blue team 1 the original reliance set . Would you agree with that?
2 scenario and this was my paper done during that 2 A. I agree with that.
3 examination, which I subsequently passed. 3 Q. This was another RTF file which Mr Madden found was
4 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Madden has found that 4 created with the 2020 version of Windows. Are you aware
5 this file was created with a version of Windows which 5 of that finding?
6 was the May 2020 update? 6 A. I ’m aware of his finding , yes.
7 A. I ’ve seen his notification of the versioning , yes. 7 Q. And are you aware that he also found on BDOPC.raw
8 Q. Is that a finding you accept? 8 a deleted copy of a document he’d previously analysed,
9 A. I ’m saying now it could be possible. It ’s actually 9 which was a slightly different version of this LLM
10 feasible that people could have been on that drive. 10 proposal with a 2019 Grammarly timestamp? Are you aware
11 Q. Ah, so the fact that this was shown as created with 11 of that finding?
12 a version of Windows which was the 2020 update is down 12 A. No, I wouldn’t put it that way. He found a copy that
13 to Mr Ager−Hanssen’s hack? 13 was on another machine with the Grammarly timestamp, and
14 A. That’s the only explanation I can give you. What I do 14 he found a deleted copy of this file that didn’t have
15 know is he accessed that drive. I led myself to believe 15 a Grammarly timestamp. They’re two separate things.
16 that he wouldn’t be able to, and obviously, if there are 16 Q. And what I’m going to suggest to you is that this
17 files on a computer displayed on the internet that are 17 document, like the last one, was forged by you in −−
18 mine, I have to accept it . 18 probably in mid −− probably in September 2023 and seeded
19 Q. You’re aware also that Mr Madden found that there was an 19 onto the BDO Drive.
20 equivalent folder on InfoDef09.raw containing this and 20 A. Again, it ’s the wrong way round. You’re asking about
21 two additional files , yes? 21 the original documents, and we now have one that doesn’t
22 A. Yes. 22 have the Grammarly timestamp, etc, and that would mean
23 Q. He found in those anomalous timestamps, yes? 23 that it predates, not postdates.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. {L1/175/1} {PTR−F/72/1}, ID_004715. This presents,
25 Q. And that the version on this document on InfoDef09.raw 25 doesn’t it , as a September 2007 −− we can see the date

77 79

1 included metadata showing a whole series of signs of 1 about a fifth of the way down −− 15 September 2007
2 creation in 2023, including reference to a Zotero 2 document analysing proof−of−work calculations from
3 application from that date and a Grammarly tag from 3 something called the Hashcoin White Paper; do you see
4 12 September 2023, yes? 4 that?
5 A. I am. 5 A. It does.
6 Q. And those tags, the creation timestamp and the Grammarly 6 Q. And you’ve presented this as a LaTeX file coding for an
7 tag, were both 12 September 2023; would you accept that? 7 article you wrote at that time, haven’t you?
8 A. I do. 8 A. Around that time, yes.
9 Q. And that would be consistent, wouldn’t it, with you 9 Q. And the abstract refers to building on calculations in
10 editing these documents before seeding them into 10 the TimeChain White Paper, doesn’t it?
11 the BDO Drive in mid−September 2023? 11 A. It does.
12 A. No, it wouldn’t, for two reasons. One, Zotero and 12 Q. Now, you’re aware, aren’t you, that descriptions of that
13 Grammarly don’t actually have a plugin for rich text 13 kind appeared in a schedule to Ms Field’s first witness
14 format. While you can load it into the web, or you can 14 statement, which was put in before the PTR with a view
15 edit it otherwise, it doesn’t directly do that, so, 15 to your relying upon these various documents?
16 the Zotero references from a Microsoft Word thing that 16 A. Sorry? You mean the document that she listed about
17 has been copied across with the Word version and 17 the BDO Drive? I’m not sure which one you’re talking
18 the other is as well . So they had been seeded into 18 about.
19 the InfoDef copy. 19 Q. Can we go to {P4/10/1}. This was schedule 1 to
20 Q. {L2/54/1} {PTR−F/54/1}, which is document ID_004697. 20 the first witness statement of Hannah Louise Field,
21 I ’ ll take these relatively quickly , because I think your 21 which Ms Field put in −−
22 answers will be the same for each of them, but I need to 22 A. Yes, I ’m aware of that.
23 put each to you. 23 Q. −− in advance of the PTR, and she was very clear, and
24 This presents as a version of your LLM proposal, 24 quite properly clear , that all of this was on your
25 albeit different in various respects from those in 25 instructions , yes?

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 A. Yes. 1 evidence on these drives because of my own hubris not

2 Q. And if we go to page 3 {P4/10/3}, row 5, you presented 2 believing it . Even having, on an external drive, a 2008
3 this document, ID_004715, as a LaTeX file coding for an 3 copy of a file would support my claim. So, your
4 article commenting on concepts similar to the concepts 4 argument on being a deleted version, etc, if that hadn’t
5 in the Bitcoin White Paper? 5 been manipulated more, that would be supportive itself.
6 A. That’s correct . 6 Now, the BDO Drive would be updated the other way,
7 Q. In your descriptions of all of these documents which 7 effectively , which could be easily checked, and
8 were conveyed through Ms Field’s schedule there was no 8 the problem is neither expert has actually checked this,
9 suggestion that any of them had bone manipulated or 9 they’ve made a presumption without validation.
10 modified in any way. 10 Q. So you say that Mr Ager−Hanssen −− we’ll come back to
11 A. No, there wasn’t. 11 what the experts did in a moment, but you say that
12 Q. So you’d considered the files in sufficient detail to 12 Mr Ager−Hanssen and his team of hackers, whoever they
13 give these descriptions and noticed nothing wrong with 13 were, manipulated documents in order to seed them onto
14 any of them? 14 InfoDef09.raw with the hope that COPA and the developers
15 A. Well, all I could look at was the ID number, I wasn’t 15 would gain access to the drive , find them and finger you
16 analysing the Samsung Drive, so ... 16 as a forger , yes?
17 Q. You could look at the documents, couldn’t you? 17 A. I think −−
18 A. Yes. 18 Q. That’s your hypothesis?
19 Q. So, looking at the documents, you didn’t notice anything 19 A. No, actually , it isn ’ t a hypothesis. One of the things
20 wrong with any of them? 20 I disclosed to my lawyers was, some of the files that
21 A. No, I didn’t . 21 I ’d given to Christen Ager−Hanssen, including PDF files,
22 Q. Back to {L1/175/1} {PTR−F/72/1}, which is the document. 22 had a web cookie, my Lord. A web cookie calls a web
23 Now, Mr Madden made a finding that there was a previous 23 server or IP address when logged. I have a web server
24 version of this document on InfoDef09.raw which showed 24 running that these files log from. I can’t say how, but
25 various changes. You’re aware of that, aren’t you? 25 they recorded, in 2016 −− sorry, September last year,

81 83

1 A. Again, I would say it ’s the other way round. I would 1 Bird & Bird’s IP address. I notified both Travers Smith
2 say that there is a changed version of this document on 2 and other solicitors of this .
3 InfoDef09.raw. If you actually look at it −− and if 3 Q. I ’m sorry, what are you suggesting this indicates ,
4 I had the drive, I ’d analyse it properly −− I think 4 Dr Wright?
5 you’ ll find that InfoDef09.raw is copied after 5 A. I don’t actually know, because they’ve got an open WiFi,
6 the BDO Drive. 6 so it can’t say that it ’s them. Someone could have
7 Q. I firmly dispute that, based on the view of both 7 stood outside their office , Mr Ager−Hanssen could likely
8 experts. 8 have actually done that to try and implicate them some
9 May we go to {H/278/19}, and we see that Mr Madden 9 way. What I do know is Mr Ager−Hanssen is playing
10 identified , in paragraph 82, differences between the two 10 a game that I don’t understand.
11 documents. If we go to the comparison below, we can see 11 Q. I ’m going to put to you, first of all , Dr Wright, that
12 that there are changes to the authorship date −− I think 12 Bird & Bird don’t have an open WiFi, do they? I’m
13 that may be on the previous page {H/278/19} −− 2008 as 13 putting that on pretty clear instructions .
14 against 2007, yes? 14 A. I haven’t checked their WiFi.
15 A. Yes. 15 Q. And this is yet another, and may I suggest somewhat
16 Q. Then over the page {H/278/20}, references to 16 scandalous, embellishment to your tale.
17 Bitcoin White Paper edited to ”TimeChain” and 17 A. No, it ’s not. It actually happened, and I did report
18 ”Hashcoin”? 18 it .
19 A. Yes. 19 Q. Next {L1/176/1} {PTR−F/73/1}. We can go through these
20 Q. So what I suggest to you is that these are very clear 20 −− our allegations of forgery in these documents
21 indications of a document which refers to Bitcoin as an 21 relatively quickly , Dr Wright, because I suspect your
22 existing system being modified to look like something 22 answer to each will be the same.
23 looking at a Hashcoin system to support your case. 23 Do you recognise this as a LaTeX file which would
24 A. No, I’d actually say it ’s the other way round. What it 24 generate a portion of your supposed Timecoin
25 is is someone trying to ensure that there is manipulated 25 White Paper?

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 A. It ’s a LaTeX section. It would be called from the main 1 A. Yes, I do.

2 file . 2 Q. And it says:
3 Q. Mr Madden found a version of this in InfoDef09.raw 3 ”Recent studies have delved into the mathematical
4 showing modifications to change, ”proof−of−work”, 4 intricacies ... ”
5 ”a cornerstone of the original Bitcoin White Paper”, to 5 And so on. And then there’s a reference to Xia et
6 refer to a ”proposed timecoin system”. Do you say 6 al with a question mark after it ?
7 that’s another of Mr Ager−Hanssen’s hacks? 7 A. I do.
8 A. I ’m not sure how it happened. As I said, I don’t have 8 Q. {H/278/38−39}. Mr Madden found a version of this in
9 access to the Samsung Drive, so I can’t do any analysis 9 InfoDef09.raw. If we go to {H/278/39}, we show what his
10 myself. What I do know is, I’m not sure how the InfoDef 10 findings were. He found that one date −− one set of
11 thing created itself , or what analysis has been done, 11 dates had been changed, or that there was a difference
12 and I know that no one’s really analysed that to 12 between 2006 and 2009, yes?
13 validate when or how. 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Well, I put to you that this is another forgery by you. 14 Q. And he found that in the version in InfoDef09.raw,
15 A. No, it ’s not. 15 the ”Xia et al” reference had a date, ”2016”; do you see
16 Q. {L1/183/1} {PTR−F/76/1}. This is ID_004719. This is 16 that?
17 another, I think, file which you put forward, through 17 A. I do.
18 Ms Field’s schedule, as a LaTeX file which would 18 Q. Now, Dr Wright, in the document which you say you
19 generate another portion of your Timecoin White Paper, 19 actually produced, is it your evidence that there was
20 yes? 20 a question mark left against that reference?
21 A. That’s correct . 21 A. At that point, yes.
22 Q. And again, Mr Madden found a version of this in 22 Q. And you say that Mr Ager−Hanssen filled in
23 InfoDef09.raw showing modifications of a similar kind, 23 the question mark with a date?
24 ” original proof−of−work calculations as described in 24 A. I actually don’t know who did it. What I do know is
25 the Bitcoin white paper”, changed to ”Timecoin 25 Mr Ager−Hanssen showed access to my computer on a Linux

85 87

1 white paper”. Are you aware of that finding, Dr Wright? 1 machine. Who was running that Linux machine, I cannot
2 A. I ’m aware of the finding, yes. 2 say. Mr Ager−Hanssen has been served an injunction by
3 Q. And that’s a clear sign that you forged this document, 3 nChain, and costs orders, and he has fled the country,
4 isn ’ t it ? 4 so I can’t answer any questions about that.
5 A. No, actually , it ’s not. Even if there was an 5 Q. Mr Ager−Hanssen got, on your account, extraordinarily
6 alternative document with that information, that 6 lucky here, because he had a bizarre reference without
7 wouldn’t show any forgery, or anything like this . None 7 a date, didn’t he, to work with?
8 of that demonstrates what you’re saying. What it does 8 A. Xia et al , I mean, I can give you a number of
9 say is that someone was trying to access my drive. 9 publications from 2003 to 5. So, no, what he has done
10 Now, if a later version said ”Bitcoin”, for 10 is added −− he could have changed any of them, he could
11 instance, or ”2008”, that would actually be coherent. 11 have put it 2010, 2012, etc. As an example, in the one
12 So I’m not sure what he was trying to do at that stage 12 above, he’s got ”Vogels 2009”, but there is actually
13 other than maybe make another image that had problems. 13 a Vogels 2006 paper. So, the Vogels 2006 paper is
14 Q. {L1/186/1} {PTR−F/79/1}, please, ID_004722. Again, you 14 valid , but it makes it look as if it ’s fake.
15 presented this as a LaTeX file which would generate an 15 Q. But Dr Wright, it’s odd, isn ’ t it , when you’re writing
16 article with the author name Satoshi relating to 16 an academic piece, to give a reference to a paper but
17 concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper; correct? 17 then not include the date, or a citation and put
18 A. I did. 18 a question mark? That’s unusual, isn’t it ?
19 Q. You see it bears the date, towards the top, 19 A. No, actually , generally , now, because I use APA more
20 30 August 2006? 20 than anything else, at 7, I do ”N.D” for ”no date”, but
21 A. I do. 21 when writing, until I ’ve actually figured out what
22 Q. If we go to {PTR−F/79/5}, a third of the way down 22 the date is , I will put something in there.
23 the page, we see a paragraph beginning: 23 Now, I used to use EndNote, and if I didn’t have
24 ”The formal analysis ... ” 24 the date, I would reference it with a question mark.
25 Do you see that? 25 I now use a different citation engine and it will

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 automatically put in ”D”. 1 replication . So, if you were looking at this paper,
2 Q. Dr Wright, it isn ’ t the case, is it , that 2 what you would actually have to be doing is looking at
3 Mr Ager−Hanssen got strikingly lucky here, this is 3 the text . The indicia that you put there are standard,
4 another sign of forgery by you, isn ’ t it ? 4 sort of, ways of doing all of this that have existed for
5 A. No, he didn’t get lucky. It turns out that he’d been 5 the last 20 years. Because they’re on blogs, because
6 actually monitoring my computer for months, including 6 they’re on standard forums, ChatGPT takes these things
7 all of my emails, all of my communications, all of my 7 and replicates them. So people like me, who actually
8 WhatsApp. He had basically been screenshotting 8 write things, end up having their work in ChatGPT
9 everything, he had videoed everything, he had recorded 9 because it steals .
10 everything I ’d said in the room, he had all of my 10 Q. {L1/187/1} {PTR−F/80/1}, please, document 004723. This
11 communications. So, being that he had every single 11 is LP1.tex. You’ve presented this, haven’t you, as
12 email I sent, every WhatsApp I’ve sent, including to my 12 a LaTeX file which would generate an alternate version
13 wife, everything I ’ve talked to my family about, all my 13 of the previous document but with you named as
14 communications, I don’t think he was lucky at all , 14 the author this time; correct?
15 I think he just had too much information. 15 A. That’s what it says.
16 Q. Back to the document {L1/186/10}, and page 10, please, 16 Q. {H/278/41}, please. In his 46th appendix, Mr Madden
17 {PTR−F/79/10}. Bottom of the page −− are we showing 17 found a version of this in InfoDef09.raw. Do you recall
18 the very bottom, please? Bottom of page 10. There we 18 that finding?
19 go. 19 A. I do.
20 Four lines up from the bottom −− sorry, the line at 20 Q. And do you see that he found that there had been
21 the very bottom: 21 modifications to remove references which postdated 2006,
22 ”% include your reference file here.” 22 hadn’t there?
23 Do you see that? 23 A. No, I’d say that they’ve been added afterwards. So,
24 A. I do. 24 what we have, once again, is Mr Ager−Hanssen, or
25 Q. And two lines up: 25 whoever’s working for him, trying to plant things.

89 91

1 ”% Use apacite or other APA−style citation packages 1 Q. Over the page, please {H/278/42}. In the version −− in
2 to format your references in APA style.” 2 the final version , gaps were left in the references
3 Yes? 3 section , weren’t there?
4 A. Yes. 4 A. I don’t recall , but I ’ ll take your word for it .
5 Q. Those are characteristic references inputted by ChatGPT 5 Q. So there were gaps for precisely the references which
6 being used in the creation of a document, aren’t they, 6 Mr Madden found were different between the two
7 Dr Wright? 7 documents; correct?
8 A. No, they’re characteristic putting down a marker where 8 A. No, they’ve been added, so that’s not actually correct ,
9 things need to go. That is a comment. 9 and those gaps aren’t exactly the distance you’re
10 Q. But this particular form, with the percentage there and 10 saying.
11 that form of wording, as Mr Madden found, is classically 11 Q. Can we put {H/278/41} and {H/278/42} against each other
12 characteristic of the use of ChatGPT in the production 12 so we can compare the two images.
13 of this document? 13 I ’m sorry, I ’ ll be done very shortly, my Lord,
14 A. No, it is not. ChatGPT just takes what existing people 14 but ~...
15 do, it doesn’t make up anything new. I mean, honestly, 15 41 is over on the right−hand side. This is the −−
16 the concept that AI is anything other than ”Actual 16 that’s the version on InfoDef09.raw, on the right, with
17 Ignorance”, and that it doesn’t take what people blog 17 the later references in , yes?
18 and things like that and create things is insane, I ’m 18 A. Yes.
19 sorry . ChatGPT creates nothing. What it does is it 19 Q. And on the left, your supposedly authentic version with
20 takes what existing people do, everywhere on 20 gaps for just those references ; correct?
21 the internet , and it makes it common. 21 A. No, actually , if you look at the two of them, you will
22 Q. But it has characteristic indicia which appear in 22 see that it doesn’t fit what you’re saying. So, grey to
23 a ChatGPT paper for different referencing and 23 grey, I can basically , on this screen here, put my
24 referencing formats, doesn’t it ? 24 finger and I can’t there, so the distance is two line
25 A. No, actually , the way that it does is continuous 25 breaks versus one, two, three −− three on the other one.

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 So that’s not correct . 1 Q. And I suggest to you, on the basis of that finding that
2 Q. Just to complete that document, that’s another forgery 2 I ’ve just summarised, that this is another document
3 by you, isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? 3 forged by you?
4 A. No, again, it ’s unfortunate that I didn’t disconnect 4 A. Again, what I would say is someone has updated this and
5 things and I −− my own hubris let me get myself into 5 converted it into a TIFF.
6 trouble , but that’s not correct . 6 Q. This is , as the file name suggests, the BMP file,
7 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment. I’m 7 isn ’ t it , Dr Wright, that we’re looking at on screen?
8 sorry for overrunning by two minutes. 8 A. That’s correct .
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, that’s fine. 9 Q. Moving now on to two documents, first of all {L1/190/1}.
10 So Dr Wright, relax, don’t talk to anyone about 10 Put these two together. It ’s ID_004732 {PTR−F/89/1}.
11 the case and see you at 2 o’clock. 11 Do we see that this is the plain text version of
12 A. I ’ ll try not to even be nice! 12 a paper which is a long paper addressing quorum based
13 (1.02 pm) 13 voting in distributed networks?
14 (The short adjournment) 14 A. I do.
15 (1.59 pm) 15 Q. And {L1/192/1}, please, which is ID_004734 {PTR−F/91/1}.
16 A. My Lord, before we start, can I just make a comment? 16 Is that a version of the same file , a 154−page
17 I ’d like to say, I apologise to opposing counsel. I was 17 document?
18 wrong; you are correct, that IP address, I checked over 18 A. It would appear so, yes.
19 lunch, is associated with the VPN I have to nChain. So, 19 Q. We see your name at the top, including contact details
20 I didn’t realise , it ’s not my main IP address, but on 20 at Charles Sturt University?
21 checking it , I have to say, I was wrong. 21 A. That’s correct .
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you. 22 Q. Now, you’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Madden and
23 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, I’m continuing to ask you about 23 Mr Lynch both found that this was one of the 71
24 documents on the BDO Drive and dealing with their 24 documents added to the BDO Drive?
25 contents. 25 A. Yes, it was added between those periods back in 2007.

93 95

1 {L1/377/1} is the next, which is ID_004729 1 So as I noted earlier , I copied from my drive that was
2 {PTR−F/86/1}. It’s right, isn’t it , that you’ve 2 symbolically linked , and after I had cloned it ,
3 presented this as the scan of the first page of 3 I created the VMware image.
4 a handwritten note addressing a concept developed into 4 Q. I ’ve put it to you already that that addition process
5 Bitcoin? 5 took place in September ’23.
6 A. That is correct . 6 {H/278/45}, please. This is PM46 where Mr Madden
7 Q. You’re aware that Mr Madden addressed that and two 7 addresses these documents together. Do you see, at
8 virtually identical copies in his 46th appendix? 8 the next page {H/278/46}, in paragraph 134, he finds
9 A. I am. 9 that ID_004374, the second of those, the second of
10 Q. Are you aware that he found a record of a file on 10 the documents, can’t be authentic to 2007 because it was
11 InfoDef09.raw called ”hash based shadowing TIF” which 11 created with a 2020 version of Windows Rich Text editor;
12 had the same pixel resolution as this file and which he 12 do you see that?
13 considered was the precursor document? 13 A. I do.
14 A. He considered that, yes. 14 Q. And is that a finding you account for on the basis of
15 Q. And he found a series of indications that that document 15 the hack, the supposed hack?
16 had been created in or after 2018? 16 A. Well, the only reason I can find the ID drive existing
17 A. That’s correct . 17 would be that.
18 Q. And that is another indication , isn ’ t it , that we have 18 Q. Paragraph 136, he compares the first of those documents,
19 a document which was produced in very recent years, much 19 ID_004732, against an equivalent file in InfoDef09.raw,
20 later than 2007? 20 and do you see he finds extensive editing?
21 A. No, it ’s actually an indication that the original file , 21 A. I do.
22 which is a BMP, was updated to create the others. 22 Q. Including changes from blockchains to hash chains?
23 The pixelation on this basically is −− well, more 23 A. I do.
24 pixelated than you would get in a TIFF file, so what we 24 Q. Then page 47 {H/278/47}, paragraph 136(b), do you see
25 have is a BMP being converted to a TIFF. 25 that, once again, he’s found that there were question

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 marks appearing in the document you rely upon, where 1 A. No, actually , I ’m sure you’ve used Word before. If you
2 references to texts from 2016 and 2017 appear in 2 go into the settings , you go ”add headers”, like you
3 the document on InfoDef09.raw? Yes? 3 basically go and you say auto create a table. So, page
4 A. I do, and I recognise some of those papers, I’ve read 4 numbers, everything like that, can get auto created in
5 them both, and they don’t directly apply. 5 Word. That’s why it has that function.
6 Q. So, once again, it ’s your evidence that Mr Ager−Hanssen 6 Q. The reality is , Dr Wright, that you removed the contents
7 got lucky that there were some references to −− there 7 table in order to create your Q.text version because
8 were some gaps for references into which he could 8 a contents table would have no place in a version in
9 conveniently slot later −produced articles. Is that what 9 that format; correct?
10 you’re saying? 10 A. No, actually , it ’s very simple to actually convert
11 A. Actually, no, it ’s a text−based file. So when you’re 11 a Word document using Pandoc. So if we’re going to talk
12 saying ”slot”, any time you type something in, it’s 12 about this, you can actually take the settings in Word
13 going to be added. That’s like saying a blank Word 13 and convert them. That would auto convert all of this
14 document has slots to type things. Of course it has 14 and have more rich information. So, if I wanted to
15 slots to type things; that’s what a blank document is. 15 create a LaTeX document that looked even better, like
16 Q. He found that there were these odd little question marks 16 I ’d put more effort into it , it would be the other way
17 dotted around your text into which he could place 17 round.
18 references to texts produced later. That’s what your 18 Now, removing this would be very easy. If you take
19 evidence is ? 19 a LaTeX document and you want to make it a Word document
20 A. No, actually , it ’s my horrible way of working. I take 20 or then convert it into RTF or DOC, then of course, in
21 down notes and I quite often write what I want to write 21 Word, you can just add the content table and it will
22 and I know it’s not good practice, but then I slot in 22 auto populate, add all the page numbers and do that for
23 the particular reference that suits what I need to say. 23 you.
24 Q. The most substantial difference he found was that 24 Q. Dr Wright, this isn ’ t another extraordinary effort of
25 the file on InfoDef09.raw had a full contents page. He 25 work by Mr Ager−Hanssen and his people, it’s another

97 99

1 found that, didn’t he? 1 forgery by you, isn ’ t it ?

2 A. He did. 2 A. No, it ’s not an extraordinary effort . It is incredibly ,
3 Q. And of course, a contents page wouldn’t be relevant or 3 incredibly easy to actually do. Imagine just cutting
4 suitable for a plain text document before it had been 4 and pasting straight into Word, going in, adding some
5 converted, would it? 5 headers, changing them to header font, which Word does,
6 A. No, actually , it ’s not just plain text , it ’s LaTeX. So, 6 and then click , and instantly there’s a table . It takes
7 LaTeX actually can do that. 7 minutes.
8 Q. But you wouldn’t have a contents page with −− a contents 8 Q. {L1/191/1}, please. This is ID_004733, a document
9 page table with page numbers in a LaTeX or plain text 9 entitled , ”Internal Controls ... ”. {PTR−F/90/1}. This
10 file , because that hasn’t yet compiled to the version 10 presents, doesn’t it , as a paper on document management,
11 with page numbers? 11 yes?
12 A. No, you would have the actual marker. So adding it, of 12 A. Yes, I did a presentation when I was working at BDO on
13 course, to a Word document or other such thing is very 13 that topic .
14 easy. I mean, it has a function to do that. 14 Q. And you’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Madden found that
15 Q. What’s present here is a full contents table in 15 there were versions of this document on InfoDef09.raw
16 the InfoDef09.raw version; correct? 16 and BDOPC.raw and that there were metadata anomalies
17 A. Yes, and what you’ll notice is none of the headers are 17 both internally and by comparison between the two?
18 in the other document. So, that would make an 18 A. On InfoDef.raw, yes.
19 incredibly difficult effort of going through and 19 Q. {H/278/52}, please.
20 changing all of the header information so that it 20 Do you see here where he found the metadata
21 matches LaTeX. It would probably be about as easy to 21 anomalies between the two documents?
22 write the document from scratch. 22 A. I do.
23 Q. On your version, Mr Ager−Hanssen, or one of his minions, 23 Q. And page 53 {H/278/53}, at the top, do we see that
24 went to the trouble of writing out a full contents 24 the edit which had taken place on this occasion had been
25 table ; is that right? 25 to remove the ”Data Protection Act 2018” and replace it

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 with ”data protection law globally ... ”? Do you see 1 Q. You’ve relied upon it as a draft addressing technical
2 that? 2 concepts which supposedly fed into
3 A. No, Sarbanes−Oxley is American. It actually says, 3 the Bitcoin White Paper; correct?
4 especially SOX. I see the word ”globally”, but it ’s ... 4 A. That’s correct .
5 Q. I wasn’t suggesting that Sarbanes−Oxley was UK. I was 5 Q. {G/5/22}, please.
6 saying the edit has been to remove ”Data Protection Act 6 Mr Madden, in his third report, considered this and
7 2018” and replace it with ”data protection law 7 two related documents, and do you see his findings from
8 globally ... ” −− 8 the load file metadata that they all had creation times
9 A. And especially SOX. 9 at precisely the same time on 19 September 2017?
10 Q. Yes. 10 A. I see that.
11 So we see here a reference to two pieces of UK 11 Q. And also that the accessed and modified times were
12 legislation , the Data Protection Act 2008 and 12 the same in August 2008 for this document and one of
13 the Companies Act 2006 and the first of those has been 13 the other two, yes?
14 changed to ”data protection law globally ... ”, hasn’t 14 A. I see.
15 it ? 15 Q. But separated by precisely one year from the accessed
16 A. It has. 16 and modified times for a PNG image file?
17 Q. And that shows, doesn’t it, the direction of the edit to 17 A. I see that.
18 remove the Data Protection Act 2018 and replace it with 18 Q. And his conclusions were, paragraph 53, on the next page
19 something that wasn’t anachronistic? 19 {G/5/23}, that those highly unusual timings indicated
20 A. No, it shows that someone has done the other, then left 20 tampering. Would you accept that deduction?
21 a marker to change. So, basically , when you’re taking 21 A. Not at all . Again, using Xcopy produces these results.
22 that, someone’s probably done it in Word and then 22 So, files that I would have had at BDO, I still was
23 converted it back to DOC. 23 accessing in 2008. So, when copying from different
24 Q. Mr Madden also notes that both documents on this 24 drives , Xcopy has a different result for modify and
25 occasion were authored in a version of Windows text 25 creation .

101 103

1 editor dating from 2020; do you see that? 1 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Madden, like Dr Placks
2 A. I do. 2 and Mr Lynch, found that your evidence about use of
3 Q. You’re accounting for that presumably on the basis of 3 Xcopy didn’t alter any of their opinions?
4 the mythical hack? 4 A. Yes, they categorically stated the exact opposite of
5 A. It ’s not mythical. Being that Mr Sherrell has actually 5 Microsoft and said that it can be used in altering
6 posted it and put it into evidence, your side has 6 timestamps, categorically said it has the ability , even
7 actually demonstrated that that hack did occur. 7 though Microsoft says it doesn’t, and despite the fact
8 Q. Dr Wright, no. Our side has put into evidence some 8 that I had put in a witness statement giving images of
9 photographs of your screen which were taken by 9 how it works, says ”We don’t need to test that”. So,
10 Mr Ager−Hanssen and tweeted; correct? 10 I ’m sorry, I don’t believe that not testing something is
11 A. No, actually , they’re not my screen. That is a Linux 11 actually in evidence −− expert evidence.
12 computer running in a separate office . They have 12 Q. Well, you are wrong about that, as all the experts
13 nothing to do with my screen whatsoever. 13 concluded, aren’t you, Dr Wright?
14 You’ll also notice that they are my files in other 14 A. No, I’m not wrong about that. It’s in my witness
15 machines, so it is not my browsing, but someone 15 statement showing the actual screenshots of what
16 monitoring my browsing, someone monitoring my files. If 16 happened.
17 you actually examined that image, it’s not my computer, 17 Q. {L1/367/1}, please, ID_004682 {PTR−F/39/1}. This time
18 it is remotely accessing my computer. So it is 18 a document entitled, ”A Competing Transaction or Block
19 a picture of a Linux computer accessing my computer that 19 Model”. This presents as a paper discussing various
20 Mr Ager−Hanssen has held up to say is his. 20 concepts familiar from the Bitcoin White Paper, like
21 Q. {L1/252/1} please, ID_004736 {PTR−F/93/1}. This is 21 double spending and conflicting block transmissions,
22 a document which presents as a LaTeX version of a paper 22 yes?
23 called , ”Ensuring Secure Data Transfer and Data 23 A. It does.
24 Sharing”; correct? 24 Q. And again, it was presented by you as a piece of
25 A. It is . 25 precursor work?

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 A. Correct. 1 A. That would be something to do, yes.

2 Q. And you’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Madden found that 2 Q. If we go to −− if we look a little bit further down, it
3 this had been created with a version of Microsoft Word 3 says:
4 that wasn’t released until 19 September 2007? 4 ”PDF creator [equals] LaTeX via pandoc.”
5 A. I thought he said WordPad. 5 And then, if you look towards the top of the page,
6 Q. Let’s go to it . {G/5/37}, paragraph 92(b) is 6 do you see the line of code:
7 referring to this document. He says it is the only 7 ”% Options for packages loaded elsewhere.”
8 Lynn Wright document among these files: 8 Do you see that?
9 ” ... and like other ’Lynn Wright’ documents it has 9 A. I do.
10 been created with MS Word version 11.9999. It has 10 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that Professor MacFarlane, who
11 a Revision Number of 2 and a Total Edit Time of 1 minute 11 invented Pandoc, explains in his evidence that text is
12 ... Internal Metadata stamps dating it to 12 a line added to the default LaTeX template for Pandoc in
13 16 June 2007 ...” 13 2017? You’re aware of that, aren’t you?
14 Then paragraph 93(b), that version of Word wasn’t 14 A. I am.
15 released until September 2007, that service pack, and 15 Q. Would you accept that that also dates this document to
16 that of course contradicts the internal timestamps, 16 much later than 2006?
17 doesn’t it ? 17 A. No, because that’s a standard comment. But if you go
18 A. Not necessarily , actually . At that time, I was on 18 down to the bottom of the page again, ”pdfcreator ...
19 the Microsoft developer network and had early access to 19 LaTeX via pandoc”, that isn’t a Pandoc marker. When
20 all of the code. That not only included the Microsoft 20 using Pandoc, it doesn’t add that. This is a manually
21 operating system, but Word, etc. So, that’s one 21 added comment. So the PDF creator has been updated not
22 possible explanation. But I don’t actually know what 22 by a program, but by a person. There is no Pandoc
23 I was running at that time. I would have to actually 23 version and no LaTeX compiler version that I know of in
24 analyse it . 24 existence , including my tech, including Overleaf,
25 Q. Has invention run dry, Dr Wright? 25 including any of the main programs and any version of

105 107

1 A. Sorry? 1 Pandoc that adds that statement.

2 Q. Has invention run dry? 2 Q. Well, Professor MacFarlane, who knows a little about
3 A. No, I don’t −− 3 Pandoc, has considered the source commits to determine
4 Q. This is another backdated document, isn’t it? 4 the date of the template for this document and he dates
5 A. No, it is not. 5 this to a template current between March and
6 Q. {L1/236/1} ID_004687 {PTR−F/44/1}. Now, this is 6 October 2022. Do you disagree with that evidence from
7 a document presenting as a LaTeX file, an article on IT 7 him?
8 security , with a face date of 15 June 2006; right? 8 A. I do. And I also note that he hasn’t looked at the PDF
9 A. Yes. 9 creator label . The PDF creator label is manually added.
10 Q. And if we go down towards the bottom, about eight to ten 10 It ’s not added by Pandoc. And I would love to see him
11 lines from the bottom, we can see a reference 11 explain which version. I ’ve managed to copy every
12 to ”usepackage selnolig”; do you see that? 12 single version now of Pandoc and check every one of
13 A. Yes, I do. 13 them.
14 Q. Then a few lines further down: 14 Q. So now you understand Pandoc better than its creator?
15 ” IfFileExists xurl . sty , use package xurl ... ” 15 A. I ’m quite happy for him to demonstrate which version −−
16 Do you see that? 16 and I have downloaded every one of the versions and also
17 A. I do. 17 loaded them into the Wayback Machine −− actually puts
18 Q. The releases of those packages, selnolig and xurl, 18 that tag in there. That tag does not come into Pandoc.
19 postdate the face dating of this file , don’t they? 19 Pandoc comes as Pandoc version number.
20 A. I agree. 20 Q. Dr Wright, the reality is that these are a series of
21 Q. And so this file is a later forgery , isn ’ t it ? 21 signs that this is a later edited document, aren’t they?
22 A. No, it ’s not a forgery , but someone has accessed it, 22 A. Yes, but not in the way you’re saying. LaTeX via Pandoc
23 that’s correct . 23 is not a Pandoc marker. It’s never been added into
24 Q. So someone’s accessed it in order to add in those 24 Pandoc in any version.
25 apparently anachronistic details , have they? 25 Q. And it’s not the case that Mr Ager−Hanssen and his

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 minions ingeniously added these tiny details hoping they 1 going to destroy me, where they spent the whole time
2 would be picked up, like breadcrumbs, by COPA and 2 going −− which I found out they were recording so that
3 the developers, is it ? 3 they were saying, ” If you don’t say you’re not Satoshi,
4 A. Oh, I don’t think they hoped they would be picked up as 4 we’re going to make sure that you get no more funds and
5 breadcrumbs, I think that they made sure that people 5 everything happens in nChain that goes against you”, and
6 would know about them. 6 they said that they’ ll force Stefan to drop out as
7 Q. Can we just be clear, how do you say they did that? 7 a witness, or they’ ll have perjury charges. They spoke
8 A. Because in the trial that I had with Mr Ali Zafar, I had 8 to my ex−wife and abused her, and they went to some of
9 a list of documents that exactly matches the BDO forgery 9 the other people in this trial and tried to get them to
10 documents before I got the BDO one. 10 drop out.
11 Q. Now, again −− 11 Q. And who do you say ”they” are, other than
12 A. (Overspeaking). 12 Mr Ager−Hanssen?
13 Q. Again, Dr Wright, I’m just going to give you the warning 13 A. I don’t −− I mean, Ted Loveday is another person.
14 about privilege . It ’s yours to waive if you want to 14 I don’t remember all the names.
15 carry on. 15 Q. You think Ted Loveday was involved in pressuring
16 A. I waive all privilege over Ali Zafar. 16 witnesses?
17 Q. Okay. So which documents do you say you were 17 A. I don’t actually know what he was doing. He was in
18 cross−examined about? 18 the trial , which was a mock, fake trial, and −− I’m
19 A. I was given a document from −− what is −− Ted, I think 19 studying a PhD in law, my Lord, at the moment −−
20 he is , one of the guys who works −− 20 Q. Just let ’s stick to the facts rather than your academic
21 Q. Ted Loveday. 21 endeavours −−
22 A. Yes, Ted Loveday. Ali Zafar was acting as your role , 22 A. What I’m saying is, I know it was highly illegal and
23 Ted was acting as my barrister. There was a fake judge, 23 I got sat down there and told I couldn’t leave and
24 dressed a bit more ridiculously than he should have 24 locked in a room.
25 been, full robes, my Lord, but with purple, and looked 25 Q. Who, other than Mr Ager−Hanssen, was part of the ”they”

109 111

1 like more out of 19th century, full wigs, everything. 1 who were pressurising these witnesses?
2 They did this whole thing that I wasn’t expecting. 2 A. I don’t actually know. He had other people working for
3 I was told I was going to go through, like , what 3 him. He has some really tall guy, I don’t know his
4 I needed to know before trial, and instead I got 4 name, that is supposedly ex−CIA. He has some other guy
5 grilled . 5 that he says is Mossad. I don’t know if they are or
6 Q. Well, you’ve given that evidence in one of your 6 not. And he has a whole lot of other silly people like
7 statements. What I’m asking you is whether you’re 7 that, that pretend. He has a whole lot of people
8 able −− 8 that −− Stefan Matthews would know because nChain
9 A. And during this −− 9 recorded them all −− that were working for Christen’s
10 Q. −− whether you’re able to say which documents you were 10 company that broke in or tried to break into
11 cross−examined on? 11 the computer room at nChain, brought the −− Ajay, main
12 A. During this, I was given a folder . That folder had 50 12 person, into tears , threatened them violently, leading
13 documents that they were going through, saying that 13 to, first , injunctions , which have been taken, then
14 there were allegations of fraud and that I was going to 14 Christen fleeing the country and now criminal charges
15 lose , and they pressured Stefan Matthews, saying that he 15 pending.
16 would be up for perjury if he didn’t drop his evidence 16 Q. I ’ ll move on from this. We’ll return to the mock trial
17 in the trial , and that document had the same 50 17 a little later in your evidence.
18 documents that later came from Mr Madden. The same. 18 But returning to this document, just let me put it
19 Q. So, do you say that Zafar Ali was in on this plan to 19 to you clearly , this is another example of a document
20 drop false documents upon you and ensure that they were 20 forged by you, isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?
21 somehow used against you in the trial? 21 A. No, I have never forged a document.
22 A. I have no idea what anyone’s involvement is. What 22 Q. {L1/177/1}, please. ID_004648. {PTR−F/5/1}. You’ve
23 I know is a −− I was forced to spend a day being abused, 23 presented this , haven’t you, as a draft or paper which
24 is the only way to put it , in a mock trial, where I was 24 you produced in your work on the MNSA programme at
25 told by people that if I didn’t play ball , they were 25 Charles Sturt? Yes?

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 A. Yes. 1 evidence?
2 Q. Once again, towards the bottom of the document, we can 2 A. Yes, but I also note that Integyrs , the company that
3 see references , about ten lines up, to 3 I had, the function was producing standardised
4 ”usepackage selnolig” and a reference to ”xurl”, yes? 4 libraries , so sleep was not an unusual area in C code,
5 A. And also ”pdfcreator [equals] LaTex”, which is also 5 and because I was producing code both for simulations
6 manually added. 6 and in addition for gaming, what Integyrs does, if you
7 Q. So further examples that this is not a reliable or 7 look at the Wayback Machine in 2009, it produces
8 authentic document? 8 standard libraries , statistical libraries , crypto
9 A. Oh, it ’s −− someone’s changed the header. The text is 9 libraries and others.
10 actually correct . 10 Q. Dr Wright, you’re aware that Mr Hinnant’s evidence is
11 Q. When you were going through these documents for 11 that looking at this code, it couldn’t have appeared in
12 the purpose of explaining them to your solicitors who 12 a file actually dating from October 2007. You’re aware
13 then put together that table , none of these details 13 of that evidence, aren’t you?
14 popped out at you, did they? 14 A. Yes, he’s made a presumption that the only version that
15 A. No, I was under the presumption that no one had accessed 15 could exist is his . He has overlooked the way that I’ve
16 the drive . I was rather rude, I must admit, to my 16 said I used Project Chrono and he assumed that no one
17 solicitors , who I do apologise to, because they were 17 would actually make standard libraries outside of him.
18 trying to hint that there might be something and I just 18 Q. So you know about −− you know more about Pandoc than
19 wouldn’t believe it . So, to Hannah and others, I do 19 the creator of Pandoc and more about Chrono than
20 apologise, but I just didn’t believe it at the time. 20 the lead designer of Chrono?
21 Q. Just to be clear , once again, this is another recent 21 A. Firstly , the person who did Pandoc did not note that
22 creation and a forgery by you, isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? 22 the header at the bottom was manual and added, so in
23 A. It is not. 23 cross−examination he’s going to have to say which
24 Q. {L1/168/1}, which is ID_004712 {PTR−F/69/1}. This 24 version of that that came from. And, next,
25 pretends, doesn’t it , as a code file for a model of 25 Project Chrono was a separate project. Not only is it

113 115

1 Bitcoin? 1 on Wikipedia, but university sites have been running it

2 A. It ’s a node simulation. 2 for ages −−
3 Q. HLF1, Ms Field’s schedule, presents it as a simplified 3 Q. Project Chrono is a physics simulation library ,
4 model of Bitcoin; correct? 4 isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?
5 A. Effectively , yes, it ’s a node model. 5 A. Yes, and this is a simulation. So when talking about
6 Q. Fourth line down, we see ”[hash] include <chrono>” and 6 state−based simulations, this is actually simulation
7 ”chrono” with arrow brackets on either side; right? 7 code. The purpose of this code is very, very different
8 A. Yes, as a standard library . 8 from the Chrono code which measures time gaps. This
9 Q. And above that, ”[hash] include ... ” the word ”random” 9 actually measures state gaps.
10 with similar brackets around it, yes? 10 Q. Project Chrono is primarily used, as its own marketing
11 A. Correct. 11 materials make clear, for simulating things like
12 Q. Page 2, second line down, please {PTR−F/69/2}. Do we 12 the movements of vehicles and machines, isn’t it?
13 see, the second line down has a line of code: 13 A. Yes, state−based analysis. So, when we’re talking about
14 ”std :: this_thread::sleep_for 14 state−based and, which we are here, going from one node
15 (std :: chrono::milliseconds(latency)) ... ” 15 competition to a next to a next, then we’re talking
16 Do you see that? 16 about a simulation. So, this , where we’re talking, as
17 A. I do. 17 it says here, ”nextState ... H1”, ”nextState ... H2”,
18 Q. Now, you’re aware that Mr Hinnant, the lead designer and 18 we’re talking about a competition between honest and
19 author of the Chrono time utility , has given evidence 19 dishonest nodes. So, as you just noted, it is
20 that it was first standardised for C++ in 2011, yes? 20 a simulation engine, mapping and modelling different
21 A. Yes, and I stated that this was using Project Chrono. 21 examples in this agent or nodes.
22 Project Chrono first was developed in 1996. 22 Q. So let’s just take this in stages. Your claim is that,
23 Q. He’s also −− we’ll come back to that in a moment. 23 in modifying the library , you happen to have come up
24 Mr Hinnant has also explained that ”sleep_for” was also 24 with the standard header now used in the Chrono time
25 standardised for C++ in 2011. Are you aware of that 25 library ; correct?

114 116

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 A. The header for Chrono −− Project Chrono was ”Chrono”. 1 systems where state 1, state 2, state 3 is effectively
2 So, taking ”Chrono” and writing it as ”chrono”, well, 2 the hash chain, where you have competitions if there is
3 I don’t think that’s a big jump. 3 an orphan fork, ie you have two miners or nodes discover
4 Q. Secondly, your claim must be that you also happen to 4 at the same time. Now to simulate that, what I was
5 have come up with the ”sleep_for” syntax, which, as 5 doing at the time was going, if we have two honest
6 Mr Hinnant says, was also not standard code before 2011? 6 miners and one dishonest miner, then I could simulate
7 A. No, because what that took is combining other forms of 7 that.
8 C. C started back in the −− ages back, like in 8 Now, in here we have ”pow”, being the amount of
9 K&R C that I started on, developed into Object C, which 9 proof−of−work, so that I could look at the differences
10 developed, as your expert knows because he wrote it, 10 and say where this would occur so I could actually
11 into C++ and NCC. Now, that happened later. Over 11 figure out whether I was right in my idea of a byzantine
12 the years , I was there with each of these. However, 12 general problem.
13 what we have are different versions of C and C++, 13 Q. Once again, Dr Wright, I’m going to put to you that that
14 my Lord. You had DEC had their own version, which was 14 is , as the creator of the Chrono library has said in
15 both on their Unix and their VMS machines; Solaris, 15 relation to this document, nonsense, and he will address
16 which was my preferred one, had its own version; IBM had 16 it in cross−examination, if it ’s put to him.
17 its own version; and then these were taken and 17 Moving on to {L1/169/1}, ”Honest2.C++”, which is
18 integrated into Linux and the ANSI free version. So the 18 ID_004713 {PTR−F/70/1}, another document which you say
19 original was that sleep/sleep_for, etc, was actually in 19 is a simplified model of Bitcoin, yes?
20 other versions of C. 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And in addition, your claim must be that you happen to 21 Q. And once again, the same references to ”chrono” and
22 have come up with the name spacing ”std::chrono”, and 22 ”random”, and on the basis of those, I put to you that
23 the class type milliseconds and the identical syntax 23 this is another forged document?
24 which was later proposed and used in the actual Chrono 24 A. No. I ’ve been developing random number generation
25 time library , right? 25 algorithms since the ’80s. Now, one of the main

117 119

1 A. No, actually , ”standard” means it’s a standard library . 1 functions of being in gaming, which I was, I don’t think
2 So as I explained in my witness statement, you can embed 2 anyone’s disputing that, is , my Lord, you have to have
3 any standard library that you want. I was a −− as it 3 very secure random number generation. So I’ve been
4 says on Integyrs, my company, I created custom 4 writing random number generators for a long time.
5 libraries . So if you look at the 2009 web page that 5 I wrote them for Lasseter’s, MGM Grand, Playboy Gaming,
6 I had from that, I created custom libraries . This is 6 GCS, Centrebet, Sportingbet. I can keep going on, if
7 also on my Ridge Estates findings going back to 7 you like , but we’ ll just go through the list of casinos
8 2001/2/3. 8 I ’ve worked with.
9 Now, on top of this, what he’s saying there is , this 9 Q. Just before we leave the topic of the BDO Drive and its
10 is standard ”::”. The ”::” is a standard C++ format 10 contents, do you recall this morning, when speaking
11 going back to the beginning of C, not C++. On top of 11 about the supposed hack by Mr Ager−Hanssen, you said
12 that, ”milliseconds” is a standard term for 12 this :
13 milliseconds , and that isn ’ t a standard way of writing, 13 ” ... I believe ... I know how to secure a system, so
14 it is one particular out of an unbounded way of listing 14 therefore I [ forgot ] about insiders .”
15 them. So all you’re saying is , that function has 15 That’s [draft ] page 69, lines 10 to 11 for those
16 milliseconds . A simulation package where you’re 16 reading the transcript . Do you recall saying that?
17 actually simulating different node agents has time, yes. 17 A. I do.
18 Q. This is a syntax of a kind which would classically be 18 Q. May we have {L3/22/1}, please.
19 used in the true Chrono library, isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? 19 Is this your book on IT regulatory and standards
20 A. Actually, no. If we look, once again, ”nextState.pow”, 20 compliance, to which you’ve already referred in
21 ”nextState.pow”, ”nextState.pow” and ”int total_pow 21 evidence?
22 [equals]”, what we have is a simulation. So we have 22 A. It certainly is .
23 taken a simulation system and we are creating 23 Q. Page {L3/22/214}, please.
24 a state−based simulate. Like, I was talking earlier , 24 Do you see in this section of the book, you’re
25 my Lord, in this week about how we had state−based 25 addressing a series of potential threats to IT

118 120

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 environments? 1 LaTeX?”. Yes? You see that?

2 A. Yes, and insiders are one of the worst. 2 A. I do.
3 Q. Page 215 {L3/22/215}: 3 Q. You did in fact access that site , as shown, in
4 ”Internal threats are just as serious , potentially 4 September 2023, didn’t you?
5 more devastating and more likely to occur.” 5 A. Yes, as he captured. The reason being that −−
6 All I ’m asking you for the moment is, did you write 6 Q. I ’m just at the moment asking you whether you accessed
7 that? 7 that site , Dr Wright.
8 A. I did. 8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Thank you very much. 9 Q. Then, it was on 27 November 2023, wasn’t it, that your
10 May we move on to the Overleaf LaTeX files, and 10 solicitors , by then Shoosmiths, for the first time said
11 is it right to say, first of all , that before 11 that you had some files on the Overleaf web−based LaTeX
12 the release of the main Madden report on 12 editor which were relevant to this case?
13 1 September 2023, you hadn’t said in your previous 13 A. I don’t know when they told you. I had already shown
14 witness statement that you used LaTeX in the writing of 14 Shoosmiths in September, I believe it was.
15 the Bitcoin White Paper? 15 Q. Now, once again, I’m going to give you the warning about
16 A. I don’t recall if I said it in LaTeX, but I note that it 16 privilege , but you say −− and it’s yours to waive, but
17 is in some of my evidence that I put in −− 17 you say you had told Shoosmiths about the LaTeX files in
18 Q. E −− 18 September 2023?
19 A. −− handwritten note. 19 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, this is not an appropriate
20 Q. {E/1/17}, please. This is the section of your first 20 question. It ’s inviting the witness actually to reveal
21 witness statement under the heading, ”Writing and 21 privileged information and it ’s not a proper question.
22 sharing the White Paper”: 22 MR HOUGH: My Lord, I asked the question because Dr Wright
23 ”Between March 2007 and May 2008, I began crafting 23 has been choosing to waive privilege on −−
24 the White Paper by hand, using a pen and paper. 24 LORD GRABINER: Well, he has, but I’m not quite sure that he
25 The process was iterative as I continuously expanded 25 necessarily understands exactly what he’s doing and he’s

121 123

1 upon the concepts and ideas related to Bitcoin. 1 entitled to be advised properly and publicly , if
2 I employed a voice recognition program called Dragon.” 2 necessary.
3 And you refer to that. 3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Move on, Mr Hough.
4 Then over the page {E/1/18}, you refer to −− you 4 LORD GRABINER: You’ve got plenty of other material to put
5 describe the process of producing the document and 5 to him without −−
6 editing it . You don’t anywhere so much as use 6 MR HOUGH: I’ll continue. I’ll move on.
7 the word ”LaTeX”, do you? 7 {M/2/544}, please. That’s the letter from
8 A. I didn’t use much at all, no. 8 Shoosmiths we see on 27 November 2023; you see that?
9 Q. LaTeX has become, in your later witness statements, 9 A. I do.
10 a theme that occurs practically every other sentence, 10 Q. Then paragraph 15, please {M/2/547}. Do you see that
11 hasn’t it , Dr Wright? 11 Shoosmiths, from paragraph 15, notified the other
12 A. No, it ’s not. 12 parties in this case that you’d identified files which
13 Q. And this critical detail , which you said in your 13 were then hosted on Overleaf which were relevant, yes?
14 evidence marks you out as knowing how Satoshi wrote this 14 A. I do.
15 paper, was something you didn’t see fit to mention in 15 Q. And then they recorded, didn’t they, that you had told
16 your fairly lengthy first witness statement? 16 them that Ontier had not reviewed these files for
17 A. No, because it’s written on my handwritten evidence that 17 disclosure because they were considered to fall outside
18 I have actually already put into court. So 18 the date ranges specified in your disclosure review
19 the handwritten notes say ”LaTeX” multiple times. 19 document? We see that in paragraph 15.
20 Q. {L20/195/1}. 20 A. Yes, I think partly because the 2019 discovery was not
21 I think you’re aware of this as a post by 21 to do with whether I was Satoshi or not.
22 Mr Ager−Hanssen in which he claimed that your browsing 22 Q. Well, this is referring to your disclosure within these
23 history showed you accessing an online Q&A, with 23 proceedings where there was a disclosure review
24 the heading on the page, ”Was anything in 24 document, not the Kleiman proceedings, where there
25 Satoshi Nakamoto’s original Bitcoin paper compiled in 25 wasn’t such a document, and it’s saying that the files

122 124

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 hosted on your Overleaf account weren’t reviewed for 1 I talked to my solicitors and tried to show them.
2 disclosure in these proceedings by Ontier: 2 Q. Well, I ’m going to stop you there because of
3 ” ... because they were considered to fall outside 3 Lord Grabiner’s concerns.
4 the date ranges for searches specified in our client ’s 4 Moving on {E/24/7}, please. This is Ms Field’s
5 Disclosure Review Document.” 5 first witness statement, paragraph 19, and are you aware
6 Which is a document from these proceedings, right? 6 that you endorsed this paragraph specifically , and
7 A. To make it clear, the use of the US litigation 7 the witness statement more generally, in your sixth
8 disclosure fell into this . There wasn’t another 8 witness statement, Dr Wright?
9 disclosure exercise . There probably should have been, 9 A. Yes.
10 but what happened was the 2019 capture and disclosure, 10 Q. And do we see that that explained, over the page
11 and the subsequent 2020 one, for the US case, was reused 11 {E/24/8}, 19.2.6, I think it is , that the Bitcoin folder
12 in this . 12 contained:
13 Q. I ’m going to proceed carefully because of privilege . 13 ” ... certain LaTeX files which, when the code
14 But we’ll get back to this conversation later . 14 contained on them is compiled in Overleaf ... produce
15 Paragraph 17, Shoosmiths record that you told them 15 a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper ...”
16 that a folder entitled ”Bitcoin” was on the Overleaf 16 That witness statement said nothing about any
17 editor containing certain LaTeX files. And then they 17 features or processes you used which led to material
18 write this : 18 differences between the Bitcoin White Paper and
19 ”We understand from our client that 19 the compiled versions of yours, did it , Dr Wright?
20 reverse−engineering of LaTeX code which so precisely 20 A. No, and I apologise. I ’m not very good at explaining
21 reproduces the White Paper from the published PDF 21 technical concepts to non−technical people. So, making
22 versions of the White Paper would be practically 22 people understand the difference between MiKTeX,
23 infeasible ... ” 23 the original version , which is also in the BDO Drive
24 Do you see that? 24 installed , of LaTeX, and how LaTeX works on Overleaf,
25 A. I do. 25 a web−based, limited version of LaTeX, all I can do is

125 127

1 Q. So your position then was that LaTeX files of yours in 1 show people. It ’s hard to −−
2 the Bitcoin folder on Overleaf precisely reproduced 2 Q. Dr Wright, this is nonsense, isn ’ t it ? You presented,
3 the White Paper? 3 at the PTR, to his Lordship, through your solicitors
4 A. With the caveats I gave, noting −− 4 conveying your evidence, that your LaTeX files would
5 Q. You gave no caveats there −− then, did you? 5 produce a precise reproduction or copy of
6 A. I gave caveats. I said that the −− what do you call it, 6 the Bitcoin White Paper, not mentioning any things that
7 the OpenSymbol doesn’t run in Overleaf, I said that 7 would cause differences. That’s how you presented it to
8 the IEEE bibliography had been updated by the IEEE, that 8 his Lordship in the middle of December, isn’t it?
9 it was a web−based system, I said that I’m not using 9 A. No, I did not say that it would do it on Overleaf. What
10 MiKTeX and that there had been changes in LuaLaTeX since 10 I said is ”in the same environment”, and the same
11 the version that I had −− 11 environment is basically 2008/2009 system. So you take
12 Q. Can I pause you there. Can I pause you there. All of 12 a 2008/2009 system with the same versions of MiKTex,
13 that information came much later, didn’t it , Dr Wright? 13 the same versions of OpenSymbol, the same versions of
14 A. No, I said that when I talked about it , and I also noted 14 other fonts , and you do a recompile based on that.
15 that the bit that would be basically the same would be 15 I don’t have that environment any more.
16 the images and the images were the most difficult to 16 Q. We’ll come to when you introduced these various
17 reproduce. 17 qualifications , but I suggest to you that you didn’t
18 Q. Dr Wright, these differences that you’re describing came 18 introduce any of them when you sought an adjournment of
19 after the PTR in correspondence from your solicitors, 19 this trial at the PTR on the basis of this material, did
20 didn’t they? 20 you?
21 A. No, they did not. 21 A. I don’t know how my solicitors acted. I told them these
22 Q. When do you say that this information about 22 things. And one example of how I would describe it is,
23 the differences was provided to Bird & Bird and 23 if I had a version of Word, Word 2003, and I loaded
24 MacFarlanes? 24 the document now in a new version of Word, current
25 A. I have no idea when you had it. All I know is when 25 version of Office , then both documents are going to

126 128

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 display separately , they’re not going to be the same. 1 been waived over this advice, hence this letter .
2 So the same thing happens in LaTeX. If you use an old 2 LORD GRABINER: Well, my Lord, perhaps my learned friend
3 version of the program, you will get slightly different 3 could take note at least of what my objection is and
4 versions . And this is also in your evidence where some 4 perhaps we can proceed accordingly.
5 of the experts say that these have changed over time. 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
6 Q. Okay, we’ll come to when you introduced 6 MR HOUGH: Well, I was going to make the point my Lord made,
7 the qualifications and how extensive they were, but 7 that the advice on this subject has been the subject of
8 next, please, {M2/691/1}. 8 a ruling about privilege and that Dr Wright can be asked
9 Now, this was a letter written by your solicitors , 9 about this particular advice.
10 Shoosmiths, following an order from the court in 10 But Dr Wright, you must be careful not to go into
11 relation to the evidence you’ve given about Ontier’s 11 any other advice.
12 advice about whether these documents should be 12 So the question of advice given to the effect that
13 disclosed , and they wrote this, first of all , that you 13 your Overleaf materials were not disclosable , that’s
14 had no record of the advice to which you referred or 14 something I can ask you about; do you understand?
15 which was referred to in that letter and witness 15 A. I do.
16 statement that I’ve asked about. That’s right , is it ? 16 Q. So who do you say gave you this advice?
17 A. Yes, the people came out to my house. 17 A. I would have to look up her name. There was a young
18 Q. And they then wrote this: 18 solicitor in training at Ontier. I don’t have a name on
19 ”Ontier has informed us that it has no record of any 19 me. I can get it . She was out at the house at the same
20 such advice and that its position is that no such advice 20 time when Rivero, the American solicitors, came over,
21 was given.” 21 and this was in the initial sort of evidence−collection
22 A. All of those people have been let go by Ontier. 22 phases of the Kleiman case.
23 Q. Once again, I would naturally ask who these people were, 23 Q. Dr Wright −− and this, my Lord, is the reason why I’m
24 but I ’m going to warn you about privilege before you say 24 putting this letter −− the reality is that it wouldn’t
25 anything more, Doctor −− 25 just have been wrong, but very obviously wrong for

129 131

1 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, with great respect to my friend, he 1 Ontier to tell you that you just couldn’t deploy this
2 persists in trespassing on material that he knows is 2 material which you regarded as so important. That would
3 going to lead to my standing up and objecting. With 3 have been obviously wrong, wouldn’t it?
4 great respect to him, these documents actually speak for 4 A. No, because in the Kleiman case, there was no dispute
5 themselves and my learned friend can invite 5 over my being Satoshi, so no one wanted anything to do
6 your Lordship, at the appropriate moment, to infer 6 with that. So, the files had no metadata dating back to
7 whatever you think is appropriate to infer from the face 7 the time and it was just how the Bitcoin White Paper was
8 of the document compared with the evidence that 8 created.
9 the witness is giving . It ’s not complicated. 9 Q. But Dr Wright, all of these comments are about advice
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Just explain to me why the identity of 10 given in the context of this case by reference to
11 the personnel at Ontier is privileged . 11 the disclosure review document in this case. That’s why
12 LORD GRABINER: Because it inevitably will lead to 12 I took you to the original letter .
13 a discussion about what was or wasn’t said in the course 13 A. And all Ontier did was they reused the 2019 and 2020 US
14 of that discussion . 14 disclosure documents. Nobody said that we needed to do
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, but I’ve already ruled that that 15 anything again, they just said , ”What we have should be
16 privilege has been waived. 16 good enough”.
17 LORD GRABINER: It hasn’t −− well −− 17 Q. Let’s go back to Ms Field’s witness statement −− sorry,
18 A. Only on Ali Zafar, my Lord. 18 just before we do, paragraph 5 of this letter :
19 LORD GRABINER: It hasn’t been waived generally −− 19 ” ... our client ’s position remains as recorded in
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, I know. 20 paragraph 19.2.4 of Ms Field’s Witness Statement.”
21 LORD GRABINER: −− and every time my learned friend asks 21 Do you see that?
22 a question which invites a debate about what did or did 22 A. I do.
23 not pass between the solicitor and the client , we have 23 Q. {E/24/8}, please. Actually, it ’s on page 7 {E/24/7},
24 this problem, and it is completely avoidable. 24 just over the page. Can we see the full bottom of
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I ruled at the PTR that privilege has 25 the page, please:

130 132

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 ”[Ontier] informs me that the files hosted on his 1 your files produced a precise reproduction of
2 Overleaf account were not reviewed for disclosure by his 2 the Bitcoin White Paper, right?
3 former solicitors , Ontier, because they were considered 3 A. No, it ’s not.
4 to fall outside the date ranges for searches specified 4 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for
5 in his Disclosure Review Document.” 5 a break?
6 Pausing there, that is saying that a decision was 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
7 made in relation to the searches specified for these 7 Okay, Dr Wright, usual warning. Relax and we’ll
8 proceedings, not a judgment made on disclosure for 8 take five minutes.
9 the purposes of the Kleiman proceedings. Do you 9 A. Relax and not be nice to anyone.
10 understand. 10 (3.04 pm)
11 A. Yes, I understand also that they’re the same, because 11 (A short break)
12 the 2019 US Florida proceedings were just reused. 12 (3.13 pm)
13 Nobody re−did any discovery. I’m redoing it now for 13 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, I’m going to begin by being fair to
14 Tulip, but, my Lord, everyone just said we could reuse 14 you and making a correction. {AB−A/2/67}, please. May
15 what we have. 15 we have that on screen.
16 Q. Then: 16 Dr Wright, I put to you that the −− that
17 ”Dr Wright informs me that Ontier took the view that 17 qualifications were added to your statement that your
18 documents compiled and exported from Overleaf after 18 files would produce a replica of the Bitcoin White Paper
19 31 August 2019 (the latest date range for disclosure of 19 on 29 December and we saw that they were put in a letter
20 documents in this case) were not disclosable for this 20 on that date, but just to be fair to you, to be clear ,
21 reason.” 21 qualifications were introduced in this letter on
22 A. Again −− 22 13 December 2023; do you see that?
23 Q. The advice you were passing on was nothing to do with 23 A. I do.
24 Kleiman and all to do with the disclosure review 24 Q. We can move on from the correspondence then to the LaTeX
25 document in this case, wasn’t it ? 25 documents themselves. I’m going to put to you some

133 135

1 A. No, they’re both the same. AlixPartners, where you have 1 conclusions formed by the expert witnesses. Do you
2 all these files from, they were my US litigation team. 2 understand, Dr Wright?
3 They did that over here. That got reused. Nobody 3 A. I do.
4 bothered to say, ”Is there any other files for this 4 Q. {I/5/33}, please.
5 case”. 5 This is in the report of Spencer Lynch, the expert
6 Q. Last point before the break {M/2/763}, please. 6 witness instructed on your behalf, and Mr Lynch
7 29 December 2023. We see that Shoosmiths wrote to 7 explains , at the bottom of this page, that:
8 answer a request to say which of the LaTeX files in 8 ” ... it would be extremely difficult , if not ... ”
9 the relevant folder , which was called ”TC”, would 9 Over the page {I/5/34}:
10 compile into a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper; do you 10 ” ... impossible, to get an exact match ...”
11 see that? 11 For the Bitcoin White Paper using LaTeX; do you see
12 A. I do. 12 that?
13 Q. And paragraph 3, they say: 13 A. I do.
14 ”We are instructed by our client that since 14 Q. Then in paragraphs 117 to 118, he goes on to say that,
15 the Bitcoin White Paper was published, he made a number 15 by contrast, the Bitcoin White Paper could be replicated
16 of minor corrections to the White Paper LaTeX files to 16 using OpenOffice, the program its metadata say was used
17 address typographical errors in the published version of 17 to create it . Are you aware of that finding?
18 the White Paper ...” 18 A. Yet he never did it .
19 And then there’s the reference to using 19 Q. Then, if we go down to see what he did do, do you see
20 IEEE automated citation generation to produce 20 that the first image on the screen is an overlay between
21 the references ; do you see that? 21 the OpenOffice recreation of the White Paper and
22 A. I do. 22 the actual White Paper; do you see that?
23 Q. Now, please don’t tell me anything privileged, but this 23 A. I do.
24 was the first time that those qualifications were first 24 Q. Do you see, below, there is an overlay between
25 −− were introduced into the −− into your position that 25 the Bitcoin White Paper and the compiled version from

134 136

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 the best, as it were, of your LaTeX files; do you see 1 match, but it would involve producing a vast amount of
2 that? 2 effort to produce a LaTeX code that would give
3 A. I do. 3 the impression of a document created in OpenOffice;
4 Q. So would you accept from that simple test that 4 that’s right , isn ’ t it ?
5 the OpenOffice recreation produced a much better 5 A. Just like my documents, which embed true type fonts,
6 replica ? 6 which do everything he’s saying there, and go through
7 A. No, I don’t, because the OpenOffice didn’t go into 7 each of those steps. So that’s correct .
8 the main points I was making. The main point I made was 8 Q. So you’re saying that you went through a vast amount of
9 that the image in LaTeX, that was on the BDO Drive as 9 additional effort to produce something in LaTeX that
10 well and has been used in publications of mine going 10 would look like it had been produced in OpenOffice?
11 back to 2006, was an exact match. Now, the image, in 11 A. It would be very similar . At the same time, I was also
12 text , was the hardest part to reproduce and that wasn’t. 12 writing papers on steganography, my Lord. I’d written
13 Q. Well, Dr Wright, first , let me put this very clearly . 13 a paper on HyDEn, which was a stego tool for EXEs, and
14 You are wrong, aren’t you, to suggest that the diagrams 14 I had written a section of one of my books on
15 in the Bitcoin White Paper can’t be reproduced in that 15 watermarking documents. So while I was writing a book
16 form using OpenOffice? 16 on forensics and also IT audit, I wrote a section on
17 A. No. No one did it. Both sets of experts just said it 17 steganography in any book detailing that the use of
18 could be done. Neither did. On top of that, the expert 18 things like SNOW. SNOW is a tool that’s been around
19 on my side had to have three sets of detailed 19 since the ’90s for adding white space steganography.
20 instructions on how to use Overleaf before he could even 20 Now, this would allow you to embed messages, embed other
21 run it , a very simple web program. 21 things, to show steganographically that you’d created
22 Q. {G/7/23}, please. 22 it , a way of going, ”Hey, I’m the author”, by making
23 Now, this is the report of Mr Rosendahl. Would you 23 something that people say is ugly in the LaTeX world.
24 accept that he’s got pretty good qualifications and 24 Q. It ’s not −− I’m not suggesting to you that it’s ugly,
25 experience to opine on LaTeX? 25 I ’m suggesting that you went to, on your case, an

137 139

1 A. Yes, but I wouldn’t accept that he’s independent. He’s 1 extraordinary amount of effort to produce something in
2 heavily involved with BTC Core and other 2 LaTeX that would look like a document produced in
3 cryptocurrencies. 3 OpenOffice and that would have metadata saying it was
4 Q. Well, just to dispute that he’s not an independent 4 produced in OpenOffice.
5 expert, Dr Wright, that’s entirely wrong. 5 A. I wouldn’t say an extraordinary amount of effort.
6 A. I disagree. I know that he’s part of the BTC Core 6 I went to effort , and I did that for those reasons. At
7 Group, I know that he has developed code with them, 7 the same time that I was actually writing extensively on
8 I know that he has been at conferences with them. 8 steganography, I did that with a few documents. So,
9 I know that he has significant investments and that if 9 while I was writing and showing people how you could
10 I win this case, he’ ll lose most of his savings. 10 steganographically do these things, I also produced
11 Q. Well, let ’s see if that’s said on your behalf, 11 documents that are steganographically altered.
12 Dr Wright. 12 Q. So you went to a lot of effort to produce
13 Paragraph 66, on page −− bottom of page 23, over to 13 the White Paper in this form to provide a digital
14 {G/7/24}, he concludes that to produce a copy of 14 watermark, that’s what you’re saying?
15 the Bitcoin White Paper in LaTeX would have required 15 A. Yes.
16 the user to make very extensive modifications. Do you 16 Q. And this would mark you out as the author, right?
17 accept what he says in that respect? 17 A. No, it was more just because I could at the time.
18 A. Yes, that’s what I said in the first place. 18 Q. But the effect of it , on what you say, would be to mark
19 The modifications were made so that it would be 19 you out as the author, right?
20 different . That’s why people said that it was ugly. 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Then, at the bottom of the page, paragraph 67, he says 21 Q. Didn’t it occur to you to mention that in your first
22 that modifications would be ”theoretically possible”, 22 witness statement as a very powerful point on your
23 he’s not saying they were made in your documents, 23 behalf?
24 Dr Wright, just to be clear , he’s saying that they would 24 A. I didn’t think anyone would understand it. I have tried
25 be theoretically possible to get a reasonably good 25 to explain to lawyers multiple times −−

138 140

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 Q. Don’t tell us anything privileged , Dr Wright. 1 a student as well as an executive and I use my free
2 A. I ’m not going to. I ’m going to say I’m probably 2 accounts when I can, and on top of that, I had a hard
3 the world’s worst client , I ’m an Aspie and I’m 3 enough time explaining to Mr Lynch how to actually do
4 a complete ass, and none of my lawyers will deny that. 4 this in Overleaf, I thought installing MiKTeX and trying
5 I don’t handle people not understanding things very 5 to teach him how to compile a document would be beyond
6 well , and I get frustrated . So, I end up like 6 impossible.
7 a three−year−old who doesn’t get a lolly when I get 7 Q. Page 31, please {I/5/31}.
8 frustrated , as people know, and I sit there expecting my 8 Mr Lynch illustrates the spacing differences by
9 lawyers to just grasp these concepts, and then they 9 overlaying the compiled version of your LaTeX file on
10 don’t and I get angry. 10 the actual Bitcoin White Paper, doesn’t he?
11 Q. Okay, pause there and let’s move on to the next topic. 11 A. He does.
12 {I/5/29}. This is a further section of Mr Lynch’s 12 Q. And so your expert, with whatever instructions got
13 report and this is the second conclusion of the experts 13 through to him, finds material differences not just in
14 that I ’m going to put to you. The experts concluded and 14 corrections you made, or to the bibliography, but in
15 we see Mr Lynch’s conclusion, at paragraph 106, that 15 the actual spacing, which were very clear.
16 there are many differences between the control version 16 A. Not fully . As I noted, LuaLaTeX has evolved a long way.
17 of the White Paper and the compiled version generated 17 LuaLaTeX was very new when I first started using it
18 from the Bitcoin White Paper LaTeX files, so the files 18 around the time of the White Paper. It had only been
19 from your Overleaf account. Are you aware of that 19 out around a year or something like this . Now, LuaLaTeX
20 finding? 20 is the extended compiler that I use. Occasionally
21 A. As I explicitly stated, I used MiKTeX. I actually used 21 XeLaTeX as well. But that particular graphics engine
22 it and OpenOffice plus a LaTeX plugin, and when I use 22 that is used in Overleaf has changed and none of
23 Word, I use −− and the correct spelling is GrindEQ, that 23 the early versions of that are available . So, that is
24 I tried to pronounce the other day, just GrindEQ. 24 why there are some changes. But you’ll notice, equally ,
25 Now −− with an ”E” in Grind. So ”Grind” with 25 a lot of the text matches.

141 143

1 an ”EQ”. I used these tools back then. I ’ve now moved 1 Q. Page 33, please {I/5/33}.
2 everything over because I’m old and lazy and I use 2 Mr Lynch found differences in formulae symbols, such
3 a web−based version of things. I don’t want to run 3 as the lambda symbol, didn’t he? We can see that.
4 everything any more. That’s why I use Google rather 4 A. Yes, OpenSymbol doesn’t load in Overleaf, so Overleaf
5 than my own email server. And because of that, there 5 replaces it with Times New Roman. So what we have in
6 are downsides to this. If you now move everything to 6 the compiled White Paper is Times New Roman instead of
7 Overleaf, you no longer have support for OpenSymbol. 7 OpenSymbol. Now, if you run this, what he would have
8 OpenSymbol is the maths font used in 8 noticed is , in the error bar, where it comes up red, it
9 the Bitcoin White Paper. So taking OpenSymbol and 9 basically tells you there is no support for OpenSymbol
10 trying to run it in sort of Overleaf will get you 10 in Overleaf. One day in the future, they might do it.
11 the wrong results. 11 Q. Over to Mr Rosendahl’s report {G/7/36}, please. Can we
12 On top of that, you have other areas, like 12 blow that up? Thank you.
13 the changes made by IEEE. 13 We see that Mr Rosendahl found differences in
14 Q. There were differences here, not only to be 14 the diagrams which he illustrated with a −− in a number
15 bibliography, but spacing differences , differences in 15 of ways, first of all , noting the difference in
16 the symbols in formulas and punctuation, other content 16 the label , ”Hash01”, which we can see on the bottom left
17 differences , weren’t there? 17 in your version overflows the bounding box; do you see
18 A. Yes, I said I corrected a couple of things. I never 18 that?
19 expected this, at this point, to be the document it was, 19 A. Yeah.
20 and it ’s been a live access document, like many of my 20 Q. And then over the page to {G/7/37}, a difference in
21 other things on Overleaf. This is part of why it wasn’t 21 alignment between the arrow and the box, which has been
22 used early on. I said I ’ve been accessing and using 22 magnified here. Further differences between
23 the files that I have in my text files . So basically , 23 the compiled version of yours and
24 I ’ve been using a variety of accounts with Overleaf for 24 the Bitcoin White Paper; correct?
25 some time, I’ve moved between them, because I’m 25 A. I do, which is a different version which he then goes to

142 144

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 say he used TeX Live, which is completely different to 1 14, but others can check that:
2 what I said was MiKTeX. So despite my telling what 2 ” ... which could not have been used in 2009 in
3 the environment was, he chooses to use an alternative 3 the form they have in the candidate files .”
4 platform, which is like going, ”I opened this document 4 Do you see that?
5 in Word that was made in OpenOffice and they’re not 5 A. Yes, because he was using XeLaTeX.
6 the same”. 6 Q. Then {Q/5/2}, please:
7 Q. So Mr Rosendahl, who at least you have accepted has 7 ”The experts agree ...”
8 expertise in this area, has chosen not to deploy it in 8 Paragraph 5:
9 this regard? 9 ” ... that the visual appearance of similarity to
10 A. Mr Rosendahl, who has a lot of money invested in 10 the [Bitcoin White Paper] in the PDFs produced from
11 BTC Core and my losing this case, yes. 11 [your] LaTeX files is the result of structure ,
12 Q. Well, let ’s see if that’s put to him. 12 formatting, and content in the raw source code ...
13 Page 38 {G/7/38}. Mr Rosendahl, at paragraph 107 13 including the packages, and options specified in that
14 onwards, expresses the view that most of the files , most 14 code.”
15 of your LaTeX files on your TC folder wouldn’t compile 15 I presume we can agree on that?
16 properly at all using a 2008 and ’09 version of LaTeX 16 A. That I actually formatted it , yes.
17 software. 17 Q. And that the visual appearance of similarity to
18 A. No, what he says is XeLaTeX, the one I actually said 18 the Bitcoin White Paper is the result of those packages
19 was there, but LuaLaTeX, that was already live in that 19 and options?
20 year, and we didn’t say 2007, we said 2008/9, so 20 A. Yes, that’s the very nature of steganography and
21 the last iteration was 2009, two years later , so he 21 actually embedding watermarks.
22 chose instead to use XeLaTeX. So basically, his excuse 22 Q. And on the subject of the history of those LaTeX
23 is , ”I don’t think it will work, I ’m not going to try 23 packages and options, the experts agree that there
24 it ”. And then he said, ”I’m not going to use the 2007 24 exists open source information from which it may be
25 version”. Well, it ’s actually the 2009 version he 25 concluded that those packages didn’t exist at the time,

145 147

1 should have been using. 1 yes?

2 Q. Pause there. What he said is that it wasn’t possible to 2 A. I disagree.
3 compile any of your LaTeX files using 2008 to ’09 3 Q. So the experts together agreed that there was open
4 software, except one. Pause. 4 source information, and Mr Rosendahl, who you’ve
5 Then: 5 accepted is a real expert in this field , said in his
6 ”The only file which did compile under my 2009 6 report that they didn’t exist in that form at that time?
7 installation was F ... which is simplest in 7 A. Mr Rosendahl, who has very, very extensive links to your
8 structure ... ” 8 clients , as in BTC Core, who chose not to use MiKTeX,
9 A. No, what he says at 106 is: 9 despite that being my package, who didn’t use LuaLaTeX
10 ”I installed the fonts ... ” 10 saying that it wouldn’t be used, and used XeLaTeX, and
11 On his computer so that he could use XeLaTeX. As 11 intentionally skirted every aspect of how I configured
12 I ’ve said multiple times, XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX are 12 things, yes, got something different.
13 completely different . So it ’s like trying to say I had 13 Q. Well, it is wrong and absurd to suggest that
14 an Adobe Acrobat folder and I wanted to open it up in 14 Mr Rosendahl has breached his expert declaration in
15 Notepad, but it didn’t give me anything. Funny that. 15 the numerous ways which you’ve just suggested, isn’t it,
16 Q. Then, in addition to finding that your files didn’t 16 Dr Wright?
17 compile under 2008 to 2009 software, he also identified , 17 A. No, actually , I believe that someone who’s been to
18 didn’t he, no less than 14 software packages referenced 18 extensive BTC conferences, extensive cryptocurrency
19 in your LaTeX files which couldn’t have been used in 19 conferences, spoken to various people there, coded with
20 2009? 20 them, worked with them, has assets with them, would not
21 A. No, he made comments that they weren’t available. I can 21 be someone that you would use as an independent expert
22 demonstrate where they are. Now, they were early 22 who is unbiased.
23 packages, but that doesn’t mean they’re not used. 23 Q. If we go back to Mr Rosendahl as report {G/7/36},
24 Q. {G/7/50}, paragraph 158. So he found that there were 24 footnote 3, bottom of the page. Do you see that, first
25 a whole series of packages and options, and I counted 25 of all , Mr Rosendahl specifically considered the use of

146 148

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 MiKTeX and explained that that didn’t affect his 1 reason, and perhaps you can accept this, that in this
2 analysis ? 2 case, whatever else you are, you’re not independent, are
3 A. Oh, no, he considered it and then he ran it on 3 you?
4 Debian Linux. Basically what he said is , ”I ’m just not 4 A. No, just like either of the LaTeX people.
5 going to try it , I ’m going to use a completely different 5 Q. You’re saying that Mr Lynch isn’t independent, are you?
6 package”. Once again, I’m going to get an Adobe file 6 A. He works for Stroz. I don’t believe , no.
7 and I’m going to open it in Notepad and that must come 7 Q. So both the experts lack independence and Mr Lynch lacks
8 out the same because they’re both things that show text. 8 competence as well? That’s your evidence at the end of
9 Q. May we now move to the third point that the experts 9 this week?
10 concluded which is that, contrary to your assertions , it 10 A. Mr Lynch had to follow a cookbook I gave him to follow
11 is possible and indeed not too difficult , to reverse 11 a simple text program. That doesn’t make him an expert
12 the published Bitcoin White Paper to a LaTeX version, 12 in LaTeX. So, just finding someone who has forensic
13 although difficult to make the result perfect . Would 13 qualifications doesn’t make you an expert, and I’m going
14 you accept that much? 14 to stick to that.
15 A. No, actually , what you get in any of the tools that 15 Q. Mr Rosendahl in particular found that the LaTeX files’
16 they’re mentioning is a horrible mish mash that, at 16 coding of images from the Bitcoin White Paper was
17 best, to get it close , does every single character 17 extremely similar to the output of an online conversion
18 rather than word, and at worst, is nothing alike . 18 tool called Aspose, didn’t he?
19 Q. {Q/5/1}, please. Page 2 {Q/5/2}, paragraph 4: 19 A. No, actually , he didn’t , and he didn’t provide it .
20 ”On the subject of reverse engineering, the experts 20 Q. {G/7/60}, please, paragraph 196.
21 agree that it is not too difficult to reverse engineer 21 He found, didn’t he, at paragraph 198, that it ’s:
22 the BWP to create a LaTeX source file that compiles 22 ” ... very likely that both files (Dr Wright’s Images
23 a PDF file similar to Dr Wright’s, which contain 23 and the Aspose automatic conversion) were ... exactly
24 the same text, formulae, and diagrams; and is 24 the same up to a possible translation and scaling factor
25 superficially similar to the [Bitcoin White Paper]. It 25 ... It would have been relatively easy to write

149 151

1 would however be extremely difficult ... to create a PDF 1 a program to check this ... ”
2 which was an exact match ...” 2 But given the time that was available to
3 So easy to produce something as good as yours, 3 the experts, that wasn’t possible . So his conclusion
4 Dr Wright? 4 was: close similarity between your document and
5 A. No, actually , what they’re saying in the example was 5 the product of an online conversion tool?
6 absolutely nothing like it , not even slightly aligned. 6 A. No. I actually ran that tool and had a look at
7 Not like mine, where most of it was aligned; nothing 7 the output. The output was, I think, 30 times longer.
8 like . Not −− none of the same line breaks, none of 8 Every single dot had its own independent area. It
9 the same images, nothing. And that goes down to a file 9 didn’t replicate the thing very well at all , it had an
10 that instead of being −− like, if mine was −− I can’t 10 accuracy of about 60%, so, no, I disagree.
11 remember how long it is, but say it was a thousand 11 Q. Now turn to −− now let’s turn to the project history
12 lines , theirs would be a million lines to take every 12 taken from Overleaf and provided through
13 character. 13 Stroz Friedberg. {M1/2/105}, please. You’re aware,
14 On top of that, they didn’t actually do it . 14 aren’t you, that the project history for your LaTeX
15 The simple example −− the simple test wouldn’t be to say 15 accounts has been provided, to an extent, from Overleaf
16 it , wouldn’t be to give an opinion. If you’re saying 16 and produced by Stroz Friedberg, yes?
17 it ’s so easy, run it up. I did. I used every available 17 A. Yes.
18 LaTeX package after they did this. I have copied all of 18 Q. And they produced this spreadsheet showing the editing
19 these and some of them are in the Overleaf disclosure. 19 history , didn’t they?
20 None of them work. By every one, I used over 120 20 A. They did.
21 different packages −− 21 Q. Page {M1/2/103}, please. If we maximise the table.
22 Q. Can I pause you there, Dr Wright −− 22 Thank you very much.
23 A. −− and none of them −− 23 Now, they plotted the content of the spreadsheet as
24 Q. −− because you’re starting to give evidence of 24 a graph, showing that the main.tex file , which was
25 experiments, which is not admissible, for the simple 25 the one your solicitors identified as the one which

150 152

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 would compile into the White Paper, was edited on 19 to 1 other times, and I do object to this process. It ’s very
2 20 November, 22 November, 24 November and 1, 4, 5, 6, 10 2 unsatisfactory and it needs to be properly controlled .
3 and 12 December; do you see that? 3 MR HOUGH: Well, my Lord, the difficulty is that
4 A. I do. 4 the questions about the editing were proper and
5 Q. You were responsible for those edits , weren’t you, 5 the witness started going into details , and it is
6 Dr Wright? 6 a natural question to ask whether he is saying that all
7 A. I was. 7 these edits were done in front of other people.
8 Q. So the file was being edited right up to the day before 8 LORD GRABINER: I don’t disagree with that. It’s just that
9 the LaTeX files were received by Stroz Friedberg? 9 it would be much more helpful if you were more
10 A. Yes. I demonstrated to Shoosmiths, making a small 10 controlling of the answer, because otherwise we’re going
11 change, adding a full stop, adding a percentage. And 11 to end up with my constantly standing up and irritating
12 where you say there are extensive edits , that’s actually 12 everybody, but my function is to try to protect
13 not true. Adding a full stop, removing that full stop, 13 a vulnerable witness.
14 is actually two edits . So, when I add a space, that’s 14 MR HOUGH: My Lord, can I say this. As your Lordship is
15 an edit . If I go percent, comma, slash, etc, that’s 15 aware, there’s further project history information,
16 three edits . So, at one stage, I typed in Matt’s, one 16 which was provided very recently as a result of orders
17 of my solicitor ’s, name. That was probably 10 edits. 17 that were made, which is still under analysis and that
18 I then undid it and put the original name back. So 18 may have to be dealt with either by Mr Gunning or
19 I was demonstrating how using that, you could change 19 separately .
20 the date and produce a new version, etc. 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
21 Q. Dr Wright, first of all , this was a document which you 21 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, let me just put it to you, this whole
22 were going to present as being a perfect digital 22 story about you, as Satoshi, writing
23 watermark of the Bitcoin White Paper. Didn’t it occur 23 the Bitcoin White Paper in LaTeX is just a tissue of
24 to you, as an IT security expert, that you shouldn’t be 24 lies that you came up with in order to give some
25 mucking with it extensively over the period of time 25 supposed support to your case, isn’t it ?

153 155

1 before you produced it? 1 A. Not at all . As I said , I mean, I don’t actually need to
2 A. I downloaded a copy of the file and gave it to 2 be Satoshi. I ’ve already got more patents in this
3 Shoosmiths before I did any of this . So, the first 3 industry than anyone else, I ’ve created most of
4 thing is , I downloaded the ZIP from Overleaf, sent it to 4 the things. BTC Core, in Taproot, have integrated
5 the solicitors . We did that right at the beginning of 5 patented material from mine. I don’t need to be Satoshi
6 this process. And as such, once I’ve given them a copy, 6 to start action. I don’t need to own the database
7 I ’m saying that I can’t change the copy they have, 7 rights to go after them for patent violations , so −−
8 therefore my making changes and undoing those changes is 8 Q. But you are going after database rights and copyrights
9 not a material change. 9 claiming to be Satoshi, aren’t you?
10 Q. Do you say that all of those edits were done in 10 A. Because I am Satoshi. The easy one everyone wanted me
11 the presence of Shoosmiths? 11 to do is go after a Champagne case for passing off. You
12 A. They were on videos, on calls, I sent them some emails 12 don’t need to prove anything. But then I would have to
13 while they weren’t on there, I sent, like −− 13 not say that I am. And then I’d be asked in court, ”Are
14 Q. You say that all these edits were done in their 14 you”, and then I’d have to go down that track anyway.
15 presence? 15 So, the easy one is to avoid saying anything, but then
16 A. Not in their presence. I emailed them. They weren’t 16 the hard bit comes.
17 there. And do you consider on a video call presence? 17 Q. Dr Wright, you forged the LaTeX files on Overleaf,
18 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I do apologise, but everything 18 didn’t you?
19 that’s just been said is privileged material. I can’t 19 A. No, I created the LaTeX files using a combination of
20 keep jumping up every three seconds. My learned friend 20 different editing tools in MiKTeX in 2007, 8, 9, and,
21 allows the witness to continue to give what he must 21 yes, I ’ve printed and done things with them since then,
22 appreciate is privileged material. He is, may 22 but I first created them to make the White Paper, which
23 I respectfully remind the court, a vulnerable witness. 23 I released and published in 2008.
24 He does not understand the point that I’m trying to 24 Q. And it’s wrong to say that Ontier gave you bizarrely
25 make, and if he does, perhaps he does sometimes, but not 25 negligent advice, because the fact is that these were

154 156

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 files that weren’t in existence when you were being 1 the White Paper. Anyone can read those, can’t they?
2 advised about disclosure? 2 A. They seem to not be able to read them very well, because
3 A. No, they were. A lot of things got missed because of 3 your side are actually arguing, and including your
4 that, and this is where I’ve also said the QNAP server 4 expert witness, that nodes are something different than
5 should have been imaged properly, but wasn’t. 5 defined in the White Paper, despite the fact that, as
6 Q. Right. Moving on to another topic. In your first 6 Satoshi, I said Bitcoin is set in stone. I have reasons
7 witness statement, you begin with a discussion of 7 for it not to change.
8 characteristics of Bitcoin. If we can bring that up 8 Q. Dr Wright, you are not here, in this witness statement
9 {E/1/4}. You go through, at some length, over a few 9 or even in your last few answers, imparting any
10 pages, the characteristics of Bitcoin providing your own 10 information which only Satoshi could have, are you?
11 views? 11 A. I am, as a whole. Nodes are commercial agents. I said
12 A. Well, no, my views as the creator of the system, so it ’s 12 that. I said it to Martti Malmi, I said it to
13 not just my own views, it’s the views as set out and 13 Mike Hearn, I said it to Gavin, I said it to all of
14 defined. 14 the other people. Unfortunately, most of the people who
15 Q. There is nothing in those pages, is there, that provides 15 came later in BTC Core ignored that.
16 specific information or knowledge which only the creator 16 Q. Just one point arising from this. You’d accept,
17 of the system would have, is there? 17 wouldn’t you, that the expression ”blockchain” was in
18 A. Probably is, yes, but most of these things are actually 18 use before 2008?
19 known because of things I’ve actually said over 19 A. Yes, in different forms.
20 the years . 20 One example you gave was in cypher block decoding,
21 Q. Dr Wright, what knowledge or information do you say 21 CBC. Now, CBC is an early version of encryption, based
22 you’ve imparted through your witness statement which 22 on DES, etc, which was built into some versions of AES.
23 only the creator of the Bitcoin System could have? 23 That has nothing at all to do with blockchain or
24 A. Generally, looking at how this is described, so I ’ve 24 anything else . The term ”cypher block chaining” isn’t
25 also talked about characteristics , such as, in 25 cypher blockchain, and they can’t be taken outside of

157 159

1 scripting , Turing completeness. I got ridiculed , in 1 each other. It ’s not blockchain, it was cypher block
2 2015, for saying Bitcoin was Turing complete. I said 2 chaining.
3 it . Nick Szabo basically challenged me and said, ”Write 3 In the second one, the example is Hashcash, and
4 a White Paper”. Instead, I wrote three papers which 4 a chain of blocks references email remailers . So, that
5 I published in academic circles . I did a conference on 5 one actually does have history, because that goes to
6 it . I also published seven patents and we have built 6 the concept of, well , b−money, which references
7 it . So not only do I say it is , we have built systems 7 BlackNet, the paper that I was talking about that you
8 in code proving that it is . 8 actually said was right. BlackNet, as it was in
9 Q. I don’t want to get into that debate with you at great 9 the 90s, talked about the concept of an encrypted
10 length, Dr Wright, but even supposing you’re right about 10 internet and block remailers commercially using a spam
11 all of that, why couldn’t somebody else very clever, who 11 filter , based on an economic process, doing some of
12 wasn’t Satoshi and knew all about Bitcoin, come up with 12 this .
13 all of that? 13 Q. Can I just pause you there. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that
14 A. Because they would have had to know and study the early 14 the expression ”blockchain” featured in discussion about
15 version of Bitcoin. And as you see from your own 15 Adam Back’s work on Hashcash in 1997, didn’t it?
16 experts, like Professor Meiklejohn, people look at 16 A. No, not in the way that you’re saying.
17 Bitcoin post−2013, 14, 15, 16, 17, and they don’t take 17 Q. But just the term did, didn’t it ?
18 any of my code, they look at the changes, they look at 18 A. Oh, in −− out of context, yes. So, he didn’t use it as
19 the narrative that had been promoted by BTC Core. They 19 a blockchain the way that we’re now doing, but it was
20 had this narrative that nodes are run by every person, 20 a remailer list . So, no. The −−
21 even back to 2008, James Donald said. They ignore 21 Q. It was a term that was used at that time, wasn’t it?
22 the clear definition in section 5 of the White Paper 22 A. Oh, again, you’re being −− I’m sorry, you have to −−
23 that says nodes create blocks. So, unfortunately, no, 23 I have to say this , you’re being disingenuous on that.
24 this isn ’ t happening. 24 It is a completely different use. The thing is like
25 Q. Again, Dr Wright, you’re referring to sections of 25 saying, ”That’s a cat and this is a rock”, and actually

158 160

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 my statement ”cat” and ”rock” are closer. So, when 1 was first provided after you’d read
2 we’re talking about the use of email, what we’re talking 2 Professor Stroustrup’s evidence and in response to it ,
3 in ”remailers”, my Lord, is block threads. So if I have 3 wasn’t it ?
4 block threads, effectively what you’re trying to say is 4 A. No, because I was actually involved that whole time.
5 that a chain of emails, so when I reply and I have this 5 And I have his book, by the way; the original . I also
6 chain of emails, that’s a blockchain. That has nothing 6 have K&R C’s first book, and I have the Knuth series, so
7 to do with the term we’re using now. 7 I have all of this .
8 Q. Dr Wright, I’m not saying that people were using 8 Q. Your account, that you began using C++ between the ages
9 the term ”blockchain” in the context of Satoshi’s 9 of eight and 11, clearly given in this witness
10 digital currency before 2008, and in fact it ’s right , 10 statement, is a fabricated detail you have now qualified
11 isn ’ t it , that the expression ”blockchain”, in two words 11 and embellished because it’s been found out.
12 or one, doesn’t feature in the White Paper, does it? 12 A. No. As I just stated, what I’m doing is simplifying so
13 A. No, it doesn’t. 13 that people understand.
14 Q. Moving on to your early coding experiences, page 7 of 14 Q. I see.
15 this document, paragraph 25 {E/1/7}, you say that your 15 A. I didn’t tell my lawyers −− I didn’t go into the detail
16 fascination with coding began when you dabbled with C 16 because, as I tried to explain this the first time, they
17 and C++ around about the age of eight or nine, yes? 17 literally quoted you before you ever said it , my Lord,
18 A. Mm−hm. 18 and said it was long and rambling, and cut my stuff
19 Q. And then you began writing code for games by age 11? 19 down. So, my original version of −−
20 A. Yes, let me −− 20 Q. Please −− I’m sorry, please don’t tell us about editions
21 Q. Again −− wait a second. Again, in C and C++, yes? 21 of your witness statement. Can I just stop you there.
22 A. Yes. Let me clarify that. I started with K&R C. 22 While we’re on the subject, may we address a point
23 K&R are authors of an early version of C. They 23 that you make later in the narrative . Page 15 {E/1/15},
24 developed a number of versions of C that started, 24 paragraph 71.4. You say here that you have:
25 including object−orientated code, in the early 80s. So, 25 ” ... coded competitively, entering in a C++ coding

161 163

1 my first , when I was around nine, was in K&R C. That 1 competition with the SANS Institute ... coming first ,
2 developed, with the introduction of Smalltalk, into 2 third , fourth and seventh ... ”
3 Object C. Object C wasn’t to ’85 −− ’84/’85, my Lord. 3 Do you see that?
4 That was, like , a precursor to C++ but wasn’t C++. That 4 A. I did.
5 integrated in Solaris , my main platform that I used, 5 Q. {L3/52/1}, please. Is this an email about the contest
6 into a form of library −based Object C. Object C then 6 you were referring to there?
7 morphed into the Solaris C that was used, but Solaris 7 A. Yes.
8 had problems, so they’re no longer a company, and what 8 Q. Page 53, please {L3/52/53} −− sorry, {L3/53/1}. That
9 ended up happening is, in 1989, a formal version of C++, 9 was of the attachment to the email. Is it right , from
10 and then ANSI C++, a year later, were developed. 10 the heading of this suggested news bite, that this was
11 So what I’m saying here, just to make it clear −− 11 a competition to identify programming flaws in
12 I don’t always explain myself, my Lord; I’m trying to do 12 textbooks?
13 it now −− is that I started with these, and as it 13 A. Yes. What we needed to do is go through the textbook
14 evolved, I moved towards C++. 14 and point out both where there were bad coding examples,
15 Q. Dr Wright, you said in your witness statement you 15 not when it wouldn’t compile but where there would be
16 dabbled with C++ around the age of eight or nine. 16 security vulnerabilities , and then to put an alternative
17 That’s clear . 17 way of writing the code so that it would be secure.
18 You’re aware, aren’t you, that COPA served evidence 18 Q. Page 4, please {L3/53/4}, we see your −− what you wrote,
19 from Professor Bjarne Stroustrup, who designed C++? 19 identifying various errors ?
20 You’re aware of that evidence, aren’t you? 20 A. No, that’s only part of it . That’s a summary document.
21 A. I am. 21 There was a longer version as well .
22 Q. And you’re aware his evidence was that the name ”C++” 22 Q. This wasn’t, though, a competition to write extensive
23 was first coined in December 1983 when you were 13? 23 sections of code, was it?
24 A. Yes. 24 A. No, I didn’t go into an actual
25 Q. And your elaborate explanation that you’ve just given 25 writing−mini−sections−of−code competition, but what

162 164

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 I did do is , with the CERT security for C, I was one of 1 that you had done that job.
2 the people in that. So, the secure coding for C given 2 You’ve referred in your statement to the company
3 by SANS, I wrote some of the exam, I wrote some of 3 working on a payment protocol called ”Millicent”; you
4 the course. So −− 4 recall that?
5 Q. I was just addressing this , your statement in your 5 A. I do.
6 witness statement, which I think you’ve repeated on 6 Q. All you say about it is that it was an efficient payment
7 a number of occasions publicly, that you did 7 system that wasn’t encrypted, yes?
8 terrifically well in a coding competition. It wasn’t 8 A. It used digital signatures . It ’s similar to Bitcoin in
9 a competition to write significant sections of code, 9 that manner. It also used script , or scrip , which was
10 was it? 10 used as a way of programming the exchanges.
11 A. No, it was to actually rewrite the sections securely . 11 Q. You haven’t provided any documents about it, have you?
12 So I point this out here, but I actually went into more 12 A. I believe I have. There are some of the documents on
13 detail in a longer document. 13 Millicent in my research.
14 Q. Moving on to your work from the early 1990s, you tell us 14 Q. It wasn’t, in any sense, a precursor to Bitcoin, was it?
15 in your witness statement that you worked, from 1996 to 15 A. No, that’s actually incorrect . Bitcoin uses
16 1997, at OzEmail, an internet service provider , right? 16 a Forth−based system, so the scripting language in
17 A. Yes. 17 Bitcoin is based on Forth, which most old people like me
18 Q. {L2/102/1}, please. Is that a copy of your CV, when you 18 remember. On top of that, similarly, so was scrip.
19 were at BDO? 19 Script and Bitcoin and scrip are analogous; they work
20 A. Oh, that’s one of them that they gave out. 20 exactly the same way. The distinction is that Millicent
21 MR HOUGH: Page 4, please {L2/102/4}. 21 couldn’t find a way of distributing the server and
22 Actually, lord Grabiner reminds me, very fairly , may 22 required each merchant to run their own version of
23 we have a very short break, my Lord, for Dr Wright and 23 script as a bank. So, one of the problems, of course,
24 transcriber ? 24 is , how do you convert scrip in merchant A from scrip to
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, why not. Yes, five minutes then. 25 merchant B, how do you keep them equal, either that or

165 167

1 Thanks. 1 you need a bank, once again, so therefore it didn’t

2 (4.00 pm) 2 work.
3 (A short break) 3 Q. All this evidence you’ve just tried to give about common
4 (4.06 pm) 4 coding, none of that’s in your witness statement, is it ?
5 MR HOUGH: We had {L2/102/1} on screen, page 4 {L2/102/4}. 5 A. No, actually −−
6 This is from your CV, when you were at BDO, Dr Wright. 6 Q. Paragraph 29 {E/1/7}. Have a look at that. You refer
7 A. It was one of them. There are actually four different 7 to Millicent . And go over the page {E/1/8}. You don’t
8 ones, depending on which area. 8 say anything about common forms of coding, do you?
9 Q. You refer in your witness statement to working at 9 A. Of code, sorry?
10 OzEmail. Do we see that that’s referred to as a job you 10 Q. Common forms of coding, all this, all the evidence −−
11 did between 1996 and 1997? 11 A. No, earlier , I said I coded in the C language, so, no.
12 A. I do. 12 The witness statement’s not meant to be rambling, so
13 Q. And as you say there, that was managing a corporate 13 I made a statement saying that I programmed this using
14 technical team associated with large corporate clients 14 these as an origin −−
15 of OzEmail? 15 Q. You’re now suggesting that there was something about
16 A. Yes. This was in the 90s, so we developed the code for 16 your work on Millicent where the code specifically
17 the clients , we built systems, we customised code. It 17 prefigured elements of Bitcoin. That’s not something
18 was all in CC++. The majority of the systems were in 18 you saw fit to mention in your statement, is it ?
19 either DEC, or Solaris, and we did things like 19 A. I ’ve noted right here that Millicent was used in shaping
20 implementing altered versions of DNS, we implemented web 20 my ideas. I didn’t actually take Millicent and make it
21 servers . Web servers weren’t like now, where you just 21 into Bitcoin, what I did was I designed a system based
22 run up a simple platform, we had to build them. We 22 on those concepts.
23 build code, including for New South Wales schools −− 23 Q. In paragraph 30 you say you found yourself:
24 Q. Can I pause you there, Dr Wright, because I’m not sure 24 ” ... deeply engaged with the budding digital cash
25 I ’d got to a question other than asking you to accept 25 industry ... ”

166 168

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 And extended the Digital Equipment Computer Users’ 1 primarily conducted your work through DeMorgan between
2 Society, yes? 2 ’97 and 2003, yes?
3 A. Yes. 3 A. That’s correct .
4 Q. That was just an organisation for people interested in 4 Q. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that at that time, its full name
5 computers and IT which held symposia in exhibition 5 was DeMorgan Information Security Systems Proprietary
6 halls , isn ’ t it ? 6 Limited?
7 A. No, actually , that’s wrong. DEC were a micro, sort of, 7 A. No, it started off as DeMorgan, then it went to
8 and main frame company. They were mini−computers, 8 DeMorgan Pty Limited. After the dot−com crash,
9 basically , VMS, etc. So, the people in DEC weren’t 9 the company had done a back door listing, but then there
10 general internet , sort of, geeks, it was an environment 10 was the dot−com crash, it was re−instituted, and the new
11 of when a −− AltaVista came out, was the first search 11 company was DeMorgan Information Security Systems.
12 engine, I was at the launch, actually , in America, 12 Q. At paragraph 33 you say that you envisaged it:
13 invited by DEC from Australia. On top of that, DEC were 13 ” ... as a platform through which [you] could conduct
14 heavily involved with all of this . 14 extensive research and development in digital cash ... ”
15 The reason I ended up with 15 Do you see that?
16 the Australian Stock Exchange was I had extensive 16 A. I did.
17 experience in VMS and Digital UNIX; I programmed in 17 Q. There’s not a shred of evidence, is there, that DeMorgan
18 both. The ASX, at the time, were ostensibly 18 did any work on digital cash in that period, is there?
19 a DEC house. DEC doesn’t exist any more, but at that 19 A. No, actually , there is quite a lot . BlackNet is
20 time. So, when I’m stating this , I ’m stating that 20 actually premised on crypto credits. So, the part you
21 Digital Equipment Corporation, a company that does 21 mentioned before with b−money, the first paragraph of
22 mini−computers, large scale things, not home user 22 b−money quotes Tim May and goes into the history of
23 systems; it ’s not like HP or Compaq. 23 BlackNet. BlackNet basically had crypto credits .
24 Q. Dr Wright, I’m not suggesting that you weren’t 24 The proposal that you’re mentioning that Wei Dai
25 interested in computers, but it had nothing to do with 25 mentioned was, I could extend crypto credits in a new

169 171

1 digital cash, did it ? 1 way. He never actually did it . I , actually , at that

2 A. Actually, it did. Millicent was created by DEC, and 2 stage, thought he would have, but he didn’t continue.
3 Millicent was a protocol that was being promoted by 3 So, what I did was trying to take an encrypted internet,
4 Digital Equipment Corporation before Compaq took them 4 and the only way that is viable to make this sort of
5 over. Now, when Compaq took them over, they closed all 5 distributed encrypted system is to have it economically
6 that, because they weren’t interested in things like 6 valued. Now, that meant that proof−of−work tokens would
7 AltaVista. AltaVista didn’t get the funding; that’s why 7 be at small −− small integers of exchanges so that all
8 Google exists. 8 the transactions you mentioned before, the grabbing
9 Now, DEC wanted to create an internet that was 9 a web page, the doing a search, the sending an email,
10 micropayment funded. Now, if they’d done that, rather 10 would be both economic transactions and transactions on
11 than an ad−based internet we see now, it would have been 11 a server .
12 lots of small payments in fractions of a cent. What 12 Q. Dr Wright, I should have put it in this way. Other than
13 they couldn’t figure out was how to have the system 13 the DeMorgan documents which we’ve put to you are fake,
14 distributed so that no one would be able to, like , have 14 there’s not a shred of evidence that DeMorgan was
15 to go through all multiple exchanges, and that would be 15 involved in digital currency, is there?
16 terrible . Imagine if you buy from merchant A, get their 16 A. No, actually , you have given me AusIndustry documents,
17 script , have to now go to NatWest, change it again to go 17 both ones that −− some of those were in court cases in
18 to Lloyds, change it again to go, sort of −− what do you 18 Australia . So, in 2004, I was in a court case in
19 call it −− buy your car, or pay for your fuel, change it 19 Australia and those documents were put forth. They were
20 again to go somewhere else. So, not having 20 put forth in the other part of the DeMorgan case in 2008
21 a distributed version of cash that could run everywhere 21 and 9. Now, they mention the AusIndustry area for
22 was their downfall. Unfortunately, Compaq had no 22 BlackNet. And there’s only one BlackNet. BlackNet is
23 interest and it got closed. 23 an encrypted internet based on crypto credits. That
24 Q. Dr Wright, let’s move on to DeMorgan. You say in 24 morphed into Bitcoin and Metanet.
25 paragraph −− I believe, paragraph 32 {E/1/8}, that you 25 Q. Dr Wright, you produced a whole series of Bitcoin −− of

170 172

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 BlackNet documents, which we looked at, that say nothing 1 particular interest in digital cash.
2 about crypto credits , didn’t you? 2 Q. Pause there. Pause there.
3 A. You don’t actually need to, but if you read BlackNet, 3 {L11/130/1}, please. This is your LinkedIn profile ,
4 you see that the foundational part of it is 4 as captured, I think, in December 2015. Page 6, please
5 crypto credits . So, BlackNet is, as I said , an 5 {L11/130/6}. Can we rotate it. At the bottom of the
6 end−to−end encrypted internet. My end goal, my Lord, 6 page, ”DeMorgan”. Can you just read that to yourself,
7 isn ’ t Bitcoin, like they say, it is to create, like it 7 please, Dr Wright. And then over the page {L11/130/7},
8 says in the White Paper and I’ve said to Martti Malmi, 8 that’s the entry you had for DeMorgan. Once again, all
9 Adam Back and all your witnesses, a timestamp server 9 about IT security services , nothing about digital cash.
10 that can have the integrity of data saved over time, and 10 A. No, if you go back up, so we have the page before
11 economically, viably , way of transferring information. 11 {L11/130/6}: managing director of DeMorgan, okay:
12 Q. Pause there, Dr Wright. 12 ” ... with a focus on the financial services banking
13 {L2/102/1}, please. Back to your CV. Page 3 13 and technology markets.”
14 {L2/102/3}. Your work at DeMorgan is summarised over 14 In that, I produced solutions for a number of
15 several paragraphs and it’s all about IT security, 15 clients , including Lasseter’s, I attempted to make
16 isn ’ t it ? 16 a viable token system, I also created a system for SWIFT
17 A. Actually, Bitcoin is about IT security. The notion of 17 and transfers . For the Australian Stock Exchange,
18 a secure immutable timestamp server keeping logs −− 18 I created a number of systems, including ones that would
19 keeping files so that they can’t be changed is the core 19 track and monitor asset transfers . We’d call them an
20 of the information security . That is one of the things 20 ”NFT” now, but back at that stage they were signed
21 I ’m trying to solve . Where my, sort of, opposing 21 digital transactions for the update of information to do
22 counsel here −− I’m not sure if I call him ”my learned 22 with share trades. On top of that, I worked with
23 friend”, or anything like that, like you have −− but 23 News Limited, with their billing system, and all of this
24 what you have been saying, all of the metadata changes 24 relates .
25 over time. What I’ve been working to create is a system 25 Q. Well, we’ ll go on to this next week. It may be,

173 175

1 where, even if the look of the file changes, we now have 1 shortly , time to draw stumps. But all of these entries ,
2 a way of proving every paragraph in a document 2 contemporaneously, from your LinkedIn profile and your
3 independently. 3 CV, make clear that your work at DeMorgan was in IT
4 Q. I ’m going to stop you on that digression and just put 4 security services , firewalls and the like .
5 this to you. You said in your witness statement that 5 A. Two points. One, I don’t manage LinkedIn, so I didn’t
6 a major part of DeMorgan was developing digital cash. 6 fill it in . And the second point is, no, actually , as
7 When you summarised your work at DeMorgan in your CV, 7 I said , the firewalling and logging systems that we’re
8 while you were working at BDO, there’s ne’er a word 8 talking about, like for Vodafone, Lasseter’s, etc, were
9 about digital cash, is there? 9 all on an early version of what became Bitcoin. They’re
10 A. One, I didn’t create that CV. Two, there were four 10 a hash chain system. So, the error is focusing on
11 separate CVs at that stage. 11 cryptocurrency. Bitcoin was never primarily about
12 I ran the programming section of BDO; there’s 12 a cryptocurrency, it was really about timestamp server,
13 a CV for that. I ran the information security and audit 13 as it says in the White Paper, and the concept of
14 part; there’s a CV for that. I ran the financial audit 14 immutable logging.
15 area for computer audits; there’s a CV for that. And 15 So, in 2009, when Martti Malmi got involved, and
16 I ran the digital forensic area; there’s a CV for that. 16 others, such as Martin−something, their key area
17 Afterwards, there was an extra one added covering 17 was: how do we actually create something and have
18 data integrity code, etc, as I opened up an area for 18 the integrity of this ? And that’s why I’ve talked about
19 this . I ran the digital forensic branch, which 19 Tripwire. A distributed Tripwire system, which we have
20 I founded, and I was manager and director of that. 20 patents for as well , would enable all of the files in
21 I ran each of these areas. So each of those had 21 a company to be recorded. So you’re saying ”just
22 a separate CV independently. 22 firewalls ”. No, I developed these systems. They linked
23 Q. So you think there’s a CV out there referring to digital 23 into hash chains, they had distributed peer−to−peer
24 cash work for DeMorgan, yes? 24 logging and enabled the secure management of the server
25 A. I don’t know. This was created by BDO. BDO had no 25 on what is a proto blockchain.

174 176

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 Q. Dr Wright, there was no proto blockchain, you were just 1 MR HOUGH: But we think that the timetable can still be well
2 the IT security services guy, weren’t you? 2 managed, because there is actually some slack in other
3 A. No, you don’t have R&D for that. And as you’ll find 3 areas, and in any event, time towards the end.
4 out, Deloittes , and PwC, and several large enterprise 4 My Lord, there’s another matter which I need to
5 companies failed, time and time again, to get Lasseter’s 5 raise with your Lordship, which is that analysis has
6 software that would get them over the board and allow 6 been going on of the other Overleaf metadata, of which
7 them to be certified . I created the systems that made 7 my Lord’s aware, and I’m just aware that Mr Gunning may
8 the Northern Territory government happy. 8 want to cross−examine Dr Wright about it. It’s
9 What you don’t see in there is, I also designed 9 something I might have addressed today −− would have
10 the system for iVote. IVote is the New South Wales 10 addressed today, if it had been ready and disclosed and
11 Electoral Commission system, my Lord, where internet 11 so on, and I’m really in your Lordship’s hands about how
12 voting occurs. That is the way that, like , people who 12 that should be done, whether that should be −− that
13 are handicapped, or, like , soldiers , can vote in 13 analysis , if it ’s prepared by the start of next week,
14 Australia remotely. So that system was partly on my 14 whether that should be provided to Dr Wright, and when.
15 secure design. 15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You don’t sound particularly confident
16 So where you’re saying ”just the security guy”, I ’m 16 as to when it’s going to be ready.
17 just the security guy who created the PKI system that is 17 MR HOUGH: I think it will be ready over the weekend.
18 some of the basic digital signing infrastructure in 18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
19 Australia . I ’m just the security guy who created 19 MR HOUGH: My hesitation was about the right way of −−
20 the secure logging and management system in a number of 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
21 banks. I ’m just the security guy who implemented 21 MR HOUGH: −− approaching it, rather than when it will be
22 logging functionality , poker and game management for 22 ready.
23 Lasseter’s, Playboy and several other casinos. Just 23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
24 the security guy that implemented this for 24 Lord Grabiner, do you think that your team will want
25 the Department of Homeland Security. Just the security 25 the opportunity to discuss this further analysis with

177 179

1 guy −− and I can keep going, if you’d like. 1 Dr Wright?

2 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment to end 2 LORD GRABINER: Well, we’d like to see it.
3 for the day? 3 Could I make just one point. Of course, it ’s
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 4 a matter for my learned friends how they conduct their
5 Okay, Dr Wright, you’ve had a hard week, we’ve all 5 cross−examination, but sometimes the documents really do
6 had a hard week. 6 speak for themselves. So, I don’t want my learned
7 A. We have. 7 friends to imagine that because they haven’t taken
8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: But you can relax, don’t talk to anyone 8 the witness to every single piece of paper that I ’m
9 about the case over the weekend, and we’ll see you back 9 going to complain about that. On the contrary, I’ ll be
10 here at 10.30 on Monday. 10 only too delighted if they refrain from doing so. And
11 LORD GRABINER: Not back here. 11 you can make a point off the face of a document by
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sorry, court 26. ”Back here” in 12 comparing it, for example, with a witness statement, and
13 the sense of the Rolls Building, okay? 13 I ’m including for this purpose expert evidence, and you
14 A. My Lord, I’ ll be going out and hiding away from 14 don’t actually need to go through every line, because
15 everyone. 15 you’re perfectly entitled , in closing , to say, ”This is
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 16 what the witness statement said, this is what the joint
17 MR HOUGH: My Lord, got a couple of matters of housekeeping. 17 expert report said , ergo this is my argument”. The fact
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sure. 18 that that particular point may not have been put to
19 Housekeeping 19 a witness is not a matter which I can properly, and
20 MR HOUGH: First of all, I’m aware that it’s important for 20 I would not, complain about it. But that may help
21 Dr Wright to have a clear understanding of when he’ll be 21 matters. It may reduce some time.
22 questioned. We think, because of the matters I drew 22 But if my learned friend is going to be producing
23 your Lordship’s attention to earlier , that that will 23 a further document, then we would of course like to see
24 probably be until the end of Wednesday. 24 it and give us an opportunity of considering it ,
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 25 obviously as much time as we can.

178 180

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 1 INDEX

2 MR GUNNING: My Lord, could I say something. My learned 2
3 friend Mr Hough has intervened, apparently on my behalf, 3 Housekeeping .........................................1
4 but without my knowledge. 4 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued) ...................3
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: It’s always good to be volunteered. 5 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued) ........3
6 MR GUNNING: My cross−examination was not going to be based 6 Housekeeping .......................................178
7 upon an expert report produced by COPA. I can 7
8 understand entirely that COPA can and should be 8
9 producing such a report, but I ’m very well aware of 9
10 the points that my learned friend Lord Grabiner was 10
11 making about the manner in which the cross−examination 11
12 should be conducted, and so I’m surprised, if I can put 12
13 it that way, that it ’s being suggested that something 13
14 needs to be produced ahead of my cross−examination. 14
15 MR HOUGH: I’m sorry if I caused any surprise. I’m working 15
16 from notes, my Lord, and trying to help. 16
17 What I would suggest then is that we’ll provide our 17
18 report to Lord Grabiner’s team as soon as possible and 18
19 we’ ll consider how to proceed. I’m very grateful for 19
20 the indication that he’s given. As your Lordship will 20
21 understand, we’ve been careful to put allegations , for 21
22 example, of forgery , directly to Dr Wright with their 22
23 basis . 23
24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, no, I completely understand why 24
25 you’ve been doing that. Okay, well, whenever you’ve got 25

181 183

1 your analysis ready. 184

2 Good. Thank you very much.
3 (4.29 pm)
4 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Monday,
5 12 February 2024)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

182

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

111:17 112:2 113:10 68:3,4 70:21 71:17,18 105:24 80:8 97:17 114:10 139:18 178:20 179:7,7 181:9 began (4) 121:23 161:16,19
A
115:12,17 116:6,9 117:19 73:23 74:8,12,16,24 75:14 analysed (4) 9:8 64:20 79:8 143:18,19 161:17 162:1,16 awareness (2) 37:14,22 163:8

aba267 (1) 135:14 118:1,17,20 119:10 122:18 76:2 83:10,12,21 84:7,9 85:12 array (1) 38:14 away (6) 33:1 36:9 52:16 begin (3) 5:11 135:13 157:7

ability (1) 104:6 123:20 130:4 132:23 140:7 87:22,25 88:2,5 89:3 91:24 analysing (5) 24:13 25:16,19 arrow (2) 114:7 144:21 71:16 75:2 178:14 beginning (9) 3:23 5:3 14:10

able (16) 16:10 17:18 48:14 141:21 143:3 145:18,25 97:6 98:23 99:25 80:2 81:16 arse (2) 33:20,23 33:24 45:17 56:17 86:23
B
51:23 52:5 66:11,23 67:14 147:16,21 148:17 149:15 102:10,20 108:25 analysis (24) 25:6 27:14 article (7) 1:24 2:3 76:19 118:11 154:5

68:5,6 76:4 77:16 110:8,10 150:5,14 151:19 152:6 111:12,25 120:11 122:22 28:15 46:20 47:5,22,25 80:7 81:4 86:16 106:7 b (1) 167:25 begins (1) 30:10

159:2 170:14 153:12,14 156:1 157:18,19 agerhanssens (2) 77:13 85:7 58:12 60:8,15 64:2 articles (1) 97:9 back (53) 12:20,21 14:11 behalf (7) 10:8 46:24 47:3

above (2) 88:12 114:9 159:3 160:5,8,25 163:4 ages (3) 116:2 117:8 163:8 66:11,13 67:14 85:9,11 aside (1) 42:5 16:10 22:23 23:14 28:18 136:6 138:11 140:23 181:3

absolutely (2) 16:1 150:6 165:11,12,22 166:7 167:15 ago (3) 20:2 68:14 69:7 86:24 116:13 149:2 155:17 ask (9) 6:6 8:21 18:16 28:1 30:3 31:12 32:10 33:2 being (39) 4:23 17:18 21:4

abstract (1) 80:9 168:5,20 169:7,12 170:2 agree (19) 27:15 36:23 47:15 179:5,13,25 182:1 70:2 93:23 129:23 131:14 38:17 42:4 48:21 53:24 23:6 27:8,12 39:19 40:5

absurd (1) 148:13 171:19,20 172:1,1,16 48:7 51:12 52:24 59:20 andor (2) 65:10,17 155:6 54:8 55:2 56:17 60:25 45:22 50:9 51:18 53:2

abused (2) 110:23 111:8 173:3,17 176:6,17 179:2 62:1,3 63:1 64:6 65:18 angry (1) 141:10 asked (7) 57:14,16,17 123:22 61:10 63:15 65:12 66:21 54:17,19 59:4 63:6 72:3

abusive (1) 74:19 180:14 79:1,2 106:20 147:7,15,23 anomalies (3) 51:2 100:16,21 129:16 131:8 156:13 68:17 70:4 72:23 75:20 73:11 82:22 83:4 89:11

academic (3) 88:16 111:20 adam (2) 160:15 173:9 149:21 anomalous (1) 77:23 asking (12) 13:15 18:12 20:5 81:22 83:10 89:16 95:25 90:6 94:25 102:5 110:23

158:5 adbased (1) 170:11 agreed (5) 6:12 9:24 40:25 another (28) 33:16 42:5 35:3,21 42:16 45:16 79:20 101:23 114:23 117:8,8 119:8 120:1 123:5 132:5

accept (29) 5:20 18:13 20:16 add (6) 99:2,21,22 106:24 58:14 148:3 45:10 48:21 50:12 79:3,13 110:7 121:6 123:6 166:25 118:7,11 125:14 132:6,17 135:13 148:9 150:10

22:8 31:6,10 38:3 54:21 107:20 153:14 agreeing (1) 65:20 84:15 85:7,14,17,19 86:13 asks (1) 130:21 137:11 142:1 148:23 153:8,22 157:1 160:22,23

58:16 63:5 64:11,19 65:7 added (22) 25:20 26:4 61:12 agreement (2) 10:3,7 89:4 93:2 94:18 95:2 aspect (1) 148:11 153:18 158:21 171:9 170:3 181:13

70:16 72:18 75:11 77:8,18 63:6 65:10 67:7 88:10 agrees (1) 52:21 99:24,25 106:4 111:13 aspie (2) 50:9 141:3 173:9,13 175:10,20 belief (1) 37:1

78:7 103:20 107:15 91:23 92:8 95:24,25 97:13 ah (2) 26:11 77:11 112:19 113:21 119:18,23 aspose (2) 151:18,23 178:9,11,12 believe (29) 3:24 13:13

137:4,24 138:1,17 149:14 107:12,21 108:9,10,23 aha (1) 41:4 125:8 157:6 179:4 ass (1) 141:4 backdate (1) 53:19 19:18 30:19 46:25 50:5

151:1 159:16 166:25 109:1 113:6 115:22 135:17 ahead (1) 181:14 ansi (2) 117:18 162:10 assertions (1) 149:10 backdated (2) 53:14 106:4 56:2 57:8 60:9 68:4,6,23

accepted (3) 76:12 145:7 174:17 ai (1) 90:16 answer (8) 19:15,22 20:7 asset (1) 175:19 background (3) 27:20,20 70:24 73:7 75:7,17

148:5 adding (6) 98:12 100:4 ajay (1) 112:11 58:5 84:22 88:4 134:8 assets (1) 148:20 30:10 76:4,7,13 77:15 104:10

access (48) 10:23 11:1 12:2 139:19 153:11,11,13 al (3) 87:6,15 88:8 155:10 assigned (3) 63:2 64:5,5 backs (1) 160:15 113:19,20 120:13 123:14

15:2 16:11 19:5,6,7 23:21 addition (5) 58:10 96:4 albeit (1) 78:25 answered (1) 13:15 assignment (1) 62:22 backups (1) 30:16 148:17 151:6 167:12

27:7,9,10,12 31:21 36:7 115:6 117:21 146:16 algorithms (1) 119:25 answering (6) 16:14 19:13 assignments (2) 62:20,23 backwards (1) 55:5 170:25

37:1,10 38:17 39:17 42:24 additional (2) 77:21 139:9 ali (5) 109:8,16,22 110:19 30:2 57:15,19 72:7 associated (7) 4:19 41:19,20 bad (1) 164:14 believed (1) 7:8

43:25 44:15 45:1 52:5,11 address (15) 3:23,25 4:15 130:18 answers (2) 78:22 159:9 46:10 60:16 93:19 166:14 ball (1) 110:25 believing (1) 83:2

66:2,2,3,7,8,18 45:17,19,21,22 46:10 aligned (2) 150:6,7 anybody (1) 3:13 assume (1) 50:9 bank (2) 167:23 168:1 below (2) 82:11 136:24

69:8,9,10,13,18,20,21 72:7 83:23 84:1 93:18,20 alignment (1) 144:21 anyone (7) 75:7 93:10 135:9 assumed (2) 72:23 115:16 banking (1) 175:12 best (2) 137:1 149:17

75:4 76:5 83:15 85:9 86:9 119:15 134:17 163:22 alike (1) 149:18 140:24 156:3 159:1 178:8 asx (1) 169:18 banks (1) 177:21 better (5) 21:23 33:15 99:15

87:25 105:19 123:3 142:20 addressed (3) 94:7 179:9,10 alixpartners (25) 23:7 30:20 anyones (2) 110:22 120:2 attaching (1) 39:2 bar (1) 144:8 108:14 137:5

accessed (15) 20:11,11 addresses (4) 46:13,14 51:1 31:20,25 32:24 anything (27) 2:19 9:6 12:12 attachment (1) 164:9 barrister (1) 109:23 between (35) 28:16 32:2

38:10 43:24 47:7,24 63:24 96:7 34:3,5,6,9,16,18,19,22 13:6 37:3 40:13 46:15 attack (1) 71:1 base (2) 47:20 51:25 49:6,14 51:20 57:23

74:12 77:15 103:11,15 addressing (5) 94:4 95:12 35:1,7 37:9,13 40:7,12,24 56:5,7 70:2 81:19 86:7 attempted (1) 175:15 based (17) 46:5 58:11 61:12,15 62:11 65:11,21

106:22,24 113:15 123:6 103:1 120:25 165:5 41:3,5,16 44:14 134:1 88:20 90:15,16 122:24 attention (3) 1:25 2:16 61:20,20 65:24 71:4,15 70:10,12 82:10 87:12 92:6

accessible (2) 20:24 31:19 adds (2) 25:19 108:1 allegations (3) 84:20 110:14 129:25 132:5,15 134:23 178:23 82:7 94:11 95:12 128:14 95:25 100:17,21 108:5

accessing (6) 68:9 102:18,19 adjourned (1) 182:4 181:21 141:1 146:15 156:12,15 audit (3) 139:16 174:13,14 159:21 160:11 167:17 116:18 121:23 127:18,22

103:23 122:23 142:22 adjournment (2) 93:14 allow (3) 52:12 139:20 177:6 159:24 168:8 173:23 audits (1) 174:15 168:21 172:23 181:6 130:23 136:20,24 141:16

accordance (2) 11:10 21:17 128:18 allows (2) 25:18 154:21 anyway (1) 156:14 august (3) 86:20 103:12 basement (2) 32:22 33:4 142:25 144:21,22 152:4

according (1) 45:21 admin (3) 63:9,10,10 almost (1) 28:3 anywhere (2) 29:9 122:6 133:19 basic (2) 36:19 177:18 163:8 166:11 171:1

accordingly (1) 131:4 admissible (1) 150:25 alpha (1) 5:4 ap (2) 39:13,15 ausindustry (2) 172:16,21 basically (22) 3:2 23:14 beyond (1) 143:5

account (9) 38:3 50:16 71:3 admit (1) 113:16 already (12) 6:12 14:12 apa (2) 88:19 90:2 australia (7) 61:5,8 169:13 29:15 38:14 40:11 54:25 bibliography (3) 126:8

88:5 96:14 125:1 133:2 adobe (2) 146:14 149:6 22:23 44:13,15 96:4 apacite (1) 90:1 172:18,19 177:14,19 61:9 74:16 89:8 92:23 142:15 143:14

141:19 163:8 advance (1) 80:23 120:20 122:18 123:13 apart (3) 18:23 67:1,23 australian (4) 1:15,24 169:16 94:23 99:3 101:21 126:15 big (2) 58:23 117:3

accounting (3) 42:24 43:23 advice (13) 129:12,14,20,20 130:15 145:19 156:2 apastyle (1) 90:1 175:17 128:11 142:23 144:9 bigger (1) 1:9

102:3 131:1,7,9,11,12,16 132:9 also (45) 1:9 18:23 24:10 apologise (8) 8:8,15 57:11 authentic (11) 6:20 7:19 145:22 149:4 158:3 169:9 billing (1) 175:23

accounts (3) 142:24 143:2 133:23 156:25 28:22 34:25 44:25 49:1 93:17 113:17,20 127:20 11:24 13:16 18:18 171:23 bin (2) 47:6 60:17

152:15 advised (2) 124:1 157:2 55:18 57:4 59:23 68:5 70:6 154:18 19:13,19 22:14 92:19 basis (9) 18:13 45:6 59:18 bird (8) 21:18,18 44:1

accuracy (1) 152:10 aes (1) 159:22 72:23 77:19 79:7 101:24 apparently (4) 39:3 70:7 96:10 113:8 95:1 96:14 102:3 119:22 84:1,12,12 126:23,23

acrobat (1) 146:14 affect (2) 52:23 149:1 102:14 103:11 107:15 106:25 181:3 authentication (1) 36:25 128:19 181:23 birds (2) 44:1 84:1

across (4) 8:1 11:19 20:5 affected (1) 55:21 108:8,16 113:5,5 appear (6) 29:9 44:5 48:6 authenticity (9) 9:4 10:22 bay (1) 48:13 bit (7) 23:22 51:14 75:24

78:17 afr (2) 2:4,23 114:23,24,24 115:2 90:22 95:18 97:2 11:16,18 12:1,4,25 19:14 bdo (60) 23:1,4 35:8 36:7 107:2 109:24 126:15

acted (1) 128:21 afraid (2) 2:21 45:10 117:4,6 118:7 126:14 appearance (2) 147:9,17 22:21 37:11 46:21 47:22 156:16

acting (2) 109:22,23 after (38) 8:19 9:24 32:8 127:23 129:4 133:11 appeared (2) 80:13 115:11 author (7) 18:7 86:16 91:14 48:2,4,16,19 49:11 50:4,15 bitcoin (79) 5:1,19 13:16

action (1) 156:6 35:14 38:9 39:17 47:5,8 139:11,16 140:10 146:17 appearing (1) 97:1 114:19 139:22 140:16,19 51:7 53:3,5,5,6,12 55:10 14:6 15:8,15 16:4 17:4,6

actions (2) 18:5 64:6 50:24 53:12,22 54:1 55:24 157:4,25 158:6 163:5 appears (2) 20:16 73:15 authored (1) 101:25 56:20 61:3,4,7,8 62:10 18:25 20:17 29:7 32:5

active (1) 35:10 56:19 58:23 64:9,15,16 167:9 175:16 177:9 appendix (2) 91:16 94:8 authors (2) 18:7 161:23 63:3 64:12 66:1 67:2,4 70:13,19 81:5 82:17,21

actively (1) 36:15 65:4,15 67:19 69:11,17,18 altavista (3) 169:11 170:7,7 application (1) 78:3 authorship (4) 17:25 18:2,8 73:10,16,16 74:1,23 75:15 85:5,25 86:10,17 94:5

activity (1) 48:5 73:5 74:14 82:5 87:6 94:16 alter (1) 104:3 apply (3) 14:19,24 97:5 82:12 76:1,15 78:11 79:19 80:17 103:3 104:20 114:1,4

actual (9) 38:10 90:16 98:12 96:2 126:19 133:18 150:18 alteration (2) 49:14 55:14 appreciate (1) 154:22 auto (4) 99:3,4,13,22 82:6 83:6 93:24 95:24 119:19 121:15 122:1,25

104:15 117:24 136:22 156:7,8,11 163:1 171:8 altered (12) 7:18 9:15 12:18 approaching (1) 179:21 automated (1) 134:20 100:12 103:22 109:9,10 125:16 126:2 127:11,15,18

143:10,15 164:24 afterwards (4) 8:11 58:18 15:9 16:6,17 17:8 20:6,13 appropriate (4) 56:21 123:19 automatic (1) 151:23 120:9 127:23 137:9 165:19 128:6 132:7 134:10,15

actually (167) 2:25 11:17 91:23 174:17 22:15 140:11 166:20 130:6,7 automatically (2) 5:14 89:1 166:6 174:8,12,25,25 135:2,18 136:11,15,25

13:2,6 14:8 17:21 19:11,18 again (48) 13:6 17:10 18:20 altering (1) 104:5 april (1) 6:16 available (16) 6:2 11:10 20:8 bdopcraw (8) 58:13 64:14 137:15 138:15 141:18

22:9 23:20 24:12,14,21,23 20:19 22:23 25:9 51:13,16 alternate (1) 91:12 area (15) 19:8 45:25 61:6 21:5,16,24 22:2 30:20 65:11 67:2 70:11,14 79:7 142:9 143:10 144:24

25:3,13,20 26:2,14,24 54:6,22 70:22 73:22 74:25 alternative (3) 86:6 145:3 62:21 64:12 71:11 115:4 35:20 38:4 49:5 62:24 100:16 147:10,18 149:12,25

27:1,16 29:20 31:12,14 76:6 79:20 82:1 85:22 164:16 145:8 152:8 166:8 172:21 143:23 146:21 150:17 bdos (1) 61:5 151:16 153:23 155:23

36:11,15 37:23 39:6,10 86:14 91:24 93:4 95:4 alternatively (1) 19:4 174:15,16,18 176:16 152:2 bear (1) 54:4 157:8,10,23

40:1 46:3 51:13,16,17 96:25 97:6 103:21 104:24 although (1) 149:13 areas (4) 30:1 142:12 174:21 avoid (1) 156:15 bears (1) 86:19 158:2,12,15,17 159:6

53:3,8,18,20,21 54:10,23 107:18 109:11,13 113:2,21 always (7) 18:5 28:17 53:22 179:3 avoidable (1) 130:24 became (4) 73:5 74:7,11 167:8,14,15,17,19

55:4 56:2 57:11 59:7,11 118:20 119:13,21 123:15 54:8,8 162:12 181:5 arent (34) 5:24 8:14 26:13 aware (64) 6:15 9:17 11:6 176:9 168:17,21 172:24,25

60:1 62:13 63:20 66:10 129:23 132:15 133:22 amend (1) 6:2 46:2 52:13,18,25 55:7,14 21:13 27:6 28:22 37:13,17 become (1) 122:9 173:7,17 176:9,11

68:16 69:4 71:18,19 149:6 158:25 160:22 amended (3) 15:9 16:6,18 59:22 60:17,19 62:24 47:10 52:13,17,21,25 becoming (1) 74:19 bite (1) 164:10

73:13,23 74:3 161:21,21 168:1 amendment (1) 15:3 68:12,15 77:4 80:12 81:25 55:7,13 59:19,22,23,23 before (36) 1:12 14:11 22:12 bizarre (1) 88:6

75:1,6,11,18,23 76:13,21 170:17,18,20 175:8 177:5 america (2) 25:12 169:12 90:6 92:9 95:22 100:14 60:14,19,23 62:4 67:11 38:24 43:4 45:3 49:23 55:7 bizarrely (1) 156:24

77:9 78:13 82:3,24 83:8,19 against (10) 2:12 56:6 67:22 american (2) 101:3 131:20 104:1,13 105:2 107:10,13 68:12,13 74:7,11 77:4,19 66:15 67:12 71:20 75:25 bjarne (1) 162:19

84:5,8,17 86:5,11 87:19,24 72:24 82:14 87:20 92:11 among (2) 59:3 105:8 108:21 115:13 137:14 79:4,6,7,10 80:12,22 81:25 78:10 80:14 93:16 98:4 blacknet (14) 7:5 8:23 21:4

88:12,19,21 89:6 90:25 96:19 110:21 111:5 amount (5) 119:8 139:1,8 152:14 156:9 162:18,20 86:1,2 94:7,10 95:22 99:1 109:10 110:4 117:6 160:7,8 171:19,23,23

91:2,7 92:8,21 94:21 age (3) 161:17,19 162:16 140:1,5 arguing (1) 159:3 100:14 104:1 105:2 120:9 121:11 129:24 172:22,22,22 173:1,3,5

97:11,20 98:6,7 agent (1) 116:21 anachronistic (2) 101:19 argument (2) 83:4 180:17 107:10,13 114:18,25 132:18 134:6 137:20 153:8 blame (1) 56:15

99:1,10,10,12 100:3 101:3 agents (2) 118:17 159:11 106:25 arising (1) 159:16 115:10,12 122:21 127:5 154:1,3 159:18 161:10 blaming (2) 33:23,23

102:5,7,11,17 104:11 agerhanssen (40) 8:6 39:2 analogous (2) 24:19 167:19 around (16) 4:1 39:16 40:25 136:17 141:19 152:13 163:17 170:4 171:21 172:8 blank (3) 67:1 97:13,15

105:18,22,23 108:17 65:25,25 66:14,20 67:21 analyse (4) 27:5 73:13 82:4 41:12 49:9 56:21 75:16 155:15 162:18,20,22 175:10 block (8) 104:18,21

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

159:20,24 160:1,10 110:18 115:24 126:13,18 157:8,10,25 combination (2) 48:23 103:2 104:20 122:1 127:21 94:25 95:5 98:5 101:23 craigs (1) 74:18
161:3,4 129:17 131:20 155:24 charges (2) 111:7 112:14 156:19 141:9 168:22 conveyed (1) 81:8 crash (2) 171:8,10
blockchain (11) 159:15 169:11 charles (2) 95:20 112:25 combining (1) 117:7 concern (2) 2:17 3:12 conveying (1) 128:4 create (25) 18:4 24:14 25:1
159:17,23,25 160:1,14,19 candidate (1) 147:3 chased (1) 31:16 come (18) 12:20 13:22 18:2 concerned (3) 36:18 40:6 cookbook (1) 151:10 48:9 49:7,8,19 51:22 54:9
161:6,9,11 176:25 177:1 cannot (6) 10:22 chatgpt (9) 71:21,24 41:9 61:10 66:21 76:8,12 72:6 cookie (2) 83:22,22 55:5 59:8 90:18 94:22
blockchains (1) 96:22 17:11,14,17 52:9 88:1 90:5,12,14,19,23 91:6,8 83:10 108:18 114:23 concerning (3) 1:15 29:14 copa (8) 13:7 57:7,9 83:14 99:3,7,15 136:17 149:22
blocks (2) 158:23 160:4 cant (29) 12:1,6,10 13:8 check (9) 35:5 36:21 38:2 116:23 117:5,22 128:16 50:15 109:2 162:18 181:7,8 150:1 158:23 170:9
blog (2) 54:23 90:17 16:11 17:7 20:23 25:24 53:18 60:2,4 108:12 147:1 129:6 149:7 158:12 concerns (1) 127:3 copied (22) 1:18 10:24 12:2 173:7,25 174:10 176:17
blogs (1) 91:5 57:25 61:14 64:20 66:12 152:1 comes (4) 7:20 108:19 144:8 concluded (5) 66:25 104:13 23:14 44:7 49:24 50:22 created (39) 19:8 44:3 48:19
blow (1) 144:12 69:9 71:16 74:14 75:5 checked (7) 17:3 36:17 156:16 141:14 147:25 149:10 58:22,23,24 59:4 60:21 49:5 50:20 51:15 53:5,9,13
bmoney (3) 160:6 171:21,22 83:24 84:6 85:9 88:4 92:24 72:13 83:7,8 84:14 93:18 coming (3) 25:7 32:9 164:1 concludes (2) 53:11 138:14 61:16,20,23 62:10,17 54:3,19 65:16,17 73:12
bmp (3) 94:22,25 95:6 96:10 137:15 150:10 checking (4) 31:9 34:25 comma (1) 153:15 conclusion (6) 52:24 65:5,7 63:25 78:17 82:5 96:1 77:5,11 79:4 85:11 94:16
board (1) 177:6 154:7,19 159:1,25 173:19 59:24 93:21 command (1) 48:25 141:13,15 152:3 150:18 96:3,11 99:4 105:3,10
bone (1) 81:9 capability (1) 33:1 chinese (3) 57:7,8 60:10 commencing (1) 31:2 conclusions (5) 52:23 70:4 copies (6) 21:23,24 51:16 118:4,6 132:8 139:3,21
book (6) 120:19,24 capable (1) 56:10 choose (1) 56:10 comment (8) 10:22 12:1 76:9 103:18 136:1 73:15,23 94:8 156:3,19,22 170:2 174:25
139:15,17 163:5,6 capture (8) 23:13 47:19 chooses (1) 145:3 57:8 71:20 90:9 93:16 conditions (1) 3:14 copy (26) 4:7 8:21 10:23 175:16,18 177:7,17,19
books (1) 139:14 49:17,17 50:20,20 58:18 choosing (1) 123:23 107:17,21 conduct (2) 171:13 180:4 17:6 18:4 45:11,14 46:18 creates (1) 90:19
booted (1) 47:16 125:10 chose (2) 145:22 148:8 commenting (1) 81:4 conducted (2) 171:1 181:12 48:14,24 62:25 73:14 creating (3) 15:10 49:11
both (27) 5:21 31:15 captured (13) 23:8,9,15 chosen (2) 28:13 145:8 comments (2) 132:9 146:21 conducting (1) 47:22 78:19 79:8,12,14 83:3 118:23
52:2,14,17 59:20 63:9 40:22 49:15,18,22 50:7,12 christen (4) 56:17 72:23 commercial (1) 159:11 conference (2) 6:13 158:5 108:11 127:15 128:5 creation (6) 78:2,6 90:6
71:21 78:7 82:7 84:1 95:23 63:24 68:24 123:5 175:4 83:21 112:14 commercially (1) 160:10 conferences (3) 138:8 134:10 138:14 154:2,6,7 103:8,25 113:22
97:5 100:17 101:24 115:5 capturing (2) 49:12 68:19 christens (1) 112:9 commission (1) 177:11 148:18,19 165:18 creations (1) 49:13
117:15 128:25 134:1 car (1) 170:19 chrono (22) 114:6,7,19,21,22 commits (1) 108:3 confident (1) 179:15 copying (8) 48:21 49:6 51:20 creator (10) 107:4,21
137:17 149:8 151:7,22 care (1) 41:10 115:16,19,20,25 common (4) 90:21 configuration (1) 38:20 59:9,13 63:15,19 103:23 108:9,9,14 115:19 119:14
164:14 169:18 172:10,17 careful (2) 131:10 181:21 116:3,8,10,24 168:3,8,10 configured (2) 51:10 148:11 copyright (1) 5:5 157:12,16,23
bothered (2) 59:24 134:4 carefully (1) 125:13 117:1,1,1,2,2,24 118:19 communicated (3) 13:7,8 confirmed (1) 35:22 copyrights (1) 156:8 credentials (1) 61:7
bottom (23) 4:1 5:11 11:5 carried (1) 62:12 119:14,21 30:1 conflict (2) 57:5 60:12 core (9) 71:23 138:2,6 credits (6) 171:20,23,25
30:10 39:8,9 carry (1) 109:15 circles (1) 158:5 communications (7) 22:13 conflicting (1) 104:21 145:11 148:8 156:4 158:19 172:23 173:2,5
89:17,18,18,20,21 carve (1) 25:17 citation (4) 88:17,25 90:1 66:5,6 71:22 89:7,11,14 connect (1) 5:15 159:15 173:19 criminal (1) 112:14
106:10,11 107:18 113:2 carved (1) 24:18 134:20 companies (6) 10:25 11:2 connected (3) 23:23 36:2,11 cornerstone (1) 85:5 critical (1) 122:13
115:22 132:24 136:7 carving (2) 25:11,13 citrix (8) 53:1,3,4 56:13 57:2 15:2 29:22 101:13 177:5 connection (1) 30:21 corporate (4) 19:4,5 crossexamination (9) 1:12
138:13,21 144:16 148:24 cases (2) 38:12 172:17 71:8,13,14 company (15) 8:25 46:5,6,10 consider (3) 2:11 154:17 166:13,14 3:19 115:23 119:16 180:5
175:5 cash (10) 168:24 170:1,21 claimed (3) 14:5 23:8 122:22 60:9 112:10 115:2 118:4 181:19 corporation (3) 11:19 169:21 181:6,11,14 183:5
bounding (1) 144:17 171:14,18 174:6,9,24 claiming (1) 156:9 162:8 167:2 169:8,21 considered (13) 30:4 52:17 170:4 crossexamine (1) 179:8
box (3) 4:1 144:17,21 175:1,9 clarify (2) 8:13 161:22 171:9,11 176:21 59:20 81:12 94:13,14 correct (87) 5:9 7:19 10:8 crossexamined (2) 109:18
brackets (2) 114:7,10 casinos (2) 120:7 177:23 class (1) 117:23 compaq (4) 169:23 103:6 108:3 124:17 125:3 12:6 13:1 14:21 110:11
bragged (1) 72:7 cast (3) 9:2,4 22:20 classically (2) 90:11 118:18 170:4,5,22 133:3 148:25 149:3 15:3,11,12,16 16:7,21,25 crypto (7) 115:8
bragging (1) 71:24 cat (2) 160:25 161:1 clear (26) 8:10 10:7 18:12,21 compare (1) 92:12 considering (1) 180:24 17:1 18:19,22 21:9 171:20,23,25 172:23
branch (1) 174:19 categorically (5) 57:1 60:3,7 26:19 46:5 50:6,8 68:9 compared (1) 130:8 consistent (8) 59:4 22:16,22 23:4,10,17,19 173:2,5
breach (3) 2:11 3:3 76:25 104:4,6 80:23,24 82:20 84:13 86:3 compares (1) 96:18 63:5,8,17,18,20 70:16 78:9 24:8,11,12 28:2,9 30:17,22 cryptocurrencies (1) 138:3
breached (1) 148:14 cause (1) 128:7 109:7 113:21 116:11 125:7 comparing (1) 180:12 constantly (1) 155:11 31:4 34:3,4,7,24 cryptocurrency (3) 148:18
breadcrumbs (2) 109:2,5 caused (1) 181:15 135:20 138:24 143:15 comparison (2) 82:11 100:17 consultants (2) 15:1 20:9 35:16,24,25 36:5 37:11 176:11,12
break (11) 38:25 42:10,14 caveats (4) 65:8 126:4,5,6 158:22 162:11,17 176:3 competence (1) 151:8 contact (1) 95:19 40:12,13,17,20 41:8 43:2 cs (1) 163:6
75:7,9 112:10 134:6 cbc (2) 159:21,21 178:21 competing (1) 104:18 contain (5) 24:10 25:5 28:6 44:17 45:5,7 47:4 49:14 csw5 (2) 13:19 19:25
135:5,11 165:23 166:3 cc (1) 166:18 clearly (5) 41:15 66:2 112:19 competition (8) 116:15,18 72:23 149:23 55:20 56:1 65:14 67:3 71:6 currency (2) 161:10 172:15
breaks (2) 92:25 150:8 cd (1) 48:13 137:13 163:9 164:1,11,22,25 165:8,9 contained (6) 27:13 30:16 73:22 81:6 85:21 86:17 current (3) 66:16 108:5
briefly (2) 3:10,20 cent (1) 170:12 clerk (2) 1:14 44:8 competitions (1) 119:2 39:15 50:16 127:12,14 91:14 92:7,8,20 93:1,6,18 128:24
bring (3) 8:19 17:13 157:8 centre (1) 32:22 clever (1) 158:11 competitively (1) 163:25 containing (5) 23:3 48:2 94:6,17 95:8,21 98:16 99:9 currently (1) 61:17
british (1) 13:3 centrebet (1) 120:6 click (2) 40:13 100:6 compile (8) 134:10 143:5 67:16 77:20 125:17 102:10,24 103:3,4 105:1 custodians (4) 10:1 11:8
broke (1) 112:10 century (1) 110:1 client (4) 125:19 130:23 145:15 146:3,6,17 153:1 contains (1) 53:6 106:23 113:10 114:4,11 12:17 21:15
brought (3) 2:15 56:20 cert (1) 165:1 134:14 141:3 164:15 contemporaneously (1) 116:25 139:7 141:23 custody (12) 6:23 8:23
112:11 certain (5) 3:23 13:23 64:6 clients (9) 2:15 43:18 52:3 compiled (10) 98:10 122:25 176:2 144:24 171:3 9:18,25 10:10 13:1 21:2
browsing (7) 25:23,25 125:17 127:13 125:4 132:19 148:8 127:14,19 133:18 136:25 content (11) 15:7 16:5,24,25 corrected (1) 142:18 31:1 35:2 36:19 68:25 73:3
66:4,16 102:15,16 122:22 certificates (1) 25:25 166:14,17 175:15 141:17 143:9 144:6,23 20:12 41:4 75:15 99:21 correction (2) 8:5 135:14 custom (2) 118:4,6
bt (1) 46:13 certified (1) 177:7 clock (15) 53:13,14,19,24 compiler (2) 107:23 143:20 142:16 147:12 152:23 corrections (2) 134:16 customised (1) 166:17
btc (9) 71:23 138:2,6 145:11 cervantes (1) 18:6 54:1,5,8,13,15 55:2 59:5,9 compiles (1) 149:22 contents (13) 16:17 28:8 143:14 cut (1) 163:18
148:8,18 156:4 158:19 chain (16) 6:23 8:22 9:18,25 60:21,25 65:12 complain (2) 180:9,20 48:4 93:25 97:25 correctly (5) 23:6 25:16 cutting (1) 100:3
159:15 10:10 12:25 21:2 31:1 35:2 clone (1) 50:11 complained (1) 31:13 98:3,8,8,15,24 99:6,8 41:18 42:3 53:17 cv (12) 165:18 166:6 173:13
budding (1) 168:24 36:19 73:3 119:2 160:4 cloned (5) 23:12,12 49:22 complete (6) 26:3 33:20 120:10 correlate (1) 44:5 174:7,10,13,14,15,16,22,23
build (3) 39:17 166:22,23 161:5,6 176:10 58:17 96:2 38:23 93:2 141:4 158:2 contest (1) 164:5 correspond (2) 22:4,9 176:3
building (2) 80:9 178:13 chaining (2) 159:24 160:2 cloning (6) 49:16,20 50:7 completed (1) 50:21 context (3) 132:10 160:18 correspondence (2) 126:19 cvs (1) 174:11
built (4) 158:6,7 159:22 chains (2) 96:22 176:23 58:20,20 71:10 completely (7) 25:3 130:24 161:9 135:24 cypher (4) 159:20,24,25
166:17 challenged (1) 158:3 close (2) 149:17 152:4 145:1 146:13 149:5 160:24 continue (3) 124:6 154:21 costs (1) 88:3 160:1
buy (2) 170:16,19 challenges (1) 22:17 closed (2) 170:5,23 181:24 172:2 couldnt (13) 31:21 53:9
bwp (1) 149:22 challenging (1) 14:20 closer (1) 161:1 completeness (1) 158:1 continued (4) 3:18,19 59:24 69:8,19 81:17 D
byzantine (1) 119:11 champagne (1) 156:11 closing (1) 180:15 complex (1) 13:25 183:4,5 111:23 115:11 132:1
change (17) 11:21 32:13 cobham (1) 45:22 compliance (1) 120:20 continuing (2) 34:15 93:23 146:19 158:11 167:21 d (2) 54:12 89:1
C
48:25 51:25 54:16,18 60:5 cock (1) 38:23 complicated (1) 130:9 continuous (1) 90:25 170:13 dabbled (2) 161:16 162:16
c (42) 10:22 28:6 114:20,25 85:4 101:21 153:11,19 code (32) 5:1,21 105:20 complying (1) 69:25 continuously (1) 121:25 counsel (2) 93:17 173:22 dai (1) 171:24
115:4 154:7,9 159:7 107:6 113:25 114:13 compromised (3) 71:1 73:6 contradiction (1) 42:6 counsels (1) 26:7 damaged (2) 37:25 40:11
117:8,8,9,9,11,13,13,20 170:17,18,19 115:4,5,11 116:7,7,8 117:6 76:14 contradicts (1) 105:16 count (1) 20:5 data (22) 11:22,24 31:9
118:10,11,11 changed (20) 10:2,5,5 12:11 125:20 127:13 138:7 139:2 computer (42) 4:21,22 35:21 contrary (2) 149:10 180:9 counted (1) 146:25 32:20,22 35:20 39:15 47:8
161:16,17,21,21,22,23,24 17:2 37:18 54:1,13,15 147:12,14 158:8,18 47:13 51:7 52:10,14,15,22 contrast (1) 136:15 country (2) 88:3 112:14 50:15 62:9,10 100:25
162:1,3,3,4,4,6,6,7,9,10,14,16,19,2261:1,9 82:2 85:25 87:11 161:19,25 164:17,23 165:9 53:13 58:15 59:5,21 61:2 control (1) 141:16 couple (2) 142:18 178:17 101:1,6,7,12,14,18
163:8,25 165:1,2 168:11 88:10 101:14 113:9 129:5 166:16,17,23 168:9,16 63:8,9,14,15,21 66:4,17 controlled (1) 155:2 course (15) 2:9 8:21 30:25 102:23,23 173:10 174:18
cajole (1) 74:17 143:22 173:19 174:18 68:10,11 72:20 73:6 controlling (1) 155:10 65:11 72:2 97:14 98:3,13 database (2) 156:6,8
calculations (3) 80:2,9 85:24 changes (17) 16:22,23 27:1 coded (3) 148:19 163:25 75:5,8,10,12 76:6 77:17 controls (1) 100:9 99:20 105:16 130:13 165:4 date (36) 13:13 43:5,24
call (7) 46:16 49:2 126:6 53:19 59:15,16 81:25 168:11 87:25 89:6 convenient (4) 42:9 93:7 167:23 180:3,23 53:14 54:4,7,9 55:4,5
154:17 170:19 173:22 82:12 96:22 126:10 142:13 coding (12) 80:6 81:3 151:16 102:12,17,18,19,19 112:11 135:4 178:2 courses (2) 62:22,23 58:13,14 59:8 64:16,25
175:19 143:24 154:8,8 158:18 161:14,16 163:25 164:14 146:11 169:1 174:15 conveniently (1) 97:9 courtroom (2) 2:2,4 74:14 75:13 78:3 79:25
called (10) 4:21 67:6 80:3 173:24 174:1 165:2,8 168:4,8,10 computers (5) 32:23 38:11 conversation (1) 125:14 courts (3) 2:16 22:18 59:18 82:12 86:19 87:10,15,23
85:1 94:11 102:23 122:2 changing (2) 98:20 100:5 coherent (1) 86:11 39:17 169:5,25 conversion (3) 151:17,23 covering (1) 174:17 88:7,17,20,22,24 106:8
134:9 151:18 167:3 character (2) 149:17 150:13 coined (1) 162:23 concentrate (1) 37:8 152:5 crafting (1) 121:23 108:4 124:18 125:4
calls (2) 83:22 154:12 characteristic (4) collected (2) 7:7 8:24 concept (5) 90:16 94:4 convert (5) 99:10,13,13,20 craig (6) 3:18 5:5 63:10,11 133:4,19 135:20 153:20
came (17) 1:25 9:3,6 12:16 90:5,8,12,22 column (5) 10:20,22 20:5 160:6,9 176:13 167:24 71:24 183:4 dated (4) 11:11 21:18 43:11
29:11 38:10 56:15 76:8 characteristics (3) 21:3,12 concepts (9) 81:4,4 86:17 converted (6) 47:17 58:20 craigrcjbrorg (1) 4:12 46:22

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

dates (10) 7:19 10:13 48:9 155:5 disclosure (31) 6:7 7:23,25 96:7,10,18 100:21 101:24 downstairs (1) 32:21 dumber (1) 75:24 emphasise (1) 54:8
59:16 65:3,4,22 87:11 determine (1) 108:3 13:17 14:9 16:9 17:12 31:7 103:7 105:9 109:9,10,17 dozens (2) 9:15 32:4 during (6) 36:13 47:8 61:15 employed (1) 122:2
107:15 108:4 devastating (1) 121:5 32:12 42:2 44:13,16,25 110:10,13,18,20 113:11 dr (128) 1:13 2:1,5,23 77:2 110:9,12 employee (2) 23:4 63:3
dating (5) 102:1 105:12 developed (11) 35:2 94:4 124:17,18,22,23 128:25 129:12 130:4 3:18,20 9:5 10:4,21 enable (2) 27:19 176:20
E
106:19 115:12 132:6 114:22 117:9,10 138:7 125:2,5,8,9,10 132:11,14 132:14 133:18,20 135:25 11:6,25 12:22 16:14 17:18 enabled (1) 176:24
dave (1) 7:12 161:24 162:2,10 166:16 133:2,5,8,19,24 150:19 138:23 139:5,15 140:8,11 19:16,20 20:10 21:13 22:3 e (2) 121:18 141:25 encase (1) 25:15
dawning (1) 75:23 176:22 157:2 167:11,12 172:13,16,19 26:6 27:6 28:1 29:19 30:5 e115 (1) 163:23 encrypted (12) 31:22,23
day (6) 3:8 110:23 141:24 developer (1) 105:19 disconnect (3) 36:9,10 93:4 173:1 180:5 32:15 36:10 39:1 e117 (1) 121:20 35:8 38:1,2 67:5 160:9
144:10 153:8 178:3 developers (3) 13:7 83:14 discover (2) 23:5 119:3 does (25) 5:10 14:18 20:10 42:5,12,16 43:7,22 e118 (1) 122:4 167:7 172:3,5,23 173:6
days (3) 47:24 48:1 65:11 109:3 discovered (3) 23:3 31:24 49:3 51:4 52:23 59:15 45:14,16 46:9 48:7 52:13 e14 (1) 157:9 encryption (2) 36:13 159:21
dd (1) 23:13 developing (2) 119:24 174:6 32:7 67:15 80:5,11 86:8 55:7 56:6 58:3 59:18,25 e17 (2) 161:15 168:6 end (11) 3:8 9:9 68:20 91:8
de (1) 18:6 development (2) 13:25 discovering (1) 35:14 90:19,25 100:5 104:23 63:19 72:5,9 73:9 76:11,20 e18 (2) 168:7 170:25 141:6 151:8 155:11 173:6
deal (1) 58:23 171:14 discovery (6) 21:20 30:9 108:18 115:6 143:11 84:4,11,21 86:1 87:18 e203 (1) 30:7 178:2,24 179:3
dealing (1) 93:24 developments (1) 25:10 50:4 68:22 124:20 133:13 149:17 154:24,25,25 160:5 88:15 89:2 90:7 93:3,10,23 e204 (1) 30:13 endeavours (1) 111:21
dealt (1) 155:18 device (2) 7:8 53:8 discredit (1) 28:12 161:12 169:21 95:7 99:6,24 102:8 e206 (1) 30:24 ended (2) 162:9 169:15
debate (2) 130:22 158:9 diagrams (3) 137:14 144:14 discuss (1) 179:25 doesnt (39) 4:20 7:23 18:2 104:1,13 105:25 108:20 e207 (1) 35:6 ending (1) 60:23
debian (1) 149:4 149:24 discussing (4) 2:13 14:14 23:11 47:20 48:25 49:3 109:13 112:20 113:22 e208 (1) 68:18 endnote (1) 88:23
dec (10) 117:14 166:19 didnt (109) 3:3,15 6:10 30:14 104:19 50:7 51:3,18,25 55:6 115:10 116:4 118:19 e247 (2) 127:4 132:23 endorsed (1) 127:6
169:7,9,13,13,19,19 7:16,22,24,25 9:2,4 discussion (5) 2:9 130:13,14 59:7,9 76:20 78:15 119:13 122:11 123:7,22 e248 (2) 127:11 132:23 endtoend (1) 173:6
170:2,9 13:12,17 14:16,19,24 23:5 157:7 160:14 79:21,25 80:10 126:13,18 127:8,19 128:2 e44 (1) 13:14 engaged (2) 48:3 168:24
december (8) 75:19 128:8 27:7 29:9 31:4,20,25 dishonest (2) 116:19 119:6 90:15,17,24 92:22 100:10 131:8,10,23 132:9 133:17 e45 (1) 13:24 engine (4) 88:25 116:20
134:7 135:19,22 153:3 32:1,15 34:10 35:4 36:9,20 disingenuous (1) 160:23 101:17 104:7 105:17 135:7,13,16 136:2 137:13 e46 (1) 15:6 143:21 169:12
162:23 175:4 37:3,8,11 38:2 40:24 41:17 disk (4) 26:9,16,20 41:15 107:20 113:25 126:7 141:7 138:5,12,24 141:1 148:16 earlier (7) 4:4 7:6 45:16 96:1 engineer (1) 149:21
decision (1) 133:6 43:1 50:2,5,16,22,23 display (2) 51:14 129:1 143:10 144:4 146:23 149:23 150:4,22 151:22 118:24 168:11 178:23 engineering (1) 149:20
declaration (1) 148:14 55:14,18 56:12,24 59:2 displayed (2) 76:6 77:17 151:11,13 161:12,13 153:6,21 155:21 156:17 earliest (1) 64:16 enough (5) 19:16 71:19 73:7
decoding (1) 159:20 62:15,24 66:1,18 69:7,20 displaying (1) 66:20 169:19 157:21 158:10,25 159:8 early (12) 74:25 105:19 132:16 143:3
deduced (3) 53:17 64:23 72:21 73:1 75:25 disproportionate (1) 58:2 doing (21) 31:7 38:21 47:19 161:8 162:15 165:23 142:22 143:23 146:22 ensure (5) 31:9 55:24 56:23
65:3 76:4,10,12 79:14 81:19,21 dispute (3) 82:7 132:4 138:4 49:19 53:24 57:11 59:12 166:6,24 169:24 170:24 158:14 159:21 82:25 110:20
deduction (1) 103:20 88:7,23 89:5 93:4,20 98:1 disputed (1) 53:10 61:4 71:6 76:22 91:2,4 172:12,25 173:12 175:7 161:14,23,25 165:14 176:9 ensured (2) 35:20 36:20
deductions (1) 51:5 104:3 110:16,25 113:20 disputing (1) 120:2 111:17 119:5 123:25 177:1 178:5,21 179:8,14 easier (1) 76:17 ensuring (1) 102:23
deeply (1) 168:24 122:8,15 123:4 124:15 diss (1) 68:7 160:11,19 163:12 172:9 180:1 181:22 183:4 easily (1) 83:7 entering (1) 163:25
default (1) 107:12 126:13,20 128:17 137:7 distance (2) 92:9,24 180:10 181:25 dra (1) 28:6 easy (11) 74:4,6 98:14,21 enterprise (1) 177:4
defined (2) 157:14 159:5 140:21,24 144:3 145:20 distinction (2) 28:16 167:20 domain (4) 53:6 61:8,8 63:23 draft (3) 103:1 112:23 99:18 100:3 150:3,17 entire (1) 41:11
definitely (3) 34:10 40:1 43:3 146:15,16,18 147:25 distinctive (1) 32:3 don (1) 18:7 120:15 151:25 156:10,15 entirely (5) 19:23 57:12
definition (1) 158:22 148:6,9 149:1 150:14 distributed (6) 95:13 donald (1) 158:21 drafted (2) 7:11 10:21 ebay (1) 27:25 72:10 138:5 181:8
deflections (1) 55:9 151:18,19,19,21 152:9,19 170:14,21 172:5 176:19,23 done (32) 1:16,17 12:11 18:9 drafts (5) 13:16 15:8 economic (2) 160:11 172:10 entitled (6) 76:18 100:9
delayed (1) 1:3 153:23 156:18 distributing (1) 167:21 24:23 28:12 36:23 40:2 16:4,15,17 economically (2) 172:5 104:18 124:1 125:16
delete (1) 24:14 160:15,17,18 163:15,15 dns (1) 166:20 48:8,22,24 53:18 59:7 dragon (4) 27:16,17 28:19 173:11 180:15
deleted (9) 25:17,21 47:9 164:24 168:1,20 170:7 doc (3) 44:5 99:20 101:23 68:13 72:14 75:10 77:2 122:2 edit (6) 78:15 100:24 entries (1) 176:1
66:23 67:7,15 79:8,14 83:4 172:2 173:2 174:10 176:5 doctor (1) 129:25 84:8 85:11 88:9 92:13 draw (1) 176:1 101:6,17 105:11 153:15 entry (3) 10:18 20:16 175:8
deletions (2) 25:2,19 difference (9) 28:11 63:18 document (135) 6:3 101:20,22 137:18 drawer (11) 23:5,19 34:1,17 edited (7) 74:9,13 76:2 environment (10) 51:19
delighted (1) 180:10 70:10,12 87:11 97:24 7:5,6,6,11,15 8:24 9:2,5 154:10,14 155:7 156:21 38:7,8,9 39:12,22 40:3 82:17 108:21 153:1,8 52:14,16,22 59:22
deloittes (1) 177:4 127:22 144:15,20 10:18,21 167:1 170:10 171:9 179:12 41:11 editing (8) 70:17 73:11 128:10,11,15 145:3 169:10
delved (1) 87:3 differences (16) 82:10 119:9 11:1,6,7,7,9,9,14,25 dont (112) 2:9,25 3:24 9:6 dressed (1) 109:24 78:10 96:20 122:6 152:18 environments (2) 51:20
demonstrate (3) 19:14 126:18,23 127:18 128:7 12:4,6,8,10,10,13 13:1 10:13 11:17 12:12 14:23 drew (1) 178:22 155:4 156:20 121:1
108:15 146:22 141:16 142:14,15,15,17 14:8 15:17 17:3 18:14 15:22,23 16:8 17:20 22:11 drive (116) editions (1) 163:20 envisaged (1) 171:12
demonstrated (5) 49:9 55:22 143:8,13 144:2,13,22 19:19 20:6,8,11,12 27:2,10 29:3,3,22 30:13 23:1,3,8,18,21,23,24 editor (4) 96:11 102:1 eq (1) 142:1
59:14 102:7 153:10 different (44) 11:23 18:1 21:4,4,13,14,14,16,16 36:11,15 37:6 38:19 40:13 24:13,23 25:23 123:12 125:17 equal (1) 167:25
demonstrates (1) 86:8 26:7,12 28:20 49:6,21 26:22,23,23 45:11 46:16 46:14 47:2,16 48:8 26:24,25,25 27:4,7,10 edits (10) 70:6 71:16 equally (1) 143:24
demonstrating (2) 53:7 62:23 63:2,11,12,16,22,22 50:17 61:14 70:17 77:25 51:13,19 52:9 56:2,5,15 30:15,15,16 31:22 153:5,12,14,16,17 equals (3) 107:4 113:5
153:19 64:24 67:5,11,17,25 69:6 78:20 79:8,17 80:2,16 57:4,8 58:2 60:2,9,10 32:12,17 33:8,10 154:10,14 155:7 118:22
demorgan (20) 7:9 8:25 78:25 79:9 88:25 90:23 81:3,22,24 82:2,21 86:3,6 63:14 65:23 66:10 35:9,19,22,23 36:2,7,8,8 effect (2) 131:12 140:18 equipment (6) 31:20 32:18
170:24 171:1,5,7,8,11,17 92:6 103:23,24 116:7,20 87:18 89:16 90:6,13 68:4,5,16 38:17,22 39:19 effectively (7) 49:20 50:20 33:3 169:1,21 170:4
172:13,14,20 173:14 117:13 118:17 129:3 91:10,13 93:2 94:13,15,19 69:3,4,9,14,18,21 71:5 41:3,16,20,25 46:21 47:6,7 74:20 83:7 114:5 119:1 equivalent (2) 77:20 96:19
174:6,7,24 175:6,8,11 138:20 144:25 145:1 95:2,17 97:1,3,14,15 75:4 78:13 84:5,10,12 85:8 48:2,12,13,16,20,21,23 161:4 ergo (1) 180:17
176:3 146:13 148:12 149:5 98:4,13,18,22 87:24 89:14 92:4 93:10 49:12,25 50:4,15 51:16,23 efficient (1) 167:6 error (4) 40:2 51:18 144:8
deny (3) 64:20 65:17 141:4 150:21 156:20 159:4,19 99:11,15,19,19 97:5 104:9,10 105:22 54:11 55:10,14,15 56:20 effort (11) 11:20 98:19 176:10
department (1) 177:25 160:24 166:7 100:8,10,15 102:22 103:12 106:3,19 109:4 60:17 61:12,16,17,24 99:16,24 100:2 139:2,9 errors (3) 51:17 134:17
depending (1) 166:8 differently (1) 28:19 104:18 105:7,8 106:4,7 111:3,13,14,17 112:2,3,5 62:8,9,10,10,18 63:12 140:1,5,6,12 164:19
deploy (2) 132:1 145:8 difficult (7) 98:19 126:16 107:15 108:4,21 109:19 117:3 120:1 121:16 122:6 64:12,13 66:1,7,9,10,19,24 efforts (1) 48:3 especially (3) 22:22 101:4,9
depth (1) 24:22 136:8 149:11,13,21 150:1 110:17 112:18,19,21 123:13 128:15,21 131:18 67:6,13 68:13 71:4 efx (1) 52:2 established (2) 47:7,13
des (1) 159:22 difficulty (1) 155:3 113:2,8 119:15,18,23 134:23 137:7 141:1,5,10 72:18,25 73:4,16,16,23 eight (5) 64:24 106:10 estates (1) 118:7
describe (7) 23:22 30:9 digital (22) 140:13 153:22 122:5 124:19,24,25 142:3 145:23 151:6 155:8 74:1,23 75:15,21 76:1,15 161:17 162:16 163:9 et (3) 87:5,15 88:8
52:22 68:19 74:21 122:5 161:10 167:8 168:24 125:5,6 128:24 130:8 156:1,5,6,12 158:9,17 77:10,15 78:11 79:19 either (9) 36:8,9 38:3 45:6 etc (16) 24:22 26:1 28:20
128:22 169:1,17,21 170:1,4 132:11 133:5,25 139:3 162:12 163:20 168:7 173:3 80:17 81:16 82:4,6 114:7 151:4 155:18 166:19 36:25 48:21 79:22 83:4
described (8) 11:8 21:15,20 171:14,18 172:15 140:2 142:19,20 143:5 174:25 176:5 177:3,9 83:2,6,15 85:9 86:9 93:24 167:25 88:11 105:21 117:19
49:11 50:18 58:21 85:24 174:6,9,16,19,23 145:4 152:4 153:21 161:15 178:8 179:15 180:6,14 95:24 96:1,16 113:16 elaborate (2) 14:23 162:25 153:15,20 159:22 169:9
157:24 175:1,9,21 177:18 164:20 165:13 174:2 door (2) 72:23 171:9 120:9 127:23 137:9 electoral (1) 177:11 174:18 176:8
describing (4) 50:3 52:14,15 digressed (1) 19:16 180:11,23 dornbrack (1) 7:12 driver (1) 24:15 electronic (1) 17:5 even (21) 2:10 3:13 11:22
126:18 digressing (3) 19:10 30:5 documents (122) 4:25 dot (1) 152:8 drives (65) 21:8,20,25 element (1) 29:6 27:19 29:2 38:6 41:25
descriptions (3) 80:12 72:5 6:7,8,19,24 7:18 9:13,14 dotcom (2) 171:8,10 22:2,4,9 30:9,14,19 31:5 elements (1) 168:17 66:19 75:8 76:5 83:2 86:5
81:7,13 digression (2) 42:5 174:4 11:16 12:1,16,23 13:20 dotted (1) 97:17 32:8,17 elevator (1) 2:25 93:12 99:15 104:6 137:20
design (1) 177:15 diode (1) 35:20 14:12,24 15:10,18,19 double (1) 104:21 34:1,2,8,12,16,17,17,20 else (10) 12:12 17:8,9 46:15 150:6 158:10,21 159:9
designed (3) 162:19 168:21 direction (1) 101:17 18:17,22 20:18 doubt (5) 9:2,4 11:15,17 35:1,15 37:4,10,15,22 88:20 151:2 156:3 158:11 174:1
177:9 directly (5) 22:5 57:19 78:15 22:4,5,8,10,10,14,18 22:20 38:4,6,8,9,10,11,13 159:24 170:20 event (2) 57:20 179:3
designer (2) 114:18 115:20 97:5 181:22 23:1,24,25 24:4 25:5,8 down (26) 4:1 8:20 12:14 39:12,12,13,17,22,25 elsewhere (1) 107:7 events (1) 74:21
despite (6) 53:2 73:3 104:7 director (2) 174:20 175:11 27:15 28:4,5,5,13,14,22 18:2 27:18 36:13 38:22 40:1,3,4,8,10,19,20,21,23 email (12) 4:5,7,8,11,19 ever (5) 19:1 31:23 57:8
145:2 148:9 159:5 directory (1) 5:12 29:1,6,10,12,14 32:4,16,16 66:15 74:19 77:12 80:1 41:10 48:11,12,17 89:12 142:5 160:4 161:2 75:9 163:17
destroy (2) 74:20 111:1 disagree (5) 108:6 138:6 33:6,7 42:18,21 59:3 86:22 90:8 97:21 49:24,25 61:19 164:5,9 172:9 every (24) 16:12 24:13 50:22
detail (7) 64:21 72:25 81:12 148:2 152:10 155:8 60:17,20,23 61:11,11,25 106:10,14 107:2,18 111:23 68:20,22,25 69:8,12,23 emailed (1) 154:16 57:25 61:14 64:5 89:11,12
122:13 163:10,15 165:13 disagrees (1) 59:17 62:12,13,16,17,18 63:6 114:6,12,13 136:19 150:9 74:9,13 83:1 103:24 emails (7) 44:14,15,25 89:7 108:11,12,16 122:10
detailed (2) 23:22 137:19 disclosable (2) 131:13 64:23 65:10 67:10,17 68:1 156:14 163:19 drop (4) 110:16,20 111:6,10 154:12 161:5,6 130:21 148:11 149:17
detailing (1) 139:17 133:20 69:13 70:7 74:2 76:15 downfall (1) 170:22 dry (2) 105:25 106:2 embed (4) 118:2 139:5,20,20 150:12,17,20 152:8 154:20
details (12) 13:20 27:21 disclose (1) 43:19 78:10 79:21 80:15 downloaded (4) 19:2 108:16 due (5) 8:21 68:2 71:17 embedding (1) 147:21 158:20 174:2 180:8,14
42:25 43:23 44:10,15,20 disclosed (4) 32:6 83:20 81:7,17,19 82:11 83:13 154:2,4 72:10,11 embellished (1) 163:11 everybody (1) 155:12
95:19 106:25 109:1 113:13 129:13 179:10 84:20 92:7 93:24 95:9,24 downsides (1) 142:6 dumb (1) 73:7 embellishment (1) 84:16 everyone (6) 56:21 73:8 75:9

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

133:14 156:10 178:15 59:15,20 71:5 72:13 74:2 field (3) 80:20,21 148:5 143:17 144:15 148:24 fractions (1) 170:12 142:10 149:6,15,17 158:9 h1 (1) 116:17
everything (13) 13:3 76:9 82:8 83:11 104:12 fields (7) 80:13 81:8 85:18 153:21 154:3 156:22 157:6 frame (1) 169:8 170:7,16 177:5,6 h2 (1) 116:17
89:9,9,10,13 99:4 110:1 129:5 137:17 141:13,14 114:3 127:4 132:17,20 162:1,23 163:1,6,16 164:1 fraud (1) 110:14 gets (1) 19:2 h27819 (2) 82:9,13
111:5 139:6 142:2,4,6 147:7,23 148:3 149:9,20 fifth (4) 30:8 50:14 73:2 80:1 169:11 171:21 178:20 free (2) 117:18 143:1 getting (2) 13:3 71:1 h27820 (1) 82:16
154:18 151:7 152:3 158:16 figure (2) 119:11 170:13 firstly (1) 115:21 friday (1) 1:1 give (21) 7:23 19:6 26:3 h2783839 (1) 87:8
everythings (1) 46:19 explain (12) 18:21 23:11 figured (2) 73:5 88:21 fit (4) 73:2 92:22 122:15 friedberg (6) 47:3,23 55:9 29:17 50:16 58:4 69:10 h27839 (1) 87:9
everywhere (2) 90:20 170:21 26:19 49:16 52:16 file (70) 5:8,23 6:2 11:18 168:18 152:13,16 153:9 77:14 81:13 88:8,16 h27841 (2) 91:16 92:11
evidence (56) 2:13,14,24 71:16,18 108:11 130:10 18:3 24:14,17 25:4,6,20 five (6) 40:10 42:12 62:23 friends (2) 180:4,7 109:13 123:15 139:2 h27842 (2) 92:1,11
3:13,14,22 4:4,8 5:1 14:17 140:25 162:12 163:16 26:9,15,20,22 27:2,2,4,14 64:25 135:8 165:25 front (2) 17:13 155:7 146:15 150:16,24 154:21 h27845 (1) 96:6
16:13,20 18:5 31:14 47:23 explained (7) 22:19 58:19 48:9 50:22 59:9,16 62:19 flaw (1) 73:1 frustrated (2) 141:6,8 155:24 168:3 180:24 h27846 (1) 96:8
48:1 53:1 59:19 73:10 83:1 63:21 114:24 118:2 127:10 64:2,5 66:17 67:7,16 76:18 flaws (1) 164:11 fuel (1) 170:19 given (27) 10:7 19:21 20:7 h27847 (1) 96:24
87:19 97:6,19 102:6,8 149:1 77:5 79:3,14 80:6 81:3 fled (1) 88:3 full (12) 39:8 61:18 97:25 27:12 35:12 39:16 42:24 h27852 (1) 100:19
104:2,11,11 107:11 108:6 explaining (4) 59:21 113:12 83:3 84:23 85:2,17,18 fleeing (1) 112:14 98:15,24 109:25 110:1 55:25 61:7 66:19 77:1 h27853 (1) 100:23
110:6,16 112:17 114:19 127:20 143:3 86:15 89:22 91:12 florida (1) 133:12 132:24 153:11,13,13 171:4 83:21 109:19 110:6,12 h645 (1) 3:25
115:1,10,13 120:21 121:17 explains (4) 24:7,10 107:11 94:10,12,21,24 95:6,6,16 focus (1) 175:12 fully (2) 26:10 143:16 114:19 129:11,21 131:12 h781 (1) 4:7
122:14,17 128:4 129:4,11 136:7 96:19 97:11,25 98:10 focusing (2) 27:11 176:10 function (5) 98:14 99:5 132:10 152:2 154:6 162:25 h785 (1) 4:10
130:8 150:24 151:8 explanation (5) 28:11 55:6 103:8,16 106:7,19,21 folder (9) 77:20 110:12,12 115:3 118:15 155:12 163:9 165:2 172:16 181:20 habits (2) 28:18,20
162:18,20,22 163:2 77:14 105:22 162:25 113:25 115:12 143:9 146:6 125:16 126:2 127:11 134:9 functionality (1) 177:22 giving (13) 2:14,24 3:14 4:4 hack (10) 68:2 71:17
168:3,10 171:17 172:14 explanations (1) 68:10 149:6,22,23 150:9 152:24 145:15 146:14 functions (1) 120:1 8:7,12 29:22 44:14 72:12,16 77:13 96:15,15
180:13 explicitly (1) 141:21 153:8 154:2 174:1 folders (1) 64:4 funded (1) 170:10 57:11,24 75:20 104:8 102:4,7 120:11
evidencecollection (1) exported (1) 133:18 filed (4) 29:23,25 30:3 72:3 follow (2) 151:10,10 funding (1) 170:7 130:9 hacked (1) 74:8
131:21 expresses (1) 145:14 files (101) 3:22 5:12 19:5,6 following (2) 76:9 129:10 funds (1) 111:4 glad (1) 1:7 hackers (1) 83:12
evolved (2) 143:16 162:14 expression (3) 159:17 160:14 20:20 23:14 24:8,15,17,24 follows (1) 43:21 funny (1) 146:15 global (2) 61:4 76:23 hacks (1) 85:7
exact (6) 61:23 74:14 104:4 161:11 25:1,11,14,18 26:4,8 font (5) 11:21 12:11 17:2 further (15) 2:10,10 9:25 globally (4) 101:1,4,8,14 hadnt (16) 28:15 32:6 35:3
136:10 137:11 150:2 expressly (1) 56:17 27:1,13,16,17,17,19 100:5 142:8 23:25 30:25 64:1 66:13 goal (1) 173:6 37:5 41:4,15,15,16,17,17
exactly (5) 92:9 109:9 extend (1) 171:25 28:6,10 31:13 fonts (5) 12:12 16:23 128:14 106:14 107:2 113:7 141:12 goes (8) 12:21 30:3 111:5 66:18,19 67:21 83:4 91:22
123:25 151:23 167:20 extended (2) 143:20 169:1 32:9,10,11,14,14 33:13 139:5 146:10 144:22 155:15 179:25 136:14 144:25 150:9 160:5 121:13
exam (2) 76:21 165:3 extensive (11) 2:6 96:20 36:8 48:21 49:1 51:25 footnote (1) 148:24 180:23 171:22 half (4) 32:19 39:8,9 62:12
examination (1) 77:3 129:7 138:16 148:7,18,18 52:2,5 53:8 58:12,22,23 force (1) 111:6 future (1) 144:10 going (76) 19:20,20,23 25:4 halfway (1) 4:1
examinations (1) 76:24 153:12 164:22 169:16 59:13 61:19,22 64:4 forced (1) 110:23 28:1 33:21 43:7 44:12 halls (1) 169:6
examined (3) 22:22 64:2 171:14 66:1,1,3,9,24 68:9 71:19 forensic (13) 23:12 25:6,9,17 G 49:13 58:3 60:4 63:22 hand (4) 1:18 45:11 59:13
102:17 extensively (4) 25:12 66:15 76:5 77:17,21 81:12 30:20 38:21 58:12 59:2 69:10,16 70:2 71:12,12 121:24
example (14) 7:4 11:20 140:7 153:25 83:20,21,24 102:14,16 68:20,24 151:12 174:16,19 g522 (1) 103:5 72:1 73:10 74:20 79:16 handed (5) 1:20 29:15
18:25 37:25 62:19 88:11 extent (1) 152:15 103:22 105:8 121:10 forensically (1) 22:22 g523 (1) 103:19 84:11 97:13 98:19 99:11 45:13,15 69:16
112:19 128:22 150:5,15 external (12) 41:22 48:13,17 123:11,17 124:12,16,25 forensics (2) 49:16 139:16 g537 (1) 105:6 100:4 109:13 110:3,13,14 handicapped (1) 177:13
159:20 160:3 180:12 49:24,25 61:16,17,24 125:17 126:1 127:13 128:4 forged (7) 79:17 86:3 95:3 g58 (1) 24:2 111:1,2,4 113:11 115:23 handle (1) 141:5
181:22 62:8,18 70:25 83:2 132:6 133:1 134:2,4,8,16 112:20,21 119:23 156:17 g59 (1) 24:6 116:14 118:7,11 119:5,13 handled (5) 9:15 11:8 12:17
examples (4) 48:16 113:7 extra (1) 174:17 135:1,18 137:1 141:18,18 forger (1) 83:16 g61 (1) 58:6 120:6 123:15 125:13 127:2 15:1 21:15
116:21 164:14 extracting (1) 27:19 142:23,23 145:14,15 forgery (16) 71:3,15 72:9,11 g626 (1) 58:9 128:25 129:1,24 130:3 hands (3) 17:20 69:12
exams (1) 76:24 extraordinarily (1) 88:5 146:3,16,19 147:3,11 73:25 84:20 85:14 86:7 g627 (1) 59:1 131:6 135:13,25 137:10 179:11
except (2) 20:17 146:4 extraordinary (4) 99:24 151:15,22 153:9 156:17,19 89:4 93:2 100:1 106:21,22 g630 (1) 60:13 139:22 141:2,2,14 handwriting (2) 14:10 24:22
exception (1) 5:23 100:2 140:1,5 157:1 173:19 176:20 109:9 113:22 181:22 g631 (1) 64:1 145:4,23,24 149:5,5,6,7 handwritten (6) 14:18 15:16
exchange (2) 169:16 175:17 extremely (3) 136:8 150:1 filetypes (1) 28:3 forget (1) 70:25 g632 (1) 64:8 151:13 153:22 155:5,10 94:4 121:19 122:17,19
exchanges (3) 167:10 170:15 151:17 filings (1) 29:16 forgive (1) 57:18 g633 (1) 64:22 156:8 174:4 178:1,14 hang (1) 26:15
172:7 exwife (1) 111:8 fill (1) 176:6 forgot (1) 120:14 g637 (1) 66:22 179:6,16 180:9,22 181:6 hannah (2) 80:20 113:19
excia (1) 112:4 filled (1) 87:22 fork (1) 119:3 g641 (2) 67:8 70:5 gone (1) 31:12 happen (6) 51:19 55:6 62:15
F
excuse (2) 75:2 145:22 filter (1) 160:11 form (10) 17:5 61:4 64:3 g642 (1) 70:10 good (12) 1:5,6 55:6 71:1 116:23 117:4,21
excuses (2) 12:16 75:6 f (1) 146:7 final (1) 92:2 90:10,11 137:16 140:13 g723 (1) 137:22 97:22 127:20 132:16 happened (11) 1:23 25:10
exe (1) 5:23 fabricate (1) 25:24 financial (4) 1:15,24 174:14 147:3 148:6 162:6 g724 (1) 138:14 137:24 138:25 150:3 181:5 62:11,15 71:20 76:13
executive (1) 143:1 fabricated (1) 163:10 175:12 formal (2) 86:24 162:9 g736 (2) 144:11 148:23 182:2 84:17 85:8 104:16 117:11
exemployees (1) 12:20 face (4) 106:8,19 130:7 find (13) 20:20 22:3 33:21 format (4) 78:14 90:2 99:9 g737 (1) 144:20 google (3) 26:1 142:4 170:8 125:10
exercise (3) 73:25 76:25 180:11 53:4,22 54:11,24 56:21 118:10 g738 (1) 145:13 government (1) 177:8 happening (2) 158:24 162:9
125:9 facility (1) 45:21 82:5 83:15 96:16 167:21 formats (4) 24:3,8,10 90:24 g750 (1) 146:24 grabbing (1) 172:8 happens (5) 24:13 54:11,25
exes (1) 139:13 factor (2) 72:21 151:24 177:3 formatted (1) 147:16 g760 (1) 151:20 grabiner (21) 2:19,20 45:12 111:5 129:2
exhibit (1) 19:25 factorial (1) 38:16 finding (25) 47:10,15 48:7 formatting (1) 147:12 gain (1) 83:15 57:10,18 123:19,24 124:4 happy (2) 108:15 177:8
exhibition (1) 169:5 factually (2) 28:2,8 51:12 54:21 57:25 formed (1) 136:1 gained (1) 57:6 130:1,12,17,19,21 131:2 hard (21) 8:19 32:1,17 33:8
exist (5) 52:9 115:15 147:25 fail (1) 36:23 58:11,16 59:20 63:18 former (1) 133:3 game (2) 84:10 177:22 154:18 155:8 165:22 34:2,8,12,17,19 35:15 36:8
148:6 169:19 failed (4) 35:7 37:18 38:5 67:25 77:8 79:5,6,11 81:23 forms (4) 117:7 159:19 games (1) 161:19 178:11 179:24 180:2 37:22 45:11 68:20,22,25
existed (3) 20:22 67:10 91:4 177:5 86:1,2 91:18 95:1 96:14 168:8,10 gaming (3) 115:6 120:1,5 181:10 128:1 143:2 156:16
existence (2) 107:24 157:1 failure (3) 33:16,17 36:19 136:17 141:20 146:16 formulae (2) 144:2 149:24 gaps (7) 92:2,5,9,20 97:8 grabiners (2) 127:3 181:18 178:5,6
existing (7) 67:17 68:1 70:19 fair (2) 135:13,20 151:12 formulas (1) 142:16 116:8,9 grammarly (7) 78:3,6,13 hardest (1) 137:12
82:22 90:14,20 96:16 fairly (3) 36:19 122:16 findings (14) 52:16 58:10 forth (3) 167:17 172:19,20 gave (17) 3:22 6:18 7:14 79:10,13,15,22 hash (7) 94:11 96:22 114:6,9
exists (3) 52:4 147:24 170:8 165:22 59:2 64:11,19 71:3,5,15 forthbased (1) 167:16 8:11,16 10:3 11:20 32:8 granath (1) 31:8 119:2 176:10,23
expanded (1) 121:25 fake (4) 88:14 109:23 111:18 72:9,11 73:21 87:10 103:7 forums (1) 91:6 126:4,5,6 131:16 151:10 grand (1) 120:5 hash01 (1) 144:16
expect (3) 71:13 72:15,21 172:13 118:7 forward (6) 39:24 40:9,14,18 154:2 156:24 159:20 graph (1) 152:24 hashcash (2) 160:3,15
expected (3) 33:25 50:23 fall (3) 124:17 125:3 133:4 finds (6) 5:14 54:14 65:9 67:2 85:17 165:20 graphics (1) 143:21 hashcoin (3) 80:3 82:18,23
142:19 false (4) 38:3 55:22 60:7 96:8,20 143:13 forwards (3) 23:14 48:22 gavin (1) 159:13 grasp (1) 141:9 hasnt (9) 1:17 17:7 29:23
expecting (2) 110:2 141:8 110:20 fine (2) 3:2 93:9 63:15 gcs (1) 120:6 grateful (1) 181:19 98:10 101:14 108:8 122:11
experience (3) 2:14 137:25 falsehood (1) 37:20 finger (2) 83:15 92:24 found (59) 1:14 21:8 23:18 geeks (1) 169:10 great (6) 24:7 52:22 72:17 130:17,19
169:17 familiar (1) 104:20 firewalled (1) 60:10 31:10,19 34:1,8,16,25 general (5) 6:6 16:2,16 130:1,4 158:9 havent (16) 16:12 17:3,14
experiences (1) 161:14 family (1) 89:13 firewalling (1) 176:7 39:12,22 40:3,20,21 53:23 119:12 169:10 grey (2) 92:22,23 29:7 41:23 64:20 66:11
experiment (1) 72:14 far (2) 40:6 62:3 firewalls (2) 176:4,22 55:13 60:19,21 64:8,14 generally (6) 16:14 71:8 grilled (1) 110:5 67:13 68:17 72:14 80:7
experiments (1) 150:25 fascination (1) 161:16 firm (4) 43:22 44:22 47:4 67:8,9 70:6 74:2 88:19 127:7 130:19 157:24 grilling (1) 2:6 84:14 91:11 112:23 167:11
expert (40) 46:21,22,23 47:2 feasible (1) 77:10 61:4 77:4,19,23 79:3,7,12,14 generate (4) 84:24 85:19 grind (2) 141:25,25 180:7
55:25,25 feature (1) 161:12 firmly (1) 82:7 85:3,22 87:8,10,14 90:11 86:15 91:12 grindeq (2) 141:23,24 having (8) 9:15 12:17 36:20
56:2,3,11,11,13,23 57:2 featured (1) 160:14 first (62) 9:9 10:6 11:14 91:17,20 92:6 94:10,15 generated (1) 141:17 group (2) 72:22 138:7 50:17 59:20 83:2 91:8
58:6 59:19 71:10 features (1) 127:17 12:16 14:5,14 22:10,13 95:23 96:25 97:16,24 98:1 generates (1) 35:21 gse (1) 76:23 170:20
72:10,15,17 73:21 76:1,23 february (4) 1:1 30:21 43:11 24:22 25:7 35:5 37:25 100:14,20 104:2 105:2 generation (3) 119:24 120:3 guess (2) 37:2 50:8 head (2) 15:22 61:6
83:8 104:11 117:10 182:5 43:22,24 46:22 51:9 56:3 111:2 144:2,13 146:24 134:20 gunning (4) 155:18 179:7 header (7) 4:11 98:20 100:5
136:1,5 137:18 138:5 fed (1) 103:2 72:3 74:7,11,23 75:13 151:15,21 163:11 168:23 generators (1) 120:4 181:2,6 113:9 115:22 116:24 117:1
143:12 148:5,14,21 fell (1) 125:8 76:8,8 80:13,20 84:11 94:3 foundational (1) 173:4 get (34) 29:25 33:2 36:16 guy (9) 112:3,4 headers (3) 98:17 99:2 100:5
151:11,13 153:24 159:4 felt (2) 62:16,17 95:9 96:18 101:13 112:13 founded (1) 174:20 46:18 49:7 54:23 56:22 177:2,16,17,19,21,24 heading (3) 121:21 122:24
180:13,17 181:7 few (8) 22:8 31:13,24 69:7 114:20,22 121:11,20 four (4) 62:23 89:20 166:7 70:23 71:25 77:1 89:5 93:5 178:1 164:10
expertise (3) 71:10,11 145:8 106:14 140:8 157:9 159:9 122:16 123:10 127:5 174:10 94:24 99:4 111:4,9 125:14 guys (1) 109:20 headings (1) 11:23
experts (28) 52:17,19,21 fibre (1) 46:13 129:13 134:24,24 136:20 fourth (5) 13:11 58:1,6 129:3 131:19 136:10 headquarters (1) 46:2
56:19,21,22 58:14 fiction (1) 29:18 137:13 138:18 140:21 114:6 164:2 138:25 141:6,7,7,10 H hearn (1) 159:13

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

heavily (2) 138:2 169:14 i533 (2) 136:4 144:1 141:2,2,2,3,3,14 142:2,25 inevitably (1) 130:12 71:22 120:9 122:12,17 kr (5) 117:9 161:22,23 162:1
hed (3) 68:6 79:8 89:5 i534 (1) 136:9 145:23,24 149:4,5,6,7 infeasible (1) 125:23 into (63) 5:12 23:15 26:24 123:16,20,21 124:25 128:1 163:6
held (3) 76:21 102:20 169:5 ibm (1) 117:16 151:13 154:7,24 160:22 infer (2) 130:6,7 35:15,19 47:17 49:22,25 129:20 130:9 132:23 135:3
L
hell (4) 32:11 33:13 138:10 ica (1) 53:4 161:8 162:11,12 163:12,20 infodef (4) 67:6 70:13 78:19 53:4 61:8,18 62:10,19 70:2 136:16 139:24,24 142:20
178:21 id (28) 6:5 14:12 15:22 16:9 166:24 169:20,20,24 85:10 72:5 75:7,10 77:1 145:25 146:13 150:17 l111301 (1) 175:3
help (3) 1:9 180:20 181:16 21:10 22:17 23:5,22 31:12 173:21,22 174:4 infodef09raw (21) 66:25 78:10,14,18 87:3 93:5 94:4 151:21 152:8 155:1,8 l111306 (2) 175:5,11
helpful (1) 155:9 36:11 67:10 70:21 71:13 177:16,19,21 178:20 67:10 68:2 77:20,25 81:24 95:5 97:8,17 99:2,16,20 156:24 157:12,13 160:1,13 l111307 (1) 175:7
hence (1) 131:1 76:5,17 81:15 82:4,24 179:7,11 180:8,13 82:3,5 83:14 85:3,23 100:4 102:6,8 103:2 161:10 163:11 167:8 l11681 (1) 113:24
here (34) 1:9 9:19 16:2,14 83:21 89:10 91:23 93:17 181:9,12,15,15,19 87:9,14 91:17 92:16 94:11 108:17,18,23 112:10,12 169:23 171:4,4 173:15 l11691 (1) 119:17
29:25 35:7,11 40:2 41:5 96:16 99:16 139:12 image (60) 23:9,12,12,13 96:19 97:3,25 98:16 117:9,11,18 122:18 125:8 178:20 179:8,13,16 180:3 l11751 (2) 79:24 81:22
58:19 63:11 75:22 88:6 156:13,14 166:25 24:8,14 31:25 32:24 100:15 131:10 134:10,25,25 137:7 181:5,13 l11761 (1) 84:19
89:3,22 92:23 98:15 id001379 (2) 7:5 10:18 37:11,11 38:22 infodefraw (3) 67:4 70:11 153:1 155:5 158:9 159:22 itself (5) 26:15,20 27:4 83:5 l11771 (1) 112:22
100:20 101:11 116:14,17 id004014 (1) 5:2 39:1,2,5,5,9 41:15 100:18 162:2,6,7 163:15 164:24 85:11 l11831 (1) 85:16
119:8 134:3 142:14 144:22 id004077 (2) 42:21 43:13 47:14,18,19,20,22,23,24 information (59) 6:23 165:12 168:21 171:22 ive (48) 18:20,22 28:17 l11861 (1) 86:14
159:8 162:11 163:24 id004374 (1) 96:9 48:4,15 49:12,12,13 7:14,24,25 9:18,25 10:10 172:24 176:23 29:24 31:24 33:17 45:11 l118610 (1) 89:16
165:12 168:19 173:22 id004648 (1) 112:22 51:7,9,24,25 52:2 11:14 18:22 21:3 22:1 intricacies (1) 87:4 48:10 49:1 50:10 53:18,23 l11871 (1) 91:10
178:10,11,12 id004682 (1) 104:17 53:3,4,6,12 54:24 55:1 26:2,3,24,25 introduce (1) 128:18 58:18,21 70:1 73:21 74:3,5 l11901 (1) 95:9
hes (26) 46:23 54:6 id004687 (1) 106:6 58:15 59:5 63:13,13 66:23 27:5,14,18,20,21 introduced (4) 128:16 129:6 77:7 88:21 89:12,13 95:2 l11911 (1) 100:8
57:11,20,22 68:7 id004695 (1) 76:16 67:2,4,7,16,19 68:20 70:20 29:13,14,17,23 31:1,5 134:25 135:21 96:4 97:4 108:11 115:15 l11921 (1) 95:15
75:4,10,11 88:12 96:25 id004697 (1) 78:20 73:10 86:13 96:3 102:17 38:18 40:6,21 42:2 introduction (1) 162:2 119:24 120:3,8 129:16 l12361 (1) 106:6
114:23 115:14,23 118:9 id004712 (1) 113:24 103:16 136:20 137:9,11 43:12,17,20 44:13 49:24 introductory (1) 71:14 130:15 142:1,22,24,25 l12521 (1) 102:21
123:25,25 137:24 id004713 (1) 119:18 imaged (34) 7:7 20:18 23:6 53:7 54:17 56:1 57:12 invalidate (1) 72:1 146:12 154:6 156:2,3,21 l13671 (1) 104:17
138:1,1,4,6,23,24 139:6 id004715 (2) 79:24 81:3 31:10 32:17 33:10 75:20 86:6 89:15 98:20 invalidated (1) 71:25 157:4,19,24 168:19 l13771 (1) 94:1
181:20 id004719 (1) 85:16 34:3,6,10,16,19,23 35:4,9 99:14 123:21 126:13,22 invented (1) 107:11 173:8,25 176:18 l192571 (1) 19:24
hesitation (1) 179:19 id004722 (1) 86:14 39:13,18 40:4,5,10,15,16 147:24 148:4 155:15 invention (2) 105:25 106:2 ivote (2) 177:10,10 l192572 (1) 20:4
hey (1) 139:22 id004729 (1) 94:1 41:4,16,17,18,25 42:1,3 157:16,21 159:10 171:5,11 invested (1) 145:10 l201951 (1) 122:20
hide (1) 48:5 id004732 (2) 95:10 96:19 47:6 48:2 68:17 73:17 173:11,20 174:13 175:21 investigated (1) 60:16 J
l20223184 (1) 55:12
hiding (1) 178:14 id004733 (1) 100:8 74:15 157:5 informed (1) 129:19 investments (1) 138:9 l21021 (3) 165:18 166:5
james (1) 158:21
highly (3) 67:21 103:19 id004734 (1) 95:15 imageraw (1) 66:24 informs (2) 133:1,17 invite (1) 130:5 173:13
january (2) 5:20 46:23
111:22 id004736 (1) 102:21 images (17) 28:7 30:16 infrastructure (1) 177:18 invited (1) 169:13 l21023 (1) 173:14
jimmy (1) 4:5
himself (1) 68:5 idea (4) 45:8 110:22 119:11 31:18,22 67:23 68:24 ingeniously (1) 109:1 invites (1) 130:22 l21024 (2) 165:21 166:5
job (4) 31:7 38:12 166:10
hinnant (3) 114:18,24 117:6 126:25 73:13 75:1,5,11 92:12 initial (6) 5:8 6:23 8:22 50:4 inviting (1) 123:20 l22421 (1) 5:2
167:1
hinnants (1) 115:10 ideas (2) 122:1 168:20 104:8 126:16,16 150:9 55:9 131:21 invoice (3) 11:21,22,24 l2491 (1) 76:16
jockey (1) 25:16
hint (1) 113:18 identical (4) 66:25 67:1 94:8 151:16,22 initially (3) 6:17 9:17 14:9 involve (1) 139:1 l2541 (1) 78:20
joint (1) 180:16
history (14) 18:8 25:1,24,25 117:23 imagine (3) 100:3 170:16 injunction (1) 88:2 involved (12) 13:25 25:11 l3221 (1) 120:18
judge (1) 109:23
66:5,16 122:23 147:22 identified (9) 4:25 17:22 180:7 injunctions (1) 112:13 44:19 48:20 52:7 70:22 l322214 (1) 120:23
judgment (2) 17:23 133:8
152:11,14,19 155:15 160:5 39:18 40:8 45:22 82:10 imaging (4) 30:20 32:25 38:4 inputted (1) 90:5 111:15 138:2 163:4 169:14 l322215 (1) 121:3
july (10) 9:10 47:14 49:21
171:22 124:12 146:17 152:25 71:9 insane (1) 90:18 172:15 176:15 l3521 (1) 164:5
58:13,23 61:12,16 62:11
hlf1 (1) 114:3 identifier (1) 60:20 immutable (2) 173:18 insider (1) 75:8 involvement (1) 110:22 l35253 (1) 164:8
64:9,15
hold (1) 17:5 identifiers (2) 60:16,22 176:14 insiders (4) 70:25 71:2 involves (3) 25:13,25 30:2 l3531 (1) 164:8
jump (1) 117:3
holding (1) 18:3 identifies (1) 51:2 imparted (1) 157:22 120:14 121:2 ip (14) 3:23,25 4:15 l3534 (1) 164:18
jumping (1) 154:20
home (10) 23:19 31:2 identify (5) 6:8 13:15 17:19 imparting (1) 159:9 insisted (1) 43:3 45:17,19,21,21 l4151 (1) 5:18
june (2) 105:13 106:8
32:18,21,25 33:8 34:15 38:5 164:11 implemented (3) 166:20 installation (1) 146:7 46:10,13,14 83:23 84:1 label (3) 108:9,9 144:16
45:25 68:23 169:22 identifying (1) 164:19 177:21,24 installed (2) 127:24 146:10 93:18,20 lack (4) 41:2,5,14 151:7
K
homeland (1) 177:25 identity (2) 18:2 130:10 implementing (1) 166:20 installing (1) 143:4 irritating (1) 155:11 lacks (1) 151:7
honest (2) 116:18 119:5 idiot (1) 74:18 implicate (1) 84:8 instance (4) 25:23 26:1 isnt (53) 4:17 11:13 12:4 k111 (1) 10:17 lambda (1) 144:3
honest2c (1) 119:17 ids (3) 44:5 64:3,4 importance (2) 17:18 73:3 62:21 86:11 19:1 26:22 29:18 35:11 keep (5) 71:1 120:6 154:20 language (2) 167:16 168:11
honestly (1) 90:15 ie (1) 119:3 important (3) 73:5 132:2 instantly (1) 100:6 42:7 44:9,17 45:25 46:24 167:25 178:1 laptop (11) 7:7,21 8:24
hope (2) 1:13 83:14 ieee (4) 126:8,8 134:20 178:20 instead (6) 16:1 110:4 144:6 53:17 63:19 65:14,16 67:4 keeping (2) 173:18,19 35:12,16,19 36:24 37:1
hoped (1) 109:4 142:13 impossible (2) 136:10 143:6 145:22 150:10 158:4 73:12 83:19 86:4 88:15,18 kendalls (1) 61:3 48:11 68:6,8
hoping (1) 109:1 iffileexists (1) 106:15 impression (1) 139:3 institute (2) 25:12 164:1 89:2,4 93:3 94:2,18 95:7 kept (1) 33:13 laptops (2) 12:19 28:17
horrible (3) 38:12 97:20 ignorance (1) 90:17 inappropriate (1) 57:12 instructed (9) 46:23 47:3 99:24 100:1 106:4,21 key (5) 17:23 18:3 29:6 52:7 large (3) 166:14 169:22
149:16 ignore (1) 158:21 inaudible (1) 16:19 55:25 56:12,22,24 69:22 107:19 112:20 113:22 176:16 177:4
hosted (3) 124:13 125:1 ignored (2) 42:4 159:15 inbox (1) 1:22 134:14 136:6 116:4,12 118:13,19 kind (3) 80:13 85:23 118:18 las (1) 76:22
133:1 ignores (1) 53:8 include (6) 2:13 28:23 88:17 instructing (1) 44:12 128:2,8 139:4 148:15 king2rtf (1) 76:18 lasseters (5) 120:5 175:15
hough (35) 1:6,12,18,23 iii (1) 14:25 89:22 114:6,9 instructions (8) 43:19,19 151:5 155:25 158:24 kings (1) 76:24 176:8 177:5,23
3:19,20 27:6 42:9,16 ill (14) 8:20 10:16 43:9 66:21 included (3) 61:25 78:1 56:3 69:25 80:25 84:13 159:24 160:13 161:11 kld (8) 32:8,13 66:11 67:13 last (15) 17:23 23:2 31:24
46:16,18 57:23 93:7,23 70:22 78:21 92:4,13 93:12 105:20 137:20 143:12 169:6 171:4 173:7,16 68:13,19,22 69:4 38:24 47:13,16 54:20 55:8
123:22 124:3,6 131:6 112:16 124:6,6 178:14 including (26) 9:25 14:1 15:9 int (1) 118:21 isolated (1) 18:23 kleiman (11) 12:20 13:4 14:9 58:14 79:17 83:25 91:5
135:4,13 155:3,14,21 180:9 19:8 35:8 37:17 44:4,14 integers (1) 172:7 isolation (1) 27:3 22:23 30:21 31:15 124:24 134:6 145:21 159:9
165:21 166:5 178:2,17,20 illegal (1) 111:22 52:24 64:25 78:2 83:21 integrated (3) 117:18 156:4 issues (2) 17:22,23 131:22 132:4 133:9,24 late (5) 42:25 43:25
179:1,17,19,21 181:3,15 illustrated (1) 144:14 89:6,12 95:19 96:22 162:5 item (1) 10:17 knew (3) 13:5,10 158:12 44:10,23 74:22
183:5 illustrates (1) 143:8 107:24,24,25 147:13 159:3 integrity (5) 25:14 73:4 iteration (1) 145:21 know (75) 1:7 2:9,20,25 3:8 later (26) 33:2 47:17 51:8
house (3) 129:17 131:19 im (151) 2:20 3:2 6:15 161:25 166:23 175:15,18 173:10 174:18 176:18 iterations (3) 49:13 50:18 8:18 9:6 10:13 12:9 13:10 54:9 63:7,19 66:21
169:19 8:9,13 10:12,12 12:9,9 180:13 integyrs (3) 115:2,6 118:4 73:10 15:22 16:24 20:10 27:10 86:10,17 92:17 94:20
housekeeping (5) 1:11 14:17 15:22 16:12,24 incompetence (1) 72:10 intellectual (2) 19:8,9 iterative (1) 121:25 29:1,3 32:11 37:6 97:18 106:21 107:16
178:17,19 183:3,6 17:10,25 18:1,4,21 incorrect (7) 12:19 16:21 intending (1) 40:9 its (136) 1:9,14 2:7,15,16 44:20,24,25 45:8 108:21 110:18 112:17
however (2) 117:12 150:1 19:11,13,19,20,20 17:10 25:3 28:16 74:3 intentionally (1) 148:11 3:6,25 4:17 8:17,19 46:12,14,14 47:2 60:2,4 117:11,24 122:9 125:14
hp (1) 169:23 20:23,24 21:10 25:4 28:1 167:15 interacted (2) 19:1,3 11:13,18,23 15:17 18:16 65:23,23 66:10,14 67:15 126:13 145:21 159:15
htm (1) 28:6 33:11,19,23,23 37:8,17 incredibly (5) 74:4 75:6 interacts (1) 18:24 19:1 20:12 21:12 68:16,16,17 69:3,4,4 70:24 162:10 163:23
hubris (7) 37:2 70:23 73:7 38:23 40:2,6 41:8,18 43:7 98:19 100:2,3 interest (4) 57:5 60:12 23:20,20,21 24:12 29:20 71:6 75:4 77:15 84:5,9 laterproduced (1) 97:9
75:1 76:6 83:1 93:5 44:12 45:10 46:25 49:15 independence (2) 60:11 170:23 175:1 31:21 33:16,17 38:2 41:21 85:10,12 87:24,24 97:22 latest (2) 24:17 133:19
hugely (1) 76:20 50:8,12 51:20 55:1 56:6,8 151:7 interested (3) 169:4,25 44:9,17 47:6 50:8 53:18 105:22 107:23 109:6 latex (81) 14:2,7,11,13,15
hundred (1) 33:3 58:3 59:23,23 61:4,23 independent (7) 73:20 170:6 55:12 56:6 61:18 63:8,8,20 110:4,23 111:17,22 28:6,20 32:9,11,14 80:6
hyden (1) 139:13 63:21,22 67:24 68:6,16 138:1,4 148:21 151:2,5 intermediate (1) 10:1 64:3 65:15 66:12 68:10 112:2,3,5,8 115:18,18 81:3 84:23 85:1,18 86:15
hypothesis (2) 83:18,19 69:16,16 70:2 71:1 72:7,13 152:8 internal (4) 100:9 105:12,16 69:3 71:9,10 73:3 120:13 123:13 126:25 91:12 98:6,7,9,21 99:15,19
75:24 77:9 79:6,16 independently (2) 174:3,22 121:4 76:16,17,21 77:9 79:20 128:21 130:20 138:6,7,8,9 102:22 106:7
I
80:17,22 84:3,11,12 index (1) 183:1 internally (1) 100:17 82:1,24 84:6,17 85:1,15 141:8 158:14 174:25 107:4,12,19,23 108:22
i51 (1) 46:21 85:8,10 86:2,12 90:18 indicate (1) 73:21 internet (12) 52:7 77:17 86:5 88:14,15 93:4,20 knowing (1) 122:14 113:5 121:10,14,16
i516 (1) 47:5 92:13 93:7,23 99:1 indicated (2) 59:2 103:19 90:21 160:10 165:16 94:2,21 95:10 knowledge (7) 7:21 37:14,22 122:7,9,19 123:1,11,17
i518 (1) 47:12 104:10,14 108:15 109:13 indicates (1) 84:3 169:10 170:9,11 172:3,23 97:6,11,12,20,22 98:6,6 54:23 157:16,21 181:4 125:17,20 126:1
i519 (1) 47:21 110:7 111:18,22 119:13 indication (4) 6:18 94:18,21 173:6 177:11 99:10,25 100:2 101:4 known (3) 22:17 75:16 127:13,24,24,25 128:4
i520 (1) 50:25 121:6 123:6,15,24 125:13 181:20 interrupt (1) 57:10 102:5,17 104:14 106:22 157:19 129:2 134:8,16 135:24
i521 (2) 54:12 55:19 126:9 127:2,20 129:24 indications (2) 82:21 94:15 intervened (1) 181:3 108:10,14,23,25 109:14 knows (3) 108:2 117:10 136:11 137:1,9,25 138:15
i529 (1) 141:12 131:23 133:13 135:13,25 indicia (2) 90:22 91:3 intervening (2) 58:22 61:3 113:9 114:2,5 116:10 130:2 139:2,9,23 140:2
i531 (1) 143:7 139:22,24,25 industry (2) 156:3 168:25 interview (5) 8:7,11,12,16 117:16,17 118:1 119:16 knuth (1) 163:6 141:18,22 143:9 145:15,16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

146:3,19 147:11,22 96:2 176:22 lucky (5) 88:6 89:3,5,14 97:7 martinsomething (1) 176:16 microsoft (10) 14:2 49:2 mostly (1) 48:24 136:18 142:18 172:1
149:12,22 150:18 linkedin (3) 175:3 176:2,5 lunch (1) 93:19 martti (3) 159:12 173:8 59:16 60:6 78:16 104:5,7 mount (1) 63:13 176:11
151:4,12,15 152:14 153:9 links (2) 26:24 148:7 lunchtime (1) 8:19 176:15 105:3,19,20 mounted (4) 51:7,9 53:12 newcastle (1) 62:21
155:23 156:17,19 linux (13) 48:23 51:17 66:4 lying (2) 45:6,7 mash (1) 149:16 mid (1) 79:18 63:13 news (2) 164:10 175:23
launch (1) 169:12 68:6,7,9,11 87:25 88:1 lynch (17) 46:22 47:2,7,12 match (9) 25:22 26:2 27:5 mid2023 (1) 32:3 move (11) 24:14 65:8 112:16 newspaper (2) 8:17,18
lawyers (9) 55:12 66:5,19 102:11,19 117:18 149:4 51:1 53:11 54:14 95:23 33:12 41:22 136:10 137:11 middle (1) 128:8 121:10 124:3,6 135:24 next (14) 19:17 30:13 57:25
69:3 83:20 140:25 141:4,9 list (10) 30:4 34:10,12 35:2 104:2 136:5,6 143:3,8 139:1 150:2 midoctober (1) 13:1 141:11 142:6 149:9 170:24 84:19 94:1 96:8 103:18
163:15 37:24 38:22 50:22 109:9 144:2 151:5,7,10 matched (2) 39:14 41:24 midseptember (4) 21:9 23:2 moved (10) 39:16 40:24 115:24 116:15,15 129:8
layered (1) 24:16 120:7 160:20 lynchs (4) 50:25 58:10 matches (3) 98:21 109:9 73:20 78:11 41:6,12 48:15 61:7 62:9 141:11 175:25 179:13
lazy (1) 142:2 listed (6) 23:6,20 31:5 37:23 141:12,15 143:25 might (15) 6:19 7:19 9:14 142:1,25 162:14 nextstate (2) 116:17,17
lead (4) 114:18 115:20 40:5 80:16 lynn (3) 7:12 105:8,9 material (16) 21:7 23:3 12:17 22:15 27:21 32:16 movements (1) 116:12 nextstatepow (3)
130:3,12 listing (2) 118:14 171:9 27:11 29:11 30:16 32:3 35:9 46:15 57:18 74:8,24 moving (11) 4:24 6:5 23:1 118:20,21,21
M
leading (3) 29:15 47:25 literally (1) 163:17 124:4 127:17 128:19 130:2 113:18 144:10 179:9 41:13 46:20 95:9 119:17 nft (1) 175:20
112:12 litigation (3) 30:21 125:7 m12103 (1) 152:21 132:2 143:13 154:9,19,22 mike (1) 159:13 127:4 157:6 161:14 165:14 nguyen (1) 4:5
leads (1) 59:10 134:2 m12105 (1) 152:13 156:5 miktex (9) 126:10 127:22 ms (9) 80:13,21 81:8 85:18 nice (2) 93:12 135:9
learn (1) 33:15 little (8) 24:11 28:14 51:14 m1778 (1) 7:1 materially (3) 5:23 25:5 128:12 141:21 143:4 145:2 105:10 114:3 127:4 nick (1) 158:3
learned (10) 130:5,21 131:2 73:14 97:16 107:2 108:2 m1787 (1) 7:4 27:13 148:8 149:1 156:20 132:17,20 nine (3) 161:17 162:1,16
154:20 173:22 180:4,6,22 112:17 m2544 (1) 124:7 materials (3) 14:25 116:11 millicent (9) 167:3,13,20 much (16) 7:23 63:6,6 89:15 nobody (3) 132:14 133:13
181:2,10 live (4) 35:13 142:20 m2547 (1) 124:10 131:13 168:7,16,19,20 170:2,3 94:19 107:16 121:9 134:3
learning (1) 33:18 145:1,19 m26911 (1) 129:8 mathematical (1) 87:3 million (1) 150:12 122:6,8 126:13 137:5 node (4) 114:2,5 116:14
least (5) 54:13 63:5 71:13 llm (2) 78:24 79:9 m2763 (1) 134:6 maths (1) 142:8 milliseconds (4) 117:23 149:14 152:22 155:9 118:17
131:3 145:7 lloyds (1) 170:18 macfarlane (2) 107:10 108:2 matter (6) 1:13 2:15,16 118:12,13,16 180:25 182:2 nodes (8) 5:14 116:19,21
leave (4) 17:15 36:13 111:23 llp (1) 43:20 macfarlanes (1) 126:24 179:4 180:4,19 mind (1) 50:9 mucked (2) 17:8 18:18 119:3 158:20,23 159:4,11
120:9 load (3) 78:14 103:8 144:4 machine (21) 19:2 48:23 matters (3) 178:17,22 mine (5) 77:18 137:10 mucking (1) 153:25 nominated (3) 9:13 12:22
leaving (2) 37:4 72:25 loaded (3) 107:7 108:17 49:18,18,19,20,22,23 180:21 150:7,10 156:5 multiple (12) 11:19 15:17 33:9
led (2) 77:15 127:17 128:23 58:17,21,24 59:11 61:2,18 matthews (2) 110:15 112:8 miner (1) 119:6 31:12 33:12 37:19 48:22 nominating (1) 33:5
left (14) 3:3,10 36:11,17 loading (1) 59:11 63:25 75:4 79:13 88:1,1 matts (1) 153:16 miners (2) 119:3,6 50:18 73:11 122:19 140:25 none (13) 29:4,11 31:22 86:7
37:6 39:2 68:23 70:20 local (3) 19:2 63:10,14 108:17 115:7 maximise (1) 152:21 minicomputers (2) 169:8,22 146:12 170:15 98:17 113:13 141:4 143:22
72:17 87:20 92:2,19 located (1) 45:22 machines (9) 22:24 28:17 maybe (1) 86:13 minions (2) 98:23 109:1 must (11) 33:14,21 48:10 150:8,8,20,23 168:4
101:20 144:16 locked (1) 111:24 29:11,12 31:23 52:20 mccormack (3) 6:10 31:8,16 minor (1) 134:16 63:16 75:12 113:16 nonsense (2) 119:15 128:2
legal (2) 55:23 56:10 lodged (1) 29:25 102:15 116:12 117:15 mean (14) 23:20,21 36:25 minute (1) 105:11 117:4,21 131:10 149:7 nonstickered (1) 34:12
legislation (1) 101:12 log (7) 3:22 26:20 53:21 madden (32) 9:21 20:20 50:8,11,12 79:22 80:16 minutes (5) 42:12 93:8 154:21 nontechnical (1) 127:21
legitimate (1) 18:16 54:7,17,18 83:24 22:12 28:12 58:7,10 60:15 88:8 90:15 98:14 111:13 100:7 135:8 165:25 mydigital (4) 30:15 34:21 normal (2) 32:20 51:19
length (3) 52:22 157:9 logged (3) 35:13 36:15 83:23 64:2 66:23 67:12 70:6 146:23 156:1 mish (1) 149:16 36:2 37:15 normally (1) 51:19
158:10 logging (7) 26:24 54:11 77:4,19 79:3 81:23 82:9 meaning (1) 49:8 misrepresentation (1) 18:20 myob (4) 42:17,24 43:23,25 northern (1) 177:8
lengthy (2) 59:21 122:16 176:7,14,24 177:20,22 85:3,22 87:8 90:11 91:16 meaningful (1) 20:18 missed (1) 157:3 myself (10) 22:25 norwegian (2) 8:17,18
less (3) 25:5 27:13 146:18 login (6) 42:25 43:22 92:6 94:7 95:22 96:6 means (5) 23:13 38:16,16 misusing (1) 49:15 33:11,22,23,24 53:18 note (9) 28:3 60:25 94:4
let (13) 18:21 19:10 23:11 44:10,20 63:22,23 100:14 101:24 103:6 104:1 51:23 118:1 mmhm (2) 60:18 161:18 77:15 85:10 93:5 162:12 108:8 115:2,21 121:16,19
26:19 49:15 69:22 93:5 logs (8) 51:1,11 53:13,16 105:2 110:18 121:12 meant (3) 34:18 168:12 mnsa (1) 112:24 mythical (3) 32:15 102:4,5 131:3
112:18 129:22 137:13 54:3 55:2 71:4 173:18 maddens (5) 4:10 24:2 57:25 172:6 mock (3) 110:24 111:18 noted (15) 12:19 18:23
155:21 161:20,22 lolly (1) 141:7 58:1 70:4 measures (2) 116:8,9 112:16 N 29:11 47:17 48:10 49:1
lets (14) 10:7 18:10,12 42:12 london (4) 46:2,4,6 68:23 magnified (1) 144:22 media (1) 1:25 model (5) 104:19 113:25 62:7 63:23 64:24 74:3 96:1
76:15 105:6 111:20 116:22 long (6) 37:6 95:12 120:4 main (14) 9:21 25:9 48:12 meetings (1) 36:16 114:4,5 119:19 nakamoto (1) 5:19 116:19 126:14 143:16
132:17 138:11 141:11 143:16 150:11 163:18 49:25 85:1 93:20 107:25 megabytes (1) 41:21 modelling (1) 116:20 nakamotos (1) 122:25 168:19
145:12 152:11 170:24 longer (9) 31:18 32:14 45:9 112:11 119:25 121:12 meiklejohn (1) 158:16 modifications (7) 65:21 name (14) 5:23 8:18 46:25 notepad (2) 146:15 149:7
letter (19) 6:16 7:1 11:11 52:4 142:7 152:7 162:8 137:8,8 162:5 169:8 melbourne (1) 61:6 85:4,23 91:21 86:16 95:6,19 112:4 notes (9) 5:8,11,18,22 14:18
21:17,19,22 43:7,11 44:2,7 164:21 165:13 mainstream (1) 1:25 mellor (44) 1:5,7,17,21 138:16,19,22 117:22 131:17,18 97:21 101:24 122:19
124:7 129:9,15 131:1,24 look (37) 5:2 11:25 12:5,12 maintex (1) 152:24 2:18,22 3:5,9,12,17 modified (22) 47:24 49:4,5,7 153:17,18 162:22 171:4 181:16
132:12,18 135:19,21 17:11 21:10 24:21,24,25 major (1) 174:6 26:6,12,15,18,21 42:11 51:15,21 53:19,22 54:7,20 named (1) 91:13 nothing (23) 2:20 9:12 12:24
libraries (7) 115:4,8,8,9,17 45:21 55:2 56:20 61:14 majority (2) 24:7 166:18 43:18 46:16 57:16,22 55:4 59:8 names (1) 111:14 14:15 27:3 32:12 40:14
118:5,6 62:8 68:10 76:15 81:15,17 makes (3) 71:10 88:14 90:21 93:9,22 124:3 65:10,15,18,19,20 66:9 narrative (3) 158:19,20 69:24 81:13 90:19 102:13
library (9) 114:8 116:3,23,25 82:3,22 88:14 92:21 making (7) 127:21 135:14 130:10,15,20,25 131:5 81:10 82:22 103:11,16 163:23 127:16 133:23 149:18
117:25 118:1,3,19 119:14 107:2,5 115:7 118:5,20 137:8 139:22 153:10 154:8 135:6 155:20 165:25 modify (5) 48:4,9 49:8 51:16 nas (1) 38:13 150:6,7,9 157:15 159:23
librarybased (1) 162:6 119:9 131:17 139:10 140:2 181:11 178:4,8,12,16,18,25 103:24 native (6) 11:7,9 161:6 169:25 173:1 175:9
licence (1) 52:6 152:6 158:16,18,18 168:6 malmi (3) 159:12 173:8 179:15,18,20,23 modifying (1) 116:23 21:4,14,16,24 notice (6) 35:8 55:3 81:19
lies (1) 155:24 174:1 176:15 181:1,5,24 moment (17) 8:22 13:22 natural (1) 155:6 98:17 102:14 143:24
like (74) 6:6 12:12 25:15 looked (10) 4:24 6:16 7:5 man (1) 47:3 member (1) 57:9 17:11 20:2 42:9 61:10,15 naturally (1) 129:23 noticed (3) 23:6 81:13 144:8
26:22 29:22 36:19 39:11 20:2 33:9 50:14 99:15 manage (1) 176:5 members (3) 10:25 15:1 57:6 64:20 83:11 93:7 111:19 nature (1) 147:20 notification (1) 77:7
40:12 52:1,4 55:19,21 108:8 109:25 173:1 managed (2) 108:11 179:2 memorandum (1) 55:8 114:23 121:6 123:6 130:6 natwest (1) 170:17 notifications (1) 22:24
66:12 71:11 73:16 75:20 looking (15) 3:22 8:22 25:13 management (5) 6:12 memorise (1) 15:23 135:4 178:2 ncc (1) 117:11 notified (2) 84:1 124:11
76:10 79:17 82:22 86:7 36:21 38:6,8 61:14,21 100:10 176:24 177:20,22 memorised (3) 16:8,12 17:14 moments (1) 69:7 nchain (11) 4:18,22 29:14 noting (3) 21:22 126:4
90:18 91:7 93:17 97:13 81:19 82:23 91:1,2 95:7 manager (1) 174:20 memory (1) 17:17 monday (5) 1:10 30:1,3 45:19 72:22 73:8 88:3 144:15
99:2,4,15 104:1,20 105:9 115:11 157:24 managing (2) 166:13 175:11 mention (5) 73:2 122:15 178:10 182:4 93:19 111:5 112:8,11 notion (1) 173:17
109:2 110:1,3 112:6 looks (2) 39:11 73:16 manipulated (10) 47:9 54:4 140:21 168:18 172:21 money (1) 145:10 nchains (1) 46:2 noughties (1) 25:10
116:11 117:8 118:24 120:7 lords (2) 2:12 179:7 74:9,24 75:15 76:2 81:9 mentioned (5) 10:21 29:2 monitor (1) 175:19 nd (1) 88:20 november (5) 123:9 124:8
139:5,10,18 140:2 141:6 lordship (6) 128:3,8 130:6 82:25 83:5,13 171:21,25 172:8 monitoring (3) 89:6 necessarily (2) 105:18 123:25 153:2,2,2
142:12,20 143:19 145:4 155:14 179:5 181:20 manipulation (2) 68:3 73:19 mentioning (4) 29:25 128:6 102:16,16 necessary (1) 124:2 nt (1) 64:2
146:13 150:6,7,8,10 151:4 lordships (5) 1:14 17:22 44:8 manner (2) 167:9 181:11 149:16 171:24 months (1) 89:6 need (19) 1:13 8:20 14:23 number (28) 16:12 17:11
154:13 158:16 160:24 178:23 179:11 manual (1) 115:22 merchant (4) 167:22,24,25 more (34) 2:6 3:6 9:18 23:22 33:14 45:10 54:25 60:2 28:7 32:21 34:9,11 41:9,19
162:4 166:19,21 167:17 lose (2) 110:15 138:10 manually (3) 107:20 108:9 170:16 33:17 39:24 40:19 52:9 78:22 90:9 97:23 104:9 42:21 60:23 61:22,23
169:23 170:6,14 losing (1) 145:11 113:6 merged (2) 61:3,4 61:18 62:24 69:10 73:16 156:1,5,6,12 168:1 173:3 62:20 63:1 81:15 88:8
173:7,7,23,23 176:4,8 lost (1) 38:18 manufacturing (1) 73:17 mess (2) 56:16,16 83:5 88:19 94:23 99:14,16 179:4 180:14 105:11 108:19 119:24
177:12,13 178:1 180:2,23 lot (15) 1:8 27:17 29:16 many (12) 10:23 11:16 message (5) 39:3,5,6,7,10 109:24 110:1 111:4 needed (9) 8:13 48:14 50:5 120:3,4 134:15 144:14
likely (5) 4:18 62:7 84:7 31:17,25 33:18 52:2 76:13 12:2,16,17 15:25 18:7 messages (2) 74:16 139:20 115:18,19 121:5,5 127:7 52:2,5,7 110:4 132:14 161:24 165:7 175:14,18
121:5 151:22 112:6,7 140:12 143:25 22:21 28:22 29:1 141:16 meta (1) 57:9 128:15 129:25 140:17 164:13 177:20
limited (7) 29:13 56:15 62:20 145:10 157:3 171:19 142:20 metadata (25) 15:7 142:4 155:9,9 156:2 needs (3) 56:3 155:2 181:14 numbers (13) 15:22 16:9,10
127:25 171:6,8 175:23 lots (2) 37:17 170:12 mapping (1) 116:20 16:5,17,23 18:24 20:12,18 165:12 169:19 neer (1) 174:8 17:13,15 37:23 39:14
line (12) 48:25 57:23 89:20 louise (1) 80:20 march (8) 43:4,23 44:4,18,23 24:11 25:6,22 26:8,15 morning (4) 1:5,6 43:8 negligent (1) 156:25 41:24 61:21 98:9,11
92:24 107:6,12 love (1) 108:10 45:4 108:5 121:23 27:12 28:14 64:2 78:1 120:10 neither (3) 52:19 83:8 99:4,22
114:6,12,13,13 150:8 loveday (4) 109:21,22 mark (7) 87:6,20,23 100:16,20 103:8 105:12 morphed (2) 162:7 172:24 137:18 numerous (1) 148:15
180:14 111:13,15 88:18,24 140:16,18 132:6 136:16 140:3 173:24 mossad (1) 112:5 neo (1) 4:21
lines (9) 4:1 89:20,25 lower (1) 1:8 marker (5) 90:8 98:12 179:6 most (16) 15:4 28:10 38:10 network (2) 76:19 105:19 O
106:11,14 113:3 120:15 lp1tex (1) 91:11 101:21 107:19 108:23 metanet (1) 172:24 45:8 62:7 64:7 97:24 networks (1) 95:13
150:12,12 lualatex (7) 126:10 marketing (1) 116:10 mgm (1) 120:5 126:16 138:10 145:14,14 never (14) 18:24 19:2 25:16 oath (1) 2:14
link (3) 46:13 48:17 61:17 143:16,17,19 145:19 markets (1) 175:13 micro (1) 169:7 150:7 156:3 157:18 159:14 49:17 52:8 54:25 55:3 object (8) 64:3,4 117:9
linked (5) 48:16 60:20 61:18 146:12 148:9 marks (3) 97:1,16 122:14 micropayment (1) 170:10 167:17 59:10 108:23 112:21 155:1 162:3,3,6,6

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

objecting (1) 130:3 opposite (1) 104:4 108:1,3,10,12,14,18,19,19,22,23,24150:1 104:17 112:22 114:12 113:15 115:14 66:11 123:21 155:4
objection (1) 131:3 options (5) 107:7 146:25 115:18,19,21 pdfcreator (2) 107:18 113:5 120:18,23 121:20 124:7,10 pretend (1) 112:7 properly (12) 33:19 49:3
objectorientated (1) 161:25 147:13,19,23 paper (99) 13:16 pdfs (1) 147:10 127:4 129:8 132:23,25 pretends (1) 113:25 56:11,24 66:19 80:24 82:4
objid (1) 64:16 orchestrated (1) 68:3 14:6,12,15,21 15:8,15 pedantic (1) 50:12 134:6,23 135:14 136:4 pretrial (1) 55:8 124:1 145:16 155:2 157:5
objids (5) 64:9,15,17,24 71:5 order (8) 25:18 38:15,22 16:4,15,25 17:1,4,6,20 peertopeer (1) 176:23 137:22 143:7 144:1,11 pretty (3) 41:14 84:13 180:19
observation (2) 16:2,16 83:13 99:7 106:24 129:10 18:4,25 20:17,22 24:20 pen (1) 121:24 147:6 149:19 151:20 137:24 property (3) 19:8,9 38:6
observations (1) 13:23 155:24 29:7 32:5 70:13 77:2 pending (2) 29:21 112:15 152:13,21 163:20,20 prevent (1) 69:25 proposal (3) 78:24 79:10
obvious (1) 73:3 ordered (1) 6:14 80:3,10 81:5 82:17 84:25 people (51) 9:15 10:23 11:19 164:5,8,18 165:18,21 previous (5) 73:9 81:23 171:24
obviously (4) 77:16 131:25 orders (2) 88:3 155:16 85:5,19,25 86:1,17 12:2 15:17 19:5,6 28:19 173:13 175:3,4,7 82:13 91:13 121:13 proposed (3) 70:13 85:6
132:3 180:25 organisation (3) 28:21 72:24 88:13,13,16 90:23 91:1 29:24 33:25 45:8 67:23 plenty (1) 124:4 previously (1) 79:8 117:24
occasion (3) 12:15 100:24 169:4 95:12,12 100:10 102:22 70:21 71:2,23 77:10 plotted (1) 152:23 primarily (5) 25:7 55:16 proprietary (6) 27:17,23,24
101:25 origin (1) 168:14 103:3 104:19,20 112:23 90:14,17,20 91:7 99:25 plug (1) 35:15 116:10 171:1 176:11 29:16,22 171:5
occasionally (1) 143:20 original (27) 7:19 15:16 22:5 121:15,22,24,24 122:15,25 109:5 110:25 111:9 plugged (5) 35:19 37:4,7 primary (5) 6:8 9:14 12:23 prospective (1) 70:18
occasions (2) 15:25 165:7 27:15 28:4,5,13 125:21,22 126:3 127:15,18 112:2,6,7 127:21,22 128:1 72:18,25 23:25 33:5 protect (1) 155:12
occur (9) 32:2,15 33:6 75:18 29:1,3,9,12 30:3 33:5 128:6 132:7 129:17,22,23 138:20 plugin (2) 78:13 141:22 printed (2) 20:17 156:21 protection (7) 100:25
102:7 119:10 121:5 140:21 63:23 70:12 79:1,21 134:10,15,16,18 135:2,18 139:23 140:9 141:5,8 plus (1) 141:22 prints (1) 11:23 101:1,6,7,12,14,18
153:23 85:5,24 94:21 117:19 136:11,15,21,22,25 137:15 148:19 151:4 155:7 158:16 pm (7) 93:13,15 135:10,12 prior (2) 48:1 73:6 proto (2) 176:25 177:1
occurred (4) 48:6 54:16 122:25 127:23 132:12 138:15 139:13 140:13 159:14,14 161:8 163:13 166:2,4 182:3 privilege (10) 57:14 protocol (2) 167:3 170:3
74:23 75:14 153:18 163:5,19 141:17,18 142:9 143:10,18 165:2 167:17 169:4,9 pm46 (1) 96:6 109:14,16 123:16,23 proud (1) 33:11
occurring (1) 48:5 originally (3) 7:13 23:9 31:18 144:6,24 147:10,18 177:12 png (1) 103:16 125:13 129:24 130:16,25 prove (1) 156:12
occurs (3) 55:3 122:10 originals (2) 6:20 22:14 149:12,25 151:16 153:1,23 percent (1) 153:15 pointed (1) 67:12 131:8 proved (2) 18:6,8
177:12 orphan (1) 119:3 155:23 156:22 158:4,22 percentage (2) 90:10 153:11 points (4) 48:17 137:8 176:5 privileged (11) 56:5,7 provide (8) 9:18,24 27:21
oclock (1) 93:11 ostensibly (1) 169:18 159:1,5 160:7 161:12 perfect (4) 18:4 37:25 181:10 57:12,21 70:3 123:21 62:5 69:23 140:13 151:19
october (23) 10:11 11:11 others (7) 28:21 52:3 94:22 173:8 176:13 180:8 149:13 153:22 poison (1) 67:22 130:11 134:23 141:1 181:17
12:15 13:11 17:23 21:18 113:19 115:9 147:1 176:16 papermaster (4) 52:1,3,4,6 perfectly (1) 180:15 poker (1) 177:22 154:19,22 provided (21) 6:22 9:22
23:9,15 32:7 49:22 50:21 otherwise (2) 78:15 155:10 papers (4) 13:25 97:4 139:12 performed (1) 46:20 policy (1) 72:22 pro (1) 63:13 11:10 13:11 14:8,17 18:25
53:15 54:15,16 58:25 59:6 ought (1) 57:13 158:4 perhaps (4) 131:2,4 151:1 popped (1) 113:14 probably (13) 31:21 33:17 21:5,17 43:16,20,22 44:10
61:12,16 62:12 64:10,16 outcome (1) 59:11 paragraph (67) 13:19,23,24 154:25 populate (1) 99:22 36:15 75:19 79:18,18 62:14 126:23 152:12,15
108:6 115:12 output (3) 151:17 152:7,7 14:19 20:9 24:6 26:5 period (9) 15:15 36:14,16 popup (1) 35:21 98:21 101:22 125:9 141:2 155:16 163:1 167:11
odd (2) 88:15 97:16 outside (7) 32:25 84:7 28:1,8 30:13,24 34:13,13 58:22,25 61:3,15 153:25 portion (2) 84:24 85:19 153:17 157:18 178:24 179:14
office (7) 46:4,7 61:6 68:24 115:17 124:17 125:3 133:4 35:6 43:9,10,15 47:5,12,21 171:18 position (5) 18:14 126:1 problem (5) 25:14 72:2 83:8 provider (1) 165:16
84:7 102:12 128:25 159:25 51:6 53:11 59:1 60:13,14 periods (1) 95:25 129:20 132:19 134:25 119:12 130:24 providers (1) 18:9
offices (1) 4:22 over (44) 12:4 17:2 24:20 64:1,8,22 66:22 67:9 68:19 perjury (2) 110:16 111:7 positive (1) 62:5 problems (4) 20:21 86:13 provides (1) 157:15
often (1) 97:21 29:15 30:24 38:16 57:5 70:6 82:10 86:23 permission (1) 43:17 possession (2) 69:1,9 162:8 167:23 providing (4) 21:7,23 22:1
oh (6) 109:4 113:9 149:3 61:6 62:12 65:11 69:16 96:8,18,24 103:18 persistence (1) 71:13 possible (12) 38:16 62:2 proceed (3) 125:13 131:4 157:10
160:18,22 165:20 82:16 92:1,15 93:18 105:6,14 124:10,11,19 persists (1) 130:2 72:16 77:9 105:22 181:19 proving (3) 48:18 158:8
oi (1) 30:3 109:16 117:11 122:4 125:15 127:5,6 132:18,20 person (7) 57:1 68:7 107:22 138:22,25 146:2 149:11 proceedings (12) 1:3 6:14 174:2
okay (22) 2:22 3:9,12,17 127:10 129:5 131:1,20 134:13 138:13,21 141:15 111:13 112:12 115:21 151:24 152:3 181:18 12:22 14:6 67:3 124:23,24 pseudonymous (1) 18:8
46:17 57:22 70:2 93:22 132:5,24 134:3 136:9 145:13 146:24 147:8 158:20 possibly (2) 3:8 38:2 125:2,6 133:8,9,12 ptr (7) 56:19 80:14,23
109:17 129:6 131:5 135:7 138:13 142:2 144:11,20 149:19 151:20,21 161:15 personal (2) 39:19 66:5 post (1) 122:21 process (16) 48:20,24 126:19 128:3,19 130:25
141:11 155:20 175:11 150:20 153:25 157:9,19 163:24 168:6,23 170:25,25 personally (1) 46:11 post2013 (1) 158:17 49:11,21,23 52:3 58:21 ptrf391 (1) 104:17
178:5,13,16,25 179:18 168:7 170:5,5 171:12,21 174:2 personnel (1) 130:11 postdate (1) 106:19 63:20 73:11,25 96:4 ptrf441 (1) 106:6
181:1,25 173:10,14,25 175:7 177:6 paragraphs (4) 35:14 58:11 petabyte (1) 32:20 postdated (2) 58:13 91:21 121:25 122:5 154:6 155:1 ptrf51 (1) 112:22
old (5) 30:16,16 129:2 142:2 178:9 179:17 136:14 173:15 phases (1) 131:22 postdates (1) 79:23 160:11 ptrf521 (1) 76:16
167:17 overflows (1) 144:17 paralegals (1) 33:21 phd (1) 111:19 posted (3) 66:14 73:23 102:6 processes (1) 127:17 ptrf541 (1) 78:20
older (1) 26:9 overlay (2) 136:20,24 parent (1) 46:5 photo (1) 38:22 posts (1) 66:16 produce (12) 6:3 127:14 ptrf691 (1) 113:24
once (19) 20:19 51:13 52:8 overlaying (1) 143:9 part (18) 15:4 20:1 27:2 photographs (1) 102:9 potential (1) 120:25 128:5 134:20 135:18 ptrf692 (1) 114:12
54:22 73:22 91:24 96:25 overleaf (31) 107:24 121:10 28:10 32:21 64:7 72:20 physical (1) 68:19 potentially (2) 17:8 121:4 138:14 139:2,9 140:1,12 ptrf701 (1) 119:18
97:6 113:2,21 118:20 123:11 124:13 125:1,16 73:1 111:25 137:12 138:6 physics (1) 116:3 pound (1) 33:3 150:3 153:20 ptrf721 (2) 79:24 81:22
119:13,21 123:15 129:23 126:2,7 127:14,24 128:9 142:21 164:20 171:20 picked (2) 109:2,4 pow (1) 119:8 produced (22) 14:15 50:17 ptrf731 (1) 84:19
149:6 154:6 168:1 175:8 131:13 133:2,18 137:20 172:20 173:4 174:6,14 picture (1) 102:19 power (1) 36:3 60:15 76:1 87:19 94:19 ptrf761 (1) 85:16
ones (11) 34:10 40:11,14 141:19 142:7,10,21,24 partial (1) 24:15 pictures (4) 65:25 66:16,17 powerful (1) 140:22 97:18 112:24 135:1 137:5 ptrf791 (1) 86:14
41:10,25 58:4 69:10 85:12 143:4,22 144:4,4,10 partially (1) 26:10 71:19 practically (2) 122:10 125:22 139:10 140:2,4,10 147:10 ptrf7910 (1) 89:17
166:8 172:17 175:18 150:19 152:12,15 154:4 particular (11) 1:21 10:23 piece (5) 1:15 24:20 88:16 practice (2) 38:21 97:22 152:16,18 154:1 172:25 ptrf795 (1) 86:22
online (3) 122:23 151:17 156:17 179:6 31:16 90:10 97:23 118:14 104:24 180:8 precise (2) 128:5 135:1 175:14 181:7,14 ptrf801 (1) 91:10
152:5 overlooked (1) 115:15 131:9 143:21 151:15 175:1 pieces (1) 101:11 precisely (5) 92:5 103:9,15 produces (3) 51:5 103:21 ptrf861 (1) 94:2
ontier (24) 6:22 10:5 13:2 overnight (1) 1:23 180:18 pixel (1) 94:12 125:20 126:2 115:7 ptrf891 (1) 95:10
33:16 42:24 overrunning (1) 93:8 particularly (2) 58:3 179:15 pixelated (1) 94:24 precursor (6) 29:6 32:4 producing (6) 115:3,5 122:5 ptrf901 (1) 100:9
43:12,16,20,20 44:9,14 overspeaking (2) 16:18 parties (3) 22:25 52:17 pixelation (1) 94:23 94:13 104:25 162:4 167:14 139:1 180:22 181:9 ptrf911 (1) 95:15
45:8 124:16 125:2 109:12 124:12 pki (1) 177:17 predates (1) 79:23 product (1) 152:5 ptrf931 (1) 102:21
129:19,22 130:11 131:18 overwriting (1) 24:16 partition (3) 35:8 41:21,22 place (8) 57:7 73:19 74:22 preferred (1) 117:16 production (1) 90:12 pty (1) 171:8
132:1,13 133:1,3,17 overwritten (2) 24:25 26:10 partly (2) 124:20 177:14 96:5 97:17 99:8 100:24 prefigured (1) 168:17 professor (5) 107:10 108:2 publication (2) 1:25 2:2
156:24 own (23) 28:18 37:1 58:24 parts (2) 24:15,17 138:18 preissue (2) 17:6,19 158:16 162:19 163:2 publications (2) 88:9 137:10
ontiers (1) 129:11 59:24 65:24 70:23 73:7 party (7) 7:20 9:3,7 26:1 placed (1) 24:24 premised (1) 171:20 profile (5) 53:3,4 63:2 175:3 publicly (3) 6:2 124:1 165:7
onto (3) 32:17 79:19 83:13 74:25 76:5,6 83:1 93:5 28:17 29:12 66:4 placks (1) 104:1 prepared (1) 179:13 176:2 published (8) 65:25 125:21
onward (1) 7:9 116:10 117:14,16,17 142:5 pass (1) 130:23 plain (4) 95:11 98:4,6,9 preparing (1) 30:25 program (8) 52:6 107:22 134:15,17 149:12 156:23
onwards (2) 10:24 145:14 152:8 156:6 157:10,13 passed (1) 77:3 plainly (1) 12:3 presence (4) 154:11,15,16,17 122:2 129:3 136:16 137:21 158:5,6
open (7) 36:13 84:5,12 158:15 167:22 passing (2) 133:23 156:11 plan (1) 110:19 present (3) 28:4 98:15 151:11 152:1 pull (2) 16:10 17:15
146:14 147:24 148:3 149:7 owned (1) 8:24 pasting (1) 100:4 plant (1) 91:25 153:22 programme (1) 112:24 pulled (3) 38:11,14 62:21
opened (2) 145:4 174:18 ozemail (3) 165:16 166:10,15 patent (4) 18:9 29:25 30:2 platform (14) 7:23,25 14:10 presentation (1) 100:12 programmed (2) 168:13 punctuation (1) 142:16
openoffice (12) 14:2 156:7 16:9,11 17:12,12 32:13 presented (10) 22:12 80:6 169:17 purchased (1) 27:24
136:16,21 137:5,7,16 P patented (1) 156:5 42:2 44:13 145:4 162:5 81:2 86:15 91:11 94:3 programming (3) 164:11 purple (1) 109:25
139:3,10 140:3,4 141:22 patents (8) 29:21 71:25 166:22 171:13 104:24 112:23 128:2,7 167:10 174:12 purpose (3) 113:12 116:7
145:5 p11815 (1) 38:24 72:2,3,5 156:2 158:6 platforms (1) 14:1 presenting (1) 106:7 programs (1) 107:25 180:13
opensymbol (8) 126:7 p4101 (1) 80:19 176:20 play (1) 110:25 presents (7) 76:19 78:24 project (11) 114:21,22 purposes (1) 133:9
128:13 142:7,8,9 144:4,7,9 p4103 (1) 81:2 pause (15) 12:8 18:10 19:10 playboy (2) 120:5 177:23 79:24 100:10 102:22 115:16,25,25 116:3,10 pushed (1) 72:22
operating (3) 49:6 51:10 pack (1) 105:15 30:5 126:12,12 141:11 playing (1) 84:9 104:19 114:3 117:1 152:11,14 155:15 puts (1) 108:17
105:21 package (5) 106:15 118:16 146:2,4 150:22 160:13 please (76) 4:10 5:18 preserved (1) 48:3 projects (1) 5:21 putting (7) 38:17 39:24
opine (1) 137:25 148:9 149:6 150:18 166:24 173:12 175:2,2 10:17,20 13:14 19:24 20:4 pressured (1) 110:15 promise (1) 32:23 40:18 48:21 84:13 90:8
opinion (1) 150:16 packages (11) 90:1 106:18 pausing (1) 133:6 24:2 30:7,13,24 34:13 pressuring (1) 111:15 promoted (2) 158:19 170:3 131:24
opinions (1) 104:3 107:7 146:18,23,25 pay (1) 170:19 38:24,25 46:21 47:5,12 pressurising (1) 112:1 prompted (1) 31:1 pwc (1) 177:4
opportunity (10) 15:24 147:13,18,23,25 150:21 payment (2) 167:3,6 50:25 56:5,5 58:6,9 60:13 presumably (1) 102:3 pronounce (2) 8:20 141:24
19:22 55:23 56:9,12,23 pad (2) 24:19,20 payments (1) 170:12 64:1 66:22 68:18 70:4 presume (1) 147:15 proof (1) 18:2 Q
57:17 58:4 179:25 180:24 pages (2) 157:10,15 pc (1) 47:17 76:16 86:14 89:16,18 presumed (4) 34:18,23 35:3 proofofwork (5) 80:2 85:4,24
opposed (1) 26:16 pandoc (22) 99:11 pdf (8) 83:21 107:4,21 91:10,16 92:1 95:15 96:6 72:20 119:9 172:6 q (534) 3:25
opposing (2) 93:17 173:21 107:4,11,12,19,19,20,22 108:8,9 125:21 149:23 100:8,19 102:21 103:5 presumption (4) 36:24 83:9 proper (6) 31:7 55:24 56:1 4:4,7,10,17,19,24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

5:8,11,18,22 161:8,14,19,21 reasons (4) 37:11 78:12 29:1,10 33:6 59:3 60:20 132:11 133:5,24 38:1,23 40:2,15 41:8 45:2 170:11 171:15 173:4 177:9
6:1,5,12,16,22 162:15,22,25 163:8,14,20 140:6 159:6 61:25 67:10,17 68:1 74:2 reviewed (4) 47:23 124:16 50:21 55:1 56:8 58:22 178:9 180:2,23
7:1,4,11,14,17 164:5,8,18,22 165:5,14,18 recall (17) 3:5,21 6:17,22 79:1 125:1 133:2 61:11 66:8 69:15,16 72:13 seed (1) 83:13
8:3,16,18,21 166:9,13,24 167:6,11,14 9:10,12,21 21:2 36:11 relied (6) 6:9 12:23 18:17 revision (1) 105:11 74:17,19 77:9 86:8 seeded (3) 74:1 78:18 79:18
9:2,4,9,12,17,21,24 168:3,6,10,15,23 169:4,24 38:19 45:16 91:17 92:4 24:4 29:5 103:1 rewrite (1) 165:11 92:10,22 97:10,12,13 seeding (1) 78:10
10:3,7,10,15,17,20 11:5,25 170:24 171:4,12,17 120:10,16 121:16 167:4 rely (3) 23:24 62:13 97:1 rich (4) 27:18 78:13 96:11 101:6 108:22 110:13,15 seem (1) 159:2
12:8,14,22 172:12,25 173:12 174:4,23 received (6) 4:14 11:14 relying (2) 54:22 80:15 99:14 111:3,22 118:9,15 120:16 seems (2) 4:19 36:18
13:6,11,14,19,22 175:2,25 177:1 22:12 44:20 74:15 153:9 remailer (1) 160:20 ridge (1) 118:7 124:25 133:6 138:23,24 seen (6) 15:17 28:12 32:14
14:5,14,19,23,25 q51 (1) 149:19 receiving (1) 22:20 remailers (3) 160:4,10 161:3 ridiculed (1) 158:1 139:6,8 140:3,14 148:10 37:9 76:5 77:7
15:5,13,19,21,24 16:14,20 q52 (2) 147:6 149:19 recent (3) 87:3 94:19 113:21 remain (1) 69:1 ridiculously (1) 109:24 150:5,16 151:5 154:7 selnolig (3) 106:12,18 113:4
17:4,18,22 18:10,12,16 qa (1) 122:23 recently (3) 31:19 33:18 remainder (1) 64:10 righthand (1) 92:15 155:6 156:15 158:2 sending (1) 172:9
19:10,12,15,20 20:4,16 qnap (6) 31:17 32:19,19 155:16 remaining (1) 64:17 rights (2) 156:7,8 160:16,25 161:8 162:11 sense (2) 167:14 178:13
21:1,7,12,23 22:3,8,12,20 37:18,24 157:4 recognise (5) 7:2 8:9 19:25 remains (2) 11:22 132:19 rivero (2) 13:4 131:20 168:13 173:24 176:21 sent (10) 4:5,8 39:6,10 43:8
23:1,8,16,18,24 24:2,6,10 qtext (1) 99:7 84:23 97:4 remember (6) 4:4 50:24 robes (1) 109:25 177:16 89:12,12 154:4,12,13
25:4 26:5 27:11,23 qualification (1) 71:14 recognised (1) 39:19 74:14 111:14 150:11 rock (2) 160:25 161:1 scale (1) 169:22 sentence (1) 122:10
28:1,11,22 29:1,4,9,18 qualifications (7) 128:17 recognition (1) 122:2 167:18 role (1) 109:22 scaling (1) 151:24 separate (7) 61:5 72:11
30:5,13,19,24 31:6 32:2,15 129:7 134:24 135:17,21 recollection (1) 7:8 remind (1) 154:23 rolls (1) 178:13 scan (1) 94:3 79:15 102:12 115:25
33:5,16 34:1,5,13 137:24 151:13 recommended (1) 56:13 reminds (1) 165:22 roman (2) 144:5,6 scandalous (1) 84:16 174:11,22
35:3,6,14,18 qualified (5) 56:4,18,24 71:7 recompile (1) 128:14 remote (1) 76:6 room (3) 89:10 111:24 scanning (1) 52:3 separated (1) 103:15
36:1,6,10,13,18 163:10 record (5) 15:2 94:10 125:15 remotely (2) 102:18 177:14 112:11 scenario (3) 19:5,5 77:2 separately (2) 129:1 155:19
37:3,6,9,13,20 38:3,24 question (24) 9:5 12:24 129:14,19 remove (4) 91:21 100:25 rosendahl (11) 137:23 schedule (6) 10:11 80:13,19 september (29) 6:13 9:22
39:5,8,12,22,24 40:8,18,23 19:15,17,18,22 26:7 30:6 recorded (12) 40:7 101:6,18 144:13 145:7,10,13 81:8 85:18 114:3 10:4,8 31:3 47:8,25 48:1
41:2,12 42:5,20,24 43:3,7 56:9 57:20 87:6,20,23 54:17,19,19 64:24 65:4 removed (1) 99:6 148:4,7,14,23,25 151:15 schools (1) 166:23 51:8 64:11,18 65:1,12
44:17,22 88:18,24 96:25 97:16 83:25 89:9 112:9 124:15 removing (2) 99:18 153:13 rosendahls (1) 144:11 scratch (1) 98:22 74:22 75:17 78:4,7
45:2,6,10,19,21,25 123:20,21,22 130:22 132:19 176:21 repeated (1) 165:6 rotate (1) 175:5 screaming (1) 33:12 79:18,25 80:1 83:25 96:5
46:2,5,9 47:2,5,12,21 131:12 155:6 166:25 recording (2) 27:18 111:2 replace (3) 100:25 101:7,18 rough (1) 75:13 screen (13) 6:5 21:1 34:14 103:9 105:4,15 121:13
49:11 50:2,14,25 51:5 questioned (1) 178:22 recordings (1) 51:2 replaces (1) 144:5 round (5) 71:23 79:20 42:22 76:10 92:23 95:7 123:4,14,18
52:13,21 53:10,25 54:12 questions (7) 6:6 12:3 13:15 recover (1) 66:23 replay (1) 27:20 82:1,24 99:17 102:9,11,13 135:15 136:20 serial (4) 37:23 39:13
55:7,12,17,23 56:5,9,19 16:14 42:17 88:4 155:4 recreation (2) 136:21 137:5 replica (2) 135:18 137:6 row (2) 10:17 81:2 166:5 41:19,24
58:9 59:1,18,25 60:11,19 quickly (2) 78:21 84:21 recycle (2) 47:6 60:17 replicate (1) 152:9 rtf (5) 24:8 28:6,10 79:3 screenshot (1) 68:8 series (14) 33:7 44:3 49:13
61:10,20,25 62:3,11 quite (7) 1:8 30:5 80:24 red (2) 77:1 144:8 replicated (1) 136:15 99:20 screenshots (13) 42:20 50:17 51:2 73:20 74:15
63:1,5,17 64:1,8,14,22 97:21 108:15 123:24 redid (1) 133:13 replicates (1) 91:7 rude (3) 3:11,16 113:16 43:4,13 44:3,4,5,18,19,22 78:1 94:15 108:20 120:25
65:3,7,9,20 66:8,21 171:19 redoing (1) 133:13 replication (1) 91:1 ruled (2) 130:15,25 45:3 59:14 76:5 104:15 146:25 163:6 172:25
67:8,15,25 68:12,18 quixote (1) 18:7 reduce (1) 180:21 reply (1) 161:5 ruling (1) 131:8 screenshotting (1) 89:8 serious (1) 121:4
69:6,12,15,19,22 quorum (6) 28:23 29:2,5,14 refer (7) 13:19 43:11 85:6 report (24) 9:21 22:12,20 run (22) 5:12 47:18 51:24 scrip (5) 167:9,18,19,24,24 served (3) 9:9 88:2 162:18
70:2,10,16 71:3,15 76:19 95:12 122:3,4 166:9 168:6 24:3 27:6 46:22 50:25 52:5,6 53:21 68:6 69:19,24 script (4) 167:9,19,23 170:17 server (19) 11:2 19:1,3 31:17
72:5,9,16,25 73:9,19,25 quote (1) 17:11 reference (20) 21:7,23 22:1 57:25 58:1,7 60:1 84:17 71:9 105:25 106:2 126:7 scripting (2) 158:1 167:16 32:19,19,21 37:18,24
74:7,11,21 75:13,18,25 quoted (1) 163:17 44:1 49:4 50:7 78:2 103:6 121:12 136:5 137:23 137:21 142:3,10 144:7 search (6) 1:22 32:9,13 83:23,23 142:5 157:4
76:8,15 77:4,8,11,19,23,25 quotes (1) 171:22 87:5,15,20 88:6,16,24 141:13 144:11 148:6,23 150:17 158:20 166:22 34:15 169:11 172:9 167:21 172:11 173:9,18
78:6,9,20 79:3,7,16,24 89:22 97:23 101:11 106:11 180:17 181:7,9,18 167:22 170:21 searches (3) 125:4 133:4,7 176:12,24
R
80:6,9,12,19,23 113:4 132:10 134:19 reports (2) 76:1,10 running (12) 51:7,20 52:8,11 searching (1) 31:2 servers (6) 10:24 12:3 18:23
81:2,7,12,17,19,22 r (3) 10:20 21:3,12 referenced (3) 49:2 51:18 representatives (1) 55:24 54:10 66:4 68:8 83:24 88:1 second (8) 96:9,9 114:12,13 38:13 166:21,21
82:7,16,20 83:10,18 race (1) 56:21 146:18 representing (1) 32:4 102:12 105:23 116:1 141:13 160:3 161:21 176:6 service (2) 105:15 165:16
84:3,11,15,19 racks (1) 32:21 references (18) 78:16 82:16 represents (1) 2:11 runs (1) 51:24 secondly (1) 117:4 services (4) 175:9,12 176:4
85:3,14,16,22 raid (1) 38:14 90:2,5 91:21 92:2,5,17,20 reproduce (2) 126:17 137:12 rush (1) 29:24 seconds (1) 154:20 177:2
86:3,14,19,22 raise (2) 1:13 179:5 97:2,7,8,18 113:3 119:21 reproduced (2) 126:2 137:15 section (12) 24:2 30:10 sessions (1) 64:25
87:2,8,14,18,22 88:5,15 raising (1) 12:3 134:21 160:4,6 reproduces (1) 125:21 S 50:14 85:1 92:3 120:24 set (18) 5:8,11,18 11:21
89:2,16,25 90:5,10,22 rambling (2) 163:18 168:12 referencing (2) 90:23,24 reproduction (3) 4:11 128:5 121:20 139:14,16 141:12 22:10,13 25:7 28:13 32:22
91:10,16,20 92:1,5,11,19 ran (8) 149:3 152:6 referred (7) 20:1 21:3 120:20 135:1 s (1) 63:1 158:22 174:12 48:15 54:3 60:25 65:12,16
93:2 94:7,10,15,18 174:12,13,14,16,19,21 129:14,15 166:10 167:2 request (1) 134:8 safe (1) 72:20 sections (4) 158:25 164:23 79:1 87:10 157:13 159:6
95:1,6,9,15,19,22 random (5) 114:9 119:22,24 referring (6) 41:18 105:7 requested (2) 43:12,17 salient (1) 58:4 165:9,11 setback (3) 59:5,9 60:22
96:4,14,18,22,24 120:3,4 124:22 158:25 164:6 required (2) 138:15 167:22 same (45) 4:17 5:21,24 6:14 secure (12) 25:25 36:24 sets (3) 24:3 137:17,19
97:6,16,24 98:3,8,15,23 range (3) 46:13,14 133:19 174:23 reread (1) 8:8 10:18 11:22,23,24 70:24 102:23 120:3,13 setting (1) 13:20
99:6,24 100:8,14,19,23 ranges (3) 124:18 125:4 refers (2) 80:9 82:21 resaved (1) 17:3 18:6,9,24 24:23 38:7 54:9 164:17 165:2 173:18 settings (2) 99:2,12
101:5,10,17,24 102:3,8,21 133:4 reflected (2) 53:14 54:4 research (7) 11:19 14:25 63:14 78:22 84:22 94:12 176:24 177:15,20 setup (1) 5:22
103:1,5,11,15,18 rate (1) 10:15 refrain (1) 180:10 19:7 20:9 62:9 167:13 95:16 103:9,12 110:17,18 securely (1) 165:11 seven (2) 40:5 158:6
104:1,12,17,24 105:2,6,25 rather (11) 11:18 33:24 refused (5) 9:17 60:8 75:7,17 171:14 119:4,21 126:15 security (27) 36:18 60:16,22 seventh (2) 20:5 164:2
106:2,4,6,10,14,18,21,24 54:22 69:6 70:18 111:20 76:7 resolution (1) 94:12 128:10,10,12,13,13 72:17 73:1 76:19,23 106:8 several (6) 29:21 33:2,3
107:2,10,15 113:16 142:4 149:18 regard (1) 145:9 resource (1) 49:3 129:1,2 131:19 133:11 153:24 164:16 165:1 173:15 177:4,23
108:2,14,20,25 170:10 179:21 regarded (1) 132:2 respect (3) 130:1,4 138:17 134:1 139:11 140:7 145:6 171:5,11 173:15,17,20 shadowing (1) 94:11
109:7,11,13,17,21 raw (5) 59:5 67:2,4 73:10 regarding (1) 43:12 respectfully (1) 154:23 149:8,24 150:8,9 151:24 174:13 175:9 176:4 shall (2) 11:10 21:16
110:6,10,19 147:12 registered (1) 46:7 respective (1) 11:1 167:20 177:2,16,17,19,21,24,25,25 shaping (1) 168:19
111:11,15,20,25 112:16,22 rcjbrorg (1) 4:19 regulatory (1) 120:19 respects (2) 20:7 78:25 samsung (19) 23:18,20 see (120) 3:25 4:2,7,11,15 share (2) 62:19 175:22
113:2,7,11,21,24 rd (1) 177:3 reinstall (1) 52:9 response (1) 163:2 30:15 34:21 35:19 36:7 5:6,16 7:4,9 9:19 10:17 shared (3) 10:24 11:2 12:3
114:3,6,9,12,18,23 read (13) 2:8 12:13 reinstituted (1) 171:10 responsible (2) 56:10 153:5 37:15 39:18 41:20 47:6 11:3 14:3 15:5 20:7,9,14 shares (1) 66:17
115:10,18 116:3,10,22 43:9,14,25 44:6 60:5 97:4 related (2) 103:7 122:1 result (10) 51:17 54:18 48:2 55:15 64:13 66:10,24 24:3,7 25:16 26:23 30:9 sharing (2) 102:24 121:22
117:4,21 118:18 119:13,21 159:1,2 163:1 173:3 175:6 relates (2) 41:20 175:24 60:15 64:6 65:9 103:24 67:13 68:13 81:16 85:9 31:4 34:13 35:16 39:1,20 sherrell (3) 65:24 67:19
120:9,18,23 121:3,9,18,20 reading (1) 120:16 relating (2) 64:17 86:16 147:11,18 149:13 155:16 sans (7) 25:12,12 56:4,18 45:23 51:15 54:2,6 58:6,11 102:5
122:9,13,20 123:3,6,9,15 readme (2) 5:8,18 relation (7) 6:23 8:23 21:3 results (2) 103:21 142:11 76:22 164:1 165:3 65:1,4 70:8,10 73:2,15 sherrells (1) 67:20
124:10,15,22 125:13 reads (1) 5:8 42:20 119:15 129:11 133:7 return (4) 1:12 42:16 45:10 sarbanesoxley (2) 101:3,5 79:25 80:3 82:9,11 shocked (1) 67:21
126:1,5,12,18,22 127:2,10 readwrite (1) 51:10 relatively (5) 24:11 61:21 112:16 sat (2) 75:8 111:23 86:19,23,25 87:15 89:23 shoosmiths (23) 10:2,12
128:2,16 129:6,18,23 ready (6) 13:4 78:21 84:21 151:25 returned (4) 68:14,22,23 satoshi (20) 5:19 6:9 12:24 91:20 92:22 93:11 11:11,12 21:18,19 32:10
131:16,23 132:9,17,23 179:10,16,17,22 182:1 relativity (3) 17:12 33:14,19 69:17 18:13 62:6,14 86:16 111:3 95:11,19 96:7,12,20,24 43:8 56:14 68:24 69:1,5
133:16,23 134:6,13,23 real (4) 2:16 20:20,23 148:5 relax (4) 93:10 135:7,9 178:8 returning (2) 3:20 112:18 122:14,25 124:21 132:5 100:20,23 101:1,4,11 123:10,14,17 124:8,11
135:24 136:4,14,19,24 realise (4) 3:15 7:22,24 release (2) 44:12 121:12 returnpath (1) 4:12 155:22 156:2,5,9,10 102:1 103:7,10,14,17 125:15 129:10 134:7
137:4,13,22 138:4,11,21 93:20 released (5) 5:19 66:18 reuse (1) 133:14 158:12 159:6,10 106:11,12,16 107:6,8 153:10 154:3,11
139:8,24 140:12,16,18,21 reality (4) 73:9 99:6 108:20 105:4,15 156:23 reused (4) 125:11 132:13 satoshis (1) 161:9 108:10 113:3 114:6,13,16 short (6) 42:10,14 93:14
141:1,11 142:14 143:7,12 131:24 releases (1) 106:18 133:12 134:3 saved (2) 32:5 173:10 120:24 122:15 123:1 135:11 165:23 166:3
144:1,11,20 145:7,12 really (8) 37:5 46:25 60:10 relevant (6) 40:20 70:7 98:3 reveal (1) 123:20 saving (1) 15:9 124:8,8,10,19 125:24 shortly (2) 92:13 176:1
146:2,16,24 147:6,17,22 85:12 112:3 176:12 179:11 123:12 124:13 134:9 revealed (1) 47:25 savings (1) 138:10 127:10 132:21,24 should (20) 1:9 31:9 33:22
148:3,13,23 149:9,19 180:5 reliability (1) 22:21 revenue (1) 57:6 saw (5) 21:12 34:5 75:1 134:7,11,21 135:22 36:23 57:4 66:3 74:25
150:22,24 151:5,7,15,20 reason (11) 11:15,17 51:22 reliable (4) 15:14 17:19 reverse (3) 149:11,20,21 135:19 168:18 136:11,19,19,22,24 137:1 75:16 109:24 125:9 129:12
152:11,18,21 153:5,8,21 52:1 76:22 96:16 123:5 18:14 113:7 reverseengineering (1) saying (76) 3:5 8:14 11:15 138:11 141:15 132:15 146:1 157:5 172:12
154:10,14 156:8,17,24 131:23 133:21 151:1 reliance (25) 6:7,24 7:18 125:20 12:9 14:12 16:12,24,24 144:3,13,16,17 145:12 179:12,12,14 181:8,12
157:6,15,21 158:9,25 169:15 9:14 11:16 22:4,5,10,14 review (10) 1:15,24 38:5 17:10,21,25 18:1,1,5 147:4 148:24 153:3 158:15 shouldnt (4) 27:8 57:14,15
159:8,16 160:13,17,21 reasonably (1) 138:25 23:25 25:8 27:15 28:5,5 55:8 124:18,23 125:5 20:19,23,24 33:13 37:20 163:14 164:3,18 166:10 153:24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

show (8) 59:12 71:3 86:7 43:8 44:24 45:3 standardised (3) 114:20,25 studies (1) 87:3 takes (4) 90:14,20 91:6 97:13,15,18 99:5 103:4 134:24 139:11 140:7,17
87:9 127:1 128:1 139:21 69:12,17,23 75:2 84:2 115:3 study (1) 158:14 100:6 105:21 106:23 107:17 142:25 143:3,18 147:25
149:8 113:12,17 123:10 126:19 standards (1) 120:19 studying (1) 111:19 taking (9) 38:15 44:19 48:20 117:3 120:15 124:7 128:7 148:6 152:2 153:25 160:21
showed (5) 42:21 68:8 81:24 127:1 128:3,21 129:9 standing (2) 130:3 155:11 stuff (1) 163:18 62:16 66:15 74:22 101:21 129:16 131:13 132:11 163:4,16 169:18,20 171:4
87:25 122:23 131:20 133:3 152:25 start (8) 9:22 25:18,20 31:1 stumps (1) 176:1 117:2 142:9 138:5,11,18,20 139:4,7,18 173:10,25 176:1 177:5,5
showing (9) 66:4 78:1 153:17 154:5 75:22 93:16 156:6 179:13 stupid (1) 75:6 tale (1) 84:16 140:14 142:4 145:12 179:3 180:21,25
85:4,23 89:17 104:15 solutions (1) 175:14 started (13) 72:3 74:17,19 sturt (2) 95:20 112:25 talk (7) 13:9,9 71:12,13 147:20 151:8 153:12,14,15 timechain (3) 5:4 80:10
140:9 152:18,24 solve (1) 173:21 75:20,23 117:8,9 143:17 style (1) 90:2 93:10 99:11 178:8 154:19 160:25 161:6 82:17
shown (8) 39:5,9 45:11 somebody (4) 17:8,9 36:18 155:5 161:22,24 162:13 subject (5) 131:7,7 147:22 talked (7) 75:21 89:13 162:17 164:20,20 165:20 timecoin (6) 70:14,18 84:24
53:16 70:7 77:11 123:3,13 158:11 171:7 149:20 163:22 126:14 127:1 157:25 160:9 166:10 167:15 168:4,17 85:6,19,25
shows (2) 101:17,20 somehow (1) 110:21 starting (1) 150:24 subsequent (1) 125:11 176:18 169:7 170:7 171:3 175:8 timed (1) 64:9
shred (2) 171:17 172:14 someone (20) 3:1 12:11 17:2 statebased (5) 116:6,13,14 subsequently (1) 77:3 talking (21) 8:7 21:11 26:6,8 176:18 timeframe (2) 56:14 58:24
sid (2) 63:1,18 48:3 56:13,18 68:4 73:17 118:24,25 substantial (2) 48:3 97:24 32:8 39:7 55:15 57:20 theirs (1) 150:12 timeline (1) 26:4
side (10) 1:18 11:15 13:3 75:8 82:25 84:6 86:9 95:4 stated (10) 7:6 21:12 28:17 sufficient (1) 81:12 64:12 68:12 80:17 theme (1) 122:10 times (20) 31:12 33:12 37:19
27:8 92:15 102:6,8 114:7 101:20 102:15,16 106:22 43:21 50:6 60:6 104:4 suggest (11) 9:13 70:17 116:5,13,15,16,18 118:24 themselves (5) 26:8 37:13 48:22 51:15,21,22 54:13
137:19 159:3 148:17,21 151:12 114:21 141:21 163:12 71:15 79:16 82:20 84:15 160:7 161:2,2 176:8 130:5 135:25 180:6 59:8 75:24 103:8,11,16
sidelines (2) 2:2,5 someones (3) 101:22 106:24 statement (62) 9:9,13,16 95:1 128:17 137:14 148:13 talks (1) 71:21 theoretical (1) 54:22 122:19 140:25 144:5,6
sids (1) 71:4 113:9 13:12 14:14 15:24 16:20 181:17 tall (1) 112:3 theoretically (2) 138:22,25 146:12 152:7 155:1
sign (2) 86:3 89:4 something (32) 3:10 12:11 20:1,10 30:8 37:3 40:19 suggested (3) 148:15 164:10 tampered (2) 6:19 7:18 theory (1) 50:9 timestamp (10) 49:1 64:25
signatures (1) 167:8 17:1 24:25 54:23 70:20 41:2,14 49:10 50:3,15 181:13 tampering (1) 103:20 therefore (8) 2:15 13:4 34:23 78:6 79:10,13,15,22
signed (2) 69:5 175:20 73:1,17 75:22 80:3 82:22 52:14 55:22 58:19 59:15 suggesting (6) 84:3 101:5 taproot (1) 156:4 70:25 71:25 120:14 154:8 173:9,18 176:12
significant (3) 28:11 138:9 88:22 97:12 101:19 104:10 60:3 65:24 67:20 69:6 73:2 139:24,25 168:15 169:24 taught (1) 25:11 168:1 timestamps (6) 47:9 55:20
165:9 107:1 113:18 122:15 80:14,20 104:8,15 108:1 suggestion (3) 7:17 22:15 tc (2) 134:9 145:15 theres (23) 9:12 24:20 27:3 59:4 77:23 104:6 105:16
signing (1) 177:18 131:14 139:9,23 140:1 118:2 121:14,21 122:16 81:9 tcecashexe (1) 5:13 33:7 40:14 46:4,6 53:1 timetable (1) 179:1
signs (3) 55:13 78:1 108:21 143:19 148:12 150:3 159:4 127:5,7,8,16 129:16 suggests (2) 40:18 95:6 teach (1) 143:5 75:3 87:5 100:6 134:19 timings (1) 103:19
silly (2) 71:19 112:6 168:15,17 176:17 179:9 132:17,20 135:17 140:22 suitable (2) 56:11 98:4 team (10) 39:24 40:18 56:10 155:15 171:17 172:14,22 tiny (1) 109:1
similar (8) 81:4 85:23 114:10 181:2,13 157:7,22 159:8 161:1 suitably (1) 56:24 68:14 77:1 83:12 134:2 174:8,12,14,15,16,23 tired (1) 3:8
139:11 149:23,25 151:17 sometimes (4) 8:9 50:8 162:15 163:10,21 suits (1) 97:23 166:14 179:24 181:18 179:4 tiring (2) 2:7 3:6
167:8 154:25 180:5 165:5,6,15 166:9 167:2 summarised (3) 95:2 173:14 teamblue (1) 77:1 theyd (3) 62:7 74:14 170:10 tissue (1) 155:23
similarity (3) 147:9,17 152:4 somewhat (1) 84:15 168:4,13,18 174:5 174:7 tears (1) 112:12 theyll (2) 111:6,7 today (2) 179:9,10
similarly (1) 167:18 somewhere (2) 33:4 170:20 180:12,16 summary (1) 164:20 tech (1) 107:24 theyre (27) 35:16 38:1 together (7) 38:17,19 74:18
simple (14) 9:5 25:15 53:20 son (4) 39:16 40:25 41:7,13 statements (13) 42:6 48:11 superficially (1) 149:25 technical (3) 103:1 127:21 40:11,15 46:3 60:12 64:5 95:10 96:7 113:13 148:3
54:10 59:11 72:13 99:10 soon (1) 181:18 50:1,2 52:15,23 55:19 supplied (2) 10:10,14 166:14 67:4 71:6,7,7,8 79:15 90:8 token (1) 175:16
137:4,21 150:15,15,25 sort (15) 35:2 38:19 48:17 59:21 74:21 75:25 110:7 support (8) 18:17 62:5,14 technically (1) 6:1 91:5,6 102:11 129:1 tokens (1) 172:6
151:11 166:22 50:13 53:20 67:22 68:2 122:9 168:12 82:23 83:3 142:7 144:9 technology (1) 175:13 133:11 134:1 145:5 146:23 told (19) 27:8 31:18 37:13
simplest (1) 146:7 91:4 131:21 142:10 static (2) 48:16,17 155:25 ted (6) 109:19,21,22,23 149:8,16 150:5 162:8 41:14 42:20 44:24 57:7
simplified (2) 114:3 119:19 169:7,10 170:18 172:4 stating (3) 44:25 169:20,20 supportive (1) 83:5 111:13,15 176:9 60:11 67:21 69:7 70:1
simplifying (2) 76:20 163:12 173:21 statistical (2) 25:1 115:8 supposed (6) 21:20 28:23 telling (7) 12:9 13:6 33:14 theyve (8) 37:18 44:7 53:7 110:3,25 111:23 123:13,17
simulate (3) 118:24 119:4,6 sorts (1) 66:6 stay (1) 18:24 84:24 96:15 120:11 155:25 37:20 56:7 75:9 145:2 59:23 83:9 84:5 91:23 92:8 124:15 125:15 128:21
simulating (2) 116:11 118:17 sought (2) 43:18 128:18 stdchrono (1) 117:22 supposedly (3) 92:19 103:2 tells (1) 144:9 thing (12) 6:14 8:4 43:9 too (6) 10:5 32:1 89:15
simulation (9) 114:2 sound (3) 3:11,15 179:15 stdchronomillisecondslatency 112:4 temperature (1) 1:8 50:11 78:16 85:11 98:13 149:11,21 180:10
116:3,5,6,16,20 source (6) 35:10 108:3 (1) 114:15 supposing (1) 158:10 template (3) 107:12 108:4,5 110:2 129:2 152:9 154:4 took (12) 43:3 44:17 61:6
118:16,22,23 147:12,24 148:4 149:22 stdthisthreadsleepfor (1) sure (20) 2:8 3:7 10:12,13 ten (2) 106:10 113:3 160:24 73:19 75:10 76:13 96:5
simulations (2) 115:5 116:6 sourced (1) 29:13 114:14 14:17 21:10 46:25 56:11 tendering (1) 57:19 thinking (1) 75:22 117:7 132:12 133:17
since (7) 22:20 68:25 119:25 sources (1) 31:10 steals (1) 91:9 61:23 80:17 85:8,10 86:12 terabytes (1) 32:25 third (13) 7:20 9:3,7 22:25 170:4,5
126:10 134:14 139:19 south (3) 61:8 166:23 177:10 stefan (3) 110:15 111:6 99:1 109:5 111:4 123:24 term (12) 1:22 23:11 24:3 26:1 28:16 29:12 66:3 tool (11) 25:15,15 48:25
156:21 sox (2) 101:4,9 112:8 166:24 173:22 178:18 49:15,16,17,18 118:12 86:22 103:6 149:9 164:2 49:4 60:6 71:10 139:13,18
single (6) 61:14 89:11 space (3) 67:1 139:19 153:14 steganographically (3) surprise (2) 67:15 181:15 159:24 160:17,21 161:7,9 though (5) 11:22 18:5 38:6 151:18 152:5,6
108:12 149:17 152:8 180:8 spacing (4) 117:22 142:15 139:21 140:10,11 surprised (1) 181:12 terminology (1) 50:6 104:7 164:22 tools (5) 25:17 55:21 142:1
sit (1) 141:8 143:8,15 steganography (5) suspect (1) 84:21 terms (2) 50:10,13 thought (10) 2:6 3:5 7:24 149:15 156:20
site (2) 123:3,7 spam (1) 160:10 139:12,17,19 140:8 147:20 swift (1) 175:16 terrible (1) 170:16 8:13 31:14 37:5 41:22 topic (10) 3:20 19:23 38:24
sites (2) 25:25 116:1 speak (2) 130:4 180:6 stego (1) 139:13 switzerland (2) 46:3,6 terribly (1) 33:21 105:5 143:4 172:2 42:16 45:10 50:11 100:13
sitting (1) 33:4 speaking (7) 2:1,4,23 3:13 steps (1) 139:7 symbol (1) 144:3 terrifically (1) 165:8 thousand (3) 29:21 33:3 120:9 141:11 157:6
sixth (1) 127:7 70:17 71:9 120:10 steven (2) 3:18 183:4 symbolically (1) 96:2 territory (1) 177:8 150:11 total (1) 105:11
skewed (1) 59:8 specialised (2) 71:7,8 stick (2) 111:20 151:14 symbols (2) 142:16 144:2 test (9) 53:20,21 54:10 59:11 threads (2) 161:3,4 totalpow (1) 118:21
skirted (1) 148:11 specific (1) 157:16 sticker (4) 41:3,6,14,19 symposia (1) 169:5 74:4,6 104:9 137:4 150:15 threatened (1) 112:12 towards (6) 86:19 106:10
slack (1) 179:2 specifically (4) 43:14 127:6 stickers (10) syntax (3) 117:5,23 118:18 testing (2) 76:23 104:10 threats (2) 120:25 121:4 107:5 113:2 162:14 179:3
slash (1) 153:15 148:25 168:16 34:5,9,11,12,18,22 35:4 system (43) 14:20,24 tests (3) 57:2 69:19,24 three (7) 65:11 92:25,25 traces (2) 26:9,16
sleep (1) 115:4 specified (5) 124:18 125:4 39:15 40:23 41:9 32:10,14 44:3 46:19 51:10 tex (1) 145:1 137:19 153:16 154:20 track (3) 64:4 156:14 175:19
sleepfor (2) 114:24 117:5 133:4,7 147:13 still (8) 2:11 11:23 33:3 34:8 54:4 64:3 70:14,18,19,24 text (27) 6:2 12:5 158:4 trades (1) 175:22
sleepsleepfor (1) 117:19 specify (2) 49:25 50:2 35:16 103:22 155:17 179:1 74:8,12 82:22,23 85:6 20:21,22,25 26:23 27:2,2,4 threeyearold (1) 141:7 trained (1) 52:19
slightly (6) 67:11,17,25 79:9 speculate (2) 35:7 37:10 stock (2) 169:16 175:17 105:21 118:23 120:13 39:8 78:13 91:3 95:11 through (34) 12:25 18:8 training (1) 131:18
129:3 150:6 spelling (1) 141:23 stone (1) 159:6 126:9 128:11,12 96:11 97:17 98:4,6,9 22:13 35:1 41:11 49:13 transaction (11) 51:1,11
slot (3) 97:9,12,22 spencer (3) 46:22 47:2 136:5 stood (1) 84:7 157:12,17,23 167:7,16 101:25 107:11 113:9 50:14,17,22 55:23 56:9 53:12,16 54:3,7,17,18 55:2
slots (2) 97:14,15 spend (1) 110:23 stop (8) 19:20,21 127:2 168:21 170:13 172:5 137:12 142:23 143:25 57:6 58:20 73:11 81:8 71:4 104:18
small (8) 28:7 32:22 41:21 spending (1) 104:21 153:11,13,13 163:21 174:4 173:25 175:16,16,23 149:8,24 151:11 84:19 85:17 98:19 transactions (4) 172:8,10,10
61:21 153:10 170:12 spent (2) 33:18 111:1 stopped (1) 52:8 176:10,19 textbased (1) 97:11 110:3,13 113:11 120:7 175:21
172:7,7 spoke (1) 111:7 storage (1) 32:20 177:10,11,14,17,20 textbook (1) 164:13 128:3 139:6,8 143:13 transcriber (1) 165:24
smalltalk (1) 162:2 spoken (1) 148:19 story (7) 37:19 61:20 63:6 systems (16) 28:24 29:5 49:6 textbooks (2) 50:10 164:12 152:12 157:9,22 164:13 transcript (2) 8:8 120:16
smith (4) 10:3 56:16 75:3 sportingbet (1) 120:6 76:8,9,12 155:22 56:1 76:20 119:1 158:7 texts (2) 97:2,18 170:15 171:1,13 180:14 transfer (1) 102:23
84:1 spot (1) 29:18 straight (1) 100:4 166:17,18 169:23 171:5,11 thank (8) 2:18 3:17 46:18 tif (1) 94:11 transferring (1) 173:11
snapshot (3) 47:19 51:22,23 spreadsheet (5) 13:19 39:14 straightforward (1) 6:1 175:18 176:7,22 177:7 93:22 121:9 144:12 152:22 tiff (4) 52:4 94:24,25 95:5 transfers (2) 175:17,19
snapshots (1) 47:20 40:7 152:18,23 strange (1) 31:15 szabo (1) 158:3 182:2 tim (1) 171:22 translation (1) 151:24
snow (2) 139:18,18 ssid (6) 48:19 61:10 stressed (2) 2:5 3:1 thanks (1) 166:1 time (85) 6:18 8:8 11:14 transmissions (1) 104:21
society (1) 169:2 63:11,12,14,22 stressful (2) 2:7 3:6 T thats (106) 2:7 3:7 9:7 10:17 13:2 14:5 17:2 18:3 23:4 travers (6) 10:3,6,8 56:16
software (15) 5:14 14:1 ssids (3) 53:5 61:1,9 strictly (1) 36:21 11:17 12:6,9,19 15:16 24:13 27:11,12,22 33:18 75:3 84:1
27:23,24 35:20 42:25 staff (3) 10:25 15:1 20:9 strikingly (1) 89:3 table (11) 19:25 98:9,15,25 17:10 19:7 23:17 25:3 44:24 47:8,13,16 treated (1) 33:20
43:23,24 52:1,8 145:17 stage (8) 7:14,17 56:20 stroustrup (1) 162:19 99:3,7,8,21 100:6 113:13 28:16 29:15,18 31:4 32:20 48:12,15,18 49:4,5,7,8,9 trespassing (1) 130:2
146:4,17,18 177:6 86:12 153:16 172:2 174:11 stroustrups (1) 163:2 152:21 34:4 35:5,10,25 36:5 41:8 51:2,9 53:20,22 55:4 56:23 trial (12) 69:11,17 109:8
solaris (5) 117:15 162:5,7,7 175:20 stroz (11) 47:3,23 55:9 57:4 tag (4) 78:3,7 108:18,18 43:2 45:25 46:3 47:1 49:21 57:6 58:2 65:16 70:24 110:4,17,21,24
166:19 stages (1) 116:22 60:1,11 75:19 151:6 tags (1) 78:6 53:10,17 55:6,15 59:25 75:13 80:7,8 91:14 97:12 111:9,18,18 112:16 128:19
soldiers (1) 177:13 stamps (1) 105:12 152:13,16 153:9 taken (18) 23:24 32:19 44:23 62:7,19 63:19 65:14 68:9 103:9 104:17 105:11,18,23 tried (9) 67:22 75:1 111:9
solicitor (2) 130:23 131:18 standard (16) 38:21 91:3,6 structure (3) 66:17 146:8 45:3 47:14 58:15 66:10,12 70:1 73:12,22 74:3 77:14 111:1 113:20 114:19 112:10 127:1 140:24
solicitors (34) 4:25 6:18 107:17 114:8 115:8,17 147:11 67:13 68:25 100:24 102:9 81:6 83:18 85:7,21 86:3 116:8,24 117:25 118:17 141:24 163:16 168:3
9:17,24 10:2,15 12:25 116:24 117:6 struggled (1) 22:3 112:13 117:17 118:23 88:18 91:15 92:8,16 119:4,5 120:4 123:10 tripwire (2) 176:19,19
13:2,9 31:6,13 33:12 37:14 118:1,1,3,10,10,12,13 student (1) 143:1 152:12 159:25 180:7 93:1,2,6,9 94:17 95:8,21 129:5 130:21 131:20 132:7 trouble (3) 70:23 93:6 98:24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

trove (1) 32:16 usb (8) 23:18,21,21,23 30:14 virtual (6) 31:23 49:17,19 went (16) 2:10,10 32:10 35:1 165:15 175:22 yeah (1) 144:19 118 (1) 136:14
true (4) 63:19 118:19 139:5 34:1 37:10 41:3 52:19 58:21 61:2 36:12 41:11 71:23 75:2 workflow (1) 14:1 year (8) 17:23 23:2 55:8 119999 (1) 105:10
153:13 used (46) 4:21,23 5:21 11:18 virtually (1) 94:8 98:24 111:8 139:8,25 working (19) 13:3 25:18,20 83:25 103:15 143:19 12 (7) 38:13,16 62:22 78:4,7
trust (1) 71:2 53:2 56:14 57:3,4 63:24 visible (1) 24:17 140:6,12 165:12 171:7 35:16,23 36:22 59:18 68:4 145:20 162:10 153:3 182:5
trusted (1) 73:8 64:4 86:17 88:23 90:6 99:1 vista (1) 51:8 werent (20) 32:9 38:4,8 72:24 91:25 97:20 100:12 years (9) 32:2 33:2 50:24 120 (1) 150:20
truth (2) 16:20 73:12 104:5 110:21 115:16 visual (2) 147:9,17 44:23 46:9 56:14 57:19 112:2,9 166:9 167:3 63:19 91:5 94:19 117:12 13 (3) 10:11 135:22 162:23
try (6) 54:24 84:8 93:12 116:10,24 117:24 118:19 vm (4) 49:22 51:21,24 52:11 92:3 125:1 142:17 146:21 173:25 174:8 181:15 145:21 157:20 134 (3) 67:9 70:6 96:8
145:23 149:5 155:12 121:14 127:17 136:16 vms (4) 48:24 117:15 153:5 154:13,16 157:1 works (6) 60:3,6 104:9 yelling (1) 33:11 134c (1) 71:21
trying (21) 3:10,11,15 8:10 137:10 141:21,21 169:9,17 166:21 169:9,24 170:6 109:20 127:24 151:6 yesterday (11) 2:25 3:21,21 136 (1) 96:18
57:23 68:7 74:17 82:25 142:1,8,22 143:22 145:1 vmware (7) 23:13,15 177:2 world (1) 139:23 4:24 7:22 8:6 11:20 136b (1) 96:24
86:9,12 91:25 113:18 146:19,23 147:2 148:10,10 47:18,18 71:8,11 96:3 weve (4) 22:3 172:13 178:5 worlds (1) 141:3 42:17,20 44:11,22 14 (3) 146:18 147:1 158:17
142:10 143:4 146:13 150:17,20 160:21 162:5,7 vodafone (1) 176:8 181:21 worst (3) 121:2 141:3 149:18 yet (7) 1:17 29:23 60:5 145 (3) 58:12 59:3 61:22
154:24 161:4 162:12 172:3 167:8,9,10 168:19 vogels (3) 88:12,13,13 whack (1) 49:7 worth (1) 32:20 66:20 84:15 98:10 136:18 15 (9) 24:6 50:24 80:1 106:8
173:21 181:16 useful (1) 27:13 voice (2) 27:18 122:2 whatever (3) 130:7 143:12 wouldnt (23) 23:22 29:15 youd (9) 40:20 42:24 49:16 124:10,11,19 158:17
tulip (1) 133:14 usepackage (2) 106:12 113:4 voicetype (1) 28:19 151:2 41:10 50:23 59:8 77:16 81:12 124:12 139:21 163:23
turing (2) 158:1,2 user (3) 63:2 138:16 169:22 volunteered (1) 181:5 whats (1) 98:15 78:9,12 79:12 86:7 98:3,8 159:16 163:1 178:1 154page (1) 95:16
turn (4) 54:7 55:1 152:11,11 users (1) 169:1 vote (1) 177:13 whatsapp (3) 74:16 89:8,12 113:19 131:24 132:3 138:1 youll (8) 1:7 51:15 53:4 82:5 158 (1) 146:24
turned (1) 74:18 uses (2) 71:24 167:15 voting (2) 95:13 177:12 whatsoever (1) 102:13 140:5 145:15 148:10 98:17 102:14 143:24 177:3 159 (1) 93:15
turning (1) 53:23 using (33) 23:13 25:17 48:24 vouch (1) 16:1 whenever (1) 181:25 150:15,16 159:17 164:15 young (1) 131:17 16 (5) 28:1 30:24 47:5
turns (1) 89:5 59:14 60:10 63:13,21,24 vpn (1) 93:19 whereas (1) 40:19 wright (130) 1:13 2:1,5,23 youre (97) 3:14 13:6 105:13 158:17
tweet (2) 39:1 71:19 67:23 99:11 103:21 107:20 vpns (2) 46:12,15 whilst (2) 2:23 3:14 3:18,20 5:5 6:9 7:12 9:5 17:21,25 19:10,22 20:19 17 (11) 47:8 51:8 64:10,17
tweeted (1) 102:10 114:21 121:24 126:9 vulnerabilities (1) 164:16 white (82) 13:16,25 10:4,21 11:6,25 12:22 21:10 24:12 25:15 26:6,8 65:12 67:8,9,16 68:1
twitter (4) 66:15,15 71:23 134:19 136:11,16 137:16 vulnerable (2) 154:23 155:13 14:6,12,15,21 15:8,15 16:14 17:18 19:16,20 30:5,14 37:13 45:2 47:19 125:15 158:17
73:24 142:22,24 143:17 145:16 16:4,15,25 17:1,4,6,20 21:13 22:3 26:6 27:6 28:1 49:6,15,19 50:21 178 (1) 183:6
twofactor (1) 36:25 146:1,3 147:5 153:19 W 18:4,25 20:17,22 29:7 32:5 29:19 30:5 32:15 36:10 52:13,17,21,24 55:7,13 18 (5) 34:13,13 46:23 47:12
txt (2) 24:8 28:6 156:19 160:10 161:7,8 70:13 80:3,10 81:5 82:17 39:1 42:5,12,16 43:7,22 59:19,22 60:14,19,23 64:17
type (5) 97:12,14,15 117:23 163:8 168:13 wait (1) 161:21 84:25 85:5,19,25 86:1,17 45:14,16 46:9 48:7 52:13 61:10,14 65:20 66:8 19 (8) 53:14 64:11,18 65:12
139:5 usual (1) 135:7 waive (4) 109:14,16 103:3 104:20 121:15,22,24 55:7 56:6 58:3 59:18,25 68:12,13 69:15 70:17 103:9 105:4 127:5 153:1
typed (1) 153:16 utilising (1) 14:1 123:16,23 125:21,22 126:3 127:15,18 63:10,19 72:5,9 73:9 71:12,12 72:5 77:4,19 1924 (1) 132:20
types (3) 25:4,6 27:14 utility (1) 114:19 waived (3) 130:16,19 131:1 128:6 132:7 76:11,20 84:4,11,21 86:1 79:20 80:12,17 81:25 86:8 1926 (1) 127:11
typographical (1) 134:17 wales (3) 61:8 166:23 177:10 134:10,15,16,18 135:2,18 87:18 88:15 89:2 90:7 88:15 92:9,22 94:7 95:22 194 (2) 3:23 45:17
V
walk (1) 57:23 136:11,15,21,22,25 137:15 93:3,10,23 95:7 99:6,24 97:10,11 100:14 101:21 196 (1) 151:20
U
v (2) 6:9 14:25 walking (1) 3:2 138:15 139:19 140:13 102:8 104:13 105:8,9,25 102:3 104:1 105:2 198 (1) 151:21

ugly (3) 138:20 139:23,24 v002 (1) 5:4 wall (1) 60:10 141:17,18 142:9 143:10,18 108:20 109:13 112:20 107:10,13 108:22 110:7,10 1983 (1) 162:23

uk (3) 6:10 101:5,11 valid (1) 88:14 walls (2) 57:7,8 144:6,24 147:10,18 113:22 115:10 116:4 111:3 114:18 115:10,12 1986 (1) 49:5

unable (4) 15:7,13 16:3,16 validate (3) 55:1 74:5 85:13 warn (1) 129:24 149:12,25 151:16 153:1,23 118:19 119:13 122:11 118:15,16 120:24 122:21 1989 (1) 162:9

unamended (1) 15:14 validated (1) 42:1 warned (2) 57:13,22 155:23 156:22 158:4,22 123:7,22 126:13,18 126:18 139:8 140:14 1990s (1) 165:14

unauthorised (2) 72:12,16 validation (2) 72:14 83:9 warning (4) 56:6 109:13 159:1,5 161:12 173:8 127:8,19 128:2 150:16,24 151:2,5 152:13 1996 (3) 114:22 165:15

unbiased (1) 148:22 valuable (2) 62:16,17 123:15 135:7 176:13 131:8,10,23 132:9 133:17 158:10,25 160:16,22,23 166:11

unbounded (1) 118:14 valued (1) 172:6 warnings (2) 2:12 57:24 whoever (1) 83:12 135:7,13,16 136:2 137:13 161:4 162:18,20,22 168:15 1997 (3) 160:15 165:16

understand (21) 3:12 17:18 variety (3) 11:8 21:15 142:24 wasnt (42) 3:23 4:8 7:8 8:12 whoevers (1) 91:25 138:5,12,24 141:1 148:16 171:24 176:21 177:16 166:11

22:6 26:17 29:22 38:15 various (11) 10:25 14:1 15:1 9:7 14:7 19:15 21:19 23:6 whole (14) 27:4 33:7 43:9 150:4,22 153:6,21 155:21 180:15 19th (1) 110:1

50:10 84:10 108:14 125:19 22:24 78:25 80:15 81:25 30:4 40:16 44:19 49:5 73:20 78:1 110:2 111:1 156:17 157:21 158:10,25 yours (7) 3:23 109:14 123:16
2
127:22 131:14 133:10,11 104:19 128:16 148:19 57:16 60:25 72:24 112:6,7 146:25 155:21 159:8 161:8 162:15 165:23 126:1 127:19 144:23 150:3

136:2 140:24 154:24 164:19 81:11,15 101:5,19 159:11 163:4 172:25 166:6,24 169:24 170:24 yourself (4) 54:24 69:20 2 (14) 20:4 24:2 38:16
163:13 181:8,21,24 vast (2) 139:1,8 105:4,14 110:2 123:9 whom (1) 8:16 172:12,25 173:12 175:7 168:23 175:6 39:12,22 40:3 43:9,15
understandable (1) 8:14 vegas (1) 76:22 124:25 125:8 130:13 whos (1) 148:17 177:1 178:5,21 179:8,14 youve (28) 2:24 6:12 19:15 54:13 93:11 105:11 114:12
understanding (5) 8:1 33:10 vehicles (1) 116:12 133:25 137:12 142:21 wife (6) 41:24 66:6 67:22 180:1 181:22 183:4 22:20 27:23 29:5 49:11 119:1 149:19
43:6 141:5 178:21 version (82) 15:14 17:4,19 146:2 152:3 157:5 158:12 74:15 75:21 89:13 wrights (3) 20:10 149:23 60:11 80:6 91:11 94:2 99:1 20 (6) 35:6 47:25 48:1 50:25
understands (1) 123:25 70:11 77:5,12,25 78:17,24 160:21 162:3,4 163:3 wifi (5) 76:25 77:1 151:22 103:1 110:6 112:22 120:20 91:5 153:2
understood (3) 34:2,6 45:2 79:4,9 81:24 82:2 83:4 164:22 165:8 167:7,14 84:5,12,14 write (14) 8:20 24:20 40:23 124:4 129:11 148:4,15 200123 (1) 118:8
undid (1) 153:18 85:3,22 86:10 87:8,14 watermark (2) 140:14 153:23 wigs (1) 110:1 71:24 91:8 97:21,21 98:22 157:22 162:25 165:6 167:2 2002 (1) 10:24
undoing (1) 154:8 91:12,17 92:1,2,16,19 watermarking (1) 139:15 wikipedia (1) 116:1 121:6 125:18 151:25 158:3 168:3 178:5 181:25,25 2003 (3) 88:9 128:23 171:2
unencrypted (2) 41:23 67:6 95:11,16 96:11 watermarks (1) 147:21 win (2) 72:1 138:10 164:22 165:9 2004 (1) 172:18
windows (7) 51:8 54:3 writing (17) 24:19,21 Z
unfortunate (1) 93:4 98:10,16,23 99:7,8 101:25 wave (1) 27:19 2005 (1) 25:11
unfortunately (6) 50:5 65:23 102:22 105:3,10,14 way (58) 1:14 14:14 17:21 77:5,12 79:4 96:11 101:25 88:15,21 98:24 117:2 2006 (9) 86:20 87:12
zafar (5) 109:8,16,22 110:19
70:22 158:23 159:14 107:23,23,25 18:6,9 20:19 22:9 30:6 witness (73) 2:12 9:9,12,16 118:13 120:4 121:14,21 88:13,13 91:21 101:13
130:18
170:22 108:11,12,15,19,24 37:21 40:15,16 47:18 48:5 13:11 14:14 15:24 20:1,10 139:12,15 140:7,9 155:22 106:8 107:16 137:11
zip (1) 154:4
university (2) 95:20 116:1 115:14,24 117:14,16,17,18 49:1,9 51:24 52:6 53:23 30:8 37:3 40:19 41:13 42:6 161:19 164:17 2007 (29) 15:15 23:9,16
zotero (3) 78:2,12,16
unix (2) 117:15 169:17 126:11 127:23,25 68:7 71:16 75:3,9,10 76:14 48:11 49:10 50:1,2,3,14 writingminisectionsofcode 47:14 48:6 53:15 58:13
unlock (1) 35:22 128:23,24,25 129:3 134:17 79:12,20 80:1 81:10 52:13,15 55:22 57:10 (1) 164:25 59:6 61:12 62:12
0
unpack (1) 5:12 136:25 141:16,17 142:3 82:1,24 83:6 84:9 86:22 58:19 59:15,21 65:24 written (10) 14:6,11,13 27:7 64:9,10,15 65:3,13 79:25
unplug (1) 36:20 143:9 144:17,23,25 90:25 97:20 99:16 108:22 67:20 73:2 75:25 80:13,20 43:16 50:10 122:17 129:9 80:1 82:14 94:20 95:25
004695 (1) 76:17
unplugged (1) 35:10 145:16,25,25 149:12 110:24 115:15 118:13,14 104:8,14 111:7 118:2 139:12,14 96:10 105:4,13,15 115:12
004723 (1) 91:10
unrelated (1) 22:25 153:20 158:15 159:21 139:22 143:16 160:16,19 121:14,21 122:9,16 123:20 wrong (19) 46:9 49:9 54:6 121:23 145:20,24 156:20
09 (2) 145:16 146:3
unsatisfactory (1) 155:2 161:23 162:9 163:19 163:5 164:17 167:10,20,21 127:5,7,8,16 129:15 130:9 79:20 81:13,20 93:18,21 2008 (19) 5:1,5 15:15 30:3
until (12) 7:22 12:25 23:14 164:21 167:22 170:21 172:1,4,12 173:11 174:2 132:17,20 136:6 140:22 104:12,14 131:25,25 132:3 82:13 83:2 86:11 101:12
1
57:9 69:17,18 75:19 88:21 176:9 177:12 179:19 181:13 154:21,23 155:5,13 137:14 138:5 142:11 103:12,23 121:23 145:16
105:4,15 178:24 182:4 versioning (3) 14:20,24 77:7 wayback (2) 108:17 115:7 157:7,22 159:4,8 162:15 148:13 156:24 169:7 1 (7) 43:10 80:19 105:11 146:3,17 156:23 158:21
unused (1) 33:4 versions (25) 14:21 ways (4) 38:16 91:4 144:15 163:9,21 165:6,15 166:9 wrote (13) 17:7 80:7 117:10 119:1 121:13 153:2 183:3 159:18 161:10 172:20
unusual (5) 38:20 48:9 88:18 15:9,20,21 16:1 20:17 26:9 148:15 168:4,12 174:5 120:5 122:14 129:13,18 10 (7) 44:4,18 89:16,18 20082009 (2) 128:11,12
103:19 115:4 67:11,18 68:1 73:11 web (14) 19:1,3 25:23,24 180:8,12,16,19 134:7 139:16 158:4 164:18 120:15 153:2,17 20089 (1) 145:20
unwisely (1) 72:19 100:15 108:16 117:13,20 78:14 83:22,22,22,23 witnesses (4) 111:16 112:1 165:3,3 1002 (2) 60:23 63:1 2009 (12) 5:20 87:12 88:12
update (6) 47:20 51:21 125:22 127:19 118:5 137:21 166:20,21 136:1 173:9 102 (1) 93:13 115:7 118:5 145:21,25
X
72:22 77:6,12 175:21 128:12,13,13 129:4 143:23 172:9 wont (2) 29:17 55:5 103 (1) 64:8 146:6,17,20 147:2 176:15
updated (9) 48:10 52:7 159:22 161:24 166:20 webbased (4) 123:11 126:9 wording (1) 90:11 1030 (3) 1:2 178:10 182:4 2010 (1) 88:11
x1 (1) 46:16
55:4,5 83:6 94:22 95:4 versus (2) 28:18 92:25 127:25 142:3 wordpad (1) 105:5 1035 (1) 1:4 2011 (4) 72:3 114:20,25
xcopy (10) 48:25 55:21
107:21 126:8 via (4) 1:14 107:4,19 108:22 wed (2) 175:19 180:2 work (33) 5:1 18:11 24:21 105 (1) 64:22 117:6
59:14,16 60:2,4 74:5
updates (1) 53:22 viable (2) 172:4 175:16 wednesday (1) 178:24 28:18,18,20,23 29:5,7 32:4 106 (2) 141:15 146:9 2012 (1) 88:11
103:21,24 104:3
uploaded (1) 46:18 viably (1) 173:11 week (8) 4:4 31:2 118:25 37:15 57:9 62:8 74:17 107 (2) 22:14 145:13 2015 (2) 158:2 175:4
xelatex (7) 143:21 145:18,22
upon (12) 12:23 27:11 29:5 video (1) 154:17 151:9 175:25 178:5,6 76:25 88:7 91:8 99:25 11 (9) 10:4,8 11:11 21:18 2016 (4) 72:4 83:25 87:15
146:11,12 147:5 148:10
58:12 62:13 71:4 80:15 videoed (1) 89:9 179:13 104:25 112:24 145:23 28:23 31:3 120:15 161:19 97:2
xia (3) 87:5,15 88:8
97:1 103:1 110:20 122:1 videos (1) 154:12 weekend (4) 2:4,23 178:9 150:20 160:15 165:14 163:9 2017 (5) 13:5 28:18 97:2
xurl (3) 106:15,18 113:4
181:7 views (4) 157:11,12,13,13 179:17 167:19 168:2,16 171:1,18 1133 (1) 42:13 103:9 107:13
xurlsty (1) 106:15
upwards (1) 10:25 violations (1) 156:7 weeks (1) 31:24 173:14 174:7,24 176:3 1142 (1) 42:15 2018 (5) 12:21 94:16 100:25
usable (2) 25:5 28:14 violently (1) 112:12 wei (1) 171:24 worked (4) 120:8 148:20 Y 117 (2) 66:22 136:14 101:7,18

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 9, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 5

2019 (16) 14:12 30:21 32:2

7
37:16 42:25 43:25
44:10,14,21 45:1 79:10
7 (4) 35:6 88:20 132:23
124:20 125:10 132:13
161:14
133:12,19
70 (2) 10:25 47:12
2020 (13) 43:4,23 44:4,18,23
71 (8) 59:3 60:20 61:11,25
45:4 77:6,12 79:4 96:11
62:4,13 74:1 95:23
102:1 125:11 132:13
714 (1) 163:24
2022 (2) 6:13 108:6
72 (1) 47:21
2023 (33) 6:16,22 9:10,22
74 (1) 58:11
10:4 12:15 13:1 21:9,18
75 (1) 58:11
31:3 46:23 47:8,25 48:1
76 (1) 51:6
51:8 64:11,18 65:1,4 73:20
76b (1) 53:11
74:22 78:2,4,7,11 79:18
76c (1) 54:2
121:13 123:4,9,18 124:8
77 (3) 55:19 59:1,1
134:7 135:22
78 (2) 42:21 43:4
2024 (3) 1:1 43:11 182:5
79 (2) 42:21 43:4
20something (1) 75:16
215 (1) 121:3
8
22 (2) 35:14 153:2
23 (5) 13:11 35:14 75:17
8 (2) 43:11 156:20
96:5 138:13
80s (2) 119:25 161:25
24 (1) 153:2
82 (1) 82:10
25 (2) 68:19 161:15
8485 (1) 162:3
26 (4) 1:8 58:9 64:9 178:12
85 (1) 162:3
27 (3) 59:1 123:9 124:8
29 (3) 134:7 135:19 168:6
9

3 9 (10) 1:1 24:6 43:4,23

44:4,18,23 45:4 156:20
3 (9) 27:24 62:22 81:2 119:1
172:21
134:13 148:24 173:13
90s (3) 139:19 160:9 166:16
183:4,5
92b (1) 105:6
30 (6) 54:16 57:5 60:13
93b (1) 105:14
86:20 152:7 168:23
93d (1) 60:14
304 (1) 135:10
97 (13) 23:24 24:3,7 25:5
30th (1) 54:20
28:3,22,23 61:25 67:9,16
31 (10) 23:9 50:21 53:15
68:1 74:1 171:2
54:15 59:6 64:1,10,16
99 (1) 64:1
133:19 143:7
9998 (1) 67:1
313 (1) 135:12
31st (1) 54:19
32 (3) 10:17 64:8 170:25
33 (3) 64:22 144:1 171:12
34 (1) 10:17
37 (1) 66:22
38 (1) 145:13

4 (5) 149:19 153:2 164:18

165:21 166:5
400 (1) 166:2
406 (1) 166:4
4076 (2) 43:13 44:6
4077 (2) 43:4 44:6
4078 (1) 44:6
4079 (2) 43:13 44:6
41 (3) 67:8 70:4 92:15
42 (1) 70:10
429 (1) 182:3
44 (2) 64:9,15
46th (2) 91:16 94:8
47 (1) 96:24

5 (13) 4:10 13:19,24

39:12,13 40:3 47:14 81:2
88:9 132:18 147:8 153:2
158:22
50 (2) 110:12,17
500 (1) 32:25
53 (3) 100:23 103:18 164:8

6 (8) 13:23 20:9 30:13 58:13

64:9,15 153:2 175:4
60 (1) 152:10
64 (1) 47:5
66 (1) 138:13
67 (1) 138:21
69 (1) 120:15
6ci (1) 13:24
6cii (1) 14:19
6cviii (1) 15:6

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 6

February 12, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Thursday, 12 February 2024 1 the developers, have raised one or two targeted
2 (10.29 am) 2 questions which they, and we too, consider don’t raise
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So, a better temperature. 3 issues of privilege and are more in the nature of chain
4 MR HOUGH: Very much more comfortable, my Lord. 4 of custody questions in relation to the White Paper
5 Housekeeping 5 LaTeX files. I understand that Mr Gunning may want
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Just one thing from me. Three emails 6 those addressed more promptly, but certainly before he
7 were received over the weekend. I think they were all 7 asks questions, but I think he’s taking instructions and
8 forwarded to the parties . The first one was from 8 may be able to update the court at lunch time.
9 Christen Ager−Hanssen offering a witness statement in 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
10 response to the allegations made against him last week. 10 MR HOUGH: I don’t know whether any of my learned friends
11 The second was from Steve Shadders, attaching 11 wants to say anything after me in relation to that.
12 a witness statement, again in response, but I haven’t 12 LORD GRABINER: My friend Mr Hough’s summary is quite
13 read that. 13 correct .
14 And the third is from a Mr Bunge(?) from Canada 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
15 relating to a trademark, but I don’t think we need to 15 Well, if I may say so, I think you’ve been dealing
16 spend time on that. 16 with these issues of privilege very satisfactorily so
17 As I −− I asked my clerk to acknowledge 17 far , but of course, if you reach an impasse, then I’ ll
18 Mr Ager−Hanssen’s email, but to explain that this is an 18 have to rule on that. Good.
19 adversarial system, not inquisitorial , so it ’s up to 19 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued)
20 the parties to decide what evidence they wish to lead. 20 Right. Good morning, Dr Wright.
21 So I will leave that in your capable hands. 21 A. Morning, my Lord.
22 MR HOUGH: Thank you, my Lord. 22 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued)
23 My Lord, we have a couple of matters to raise from 23 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, on Friday, I had started to ask you
24 the bar. Following Dr Wright’s evidence on Friday 24 about your early work and we covered your work at
25 afternoon, Bird & Bird wrote to Shoosmiths two letters, 25 OzEmail and work through DeMorgan; do you recall?

1 3

1 raising a number of questions about communications he 1 A. I do.

2 claimed to have had with his lawyers. Shoosmiths 2 Q. Is it right , you mentioned this briefly , that in 1997 to
3 responded promptly raising issues of privilege . 3 1998, certainly you worked or did some work for
4 My Lord, it’s been agreed, including in 4 the Australian Stock Exchange?
5 a constructive call I had with Lord Grabiner last night, 5 A. I did.
6 these issues are best considered after Dr Wright has 6 Q. May we put on screen {L2/102/3}.
7 left the witness box this week, or at least after he’s 7 Dr Wright, this is a section from your CV while you
8 finished answering my questions, and his team can 8 were at BDO, or at least the one we have; do you see
9 properly take instructions . 9 that?
10 My Lord, in the same call, Lord Grabiner told me 10 A. I do.
11 that some further matters had arisen on which he needed 11 Q. According to this document, your work at
12 to take instructions from Dr Wright, which might require 12 the Australian Stock Exchange was summarised in
13 Shoosmiths to supply further information or material. 13 the following way:
14 He couldn’t say more and felt that those matters, too, 14 ”Craig was chosen to design and implement security
15 were best left to be addressed after Dr Wright has 15 systems for the Australian Stock Exchange. These
16 finished answering at least my questions and we’re 16 involved:
17 entirely content with that course. 17 ”Creating organisational roles ,
18 In addition, Lord Grabiner informed me this morning 18 ”Creating business strategies ,
19 that Dr Wright’s wife has found a box of papers at their 19 ”Defining the positions based on the business
20 home which she is bringing in today for Shoosmiths to 20 strategies ,
21 consider. Obviously we can’t go further as to what may 21 ”Creating job descriptions based on the proposed
22 follow from that. 22 positions ,
23 So, that’s what the parties have agreed, subject to 23 ”Developing individual development plans ...”
24 the court’s view. 24 And so on:
25 There is a separate point, that MacFarlanes, or 25 ”Creation of performance indicators ... ”

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Do you see that? 1 website?

2 A. I do. 2 A. I do.
3 Q. And then: 3 Q. And if we go to the middle of the page and maximise
4 ”In this position Craig was required to: 4 the section , ”What about ’security cowboys’ ...”
5 ”Provide technical advice on highly complex security 5 It says:
6 matters to other areas of [Australian Stock Exchange] 6 ”What about ’security cowboys’ in the 90s? Back
7 ”Supervise the activities of staff involved in 7 then it seemed that the security methodology was to
8 supporting the Internet Gateway. 8 download some security tool that compiled on a Sun 3,
9 ”Supervise the activities of the Security Consulting 9 how were those times for you?”
10 and Design Teams. 10 Do you see that?
11 ”Provide security consulting for more complex 11 A. I do.
12 situations .” 12 Q. Then second line of your response:
13 Do you see that? 13 ”The biggest change for me was taking a role in
14 A. I do. 14 the Australian Stock Exchange where I managed
15 Q. So that’s how your CV from the time, or at least the one 15 the firewalls and other security devices.”
16 we have, described that job; correct? 16 Do you see that?
17 A. No, that’s a marketing document by BDO. There were 17 A. Yes.
18 actually four or five of these, depending on which 18 Q. Then down to the final line of that answer:
19 stage, and the one that I sent to Gavin talks about 19 ”More than anything else, the ASX taught me
20 high end C++ design and the integration of a number of 20 the benefits of a well planned project. I also learnt
21 complex algorithms. Each of these were designed for 21 VMS. The ASX beat the cowboy out of me.”
22 the particular role , so they were for marketing my −− my 22 Dr Wright, just this question: which is right , did
23 skills and sort of techniques that I used. 23 you end up with the ASX because you had extensive
24 The one that focused on GARCH areas, time series, 24 experience of VMS, or did you learn VMS while working
25 C++ coding, in−depth code analysis, etc, is a different 25 with the ASX?

5 7

1 resumé, and none of this, of course, mentions any of 1 A. Both, actually . The difference was I was a cowboy.
2 the situation , like NIPPA, which was an early 2 I had learned and used the systems on my own, I’d run
3 peer−to−peer network for the brokers. 3 them with universities and I’d also accessed in an
4 Q. {L11/130/7}, please, top of the page. 4 academic level. Unfortunately, that is what I would
5 This is a capture, Dr Wright, of your LinkedIn 5 call ”cowboy”; it isn ’ t professional . I learned how to
6 profile from 2015. Do you accept that that profile 6 manage, run and implement systems on VMS at
7 described the job as, top of the page?: 7 a professional level , not as a cowboy.
8 ”Security, Firewalls and IDS.” 8 Q. Dr Wright, there’s a clear contradiction , isn ’ t there,
9 A. Yes, which included the security of the NIPPA system −− 9 between saying I had extensive experience in something
10 Q. Pause there. All I ’m asking you is what this said , 10 before I got a job and then saying I learnt it when
11 Dr Wright. I’ ll follow up in a moment. 11 I got the job?
12 IDS is intrusion detection systems, isn ’ t it ? 12 A. No, actually , it ’s not. Once again, there’s a very big
13 That’s what the abbreviation means? 13 difference between someone who works in academic
14 A. It is . 14 circles . I sort of accessed and ran it while I was at
15 Q. Now, on Friday, you told us this −− and I’m quoting 15 University of Queensland, I was part of the computer
16 {Day5/169:15} and following: 16 club there that actually managed some of these systems
17 ”The reason I ended up with 17 in the computer lab area, and I had also been running
18 the Australian Stock Exchange was I had extensive 18 them for −− running a MUD and −− multi−user dungeon−type
19 experience in VMS and Digital UNIX ...” 19 environment with a BBS earlier in an early ISP. Now,
20 Do you recall saying that? 20 running something like that in an amateur sense gives
21 A. I do. 21 you skills , but it ’s nowhere near the level of what you
22 Q. {L3/35/1}, please. 22 need for professionalism .
23 Just looking at this document, Dr Wright, do you 23 Q. Moving on, in your witness statement, you describe
24 recognise this as the publication in April 2008 of an 24 DeMorgan being engaged by Lasseter’s Online Casino and
25 interview with you on the SANS Technology Institute 25 you working on that project; do you recall ?

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 A. I do. 1 correctly .
2 Q. Lasseter’s closed in 2008, didn’t it ? 2 Q. So it ’s a record of regular tasks performed by DeMorgan
3 A. I believe so. 3 for Lasseter’s?
4 Q. Returning to your −− the CV from your time at BDO that 4 A. No, just the operation team.
5 we have {L2/102/1}. Over to page 2, at the top 5 Q. We can take that off screen now.
6 {L2/102/2}: 6 In your witness statement you say that you, and
7 ”Career highlights . 7 I quote {E/1/9}:
8 ”Although developing the security measures for 8 ” ... conceptualised various token systems ...
9 the ASX was one of the early highlights of his career , 9 [which] were intended to function as digital cash ... ”
10 Craig also distinguished himself by designing 10 But that Lasseter’s closed before your ideas could
11 the security architecture and environment for 11 be implemented. Do you recall saying that?
12 Lasseter’s On−Line Casino ...” 12 A. I do.
13 That’s how the job was described in this CV, wasn’t 13 Q. Now, just this question, focusing on the question:
14 it , Dr Wright? 14 there’s nothing about digital cash work for Lasseter’s
15 A. Yes, designing the security architecture , which meant 15 in your LinkedIn profile , the BDO CV or the McCormack
16 completely rebuilding and architecting new systems that 16 statement, is there?
17 didn’t exist before. 17 A. No, that’s not correct . When I stated ”architecture”,
18 Q. {L17/41/1}, please. 18 that meant the whole environment. So, at that point,
19 Do you recognise this as your first witness 19 I hadn’t actually created a digital cash system that
20 statement from your libel action against 20 worked for them. What I had done was architect
21 Peter McCormack? 21 a logging solution that was effectively token−based. We
22 A. I do. 22 had a hash chain−based system for the logs that ran on
23 Q. Page 4, please {L17/41/4}, paragraph 10: 23 a binary tree structure . Each of the logs were then put
24 ”I also worked on systems that protected 24 into a series of rounds and every hour or so the −−
25 the Australian Stock Exchange and have trained 25 the block of log information would be sent. This would

9 11

1 Australian government and corporate departments in 1 enable the Northern Territory government, over a slow
2 SCADA, security, cyber warfare, and cyber defence. In 2 line that was often congested, to always know that
3 one of my early sector focuses, I helped design 3 the logs couldn’t be changed and when they had the full
4 the architecture for the world’s first legal online 4 copy of them, the integrity could be trusted.
5 casino ... and advised Centrebet on security and control 5 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to ask you the question again.
6 systems.” 6 Digital cash, the words or system ”digital cash”, didn’t
7 Do you see that? 7 appear in any of those documents, did it?
8 A. I do. 8 A. Not in a one liner , no, but ”architecture” includes
9 Q. And that’s how you described those jobs in your witness 9 that.
10 statement in that action, isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? 10 Q. And there isn’t a single document you’ve ever disclosed
11 A. Yes. I didn’t go into any detail about what I set up or 11 setting out a proposal for digital cash to Lasseter’s,
12 how I architected it . 12 is there?
13 Q. {L1/52/1}, please. 13 A. No, that’s not correct . I ’ve noted multiple times that
14 Dr Wright, this is a document which is dated in 14 there are token−based systems. I have −−
15 the system 1 May 2002, attached to a call appointment 15 Q. Pause there, Dr Wright. The question was: there isn’t
16 involving you. Do you recognise the document? 16 a single document setting out a proposal by you for
17 A. I do. 17 digital cash to Lasseter’s, is there?
18 Q. Is it a list of tasks undertaken by you, or perhaps 18 A. Again, wrong. What I was stating is there are multiple
19 DeMorgan the business, for Lasseter’s at that time? 19 documents, I don’t know all the ID numbers. I do know,
20 A. No, this is the weekly and monthly tasks that DeMorgan 20 even from third party ones that you have access to, such
21 staff would run. So we had to build the systems and 21 as Gavin’s disclosure , Gavin’s disclosure has my other
22 maintain all of this , and like I said , we had 22 resumés, the ones that have to do with programming.
23 a distributed system so that we could ensure 23 Q. They don’t refer to digital cash work for Lasseter’s
24 the integrity of all the files , basically a distributed 24 either , do they? ”Digital cash”.
25 Tripwire, and also ensure that the logging was sent 25 A. Token systems and digital cash are different . So, apart

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 from that, I have extensively written about this online . 1 range of IT Disciplines .
2 And, no, I didn’t put ” digital cash” per se, because 2 ”Provides Training and educational services .
3 I never had it working at Lasseter’s. So while I had 3 ”Analysis of Technology contracts and legislative
4 a token system, digital cash was never implemented at 4 implications of IT policy .
5 Lasseter’s; I was trying to get it going. 5 ”Digital Forensic Services .”
6 Q. Vodafone. In your witness statement you refer to 6 Yes?
7 project work DeMorgan did for Vodafone. Do you recall 7 A. Yes.
8 that? 8 Q. And then:
9 A. I do. 9 ”In Risk and Analysis ... ”
10 Q. {L2/102/3}, please, page 3. Go towards the top of 10 There are a series of bullet points for risk
11 the page. Do you see that the last three or four bullet 11 analysis and consulting functions you had there, yes?
12 points in the top section concerning your work for −− 12 A. Correct.
13 through DeMorgan refer to: 13 Q. So that’s how your CV at BDO described your role there?
14 ”Policy creation for Vodafone Ltd. 14 A. No, again, that’s one of four, at the beginning, and
15 ”Risk assessments for Vodafone. 15 five , at the end, different CVs. This is the ”Manager,
16 ”Training and documentation of Security Audit and 16 Information Systems” role. I also had the role on top
17 review process for Vodafone Ltd.” 17 of the quantitive analysis team, CAATs etc, where
18 Yes? 18 I developed the tools and other areas. Again, because
19 A. Yes, because this is the consulting CV, not 19 Gavin has disclosed it , you have that other CV.
20 the programming or design or architecture CV. 20 Q. CAATs is computer aided audit tools, isn’t it ?
21 Q. Dr Wright, although you’ve strained to draw links in 21 A. Yes.
22 your witness statement retrospectively between these 22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, last week, you told me,
23 various jobs and Bitcoin, your own documents all 23 I think, that you didn’t prepare this CV.
24 describe these jobs as straightforward IT security 24 A. No, I did not.
25 roles , don’t they? 25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yet −−

13 15

1 A. No, that’s not correct . And, again, the resumé that you 1 A. There were different ones −−
2 have from Gavin Andresen, which is in his disclosure , 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Just wait. Yet it contains
3 because I sent it to him, details extensive high end 3 a significant amount of detail. This detail must have
4 PhD−level coding projects, many of them, in multiple 4 come from you, mustn’t it?
5 areas, including token systems and including the logging 5 A. No. I had an EA. I don’t remember her name. And
6 developed at Vodafone. As noted, Vodafone didn’t have 6 the team was −− they had a group that put it together.
7 3G back then, this is too early , and to create a logging 7 So I provided some detail to the team and they separated
8 system for Vodafone required implementing completely new 8 it into four different areas. Because I was working in
9 software. That software, of course, had to have 9 each of those areas, I headed the digital forensic
10 the integrity of all of the sends for payment, and to do 10 department, I headed the statistical analysis and fraud
11 that we had basically a hash chain−based system. 11 detection department, etc, there was a separate CV used
12 Q. Page 1 of the CV, please {L2/102/1}, now moving on to 12 for selling in each of those areas.
13 your time at BDO itself. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that you 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: But the information about your roles
14 were employed at BDO from 2004 to 2009? Yes? 14 prior to BDO must have come from you?
15 A. Well, technically , I actually left in 2008, in December, 15 A. They took it from my CV and other things that I’d told,
16 but −− 16 but what they did was they extracted information −− my
17 Q. Your role ceased at the start of 2009 formally? 17 original one was far more detailed −− just for the role.
18 A. No, actually , I was on garden leave from December. 18 So, because I was in a consulting role in this one, they
19 Q. If we go to page 2 {L2/102/2}, the middle of this CV. 19 made it a consulting focus.
20 Now, this CV describes your role, first of all : 20 MR HOUGH: I asked you, by reference to a Quill minutes pad
21 ”In IT Craig, 21 document last week, about some meetings you said took
22 ”Manages the IT adit ...” 22 place while you were at BDO. Do you recall those
23 I think that should be ”audit”: 23 questions?
24 ” ... and consulting team. 24 A. I do.
25 ”Provides reviews, audits and consulting on a wide 25 Q. May we have on screen {O4/12/4}, please.

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Dr Wright, this is the transcript of an interview 1 ”Not long−term. It was successful in that Alan
2 conducted by −− for CoinGeek in Toronto in June 2019, 2 arranged other meetings with other people in BDO ...”
3 between you and Jimmy Nguyen. Do you remember that? 3 Do you see that?
4 A. I ’m not sure which one it was. I ’ve done many. 4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Middle of page, by letter D, you were asked about 5 Q. And then you were asked to identify those people, and
6 working on Bitcoin while at BDO. 6 you mentioned ”Judith”, ”Neville Sinclair” and somebody
7 A. Yes. 7 called ”Ian”?
8 Q. And the transcript records you saying this : 8 A. Yes.
9 ”I actually sort of tried to talk some of the people 9 Q. So is it right that, on your account, all those people
10 into [some] of my projects in BDO. I ended up having 10 knew about your pitch for BDO to provide funding for
11 one of my partners, Allen Granger was a director of some 11 the Bitcoin System?
12 of my companies for a while, but I had approached 12 A. Well, no, it wasn’t called Bitcoin back then. What
13 the company and I wanted to bring this into BDO. I said 13 I was talking about was a hash−based audit system that
14 it would be great for audit. And I tried to explain 14 would tokenise all of this using an economic security
15 that for a few servers we could get this stuff up that 15 model. So, I would have talked about ”Timechain”, or
16 I ’d developed, and they said, ’What the fuck? We’re 16 a similar name, not Bitcoin.
17 auditors . Go away’.” 17 Q. Do you accept that none of those people has ever come
18 Is that the account you gave in that interview? 18 forward and given an interview or evidence in court
19 A. Yes, I was paraphrasing, they didn’t actually use that 19 recalling you pitching a digital currency system, or
20 language. 20 anything like the Bitcoin System, to BDO?
21 Q. Next, please, {O2/11/10}, please. 21 A. No. Neville Sinclair was actually in court and said
22 This is the transcript of your evidence in 22 that I pitched the system. On top of that, each of
23 the Granath hearing. Page 33 internally , which is 23 the other people had been trolled extensively .
24 the bottom left quadrant, if we can maximise that, from 24 Allan Granger, I know, doesn’t want to give evidence,
25 line 12. 25 because he has had death threats, both to him and his

17 19

1 Do you recall being asked in the Granath trial about 1 wife, from a multitude of people, and as such, he
2 this subject and the minutes pad we looked at earlier? 2 doesn’t want to say anything. He was a director of
3 A. I do. 3 a company that was running Bitcoin research for several
4 Q. And you refer to a meeting with Mr Granger, at line 14, 4 years , so he was heavily involved.
5 and then line 20, you’re recorded as saying that, having 5 Q. Dr Wright, take this in stages. First of all , I suggest
6 started the Bitcoin White Paper, you were hoping that 6 to you, and the court can make its own mind up on
7 BDO would fund aspects of the Bitcoin System; correct? 7 the basis of Mr Sinclair ’s transcript , but in
8 A. I do. 8 the Granath trial , Mr Sinclair made it very clear that
9 Q. Moving on to page 35, line 10, you were asked this: 9 he had no recollection of discussing a prospective
10 ”Was that partly the purpose of this meeting, to 10 E cash system with you, right?
11 have these funds and these resources at your disposal?” 11 A. No. As I’ve noted multiple times, Timecoin was
12 And do you recall saying: 12 the system I was trying to run. Bitcoin is only
13 ”That was 100% the meaning of this meeting.” 13 the economic system behind it. It’s like crypto credits
14 A. That’s why I wanted it, yes. 14 in BlackNet. So, Bitcoin is not the end game, Bitcoin
15 Q. Go to the next page, please, internal page 36 15 is probably 0.01 of what I’m building, my Lord. Now,
16 {O2/11/11}, lines 18 and following. You were asked 16 what I’m building does not work unless I have an
17 whether the meeting was successful; do you see that? 17 economically viable system behind it, micro payments,
18 Sorry, this is line 17. I ’m so sorry. 18 etc. So the system that I was building, timestamped,
19 A. On left or right , sorry? 19 recorded information, had distributed integrity
20 Q. Sorry, page 36, on the left , line 17: 20 monitoring for files , etc. But to do that, I need
21 ”Was this a successful meeting in the sense of did 21 Bitcoin, scaled.
22 you get this funding?” 22 Q. As well as no witnesses in support of this pitch, would
23 Do you see that? 23 you accept that you have never, with the exception of
24 A. Yes. 24 the Quill document, put forward a single document to
25 Q. And do you see that you’re recorded as answering: 25 support this pitch having taken place?

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 A. No, and I’ve also talked to Ignatius Pang −− 1 dissertation . It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that you undertook
2 Q. Just pause there. Are you agreeing with me or 2 your LLM from 2006 and it was awarded in May 2008?
3 disagreeing when I say that you’ve never put forward 3 A. I believe I actually started in 2005, but the initial
4 a single document to support the pitch to BDO, other 4 stuff was just foundational.
5 than the Quill document that I’ve put to you is 5 Q. I ’ve addressed the dissertation and the proposal
6 a forgery? 6 document. I now want to address another point
7 A. Again, I have also discussed this with Ignatius Pang −− 7 concerning the content of the dissertation . May we go
8 Q. Sorry, Dr Wright, that’s not an answer to the question. 8 to {D/490/2}, or it’s also at {L18/377/2}.
9 The question is that you’ve never put forward a single 9 Now, this is an article exhibited to
10 document, other than that Quill page, which I’ve put to 10 Hilary Pearson’s witness statement entitled:
11 you is a forgery , in support of the pitch to BDO, have 11 ”Craig Wright’s LLM Dissertation is Full of
12 you? 12 Plagiarism.”
13 A. I will quote myself at [ draft ] line 4. No, and I’ve 13 Dr Wright, I understand from your statements in
14 also talked to Ignatius Pang. 14 the Tulip Trading case that you have read this article ;
15 If , my Lord, I can finish my sentence, I would like 15 is that correct?
16 to say that I discussed with members at BDO some of 16 A. Yes, I ’ve read the article by Greg Maxwell.
17 these things, and that is noted in some of my written 17 Q. Page 5 {L18/377/5}. On the left, the article presents
18 documents. Ignatius also mentioned that he discussed 18 text from your LLM dissertation. Would you agree that
19 this with other people at BDO, including Steve Atkinson 19 it is an accurate representation, just in terms of
20 and Sonny Susilo. Now, in that, not only does he recall 20 the text , of your dissertation ?
21 some of those documents, but those other people were 21 Because if not, we can put your dissertation
22 involved as well . 22 alongside it .
23 Q. We’ll hear from Mr Pang later, but I put to you that he 23 A. Please do.
24 doesn’t describe, in his witness statement for this 24 Q. Okay. Let’s use the one you say you got back from
25 case, or anywhere else, seeing documents pitching 25 the university {CSW/28/16}. We can do a comparison

21 23

1 a Bitcoin System to BDO. 1 between the highlighted text on the left of the screen
2 A. Again, I never called it Bitcoin, my Lord. I had 2 and your document, if you’d like.
3 Timecoin. What I was talking about was a binary tree 3 (Pause).
4 system that has a hash chain structure that ensures 4 Do you agree that it’s an accurate representation,
5 the integrity of data using an economic security model. 5 just in terms of the text?
6 So, where we’re, well , misrepresenting my terms by 6 A. Yes, I do.
7 saying, ”You didn’t call it Bitcoin”, is because 7 Q. On the right in the article {L18/377/5}, it presents
8 I didn’t go out to market with Bitcoin. And even with 8 some text from a 1996 paper from Ms Pearson called,
9 my clients, ones like Qudos, like Centrebet, I didn’t 9 ” Liability of Internet Service Providers”. Do you agree
10 sell them on the concept of Bitcoin, I sold them on 10 that that’s a representation of −− an accurate
11 Timecoin, an extended commercialised version of Bitcoin 11 representation , just in terms of text , of her document?
12 that integrated security logging, that integrated IDS, 12 A. I do.
13 that integrated the management of all of the logging and 13 Q. We can take off the document that isn’t highlighted,
14 security of their system. 14 just so that we can see the one highlighted more
15 Q. Dr Wright, where’s the glitzy PowerPoint pack all about 15 clearly .
16 Timecoin, pitching it to BDO? 16 Ms Pearson’s evidence is that the text from her
17 A. There is a paper in there, and I don’t do glitzy 17 paper is her own work, something she prepared and in her
18 PowerPoint packs, never have. So where is 18 own style. That’s, for everyone’s reference {C/3/3},
19 the PowerPoint pack? I have never created a glitzy 19 paragraph 12. We don’t need that on screen. Do you
20 PowerPoint in my life. I ’ve done text based ones, other 20 accept that or do you dispute it?
21 people have done them, marketing people have done them. 21 A. No, I accept it .
22 Even for my academic presentations, I have never created 22 Q. Now, comparing the two highlighted sections of her paper
23 one of those PowerPoints ever. Other people have given 23 and the two highlighted sections of your paper, do you
24 them for me. 24 accept that they are identical , except, I think, for
25 Q. Moving on chronologically to your LLM thesis, your LLM 25 using an ”S”, rather than a ”Z” in the word

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 ”analogises”. 1 same topics multiple times.

2 A. I do. 2 Q. In your article , you cite a Mann and Bezley article from
3 Q. Can we go to page 6, please {L18/377/6}. 3 2005, don’t you?
4 Do we see here a further comparison between your 4 A. I do.
5 work and hers, with sections shaded in different colours 5 Q. Ms Pearson’s work, unless you dispute her evidence, came
6 to show the comparisons being drawn between them? Do 6 from 1996, didn’t it ?
7 you see that? 7 A. Yes, and both of them discussed the same issues.
8 A. I do. 8 Ms Pearson’s work didn’t come up properly because it’s
9 Q. Do you accept that the sections in equivalent colours on 9 not actually an academic thing, it ’s a blog. So while
10 each side of the middle dividing line are actually or 10 that should be cited, EndNote didn’t include it
11 virtually identical with each other? 11 properly. One of the versions of my document did
12 A. Yes, the footnotes are actually referenced footnotes. 12 include it , but the other one didn’t. This was brought
13 Q. But the text of each colour−coded passage is actually or 13 up by Mr Maxwell, Paintedfrog, and sent to
14 virtually identical between the two sides, isn ’ t it ? 14 the university with a complaint, the university
15 A. Yes, because it ’s a referenced footnote, that’s why it’s 15 investigated it and dismissed the claims of plagiarism .
16 not in my text. So the footnote itself is a third party 16 Q. Well, this court isn ’ t bound by what the university
17 area where I’ve actually referenced that. 17 decided, so I ’m going to ask you afresh about this.
18 Q. Page 7, please {L18/377/7}, under 18 The initial versions of your dissertation which were
19 the heading ”Defamation”. Again, I’m taking this 19 produced did not credit Ms Pearson at all, did they?
20 relatively briskly , because I know you’ve read this 20 A. No, the initial versions actually did. The update
21 article , but looking at these sections , would you accept 21 removed her in part because when I use EndNote at the
22 that there are another series of sections which contain 22 time it doesn’t always automatically update these. It
23 passages that are actually or virtually identical ? 23 was noted in the footnote, but not in the bibliography,
24 A. No, they’re different , and these ones were actually 24 so that was a mistake I made. So while her name was
25 referenced from Mann and Bezley. 25 noted in footnotes, it was not put in the bibliography

25 27

1 Q. Pausing here, let ’s look at an example. On the left, if 1 of the document.

2 you look at the bright purple: 2 Q. Dr Wright, there are in this article , and we looked −−
3 ”The court determined that Prodigy was a publisher 3 in your dissertation , we looked particularly from
4 as they implemented editorial control over the contents 4 the first page we considered, there are chunks which are
5 of the ’Money Talk’ site. As the editors used screening 5 identical to Ms Pearson’s not quoted, not in quotation
6 software to eliminate offensive and obscene postings and 6 marks and not referenced; correct?
7 ... a moderator to manage the site, they could be held 7 A. In that version , yes. The other version actually had it
8 accountable for the posting of a defamatory statement.” 8 −− what do you call it −− in italics and referenced.
9 Do you see that? 9 Q. In italics , you say?
10 A. I do. And that text is also referenced and discussed in 10 A. Yes.
11 Mann and Bezley, the main paper that I used. 11 Q. In quotation marks?
12 Q. That isn’t in quotation marks, is it ? 12 A. No, in italics . Italics actually works for block text .
13 A. It ’s not in quotation marks because it is a paraphrase. 13 Q. Dr Wright, far from your LLM dissertation representing
14 Q. Over on the right: 14 inventive thinking of a very high order, pre−figuring
15 ”The court decided that Prodigy was instead 15 the Bitcoin White Paper, these colour−coded passages
16 a publisher because the evidence showed that it 16 show that, in large parts , it was made up of plagiarism,
17 exercised control over the contents of the ’Money Talk’ 17 wasn’t it ?
18 bulletin board, including the use of screening software 18 A. No, that’s not correct .
19 to remove offensive ( primarily obscene) postings and 19 Q. {L7/408.1/1}, please.
20 the employment of a ’Board Leader’ to administer 20 If you need a C reference, it ’s 00003536. There we
21 the board, and therefore could be liable for any 21 go.
22 defamatory statements on its board.” 22 Dr Wright, do you recognise this as an
23 There is a clear parallel , isn ’ t there? 23 Infosec Island article by you, dated 16 September 2011?
24 A. Yes, as there is in Mann and Bezley as well. Each 24 A. I do.
25 author, and several others, have discussed each of these 25 Q. Page 2, please {L7/408.1/2}. Under the heading,

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 ”Plagiarism can be no different to receiving stolen 1 statement in the Tulip Trading case?
2 intellectual property”; do you see that? 2 A. I do.
3 A. I do. 3 Q. That was a statement supporting an application to serve
4 Q. And do you see that you wrote: 4 the proceedings out of the jurisdiction , so an ex parte
5 ”Plagiarism varies in its extent. It goes from 5 application , Dr Wright; correct?
6 simply rephrasing the ideas of another without 6 A. Yes.
7 referencing your sources right through to the literal 7 Q. Page 30, please {S1/1.9/30}.
8 block copy of paragraphs of text and the theft of entire 8 You signed that under a statement of truth with
9 passages. 9 a contempt warning, didn’t you?
10 ”This literal copying is a form of fraud and theft. 10 A. I did.
11 In some cases, the aim is not an accidental 11 Q. Page 21 {S1/1.9/21}:
12 unacknowledged phrase but deception. The author wants 12 ”Section E: Full and Frank disclosure.”
13 to use of works of another as their own.” 13 You would have understood the importance of giving
14 You wrote those words, did you? 14 truly full and honest information in this section of
15 A. I did. 15 a statement used for an ex parte application , wouldn’t
16 Q. And in the dissertation which we were looking at, which 16 you, Dr Wright?
17 was the one the university held and sent back to you, 17 A. I do.
18 you were engaging in literal block copy of paragraphs of 18 Q. Page 28, please {S1/1.9/28}, you address accusations of
19 text and the theft of entire passages, weren’t you? 19 academic plagiarism from paragraph 97, don’t you?
20 A. No. What happened was, after it went through the edit 20 A. I do.
21 process, the editor didn’t use EndNote, and the other 21 Q. You reference the Paintedfrog article specifically at
22 copy that I had that did reference this was dropped. 22 paragraph 97, don’t you?
23 Now, that was an error that I am apologetic for. 23 A. Yes, I reference Greg Maxwell at that point.
24 I didn’t notice it . But with approximately just under 24 Q. Paragraph 98:
25 200 references and several hundred pages, I did miss 25 ”I did not plagiarise other people’s work when

29 31

1 this one. The reason I missed it was that the EndNote 1 preparing these texts . Broadly speaking my response to
2 software at the time didn’t handle blogs terribly well . 2 the allegations are (amongst other things) (i) a number
3 Now it does, and Zotero does it far better . So when 3 of the alleged examples of plagiarism concern common
4 you’re using automatic citation tools , sometimes these 4 terms or common words, for which I say it is not
5 lose things. I ’m not making that an excuse; I should 5 necessary to credit other authors; ( ii ) a number of
6 have checked it better myself, and I should have 6 the alleged examples of plagiarism concern graphs and
7 validated that all of the changes were done correctly, 7 diagrams, which I say are commonly used and therefore
8 but I didn’t . 8 that it is not necessary to credit other authors; ( iii )
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can I just ask you, Dr Wright, when you 9 in some cases I was asked by the academic institution to
10 say the ”EndNote software ... didn’t handle blogs 10 reduce the size of my thesis and that led to me omitting
11 terribly well”, how on earth would that have affected 11 footnotes and references to other authors; and (iv)
12 the presentation of the text in your dissertation ? 12 I was not trying to claim credit for basic and/or
13 A. Ms Pearson didn’t have a paper, she had a blogpost. 13 foundational concepts.”
14 Now, I’d referenced that initially and I’d put it in 14 You see that?
15 the system, but when it was sent to the editor −− and 15 A. I do.
16 I used an editing service −− it came back and I didn’t 16 Q. Dr Wright, in the sections we looked at, you directly
17 notice that that had been removed. What then happened 17 copied whole passages, not just common terms or words,
18 was, the version that I ’ve got where it is block quoted 18 or graphs and diagrams, didn’t you?
19 lost that quoting and the name −− well, her material was 19 A. No, what I’d actually done is I had a block quote −− and
20 sort of no longer, well , footnoted and quoted. 20 the version online has the block quote −− the block
21 That is on my, sort of, bad for missing that, but it 21 quote was referencing Ms Pearson. The distinction is
22 wasn’t something that I was aiming to intentionally do, 22 that her ideas are very different to mine and also Mann
23 it was originally in the document. 23 and Bezley. So while I did quote her initially , as it
24 Q. May we have {S1/1.9/1}, please, on the screen. 24 states here, when I sent it to the editors with a note
25 Do you recognise this as your first witness 25 to remove some of the material to get it under the word

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 count and just to restructure it , etc, some of that was 1 section of the statement, was that quotation marks and
2 omitted. 2 footnotes were lost because you were reducing the size,
3 Now, I have noted that I am apologetic for that, and 3 no reference to it being an editor ’s fault ; correct?
4 the version that is online is the one with her name in 4 A. I ’m not blaming the editor, I ’m blaming myself. When
5 it . 5 I got the editorial back, I should have gone through it
6 Q. Dr Wright, just to be clear , an excuse about being asked 6 in more detail. I didn’t . I was very busy at the time,
7 to reduce size doesn’t explain any of the points we’ve 7 and while that’s not an excuse, I missed the changes.
8 looked at, because adding quotation marks and footnotes 8 Q. Dr Wright, in denying plagiarism here, you were telling
9 shouldn’t cause a problem on that score, should it? 9 a lie in a statement with a contempt warning, weren’t
10 A. No, actually , it does. So, when you’re sending to an 10 you?
11 editor , my Lord, Zotero and EndNote have their own 11 A. No, actually , I ’m not. I was actually going in there
12 macros, and if the editing people aren’t using them, it 12 and noting that this had been said, fully alerting
13 means they can be dropped. When loaded back into 13 the court to all of these issues . So, rather than hide
14 the software, sometimes these things go missing. So, 14 it , I was open to the court right from the beginning.
15 yes, I am apologetic about not having that, but as 15 Q. Being aware that this is an issue that’s been raised in
16 I said , I didn’t notice that happened. 16 these proceedings, have you ever disclosed any
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Who were the editors? 17 correspondence with the editor to support your version
18 A. I can’t remember the name. I −− I use First Editing, 18 of events?
19 and I have for a number of years, but there was a woman 19 A. No, but the online version with the referencing is
20 in Australia , I need to look up −− I could look up her 20 available and that’s also one of the ones in evidence.
21 name over lunch, if you want, my Lord. I haven’t spoken 21 It is the longer version .
22 to her since 2010/11. 22 Q. Well, Dr Wright, we’re not going to agree about
23 MR HOUGH: Can we just go to the next page {S1/1.9/29} to 23 the order in which the versions were produced, so I’ ll
24 see that paragraph 98 is the only paragraph where you 24 move on from that.
25 set out any excuses in that witness statement. 25 May we then turn to address your actual activities

33 35

1 Then back to the previous page {S1/1.9/28}. Would 1 from 2007 to early 2009, based on the documentary
2 you accept that paragraph 98 of this statement is 2 record. You’ve told us that you were working at BDO
3 the only place in which you provide explanations here 3 until November or December of 2008, right?
4 for the accusations of plagiarism , including in 4 A. Yes.
5 the Paintedfrog article ? 5 Q. So for the years 2007 and 2008, you were doing
6 A. I don’t think it ’s listed anywhere else, but, yes, 6 a full −time job at BDO, right?
7 I noted it . 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I ’m just saying that this is the only place where you 8 Q. And during those years, you were also working on your
9 give explanations in this statement, isn’ t it ? 9 LLM, which included assignments, as well as your 90−page
10 A. In this statement, yes. 10 dissertation ; correct?
11 Q. With the exception of the reduction of size point, none 11 A. And two other masters degrees, and running a farm, and
12 of these four excuses corresponds to the excuse you’ve 12 running Ridge Estates where I had clients.
13 given today, does it? 13 Q. One of those masters was your MStat course at
14 A. No, actually , as it states here, ”omitting footnotes and 14 the University of Newcastle which had assignments
15 references”. So, some of those didn’t get updated 15 through 2007 to 2009, didn’t it?
16 correctly . 16 A. That’s correct .
17 Q. That’s point ( iii ), the size point, Dr Wright. 17 Q. During this period, you were also working towards
18 The other −− setting that aside −− and we’ll come to it 18 a series of GIAC cybersecurity qualifications , weren’t
19 −− return to it in a moment, setting that aside, none of 19 you?
20 the other points corresponds to the excuses you’ve given 20 A. Yes, that’s correct .
21 today, does it? 21 Q. All of those extensively documented, yes?
22 A. No, because the explanation is that exact one. So, 22 A. That’s correct .
23 stating a non sequitur, that no other explanation is an 23 Q. You delivered presentations at various events,
24 answer, well , the answer’s right there. 24 including , I think, presenting at a conference in India
25 Q. The explanation, as you put it there in that important 25 in December 2008, right?

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 A. That’s correct as well . 1 ”I guess the first question would be to find out
2 Q. You were blogging regularly on IT security issues with 2 what is on offer .
3 a specialist blog entitled , ”Cracked inSecure and 3 ”What I am really looking for is a role consisting
4 Generally Broken”, right? 4 of the following aspects:
5 A. Yes. I actually had one of my staff members load them, 5 ”Security Evangelist
6 but I would write, like now. 6 ”Security researcher
7 Q. By our records −− and of course blogposts aren’t always 7 ”Teacher/mentor
8 reliable −− you posted 269 articles on that blog in 2008 8 ” Ideally I am looking for $140k to a $165k package.
9 alone; is that right? 9 This depends on what is involved etc. I could find
10 A. Yes. In ’07 and ’08, I posted around that level every 10 something in a Uni for less , but this means that I would
11 year. ’09 and ’10, I dropped and it was down to about 11 lose out on some of what I do with the money.”
12 50. 12 Then you refer to your charities , your preferred
13 Q. In addition, in April 2008, you began delivering 13 charities :
14 chapters for that book on IT regulatory standards and 14 ”As an example, take the attached paper I have
15 compliance that we looked at briefly last week, didn’t 15 coming out in LNCS.”
16 you? 16 And then you refer, I think, to the paper you had
17 A. Yes, and eight other books. 17 worked on with Mr Kleiman; is that right?
18 Q. In September 2008, you completed, with Dave Kleiman, an 18 A. I do.
19 article entitled , ”Overwriting Hard Drive Data: 19 Q. Then dropping down two paragraphs:
20 The Great Wiping Controversy”, didn’t you? 20 ”My long term personal project and goal is to turn
21 A. And one other author. 21 IT security into a quantitative science to some extent.
22 Q. May we have {L8/177/1} on the screen, please. 22 I want to create hazard/survival models that accurately
23 Now this is a tribute you wrote to Dave Kleiman 23 reflect IT risk . I do not see this as being too
24 after he passed away in April 2013. In the third 24 difficult .”
25 paragraph you say: 25 And then reference to information you need.

37 39

1 ”We did many things that people would consider out 1 Did you write that email?
2 there. It was with Dave that I took an electron 2 A. I did.
3 microscope and tested the theory of whether you could 3 Q. In −− then {L9/420/1}, please. This is a blogpost from
4 recover data from an overwritten hard drive. This was 4 the Wayback Machine for −− sorry, that may be a wrong
5 [a] long and time−consuming project that ate 18 months 5 reference . Can we go over the page, please, {L9/420/2}.
6 of my life .” 6 And over the page again {L9/420/3}. I’ll come back to
7 Did you write that? 7 that later .
8 A. I did. 8 In January 2009, is it right that you produced
9 Q. And that was −− that paper was produced in 9 a 97−page paper for another GIAC qualification?
10 September 2008, wasn’t it? 10 A. No, I’d already written it . I submitted it then.
11 A. It is . 11 Q. I see.
12 Q. May we next have on screen {CSW/48/3}. 12 {L9/97/1}, please. This may be the reference.
13 Moving towards the end of your time at BDO, do we 13 22 January 2009, did you write a blog in these terms?
14 see here an exchange of emails you had with the SANS 14 A. I did.
15 Technology Institute? 15 Q. ”A Return to Consulting.
16 A. I do. 16 ”I am going back to consulting and contracting.
17 Q. In the middle of page 3, do we see that Mr Northcutt of 17 ”I will have more details soon, but I am going to be
18 SANS asked you about what kind of job package might 18 offering :
19 interest you? Do you see that? 19 ”Security consulting
20 A. I do. 20 ”Forensic analysis and Expert witness work
21 Q. Page 1, please {CSW/48/1}, at the bottom, you respond on 21 ”Incident handling response and training
22 24 October 2008, at the bottom? 22 ”Audit and testing
23 A. Yes. 23 ”Data recovery
24 Q. Quoting: 24 ”eDiscovery Services and consulting
25 ”Hi Stephen, 25 ”Malware analysis and research.”

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Did you therefore present to the world those as 1 is a small, 0.01% aim of Metanet, or what was BlackNet
2 being your immediate plans for work in January 2009? 2 back then. The goal isn’t Bitcoin; the goal is
3 A. Not really . That was all I did. I set up the site 3 the other 4,000 patents that I ’ve lodged in creating
4 first for Information Defense, then I set up one for 4 a unified security system, a system that will allow for
5 Integyrs . Integyrs was more code−based. Then, with 5 the secure integrity −based sort of updates of files ,
6 the number of clients that I had, I started selling 6 exchange of information, etc. So, what I’ve been
7 services , including implementing, well, an −− like, 7 creating is a system where all the information can be
8 Timecoin system, I guess, trying to get that going. 8 recorded and owned. If something changes, fonts etc,
9 Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to leverage that and make 9 the actual documentation will remain the same, where
10 any money. I sold the systems and managed them for 10 partial parts of contracts can be reused and extended,
11 Hoyts, Qudos Bank, Centrebet and others, but I’m not 11 where information such as files , movies, etc, can be
12 terribly good at commercialising. 12 exchanged, hence why I was working with companies such
13 Q. The reference I was looking for earlier {L9/420/5}, 13 as Hoyts, Hoyts being a digital cinema group. All of
14 please, a blogpost of 2 December 2008: 14 those files , that you’re forgetting were transmitted
15 ”What am I up to? 15 across the internet , were high quality , extremely
16 ”At the moment I am working on a number of things.” 16 expensive, extremely valuable digital assets .
17 And you refer to GIAC qualifications, secure coding 17 Q. Dr Wright, when Satoshi produced the White Paper and
18 exams and another masters degree, don’t you? 18 the communications that followed it, he, she, or they
19 A. I do. 19 were clear that they were presenting a digital cash,
20 Q. So Dr Wright, there is an extensive documentary record 20 digital currency, cryptocurrency, digital currency
21 of your work and academic interest between 2007 and 21 system, weren’t they?
22 early 2009, isn ’ t there? 22 A. No. As −−
23 A. Yes. 23 Q. Pause there. Pause there. You disagree?
24 Q. And for almost all that time, you were doing 24 A. I do.
25 a demanding, full−time job, masters degrees and IT 25 Q. You didn’t say, you didn’t express in any of

41 43

1 security qualifications while also writing these various 1 the undisputed public documents that we have in
2 books and papers? 2 the hundreds, you didn’t express any interest expressly
3 A. No, you call it demanding. Between 2020 and 2022, I was 3 in digital cash, digital currency or cryptocurrency at
4 enrolled in 23 degrees full time simultaneously, while 4 this time, did you?
5 working, and in that time I wrote 600 papers that led to 5 A. Firstly , it ’s not cryptocurrency. While you can build
6 quite a number of patents. At the moment, while doing 6 cryptocurrency on top of Bitcoin, Bitcoin isn ’ t .
7 this court case, I am writing three patents a week, 7 Now, in those documents, I talked about other things
8 average, I am doing five doctoral degrees and 8 that I wanted to build, including escrow, and I noted
9 12 degrees, including masters. That’s right now. So, 9 the reason for script very categorically in posts, not
10 you call that −− I would call that demanding. At this 10 only public , but also private . But in public , I stated
11 time, it was actually fairly easy, so I was just doing 11 the reason for script is to build all these other
12 my normal certification every now and again bit. You 12 systems, including systems for managing vending
13 think a certification every week is hard. Right now, 13 machines, including digital asset management. On top of
14 I do an exam every three days. 14 that, in communications with Gavin, Martin,
15 Q. Dr Wright, I’m sure we’re all very impressed, but 15 Martti Malmi, and others, I discussed the topic of using
16 the point I was making is this. In all these acres of 16 the Bitcoin system as a timestamp server. In
17 documents that we have, genuine documents which were 17 the Bitcoin White Paper, it defines Bitcoin is
18 made available to the world showing your academic 18 a timestamp server, the system is a timestamp server
19 interests and your work, there is nothing which 19 that orders transactions . You are now saying that those
20 explicitly addresses digital cash systems in those terms 20 transactions must be monetary. I’m not. In information
21 at this time, is there? 21 technology, transactions are any time you go to a web
22 A. No, and once again, you’re incorrect . There is 22 server , any time you download a file, any interaction
23 the Timecoin document, there are other documents that we 23 with another person, WhatsApp, Facebook, etc. Those are
24 put in , but mostly, you keep referencing Bitcoin as 24 all transactions .
25 the end goal. Bitcoin was never the end goal. Bitcoin 25 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 a break? 1 the −−
2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 2 Q. What qualification is that? Is that a PhD?
3 Dr Wright, we’ll take five minutes. 3 A. PhD. That is due to be submitted at the end of this
4 A. Thank you. 4 year, looking at the econometric and statistical
5 (11.33 am) 5 modelling of fees at a high level .
6 (A short break) 6 Then, at −−
7 (11.52 am) 7 Q. Sorry, the supervisor for that one was?
8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I gather there was a technical hitch. 8 A. Gumbo −− Chumbo −− I can’t remember his last name, and
9 MR HOUGH: These things happen. 9 I ’ve just got a new supervisor with one change and I’ll
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Just before we continue, during 10 need to dig that up for you again. I mean, I should
11 the break, it was brought it my attention that a man 11 know names, but this is the thing I ’m not good at.
12 called George Saoulidis is recording and creating 12 People is where I go bad.
13 a transcript . He seems to think this is not a breach of 13 Q. Next one, please.
14 the conditions on which the remote links were provided. 14 A. Walden University in Minnesota in the USA. That’s
15 He is mistaken. So, on his website, ”Love is 15 a DBA. I’m studying sort of interactions of
16 Bitcoin.com”, he posts a disclaimer about these 16 micropayment systems on, like, web servers, etc, etc.
17 transcripts . He says: 17 Q. And the supervisor for that one?
18 ”These are transcripts from COPA v Wright 2023 18 A. I ’ve just changed −− I have to look up his name. He
19 trial , automatically created using speech−to−text tools 19 just changed. He had a heart attack, so I’ve got a new
20 without recording any sound or video.” 20 one. That only −− my new one is only from the last
21 Now, he’s still creating a recording of these 21 eight weeks, so I still don’t remember his name.
22 proceedings and that is forbidden. So I look forward to 22 Then at Grand Canyon University in Arizona, I’m
23 him stopping what he’s doing immediately. 23 doing a DBA, Tao Gong. He’s Chinese.
24 Thank you. 24 Q. What’s the subject of that one?
25 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, a simple first question. You referred 25 A. I ’m doing modelling of Bitcoin at scale. So the work

45 47

1 before the break to currently doing five PhDs; is that 1 I ’ve been doing with Teranode to get Bitcoin to go to
2 right? 2 1.1 plus million transactions a second has also been
3 A. Three are DBAs, which is doctorate of business 3 part of my doctoral studies there, and I’ve integrated
4 administration. One I have just submitted my thesis to 4 the two areas.
5 last week, and Leicester, I ’m doing a PhD in law, which 5 So, two PhDs, did I say three DBAs or −−
6 I should −− 6 Q. I think you’ve given us the five now.
7 Q. If you just pause there. Could you just give us, for 7 A. Yes.
8 each one, the institute , the subject and the supervisor 8 Q. Moving on then. In your witness statement, you address
9 name? 9 your supposed decision to create Bitcoin pseudonymously.
10 A. That’s what I was doing, actually. 10 May we go to that at {E/1/13}, paragraph 63.
11 Q. Go ahead. 11 You say this in your witness statement:
12 A. So DBA, I’m doing one on CBDCs and banking. Oliver −− 12 ”I chose to develop Bitcoin under a pseudonym
13 and that’s at the Geneva Business School, Oliver, 13 primarily due to the potential legal and regulatory
14 I can’t remember −− he has a French name, so I’m not 14 ramifications associated with digital money systems.
15 good at pronouncing. Then I’m doing, at University of 15 I was particularly wary of the US Government, which had
16 Leicester , a PhD studying law. That is on the law of 16 previously posed challenges for clients like Lasseter’s.
17 Bitcoin. It should have been submitted already, but 17 Around 2007, while I was in the throes of developing
18 these trials have put me behind, so my last chapter 18 Bitcoin, I closely followed the case of Douglas Jackson,
19 hasn’t been submitted. 19 the founder of E−Gold, who was indicted for money
20 The −− Peter and −− what do you call it −− I’m 20 laundering due to the misuse of his platform.”
21 terrible with names, I’m sorry. I can write them down 21 And that’s your evidence in the statement, right?
22 after the break. I apologise. I should know them, but 22 A. That is part of it , yes. It continues.
23 the name has escaped me. 23 Q. Then paragraph 64, towards the end, you say:
24 Then I’m doing another at Exeter. I’m doing 24 ”In my real life , I first shared my identity with
25 mathematical economics and mathematics. I’m studying 25 a small circle of people including my mother, my uncle

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Don Lynam, some close friends such as David Bridges, and 1 Q. All these 21 people, plus unnamed students and people in
2 my then wife, Lynn.” 2 the Australian government, that’s not too small
3 Yes? 3 a circle , is it , Dr Wright?
4 A. Correct. 4 A. It ’s fairly small.
5 Q. Now, in your fourth witness statement {E/4/1}, you say 5 Q. Moving on: the Bitcoin source code. In your statement
6 that you sent drafts of the Bitcoin White Paper, before 6 −− this is paragraph 70 {E/1/14} −− you give an account
7 its release , to at least 21 people; is that right? 7 of claiming to work on the Bitcoin source code in
8 A. That would be about the number, yes. 8 2007/2008, saying that you chose to work with C++ and
9 Q. And those included work colleagues and contacts such as 9 used Microsoft Visual Studio; do you see that?
10 Mr Sinclair , Mr Archbold and Mr Jenkins; correct? 10 A. Yes, with MinGW and Boost.
11 A. Yes. 11 Q. You don’t mention MinGW there, do you?
12 Q. And they included people with whom you dealt or claimed 12 A. No, I don’t need to, it ’s actually a plugin. So, no,
13 to have dealt primarily online , like Mr Kleiman and 13 I didn’t go into detail about which version of
14 Mr Gareth Williams, right? 14 Visual Studio, which service packs, any of
15 A. I ’ve actually met both of them in person, just not 15 the integration of tools .
16 often. 16 Q. It ’s common knowledge, isn’t it, that Satoshi worked in
17 Q. You dealt primarily with them online? 17 C++, isn’t it?
18 A. Yes. 18 A. Well, the code’s in C++, so that’s obvious.
19 Q. And last week, you also said that you were content for 19 Q. Page 16, please {E/1/16}, paragraphs 78 to 79, you say
20 your students to know that you were Satoshi in the early 20 that you engaged with some others when designing
21 stages and before the White Paper was released; correct? 21 the code, both in your own name and in the name of
22 A. Some, not all. Those students who were more interactive 22 Satoshi, and you name somebody called Mark Turner,
23 with me, like Shoaib, yes. 23 right?
24 Q. You say that you were also content for people in 24 A. I did.
25 the Australian government to know that you were Satoshi, 25 Q. You haven’t supplied any previously undisclosed

49 51

1 right? 1 communications dealing with the code design before its

2 A. Yes, I dealt with the Australian government quite 2 release , have you?
3 extensively , not only on Bitcoin, but the uses. 3 A. Actually, I have. I ’ve discussed them multiple times.
4 I presented for DFAT and also for the department of 4 I ’ve now given them over, but most of my stuff I keep in
5 finance multiple times, both on Bitcoin and also uses, 5 written format, which you don’t like , because I use
6 mainly from a timestamp server, but also one of 6 handwriting.
7 the areas I tried to push would be the creation of what 7 Q. No communications, no emails or anything like that?
8 would now be called a central bank digital currency, but 8 A. As I’ve noted multiple times, after 2015, with the hack,
9 it wasn’t then, so that effectively you could integrate 9 I basically didn’t keep a lot of information. That
10 VAT or, in Australia , GST, instantly. 10 which I did have seems to have been lost in the QNAP
11 Q. So on the basis of what you’re saying now, it was more 11 debacle that AlixPartners did. I shut down most of my
12 than just a small circle of people who knew your secret 12 systems believing that I ’d been compromised, which
13 identity ? 13 I had. Subsequently, I found out that one of the people
14 A. I wouldn’t call it a secret identity . Once again, 14 in COPA, Greg Maxwell, actually compromised my server,
15 I sought privacy. Privacy is very different to secrecy. 15 so I ’ ll give him that.
16 Q. But answering the question, it’s more than a small 16 Q. Just let ’s get this clear . I think in a recent
17 circle of people who knew this identity which was not 17 statement you referred to having been hacked ten times.
18 revealed to the world at large? 18 Is that the right number, or should we say more or less?
19 A. Well, it wasn’t revealed to the world at large , no, 19 A. I don’t know. It ’s at least that. There’s the time, as
20 I didn’t intend to, but most people who ended up working 20 Satoshi, I got hacked on GMX, got hacked on Vistomail;
21 at my firms knew who I was as well. 21 there were multiple vulnerabilities in Bitcoin that most
22 Q. So not a small circle of people then? 22 people didn’t know about, I discussed some of these in
23 A. I ’d still call that a small circle of people. They’re 23 August to October with Gavin, that’s part of how Gavin
24 people I know of. If you’re going beyond, into people 24 knew who I was.
25 I don’t know, then that’s no longer a small circle . 25 Q. Just putting aside anything that happened to Satoshi

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 that the world knows about. You yourself claim to have 1 later on Dustin Trammell ...”
2 been hacked how many times, Dr Wright? 2 Do you see that?
3 A. Multiple since then, but we can’t put that aside. 3 A. I do. The −−
4 Actually, the one that I just mentioned from August to 4 Q. Pause there. Pause there. Wait for the question.
5 October −− 5 You’re aware Mr Trammell has made a statement for
6 Q. Dr Wright, you are now −− 6 these proceedings in which he disclosed his entire email
7 A. −− isn’t −− 7 correspondence with Satoshi. Are you aware of that
8 Q. −− you are now going −− you’re now digressing away from 8 statement?
9 my question. 9 A. I am.
10 A. I ’m actually not. The reason I’m saying that is you 10 Q. Are you aware that he says that Satoshi never sent him
11 said ”public”. This was a private conversation between 11 any source code or software?
12 Satoshi and Gavin, some of which were on the talk 12 A. Again, that’s incorrect . What he said was he didn’t get
13 forums, using private chat. So, while Martti Malmi 13 the source code directly from me. What he had was
14 would have been able to read those, as the admin, only 14 a link . So he’s been a little bit disingenuous in how
15 Satoshi and Gavin knew the full extent of those 15 he explains it . I sent him a link ; he downloaded it.
16 communications. They have never been released by Gavin 16 The way that SVN works is you don’t send the code in an
17 and they’re not in the evidence pile that you have here. 17 email, you send a link . So, what he is doing is saying,
18 Q. Not released by you either? 18 ”Well, I didn’t get the code in an email, I just got
19 A. I ’ve got them in a piece of paper, like , I ’ve written 19 this link to the SVN and I downloaded it myself”.
20 them all down and the lawyers have them, so −− 20 Q. Let’s see what he says {C/7/2}, paragraph 7 of his
21 Q. Don’t tell us anything privileged . 21 witness statement:
22 A. So I’ve just said I ’ve written them down, but ... 22 ”At no point did Satoshi ever send me any
23 Q. You haven’t called a single witness who supposedly 23 source code or software. The first time I found out
24 engaged with you on the code design in these 24 about Bitcoin source code or software was when it was
25 proceedings, have you? 25 announced on the mailing list mentioned above, and

53 55

1 A. In a way, yes. Ignatius did, but that was before 1 I downloaded it myself from bitcoin.org.”
2 I released Bitcoin. 2 That’s what he said in his witness statement,
3 Q. You haven’t called anybody who engaged with you on 3 isn ’ t it ?
4 the code design and writing which you describe in your 4 A. Yes. I −−
5 witness statement, have you? 5 Q. That’s correct, isn ’ t it ?
6 A. Because no one interacted directly. So what I did was 6 A. No, it ’s not. What he’s saying is, ”I downloaded it
7 act alone. There was no group of Satoshi, and 7 myself”, which I said . I was the person who forwarded
8 Hal Finney was the only person who really gave proper 8 it to the mailing list and the communications he had
9 interaction and he died. Gavin sort of hasn’t retracted 9 were in 2009. So he downloaded what I sent in 2008, he
10 anything he said, so he was there. The other people 10 also discussed the code in 2009. Now, what you’re
11 you’re talking about came in after. So, most of 11 trying to say is because he didn’t get emailed code when
12 the people you have as witnesses came in from 2011 on, 12 it was in an SVN server subversion, then that’s the same
13 so basically there wasn’t anyone who directly 13 thing. It is not.
14 interacted . Even Martti Malmi −− 14 Q. Dr Wright, in Granath, you were being asked about people
15 Q. {O2/11/11}, please. This is your evidence from 15 with whom you had communications while developing
16 the Granath case. May we maximise page 38 in the top 16 the code, weren’t you?
17 right . 17 A. Yes.
18 At line 17, do you see that you were asked about 18 Q. And you named three people, one of whom was Mr Trammell,
19 whether you shared the code in the course of preparing 19 yes?
20 it , yes? 20 A. Yes.
21 A. Yes. 21 Q. And Mr Trammell did not receive any special direct
22 Q. And your answer was: 22 communications for Satoshi about this code; he saw it on
23 ”I did not really have any early writing and 23 the general mailing list and downloaded it. That’s
24 developing problems, I had later problems. I shared 24 completely different , isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?
25 with quite a lot of people, Ray Dillinger , Hal Finney, 25 A. No, actually , again, you’re trying to twist words. He

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 saw the 2008 mailing list announcement. SourceForge is 1 Q. Then do we see at the top, Satoshi replies that they’re
2 the SVN, you download it from there. The email said you 2 glad that work, yes?
3 go to SourceForge to download it. So, when I send 3 A. Yes.
4 someone a link to SourceForge, I’m sending them a link 4 Q. And then, at the end, writes:
5 to the code. That’s how it works. Now, in 2009, he 5 ”I reduced the EXE size by running strip.exe on it
6 communicated with me about issues. So what you’re 6 to take out the debug symbols. That’s with mingw.
7 trying to say is , because he downloaded my code from my 7 That’s the better compiler, I only used VC for
8 site , that therefore I didn’t send him code. Again, 8 debugging.”
9 that’s incorrect . 9 He wrote that, didn’t he, or they wrote it?
10 On top of that, he didn’t help me code, what he did 10 A. No, I wrote it .
11 was he questioned me and I sent responses. So, my 11 Q. Dr Wright, that was making clear that Satoshi had not
12 answer is completely accurate. 12 used Visual Studio for compiling, but only for
13 Q. Dr Wright, of the three people you identified in Granath 13 debugging, right?
14 who received code, two, Dillinger and Finney, were in 14 A. No, that’s actually using MinGW in Visual Studio. So
15 the public domain, and the third, Mr Trammell was a lie; 15 what that is saying is that Visual C is much better for
16 correct? 16 the tracing and the following of objects , setting
17 A. No, it ’s misrepresenting. Once again, saying I didn’t 17 breaks, etc. So, basically you use MinGW, which most
18 get code, well , actually , you did. I sent you the link , 18 people have, make it open and compile on most machines.
19 because I sent it out to everyone there, you downloaded 19 The use of Windows then is much better when you’re
20 from SourceForge, you got my code. So when I send 20 talking about actually debugging software. I ’ve gone
21 someone a link to SourceForge, I’ve sent someone my 21 into this multiple times, and one of the papers that you
22 code. 22 mentioned before, the GREM one, that I was doing at
23 Q. Addressing Microsoft Visual Studio, which we mentioned 23 the same time as the GSSP−C, which you also brought up,
24 earlier , you’ve said in both the witness statement we 24 which also was based on MinGW, which is the secure
25 looked at and in your defence that you compiled or wrote 25 software programmer that I completed in 2008, one of

57 59

1 the Bitcoin software and code using Microsoft 1 the highest level coding exams, I used a combination of
2 Visual Studio, haven’t you? 2 these.
3 A. I have. 3 I also used Olly, which is a debugger, as well.
4 Q. {L5/154/1}, please. This is one of the emails exhibited 4 Q. Dr Wright, I’ve made the point that this email is clear
5 by Mr Malmi to his statement which was previously 5 on its face that Satoshi did not use Visual Studio for
6 unpublished. If we read up from the bottom, Mr Malmi 6 compiling the code, but let me put this to you. Your
7 begins by referring to some errors coming up while 7 statement that you used MinGW is a detail which you
8 trying to build third party libraries and add them to 8 added, which was not in your initial witness statement,
9 the Bitcoin build , doesn’t he? 9 after you’d read Mr Malmi’s previously unpublished
10 A. He does. 10 emails, isn ’ t it ?
11 Q. And then he says that he’s using MinGW, or 11 A. No. Let me explain to you how this works. What you’re
12 Minimalist GNU for Windows, which is another software 12 mentioning there is Visual C++. My Lord, Visual C++,
13 development environment, yes? 13 like MinGW, is a compiler that fits in Visual Studio.
14 A. No, it ’s not actually a full −− it’s a compiler. It can 14 So, to run Visual Studio, MinGW and Visual C so that
15 be integrated with Visual C++, as you’ll see noted 15 I can debug, they’re all in the same one. What you have
16 below. 16 confused is Visual Studio and Visual C. So
17 Q. Then he says he’s also been using MSYS, which I suggest 17 Visual Studio is the main application. In that, you
18 is a software building platform? 18 would load Visual Basic, Visual C, Visual C++,
19 A. Mm−hm. 19 visual .net, and in my case, MinGW. That will allow you
20 Q. But that he could try Visual C++; do you see that? 20 to have an integrated IDN framework, when, in
21 A. I do. 21 Visual Studio, you can run VC.
22 Q. At the top of −− middle of the page, Mr Malmi says, 22 What I have stated in this email isn ’ t that I ’m not
23 doesn’t he, that he got it to compile with MinGW and 23 running Visual Studio. Visual Studio is the package
24 MSYS under certain conditions; correct? 24 that encompasses this, and to run MinGW and VC requires
25 A. Mm−hm. 25 that each package is loaded into Visual Studio. So

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Visual Studio, to analyse MinGW, would require that you 1 I remember Dr Gao(?), but that’s only because
2 integrate a combination of MinGW as the compiler and 2 I literally spoke to him yesterday.
3 Visual C as the debugger. That still requires 3 Q. You’ve never, for example, mentioned communications with
4 the overarching framework, which is Visual Studio. So, 4 Nick Bohm, who exchanged quite a large number of emails
5 Visual Studio is the package where you load the other 5 with Satoshi and who was one of the very few to whom
6 programs into. 6 Satoshi actually transferred Bitcoin, have you?
7 Q. Dr Wright, I’m not going to get into a debate on 7 A. No, actually , that’s incorrect . There were many people.
8 something which is clear on the printed page, but I ’m 8 There was a faucet set up by Gavin. I just don’t recall
9 going to return to the question that I actually asked 9 who those people were. So there were probably 100
10 you and ask you for the courtesy of an answer. 10 different people that I communicated with at the time,
11 The word ”MinGW”, in the context of writing this code, 11 there were several hundred on the forums, at least
12 did not appear in any of your statements or pleadings 12 a third of them DM’d me. No, I never −−
13 until you had read Mr Malmi’s emails, did it? 13 Q. But Mr Bohm, early on, received an actual transfer of
14 A. Again −− 14 Bitcoin direct from Satoshi and his name never occurred
15 Q. The word? 15 to you in all your efforts to prove your claim?
16 A. I don’t know. But what I stated, very categorically , 16 A. No, I transferred to many people that I don’t remember,
17 was ”Visual Studio”. And now, if you actually look on 17 including funding different things. So −−
18 the face of this , it says ”Visual C++”. Visual C++ runs 18 Q. None of those people has ever come forward, have they?
19 inside Visual Studio. So where I’m saying ”I only used 19 A. No. And do I remember any of their names? No.
20 VC for debugging” that still means, in this , I haven’t 20 Q. Let’s look at some of the communications Satoshi made
21 said ”Visual Studio”, but I ’m running it. 21 against your accounts. Page 18 of your witness
22 Q. Well, the court can reach its own conclusions on 22 statement, paragraph 92 {E/1/18}.
23 the consistency of what you are saying, what you have 23 You say here −− you refer to communicating with
24 said in your initial pleadings and witness statement, 24 Wei Dai. He’s somebody whose communications with
25 with what Satoshi said on the printed page. 25 Satoshi have been public for some time, or at least some

61 63

1 Moving on. Back to your witness statement at 1 of them have, haven’t they?
2 {E/1/16}. In paragraph 80, you refer to email accounts 2 A. Some of them.
3 associated with Satoshi. Just to be clear , those are 3 Q. You refer to him in paragraph 92 as a ”distinguished
4 accounts which are and were well known, aren’t they? 4 academic”, don’t you?
5 A. They are. 5 A. I do.
6 Q. You haven’t identified here, have you, or anywhere else, 6 Q. {C/28/3}, please. This is an email from Wei Dai
7 any individuals with whom Satoshi communicated whose 7 responding to questions from Bird & Bird. Point 1 of
8 names had not previously been in the public domain, have 8 his email of 14 October 2023:
9 you? 9 ”I ’m not a ’distinguished academic’ and has actually
10 A. No, I don’t recall names. Like before, when you were 10 never worked in academia.”
11 asking me on my supervisors, who I deal with every 11 That’s right , isn ’ t it ?
12 month, some of them on a weekly or daily basis, I don’t 12 A. If he wants to call himself that. I actually looked at
13 recall their names. So, you’re asking me who my 13 what he wrote and he was also author of code for SSL and
14 supervisors are that I ’ve dealt with for five years now 14 wrote papers for this , so I would say that’s academic,
15 and I don’t recall their names. 15 whether you work in a university or not.
16 Q. Dr Wright, you had the opportunity −− you’ve had many 16 Q. Normally referring to somebody as a ”distinguished
17 opportunities to identify individuals , whether by first 17 academic” suggests that they’ve held some post in
18 name or surname, with whom Satoshi had communications 18 academia, doesn’t it, Dr Wright?
19 whose names weren’t out there to be found by anybody and 19 A. No, it would mean research and development.
20 you’ve always failed to do so, haven’t you? 20 Q. So anyone who’s written code which you approve of you
21 A. No. What I do is not remember names and people. 21 would refer to as a distinguished academic?
22 I might remember a lot of things, but as my Lord already 22 A. No, not just code I approve of, it would also mean
23 saw, I don’t even remember my supervisor name and I have 23 papers, and Wei wrote extensively on SSL, he developed
24 to look it up. The only one I remember is Chumbo, is 24 many of the libraries that were opened and the ones in
25 his first name, I can’t remember his last name. 25 Bitcoin, so ...

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Q. Back to your witness statement {E/1/19}, paragraph 93, 1 attempts and basically fobbed me off going, ”Look, other
2 you say this : 2 people have tried it ”.
3 ”Adam Back was known for his work on Hashcash ...” 3 Q. He doesn’t say that in any of these emails, does he?
4 Then you refer to what that is: 4 A. He actually does. Micromint was an old system that
5 ”He showed little interest in Bitcoin. His attitude 5 everyone in the industry knew that failed for certain
6 was quite dismissive ; he stated that digital cash had 6 reasons.
7 been attempted before and was bound to fail.” 7 Q. You say in your witness statement:
8 That’s referring to communications between Satoshi 8 ” ... he stated that digital cash had been attempted
9 and Dr Back, isn’t it ? 9 before and was bound to fail.”
10 A. It is . 10 That doesn’t appear in any of these emails, does it?
11 Q. {D/82/1}, please. I have a C reference if it ’s easier . 11 A. No, he hasn’t included all of the emails, and he also
12 C00002547. No. {D/82/1}. {L3/194/1}. 12 hasn’t included the extensive communications that
13 Now, this is an email exhibited by Dr Back, and we 13 himself and I had on Twitter and direct messages.
14 see, at the bottom of the page, Satoshi’s email to him 14 Q. But presumably they’re not communications you’re
15 on 20 August 2008 asking about the citation, and Dr Back 15 fortunate enough to have in any copies anywhere?
16 responds: 16 A. No, because all of my Twitter was shut down by a certain
17 ”Yes citation looks fine , I ’ ll take a look at your 17 COPA member, Mr Dorsey.
18 paper. You maybe aware of the ’B−money proposal ...” 18 Q. Put aside your allegations for a moment and answer
19 And so on. 19 the questions.
20 Do you see that email? 20 A. It ’s not an allegation . My Twitter was shut down by
21 A. I do. 21 Jack Dorsey personally, and I was banned for a time
22 Q. And then next {D/78/1} {L3/193/1}, for which I think 22 until X −− well, Twitter was sold and then I was allowed
23 the reference is C00002544. After the email we looked 23 back on. I was completely banned from that platform,
24 at earlier , on 21 August from Satoshi thanking Dr Back 24 I ’m completely banned from LinkedIn, where other COPA
25 for the reference to the b−money page, Dr Back writes, 25 members are involved, and don’t have accounts on them.

65 67

1 at the top of the page: 1 So I was kicked off that platform and I don’t have any
2 ”Sorry still not read your paper yet, but another 2 of the communications. Of course, some of those are
3 related paper is by Rivest et al called micromint, which 3 public and in the Wayback Machine, so talks with
4 uses k−way collisions to create an over−time 4 Adam Back are available demonstrating that I was
5 computational advantage for the bank in creating coins. 5 communicating with him.
6 What you said about one group of players having an 6 Q. Well, I ’m going to suggest to you that as Dr Back says
7 advantage (by compute cycles) reminded me of micromint. 7 in his witness statement, he provided his communications
8 In micromint the bank gets an increasing advantage over 8 with Satoshi and that you are simply inventing
9 time as there is some cumulative build up of advantage 9 the supposed additional communications where he said
10 in terms of the partial results accumulated helping 10 things which are flatly inconsistent with his actual
11 create further the partial −collisions more cheaply.” 11 emails.
12 Do you see that? 12 A. No, but I’ ll also suggest that what I’ve been calling it
13 A. I do. 13 a chain of hash based proof−of−work, etc, is exactly
14 Q. And then the final email {D/74/1}, which is C00002540. 14 what I’ve been calling it , which wasn’t publicly known.
15 {L4/162/1}. This is Satoshi’s email, which I think we 15 On top of that, Adam didn’t go on the forum, didn’t
16 looked at last week, of 10 January 2009, expressing 16 connect to anything, didn’t try out any of the system,
17 gratitude to Dr Back and pointing him to the open source 17 didn’t even read the Bitcoin White Paper, despite my
18 implementation of Bitcoin, yes? 18 giving it to him, which he did announce and discuss with
19 A. It is . 19 me, both publicly and privately in ’12, ’13 and ’14. He
20 Q. Now, those are the email communications between Satoshi 20 put that on his Twitter −−
21 and Dr Back? 21 Q. So when Dr Back says that he’s provided a complete set
22 A. Not all of them. 22 of his email correspondence, he’s lying?
23 Q. Well, Dr Back wasn’t dismissive at all , was he? 23 A. Or he’s lost them.
24 A. Oh, completely. He said he hasn’t read my paper, and he 24 Q. He says in his witness statement of these emails, that
25 still didn’t later , and he pointed out to other failed 25 was the extent of it , and that he’s provided a copy of

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 his email correspondence. 1 released . It came from the Aurora paper, for he
2 A. This morning, yesterday and the day before, he also 2 couldn’t get onto them and they didn’t respond.”
3 promoted to people that Bitcoin will go up in price and 3 Just answering this question and keeping it to this
4 that if you buy now you’ll get rich . He has never 4 question, when you refer to ”the Aurora paper”, do you
5 promoted an actual solution. The only thing that he 5 intend to refer to a paper by Tuomas Aura?
6 does every single day on his feeds and promotion is to 6 A. Yes.
7 tell people to buy into a Ponzi, ” if you buy BTC, it 7 Q. {L3/278/1}, please. Do you accept that this is
8 will go to the moon and you will get rich”, that is 8 Satoshi’s original post of 31 October 2008?
9 a quote from one of his things. Technically, that’s 9 A. I do.
10 actually a breach of the financial services legislation , 10 Q. And if we −−
11 and telling people to buy into a risky asset is not only 11 A. A public post.
12 highly irresponsible , but also criminal . So, where he 12 Q. If we look under ”The main properties”, do we see that
13 is saying these things, the only thing he says is 13 Satoshi has written:
14 about ”get rich quick, buy into this , it has to go to 14 ”New coins are made from Hashcash style
15 a million ”. 15 proof−of−work.”
16 Q. Dr Wright, how was that an answer to any of my 16 That was his original post, right?
17 questions? 17 A. Yes, like Hashcash, the system expends an economic cost.
18 A. Well, if you’re going to be dishonest in selling to 18 Q. Just asking you to confirm what it said .
19 people and getting people to buy into a highly 19 {L3/231/1}. Do you recognise this as
20 speculative asset ... he told people online −− 20 the Bitcoin White Paper?
21 Q. Pause there. Pause there. None of this is an answer to 21 A. I do.
22 any of my questions, is it ? 22 Q. Page 3 {L3/231/3}. Subheading 4 ”Proof−of−Work”:
23 A. Actually, yes, it is −− 23 ”To implement a distributed timestamp server on
24 Q. These are just allegations against people you don’t 24 a peer−to−peer basis, we will need to use
25 like , aren’t they, Dr Wright? 25 a proof−of−work system similar to Adam Back’s

69 71

1 A. No, actually , on his Twitter, where he said, ”Sell your 1 Hashcash ...”
2 house, take out a mortgage, put all the money into 2 Then there’s a reference to it , right?
3 Bitcoin because you can’t lose it ” −− 3 A. That’s a reference to Hashcash, yes. It ’s not
4 Q. Stop there. Stop there. We’ll move on. 4 a reference to Bitcoin using it .
5 In your witness statement, you say that the Bitcoin 5 Q. Okay −−
6 proof−of−work system did not use Adam Back’s Hashcash 6 A. So what I’ve said is in a way ”similar to”.
7 system? 7 Q. Satoshi says, in the Bitcoin White Paper, that
8 A. That is correct . In his example, he used 8 the system uses ”a proof−of−work system similar to
9 the word ”flame”. What he basically did was matching 9 Adam Back’s Hashcash”; correct?
10 a word. Now, it’s very different to Bitcoin −− 10 A. Yes, the system −−
11 Q. Stop there −− 11 Q. And your article {L14/482/2} said that the system −−
12 A. −− a Bitcoin uses a match of zeros. 12 that Bitcoin was ”not even similar” to Hashcash;
13 Q. Stop there. I wasn’t asking you to elaborate, I was 13 correct?
14 just asking you to confirm that that’s what your witness 14 A. Again, you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said −−
15 statement said. 15 Q. I ’m using your words, Dr Wright.
16 A. It does. 16 A. No, you’re misrepresenting them:
17 Q. {L15/482/1}, please. I think that’s a wrong reference. 17 ” ... we will need to use a proof−of−work system
18 Can I try C00001010 {L14/482/1}. Thank you. 18 similar to Adam ...”
19 Is this an article which you wrote in April 2019? 19 That does not say that I’m using Adam’s
20 A. I wrote it and sent it in to be published, yes. 20 proof−of−work system. ”Similar” to his solution. I did
21 Q. Page 2, please {L14/482/2}. The paragraph begins: 21 not say ”the proof−of−work system”, I said ”the system”.
22 ”So, I was trying to get people who could help me 22 So in this , we will need, similar to Hashcash, which it
23 more, remaining private to some extent. Bitcoin isn ’ t 23 does, rather than newspaper posts. All I ’ve said is ,
24 Adam’s Hashcash invention as he puts it. It doesn’t use 24 like Hashcash, I will use proof−of−work.
25 the code, and is not even similar to what Adam had 25 Q. {L13/492/1}, please. Page 2, please {L13/492/2}. Do

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 you recognise this as a long article written by 1 Q. And, ”Bitcoin Mining” is given this definition :
2 Andrew O’Hagan called, ”The Satoshi Affair”? 2 ”To form a distributed timestamp server as
3 A. No, I recognise a fiction book. 3 a peer−to−peer network, Bitcoin uses a proof−of−work
4 Q. Page 24, please {L13/492/24}, the quotation near 4 system similar to Adam Back’s Hashcash ...”
5 the top: 5 And so on?
6 ”’We all have a narcissistic hubris ’ , Wright told 6 A. Yes.
7 me. He wanted to take May’s BlackNet idea further. He 7 Q. That’s how you presented Bitcoin, as its concepts,
8 was also enthusiastic , in those early days, about 8 through your company to the ATO in a document you
9 Hashcash and B−money. The idea behind Hashcash, 9 forwarded, isn ’ t it ?
10 a ’proof−of−work’ algorithm where each of a group of 10 A. No, I forwarded the document. I didn’t produce it.
11 computers performs a small task that can be instantly 11 I still have this problem. People keep putting
12 verified ... ” 12 ”cryptocurrency” in patent filings , they keep −− I’ve
13 Then there’s a short explanation in brackets: 13 actually , multiple times, said we’re not to use that
14 ” ... was ’ totally necessary for the building of 14 term and it keeps getting out there.
15 bitcoin ’ . Wright said that he spoke to Adam Back, who 15 Q. So do you say that you submitted this document to
16 proposed Hashcash in 1997, ’a few times in 2008, whilst 16 the Australian Tax Office without having checked it and
17 setting up the first trials of the bitcoin protocol’ .” 17 made these changes which are, you say, critical to your
18 Did you say that to Mr O’Hagan as he quotes you 18 philosophy?
19 saying? 19 A. Firstly , my EA had access to my email. So, when it’s
20 A. No, not as he’s quoted, no. 20 not RCJBR, most of these things were actually submitted
21 Q. So he’s another person misrepresenting your words, is 21 on my behalf.
22 he? 22 And, secondly, yes, I keep saying that I have
23 A. There’s a reason the book is listed as fiction , not 23 patents even filed today, despite the fact that I keep
24 non−fiction. 24 complaining to everyone, ”Don’t you put the term, damn
25 Q. {L8/272/1}, please. This is a paper entitled , 25 well , ’cryptocurrency’ in them”. Only two weeks ago,

73 75

1 ”COIN−EXCH PTY LTD”. Can you take it from me, although 1 I had that same complaint, even though I’m sitting here
2 I can show you, that it’s attached to an email of yours 2 going, ”Don’t call it cryptocurrency”.
3 of 4 December 2013? Would that make sense? 3 Q. Dr Wright, the reality is that you’ve said in this
4 A. Yes. 4 document, and to Mr O’Hagan, exactly what Satoshi said,
5 Q. It ’s a paper that you provided to the ATO in 2013, 5 that Bitcoin uses a proof−of−work system very similar to
6 isn ’ t it ? 6 Adam Back’s Hashcash, haven’t you?
7 A. I don’t recall , but, I mean, it’s a paper that my 7 A. No, similar to how Hashcash was a proof−of−work system,
8 company produced. 8 Bitcoin uses it . Like I said −−
9 Q. Page 4, please {L8/272/4}. 9 Q. And in more recent years you’ve sought to insist that
10 Does it state , at paragraph 3.1, that: 10 it ’s different in order to give yourself some sort of
11 ”The proposed e−Wallet System ...” 11 spurious expertise .
12 Covered by the paper: 12 A. No, I have not. If you actually look at the code and
13 ” ... is based on the utilisation of 13 the implementation, you will see that it is different .
14 a crypto−currency called ’Bitcoin’.” 14 Where I’ve referenced this , Adam changed, to be similar,
15 Does it say that? 15 implementing Hal Finney’s RPOW, but that was not where
16 A. Yes. I hate how staff keep putting that term in. 16 it came from. The original code, as you’ ll see if you
17 Q. Page 15 {L8/272/15}, appendix of key terms. 17 look at his page, used a token word. Bitcoin doesn’t
18 The definition of Bitcoin: 18 use a token word. Using a token word cannot be
19 ”Bitcoin is a crypto−currency where the creation and 19 implemented in Bitcoin and doesn’t work, because there’s
20 transfer of Bitcoin is based on an open−source 20 no way of having difficulty adjustment. Using a string
21 cryptographic protocol that is independent of any 21 of zeros, as Aurora did, allows you to implement
22 central authority .” 22 a single zero at a time, making the proof−of−work more
23 That was stated in your company’s document as well, 23 or less difficult .
24 wasn’t it ? 24 Q. Well, just to be clear that we dispute that
25 A. Yes, it was. 25 the Bitcoin System does not use a proof−of−work similar

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 to Hashcash, but that’s a matter for the independent 1 ”To further quote them ...”
2 experts. 2 Did you write those words?
3 Moving back to your witness statement, {E/1/19}, 3 A. I did.
4 please, paragraph 95, you say that: 4 Q. Two paragraphs down:
5 ”While developing the concepts for Bitcoin, [you 5 ”Prof Wrightson knew of Wei Dai, and pointed me
6 were] pursuing a Master’s degree in Statistics (MStat) 6 towards a paper titled ’Knowledge−Based Communication
7 at Newcastle University in Australia , which [you] had 7 Processes in Building Design’ that he knew of because of
8 begun in 2005.” 8 his work in machine learning. Both Adam Back and
9 Yes? 9 Prof Wrightson directed me to Wei Dai. [He] turned out
10 A. That’s correct . 10 to be another cypherpunk, and he was an incredibly
11 Q. Next, {L15/88/1}, please. Is this an article you 11 helpful one. I used some of his code in the original
12 published called , ”Fully Peer−to−Peer”, 6 June 2019? 12 release of Bitcoin −− with his permission.
13 A. I can see it , yes. 13 Andreas Furche knew of Hal Finney and Adam Black. So I
14 Q. And do you recognise it as an article you wrote? 14 emailed people. I was researching in 2005, and came to
15 A. Yes, I −− I write it and it gets loaded. 15 the conclusion that I could build something. By 2007,
16 Q. Page 2, please {L15/88/2}. The paragraph beginning: 16 I was ready to start .”
17 ”In part, I used ... ” 17 Did you write those words?
18 If we go down the page, please. There we go: 18 A. I did.
19 ”In part, I used the mailing list where Bitcoin was 19 Q. Two paragraphs further down:
20 first announced because of some of the people from one 20 ”Prof Wrightson, when I talked to him, told me about
21 of my former universities . I enrolled in 21 DigiCash. He is the reason that I took up a pseudonym.
22 the University of Newcastle to do a master’s degree in 22 The monetary systems engineering research group had a
23 statistics in 2005 for two reasons: Firstly , some of 23 lot of resources. I read their patents and papers on
24 the people there at the university were highly skilled 24 transfer instruments, but more than anything else, I
25 in network graph theory and modelling. I needed such 25 took away the problems that had occurred with DigiCash.”

77 79

1 knowledge to develop Bitcoin. Next, some of the people 1 And so on. Did you write those words?
2 there at the University of Newcastle were deeply versed 2 A. I did.
3 in the mathematics of monetary systems. Entering 3 Q. The next paragraph:
4 the university gave me access to all of their work, so 4 ”CSIRO and the Australian Taxation Office had
5 that I could research it . One of the individuals was 5 conducted a joint internet report in 1997. I got to
6 Graham Wrightson. With Andreas Furche, they formed 6 read about money laundering, and from Prof Wrightson I
7 the Monetary Systems Engineering Research Group. I was 7 heard of a number of the problems that all of the
8 with the University of Newcastle as a postgraduate 8 previous systems had had. I really didn’t want to go
9 researcher between 2005 and 2009.” 9 through the same problems that those involved with
10 Did you write that passage? 10 DigiCash had grappled with.”
11 A. I did. 11 Did you write those words as well?
12 Q. Page 3, please {L15/98/3}, the third paragraph: 12 A. I did.
13 ”What I came to understand in reviewing the work 13 Q. May we now have on screen {L19/209/11}. This is an
14 conducted by the researchers was that Bitcoin needed to 14 email from Professor Wrightson responding to a series of
15 act within the existing legal system. The authors in 15 questions where he explains, points 1 and 2, that he
16 the group wrote extensively about the privacy debate. 16 joined University of Newcastle in 1987 and retired on
17 To quote them, ’the need for privacy in payments is 17 9 August 2000, his 59th birthday.
18 emphasised by some and feared by others’. Bitcoin 18 You couldn’t have had all these stimulating
19 exists upon a knife−edge. It is not anonymous, but it 19 discussions with Dr Wrightson at that university during
20 is private enough. I came up with the idea of networks 20 your 2005 to 2009 degree because he’d retired, right?
21 merging because of the group. In a conversation that 21 A. No, but I was there in the 90s as well . That was my
22 I had when I started my degree with 22 master’s degree. I ’d also done an undergraduate between
23 Prof Graham Wrightson, I saw that the ... networks and 23 Monash and Newcastle. I don’t actually remember exactly
24 communication infrastructure would end up merging.” 24 when, but in the 90s.
25 Then you say: 25 Q. I may be able to prompt you. In your 11th witness

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 statement you say that it was in 1995 and 1996. 1 A. Yes, actually , because he has a book and he notes it
2 A. Somewhere around there. 2 all , and he has students that researched this . It makes
3 Q. But your article , which we’ve read at some length, was 3 it really difficult for me to believe that someone would
4 very clear that your dealings with them were in 4 be able to say that they have no knowledge of other
5 the context of your postgraduate work from 2005 to 2009, 5 papers when they’re marking students.
6 wasn’t it ? 6 Q. So do you disagree with him when he disputes what you
7 A. Yes, I went through all of the MoneyLab areas at that 7 say about his department having lots of resources?
8 time. 8 A. Define resources. I think access to papers is lots of
9 Q. It ’s very clear from reading those passages that you 9 resources. If you −−
10 were saying in your article that you had dealt with 10 Q. Do you dispute −−
11 Professor Wrightson, and had all these stimulating 11 A. −− mean lots of computers, then, probably, but I thought
12 discussions with him, in the context of and during your 12 they had a lot of access to material I could use.
13 2005 to 2009 degree. That’s perfectly clear , isn ’ t it ? 13 Q. Do you dispute what he says when he says that they
14 A. I ’m sorry if it ’s perfectly clear for you, but it ’s not. 14 didn’t have any patents, contrary to what your article
15 One, I’m not good with remembering people. The funny 15 says?
16 thing is , when it comes to code, when it comes to other 16 A. Actually, Furche does. So, some of the members of
17 things, I have a near eidetic memory; when it comes to 17 the people there do.
18 people, I don’t; I don’t even remember faces very well. 18 Q. You dispute what he says when he says that they don’t
19 But when it comes to recalling people, I ’m horrible 19 have any papers on transfer instruments?
20 with it . 20 A. Well, yes. His own papers are transfer instruments.
21 I did have communications with him, I know that they 21 So, when he’s talking about a digital cash system that
22 were valuable to me, more than that I can’t say. 22 he has his name on, I would call that a transfer system.
23 Q. You wrote an article in which you dated these 23 Q. So he’s wrong in characterising his own work, is he?
24 communications very specifically to your 2005 to 2009 24 A. If he’s going to say it ’s not a transfer system, then,
25 period of doing the MStat degree. You are now saying 25 yes.

81 83

1 that you think you just got all that wrong and that it 1 Q. Is he wrong in saying that the paper that was
2 must have been communications on an entirely separate 2 hyperlinked to your document wasn’t authored by anyone
3 occasion, ten years previously , yes? 3 in his group?
4 A. Actually, I don’t know. I know I spoke to him many 4 A. It ’s possible . I could have got that wrong. I thought
5 times, but, no, when it comes to time and people and 5 it was.
6 dates, or people generally , I don’t recall very well . 6 Q. Then at (c) he says he didn’t, and in fact still doesn’t
7 Q. Let’s see further down the page. Professor Wrightson 7 know who Wei Dai is and has never heard of the paper he
8 has −− claims that he has no recollection at all of 8 supposedly referred you to. Do you find what
9 meeting you or dealing with you. Does that surprise 9 surprising ?
10 you? 10 A. No. As I said , I ’m terrible with names and people, but
11 A. No. Professor Rayner, who was my supervisor for a year, 11 I still believe it was Professor Wrightson I spoke to.
12 was contacted by the lawyers, and they said, ”We’d like 12 Q. So your confident assertion in that paper, and
13 to speak to you about Dr Wright”. His comment 13 the anecdotes about Professor Wrightson pointing you to
14 immediately was, ”I don’t recall Craig at all ”, and they 14 Wei Dai and discussing Wei Dai with you, that could be
15 said , ”But you just said ’Craig’”, and they went, ”No, 15 wrong?
16 forgotten him”. So, I have this effect on people. 16 A. Oh, definitely ; I get people wrong all the time. I ’ve
17 Either people like me or they want to forget me. 17 gone up to people I should know very well and called
18 Q. Professor Wrightson also says that his department did 18 them the wrong name many times; I do it at work all
19 not have lots of resources, as you suggest, had no 19 the time. I have partial aphasia, which means I don’t
20 patents or papers on transfer instruments, as you 20 actually recognise faces properly, so −−
21 suggest, that the paper which you hyper linked to 21 Q. Page 1, please {L19/209/1}, an email from
22 the document, to your article, wasn’t authored by anyone 22 Professor Furche. He, too, says that he has no
23 in his group, and that he would not have known about any 23 recollection of you, and that he left
24 problems of previous digital payment systems, which you 24 Newcastle University in 1999. That latter bit is from
25 say he told you about. Does any of that surprise you? 25 his witness statement. Do you dispute that he left

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Newcastle University in 1999? 1 I believe he was there, and he implemented those −−

2 A. No. 2 Q. Professor Furche −−
3 Q. So, he, too, could not have been there to have these 3 A. −− systems at that time.
4 rewarding changes with you in 2005 to 2009, could he? 4 Q. Professor Furche’s work on the ASX’s surveillance
5 A. Possibly . I was there at that stage. But I was also at 5 systems didn’t start until after 2003, did it ?
6 the Australian Stock Exchange, where he developed 6 A. Well, I still remember him, and I definitely remember
7 the signal process and some of the software for, and 7 him from the Perth Mint.
8 also promoted. 8 Q. So you worked together at Perth Mint in 2005 to 2008,
9 Q. I ’ ll come to that in a moment. 9 yes?
10 He also says −− we can take this document down. 10 A. No, I was an auditor.
11 He also says in his witness statement that he’s 11 Q. ” ... then had a joint involvement at the Perth Mint,
12 never heard of Hal Finney, with whom −− about whom you 12 where I was an auditor for BDO (2005−2008).”
13 supposedly had discussions with him. Is he wrong about 13 Yes?
14 that? 14 A. Yes.
15 A. I don’t know. As I said , I ’m not good with people, and 15 Q. In fact , Professor Furche’s work in relation to
16 I could have had it wrong, but I don’t think I am. 16 the Perth Mint didn’t begin until 2016, did it ?
17 Q. He also agrees with Professor Wrightson that the group 17 A. I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure it was him there, and
18 didn’t have a lot of resources, that it never lodged 18 I believe he was also involved with Chi−X.
19 a patent application and that he doesn’t recognise 19 Q. Just setting aside the thing you don’t talk about in
20 the patent paper hyperlinked to your article . Do you 20 your 11th witness statement, you couldn’t have had
21 accept he’s right on those points? 21 a joint involvement with him at the Perth Mint while you
22 A. Yes. I could have got the wrong person and linked 22 −− in 2005 to 2008, because he didn’t have a connection
23 the wrong area. I ’m not denying that. 23 with it at that time, did he?
24 Q. An awful lot of mistakes in your blogpost now, aren’t 24 A. I don’t know, but I do remember him. As I said, I’m
25 there? 25 terrible with people, but I remember him from something.

85 87

1 A. I told you, when it comes to people, I’m terrible . This 1 Q. Dr Wright, the reality is that these weren’t an
2 is the whole thing. When it comes to numbers, code, 2 extraordinary series of honest mistakes, your whole
3 writing things, a predicate system, I ’m great; when it 3 article about your dealings with these distinguished
4 comes to interacting with people ... This is why I work 4 people was a set of fictions , wasn’t it ?
5 from home, this is why I hide away from the world, this 5 A. No, not at all .
6 is why I don’t interact , why you’re asking me about all 6 Q. And it was written as if produced with complete
7 these people I ’m supposed to remember. 7 confidence when in fact there was barely a true word in
8 Q. But you do dispute Professor Furche’s claim not to 8 it ?
9 recall you, don’t you? 9 A. No, that’s incorrect . As I said , I get things mixed up,
10 A. I would find that difficult . I was at 10 with people, but I do know I had dealings with them. In
11 the Australian Stock Exchange for a number of years, and 11 particular , some of his references to what he does
12 the only way I could put it was, I was a gadfly and 12 actually overlap with mine.
13 I was incredibly annoying to a lot of people, including 13 Q. Back to your witness statement {E/1/19}, paragraph 98,
14 those in seats and other such systems. And some of 14 you say this :
15 the other exchanges that he did stuff with as well , 15 ”in the autumn of 2008, I attended a series of
16 I was involved. 16 business meetings with at the Microsoft campus in
17 Q. {CSW/1/82}, please. 17 Seattle . The specific names from those events have
18 A. Including Chi−X. 18 become hazy with time. These meetings took place before
19 Q. Paragraph 433. This is your 11th witness statement, 19 the launch of Bitcoin. My interest then revolved around
20 isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? Yes? 20 Microsoft developing a commercialised internet platform,
21 A. Yes. 21 with integrated micropayments; a vision starkly
22 Q. You claim that Dr Furche and you worked together on 22 different from the advertisement−based model that
23 the surveillance systems for the Australian Stock 23 Microsoft Bing eventually adopted. I envisioned
24 Exchange from ’97 to 2003, don’t you? 24 Microsoft operating Bitcoin Blockchain at scale, pushing
25 A. I worked on those systems at that stage, yes, and 25 it into the mainstream.”

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 That’s what you said in your statement, isn’t it ? 1 Q. Next, {L3/252.1.1.1.1/1}. I can give a Magnum reference
2 A. It is . 2 if ... there we go.
3 Q. {O2/11/12}, your evidence in the Granath case. At 3 Was this the application form attached to your
4 internal page 41, in the bottom−left quadrant, lines 17 4 January 2008 email?
5 and following, you described having interviews for 5 A. Possibly . I don’t −− don’t recall it, but looks like it
6 a project manager position, and you say that: 6 could be.
7 ” ... Bitcoin could have been owned by Microsoft, 7 Q. Bottom of page 1, after describing your job at BDO, do
8 horrible as that sounds!” 8 you say:
9 Yes? 9 ”I am not looking to leave, but the Microsoft role
10 A. Yes. They weren’t called Bing back then, they’ve been 10 caught my attention.”
11 renamed multiple times, but the early version of search 11 A. Yes.
12 and browser team, I went over and started communicating 12 Q. You’re asked what responsibilities you would like in
13 with in January/February 2008, visited a couple of 13 your next project , and you reply, don’t you, in red at
14 times, met with, interviewed, wrote papers for, and it 14 the bottom of page 1, that you enjoy anything that makes
15 was close to the end and then the hiring freeze 15 you think and poses a challenge?
16 happened. 16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Let’s look at those communications briefly 17 Q. I ’ ll just finish this document.
18 {L3/252.1.1.1/1}. I can give a Magnum reference if it’s 18 Page 2 {L3/252.1.1.1.1/2}, in the middle, you give
19 easier . There we go. 19 the same information about coding experience as in
20 Page 3, please, at the bottom {L3/252.1.1.1/3}. 20 the covering email, right?
21 Bottom of the page, you were in communication, weren’t 21 A. I do.
22 you, with Microsoft and with Siemens, the IT recruitment 22 Q. Then page 3 {L3/252.1.1.1.1/3}, you answer various
23 people, expressing interest in a job in Microsoft’s 23 questions about your experience?
24 click fraud team? 24 A. I do.
25 A. That’s correct . 25 Q. Including, at paragraph 20, about security

89 91

1 Q. Page 1, at the bottom {L3/252.1.1.1/1}. At the bottom 1 infrastructure work?

2 of page 3, please {L3/252.1.1.1/3}, there’s your 2 A. Correct.
3 communication of January 7, 2008 where you expressed 3 Q. Then page 4 {L3/252.1.1.1.1/4}, question 27, you were
4 the interest in that job; do you see that? 4 asked about marketing points in your favour and you
5 A. I do. 5 refer to your GSE in compliance, your GIAC certificates,
6 Q. And you set out experience in statistics , anti−fraud, 6 being a published author and with publications in IT,
7 law and IT security, right? 7 law, statistics , maths and forensics, and degree
8 A. And as you showed on the last page, C, C++ and other 8 number 11 this year?
9 programming. 9 A. Yes.
10 Q. We’ll come to that in a moment. 10 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for
11 Page 1, at the bottom, we see Mr Lawrence, at 11 a break?
12 Siemens, emails with some questions and setting out 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, thank you.
13 a job specification , yes? 13 Dr Wright, usual warning. Relax, etc. We’ll sit
14 A. Yes. 14 again at 2 o’clock.
15 Q. And then page 2 {L3/252.1.1.1/2}, at the top, the job 15 (1.01 pm)
16 was as a programme manager in a Microsoft team combating 16 (The short adjournment)
17 click fraud, right? 17 (1.58 pm)
18 A. That’s correct . 18 A. My Lord, if I may, I said I ’d get the names?
19 Q. Page 1, at the top {L3/252.1.1.1/1}, you respond with 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sure.
20 some detail of your coding experience; correct? 20 A. Exeter PhD, Chumbo Luo. Gihan Marasingha, Jack Rogers.
21 A. I do. 21 GCU in Arizona, Tao Gong, Walton University, Minnesota,
22 Q. Presumably, you weren’t there understating your 22 Walter McCollum. Leicester, primary supervisor is
23 abilities , because this was a job discussion? 23 Ben Adodo, support is Teresa Rao(?), Peter W, but
24 A. No, C, C++, Java, Fortran, etc, also −− right to 24 I can’t log into the system, so I can’t −− Wallsey or
25 decompiling, algorithmic coding and statistics work. 25 something. Sorry. Geneva, Saeid Homayong,

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Oliver Elliot . And the other one is Wales, I can’t 1 more.

2 pronounce his name, it’s Welsh. Arden is Ian Hume(?), 2 Q. Let’s take it in stages. You did an interview process,
3 University of London is Ian Pilkington(?). There are 3 actual interviews with Microsoft in October 2008, right?
4 others if you want me to go on. They’re my current 4 A. I did.
5 ones. 5 Q. At the time when Satoshi was gearing up to issue
6 MR HOUGH: Thank you, Dr Wright. 6 the Bitcoin White Paper, yes?
7 Before the lunch break, I was asking you about a job 7 A. I wouldn’t call it ”gearing up”. I only released it
8 application you made to Microsoft in the early part of 8 right after this , because right after this interview ,
9 2008. Do you recall those questions? 9 I was told there was a hiring freeze .
10 A. I do. 10 Q. Satoshi had been discussing it in August 2008 with
11 Q. If we go to the communications towards the end of 11 others, right?
12 the process, this is {L3/252.1.1/1}. This is an email 12 A. I mentioned it, yes.
13 of 21 October 2008, where you commented on how long 13 Q. And shortly after the interview , Satoshi actually
14 the −− how long Microsoft had been advertising for, so 14 releases the paper, yes?
15 since August 2007? 15 A. Yes, right after the interview , actually days later ,
16 A. Yes. 16 I was told that there was a hiring freeze at Microsoft.
17 Q. And you referred to this as your longest interview 17 Q. And yet there is not a shred of evidence in any of these
18 process? 18 emails that you showed the Bitcoin White Paper to
19 A. Yes. 19 Microsoft, whereas there is plenty of evidence in
20 Q. We can go through the intervening communications, but 20 the emails that you showed Microsoft some of your other
21 is it right that you had a couple of interviews, I think 21 work, isn ’ t there?
22 one in February and one in October 2008? 22 A. No, there’s very little here actually . This is only
23 A. Oh, and a number of online ones as well. 23 a work email. The majority of my communications were
24 Q. And in all those communications which we have between 24 done on my private emails, on Ridge Estates, so as you
25 you and Siemens and Microsoft, there is nothing to 25 might guess, I tried to minimise any emails to and from

93 95

1 suggest that you were pitching a system, whether it was 1 the work domain.
2 a digital cash system or indeed a special logging 2 Q. But in this interview process, which you told the court
3 system, to Microsoft; is that right? 3 in Granath might have led to Microsoft owning this
4 A. No, that’s incorrect . At the beginning, in February, 4 invention of yours, there is not a mention of it , is
5 I wrote a paper on click fraud and I noted sort of 5 there?
6 the token−based system. So, in this, what you’re, 6 A. No, because you don’t have those. You only have
7 again, confusing is how people look at Bitcoin now. At 7 the interviewer ones. What you’ll notice is none of
8 the time, it was touted as transaction system. And let 8 the communications between the Microsoft individuals
9 me just say what a transaction is in computer science: 9 that were done on the Ridges Estate email and myself
10 it ’s a set of related tasks treated as a single action, 10 were there. In the intervening period, I talked to
11 a sequence of multiple operations performed on 11 a number of people in the advertising and what is now
12 a database, served as a single logical operation and 12 Bing area. In the communications, I explained that if
13 unit of work, atomic, all or none commit. 13 we could implement a small proof−of−work fee, this would
14 Now, what this effectively means is, we’re looking 14 remove any incentive for people to scam the system.
15 at a system, proof−of−work, etc, that will make 15 Now, one of the things, if you actually read Adam Back’s
16 advertising fraud go away. So this was a big issue in 16 −− I’ll even quote his, he talks about proof−of−work as
17 2008, and part of the reason, for instance, even 17 a means of stopping spam and −−
18 Adam Back’s Hashcash was spam and people manipulating 18 Q. Can I pause you there, because I asked you a specific
19 the system. So, by coming in there with this idea, 19 question. During the course of this entire exchange,
20 I didn’t think Bitcoin to the moon, I didn’t think 20 this entire interview process, which you have said could
21 10,000, 100,000, $1 million of Bitcoin, I was thinking 21 have resulted in Microsoft owning the system which you
22 small fractions of a cent. And in this, the idea would 22 had developed −− you claim to have developed, you never
23 have been Microsoft could have issued small amounts of 23 mention the system at any point in any of the documents
24 something to their clients and they could have got them 24 in any of the communications we have, do you?
25 back, and those spoofing the system would have paid 25 A. No. As I stated, I only have very limited numbers of

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 emails and things left . I have none of 1 Q. So you’re saying that these in fact came later?
2 the Ridges Estate emails or any of those other ones. 2 A. Yes, this was notes I was making in 2012. This was
3 What’s happened over time is I’ve lost those. It ’s many 3 a preparation document for the AAT, Administrative
4 years ago. At the time, I wasn’t also sitting there 4 Appeals Tribunal. I took these notes working as I was
5 going Bitcoin’s going to be a multi−billion dollar 5 also getting everything together for the dispute with
6 invention. In one of my early notes, I put down that 6 the Tax Office and I put down some of the issues with
7 I thought it might get me either a partnership or 7 both BDO and Microsoft at the time.
8 a professorship with tenure and that was about 8 Q. You first dated these notes in communications with our
9 the extent of what I thought of my invention. 9 side to 2011/2012 in your chain of custody document of
10 Q. Moving on to one of your reliance documents which has 10 October last year, didn’t you?
11 some relevance here {L7/471/1}, which is ID_004018. Do 11 A. No, the first time I dated this goes back to well before
12 you recognise this set of notes as one of your primary 12 that, back to the Kleiman case.
13 reliance documents? 13 Q. It ’s the first time you told us that this document had
14 A. I do. 14 been produced in 2011/2012, isn’t it?
15 Q. Page 28, please {L7/471/28}. At the bottom 15 A. I don’t know when you were told. All I can say is that
16 the following appears: 16 I went through all of this with lawyers earlier , and
17 ”I cannot get BDO in on this −− Alan is okay, but 17 when it goes from the Relativity and disclosure platform
18 other than Nevil, no partner wants to listen .” 18 to you, I don’t know.
19 Did you write those words? 19 Q. So you’re now saying that it was all written in
20 A. Yes. 20 2011/2012?
21 Q. Over the page {L7/471/29}: 21 A. Probably more 2012, but, yes, this is my notes as I was
22 ”I think they see CAATS ...” 22 preparing for the AAT.
23 Computer aided audit tools, we agreed: 23 Q. You first came up with that story, didn’t you, after
24 ” ... as a threat?” 24 COPA had provided evidence from Ben Ford of
25 Yes? 25 the Datastation company that that form of notepad was

97 99

1 A. Yes. 1 not printed until March 2010, didn’t you?

2 Q. And then, it goes on: 2 A. No, that’s not correct .
3 ” Visiting Microsoft in a few weeks. Need to get 3 Q. And the only explanation for you giving a period of 2011
4 the Bing team to understand the option of a micropayment 4 to 2012 for these notes, despite all their contents
5 token over an ad based ... model. The channels will 5 appearing to date them to 2008, is that you were
6 allow 1000s of pages each ...” 6 reacting to Mr Ford’s evidence, weren’t you?
7 And then {L7/471/30} reference to ”a token market” 7 A. No, actually , I ’ve got a −− a note from Ali Zafar where
8 and Microsoft having the reach; do you see that? 8 he put down all this stuff and I explained it −−
9 A. I do. 9 Q. I don’t want −− I don’t want −− really, I don’t want
10 Q. Then page 31, please {L7/471/31}, top of the page, you 10 privileged information.
11 refer to getting the code working and you make some −− 11 A. It ’s not. He’s not my lawyer.
12 you write some exasperated comments, yes? 12 Q. If COPA hadn’t tracked down Mr Ford, or if he hadn’t
13 A. I do. 13 kindly helped by providing evidence, you would have sat
14 Q. Now, this all reads as descriptions of your discussions 14 there and quite happily let the court work on the basis
15 with BDO and a forthcoming meeting with Microsoft, 15 that these notes dated from 2008, wouldn’t you?
16 doesn’t it ? 16 A. No, I would not. I was explaining that these were my
17 A. I continued discussions with BDO. Alan actually ended 17 notes for the tribunal .
18 up, after he’d left BDO, becoming a director, and also 18 Q. Page 56, please {L7/471/56}:
19 the main audit lead at some of my firms. On top of 19 ”Nodes.
20 that, Microsoft came back to me in 2011 and I had 20 ”The following people have agreed to run nodes when
21 further communications with them between ’11 and ’12. 21 the system starts .”
22 Q. But the reference to not being able to get BDO in on 22 That was plainly looking forward prospectively to
23 this , that’s plainly a reference to things going on in 23 the Bitcoin System starting in 2009, wasn’t it?
24 2008, based on your evidence, isn’t it ? 24 A. No, it wasn’t.
25 A. No, it ’s not at all . 25 Q. ”Gareth”, at the bottom of the page:

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 ”Gareth −− UK system −− not full time.” 1 A. I do.

2 Is that a reference to Gareth Williams? 2 Q. Paragraph 39:
3 A. It is . 3 ”I also operated a secondary server in Melbourne,
4 Q. Gareth Williams died in 2010, didn’t he? 4 known as upload.ae, to mirror some of the directories .
5 A. He did. 5 Upload.ae was linked to my Bigpond company account.”
6 Q. That’s another reason that your story about these notes 6 Do you see that?
7 coming in 2011/2012 makes no sense, isn’t it, Dr Wright? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. No, I had to go in front of the tribunal in 2012 and 8 Q. Paragraph 40:
9 I took down all of my other notes and put them into 9 ”Unfortunately, I do not know what happened to
10 a single thing so that I had them all with me. In that, 10 the above servers.”
11 I had been using Clayton Utz up until nearly before 11 And that’s evidence you adhere to, is it ?
12 the end, but the fees were over $3 million Australian 12 A. It is .
13 and when it came to the tribunal, I had to represent 13 Q. You were describing, in both the Kleiman litigation and
14 myself, so I collated all my own notes. 14 in this statement, upload.ae as a site of yours, a site
15 Q. So when you write: 15 you were operating through a domain name provider
16 ”The following people have agreed to run nodes when 16 company, right?
17 the system starts .” 17 A. No. I had a sub−directory on that domain. I did not
18 This was actually something you were writing 18 say I owned the entire domain, rather I mirrored
19 three years later , three years after the system had 19 a folder .
20 started , you’re saying? 20 Q. In your witness statement you seem to be describing it
21 A. Yes, back −− discussing this with the ATO, with 21 as a ”secondary server” which you operated yourself.
22 the mining of −− what I’m saying is all of this was 22 A. The server that was mirrored on the domain is
23 the start of the system and these people have agreed. 23 the server . So I’m apologising if I ’m not clear, but
24 Q. That’s just a set of lies , isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? 24 what I’m referring to is I have a directory structure
25 A. Not at all . 25 that is linked to that site . The same way that

101 103

1 Q. Moving on to the release of the Bitcoin White Paper, as 1 bitcoin .org/forum was technically a separate server than
2 we’ve seen, the real Satoshi had communications with 2 bitcoin .org.
3 Dr Back and Wei Dai. May we look at {L3/195/1}, and do 3 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that upload.ae was owned by
4 you see that in that email, Satoshi told Wei Dai that he 4 somebody called Faisal Al Khaja, a resident of
5 could download a pre−release version of 5 the UAE from late 2007 continuously to 2009, aren’t you?
6 the Bitcoin White Paper from upload.ae? 6 A. Yes, he ran the service and I had a sub−domain on it.
7 A. I do. 7 Q. This idea of a −− you having a sub−domain is something
8 Q. {O2/10/1} {L17/327/1}, please. This is a transcript 8 that you did not say in your account to the court in
9 from the Kleiman trial. Page 99 {O2/10/99} 9 Kleiman or in your fourth witness statement for these
10 {L17/327/99}. Line 24. Do you recall the question 10 proceedings?
11 being asked about the release of 11 A. I don’t believe I also explained that bitcoin .org/forum
12 the Bitcoin White Paper? Do you see that? 12 is technically a separate server than bitcoin .org. You
13 A. I do. 13 can have domain structures that way. I’m sorry if you
14 Q. Page {L17/327/100}, line 1: 14 don’t understand that.
15 ”I had an FTP site on upload.ie in Australia. That 15 Q. This is another part of the story which you’ve had to
16 was −− it hosted it going back till May.” 16 adapt and add details to in order to get out of a lie ,
17 Does ”FTP” stand for file transfer protocol? 17 isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?
18 A. Yes, that was actually AE, it ’s a transcript error . 18 A. No, what people don’t like is when I make it too long
19 Q. {E/4/16}, please. This is your fourth witness statement 19 and rambling, they complain, and if I don’t make it long
20 in these proceedings. In paragraph 37, you describe 20 and rambling enough, they complain.
21 your set up in 2008. At paragraph 38 {E/4/17}, you go 21 Q. Moving on to the release of the Bitcoin White Paper.
22 on to refer to using: 22 Your first witness statement {E/1/20}, please. You give
23 ” ... a dual−server architecture to maintain 23 a description of the publication of the White Paper.
24 a consistent codebase across multiple locations .” 24 Would you accept that the details you give here are all
25 Don’t you? 25 matters from the public domain?

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 A. Well, they definitely are now. 1 Adam Back and a few others; correct?
2 Q. Yes, but there’s no special information in any −− about 2 A. Yes.
3 your supposed work as Satoshi which you couldn’t have 3 Q. And before this case, that was the fullest account you’d
4 picked up simply from the public domain, is there? 4 given of those with whom you’d shared
5 A. I ’ve been talking about it for so many years that 5 the Bitcoin White Paper, isn’t it ?
6 everything about it ’s public domain. 6 A. No, I’ve mentioned it publicly and in conferences and
7 Q. Well, except all the correspondence and communications 7 other such things, so I said ”others”, but, no,
8 that you haven’t been able to mention which have been 8 I haven’t gone into everything, and I have to think on
9 put in evidence on COPA’s side, right? 9 people relatively hard, I ’m not terribly good with names
10 A. No, I’ve mentioned those. 10 or people at all .
11 Q. Turning to drafting and sharing the drafts of 11 Q. {E/4/21}, please.
12 the White Paper. {O2/10/1} {L17/327/1}, please, back to 12 Now, in this part of your fourth witness statement,
13 your testimony in Kleiman. {O2/10/95} {L17/327/95}. 13 you answered a question, didn’t you, asking you to say
14 Line 6, you were asked when you had a first draft of 14 to whom you’d provided pre−publication drafts of
15 the Bitcoin White Paper and you told the court that you 15 the Bitcoin White Paper, yes?
16 had produced a handwritten draft of 40 pages in 16 A. Yes.
17 March 2008, yes? 17 Q. And you gave the 21 names we see there under
18 A. Yes. 18 paragraph 49?
19 Q. And you reduced it to a typed version of 20 pages in 19 A. That’s correct .
20 April or May 2008? 20 Q. Trying to take this shortly , it ’s right , isn ’ t it , that
21 A. Yes. 21 if these people received drafts of
22 Q. Line 19, you claim to have shared the first −hand written 22 the Bitcoin White Paper, they would have known that that
23 version with Don, your uncle, Max, your cousin, someone 23 was a project you were working on?
24 called Zoren Illievich and a couple of other people from 24 A. One of many.
25 universities you were with, yes? 25 Q. Now, is it right that, with the exceptions of

105 107

1 A. Yes. 1 Stefan Matthews and Don Lynam, none of these 21

2 Q. Then page 96 {L17/327/96}, lines 17 and following, you 2 individuals has come out publicly, whether in a court or
3 discussed the 20−page second version. Do you see that 3 in an article , and supported your account of receiving
4 you were asked with whom you shared that? 4 and remembering the Bitcoin White Paper from you?
5 A. I do. 5 A. No. As I said , this is pre− −− pre−release drafts.
6 Q. And you answered {L17/327/97} by referring to 6 This is a different question to the one in the Kleiman
7 Gareth Williams and some people you didn’t name at 7 trial . They were asking particularly about the 2008,
8 Newcastle University? 8 August, one that I sent to Wei Dai and others. Many of
9 A. That’s correct . 9 the people here received a Timecoin paper. So the
10 Q. You referred to your wife at the time, Lynn Wright, and 10 pre−draft version of the Bitcoin White Paper is in
11 to some other unnamed people at BDO? 11 multiple iterations , and some of them had it as
12 A. No, they’re not unnamed. I’ve mentioned them. Just 12 electronic cash, some of them had it as Timecoin with
13 because they’re not mentioned on that line doesn’t mean 13 E−cash, some of them had Timecoin. So effectively,
14 I haven’t mentioned them. 14 they’re all pre−release drafts of
15 Q. I see. But I’m talking about what you said in 15 the Bitcoin White Paper, but they will be different .
16 the Kleiman proceedings at the moment. 16 Q. Is it right to say that, again with the exception of
17 A. No, I mentioned Allan Granger and others in the Kleiman 17 Mr Matthews and Don Lynam, none of these people has come
18 proceedings. 18 out publicly in an article or in a court proceeding and
19 Q. Page 97 {L17/327/97}, paragraph 12, after referring to 19 said that they received from you a draft paper called
20 feedback about the document being shortened, you refer 20 Timecoin or E−cash before the release of
21 to a third iteration of about ten pages, don’t you? 21 the Bitcoin White Paper?
22 A. I do. 22 A. I believe David Bridges has, to my knowledge Rob Jenkins
23 Q. Page {L17/327/98}, line 6, you described who you shared 23 remembers Timecoin. Iggy talked about his
24 that with, and you said Wei Dai, Gareth Williams, people 24 communications with Steve Aitken where they −−
25 at uni, Allan Granger, Don Lynam, Dave Kleiman, 25 Q. Who did, sorry?

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 A. Ignatius Pang. 1 A. He hasn’t, no.

2 Q. None of those people has ever come out publicly saying 2 Q. Stefan Matthews, we pass over.
3 that they remember receiving a paper from you before 3 Dave Kleiman, somebody who −− for whom there is no
4 the release of the Bitcoin White Paper describing 4 documentary evidence of you sharing the White Paper with
5 E−cash, Timecoin, a digital currency system created by 5 them, right?
6 you, have they? 6 A. No, actually , that’s incorrect . Unfortunately,
7 A. No, I just answered that. And Shane Patterson also has 7 Ira Kleiman seems to have lost all of his hard drives
8 talked about this. He doesn’t −− he’s not in court or 8 and access to email.
9 anything, but he’s talked about it publicly . Max Lynam 9 Q. So but no existing documentary evidence?
10 has talked about it publicly . Edward Archer and I have 10 A. Yes, but it ’s not in good condition.
11 had quite a number of conversations on this. Shoaib’s 11 Q. Lynn Wright, your ex−wife. May I have on screen
12 talked about it . Neville has. Andrew Sommer won’t 12 {L16/116/73}. This is her evidence in the deposition in
13 because, legal privilege , unfortunately. I mean, 13 the Kleiman case. Line 17, she was asked when you first
14 a number of people have, yes. 14 mentioned Bitcoin to her and she said:
15 Q. Which of them has produced −− has provided evidence in 15 ”He never really mentioned it at all to me ...
16 other proceedings, or these proceedings, saying that 16 I don’t recall him ever using that term. What I do
17 they received a draft of the Bitcoin White Paper, 17 recall is , years before, like around 2004/2005, he said
18 whether it was called Timecoin, or E−cash or whatever, 18 to me one day ... ’You know that the way of the future
19 before the release of that paper? 19 is digital currency?’ and I said ’Well, what do you
20 A. Robert Jenkins talks about the system I built , which was 20 mean, ’ digital currency’? and he kind of explained it ,
21 a hash chain based on a genesis file . Let’s see, 21 ’You know, just money sort of over the −− like in −− on
22 David Bridges, the same thing. 22 computers, type thing, rather than cash in hand’ ... ”
23 Q. Do you say that they describe in their evidence, because 23 Then line 9 {L16/116/73}, she was asked:
24 we’re coming to their evidence, receiving drafts of what 24 ”Did −− would you say that Craig had a strong
25 would become the Bitcoin White Paper, whether they 25 interest in digital money in 2004?”

109 111

1 referred to Timecoin or E−cash, drafts of that paper, 1 Answer:

2 before its publication? 2 ”Well, Craig had a strong −− his −− I think his
3 A. Yes, but you’re referring to different things. You’re 3 primary interests were security at that point, but you
4 referring −− you’re mixing up my larger Timecoin 4 never knew what was going through his mind. He was
5 implementation and Bitcoin. 5 always coming up with different ideas for stuff .”
6 Q. Let’s go through them since we have to do this way. 6 Do you see that evidence?
7 Danielle DeMorgan, your sister? 7 A. I do.
8 A. Yes. 8 Q. Then page {L16/116/75}, she was asked if there had been
9 Q. She wasn’t mentioned by name in the lists you gave in 9 any mention of Bitcoin, top of the page. So if we go
10 Kleiman, was she? 10 back to the bottom of {L16/116/74}, so we see the full
11 A. No one asked, but the list in Kleiman was limited 11 question:
12 explicitly to one version of the paper. 12 ”So between 2004 and the divorce, there was no
13 Q. She doesn’t mention in her statement in these 13 mention of bitcoin ...
14 proceedings having received a pre−publication copy of 14 ” ... by Craig to you?”
15 the Bitcoin White Paper, does she? Just that question. 15 ”The Deponent”:
16 A. Again, I ’m not going to answer ”yes” or ”no”, because 16 ”I don’t ever remember him mentioning it again after
17 you’re trying to be a bit deceitful on that. I ’ve 17 that ’ digital currency’ remark that he made.”
18 stated I did not call it the Bitcoin White Paper for 18 So, not only does Lynn Wright not remember receiving
19 the majority of the ones I sent. So, to answer this 19 the Bitcoin White Paper or something similar from you,
20 correctly , I ’ve sent it under a number of names. 20 she doesn’t even remember you discussing working on it?
21 Technically, I didn’t even send the Bitcoin White Paper 21 A. Can we have a look at page 1, the first page you showed.
22 to Wei Dai. 22 Q. The first page I showed you of this was 73 {L16/116/73}?
23 Q. Shane Patterson, somebody not mentioned in the list you 23 A. 73, thank you. You’ll also note the question:
24 gave in Kleiman and somebody who gives no evidence in 24 ”Did Ms Watts ever work with Craig?
25 these or any other proceedings, right? 25 ”Answer: Not that I’m aware of.”

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Ramona, at this stage, had been working with me 1 A. Yes, I do.

2 since 2011 and perfectly knew that I’d started several 2 Q. Do you recall his death and his connection to
3 companies with my current wife. So, yes, ex−wives. 3 the security services were widely reported with plenty
4 On top of that −− 4 of conspiracy theories surrounding them?
5 Q. So she was lying under oath, was she, in giving that 5 A. Yes, there were a lot of ridiculous theories .
6 account? 6 Q. And you could readily, like the rest of the world, pick
7 A. No, I think she was on a lot of medication, as I said . 7 that up from the press?
8 My ex−wife had just gone through breast cancer 8 A. No, I’d already given his name to the ATO before he was
9 operations, and she was on a variety of medication. 9 dead.
10 Q. I ’ve already put it to you that she accepted that she 10 Q. There is no evidence whatsoever of communications
11 was fit to give evidence. 11 between you and him during his lifetime, is there?
12 But let me put this to you. These answers are 12 A. Again, I don’t have any of the Ridges Estate,
13 perfectly coherent answers, you just couldn’t remember 13 Panopticrypt or other emails.
14 what you’re now attributing to her? 14 Q. You’ve plucked his name out of the air as a mysterious
15 A. No, she couldn’t remember that my current wife had 15 collaborator , haven’t you?
16 worked with me for six −− actually nine years at this 16 A. No, actually , I put that under a secrecy provision in
17 point when she gave this. She also said ”security”, but 17 the US. We had a closed court, but it got leaked.
18 I didn’t talk about digital currency again, I talked 18 Q. Well, let ’s come to that. {L15/125/98}, please. This
19 about digital cash, they’re very different things. And 19 is a transcript of your deposition in the Kleiman case
20 in the development of Bitcoin, what I would talk about 20 in June 2019. Do you see this?
21 mostly was the immutable logging, timestamp server, and 21 A. Yes.
22 the way that we could secure systems. The timestamp 22 Q. Line 4, you told the court that Mr Williams participated
23 server function of Bitcoin is actually the primary 23 in a videocon you had with Dave Kleiman some time in
24 reason. It needs digital cash to make it work. 24 2011, when you were in New York City, didn’t you?
25 Q. Back to your list of names {E/4/21}. 25 A. Yes, I got that date wrong.

113 115

1 Going back down these, this was a question about 1 Q. Let’s see whether you did. Page 99, paragraph −−
2 the individuals to whom you sent a draft of 2 line 20 {L15/125/99}, you describe the meeting taking
3 the Bitcoin White Paper; correct? 3 less than half an hour and you described the videocon;
4 A. Any version of, yes. 4 do you see that?
5 Q. You referred to drafts of the Bitcoin White Paper. 5 A. I do.
6 A. Any version of what that would be. 6 Q. Page {L15/125/100}, do you see that you described him as
7 Q. I put to you again that with the two exceptions of 7 a former MI6 agent and linked also with GCHQ?
8 Mr Matthews and Mr Don Lynam, none of these people has 8 A. That’s correct .
9 come forward publicly with the recollection of receiving 9 Q. You said you had helped train him and he was
10 what might possibly be described as a draft of 10 participating in the call partially as a UK agent?
11 the White Paper. 11 A. Basically , I met him at BlackNet conferences and I was
12 A. No, as I said , it wasn’t called Bitcoin for each of 12 involved with some of his training on digital forensics
13 them. So Edward Archer has also noted it publicly. 13 and tracing.
14 Neville Sinclair has as well , but not −− 14 Q. ”Was he working in his capacity as an agent for the [UK]
15 Q. Are you sure he was called Edward Archer? 15 Government when he participated in this call with you?
16 A. Yes, I ’m sure he’s called Edward Archer. 16 ”Answer: Only partially .”
17 Q. Are you sure he wasn’t called Edwin? 17 Yes?
18 A. Edwin, yes. I told you −− I know, you can laugh. 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I ’m not laughing. 19 Q. And then, towards the bottom, you said that you involved
20 A. Make fun of the fact that I ’m not good at names. I’m 20 Mr Kleiman in this conversation because you were wanting
21 sorry . 21 to clean up everything to do with Satoshi, yes?
22 Q. Gareth Williams. Would you accept that he was a young 22 A. Yes.
23 man who worked for the UK security services and was 23 Q. And of course that dates the call to 2011, when Satoshi
24 found dead, his remains in a large bag in a flat in 24 was departing the scene, doesn’t it ?
25 Pimlico? 25 A. No, I started departing the scene in about August.

114 116

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Q. That’s convenient, isn’ t it , because Mr Williams, of 1 A. No, actually , they can talk about all of the systems
2 course, was found dead on 23 August 2010? Did you have 2 they’ve seen, etc; they know about Timecoin, they can
3 this videocon just before he died? 3 talk about those systems; and they know about
4 A. No. I get dates wrong. 4 the implemented code and systems that I built for their
5 Q. You described what appeared to be a vivid recollection 5 companies.
6 of a video call with a UK Government agent who had been 6 Q. Well, I ’m going to try with the question again. None of
7 dead for several months before the video call could 7 them has actually come forward with a hard or soft copy
8 possibly have been timed, didn’t you? 8 which they say is a pre−issue draft of the White Paper
9 A. No, I did not. What I had was a call where I was very, 9 you provided to them, have they?
10 very angry and I was trying not to respond and I was 10 A. No, and I think if they did, you’d just say that it ’s
11 being difficult . 11 all false and made up.
12 Q. Returning −− we can take that down. Returning to your 12 Q. Moving on to your account of sharing
13 sharing of the Bitcoin White Paper, you’ve never been 13 the Bitcoin White Paper with Mr Matthews. Mr Matthews
14 able, have you, to provide a single email evidencing 14 is CEO of nChain, isn’t he?
15 sharing the Bitcoin White Paper with anyone, have you? 15 A. He is.
16 A. No. As I said , Ridges Estate, Information Defense and 16 Q. And he’s been instrumental over the years in the public
17 other emails have all been lost . 17 presentation of your claim to be Satoshi, hasn’t he?
18 Q. And you’ve never been able to provide a single hard or 18 A. No, not really .
19 soft copy of a draft shared with any of these people? 19 Q. You wouldn’t describe Mr Matthews’ work in early 2016
20 A. No, that’s actually incorrect . You’ve got multiple hard 20 and mid−2016 as being instrumental in the public
21 copies. 21 presentation of your claim to be Satoshi? You’d say
22 Q. Which hard copies do you say were the specific hard 22 that’s not true, would you?
23 copies shared with these individuals ? 23 A. I would say that’s a blatant lie . I would say Stefan
24 A. Oh, I mean, there’d be copies of those. One of the ones 24 got roped into things by Rob. So Stefan went along with
25 I took back from Stefan, so I don’t know which 25 most of it , but that was never the aim. The 2015/16

117 119

1 particular one is which, but yes, I ’d shared them. 1 debacle happened because, well, I wanted to go off and
2 Q. So you took back a hard copy you’d shared with Stefan, 2 research, and then, after being doxed, Rob thought he
3 did you? 3 could cash in .
4 A. Yes, he didn’t want it. 4 Q. We’ll come to those emails later, but you’ve told us
5 Q. That’s not the one that has written on it , ”Stefan −− 5 that you deny that he was instrumental in the public
6 Will Centrebet use a token”? It’s not that one? 6 presentation of your claim to be Satoshi, right?
7 A. I don’t know which one it is. 7 A. I agree.
8 Q. You told us that one wasn’t one you’d got back from 8 Q. Now, Mr Matthews, in 2005, was CEO of Centrebet and it’s
9 Stefan. 9 at that time that you first came in contact with him;
10 A. I tried dropping things on him multiple times, he said 10 correct?
11 that as well . 11 A. Around that, yes, when I started with BDO.
12 Q. Not only have you not got any of these emails or hard or 12 Q. And then, if we go to {E/1/19}, your first witness
13 soft copies from your own records, none of these 21 13 statement, paragraph 97, you say:
14 people have obliged you by coming forward with their end 14 ”Around October 2008, I handed over a draft of
15 of the email, or their hard or soft copy from their 15 the White Paper to Stefan Matthews, who was serving as
16 systems, have they? 16 the [CIO] at CentreBet. If memory serves me right,
17 A. No. As I’ve noted, it ’s been over 15 years. Danielle ’s 17 I left a printed copy of the draft on his desk.”
18 moved and started her own business, left her own 18 That’s your story, isn ’ t it ?
19 business, been somewhere else; Shane’s no longer with 19 A. Yes. I actually did that multiple times. I mean, there
20 Centrebet, it doesn’t exist any more, other people 20 was −− I can’t remember all the times I did it, but it ’s
21 aren’t , so I don’t know about you, but a lot of people 21 probably a little bit brash, I used to walk into his
22 don’t have 15−year old emails. 22 office and just start talking or drop things.
23 Q. You’re very unfortunate that not one of the 21 has ever 23 Q. {E/5/6}, paragraph 24. This is Mr Matthews’ account in
24 been able to come forward with the emails or a soft copy 24 his witness statement and presumably you’ve read this?
25 or a hard copy, aren’t you? 25 A. Yes.

118 120

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Q. Paragraph 24, he says: 1 paper over the difference between the two of you,
2 ”There was one occasion, around August 2008, when 2 haven’t you?
3 Dr Wright handed me a USB stick. To the best of my 3 A. No, actually , he’s talked about it multiple times
4 recollection our conversation went something like this. 4 publicly . He said how I dropped papers on his desk and
5 I asked him ’what’s this?’ . His answer was, ’ it ’s 5 he usually just dropped them in the bin.
6 a USB stick’. This was pretty consistent with the way 6 Q. This is more than just an instance of different
7 Dr Wright interacts with people. I said ’ I see that, 7 accounts, isn ’ t it ?
8 but what’s on it?’ . He told me there was a document he 8 A. No, not at all .
9 wanted me to read on it. I plugged it into my laptop at 9 Q. You gave the story of handing over a hard copy because
10 the time in my office. There was a single file . 10 it would fit with that false document with the notes
11 I downloaded that file to my laptop, gave him the USB 11 about −− with the coffee stain and the note about,
12 back, and told him I would read it later . We did not 12 ”Stefan −− Will Centrebet use a token that’s
13 discuss the paper at this time. 13 transferable and audited”, didn’t you?
14 ”I printed it out on the private printer in my 14 A. No, actually , that wouldn’t be a message to Stefan. So,
15 office , either the same day or the next day. At some 15 like I said , that wouldn’t have been what I gave him.
16 point after that I read the paper ... ” 16 But Stefan had a habit of just dropping my papers in
17 He goes on to say that he identified that as a draft 17 the bin if he didn’t want them, so I actually would have
18 of the Bitcoin White Paper. 18 used the USB stick just so that there’s something that
19 Right? 19 he won’t drop in a bin.
20 A. Mm−hm. 20 Q. Moving on to the −− to your accounts of those who were
21 Q. He’s quite specific about receiving a soft copy and 21 involved in the creation of Bitcoin. {L8/347/1}. This
22 printing it out in the printer in his office , isn ’ t he? 22 is an exhibit from the Kleiman proceedings. Do you
23 A. Yes. That would be the Timecoin paper. That’s why 23 recall in those proceedings being asked about this
24 I said he only became aware of Bitcoin later. That 24 email, dated 11 February 2014 {L8/347/2}, which was at
25 document didn’t use the name Bitcoin. 25 least ostensibly sent by you to Louis Kleiman, Dave’s

121 123

1 Q. I see. So you gave him the Timecoin paper in soft copy 1 father?
2 and the Bitcoin White Paper in hard copy? That’s what 2 A. Yes, it was actually my EA at the time. I wanted to
3 you’re saying now, is it ? 3 contact Dave’s father and basically give a message that
4 A. Probably multiple times for both. I ’m probably 4 would make him proud of his son.
5 the world’s worst marketer. As you see, the way I even 5 Q. ”Hello Louis,
6 describe this is terrible . I don’t −− like you’re 6 ”Your son Dave and I are two of the three key people
7 saying: why didn’t I market this, where are my colourful 7 behind Bitcoin.”
8 PowerPoints? Basically, asked what is this and I go 8 A. Yes, I see that.
9 it ’s a USB stick. I mean, that’s about as good at 9 Q. And you write that not straight after Dave’s death, but
10 marketing as I get. 10 ten months later?
11 Q. Dr Wright, in your first witness statement, you 11 A. It took me that long to actually find him.
12 initially −− you refer to sharing a single copy of 12 Q. To your deposition in Kleiman when you were asked about
13 the White Paper in hard copy with Mr Matthews. That’s 13 this {L14/409/126}, line 3. Do you recall being asked
14 what you say in your statement, isn’t it ? 14 about this email in the Kleiman proceedings?
15 A. No, I didn’t say a single copy, I said , at that point, 15 A. I see it .
16 I shared one. I didn’t say that I only shared that. 16 Q. It ’s quoted from line 16:
17 Q. But you didn’t refer to any others being shared in soft 17 ”Hello Louis, your son Dave and I are two of
18 copy, did you? 18 the three key people behind Bitcoin’.”
19 A. I didn’t think I had to. 19 Yes? Do you see that?
20 Q. And Mr Matthews only refers to the sharing of one paper, 20 A. I do.
21 being a soft copy, right? 21 Q. And you were asked:
22 A. I don’t know if he knows more about that. I mean, 22 ”Did you write that?”
23 I gave him multiple copies. He’s also −− 23 And you answered:
24 Q. And you’ve come up with this story of multiple copies 24 ”I typed that.”
25 being shared, one in soft , one in hard copy, to try to 25 Yes?

122 124

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 A. Yes. 1 ”No, I did not.”

2 Q. Then you were asked who was the third key person, who 2 Now, that was directly opposite to what you had said
3 was the third person, and it was said on your behalf 3 a year previously , wasn’t it ?
4 that you were not in a position to answer that question 4 A. No. What I meant by that was I typed a message that
5 but will provide a fuller explanation to the court in 5 I gave to someone else to send. So in the first one,
6 camera, right? 6 I typed it , but, no, I did not type the email.
7 A. I do. 7 Q. And page 140, let’s see how you explained it there, you
8 Q. {L14/409/127}, at the top, your objection is explained 8 said that it was probably written by Angela Demitrio,
9 as being by you as an objection based on national 9 your executive assistant , yes?
10 security of the USA; correct? 10 A. Either that or one of the other people, yes.
11 A. Yes. 11 Q. Then you went on, at line 20, not saying that you wanted
12 Q. Line 19, you were asked if the third person was still 12 her to write the words because you wanted to make
13 alive −− this was in April 2019 −− and you answered that 13 Louis Kleiman proud of his son, but that she got
14 you didn’t know, didn’t you? 14 the instruction to write those words from Louis and Uyen
15 A. I hadn’t bothered to check. 15 or other people; that’s what you said on that occasion,
16 Q. You were asked: 16 wasn’t it ?
17 ”Is the third person still alive ?” 17 A. I wanted a message sent to Louis, but I didn’t handle
18 And you said you don’t know, yes? 18 it .
19 A. I did. 19 Q. Then counsel, unsurprisingly, page 141, puts
20 Q. And you were asked: 20 the contradiction to you, yes?
21 ”Is the third person a member of the US government?” 21 A. I see it .
22 And your answer −− back to the previous page, 22 Q. Then line 10:
23 please. The answer was: 23 ”That is a mischaracterisation . You asked me
24 ” If I do not know if they are alive I do not know if 24 a particular sentence. You did not say whether I typed
25 they are a member of the US government.” 25 that e−mail. You said a particular sentence −−

125 127

1 Do you see that? 1 literally one sentence in this e−mail ... ’did you type
2 A. I do. 2 that’ . In discussions with my lawyers, I typed that
3 Q. And then O2/4 −− sorry, I can give a better reference 3 exact sentence.”
4 {L16/267/1}, please. 4 And then, at line 20 onwards:
5 Do you recall this topic being returned to in 5 ”Without going into the discussions ... I just need
6 a later deposition in March 2020, and do you remember 6 to formulate how I said it without saying my discussions
7 that between the two depositions, the judge ruled that 7 −− I had pointed out evidence that my lawyers −− I keep
8 you could in fact and should answer questions on this 8 hitting discussion points. I discussed that sentence
9 subject? 9 and I typed that sentence. I did not type the whole
10 A. I do. 10 e−mail.”
11 Q. Page 36 {L16/267/36}, internal page 139, which is in 11 And then you refer to being over−literal.
12 the bottom left quadrant, and line 11, do you see 12 Your account, on that occasion, was that you’d typed
13 Mr Kleiman’s lawyers returned to that email? 13 the sentence, but in a communication with your lawyers
14 A. Which page are we on, sorry? 14 about talking points, yes?
15 Q. This is , sorry , 139, bottom left, line 11: 15 A. Like I ’ve just been saying, I typed the sentence,
16 ”Do you see an e−mail in the middle page 16 I didn’t type the email. I had instructed people to
17 February 11, 2014 ... ” 17 send messages, but I was an executive at the time, and,
18 And then, line 18: 18 no, I didn’t overlook every single thing that got sent.
19 ” ... ’ hello Louis, your son Dave and I are two of 19 Q. So then page 145, in the bottom right, line 13
20 the three key people behind Bitcoin’.” 20 {L16/267/37}. After some further discussion, you were
21 Yes? 21 asked if you had written the sentence, and you said no.
22 A. Yes. 22 You were then asked why in the first deposition you
23 Q. You were asked: 23 couldn’t say who the third person was on grounds of
24 ”Did you type that?” 24 national security ; you see that?
25 And you answered: 25 A. I do.

126 128

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 Q. Page 38 {L16/267/38}, internal page 146, line 8, do you 1 A. Not really .

2 see that counsel tried to bring some clarity by pointing 2 Q. And then when asked about it in March 2020, trying to
3 out there were two people who supposedly help you, one 3 distance Dave from the entire project, you said that he
4 was Dave Kleiman and then asked who the other one was, 4 wasn’t one of the three people and the email didn’t mean
5 yes? 5 what it looked like it meant; correct?
6 A. Yes. 6 A. No, I was ordered under oath to tell the full story ,
7 Q. And you answered that you hadn’t said one was 7 which I didn’t want to do. If I didn’t answer, I ’d be
8 Dave Kleiman: 8 under contempt, and I wasn’t going to lie. So,
9 ”I did not say one of them is Dave.” 9 basically , I had to say this and explain how Dave wasn’t
10 Do you see that? 10 actually part of developing it .
11 A. I do. 11 Q. When you held up national security and you said it was
12 Q. And then you were asked: 12 national security of the US government relating to
13 ”Who are the two people that helped you set 13 somebody who might be alive, as far as you knew, that
14 everything up ...? ” 14 couldn’t possibly have been a reference to
15 And you said: 15 Gareth Williams, as you later said , could it ?
16 ”Wing Commander Don Lynam ...” 16 A. No, but I was being difficult at the time, so I was
17 Yes? 17 trying to waffle as much as possible.
18 A. Yes. 18 Q. Well, let ’s focus very clearly . You say you were being
19 Q. And number 2 is a former GCHQ MI6 operative ... killed 19 difficult in saying, ”I have an objection based on
20 by Russian agents ... ” 20 national security of the US Government”, in relation to
21 Gareth Williams, yes? 21 somebody who may still be alive, who’s a member of
22 A. I do. 22 the US Government, you were telling the court in Kleiman
23 Q. How are you going to make Louis Kleiman feel proud of 23 a lie , weren’t you, Dr Wright?
24 his son by telling him that you, Don Lynam and 24 A. No, actually −−
25 Gareth Williams came up with Bitcoin? 25 Q. You were just being difficult ?

129 131

1 A. That’s not what I was aiming to tell . What I had to 1 A. −− I wasn’t. No, I was not.
2 explain in court was a different story . When I asked 2 Q. So who was the person who might be a member of
3 for a mail to be sent to Lou, I wanted to note that Dave 3 the US Government, still alive in 2019, who was at all
4 was instrumental, because without him, I wouldn’t have 4 relevant to this story?
5 continued. I would have stopped before I developed 5 A. My uncle, for a start , but other people as well .
6 Bitcoin; I would have stopped shortly after I developed 6 Q. So you were saying that your uncle might be a member of
7 Bitcoin; I would have not had anything to do with it 7 the US Government for all you knew and you didn’t know
8 after Silk Road, if it wasn’t for Dave and many other 8 if he was alive or not?
9 things in my life . So he was instrumental, but in 9 A. Well, when I said that, I actually didn’t , because
10 a different way. 10 I hadn’t spoken to him in a while, but that’s me being
11 Q. The versions just keep changing, don’t they? 11 difficult and silly and pedantic. What I do know is, he
12 A. Not at all . You asked about what I said under oath 12 has been a member of the US Government, as in, he was
13 versus what I said to try and make the father of my best 13 seconded from the Australian military to work in
14 friend feel happy, and they’re two different things. 14 America.
15 I asked someone to send an email making, well, Dave’s 15 Q. In 2019, he wasn’t a member of the US Government?
16 father feel proud of him. David died and I was happy 16 A. No.
17 for Dave to take some of my credit. I thought it would 17 Q. Which is the answer you gave in the Kleiman proceedings.
18 be good. 18 A. He still helped with work I was doing.
19 Q. The email was telling Louis Kleiman: your son Dave and 19 Q. Your account on this whole subject has been chaotic and
20 I and somebody else were behind Bitcoin; correct? That 20 confused because you’ve been trying to maintain an
21 was what the email was saying? 21 elaborate fiction about your supposed collaborators in
22 A. Yes. 22 Bitcoin, right?
23 Q. Then, when asked about what the email was saying on 23 A. Absolutely the opposite way. I was trying to hide
24 the first occasion in April 2019, you appeared to 24 the fact that I was the creator of Bitcoin and distance
25 endorse that, didn’t you? 25 myself at this point. I was being forced to come out

130 132

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 and say it and I didn’t want to. So at this point in 1 ”Microsoft patch Tuesday.
2 2019, I was being incredibly difficult , because I didn’t 2 ”The original machines were a group of workstations
3 want to answer the judge. I was later forced, under 3 and not a domain. When I initially installed them,
4 oath, under threat of contempt, to answer the question. 4 I used a series of Windows Server 2003 licences. And
5 MR HOUGH: Thank you very much, Dr Wright. 5 then MS09−001.
6 I ’m seeing that we’re just before 3 o’clock and I’m 6 ”It wasn’t actually the first problem, but it was
7 moving to another topic. Would that be a convenient 7 the biggest. All of the machines weren’t running at
8 moment? 8 block one. There were what I hoped to be enough.”
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, let’s take five minutes. 9 Do you see that?
10 (2.58 pm) 10 A. I do.
11 (A short break) 11 Q. So your story, if I have this right , is that
12 (3.06 pm) 12 Genesis Block is mined, and then Microsoft’s regular
13 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, moving on in time from the development 13 security update on Patch Tuesday causes the machines to
14 and creation of the Bitcoin System to the Genesis Block 14 crash, and then you addressed the problem before
15 and the early stages. Now, I think we’re agreed, aren’t 15 10th January by building a domain; correct?
16 we, that the Genesis Block was created on Saturday, 16 A. No, I already had a domain. I hadn’t had the Windows XP
17 3 January 2009 UK time, perhaps Sunday, 4 January 2009 17 machines on the domain. So what we’re talking about
18 Australian time, right? 18 there is , I had a domain but I needed to integrate these
19 A. Yes. 19 systems. What you’ll note in the first interview is
20 Q. And block 1 was then mined on Friday, 9 January 2009? 20 I mentioned the WSUS system. WSUS is the Microsoft
21 A. Yes. Technically, the system had to be restarted. 21 patching server. So I wasn’t doing like normal home
22 Q. {L17/108/1}, please. This is the published transcript 22 users do and running, just patching from downloads from
23 of a video: 23 the internet . What I had was a patch consolidation
24 ”Dr Craig Wright explains the origins of 24 system at home. So, WSUS doesn’t also −− when I say
25 Bitcoin ... ” 25 ”Patch Tuesday”, that’s what it’s known, but when you’re

133 135

1 If we go down to the next page, please {L17/108/2}, 1 running WSUS, it doesn’t run on Tuesday, necessarily,
2 we can see the various times in the video. 2 and it doesn’t have the patches the way that you’re
3 Then page 13, please {L17/108/13}, an entry in 3 saying the same way.
4 the lower third of the page. This transcript has you 4 Q. Let’s take this in stages. You were saying that
5 speaking about the early stages of Bitcoin? 5 the problem arose between 3 and 9 January 2009, aren’t
6 A. Yes. 6 you?
7 Q. ”Yeah, so there were lots of code problems with Bitcoin, 7 A. Yes, that was the first one. There was actually one
8 lots of problems with many things. I mean, I mentioned, 8 during that period and then the following week, to
9 you’ve seen in my blog, Patch Tuesday was horrible. 9 the 12th, there was a second.
10 Microsoft making all machines turn off at once, 10 Q. But in the course of these, the interview and this blog,
11 horrible , horrible invention. I mean ... yeah. Anyway. 11 you’re referring to a problem that occurs to shut things
12 If you’re running so many machines, and you don’t think 12 down between 3 and 10 January 2009, aren’t you?
13 about it , and suddenly one night, you find they’d all 13 A. Yes, my systems did an update.
14 turned off ... yeah. And Bitcoin couldn’t have that, so 14 Q. You describe that, don’t you, the cause of the problems
15 before the 10th of January, I had to build a domain.” 15 at that time, between the 3rd and the 10th, as being
16 Is that an account you gave in that interview? 16 Microsoft Patch Tuesday, don’t you?
17 A. It should have been ”rebuild”, but other than that ... 17 A. Yes, that’s what it’s referred to in the industry . But
18 Q. {L14/420/1}, please. This is blogpost from just before. 18 when you’re running a WSUS server, as you’ll note on
19 That video I think was 24 April, this one is a blogpost 19 the first interview that you noted, if you want to go
20 from 6 April 2019. Do you recognise that as a blogpost 20 back to that, what you see is WSUS is the Microsoft
21 you made? 21 local patch server. So, WSUS isn’t that I’m pulling
22 A. I do. 22 patches from the internet like most people, it is that
23 Q. Page 2, please {L14/420/2}, one−third of the way down 23 my server does it on my schedule.
24 the page: 24 Q. You refer to the thing that causes the problem as
25 ”’ I ’d started with a major miscalculation. 25 ”Microsoft Patch Tuesday”, don’t you?

134 136

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 A. Yes, it ’s called Patch Tuesday even when it happens on 1 access to a whole lot of their products, but I have
2 Friday. 2 pre−release. So, all of these are pre−tested. So
3 Q. Patch Tuesday, in January 2009, took place on Tuesday, 3 Microsoft Patch Tuesday goes out to individuals in
4 13 January 2009, didn’t it? 4 the MSDN network first. Not only that, but even
5 A. I don’t know. What I do know is I had a WSUS server. 5 source code for Microsoft. I mean, ironically , people
6 So WSUS does it on the schedule that I implement. 6 think Microsoft is not open source; it is , if you’re
7 Q. {L4/60/1}, please. 7 signed up.
8 This is referring to Microsoft Patch Tuesday for 8 So, first thing happens, internal testing , beta
9 January 2009 and describing it as taking place on 9 test . Second thing happens, goes out to
10 13 January 2009, which I can tell you is a Tuesday. Do 10 the MSDN network, including myself. Third thing
11 you see that? 11 happens, it goes out to wide, broadcast to everyone.
12 A. Again, what you’re missing at the bottom is their 12 So, again, when you’re saying Patch Tuesday, you’re
13 Windows Update, WU, is different to Windows Server 13 presuming that I’m just one of the every day plebs out
14 Update Services. Windows Server Update Services, which 14 there and not in the MSDN network.
15 I have mentioned in each of those areas in my witness 15 Q. So when you refer, in general terms, in your interview
16 statement as well, is separate to Windows Update. Home 16 to Patch Tuesday, a horrible invention, which your
17 users do Windows Update; servers do the other. 17 listeners will understand, you’re actually referring to
18 Q. {L4/262/1}, an article: 18 something that takes place earlier , maybe not on
19 ”It ’s Window Patch Tuesday: January 2009.” 19 a Tuesday, and is not the same as affects the plebs,
20 This refers to Patch Tuesday taking place, with 20 right?
21 the date of the article from Microsoft, January 13, 21 A. If you want to put it that way, yes. But once again,
22 2009, right? 22 what I will say is there are different levels . There’s
23 A. It does. 23 internal , there are different levels of internal ,
24 Q. And anyone can look at Wikipedia and note that Patch 24 including beta testing within Microsoft. Many of
25 Tuesday is described as a regular monthly event where 25 the project managers are required to run these things.

137 139

1 Microsoft releases patches for its systems, right? 1 Next, it goes out to the MSDN network. Those on
2 A. Again, what you’re doing is mischaracterising . It is 2 the MSDN network are test guinea pigs first, it ’s like
3 a term for the patching. Patch Tuesday references 3 a beta programme, and then it goes out to the wider
4 Windows Update, WU. I specified WSUS. Now, everyone in 4 world only after it ’s already been tested. So you can
5 the industry just calls it ”Patch Tuesday”. Now, when 5 actually validate that if you look at MSDN network
6 you have your patches released, it can be over 6 online .
7 a weekend, it can be on a Thursday, it can be whatever. 7 Q. Dr Wright, the reality is you were trying to come up
8 With WSUS, the server system is configured however you 8 with some detail to give credence to your story about
9 configure it . 9 the system shutting down in its first days due to Patch
10 Q. Back to the previous document {L4/60/1}, and if we can 10 Tuesday and you didn’t take account of when Patch
11 put on screen both page 1 and 2 together, please, if 11 Tuesday actually was; that’s the truth, isn ’ t it ?
12 that can be done {L4/60/2}. Now, we can see that, at 12 A. No, actually , I knew perfectly well when Patch Tuesday
13 the bottom of the page 1, Microsoft indicates what 13 was. You’re, again, forgetting that I ran all these
14 Microsoft is planning to release on Patch Tuesday, and 14 services for clients ; I ran it for Hoyts, Centrebet,
15 that includes updates for both Windows Update and 15 etc. So one of the reasons I ran it all early was if
16 Windows Server Update Services, WSUS: 16 I ’m going to have these things pushed out to people like
17 ”This information is subject to change by Patch 17 Centrebet, I need to know. So one of the services
18 Tuesday ...” 18 I ran, my Lord, for Centrebet, for instance, was I ran
19 It ’s all happening, including for WSUS, on that 19 all the patches first . Part of the thing was I was on
20 single Patch Tuesday on 13 January 2009, isn’t it? 20 the highest tier of the Microsoft Developer Network and
21 A. No, actually . What you’re again missing is 21 one of my companies was actually the first Australian
22 the Microsoft Developer Network. Now, I was teaching 22 company to be a Microsoft gold partner −− also the first
23 Microsoft products at Charles Sturt University and I was 23 person to get kicked out of the programme, but that’s
24 actively part of the Microsoft Developer Network, MSDN. 24 a different thing −− but MSDN and Microsoft Developer
25 As an MSDN sort of registered person, not only do I have 25 Network provides early access. The whole point is, as

138 140

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 an administrator of these networks, you have to be able 1 I was doing, and even then, I was losing money.
2 to tell your clients whether it’s going to work or not 2 Q. You never told them about any rewards that they were
3 on their system. So one of the things why I had so many 3 receiving , did you?
4 machines was I had to basically install these things and 4 A. No, not totally correctly . I said there were tokens
5 make sure it would work. 5 being generated, but in 2009, there was no point going
6 Q. Back to your witness statement {E/1/22}. Continuing 6 on and going, ”Hey, keep these, protect them, they’re
7 with the story of Bitcoin mining, you refer to early 7 going to be worth a lot of money”. I mean, everything
8 Bitcoin mining, and then you say that in the early days 8 they had would probably end up in cents or dollars and
9 the only individuals engaged in mining were you and your 9 their electricity would have been hundreds of times more
10 family, specifically Don and Max Lynam, yes? 10 expensive.
11 A. Oh, I mean, that was for the first few days. Straight 11 Q. But you didn’t tell them at any point, ”You’ve been
12 after that, other people were involved. Hal Finney came 12 spending all this money”, or, ”All this money has been
13 in a few days later , then Dustin Trammell came in, but 13 spent on the electricity , retain the wallets”, or,
14 we’re talking the first little tiny bit . 14 ”Retain the addresses so that you’ve still got whatever
15 Q. And you say that you were −− that they were operating 15 value is attributed to these things”. You never said
16 a node from Don’s farm while you were at the same time 16 that to them, did you?
17 running mining operations from systems you had set up, 17 A. No, what I said was, ”Make sure that you protect
18 including computer systems in 69 racks, right? 18 the system and keep the files”. Again, I was never, and
19 A. No, I said 69 systems. What that would actually be 19 still am not, about this whole money gained by coin go
20 would be two external other systems, 67 Windows 20 up so −−
21 machines, and they were structured with Virtual 21 Q. So you’re saying now you told them to protect the files?
22 Machines, Citrix, etc. I ’ve explained all of that. So 22 A. Yes.
23 the two machines that aren’t part of this are Solaris , 23 Q. When do you say you told them that?
24 but the other machines are Windows and Virtual. 24 A. Oh, it would have been when they first started in 2009.
25 Q. Well, you disputed my description of them as computer 25 Q. You told them to keep the files secure so that they

141 143

1 systems in 69 racks, but that’s exactly what your 1 could be −−

2 statement says, isn ’ t it ? 2 A. Analysed.
3 A. That’s a typo. It ’s 69 computers in racks. It should 3 Q. −− looked at by anybody else? They didn’t, did they?
4 be. 4 A. What do you mean ”looked at by anyone else”? That’s
5 Q. I see. 5 not −−
6 And you give an account of Don and Max running 6 Q. You just said ”analysed”. Let’s use your
7 mining nodes for a significant period, don’t you? 7 word: ”analysed”.
8 A. Yes. They ran it for maybe a little bit over two years. 8 A. By me.
9 Q. And you never told them, did you, that they were gaining 9 Q. So after they’d expended all this electricity , you
10 block rewards which might have any value, did you? 10 simply stood by while they threw away their computers,
11 A. Oh, it was never about value back then. 11 losing access to their Bitcoin addresses and making it
12 Q. You didn’t tell them that they were getting block 12 impossible to check this story , didn’t they?
13 rewards that might have a value, did you? 13 A. Again, we’re going into 2011, and my focus wasn’t on any
14 A. That was never the point. The point was to create 14 of this . I was facing issues with the ATO, I was rather
15 a timestamp and other server. At the time, block 15 disillusioned with everything because of the actions of
16 rewards weren’t valuable. I mean, it was only 15 to 16 some of your clients associated with Silk Road and drug
17 18 months later that any value started being 17 sales , and I was also getting divorced, so my focus was
18 attributable . Until then, it was just a way of burning 18 not on ”Hey, let’s go after Bitcoin”. At the time, my
19 electricity and having a promise. 19 entire holdings of Bitcoin, I didn’t think I ’d ever make
20 Q. But you’ve told us already that, as time went by, in 20 any of the money back, my legal fees with the ATO,
21 2010, you were able to put value on block rewards for 21 Clayton Utz, was 3 point−something million. On top of
22 accounting purpose. You’ve told us that, haven’t you? 22 that I had other fees and other solicitors , so probably
23 A. Oh, I put a nominal value, which was less than what 23 5 million total , the costs associated with running all
24 I was spending. The thing there is I had to try and get 24 of these servers , setting up everything, doing
25 something that would justify the level of expenditure 25 the development, hiring staff probably came to around

142 144

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 10 million , and that 10 million was burned. On top of 1 the White Paper doesn’t say that you solve hashing.
2 that, as soon as I get a break, Liberty Reserve gets 2 Now, hashing is only one small component. The majority,
3 shut down and ... so, no, I wasn’t thinking that way. 3 at a low level like that, is actually validating ECDSA.
4 Q. Just pausing there. You say you had 10 million 4 ECDSA is a far more computationally intense process than
5 Australian dollars , is it ? 5 hashing. So what we need to do is actually go through
6 A. No, US. 6 validation of blocks, checking, later running testnet as
7 Q. US dollars to spend. When did you have that much money 7 well , and ensuring that all of that process happens
8 at the start ? 8 before you distribute the block. On top of that, I had
9 A. I had 20 at the start in Liberty Reserve. I ’d been 9 to run multiple systems.
10 doing gaming operations for quite some years. 10 Bitcoin was configured so that on a single C class ,
11 Q. I see. 11 and I had a C class in each area, the 256 IP addresses
12 You refer to having lots of computers in your 12 in V4, or more in IP v6 would only act as a single node
13 residence. It ’s true, isn ’ t it , that the work you did 13 on the network. So even if you had 30 machines on
14 on IT security over the years required you to have 14 a single location , they only broadcast as one node on
15 a significant number of computers? 15 the network. Now, that allowed me to have multiple
16 A. No, actually , it doesn’t. The average IT security 16 systems, including the logging systems and the rest of
17 person has maybe a Mac laptop. You don’t have your own 17 the Timecoin server. All of that together was really
18 domain, or anything like this , as an IT security person. 18 the cost that I experienced.
19 If you’re an IT security person, you will not have 19 Q. In order to do −− and again, I’m putting this to you on
20 a domain at home, you won’t have test systems, you won’t 20 the basis of expert evidence −− the necessary work of
21 be running statistical servers , you won’t −− definitely 21 validation and mining in these early periods, you did
22 wouldn’t have Sun Microsystems mini computers, you’re 22 not need a set−up of the scale that you have described,
23 not going to be having a NAS. At one point, as I said, 23 or an electricity consumption of thousands of dollars,
24 I was storing, before AlixPartners took it , a quarter 24 did you?
25 petabyte worth of data storage. On other machines that 25 A. I did, because I was running the majority of

145 147

1 I ’ve transferred there was another petabyte. The stuff 1 the network. Other people wouldn’t, because they came
2 that went when I sold to nChain was probably 2 petabytes 2 and went. Now, during 2009, there were periods where
3 worth of research data. So, no, none of that would be 3 there was weeks with no one else other than myself and
4 with a security person. On top of −− 4 my familiar mining, and by weeks, I mean weeks. It
5 Q. So if somebody were to say that you were operating 5 dropped off totally . So, it was like , towards the end
6 a server room in your house in Sydney to run logs for 6 of 2009, there was a complete black period, and to give
7 one or more of your clients , you’d say that’s wrong? 7 the sort of node security enough, I had to keep running
8 A. If it was just logging, yes, but as I said , the way that 8 up more and more servers. Over this time frame, people
9 I had it was that I was using a hash chain system to 9 would try and drop off, and without those people staying
10 store logs . So, with Centrebet, I had a peer−to−peer 10 and continuing to act not just as a home user, but with
11 system sending token data for security alerts . I also 11 an intention to run a system, it wouldn’t work. So −−
12 had a system operating to collect all of the information 12 Q. And what is more, putting computing power on this scale
13 and maintain a hash chain across both locations. So 13 onto the network would have increased the difficulty
14 that’s not a normal security environment. 14 level of the target hash for the proof−of−work beyond
15 Q. Paragraph 117, you say that Bitcoin mining in those days 15 what it actually was at the period of time, wouldn’t it ,
16 represented a significant expense due to its electricity 16 Dr Wright?
17 consumption, which you put at thousands of Australian 17 A. No, that’s a drastic misunderstanding of how Bitcoin
18 dollars , yes? 18 works. So like I said , if you have two different areas,
19 A. It did for me, yes. 19 in fact what you’re only going to get is one of those
20 Q. Now, I’m putting this to you on the basis of the expert 20 will act as the mining node. We didn’t have a pulled
21 evidence of Professor Meiklejohn. It wouldn’t have been 21 system back then, so only one would act as the major
22 necessary to run a set up of this magnitude to mine 22 player . However, what you could do is distribute
23 Bitcoin in 2009 or early 2010, would it? 23 everything. So you have a collection of logs , like
24 A. Of course it would. Ms −− Professor Meiklejohn is 24 I did, you could have all of that bundled and being
25 misrepresenting Bitcoin mining and nodes. Section 5 of 25 signed into a binary tree structure , that could be built

146 148

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 into the ECDH structure that I used in keys, all of that 1 the bottom of the page, if we can blow it up. A Slack
2 takes up a lot of processing power. So, the distinction 2 post by you:
3 here is , if you’re going to be a casual miner, not 3 ”Bitcoin is not a Cryptocurrency.”
4 caring , versus someone who needs the network to be 4 You’ve made this point very many times, haven’t you?
5 available 24 by 7 −− and Bitcoin was, so most operators 5 A. Yes. Originally , when I released Bitcoin, I noted that
6 on the Bitcoin network came and went, they connected 6 ”cryptocurrency”, well, sounded cool, but I hadn’t
7 a laptop, they turned it off every now and again. Even 7 really researched the distinction , and that was
8 Hal Finney turned it off after a while, it got too hot. 8 pre−Silk Road. So I didn’t crack down on it too hard at
9 I didn’t have that luxury. 9 that point. After 2013/14, I’ve been very hard on
10 Q. Dr Wright, it’s simply wrong to say that operating 10 the term.
11 a regular node and doing the amount of mining that was 11 Q. {L5/196/1}, please. I think I may have a wrong
12 called for at that time would have required this volume 12 reference . I ’ ll bring up the reference in a moment, but
13 of electricity . 13 do you accept that on 6 July 2010, Satoshi made a post
14 A. No, actually , it doesn’t take that much to chew up a lot 14 announcing version 0.3 of Bitcoin, the P2P
15 of electricity , especially server machines. Now, you 15 cryptocurrency?
16 also need to remember that you don’t just have a laptop. 16 A. No, Martti Malmi made a post for me. At that point,
17 Now, when you’re running a server machine, my Lord, you 17 Martti made all those changes in the other, I didn’t
18 have routers, you have switches, you have back up 18 correct it . There are a few things where I said later
19 servers , you have UPS, you have air conditioning. This 19 about anonymity. I didn’t correct cryptocurrency at
20 is part of it , I had to have the machines 20 that point. I wasn’t really thinking. Actually, at
21 air conditioned as well . So, if I was to sit there 21 that point I thought it sounded cool, but it wasn’t how
22 going, ”Yes, I ’m just running my laptop”, yeah, that 22 I originally thought it should be. It was someone else
23 would be true, but then Bitcoin would have gone down. 23 who originally mentioned it before Martti, though, and
24 Bitcoin had 100%, and I mean not 99.999999, 100% 24 it was Martin someone. I can’t remember his −−
25 availability from the 12th on, because my machines sat 25 Q. Thanks to the cleverness of the operator, my wrong

149 151

1 there the whole time in multiple locations . 1 reference has been corrected. It ’s {L6/196/1} and
2 Q. New topic: Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency. {L15/96/1}, 2 there’s the post. And you say, and I think you’ve said
3 please. I think you’ve acknowledged in the past that 3 in your Granath evidence, that that post had been
4 the book, ”Satoshi’s Vision ... Craig Wright, As told to 4 written by Mr Malmi; correct?
5 Paul Democritou”, is a book for which you are 5 A. Correct.
6 responsible , right? 6 Q. May we have on screen {L6/193/1}.
7 A. It is . 7 Now, this is a previously unpublished email exchange
8 Q. Page 59, please {L15/96/59}, the last paragraph: 8 between Satoshi and Martti Malmi, 6 July 2010, so
9 ”Far too many people fail to understand what I said. 9 the same date, which reads, from Satoshi:
10 At no point have I said that Bitcoin is 10 ”I uploaded 0.3.0 beta to sourceforge and updated
11 a cryptocurrency ... ” 11 the links on bitcoin .org. I still need to post
12 Right? Did you write −− just for the moment, did 12 the announcement message on the forum and mailing list.
13 you write that? 13 Here’s what I’ve prepared:
14 A. I wrote the original thing that went into the blog that 14 ”Announcing version 0.3 of Bitcoin, the PGP
15 got taken and put in the book. 15 cryptocurrency!”
16 Q. Do you endorse what is said there?: 16 It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that Satoshi stated that they
17 ”At no point have I said that Bitcoin is 17 had prepared that post telling Mr Malmi that that was
18 a cryptocurrency ... ” 18 the case, right?
19 A. Not fully . I try and shy away from it. I have said it , 19 A. No, what I did was I took what Mr Malmi originally wrote
20 and I have been lax on the term. At times, I ’m more 20 and I prepared that. So, the original used
21 draconian than others, but even now, some of our patents 21 the terminology earlier , and then I put in what he put.
22 just last week went out saying ”cryptocurrency”. So 22 Q. You have repeatedly said, haven’t you, that the post was
23 I get the term from people and I don’t −− sometimes 23 written by Mr Malmi? You’ve been quite emphatic
24 I get upset, and others I don’t. 24 about it , haven’t you?
25 Q. {L18/121/1}, please, page 50 {L18/121/50}. Towards 25 A. As I said , if you go back into his other emails, you

150 152

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 will find that he originally wrote some of this stuff 1 and put in submissions that it is simply not true that
2 for the page, etc −− 2 Martti Malmi came up with that part of the post, or any
3 Q. Focusing −− 3 part of it . It was prepared by Satoshi, as that email
4 A. −− I, for the announcing part. 4 says.
5 Q. Focusing on this email, you said, before this email was 5 A. No.
6 released publicly , you said emphatically in your 6 Q. And your evidence −−
7 evidence in Granath, that the post had been written by 7 A. Once again −−
8 Mr Malmi, didn’t you? 8 Q. Your evidence in Norway was dishonest, trying to keep up
9 A. It still has. I added ”What’s new: Command line ...”, 9 your insistence that Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency.
10 etc. The peer−to−peer cryptocurrency is Mr Malmi. 10 A. Not at all . Mr Malmi, aka Cobra, or Cobra Bitcoin, is
11 Would you like to go to his other emails before this 11 very categorically forgetting one little point: he came
12 one? 12 up with the text earlier , including the stuff on
13 Q. Well, I ’m asking about this email, because it says very 13 the peer−to−peer forum, so where I have not corrected
14 clearly , from Satoshi: 14 that and I’ve put it in there, doesn’t mean I wrote it.
15 ”Here’s what I’ve prepared: 15 If I block quote something from someone else, because
16 ”Announcing version 0.3 of Bitcoin, 16 we’re working together, that doesn’t mean I wrote it.
17 the P2P cryptocurrency!” 17 So I prepared.
18 Satoshi was taking responsibility for that, whereas 18 Q. Moving on then to events from 2009 to 2011. You have
19 you have since sought to distance yourself and attribute 19 given an account of discussions with Mr Matthews and
20 it to Mr Malmi, haven’t you? 20 others about applications of Bitcoin within his
21 A. Like I said , Mr Malmi wrote the initial term; I then 21 Centrebet business, yes?
22 prepared this . As we will note in his earlier emails, 22 A. Yes.
23 he wrote the stuff about the peer−to−peer 23 Q. And you −−
24 cryptocurrency. 24 A. Well, it wasn’t his Centrebet business; he was an
25 Q. But you stated specifically in your Granath evidence, 25 executive.

153 155

1 and I can take you there, that this post, this 1 Q. His business at Centrebet?
2 particular post had been written by Mr Malmi, didn’t 2 A. It wasn’t his business. He was an executive at.
3 you? 3 Q. I ’m not suggesting he owned the company.
4 A. That is written by him. The ”peer−to−peer 4 You refer in your witness statement to a proposal
5 cryptocurrency” bit is from him, which, again, if you go 5 paper for a security logging system?
6 to his earlier emails, you’ ll note. 6 A. I do.
7 Q. You said that the post had been written by him, the post 7 Q. Just to be clear so I can put it to you that although it
8 we’re looking at here, didn’t you? 8 postdates the release of Bitcoin, so I don’t need to go
9 A. It has. I added the extra command line bits. 9 into it in detail , that is a document about which
10 Q. We’ll go to your evidence in Granath then {O2/11/24}, 10 Mr Madden has found a number of anomalous features.
11 internal page 90, lines 4 to 11. The post was referred 11 You’re aware of those?
12 to and you were asked, at line 8: 12 A. Yes, it ’s been opened multiple times.
13 ”Is that something you have written? 13 Q. And there’s no more reason for us to trust that document
14 ”Answer: That was written by Marty Melmey. 14 than any of the many doctored documents you’ve
15 ”Question: This was written by someone else? 15 disclosed?
16 ”Answer: Marty Melmey.” 16 A. There haven’t been any doctored documents in the way
17 So you were insisting that announcement was written 17 that you’re putting it . As I’ve noted, files change
18 by him, not that you had prepared it but he had 18 when they’re accessed.
19 contributed in some way, but that you had −− that he had 19 Q. I see. So that’s the reason for anomalous findings in
20 written the post, right? 20 that document?
21 A. He wrote the text of the block at the top, which, when 21 A. No, the anomalous findings in a shared file server with
22 we bring up his earlier emails, you’ ll see, and like I ’m 22 many people accessing would be actually having perfect
23 saying now, I added the additions at the bottom. He 23 files .
24 then posted it on the site . 24 Q. You also say what in August 2009, you offered
25 Q. Well, I put to you, and no doubt this can be corrected 25 Mr Matthews 50,000 Bitcoin for AU$100 in order to prove

154 156

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 that Bitcoin had monetary value, yes? 1 A. Again, let me read the definition of a transaction:
2 A. I think we actually started at 500 and I tried to get 2 ”A sequence of multiple operations performed on
3 him down, but −− 3 databases, and served as a single logical unit of work,
4 Q. Let’s see −− 4 atomic, all or none commits. A transaction is a set of
5 A. −− we’re Australian, so we haggled a bit. But it 5 related tasks as a single action.” [As read]
6 started at something like 500, then went down to 100 and 6 So, yes, he was aware. But what he wasn’t and
7 I couldn’t even get that. 7 didn’t care about was as a monetary token. There were
8 Q. {E/1/24}, paragraph 124: 8 no exchanges, no value, no one could buy and sell. So
9 ”Around August 2009, to demonstrate that Bitcoin had 9 would Stefan buy or sell this token that I was using to
10 monetary value, I offered Stefan Matthews 50,000 Bitcoin 10 manage IDS security logging, etc? No. Did he care
11 for A$100. I did try to get less when he said no. 11 about it? No. He cared that I ran it .
12 However, Stefan chose not to proceed with 12 Q. As you tell the story , this was a meaningless offer,
13 the transaction.” 13 wasn’t it ? AU$100 for 50,000 of something of entirely
14 Does that accurately describe your discussion? 14 unknown value and quantity?
15 A. Yeah, the way I would probably put it would be I started 15 A. No, actually , that’s completely wrong. It has value
16 at around 500 and went down. That makes it sound 16 now. It was speculative. I mean, I was hoping someone
17 more −− I mean, like I said, I went less when he said 17 would buy it so I could add value; a cent per token was
18 no. 18 something. Now, what you’re saying is it’s
19 Q. Now, Mr Matthews, at that time, had no knowledge of how 19 a meaningless offer . No, completely not; anyone who
20 Bitcoin was working, did he? 20 bought it back then, you could actually argue the same.
21 A. No, actually , he did, because we were running some of 21 So when Martti did it, is that meaningless for him?
22 the servers , but he didn’t understand it as far as token 22 When Gavin came in, was that meaningless for him? All
23 or money went. 23 the other people in the early days of Bitcoin that saw
24 Q. So you think that at the time you had this discussion , 24 something in my invention, that saw that this could be
25 you were running some of the servers along with 25 something worthwhile that is more than just some

157 159

1 Mr Matthews, yes? 1 money−go−up token scam that your COPA people are running
2 A. No, that’s not what I said. 2 now.
3 Q. Go on then. 3 Q. Can you stop making irrelevant allegations and answer
4 A. What I said is I was managing systems for Centrebet. So 4 the question, please −−
5 the logging systems that we’re talking about, what 5 A. They are completely relevant allegations . They’re not
6 I actually did was create something so I had an 6 just allegations , every single one of your COPA team
7 ECDH additive key structure where the information was 7 have, this morning −−
8 recorded. A binary tree structure would record 8 Q. Please stop. I ’ ll stop you there, Dr Wright. You have
9 the information associated with that, so it was in keys. 9 used the witness box as a pulpit to make allegations
10 Q. By August 2009, the Bitcoin System, the true 10 against many people. I’m going to stop you there.
11 Bitcoin System, with transactions and so on, had been 11 These are −−
12 running for a number of months, hadn’t it? 12 A. I have stated facts .
13 A. Yes. 13 Q. These are allegations for which you provide, very often,
14 Q. And Mr Matthews wasn’t aware that that was happening, 14 no supportive evidence at all . We’ll move on.
15 was he? 15 What I put to you is that at that time, Mr Matthews
16 A. No, he was aware that there were a logging system. 16 knew nothing about the operation of the system, unlike
17 Q. He wasn’t aware that the Bitcoin transaction system, 17 these other people, was not participating in it , and so
18 the system we all call Bitcoin, was running at that 18 the offer you were making was meaningless. Right?
19 time, was he? 19 A. No. It supported the system.
20 A. The system that we all call Bitcoin was actually 20 My Lord, is it possible to bring up Twitter?
21 extended in Timecoin. So he was aware fully that that 21 I would love to show every single one of the COPA
22 existed . 22 members, this morning, pumping −− basically making false
23 Q. And he wasn’t aware that the Bitcoin System with 23 Ponzi claims saying that Bitcoin −− BTC, sorry, will go
24 transactions was running and had been running for some 24 up to 100,000 or $1 million −−
25 months, was he? 25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Stop −−

158 160

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 A. −− that if you don’t get in −− 1 before that, but around that time I −− it was more and
2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, in an earlier hearing, I made 2 more difficult .
3 it perfectly clear that at this trial I was not going to 3 Q. You say, don’t you, that the ATO investigations that you
4 be assisted by arguments about the current state of 4 were facing were the reason for you retiring the Satoshi
5 the system, and that’s what you’re getting into . And 5 persona, right?
6 counsel is quite right to stop you, because it sheds no 6 A. No, the reason that I stopped focusing on Bitcoin and
7 light whatsoever on the issue I have to decide. Do you 7 left it to the stewardship of Gavin and others was
8 understand? 8 a combination. I had the Australian Tax Office, I had
9 A. I do. 9 Mr McArdle trying to bankrupt me, I was involved in,
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you. 10 well , basically getting divorced, I ’d just , in February,
11 MR HOUGH: You don’t mention in your statement attempting 11 moved house, and I was trying to sort of rebuild my
12 this exercise , this sort of offer with anyone else, do 12 life .
13 you? 13 Q. But according to your witness statement, the ”chief”
14 A. No, because I was talking about it with Stefan. He was 14 reason was the ATO investigation, right?
15 the one I did it with. 15 A. That was the biggest thing on my mind, but, I mean, you
16 Q. If you’d really wanted to demonstrate that Bitcoin had 16 can’t, at the same time, discount −− I mean, just
17 monetary value and if this was really a valuable 17 because, say, 30% was the ATO, then I also had
18 exercise , as you have suggested, you’d have tried it 18 Mr McArdle trying to bankrupt me and that was a, sort
19 with somebody else, wouldn’t you? 19 of, problem, I had the whole divorce thing, that wasn’t
20 A. Not necessarily , no. What I tried to do was get 20 exactly pleasant, we can’t say, I had trying to redo all
21 different organisations using it so that they would need 21 the companies through the divorce, that was a mess,
22 to. Bitcoin is a scarce good. So if there is a limited 22 so ~...
23 quantity of Bitcoin and I have corporations using it for 23 Q. You describe, at paragraphs 131 onwards, on the next
24 a purpose, then it would be needed. 24 page {E/1/25}, handing over the network alert key to
25 Q. You say in your witness statement −− you go on to say in 25 Gavin Andresen and giving him access to the code on

161 163

1 the next paragraph that we see that you contacted some 1 SourceForge. That’s all −− those are all matters, as
2 individuals linked to Pornhub, the adult entertainment 2 described by you, that are already in the public domain,
3 site , to −− as you say, ”pitching the concept of 3 right?
4 Bitcoin” as a secure payment system; do you see that? 4 A. Now. They weren’t in the public domain when I spoke to
5 A. I tried . I ’m a terrible salesperson. 5 Gavin about them.
6 Q. Is it right to say that you haven’t put forward a single 6 So, in 2016, when I spoke to Gavin, it wasn’t
7 email, or proposal document, or other document to 7 the key that convinced him. I had a series of notes
8 support these supposed exchanges with the people from 8 that I went through, I had a phone call with him, and
9 Pornhub? 9 I explained all the different things that we did while
10 A. No, like I said , I don’t have any Information Defense 10 we were working. So, in my phone call with Gavin,
11 emails or anything like this . I wasn’t trying to keep 11 the reason he came out to London was that he sort of
12 them at the time. 12 understood everything I knew about Bitcoin and all
13 Q. And you’ve never been able to identify an individual who 13 the things we did together.
14 can say, ”Yes, Dr Wright pitched the concept of Bitcoin 14 Q. And the real Satoshi, when retiring, said that they had
15 to us at Pornhub”? 15 moved on to other things and that the system was in good
16 A. Oh, because there was no one who took me seriously, to 16 hands with Gavin; correct?
17 tell you the truth. 17 A. No, I did.
18 Q. Dr Wright, this is just another embellishment to 18 Q. But that −− there was a communication from Satoshi, if
19 the false narrative without any supportive evidence, 19 we can put it that way, ”I’ve moved on to other things,
20 isn ’ t it ? 20 it ’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone”, yes?
21 A. No, not at all . I ’d talked to people about trying it , 21 A. I said that, because I was focusing on other
22 so, no, I ’ve actually noted it . 22 developments of the system. I believed that Gavin would
23 Q. At the bottom of the page, you refer to phasing out your 23 steward the system and scale it . I needed to work on
24 communications as Satoshi from about April 2011, yes? 24 other scaling solutions , because there were problems.
25 A. Yeah, I mean, I’d already started being less and less 25 And one of the things I also talked to Martti and others

162 164

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 was, what I wanted to do was ensure that there were 1 Q. Back to the previous page {L15/131/15}, line 21:
2 working escrow and sales systems. Some of the early 2 ”Martti also started working on a reputation system
3 parts of the code that I wanted to build, including 3 to allow assassination markets.”
4 a marketplace, like things to do with poker, mental 4 You’ve never given a shred of evidence for that
5 poker systems, etc, all required that Bitcoin was there 5 scandalous allegation , have you?
6 and running, and by that stage I thought it would 6 A. The system that he talks about, where he says
7 continue. 7 I contacted him briefly , etc, the ” identify ”, or
8 Q. You have complained −− this is paragraphs 134 onwards in 8 whatever he wants to pronounce it, was actually linked
9 your statement {E/1/26}, on page 26. You’ve complained 9 to that.
10 that Mr Malmi, who operated as an administrator of 10 Q. The reality is that that evidence, like the evidence
11 the bitcoin .org website and forum, set up a new forum 11 you’ve happily given about Mr Malmi and others in these
12 against your wishes, haven’t you? Just is that right or 12 proceedings, is simply a set of scandalous and
13 wrong? 13 unsupported allegations, isn ’ t it ?
14 A. It is right . 14 A. No. And the comments I’ve been making for years about
15 Q. And it’s right , isn ’ t it , that you’ve made some 15 how Bitcoin was funded on accommodation of
16 extraordinary allegations about Mr Malmi before, haven’t 16 Liberty Reserve and WebMoney are ones that only Satoshi
17 you? 17 and Malmi knew, even though I said it before I had
18 A. I ’ve made plenty of allegations against Cobra. 18 access to his emails.
19 Q. {L15/131/1}, please, page 14 {L15/131/14}, line 15. You 19 Q. Dr Wright, I’m not accepting any of that. It can be −−
20 were describing to the court in Kleiman, in June 2020, 20 it ’s a point that can be made in submissions on your
21 why you couldn’t be associated with Satoshi, weren’t 21 behalf, if it has any validity , which we say it hasn’t.
22 you? 22 You also, didn’t you, give an account of
23 A. Yes. 23 Gavin Andresen and Vladimir van der Laan transferring
24 Q. And you made reference to Mr Malmi at line 22, didn’t 24 the Bitcoin Code from SourceForge to GitHub, insisting
25 you? 25 that that was done against Satoshi’s wishes, right?

165 167

1 A. I did. 1 A. Yes. Gavin had asked me for permission not to have −−

2 Q. And then page {L15/131/15}, you alleged that Mr Malmi 2 GitHub has multiple systems. It is an SVN server where
3 had been responsible for setting up Silk Road, Hydra and 3 it −− or the equivalent, and it also has a bug tracking
4 other dark −− darker websites, didn’t you? 4 system. Gavin explicitly asked me if he could set up
5 A. He was involved with it. 5 a bug tracking system on GitHub. He did not at any
6 Q. You alleged that he had worked on setting up 6 point ever ask if he could move the source code to
7 assassination markets and the funding of terrorism, if 7 GitHub. They are separate things.
8 we see at the bottom of the page 15 and at the top of 8 Q. Let’s take this in stages. You say in your witness
9 page 16 {L15/131/16}, right? 9 statement, paragraph 136, on {E/1/26}:
10 A. That was part of Silk Road, yes. 10 ”Around the same period, the reins of the Bitcoin
11 Q. You accused Mr Malmi specifically of doing these things, 11 project began to shift further away from me.
12 didn’t you? 12 Wladimir van der Laan ... and Gavin Andresen transferred
13 A. He helped set up Silk Road. When I put him in touch, or 13 the Bitcoin code from SourceForge ... to GitHub.”
14 when we were all talking with Joseph Vaughan Perling, 14 A. Yes, I −−
15 NewLibertyStandard, and himself to set up an exchange, 15 Q. Taking this in stages. Mr van der Laan had nothing to
16 this is not what I expected the exchange to be. 16 do this , did he?
17 The exchange that he mentions in his email is one of 17 A. No, completely. He set up GitHub. So, the GitHub
18 the ones that were the back end to Silk Road. 18 server was actually set up by Mr van der Laan, who then
19 Q. You’ve made these scandalous allegations without ever 19 convinced Gavin to move to it. At that point,
20 putting forward any documentary support for them, 20 SourceForge was a completely separate server.
21 haven’t you? 21 Q. {L6/282.7/1}. I’m going to look at some of the emails
22 A. We have documentary support: his emails. The exchange 22 of Mr Andresen, which we’ve recently received from
23 that is being mentioned in there is the one behind 23 the Kleiman litigation files . The email of 29 July 2010
24 Silk Road. I didn’t have my emails any more; my server 24 from Mr Andresen to Satoshi, and do you see, in the last
25 was hacked. 25 paragraph, he says:

166 168

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 ” ... it seems to me the world’s first decentralized 1 tracking. So, what we’re talking about in this is
2 currency aught to use a decentralized source control 2 basically something where there’s an emergency release,
3 system like [GitHub].” 3 or something else. So, from a point of view of bug
4 That’s a genuine email, isn ’ t it ? 4 tracking, GitHub was far better, I admit that.
5 A. Yes. He wanted to. 5 Q. So that’s 18 December.
6 Q. He was proposing the use of GitHub as a source control 6 Then {L19/255/1}. Mr Andresen puts up a post:
7 system from July 2010, yes? 7 ”With Satoshi’s blessing ... with great reluctance,
8 A. Yes. He wanted it, but it didn’t move at that point. 8 I ’m going to start doing more active project management
9 Q. And there’s no vehement objection from Satoshi in any 9 for bitcoin .”
10 emails, is there? 10 Do you see that?
11 A. No, I kept running it for all the months later, and 11 A. I do.
12 I didn’t move. So he suggested something, and I didn’t 12 Q. And he goes on to say:
13 accept it . 13 ”Everybody please be patient with me; I have had
14 Q. There was no disagreement at that stage? 14 a lot of project management experience at startups, but
15 A. No, I just kept running it . 15 this is the first open source project of any size I ’ve
16 Q. {L6/500.1/1}. This is an email from Mr Andresen to 16 been involved with. Anyway, I’ve created an
17 Satoshi on 17 December 2010. Do you accept that this is 17 integration/staging tree ... ”
18 a genuine email? 18 And then he gives the GitHub site, right?
19 A. I do. 19 A. Yes, that’s an integration and staging tree. As he said
20 Q. Bottom of the page: 20 before, he was going to set up a separate alternative
21 ”With your blessing, I ’d like to do a few things to 21 branch that would be reintegrated with the main trunk.
22 move towards that kind of model.” 22 Q. He’s setting up a GitHub account for future development
23 Describing a development model for Bitcoin. Then he 23 of the code, isn ’ t he?
24 says: 24 A. No, he’s setting up something so that they can manage on
25 ”Start using a bug tracking system −− either at 25 the main code repository. Very different things.

169 171

1 SourceForge or github (I’ve started keeping track of 1 Q. Then {L18/437/1}, a Satoshi email to Mike Hearn,
2 issues at github). 2 29 December email. In the second full paragraph, he
3 ”I ’ ll create a github branch where I’ ll integrate 3 says:
4 all patches I think are ’ready for trunk’.” 4 ”Code for client−only mode is mostly implemented.
5 Do you accept that that’s something that he put to 5 There’s a feature branch on github with it, also I ’m
6 Satoshi? 6 attaching the patch to this message.”
7 A. Yes. As I just said before, he implemented a bug 7 So, that shows Satoshi using GitHub, doesn’t it?
8 tracking system. Now, a GitHub branch is very different 8 A. No, we’re talking about the client−only mode. Going
9 to SVN as the tree root. 9 back to September/October, I first sent a patch to
10 Q. But that branch was going to be integrating all patches 10 Gavin, and then Gavin and I started sending back
11 ready for trunk? 11 SPV software. SPV is not a full node or other
12 A. No, that would be ready for his. ”Trunk” then means it 12 structure , SPV is the Simplified Payment Verification
13 gets pushed back into the trunk, so that’s an SVN trunk. 13 mode. So, what was happening here was there was
14 So, what he’s saying here is he’s going to integrate all 14 a branch for a trial version of an SPV system. This
15 of the patches using the bug tracking system on his 15 would be a walleted node that didn’t mine.
16 system and then it will be pushed back to SourceForge. 16 Q. Next, {L17/16.1/1} −− sorry, {L7/16.1/1}. I gave
17 Q. {L19/255/1} −− I’m sorry {L6/500.2/1}, please. This is 17 a wrong reference.
18 Satoshi’s response. The middle of the page, he responds 18 It ’s an email from Mr Andresen to Satoshi and
19 to the suggestions: 19 Mr Malmi saying he wants to make changes to SourceForge
20 ”I don’t know anything about trackers, but people 20 and asking for administrative privileges . One of these
21 seem to like github so that sounds like a good choice. 21 is to make the support tab link to the GitHub issue
22 I wouldn’t pick SourceForge.” 22 tracker . Do you accept that’s a genuine email?
23 So he was responding positively to the proposal for 23 A. I do. It was linking in to the page and the main
24 the GitHub branch, isn’t he? 24 project system.
25 A. No, his response −− I am responding there to the bug 25 Q. Then {L7/16.2/1}, Satoshi writing to Gavin Andresen on

170 172

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 4 January 2011. He says he’s given Mr Andresen admin. 1 On top of that, no one was maintaining or looking at
2 That means administrative privileges, doesn’t it ? 2 them. So, if we’re not looking at them, you can only
3 A. Yes, on the SourceForge site. 3 post with admin access, which was part of the problem.
4 Q. He says that Mr Andresen’s ideas, including about 4 If people wanted to have complex things, they needed one
5 the support tab link , are good, yes? 5 of us to sign off on it , then it would be better just to
6 A. Yes. I thought that a better, like , help desk type 6 use the one forum site and make a sub−forum. At no
7 function would be great. 7 point did I say, however, that SourceForge, the SVN,
8 Q. And that he could disable or delete SourceForge forums 8 should be removed. They’re separate issues.
9 if he thought it would help? 9 Q. Dr Wright, Mr Andresen has made clear that he was making
10 A. Yes. We already had set up the bitcoin.org forums. 10 the move to GitHub and that was something which yielded
11 The bitcoin.org forums, which is now BitcoinTalk, were 11 no objection from Satoshi, either before or after
12 a separate forum. So, the forums on SourceForge were 12 April 2011.
13 horrible . I mean, I like SourceForge for SVN, but their 13 A. No, he said he was using the bug tracking software.
14 forums and their bug tracking is just horrible , still . 14 I noted that I didn’t really care what he used for bug
15 So, those, what we talked about were archiving all of 15 tracking, but SourceForge’s bug tracking isn’t terribly
16 those communications, doing it in a way, because there 16 good. SourceForge, as SVN, is. So, as a subversion
17 were private communications, we didn’t want any of them 17 system, SourceForge is good. So they’re separate
18 shared, and then saving everything. 18 things. Once again, you’re confounding. It’s like ,
19 Q. {L7/220/1}. This was Satoshi’s final email to 19 GitHub isn’t a service , it ’s a server running multiple
20 Gavin Andresen on 26 April 2011? 20 things. It has Git, which is the equivalent of SVN, but
21 A. Well, technically , no, it was my final email from 21 it also has bug tracking, it has help desk, it has is
22 the GMX email account. 22 GitBook. As an example, GitBook is a way of doing,
23 Q. And it urged him, didn’t it , to make Bitcoin more about 23 like , documentation for developers. So, they’re
24 it being an open source project and to give more credit 24 separate things.
25 to developers? 25 Q. And far from Satoshi wanting to control every aspect of

173 175

1 A. Yes, because the main system, all that needed to happen, 1 the system going forward, Satoshi was keen for
2 we needed to get the security testing for the script and 2 the developers to be given their own freedom without
3 that done, and then people could work on scaling, 3 him, her, or they seeking to control it going forward?
4 creating light clients , etc, so basically the main 4 A. Hell , yes, under the constraints I said . I had already
5 system should have been stable. 5 told people it ’s a set in stone protocol. When I said
6 Q. What these emails, which were largely, most of them, out 6 it was fixed, what I meant is, like TCP, really
7 of the public domain show is that Satoshi, first of all , 7 difficult to change, very few additions ever, 30 years
8 was perfectly content for SourceForge forums to be 8 later , practically the same. So, I wanted developers
9 disabled or deleted, and for GitHub to be used as a tool 9 like Gavin to go out there and steward and develop my
10 for future development; that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 10 protocol, and I could just go out there and build
11 A. Not in the way that you’re implying. So, SourceForge 11 the damn stuff on top of it .
12 forums isn’t SourceForge. 12 Q. Not a word in this parting email, or those emails
13 So, my Lord, what I said was, we could move 13 before, about you wanting to maintain a strict control
14 the forums, because we now had a forum site. What is 14 over it . Not a word.
15 now the BitcoinTalk forum that Martti was running was 15 A. No. What I’d said earlier is , Bitcoin is set in stone.
16 a separate one to the other one. If you look on 16 What I expected was, when I’ve given stewardship, not
17 the Wayback Machine, you will see the old horrible 17 kingship, not presidency, stewardship to someone, then
18 SourceForge forums −− and I’m going to say it that way; 18 I expected basically to run the system the way I said
19 I like SourceForge, but their forums are horrible −− 19 it . I didn’t −− there’s no voting in Bitcoin.
20 they weren’t easily managed. The management of 20 Q. Finally this on this subject. Not a word about
21 the equivalent of a helpdesk in description was built 21 Vladimir van der Laan in anything about the move to
22 into the main bitcoin.org site . So, because 22 GitHub or any of these developments.
23 bitcoin .org/forums was running, it was no good having 23 A. Because that only happened in July of 2011. So,
24 a second, most−people−didn’t−know−about set of forums 24 I wasn’t watching. I was going through, well, divorce ,
25 that were hardly accessed. 25 someone trying to bankrupt me, moving house, setting up

174 176

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 a new company, integrating the old companies, trying not 1 reasons, but −− I would be up doing things on my system.
2 to have clients sue me, tax proceedings, and I wasn’t 2 Q. New topic: the private keys. {E/1/26}, paragraph 138,
3 focused on any of that. At that time, in July, 3 you say that after the ATO investigation was launched
4 Mr van der Laan convinced Gavin to move from 4 against you in 2010, you were concerned about your
5 SourceForge, the SVN, to Git. He didn’t just move 5 assets being seized , including intellectual property,
6 a trunk, he didn’t have a staging area, he moved 6 right?
7 the tree . 7 A. Well, primarily intellectual property −−
8 Q. Dr Wright, new subject: the communications from Satoshi 8 Q. And you say that in 2011 you put those assets, including
9 before Satoshi disappeared. Now, you have said that you 9 Bitcoin you’d mined, in a trust , yes?
10 accepted redundancy from BDO at the end of 2008, 10 A. That’s correct .
11 allowing to you dedicate yourself fully to Bitcoin. 11 Q. Was that the Tulip Trust?
12 That’s what you said in your statement, isn’t it ? 12 A. That’s what it’s now called. The first name was WDI.
13 A. Yes. 13 That goes way, way back. It had a domain WDI.org.
14 Q. {R/12/2}, please. This is a distribution by hour of 14 Q. What was it called in August 2011?
15 the Satoshi emails, forum posts and so on that we have 15 A. At that stage it was Tulip.
16 by reference to the Sydney time zone. You were 16 Q. Page 27, paragraph 141 {E/1/27}, you say that you stored
17 primarily based there in 2007 to 2009, weren’t you? 17 all this information on a hard drive encrypted with an
18 A. Yes. 18 AES key, which you divided into 15 slices by a Shamir
19 Q. The highest concentration was from 4.00 am to 5.00~am, 19 sharing scheme, yes?
20 right? 20 A. I did.
21 A. That’s generally when I’m up doing things, yes. 21 Q. And at paragraph 142 you said you kept some slices in
22 Q. Very low in the afternoon and virtually none in 22 your possession, you can’t remember how many, entrusting
23 the evening? 23 others to reliable people: Dave Kleiman, Denis Mayaka,
24 A. In the evening, I rest . 24 Uyen Nguyen and several corporate agents you don’t know
25 Q. Next page {R/12/3}. This is a scatter plot showing 25 personally?

177 179

1 the emails and posts over time −− 1 A. Well, I mean, I know who the agents are, but I don’t
2 A. Mm−hm. 2 know all the people who worked for them at all times.
3 Q. −− which tells a similar story. 3 Q. Sorry, it ’s:
4 A. Yes, it shows that the majority of stuff and why 4 ” ... several corporate agents who were associated
5 I posted that I was so, well , basically , trashed, in 5 with the trust in various roles , but whom I did not know
6 August, to Gavin, can be seen there. 6 personally .”
7 Q. If a person in the Sydney time zone had been Satoshi, 7 A. I mean, I know who the agencies are, but I don’t know
8 they would have been working, can we agree this, some 8 the people in them.
9 very anti−social and unusual hours? 9 Q. I see.
10 A. I ’m a computer programmer. I mean, if you look at my 10 And you say that a minimum of eight slices were
11 Audible, you will find that I listen to an average of 11 required to recreate the AES key, a minimum of eight
12 8.3 hours a day, seven days a week. My general 12 slices within the Shamir sharing scheme, yes?
13 listening time on Audible is from 2.00 am to 6.30 am 13 A. That’s correct .
14 every morning at the moment. That has been for the last 14 Q. Then, now, please, page 33 {E/1/33}, paragraph 186.
15 seven years. 15 You’re here dealing with the steps you took to gain
16 Q. But if , as you say, at the end of 2008, you took 16 access to private keys when you were involved in the big
17 redundancy to dedicate yourself fully to Bitcoin, it 17 reveal in early 2016; do you see that?
18 would be very strange to be spending −− to be doing 18 A. Yes, although what I must note is you’re confusing
19 almost the entire work on Bitcoin in the very early 19 the Tulip Trust with ”The Trust”. The key sharing
20 hours of the morning. 20 system that you have here was a scheme that I created,
21 A. No, it wouldn’t, because what you’re saying is, forum 21 a software program called ”The Trust”. The Trust isn’t
22 posts are work. That’s when I’m answering people. So, 22 the Tulip Trust, The Trust was owned by the Tulip Trust.
23 I would do my work, I would also run it on clients , 23 Q. Fine. But you say that that you reassembled the slices
24 I would do other such things, and then late at night −− 24 from some of those individuals in early 2016 in order to
25 probably part of why I got a divorce −− many other 25 decrypt the hard drive and gain access to keys for

178 180

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

1 the signing session , right? 1 INDEX

2 A. I did. 2
3 Q. And when you made that statement, you understood 3 Housekeeping .........................................1
4 the importance of being accurate and precise about all 4 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued) ...................3
5 those details , right? 5 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued) ........3
6 A. I do. 6
7 Q. In these proceedings your position is that 7
8 the Genesis Block does not have, and never has had, 8
9 either a private or public key associated with it ; 9
10 correct? 10
11 A. Well, what you can actually do is you can generate 11
12 a public key structure that doesn’t have a private key, 12
13 or at least no known private key. I ’ve explained this 13
14 and blogged about it. 14
15 Q. You’ve given evidence in your statements that there 15
16 isn ’ t either a public or private key associated with 16
17 the Genesis Block, haven’t you? 17
18 A. You’re misrepresenting what I’ve said , again. What I’ve 18
19 stated is that the key structure that is hashed doesn’t 19
20 actually act as a key. While it looks like one, has 20
21 the same representation, it is a keyless key. 21
22 Q. One second. 22
23 (Pause). 23
24 So we take it from you that the hard drive didn’t 24
25 have a private key associated with the Genesis Block? 25

181 183

1 A. It did not. 184

2 Q. And there was no technical or cryptographic means for
3 you to prove your claim to have created
4 the Genesis Block specifically ; is that right?
5 A. No, I actually can show how you can do it, and I can
6 show the mathematics between creating a keyless key.
7 Q. But you couldn’t prove by some cryptographic means that
8 you had an association with the Genesis Block?
9 A. Not by cryptographic means, no.
10 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment to
11 break?
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, again, don’t talk to anybody
13 about your evidence.
14 A. Certainly , my Lord.
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Have a good evening and relax and come
16 back at 10.30 tomorrow.
17 A. Thank you.
18 (4.20 pm)
19 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Tuesday,
20 13 February 2024)
21
22
23
24
25

182

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

159:15,20 162:22 167:8 agree (6) 23:18 24:4,9 35:22 anecdotes (1) 84:13 141:23 65:15,24 80:17 93:15 97:17 98:15,17,18,22 99:7
A
168:18 181:11,20 182:5 120:7 178:8 angela (1) 127:8 argue (1) 159:20 95:10 108:8 116:25 117:2 106:11 120:11 177:10

a100 (1) 157:11 ad (1) 98:5 agreed (7) 2:4,23 97:23 angry (1) 117:10 arguments (1) 161:4 121:2 156:24 157:9 158:10 beat (1) 7:21

aat (2) 99:3,22 adam (17) 65:3 68:4,15 100:20 101:16,23 133:15 announce (1) 68:18 arisen (1) 2:11 178:6 179:14 became (1) 121:24

abbreviation (1) 6:13 70:6,25 71:25 72:9,18 agreeing (1) 21:2 announced (2) 55:25 77:20 arizona (2) 47:22 92:21 aura (1) 71:5 become (2) 88:18 109:25

abilities (1) 90:23 73:15 75:4 76:6,14 79:8,13 agrees (1) 85:17 announcement (3) 57:1 arose (1) 136:5 aurora (3) 71:1,4 76:21 becoming (1) 98:18

able (13) 3:8 41:9 53:14 94:18 96:15 107:1 ahead (1) 46:11 152:12 154:17 around (13) 37:10 48:17 australia (4) 33:20 50:10 before (46) 3:6 8:10 9:17

80:25 83:4 98:22 105:8 adams (2) 70:24 72:19 aided (2) 15:20 97:23 announcing (4) 151:14 81:2 88:19 111:17 77:7 102:15 11:10 45:10 46:1 49:6,21

117:14,18 118:24 141:1 adapt (1) 104:16 aim (3) 29:11 43:1 119:25 152:14 153:4,16 120:11,14 121:2 144:25 australian (24) 4:4,12,15 5:6 52:1 54:1 59:22 62:10 65:7

142:21 162:13 add (3) 58:8 104:16 159:17 aiming (2) 30:22 130:1 annoying (1) 86:13 157:9,16 163:1 168:10 6:18 7:14 9:25 10:1 49:25 67:9 69:2 88:18 93:7 99:11

above (2) 55:25 103:10 added (4) 60:8 153:9 air (3) 115:14 149:19,21 anomalous (3) 156:10,19,21 arranged (1) 19:2 50:2 51:2 75:16 80:4 85:6 101:11 107:3 108:20

absolutely (1) 132:23 154:9,23 aitken (1) 108:24 anonymity (1) 151:19 article (29) 23:9,14,16,17 86:11,23 101:12 132:13 109:3,19 110:2 111:17

academia (2) 64:10,18 adding (1) 33:8 aka (1) 155:10 anonymous (1) 78:19 24:7 25:21 27:2,2 28:2,23 133:18 140:21 145:5 115:8 117:3,7 130:5 133:6

academic (13) 8:4,13 22:22 addition (2) 2:18 37:13 al (2) 66:3 104:4 another (17) 23:6 25:22 31:21 34:5 37:19 70:19 146:17 157:5 163:8 134:15,18 135:14 145:24

27:9 31:19 32:9 41:21 additional (1) 68:9 alan (3) 19:1 97:17 98:17 29:6,13 40:9 41:18 44:23 72:11 73:1 77:11,14 author (5) 26:25 29:12 37:21 147:8 151:23 153:5,11

42:18 64:4,9,14,17,21 additions (2) 154:23 176:7 alert (1) 163:24 46:24 58:12 66:2 73:21 81:3,10,23 82:22 83:14 64:13 92:6 163:1 165:16 167:17 170:7

accept (18) 6:6 19:17 20:23 additive (1) 158:7 alerting (1) 35:12 79:10 101:6 104:15 133:7 85:20 88:3 108:3,18 authored (2) 82:22 84:2 171:20 175:11 176:13

24:20,21,24 25:9,21 34:2 address (4) 23:6 31:18 35:25 alerts (1) 146:11 146:1 162:18 137:18,21 authority (1) 74:22 177:9

71:7 85:21 104:24 114:22 48:8 algorithm (1) 73:10 answer (27) 7:18 21:8 34:24 articles (1) 37:8 authors (4) 32:5,8,11 78:15 began (2) 37:13 168:11

151:13 169:13,17 170:5 addressed (4) 2:15 3:6 23:5 algorithmic (1) 90:25 54:22 57:12 61:10 67:18 aside (6) 34:18,19 52:25 automatic (1) 30:4 begin (1) 87:16

172:22 135:14 algorithms (1) 5:21 69:16,21 91:22 110:16,19 53:3 67:18 87:19 automatically (2) 27:22 beginning (4) 15:14 35:14

accepted (2) 113:10 177:10 addresses (4) 42:20 143:14 ali (1) 100:7 112:1,25 116:16 121:5 ask (6) 3:23 12:5 27:17 30:9 45:19 77:16 94:4

accepting (1) 167:19 144:11 147:11 alive (7) 125:13,17,24 125:4,22,23 126:8 131:7 61:10 168:6 autumn (1) 88:15 begins (2) 58:7 70:21

access (14) 12:20 75:19 78:4 addressing (1) 57:23 131:13,21 132:3,8 132:17 133:3,4 154:14,16 asked (47) 1:17 16:20 17:5 availability (1) 149:25 begun (1) 77:8

83:8,12 111:8 139:1 adhere (1) 103:11 alixpartners (2) 52:11 145:24 160:3 18:1,9,16 19:5 32:9 33:6 available (4) 35:20 42:18 behalf (3) 75:21 125:3

140:25 144:11 163:25 adit (1) 14:22 allan (3) 19:24 106:17,25 answered (7) 106:6 107:13 38:18 54:18 56:14 61:9 68:4 149:5 167:21

167:18 175:3 180:16,25 adjourned (1) 182:19 allegation (2) 67:20 167:5 109:7 124:23 125:13 91:12 92:4 96:18 102:11 average (3) 42:8 145:16 behind (9) 20:13,17 46:18

accessed (4) 8:3,14 156:18 adjournment (1) 92:16 allegations (13) 1:10 32:2 126:25 129:7 105:14 106:4 110:11 178:11 73:9 124:7,18 126:20

174:25 adjustment (1) 76:20 67:18 69:24 160:3,5,6,9,13 answering (6) 2:8,16 18:25 111:13,23 112:8 121:5 awarded (1) 23:2 130:20 166:23

accessing (1) 156:22 admin (3) 53:14 173:1 175:3 165:16,18 166:19 167:13 50:16 71:3 178:22 122:8 123:23 124:12,13,21 aware (15) 35:15 55:5,7,10 being (40) 8:24 18:1 25:6

accidental (1) 29:11 administer (1) 26:20 alleged (4) 32:3,6 166:2,6 answers (3) 34:24 113:12,13 125:2,12,16,20 126:23 65:18 104:3 112:25 121:24 33:6 35:3,15 39:23 41:2

accommodation (1) 167:15 administration (1) 46:4 allen (1) 17:11 antifraud (1) 90:6 127:23 128:21,22 129:4,12 156:11 158:14,16,17,21,23 43:13 56:14 92:6 98:22

according (2) 4:11 163:13 administrative (3) 99:3 allow (4) 43:4 60:19 98:6 antisocial (1) 178:9 130:2,12,15,23 131:2 159:6 102:11 106:20 117:11

account (19) 17:18 19:9 172:20 173:2 167:3 anybody (4) 54:3 62:19 154:12 168:1,4 away (9) 17:17 37:24 53:8 119:20 120:2 122:17,21,25

51:6 103:5 104:8 107:3 administrator (2) 141:1 allowed (2) 67:22 147:15 144:3 182:12 asking (13) 6:10 62:11,13 79:25 86:5 94:16 144:10 123:23 124:13 125:9 126:5

108:3 113:6 119:12 120:23 165:10 allowing (1) 177:11 anyone (9) 54:13 64:20 65:15 70:13,14 71:18 86:6 150:19 168:11 128:11 131:16,18,25

128:12 132:19 134:16 admit (1) 171:4 allows (1) 76:21 82:22 84:2 117:15 137:24 93:7 107:13 108:7 153:13 awful (1) 85:24 132:10,25 133:2 136:15

140:10 142:6 155:19 adodo (1) 92:23 almost (2) 41:24 178:19 144:4 159:19 161:12 172:20 142:17 143:5 148:24

167:22 171:22 173:22 adopted (1) 88:23 alone (2) 37:9 54:7 anything (17) 3:11 7:19 asks (1) 3:7 B 162:25 166:23 173:24

accountable (1) 26:8 adult (1) 162:2 along (2) 119:24 157:25 19:20 20:2 52:7,25 53:21 aspect (1) 175:25 179:5 181:4

accounting (1) 142:22 advantage (4) 66:5,7,8,9 alongside (1) 23:22 54:10 68:16 79:24 91:14 aspects (2) 18:7 39:4 back (66) 7:6 14:7 19:12 believe (8) 9:3 23:3 83:3

accounts (6) 62:2,4 63:21 adversarial (1) 1:19 already (12) 40:10 46:17 109:9 130:7 145:18 162:11 assassination (2) 166:7 167:3 23:24 29:17 30:16 33:13 84:11 87:1,18 104:11

67:25 123:7,20 advertisementbased (1) 62:22 113:10 115:8 135:16 170:20 176:21 assertion (1) 84:12 34:1 35:5 40:6,16 43:2 108:22

accumulated (1) 66:10 88:22 140:4 142:20 162:25 164:2 anyway (2) 134:11 171:16 assessments (1) 13:15 62:1 65:1,3,9,13,15,24,25 believed (1) 164:22

accurate (5) 23:19 24:4,10 advertising (3) 93:14 94:16 173:10 176:4 anywhere (4) 21:25 34:6 asset (3) 44:13 69:11,20 66:17,21,23 67:23 believing (1) 52:12

57:12 181:4 96:11 also (71) 7:20 8:3,17 9:10,24 62:6 67:15 assets (3) 43:16 179:5,8 68:4,6,21 73:15 77:3 79:8 below (1) 58:16

accurately (2) 39:22 157:14 advice (1) 5:5 10:25 15:16 21:1,7,14,18 apart (1) 12:25 assignments (2) 36:9,14 88:13 89:10 94:25 98:20 ben (2) 92:23 99:24

accusations (2) 31:18 34:4 advised (1) 10:5 23:8 26:10 32:22 35:20 aphasia (1) 84:19 assistant (1) 127:9 99:11,12 101:21 102:3,16 benefits (1) 7:20

accused (1) 166:11 ae (1) 102:18 36:8,17 42:1 44:10 48:2 apologetic (3) 29:23 33:3,15 assisted (1) 161:4 105:12 107:1 112:10 best (4) 2:6,15 121:3 130:13

acknowledge (1) 1:17 aes (2) 179:18 180:11 49:19,24 50:4,5,6 56:10 apologise (1) 46:22 associated (10) 48:14 62:3 113:25 114:1 117:25 beta (4) 139:8,24 140:3

acknowledged (1) 150:3 affair (1) 73:2 58:17 59:23,24 60:3 apologising (1) 103:23 144:16,23 158:9 165:21 118:2,8 121:12 125:22 152:10

acres (1) 42:16 affected (1) 30:11 64:13,22 67:11 68:12 appeals (1) 99:4 180:4 181:9,16,25 136:20 138:10 141:6 better (10) 1:3 30:3,6

across (3) 43:15 102:24 affects (1) 139:19 69:2,12 73:8 80:22 82:18 appear (3) 12:7 61:12 67:10 association (1) 182:8 142:11 144:20 148:21 59:7,15,19 126:3 171:4

146:13 afresh (1) 27:17 85:5,8,10,11,17 87:18 appeared (2) 117:5 130:24 asx (5) 7:19,21,23,25 9:9 149:18 152:25 159:20 173:6 175:5

action (4) 9:20 10:10 94:10 after (36) 2:6,7,15 3:11 90:24 97:4 98:18 99:5 appearing (1) 100:5 asxs (1) 87:4 166:18 167:1 170:13,16 between (27) 8:9,13 13:22

159:5 29:20 37:24 46:22 52:8 103:3 104:11 109:7 112:23 appears (1) 97:16 ate (1) 38:5 172:9,10 179:13 182:16 17:3 24:1 25:4,6,14 41:21

actions (1) 144:15 54:11 60:9 65:23 87:5 91:7 113:17 114:13 116:7 appendix (1) 74:17 atkinson (1) 21:19 backs (7) 70:6 71:25 72:9 42:3 53:11 65:8 66:20 78:9

active (1) 171:8 95:8,8,13,15 98:18 99:23 122:23 135:24 140:22 application (7) 31:3,5,15 ato (10) 74:5 75:8 101:21 75:4 76:6 94:18 96:15 80:22 93:24 96:8 98:21

actively (1) 138:24 101:19 106:19 112:16 144:17 146:11 149:16 60:17 85:19 91:3 93:8 115:8 144:14,20 bad (2) 30:21 47:12 112:12 115:11 123:1 126:7

activities (3) 5:7,9 35:25 120:2 121:16 124:9 128:20 156:24 163:17 164:25 applications (1) 155:20 163:3,14,17 179:3 bag (1) 114:24 136:5,12,15 152:8 182:6

actual (6) 35:25 43:9 63:13 130:6,8 140:4 141:12 167:2,22 168:3 172:5 appointment (1) 10:15 atomic (2) 94:13 159:4 bank (4) 41:11 50:8 66:5,8 beyond (2) 50:24 148:14

68:10 69:5 95:3 144:9,18 149:8 151:9 175:21 178:23 approached (1) 17:12 attached (4) 10:15 39:14 banking (1) 46:12 bezley (5) 25:25 26:11,24

actually (111) 5:18 8:1,12,16 175:11 179:3 alternative (1) 171:20 approve (2) 64:20,22 74:2 91:3 bankrupt (3) 163:9,18 27:2 32:23

11:19 14:15,18 17:9,19 afternoon (2) 1:25 177:22 although (5) 9:8 13:21 74:1 approximately (1) 29:24 attaching (2) 1:11 172:6 176:25 bibliography (2) 27:23,25

19:21 23:3 again (46) 1:12 8:12 12:5,18 156:7 180:18 april (12) 6:24 37:13,24 attack (1) 47:19 banned (3) 67:21,23,24 big (3) 8:12 94:16 180:16

25:10,12,13,17,23,24 14:1 15:14,18 21:7 22:2 always (5) 12:2 27:22 37:7 70:19 105:20 125:13 attempted (2) 65:7 67:8 bar (1) 1:24 biggest (3) 7:13 135:7

27:9,20 28:7,12 32:19 25:19 40:6 42:12,22 47:10 62:20 112:5 130:24 134:19,20 162:24 attempting (1) 161:11 barely (1) 88:7 163:15

33:10 34:14 35:11,11 37:5 50:14 55:12 56:25 57:8,17 amateur (1) 8:20 173:20 175:12 attempts (1) 67:1 based (14) 4:19,21 22:20 bigpond (1) 103:5

42:11 46:10 49:15 51:12 61:14 72:14 92:14 94:7 america (1) 132:14 archbold (1) 49:10 attended (1) 88:15 36:1 59:24 68:13 74:13,20 bin (3) 123:5,17,19

52:3,14 53:4,10 56:25 108:16 110:16 112:16 amongst (1) 32:2 archer (4) 109:10 attention (2) 45:11 91:10 98:5,24 109:21 125:9 binary (4) 11:23 22:3 148:25

57:18 58:14 59:14,20 113:18 114:7 115:12 119:6 amount (2) 16:3 149:11 114:13,15,16 attitude (1) 65:5 131:19 177:17 158:8

61:9,17 63:6,7 64:9,12 137:12 138:2,21 139:12,21 amounts (1) 94:23 architect (1) 11:20 attributable (1) 142:18 basic (2) 32:12 60:18 bing (4) 88:23 89:10 96:12

67:4 69:10,23 70:1 140:13 143:18 144:13 analogises (1) 25:1 architected (1) 10:12 attribute (1) 153:19 basically (18) 10:24 14:11 98:4

75:13,20 76:12 80:23 82:4 147:19 149:7 154:5 155:7 analyse (1) 61:1 architecting (1) 9:16 attributed (1) 143:15 52:9 54:13 59:17 67:1 70:9 bird (4) 1:25,25 64:7,7

83:1,16 84:20 88:12 159:1 175:18 181:18 analysed (3) 144:2,6,7 architecture (7) 9:11,15 10:4 attributing (1) 113:14 116:11 122:8 124:3 131:9 birthday (1) 80:17

95:13,15,22 96:15 98:17 182:12 analysis (8) 5:25 11:17 12:8 13:20 102:23 au100 (2) 156:25 159:13 141:4 160:22 163:10 171:2 bit (9) 42:12 55:14 84:24

100:7 101:18 102:18 111:6 against (9) 1:10 9:20 63:21 15:3,9,11,17 16:10 archiving (1) 173:15 audible (2) 178:11,13 174:4 176:18 178:5 110:17 120:21 141:14

113:16,23 115:16 117:20 69:24 160:10 165:12,18 40:20,25 arden (1) 93:2 audit (8) 13:16 14:23 15:20 basis (7) 20:7 50:11 62:12 142:8 154:5 157:5

119:1,7 120:19 167:25 179:4 andor (1) 32:12 area (6) 8:17 25:17 85:23 17:14 19:13 40:22 97:23 71:24 100:14 146:20 bitcoin (200) 13:23 17:6

123:3,14,17 124:2,11 agencies (1) 180:7 andreas (2) 78:6 79:13 96:12 147:11 177:6 98:19 147:20 18:6,7 19:11,12,16,20

131:10,24 132:9 135:6 agent (4) 116:7,10,14 117:6 andresen (13) 14:2 163:25 areas (12) 5:6,24 14:5 15:18 audited (1) 123:13 bbs (1) 8:19 20:3,12,14,14,21

136:7 138:21 139:17 agents (4) 129:20 179:24 167:23 168:12,22,24 16:8,9,12 48:4 50:7 81:7 auditor (2) 87:10,12 bdo (36) 4:8 5:17 9:4 11:15 22:1,2,7,8,10,11 28:15

140:5,11,12,21 141:19 180:1,4 169:16 171:6 172:18,25 137:15 148:18 auditors (1) 17:17 14:13,14 15:13 16:14,22 42:24,25,25 43:2

145:16 147:3,5 148:15 agerhanssen (1) 1:9 173:1,20 175:9 arent (13) 33:12 37:7 62:4 audits (1) 14:25 17:6,10,13 18:7 19:2,10,20 44:6,6,16,17,17 46:17

149:14 151:20 156:22 agerhanssens (1) 1:18 andresens (1) 173:4 69:25 85:24 104:3,5 aught (1) 169:2 21:4,11,16,19 22:1,16 47:25 48:1,9,12,18 49:6

157:2,21 158:6,20 ago (2) 75:25 97:4 andrew (2) 73:2 109:12 118:21,25 133:15 136:5,12 august (16) 52:23 53:4 36:2,6 38:13 87:12 91:7 50:3,5 51:5,7 52:21 54:2

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

55:24 58:1,9 63:6,14 64:25 bought (1) 159:20 129:25 141:12,13 144:25 50:12,17,22,23,25 51:3 88:20 confused (2) 60:16 132:20 correctly (5) 11:1 30:7 34:16
65:5 66:18 68:17 69:3 bound (3) 27:16 65:7 67:9 148:1 149:6 155:2,11 circles (1) 8:14 commercialising (1) 41:12 confusing (2) 94:7 180:18 110:20 143:4
70:3,5,10,12,23 71:20 box (3) 2:7,19 160:9 159:22 164:11 citation (3) 30:4 65:15,17 commit (1) 94:13 congested (1) 12:2 correspondence (5) 35:17
72:4,7,12 73:15,17 brackets (1) 73:13 camera (1) 125:6 cite (1) 27:2 commits (1) 159:4 connect (1) 68:16 55:7 68:22 69:1 105:7
74:14,18,19,20 75:1,3,7 branch (7) 170:3,8,10,24 campus (1) 88:16 cited (1) 27:10 common (4) 32:3,4,17 51:16 connected (1) 149:6 corresponds (2) 34:12,20
76:5,8,17,19,25 77:5,19 171:21 172:5,14 canada (1) 1:14 citrix (1) 141:22 commonly (1) 32:7 connection (2) 87:22 115:2 cost (2) 71:17 147:18
78:1,14,18 79:12 88:19,24 brash (1) 120:21 cancer (1) 113:8 city (1) 115:24 communicated (3) 57:6 62:7 consider (3) 2:21 3:2 38:1 costs (1) 144:23
89:7 94:7,20,21 95:6,18 breach (2) 45:13 69:10 cannot (2) 76:18 97:17 claimed (2) 2:2 49:12 63:10 considered (2) 2:6 28:4 couldnt (14) 2:14 12:3 71:2
100:23 102:1,6,12 104:21 break (10) 45:1,6,11 46:1,22 cant (16) 2:21 33:18 46:14 claiming (1) 51:7 communicating (3) 63:23 consistency (1) 61:23 80:18 87:20 105:3
105:15 107:5,15,22 92:11 93:7 133:11 145:2 47:8 53:3 62:25 70:3 81:22 claims (3) 27:15 82:8 160:23 68:5 89:12 consistent (2) 102:24 121:6 113:13,15 128:23 131:14
108:4,10,15,21 182:11 92:24,24 93:1 120:20 clarity (1) 129:2 communication (6) 78:24 consisting (1) 39:3 134:14 157:7 165:21 182:7
109:4,17,25 breaks (1) 59:17 151:24 163:16,20 179:22 class (2) 147:10,11 79:6 89:21 90:3 128:13 consolidation (1) 135:23 counsel (3) 127:19 129:2
110:5,15,18,21 111:14 breast (1) 113:8 canyon (1) 47:22 clayton (2) 101:11 144:21 164:18 conspiracy (1) 115:4 161:6
112:9,13,19 113:20,23 bridges (3) 49:1 108:22 capable (1) 1:21 clean (1) 116:21 communications (41) 2:1 constraints (1) 176:4 count (1) 33:1
114:3,5,12 117:13,15 109:22 capacity (1) 116:14 clear (19) 8:8 20:8 26:23 43:18 44:14 52:1,7 53:16 constructive (1) 2:5 couple (4) 1:23 89:13 93:21
119:13 121:18,24,25 122:2 briefly (4) 4:2 37:15 89:17 capture (1) 6:5 33:6 43:19 52:16 59:11 56:8,15,22 62:18 consulting (12) 5:9,11 13:19 105:24
123:21 124:7,18 126:20 167:7 care (3) 159:7,10 175:14 60:4 61:8 62:3 76:24 63:3,20,24 65:8 66:20 14:24,25 15:11 16:18,19 course (13) 2:17 3:17 6:1
129:25 130:6,7,20 bright (1) 26:2 cared (1) 159:11 81:4,9,13,14 103:23 156:7 67:12,14 68:2,7,9 81:21,24 40:15,16,19,24 14:9 36:13 37:7 54:19 68:2
132:22,24 133:14,25 bring (5) 17:13 129:2 151:12 career (2) 9:7,9 161:3 175:9 82:2 89:17 93:11,20,24 consumption (2) 146:17 96:19 116:23 117:2 136:10
134:5,7,14 141:7,8 154:22 160:20 caring (1) 149:4 clearly (3) 24:15 131:18 95:23 96:8,12,24 98:21 147:23 146:24
144:11,18,19 146:15,23,25 bringing (1) 2:20 cases (2) 29:11 32:9 153:14 99:8 102:2 105:7 108:24 contact (2) 120:9 124:3 courtesy (1) 61:10
147:10 148:17 briskly (1) 25:20 cash (25) 11:9,14,19 clerk (1) 1:17 115:10 162:24 173:16,17 contacted (3) 82:12 162:1 courts (1) 2:24
149:5,6,23,24 150:2,10,17 broadcast (2) 139:11 147:14 12:6,6,11,17,23,24,25 cleverness (1) 151:25 177:8 167:7 cousin (1) 105:23
151:3,5,14 152:14 153:16 broadly (1) 32:1 13:2,4 20:10 42:20 43:19 click (3) 89:24 90:17 94:5 companies (7) 17:12 43:12 contacts (1) 49:9 covered (2) 3:24 74:12
155:9,10,20 156:8,25 broken (1) 37:4 44:3 65:6 67:8 83:21 94:2 clientonly (2) 172:4,8 113:3 119:5 140:21 163:21 contain (1) 25:22 covering (1) 91:20
157:1,9,10,20 brokers (1) 6:3 108:12 111:22 113:19,24 clients (12) 22:9 36:12 41:6 177:1 contains (1) 16:2 cowboy (4) 7:21 8:1,5,7
158:10,11,17,18,20,23 brought (3) 27:12 45:11 120:3 48:16 94:24 140:14 141:2 company (10) 17:13 20:3 contempt (4) 31:9 35:9 cowboys (2) 7:4,6
159:23 160:23 59:23 casino (3) 8:24 9:12 10:5 144:16 146:7 174:4 177:2 74:8 75:8 99:25 103:5,16 131:8 133:4 crack (1) 151:8
161:16,22,23 162:4,14 browser (1) 89:12 casual (1) 149:3 178:23 140:22 156:3 177:1 content (5) 2:17 23:7 cracked (1) 37:3
163:6 164:12 165:5 btc (2) 69:7 160:23 categorically (3) 44:9 61:16 close (2) 49:1 89:15 companys (1) 74:23 49:19,24 174:8 craig (15) 3:19 4:14 5:4 9:10
167:15,24 168:10,13 bug (12) 168:3,5 169:25 155:11 closed (3) 9:2 11:10 115:17 comparing (1) 24:22 contents (3) 26:4,17 100:4 14:21 23:11 82:14,15
169:23 171:9 173:23 170:7,15,25 171:3 173:14 caught (1) 91:10 closely (1) 48:18 comparison (2) 23:25 25:4 context (3) 61:11 81:5,12 111:24 112:2,14,24 133:24
176:15,19 177:11 175:13,14,15,21 cause (2) 33:9 136:14 club (1) 8:16 comparisons (1) 25:6 continue (2) 45:10 165:7 150:4 183:4
178:17,19 179:9 build (11) 10:21 44:5,8,11 causes (2) 135:13 136:24 cobra (3) 155:10,10 165:18 compile (2) 58:23 59:18 continued (6) 3:19,22 98:17 crash (1) 135:14
bitcoincom (1) 45:16 58:8,9 66:9 79:15 134:15 cbdcs (1) 46:12 code (50) 5:25 51:5,7,21 compiled (2) 7:8 57:25 130:5 183:4,5 create (8) 14:7 39:22 48:9
bitcoinorg (8) 56:1 104:2,12 165:3 176:10 ceased (1) 14:17 52:1 53:24 54:4,19 compiler (4) 58:14 59:7 continues (1) 48:22 66:4,11 142:14 158:6
152:11 165:11 173:10,11 building (7) 20:15,16,18 cent (2) 94:22 159:17 55:11,13,16,18,23,24 60:13 61:2 continuing (2) 141:6 148:10 170:3
174:22 58:18 73:14 79:7 135:15 central (2) 50:8 74:22 56:10,11,16,22 compiling (2) 59:12 60:6 continuously (1) 104:5 created (9) 11:19 22:19,22
bitcoinorgforum (2) 104:1,11 built (4) 109:20 119:4 centrebet (16) 10:5 22:9 57:5,7,8,10,14,18,20,22 complain (2) 104:19,20 contracting (1) 40:16 45:19 109:5 133:16 171:16
bitcoinorgforums (1) 174:23 148:25 174:21 41:11 118:6,20 120:8,16 58:1 60:6 61:11 complained (2) 165:8,9 contracts (2) 15:3 43:10 180:20 182:3
bitcoins (1) 97:5 bullet (2) 13:11 15:10 123:12 140:14,17,18 64:13,20,22 70:25 complaining (1) 75:24 contradiction (2) 8:8 127:20 creating (10) 4:17,18,21
bitcointalk (2) 173:11 174:15 bulletin (1) 26:18 146:10 155:21,24 156:1 76:12,16 79:11 81:16 86:2 complaint (2) 27:14 76:1 contrary (1) 83:14 43:3,7 45:12,21 66:5 174:4
bits (1) 154:9 bundled (1) 148:24 158:4 98:11 119:4 134:7 139:5 complete (3) 68:21 88:6 contributed (1) 154:19 182:6
black (2) 79:13 148:6 bunge (1) 1:14 cents (1) 143:8 163:25 165:3 167:24 148:6 control (8) 10:5 26:4,17 creation (6) 4:25 13:14 50:7
blacknet (4) 20:14 43:1 73:7 burned (1) 145:1 ceo (2) 119:14 120:8 168:6,13 171:23,25 172:4 completed (2) 37:18 59:25 169:2,6 175:25 176:3,13 74:19 123:21 133:14
116:11 burning (1) 142:18 certain (3) 58:24 67:5,16 codebase (1) 102:24 completely (12) 9:16 14:8 controversy (1) 37:20 creator (1) 132:24
blaming (2) 35:4,4 business (12) 4:18,19 10:19 certificates (1) 92:5 codebased (1) 41:5 56:24 57:12 66:24 convenient (5) 44:25 92:10 credence (1) 140:8
blatant (1) 119:23 46:3,13 88:16 118:18,19 certification (2) 42:12,13 codes (1) 51:18 67:23,24 159:15,19 160:5 117:1 133:7 182:10 credit (6) 27:19 32:5,8,12
blessing (2) 169:21 171:7 155:21,24 156:1,2 chain (7) 3:3 22:4 68:13 99:9 coding (7) 5:25 14:4 41:17 168:17,20 conversation (4) 53:11 78:21 130:17 173:24
block (25) 11:25 28:12 busy (1) 35:6 109:21 146:9,13 60:1 90:20,25 91:19 complex (4) 5:5,11,21 175:4 116:20 121:4 credits (1) 20:13
29:8,18 30:18 32:19,20,20 buy (9) 69:4,7,7,11,14,19 chainbased (2) 11:22 14:11 coffee (1) 123:11 compliance (2) 37:15 92:5 conversations (1) 109:11 criminal (1) 69:12
133:14,16,20 135:8,12 159:8,9,17 challenge (1) 91:15 coherent (1) 113:13 component (1) 147:2 convinced (3) 164:7 168:19 critical (1) 75:17
142:10,12,15,21 147:8 challenges (1) 48:16 coin (1) 143:19 compromised (2) 52:12,14 177:4 crossexamination (2) 3:22
C
154:21 155:15 181:8,17,25 change (5) 7:13 47:9 138:17 coinexch (1) 74:1 computational (1) 66:5 cool (2) 151:6,21 183:5
182:4,8 c (26) 5:20,25 28:20 156:17 176:7 coingeek (1) 17:2 computationally (1) 147:4 copa (9) 45:18 52:14 crypto (1) 20:13
blockchain (1) 88:24 51:8,17,18 58:15,20 59:15 changed (4) 12:3 47:18,19 coins (2) 66:5 71:14 compute (1) 66:7 67:17,24 99:24 100:12 cryptocurrency (23) 43:20
blocks (1) 147:6 60:12,12,14,16,18,18 76:14 collaborator (1) 115:15 computer (8) 8:15,17 15:20 160:1,6,21 44:3,5,6 74:14,19 75:12,25
blog (7) 27:9 37:3,8 40:13 61:3,18,18 65:11 84:6 changes (7) 30:7 35:7 43:8 collaborators (1) 132:21 94:9 97:23 141:18,25 copas (1) 105:9 76:2 150:2,11,18,22
134:9 136:10 150:14 90:8,8,24,24 147:10,11 75:17 85:4 151:17 172:19 collated (1) 101:14 178:10 copied (1) 32:17 151:3,6,15,19 152:15
blogged (1) 181:14 c00001010 (1) 70:18 changing (1) 130:11 colleagues (1) 49:9 computers (8) 73:11 83:11 copies (8) 67:15 153:10,17,24 154:5 155:9
blogging (1) 37:2 c00002540 (1) 66:14 channels (1) 98:5 collect (1) 146:12 111:22 142:3 144:10 117:21,22,23,24 118:13 cryptographic (4) 74:21
blogpost (7) 30:13 40:3 c00002544 (1) 65:23 chaotic (1) 132:19 collection (1) 148:23 145:12,15,22 122:23,24 182:2,7,9
41:14 85:24 134:18,19,20 c00002547 (1) 65:12 chapter (1) 46:18 collisions (1) 66:4 computing (1) 148:12 copy (23) 12:4 29:8,18,22 csiro (1) 80:4
blogposts (1) 37:7 c283 (1) 64:6 chapters (1) 37:14 colourcoded (2) 25:13 28:15 concentration (1) 177:19 68:25 110:14 117:19 csw182 (1) 86:17
blogs (2) 30:2,10 c33 (1) 24:18 characterising (1) 83:23 colourful (1) 122:7 concept (3) 22:10 162:3,14 118:2,15,24,25 119:7 csw2816 (1) 23:25
blow (1) 151:1 c72 (1) 55:20 charities (2) 39:12,13 colours (2) 25:5,9 concepts (3) 32:13 75:7 77:5 120:17 121:21 csw481 (1) 38:21
bmoney (3) 65:18,25 73:9 caats (3) 15:17,20 97:22 charles (1) 138:23 combating (1) 90:16 conceptualised (1) 11:8 122:1,2,12,13,15,18,21,25 csw483 (1) 38:12
board (4) 26:18,20,21,22 call (27) 2:5,10 8:5 10:15 chat (1) 53:13 combination (3) 60:1 61:2 concern (2) 32:3,6 123:9 cumulative (1) 66:9
bohm (2) 63:4,13 22:7 28:8 42:3,10,10 46:20 cheaply (1) 66:11 163:8 concerned (1) 179:4 copying (1) 29:10 currency (11) 19:19 43:20,20
book (7) 37:14 73:3,23 83:1 50:14,23 64:12 76:2 83:22 check (2) 125:15 144:12 come (21) 16:4,14 19:17 concerning (2) 13:12 23:7 corporate (3) 10:1 179:24 44:3 50:8 109:5 111:19,20
150:4,5,15 95:7 110:18 116:10,15,23 checked (2) 30:6 75:16 27:8 34:18 40:6 63:18 85:9 conclusion (1) 79:15 180:4 112:17 113:18 169:2
books (2) 37:17 42:2 117:6,7,9 158:18,20 checking (1) 147:6 90:10 108:2,17 109:2 conclusions (1) 61:22 corporations (1) 161:23 current (4) 93:4 113:3,15
boost (1) 51:10 164:8,10 chew (1) 149:14 114:9 115:18 118:24 119:7 condition (1) 111:10 correct (50) 3:13 5:16 11:17 161:4
both (15) 8:1 19:25 27:7 called (28) 19:7,12 22:2 24:8 chief (1) 163:13 120:4 122:24 132:25 140:7 conditioned (1) 149:21 12:13 14:1 15:12 18:7 currently (1) 46:1
49:15 50:5 51:21 57:24 45:12 50:8 51:22 53:23 chinese (1) 47:23 182:15 conditioning (1) 149:19 23:15 28:6,18 31:5 35:3 custody (2) 3:4 99:9
68:19 79:8 99:7 103:13 54:3 66:3 73:2 74:14 77:12 chix (2) 86:18 87:18 comes (8) 81:16,16,17,19 conditions (2) 45:14 58:24 36:10,16,20,22 37:1 cv (15) 4:7 5:15 9:4,13 11:15
122:4 138:11,15 146:13 84:17 89:10 104:4 105:24 choice (1) 170:21 82:5 86:1,2,4 conducted (3) 17:2 78:14 49:4,10,21 56:5 57:16 13:19,20 14:12,19,20
bothered (1) 125:15 108:19 109:18 chose (3) 48:12 51:8 157:12 comfortable (1) 1:4 80:5 58:24 70:8 72:9,13 77:10 15:13,19,23 16:11,15
bottom (26) 17:24 38:21,22 114:12,15,16,17 137:1 chosen (1) 4:14 coming (7) 39:15 58:7 94:19 conference (1) 36:24 89:25 90:18,20 92:2 100:2 cvs (1) 15:15
58:6 65:14 89:20,21 149:12 179:12,14 180:21 christen (1) 1:9 101:7 109:24 112:5 118:14 conferences (2) 107:6 116:11 106:9 107:1,19 114:3 cyber (2) 10:2,2
90:1,1,11 91:7,14 97:15 calling (2) 68:12,14 chronologically (1) 22:25 command (2) 153:9 154:9 confidence (1) 88:7 116:8 120:10 125:10 cybersecurity (1) 36:18
100:25 112:10 116:19 calls (1) 138:5 chumbo (3) 47:8 62:24 92:20 commander (1) 129:16 confident (1) 84:12 130:20 131:5 135:15 cycles (1) 66:7
126:12,15 128:19 137:12 came (24) 27:5 30:16 chunks (1) 28:4 comment (1) 82:13 configure (1) 138:9 151:18,19 152:4,5 164:16 cypherpunk (1) 79:10
138:13 151:1 154:23 54:11,12 71:1 76:16 cinema (1) 43:13 commented (1) 93:13 configured (2) 138:8 147:10 179:10 180:13 181:10
D
162:23 166:8 169:20 78:13,20 79:14 98:20 cio (1) 120:16 comments (2) 98:12 167:14 confirm (2) 70:14 71:18 corrected (3) 152:1 154:25
bottomleft (1) 89:4 99:1,23 101:13 120:9 circle (7) 48:25 commercialised (2) 22:11 confounding (1) 175:18 155:13 d (1) 17:5

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

d4902 (1) 23:8 delivered (1) 36:23 68:15,15,16,17 71:2 75:10 99:5 dons (1) 141:16 80:19 81:12 96:19 115:11 email (66) 1:18 40:1
d741 (1) 66:14 delivering (1) 37:13 80:8 83:14 84:6 85:18 disputed (1) 141:25 dont (98) 1:15 3:2,10 136:8 148:2 55:6,17,18 57:2 60:4,22
d781 (1) 65:22 demanding (3) 41:25 42:3,10 87:5,16,22 94:20,20 disputes (1) 83:6 12:19,23 13:25 16:5 22:17 dustin (2) 55:1 141:13 62:2 64:6,8 65:13,14,20,23
d821 (2) 65:11,12 demitrio (1) 127:8 99:10,23 100:1 101:4 dissertation (13) 24:19 27:3 31:19,22 34:6 66:14,15,20 68:22 69:1
E
dai (12) 63:24 64:6 79:5,9 democritou (1) 150:5 106:7 107:13 110:21 23:1,5,7,11,18,20,21 27:18 41:18 47:21 50:25 74:2 75:19 80:14 84:21
84:7,14,14 102:3,4 106:24 demonstrate (2) 157:9 113:18 115:24 117:8 118:4 28:3,13 29:16 30:12 36:10 51:11,12 52:5,19 53:21 e (2) 20:10 31:12 91:4,20 93:12 95:23 96:9
108:8 110:22 161:16 121:25 122:7,15,16,17,19 distance (3) 131:3 132:24 55:16 61:16 e113 (1) 48:10 102:4 111:8 117:14 118:15
daily (1) 62:12 demonstrating (1) 68:4 123:13,17 125:14,14 153:19 62:10,12,15,23 63:8,16 e114 (1) 51:6 123:24 124:14 126:13,16
damn (2) 75:24 176:11 demorgan (8) 3:25 8:24 127:17 128:16,18 130:25 distinction (3) 32:21 149:2 64:4 67:25 68:1 69:24 74:7 e116 (2) 51:19 62:2 127:6,25 128:1,10,16
danielle (1) 110:7 10:19,20 11:2 13:7,13 131:4,7,7 132:7,9 133:1,2 151:7 75:24 76:2 80:23 81:18,18 e118 (1) 63:22 130:15,19,21,23 131:4
danielles (1) 118:17 110:7 137:4 140:10 142:12 distinguished (6) 9:10 82:4,6,14 83:18 84:19 e119 (4) 65:1 77:3 88:13 152:7 153:5,5,13 155:3
dark (1) 166:4 denis (1) 179:23 143:11 144:3,12,19 148:20 64:3,9,16,21 88:3 85:15,16 86:6,9,24 120:12 162:7 166:17 168:23
darker (1) 166:4 deny (1) 120:5 149:9 151:8,17,19 153:8 distribute (2) 147:8 148:22 87:17,19,24 91:5,5,13 96:6 e120 (1) 104:22 169:4,16,18 172:1,2,18,22
data (7) 22:5 37:19 38:4 denying (2) 35:8 85:23 154:2,8 157:22 159:7 distributed (5) 10:23,24 99:15,18 100:9,9,9 102:25 e122 (1) 141:6 173:19,21,22 176:12
40:23 145:25 146:3,11 departing (2) 116:24,25 165:24 166:4,12,24 167:22 20:19 71:23 75:2 104:11,14,18,19 106:21 e124 (1) 157:8 emailed (2) 56:11 79:14
database (1) 94:12 department (5) 16:10,11 169:8,12,12 172:15 distribution (1) 177:14 111:16 112:16 115:12 e125 (1) 163:24 emails (40) 1:6 38:14 52:7
databases (1) 159:3 50:4 82:18 83:7 173:17,23 175:14 176:19 divided (1) 179:18 117:25 118:7,21,22 e126 (3) 165:9 168:9 179:2 58:4 60:10 61:13 63:4
datastation (1) 99:25 departments (1) 10:1 177:5,6 181:24 dividing (1) 25:10 122:6,22 125:18 130:11 e127 (1) 179:16 67:3,10,11 68:11,24 90:12
date (4) 100:5 115:25 depending (1) 5:18 died (4) 54:9 101:4 117:3 divorce (5) 112:12 163:19,21 134:12 136:14,16,25 137:5 e133 (1) 180:14 95:18,20,24,25 97:1,2
137:21 152:9 depends (1) 39:9 130:16 176:24 178:25 142:7 145:17 149:16 e19 (1) 11:7 115:13 117:17
dated (7) 10:14 28:23 81:23 deponent (1) 112:15 difference (3) 8:1,13 123:1 divorced (2) 144:17 163:10 150:23,24 156:8 161:1,11 e41 (1) 49:5 118:12,22,24 120:4 152:25
99:8,11 100:15 123:24 deposition (5) 111:12 115:19 different (35) 5:25 12:25 dmd (1) 63:12 162:10 163:3 170:20 e416 (1) 102:19 153:11,22 154:6,22 162:11
dates (3) 82:6 116:23 117:4 124:12 126:6 128:22 15:15 16:1,8 25:5,24 29:1 doctoral (2) 42:8 48:3 179:24 180:1,7 182:12 e417 (1) 102:21 166:22,24 167:18 168:21
dave (19) 37:18,23 38:2 depositions (1) 126:7 32:22 50:15 56:24 doctorate (1) 46:3 dorsey (2) 67:17,21 e421 (2) 107:11 113:25 169:10 174:6 176:12
106:25 111:3 115:23 der (6) 167:23 168:12,15,18 63:10,17 70:10 76:10,13 doctored (2) 156:14,16 doubt (1) 154:25 e56 (1) 120:23 177:15 178:1
124:6,17 126:19 129:4,8,9 176:21 177:4 88:22 108:6,15 110:3 document (43) 4:11 5:17 douglas (1) 48:18 ea (3) 16:5 75:19 124:2 embellishment (1) 162:18
130:3,8,17,19 131:3,9 describe (12) 8:23 13:24 112:5 113:19 123:6 6:23 10:14,16 12:10,16 down (31) 7:18 37:11 39:19 earlier (14) 8:19 18:2 41:13 emergency (1) 171:2
179:23 21:24 54:4 102:20 109:23 130:2,10,14 137:13 16:21 20:24,24 21:4,5,10 46:21 52:11 53:20,22 57:24 65:24 99:16 139:18 emphasised (1) 78:18
daves (4) 123:25 124:3,9 116:2 119:19 122:6 136:14 139:22,23 140:24 148:18 23:6 24:2,11,13 27:11 28:1 67:16,20 77:18 79:4,19 152:21 153:22 154:6,22 emphatic (1) 152:23
130:15 157:14 163:23 161:21 164:9 170:8 171:25 30:23 42:23 74:23 82:7 85:10 97:6 99:6 155:12 161:2 176:15 emphatically (1) 153:6
david (4) 49:1 108:22 109:22 described (14) 5:16 6:7 9:13 difficult (12) 39:24 76:23 75:8,10,15 76:4 82:22 84:2 100:8,12 101:9 114:1 early (29) 3:24 6:2 8:19 9:9 employed (1) 14:14
130:16 10:9 15:13 89:5 106:23 83:3 86:10 117:11 85:10 91:17 99:3,9,13 117:12 134:1,23 136:12 10:3 14:7 36:1 41:22 49:20 employment (1) 26:20
day (7) 69:2,6 111:18 114:10 116:3,6 117:5 131:16,19,25 132:11 133:2 106:20 121:8,25 123:10 140:9 145:3 149:23 151:8 54:23 63:13 73:8 89:11 enable (1) 12:1
121:15,15 139:13 178:12 137:25 147:22 164:2 163:2 176:7 138:10 156:9,13,20 157:3,6,16 93:8 97:6 119:19 133:15 encompasses (1) 60:24
day516915 (1) 6:16 describes (1) 14:20 difficulty (2) 76:20 148:13 162:7,7 download (5) 7:8 44:22 134:5 140:15,25 141:7,8 encrypted (1) 179:17
days (10) 42:14 73:8 95:15 describing (7) 91:7 dig (1) 47:10 documentary (6) 36:1 41:20 57:2,3 102:5 146:23 147:21 159:23 end (21) 5:20 7:23 14:3
140:9 141:8,11,13 146:15 103:13,20 109:4 137:9 digicash (3) 79:21,25 80:10 111:4,9 166:20,22 downloaded (9) 55:15,19 165:2 178:19 180:17,24 15:15 20:14 38:13
159:23 178:12 165:20 169:23 digital (41) 6:19 11:9,14,19 documentation (3) 13:16 56:1,6,9,23 57:7,19 121:11 earth (1) 30:11 42:25,25 47:3 48:23 59:4
dba (3) 46:12 47:15,23 description (3) 104:23 12:6,6,11,17,23,24,25 43:9 175:23 downloads (1) 135:22 easier (2) 65:11 89:19 78:24 89:15 93:11 101:12
dbas (2) 46:3 48:5 141:25 174:21 13:2,4 15:5 16:9 19:19 documented (1) 36:21 doxed (1) 120:2 easily (1) 174:20 118:14 143:8 148:5 166:18
dead (4) 114:24 115:9 descriptions (2) 4:21 98:14 42:20 43:13,16,19,20,20 documents (16) 12:7,19 dr (98) 1:24 2:6,12,15,19 easy (1) 42:11 177:10 178:16
117:2,7 design (9) 4:14 5:10,20 10:3 44:3,3,13 48:14 50:8 65:6 13:23 21:18,21,25 3:19,20,23 4:7 6:5,11,23 ecash (5) 108:13,20 109:5,18 ended (4) 6:17 17:10 50:20
deal (1) 62:11 13:20 52:1 53:24 54:4 79:7 67:8 82:24 83:21 94:2 42:17,17,23 44:1,7 96:23 7:22 8:8 9:14 10:10,14 110:1 98:17
dealing (4) 3:15 52:1 82:9 designed (1) 5:21 109:5 111:19,20,25 112:17 97:10,13 156:14,16 12:5,15 13:21 15:22 17:1 ecdh (2) 149:1 158:7 endnote (6) 27:10,21 29:21
180:15 designing (3) 9:10,15 51:20 113:18,19,24 116:12 does (30) 20:16 21:20 30:3,3 20:5 21:8 22:15 23:13 ecdsa (2) 147:3,4 30:1,10 33:11
dealings (3) 81:4 88:3,10 desk (4) 120:17 123:4 173:6 digressing (1) 53:8 33:10 34:13,21 58:10 28:2,13,22 30:9 31:5,16 econometric (1) 47:4 endorse (2) 130:25 150:16
dealt (6) 49:12,13,17 50:2 175:21 dillinger (2) 54:25 57:14 67:3,4,10 69:6 70:16 32:16 33:6 34:17 35:8,22 economic (4) 19:14 20:13 engaged (5) 8:24 51:20
62:14 81:10 despite (3) 68:17 75:23 direct (3) 56:21 63:14 67:13 72:19,23 74:10,15 76:25 41:20 42:15 43:17 45:3,25 22:5 71:17 53:24 54:3 141:9
death (3) 19:25 115:2 124:9 100:4 directed (1) 79:9 82:9,25 83:16 88:11 51:3 53:2,6 56:14,24 57:13 economically (1) 20:17 engaging (1) 29:18
debacle (2) 52:11 120:1 detail (10) 10:11 16:3,3,7 directly (5) 32:16 54:6,13 102:17 110:15 112:18 59:11 60:4 61:7 62:16 63:1 economics (1) 46:25 engineering (2) 78:7 79:22
debate (2) 61:7 78:16 35:6 51:13 60:7 90:20 55:13 127:2 136:23 137:6,23 157:14 64:18 65:9,13,15,24,25 ediscovery (1) 40:24 enjoy (1) 91:14
debug (2) 59:6 60:15 140:8 156:9 director (3) 17:11 20:2 98:18 181:8 66:17,21,23 68:6,21 edit (1) 29:20 enough (5) 67:15 78:20
debugger (2) 60:3 61:3 detailed (1) 16:17 directories (1) 103:4 doesnt (34) 19:24 20:2 69:16,25 72:15 76:3 80:19 editing (3) 30:16 33:12,18 104:20 135:8 148:7
debugging (4) 59:8,13,20 details (5) 14:3 40:17 directory (1) 103:24 21:24 27:22 33:7 58:9,23 82:13 86:20,22 88:1 92:13 editor (5) 29:21 30:15 33:11 enrolled (2) 42:4 77:21
61:20 104:16,24 181:5 disable (1) 173:8 64:18 67:3,10 70:24 93:6 101:7,24 102:3 35:4,17 ensure (3) 10:23,25 165:1
deceitful (1) 110:17 detection (2) 6:12 16:11 disabled (1) 174:9 76:17,19 84:6 85:19 98:16 104:17 121:3,7 122:11 editorial (2) 26:4 35:5 ensures (1) 22:4
december (9) 14:15,18 determined (1) 26:3 disagree (2) 43:23 83:6 106:13 109:8 110:13 131:23 133:5,13,24 140:7 editors (4) 26:5 32:24 33:17 ensuring (1) 147:7
36:3,25 41:14 74:3 169:17 develop (3) 48:12 78:1 176:9 disagreeing (1) 21:3 112:20 116:24 118:20 148:16 149:10 160:8 161:2 35:3 entering (1) 78:3
171:5 172:2 developed (9) 14:6 15:18 disagreement (1) 169:14 135:24 136:1,2 145:16 162:14,18 167:19 175:9 educational (1) 15:2 entertainment (1) 162:2
decentralized (2) 169:1,2 17:16 64:23 85:6 96:22,22 disappeared (1) 177:9 147:1 149:14 155:14,16 177:8 182:12 183:4 edward (4) 109:10 enthusiastic (1) 73:8
deception (1) 29:12 130:5,6 disciplines (1) 15:1 172:7 173:2 181:12,19 draconian (1) 150:21 114:13,15,16 entire (9) 29:8,19 55:6
decide (2) 1:20 161:7 developer (4) 138:22,24 disclaimer (1) 45:16 doing (33) 36:5 41:24 draft (12) 21:13 105:14,16 edwin (2) 114:17,18 96:19,20 103:18 131:3
decided (2) 26:15 27:17 140:20,24 disclosed (5) 12:10 15:19 42:6,8,11 45:23 108:19 109:17 114:2,10 effect (1) 82:16 144:19 178:19
decision (1) 48:9 developers (5) 3:1 173:25 35:16 55:6 156:15 46:1,5,10,12,15,24,24 117:19 119:8 120:14,17 effectively (4) 11:21 50:9 entirely (3) 2:17 82:2 159:13
decompiling (1) 90:25 175:23 176:2,8 disclosure (5) 12:21,21 14:2 47:23,25 48:1 55:17 59:22 121:17 94:14 108:13 entitled (4) 23:10 37:3,19
decrypt (1) 180:25 developing (8) 4:23 9:8 31:12 99:17 81:25 132:18 135:21 138:2 drafting (1) 105:11 efforts (1) 63:15 73:25
dedicate (2) 177:11 178:17 48:17 54:24 56:15 77:5 discount (1) 163:16 143:1 144:24 145:10 drafts (9) 49:6 105:11 egold (1) 48:19 entrusting (1) 179:22
deeply (1) 78:2 88:20 131:10 discuss (2) 68:18 121:13 149:11 166:11 171:8 107:14,21 108:5,14 109:24 eidetic (1) 81:17 entry (1) 134:3
defamation (1) 25:19 development (9) 4:23 58:13 discussed (12) 21:7,16,18 173:16 175:22 177:21 110:1 114:5 eight (4) 37:17 47:21 environment (5) 8:19 9:11
defamatory (2) 26:8,22 64:19 113:20 133:13 26:10,25 27:7 44:15 178:18 179:1 drastic (1) 148:17 180:10,11 11:18 58:13 146:14
defense (3) 41:4 117:16 144:25 169:23 171:22 52:3,22 56:10 106:3 128:8 dollar (1) 97:5 draw (1) 13:21 either (10) 12:24 53:18 envisioned (1) 88:23
162:10 174:10 discussing (5) 20:9 84:14 dollars (5) 143:8 145:5,7 drawn (1) 25:6 82:17 97:7 121:15 127:10 equivalent (4) 25:9 168:3
define (1) 83:8 developments (2) 164:22 95:10 101:21 112:20 146:18 147:23 drive (5) 37:19 38:4 179:17 169:25 175:11 181:9,16 174:21 175:20
defines (1) 44:17 176:22 discussion (5) 90:23 domain (23) 57:15 62:8 96:1 180:25 181:24 elaborate (2) 70:13 132:21 error (2) 29:23 102:18
defining (1) 4:19 devices (1) 7:15 128:8,20 157:14,24 103:15,17,18,22 104:13,25 drives (1) 111:7 electricity (8) 142:19 errors (1) 58:7
definitely (4) 84:16 87:6 dfat (1) 50:4 discussions (9) 80:19 81:12 105:4,6 134:15 drop (3) 120:22 123:19 148:9 143:9,13 144:9 146:16 escaped (1) 46:23
105:1 145:21 diagrams (2) 32:7,18 85:13 98:14,17 128:2,5,6 135:3,15,16,17,18 dropped (6) 29:22 33:13 147:23 149:13,15 escrow (2) 44:8 165:2
definition (3) 74:18 75:1 didnt (125) 9:2,17 10:11 155:19 145:18,20 164:2,4 174:7 37:11 123:4,5 148:5 electron (1) 38:2 especially (1) 149:15
159:1 12:6 13:2 14:6 15:23 17:19 dishonest (2) 69:18 155:8 179:13 dropping (3) 39:19 118:10 electronic (1) 108:12 estate (4) 96:9 97:2 115:12
degree (9) 41:18 77:6,22 22:7,8,9 27:6,8,10,12 disillusioned (1) 144:15 don (10) 49:1 105:23 106:25 123:16 eliminate (1) 26:6 117:16
78:22 80:20,22 81:13,25 29:21,24 30:2,8,10,13,16 disingenuous (1) 55:14 108:1,17 114:8 129:16,24 drug (1) 144:16 elliot (1) 93:1 estates (2) 36:12 95:24
92:7 31:9 32:18 33:16 34:15 dismissed (1) 27:15 141:10 142:6 dualserver (1) 102:23 else (17) 7:19 21:25 34:6 et (1) 66:3
degrees (5) 36:11 41:25 35:6 36:15 37:15,20 dismissive (2) 65:6 66:23 done (13) 11:20 17:4 due (5) 47:3 48:13,20 140:9 62:6 79:24 118:19 127:5 etc (27) 5:25 15:17 16:11
42:4,8,9 43:25,25 44:2 50:20 51:13 disposal (1) 18:11 22:20,21,21 30:7 32:19 146:16 130:20 144:3,4 148:3 20:18,20 33:1 39:9
delete (1) 173:8 52:9,22 55:12,18 56:11 dispute (9) 24:20 27:5 76:24 80:22 95:24 96:9 138:12 dungeontype (1) 8:18 151:22 154:15 155:15 43:6,8,11 44:23 47:16,16
deleted (1) 174:9 57:8,10,17 59:9 66:25 83:10,13,18 84:25 86:8 167:25 174:3 during (9) 36:8,17 45:10 161:12,19 171:3 59:17 68:13 90:24 92:13

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

94:15 119:2 140:15 141:22 expenditure (1) 142:25 filed (1) 75:23 155:13 165:11,11 173:12 164:5,6,10,16,20,22 107:9 111:10 114:20 122:9 hasnt (8) 46:19 54:9 66:24
153:2,10 159:10 165:5 expends (1) 71:17 files (12) 3:5 10:24 20:20 174:14,15 175:6 177:15 167:23 168:1,4,12,19 130:18 161:22 164:15,20 67:11,12 111:1 119:17
167:7 174:4 expense (1) 146:16 43:5,11,14 143:18,21,25 178:21 172:10,10,25 173:20 176:9 170:21 173:5 174:23 167:21
evangelist (1) 39:5 expensive (2) 43:16 143:10 156:17,23 168:23 forums (13) 53:13 63:11 177:4 178:6 175:16,17 182:15 hate (1) 74:16
even (24) 12:20 22:8,22 experience (8) 6:19 7:24 8:9 filings (1) 75:12 173:8,10,11,12,14 gavins (2) 12:21,21 government (17) 10:1 12:1 havent (27) 1:12 33:21 51:25
54:14 62:23 68:17 70:25 90:6,20 91:19,23 171:14 final (4) 7:18 66:14 174:8,12,14,18,19,24 gchq (2) 116:7 129:19 48:15 49:25 50:2 51:2 53:23 54:3 58:2 61:20
72:12 75:23 76:1 81:18 experienced (1) 147:18 173:19,21 forward (15) 19:18 20:24 gcu (1) 92:21 116:15 117:6 125:21,25 62:6,20 64:1 76:6 105:8
94:17 96:16 110:21 112:20 expert (3) 40:20 146:20 finally (1) 176:20 21:3,9 45:22 63:18 100:22 gearing (2) 95:5,7 131:12,20,22 106:14 107:8 115:15 123:2
122:5 137:1 139:4 143:1 147:20 finance (1) 50:5 114:9 118:14,24 119:7 general (3) 56:23 139:15 132:3,7,12,15 142:22 151:4 152:22,24
147:13 149:7 150:21 157:7 expertise (1) 76:11 financial (1) 69:10 162:6 166:20 176:1,3 178:12 grabiner (4) 2:5,10,18 3:12 153:20 156:16 162:6
167:17 experts (1) 77:2 find (8) 39:1,9 84:8 86:10 forwarded (4) 1:8 56:7 generally (3) 37:4 82:6 graham (2) 78:6,23 165:12,16 166:21 181:17
evening (3) 177:23,24 explain (6) 1:18 17:14 33:7 124:11 134:13 153:1 75:9,10 177:21 granath (12) 17:23 18:1 20:8 having (18) 17:10 18:5 20:25
182:15 60:11 130:2 131:9 178:11 found (7) 2:19 52:13 55:23 generate (1) 181:11 54:16 56:14 57:13 89:3 33:15 52:17 66:6 75:16
event (1) 137:25 explained (9) 96:12 100:8 findings (2) 156:19,21 62:19 114:24 117:2 156:10 generated (1) 143:5 96:3 152:3 153:7,25 76:20 83:7 89:5 98:8 104:7
events (4) 35:18 36:23 88:17 104:11 111:20 125:8 127:7 fine (2) 65:17 180:23 foundational (2) 23:4 32:13 genesis (9) 109:21 133:14,16 154:10 110:14 142:19 145:12,23
155:18 141:22 164:9 181:13 finish (2) 21:15 91:17 founder (1) 48:19 135:12 181:8,17,25 grand (1) 47:22 156:22 174:23
eventually (1) 88:23 explaining (1) 100:16 finished (2) 2:8,16 four (5) 5:18 13:11 15:14 182:4,8 granger (5) 17:11 18:4 19:24 hazardsurvival (1) 39:22
ever (15) 12:10 19:17 22:23 explains (3) 55:15 80:15 finney (7) 54:8,25 57:14 16:8 34:12 geneva (2) 46:13 92:25 106:17,25 hazy (1) 88:18
35:16 55:22 63:18 109:2 133:24 79:13 85:12 141:12 149:8 fourth (4) 49:5 102:19 104:9 genuine (4) 42:17 169:4,18 graph (1) 77:25 headed (2) 16:9,10
111:16 112:16,24 118:23 explanation (6) 34:22,23,25 finneys (1) 76:15 107:12 172:22 graphs (2) 32:6,18 heading (2) 25:19 28:25
144:19 166:19 168:6 176:7 73:13 100:3 125:5 firewalls (2) 6:8 7:15 fractions (1) 94:22 george (1) 45:12 grappled (1) 80:10 hear (1) 21:23
every (14) 11:24 37:10 explanations (2) 34:3,9 firms (2) 50:21 98:19 frame (1) 148:8 get (40) 13:5 17:15 18:22 gratitude (1) 66:17 heard (3) 80:7 84:7 85:12
42:12,13,14 62:11 69:6 explicitly (3) 42:20 110:12 first (51) 1:8 9:19 10:4 14:20 framework (2) 60:20 61:4 32:25 34:15 41:8 48:1 great (5) 17:14 37:20 86:3 hearing (2) 17:23 161:2
128:18 139:13 149:7 168:4 20:5 28:4 30:25 33:18 39:1 frank (1) 31:12 52:16 55:12,18 56:11 171:7 173:7 hearn (1) 172:1
160:6,21 175:25 178:14 express (2) 43:25 44:2 41:4 45:25 48:24 55:23 fraud (6) 16:10 29:10 89:24 57:18 61:7 69:4,8,14 70:22 greg (3) 23:16 31:23 52:14 heart (1) 47:19
everybody (1) 171:13 expressed (1) 90:3 62:17,25 73:17 77:20 90:17 94:5,16 71:2 84:16 88:9 92:18 grem (1) 59:22 heavily (1) 20:4
everyone (6) 57:19 67:5 expressing (2) 66:16 89:23 99:8,11,13,23 104:22 freedom (1) 176:2 97:7,17 98:3,22 104:16 grounds (1) 128:23 hed (2) 80:20 98:18
75:24 138:4 139:11 164:20 expressly (1) 44:2 105:14 111:13 112:21,22 freeze (3) 89:15 95:9,16 117:4 122:10 140:23 group (13) 16:6 43:13 54:7 held (4) 26:7 29:17 64:17
everyones (1) 24:18 extended (3) 22:11 43:10 120:9,12 122:11 127:5 french (1) 46:14 142:24 145:2 148:19 66:6 73:10 78:7,16,21 131:11
everything (11) 99:5 105:6 158:21 128:22 130:24 135:6,19 friday (5) 1:24 3:23 6:15 150:23,24 157:2,7,11 79:22 82:23 84:3 85:17 hell (1) 176:4
107:8 116:21 129:14 143:7 extensive (6) 6:18 7:23 8:9 136:7,19 139:4,8 133:20 137:2 161:1,20 174:2 135:2 hello (3) 124:5,17 126:19
144:15,24 148:23 164:12 14:3 41:20 67:12 140:2,9,19,21,22 friends (2) 3:10 49:1 gets (4) 66:8 77:15 145:2 gse (1) 92:5 help (6) 57:10 70:22 129:3
173:18 extensively (6) 13:1 19:23 141:11,14 143:24 169:1 front (1) 101:8 170:13 gsspc (1) 59:23 173:6,9 175:21
evidence (47) 1:20,24 17:22 36:21 50:3 64:23 78:16 171:15 172:9 174:7 179:12 ftp (2) 102:15,17 getting (8) 69:19 75:14 gst (1) 50:10 helpdesk (1) 174:21
19:18,24 24:16 26:16 27:5 extent (6) 29:5 39:21 53:15 firsthand (1) 105:22 fuck (1) 17:16 98:11 99:5 142:12 144:17 guess (3) 39:1 41:8 95:25 helped (6) 10:3 100:13 116:9
35:20 48:21 53:17 54:15 68:25 70:23 97:9 firstly (3) 44:5 75:19 77:23 full (12) 12:3 23:11 31:12,14 161:5 163:10 guinea (1) 140:2 129:13 132:18 166:13
89:3 95:17,19 98:24 99:24 external (1) 141:20 fit (2) 113:11 123:10 42:4 53:15 58:14 101:1 giac (4) 36:18 40:9 41:17 gumbo (1) 47:8 helpful (1) 79:11
100:6,13 103:11 105:9 extra (1) 154:9 fits (1) 60:13 112:10 131:6 172:2,11 92:5 gunning (1) 3:5 helping (1) 66:10
109:15,23,24 110:24 extracted (1) 16:16 five (8) 5:18 15:15 42:8 45:3 fuller (1) 125:5 gihan (1) 92:20 hence (1) 43:12
H
111:4,9,12 112:6 113:11 extraordinary (2) 88:2 46:1 48:6 62:14 133:9 fullest (1) 107:3 git (2) 175:20 177:5 here (21) 25:4 26:1 32:24
115:10 128:7 146:21 165:16 fixed (1) 176:6 fulltime (2) 36:6 41:25 gitbook (2) 175:22,22 habit (1) 123:16 34:3,14 35:8 38:14 53:17
147:20 152:3 153:7,25 extremely (2) 43:15,16 flame (1) 70:9 fully (6) 35:12 77:12 150:19 github (25) 167:24 hack (1) 52:8 62:6 63:23 76:1 95:22
154:10 155:6,8 160:14 exwife (2) 111:11 113:8 flat (1) 114:24 158:21 177:11 178:17 168:2,5,7,13,17,17 169:3,6 hacked (5) 52:17,20,20 53:2 97:11 104:24 108:9 149:3
162:19 167:4,10,10 181:15 exwives (1) 113:3 flatly (1) 68:10 fun (1) 114:20 170:1,2,3,8,21,24 166:25 154:8 170:14 172:13
182:13 fobbed (1) 67:1 function (3) 11:9 113:23 171:4,18,22 172:5,7,21 hadnt (9) 11:19 100:12,12 180:15,20
F
evidencing (1) 117:14 focus (4) 16:19 131:18 173:7 174:9 175:10,19 176:22 125:15 129:7 132:10 heres (2) 152:13 153:15
ewallet (1) 74:11 face (2) 60:5 61:18 144:13,17 functions (1) 15:11 give (19) 19:24 34:9 46:7 135:16 151:6 158:12 hers (1) 25:5
ex (2) 31:4,15 facebook (1) 44:23 focused (2) 5:24 177:3 fund (1) 18:7 51:6 52:15 76:10 89:18 haggled (1) 157:5 hes (34) 2:7 3:7 45:21,23
exact (2) 34:22 128:3 faces (2) 81:18 84:20 focuses (1) 10:3 funded (1) 167:15 91:1,18 104:22,24 113:11 hal (7) 54:8,25 76:15 79:13 47:23 55:14 56:6 58:11,17
exactly (5) 68:13 76:4 80:23 facing (2) 144:14 163:4 focusing (5) 11:13 153:3,5 funding (4) 18:22 19:10 124:3 126:3 140:8 142:6 85:12 141:12 149:8 63:24 68:21,22,23,25
142:1 163:20 fail (3) 65:7 67:9 150:9 163:6 164:21 63:17 166:7 148:6 167:22 173:24 half (1) 116:3 73:20,21 83:21,23,24
exam (1) 42:14 failed (3) 62:20 66:25 67:5 folder (1) 103:19 funds (1) 18:11 given (16) 19:18 22:23 hand (1) 111:22 85:11,21 100:11 109:8,9
example (5) 26:1 39:14 63:3 fairly (2) 42:11 51:4 follow (2) 2:22 6:11 funny (1) 81:15 34:13,20 48:6 52:4 75:1 handed (2) 120:14 121:3 114:16 119:16 121:21
70:8 175:22 faisal (1) 104:4 followed (2) 43:18 48:18 furche (6) 78:6 79:13 83:16 107:4 115:8 155:19 handing (2) 123:9 163:24 122:23 123:3 170:14,14
examples (2) 32:3,6 false (4) 119:11 123:10 following (12) 1:24 4:13 6:16 84:22 86:22 87:2 167:4,11 173:1 176:2,16 handle (3) 30:2,10 127:17 171:22,24 173:1
exams (2) 41:18 60:1 160:22 162:19 18:16 39:4 59:16 89:5 furches (3) 86:8 87:4,15 181:15 handling (1) 40:21 hey (2) 143:6 144:18
exasperated (1) 98:12 familiar (1) 148:4 97:16 100:20 101:16 106:2 further (12) 2:11,13,21 25:4 gives (3) 8:20 110:24 171:18 hands (3) 1:21 164:16,20 hi (1) 38:25
except (2) 24:24 105:7 family (1) 141:10 136:8 66:11 73:7 79:1,19 82:7 giving (5) 31:13 68:18 100:3 handwriting (1) 52:6 hide (3) 35:13 86:5 132:23
exception (3) 20:23 34:11 far (10) 3:17 16:17 28:13 fonts (1) 43:8 98:21 128:20 168:11 113:5 163:25 handwritten (1) 105:16 high (5) 5:20 14:3 28:14
108:16 30:3 131:13 147:4 150:9 footnote (3) 25:15,16 27:23 future (3) 111:18 171:22 glad (1) 59:2 happen (2) 45:9 174:1 43:15 47:5
exceptions (2) 107:25 114:7 157:22 171:4 175:25 footnoted (1) 30:20 174:10 glitzy (3) 22:15,17,19 happened (9) 29:20 30:17 highest (3) 60:1 140:20
exchange (18) 4:4,12,15 5:6 farm (2) 36:11 141:16 footnotes (7) 25:12,12 27:25 gmx (2) 52:20 173:22 33:16 52:25 89:16 97:3 177:19
G
6:18 7:14 9:25 38:14 43:6 father (4) 124:1,3 130:13,16 32:11 33:8 34:14 35:2 gnu (1) 58:12 103:9 120:1 176:23 highlighted (5)
85:6 86:11,24 96:19 152:7 faucet (1) 63:8 forbidden (1) 45:22 gadfly (1) 86:12 goal (5) 39:20 42:25,25 happening (3) 138:19 158:14 24:1,13,14,22,23
166:15,16,17,22 fault (1) 35:3 forced (2) 132:25 133:3 gain (2) 180:15,25 43:2,2 172:13 highlights (2) 9:7,9
exchanged (2) 43:12 63:4 favour (1) 92:4 ford (2) 99:24 100:12 gained (1) 143:19 goes (12) 29:5 98:2 99:11,17 happens (5) 137:1 highly (4) 5:5 69:12,19 77:24
exchanges (3) 86:15 159:8 feared (1) 78:18 fords (1) 100:6 gaining (1) 142:9 121:17 139:3,9,11 140:1,3 139:8,9,11 147:7 hilary (1) 23:10
162:8 feature (1) 172:5 forensic (3) 15:5 16:9 40:20 game (1) 20:14 171:12 179:13 happily (2) 100:14 167:11 himself (4) 9:10 64:12 67:13
excuse (4) 30:5 33:6 34:12 features (1) 156:10 forensics (2) 92:7 116:12 gaming (1) 145:10 going (50) 12:5 13:5 27:17 happy (2) 130:14,16 166:15
35:7 february (7) 1:1 93:22 94:4 forgery (2) 21:6,11 gao (1) 63:1 35:11,22 40:16,17 41:8 hard (23) 37:19 38:4 42:13 hiring (4) 89:15 95:9,16
excuses (3) 33:25 34:12,20 123:24 126:17 163:10 forget (1) 82:17 garch (1) 5:24 50:24 53:8 61:7,9 67:1 107:9 111:7 144:25
exe (1) 59:5 182:20 forgetting (3) 43:14 140:13 garden (1) 14:18 68:6 69:18 76:2 83:24 117:18,20,22,22 hitch (1) 45:8
executive (4) 127:9 128:17 fee (1) 96:13 155:11 gareth (11) 49:14 100:25 97:5,5 98:23 102:16 118:2,12,15,25 119:7 hitting (1) 128:8
155:25 156:2 feedback (1) 106:20 forgotten (1) 82:16 101:1,2,4 106:7,24 114:22 110:16 112:4 114:1 119:6 122:2,13,25 123:9 151:8,9 holdings (1) 144:19
exercise (2) 161:12,18 feeds (1) 69:6 form (4) 29:10 75:2 91:3 129:21,25 131:15 128:5 129:23 131:8 140:16 179:17 180:25 181:24 homayong (1) 92:25
exercised (1) 26:17 feel (3) 129:23 130:14,16 99:25 gateway (1) 5:8 141:2 143:5,6,7 144:13 hardly (1) 174:25 home (7) 2:20 86:5
exeter (2) 46:24 92:20 fees (4) 47:5 101:12 formally (1) 14:17 gather (1) 45:8 145:23 148:19 149:3,22 hash (8) 11:22 14:11 22:4 135:21,24 137:16 145:20
exhibit (1) 123:22 144:20,22 format (1) 52:5 gave (16) 17:18 54:8 78:4 160:10 161:3 168:21 68:13 109:21 146:9,13 148:10
exhibited (3) 23:9 58:4 65:13 felt (1) 2:14 formed (1) 78:6 107:17 110:9,24 113:17 170:10,14 171:8,20 172:8 148:14 honest (2) 31:14 88:2
exist (2) 9:17 118:20 few (10) 17:15 63:5 73:16 former (3) 77:21 116:7 121:11 122:1,23 123:9,15 174:18 176:1,3,24 hashbased (1) 19:13 hoped (1) 135:8
existed (1) 158:22 98:3 107:1 141:11,13 129:19 127:5 132:17 134:16 gold (1) 140:22 hashcash (19) 65:3 70:6,24 hoping (2) 18:6 159:16
existing (2) 78:15 111:9 151:18 169:21 176:7 formulate (1) 128:6 172:16 gone (6) 35:5 59:20 84:17 71:14,17 72:1,3,9,12,22,24 horrible (10) 81:19 89:8
exists (1) 78:19 fiction (3) 73:3,23 132:21 forthcoming (1) 98:15 gavin (32) 5:19 14:2 15:19 107:8 113:8 149:23 73:9,9,16 75:4 76:6,7 77:1 134:9,11,11 139:16
expected (3) 166:16 fictions (1) 88:4 fortran (1) 90:24 44:14 52:23,23 gong (2) 47:23 92:21 94:18 173:13,14 174:17,19
176:16,18 file (6) 44:22 102:17 109:21 fortunate (1) 67:15 53:12,15,16 54:9 63:8 good (21) 3:18,20 41:12 hashed (1) 181:19 hosted (1) 102:16
expended (1) 144:9 121:10,11 156:21 forum (11) 68:15 152:12 159:22 163:7,25 46:15 47:11 81:15 85:15 hashing (3) 147:1,2,5 hough (17) 1:4,22 3:10,22,23

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

16:20 33:23 44:25 45:9,25 implemented (8) 11:11 13:4 171:19 174:10,12 175:15,19 130:11 143:6,18,25 148:7 l162671 (1) 126:4 largely (1) 174:6
92:10 93:6 133:5,13 26:4 76:19 87:1 119:4 integrationstaging (1) 177:12 180:21 181:16 155:8 162:11 l1626736 (1) 126:11 larger (1) 110:4
161:11 182:10 183:5 170:7 172:4 171:17 isp (1) 8:19 keeping (2) 71:3 170:1 l1626737 (1) 128:20 lasseters (13) 8:24 9:2,12
houghs (1) 3:12 implementing (3) 14:8 41:7 integrity (5) 10:24 12:4 issued (1) 94:23 keeps (1) 75:14 l1626738 (1) 129:1 10:19 11:3,10,14
hour (3) 11:24 116:3 177:14 76:15 14:10 20:19 22:5 issues (12) 2:3,6 3:3,16 27:7 kept (3) 169:11,15 179:21 l171081 (1) 133:22 12:11,17,23 13:3,5 48:16
hours (3) 178:9,12,20 implications (1) 15:4 integritybased (1) 43:5 35:13 37:2 57:6 99:6 key (21) 74:17 124:6,18 l1710813 (1) 134:3 last (19) 1:10 2:5 13:11
house (4) 70:2 146:6 163:11 implying (1) 174:11 integyrs (2) 41:5,5 144:14 170:2 175:8 125:2 126:20 158:7 163:24 l171082 (1) 134:1 15:22 16:21 37:15 46:5,18
176:25 importance (2) 31:13 181:4 intellectual (3) 29:2 179:5,7 italics (4) 28:8,9,12,12 164:7 179:18 180:11,19 l171611 (1) 172:16 47:8,20 49:19 62:25 66:16
housekeeping (2) 1:5 183:3 important (1) 34:25 intend (2) 50:20 71:5 iteration (1) 106:21 181:9,12,12,13,16,19,20,21,25 l173271 (2) 102:8 105:12 90:8 99:10 150:8,22
however (4) 138:8 148:22 impossible (1) 144:12 intended (1) 11:9 iterations (1) 108:11 182:6 l17327100 (1) 102:14 168:24 178:14
157:12 175:7 impressed (1) 42:15 intense (1) 147:4 its (96) 1:19 2:4 8:12,21 11:2 keyless (2) 181:21 182:6 l1732795 (1) 105:13 late (2) 104:5 178:24
hoyts (4) 41:11 43:13,13 incentive (1) 96:14 intention (1) 148:11 14:13 20:6,13 23:1,8 24:4 keys (5) 149:1 158:9 179:2 l1732796 (1) 106:2 later (21) 21:23 40:7 54:24
140:14 incident (1) 40:21 intentionally (1) 30:22 25:15,15 26:13,22 27:8,9 180:16,25 l1732797 (2) 106:6,19 55:1 66:25 95:15 99:1
hubris (1) 73:6 include (2) 27:10,12 interact (1) 86:6 28:20 29:5 34:6 44:5 49:7 khaja (1) 104:4 l1732798 (1) 106:23 101:19 120:4 121:12,24
hume (1) 93:2 included (6) 6:9 36:9 49:9,12 interacted (2) 54:6,14 50:16 51:4,12,16 52:1,19 kicked (2) 68:1 140:23 l1732799 (1) 102:10 124:10 126:6 131:15 133:3
hundred (2) 29:25 63:11 67:11,12 interacting (1) 86:4 56:6 57:17 58:14,14 60:5 killed (1) 129:19 l17411 (1) 9:18 141:13 142:17 147:6
hundreds (2) 44:2 143:9 includes (2) 12:8 138:15 interaction (2) 44:22 54:9 61:22 65:11 67:20 70:10 kind (3) 38:18 111:20 169:22 l17414 (1) 9:23 151:18 169:11 176:8
hydra (1) 166:3 including (27) 2:4 14:5,5 interactions (1) 47:15 72:3 74:2,5,7 75:7,19 kindly (1) 100:13 l181211 (1) 150:25 latex (1) 3:5
hyper (1) 82:21 21:19 26:18 34:4 36:24 interactive (1) 49:22 76:10 81:9,14,14 83:24 kingship (1) 176:17 l1812150 (1) 150:25 latter (1) 84:24
hyperlinked (2) 84:2 85:20 41:7 42:9 44:8,12,13 48:25 interacts (1) 121:7 84:4 89:18 93:2 94:10 97:3 kleiman (36) 37:18,23 39:17 l183772 (1) 23:8 laugh (1) 114:18
63:17 86:13,18 91:25 interest (8) 38:19 41:21 44:2 98:25 99:13 100:11 102:18 49:13 99:12 102:9 103:13 l183775 (2) 23:17 24:7 laughing (1) 114:19
I 138:19 139:10,24 141:18 65:5 88:19 89:23 90:4 105:6 107:20 110:2 111:10 104:9 105:13 106:16,17,25 l183776 (1) 25:3 launch (1) 88:19
147:16 155:12 165:3 173:4 111:25 118:6,17 119:10 120:8,20 108:6 110:10,11,24 l183777 (1) 25:18 launched (1) 179:3

ian (3) 19:7 93:2,3 179:5,8 interests (2) 42:19 112:3 121:5 122:9 124:16 135:25 111:3,7,13 115:19,23 l184371 (1) 172:1 laundering (2) 48:20 80:6

id (25) 8:2,3 12:19 16:15 inconsistent (1) 68:10 internal (8) 18:15 89:4 136:17 137:1,19 138:1,19 116:20 123:22,25 l192091 (1) 84:21 lawrence (1) 90:11

17:16 30:14,14 32:19 incorrect (8) 42:22 55:12 126:11 129:1 139:8,23,23 140:2,4,9 141:2 142:3 124:12,14 127:13 l1920911 (1) 80:13 lawyer (1) 100:11

40:10 50:23 52:12 80:22 57:9 63:7 88:9 94:4 111:6 154:11 145:13 146:16 149:10 129:4,8,23 130:19 131:22 l192551 (2) 170:17 171:6 lawyers (8) 2:2 53:20 82:12

92:18 113:2 115:8 118:1 117:20 internally (1) 17:23 152:1,16 156:12 159:18 132:17 165:20 168:23 l21021 (2) 9:5 14:12 99:16 126:13 128:2,7,13

131:7 134:25 144:19 145:9 increased (1) 148:13 internet (7) 5:8 24:9 43:15 164:20 165:15 167:20 179:23 l21022 (2) 9:6 14:19 lax (1) 150:20

162:21,25 163:10 169:21 increasing (1) 66:8 80:5 88:20 135:23 136:22 172:18 175:18,19 176:5 kleimans (1) 126:13 l21023 (2) 4:6 13:10 lead (2) 1:20 98:19

176:15 incredibly (3) 79:10 86:13 intervening (2) 93:20 96:10 179:12 180:3 knew (18) 19:10 50:12,17,21 l31931 (1) 65:22 leader (1) 26:20

id004018 (1) 97:11 133:2 interview (16) 6:25 17:1,18 itself (2) 14:13 25:16 52:24 53:15 67:5 79:5,7,13 l31941 (1) 65:12 leaked (1) 115:17

idea (6) 73:7,9 78:20 independent (2) 74:21 77:1 19:18 93:17 95:2,8,13,15 iv (1) 32:11 112:4 113:2 131:13 132:7 l31951 (1) 102:3 learn (1) 7:24

94:19,22 104:7 indepth (1) 5:25 96:2,20 134:16 135:19 ive (68) 12:13 17:4 20:11 140:12 160:16 164:12 l32311 (1) 71:19 learned (3) 3:10 8:2,5

ideally (1) 39:8 index (1) 183:1 136:10,19 139:15 21:1,5,10,13 22:20 23:5,16 167:17 l32313 (1) 71:22 learning (1) 79:8

ideas (5) 11:10 29:6 32:22 india (1) 36:24 interviewed (1) 89:14 25:17 30:18 43:3,6 knifeedge (1) 78:19 l3252111 (1) 93:12 learnt (2) 7:20 8:10

112:5 173:4 indicates (1) 138:13 interviewer (1) 96:7 47:9,18,19 48:1,3 49:15 know (52) 3:10 12:2,19,19 l32521111 (3) 89:18 90:1,19 least (10) 2:7,16 4:8 5:15

identical (5) 24:24 indicators (1) 4:25 interviews (3) 89:5 93:21 52:3,4,8 53:19,19,22,22 19:24 25:20 46:22 47:11 l325211111 (1) 91:1 49:7 52:19 63:11,25

25:11,14,23 28:5 indicted (1) 48:19 95:3 57:21 59:20 60:4 62:14 49:20,25 50:24,25 l325211112 (1) 91:18 123:25 181:13

identified (3) 57:13 62:6 individual (2) 4:23 162:13 into (36) 10:11 11:24 16:8 68:12,14 72:6,14,23 75:12 52:19,22 61:16 81:21 l325211113 (1) 91:22 leave (3) 1:21 14:18 91:9

121:17 individuals (11) 62:7,17 78:5 17:10,13 33:13 39:21 76:14 84:16 97:3 100:7 82:4,4 84:7,17 85:15 l325211114 (1) 92:3 led (3) 32:10 42:5 96:3

identify (4) 19:5 62:17 96:8 108:2 114:2 117:23 50:24 51:13 59:21 60:25 105:5,10 106:12 107:6 87:17,24 88:10 99:15,18 l32521112 (1) 90:15 left (18) 2:7,15 14:15 17:24

162:13 167:7 139:3 141:9 162:2 180:24 61:6,7 69:7,11,14,19 70:2 110:17,20 113:10 118:17 103:9 111:18,21 114:18 l32521113 (2) 89:20 90:2 18:19,20 23:17 24:1 26:1

identity (4) 48:24 industry (3) 67:5 136:17 88:25 92:24 101:9 107:8 128:15 141:22 146:1 151:9 117:25 118:7,21 119:2,3 l32781 (1) 71:7 84:23,25 97:1 98:18

50:13,14,17 138:5 119:24 120:21 121:9 128:5 152:13 153:15 155:14 122:22 125:14,18,24,24 l3351 (1) 6:22 118:18 120:17 126:12,15

idn (1) 60:20 information (24) 2:13 11:25 144:13 148:25 149:1 156:17 162:22 164:19 132:7,11 137:5,5 140:17 l41621 (1) 66:15 163:7

ids (4) 6:8,12 22:12 159:10 15:16 16:13,16 20:19 150:14 152:25 156:9 161:5 165:18 167:14 170:1 170:20 179:24 l42621 (1) 137:18 legal (5) 10:4 48:13 78:15

iggy (1) 108:23 31:14 39:25 41:4 43:6,7,11 170:13 174:22 179:18 171:15,16 176:16 180:1,2,5,7,7 l4601 (2) 137:7 138:10 109:13 144:20

ignatius (6) 21:1,7,14,18 44:20 52:9 91:19 100:10 intrusion (1) 6:12 181:13,18,18 knowledge (5) 51:16 78:1 l4602 (1) 138:12 legislation (1) 69:10

54:1 109:1 105:2 117:16 138:17 inventing (1) 68:8 83:4 108:22 157:19 l51541 (1) 58:4 legislative (1) 15:3
146:12 158:7,9 162:10 invention (7) 70:24 96:4 J knowledgebased (1) 79:6 l51961 (1) 151:11 leicester (3) 46:5,16 92:22
ii (1) 32:5
iii (2) 32:8 34:17 179:17 97:6,9 134:11 139:16 known (8) 62:4 65:3 68:14 l61931 (1) 152:6 length (1) 81:3
jack (2) 67:21 92:20
ill (15) 3:17 6:11 35:23 40:6 informed (1) 2:18 159:24 82:23 103:4 107:22 135:25 l61961 (1) 152:1 less (9) 39:10 52:18 76:23
jackson (1) 48:18
47:9 52:15 65:17 68:12 infosec (1) 28:23 inventive (1) 28:14 181:13 l628271 (1) 168:21 116:3 142:23 157:11,17
january (21) 40:8,13 41:2
85:9 91:17 96:16 151:12 infrastructure (2) 78:24 92:1 investigated (1) 27:15 knows (2) 53:1 122:22 l650011 (1) 169:16 162:25,25
66:16 90:3 91:4
160:8 170:3,3 initial (6) 23:3 27:18,20 60:8 investigation (2) 163:14 kway (1) 66:4 l650021 (1) 170:17 let (6) 60:6,11 94:8 100:14
133:17,17,20 134:15
illievich (1) 105:24 61:24 153:21 179:3 l71611 (1) 172:16 113:12 159:1
135:15 136:5,12 L
im (93) 6:10,15 12:5 17:4 initially (4) 30:14 32:23 investigations (1) 163:3 l71621 (1) 172:25 lets (20) 23:24 26:1 52:16
137:3,4,9,10,19,21 138:20
18:18 20:15,16 25:19 122:12 135:3 involved (17) 4:16 5:7 20:4 l111307 (1) 6:4 l72201 (1) 173:19 55:20 63:20 82:7 89:17
173:1
27:17 30:5 34:8 35:4,4,11 inquisitorial (1) 1:19 21:22 39:9 67:25 80:9 l134921 (1) 72:25 l740811 (1) 28:19 95:2 109:21 110:6 115:18
januaryfebruary (1) 89:13
41:11 42:15 44:20 insecure (1) 37:3 86:16 87:18 116:12,19 l134922 (1) 72:25 l740812 (1) 28:25 116:1 127:7 131:18 133:9
java (1) 90:24
46:5,12,14,15,20,21,24,24,25 inside (1) 61:19 123:21 141:12 163:9 166:5 l1349224 (1) 73:4 l74711 (1) 97:11 136:4 144:6,18 157:4
jenkins (3) 49:10 108:22
47:11,15,22,25 53:10,10 insist (1) 76:9 171:16 180:16 l14409126 (1) 124:13 l747128 (1) 97:15 168:8
109:20
57:4 60:22 61:7,8,19,21 insistence (1) 155:9 involvement (2) 87:11,21 l14409127 (1) 125:8 l747129 (1) 97:21 letter (1) 17:5
jimmy (1) 17:3
64:9 67:24 68:6 72:15,19 insisting (2) 154:17 167:24 involving (1) 10:16 l144201 (1) 134:18 l747130 (1) 98:7 letters (1) 1:25
job (16) 4:21 5:16 6:7
76:1 81:14,15,19 84:10 install (1) 141:4 ip (2) 147:11,12 l144202 (1) 134:23 l747131 (1) 98:10 level (9) 8:4,7,21 37:10 47:5
8:10,11 9:13 36:6 38:18
85:15,23 86:1,3,7 87:17,24 installed (1) 135:3 ira (1) 111:7 l144821 (1) 70:18 l747156 (1) 100:18 60:1 142:25 147:3 148:14
41:25 89:23 90:4,13,15,23
101:22 103:23,23,24 instance (3) 94:17 123:6 ironically (1) 139:5 l144822 (2) 70:21 72:11 l81771 (1) 37:22 levels (2) 139:22,23
91:7 93:7
104:13 106:15 107:9 140:18 irrelevant (1) 160:3 l15125100 (1) 116:6 l82721 (1) 73:25 leverage (1) 41:9
jobs (3) 10:9 13:23,24
110:16 112:25 instantly (2) 50:10 73:11 irresponsible (1) 69:12 l1512598 (1) 115:18 l827215 (1) 74:17 liability (1) 24:9
joined (1) 80:16
114:16,19,20,20 119:6 instead (1) 26:15 island (1) 28:23 l1512599 (1) 116:2 l82724 (1) 74:9 liable (1) 26:21
joint (3) 80:5 87:11,21
122:4 133:6,6 136:21 institute (3) 6:25 38:15 46:8 isnt (67) 6:12 8:5,8 10:10 l151311 (1) 165:19 l83471 (1) 123:21 libel (1) 9:20
joseph (1) 166:14
139:13 140:16 146:20 institution (1) 32:9 12:10,15 14:13 15:20 23:1 l1513114 (1) 165:19 l83472 (1) 123:24 liberty (3) 145:2,9 167:16
judge (2) 126:7 133:3
147:19 149:22 150:20 instructed (1) 128:16 24:13 25:14 26:12,23 l1513115 (2) 166:2 167:1 l94201 (1) 40:3 libraries (2) 58:8 64:24
judith (1) 19:6
153:13 154:22 156:3 instruction (1) 127:14 27:16 34:9 41:22 43:2 44:6 l1513116 (1) 166:9 l94202 (1) 40:5 licences (1) 135:4
july (6) 151:13 152:8 168:23
160:10 162:5 167:19 instructions (3) 2:9,12 3:7 51:16,17 53:7 56:3,5,24 l1521 (1) 10:13 l94203 (1) 40:6 lie (6) 35:9 57:15 104:16
169:7 176:23 177:3
168:21 170:17 171:8 172:5 instrumental (5) 119:16,20 60:10,22 64:11 65:9 70:23 l154821 (1) 70:17 l94205 (1) 41:13 119:23 131:8,23
june (4) 17:2 77:12 115:20
174:18 177:21 178:10,22 120:5 130:4,9 74:6 75:9 81:13 86:20 89:1 l15881 (1) 77:11 l9971 (1) 40:12 lies (1) 101:24
165:20
immediate (1) 41:2 instruments (4) 79:24 82:20 95:21 98:24 99:14 l15882 (1) 77:16 laan (6) 167:23 168:12,15,18 life (5) 22:20 38:6 48:24
jurisdiction (1) 31:4
immediately (2) 45:23 82:14 83:19,20 101:7,24 104:17 107:5,20 l15961 (1) 150:2 176:21 177:4 130:9 163:12
justify (1) 142:25
immutable (1) 113:21 integrate (5) 50:9 61:2 117:1 119:14 120:18 l159659 (1) 150:8 lab (1) 8:17 lifetime (1) 115:11

impasse (1) 3:17 135:18 170:3,14 121:22 122:14 123:7 l15983 (1) 78:12 language (1) 17:20 light (2) 161:7 174:4
K
implement (6) 4:14 8:6 integrated (7) 22:12,12,13 136:21 138:20 140:11 l1611673 (3) 111:12,23 laptop (6) 121:9,11 145:17 like (67) 6:2 8:20 10:22

71:23 76:21 96:13 137:6 48:3 58:15 60:20 88:21 142:2 145:13 152:16 keen (1) 176:1 112:22 149:7,16,22 19:20 20:13 21:15 22:9,9

implementation (3) 66:18 integrating (2) 170:10 177:1 162:20 165:15 167:13 keep (16) 42:24 52:4,9 74:16 l1611674 (1) 112:10 large (5) 28:16 50:18,19 63:4 24:2 37:6 41:7 47:16 48:16

76:13 110:5 integration (3) 5:20 51:15 169:4 170:24 171:23 75:11,12,22,23 128:7 l1611675 (1) 112:8 114:24 49:13,23 52:5,7 53:19

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

60:13 62:10 69:25 71:17 175:1,2 mann (5) 25:25 26:11,24 15:22,25 16:2,13 30:9 mischaracterisation (1) 139:4,10,14 140:1,2,5,24 78:1 80:3 91:1,13 121:15
72:24 76:8 82:12,17 looks (3) 65:17 91:5 181:20 27:2 32:22 33:17 45:2,8,10 92:12,19 127:23 mstat (3) 36:13 77:6 81:25 134:1 140:1 162:1 163:23
91:5,12 104:18 111:17,21 lose (3) 30:5 39:11 70:3 many (26) 14:4 17:4 38:1 133:9 160:25 161:2,10 mischaracterising (1) 138:2 msys (2) 58:17,24 172:16 177:25
115:6 121:4 122:6 123:15 losing (2) 143:1 144:11 53:2 62:16 63:7,16 64:24 182:12,15 misrepresenting (7) 22:6 much (7) 1:4 59:15,19 nguyen (2) 17:3 179:24
128:15 131:5 135:21 lost (7) 30:19 35:2 52:10 82:4 84:18 97:3 105:5 melmey (2) 154:14,16 57:17 72:14,16 73:21 131:17 133:5 145:7 149:14 nick (1) 63:4
136:22 140:2,16 145:18 68:23 97:3 111:7 117:17 107:24 108:8 130:8 member (8) 67:17 125:21,25 146:25 181:18 mud (1) 8:18 night (3) 2:5 134:13 178:24
147:3 148:5,18,23 lot (16) 52:9 54:25 62:22 134:8,12 139:24 141:3 131:21 132:2,6,12,15 miss (1) 29:25 multibillion (1) 97:5 nine (1) 113:16
153:11,21 154:22 157:6,17 79:23 83:12 85:18,24 150:9 151:4 156:14,22 members (5) 21:16 37:5 missed (2) 30:1 35:7 multiple (30) 12:13,18 14:4 nippa (2) 6:2,9
162:10,11 165:4 167:10 86:13 113:7 115:5 118:21 160:10 178:25 179:22 67:25 83:16 160:22 missing (4) 30:21 33:14 20:11 27:1 50:5 52:3,8,21 node (8) 141:16 147:12,14
169:3,21 170:21,21 139:1 143:7 149:2,14 marasingha (1) 92:20 memory (2) 81:17 120:16 137:12 138:21 53:3 59:21 75:13 89:11 148:7,20 149:11 172:11,15
173:6,13 174:19 175:18,23 171:14 march (4) 100:1 105:17 mental (1) 165:4 mistake (1) 27:24 94:11 102:24 108:11 nodes (5) 100:19,20 101:16
176:6,9 181:20 lots (7) 82:19 83:7,8,11 126:6 131:2 mention (8) 51:11 96:4,23 mistaken (1) 45:15 117:20 118:10 120:19 142:7 146:25
limited (3) 96:25 110:11 134:7,8 145:12 mark (1) 51:22 105:8 110:13 112:9,13 mistakes (2) 85:24 88:2 122:4,23,24 123:3 nominal (1) 142:23
161:22 lou (1) 130:3 market (3) 22:8 98:7 122:7 161:11 misunderstanding (1) 148:17 147:9,15 150:1 156:12 non (1) 34:23
line (39) 7:12,18 12:2 17:25 louis (9) 123:25 124:5,17 marketer (1) 122:5 mentioned (24) 4:2 19:6 misuse (1) 48:20 159:2 168:2 175:19 none (18) 6:1 19:17 34:11,19
18:4,5,9,18,20 21:13 25:10 126:19 127:13,14,17 marketing (5) 5:17,22 22:21 21:18 53:4 55:25 57:23 mixed (1) 88:9 multitude (1) 20:1 63:18 69:21 94:13 96:7
54:18 102:10,14 105:14,22 129:23 130:19 92:4 122:10 59:22 63:3 95:12 105:10 mixing (1) 110:4 multiuser (1) 8:18 97:1 108:1,17 109:2 114:8
106:13,23 111:13,23 love (2) 45:15 160:21 marketplace (1) 165:4 106:12,13,14,17 107:6 mmhm (4) 58:19,25 121:20 must (5) 16:3,14 44:20 82:2 118:13 119:6 146:3 159:4
115:22 116:2 124:13,16 low (2) 147:3 177:22 markets (2) 166:7 167:3 110:9,23 111:14,15 134:8 178:2 180:18 177:22
125:12 126:12,15,18 lower (1) 134:4 marking (1) 83:5 135:20 137:15 151:23 mode (3) 172:4,8,13 mustnt (1) 16:4 nonfiction (1) 73:24
127:11,22 128:4,19 129:1 ltd (3) 13:14,17 74:1 marks (6) 26:12,13 28:6,11 166:23 model (6) 19:15 22:5 88:22 myself (11) 21:13 30:6 35:4 normal (3) 42:12 135:21
153:9 154:9,12 165:19,24 lunch (3) 3:8 33:21 93:7 33:8 35:1 mentioning (2) 60:12 112:16 98:5 169:22,23 55:19 56:1,7 96:9 101:14 146:14
167:1 luo (1) 92:20 martin (2) 44:14 151:24 mentions (2) 6:1 166:17 modelling (3) 47:5,25 77:25 132:25 139:10 148:3 normally (1) 64:16
liner (1) 12:8 luxury (1) 149:9 martti (12) 44:15 53:13 merging (2) 78:21,24 models (1) 39:22 mysterious (1) 115:14 northcutt (1) 38:17
lines (4) 18:16 89:4 106:2 lying (2) 68:22 113:5 54:14 151:16,17,23 152:8 mess (1) 163:21 moderator (1) 26:7 northern (1) 12:1
N
154:11 lynam (9) 49:1 106:25 155:2 159:21 164:25 167:2 message (6) 123:14 124:3 moment (15) 6:11 34:19 norway (1) 155:8
link (10) 55:14,15,17,19 108:1,17 109:9 114:8 174:15 127:4,17 152:12 172:6 41:16 42:6 44:25 67:18 name (31) 16:5 19:16 27:24 note (11) 32:24 100:7
57:4,4,18,21 172:21 173:5 129:16,24 141:10 marty (2) 154:14,16 messages (2) 67:13 128:17 85:9 90:10 92:10 106:16 30:19 33:4,18,21 112:23 123:11 130:3
linked (7) 82:21 85:22 lynn (4) 49:2 106:10 111:11 masters (8) 36:11,13 met (3) 49:15 89:14 116:11 133:8 150:12 151:12 46:9,14,23 47:8,18,21 135:19 136:18 137:24
103:5,25 116:7 162:2 112:18 41:18,25 42:9 77:6,22 metanet (1) 43:1 178:14 182:10 51:21,21,22 153:22 154:6 180:18
167:8 80:22 methodology (1) 7:7 monash (1) 80:23 62:18,23,25,25 63:14 noted (19) 12:13 14:6 20:11
linkedin (3) 6:5 11:15 67:24 M match (1) 70:12 mi6 (2) 116:7 129:19 monetary (8) 44:20 78:3,7 83:22 84:18 93:2 103:15 21:17 27:23,25 33:3 34:7
linking (1) 172:23 matching (1) 70:9 micro (1) 20:17 79:22 157:1,10 159:7 106:7 110:9 115:8,14 44:8 52:8 58:15 94:5
links (3) 13:21 45:14 152:11 mac (1) 145:17 material (4) 2:13 30:19 micromint (4) 66:3,7,8 67:4 161:17 121:25 179:12 114:13 118:17 136:19
list (10) 10:18 55:25 56:8,23 macfarlanes (1) 2:25 32:25 83:12 micropayment (2) 47:16 money (18) 26:5,17 39:11 named (1) 56:18 151:5 156:17 162:22
57:1 77:19 110:11,23 machine (5) 40:4 68:3 79:8 mathematical (1) 46:25 98:4 41:10 48:14,19 70:2 80:6 names (17) 46:21 47:11 175:14
113:25 152:12 149:17 174:17 mathematics (3) 46:25 78:3 micropayments (1) 88:21 111:21,25 62:8,10,13,15,19,21 63:19 notepad (1) 99:25
listed (2) 34:6 73:23 machines (18) 44:13 59:18 182:6 microscope (1) 38:3 143:1,7,12,12,19 144:20 84:10 88:17 92:18 notes (15) 83:1 97:6,12
listen (2) 97:18 178:11 134:10,12 135:2,7,13,17 maths (1) 92:7 microsoft (49) 51:9 57:23 145:7 157:23 107:9,17 110:20 113:25 99:2,4,8,21 100:4,15,17
listeners (1) 139:17 141:4,21,22,23,24 145:25 matter (1) 77:1 58:1 88:16,20,23,24 moneygoup (1) 160:1 114:20 101:6,9,14 123:10 164:7
listening (1) 178:13 147:13 149:15,20,25 matters (6) 1:23 2:11,14 5:6 89:7,22 90:16 91:9 moneylab (1) 81:7 narcissistic (1) 73:6 nothing (5) 11:14 42:19
lists (1) 110:9 macros (1) 33:12 104:25 164:1 93:8,14,25 94:3,23 monitoring (1) 20:20 narrative (1) 162:19 93:25 160:16 168:15
literal (3) 29:7,10,18 madden (1) 156:10 matthews (19) 108:1,17 95:3,16,19,20 96:3,8,21 month (1) 62:12 nas (1) 145:23 notice (4) 29:24 30:17 33:16
literally (2) 63:2 128:1 magnitude (1) 146:22 111:2 114:8 119:13,13,19 98:3,8,15,20 99:7 134:10 monthly (2) 10:20 137:25 national (5) 125:9 128:24 96:7
litigation (2) 103:13 168:23 magnum (2) 89:18 91:1 120:8,15,23 122:13,20 135:1,20 136:16,20,25 months (7) 38:5 117:7 131:11,12,20 noting (1) 35:12
little (7) 55:14 65:5 95:22 mail (1) 130:3 155:19 156:25 157:10,19 137:8,21 124:10 142:17 158:12,25 nature (1) 3:3 november (1) 36:3
120:21 141:14 142:8 mailing (6) 55:25 56:8,23 158:1,14 160:15 138:1,13,14,22,23,24 169:11 nchain (2) 119:14 146:2 nowhere (1) 8:21
155:11 57:1 77:19 152:12 max (4) 105:23 109:9 141:10 139:3,5,6,24 140:20,22,24 moon (2) 69:8 94:20 near (3) 8:21 73:4 81:17 number (23) 2:1 5:20 32:2,5
llm (7) 22:25,25 23:2,11,18 main (10) 26:11 60:17 71:12 142:6 microsofts (2) 89:23 135:12 more (43) 1:4 2:14 3:3,6 nearly (1) 101:11 33:19 41:6,16 42:6 49:8
28:13 36:9 98:19 171:21,25 172:23 maximise (3) 7:3 17:24 microsystems (1) 145:22 5:11 7:19 16:17 24:14 35:6 necessarily (2) 136:1 161:20 52:18 63:4 80:7 86:11 92:8
lncs (1) 39:15 174:1,4,22 54:16 mid2016 (1) 119:20 40:17 41:5 49:22 50:11,16 necessary (5) 32:5,8 73:14 93:23 96:11 109:11,14
load (3) 37:5 60:18 61:5 mainly (1) 50:6 maxwell (4) 23:16 27:13 middle (9) 7:3 14:19 17:5 52:18 66:11 70:23 76:9,22 146:22 147:20 110:20 129:19 145:15
loaded (3) 33:13 60:25 77:15 mainstream (1) 88:25 31:23 52:14 25:10 38:17 58:22 91:18 79:24 81:22 95:1 99:21 need (22) 1:15 8:22 20:20 156:10 158:12
local (1) 136:21 maintain (5) 10:22 102:23 mayaka (1) 179:23 126:16 170:18 118:20 122:22 123:6 143:9 24:19 28:20 33:20 39:25 numbers (3) 12:19 86:2
location (1) 147:14 132:20 146:13 176:13 maybe (4) 65:18 139:18 might (12) 2:12 38:18 62:22 146:7 147:4,12 148:8,8,12 47:10 51:12 71:24 96:25
locations (3) 102:24 146:13 maintaining (1) 175:1 142:8 145:17 95:25 96:3 97:7 114:10 150:20 156:13 157:17 72:17,22 78:17 98:3 128:5
O
150:1 major (2) 134:25 148:21 mays (1) 73:7 131:13 132:2,6 142:10,13 159:25 163:1,2 166:24 140:17 147:5,22 149:16
lodged (2) 43:3 85:18 majority (5) 95:23 110:19 mcardle (2) 163:9,18 mike (1) 172:1 171:8 173:23,24 152:11 156:8 161:21 o2101 (2) 102:8 105:12
log (2) 11:25 92:24 147:2,25 178:4 mccollum (1) 92:22 military (1) 132:13 morning (8) 2:18 3:20,21 needed (9) 2:11 77:25 78:14 o21095 (1) 105:13
logging (14) 10:25 11:21 makes (4) 83:2 91:14 101:7 mccormack (2) 9:21 11:15 million (10) 48:2 69:15 94:21 69:2 160:7,22 178:14,20 135:18 161:24 164:23 o21099 (1) 102:9
14:5,7 22:12,13 94:2 157:16 mean (33) 47:10 64:19,22 101:12 144:21,23 mortgage (1) 70:2 174:1,2 175:4 o21110 (1) 17:21
113:21 146:8 147:16 156:5 making (13) 30:5 42:16 74:7 83:11 106:13 109:13 145:1,1,4 160:24 most (12) 50:20 52:4,11,21 needs (2) 113:24 149:4 o21111 (2) 18:16 54:15
158:5,16 159:10 59:11 76:22 99:2 130:15 111:20 117:24 120:19 mind (3) 20:6 112:4 163:15 54:11 59:17,18 75:20 network (20) 6:3 75:3 77:25 o21112 (1) 89:3
logical (2) 94:12 159:3 134:10 144:11 160:3,18,22 122:9,22 131:4 134:8,11 mine (4) 32:22 88:12 146:22 119:25 136:22 149:5 174:6 138:22,24 139:4,10,14 o21124 (1) 154:10
logs (6) 11:22,23 12:3 167:14 175:9 139:5 141:11 142:16 143:7 172:15 mostly (3) 42:24 113:21 140:1,2,5,20,25 147:13,15 o24 (1) 126:3
146:6,10 148:23 malmi (27) 44:15 53:13 144:4 148:4 149:24 mined (3) 133:20 135:12 172:4 148:1,13 149:4,6 163:24 o4124 (1) 16:25
london (2) 93:3 164:11 54:14 58:5,6,22 151:16 155:14,16 157:17 159:16 179:9 mostpeopledidntknowabout networks (3) 78:20,23 141:1 oath (4) 113:5 130:12 131:6
long (8) 38:5 39:20 73:1 152:4,8,17,19,23 162:25 163:15,16 173:13 miner (1) 149:3 (1) 174:24 never (35) 13:3,4 20:23 133:4
93:13,14 104:18,19 124:11 153:8,10,20,21 154:2 178:10 180:1,7 mingw (16) 51:10,11 mother (1) 48:25 21:3,9 22:2,18,19,22 42:25 objection (5) 125:8,9 131:19
longer (4) 30:20 35:21 50:25 155:2,10 165:10,16,24 meaning (1) 18:13 58:11,23 59:6,14,17,24 move (13) 35:24 70:4 160:14 53:16 55:10 63:3,12,14 169:9 175:11
118:19 166:2,11 167:11,17 172:19 meaningless (5) 60:7,13,14,19,24 61:1,2,11 168:6,19 169:8,12,22 64:10 69:4 84:7 85:12,18 objects (1) 59:16
longest (1) 93:17 malmis (2) 60:9 61:13 159:12,19,21,22 160:18 mini (1) 145:22 174:13 175:10 176:21 96:22 111:15 112:4 obliged (1) 118:14
longterm (1) 19:1 malware (1) 40:25 means (12) 6:13 33:13 39:10 minimalist (1) 58:12 177:4,5 117:13,18 119:25 obscene (2) 26:6,19
look (23) 26:1,2 33:20,20 man (2) 45:11 114:23 61:20 84:19 94:14 96:17 minimise (1) 95:25 moved (5) 118:18 163:11 142:9,11,14 143:2,15,18 obvious (1) 51:18
45:22 47:18 61:17 62:24 manage (4) 8:6 26:7 159:10 170:12 173:2 182:2,7,9 minimum (2) 180:10,11 164:15,19 177:6 162:13 167:4 181:8 obviously (1) 2:21
63:20 65:17 67:1 71:12 171:24 meant (5) 9:15 11:18 127:4 mining (13) 75:1 101:22 movies (1) 43:11 nevil (1) 97:18 occasion (5) 82:3 121:2
76:12,17 89:17 94:7 102:3 managed (4) 7:14 8:16 41:10 131:5 176:6 141:7,8,9,17 142:7 moving (18) 8:23 14:12 18:9 neville (4) 19:6,21 109:12 127:15 128:12 130:24
112:21 137:24 140:5 174:20 measures (1) 9:8 146:15,25 147:21 148:4,20 22:25 38:13 48:8 51:5 62:1 114:14 occurred (2) 63:14 79:25
168:21 174:16 178:10 management (5) 22:13 medication (2) 113:7,9 149:11 77:3 97:10 102:1 104:21 newcastle (10) 36:14 77:7,22 occurs (1) 136:11
looked (13) 18:2 28:2,3 44:13 171:8,14 174:20 meeting (8) 18:4,10,13,17,21 minnesota (2) 47:14 92:21 119:12 123:20 133:7,13 78:2,8 80:16,23 84:24 85:1 oclock (2) 92:14 133:6
32:16 33:8 37:15 57:25 manager (3) 15:15 89:6 82:9 98:15 116:2 mint (5) 87:7,8,11,16,21 155:18 176:25 106:8 october (10) 38:22 52:23
64:12 65:23 66:16 131:5 90:16 meetings (4) 16:21 19:2 minutes (4) 16:20 18:2 45:3 ms (10) 24:8,16 27:5,8,19 newlibertystandard (1) 53:5 64:8 71:8 93:13,22
144:3,4 managers (1) 139:25 88:16,18 133:9 28:5 30:13 32:21 112:24 166:15 95:3 99:10 120:14
looking (13) 6:23 25:21 manages (1) 14:22 meiklejohn (2) 146:21,24 mirror (1) 103:4 146:24 newspaper (1) 72:23 offensive (2) 26:6,19
29:16 39:3,8 41:13 47:4 managing (2) 44:12 158:4 melbourne (1) 103:3 mirrored (2) 103:18,22 ms09001 (1) 135:5 next (18) 17:21 18:15 33:23 offer (5) 39:2 159:12,19
91:9 94:14 100:22 154:8 manipulating (1) 94:18 mellor (21) 1:3,6 3:9,14 miscalculation (1) 134:25 msdn (9) 138:24,25 38:12 47:13 65:22 77:11 160:18 161:12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

offered (2) 156:24 157:10 own (17) 8:2 13:23 20:6 partners (1) 17:11 periods (2) 147:21 148:2 128:8,14 78:16,17 prospectively (1) 100:22
offering (2) 1:9 40:18 24:17,18 29:13 33:11 partnership (1) 97:7 perling (1) 166:14 pointsomething (1) 144:21 private (15) 44:10 53:11,13 protect (3) 143:6,17,21
office (8) 75:16 80:4 99:6 51:21 61:22 83:20,23 parts (3) 28:16 43:10 165:3 permission (2) 79:12 168:1 poker (2) 165:4,5 70:23 78:20 95:24 121:14 protected (1) 9:24
120:22 121:10,15,22 163:8 101:14 118:13,18,18 party (3) 12:20 25:16 58:8 person (20) 44:23 49:15 54:8 policy (2) 13:14 15:4 173:17 179:2 180:16 protocol (5) 73:17 74:21
often (3) 12:2 49:16 160:13 145:17 176:2 pass (1) 111:2 56:7 73:21 85:22 ponzi (2) 69:7 160:23 181:9,12,13,16,25 102:17 176:5,10
oh (9) 66:24 84:16 93:23 owned (6) 43:8 89:7 103:18 passage (2) 25:13 78:10 125:2,3,12,17,21 128:23 pornhub (3) 162:2,9,15 privately (1) 68:19 proud (4) 124:4 127:13
117:24 141:11 142:11,23 104:3 156:3 180:22 passages (6) 25:23 28:15 132:2 138:25 140:23 posed (1) 48:16 privilege (4) 2:3 3:3,16 129:23 130:16
143:24 162:16 owning (2) 96:3,21 29:9,19 32:17 81:9 145:17,18,19 146:4 178:7 poses (1) 91:15 109:13 prove (4) 63:15 156:25
ohagan (3) 73:2,18 76:4 ozemail (1) 3:25 passed (1) 37:24 persona (1) 163:5 position (4) 5:4 89:6 125:4 privileged (2) 53:21 100:10 182:3,7
okay (4) 3:9 23:24 72:5 past (1) 150:3 personal (1) 39:20 181:7 privileges (2) 172:20 173:2 provide (8) 5:5,11 19:10 34:3
P
97:17 patch (27) 134:9 personally (3) 67:21 179:25 positions (2) 4:19,22 probably (14) 20:15 63:9 117:14,18 125:5 160:13
old (4) 67:4 118:22 174:17 p2p (2) 151:14 153:17 135:1,13,23,25 180:6 positively (1) 170:23 83:11 99:21 120:21 provided (10) 16:7 45:14
177:1 pack (2) 22:15,19 136:16,21,25 perth (5) 87:7,8,11,16,21 possession (1) 179:22 122:4,4 127:8 143:8 68:7,21,25 74:5 99:24
oliver (3) 46:12,13 93:1 package (5) 38:18 39:8 137:1,3,8,19,20,24 petabyte (2) 145:25 146:1 possible (3) 84:4 131:17 144:22,25 146:2 157:15 107:14 109:15 119:9
olly (1) 60:3 60:23,25 61:5 138:3,5,14,17,20 petabytes (1) 146:2 160:20 178:25 provider (1) 103:15
omitted (1) 33:2 packs (2) 22:18 51:14 139:3,12,16 140:9,10,12 peter (3) 9:21 46:20 92:23 possibly (5) 85:5 91:5 114:10 problem (9) 33:9 75:11 providers (1) 24:9
omitting (2) 32:10 34:14 pad (2) 16:20 18:2 172:6,9 pgp (1) 152:14 117:8 131:14 135:6,14 136:5,11,24 provides (3) 14:25 15:2
once (8) 8:12 42:22 50:14 pages (5) 29:25 98:6 patches (8) 136:2,22 138:1,6 phasing (1) 162:23 post (22) 64:17 71:8,11,16 163:19 175:3 140:25
57:17 134:10 139:21 155:7 105:16,19 106:21 140:19 170:4,10,15 phd (5) 46:5,16 47:2,3 92:20 151:2,13,16 problems (10) 54:24,24 providing (1) 100:13
175:18 paid (1) 94:25 patching (3) 135:21,22 138:3 phdlevel (1) 14:4 152:2,3,11,17,22 153:7 79:25 80:7,9 82:24 134:7,8 provision (1) 115:16
ones (16) 12:20,22 16:1 paintedfrog (3) 27:13 31:21 patent (3) 75:12 85:19,20 phds (2) 46:1 48:5 154:1,2,7,7,11,20 155:2 136:14 164:24 pseudonym (2) 48:12 79:21
22:9,20 25:24 35:20 64:24 34:5 patents (8) 42:6,7 43:3 philosophy (1) 75:18 171:6 175:3 proceed (1) 157:12 pseudonymously (1) 48:9
93:5,23 96:7 97:2 110:19 pang (5) 21:1,7,14,23 109:1 75:23 79:23 82:20 83:14 phone (2) 164:8,10 postdates (1) 156:8 proceeding (1) 108:18 pty (1) 74:1
117:24 166:18 167:16 panopticrypt (1) 115:13 150:21 phrase (1) 29:12 posted (4) 37:8,10 154:24 proceedings (20) 31:4 35:16 public (21) 44:1,10,10 53:11
onethird (1) 134:23 paper (90) 3:4 18:6 22:17 patient (1) 171:13 pick (2) 115:6 170:22 178:5 45:22 53:25 55:6 102:20 57:15 62:8 63:25 68:3
online (12) 8:24 9:12 10:4 24:8,17,22,23 26:11 28:15 patterson (2) 109:7 110:23 picked (1) 105:4 postgraduate (2) 78:8 81:5 104:10 106:16,18 71:11 104:25 105:4,6
13:1 32:20 33:4 35:19 30:13 38:9 39:14,16 40:9 paul (1) 150:5 piece (1) 53:19 posting (1) 26:8 109:16,16 110:14,25 119:16,20 120:5 164:2,4
49:13,17 69:20 93:23 43:17 44:17 49:6,21 53:19 pause (13) 6:10 12:15 21:2 pigs (1) 140:2 postings (2) 26:6,19 123:22,23 124:14 132:17 174:7 181:9,12,16
140:6 65:18 66:2,3,24 68:17 24:3 43:23,23 46:7 55:4,4 pile (1) 53:17 posts (6) 44:9 45:16 72:23 167:12 177:2 181:7 publication (3) 6:24 104:23
onto (2) 71:2 148:13 71:1,4,5,20 72:7 73:25 69:21,21 96:18 181:23 pilkington (1) 93:3 177:15 178:1,22 process (10) 13:17 29:21 110:2
onwards (3) 128:4 163:23 74:5,7,12 79:6 82:21 pausing (2) 26:1 145:4 pimlico (1) 114:25 potential (1) 48:13 85:7 93:12,18 95:2 96:2,20 publications (1) 92:6
165:8 84:1,7,12 85:20 94:5 payment (4) 14:10 82:24 pitch (5) 19:10 20:22,25 power (2) 148:12 149:2 147:4,7 publicly (12) 68:14,19 107:6
open (6) 35:14 59:18 66:17 95:6,14,18 102:1,6,12 162:4 172:12 21:4,11 powerpoint (4) processes (1) 79:7 108:2,18 109:2,9,10
139:6 171:15 173:24 104:21,23 105:12,15 payments (2) 20:17 78:17 pitched (2) 19:22 162:14 22:15,18,19,20 processing (1) 149:2 114:9,13 123:4 153:6
opened (2) 64:24 156:12 107:5,15,22 pearson (4) 24:8 27:19 30:13 pitching (5) 19:19 21:25 powerpoints (2) 22:23 122:8 prodigy (2) 26:3,15 published (4) 70:20 77:12
opensource (1) 74:20 108:4,9,10,15,19,21 32:21 22:16 94:1 162:3 practically (1) 176:8 produce (1) 75:10 92:6 133:22
operated (3) 103:3,21 109:3,4,17,19,25 pearsons (5) 23:10 24:16 place (9) 16:22 20:25 34:3,8 pre (1) 108:5 produced (10) 27:19 35:23 publisher (2) 26:3,16
165:10 110:1,12,15,18,21 111:4 27:5,8 28:5 88:18 137:3,9,20 139:18 precise (1) 181:4 38:9 40:8 43:17 74:8 88:6 pulled (1) 148:20
operating (6) 88:24 103:15 112:19 114:3,5,11 pedantic (1) 132:11 plagiarise (1) 31:25 predicate (1) 86:3 99:14 105:16 109:15 pulling (1) 136:21
141:15 146:5,12 149:10 117:13,15 119:8,13 120:15 peertopeer (9) 6:3 71:24 plagiarism (10) 23:12 27:15 predraft (1) 108:10 products (2) 138:23 139:1 pulpit (1) 160:9
operation (3) 11:4 94:12 121:13,16,18,23 75:3 77:12 146:10 28:16 29:1,5 31:19 32:3,6 preferred (1) 39:12 prof (5) 78:23 79:5,9,20 80:6 pumping (1) 160:22
160:16 122:1,2,13,20 123:1 147:1 153:10,23 154:4 155:13 34:4 35:8 prefiguring (1) 28:14 professional (2) 8:5,7 purple (1) 26:2
operations (5) 94:11 113:9 156:5 people (136) 17:9 plainly (2) 98:23 100:22 preissue (1) 119:8 professionalism (1) 8:22 purpose (3) 18:10 142:22
141:17 145:10 159:2 papers (15) 2:19 42:2,5 19:2,5,9,17,23 20:1 planned (1) 7:20 preparation (1) 99:3 professor (15) 80:14 81:11 161:24
operative (1) 129:19 59:21 64:14,23 79:23 21:19,21 22:21,21,23 planning (1) 138:14 prepare (1) 15:23 82:7,11,18 84:11,13,22 pursuing (1) 77:6
operator (1) 151:25 82:20 83:5,8,19,20 89:14 33:12 38:1 47:12 48:25 plans (2) 4:23 41:2 prepared (9) 24:17 85:17 86:8 87:2,4,15 push (1) 50:7
operators (1) 149:5 123:4,16 49:7,12,24 platform (6) 48:20 58:18 152:13,17,20 153:15,22 146:21,24 pushed (3) 140:16 170:13,16
opportunities (1) 62:17 paragraph (47) 9:23 24:19 50:12,17,20,22,23,24,24 67:23 68:1 88:20 99:17 154:18 155:3,17 professorship (1) 97:8 pushing (1) 88:24
opportunity (1) 62:16 31:19,22,24 33:24,24 34:2 51:1,1 52:13,22 player (1) 148:22 preparing (3) 32:1 54:19 profile (3) 6:6,6 11:15 puts (3) 70:24 127:19 171:6
opposite (2) 127:2 132:23 37:25 48:10,23 51:6 55:20 54:10,12,25 56:14,18 players (1) 66:6 99:22 program (1) 180:21 putting (8) 52:25 74:16
option (1) 98:4 62:2 63:22 64:3 65:1 70:21 57:13 59:18 62:21 pleadings (2) 61:12,24 prepublication (2) 107:14 programme (3) 90:16 75:11 146:20 147:19
order (7) 28:14 35:23 76:10 74:10 77:4,16 78:12 80:3 63:7,9,10,16,18 67:2 pleasant (1) 163:20 110:14 140:3,23 148:12 156:17 166:20
104:16 147:19 156:25 86:19 88:13 91:25 69:3,7,11,19,19,20,24 please (77) 6:4,22 9:18,23 prerelease (4) 102:5 programmer (2) 59:25
Q
180:24 102:20,21 103:2,8 106:19 70:22 75:11 77:20,24 78:1 10:13 13:10 14:12 16:25 108:5,14 139:2 178:10
ordered (1) 131:6 107:18 116:1 120:13,23 79:14 81:15,18,19 17:21,21 18:15 23:23 present (1) 41:1 programming (3) 12:22 q (597) 4:2,6,11 5:3,15
orders (1) 44:19 121:1 146:15 150:8 157:8 82:5,6,16,17 83:17 25:3,18 28:19,25 30:24 presentation (4) 30:12 13:20 90:9 6:4,10,15,22 7:3,12,18
organisational (1) 4:17 162:1 168:9,25 172:2 84:10,16,17 85:15 31:7,18 37:22 38:21 119:17,21 120:6 programs (1) 61:6 8:8,23 9:2,4,18,23
organisations (1) 161:21 179:2,16,21 180:14 86:1,4,7,13 87:25 88:4,10 40:3,5,12 41:14 47:13 presentations (2) 22:22 project (16) 7:20 8:25 13:7 10:9,13,18 11:2,5,13
original (8) 16:17 71:8,16 paragraphs (8) 29:8,18 39:19 89:23 94:7,18 96:11,14 51:19 54:15 58:4 64:6 36:23 38:5 39:20 89:6 91:13 12:5,10,15,23 13:6,10,21
76:16 79:11 135:2 150:14 51:19 79:4,19 163:23 100:20 101:16,23 104:18 65:11 70:17,21 71:7 presented (2) 50:4 75:7 107:23 131:3 139:25 14:12,17,19 15:8,13,20
152:20 165:8 105:24 106:7,11,24 72:25,25 73:4,25 74:9 presenting (2) 36:24 43:19 168:11 171:8,14,15 172:24 16:25 17:5,8,21
originally (6) 30:23 parallel (1) 26:23 107:9,10,21 108:9,17 77:4,11,16,18 78:12 84:21 presents (2) 23:17 24:7 173:24 18:4,9,15,20,25 19:5,9,17
151:5,22,23 152:19 153:1 paraphrase (1) 26:13 109:2,14 114:8 117:19 86:17 89:20 90:2 97:15 presidency (1) 176:17 projects (2) 14:4 17:10 20:5,22 21:2,8,23 22:15,25
origins (1) 133:24 paraphrasing (1) 17:19 118:14,20,21 121:7 98:10 100:18 102:8,19 presilk (1) 151:8 promise (1) 142:19 23:5,17,24 24:7,13,22
ostensibly (1) 123:25 part (22) 8:15 27:21 48:3,22 124:6,18 126:20 127:10,15 104:22 105:12 107:11 press (1) 115:7 promoted (3) 69:3,5 85:8 25:3,9,13,18 26:1,12,14
others (19) 26:25 41:11 52:23 77:17,19 93:8 94:17 128:16 129:3,13 131:4 115:18 125:23 126:4 presumably (3) 67:14 90:22 promotion (1) 69:6 27:2,5,16
44:15 51:20 78:18 93:4 104:15 107:12 131:10 132:5 136:22 139:5 140:16 133:22 134:1,3,18,23 120:24 prompt (1) 80:25 28:2,9,11,13,19,25 29:4,16
95:11 106:17 107:1,7 138:24 140:19 141:23 141:12 148:1,8,9 150:9,23 137:7 138:11 150:3,8,25 presuming (1) 139:13 promptly (2) 2:3 3:6 30:24 31:3,7,11,18,21,24
108:8 122:17 150:21,24 149:20 153:4 155:2,3 156:22 159:23 160:1,10,17 151:11 160:4,8 165:19 pretested (1) 139:2 pronounce (2) 93:2 167:8 32:16 33:6 34:8,11,17,25
155:20 163:7 164:25 166:10 175:3 178:25 162:8,21 170:20 174:3 170:17 171:13 177:14 pretty (2) 87:17 121:6 pronouncing (1) 46:15 35:8,15,22
167:11 179:23 parte (2) 31:4,15 175:4 176:5 178:22 179:23 180:14 previous (6) 34:1 80:8 82:24 proofofwork (20) 68:13 70:6 36:5,8,13,17,21,23
over (30) 1:7 9:5 12:1 partial (3) 43:10 66:10 84:19 180:2,8 plebs (2) 139:13,19 125:22 138:10 167:1 71:15,22,25 37:2,7,13,18,22
26:4,14,17 33:21 40:5,6 partialcollisions (1) 66:11 peoples (1) 31:25 plenty (3) 95:19 115:3 previously (8) 48:16 51:25 72:8,17,20,21,24 73:10 38:9,12,17,21,24 39:19
52:4 66:8 89:12 97:3,21 partially (2) 116:10,16 per (2) 13:2 159:17 165:18 58:5 60:9 62:8 82:3 127:3 75:3 76:5,7,22,25 94:15 40:3,11,15 41:13,20,24
98:5 101:12 111:2,21 participated (2) 115:22 perfect (1) 156:22 plot (1) 177:25 152:7 96:13,16 148:14 42:15 43:17,23,25 46:7,11
118:17 119:16 120:14 116:15 perfectly (7) 81:13,14 plucked (1) 115:14 price (1) 69:3 proper (1) 54:8 47:2,7,13,17,24 48:6,8,23
123:1,9 138:6 142:8 participating (2) 116:10 113:2,13 140:12 161:3 plugged (1) 121:9 primarily (6) 26:19 48:13 properly (4) 2:9 27:8,11 49:5,9,12,17,19,24
145:14 148:8 163:24 160:17 174:8 plugin (1) 51:12 49:13,17 177:17 179:7 84:20 50:11,16,22
176:14 178:1 particular (6) 5:22 88:11 performance (1) 4:25 plus (2) 48:2 51:1 primary (4) 92:22 97:12 properties (1) 71:12 51:1,5,11,16,19,25
overarching (1) 61:4 118:1 127:24,25 154:2 performed (3) 11:2 94:11 pm (5) 92:15,17 133:10,12 112:3 113:23 property (3) 29:2 179:5,7 52:7,16,25 53:6,8,18,21,23
overlap (1) 88:12 particularly (3) 28:3 48:15 159:2 182:18 printed (5) 61:8,25 100:1 proposal (7) 12:11,16 23:5 54:3,15,22 55:4,10,20
overliteral (1) 128:11 108:7 performs (1) 73:11 pointed (3) 66:25 79:5 128:7 120:17 121:14 65:18 156:4 162:7 170:23 56:5,14,18,21 57:13,23
overlook (1) 128:18 parties (3) 1:8,20 2:23 perhaps (2) 10:18 133:17 pointing (3) 66:17 84:13 printer (2) 121:14,22 proposed (3) 4:21 73:16 58:4,11,17,20,22 59:1,4,11
overtime (1) 66:4 parting (1) 176:12 period (9) 36:17 81:25 96:10 129:2 printing (1) 121:22 74:11 60:4 61:7,15,22 62:6,16
overwriting (1) 37:19 partly (1) 18:10 100:3 136:8 142:7 points (9) 13:12 15:10 33:7 prior (1) 16:14 proposing (1) 169:6 63:3,13,18,20 64:3,6,16,20
overwritten (1) 38:4 partner (2) 97:18 140:22 148:6,15 168:10 34:20 80:15 85:21 92:4 privacy (4) 50:15,15 prospective (1) 20:9 65:1,11,22 66:14,20,23

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

67:3,7,14,18 68:6,21,24 quantitive (1) 15:17 93:9 102:10 111:16,17 54:2 71:1 95:7 138:6 151:5 returning (3) 9:4 117:12,12 164:14,18 165:21 167:16 106:3,15 107:17 109:21
69:16,21,24 quantity (2) 159:14 161:23 115:2 123:23 124:13 126:5 153:6 reused (1) 43:10 168:24 169:9,17 170:6 112:6,10 115:20 116:1,4,6
70:4,11,13,17,21 quarter (1) 145:24 recalling (2) 19:19 81:19 releases (2) 95:14 138:1 reveal (1) 180:17 172:1,7,18,25 174:7 121:7 122:1,5 124:8,15,19
71:7,10,12,18,22 qudos (2) 22:9 41:11 receive (1) 56:21 relevance (1) 97:11 revealed (2) 50:18,19 175:11,25 176:1 126:1,12,16 127:7,21
72:5,7,11,15,25 73:4,21,25 queensland (1) 8:15 received (9) 1:7 57:14 63:13 relevant (2) 132:4 160:5 review (1) 13:17 177:8,9,15 178:7 128:24 129:2,10 134:2
74:5,9,17 75:1,7,15 question (29) 7:22 11:13,13 107:21 108:9,19 109:17 reliable (2) 37:8 179:23 reviewing (1) 78:13 satoshis (8) 65:14 66:15 71:8 135:9 136:20 137:11
76:3,9,24 77:11,14,16 12:5,15 21:8,9 39:1 45:25 110:14 168:22 reliance (2) 97:10,13 reviews (1) 14:25 150:4 167:25 170:18 171:7 138:12 142:5 145:11
78:12 79:4,19 80:3,13,25 50:16 53:9 55:4 61:9 receiving (8) 29:1 108:3 reluctance (1) 171:7 revolved (1) 88:19 173:19 154:22 156:19 157:4
81:3,9,23 82:7,18 71:3,4 92:3 96:19 102:10 109:3,24 112:18 114:9 remain (1) 43:9 rewarding (1) 85:4 saturday (1) 133:16 162:1,4 166:8 168:24
83:6,10,13,18,23 107:13 108:6 110:15 121:21 143:3 remaining (1) 70:23 rewards (5) 142:10,13,16,21 saving (1) 173:18 171:10 174:17 180:9,17
84:1,6,12,21 85:3,9,17,24 112:11,23 114:1 119:6 recent (2) 52:16 76:9 remains (1) 114:24 143:2 saw (6) 56:22 57:1 62:23 seeing (2) 21:25 133:6
86:8,17,19,22 125:4 133:4 154:15 160:4 recently (1) 168:22 remark (1) 112:17 rich (3) 69:4,8,14 78:23 159:23,24 seeking (1) 176:3
87:2,4,8,11,15,19 questioned (1) 57:11 recognise (13) 6:24 9:19 remember (32) 16:5 17:3 ridge (2) 36:12 95:24 saying (51) 6:20 8:9,10 seem (2) 103:20 170:21
88:1,6,13 89:3,17 questions (16) 2:1,8,16 10:16 28:22 30:25 71:19 33:18 46:14 47:8,21 ridges (4) 96:9 97:2 115:12 11:11 17:8 18:5,12 22:7 seemed (1) 7:7
90:1,6,10,15,19,22 3:2,4,7 16:23 64:7 67:19 73:1,3 77:14 84:20 85:19 62:21,22,23,24,25 117:16 34:8 44:19 50:11 51:8 seems (4) 45:13 52:10 111:7
91:1,7,12,17,22,25 92:3 69:17,22 80:15 90:12 97:12 134:20 63:1,16,19 80:23 81:18 ridiculous (1) 115:5 53:10 55:17 56:6 57:17 169:1
93:11,17,20,24 91:23 93:9 126:8 recollection (6) 20:9 82:8 86:7 87:6,6,24,25 109:3 risk (4) 13:15 15:9,10 39:23 59:15 61:19,23 69:13 seen (4) 102:2 119:2 134:9
95:2,5,10,13,17 96:2,18 quick (1) 69:14 84:23 114:9 117:5 121:4 112:16,18,20 113:13,15 risky (1) 69:11 73:19 75:22 81:10,25 84:1 178:6
97:10,15,21 98:2,10,14,22 quill (4) 16:20 20:24 21:5,10 record (4) 11:2 36:2 41:20 120:20 126:6 149:16 rivest (1) 66:3 99:1,19 101:20,22 seized (1) 179:5
99:1,8,13,19,23 quite (12) 3:12 42:6 50:2 158:8 151:24 179:22 road (8) 130:8 144:16 151:8 109:2,16 122:3,7 127:11 sell (4) 22:10 70:1 159:8,9
100:3,9,12,18,25 54:25 63:4 65:6 100:14 recorded (5) 18:5,25 20:19 remembering (2) 81:15 166:3,10,13,18,24 128:6,15 130:21,23 131:19 selling (3) 16:12 41:6 69:18
101:4,6,15,24 109:11 121:21 145:10 43:8 158:8 108:4 rob (3) 108:22 119:24 120:2 132:6 136:3,4 139:12 send (10) 55:16,17,22
102:1,8,14,19 152:23 161:6 recording (3) 45:12,20,21 remembers (1) 108:23 robert (1) 109:20 143:21 150:22 154:23 57:3,8,20 110:21 127:5
103:2,8,13,20 quotation (7) 26:12,13 records (3) 17:8 37:7 118:13 reminded (1) 66:7 rogers (1) 92:20 159:18 160:23 170:14 128:17 130:15
104:3,7,15,21 28:5,11 33:8 35:1 73:4 recover (1) 38:4 remote (1) 45:14 role (11) 5:22 7:13 14:17,20 172:19 178:21 sending (4) 33:10 57:4
105:2,7,11,19,22 quote (11) 11:7 21:13 recovery (1) 40:23 remove (3) 26:19 32:25 15:13,16,16 16:17,18 39:3 scada (1) 10:2 146:11 172:10
106:2,6,10,15,19,23 32:19,20,21,23 69:9 78:17 recreate (1) 180:11 96:14 91:9 scale (5) 47:25 88:24 147:22 sends (1) 14:10
107:3,11,17,20,25 79:1 96:16 155:15 recruitment (1) 89:22 removed (3) 27:21 30:17 roles (4) 4:17 13:25 16:13 148:12 164:23 sense (4) 8:20 18:21 74:3
108:16,25 109:2,15,23 quoted (5) 28:5 30:18,20 red (1) 91:13 175:8 180:5 scaled (1) 20:21 101:7
110:6,9,13,23 111:2,9,11 73:20 124:16 redo (1) 163:20 renamed (1) 89:11 room (1) 146:6 scaling (2) 164:24 174:3 sent (26) 5:19 10:25 11:25
112:8,22 113:5,10,25 quotes (1) 73:18 reduce (2) 32:10 33:7 repeatedly (1) 152:22 root (1) 170:9 scam (2) 96:14 160:1 14:3 27:13 29:17 30:15
114:5,7,15,17,19,22 quoting (3) 6:15 30:19 38:24 reduced (2) 59:5 105:19 rephrasing (1) 29:6 roped (1) 119:24 scandalous (3) 166:19 32:24 49:6 55:10,15 56:9
115:2,6,10,14,18,22 reducing (1) 35:2 replies (1) 59:1 rounds (1) 11:24 167:5,12 57:11,18,19,21 70:20
R
116:1,6,9,14,19,23 reduction (1) 34:11 reply (1) 91:13 routers (1) 149:18 scarce (1) 161:22 108:8 110:19,20 114:2
117:1,5,12,18,22 r122 (1) 177:14 redundancy (2) 177:10 report (1) 80:5 rpow (1) 76:15 scatter (1) 177:25 123:25 127:17 128:18
118:2,5,8,12,23 r123 (1) 177:25 178:17 reported (1) 115:3 ruled (1) 126:7 scene (2) 116:24,25 130:3 172:9
119:6,12,16,19 racks (3) 141:18 142:1,3 refer (27) 12:23 13:6,13 18:4 repository (1) 171:25 run (17) 8:2,6 10:21 20:12 schedule (2) 136:23 137:6 sentence (10) 21:15
120:4,8,12,23 121:1,21 raise (2) 1:23 3:2 39:12,16 41:17 62:2 63:23 represent (1) 101:13 60:14,21,24 100:20 101:16 scheme (3) 179:19 180:12,20 127:24,25
122:1,11,17,20,24 raised (2) 3:1 35:15 64:3,21 65:4 71:4,5 92:5 representation (5) 23:19 136:1 139:25 146:6,22 school (1) 46:13 128:1,3,8,9,13,15,21
123:6,9,20 raising (2) 2:1,3 98:11 102:22 106:20 24:4,10,11 181:21 147:9 148:11 176:18 science (2) 39:21 94:9 separate (14) 2:25 16:11
124:5,9,12,16,21 rambling (2) 104:19,20 122:12,17 128:11 136:24 represented (1) 146:16 178:23 score (1) 33:9 82:2 104:1,12 137:16
125:2,8,12,16,20 ramifications (1) 48:14 139:15 141:7 145:12 156:4 representing (1) 28:13 running (36) 8:17,18,20 20:3 screen (12) 4:6 11:5 16:25 168:7,20 171:20 173:12
126:3,11,15,23 ramona (1) 113:1 162:23 reputation (1) 167:2 36:11,12 59:5 60:23 61:21 24:1,19 30:24 37:22 38:12 174:16 175:8,17,24
127:7,11,19,22 128:19 ran (10) 8:14 11:22 104:6 reference (32) 16:20 24:18 require (2) 2:12 61:1 134:12 135:7,22 136:1,18 80:13 111:11 138:11 152:6 separated (1) 16:7
129:1,7,12,19,23 140:13,14,15,18,18 142:8 28:20 29:22 31:21,23 35:3 required (7) 5:4 14:8 139:25 141:17 142:6 144:23 screening (2) 26:5,18 september (3) 28:23 37:18
130:11,19,23 159:11 39:25 40:5,12 41:13 145:14 149:12 165:5 145:21 147:6,25 148:7 script (3) 44:9,11 174:2 38:10
131:2,11,18,25 range (1) 15:1 65:11,23,25 70:17 72:2,3,4 180:11 149:17,22 157:21,25 se (1) 13:2 septemberoctober (1) 172:9
132:2,6,15,17,19 rao (1) 92:23 89:18 91:1 98:7,22,23 requires (2) 60:24 61:3 158:12,18,24,24 160:1 search (1) 89:11 sequence (2) 94:11 159:2
133:20,22 134:7,18,23 rather (6) 24:25 35:13 72:23 101:2 126:3 131:14 research (8) 20:3 40:25 165:6 169:11,15 174:15,23 seats (1) 86:14 sequitur (1) 34:23
135:11 136:4,10,14,24 103:18 111:22 144:14 151:12,12 152:1 165:24 64:19 78:5,7 79:22 120:2 175:19 seattle (1) 88:17 series (10) 5:24 11:24 15:10
137:3,7,18,24 138:10 ray (1) 54:25 172:17 177:16 146:3 runs (1) 61:18 second (9) 1:11 7:12 48:2 25:22 36:18 80:14 88:2,15
139:15 140:7 141:6,15,25 rayner (1) 82:11 referenced (9) researched (2) 83:2 151:7 russian (1) 129:20 106:3 136:9 139:9 172:2 135:4 164:7
142:5,9,12,20 rcjbr (1) 75:20 25:12,15,17,25 26:10 researcher (2) 39:6 78:9 174:24 181:22 seriously (1) 162:16
143:2,11,21,23,25 reach (3) 3:17 61:22 98:8 28:6,8 30:14 76:14 researchers (1) 78:14 S secondary (2) 103:3,21 serve (1) 31:3
144:3,6,9 145:4,7,11 reacting (1) 100:6 references (5) 29:25 32:11 researching (1) 79:14 seconded (1) 132:13 served (2) 94:12 159:3
146:5,15,20 147:19 148:12 read (21) 1:13 23:14,16 34:15 88:11 138:3 reserve (3) 145:2,9 167:16 s (1) 24:25 secondly (1) 75:22 server (38) 44:16,18,18,22
149:10 150:2,8,16,25 25:20 53:14 58:6 60:9 referencing (4) 29:7 32:21 residence (1) 145:13 s1191 (1) 30:24 secrecy (2) 50:15 115:16 50:6 52:14 56:12 71:23
151:11,25 152:6,22 61:13 66:2,24 68:17 79:23 35:19 42:24 resident (1) 104:4 s11921 (1) 31:11 secret (2) 50:12,14 75:2 103:3,21,22,23
153:3,5,13,25 154:7,10,25 80:6 81:3 96:15 120:24 referred (9) 45:25 52:17 84:8 resources (7) 18:11 79:23 s11928 (2) 31:18 34:1 section (7) 4:7 7:4 13:12 104:1,12 113:21,23
155:6,8,18,23 121:9,12,16 159:1,5 93:17 106:10 110:1 114:5 82:19 83:7,8,9 85:18 s11929 (1) 33:23 31:12,14 35:1 146:25 135:4,21 136:18,21,23
156:1,3,7,13,19,24 readily (1) 115:6 136:17 154:11 respond (4) 38:21 71:2 90:19 s11930 (1) 31:7 sections (7) 24:22,23 137:5,13,14 138:8,16
157:4,8,19,24 reading (1) 81:9 referring (11) 58:7 64:16 117:10 saeid (1) 92:25 25:5,9,21,22 32:16 142:15 146:6 147:17
158:3,10,14,17,23 159:12 reads (2) 98:14 152:9 65:8 103:24 106:6,19 responded (1) 2:3 sales (2) 144:17 165:2 sector (1) 10:3 149:15,17 156:21 166:24
160:3,8,13 161:16,25 ready (4) 79:16 170:4,11,12 110:3,4 136:11 137:8 responding (4) 64:7 80:14 salesperson (1) 162:5 secure (6) 41:17 43:5 59:24 168:2,18,20 175:19
162:6,13,18,23 real (3) 48:24 102:2 164:14 139:17 170:23,25 same (22) 2:10 27:1,7 43:9 113:22 143:25 162:4 servers (10) 17:15 47:16
163:3,13,23 164:14,18 reality (4) 76:3 88:1 140:7 refers (2) 122:20 137:20 responds (2) 65:16 170:18 56:12 59:23 60:15 76:1 security (52) 4:14 5:5,9,11 103:10 137:17 144:24
165:8,15,19,24 167:10 reflect (1) 39:23 response (7) 1:10,12 7:12 80:9 91:19 103:25 109:22 6:8,9 7:4,6,7,8,15 145:21 148:8 149:19
166:2,6,11,19 167:1,10,19 really (17) 39:3 41:3 54:8,23 registered (1) 138:25 32:1 40:21 170:18,25 121:15 136:3 139:19 9:8,11,15 10:2,5 13:16,24 157:22,25
168:8,15,21 80:8 83:3 100:9 111:15 regular (4) 11:2 135:12 responses (1) 57:11 141:16 152:9 159:20 19:14 22:5,12,14 37:2 serves (1) 120:16
169:6,9,14,16,20 119:18 131:1 147:17 137:25 149:11 responsibilities (1) 91:12 163:16 168:10 176:8 39:5,6,21 40:19 42:1 43:4 service (5) 24:9 30:16 51:14
170:10,17 171:5,12,22 151:7,20 161:16,17 175:14 regularly (1) 37:2 responsibility (1) 153:18 181:21 90:7 91:25 112:3 113:17 104:6 175:19
172:1,16,25 173:4,8,19,23 176:6 regulatory (2) 37:14 48:13 responsible (2) 150:6 166:3 sans (3) 6:25 38:14,18 114:23 115:3 125:10 services (12) 15:2,5 40:24
174:6 175:9,25 176:12,20 reason (16) 6:17 30:1 reins (1) 168:10 rest (3) 115:6 147:16 177:24 saoulidis (1) 45:12 128:24 131:11,12,20 41:7 69:10 114:23 115:3
177:8,14,19,22,25 44:9,11 53:10 73:23 79:21 reintegrated (1) 171:21 restarted (1) 133:21 sat (2) 100:13 149:25 135:13 145:14,16,18,19 137:14,14 138:16
178:3,7,16 94:17 101:6 113:24 related (3) 66:3 94:10 159:5 restructure (1) 33:1 satisfactorily (1) 3:16 146:4,11,14 148:7 156:5 140:14,17
179:2,8,11,14,16,21 156:13,19 163:4,6,14 relating (2) 1:15 131:12 resulted (1) 96:21 satoshi (74) 43:17 49:20,25 159:10 174:2 serving (1) 120:15
180:3,9,14,23 164:11 relation (4) 3:4,11 87:15 results (1) 66:10 51:16,22 52:20,25 see (88) 4:8 5:1,13 7:10,16 session (1) 181:1
181:3,7,15,22 182:2,7 reasons (4) 67:6 77:23 131:20 resum (2) 6:1 14:1 53:12,15 54:7 55:7,10,22 10:7 13:11 18:17,23,25 set (28) 10:11 33:25 41:3,4
qnap (1) 52:10 140:15 179:1 relatively (2) 25:20 107:9 resums (1) 12:22 56:22 59:1,11 60:5 61:25 19:3 24:14 25:4,7 26:9 63:8 68:21 88:4 90:6 94:10
quadrant (3) 17:24 89:4 reassembled (1) 180:23 relativity (1) 99:17 retain (2) 143:13,14 62:3,7,18 63:5,6,14,20,25 29:2,4 32:14 33:24 97:12 101:24 102:21
126:12 rebuild (2) 134:17 163:11 relax (2) 92:13 182:15 retired (2) 80:16,20 65:8,24 66:20 68:8 71:13 38:14,17,19 39:23 40:11 129:13 141:17 146:22
qualification (2) 40:9 47:2 rebuilding (1) 9:16 release (12) 49:7 52:2 79:12 retiring (2) 163:4 164:14 72:7 73:2 76:4 95:5,10,13 51:9 54:18 55:2,20 159:4 165:11 166:13,15
qualifications (3) 36:18 recall (26) 3:25 6:20 8:25 102:1,11 104:21 108:20 retracted (1) 54:9 102:2,4 105:3 116:21,23 58:15,20 59:1 65:14,20 167:12 168:4,17,18 171:20
41:17 42:1 11:11 13:7 16:22 18:1,12 109:4,19 138:14 156:8 retrospectively (1) 13:22 119:17,21 120:6 151:13 66:12 71:12 76:13,16 173:10 174:24 176:5,15
quality (1) 43:15 21:20 62:10,13,15 63:8 171:2 return (3) 34:19 40:15 61:9 152:8,9,16 153:14,18 77:13 82:7 90:4,11 97:22 setting (14) 12:11,16
quantitative (1) 39:21 74:7 82:6,14 86:9 91:5 released (9) 49:21 53:16,18 returned (2) 126:5,13 155:3 162:24 163:4 98:8 102:4,12 103:6 34:18,19 59:16 73:17

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

87:19 90:12 144:24 sitting (2) 76:1 97:4 182:4 61:3,20 66:2,25 75:11 supportive (2) 160:14 162:19 tasks (5) 10:18,20 11:2 thered (1) 117:24
166:3,6 171:22,24 176:25 situation (1) 6:2 specification (1) 90:13 84:6,11 87:6 125:12,17 supposed (6) 48:9 68:9 86:7 94:10 159:5 therefore (4) 26:21 32:7 41:1
setup (1) 147:22 situations (1) 5:12 specified (1) 138:4 131:21 132:3,18 143:14,19 105:3 132:21 162:8 taught (1) 7:19 57:8
seven (2) 178:12,15 six (1) 113:16 speculative (2) 69:20 159:16 152:11 153:9 173:14 supposedly (4) 53:23 84:8 tax (4) 75:16 99:6 163:8 theres (19) 8:8,12 11:14
several (8) 20:3 26:25 29:25 size (7) 32:10 33:7 34:11,17 speechtotext (1) 45:19 stimulating (2) 80:18 81:11 85:13 129:3 177:2 52:19 72:2 73:13,23 76:19
63:11 113:2 117:7 179:24 35:2 59:5 171:15 spend (2) 1:16 145:7 stock (10) 4:4,12,15 5:6 6:18 sure (9) 17:4 42:15 87:17 taxation (1) 80:4 90:2 95:22 105:2 123:18
180:4 skilled (1) 77:24 spending (3) 142:24 143:12 7:14 9:25 85:6 86:11,23 92:19 114:15,16,17 141:5 tcp (1) 176:6 139:22 152:2 156:13 169:9
shadders (1) 1:11 skills (2) 5:23 8:21 178:18 stolen (1) 29:1 143:17 teachermentor (1) 39:7 171:2 172:5 176:19
shaded (1) 25:5 slack (1) 151:1 spent (1) 143:13 stone (2) 176:5,15 surname (1) 62:18 teaching (1) 138:22 thesis (3) 22:25 32:10 46:4
shamir (2) 179:18 180:12 slices (5) 179:18,21 spoke (6) 63:2 73:15 82:4 stood (1) 144:10 surprise (2) 82:9,25 team (11) 2:8 11:4 14:24 theyd (2) 134:13 144:9
shane (2) 109:7 110:23 180:10,12,23 84:11 164:4,6 stop (10) 70:4,4,11,13 surprising (1) 84:9 15:17 16:6,7 89:12,24 theyre (19) 25:24 50:23
shanes (1) 118:19 slow (1) 12:1 spoken (2) 33:21 132:10 160:3,8,8,10,25 161:6 surrounding (1) 115:4 90:16 98:4 160:6 53:17 59:1 60:15 67:14
shared (17) 48:24 54:19,24 small (14) 43:1 48:25 spoofing (1) 94:25 stopped (3) 130:5,6 163:6 surveillance (2) 86:23 87:4 teams (1) 5:10 83:5 93:4 106:12,13
105:22 106:4,23 107:4 50:12,16,22,23,25 51:2,4 spurious (1) 76:11 stopping (2) 45:23 96:17 susilo (1) 21:20 technical (3) 5:5 45:8 182:2 108:14 113:19 130:14
117:19,23 118:1,2 73:11 94:22,23 96:13 spv (4) 172:11,11,12,14 storage (1) 145:25 svn (12) 55:16,19 56:12 57:2 technically (7) 14:15 69:9 143:6 156:18 160:5
122:16,16,17,25 156:21 147:2 ssl (2) 64:13,23 store (1) 146:10 168:2 170:9,13 173:13 104:1,12 110:21 133:21 175:8,17,23
173:18 soft (10) 117:19 stable (1) 174:5 stored (1) 179:16 175:7,16,20 177:5 173:21 theyve (3) 64:17 89:10 119:2
sharing (10) 105:11 111:4 118:13,15,24 119:7 121:21 staff (5) 5:7 10:21 37:5 storing (1) 145:24 switches (1) 149:18 techniques (1) 5:23 thing (23) 1:6 27:9 47:11
117:13,15 119:12 122:1,17,21,25 74:16 144:25 story (15) 99:23 101:6 sydney (3) 146:6 177:16 technology (4) 6:25 15:3 56:13 69:5,13 81:16 86:2
122:12,20 179:19 software (19) 14:9,9 26:6,18 stage (7) 5:19 85:5 86:25 104:15 120:18 122:24 178:7 38:15 44:21 87:19 101:10 109:22
180:12,19 30:2,10 33:14 55:11,23,24 113:1 165:6 169:14 179:15 123:9 130:2 131:6 132:4 symbols (1) 59:6 telling (6) 35:8 69:11 129:24 111:22 128:18 136:24
sheds (1) 161:6 58:1,12,18 59:20,25 85:7 stages (8) 20:5 49:21 95:2 135:11 140:8 141:7 144:12 system (123) 1:19 6:9 130:19 131:22 152:17 139:8,9,10 140:19,24
shift (1) 168:11 172:11 175:13 180:21 133:15 134:5 136:4 159:12 178:3 10:15,23 11:19,22 12:6 tells (1) 178:3 142:24 150:14 163:15,19
shoaib (1) 49:23 solaris (1) 141:23 168:8,15 straight (2) 124:9 141:11 13:4 14:8,11 18:7 temperature (1) 1:3 thinking (4) 28:14 94:21
shoaibs (1) 109:11 sold (4) 22:10 41:10 67:22 staging (2) 171:19 177:6 straightforward (1) 13:24 19:11,13,19,20,22 ten (4) 52:17 82:3 106:21 145:3 151:20
shoosmiths (4) 1:25 146:2 stain (1) 123:11 strained (1) 13:21 20:10,12,13,17,18 124:10 third (17) 1:14 12:20 25:16
2:2,13,20 solicitors (1) 144:22 stand (1) 102:17 strange (1) 178:18 22:1,4,14 30:15 41:8 tenure (1) 97:8 37:24 57:15 58:8 63:12
short (4) 45:6 73:13 92:16 solution (3) 11:21 69:5 72:20 standards (1) 37:14 strategies (2) 4:18,20 43:4,4,7,21 44:16,18 67:4 teranode (1) 48:1 78:12 106:21
133:11 solutions (1) 164:24 starkly (1) 88:21 strict (1) 176:13 68:16 70:6,7 71:17,25 teresa (1) 92:23 125:2,3,12,17,21 128:23
shortened (1) 106:20 solve (1) 147:1 start (10) 14:17 79:16 87:5 string (1) 76:20 72:8,8,10,11,17,20,21,21 term (10) 39:20 74:16 134:4 139:10
shortly (3) 95:13 107:20 somebody (13) 19:6 51:22 101:23 120:22 132:5 stripexe (1) 59:5 74:11 75:4 76:5,7,25 78:15 75:14,24 111:16 138:3 though (3) 76:1 151:23
130:6 63:24 64:16 104:4 145:8,9 169:25 171:8 strong (2) 111:24 112:2 83:21,22,24 86:3 92:24 150:20,23 151:10 153:21 167:17
should (18) 14:23 27:10 110:23,24 111:3 130:20 started (21) 3:23 18:6 23:3 structure (10) 11:23 22:4 94:1,2,3,6,8,15,19,25 terminology (1) 152:21 thought (11) 83:11 84:4
30:5,6 33:9 35:5 131:13,21 146:5 161:19 41:6 78:22 89:12 101:20 103:24 148:25 149:1 96:14,21,23 100:21,23 terms (11) 22:6 23:19 97:7,9 120:2 130:17
46:6,17,22 47:10 52:18 someone (16) 8:13 113:2 116:25 118:18 158:7,8 172:12 181:12,19 101:1,17,19,23 109:5,20 24:5,11 32:4,17 40:13 151:21,22 165:6 173:6,9
84:17 126:8 134:17 142:3 57:4,21,21 83:3 105:23 120:11 134:25 142:17 structured (1) 141:21 133:14,21 135:20,24 138:8 42:20 66:10 74:17 139:15 thousands (2) 146:17 147:23
151:22 174:5 175:8 127:5 130:15 149:4 143:24 157:2,6,15 162:25 structures (1) 104:13 140:9 141:3 143:18 terrible (6) 46:21 84:10 86:1 threat (2) 97:24 133:4
shouldnt (1) 33:9 151:22,24 154:15 155:15 167:2 170:1 172:10 students (5) 49:20,22 51:1 146:9,11,12 148:11,21 87:25 122:6 162:5 threats (1) 19:25
show (7) 25:6 28:16 74:2 159:16 176:17,25 starting (1) 100:23 83:2,5 156:5 terribly (5) 30:2,11 41:12 three (14) 1:6 13:11 42:7,14
160:21 174:7 182:5,6 something (32) 8:9,20 24:17 starts (2) 100:21 101:17 studies (1) 48:3 158:10,11,16,17,18,20,23 107:9 175:15 46:3 48:5 56:18 57:13
showed (7) 26:16 65:5 90:8 30:22 39:10 43:8 61:8 startups (1) 171:14 studio (21) 51:9,14 57:23 160:16,19 161:5 162:4 territory (1) 12:1 101:19,19 124:6,18 126:20
95:18,20 112:21,22 79:15 87:25 92:25 94:24 stated (13) 11:17 44:10 58:2 59:12,14 164:15,22,23 167:2,6 terrorism (1) 166:7 131:4
showing (2) 42:18 177:25 101:18 104:7 112:19 121:4 60:22 61:16 65:6 67:8 60:5,13,14,16,17,21,23,23,25 168:4,5 169:3,7,25 test (3) 139:9 140:2 145:20 threw (1) 144:10
shows (2) 172:7 178:4 123:18 139:18 142:25 74:23 96:25 110:18 152:16 61:1,4,5,17,19,21 170:8,15,16 172:14,24 tested (2) 38:3 140:4 throes (1) 48:17
shred (2) 95:17 167:4 154:13 155:15 157:6 158:6 153:25 160:12 181:19 studying (3) 46:16,25 47:15 174:1,5 175:17 176:1,18 testimony (1) 105:13 through (19) 3:25 13:13
shut (5) 52:11 67:16,20 159:13,18,24,25 169:12 statement (76) 1:9,12 8:23 stuff (12) 17:15 23:4 52:4 179:1 180:20 testing (4) 40:22 139:8,24 29:7,20 35:5 36:15 75:8
136:11 145:3 170:5 171:2,3,24 175:10 9:20 10:10 11:6,16 13:6,22 86:15 100:8 112:5 146:1 systems (53) 4:15 6:12 174:2 80:9 81:7 93:20 99:16
shutting (1) 140:9 sometimes (3) 30:4 33:14 21:24 23:10 26:8 153:1,23 155:12 176:11 8:2,6,16 9:16,24 10:6,21 testnet (1) 147:6 103:15 110:6 112:4 113:8
shy (1) 150:19 150:23 31:1,3,8,15 33:25 178:4 11:8 12:14,25 14:5 15:16 text (17) 22:20 23:18,20 147:5 163:21 164:8 176:24
side (3) 25:10 99:9 105:9 somewhere (2) 81:2 118:19 34:2,9,10 35:1,9 sturt (1) 138:23 41:10 42:20 44:12,12 24:1,5,8,11,16 25:13,16 thursday (2) 1:1 138:7
sides (1) 25:14 sommer (1) 109:12 48:8,11,21 49:5 51:5 52:17 style (2) 24:18 71:14 47:16 48:14 52:12 78:3,7 26:10 28:12 29:8,19 30:12 tier (1) 140:20
siemens (3) 89:22 90:12 son (7) 124:4,6,17 126:19 54:5 55:5,8,21 56:2 57:24 subdirectory (1) 103:17 79:22 80:8 82:24 154:21 155:12 till (1) 102:16
93:25 127:13 129:24 130:19 58:5 60:7,8 61:24 62:1 subdomain (2) 104:6,7 86:14,23,25 87:3,5 113:22 texts (1) 32:1 time (74) 1:16 3:8 5:15,24
sign (1) 175:5 sonny (1) 21:20 63:22 65:1 67:7 68:7,24 subforum (1) 175:6 118:16 119:1,3,4 135:19 thank (11) 1:22 3:14 45:4,24 9:4 10:19 14:13 27:22 30:2
signal (1) 85:7 soon (2) 40:17 145:2 70:5,15 77:3 81:1 84:25 subheading (1) 71:22 136:13 138:1 70:18 92:12 93:6 112:23 35:6 38:13 41:24
signed (3) 31:8 139:7 148:25 sort (17) 5:23 8:14 17:9 85:11 86:19 87:20 88:13 subject (9) 2:23 18:2 46:8 141:17,18,19,20 142:1 133:5 161:10 182:17 42:4,5,11,21 44:4,21,22
significant (4) 16:3 142:7 30:20,21 43:5 47:15 54:9 89:1 102:19 103:14,20 47:24 126:9 132:19 138:17 145:20 147:9,16,16 thanking (1) 65:24 52:19 55:23 59:23
145:15 146:16 76:10 94:5 111:21 138:25 104:9,22 107:12 110:13 176:20 177:8 158:4,5 165:2,5 168:2 thanks (1) 151:25 63:10,25 66:9 67:21 76:22
signing (1) 181:1 148:7 161:12 163:11,18 120:13,24 122:11,14 submitted (7) 40:10 thats (113) 2:23 5:15,17 81:8 82:5 84:16,19 87:3,23
silk (7) 130:8 144:16 164:11 137:16 141:6 142:2 156:4 46:4,17,19 47:3 75:15,20 T 6:13 9:13 10:9 11:17 12:13 88:18 94:8 95:5 97:3,4
166:3,10,13,18,24 sought (3) 50:15 76:9 153:19 161:11,25 163:13 165:9 subsequently (1) 52:13 14:1 15:13,14 18:14 21:8 99:7,11,13 101:1 106:10
silly (1) 132:11 sound (2) 45:20 157:16 168:9 177:12 181:3 subversion (2) 56:12 175:16 tab (2) 172:21 173:5 24:10,18 25:15 28:18 115:23 120:9 121:10,13
similar (16) 19:16 70:25 sounded (2) 151:6,21 statements (4) 23:13 26:22 successful (3) 18:17,21 19:1 taken (2) 20:25 150:15 34:17 35:7,15,20 124:2 128:17 131:16
71:25 72:6,8,12,18,20,22 sounds (2) 89:8 170:21 61:12 181:15 suddenly (1) 134:13 takes (2) 139:18 149:2 36:16,20,22 37:1 42:9 133:13,17,18 136:15
75:4 76:5,7,14,25 112:19 source (14) 51:5,7 states (2) 32:24 34:14 sue (1) 177:2 taking (8) 3:7 7:13 25:19 46:10,13 47:14 48:21 141:16 142:15,20 144:18
178:3 55:11,13,23,24 66:17 stating (2) 12:18 34:23 suggest (7) 20:5 58:17 116:2 137:9,20 153:18 50:25 51:2,18 52:23 55:12 148:8,15 149:12 150:1
simple (1) 45:25 139:5,6 168:6 169:2,6 statistical (3) 16:10 47:4 68:6,12 82:19,21 94:1 168:15 56:2,5,12,23 57:5,9 157:19,24 158:19 160:15
simplified (1) 172:12 171:15 173:24 145:21 suggested (2) 161:18 169:12 talk (10) 17:9 26:5,17 53:12 59:6,7,14 63:1,7 64:11,14 162:12 163:1,16 177:3,16
simultaneously (1) 42:4 sourceforge (27) statistics (5) 77:6,23 90:6,25 suggesting (1) 156:3 87:19 113:18,20 119:1,3 65:8 69:9 70:14,17 72:3 178:1,7,13
since (6) 33:22 53:3 93:15 57:1,3,4,20,21 152:10 92:7 suggestions (1) 170:19 182:12 75:7 77:1,10 81:13 88:9 timechain (1) 19:15
110:6 113:2 153:19 164:1 167:24 168:13,20 staying (1) 148:9 suggests (1) 64:17 talked (16) 19:15 21:1,14 89:1,25 90:18 94:4 98:23 timecoin (20) 20:11
sinclair (5) 19:6,21 20:8 170:1,16,22 172:19 stefan (16) 108:1 111:2 summarised (1) 4:12 44:7 79:20 96:10 108:23 100:2 101:6,24 103:11 22:3,11,16 41:8 42:23
49:10 114:14 173:3,8,12,13 117:25 118:2,5,9 summary (1) 3:12 109:8,9,10,12 113:18 106:9 107:19 111:6 116:8 108:9,12,13,20,23
sinclairs (1) 20:7 174:8,11,12,18,19 119:23,24 120:15 sun (2) 7:8 145:22 123:3 162:21 164:25 117:1,20 118:5 119:22,23 109:5,18 110:1,4 119:2
single (26) 12:10,16 20:24 175:7,16,17 177:5 123:12,14,16 157:10,12 sunday (1) 133:17 173:15 120:18 121:23 122:2,9,13 121:23 122:1 147:17
21:4,9 53:23 69:6 76:22 sourceforges (1) 175:15 159:9 161:14 supervise (2) 5:7,9 talking (16) 19:13 22:3 123:12 127:15 130:1 158:21
94:10,12 101:10 117:14,18 sources (1) 29:7 stephen (1) 38:25 supervisor (7) 46:8 47:7,9,17 54:11 59:20 83:21 105:5 132:10 135:25 136:17 timeconsuming (1) 38:5
121:10 122:12,15 128:18 spam (2) 94:18 96:17 steps (1) 180:15 62:23 82:11 92:22 106:15 120:22 128:14 140:11,23 142:1,3 144:4 timed (1) 117:8
138:20 147:10,12,14 speak (1) 82:13 steve (3) 1:11 21:19 108:24 supervisors (2) 62:11,14 135:17 141:14 158:5 146:7,14 148:17 156:19 times (27) 7:9 12:13 20:11
159:3,5 160:6,21 162:6 speaking (2) 32:1 134:5 steven (2) 3:19 183:4 supplied (1) 51:25 161:14 166:14 171:1 172:8 158:2 159:15 161:5 164:1 27:1 50:5 52:3,8,17 53:2
sister (1) 110:7 special (3) 56:21 94:2 105:2 steward (2) 164:23 176:9 supply (1) 2:13 talks (5) 5:19 68:3 96:16 169:4 170:5,13 171:5,19 59:21 73:16 75:13 82:5
sit (2) 92:13 149:21 specialist (1) 37:3 stewardship (3) 163:7 support (11) 20:22,25 109:20 167:6 172:22 174:10 177:12,21 84:18 89:11,14 118:10
site (15) 26:5,7 41:3 57:8 specific (4) 88:17 96:18 176:16,17 21:4,11 35:17 92:23 162:8 tao (2) 47:23 92:21 178:22 179:10,12 180:13 120:19,20 122:4 123:3
102:15 103:14,14,25 117:22 121:21 stick (4) 121:3,6 122:9 166:20,22 172:21 173:5 target (1) 148:14 theft (3) 29:8,10,19 134:2 143:9 150:20 151:4
154:24 162:3 171:18 173:3 specifically (6) 31:21 81:24 123:18 supported (2) 108:3 160:19 targeted (1) 3:1 theories (2) 115:4,5 156:12 180:2
174:14,22 175:6 141:10 153:25 166:11 still (21) 45:21 47:21 50:23 supporting (2) 5:8 31:3 task (1) 73:11 theory (2) 38:3 77:25 timestamp (9) 44:16,18,18

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

50:6 71:23 75:2 113:21,22 tree (8) 11:23 22:3 148:25 77:7,22,24 78:2,4,8 versed (1) 78:2 websites (1) 166:4 wladimir (1) 168:12 172:17
142:15 158:8 170:9 171:17,19 80:16,19 84:24 85:1 92:21 version (23) 22:11 28:7,7 wed (1) 82:12 woman (1) 33:19 wrote (27) 1:25 29:4,14
timestamped (1) 20:18 177:7 93:3 106:8 138:23 30:18 32:20 33:4 week (13) 1:10 2:7 15:22 wont (5) 109:12 123:19 37:23 42:5 57:25 59:9,9,10
tiny (1) 141:14 trial (7) 18:1 20:8 45:19 unix (1) 6:19 35:17,19,21 51:13 89:11 16:21 37:15 42:7,13 46:5 145:20,20,21 64:13,14,23 70:19,20
titled (1) 79:6 102:9 108:7 161:3 172:14 unknown (1) 159:14 102:5 105:19,23 106:3 49:19 66:16 136:8 150:22 work (60) 3:24,24,25 4:3,11 77:14 78:16 81:23 89:14
today (4) 2:20 34:13,21 trials (2) 46:18 73:17 unless (2) 20:16 27:5 108:10 110:12 114:4,6 178:12 11:14 12:23 13:7,12 20:16 94:5 150:14 152:19
75:23 tribunal (4) 99:4 100:17 unlike (1) 160:16 151:14 152:14 153:16 weekend (2) 1:7 138:7 24:17 25:5 27:5,8 31:25 153:1,21,23 154:21
together (8) 16:6 86:22 87:8 101:8,13 unnamed (3) 51:1 106:11,12 172:14 weekly (2) 10:20 62:12 40:20 41:2,21 42:19 47:25 155:14,16
99:5 138:11 147:17 155:16 tribute (1) 37:23 unpublished (3) 58:6 60:9 versions (5) 27:11,18,20 weeks (6) 47:21 75:25 98:3 49:9 51:7,8 59:2 64:15 wsus (13) 135:20,20,24
164:13 tried (11) 17:9,14 50:7 67:2 152:7 35:23 130:11 148:3,4,4 65:3 76:19 78:4,13 79:8 136:1,18,20,21 137:5,6
token (17) 11:8 12:25 13:4 95:25 118:10 129:2 157:2 unsupported (1) 167:13 versus (2) 130:13 149:4 wei (13) 63:24 64:6,23 81:5 83:23 84:18 86:4 138:4,8,16,19
14:5 76:17,18,18 98:5,7 161:18,20 162:5 unsurprisingly (1) 127:19 viable (1) 20:17 79:5,9 84:7,14,14 102:3,4 87:4,15 90:25 92:1 94:13 wu (2) 137:13 138:4
118:6 123:12 146:11 tripwire (1) 10:25 until (9) 36:3 61:13 67:22 video (6) 45:20 117:6,7 106:24 108:8 110:22 95:21,23 96:1 100:14
157:22 159:7,9,17 160:1 trolled (1) 19:23 87:5,16 100:1 101:11 133:23 134:2,19 welsh (1) 93:2 105:3 112:24 113:24 X
tokenbased (3) 11:21 12:14 true (6) 88:7 119:22 145:13 142:18 182:19 videocon (3) 115:23 116:3 went (19) 29:20 81:7 82:15 119:19 132:13,18 141:2,5
94:6 149:23 155:1 158:10 unusual (1) 178:9 117:3 89:12 99:16 119:24 121:4 145:13 147:20 148:11 x (1) 67:22
tokenise (1) 19:14 truly (1) 31:14 update (13) 3:8 27:20,22 virtual (2) 141:21,24 127:11 142:20 146:2 148:2 159:3 164:23 174:3 xp (1) 135:16
tokens (1) 143:4 trunk (7) 170:4,11,12,13,13 135:13 136:13 virtually (4) 25:11,14,23 149:6 150:14,22 178:19,22,23
told (32) 2:10 6:15 15:22 171:21 177:6 137:13,14,14,16,17 177:22 157:6,16,17,23 164:8 worked (13) 4:3 9:24 11:20 Y
16:15 36:2 69:20 73:6 trust (11) 156:13 179:9,11 138:4,15,16 vision (2) 88:21 150:4 werent (18) 29:19 35:9 39:17 51:16 64:10
yeah (6) 134:7,11,14 149:22
79:20 82:25 86:1 95:9,16 180:5,19,19,21,21,22,22,22 updated (2) 34:15 152:10 visited (1) 89:13 36:18 43:21 56:16 62:19 86:22,25 87:8 113:16
157:15 162:25
96:2 99:13,15 102:4 trusted (1) 12:4 updates (2) 43:5 138:15 visiting (1) 98:3 88:1 89:10,21 90:22 100:6 114:23 166:6 180:2
year (6) 37:11 47:4 82:11
105:15 114:18 115:22 truth (3) 31:8 140:11 162:17 uploadae (5) 102:6 vistomail (1) 52:20 131:23 135:7 142:16 164:4 working (24) 7:24 8:25 13:3
92:8 99:10 127:3
118:8 120:4 121:8,12 try (10) 58:20 68:16 70:18 103:4,5,14 104:3 visual (34) 51:9,14 57:23 165:21 174:20 177:17 16:8 17:6 36:2,8,17 41:16
years (22) 20:4 33:19 36:5,8
142:9,20,22 119:6 122:25 130:13 uploaded (1) 152:10 58:2,15,20 59:12,14,15 weve (4) 33:7 81:3 102:2 42:5 43:12 50:20 98:11
62:14 76:9 82:3 86:11 97:4
143:2,21,23,25 150:4 142:24 148:9 150:19 uploadie (1) 102:15 60:5,12,12,13,14,14,16,16,17,18,18,18,21,23,23,25
168:22 99:4 107:23 112:20 113:1
101:19,19 105:5 111:17
176:5 157:11 upon (1) 78:19 61:1,3,4,5,17,18,18,19,21 whatever (4) 109:18 138:7 116:14 155:16 157:20
113:16 118:17 119:16
tomorrow (1) 182:16 trying (26) 13:5 20:12 32:12 ups (1) 149:19 visualnet (1) 60:19 143:14 167:8 164:10 165:2 167:2 178:8
142:8 145:10,14 167:14
too (11) 2:14 3:2 14:7 39:23 41:8 56:11,25 57:7 58:8 upset (1) 150:24 vivid (1) 117:5 whats (5) 47:24 97:3 121:5,8 works (7) 8:13 28:12 29:13
176:7 178:15
51:2 84:22 85:3 104:18 70:22 107:20 110:17 urged (1) 173:23 vladimir (2) 167:23 176:21 153:9 55:16 57:5 60:11 148:18
yesterday (2) 63:2 69:2
149:8 150:9 151:8 117:10 131:2,17 132:20,23 usa (2) 47:14 125:10 vms (5) 6:19 7:21,24,24 8:6 whatsapp (1) 44:23 workstations (1) 135:2
yet (4) 15:25 16:2 66:2 95:17
took (17) 16:15,21 38:2 140:7 155:8 162:11,21 usb (5) 121:3,6,11 122:9 vodafone (8) 13:6,7,14,15,17 whatsoever (2) 115:10 161:7 world (8) 41:1 42:18
yielded (1) 175:10
79:21,25 88:18 99:4 101:9 163:9,11,18,20 176:25 123:18 14:6,6,8 whereas (2) 95:19 153:18 50:18,19 53:1 86:5 115:6
york (1) 115:24
117:25 118:2 124:11 137:3 177:1 used (28) 5:23 8:2 16:11 volume (1) 149:12 wheres (1) 22:15 140:4
youd (14) 24:2 60:9
145:24 152:19 162:16 tuesday (28) 134:9 26:5,11 30:16 31:15 32:7 voting (1) 176:19 whilst (1) 73:16 worlds (3) 10:4 122:5 169:1
107:3,4,14 118:2,8
178:16 180:15 135:1,13,25 136:1,16,25 51:9 59:7,12 60:1,3,7 vulnerabilities (1) 52:21 white (46) 3:4 18:6 28:15 worst (1) 122:5
119:10,21 128:12 146:7
tool (2) 7:8 174:9 137:1,3,3,8,10,19,20,25 61:19 70:8 76:17 77:17,19 43:17 44:17 49:6,21 68:17 worth (3) 143:7 145:25 146:3
W 161:16,18 179:9
tools (6) 15:18,20 30:4 45:19 138:3,5,14,18,20 79:11 120:21 123:18 135:4 71:20 72:7 95:6,18 worthwhile (1) 159:25
youll (9) 58:15 69:4 76:16
51:15 97:23 139:3,12,16,19 149:1 152:20 160:9 174:9 w (1) 92:23 102:1,6,12 104:21,23 wouldnt (16) 31:15 50:14
96:7 112:23 135:19 136:18
topic (5) 44:15 126:5 133:7 140:10,11,12 182:19 175:14 waffle (1) 131:17 105:12,15 107:5,15,22 95:7 100:15 119:19
154:6,22
150:2 179:2 tulip (7) 23:14 31:1 user (1) 148:10 wait (2) 16:2 55:4 108:4,10,15,21 123:14,15 130:4 145:22
young (1) 114:22
topics (1) 27:1 179:11,15 180:19,22,22 users (2) 135:22 137:17 walden (1) 47:14 109:4,17,25 110:15,18,21 146:21 148:1,11,15 161:19
youre (65) 18:5,25 30:4
toronto (1) 17:2 tuomas (1) 71:5 uses (8) 50:3,5 66:4 70:12 wales (1) 93:1 111:4 112:19 114:3,5,11 170:22 178:21
33:10 42:22 43:14
total (1) 144:23 turn (3) 35:25 39:20 134:10 72:8 75:3 76:5,8 walk (1) 120:21 117:13,15 119:8,13 120:15 wright (89) 2:6,12,15
50:11,24 53:8 54:11 55:5
totally (3) 73:14 143:4 148:5 turned (4) 79:9 134:14 using (28) 19:14 22:5 24:25 walleted (1) 172:15 121:18 122:2,13 147:1 3:19,20,23 4:7 6:5,11,23
56:10,25 57:6 59:19 60:11
touch (1) 166:13 149:7,8 30:4 33:12 44:15 45:19 wallets (1) 143:13 whole (11) 11:18 32:17 86:2 7:22 8:8 9:14 10:10,14
62:13 67:14 69:18
touted (1) 94:8 turner (1) 51:22 53:13 58:1,11,17 59:14 wallsey (1) 92:24 88:2 128:9 132:19 139:1 12:5,15 13:21 15:22 17:1
72:14,16 86:6 91:12 94:6
towards (10) 13:10 36:17 turning (1) 105:11 72:4,15,19 76:18,20 walter (1) 92:22 140:25 143:19 150:1 20:5 21:8 22:15 23:13
99:1,19 101:20 104:3
38:13 48:23 79:6 93:11 twist (1) 56:25 101:11 102:22 111:16 walton (1) 92:21 163:19 28:2,13,22 30:9 31:5,16
110:3,3,4,17 113:14
116:19 148:5 150:25 twitter (7) 67:13,16,20,22 146:9 159:9 161:21,23 wanting (3) 116:20 175:25 whom (14) 49:12 56:15,18 32:16 33:6 34:17 35:8,22
118:23 122:3,6 134:12
169:22 68:20 70:1 160:20 169:25 170:15 172:7 176:13 62:7,18 63:5 85:12,12 41:20 42:15 43:17
135:25 136:2,11,18 137:12
tracing (2) 59:16 116:13 type (7) 111:22 126:24 127:6 175:13 wants (6) 3:11 29:12 64:12 106:4 107:4,14 111:3 45:3,18,25 51:3 53:2,6
138:2,21 139:6,12,12,17
track (1) 170:1 128:1,9,16 173:6 usual (1) 92:13 97:18 167:8 172:19 114:2 180:5 56:14,24 57:13 59:11 60:4
140:13 143:21 145:19,22
tracked (1) 100:12 typed (9) 105:19 124:24 usually (1) 123:5 warfare (1) 10:2 whos (2) 64:20 131:21 61:7 62:16 64:18 69:16,25
148:19 149:3,17 156:11,17
tracker (1) 172:22 127:4,6,24 128:2,9,12,15 utilisation (1) 74:13 warning (3) 31:9 35:9 92:13 whose (3) 62:7,19 63:24 72:15 73:6,15 76:3 82:13
159:18 161:5 174:11
trackers (1) 170:20 typo (1) 142:3 utz (2) 101:11 144:21 wary (1) 48:15 wide (2) 14:25 139:11 86:20 88:1 92:13 93:6
175:18 178:21 180:15,18
tracking (12) 168:3,5 169:25 uyen (2) 127:14 179:24 wasnt (50) 9:13 19:12 28:17 widely (1) 115:3 101:7,24 104:17 106:10
U 181:18
170:8,15 171:1,4 173:14 30:22 38:10 41:9 50:9,19 wider (1) 140:3 111:11 112:18 121:3,7
V yours (3) 74:2 96:4 103:14
175:13,15,15,21 uae (1) 104:5 54:13 66:23 68:14 70:13 wife (6) 2:19 20:1 49:2 122:11 131:23 133:5,13,24
yourself (6) 53:1 76:10
trademark (1) 1:15 uk (6) 101:1 114:23 v (1) 45:18 74:24 81:6 82:22 84:2 88:4 106:10 113:3,15 140:7 148:16 149:10 150:4
103:21 153:19 177:11
trading (2) 23:14 31:1 116:10,14 117:6 133:17 v4 (1) 147:12 97:4 100:23,24 110:9 wikipedia (1) 137:24 160:8 161:2 162:14,18
178:17
train (1) 116:9 unacknowledged (1) 29:12 v6 (1) 147:12 114:12,17 118:8 127:3,16 williams (11) 49:14 101:2,4 167:19 175:9 177:8 182:12
youve (42) 3:15 12:10 13:21
trained (1) 9:25 uncle (4) 48:25 105:23 validate (1) 140:5 130:8 131:4,8,9 132:1,15 106:7,24 114:22 115:22 183:4
21:3,9 25:20 34:12,20 36:2
training (4) 13:16 15:2 40:21 132:5,6 validated (1) 30:7 135:6,21 144:13 145:3 117:1 129:21,25 131:15 wrights (3) 1:24 2:19 23:11
48:6 57:24 62:16,20 63:3
116:12 undergraduate (1) 80:22 validating (1) 147:3 151:20,21 155:24 156:2 window (1) 137:19 wrightson (14) 78:6,23
76:3,9 104:15 115:14
trammell (6) 55:1,5 56:18,21 understand (9) 3:5 23:13 validation (2) 147:6,21 158:14,17,23 159:6,13 windows (14) 58:12 59:19 79:5,9,20 80:6,14,19 81:11
117:13,18,20 120:4,24
57:15 141:13 78:13 98:4 104:14 139:17 validity (1) 167:21 162:11 163:19 164:6 135:4,16 82:7,18 84:11,13 85:17
122:24 132:20 134:9
transaction (6) 94:8,9 150:9 157:22 161:8 valuable (4) 43:16 81:22 176:24 177:2 137:13,13,14,16,17 write (20) 37:6 38:7 40:1,13
142:20,22 143:11,14 150:3
157:13 158:17 159:1,4 understating (1) 90:22 142:16 161:17 watching (1) 176:24 138:4,15,16 141:20,24 46:21 77:15 78:10 79:2,17
151:4 152:2,23 156:14
transactions (7) understood (3) 31:13 164:12 value (14) watts (1) 112:24 wing (1) 129:16 80:1,11 97:19 98:12
162:13 165:9,15 166:19
44:19,20,21,24 48:2 181:3 142:10,11,13,17,21,23 way (33) 4:13 54:1 55:16 wiping (1) 37:20 101:15 124:9,22 127:12,14
167:4,11 181:15
158:11,24 undertaken (1) 10:18 143:15 157:1,10 72:6 76:20 86:12 103:25 wish (1) 1:20 150:12,13
transcript (10) 17:1,8,22 undertook (1) 23:1 159:8,14,15,17 161:17 104:13 110:6 111:18 wishes (2) 165:12 167:25 writes (2) 59:4 65:25
Z
20:7 45:13 102:8,18 undisclosed (1) 51:25 van (6) 167:23 168:12,15,18 113:22 121:6 122:5 130:10 witness (54) 1:9,12 2:7 8:23 writing (8) 42:1,7 54:4,23
115:19 133:22 134:4 undisputed (1) 44:1 176:21 177:4 132:23 134:23 136:2,3 9:19 10:9 11:6 13:6,22 61:11 86:3 101:18 172:25
z (1) 24:25
transcripts (2) 45:17,18 unfortunate (1) 118:23 varies (1) 29:5 139:21 142:18 145:3 146:8 21:24 23:10 30:25 33:25 written (26) 13:1 21:17
zafar (1) 100:7
transfer (9) 63:13 74:20 unfortunately (5) 8:4 41:9 variety (1) 113:9 154:19 156:16 157:15 40:20 48:8,11 49:5 53:23 40:10 52:5 53:19,22 64:20
zero (1) 76:22
79:24 82:20 103:9 109:13 111:6 various (7) 11:8 13:23 36:23 164:19 173:16 174:11,18 54:5 55:21 56:2 57:24 60:8 71:13 73:1 88:6 99:19
zeros (2) 70:12 76:21
83:19,20,22,24 102:17 uni (2) 39:10 106:25 42:1 91:22 134:2 180:5 175:22 176:18 179:13,13 61:24 62:1 63:21 65:1 67:7 105:22 118:5 127:8 128:21
zone (2) 177:16 178:7
transferable (1) 123:13 unified (1) 43:4 vat (1) 50:10 wayback (3) 40:4 68:3 68:7,24 70:5,14 77:3 80:25 152:4,23 153:7
zoren (1) 105:24
transferred (4) 63:6,16 146:1 unit (2) 94:13 159:3 vaughan (1) 166:14 174:17 84:25 85:11 86:19 87:20 154:2,4,7,13,14,15,17,20
zotero (2) 30:3 33:11
168:12 universities (3) 8:3 77:21 vc (4) 59:7 60:21,24 61:20 wdi (1) 179:12 88:13 102:19 103:20 wrong (23) 12:18 40:4 70:17
transferring (1) 167:23 105:25 vehement (1) 169:9 wdiorg (1) 179:13 104:9,22 107:12 120:12,24 82:1 83:23 84:1,4,15,16,18
0
transmitted (1) 43:14 university (25) 8:15 23:25 vending (1) 44:12 web (2) 44:21 47:16 122:11 137:15 141:6 156:4 85:13,16,22,23 115:25
trashed (1) 178:5 27:14,14,16 29:17 36:14 verification (1) 172:12 webmoney (1) 167:16 160:9 161:25 163:13 168:8 117:4 146:7 149:10 00003536 (1) 28:20
treated (1) 94:10 46:15 47:14,22 64:15 verified (1) 73:12 website (3) 7:1 45:15 165:11 witnesses (2) 20:22 54:12 151:11,25 159:15 165:13 001 (2) 20:15 43:1

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 12, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 6

03 (3) 151:14 152:14 153:16 2005 (14) 23:3 27:3 77:8,23 36 (3) 18:15,20 126:11
030 (1) 152:10 78:9 79:14 80:20 37 (1) 102:20
07 (1) 37:10 81:5,13,24 85:4 87:8,22 38 (3) 54:16 102:21 129:1
08 (1) 37:10 120:8 39 (1) 103:2
09 (1) 37:11 20052008 (1) 87:12 3g (1) 14:7
2006 (1) 23:2 3rd (1) 136:15
1 2007 (9) 36:1,5,15 41:21
48:17 79:15 93:15 104:5 4
1 (19) 10:15 14:12 38:21
177:17
64:7 80:15 84:21 4 (10) 9:23 21:13 71:22
20072008 (1) 51:8
90:1,11,19 91:7,14 94:21 74:3,9 92:3 115:22 133:17
2008 (42) 6:24 9:2 14:15
102:14 112:21 133:20 154:11 173:1
23:2 36:3,5,25 37:8,13,18
138:11,13 160:24 183:3 40 (2) 103:8 105:16
38:10,22 41:14 56:9 57:1
10 (9) 9:23 18:9 37:11 66:16 400 (1) 177:19
59:25 65:15 71:8 73:16
127:22 136:12 145:1,1,4 4000 (1) 43:3
87:8,22 88:15 89:13 90:3
100 (5) 18:13 63:9 149:24,24 41 (1) 89:4
91:4 93:9,13,22 94:17
157:6 420 (1) 182:18
95:3,10 98:24 100:5,15
10000 (1) 94:21 433 (1) 86:19
102:21 105:17,20 108:7
100000 (2) 94:21 160:24 49 (1) 107:18
120:14 121:2 177:10
1000s (1) 98:6
178:16
101 (1) 92:15 5
2009 (42) 14:14,17 36:1,15
1029 (1) 1:2
40:8,13 41:2,22 56:9,10
1030 (2) 182:16,19 5 (3) 23:17 144:23 146:25
57:5 66:16 78:9 80:20
10th (3) 134:15 135:15 50 (2) 37:12 150:25
81:5,13,24 85:4 100:23
136:15 500 (3) 157:2,6,16
104:5 133:17,17,20
11 (8) 48:2 92:8 98:21 50000 (3) 156:25 157:10
136:5,12
123:24 126:12,15,17 159:13
137:3,4,9,10,19,22 138:20
154:11 500am (1) 177:19
143:5,24 146:23 148:2,6
1133 (1) 45:5 56 (1) 100:18
155:18 156:24 157:9
1152 (1) 45:7 59 (1) 150:8
158:10 177:17
117 (1) 146:15 59th (1) 80:17
2010 (11) 100:1 101:4 117:2
11th (3) 80:25 86:19 87:20
142:21 146:23 151:13
12 (7) 1:1 17:25 24:19 42:9 6
152:8 168:23 169:7,17
68:19 98:21 106:19
179:4
124 (1) 157:8 6 (7) 25:3 77:12 105:14
201011 (1) 33:22
12th (2) 136:9 149:25 106:23 134:20 151:13
2011 (16) 28:23 54:12 98:20
13 (8) 68:19 128:19 134:3 152:8
100:3 113:2 115:24 116:23
137:4,10,21 138:20 182:20 600 (1) 42:5
144:13 155:18 162:24
131 (1) 163:23 63 (1) 48:10
173:1,20 175:12 176:23
134 (1) 165:8 630 (1) 178:13
179:8,14
136 (1) 168:9 64 (1) 48:23
20112012 (4) 99:9,14,20
138 (1) 179:2 67 (1) 141:20
101:7
139 (2) 126:11,15 69 (4) 141:18,19 142:1,3
2012 (4) 99:2,21 100:4 101:8
14 (4) 18:4 64:8 68:19
2013 (3) 37:24 74:3,5
165:19 7
201314 (1) 151:9
140 (1) 127:7
2014 (2) 123:24 126:17
140k (1) 39:8 7 (4) 25:18 55:20 90:3 149:5
2015 (2) 6:6 52:8
141 (2) 127:19 179:16 70 (1) 51:6
201516 (1) 119:25
142 (1) 179:21 73 (2) 112:22,23
2016 (5) 87:16 119:19 164:6
145 (1) 128:19 78 (1) 51:19
180:17,24
146 (1) 129:1 79 (1) 51:19
2019 (10) 17:2 70:19 77:12
15 (6) 74:17 118:17 142:16
115:20 125:13 130:24
165:19 166:8 179:18 8
132:3,15 133:2 134:20
158 (1) 92:17
2020 (4) 42:3 126:6 131:2
15year (1) 118:22 8 (2) 129:1 154:12
165:20
16 (4) 28:23 51:19 124:16 80 (1) 62:2
2022 (1) 42:3
166:9 83 (1) 178:12
2023 (2) 45:18 64:8
165k (1) 39:8
2024 (2) 1:1 182:20
17 (7) 18:18,20 54:18 89:4 9
20page (1) 106:3
106:2 111:13 169:17
21 (10) 31:11 49:7 51:1 9 (4) 80:17 111:23 133:20
18 (6) 18:16 38:5 63:21
65:24 93:13 107:17 108:1 136:5
126:18 142:17 171:5
118:13,23 167:1 90 (1) 154:11
186 (1) 180:14
22 (2) 40:13 165:24 90page (1) 36:9
19 (2) 105:22 125:12
23 (2) 42:4 117:2 90s (3) 7:6 80:21,24
1987 (1) 80:16
24 (7) 38:22 73:4 102:10 92 (2) 63:22 64:3
1995 (1) 81:1
120:23 121:1 134:19 149:5 93 (1) 65:1
1996 (3) 24:8 27:6 81:1
256 (1) 147:11 95 (1) 77:4
1997 (3) 4:2 73:16 80:5
258 (1) 133:10 96 (1) 106:2
1998 (1) 4:3
26 (2) 165:9 173:20 97 (5) 31:19,22 86:24 106:19
1999 (2) 84:24 85:1
269 (1) 37:8 120:13
27 (2) 92:3 179:16 97page (1) 40:9
2
28 (2) 31:18 97:15 98 (4) 31:24 33:24 34:2
2 (15) 9:5 14:19 28:25 41:14 29 (2) 168:23 172:2 88:13
70:21 72:25 77:16 80:15 99 (2) 102:9 116:1
90:15 91:18 92:14 129:19 3 99999999 (1) 149:24
134:23 138:11 146:2
20 (8) 18:5 65:15 91:25 3 (17) 7:8 13:10 38:17 71:22
105:19 116:2 127:11 128:4 78:12 89:20 90:2 91:22
145:9 101:12 124:13 133:6,17
200 (2) 29:25 178:13 136:5,12 144:21 183:4,5
2000 (1) 80:17 30 (4) 31:7 147:13 163:17
2002 (1) 10:15 176:7
2003 (3) 86:24 87:5 135:4 306 (1) 133:12
2004 (3) 14:14 111:25 31 (3) 71:8 74:10 98:10
112:12 33 (2) 17:23 180:14
20042005 (1) 111:17 35 (1) 18:9

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 7

February 13, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Tuesday, 13 February 2024 1 either reassure yourselves that they’re properly

2 (10.30 am) 2 redacted or unredact them, but I just thought I’d raise
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good morning. 3 that.
4 MR HOUGH: Good morning, my Lord. 4 MR ORR: My Lord, can I deal with that briefly −−
5 Housekeeping 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sure.
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you for the copy of Rosendahl 2, 6 MR ORR: −− because we are obviously looking at that. Our
7 which I read de bene esse. Have you had any discussions 7 position is , but this will be confirmed in an
8 as to how you want to proceed in relation to that? 8 appropriate way, that those redactions are all
9 MR HOUGH: I don’t want to speaking for Mr Gunning, but he 9 consistent with the claims to privilege made over
10 may or may not deploy it. We’ll deploy it in closing , 10 individual sub−folders within either the Bitcoin project
11 given the indication that Lord Grabiner gave, and also 11 folder or the Maths (OLD) project folder.
12 because there are still some outstanding questions about 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
13 the editing history , which still have to be resolved 13 MR ORR: And that is the explanation for that. And so far
14 following the agreement that we indicated yesterday when 14 as I ’m aware, we’ve checked that all of those
15 Dr Wright’s team can take instructions from him. 15 redactions, including row 6, are consistent with
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right. I’ve got a couple of questions. 16 the claims to privilege that have previously been made,
17 First of all , in the Excel spreadsheets, the text 17 but we are looking at all of this in the context of
18 operation field , I ’m assuming that’s limited in size 18 the way the evidence has gone and in the light of
19 because, you know, for example, when I look at row 140, 19 the further analysis conducted by Mr Rosendahl.
20 I can see a lot of text but not the whole text of 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, I’ll leave that in your capable
21 the Bitcoin White Paper. 21 hands, then.
22 MR HOUGH: I think that’s right. I’m looking ... 22 MR HOUGH: My Lord, I should just add, in case it assists,
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I mean, it looks like where there’s 23 that I ’m told that there is a column in the chunks
24 a big block of text there’s an ellipsis , which 24 spreadsheet which indicates where rows have been
25 indicates −− 25 truncated. I hadn’t myself noticed that column. There

1 3

1 MR GUNNING: Yes, I think with the chunks spreadsheet, what 1 are a number of columns.
2 was done was, where the text was longer than 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, okay. Well, I was just looking at
3 the permissible length of the string in Excel, it was 3 AR39 and AR40, but I’ll go back and have a look at
4 put into an appendix. 4 chunks.
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 5 Okay. I understand what you said about your
6 MR GUNNING: So if you look at chunks for the first −− you 6 approach to Rosendahl 2, but I still think that
7 can see where things are being put into it , because 7 Lord Grabiner probably needs the opportunity to discuss
8 there’s an appendix which identifies the text that was 8 it with Dr Wright at some point.
9 put into that chunk. 9 MR HOUGH: Undoubtedly.
10 I think, for the Maths (OLD)_chunks, the position is 10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And he may want, and Dr Wright may want
11 possibly slightly different in the sense that we don’t 11 to make some comments, give some evidence about it, so
12 actually have, because it ’s been redacted, 12 I ’m not going to rule that out.
13 the information that’s gone into it . 13 MR HOUGH: No. Well, we’ve acknowledged in our discussions
14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right. 14 that there is the possibility of Dr Wright having to be
15 MR GUNNING: And so all we see is the editing history and 15 recalled .
16 I don’t recall any rows in that where the limit was 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
17 exceeded. 17 MR HOUGH: We were just concerned not to disrupt his
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 18 evidence at this stage.
19 That leads me to my second question, which may be 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, fine. Okay, thank you. Good.
20 directed at Lord Grabiner, because Mr Rosendahl has 20 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued)
21 questioned some of the redactions and, certainly from my 21 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued)
22 perspective, some of the redactions seem very odd. 22 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, one point to return to from yesterday.
23 I completely understand the triple Z ones, but he points 23 Do you recall that I addressed your insistence that
24 out row 6 as a questionable redaction. Now, I’m sure 24 Bitcoin isn ’ t a cryptocurrency on the basis that Satoshi
25 that you and your legal team will consider those and 25 had described it as such in a well known post of

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 6 July 2010? Do you recall that? 1 that.

2 A. I recall . 2 Q. Satoshi raised it between them and Mr Malmi?
3 Q. And do you recall that I challenged your claim that 3 A. No, Mr Malmi was actually in part of the forum
4 Martti Malmi had written that post by showing an email 4 discussions .
5 from Satoshi saying that they had prepared the post? 5 Q. And then Mr Malmi agreed with the idea in the email
6 A. Prepared isn’t written. 6 we’re looking at on the screen −− in the email we’re
7 Q. And do you recall saying that if you go back to 7 looking at at the moment on screen?
8 Mr Malmi’s earlier emails, it can be seen that he wrote 8 A. And then he wrote the changes to the page, etc.
9 that part of the post? 9 Q. Later, Satoshi wrote the July 2010 post describing it as
10 A. Yes. And I’ ll just correct you, it wasn’t ”they”, 10 a cryptocurrency?
11 there’s only one Satoshi and it’s me. 11 A. No, I prepared the additions there. At that point, you
12 Q. Obviously we disagree about that, but let’s go back to 12 will realise that the cryptocurrency reference had
13 the emails {L5/104/1}. I think this is one of 13 already been put on the page. So at 0.3, that’s way
14 the earlier emails between Satoshi and Mr Malmi to which 14 after the Bitcoin web page, which you can find out by
15 I think you were probably referring . Do you see here 15 checking the Wayback Machine, and also other forums had
16 an email of 11 June 2009? 16 already described it that way. So, when you’re saying
17 A. I do. 17 that this had been created by me, that’s postdating
18 Q. If you go to the middle of the page, Satoshi writes 18 the changes.
19 this , just at the bottom of their email: 19 Q. Can we at least agree on this. Based on these emails,
20 ”Sourceforge is slow right now ...” 20 Satoshi had no problem at all calling Bitcoin
21 Sorry, just above that: 21 a cryptocurrency, despite you saying that that is
22 ”Someone came up with the word ’cryptocurrency’ ... 22 a radically incorrect description?
23 maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin, 23 A. One, I agreed at the time and didn’t have any arguments.
24 do you like it ?” 24 Afterwards, as I ’ve noted, I ’ve basically gone and
25 Do you accept that that’s a genuine email? 25 decided that it ’s the wrong term. I’ve been saying that

5 7

1 A. I do. 1 for some time. Now, cryptocurrency is actually

2 Q. Then {L5/106/1}, please, an email of 12 June 2009, 2 something that’s anonymous. Now, while I haven’t, at
3 a response from Satoshi to Mr Malmi, and they say, 3 the time, gone into that deep enough, I have
4 specifically addressing that suggestion, towards 4 subsequently.
5 the bottom: 5 Q. Moving on and back to the subject I was addressing with
6 ”It sounds good.” 6 you at the end of yesterday. Do you recall I was asking
7 Mr Malmi says, ”It sounds good”: 7 you about the transmission of private keys, or at least
8 ”’The PTP Cryptocurrency’ could be considered as 8 access to private keys?
9 the slogan, even if it ’s a bit more difficult to say 9 A. In which particular part are you talking? There were
10 than ’The Digital P2P Cash’. It still describes 10 multiple areas.
11 the system better and sounds more interesting, I think.” 11 Q. Let’s carry on the story with your evidence from
12 Again, do you accept that’s a genuine email? 12 the Granath proceedings. {O2/11/28}, and internal
13 A. I do. 13 page 107, line 5. Do you recall that you were asked in
14 Q. And were those the emails that you were referring to 14 the Granath proceedings about gaining access to private
15 yesterday when you said you need to look back at 15 keys for use in the signing sessions in early 2016?
16 the earlier emails? 16 A. Yes. What we’re actually talking about here is gaining
17 A. In part, yes. On top of that, there are also 17 access to the drive and where, on the drive, there was
18 communications on SourceForge via direct message, and on 18 an algorithm that could recalculate .
19 top of that in the forums. 19 Q. Line 5, you were asked whether you were unable to access
20 Q. I think you referred to earlier emails yesterday. 20 the private keys from 2011 to ’16, and you see that you
21 A. I did, and I’m saying both that and the others. 21 agreed, yes?
22 Q. So, based on these emails, Satoshi raised the idea of 22 A. That’s correct .
23 calling it a cryptocurrency, we saw in the first of 23 Q. Then from line 12, you say how you did that:
24 those emails just now? 24 ”I put in a number of requests. I had ... people in
25 A. No, actually someone else on the forums had mentioned 25 the corporation sign off on those. I had been issued

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 with a number of key slices to access the file . I had 1 have given you access if you hadn’t already obtained
2 legal advice from Baker & McKenzie ... I accessed 2 enough key slices from other people to give you access?
3 the file to access the algorithm and calculate the first 3 A. Correct. So, more is more.
4 12 addresses.” 4 Q. You didn’t identify then who those other people were,
5 Do you see that? 5 did you?
6 A. I do. 6 A. I did in other cases. I wasn’t asked at this point,
7 Q. Page 29, please, internal page 109 {O2/11/29}, line 9. 7 I don’t believe .
8 As you’ve just said −− well, you’re here describing in 8 Q. Let’s turn to the Kleiman proceedings. Do you recall in
9 the Granath proceedings what happened after the signing 9 those proceedings you gave evidence about the settling
10 sessions , and you agreed that you had destroyed a hard 10 of the Tulip Trust and your use of Shamir schemes?
11 drive , yes? 11 A. Yes. Although I think you’re confusing ”The Trust” and
12 A. That’s correct . 12 Tulip Trust. ”The Trust” used Shamir scheme and
13 Q. And then you said that what was on that hard drive was 13 the Tulip Trust is an actual corporate entity .
14 the first 12 keys, as well as a number of key slices? 14 Q. Let’s see how you described it in your various pieces of
15 A. Not exactly. What I’m trying to explain to people is , 15 evidence in Kleiman.
16 the drive was an encrypted system that was accessed 16 First of all {L14/409/1}, which is your first
17 using an AES key that was collated using the slices . 17 deposition of 4 April 2019; do you see that?
18 The slices were collated at that point. The AES key 18 A. I do.
19 unlocked the drive. When the drive is unlocked, what 19 Q. Page {L14/409/288}, please, you were being asked, at
20 you access is the algorithm that I used as part of 20 line 17, if Ms Nguyen, Uyen Nguyen, ever became
21 Timecoin for mining. That enables recalculating 21 a trustee for you; do you see that?
22 the keys. The keys are homomorphically calculated. 22 A. At which one? 17? Yes.
23 Q. But you’re clear here that what you extracted, by 23 Q. Line 17. And then, line 25, you said:
24 whatever means, were keys to the first 12 blocks on 24 ”What sort of trust are we talking about?”
25 the blockchain associated with Satoshi, right? 25 Yes?

9 11

1 A. Yes, they had been completed and basically recalculated. 1 A. I do.

2 Q. So not the first 11, as you said in paragraph 186 of 2 Q. Next page {L14/409/289}:
3 your witness statement in these proceedings, which I put 3 ”Any.”
4 to you yesterday? 4 And you answer yes. The question is asked:
5 A. My first 12. 5 ”Can you tell me what that trust was about?”
6 Q. Well, I ’m not going to go back to it because I put it to 6 And you answered:
7 you, but you said that you had an encrypted hard drive 7 ”That trust was holding a number of slices of early
8 containing the keys for ” all of the blocks mined by me, 8 Bitcoin keys.”
9 including blocks 1 through 11”, whereas you said in 9 Do you see that?
10 Granath that the keys you had access to were ”the first 10 A. I do.
11 12”. That’s a difference , isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? 11 Q. Then page 290 {L14/409/290}, line 1, you were asked what
12 A. It is . 12 the name of the trust was and you said that the trust
13 Q. Which do you say now is right? 13 was called the Tulip Trust, yes?
14 A. I definitely had 1 to 11. 14 A. Correct.
15 Q. So you were wrong when you said 12 to the court in 15 Q. Then at line 23, you were asked:
16 Granath? 16 ”What assets were controlled by the Tulip Trust in
17 A. Fairly much, yes. I made a mistake. 17 2011?”
18 Q. If we look across the page to internal page 111, 18 Which is when you say it was first settled , yes?
19 line 17, you were asked about how you gained access to 19 A. In the current format, yes.
20 the key slices , which allowed you to access 20 Q. You’d been asked, at line 6, when the trust was created,
21 the algorithm that created the private keys for 21 and you said simply ”2011”?
22 the signing , and do you see, at line 17 −− 22 A. Like I said , it was actually an earlier trust that was
23 A. I do. 23 resettled . So technically it is a different iteration
24 Q. −− you were asked about whether it was Uyen Nguyen who 24 of an earlier trust . So the current one was settled in
25 gave access and you said that key slices from her would 25 2011, but that is taking over from an earlier trust

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 where I’ve added other members. 1 Q. And:

2 Q. At line 23, you were asked: 2 ”Did anyone ever put Bitcoin into the trust?
3 ”What assets were controlled by the Tulip Trust in 3 ”Answer: No.”
4 2011?” 4 Yes?
5 And you responded, do you see: 5 A. That’s correct .
6 ”Companies that I hold overseas, such as 6 Q. And those were questions about Tulip Trust,
7 Wright International Investments ... ” 7 weren’t they?
8 You say you founded in 2009 {L14/409/291}: 8 A. There’s a bit of both. There’s The Trust and there’s
9 ” ... and Tulip Trading.” 9 Tulip Trust and people keep confusing the two. As I’ve
10 A. Correct. 10 noted, the Bitcoin was held by a company, and The Trust
11 Q. Then page {L14/409/292}, please, line 18, you were 11 owned shares. So shares in the company were held by
12 asked: 12 the Tulip Trust. It holds multiple companies, I think
13 ”Was Dave Kleiman ever involved with 13 about 11, not 100% in the majority of them, but it holds
14 the Tulip Trust?” 14 the shares in its sort of shareholding. Those companies
15 You see that? 15 hold a variety of different assets . That includes
16 A. I do. 16 intellectual property, it includes software, it includes
17 Q. And your answer: 17 research and development and it includes Bitcoin.
18 ”Dave Kleiman was not involved in the Tulip Trust as 18 Q. So your evidence now is that Tulip Trust, amongst its
19 it is .” 19 assets , had companies and those companies owned Bitcoin?
20 A. Mm−hm. 20 A. Yes, and being that I don’t own 100% of any of those
21 Q. That’s correct, is it ? 21 companies, I cannot say that the trust owns Bitcoin.
22 A. That is. 22 The trust owning −− if I own a share in News Limited,
23 Q. Page {L14/409/293}, line 13, as part of the same answer, 23 that doesn’t mean I own News House.
24 you said that: 24 Q. {L15/51/1}, please.
25 ”Dave was asked simply to hold a part of some 25 Do you see here a sworn declaration you gave to

13 15

1 documents and keys that were split using Shamir Secret 1 the US court dated 8 May 2009?
2 Sharing scheme so that he did not even know what he was 2 A. I do.
3 actually holding.” 3 Q. Sorry, 2019. The date is on page {L15/51/4}: 2019. You
4 A. Once again, that was The Trust. That was the Shamir 4 see that at the end?
5 system, which was an algorithmic code. 5 A. I do.
6 Q. A Shamir sharing scheme is explained in the reports of 6 Q. {L15/51/1}, paragraph 4, you recorded that you mined
7 the experts and allows, in simple terms, a private key 7 Bitcoin during years 2009 to 2010 directly into a trust ,
8 to be broken into slices so that they can be reassembled 8 the name of which is redacted but was located in Panama,
9 in different combinations to gain access, yes? 9 yes?
10 A. No. The Shamir system I’m talking about is White Paper 10 A. Yes, which is very different to what we were talking
11 222 and 479, as well as other things. We have granted 11 about before. The trust structure was
12 patents on this . The system described by Ms Meiklejohn 12 Information Defense had a trust to Wright International.
13 and others is a radically simpler system. I created new 13 At this point, this is pre−tulip Trust, so when I was
14 forms of threshold systems, including automated ones and 14 asked how I set this up, Information Defense, which is
15 non−interactive methods, and these are very different to 15 a registered −− or was a registered Australian
16 the system she’s describing . 16 Pty Limited company, did the mining and had
17 Q. Let’s carry on with your evidence and see where you go 17 a conditional agreement to basically transfer the assets
18 with it in the Kleiman proceedings. Page {L14/409/294}, 18 into Wright International.
19 line 6, you were asked if you put Bitcoin into the trust 19 Q. {L15/51/2}, paragraph 5:
20 in 2012, and you answered no; do you see that? 20 ”In June ... 2011, I took steps to consolidate
21 A. I do. 21 the Bitcoin that I mined with Bitcoin that I acquired
22 Q. Question: 22 and other assets. In October 2012, a formal trust
23 ”Did you ever put Bitcoin into the trust?” 23 document was executed, creating a trust whose corpus
24 ”Answer: No.” 24 included the Bitcoin that I mined, acquired and would
25 A. Correct. 25 acquire in the future . The name of that trust is

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Tulip Trust. It was formed in the Seychelles. I refer 1 I basically were handed from machines, including third
2 to ... [ it ] as Tulip Trust I .” 2 party ones, employees’, a variety of trust documents.
3 So at that point, you were saying that Tulip Trust 3 I explained to the court that I cannot actually validate
4 was the subject of a formal trust document in 4 these, I have no right to, until after meetings that
5 October 2012 and its corpus of assets included 5 cannot be held before 2020, but I was still ordered,
6 the Bitcoin that you’d mined, acquired and would acquire 6 saying that, ”These are trust documents and you have to
7 in the future , right? 7 accept them”. So, based on the fact that I was unable
8 A. Not in the way that you’re implying. As I noted, 8 to validate anything, I basically said , ”This is what
9 the company, there were two different ones, one where 9 this document says”.
10 I ’d had the purchased Bitcoin, which was Tulip −− well, 10 Q. So based on this document, your evidence previously to
11 Tulip Trading Limited, and the second was 11 the court that David Kleiman had nothing to do, no
12 Wright International. That was the first company that 12 involvement with Tulip Trust, was wrong, because he was
13 was set up in 2009. 13 a trustee?
14 Now, by ”corpus”, what I mean is that includes all 14 A. No, actually I ’ve noted already, you brought this
15 the assets of these companies. At this point, 15 document up earlier last week, this document is false.
16 Wright International was 100% owned by bearer share 16 It actually is three different documents that have been
17 structures and then through the trust. 17 tacked together by somebody, and on top of that it’s
18 Q. So what you say you mean −− you meant in this sworn 18 been altered. As you yourself noted, the signature has
19 declaration is not that the assets of the trust included 19 been applied just by an image.
20 Bitcoin that you mined, acquired and would acquire in 20 Q. Dr Wright, I’m not at the moment talking about the trust
21 the future , but its assets included companies which 21 document. We’ll come back to that in a moment, but just
22 owned such Bitcoin? 22 on the basis of your sworn declaration, you say there
23 A. Effectively , that’s what I used the word ”corpus” for. 23 that ”the trustee was initially David Kleiman” and then
24 I was ordered directly by the court to respond to any 24 ”additional trustees were appointed”. If that is
25 Bitcoin I might have, including through any corporate 25 correct , you were wrong to tell the court previously

17 19

1 structure . Now, including through any corporate 1 that David Kleiman had no involvement with the trust and
2 structure meant that I had to list if there’s a trust in 2 his only connection was holding some key slices which he
3 companies and I’m a beneficiary of those, and they 3 didn’t really understand.
4 explicitly −− the magistrate told me explicitly that any 4 A. No, I was not. As I have already explained, I had no
5 beneficiary agreements need to be included and I did. 5 access to anything and I was only shown documents. At
6 Q. But you didn’t explain in paragraph 5 that these Bitcoin 6 this point in time, I had no reason to sort of not
7 assets which you say that you mined directly into 7 believe any of the documentation, they hadn’t been
8 a trust and then consolidated into another trust were, 8 analysed, and being that the documents came from third
9 by this stage, not owned by you but owned by companies, 9 party laptops, it was only later that we started
10 do you? You don’t say that in the document? 10 analysing them.
11 A. I wasn’t ever asked. But the fact of the matter is , 11 Q. Sorry, I thought you just said about five minutes ago
12 this is a trust . By definition , if a trust is set up 12 that you didn’t have access to trust documents at this
13 and I’m not the trustee, then it ’s not a direct 13 time, at the time you were making this declaration?
14 ownership. So the argument that you’re making is 14 A. No, I didn’t . These actually came from employee
15 confusing how I set these up. 15 laptops. If you sort of check the chain of custody,
16 On top of that, at this point, I had no access to 16 which was listed right back at the beginning in
17 the trust documents or management of the companies or 17 the disclosure platform going back to 2019, you’ll find
18 anything else . I ’ve noted that multiple times. I put 18 out that these came from two employee laptops, the ones
19 the information that I could without being able to 19 that held my wife and my own emails and other areas they
20 verify documentation. 20 weren’t allowed to have access to.
21 Q. Paragraph 7, you identify the trustees for that trust as 21 Q. Dr Wright, which is it? Are you saying that you gave
22 CO1N Limited, with its company number, Uyen Nguyen, 22 this declaration based on your own knowledge without
23 yourself , Dave Kleiman, Panopticrypt, Savanah, and 23 access to trust documents that David Kleiman was
24 the holder of certain PGP key IDs; do you see that? 24 a trustee , or are you saying that you gave this
25 A. I do. This was when I went through documentation and 25 declaration not knowing whether David Kleiman was

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 a trustee but based on access to trust documents? Which 1 but I wasn’t involved in any of the set up, so
2 is it ? 2 the structuring after 2011 didn’t involve me at all .
3 A. It is not a trust document, it’s fabricated . I gave 3 So, I ’ve been answering questions, as I ’ve been noting
4 this based −− 4 the whole time, about a trust where I was a blind
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, can you just focus on 5 beneficiary with no rights to view any documentation.
6 the question. It ’s about the status of Dave Kleiman. 6 Q. So your evidence to this court is that when you said in
7 Was he a trustee or not? 7 the sworn declaration:
8 A. No, he was not, my Lord. 8 ”While the trustee was initially David Kleiman ...”
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So why did you say he was a trustee in 9 And then you set out further trustees , including
10 paragraph 7? 10 Mr Kleiman, what you meant to say was:
11 A. I was handed, by the magistrate in the US, these 11 ”I don’t know who the trustees were, but I’ve been
12 documents and I was told that I had to answer 12 shown a document which I’ve been pressured by the judge
13 the question. I said , ”I don’t actually know”, and he 13 to accept is genuine that gives this information.”
14 said , ”Do you accept this could be a trust document”, 14 Is that your evidence?
15 and I went, ”I don’t know”, and he said, ”Yes or no”, 15 A. No, actually , I got told by my solicitor −− well −−
16 and basically I was under the −− I answer yes or no, and 16 Q. Sorry, please don’t go into anything privileged .
17 I had no idea, and if I didn’t answer I’d be in contempt 17 A. Well, that makes it hard to answer, because my attorneys
18 and my answer was, ”I’m a beneficiary who has no access 18 told me this was a real trust document.
19 to any of the trust deeds, trust documents, I have no 19 Q. I ’m sorry, I ’m doing this with the understanding and
20 knowledge of any of the trustees at this point; I set it 20 I think agreement of the legal teams to stop you waiving
21 up so I couldn’t”, and I was forced to answer that. 21 privilege improperly, Dr Wright. If they and you want
22 I said I had no reason to argue that this wasn’t a valid 22 to provide privileged information, then you can do so.
23 trust document at the time. Some of the signatures, 23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, I’ve just got a second
24 like those from Nobel and Savanah, were people I’d 24 question.
25 worked with in the past, so I answered based on, if this 25 A. Yes, my Lord.

21 23

1 is a real trust document, this is what it would be. 1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: In paragraph 7(c), you nominate yourself
2 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, there is no such qualification in this 2 as a trustee of the Tulip Trust I .
3 sworn declaration to the court. You do not say here, 3 A. Yes, I was listed on that document, which −−
4 ”I do not know who the trustees were, but I have been 4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Just wait for the question.
5 shown a document which I have no particular reason to 5 How could you carry out your obligations as
6 disbelieve which tells me that these people were 6 a trustee without seeing the trust documents?
7 trustees”, do you? 7 A. Because I’m not actually a trustee , my Lord.
8 A. No, later on −− no, later on, what happened was, after 8 The document stated that I was, but that’s −− my
9 we’d had the document analysed, after this, when I had 9 signature’s not on it . I ’ve never signed the document.
10 to put this in at that time, I nearly ended up with 10 So this document was created, I don’t know by whom. It
11 contempt again, because I had an argument in court. 11 was on two staff laptops, ones that also went and sent
12 I stated that this document is not real; it ’s made up of 12 information to Ira . Savanah was a real company,
13 multiple things, that it was put in from third parties . 13 the people there I know; Uyen I know, but I wasn’t
14 And that’s where I started −− they kept saying, ”It must 14 allowed to discuss the trust , based on the provision
15 be real , you’ve already said it is ”, and I threw 15 that I set up in 2011, until at least 2020. So that
16 the document down in court and Magistrate Reinhart said 16 made answering any of this difficult , because I couldn’t
17 if I ever do that again, he’ ll cite me with contempt. 17 go to anyone and say, ”Can you show me the trust
18 Q. Well, let ’s take this in stages. First of all , we don’t 18 document”.
19 accept that that was a document you threw down in court, 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So why did you nominate yourself in
20 but secondly, we established last week that you did 20 paragraph 7(c) as a trustee?
21 attest to the authenticity of a trust document in 21 A. I ’d listed what were on −− so ”trustees for
22 the Kleiman proceedings dated 23 October 2012, didn’t 22 Tulip Trust I are”, and I listed exactly what
23 you? 23 the document said.
24 A. Yes, there was one done at that time. It was done by 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And did you include anywhere in this
25 Diane Pinder of Lloyds solicitors in Brisbane Australia, 25 declaration the qualification that you’ve just

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 mentioned, that you weren’t a trustee? 1 A. Yes.

2 A. Well, I had no idea how I could be. I had told my 2 Q. Moving back to your sworn declaration {L15/51/2} −−
3 attorneys in the US basically that I ’m not allowed to 3 thank you very much −− page 4 {L15/51/4}, paragraph 18,
4 act for the trust or anything, and I don’t actually 4 you refer to settling a further trust , Tulip Trust II ,
5 know. There were multiple trust deeds, many of which 5 in 2014. Is this right , the claims to have placed
6 were conflicting . One of those was actually the real 6 assets in trust in 2011/2012 are separate from
7 deed. I only know which one is the real deed now, 7 Tulip Trust II ?
8 because it ’s post 2020. At the time, I wasn’t able to 8 A. No, no. Basically , this is just the prep for
9 ask anyone. 9 pre−drafting for what ended up in the 2016 document.
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So who created all these multiple trust 10 That’s now with the registered trust number. So, in
11 deeds? 11 2014, that was initiated . At the point when this was
12 A. The first one was Diane Pinder of Lloyds solicitors . 12 done, the majority of members were miners, so it still
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You’re saying she drafted it? 13 needed sign off from a certain number of people, so even
14 A. She drafted a trust , not this document. 14 though I wasn’t involved in all of the details , I signed
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Who was responsible for the making of 15 off on it happening.
16 these multiple trust deeds? 16 Q. Paragraph 22:
17 A. I settled the first one in 2011. After I settled 17 ”Access to the encrypted file that contains
18 the document in 2011, I had no further part in it other 18 the public addresses and their associated private keys
19 than I spoke to Diane about some of the terms that she 19 to the Bitcoin ... I mined, requires myself and
20 needed to clarify when she was redrafting it. I also 20 a combination of trustees referenced in Tulip Trust I to
21 put people in touch with Bakers and was in some −− like, 21 unlock based on a Shamir scheme.”
22 engaged in communications with them as the new trust 22 Now, you seem here to be referring to the same
23 deeds were structured in 2016. But I didn’t actually 23 encrypted file or drive described in your witness
24 maintain −− or didn’t get a copy of the deed. 24 statement that we looked at yesterday, paragraph 141; is
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And who was responsible for the new 25 that right?

25 27

1 trust deeds in 2016? 1 A. No, because that document’s wrong. There wasn’t
2 A. As in managing them, holding them ...? 2 anything properly documented for what is Tulip Trust I,
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, who initiated those? 3 but a document was created. That document is one of
4 A. My wife. 4 the ones that you’ ll note have metadata problems.
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you. 5 Q. Were you referring in your declaration , when you
6 MR HOUGH: {L8/17/1}, please. We’re going back to 6 referred to an encrypted file , an encrypted file which
7 the declaration in a moment. This is a document we 7 included the key slices giving access to the algorithm,
8 looked at last week. Do you recognise it? 8 giving access to the early keys to blocks 1 to 11 or 1
9 A. I do. 9 to 12?
10 Q. It ’s from the Kleiman proceedings. It’s a deed of trust 10 A. The encrypted file was accessed when you use an AES key.
11 between Wright International Investments and 11 The AES key was reconstructed using key slices.
12 Tulip Trading, dated 23 October 2012, reference 12 Q. But is the encrypted file that we’re talking about in
13 C00000560. 13 your witness statement for these proceedings and this
14 Page 5, please {L8/17/5}, we looked at this earlier . 14 sworn declaration the same one?
15 Do you see that that records the list of trustees which 15 A. That encrypted file is , yes.
16 appeared in your declaration, essentially ? 16 Q. {L15/131/1}, please, following the chain of events
17 A. I do. I also note, on the first page, that it says it ’s 17 through the Kleiman proceedings, your deposition of
18 for a joint endeavour and partnership. Now, that’s what 18 June 2019, and page 23 {L15/131/23}, you see, at
19 I was being sued for as part of the Kleiman proceedings. 19 line 10, that in your deposition of June 2019, your
20 In that, I noted that I ’ve never been a partner and 20 lawyer −− your own lawyer asked you what prevented you
21 I wouldn’t ever be a partner. I ’m a shareholder in many 21 from giving a list of addresses for your Bitcoin
22 things, but I don’t engage in partnerships. 22 holdings to the court; do you recall that?
23 Q. Was this the document which you say you were shown which 23 A. I do.
24 led you to make the declaration which you now say was so 24 Q. And you answered, line 14:
25 significantly wrong? 25 ”The Bitcoin that was mined at the time was done as

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 a series of derivative keys. The way this worked was 1 that correct , and you said:
2 the Genesis key was added to a hash chain. The hash 2 ”In part, yes.”
3 chain is basically a hash of values that an index using 3 Do you see that?
4 a HMAC ... form of function multiplied by the curve 4 A. I do.
5 generated G. There is a separate secret for the Genesis 5 Q. He puts to you, at line 24:
6 key and for the access chain. The access chain acts as 6 ”And that means that there is a minimum amount of
7 an index for each of these keys. This allows separation 7 key slices that are required to access the encrypted
8 of mapping where the keys were generated and spending.” 8 file ... ”
9 Is that evidence you gave? 9 A. Mm−hm.
10 A. Yes, but I think you’re misreading what I mean by 10 Q. ” ... is that correct?”
11 ”Genesis”. 11 A. Yes.
12 Q. At the moment, I’m just asking you if you said it . 12 Q. You said {L15/131/107}:
13 A. Yes. 13 ”There are separate slices for each part of
14 Q. And then you went on to say: 14 the file . So there’s not one set of Shamir keys.”
15 ”The access to gain knowledge of what was put in 15 Yes?
16 the access chain and to be able to generate those keys 16 A. Correct.
17 was given to Dave to distribute ... ” 17 Q. And then you went on to say, didn’t you, from line 7,
18 Pausing there, that’s Dave Kleiman, is it? 18 that there were multiple files , each accessible with
19 A. Yes. 19 a different Shamir scheme, each with different
20 Q. ” ... so that I wouldn’t be in trouble ... ” 20 combinations?
21 A. That’s correct . 21 A. Correct.
22 Q. {L15/131/24}: 22 Q. At line 12, you said:
23 ” ... was set so that after a period, in January of 23 ”So there is one for the Genesis block, there is one
24 next year, a bonded courier is meant to return key 24 for a first −level file , and there is one for other
25 slices .” 25 files .”

29 31

1 Correct? 1 Yes?
2 A. That’s what he was meant to set up, yes. 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And then, at line 3, you were asked: 3 Q. And then you said that there were four or five different
4 ”So the manner in which it was set up with 4 versions of key, yes?
5 Dave Kleiman potentially allows for the fragmented keys 5 A. That’s correct .
6 to come to you so that you can decrypt the file and 6 Q. Line 20, further down the page, you were asked:
7 obtain a list of the public addresses; is that right?” 7 ” ... which one do we need access to to recreate
8 And you confirmed that, yes? 8 the list of Bitcoin you’ve mined?”
9 A. Yeah, it ’s a bit more complex than that, but, yes, 9 Then the answer this:
10 accessing the file would allow me to reconstruct all of 10 ”There’s not really a number. But one of these is
11 those. 11 an eight of 15 scheme, where I have some keys, Denis has
12 Q. So is it right that the access to the encrypted file was 12 some keys, and other people have keys. Dave had keys,
13 going to come either from Mr Kleiman during his life or 13 and he was told to arrange to have them stored with
14 through the bonded courier arrangement? 14 [a] bonded courier. He could have had some of them
15 A. It was meant to actually either be he hands it back if 15 written down at home, and it’s possible that he had some
16 everything was closed or, alternatively , some structure 16 on his hard drives .”
17 where it’s sent to me. Neither actually happened. He 17 And you confirmed that that was an eight of
18 died before anything could be implemented, I guess. 18 15 scheme, yes?
19 Q. Page 106, please {L15/131/106}. You were now being 19 A. I did.
20 cross−examined by Mr Freedman for Ira Kleiman. Do you 20 Q. Then page 113, please {L15/131/113}, line 8, you were
21 see at line 17, he asks you about the difficulties 21 asked about a Bitmessage from Mr Kleiman to you of
22 giving you access to the trust ; do you see that? 22 6 November 2012, referring to 15 key segments divided by
23 A. Yes. 23 12; do you see that?
24 Q. And he asks whether the technical solution is based on 24 A. I do.
25 the Shamir Secret Sharing Scheme and you were asked is 25 Q. At line 17, he says that specifically .

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Then over the page {L15/131/114} to page 114. At 1 based from the Genesis first .
2 line 2, you said: 2 Q. Page −−
3 ” ... there were different Shamir secret schemes. 3 A. So the key isn ’ t a public/private key scheme, it’s
4 There were four of them all up. This is one of them.” 4 a symmetric key scheme.
5 Yes? 5 Q. Page {L15/131/122}. Mr Freedman, from line 8, puts to
6 A. Mm−hm. Yes. 6 you an email which was from you to Robert MacGregor of
7 Q. Line 6, you said that: 7 18 April 2016. Do you see that −−
8 ”The eight of 15 is the key that we’re talking about 8 A. I do.
9 to regenerate all of the addresses.” 9 Q. −− from line 20.
10 Yes? 10 And the email said, as is pointed out at line 10,
11 A. Mm−hm. 11 that there were 15 key slices , the distribution listed
12 Q. And then at line 8, you said that the scheme that was 12 above, and that eight −− any eight slices were required
13 being discussed in the Bitmessage concerns the Genesis 13 to reconstruct the main file , yes?
14 key, yes? 14 A. That’s correct .
15 A. Correct. 15 Q. You reply, don’t you, at line 24, that what’s being
16 Q. Then, from line 20, Mr Freedman took you to a part of 16 discussed in the email from you to Mr MacGregor of
17 the document referring to the 15 key segments and 17 18 April 2016 is something different from the scheme
18 the threshold of 12, yes? 18 giving access to the list of addresses, right?
19 A. Mm−hm. 19 A. Yes. Like I ’d said earlier , there are actually multiple
20 Q. Then over the page {L15/131/115}, there is 20 different schemes.
21 a disagreement about the interpretation of 21 Q. Then you say:
22 the Bitmessage; do you recall that? 22 ”This is to do with the access to the first 10
23 A. I do. 23 Bitcoin addresses, not the other.”
24 Q. And line 15, Mr Freedman asked: 24 Yes?
25 ”What were you going to do to the blockchain with 25 A. That’s correct .

33 35

1 the Genesis block, Dr Wright?” 1 Q. Pausing there, so we have 11 Bitcoin addresses in these
2 Yes? 2 proceedings, 12 in Granath and 10 in Kleiman, right?
3 A. Mm−hm. 3 A. No. This is not talking about any difference from
4 Q. Your answer is: 4 the other, this is a particular access that we were
5 ”Again, you’re confounding two different things. 5 talking about in that particular file .
6 There’s a loan of Bitcoin held on a separate 6 Q. Well, we’ ll look at the email to Mr MacGregor later, but
7 organisation and the key controlling the Genesis key. 7 I suggest to you that what’s being discussed there is
8 They’re not the same thing.” 8 precisely access for the purpose −− to keys for
9 A. That’s correct . 9 the purpose of the signing sessions and that you are
10 Q. Now, you refer repeatedly there to a key in association 10 there speaking about only 10 Bitcoin −− early Bitcoin
11 with the Genesis Block. Was that the private or public 11 addresses being accessible .
12 key for the Genesis Block that you were referring to? 12 A. No, that was a different file . As I noted, there were
13 A. Neither. Earlier I mentioned a HMAC scheme. Now, when 13 an eight of 15, a 12 of 15 and other different accesses
14 I was talking about that, a HMAC is a combination of 14 to the files .
15 a secret and a −− basically a hash algorithm. Now, in 15 Q. But the one that addressed the early Bitcoin addresses
16 this , the HMAC used a key that was generated using what 16 concerned 10, not 11 or 12, didn’t it ?
17 I call a ”number 42 process”. That is a type of 17 A. No. As I noted, what I needed to do was access
18 ECDH exchange. Now, while there is no private key to 18 the algorithm and rebuild. That allows for a complete
19 the Genesis Block, what can happen is, a public key and 19 rebuild . What this was was a wallet file that was
20 the Genesis Block can calculate a shared secret in 20 encrypted with those 10 in it , so they’re two separate
21 a standard ECDH methodology. That is Genesis buy 21 things. Whilst the first 10 are part of the first 11,
22 private key, gives you a secret ; that secret is then 22 when I accessed the first 11, I necessarily had those.
23 used as part of the generating string that allows you to 23 Q. That’s yet another explanation that hasn’t been provided
24 create all of the other keys that I have in the list . 24 earlier that’s an excuse given on the fly for an obvious
25 So the algorithm that I ’m talking about of a HMAC is 25 difference , isn ’ t it , Dr Wright?

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 A. No, I stated categorically that there were multiple 1 holdings unless a bonded courier was to arrive in
2 Shamir schemes. 2 January 2020, didn’t you?
3 Q. We’re not disputing that you said that. In fact , if we 3 A. No, I couldn’t get access to the key slices . Accessing
4 go over to page {L15/131/123}, you’re specific about it. 4 digital assets −− Bitcoin’s not encrypted, so the error
5 So you confirmed, didn’t you, at lines 8 to 11, that 5 in that is you can always recover Bitcoin, only in large
6 there was an eight of 15 scheme: 6 amounts, though, it doesn’t make any sense for
7 ” ... without any order to access blocks 1 through 7 micropayments.
8 10 ... ” 8 Q. Dr Wright, you were asked by the court what would happen
9 And you confirmed that, didn’t you? 9 if the mysterious bonded courier didn’t arrive and you
10 A. I did. 10 didn’t get access to these piles of gold, and you
11 Q. And then, question 12, you were asked: 11 replied that you’d just have to work harder, didn’t you?
12 ”You require 12 of 15 to access the Genesis Block.” 12 A. Well, effectively , it ’s not my assets, they’re trust
13 And you confirmed that and that there was an order 13 assets , and companies’, so people kept asking about my
14 requirement, yes? 14 Bitcoin, but I keep saying it ’s not my Bitcoin.
15 A. Yes, that’s the part where I’m talking about the sort of 15 Q. You made arrangements, didn’t you, Dr Wright, to put
16 HMAC key scheme to generate anything. 16 Bitcoin worth a great deal of money beyond your control
17 Q. Third, eight of 15 to give access to the means of 17 in circumstances where, on your account to the court in
18 recalculating addresses after those early blocks 1 to 10 18 Kleiman, you could only access it either with the help
19 addresses, yes? 19 of Mr Kleiman, or if he was to die or become ill,
20 A. Yes, technically it ’s not just that, it would be 20 through some mysterious bonded courier arrangement that
21 the full one from block 1 on and it would include −− 21 he was supposed to arrange. That was your story in
22 Q. Of course, that was the one −− well, that’s not what you 22 Kleiman, wasn’t it?
23 said there, is it , Dr Wright? 23 A. No. Once again, you’re conflating today’s price of BTC
24 A. It is . I ’m just not explaining well . I ’m sorry if you 24 with Bitcoin. Now, when this was initiated in
25 don’t understand when I’ve said ”after that”, I also 25 the beginning of 2011, Bitcoin wasn’t worth even

37 39

1 mean the first 10. 1 a dollar . So, this was when I had debts of several
2 Q. ”And you require eight of 15 to access the addresses 2 million dollars , the intellectual property was what
3 after 10, blocks 1 through 10?” 3 I cared about. That intellectual property is now
4 You confirmed that, didn’t you, without 4 already 1,000 granted patents, 4,000 the others, so
5 qualification ?: 5 that’s valuable. The average price of a patented
6 ”The seeds that allow me to recalculate those 6 invention in this industry at the moment is, I think,
7 addresses.” 7 £800,000. So −−
8 A. Yeah, the seeds. 8 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to pause you there, because you’ve
9 Q. And then there was a fourth, giving access to files and 9 gone well beyond answering my question.
10 intellectual property, which you described? 10 A. I haven’t, actually , yet.
11 A. Yes. 11 Q. Dr Wright, please, next question.
12 Q. Now, we can take that off screen. 12 Even on your own evidence, you were putting a sum of
13 In the Kleiman proceedings generally, you told 13 Bitcoin, which you say at $1 a Bitcoin was $1 million,
14 the court that access to your principal Bitcoin holdings 14 you say beyond your reach and only accessible either
15 couldn’t be gained without obtaining key slices which 15 through Mr Kleiman or, if something happened to him,
16 were held by Dave Kleiman; correct? 16 through a mysterious bonded courier arrangement which he
17 A. He was one of the parties. There were other parties as 17 had to arrange. That was your evidence to the court in
18 well . 18 the Kleiman proceedings, wasn’t it?
19 Q. And those Bitcoin holdings were said to be in the region 19 A. My Lord, if I can finish . When I set this up, Bitcoin
20 of 1 million Bitcoin, weren’t they? 20 was worth around 30 cents.
21 A. I don’t know the exact amount, but somewhere up there. 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can you just concentrate on
22 Q. They’re worth about £30 billion today, give or take? 22 the arrangement that you set up −−
23 A. Couldn’t tell you. 23 A. I am, my Lord.
24 Q. And you told the court, didn’t you, that since 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− that you described to the court in
25 Mr Kleiman had died, you could not get access to those 25 Kleiman.

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 A. I am. That’s what I’m trying to do. 1 information.

2 What I set up was an arrangement for the companies. 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
3 The companies owned intellectual property. I wasn’t 3 MR HOUGH: L12 −− ah, I see the time. My Lord, might that
4 caring about the Bitcoin per se, I was caring about the 4 be a convenient moment for a break?
5 IP. The IP is the thing I care more about than 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
6 anything. The intellectual property, at that point, was 6 Dr Wright, we’ll take five minutes.
7 still valuable; it is now. The intellectual property 7 A. Thank you, my Lord.
8 must be valuable, because BTC Core have integrated 8 (11.30 am)
9 granted patents that I ’ve created into BTC. If they’re 9 (A short break)
10 not valuable, they wouldn’t. 10 (11.41 am)
11 Now, what I was doing was making sure that that 11 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, one point arising from your evidence
12 intellectual property would be protected, more than 12 just now. You told us that you made arrangements in
13 anything else , all of my ideas, all of my research, 13 2011, or perhaps 2012, to settle various assets on trust
14 everything, so what I cared about was locking that away. 14 to protect them in the event of your bankruptcy,
15 The cost of Bitcoin at the time, all of it together 15 including intellectual property rights , yes?
16 would probably be worth £150,000. My legal fees, in 16 A. Yes.
17 costs , associated with it were at least 20 times that. 17 Q. What specific intellectual property rights did you
18 So I wasn’t thinking about the Bitcoin per se, my Lord, 18 settle as trust assets at that time?
19 I was thinking about the intellectual property and how 19 A. Information Defense transferred rights into
20 do I stop all of this being taken. How do I stop 20 Wright International; Wright International held −− well,
21 Christopher McArdle, who was trying to bankrupt me? How 21 held the things that you talk about, database rights and
22 do I stop the ATO, who were trying to bankrupt me? If 22 copyright, but the main areas were OIs, original idea
23 I got bankrupted, I would lose that IP. That would be 23 papers. At that point, there were probably, I think,
24 losing my life ’s work. 24 1,200 ideas, like paper−type ideas that I’d created.
25 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, as the court in Kleiman said, as 25 Those involved cryptographic techniques, freight

41 43

1 Judge Reinhart, in Kleiman, said, it is inconceivable 1 systems, all sorts of things. Even −−
2 you put this sum beyond your reach in the way that you 2 Q. Do you say any of those were the subject of patents at
3 have described and under the bizarre arrangements you 3 that time?
4 have described, whether it was 30 billion , 1 million , or 4 A. Only one.
5 as you have dropped to now, hundreds of thousands of 5 Q. Which one was that?
6 pounds. Inconceivable. 6 A. One with Mr Wilson.
7 A. I said £150,000, and it was not inconceivable at all , it 7 Q. What was the nature of it?
8 was very conceivable. I was going through a divorce, 8 A. It ’s a distributed threshold system for a cryptographic
9 I basically gave up property rights, etc, to keep 9 vault .
10 the intellectual property, the Bitcoin was a rounding 10 Q. When do you say that was patented?
11 error in all of this . 11 A. The initial filings went off to the attorneys in 2010,
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can we just be clear. You were putting 12 the patent was lodged in 2011. I don’t know when it was
13 these assets beyond reach. Was it under the arrangement 13 granted.
14 that counsel put to you, those assets could only be 14 Q. {L12/203/1}, please.
15 recovered with the assistance of Dave Kleiman or 15 I said I would refer to the email exchange that you
16 the arrival of the bonded courier in 2020? 16 had with Mr MacGregor that was discussed in Kleiman.
17 A. Not fully . There were two areas. The ownership of 17 May we go to page 2 {L12/203/2} to see his email. We
18 the assets , yes. But the intellectual property, all my 18 see here an email from Mr MacGregor dated 17 April 2016,
19 notes were on the drives, but everything was still in my 19 about which you were asked in the Kleiman proceedings.
20 head, my Lord. So, no one can force me to write down 20 Do you accept this is a genuine email?
21 something in a patent. If it ’s locked and they can’t 21 A. Possibly . There’s modified versions of it .
22 access it , then they can’t access it . So, my belief, at 22 Q. There are indeed, but this one, dated 17 April 2016, do
23 the time at least , was that the worst case would be 23 you accept that as genuine?
24 I get bankrupted, and then in 2020, when I’m out of 24 A. I can’t tell by its face, I ’m sorry.
25 bankruptcy, I basically come out and patent all my 25 Q. Do we see that he explains, at least on the basis that

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 this email is genuine, he explains that he has been 1 your direct control , namely Denis Mayaka.
2 working through the consents needed from trustees, and 2 A. Yes.
3 do you recall him communicating with you about consents 3 Q. Is that something you told to Mr MacGregor, again,
4 required from trustees to gain access to private keys 4 whether or not the email is correct?
5 for use in the signing sessions? 5 A. Yes, I responded about the slices I ’d need.
6 A. I do. 6 Q. And this has you saying that you and Ramona could sign
7 Q. And he refers to a trust document which he says he’s 7 for C01N and Panopticrypt and that you had already
8 reviewed in detail and he gives an interpretation . Do 8 demonstrated access it to blocks 1 and 8. Is that
9 you see he refers to Wright International Investment and 9 something you recall having said to Mr MacGregor in one
10 Tulip Trading as intended beneficiaries ? 10 way or another in April 2016?
11 A. Which line are we looking at, sorry? 11 A. That’s not blocks 1 and 8, that’s key slices .
12 Q. Sorry, this is : 12 Q. I see. Do you recall having said that to him in
13 ”My interpretation is as follows ... 13 April 2016?
14 ”WIIL and Tulip Trading are the intended 14 A. Something along those lines, yes.
15 beneficiaries ... ” 15 Q. Further down the page, the key distribution is set out
16 Yes? 16 for the 7 trustees as follows .
17 A. That’s what Robert has put down, yes. 17 In this version of the document, which is
18 Q. Then ”seven trustees”. And if we go through them, C01N, 18 {L12/203/1}, ID_002639, do you think that that key
19 yourself , Uyen Nguyen, David Kleiman −− page 3 19 distribution is correct?
20 {L12/203/3}, please, sorry −− Panopticrypt, Savannah, 20 A. I listed what I had from a spreadsheet.
21 and whoever holds three identified PGP key IDs. 21 Q. Do you still have that spreadsheet?
22 First of all , do you recall Mr MacGregor 22 A. I don’t know. It ’s probably in the discovery platform.
23 communicating with you in those terms in principle about 23 Q. I ’ ll be corrected if I ’m wrong, but I don’t think that
24 there being seven trustees? 24 we have had it, but in any event, we see here that
25 A. I do. 25 Mr Kleiman is said to have had 7, 9, 13 and 14 of

45 47

1 Q. Now, the seven trustees there appear to correspond to 1 the key slices , yes?
2 those on page 5 of the 23 October 2012 trust deed that 2 A. Yes.
3 we were looking at before the break, which you said was 3 Q. And then that any eight of the 15 slices could be used
4 not an authentic document? 4 to reconstruct the main key files , yes?
5 A. That’s correct . 5 A. Yes, for the algorithm, that’s correct .
6 Q. Is that the document you think Mr MacGregor had and from 6 Q. Is that correct? Is that something you said to
7 which he was working? 7 Mr MacGregor?
8 A. I don’t actually know. 8 A. I ’d copied that out of the spreadsheet that I had.
9 Q. It certainly appears to have the same content in terms 9 The spreadsheet will be in there, but I ’m not sure how
10 of what he says about beneficiaries and trustees, 10 you would search it. It basically uses colour−coded
11 doesn’t it ? 11 fields in an Excel spreadsheet to work out what blocks
12 A. It does. 12 are where.
13 Q. And he refers, on the previous page {L12/203/2}, to him 13 Q. You said, again on the basis of the email, that you had
14 having interpreted a specific trust document, so it was 14 originally had control of seven of the eight slices
15 clearly something that looked like a trust document that 15 required to give access to the main key files and that
16 he’d reviewed? 16 you had, by this time, April 2016, acquired a total of
17 A. I didn’t see what he reviewed, so I can’t answer. 17 nine, yes?
18 Q. And he asks, on page 3 {L12/203/3}, if this email is 18 A. That’s correct .
19 correct , he asks you for clarification about how many 19 Q. Now, please, {L13/447/1}. This is ID_002629. Do we see
20 slices were issued to each trustee. Do you recall him 20 this is a similar email in at least its form, but with
21 asking that question of you, whether or not you accept 21 no sender and dated 16 May 2016?
22 the email is right? 22 A. I do.
23 A. I do. 23 Q. And do we see that now, rather than having key slices 7,
24 Q. If we go to page 1 {L12/203/1}, the email, if right, has 24 9, 13 and 14, Mr Kleiman is said to have 1, 7, 13 and
25 you saying that you needed one formal consent outside of 25 15?

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 A. I do. 1 more, I wasn’t going to tell him.

2 Q. And there are other details that are also different ? 2 Q. Well, you gave him the information he requested in terms
3 A. Correct. 3 of key allocation , didn’t you?
4 Q. By my count −− and others can correct me if I’m wrong −− 4 A. I gave what was necessary for the exercise I agreed to
5 there are five other versions of this email, all dated 5 be part of and no more.
6 16 May 2016, same header and time, but all with slightly 6 Q. But you didn’t say in the course of that, ”You’re
7 different content, including the allocation of key 7 referring to this trust document, I have no knowledge of
8 slices ; are you aware of that? 8 that, I certainly don’t know how you got it”, did you?
9 A. I knew there was at least one sort of fake one, but 9 A. I wasn’t going to talk to him about anything at all.
10 I didn’t know there were five. 10 Already by this point I didn’t trust Mr MacGregor, so
11 Q. For the lawyers, they’re ID_002624 to 002628. I don’t 11 the relationship was already starting to fray . I wasn’t
12 plan to go through all of them with you, Dr Wright. 12 going to go into anything more than I’d already agreed.
13 Were you aware of why there were so many different 13 Q. So you told Mr MacGregor in 2016 that to gain access to
14 versions of this email? 14 the private keys relating to the early blocks, you
15 A. Some of −− at least one of the emails ended up on 15 needed key slices from the trustees whom he had
16 a staff laptop. How it got there, I don’t know. 16 identified by reference to that trust deed; correct?
17 Probably because Ramona’s email was being accessed by 17 A. No, I responded. I used an Excel spreadsheet that I had
18 a staff member, or ex−staff member. 18 and responded based on what was in the Excel
19 Q. Dr Wright, why do you say it would assist some 19 spreadsheet.
20 disgruntled staff member to adjust the numbers of key 20 Q. In the Kleiman proceedings you told a story which was
21 slices in the allocation in this email and date it to 21 similar in some respects while attesting to the accuracy
22 a later point? 22 of the trust deed dated 23 October 2012, didn’t you?
23 A. Why exactly, I don’t know. I mean, I know people were 23 A. No, I actually said about the key slices . What I didn’t
24 working with Mr Kleiman and I know that people wanted my 24 know was the accuracy of that document at the time. At
25 companies to go into liquidation . More than that, 25 the time, I had no reason to question it or anything

49 51

1 I can’t answer. 1 like that, because I wasn’t involved in that process.

2 Q. It would be an odd thing to do to achieve that result, 2 Q. In Granath, you took a different line again, denying
3 wouldn’t it? It ’s not very obvious why adjusting 3 that Uyen Nguyen and Dave Kleiman had been trustees and
4 the key allocation in this email would have that effect? 4 then rejecting the trust deed dated 23 October 2012.
5 A. Now you’re asking about analysing someone else’s mind. 5 A. As I noted, the trust deed there was actually not real .
6 I ’m autistic . I can do my own, but I can’t −− I can’t 6 On top of that, while I had no knowledge of who
7 tell you what my wife’s thinking, so let alone someone 7 the trustees were at the beginning, what I said were
8 randomly. 8 they were people who held key slices, they weren’t
9 Q. We can take that off screen now. 9 trustees of the Tulip Trust. They’re separate things.
10 So, in 2016, whichever version of the email is 10 Q. Dr Wright, the reality is that the Tulip Trust is
11 correct , and I think probably the first one, you were 11 a fiction , originally invented for the ATO
12 telling Mr MacGregor that access to the key slices to 12 investigations , isn ’ t it ?
13 provide access to the private keys was through precisely 13 A. No, actually it goes much further back than that. It
14 the arrangement set out on that trust document, weren’t 14 was originally invented to hold the shares of
15 you? 15 the company I’d listed through a back door listing ,
16 A. No, I was saying it was in ”the trust”, as in 16 which was DeMorgan, back in the 1990s. That was
17 a cryptographic trust structure . I didn’t respond to 17 originally structured as WDI, it had the domain WDI.org,
18 any of these comments about the trust or beneficiaries 18 and it was then transferred into a variety of like
19 or anything like this , I only talked about the keys. 19 Craig Wright R&D, etc, entities that acted as a trust
20 Q. But he was saying, ”I’ve got a trust document, it gives 20 until that point.
21 me this information”, and you didn’t respond by saying, 21 Q. And you repurposed the story when you came to
22 ”Well, I have no knowledge of this trust document”, did 22 the Kleiman litigation and needed to explain away not
23 you? 23 having access to the Bitcoin addresses, at least at
24 A. I didn’t answer. It wasn’t my place to and I wasn’t 24 first , yes?
25 going to. He was fishing for information, he wanted 25 A. No, exactly the opposite. Not having access and not

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 being Satoshi would have ended that case really, really 1 {O4/23/4}, by letter A, when being asked about giving
2 quickly . It would have saved me tens of millions of US 2 proofs, you said this :
3 dollars and a lot of grief , so ... 3 ”I ’m not going to jump through everyone’s fucking
4 Q. No, Dr Wright, denying you were Satoshi in the context 4 hoops. Bullshit from Maxwell that we’ve had to pay
5 of the Kleiman litigation would only have devastated 5 money to get bloody disproven because the code’s fucking
6 your credibility further , because you had committed by 6 out there. I ’m not doing this every fucking time. I ’m
7 that stage to being Satoshi, right? 7 not going to cite (?) ... ”
8 A. No, actually , I hadn’t. I had not mentioned again. 8 And I think that’s ”sign”:
9 I didn’t talk about it at all . It was my being asked in 9 ” ... every fucking key I own in the world. I ’ve got
10 the Kleiman thing under oath and then being forced that 10 the first fucking nine keys, I ’ve got the fucking
11 brought that out. That then led to some of your clients 11 genesis bloody block, I ’ve got the fucking code, I ’ve
12 de−listing Bitcoin, BSV, because I wouldn’t go back and 12 got the fucking papers ... ”
13 retract . CZ from Binance came out and publicly said no 13 And so on.
14 more of this −− 14 You were suggesting there, weren’t you, that you had
15 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to stop you there because you’re 15 the means to establish proof of control of
16 a long way away from my question. 16 the Genesis Block, weren’t you?
17 You made your claim to be Satoshi in mid−2016, if 17 A. No. While I was a little bit angry at this point and −−
18 not earlier , you gave your evidence in Kleiman 18 very angry, what I was stating is what I’ve said before.
19 materially after that. If you had denied being Satoshi 19 The anchor is part of a hash chain. The generation of,
20 in the Kleiman proceedings, you would have been publicly 20 like , ECDH key values for a HMAC system allows
21 confessing to being a liar in a very public big reveal , 21 the Genesis Block to be the anchor in that system. So
22 wouldn’t you? 22 you need to choose something when you have, like,
23 A. Not really . I could have said it was all sorts of other 23 the start of a hash chain. So, for my own key
24 things. I could have said I ’ve lost the keys, I could 24 structures , I also chose the Genesis Block. So
25 have lied . If I did lie in the court case, I could have 25 the genesis key here is a symmetric value, not

53 55

1 ended it very quickly . Now, what I am saying, though, 1 controlling the blockchain itself .
2 is I didn’t want to come out in 2016, I didn’t want to 2 Q. There is a public key associated with the Genesis Block,
3 reveal anything, and I didn’t want to later . Between 3 isn ’ t there?
4 2016 and when I was forced in court to answer 4 A. No, there’s a number that people attribute to being
5 the question under oath, I hadn’t said anything more, 5 a public key. That doesn’t make it a public key. I ’ve
6 I hadn’t built anything requiring that I was and 6 explained in my blogs, which you have in the book there,
7 I hadn’t discussed it at all . 7 how you can actually generate a public, like , what looks
8 Q. Having repurposed the story for that end in 8 like a public key that has no private key.
9 the Kleiman litigation , you then repurposed it again 9 Q. The cryptocurrency technology experts in this case are
10 when seeking to explain difficulties in gaining access 10 agreed, let me put this to you, that there is a public
11 to private keys associated with Satoshi, didn’t you? 11 key which was used in the Coinbase transaction with
12 A. Not at all . 12 the Genesis Block. Do you agree with their evidence in
13 Q. Moving back to the Genesis Block, {E/1/21}, please, on 13 that regard?
14 screen, paragraph 107. You stated in your witness 14 A. No. Neither are cryptographers. I mean,
15 statement for these proceedings: 15 Ms Meiklejohn −−
16 ”Contrary to popular misconception, no public or 16 Q. Professor Meiklejohn.
17 private key is associated with the Genesis Block.” 17 A. Professor Meiklejohn studies sociology and socio, sort
18 Correct? 18 of, legal aspects of Bitcoin, etc. Dr Gao looks at
19 A. That is correct . 19 other aspects of scalability and Bitcoin. Neither have
20 Q. You confirmed to me yesterday that there was no 20 studied cryptography in any real depth. What I will
21 cryptographic means of establishing control of or 21 note is , saying that something is a string of numbers
22 association with the Genesis Block, right? 22 doesn’t make it a key. Now, while you can take any
23 A. That’s correct . 23 string of numbers and say that it is a key, that doesn’t
24 Q. {O4/23/1}, please. This is a transcript of an interview 24 mean that you can actually get a private key from it .
25 you gave to GQ in April 2016, I think. On page 4 25 Q. Well, I put it to you again, there is a public key

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 associated with the Genesis Block used in the Coinbase 1 on the material given between 2009 and 10. The private
2 transaction and the real Satoshi would not have made 2 ruling followed all of the stuff in the tribunal and
3 the mistake of saying that there is no public key 3 the audits . So, no, in 2013, there was nothing to do
4 associated with the Genesis Block. 4 with mining.
5 A. Firstly , I am the real Satoshi. And, secondly, I ’ ll 5 Q. I ’m not going to bother taking to you this, Dr Wright,
6 give you an example. I wrote about WormHole. WormHole 6 but let me put it to you, the private ruling was based
7 was a system to burn Bitcoin. In it , the addressing 7 on a set of assumed facts rather than upon findings.
8 structure created hashes that linked to unknown keys. 8 A. No, I’d actually spent audit time and in court
9 Now, in doing that, what they were saying is, ”We can 9 extensively being audited from 2009 to 2012. Then I was
10 create something that is proveably not spendable”. By 10 in court and dealing with all of this in detail between
11 doing this , if I , for instance, pick a key, AAAAAA no 11 2011 and 2013. So all of the information was based on
12 key type thing, and just say, ”This is my key”, the −− 12 what was given in court from 2009 on. All of that
13 even just randomly picking those numbers, like a string 13 material was initially handed over in 2009.
14 of all As, would be such that it is incredibly unlikely 14 Q. Well, I ’ve made my point about the private ruling. I’m
15 that a private key exists for it , or that someone knows 15 going to discuss your corporate tax claim for
16 it , that they calculated something where all the letters 16 the 2012/2013−year, and would you accept that your
17 are A. 17 company C01N, formally known as Strasan, made tax
18 Now, you can proveably do that at the same time. 18 reclaims for the 2012/13−year?
19 I did the proveable way. But it would even be possible 19 A. It didn’t make a tax reclaim, it filed for R&D tax
20 to make what looks like a public key, like people use 20 concessions. Now, an R&D tax concession is a nominal
21 the term ”dead beef, dead beef, dead beef” and things 21 rebate against tax paid.
22 like this in hex and it’s not actually a public key. 22 Q. And that claim included tax offset claims for sums paid
23 Q. Well, Dr Wright, I’ve put the point to you on the basis 23 to W&KID, a company set up by yourself and Mr Kleiman,
24 of the agreed expert evidence and others can go back to 24 for operating a supercomputer, didn’t they?
25 those experts if they wish. 25 A. It did.

57 59

1 Moving on, please, to your activities from 2011 to 1 Q. And they also included claims for US$ 2 million for
2 2014 and in particular the ATO claims and 2 materials and assistance supposedly received from
3 investigations . It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that between 2010 3 Professor David Rees, a UK−based mathematician, didn’t
4 and at least 2016, if not later , you were involved with 4 they?
5 dealings with the ATO, the Australian Tax Office, over 5 A. Yes, that was all given to the ATO a year before he
6 tax rebate claims, yes? 6 died.
7 A. No, they’re multiple times, and not me, companies I was 7 Q. Professor Rees is a person that you have claimed in your
8 with. 8 Satoshi’s Vision book provided you with notes that
9 Q. Well, there were some individual tax disputes and then 9 continue to assist you in your work; correct?
10 there were some corporate tax disputes involving your 10 A. Yes, he actually gave the notes to me back in the ’90s.
11 companies, right? 11 Q. {L11/354/1}, please.
12 A. So, between 2009 and 2013, there were some individual 12 Do you recognise this as a paper giving reasons for
13 tax disputes and corporate tax disputes. Between 2013 13 the ATO’s decision on the tax offset claims −− R&D tax
14 and 2014, there was a period where there were no tax 14 offset claims by C01N Pty Ltd for the 2012 to ’13 tax
15 disputes. Between 2014 and ’16, there were corporate 15 year?
16 tax disputes, there were no personal ones. 16 A. Sort of. It ’s only an interim document, and what this
17 Q. I ’m going to focus on −− we don’t have time to 17 is is the high net worth individuals took over the claim
18 re−litigate all of these, but I am just going to focus 18 rather than the R&D, so it’s not really the way you’re
19 on one aspect of your second set of dealings with 19 putting it .
20 the ATO, and it’s right, isn ’ t it , that in those 20 Q. It ’s a set of reasons for decision by the ATO, isn’t it?
21 dealings , beginning in 2013, you began to make claims in 21 A. No, it ’s actually the high net worth team, who have no
22 relation to mining of Bitcoin? 22 rights to actually do this .
23 A. In 2013? 23 Q. Well, I ’m going to suggest to you that it is what it
24 Q. Yes. 24 says, ”Reasons for decision”, prepared and issued on
25 A. No, I did not. The private ruling from 2013 was based 25 behalf of the ATO.

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 A. No. I know all about this. I ’ve gone through it 1 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, as they record here, that
2 multiple times. Arna Synnot was also there in 2013 when 2 the ATO recorded that they had communicated with all
3 everything got reversed by the ATO as well. 3 four of Professor Rees’ daughters, yes?
4 Q. Wait a second. You are very keen to go back to 4 A. And? Sorry.
5 the decision in relation to your personal tax claims by 5 Q. You’re aware that they recorded that?
6 the tribunal in 2013. We’re not talking about that now, 6 A. Yes, they called them afterwards.
7 we’re talking about a separate set of claims on behalf 7 Q. You’re aware that none of the daughters had any
8 of C01N. These are different from the tribunal decision 8 knowledge of you, or the payment, or the Bitcoin, or
9 claims, aren’t they? 9 the supposed suggestion that Professor Rees was doing
10 A. No, they’re all linked . The distinction was that 10 consulting work, right?
11 Integyrs and Information Defense went into 11 A. Again, they were never involved. I ’ve never met them
12 administration prior to the close , so while they were 12 either .
13 linked , it didn’t work out the same way, and once it’s 13 Q. But on your account, Professor Rees was doing
14 in liquidation , it ’s in liquidation . 14 substantial work, providing materials and assistance for
15 Q. Page 52, please {L11/354/52}. Paragraph 267, the ATO 15 −− valued at US$2 million and none of his family knew
16 addressed your claim that you paid Professor Rees for 16 that he was even doing any consulting work, or that he
17 his work, which was the subject of the $2 million claim. 17 did such work in principle , right?
18 And at paragraph 267.2, it recorded this : 18 A. No. Again, that’s completely wrong. I agreed to
19 ”The taxpayer claims that the contents of 19 transfer a certain amount of Bitcoin in the early days.
20 the addresses ... ” 20 That was based on the transfer of notes. Those notes go
21 That’s Bitcoin addresses: 21 back quite a long way. So, when I made the agreement,
22 ” ... were forwarded to a new addresses, 1LXc on 22 this was actually worth a lot less , but Bitcoin goes up
23 13 August 2013. The taxpayer claims that this was held 23 in price , I still transfer it .
24 for Professor Rees, a position that is inconsistent with 24 Q. Go to the top of the page, please:
25 Professor Rees having the private keys to the seven 25 ”All four of Professor Rees’ daughters advise they

61 63

1 addresses. Further, if the private keys were 1 have never heard of the taxpayer or Dr Wright.
2 transferred to Professor Rees on 28 June 2013 and 2 Professor Sarah Rees also advised that Professor Rees
3 the taxpayer was unable to recreate them as it contends, 3 did not undertake consulting work.”
4 Professor Rees must have transferred the Bitcoin to 1LXc 4 Now, Dr Wright, one can understand that they might
5 three days before his death. At 28 June 2013 ...” 5 not have heard of you, but it would surely be
6 When he was supposedly provided with these keys: 6 surprising , if Professor Rees’ daughter was unaware of
7 ” ... [he] was in a nursing home, declining in health 7 him even doing consulting work when you claim that he
8 and had ceased using a computer.” 8 did that work which produced materials valued at
9 Are you aware of those findings? 9 US$2 million? That would be surprising, wouldn’t it?
10 A. I am. 10 A. Again, that’s not how I framed it. What I noted and
11 Q. Were you responsible for the ATO being informed that 11 what I said , very categorically , which I have said in
12 Professor Rees was provided with private keys and −− on 12 all of these things, was I had, going back to the ’90s,
13 28 June 2013 and the other information set out in 13 discussed a number of mathematical concepts with
14 paragraphs 267.1 and 267.2? 14 Professor Rees. What I then did was I said I would give
15 A. No, that’s not what they were told. They were told he 15 him a certain percentage of what I’ve created back when
16 was transferred Bitcoin at a particular time, and they 16 I first created it , and I did. When I made the promise,
17 were initially told one year before this . They then 17 it was a nominal amount. He acted basically just as
18 chose to do the audit after he died, on his stuff , 18 a professor .
19 saying that he couldn’t prove anything. 19 Q. Dr Wright, this is another instance of you relying on
20 Q. So you say that the ATO misrecorded the information 20 a fictitious collaboration with a well known person
21 which had been provided to it, do you? 21 who’s died, just like Gareth Williams, isn ’ t it ?
22 A. Oh, consistently . That was the whole point of the −− 22 A. No, actually , the contact was given to the ATO in 2012.
23 being in the tribunal . Every single thing that they put 23 They could have contacted them any time. It’s like
24 in . That’s why they didn’t actually have the R&D team 24 Liberty Reserve. They knew about Liberty Reserve in
25 involved. 25 2009. They then complain, after 2013 when it shut down,

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 that they can’t get records. Or High Secured. They had 1 ”The Beta of Bitcoin is live tomorrow. This is
2 High Secured records going back to 2013. It was only in 2 decentralised ... We try until it works.
3 2015 that they jumped up and down going, ”We can’t get 3 ”Some good coders on this. The paper rocks.”
4 into your records because they’re shut down now” in 4 And then a web link.
5 2015. 5 Dr Wright, do you say that this was a genuine post
6 Q. Dr Wright, how old was Professor Rees when he was doing 6 which you put on your website on 10 January 2009?
7 the supposed consulting work for you and receiving these 7 A. So, firstly , it ’s not my website. Secondly, I don’t
8 −− access to these Bitcoin addresses? 8 post on my blogs. I haven’t posted on my blogs.
9 A. As I explained, what he did was he accessed −− 9 I don’t ever post on my blogs. Every single blog I have
10 Q. Just a simple question, Dr Wright. How old was he when 10 had has been run by third parties . My current one,
11 he was doing the consulting work and then receiving 11 the Craig Wright.net is run by third parties . The one
12 the Bitcoin addresses? 12 before that, third parties . The medium post, third
13 A. Around the same age as my grandfather. 13 parties .
14 Q. Which is? 14 Q. Pausing there. Do you accept that this is −− or do you
15 A. I don’t know. Old. 15 say, because we certainly don’t say that it ’s authentic
16 Q. He was in his 90s, wasn’t he, in declining health, and 16 to 10 January 2009, but do you say, to the best of your
17 at the time that he supposedly received the Bitcoin 17 knowledge, that this post was put up on 10 January 2009?
18 addresses, in a nursing home, not using a computer? 18 A. I have no idea. I don’t run blogs. I never have.
19 A. When he originally did that, he still had his computer. 19 Q. Who was responsible for running this blog on Saturday,
20 That was four years before, of course. 20 10 June 2009?
21 Q. We can take that off screen. In summary, is it right to 21 A. In early −− early 2009, David, an American. Not David
22 say at least this , that through 2014 to early 2016, you 22 Kleiman, another David. I don’t remember his name.
23 were heavily occupied in dealing with these tax 23 After that, there was another person. After that,
24 enquiries? 24 another person. After that, people working for
25 A. No, I was only partially occupied. We had KPMG as 25 Panopticrypt. Then Uyen, then Hotwire, then DeMorgan.

65 67

1 the internal accountants, we had Ernst −− they were 1 Q. But you can’t actually say who was running the blog and
2 the R&D ones. Ernst & Young were another set of 2 would have been responsible for any posts on
3 accountants. Allan Granger was the audit lead, 3 10 January 2009?
4 Ali Lohdi was the accountant; there was a CFO, we had 4 A. David, but I can’t remember his last name.
5 three junior accountants. So I had to engage in R&D 5 Q. Who was he employed by?
6 reference , which was with AusIndustry, but other people 6 A. He was a consultant with Information Defense.
7 were primarily with the ATO. 7 Q. Did he work as a self−employed person or through
8 Q. New topic: the doctored January 2009 blogpost. May we 8 a company?
9 have on screen {L9/89/1}. Dr Wright, this is a web page 9 A. I don’t recall . I think he was self−employed, but I’m
10 showing what appears to be your IT security blog, 10 not actually sure. I paid him part−time.
11 ”Cracked, inSecure and Generally Broken”, and we can see 11 Q. If we go down the page, we see:
12 from the header that it was captured on 12 ”Using a CD/DVD Distribution under Linux/Unix.”
13 the Wayback Machine on 2 June 2014; do you see that? 13 Yes?
14 A. I can, but I will note that it ’s not an IT security 14 A. I do.
15 blog. As I note, it says digital forensics , data 15 Q. If that post of 10 January 2009 was an actual post
16 mining, etc. I talked about code and other things. 16 issued then, it would have been rather blowing your
17 Q. I ’m just asking you about the capture. It ’s shown as 17 cover as Satoshi, wouldn’t it?
18 captured on the Wayback Machine on 2 June 2014, 18 A. Not necessarily . It just could mean, like Hal Finney
19 isn ’ t it ? 19 said , running Bitcoin. But, no, I didn’t actually post
20 A. That was the first capture, yes. 20 it , so I can’t say.
21 Q. We can see the text for an article on Saturday, 21 Q. Let’s try now to establish the history of this blogpost.
22 10 January 2009: 22 If we go to page 6 on this document {L9/89/6}, so
23 ”Bitcoin. 23 the web capture from June 2014, do we see on the left,
24 ”Well ... e−gold is down the toilet. Good idea, but 24 we have a list of blogposts for periods of time, yes?
25 again centralised authority . 25 A. I do.

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Q. And we can see that in June 2014, the web page was 1 A. Mm.
2 recording that there had been two blogposts between 2 Q. Would you accept that that set of captures suggests that
3 4 and 11 January 2009, the Bitcoin post and 3 the Bitcoin post was likely added between
4 the CD/DVD post, yes? 4 12 December 2013, the last time there was just one
5 A. I do. 5 article shown, and 18 February 2014, when there were two
6 Q. Now {L6/55/1}. This is a capture of the blog which we 6 articles shown?
7 can see was taken on 20 November 2009. 7 A. No, not necessarily . The reason being that, in blogger,
8 Then if we go down, we can see that it’s showing 8 you can actually hide posts. It ’s also possible to use
9 a posting dated to 19 February 2009; do you see that? 9 a robot.txt to have things displayed or not.
10 A. I do. 10 What I would say, though, is all of this is linked
11 Q. And then page {L6/55/4}, we see, in the index, that 11 to the Gizmodo outing. So this was used as part of
12 there is only one article featured between 12 that, and then also by Mr Maxwell as part of
13 4 January 2009 and 11 January 2009, yes? 13 the discrediting . So that was −− he must have known, of
14 A. Yes. 14 course, how this came about.
15 Q. {L7/419.1/1}, a copy of the page captured on 15 Q. Well, I can certainly agree with you that the article
16 23 November 2011, which we can see from the footer. 16 that we looked at in the first place, the Bitcoin
17 Page 7 {L7/419.1/7}. The same result, one article 17 article featured in the WIRED and Gizmodo pieces, is
18 between 4 and 11 January 2009; do you see that? 18 something leaked to them, but I’m going to suggest to
19 A. I do. 19 you that the plain meaning of all of these captures is
20 Q. {L7/444.1/1}, a copy of the page captured on 20 that this article was added, backdated, in either late
21 16 March 2012, which we can see from the footer. 21 2013 or very early 2014.
22 And page 6 {L7/444.1/6}, index on the left, same 22 A. I would say more likely 2014, which is when my problems
23 result : one article . Do you see that? 23 with Mr Kleiman started.
24 A. I do. 24 Q. Now, if the captures are right , it was added by
25 Q. {L8/107.1/1}, a copy of the page captured on 25 18 February 2014, and if that’s right , that was before

69 71

1 9 June 2013. Sorry, this is −− that may be wrong. It’s 1 you had had any problems or disagreement with
2 12 December 2013. 2 Mr Kleiman, isn’t it ?
3 Page 6, please, {L8/107.1/6}, and we can see 3 A. I thought so, but I was wrong. I discovered that
4 the same result: one article , yes? 4 Mr Kleiman actually had already had legal advice and
5 A. Mm−hm. 5 litigation sort of −− what do you call it −− lawyers
6 Q. {L8/368.1/1}, a copy of the page captured on 6 engaged before he even sent his first email to me.
7 18 February 2014, once again visible from the footer; do 7 Q. So you’re saying that Mr Kleiman may have been
8 you see that? 8 responsible for putting this backdated post on your blog
9 A. I do. 9 even before you sent your email reaching out to him in
10 Q. And page 6 {L8/368.1/6}, we now see two articles, yes? 10 February 2014?
11 A. We do. 11 A. No, I said it would be linked to what happened there.
12 Q. {L8/450.1/1}, 7 March 2014 capture. 7 March 2014. 12 As I noted, I had other disgruntled employees already at
13 Page 5 {L8/450.1/5}: two articles again, yes? 13 this point and they worked with him. Why anyone started
14 A. We do. 14 setting any of this up, I don’t know.
15 Q. {L8/464.1/1}, a capture of the page on 16 May 2014. 15 Q. So your working hypothesis is that some disgruntled
16 Page 6 {L8/464.1/6}: two articles, yes? 16 employee, perhaps working with Ira Kleiman, put that
17 A. Yes. 17 blogpost on your blog in early 2014, backdating it to
18 Q. {L9/17.1/1}, a capture of the page on 17 May 2014. 18 2009? That’s your working hypothesis, is it ?
19 Page 6 {L9/17.1/6}: two articles. 19 A. No, I don’t really have one. All I know is that
20 Now, the captures that we have that show two 20 shouldn’t have been up there, someone put it there, and
21 articles , prior to June 2014, don’t actually show 21 someone used it with the ongoing communications with
22 the names of the articles , you can take that from me. 22 Gwern and then WIRED and Gizmodo.
23 But then we have the capture of June 2014 that I showed 23 Q. Dr Wright, the simpler explanation is that this post was
24 you at the start , which showed the two articles, 24 put up in early 2014, because that was the time that you
25 the Bitcoin one and the CD/DVD one, yes? 25 started staking your claim to be Satoshi.

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 A. No, actually , I ’d already spoken to the Tax Office well 1 A. I don’t actually know, my Lord. I know there’s a lot of
2 before that. That goes right back. In 2013, I was 2 documents in there. I didn’t run the accounting,
3 having extensive talks with people at the assistant 3 I don’t actually know which ones are part of that in
4 commissioner level. So, no, I ’d already told them way, 4 disclosure . So some of the accounting documents are in
5 way back in 2009 that I created Bitcoin. 5 there. My simple answer is, I don’t actually know what,
6 Q. Well, you know that’s disputed, Dr Wright. 6 in the million documents in that file , happen to be from
7 {L10/367/1}, please. Just before I ask you about 7 that.
8 this , your last answer was that you’d told people in 8 MR HOUGH: {L10/367/1} is the document I was just taking you
9 the ATO in 2009 that you had created Bitcoin, right? 9 to, and this is a copy of your blog captured on
10 A. Yes, actually , I did. 10 3 October 2015, as we can see from the headers. And
11 Q. Are there any documents that you have showing that you 11 the article now reads, Saturday 10 January 2009:
12 told Australian taxation officials in 2009 that you’d 12 ”Bitcoin −− AKA bloody nosey you be ...
13 created Bitcoin? 13 ”This post has been removed.
14 A. Yes, I communicated as part of all of this . That’s why 14 ”Update, 25 Sept 2015.
15 the private ruling in 2013 included mining in 2009. 15 ”It does always surprise me how at times the best
16 Q. Dr Wright, is there a single document which has been 16 place to hide it ... ”
17 disclosed in these proceedings which demonstrates you 17 I think that should be ”is”:
18 telling the Australian tax authorities , dated to 2009, 18 ” ... right in the open.”
19 that you were Satoshi? 19 Would you accept on the basis of that, that at some
20 A. Again, the 2013 is based on 2009 documents −− 20 time between June 2014 and October 2015, the blogpost
21 Q. Well, Dr Wright −− 21 that referred to the beta of Bitcoin being released was
22 A. −− they had. 22 deleted and replaced with this rather teasing one?
23 Q. −− we’re disagreeing about whether the private ruling is 23 A. Yes, this was about the time when WIRED and Gizmodo were
24 based upon what you say you said in 2009 or, as we say, 24 being sent information.
25 a set assumed facts. 25 Q. So do you say that having put something that wasn’t

73 75

1 Setting that to one side, is there any document from 1 yours on your blog in early 2014, somebody then repeated
2 2009, or indeed from 2010, showing you telling the ATO 2 the trick in late 2015?
3 that you were Satoshi? 3 A. To be honest, I have no idea. Like right now, I don’t
4 A. Two points. One, I don’t have any Information Defense 4 actually look at my blog. I send documents basically
5 or Integyrs files any more. 5 with the text that I want published, I write papers,
6 The second point is, I know you’re saying you’re 6 etc, I write posts, they get sent to someone and they
7 disputing this , but the simple fact is , you don’t just 7 get loaded. I don’t even read my own blog, so I’m
8 say something after an extensive audit when the ATO 8 assuming that it’s done correctly .
9 already have all the documentation, when it’s gone 9 MR HOUGH: My Lord, Lord Grabiner has made the very fair
10 through a court process, when multiple audit firms, 10 point that we could probably do with a five−minute break
11 including KPMG, etc, have been involved, then sitting 11 for the transcriber and for Dr Wright.
12 there going, ”Oh, they just assumed”. 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
13 Q. Well −− 13 We’ll take a five −minute break, Dr Wright.
14 A. Sorry, that’s just claptrap. 14 A. Thank you.
15 Q. Well, we’ ll look at the documents in submissions, 15 (12.35 pm)
16 Dr Wright, but it’s perfectly plain that they’re working 16 (A short break)
17 on assumed facts. 17 (12.42 pm)
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, I just need to tell you 18 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, new topic: your dealings with
19 something. If you don’t answer the question, I ’m going 19 Mr Matthews and Mr MacGregor from early 2014.
20 to assume you have no answer to it, okay? So 20 Now, you tell us in your statement that you
21 the question was: 21 re−established contact with Stefan Matthews in early
22 ”Setting that to one side, is there any document 22 2014 and had various discussions with him through 2014
23 from 2009, or indeed from 2010, showing you telling 23 and into the early part of 2015 about possible business
24 the ATO that you were Satoshi?” 24 and investment; is that right?
25 Now, you haven’t answered that question. 25 A. Yes, it is .

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Q. And as far as we can tell , you first established contact 1 Q. And this was one of those impressive PowerPoint
2 and met with Mr Matthews in about late January 2014; 2 presentations that you said you didn’t go in for?
3 would that make sense? 3 A. No, I said I don’t create them. I have other people
4 A. Around then, yes. I mean, for this later thing. I ’d 4 working for me and they do all this stuff . So, yes,
5 met him of course many times before. 5 I ’ve got some people who do very good PowerPoint
6 Q. Of course. 6 presentations .
7 He then introduced you to Robert MacGregor, 7 Q. In any event, the contact with Mr Matthews and
8 a Canadian businessman with a company called nTrust, 8 Mr MacGregor began again by early 2015, didn’t it?
9 didn’t he? 9 A. Yes, I contacted Stefan again in 2015.
10 A. He did. 10 Q. And by that stage, your businesses were in pretty
11 Q. {L8/340/1}. If we look at the bottom of the page, we 11 desperate straits , weren’t they?
12 see that Mr Matthews, on 3 February 2014, was making 12 A. I wouldn’t say it that way. What I didn’t know how to
13 contact between yourself and Mr MacGregor. Do you 13 do was get out of the problems we were having with
14 accept this is a genuine one email? 14 the Tax Office.
15 A. No reason to not. 15 Q. Mr Matthews gave an interview to CoinGeek, and we can
16 Q. And this suggested that the −− if we go over to page 2 16 ask him about this, in which he described your
17 {L8/340/2}, we see the initial introduction, and this 17 businesses as having gone down to staff numbers of
18 suggested that you’d been working on a payment 18 pretty much zero and being in all sorts of problems at
19 processing solution for gambling and porn sectors, 19 that point in time, early 2015. Is he wrong about that?
20 didn’t it ? Just what the email said? 20 A. No, we had reduced staff members, but it wasn’t zero.
21 A. Correct. 21 We still had a few developers and −− but it was probably
22 Q. And it referred to, on the first page {L8/340/1}, to you 22 a quarter of what it was.
23 scheduling a call , yes? 23 What we did have problems were getting −−
24 A. Yes. 24 transferring any money, exchanges, etc, for Bitcoin were
25 Q. Did that call happen? 25 nearly non−existent and difficult , we were having a lot

77 79

1 A. Well, we had a video−link at one stage and I don’t know 1 of problems with the ATO. I did have other options. So
2 if it ’s from this or not. I mean, in 2014, I had a −− 2 where you’re saying ”desperate”, we had an offer from
3 I don’t know, it wasn’t Zoom or anything back then, but 3 Macquarie Bank for 10 million a year funding for
4 it could have been Skype video call. 4 four years , which would have actually been more money.
5 Q. And it’s right , isn ’ t it , that the discussions didn’t 5 Q. Is that an offer that you provided any documents in
6 progress at that stage? 6 relation to?
7 A. No, no, nothing happened at that stage. 7 A. They’re in the disclosure . I don’t know what’s been
8 Q. It ’s right also that at that time, around that time, you 8 disclosed , but they’re in the disclosure .
9 were emailing Louis Kleiman that email about you and 9 Q. We can ask about that, but they don’t ring a bell with
10 Dave being two of the key people behind Bitcoin? 10 me.
11 A. Well, no, as I said , one of my assistants did that. 11 {L9/395/1}, please. Now, this appears to be
12 I was trying to get in touch because technically Dave or 12 a meeting invitation suggesting that a reasonably
13 his estate still had shares. 13 detailed investment meeting was planned for
14 Q. ID_004094, please. It’s {L9/226/1}. Now, this, 14 27 April 2015 involving yourself and Mr Matthews;
15 I think, is one of your primary reliance documents, 15 correct?
16 a DeMorgan ”Investor Pack for Stefan Matthews By 16 A. No, this was Stefan had put together one with
17 Dr Craig Wright”. Do you recognise that document? 17 Calvin Ayre, which was one of the first times I met him.
18 A. I do. 18 The initial thing wasn’t investing in the companies, Rob
19 Q. Now, on the system, it’s given a date of October 2014. 19 ended up doing −− Rob was separate, and what was
20 Can you say when it was produced? 20 proposed was selling Bitcoin to him, but Calvin wasn’t
21 A. No, I didn’t actually produce it. I presented, but one 21 interested at the time.
22 of the staff members made it, so I don’t know. 22 Q. If we look at the invitation , it ’s referred to as:
23 Q. Page 2, please {L9/226/2}. It sets out your companies 23 ”Investment Pack: Stefan − Calvin Ayre.”
24 and effectively a pitch for investment, doesn’t it ? 24 Do you say the meeting wasn’t about investment?
25 A. Fairly much, yes. 25 A. Well, it was, but it was going to sell Bitcoin as well

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 as then try and bring him into the company. So, Stefan 1 Unfortunately, it ended up just being the OTC part,
2 was there, who brokered it, with Calvin Ayre. 2 which was the thing he was interested in.
3 Q. Do you see that there’s reference to a whole series of 3 Q. And you were seeking investment to get your companies
4 bullet points, including ”Research program”, ”Projects”, 4 out of a very big financial hole, weren’t you,
5 ATO documents, ”SuperComputers”, and so on, not just 5 Dr Wright?
6 Bitcoin, right? 6 A. No, I was making a very big financial hole. The cost of
7 A. Well, all of this is Bitcoin related . The supercomputer 7 running everything I was doing was my financial hole.
8 was scaling testing , which has now led to −− 8 I was spending over 60 million a year, continuous, at
9 Q. Not just the sale of Bitcoin as a system? 9 that point.
10 A. As in selling Bitcoin alone, no. I wanted people also 10 Q. You were spending over AU$60 million a year?
11 to invest in the company, but the initial talk was about 11 A. No, US dollars. To give you an idea, right at
12 selling Bitcoin. I wanted to make it more. 12 the moment, my Lord, the Teranet scaling test we’re
13 Q. So you say that in this initial meeting on 27 April 2015 13 doing costs approximately US$18 million a month to run.
14 you were upfront with them that you were Satoshi and you 14 That’s just AWS, not staff, not anything else.
15 were going to be selling Bitcoin to them? 15 The scalability that we’re running −−
16 A. No, I didn’t mention that I was Satoshi at all . My 16 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to stop you there, because you’re
17 selling Bitcoin had nothing to do with my identity. 17 now going well away from the questions which concern
18 I didn’t tell Rob, at this stage, that I was Satoshi, 18 events of 2015.
19 I didn’t tell Calvin. That happened later. They 19 Moving on {L9/445/2}. 9 June 2015, so we’ve now
20 basically −− 20 moved on six weeks or so, Mr Ayre emailed Mr MacGregor
21 Q. So what do you say you were selling to them at this 21 copying you and Mr Matthews; do you see that?
22 meeting? 22 A. I do.
23 A. Bitcoin. As in −− 23 Q. Do you recall this email, or an email of this kind?
24 Q. As in Bitcoin assets? 24 A. I do.
25 A. Yeah. As in tokens. 25 Q. And he says that he has asked you to prepare a document

81 83

1 Q. I see. 1 and refers to an idea for bolting a cryptocurrency

2 A. As in BTC. I wasn’t able to sell the quantity I needed 2 platform onto nTrust. That was Mr MacGregor’s company,
3 on market, so I was going to do an over−the−counter 3 wasn’t it ?
4 trade. 4 A. It was.
5 Q. So, at least we’re clear on that. 5 Q. Page 1, please {L9/445/1}. Mr MacGregor replies
6 Where, in the many bullet points of this document, 6 the next day and there is a discussion of a meeting in
7 does it refer to you selling Bitcoin tokens rather than 7 Manila, if we look up the page, right?
8 participating in an investment discussion? 8 A. Uh−huh.
9 A. It doesn’t. 9 Q. {L9/451/1}, an exchange of emails between Mr Matthews,
10 Q. So you were having a meeting which was about selling 10 you and Mr Ayre between 14 and 17 June 2015. Do we see,
11 Bitcoin tokens, but in fact the entire content of 11 on 17 June, Mr Ayre says that he is back from a trip and
12 the invitation and all the agenda bullet points were 12 meeting a lawyer on a letter of intent , yes?
13 completely irrelevant to the real discussion? 13 A. Mm−hm.
14 A. No, not at all . Calvin was the head of Bodog, which was 14 Q. Was that a letter of intent for the purposes of a deal
15 a gaming company. So, what I wanted to do was basically 15 with you and your businesses?
16 show off what we’re doing and how this would actually be 16 A. No, it wasn’t. Calvin had a lot of other businesses.
17 good for his company. I didn’t only want him buying 17 He’s just saying that he’s back. The deal that I ended
18 Bitcoin, I wanted Bodog using Bitcoin. 18 up doing was with Rob, at that stage.
19 Q. Well, I ’m going to suggest to you that on its face this 19 Q. At the top of the page, you refer to having a statement
20 has −− gives every indication that the meeting was to do 20 of claim filed in court, and also to the ATO not
21 with investing in your company and its projects, not 21 expecting the actions. At that stage, were you looking
22 just buying Bitcoin tokens. 22 to have some of your legal fees funded through this
23 A. Oh, at this stage, I would have loved him to. That’s 23 prospective deal?
24 what I’m saying. I would love to have had him, back 24 A. Potentially I would have used the money in going to
25 then, do all this ; it would have made my life easier. 25 court with the ATO.

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Q. {L9/456/1}, the email at the bottom of the page, 1 dealings going on, including with Robert. This deal, as
2 18 June, from Mr Ayre to you: 2 it says at the top, ”Escrow arrangements”. The deal
3 ”I am on my way to the lawyers with Jim in a bit. 3 was, I would nominally sell them 100,000 Bitcoin, that
4 But can you explain the first part below. How much are 4 would then be put against the money, and either they
5 you asking us to commit to and can you show me a spread 5 would keep the Bitcoin or it would be repaid, so an
6 sheet of how you would need this?” 6 escrow that they held.
7 Do you see that? 7 Q. If we go further up the page we can see that
8 A. I do. 8 the response to that from Mr Ayre was that
9 Q. Then if we go over the page {L9/456/2}, we can see what 9 Stefan Matthews was going to jump on a plane to
10 he’s referring to. The first part concerned funds for 10 understand all of it , yes?
11 dealings with the ATO, didn’t it? 11 A. Yes.
12 A. It did. 12 Q. And that Mr MacGregor, he then says at the top of
13 Q. So, at that point, Mr Ayre was asking you how much money 13 the page, is going to go as well , yes?
14 you needed, as a fighting fund, to deal with the ATO? 14 A. Yes.
15 A. That’s correct . 15 Q. So, you were −− the response to your request for
16 Q. Back to {L9/456/1}. And your response is, you refer to 16 the fighting fund was for Mr Ayre to send Mr Matthews
17 an ”18 million option” formed of 18 million to use and 17 and Mr MacGregor to Australia to drill into your books
18 18 million that’s used to increase the R&D incentive, 18 and business, yes?
19 yes? 19 A. No, Robert’s running a separate company, but Rob had
20 A. Correct. 20 extensive dealings with Bodog. So, Rob ran a payment
21 Q. Referring to a potential R&D tax rebate arising from 21 processing company and also IT company that had
22 your deal, right? 22 extensive interactions with Bodog, and if all of this
23 A. Yeah, an offset . 23 would work, it would help with the −− what nTrust did.
24 Q. And then further up the page there’s an exchange about 24 NTrust did money transfers, and if Bitcoin could be
25 whether to stick to the original structure for the deal, 25 used, it would make that simpler. That would

85 87

1 with a ”fancy tax restructuring later ”, yes? 1 make Calvin’s life simpler as well .
2 A. Mm−hm. 2 So, there are actually two things. There’s Stefan
3 Q. {L9/489/2}, please, page 2. You email on 21 June 2015, 3 coming down to represent, sort of, the broader deal, Rob
4 at the bottom of the page, to Mr Ayre: 4 as a possible deal, and then Calvin talking about
5 ”I will not leave a debt. Not ever. 5 the escrow deal.
6 ” If this means I concentrate on the ATO and paying 6 Q. {L9/491/1}, the last document before lunch. This is an
7 CU, then I do this .” 7 email chain between Ramona −− that’s your current wife
8 ”CU” were Clayton Utz, weren’t they? 8 −− and Allan Pedersen, yes?
9 A. Yes. 9 A. That’s what it says.
10 Q. And Mr Ayre replies that he’s not suggesting that you 10 Q. And Allan Pedersen was somebody who had worked in your
11 leave a debt, but: 11 businesses, yes?
12 ” ... you make decisions to allow you to fix this and 12 A. He was.
13 keep the project alive .” 13 Q. If we look at the lower half of the page, 23 June 2015,
14 Yes? 14 which is two days on from that −− a day or two on from
15 A. He did. 15 that last email we looked at, Ramona writes:
16 Q. And page 1 {L9/489/1}, at the bottom, you sent a further 16 ”Stefan and others coming to office tomorrow from
17 email pointing out the need to pay Clayton Utz −− 17 noon. If by any chance ...”
18 A. Mm−hm. 18 This is Allan:
19 Q. −− so that they could continue to act for you in your 19 ” ... are still in the vicinity , please pop in. It
20 dealings with the ATO? 20 may at least look like we are still doing business ... ”
21 A. Correct. 21 Do you see that?
22 Q. So, at that stage, you were looking and dealing with 22 A. I do.
23 Mr Ayre, and asking for a fighting fund to deal with 23 Q. And Mr Pedersen responds asking if Trupti and Nick are
24 the ATO, yes? 24 in the office as well , yes?
25 A. No, not the way you’re saying. There were multiple 25 A. Correct.

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Q. And then further up the page, Ramona replies: 1 (2.00 pm)

2 ” If they are willing , that would be great. But the 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
3 problem is that the Canadians will be in the office till 3 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, we were discussing, before lunch,
4 Friday. I ’m not sure how we can get people to come in 4 communications in June 2015 involving yourself,
5 for one day and not the others. Hard to explain. 5 Mr Matthews, Mr MacGregor and Mr Ayre. May we look now
6 Although we could say that they come and go as 6 at {L10/33/1}, which is ID_004127.
7 needed~... 7 Now, we understand that this document is the first
8 ”So yes if you can get them, even just to pop their 8 version of a heads of terms document prepared on
9 heads in and say hi ... 9 29 June 2015. And if we go to page 3 {L10/33/3}, we’ll
10 ” If they need clarification re times ... they can 10 see some signatures on it. Are those the signatures of
11 call me.” 11 yourself , your wife and Mr Matthews?
12 Yes? 12 A. They are.
13 A. Correct. 13 Q. If we go back to the first page {L10/33/1}, we see that,
14 Q. ”The Canadians” was presumably a reference to 14 first of all , this provided for a NewCo to purchase all
15 Mr MacGregor and, potentially, Mr Matthews? 15 the intellectual property in DeMorgan for $1.5 million
16 A. No. Mr Matthews has never been a Canadian. 16 to ”get the IP out of danger”, yes?
17 ”The Canadians” is nTrust. 17 A. Correct.
18 Q. So Mr MacGregor and whoever he was bringing with him? 18 Q. Then, secondly, it provided for DR Technologies Limited
19 A. Correct. 19 to enter into an agreement to act as development
20 Q. Fine. 20 consultant for the company, which was I think the NewCo,
21 This email shows that your wife was desperately 21 for up to two years, right? (Overspeaking −
22 trying to gather together employees and ex−employees to 22 inaudible) −− DeMorgan?
23 make it look like your office was actually in business, 23 A. For DeMorgan, I believe.
24 doesn’t it ? 24 Q. I see. For up to two years at a monthly retainer of
25 A. Not the way that you’re saying. But, yes, we needed 25 $200,000.

89 91

1 the other people in there. Some of them were only 1 Then the next section provides for the new company
2 part−time at this point, and others worked from home to 2 to issue a convertible loan AU$1.5 million to
3 reduce costs. So, having them in the office was 3 the company, DeMorgan, with an option for up to
4 important. 4 $1 million more to the company, yes?
5 Q. As Mr Matthews told CoinGeek, your business was in 5 A. Yes.
6 desperate straits and basically down to nil employees, 6 Q. Then over the page, a fourth section {L10/33/2},
7 and here you were trying to set up a fake office to 7 providing for the rights −− I think that’s you and your
8 impress the investors . That’s the position , isn ’ t it , 8 wife, to receive 37% of the equity in NewCo to be held
9 Dr Wright? 9 in a blind trust or other holding vehicle?
10 A. No. We still had some employees. We were down to 10 A. Well, technically it would be my wife, but, yes.
11 a quarter or so of everyone, we had people working 11 Q. Then the next section, a services agreement directly
12 part−time, others from home, and the offer that I had at 12 between the NewCo and yourself, consisting of
13 the moment, the alternative was with Macquarie and 13 a $1 million initial rights payment and subsequent
14 I didn’t particularly want to sell out to a bank. 14 payments of $500,000 per year for five years , yes?
15 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for 15 A. Correct.
16 the lunch break? 16 Q. And that refers to there also being a grant of exclusive
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you very much. 17 rights to your life story for subsequent publication or
18 Dr Wright, have a good lunch? 18 release ?
19 A. Thank you. 19 A. Yes, detailing the growth of the company, etc.
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Don’t talk to anyone about your evidence 20 Q. We’ll come to that in a moment.
21 and relax. 21 And then, finally , a sixth section providing for
22 A. Of course, my Lord. 22 a new company to be established as a subsidiary of
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thanks. 23 the NewCo for R&D purposes?
24 (1.03 pm) 24 A. Yes.
25 (The short adjournment) 25 Q. Then {L10/34/1}, please. Now, this is a further version

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 of the summary of agreed terms, ID_004128. 1 I didn’t want to sell it to Macquarie Bank.
2 Page 3, please {L10/34/3}. Does this also bear your 2 Q. And at some point in these negotiations, you had made
3 wife’s and Mr Matthews’ signatures? 3 your claim to be Satoshi, hadn’t you?
4 A. Yes. 4 A. Not at all . There was nothing to do with Satoshi in any
5 Q. Now, we understand from Mr Matthews’ evidence that this 5 of these.
6 was a second version prepared immediately after 6 Q. So you’re saying that the life story agreement at that
7 the first and intended to supersede it. Is that your 7 stage had nothing to do with your life story to being
8 recollection as well? 8 Satoshi?
9 A. I guess so. I ’m not sure of the order of them. 9 A. No. We have 1,000 granted patents, I have 1,900
10 Q. Well, let ’s see if we can refresh your memory. If we go 10 original ideas . That in itself is a life story . So
11 back to the first page {L10/34/1}, we can see that some 11 what they were looking at is the development of all that
12 notes from the first version have been removed; do you 12 intellectual property.
13 see that? There were some sort of drafting notes in 13 Q. Well, the life story payment was separate from
14 the first section which we don’t see here. Do you 14 the intellectual property, or the concept of a life
15 recognise that? 15 story was separate from the intellectual property,
16 A. Yes, I still can’t give you the order. I don’t know. 16 Dr Wright. Are you saying that the life story , as far
17 Q. In the third section , concerning a convertible loan, 17 as Mr Matthews and Mr MacGregor were aware, at that
18 there are now provisions for the loan to be payable only 18 stage, June 2015, did not include your claim to be
19 to fund fees of solicitors , Clayton Utz. If we go 19 Satoshi?
20 through that, please. If we put on screen, please, 20 A. I have no idea what Mr MacGregor thought, ever. So
21 pages 1 and 2 together, so we can see the full set of 21 you’re asking me to say what someone else thinks.
22 terms {L10/34/1} {L10/34/2}. 22 I can’t do that. I ’m an Aspie.
23 So the convertible loan, at bullet point 2: 23 Q. Well, let ’s focus on the two of them and just, rather
24 ” ... shall be used only to fund solicitor fees and 24 than what they felt, what they knew.
25 disbursements associated with the ATO matters ...” 25 A. Again, I don’t know what they know. I don’t know what

93 95

1 Yes? 1 they think, believe , know, feel.

2 A. I see it , yes. 2 Q. Just listen −− let me ask you the question and you can
3 Q. So the loan had been restricted in use by this version 3 see if you can answer it.
4 of the document, yes? 4 As at the time these heads of terms were entered
5 A. Yeah, I can’t −− I still can’t tell you which order they 5 into , to your knowledge, did Mr Matthews know that you
6 come in. 6 were Satoshi, on your claim?
7 Q. We can also see that the provision for the rights to 7 A. Well, he would have. I gave him the White Paper.
8 receive equity in the NewCo doesn’t appear. Can you 8 Q. To your knowledge, at that time, when you entered into
9 recall , looking back, whether the final version of this 9 this term sheet, did Mr MacGregor know that?
10 document provided for you to get −− for your wife rather 10 A. I ’ve no idea.
11 to get that equity or not? 11 Q. So Mr Matthews, who was the actual signatory, knew that
12 A. No, I cannot. 12 the life story was of somebody who claimed to be
13 Q. And then there is, in this version , a phase II , which 13 Satoshi?
14 includes a rights and services agreement, as before, and 14 A. No, he did not. All of the talks and negotiations were
15 a provision for interim financing of the legal process 15 about having basically the new company recorded as it’s
16 by bridging financing ; do you see that? 16 growing, building , etc.
17 A. I do. 17 Q. But just, again, focusing on the question. At the time
18 Q. We can take that off screen now. 18 of this agreement, you say that Mr Matthews, who was
19 So by this stage, so the end of June 2015, a deal 19 the signatory , knew that the life story was of you and
20 had been done for a bailout of you and your companies, 20 knew that you claimed to be Satoshi?
21 hadn’t it ? 21 A. Again, no. It was the life story to do with all
22 A. No. As I said , there was a thing to basically lock 22 the building and the intellectual property. You keep
23 the IP away so that we didn’t have problems with 23 twisting the words. I ’m not going to agree to that,
24 the ATO. As I noted, I had other options, hence why 24 because that’s not what it was. I sat down and I spoke
25 I wasn’t as worried as Stefan, but my choice was 25 to Stefan about this, and what he said was, ”We’re going

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 to document the growth of the company”. 1 emails on your behalf, apparently from ATO officials,
2 Q. So, even though Stefan was the −− was a signatory to 2 and the ATO were now saying that these emails weren’t
3 that agreement and you say he knew that you were 3 genuine?
4 Satoshi, the life story at that stage was not going to 4 A. They said that until we had them forensically analysed
5 include this biographical detail of you being Satoshi? 5 and demonstrated that they actually came from an ATO
6 A. I have no idea what it was going to include. What they 6 server .
7 said was they were going to document the growth of 7 Q. {L10/68/1}, please. Do we see that on 6 July 2015,
8 the company. 8 Mr Sommer terminated the retainer on the basis that
9 Q. But you were entering into a multi−million dollar deal 9 information had been provided to the firm which raised
10 which required you to assist in providing a life story 10 serious questions about the integrity of documents
11 and you say you just didn’t know whether that life story 11 provided by you; correct?
12 you were being required to provide included your claim 12 A. No, by the firm.
13 to be Satoshi; is that what you’re saying? 13 Q. 6 July 2015:
14 A. Again, I entered into the smaller deal where I didn’t 14 ”It is with regret that we inform you in your
15 have the restrictions , where the promise was I get to 15 capacity as Director of DeMorgan Limited ...”
16 basically go out and invent and not have to run 16 This is to your wife:
17 the company. The nature of the deal was, rather than 17 ” ... that Clayton Utz has decided that we must
18 being the CEO, I’m chief scientist , my whole role is 18 terminate our engagement with DeMorgan Limited.
19 I sit in an office and I invent things all day. 19 ”Information has been provided to our firm which
20 Q. How many patents had been applied for and granted, by 20 raises serious questions about the integrity of
21 that stage, which were the subject matter of this 21 documents provided by Dr ... Wright, both to our office
22 agreement? 22 and to the Australian Taxation Office. We believe this
23 A. Patent applied for , no; that’s why we needed help. 23 information to be credible . In these circumstances, we
24 I didn’t know how to. What I had at this stage was 24 can no longer represent DeMorgan Limited in the disputes
25 1,300 ready to be turned into patents documents. So, 25 it and its subsidiaries has with

97 99

1 when Cerian and the Australians came in, I had 1,300 1 the Australian Taxation Office.”
2 research projects . The average of those is about five 2 That’s what he wrote, isn’t it ?
3 to six patents per document. 3 A. That’s what the firm wrote. He actually called and said
4 Q. I ’m going to stop there, because I think you’ve answered 4 that he didn’t want to.
5 the question. 5 Q. It ’s his signature at the bottom, isn’t it ?
6 After that deal, or shortly after that deal, 6 A. He signed it , yes.
7 Clayton Utz, the solicitors who had been acting for you 7 Q. So he, on behalf of the firm, was refusing to act for
8 in your dealings with the ATO, terminated their 8 you because he considered there to be credible evidence,
9 retainer , didn’t they? 9 raising serious questions about the integrity of
10 A. Yes, people sent in false information and fabricated 10 documents provided by you?
11 documents to them. 11 A. No, he was actually put under pressure. Clayton Utz was
12 Q. {L10/66/1}, please. Mr Sommer was a solicitor at 12 also dealing with the Tax Office and they were a large
13 Clayton Utz, wasn’t he? 13 part of their revenue, so when the Tax Office said that,
14 A. He’s a partner. 14 they had no choice. When we had the documents
15 Q. And at the start of July 2015, he wrote this email to 15 forensically analysed, all of this turned out to be
16 your wife explaining why they had to terminate their 16 false .
17 retainer , didn’t he? 17 Q. So do you say that when he signed that letter, he did
18 A. He did. 18 not believe the words he was writing?
19 Q. And he recorded, didn’t he, that they had submitted 19 A. Yes, he spoke to my wife and myself and he said he was
20 supposed emails from various individuals at your 20 under extreme pressure from the firm and if he didn’t do
21 instruction ? 21 it , basically there would be problems.
22 A. No, actually , those came from third parties. We had 22 Q. And do you say that when he wrote the email that we
23 them forensically analysed and it showed that the claims 23 looked at a moment ago, private, to your wife, that he
24 were false . 24 didn’t believe the words he was writing in that email?
25 Q. He −− the purport of this email is that they’d submitted 25 A. Yes, I do.

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Q. Dr Wright, have you ever obtained any evidence from him 1 it now?
2 to corroborate your position on this? 2 A. I don’t recall .
3 A. Yes, I have, and everyone keeps going ”privilege”. 3 Q. Reading the text, does it look like your style , as far
4 I also have the forensic documents analysing that 4 as you can see?
5 the emails that were purported to come from me actually 5 A. Not really , no.
6 came from a server inside the ATO. 6 Q. The ”PS” at the bottom {L10/339/2}, please:
7 Q. Well, Dr Wright −− 7 ”PS
8 A. They’re in disclosure . 8 ”I may have to have a special chapter for Stefan.
9 Q. Well, once again, you keep making assertions about what 9 And asked him to review the White Paper and it was on
10 is in disclosure . We do have −− 10 his desk at one stage for months yet he still never got
11 A. They’re in my witness statement. 11 round to it . In 2009 I had begged him to invest in some
12 Q. We do have some documents referred to in your 11th 12 of the ideas I had. So is a little bit of a jab and
13 witness statement, but the reality is that your 13 poke at someone that I do respect, but I need to say how
14 solicitors , at this stage, regarded the questions that 14 wonderful it is that he passed up that opportunity
15 had been raised as credible , did they not? 15 because if he had, and he had invested in buying
16 A. Not all of them, no. 16 50−100,000 bitcoin at that point you would not be here
17 Q. And when you say that this partner of Clayton Utz, who 17 now and we would not be discussing anything today.”
18 had been working for you for some time, wrote documents 18 Do you think you wrote those words at that time?
19 which were, on your account, dishonest in expressing his 19 A. Not at all . I don’t generally −− I can’t ever think of
20 view, that’s just wrong, isn’t it ? 20 a PS I’ve used, and a lot of the other stuff doesn’t
21 A. Yes, I didn’t say dishonest; I said that he had to do it 21 look like mine. I do use the term ”vulture
22 because of the firm. 22 capitalists ”.
23 Q. Well, if he wrote, ”We believe this information to be 23 Q. Then, page 1 again {L10/339/1}, further up the page, we
24 credible ”, when he didn’t believe it to be credible , 24 see what appears to be a positive response from Mr Ayre
25 that would be a dishonest statement in his letter , 25 and a positive response from Mr Matthews. Are you able

101 103

1 wouldn’t it? 1 to say whether or not you received emails of those kinds
2 A. No, ”we” refers to the firm. And if he gets outvoted by 2 on those dates, 10 and 11 September 2015?
3 other partners who don’t like me, then that’s it . 3 A. Not to my knowledge.
4 Q. Back to the email at {L10/66/1}. Over the page 4 Q. {L10/424/2}.
5 {L10/66/2}, after explaining how serious the matter is, 5 A. Actually, I do know something. Tyche was the British
6 Mr Sommer urged you to tell Mr MacGregor and Mr Matthews 6 company of Robert’s, and I had no involvement with that
7 of the matter urgently. He said that, didn’t he? 7 at that point. The first time I visited the UK and over
8 A. He wrote it. 8 here was in October. So this is September.
9 Q. Did you inform them as a matter of urgency? 9 Q. So you think that isn’ t a genuine email?
10 A. Yes, of course. 10 A. I don’t recall it , and it doesn’t look familiar .
11 Q. Moving on, {L10/339/1}. This is an email chain and in 11 Q. We’re now on {L10/424/2}, an email at the bottom of
12 this version it ’s ID_004277. Is this a genuine email 12 the page from Robert MacGregor to you and others,
13 that you wrote at the bottom? 13 21 October 2015, as I say, to you, Mr Matthews,
14 A. I don’t know, I don’t control Tyche. 14 Ramona Watts, Calvin Ayre, Rob Gillespie and ”JLP”,
15 Q. You don’t control ...? 15 I think that’s Mr Phillips . You may not remember.
16 A. T−Y−C−H−E. Tyche. 16 Do you recall this as an email that you received
17 Q. The domain for the sender here? 17 around that time?
18 A. Yes. 18 A. I don’t.
19 Q. Thursday, September 10, 2015, ”Subject: The book”: 19 Q. Now, this is an email which is contained within your
20 ”Good morning noon or night. 20 list of documents associated with your first witness
21 ”I had a discussion with Stefan today. 21 statement, your PD57AC list, which suggests that you
22 ”When we do the book, I want to make sure it is 22 reviewed it at the time that you were making your first
23 honest. I am not looking at being St Craig and I feel 23 witness statement. Do you recall doing so?
24 the best will be to go into all the story .” 24 A. I went through my first witness statement, yes.
25 Did you write an email with this content, looking at 25 Q. Do you recall reviewing this email when you were

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 preparing your first witness statement? 1 story and I was preparing a witness statement, having
2 A. Not off the top of my head, no. 2 been pointed to it , I would be jolly sure to make clear
3 Q. Mr MacGregor writes, as this email is transcribed , that 3 in the witness statement that there was a fake document.
4 he: 4 Would you feel the same?
5 ” ... had a very productive call yesterday ... with 5 A. No, I wouldn’t, actually . There are multiple fake
6 the William Morris agency’s lead literary agent in 6 documents and I’ve been noting that for quite some time.
7 [New York] regarding ... manuscripts and having them 7 I ’m not going to sit there and pull out every fake
8 represent ... interests globally for the media rights to 8 document in the pile. I ’ve noted multiple times that
9 your autobiography and history, Craig ... ” 9 there are documents that don’t involve me.
10 Do you remember, in October 2015, having those sorts 10 Q. Back to the document {L10/424/1}. Your wife gives
11 of discussions? 11 a response, according to this email, about when
12 A. No. I was travelling to the UK at that point. 12 the project began, why, with whom, lots of details,
13 Q. And if we go down −− if we go to page 3 {L10/424/3}, do 13 including you being:
14 we see that he, at the top of the page, asks a series of 14 ”Captivated by Tim May’s and Wei Dai’s contribution
15 questions all about Satoshi and the Bitcoin project? 15 to BlackNet ... in 1998”.
16 A. I can see what it’s writing there, yes. 16 Do you say that that’s a genuine email written on
17 Q. If this email is a genuine one, then in late 17 26 October 2015?
18 October 2015, he was asking you for details about 18 A. Can’t say. What I do know is, at that time, I was
19 Satoshi and the Bitcoin project with a view to dealing 19 travelling and going to London, so there’s a part in
20 with literary agents, wasn’t he? 20 this where Rob’s saying, ”I’ ll meet you in London
21 A. No. Can you have a look at the −− who the Craig Wright 21 later ”, but that would be meeting me in London then.
22 is on this email? Just typing in ”Craig Wright” doesn’t 22 I mean, that’s wrong.
23 make it Craig Wright. So maybe page 1? {L10/424/1}. 23 Q. Next {L11/47/1}, please, an email dated 24 November 2015
24 Q. Then, on page 1 −− sorry, back to the third page, please 24 from Mr MacGregor to you and others. Do you recognise
25 {L10/424/3}, the penultimate paragraph: 25 this as a genuine email, or is this another one you say

105 107

1 ”Finally , we’ ll need to consider the ’proof package’ 1 is fake?

2 to establish SN’s identity . There will be the package 2 A. No, this is one I do recognise. The ”To” includes Craig
3 that will be required by non−technical audiences (notes, 3 at Tyche, which isn’t me. Even though it says
4 etc, that document and evidence creation), but also some 4 ”Craig Wright”. I don’t actually have that domain and
5 decisions as to how to definitively establish SN’s 5 that email.
6 pedigree technically .” 6 Q. This doesn’t, I think, refer to you as −− by reference
7 Do you see that? 7 to Tyche.
8 A. I can see it , yes. 8 A. I thought this did. One of them did.
9 Q. Do you recall Mr MacGregor asking about a proof package 9 Q. Can we go down the page −−
10 in late October 2015? 10 A. I ’m pretty sure it was this one.
11 A. No, that came about after the −− after December. 11 Q. Go down the page. And this is −− I think this is
12 Q. Now, this is −− the document we have been looking at is 12 a one−page document. Yes, the operator is confirming.
13 {L10/424/1} and it is ID_002087. Can you take that from 13 So all this says at the top is that it ’s from
14 me? 14 Mr MacGregor at Tyche to you, amongst others?
15 A. I can. 15 A. Yes, but in the original . In the actual email, which
16 Q. May we have {E/1/40}, please. This is the ”List of 16 I ’ve seen of this one, I believe that’s Tyche.
17 Documents Shown to Dr Wright During Witness Interviews” 17 Q. Do you say that this is an email which −− the content of
18 for preparing your first witness statement. Now, 18 which is genuine?
19 Dr Wright, I don’t want you to tell me anything 19 A. I ’ve no idea. You’re asking me about an email sent from
20 privileged , but item 7 is this document, according to 20 someone else to an email address I don’t control , so
21 this list . Would you accept that you saw this email in 21 I can’t say whether it’s genuine or not.
22 the course of preparing your first witness statement? 22 Q. Well, this one refers , at item (5), to Mr MacGregor
23 A. Yes, and I didn’t recognise it then either . 23 proposing creation of a proof package −− proof packet
24 Q. Now, Dr Wright, if I had seen an email which looked as 24 rather , including establishing control of
25 though it was fake and conflicted with aspects of my 25 Satoshi Nakamoto’s private keys and so on. Was that

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 being discussed by that stage, 24 November 2015? 1 documents which you didn’t accept, was it?
2 A. God, no. There’s no way on earth I’d give over my damn 2 A. No, the disclosure was basically everything from
3 private keys to someone. 3 30 staff laptops, from a server that had access by 200
4 Q. No, but was that being discussed by Mr MacGregor at that 4 people, from the third party disclosures in the Kleiman
5 stage? 5 trial , which included everything that Ira Kleiman sent
6 A. I don’t know what he was discussing. I mean, honestly, 6 in , everything that Greg Maxwell sent to the ATO, by
7 if I ’m not the person receiving it and it ’s a thing set 7 the way, your client , going right back to 2014. All of
8 up as Craig Wright and his company, no idea. 8 that stuff is in my disclosure, so I ’m not owning any of
9 Q. {L11/54/1}, please. This is an email dated 9 it because −− just because it’s in a pile of something
10 25 November 2015, ostensibly from you, 10 that I ’m a corporate executive or have been a corporate
11 ”cwright@tyche.co.uk”, to Mr MacGregor and others. Do 11 executive for doesn’t mean I’m owning it. I had to
12 you say that this is another non−genuine email, 12 basically give over everything and return everything
13 something you didn’t write? 13 that matched a search term. There’s no requirement and
14 A. I didn’t write it , no. Tyche is a British company 14 nobody ever asked me to go through and go, ”Please pick
15 belonging to Rob that I never worked for. 15 out any documents you don’t agree with”.
16 Q. So all this content saying −− referring to the original 16 Q. If anyone else was to say that, in September 2015, they
17 White Paper being a good start and engaging with 17 were having discussions with you about a book dealing
18 Mr MacGregor’s ideas, that’s all fake content, is it ? 18 with your life story and the history of Bitcoin, you’d
19 A. I ’ve no idea what it is . 19 say they were flat wrong, wouldn’t you?
20 Q. Are you aware who supposedly created these non−genuine 20 A. I ’ve no idea if someone else was doing it.
21 documents, Dr Wright? 21 Q. No, no, if somebody said they were having discussions
22 A. Probably someone at Tyche. 22 around September 2015 with you about your life story,
23 Q. Who are you fingering for this? 23 incorporating the history of Bitcoin, you would say they
24 A. I ’ve no idea. 24 are flat wrong, wouldn’t you?
25 Q. Why did you say ”probably somebody at Tyche”? 25 A. I would say the only discussions I had were documenting

109 111

1 A. Because it uses the Tyche domain. It’s either someone 1 the birth of the company. All of the discussions I had
2 at Tyche or someone who’s compromised Tyche. I don’t 2 were about the company. I was very clear on that.
3 know. I’m not Tyche. Never have been. 3 Q. {L17/164/1}. This is your reply in the Wright v Granath
4 Q. Would you accept that if any of these emails is genuine, 4 libel proceedings in the High Court, isn’t it ?
5 if the court concludes that any of them is genuine, then 5 A. It is .
6 you were discussing all of these matters concerning 6 Q. Page 22, please {L17/164/22}, paragraph 35.2, the reply
7 Satoshi outing before the WIRED and Gizmodo outings; 7 pleads this :
8 correct? 8 ”Save as follows, the Claimant was not made aware of
9 A. No, that would be like saying if I put down 9 any plan, whether pursuant to any nCrypt Agreement or
10 justicemellor@gmail.com, I could send one as my Lord, 10 otherwise, for a big ’Satoshi reveal ’ , ie an unmasking
11 but I can’t. It ’s not real , just because my name’s on 11 of the Claimant as Satoshi Nakamoto, as alleged or at
12 it . 12 all . The Claimant had no wish ever to be revealed
13 Q. Dr Wright, one of your −− one point you have stuck to is 13 publicly as Satoshi. However, following publication of
14 that you didn’t engage in any discussion about coming 14 the articles in Wired and Gizmodo in December 2015,
15 out as Satoshi until after the WIRED and Gizmodo outings 15 which linked the Claimant with Satoshi Nakamoto,
16 of early December 2015, right? 16 the Claimant was reluctantly persuaded to extend
17 A. I did not. 17 the scope of the sale of his life story to include his
18 Q. And so these emails were flat against that account, 18 story as Satoshi Nakamoto ...”
19 weren’t they? 19 Yes?
20 A. Not really . They’re from Tyche. I have no idea what it 20 A. Yes. That was in March/April of 2016.
21 is and where it comes from. 21 Q. So, if anyone recalls detailed discussions about your
22 Q. These are emails that were disclosed by your solicitors 22 life story −− discussions with you about your life story
23 on your behalf from material in your possession. It ’s 23 being published, including Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin,
24 right , isn ’ t it , that when they were disclosed, nothing 24 in September 2015, they must be wrong, mustn’t they?
25 was said to the effect that these were all fake 25 A. The discussions I had were about my intellectual

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 property and the birth of the company and what I was 1 where he was more comfortable with the idea of
2 building . Now, that will include Bitcoin, because I was 2 the book.”
3 talking about the scaling solutions I had, 3 Do you see that?
4 the development of patents and the technology that I’m 4 A. I do.
5 still building . That was what I discussed. 5 Q. May we have on screen ID_004276, the email which he’s
6 Q. So when you were having the discussions in September and 6 refreshed his memory from. This is {L10/338/1}. This
7 October 2015 about the book, it did include a life story 7 is the email chain which you’ve told the court is not
8 that would discuss your role as Satoshi Nakamoto 8 genuine, isn ’ t it ?
9 creating Bitcoin −− 9 A. Again, that’s Tyche. And Stefan’s forwarded something
10 A. I didn’t −− 10 that I don’t know who it’s come from. But, no, I was
11 Q. −− are you now saying that? 11 comfortable with documenting the company, my
12 A. No, I just said I did not have discussions in September. 12 intellectual property, my patenting.
13 Tyche is not my email. 13 Q. The email which he’s refreshed his memory from and which
14 Q. I ’m struggling to understand what you’re saying here, 14 he says tallies with his recollections is the email
15 Dr Wright. It may be my fault. 15 which refers to your life story , including Bitcoin,
16 In September to October 2015, were the discussions, 16 which we looked at earlier , from 10 September 2015,
17 such as you had, about the life story with a view to 17 doesn’t it ?
18 a life story including your work as Satoshi Nakamoto or 18 A. No, it ’s Craig Wright −− cwright@tyche.co.uk, which was
19 excluding that work? 19 Rob MacGregor’s company. Robert wanted me to do this,
20 A. What discussions at that period? I had discussions in 20 so what I see here is Robert sending an email to Stefan
21 2016 that then extended things. I talked in July and 21 and Calvin to make it look like I actually wanted to,
22 a little bit in August about documenting the company. 22 and not even doing it really well , because it ’s
23 So, basically , we weren’t going on about a life story 23 the wrong domain. I guess they wouldn’t have known
24 discussion , we were talking about someone to document 24 that.
25 the company, and that didn’t go into the period you’re 25 Q. So you’re saying, are you, that Mr MacGregor prepared

113 115

1 talking about. And in October, I was here in England. 1 this email and sent it to Mr Matthews?
2 Q. {E/5/15}, please. This is an extract of Mr Matthews’ 2 A. I ’m saying that Tyche was that person’s company.
3 statement. Paragraph 69, he discusses the six months 3 I can’t say what happened in that company, I’m saying
4 following the heads of terms which he dates to 4 Tyche.co.uk is Mr MacGregor’s.
5 June 2015; do you see that? 5 Q. Mr Matthews then is wrong in recalling that these
6 A. 69: 6 discussions were taking place in September 2015?
7 ”In the ... months ...” −− 7 A. No. If he received that email, he probably thought it
8 Q. Paragraph 69: 8 was true, but he didn’t discuss it with me.
9 ”In the six months following the Heads of Terms, 9 Q. But he says in his witness statement, and we can ask him
10 Dr Wright and his family started in earnest to make 10 about this, that he helped you get to the point of being
11 preparations to move to London.” 11 comfortable with this book which would tell your Satoshi
12 Do you see that? 12 story . Are you really saying that he’s entirely wrong
13 A. I do. 13 about that?
14 Q. And then he refers to events of September and 14 A. Satoshi story , yes. That only happened in 2016. We
15 October 2015, yes? 15 discussed documenting the company. I agreed to
16 A. I made trips in September and October, yes. 16 documenting the company. Very emphatically,
17 Q. And then paragraph 70 −− 17 the company.
18 A. Or, sorry , my wife made in September, I made in October. 18 Q. Moving on to the −− {E/1/38}, please, paragraph 222.
19 Q. Paragraph 70: 19 You’re discussing events on 2 May 2016. You say:
20 ”During this period I had discussions with Dr Wright 20 ”Following [a call that day], I ... began checking
21 about the idea of a book dealing with his life story and 21 my online presence from the train. I discovered that
22 the history of Bitcoin. I have refreshed my memory of 22 Rob had been accessing and managing my email addresses,
23 the discussions taking place around this time by looking 23 craig@tyche.co.uk and craig@ncrypt.com ...”
24 at an email I sent to Mr Ayre on 10 September 2015 ... 24 That is inconsistent , isn ’ t it , Dr Wright, with
25 By this stage I had helped Dr Wright get to the point 25 saying that you had never had an email address

114 116

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 craig@tyche.co.uk? 1 have no rights to have received those in the first

2 A. No, there’s two points here −− actually, three. Number 2 place.
3 one is , the other email was C Wright, not craig@tyche. 3 Q. So, thieves gained some access to your material and
4 Two, Tyche was a forwarding email, so if something came 4 leaked it to name you as Satoshi, right?
5 in , it got forwarded to my DeMorgan number one. And 5 A. I don’t know what they were trying to do. I can’t −−
6 it ’s true that I also know that these were manipulated 6 I can’t get in their minds, sorry.
7 and accessed. 7 Q. Well, the leak had the effect that you were outed as
8 Q. Dr Wright, you say −− you told us not very long ago that 8 Satoshi, yes?
9 you couldn’t possibly have had a Tyche email, and now 9 A. Not properly. It was designed so that it could be taken
10 here in this witness statement you say that 10 down right afterwards. Mr Maxwell, who is one of your
11 craig@tyche.co.uk was your email address? 11 clients , was actually part of all of that.
12 A. No, what I’m saying is the difference between an email 12 Q. Dr Wright, did you have any basis for believing that
13 address and a box. As an example, my Lord, I have 13 the information about dealings with
14 craigswright@acm.org, that is a forwarding address for 14 the Australian Tax Office had come from the government
15 ACM members. I don’t receive email there. It forwards 15 rather than from anyone at your end?
16 to RCJBR.org. So all it does is , if you send to it , it 16 A. Yes. Gizmodo put out unauthorised transcripts. They
17 goes to an email of my choosing. That’s what was meant 17 were encrypted. So the encryption key was only −− was
18 to happen on this one. And ”Craig” and ”C Wright” are 18 maintained by different entities and the versions that
19 also different . 19 were released were the ATO versions. So, somehow,
20 Q. Moving on to the WIRED and Gizmodo articles and their 20 someone had the encrypted ATO version that was signed
21 aftermath. We can take that document off screen now. 21 and decrypted it and sent it to the government. Now,
22 It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that in late November 2015, 22 I know, because of the way that the AUSTranscript works,
23 reporters , including from WIRED and Gizmodo, began 23 each has a marker for whose copy it is , and the copy
24 making enquiries of you and about you? 24 that got leaked to Gizmodo was the ATO internal one.
25 A. I don’t know exactly when they started. The first was 25 Q. {L11/212/1}, please. Just before we go there {K/2/25},

117 119

1 when I received a communication from WIRED. I think 1 please. If we can go to the first page of this {K/2/1},
2 that was November. I don’t remember the exact date. 2 please, to identify the document. This is
3 Q. And the articles came out around 8 December 2015, didn’t 3 the disclosure review document addressing the disclosure
4 they? 4 to be given by each party in these proceedings. Do you
5 A. Something like that, yes. 5 recognise that?
6 Q. {L11/181/1}. It’s an email ostensibly from you, 6 A. I ’ve seen it , yes.
7 8 December 2015, about approaches from Gizmodo. Is that 7 Q. Page 24, please {K/2/24}. Do you see here annex 3
8 a real email? 8 setting out ”Sources containing Irretrievable Documents”
9 A. Yes, it is . 9 completed on your behalf?
10 Q. And you forward the email, which was from an editor 10 A. I do.
11 warning what they were about to publish, yes? 11 Q. Page 25, please {K/2/25}:
12 A. Yes, noting that they had private tax documents, etc. 12 ”Email servers and Webmail accounts ...”
13 Q. So, you refer to them having obtained some material 13 Identified with you. Do we see one of them, about
14 which was stolen, yes? 14 just over halfway down, is listed
15 A. All of it was stolen. 15 as ”cwright@tyche.co.uk”?
16 Q. And you also say −− you refer to two of their points and 16 A. I do.
17 say: 17 Q. So do you say that your solicitors were wrong in
18 ”This is a government leak. So much for privacy 18 nominating that as one of your email accounts?
19 laws.” 19 A. No, it ’s an email account that was listed with
20 A. I do. 20 documents. It’s listed as irretrievable because it ’s
21 Q. Were you saying that the government was responsible for 21 not one that I have control of. So I’m not saying that
22 the entire leak , or only part of the leak of 22 it doesn’t exist as an email account, I’m saying it ’s
23 the material which was leading to your outing? 23 not one in my control.
24 A. Only part of it . They sent material to Ira Kleiman and 24 Q. The rest of these email accounts are accounts which you
25 he forwarded things. Others did as well . He should 25 either have had access to or at least have claimed

118 120

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 access to, right? 1 the Director of Tessier−Ashpool’.”

2 A. No, steven@hwpe was a staff member. 2 You say, don’t you, that that email didn’t come from
3 Q. Are any of the others email addresses which you say are 3 you?
4 completely fake and were used to produce documents which 4 A. I ’m not Tessier−Ashpool, no. And if you actually had
5 were themselves fake? 5 read Gibson’s books, although I’ve used many of his
6 A. Tyche.co isn’t a fake email address, it ’s one that’s set 6 characters for computer names, you’d realise that
7 up with my name that I don’t control. That’s not 7 I wouldn’t use that one.
8 the same as saying it ’s fake. It ’s used for whatever 8 Q. And WIRED went on to speculate that this might be an
9 reason it ’s used, but it ’s not one that I control . 9 elaborate hoax orchestrated by you, didn’t it ?
10 Q. Well, let me just put this to you. If the position 10 A. No, actually , Greg Maxwell and a few of the other COPA
11 taken by your solicitors was that you had lost access to 11 members contacted WIRED and put together what has
12 material in this account, you must have had access at 12 already been debunked, false information, as well as
13 some point. 13 some of this other stuff that they put together. So one
14 A. No, it ’s not saying lost access, it ’s saying I don’t 14 of the people involved was Mr Greg Maxwell −−
15 have access. So, in filling this out, given a list of 15 Q. I ’m going to dispute −− just to stop you on all of these
16 all of the things in disclosure , the answer is I don’t 16 allegations , Dr Wright. I’ve asked a simple question,
17 have access to this . 17 which was that the article speculated that it might be
18 Q. Leave that for submissions. 18 an elaborate hoax.
19 {L11/212/1}, the WIRED article. Now, this reported, 19 If we look page 13 {L11/212/13}, at the bottom, over
20 didn’t it , that in mid−November, an anonymous source had 20 to page 14 {L11/212/14}, we can see that it did
21 begun leaking documents, yes? 21 speculate that, didn’t it ?
22 A. Unfortunately, yes. It was actually, I think, a bit 22 A. No, it was changed after information came in to them.
23 earlier with Gizmodo. 23 And it’s not a speculation, Mr Maxwell actually
24 Q. Page 6 {L11/212/6}, we see it began to go through 24 published it .
25 the evidence which included various posts from your 25 Q. One piece of evidence leaked to Gizmodo was a draft

121 123

1 blog; yes? 1 document relating to Tulip Trust and listing five

2 A. Correct. 2 PGP keys for managing the trust, yes?
3 Q. Page 7 {L11/212/7}, further posts. 3 A. Correct.
4 Page 9 {L11/212/9}, some leaked emails. 4 Q. Two of those were linked on a public database to Satoshi
5 And page 10 {L11/212/10}, some materials concerned 5 and they were later debunked, right?
6 with Tulip Trust. 6 A. Actually, they weren’t debunked. Greg Maxwell came out
7 Page 11 {L11/212/11}, do we see that they reported 7 and said that it ’s all fake, but argued, because of
8 having sent an encrypted email to you suggesting that 8 the key structure . He said that no one could do that,
9 they knew your secret, yes? 9 because that wasn’t part of PGP. I then debunked his
10 A. Yes, they did. 10 debunking, although I’m not saying that it’s my key, but
11 Q. And then page 12 {L11/212/12}: 11 what I showed was that the particular cryptographic
12 ”A few hours later, we received a wary response from 12 algorithms were actually available two years prior to
13 the address Tessier−Ashpool@AnonymousSpeech.com, 13 when he said they weren’t. So he had actually started
14 a cyberpunk reference to a rich and powerful corporate 14 fabricating that response, if you look at his document,
15 dynasty in William Gibson’s Sprawl trilogy . Wright had 15 two days prior to the release of the WIRED article,
16 referenced the same fictional family in the bio of his 16 meaning that he must have either known WIRED was
17 private twitter profile . The email’s IP showed that it 17 publishing it and prepared, or prepared it before WIRED.
18 came from an IP address in Panama controlled by 18 Q. You went to great efforts, didn’t you, Dr Wright, to
19 Vistomail ... ” 19 produce articles to try to rebut the suggestion that
20 And the quotation is then: 20 these keys were unreliable , didn’t you? You produced
21 ”’This a throwaway account. There are ways even 21 papers and articles about it , didn’t you?
22 with [the anonymity software] Tor, but the people in 22 A. I produce papers every day. I ’ve produced two papers
23 Panama are extremely ... good and do not violate 23 today, I filed two yesterday. So, yes, I produced one.
24 people’s desired privacy ’ , the email read. ’You are 24 What I demonstrated was that he was wrong. What I noted
25 digging, the question is how deep are you? ... Regards, 25 was that he was basically out there slandering me for

122 124

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 something that was completely false. 1 was a document that, on its face, provides for
2 Q. You now say, don’t you, that many, or most, or all of 2 the various elements of the term sheet you’d entered
3 the pieces of evidence that WIRED and Gizmodo had were 3 into in June 2015 to be brought into effect. Do you
4 fake or doctored, don’t you? 4 remember signing an agreement to that effect?
5 A. No, some were, some weren’t; there was a mixture. But 5 A. Not the way you’re describing it . The January document
6 what happened was, they mixed the real evidence and 6 was changed quite a lot. Robert changed it
7 tainted evidence so that all the real evidence is just 7 significantly after all the WIRED and Gizmodo stuff came
8 tainted with the same brush now. 8 out.
9 Q. Well, Dr Wright, I suggest it ’s pretty extraordinary to 9 Q. What does Robert MacGregor have to do with this
10 go to great efforts to rebut Mr Maxwell’s piece 10 agreement?
11 undermining keys which you don’t say were your own 11 A. Stefan and Sterling Group is only brokering it ; Robert
12 anyway. 12 was the person doing it. NewCo was mostly −− what do
13 A. No, one of them was mine. That’s the whole point. 13 you call it −− Rob MacGregor, and he was the person
14 There were one known key, one my key and three other 14 behind the deal.
15 keys, so the whole thing is you throw everything at 15 Q. So do you say that this isn ’ t a genuine agreement, this
16 the wall , like this whole case, and you hope something 16 document we’re looking at here?
17 sticks . So, what happens is, you say that my key’s also 17 A. No, it is an agreement, but if it ’s brokered by
18 fabricated , as well as the other keys. So you throw in 18 a company, that’s still an agreement. And as you note,
19 three fabricated keys, two real keys, and then you can 19 I have already got an address here in −− well, at that
20 run round going, ”See, they’re all fabricated ; don’t 20 point, Wimbledon. I’m not in Wimbledon any more.
21 look at these ones over here, don’t look at the real 21 Q. Simple question: did you enter into an agreement on
22 one”. 22 the terms of this document?
23 Q. Dr Wright, obviously we don’t accept your suggestion 23 A. Like I just said , yes.
24 that you had real PGP keys associated with Satoshi. 24 Q. Page 6 {L11/285/6}, we can see it included further
25 It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that shortly after 25 provision on each aspect of the heads of terms, here for

125 127

1 the publication of these articles , you travelled to 1 the IP asset purchase, yes?
2 London? 2 A. Correct.
3 A. I travelled before and after. 3 Q. Page 10 {L11/285/10}, section 7 addressed the rights and
4 Q. You moved to London with your family shortly after these 4 services agreement; do you see that?
5 articles ? 5 A. I do.
6 A. No, I actually came over here and got my residency on 6 Q. And clause 7.2(c) on the next page {L11/285/11}, said
7 23 October. I then −− 7 that you would also:
8 Q. You physically moved with your family after these 8 ” ... in due course, enter into an additional
9 articles , didn’t you. 9 services agreement with Ncrypt Holdings ... for
10 A. I physically moved before. My son started school here 10 completion of certain services relating to recounting
11 in July. My daughter started school shortly after that. 11 and transcribing [your] history [ for ] $750,000 ...”
12 My wife first came in September. I went in October. 12 A. I do.
13 I came back to do the transitioning, then I came back 13 Q. So that was a term to which you agreed at that time?
14 here. So, we’d already found a house, we were living in 14 A. I didn’t really have much of a choice, but, yes.
15 a hotel at that point, but we were transitioning back 15 Q. And {L11/342/1}, ”Life Story Rights and Services
16 and forwards. So my argument is, I’d already moved, I’d 16 Agreement”, between you and EITC Holdings Limited. Is
17 already become a resident. 17 this a genuine agreement into which you entered on
18 Q. Moving on to early 2016 at {L11/285/1}, please. Do you 18 17 February 2016?
19 recall this document, an agreement being entered into 19 A. It is .
20 with you, on Baker & McKenzie regalia, dated 20 Q. And if we go to the final page of this document, which
21 7 January 2016? 21 I think is either page 3 or page 4, we’ ll see
22 A. I mean, it’s on a Baker & McKenzie letterhead, because 22 the signatures . If we could click back to the signature
23 they did it , but I don’t actually know if I ’d call 23 page. Is that your signature and that Mr Matthews’
24 it ” regalia ”. 24 signature? {L11/342/14}.
25 Q. Just focus on the document, please. Page 3 {L11/285/3} 25 A. That’s one I authorised to be signed for .

126 128

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Q. Is that your signature on the signature page? 1 A. Well, it was accounted that way.
2 A. I agreed to be bound. 2 Q. I see.
3 Q. Is that your signature? 3 Clause 2(c) provides for the remaining payments at
4 A. Like many other executives, I’ve had people sign things 4 milestone dates, if we look at the rest of that,
5 for me. 5 signature of the agreement, preparation of the first
6 Q. So somebody else signed this for you? 6 book of the story, publication of the book, and finally
7 A. Yes. 7 at the earlier of public announcement of the identity of
8 Q. Who? 8 the creator of Bitcoin or 31 December 2016, yes?
9 A. I can’t remember, my EA or anything at the time, sorry. 9 A. Yes.
10 Q. It doesn’t say, ”Signed by X for and on behalf of 10 Q. So at that stage, it was planned that that announcement
11 Craig Wright”, it says ”Craig Wright” and then 11 would have taken place in all likelihood by
12 a signature. 12 December 2016, right?
13 A. I agreed. I had a message sent saying that I agreed. 13 A. No, it says either the payment, if the announcement
14 I electronically basically sent something saying, 14 hasn’t happened by then, so I wasn’t in a rush to get
15 ”I agree to this ”, and then had it applied. 15 the money.
16 Q. It didn’t trouble you that somebody was signing with 16 Q. Page 3 {L11/342/3}, clause 3, provided an extensive
17 your signature, not for and on behalf of you, but with 17 grant of rights over the story and its exploitation ,
18 your actual signature on this document? That didn’t 18 didn’t it , this agreement?
19 trouble you? 19 A. It did.
20 A. No, because I sent a message saying that, ”Please sign 20 Q. Page 4 {L11/342/4} at the bottom over to page 5
21 for me”, so there was a record saying that. 21 {L11/342/4}, clause 4, entitled, ”Services”, obliged you
22 MR HOUGH: My Lord, I see it’s 3 o’clock. That might be 22 to provide various services , didn’t it ?
23 a convenient moment for a five−minute break. 23 A. It did.
24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, let’s take five minutes. Thank 24 Q. They included recounting the story, making yourself
25 you. 25 available for media training and interviews, providing

129 131

1 (3.00 pm) 1 what’s called the subject’s materials within 30 days of

2 (A short break) 2 entering into the agreement and assisting in marketing
3 (3.08 pm) 3 works, yes?
4 MR HOUGH: Back to the document at {L11/342/1} and page 1, 4 A. I do.
5 please, you see that the ”Definitions” section of this 5 Q. In short, by signing up to this agreement, you were
6 document defined the story as your ”entire life story”, 6 committing to a major media exercise which would involve
7 including the matters at annex A? 7 revealing your claim to be Satoshi, yes?
8 A. I do. 8 A. Yes and no. What really happened was, after I’d moved
9 Q. Page 2 {L11/342/2}, clause 1(d) defined the ’Subject’s 9 into −− into the UK, Robert used that as leverage.
10 Materials’ as all documents ”relevant to the Story”, 10 Q. Used what as leverage?
11 yes? 11 A. The rest of the money, the ongoing operations in
12 A. I do. 12 Australia . Basically , the terms were: you’ve moved over
13 Q. Page {L11/342/16}. Do you accept that annex A focused 13 here, your children are here, you don’t −− everything’s
14 upon your supposed work as Satoshi and creation of 14 now here, your companies are tied up, you’re going to do
15 the Bitcoin System? 15 this . So, I was given a choice, which he later quite
16 A. I do. 16 succinctly put, ”Basically you’re all going to be
17 Q. Back to page 2, please {L11/342/2}, clauses 2(a) and 17 shipped back with absolutely nothing if you don’t do
18 (b), towards the bottom of the page, does the document 18 what I want”.
19 record that you were to receive in consideration of this 19 Q. So this was an agreement that you really didn’t want to
20 agreement AU$1 million with 250,000 already paid? 20 enter into and which was entered into under pressure
21 A. The already paid was really the money that should have 21 against your wishes?
22 been part of the other agreement. It was the move over 22 A. More than just pressure. Basically , he said the money
23 to the UK. So I wouldn’t say that it was actually paid, 23 for the Australian companies that we had agreed would be
24 it was in−kind. 24 withheld, he said the intellectual property has already
25 Q. That’s not what the agreement says, though, is it? 25 been effectively transferred and ”I’ ll make sure that

130 132

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 you never get to work on it”, so the things I cared 1 that was in the original agreement didn’t occur.
2 about most, yes. 2 Q. We can take the document off screen.
3 Q. Mr Matthews signed this agreement, didn’t he? 3 By early March 2016 at any rate, you were in
4 A. I don’t know. Possibly. 4 discussions with both Mr Matthews and Mr MacGregor about
5 Q. Let’s go back to the signature page {L11/342/14}. 5 providing proof that you were Satoshi, as required under
6 Mr Matthews signed this agreement, didn’t he? 6 that agreement, weren’t you?
7 A. He did. 7 A. Not the way you’re saying. I kept saying that we needed
8 Q. When he signed this on behalf of −− as a director of 8 to prove things by knowledge, etc. An example was,
9 the company EITC, did he know that you were entering 9 I had phone calls to Gavin and I spoke to him. My
10 into it under duress, not wanting to? 10 argument for proof was I need to demonstrate, I need to
11 A. He knew I was very unhappy about it, yes. 11 file patents, I need to have help getting those filed
12 Q. He knew you didn’t want to enter into this agreement at 12 and I need to demonstrate my work. Rob had a deal with
13 all ? 13 Silicon Valley where he was going to sell the product,
14 A. Fairly much, yes. 14 and the conditional part that I understand from that
15 Q. In March 2016, shortly after you entered into this 15 deal is not that I proved myself in any other way than
16 agreement, it’s right , isn ’ t it , that the ATO issued 16 anonymously, I had to basically go against all my
17 a series of decisions rejecting claims by C01N, 17 beliefs and not prove identity to use a key, but use
18 Denariuz, Zuhl and Integyrs? Yes? 18 a key and be an anonymous cypherpunk, and that’s
19 A. That’s correct . 19 the only way that that billion dollars would come in for
20 Q. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that they disallowed claims 20 him.
21 totalling about AU$30 million or more? Correct? 21 Q. We’ll come to this cover story later .
22 A. No, these are rebates. So, anything over $20 million in 22 {L11/352/1}. This is document ID_002457. Is this
23 turnover doesn’t get money back. The claims are against 23 a genuine email from you at nCrypt to Mr Matthews at
24 future tax, so you don’t get money back on this like 24 the bottom of the page?
25 everyone claims. Anything over 20 million cannot have 25 A. It looks like it , yes.

133 135

1 a refund. So this is a future rebate, so they had 1 Q. And at that point, you were setting out conditions for
2 against my rebates. That would mean, over the next 2 the proof sessions , weren’t you?
3 years , if I sold Bitcoin or rights to intellectual 3 A. I basically said here that I will do things in private
4 property, then I would be able to take that off 4 and talk to people that would know who Satoshi is, but
5 the taxable income and reduce what I’ve spent. 5 I ’m not going to do anything public.
6 Q. At any rate, the tax rebates, or tax offsets for which 6 Q. You were agreeing to conduct signings with keys
7 you had been fighting for a number of years were 7 associated with Satoshi, but only behind closed doors at
8 disallowed at that time, weren’t they? 8 that stage?
9 A. Oh, they disallowed them every single year of my life . 9 A. Not the way you’re saying it . I was saying that
10 This was −− I did this every year since 2001. Every 10 the only way I would do it is proving signing , as it is
11 single time I had one of these, I had to fight it . 11 in British law, which is I would have to, first of all ,
12 Every time. And every time, apart from this one where 12 already have my identity, then I would show possession
13 I gave up, I eventually won them. 2001, ’02, ’03, 13 of the keys. I emphasise, just as I wrote in my LLM
14 I won; 2004, I won; 2005, I won; ’06, ’07, ’08, I won; 14 assignment on digital signatures , that there is no way
15 2009, I didn’t do Information Defense because it went 15 you can prove identity by possession.
16 into liquidation and was taken over before I could do 16 Q. No, but you can prove possession cryptographically,
17 it . 17 can’t you?
18 Q. These claims which were rejected in March/April 2016, on 18 A. You can prove possession, but that’s the whole point.
19 which you’d spent all −− so much money and which you 19 That was part of the big argument I had, which goes back
20 were so keen to pursue, according to that correspondence 20 to the Dread Pirate Robert defence and what they were
21 in June 2015, you just gave them up, did you? 21 doing in Silk Road. People wanted to link the idea of
22 A. I didn’t really have much of a choice. What then 22 possession −−
23 happened was Rob pulled all the money that was in 23 Q. Pause there. Pause there. You’ve answered the question
24 the agreement and stopped funding any of it. I had to 24 I asked.
25 fund what I could personally. So, the −− the funding 25 In this email, you were dealing with what you were

134 136

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 prepared to do in relation to a proof session with 1 in Australia . Your mum and sister were fantastic and
2 Jon Matonis, a blockchain developer, right? 2 helpful , as was Lynn, and your friend Rob.
3 A. And as I said , there will be no public display , nor 3 ”In these areas, the story has got richer . But I am
4 acknowledgement. 4 vexed about the stalemate on other elements, not least
5 Q. And you were not prepared, according to your email, to 5 on the harvesting of the core stuff that backs
6 send Bitcoin for the world to see, were you? 6 the central claim I am supposed to be making in
7 A. Like I just said , there will be no public display , nor 7 the book.”
8 any acknowledgement. This was supposed to be completely 8 Do you see that?
9 secret , private , unknown. 9 A. I do.
10 Q. And I think, shortly after this exchange of emails, you 10 Q. He was referring, wasn’t he, to the Satoshi claim?
11 had a proof session with Mr Matonis, didn’t you? 11 A. I guess so. That’s why I forwarded a question on to
12 A. No, I’d already proven myself. I spoke to Jon −− 12 Stefan. I wasn’t sure of all the details .
13 Q. You had a signing session with Mr Matonis shortly 13 Q. He then goes on to complain, doesn’t he, about the lack
14 afterwards, yes? 14 of Satoshi Nakamoto email correspondence?
15 A. Only because he already knew who I was. 15 A. He mentioned it, yes.
16 Q. I ’ ll ask about the detail of the signing sessions later . 16 Q. A few lines down:
17 Is it right that arrangements were then made with 17 ”Weeks ago I asked you to use the SN email in
18 Mr Matonis for him to get either Gavin Andresen or 18 correspondence with me. Nothing. Months ago, I asked
19 Mike Hearn to engage in a similar proof session? 19 for the emails. Nothing. Last week, Rob suggested
20 A. I don’t know. I wasn’t involved in a lot of the other 20 a meeting to discuss my role.”
21 communications and didn’t pay much attention to them. 21 He was pressing, wasn’t he, for some form of
22 Q. {L11/374/1}. This isn’t an email to which you were 22 objective proof that you were Satoshi?
23 party, I ’m just going to ask if you were aware of 23 A. I ’m not actually sure. What I do know is, where he’s
24 the arrangements. 24 saying, ”Months ago, I asked for the emails”, he didn’t
25 At the bottom of the page, Mr Matthews emails 25 ask me. So he might have been talking to −− to Rob, but

137 139

1 Mr Matonis on 15 March 2016, asking about his 1 I didn’t even know Andrew O’Hagan had been involved
2 availability on certain dates and going on to say that: 2 until sort of way into 2016, like February or something
3 ” ... the reveal process will ... entail a media 3 like this . I found out later that Rob had been talking
4 session on 30 March ... media releases on 22 April, 4 to him for at least six months before this, but never
5 a press conference on 25 April and [an] LSE panel event 5 signed a contract or did anything, so I had no idea.
6 on 27 April.” 6 Q. Mr O’Hagan, here, was threatening to down tools because
7 Were these arrangements, which plainly Mr Matthews 7 he had been asking for a long time for some form of
8 knew about at that point, known to you at that stage? 8 objective proof and he hadn’t had anything, right?
9 A. I don’t know if Mr Matthews knew. I’m assuming 9 A. I don’t really know. I wasn’t involved in any of that.
10 the email’s correct . But no, I didn’t know them, and 10 Q. And if, at that point, you had had access to
11 these didn’t happen, because I was being difficult . 11 the Satoshi Nakamoto email account, that was plainly
12 Q. Sure. But assuming that the email is correct, these 12 a time to use it in order to satisfy his requirements,
13 arrangements, which were known to Mr Matthews, you say 13 wasn’t it ?
14 weren’t known to you at that point? 14 A. No. I didn’t give a rats what he thought.
15 A. No. 15 Q. You didn’t give a rats what he thought even though you
16 Q. {L11/395/1}, please. At this point you were working, 16 had contractual obligations to assist in the production
17 weren’t you, with a journalist and author, 17 of this story?
18 Mr Andrew O’Hagan, with a view to producing either 18 A. I had been forced, basically in duress, to go through
19 a long article or book? Yes? 19 something I didn’t want to do. The promise, and why
20 A. I ’d started documenting what I was inventing and I spent 20 I selected Rob over Macquarie Bank was a promise that
21 some of the times in the day going through the patents 21 was categorically put as I will get to be CSO, chief
22 we were filing and explaining my inventions. 22 scientist , I will sit in a room, I will invent, I will
23 Q. Mr O’Hagan wrote to you on 17 March 2016: 23 spend 80 to 100 hours a week working on my inventions;
24 ”Dear Craig, 24 I will have a team to document those, I will have a team
25 ”I had an excellent series of interviews with people 25 to file my patents, I will have people like Cerian and

138 140

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 the other, like , what do you call it , patent attorneys, 1 Would be emails or forum posts sent to him in 2010
2 to teach me how to turn my inventions into patentable 2 and a technical conversation; you see that?
3 things; I will have a development team to make them 3 A. I had both of those. I discussed the emails that we’d
4 real . That’s what I was promised. That wasn’t 4 sent between each other, ones that are not public, and
5 delivered . 5 I also went over the technology, also going on to things
6 Q. Dr Wright, you were the one who signed an agreement 6 that people don’t know, like the SPV patches, etc.
7 committing you to provide full support for a big media 7 Q. And his reference to a PGP key Satoshi used in 2010 was
8 reveal of your claim to be Satoshi, weren’t you? 8 a reference to a well known key pair used by Satoshi at
9 A. I agreed to do it my way. I would prove to people who 9 that time, wasn’t it ?
10 I am, because I’d spoken to them, because I knew things, 10 A. Only for encrypting, never for signing .
11 because of my work. I went up to Gavin and I told him 11 Q. So Gavin Andresen got that wrong in suggesting that
12 about the development issues, I explained what we did, 12 a message could be signed with that key, did he?
13 things that were not public. I went on an email −− not 13 A. The fact that you can use a key multiple ways doesn’t
14 just emails, but I had phone calls with him, and 14 mean you should. You should not use encryption keys as
15 I talked him through things that only he and Satoshi 15 signing keys and vice versa.
16 knew, and that’s why he came out to England. I had 16 Q. Just to be clear on this , because we’ll come back to it.
17 nothing to do with any of this . 17 Do you say the PGP key associated with Satoshi used by
18 Q. Let’s move to Mr Andresen. The proof session, or 18 Satoshi in 2010 could not be used for signing, or just
19 signing session , took place with him on 7 and 19 that it was a bad idea?
20 8 April 2016, didn’t it ? 20 A. You could extract it from Vistomail, where it was
21 A. Yes. I ’d already called him, had conversations, and 21 loaded. That would have enabled it to be used as
22 after he spoke to me, he basically thought, ”Oh god, 22 signing . That is a bad idea, an incredibly bad idea.
23 this is actually ... ” −− 23 But, no, Vistomail was closed, was reconstituted in
24 Q. {L12/2/3}, please, page 3, an email chain with an email 24 2014, so there is no key to sign with −−
25 from Mr Andresen to Mr Matthews, and we’ll see later 25 Q. Okay, we’ll come back −−

141 143

1 that it is forwarded to you. Do you recall reading an 1 A. That was also a server key.
2 email of this kind at this time, 31 March 2016? 2 Q. We’ll come back to that later.
3 A. No. When was this forwarded, sorry? 3 Page 2, please {L12/2/2}, your response is recorded
4 Q. We can go to the previous page {L12/2/2}, page 2, and 4 as saying:
5 further up the page. You’re included in the chain, you 5 ”There is one thing here that could work and only
6 see here, 31 March, ”nCrypt Craig”; do you see that? 6 one:
7 A. I do. 7 ”’A conversation about technical stuff , ideally via
8 Q. Back to page 3 {L12/2/3}. Do you recall reading that 8 email, so I can see if it feels like the same person
9 email from Mr Andresen at that time? 9 I communicated with in 2010’.”
10 A. I don’t. 10 You were resistant to all other forms of proof at
11 Q. Well, we’ ll see what you’re recorded as writing in 11 that stage, weren’t you?
12 response and see if that triggers a memory in a moment. 12 A. Exactly. You don’t prove by having identity through
13 But according to this email, Mr Andresen was requiring 13 possession of something; you prove by knowledge, who you
14 a number of pieces of evidence to convince him, first , 14 are, what you create. Just as I ’ve mentioned,
15 personally verifying on his computer either a message 15 Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, wrote a second
16 signed with a PGP key Satoshi used in 2010 or a message 16 book, that’s how he proved he was who he is. This is
17 signed from early Bitcoin blocks; do you see that? 17 something that is not uncommon in history.
18 A. I do. 18 Q. Let’s forget about proof in −− several hundred years
19 Q. He said he wanted to do this on his computer because it 19 ago. You were rejecting every form of objectively
20 would be easy to modify the software to make it look 20 verifiable proof, weren’t you.
21 like signed messages were verifying correctly ; do you 21 A. No −−
22 see that? 22 Q. Objectively verifiable ?
23 A. Mm−hm. 23 A. Again, it ’s not several hundred years ago. A certain
24 Q. And he said that: 24 author who did a Harry Potter series only did it
25 ”Other evidence that would help ...” 25 recently . A certain author who did a whole lot of −−

142 144

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 Q. You’re still not answering my question. 1 that proof that you controlled the keys that was
2 A. No, I am. You’re trying to equate something that is 2 objectionable to you. That’s what you said, isn’ t it ?
3 exactly the opposite of British law, for 3 A. No, it is only proof that I controlled the keys. It
4 a thousand years, actually going back to Roman times, on 4 isn ’ t proof of identity .
5 identity law, and people want to equate that, because 5 Q. ”A signed message is definitive ... I control the keys
6 there are a lot of people in Silicon Valley who hate 6 completely. If it is copied ... there is no way to
7 the idea of having identity ; they want to have an 7 control it . Even deleting a file is not removing it.
8 anonymous system, mainly because there’s more money in 8 Files can be recovered and I doubt Gavin would allow us
9 Google outside −− 9 to wipe his machines.”
10 Q. Please stop −− please stop there, Dr Wright. You’re 10 That’s objecting on the basis that the keys could be
11 getting into a digression . 11 compromised, not on the basis that you had a principled
12 The only thing you were prepared to do by way of 12 objection to signing at all , isn ’ t it ?
13 proof, at that stage, was have a technical discussion , 13 A. No, what you have just said is utterly wrong. Now, what
14 which you well knew you were capable of faking rather 14 you’ve just said is the key is compromised. This is
15 than objectively verifiable proof which you couldn’t 15 wrong. I could give you a signed message and you can
16 fake so easily . 16 validate it on a third party computer, but what I’m
17 A. Actually, no, it ’s the one thing you can’t fake, because 17 saying here is , I can no longer control who has that
18 not only −− I mean, if you compromised the emails, you 18 message. When I did the exercise for
19 would have to understand them as well. So, I had 19 the Australian Tax Office, the way that I did it was
20 knowledge of everything Gavin and I discussed, not only 20 I encrypted a file −− or, sorry, they encrypted a file
21 on email, but the forums. So most people don’t know 21 and I decrypted it . Now, that proves categorically that
22 a lot of information that Gavin and I talked about. We 22 I have the key. If I can answer the question you put in
23 discussed some of the issues in SPV. That was done 23 that file , I must have decrypted it. If I can send you
24 beforehand. So SPV patching, I did the first one, Gavin 24 back the file , I must have decrypted it. But there is
25 did some updates. SPV is still not out there on BTC. 25 no proof I have the key other than the party who sent it

145 147

1 So, my client side version of this was unknown. 1 to me.

2 Q. Page 1 {L12/2/1}, middle of the page, please. 2 My requirement, very simply, was Gavin can know,
3 Mr MacGregor replied, in his honest opinion: 3 he’s not telling anyone.
4 ” ... at some point, we’re going to have to start 4 Q. Okay, we’ll move on.
5 trusting [somebody] −− even if ... only to not [have] 5 You go on to say that you were objecting, in
6 them breach their NDA.” 6 the last paragraph, because you’d said that you couldn’t
7 And he tries to persuade you to engage in some sort 7 control the keys without help. You said that to
8 of signing session as Gavin was asking for, didn’t he? 8 the government. That was the nature of the objection
9 A. Yes, Mr MacGregor wanted basically just to have an 9 you were pointing out to Mr MacGregor, isn’t it?
10 anonymous key structure. He −− 10 A. No, that’s a different issue . We could have gone
11 Q. Pause there. He’s just asking you to meet Gavin 11 through things like signing off on the trust and
12 halfway, isn ’ t he? 12 everything like −− that we ended up doing, but, no,
13 A. No, he’s actually not. He is completely, utterly not. 13 I wasn’t going to just have it out there. I wasn’t
14 He wanted me to do nothing but the other. He kept 14 going to go into attributing myself to Satoshi publicly
15 moving the goal posts. Every time I agreed to 15 that way. No way I was going to basically have this
16 something, he moved them. I did an exercise where 16 mantra that everyone wants of possession equals
17 I signed for multiple people and then he said that’s not 17 identity .
18 good enough. I did something where I did it on a laptop 18 Q. Then you proceeded, didn’t you, to undertake signing
19 that Gavin sort of set up new. Not good enough. He 19 sessions with journalists from GQ, the BBC and
20 moved it and he made it so the only way he would do it 20 The Economist, didn’t you?
21 is so he could keep BTC’s cypherpunks happy. 21 A. Like I said −−
22 Q. I appreciate you’re desperate to make Mr MacGregor 22 Q. Just an answer ”yes” or ”no” at this stage, please.
23 the villain . But if we look to the top of the page, you 23 A. The goal posts moved.
24 object to signing on the basis that it would be 24 Q. You agreed, didn’t you, and you undertook signing
25 definitive proof of your controlling the keys and it was 25 sessions with GQ, the BBC and The Economist, right?

146 148

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 A. No, I had sessions where I showed keys. The agreement 1 A. No, actually , I know what digital signature is , I have
2 was that all of the other stuff would be put in. What 2 been teaching it since 2000. I said we will ” verify
3 was called a ”proof pack” was meant to go out. That was 3 the early blocks”. ”Verify the early blocks” doesn’t
4 meant to put together my history, my work, the patents 4 mean I’m doing a digital signature. I can’t do
5 I ’d been filing . None of it went. The proof pack was 5 a digital signature unless I ’ve given proof. Having
6 actually sending the proof, but none of the proof got 6 a key is not proof. You will not budge me on that one.
7 sent. 7 Q. At the moment I’m just asking what you were agreeing to
8 Q. Did you or did you not conduct sessions with journalists 8 do, and according to this email, it was a signed−only
9 where you signed messages, new messages with −− 9 session as with Mr Matonis and Mr Andresen, a signature
10 purported to sign messages with keys you claimed were 10 session?
11 associated with the early blocks of the blockchain? 11 A. That is not a signature. I would verify the keys.
12 A. I used the digital signature algorithm with the key. 12 I will use a digital signature algorithm with
13 Because I had not gone through the proof session, which 13 the private key. I have not said at any point in my
14 was actually proving who I was so that my identity was 14 life that that makes it a signature. A digital
15 formed, I did not sign. A signature requires identity 15 signature, under UK law, requires that the private key
16 to be structured, known and basically set. So I did not 16 is known and maintained first. I would go to a PKI, web
17 do a digital signature, I used a digital signature 17 of trust , etc, put my key out there, and then and only
18 algorithm with the original keys. 18 then, can I say that that is my signing key. I cannot
19 Q. {L12/172/1}, please. 19 go, ”I ’ve got a key, this is my identity”. It doesn’t
20 If we look at the bottom of the page, there’s an 20 work that way.
21 email from Mr MacGregor to yourself and Mr Matthews 21 Q. {L12/221/1}, please. An email from Mr MacGregor to you,
22 referring to the journalists ’ interviews being pushed 22 your wife Ramona, and Mr Matthews. You see he sets out
23 out, yes? 23 the plan, beginning with a media briefing on 26 April,
24 A. Yes. 24 yes?
25 Q. And then he suggests targeting the interviews on Monday, 25 A. Yes. Can you scroll up for a second?

149 151

1 25 April , doesn’t he? 1 Q. Yes. Okay? Back down. Do we see that he refers to
2 A. I see that, yes. 2 the media partners, being given documents having
3 Q. Point 3, over the page {L12/172/2}, he asks what 3 messages signed with specific keys and being given
4 the disclosure session would consist of, PGP signature, 4 access to Mr Matonis and possibly Mr Andresen?
5 confirmation of early block keys, etc; do you see that? 5 A. I see what he said, yes.
6 A. I do. 6 Q. And towards the bottom of the page, he says, doesn’t he,
7 Q. Back to the first page {L12/172/1}: 7 that he hopes that trustee permissions will be in place
8 ”My view remains that we verify the early blocks for 8 and, if so, media partners would be told that third
9 the media. I sign a message to prove my control of 9 parties would be asked to send one bitcoin to
10 these. What I also do is do this as a signed−only 10 the Genesis Block and block 9; do you see that?
11 session with JM [Jon Matonis] and [Gavin Andresen] and 11 A. I do.
12 not move blocks.” 12 Q. Then, up the page, did you respond saying that you were
13 You were proposing, at that stage, to Mr MacGregor 13 ”not moving Bitcoin”:
14 that you would conduct a signing session with 14 ”Message signing is one thing, moving coin is out of
15 the journalists , just as you had with Mr Matonis and 15 the question.”
16 Mr Andresen, weren’t you? 16 A. As I’ve actually stated multiple times, message signing
17 A. No, as I just explained, it ’s not signing . I would show 17 requires that the proof session happens. The proof
18 that I could verify the early blocks. I did not say 18 session wasn’t just , ”Here’s a key and I’m going to use
19 sign , I said control and possession. I agreed that 19 it ”. There was supposed to be a proof pack, it was
20 I would do that for the −− what then had to happen was 20 supposed to go into all of my work, the hundreds of
21 a proper proof session . You verify all my stuff, you go 21 papers I had, the thousands of patents I’ve now filed .
22 through how I created the Bitcoin White Paper −− 22 All of that was meant to happen. That did not.
23 Q. But you were proposing, weren’t you, a signature session 23 Q. Part of the exercise with the journalists was supposed
24 with the journalists as with Mr Matonis and Mr Andresen, 24 to be you signing messages with keys associated with
25 weren’t you? 25 the early blocks, right?

150 152

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 A. No. Like it says here, ”I am not moving Bitcoin”. 1 the email, including your wife, Mr O’Hagan, Mr Matthews,
2 Q. Moving Bitcoin, but signing messages? 2 you were giving all of those the impression that you
3 A. You have to actually use a digital signature algorithm. 3 were going along with the plan, weren’t you?
4 But once again, and I’m going to keep emphasising this, 4 A. No, I was actually very difficult . As an example, they
5 you cannot, by definition , prove identity using 5 had media interviews where they gave me scripted things
6 a digital signature algorithm; you have to have a key 6 to say and I basically swore at everyone instead.
7 associated with identity first . It ’s in 7 Q. Well, let ’s take an example of that. May we please have
8 the White Paper. Identity is firewalled . It doesn’t 8 the recording at {L14/67/1} played. And can we play it
9 mean it doesn’t exist . 9 from 1 minute and 40 seconds. Actually, we’ll play it
10 Q. {L12/388/1}, please. An email of 24 April 2016 from 10 from the start , so it ’s fully heard. From the start.
11 Mr MacGregor to you, because we can see that you 11 I think there may be a problem with the audio?
12 responded, and he sets out the plan for the following 12 (Video footage played)
13 days, including , on 25 April, a dry−run for proof 13 Pause there, please.
14 sessions on the Tuesday; do you see that? 14 This was a discussion with GQ, who had an academic
15 A. I do. 15 cryptographer with them, Dr Courtois, right?
16 Q. Page 2 {L12/388/2}, 26 April, media sessions at 16 A. No, the only way I saw it is that he’s a university
17 the outside organisation offices . That’s the media 17 academic who was basically a fraud, who goes out there
18 consultants, yes? 18 claiming that he can break cryptographic keys when he
19 A. Correct. 19 has never done so.
20 Q. Then he refers to the media partners being advised: 20 Q. What you were objecting to, is this right , is the idea
21 ” ... of the plan regarding the signing of 21 that cryptographic keys could be compromised, that
22 the messages on CW’s blog.” 22 the private key could be derived from the public key?
23 A. I see that. 23 A. No, actually , that’s not what he said. He said
24 Q. So at that stage, the plan was for one or more messages 24 categorically , ”My team and I have decrypted and
25 to be signed on your blog, yes? 25 captured hundreds of Bitcoin keys, it is insecure , we

153 155

1 A. No, that was Rob’s plan. Rob continuously moving 1 can reverse these at will ”. And I −−
2 the goal posts and trying to get me to do these things. 2 Q. And you were taking the opposite position, weren’t you,
3 Q. Well, let ’s −− we’ll see how you react to it in 3 that a key −− a message signed with a private key would
4 a moment, but he is setting out that the plan is for 4 not allow somebody to derive that private key from it,
5 messages to be signed on your blog at that stage, yes? 5 right?
6 A. That’s what he wanted. But as I said, the proof package 6 A. More than that. I’m saying if you had a signature which
7 never happened. 7 is requiring identities already to be set up, such as
8 Q. 28 April, work on the blog infrastructure and completing 8 a PKI certification authority structure , then someone
9 the blog content was planned, wasn’t it? 9 cannot just steal your private information, whether it’s
10 A. It was. 10 on a smartcard or otherwise, because you have a public
11 Q. And then page 3 {L12/388/3}, on 2 April [sic], your blog 11 key that is open. I stated that just because you go to
12 to go live at the start of the day and the media pieces 12 the blockchain doesn’t mean you can harvest private
13 to be released , the embargo to be lifted, yes. 13 keys. Dr Courtois actually said that, no, his team had
14 A. I see. 14 harvested hundreds, if not thousands of them.
15 Q. Then back to the first page {L12/388/1}, did you 15 Q. Okay, let’s play on.
16 respond: 16 (Video footage played)
17 ”Everything is in place from my send.” 17 I think we can stop there. That’s what I wanted to
18 Presumably ”my end”, yes? 18 ask you about.
19 A. I don’t recall . 19 Now, Dr Wright, I’m not going to ask you about
20 Q. You didn’t respond to that email saying, ”I absolutely 20 the language in which you spoke, you were obviously
21 will not sign a blog −− sign a message on my blog”, did 21 under stress , but you insisted , didn’t you, that you had
22 you? 22 only ever transferred Bitcoin to Zooko and Hal Finney,
23 A. I don’t recall . 23 full stop, didn’t you?
24 Q. You were, at that stage, going along with the plan, or 24 A. No, that’s not what I’m saying. I was noting in
25 at least giving everyone, all these people copied in to 25 the earliest keys, now, when I’m referencing this, all

154 156

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 of the other, what people call, Satoshi Bitcoin were 1 transferred Bitcoin as Satoshi to hundreds of people.
2 actually owned by Information Defense which was 2 Can you name some of those to whom you transferred
3 transferred to Wright International. So any of 3 Bitcoin whose receipt of Bitcoin from Satoshi is not in
4 the other things I did were company transfers. 4 the public domain?
5 Q. Dr Wright, it’s true, isn ’ t it that Satoshi, as well as 5 A. God knows. I don’t remember everyone now.
6 transferring Bitcoin to Hal Finney, transferred Bitcoin 6 Q. So you can’t remember any of the hundreds?
7 to many other people, or a number of other people? 7 A. No.
8 A. Technically, I enacted the process, but it was from 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Not even one?
9 Information Defense. So when I did it for Mike or Gavin 9 A. I don’t know who is and isn’t in the public domain.
10 or all of the different many, many people, and there 10 I know the funding stuff I did for Gavin, but he’s
11 would probably be about a hundred, then that’s not from 11 talked about that now. But, no, it had no value at the
12 me, it ’s from my company. 12 time, my Lord. I just sent whoever asked, and most of
13 Q. Dr Wright, you were answering questions about what could 13 them were pseudonymous. The majority of people on
14 be proved in terms of movement of early Bitcoin and you 14 the forum didn’t actually use their name.
15 said that you had transferred them only to Zooko and 15 MR HOUGH: {L13/40/1}, please, moving on in time. This is
16 Hal Finney. That was your meaning, wasn’t it? 16 an email from Victoria Brooks of Milk Publicity, one of
17 A. No, it ’s not. The −− 17 the two publicity agencies, 29 April 2016, to
18 Q. And in reality , Satoshi never transferred any Bitcoin to 18 Mr MacGregor, Mr Matthews, yourself and others; do you
19 Zooko Wilcox−O’Hearn, did he? 19 see that?
20 A. Actually, I did. Zooko was very interested because he 20 A. I do.
21 had been working on a similar thing, MojoNation, 21 Q. And that refers to your blog going live on 2 May and you
22 beforehand. 22 signing block 9 at the identical time. Did you receive
23 Q. So he’s wrong in his witness statement when he says he 23 and read that email at the time?
24 didn’t receive Bitcoin from Satoshi, is he? 24 A. I don’t recall .
25 A. He is. 25 Q. It ’s clear from that email that what was envisaged was

157 159

1 Q. And of course Satoshi transferred Bitcoin to Nick Bohm, 1 you signing a new message on your blog using the private
2 but you weren’t to know that at that point, were you? 2 key associated with block 9, right?
3 A. Oh, of course I did. But do I remember people? No. 3 A. It ’s not something I was agreeing to. What I agreed to
4 I transferred to a lot of people in 2009. 4 was there would be a proof pack first . First ,
5 Q. But what really got you exercised in the course of this 5 journalists would actually come to understand that I am
6 discussion was the idea that your signing sessions might 6 the creator of Bitcoin, they would go through my work,
7 not be valid because your keys that you had used might 7 they would look at the things I ’m doing, they would look
8 have been obtained by somebody −− by you without having 8 at the scaling solutions I was building, then and only
9 been Satoshi, right? 9 then.
10 A. Not at all . My Lord, what that guy said is Bitcoin was 10 Q. At this point in time, it was planned that, whatever
11 not secure. He said that he could compromise literally 11 else happened, at 7.59 am, on 2 May, a blog would go
12 tens of thousands of addresses. My system is the most 12 live bearing a signature by you of a message using
13 secure software system ever created. I find it not only 13 the private key associated with block 9; correct?
14 offensive , but it ’s flimflam people like that, who sit 14 A. That’s what they wanted, but my requirement was: first
15 there saying that they can do these things, that’s 15 of all , you actually do the proof pack that I required.
16 technobabble, when you write papers and you can’t do it. 16 So, you go through, you explain, you show my patents,
17 He could verify nothing. So−called experts who cannot 17 you show everything −−
18 verify their work; I hate that. I loathe it . People 18 Q. Did you respond to any of these emails saying, ”I ’m not
19 like that, who falsely , fraudulently claim to have 19 going to produce a blog of that kind”, without having
20 cracked tens of thousands of Bitcoin addresses, write 20 done something you’re now saying you required as
21 papers about it, go to conferences about it, which he 21 a precondition first ?
22 has, it is disgusting . 22 A. Yes. More, to be honest, like your email, there was
23 Q. Can I just stop you. You have made the point −− you’ve 23 a lot of yelling and swearing at people going, ”Why
24 made your point. 24 the hell hasn’t this happened”?
25 Let me ask this question then. You’ve said that you 25 Q. {L13/88/1}, please, an email of 29 April 2016, from you

158 160

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 at nCrypt, referring to changes you’d performed to 1 the introduction to this blog, which you produced on
2 the text of an attachment, which we see is, ”If I sign 2 that date, that this is definitely not providing any
3 myself Jean v2.docx”; do you see that? 3 proof and in fact it is a rebuke to anyone who wants
4 A. I do. 4 proof from you? You say that’s the message that screams
5 Q. Can we go to {L14/327/1}. That’s the document entitled, 5 out from this blog you produced?
6 ” If I sign myself Jean v2.docx”, on the system. Is this 6 A. Like it says:
7 the draft blog which you provided? 7 ”Going forward.
8 A. It looks similar at this point. I ’d have to go through 8 ”This blog is the first step of many aspects of what
9 it in detail , but it looks very similar . 9 I will start to reveal .”
10 Q. Now, the court’s familiar with this , so I ’m not going to 10 Q. Page 6, please {L14/327/6}, under ”Signing”:
11 quote it in detail , but in this you describe a process 11 ”The process of digitally signing a message using
12 of signing and verifying a signature, don’t you? 12 OpenSSL requires that the party signing the message has
13 A. No, I use an existing one and I demonstrate that I know, 13 access to the private key. I will document and cover
14 in incredible depth, how to do it by command line. 14 this process further in a later post. In recent
15 The purpose here wasn’t how to sign or anything like 15 sessions , I have used a total of 10 private keys that
16 this . As it says there, ” If I sign myself 16 are associated with bitcoin addresses. These were
17 Jean−Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign 17 loaded into Electrum, an SPV wallet. In one of
18 myself Jean−Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner”. 18 the exercises , I signed messages that I will not detail
19 The purpose of this, if you actually read Sartre ’s 19 on this post for a number of individuals. These were
20 letter , which I forget most people haven’t, is I was 20 not messages that I personally selected , but rather ones
21 saying, basically , ”Screw you all”. My comment here 21 that other people had selected. In some instance, we
22 was: I ’m not going to do it. If no one’s going to go 22 ensure the integrity of the process by downloading a new
23 out there and put out my proof pack, you’re not getting 23 version of the electrum program, installing it on
24 it . You get a signature at this point if I get my proof 24 a fresh laptop that has just been unboxed having been
25 pack. So, you want me to sign; I’m saying I’m not 25 purchased that afternoon and validating the signed

161 163

1 signing . 1 messages on the new machine.”

2 Sartre did not. Anything he signed was, ”I’m not 2 So you were directly comparing this, what you were
3 taking the damn Nobel prize”. 3 doing in this post, with the signing exercises you’d
4 Q. Page 2, please {L14/327/2}. So you begin with a string 4 done for Mr Andresen et al, weren’t you?
5 at the top of the page, which is a Basics encoding of 5 A. Of course. I ’m explaining I know how to do it and I’ve
6 the message above, isn’t it ? 6 actually used the keys. But like I said on the page
7 A. It is . 7 before, I ’m not doing it that way, I ’m going to go
8 Q. Then you proceed, over the following pages, to describe 8 through a process of proof that is real proof −−
9 the background to signing a message with a private key, 9 Q. And then you say −−
10 yes? 10 A. −− a demonstration −−
11 A. I say how you could actually do it. First , it is −− 11 Q. Then you say:
12 Q. Do you say −− 12 ”Signature verification .
13 A. You actually need to, first of all , have identity , 13 ”The final component that we need to cover is
14 but −− 14 the signature itself . We will be using the following
15 Q. Do you say at any point in the course of those pages 15 command to convert our base64 format signature into
16 that what you’re definitely not doing on this −− in this 16 a file format that can be loaded into OpenSSL.”
17 blog is signing a real key, signing with a real key, or 17 And then at the very bottom of the page you provide
18 a new message, and that the purpose of the post is to 18 the signature filed that you will be verifying , and you
19 say ”screw you”? 19 didn’t say anywhere that that was a signature already on
20 A. If I sign ”Craig Wright”, it is not the same if I sign 20 the blockchain, on the public blockchain, that didn’t
21 ”Craig Wright, Satoshi”. It ’s very clear . I mean, if 21 prove anything, did you?
22 you actually read Sartre , his ’64 letter , it ’s the same 22 A. I don’t need to. Everyone knows what it is. It ’s
23 quote paraphrased: I have just turned down. I have not 23 a well known one. Anyone, any one of the developers
24 gone, ”I ’m embracing the Nobel prize”, I’ve said ”no”. 24 looking at it would actually be able to check this very
25 Q. So you say that it ’s absolutely clear from 25 quickly , and they did. I mean, there’s nothing here

162 164

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 that anyone in the BTC developer community wouldn’t go, 1 would have been going out there and signing up for
2 ”Okay, that’s what that’s from”, and if they didn’t , 2 a cypherpunk lie. It would have been signing up for not
3 I would be surprised. 3 what identity is , it would have been removing
4 Q. Well, it took −− it didn’t take very long, but it took 4 the function of identity as it is in
5 a little time and the production of special programs to 5 the Bitcoin White Paper, not pseudonymous, not private,
6 go through the blockchain and find this signature, 6 going back to the whole lie of anonymity. It would have
7 didn’t it , Dr Wright? 7 been undermining my life’s work.
8 A. No. The key for block 9 was actually published back in 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can we just pause there.
9 2011 on BitcoinTalk forum. On top of that, Mr Maxwell, 9 Can the lady in the back row who’s nodding or
10 Willie −− actually, every one of the BTC developers have 10 shaking her head all the time just keep still , because
11 extensively talked about this between 2011 and 2016, 11 if you’re unable to keep still , I ’ ll have you removed,
12 right up to this . Every one of them. There are public 12 okay?
13 posts on this key by every single one of the developers, 13 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright −− my Lord, I’m aware of
14 at least −− and I’ll stake my reputation on this, at 14 the adjustments, so I ’m going to try and keep questions
15 least ten different occurrences, minimum, per one. On 15 short for the next few.
16 this , they’ve discussed this key, this verification 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Don’t worry, Mr Hough.
17 method, all of this . Every one of them knew it. 17 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, your own team and supporters,
18 Q. Page 7 {L14/327/7}, second paragraph down: 18 including Mr Matthews, as well as Mr MacGregor and all
19 ”I could have simply signed a message in electrum as 19 the media people, expected this post to contain
20 I did in private successes. Loading such a message 20 a message actually signed with one of the private keys,
21 would have been far simpler. I am known for a long 21 didn’t they?
22 history of ’being difficult ’ ... ” 22 A. The biggest lie in your statement is my own team.
23 Now, there you’re contrasting signing Electrum −− in 23 I didn’t have a team, I had Rob trying to sell me. Rob
24 Electrum, as you did in private sessions , and signing 24 had made a deal with a Silicon Valley group to sell me,
25 with OpenSSL, as has happened here, aren’t you? 25 packaged as Satoshi, as a cypherpunk, and he gets

165 167

1 A. No. What I’ve said here is I could have actually just 1 a $1 billion figure that I ’ ll get a freaking few crumbs
2 done a signature and loaded it, but the problem is, 2 of. His deal was to sell me, put a little bow on me and
3 you’re not actually putting my proof pack up. So, what 3 turn me into a cypherpunk, put me in a hoodie and do
4 I ’m saying here is I could have done this exercise , but 4 everything I hate in life .
5 I ’m not. 5 Q. Can we at least agree on this, having listened to the GQ
6 Q. Let’s be direct about this. If you had had access to 6 interview . If you had produced a signed message as
7 the private keys associated with any of blocks 1 to 9, 7 proposed, that would not have involved a security risk
8 you could have taken a message, produced a signature? 8 of the private keys being derived by anyone else?
9 A. No, I could have produced a message digest that would be 9 A. Not if I had it on a separate machine. If I had it
10 associated with it as a signature if I had already 10 on −−
11 proved my identity. 11 Q. Just to be clear , what I’m putting to you is, if you had
12 Q. But just in terms of what was logistic −− what was 12 put the message out there, the signed message out there,
13 possible . 13 and the message text, you’d informed the world of which
14 A. No. No, sorry, you won’t get me to agree to that. 14 key you had signed with, which block’s key you had
15 There is no feasible way to prove identity , it ’s 15 signed with, that would not have created a risk, a real
16 a one−way function. You cannot. It is against the very 16 risk of the key being compromised and the private key
17 law of what that means. 17 being found by a bad actor, would it?
18 Q. Just in terms of proving possession, if you’d wanted to 18 A. Again, that has nothing to do with Bitcoin or anything
19 prove possession, possession of one of these private 19 like this . It is the opposite. The security risk , as
20 keys, there would have been no technical problem and 20 you’re putting it −−
21 nothing insecure about simply putting on your blog 21 Q. Dr Wright, that was an important question, it may be
22 a message, a new message, cryptographically signed with 22 important for the court. Are you prepared to answer
23 one of the keys associated with the early blocks, would 23 that question?
24 there? 24 A. I am answering it. You cut me off.
25 A. It would have been the biggest lie in human history. It 25 The security risk was the security of my work,

166 168

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 undermining the whole value of everything I’ve created, 1 process, then I would have signed. The only way that
2 not that the key will be taken. If I give a signed 2 I could sign is to have my identity known first, because
3 message, then I can hand that without the private key. 3 of what I am, what I’ve done.
4 That’s why you have digital signature messages, that’s 4 Q. Final point of the day {E/17/132}, please. This is
5 what the blockchain is about. One, the other. 5 Mr Andresen’s evidence in the Kleiman proceedings.
6 The whole purpose here, though, is identity. That is 6 Line 14:
7 the thing all of your team want to remove. That is 7 ”So the blog post that Craig released was not at all
8 the whole purpose behind my invention, that it’s 8 what I expected him to release. I expected him to
9 private , between individuals, but that means it has to 9 release a very simple, you know, I am Satoshi, here is
10 be there. 10 some −− here is a simple message signed with an early
11 Q. {L18/257/1}, please. The Sartre blogpost was issued on 11 key from an early block.
12 2 May, that morning, wasn’t it? 12 ”Instead, he released a very wacky supposed proof
13 A. I believe so. 13 that actually wasn’t a proof of anything but was
14 Q. And then over the page {L18/257/2}, do we see that it 14 incredibly technical and hard to follow, and I was as
15 had the Sartre quotation and the words: 15 surprised as anybody to see that.”
16 ” If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if 16 You’re aware that was his reaction, aren’t you?
17 I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.” 17 A. I am.
18 Yes? 18 MR HOUGH: My Lord, it’s been pointed out to me, and I think
19 A. I do. 19 fairly , that it ’s getting late and obviously Dr Wright’s
20 Q. And then if we go down through {L18/257/3}, we can see 20 been covering some material he’s been finding emotional.
21 that it included the same process of key verification 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. Okay, we’ll call it a day.
22 using OpenSSL that was in your draft, yes? 22 Dr Wright, again, relax , have a good evening, and
23 A. Yes, but they’ve taken a few parts out. 23 we’ ll see you back here at 10.30 in the morning.
24 Q. Page 11 {L18/257/11}, and we have the same signed 24 A. Thank you, my Lord.
25 message, which was from a publicly available Satoshi 25 (4.16 pm)

169 171

1 signature on the blockchain, yes? 1 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday,
2 A. Yes, and he put it down as ”signature verification ”, 2 14 February 2024)
3 which isn’t what I ... 3
4 Q. Dr Wright, just this . Are you saying that if the blog 4
5 had been posted in precisely the form that you had 5
6 drafted it , it would have satisfied people and it would 6
7 have been a less dramatic disappointment for everyone? 7
8 A. Probably not. The argument was already coming, that 8
9 I would have stolen the keys. So, before I even did 9
10 this , there was a big movement from BTC Core 10
11 people: even if Craig has the keys, he must have stolen 11
12 them; it must be Dave Kleiman and he stole them from his 12
13 dead friend. 13
14 Q. The reality is , Dr Wright, that each of these presented 14
15 itself as a blog to prove possession of a private key, 15
16 just as Mr Matthews and Mr Andresen expected, and each 16
17 of these blogs failed by that standard, didn’t it , both 17
18 your draft and the final version? 18
19 A. No, as I said , if I sign as Craig Wright, Satoshi. So, 19
20 no, I was never intending in that one. What I promised 20
21 was, if you did the proof session , if you did everything 21
22 that I wanted put together, if you put together my 22
23 hundreds of papers, if you put together my thousands of 23
24 patents and all the work I’d been doing, if you showed 24
25 the scaling work I was doing and you went through that 25

170 172

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

1 INDEX
2
3 Housekeeping .........................................1
4 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued) ...................4
5 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued) ........4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

173

174

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

161:19 162:11,13,22 aka (1) 75:12 anyone (13) 15:2 24:17 25:9 146:8,11 151:7 63:1,5,7 95:17 109:20 129:10,17 133:8
A
164:6,24 165:8,10 166:1,3 al (1) 164:4 72:13 90:20 111:16 112:21 asks (6) 30:21,24 46:18,19 112:8 137:23 167:13 behind (4) 78:10 127:14

aaaaaa (1) 57:11 167:20 171:13 algorithm (14) 8:18 9:3,20 119:15 148:3 163:3 164:23 105:14 150:3 171:16 136:7 169:8

able (7) 18:19 25:8 29:16 add (1) 3:22 10:21 28:7 34:15,25 36:18 165:1 168:8 aspect (2) 58:19 127:25 away (5) 41:14 52:22 53:16 being (53) 2:7 11:19 15:20

82:2 103:25 134:4 164:24 added (5) 13:1 29:2 48:5 149:12,18 151:12 anything (33) 18:18 19:8 aspects (4) 56:18,19 106:25 83:17 94:23 18:19 20:8 26:19 30:19

above (3) 5:21 35:12 162:6 71:3,20,24 153:3,6 20:5 23:16 25:4 28:2 30:18 163:8 aws (1) 83:14 33:13 35:15 36:7,11 41:20

absolutely (3) 132:17 154:20 additional (2) 19:24 128:8 algorithmic (1) 14:5 37:16 41:6,13 50:19 aspie (1) 95:22 ayre (17) 80:17,23 81:2 45:24 49:17

162:25 additions (1) 7:11 algorithms (1) 124:12 51:9,12,25 54:3,5,6 62:19 assertions (1) 101:9 83:20 84:10,11 85:2,13 53:1,7,9,10,19,21 55:1

academic (2) 155:14,17 address (9) 108:20 116:25 ali (1) 66:4 78:3 83:14 103:17 106:19 asset (1) 128:1 86:4,10,23 87:8,16 91:5 56:4 59:9 62:11,23 71:7

accept (19) 5:25 6:12 19:7 117:11,13,14 121:6 alive (1) 86:13 129:9 133:22,25 136:5 assets (21) 12:16 13:3 103:24 104:14 114:24 75:21,24 78:10 79:18 83:1

21:14 22:19 23:13 122:13,18 127:19 allan (4) 66:3 88:8,10,18 140:5,8 161:15 162:2 15:15,19 16:17,22 92:16 95:7 97:5,12,18
B
44:20,23 46:21 59:16 addressed (4) 4:23 36:15 allegations (1) 123:16 164:21 168:18 171:13 17:5,15,19,21 18:7 27:6 102:23 107:13 109:1,4,17

67:14 71:2 75:19 77:14 61:16 128:3 alleged (1) 112:11 anyway (1) 125:12 39:4,12,13 42:13,14,18 b (1) 130:18 112:23 116:10 126:19

106:21 110:4 111:1 125:23 addresses (27) 9:4 27:18 allocation (4) 49:7,21 50:4 anywhere (2) 24:24 164:19 43:13,18 81:24 back (62) 4:3 5:7,12 6:15 8:5 138:11 149:22 152:2,3

130:13 28:21 30:7 33:9 35:18,23 51:3 apart (1) 134:12 assignment (1) 136:14 10:6 19:21 20:16,17 26:6 153:20 165:22 168:8,16,17

access (72) 8:8,14,17,19 36:1,11,15 37:18,19 38:2,7 allow (5) 30:10 38:6 86:12 apparently (1) 99:1 assist (4) 49:19 60:9 97:10 27:2 30:15 52:13,15,16 belief (1) 42:22

9:1,3,20 10:10,19,20,25 52:23 61:20,21,22 62:1 147:8 156:4 appear (2) 46:1 94:8 140:16 53:12 54:13 57:24 60:10 beliefs (1) 135:17

11:1,2 14:9 18:16 65:8,12,18 116:22 121:3 allowed (4) 10:20 20:20 appeared (1) 26:16 assistance (3) 42:15 60:2 61:4 63:21 64:12,15 65:2 believe (11) 11:7 20:7 91:23

20:5,12,20,23 21:1,18 158:12,20 163:16 24:14 25:3 appears (4) 46:9 66:10 80:11 63:14 73:2,5 78:3 82:24 84:11,17 96:1 99:22 100:18,24

27:17 28:7,8 29:6,6,15,16 addressing (4) 6:4 8:5 57:7 allows (6) 14:7 29:7 30:5 103:24 assistant (1) 73:3 85:16 91:13 93:11 94:9 101:23,24 108:16 169:13

30:12,22 31:7 32:7 120:3 34:23 36:18 55:20 appendix (2) 2:4,8 assistants (1) 78:11 102:4 105:24 107:10 111:7 believing (1) 119:12

35:18,22 36:4,8,17 adjourned (1) 172:1 alone (2) 50:7 81:10 applied (4) 19:19 97:20,23 assisting (1) 132:2 126:13,13,15 128:22 bell (1) 80:9

37:7,12,17 38:2,9,14,25 adjournment (1) 90:25 along (3) 47:14 154:24 155:3 129:15 assists (1) 3:22 130:4,17 132:17 belonging (1) 109:15

39:3,10,18 42:22,22 45:4 adjust (1) 49:20 already (32) 7:13,16 11:1 appointed (1) 19:24 associated (22) 9:25 27:18 133:5,23,24 136:19 142:8 below (1) 85:4

47:8 48:15 50:12,13 51:13 adjusting (1) 50:3 19:14 20:4 22:15 40:4 47:7 appreciate (1) 146:22 41:17 54:11,17 56:2 57:1,4 143:16,25 144:2 145:4 bene (1) 1:7

52:23,25 54:10 65:8 111:3 adjustments (1) 167:14 51:10,11,12 72:4,12 73:1,4 approach (1) 4:6 93:25 104:20 125:24 136:7 147:24 150:7 152:1 154:15 beneficiaries (4) 45:10,15

119:3 120:25 administration (1) 61:12 74:9 123:12 126:14,16,17 approaches (1) 118:7 143:17 149:11 152:24 165:8 167:6,9 171:23 46:10 50:18

121:1,11,12,14,15,17 advice (2) 9:2 72:4 127:19 130:20,21 132:24 appropriate (1) 3:8 153:7 160:2,13 163:16 backdated (2) 71:20 72:8 beneficiary (4) 18:3,5 21:18

140:10 152:4 163:13 166:6 advise (1) 63:25 136:12 137:12,15 141:21 approximately (1) 83:13 166:7,10,23 backdating (1) 72:17 23:5

accessed (7) 9:2,16 28:10 advised (2) 64:2 153:20 156:7 164:19 166:10 170:8 april (24) 11:17 35:7,17 association (2) 34:10 54:22 background (1) 162:9 best (3) 67:16 75:15 102:24

36:22 49:17 65:9 117:7 aes (4) 9:17,18 28:10,11 also (33) 1:11 6:17 7:15 44:18,22 47:10,13 48:16 assume (1) 74:20 backs (1) 139:5 beta (2) 67:1 75:21

accesses (1) 36:13 after (36) 7:14 9:9 19:4 24:11 25:20 26:17 37:25 54:25 80:14 81:13 assumed (4) 59:7 73:25 bad (4) 143:19,22,22 168:17 better (1) 6:11

accessible (3) 31:18 36:11 22:8,9 23:2 25:17 29:23 49:2 55:24 60:1 61:2 64:2 138:4,5,6 141:20 150:1 74:12,17 bailout (1) 94:20 between (25) 5:14 7:2 26:11

40:14 37:18,25 38:3 53:19 62:18 71:8,12 78:8 81:10 84:20 151:23 153:10,13,16 assuming (4) 1:18 76:8 baker (3) 9:2 126:20,22 54:3 58:3,12,13,15 59:1,10

accessing (3) 30:10 39:3 64:25 67:23,23,24 74:8 87:21 92:16 93:2 94:7 154:8,11 159:17 160:25 138:9,12 bakers (1) 25:21 69:2,12,18 71:3 75:20

116:22 93:6 98:6,6 102:5 100:12 101:4 106:4 ar39 (1) 4:3 ato (40) 41:22 52:11 bank (4) 80:3 90:14 95:1 77:13 84:9,10 88:7 92:12

according (6) 106:20 107:11 106:11,11 110:15 123:22 117:6,19 118:16 125:17 ar40 (1) 4:3 58:2,5,20 60:5,20,25 140:20 117:12 128:16 143:4

134:20 137:5 142:13 151:8 125:25 126:3,4,8,11 127:7 128:7 143:5,5 144:1 areas (5) 8:10 20:19 42:17 61:3,15 62:11,20 63:2 bankrupt (2) 41:21,22 165:11 169:9

account (9) 39:17 63:13 132:8 133:15 137:10 150:10 43:22 139:3 64:22 66:7 73:9 74:2,8,24 bankruptcy (2) 42:25 43:14 beyond (5) 39:16 40:9,14

101:19 110:18 120:19,22 141:22 altered (1) 19:18 arent (4) 61:9 63:1 165:25 80:1 81:5 84:20,25 bankrupted (2) 41:23 42:24 42:2,13

121:12 122:21 140:11 aftermath (1) 117:21 alternative (1) 90:13 171:16 85:11,14 86:6,20,24 93:25 base64 (1) 164:15 big (8) 1:24 53:21 83:4,6

accountant (1) 66:4 afternoon (1) 163:25 alternatively (1) 30:16 argue (1) 21:22 94:24 98:8 99:1,2,5 101:6 based (19) 6:22 7:19 19:7,10 112:10 136:19 141:7

accountants (3) 66:1,3,5 afterwards (4) 7:24 63:6 although (4) 11:11 89:6 argued (1) 124:7 111:6 119:19,20,24 133:16 20:22 21:1,4,25 24:14 170:10

accounted (1) 131:1 119:10 137:14 123:5 124:10 argument (6) 18:14 22:11 atos (1) 60:13 27:21 30:24 35:1 51:18 biggest (2) 166:25 167:22

accounting (2) 75:2,4 again (32) 6:12 14:4 always (2) 39:5 75:15 126:16 135:10 136:19 attachment (1) 161:2 58:25 59:6,11 63:20 billion (4) 38:22 42:4 135:19

accounts (4) 22:11,17 34:5 39:23 47:3 american (1) 67:21 170:8 attention (1) 137:21 73:20,24 168:1

120:12,18,24,24 48:13 52:2 53:8 54:9 56:25 amongst (2) 15:18 108:14 arguments (1) 7:23 attest (1) 22:21 basically (40) 7:24 10:1 binance (1) 53:13

accuracy (2) 51:21,24 63:11,18 64:10 66:25 amount (4) 31:6 38:21 63:19 arising (2) 43:11 85:21 attesting (1) 51:21 16:17 19:1,8 21:16 25:3 bio (1) 122:16

achieve (1) 50:2 70:7,13 73:20 79:8,9 95:25 64:17 arna (1) 61:2 attorneys (4) 23:17 25:3 27:8 29:3 34:15 42:9,25 biographical (1) 97:5

acknowledged (1) 4:13 96:17,21 97:14 101:9 amounts (1) 39:6 around (8) 40:20 65:13 77:4 44:11 141:1 48:10 64:17 76:4 81:20 birth (2) 112:1 113:1

acknowledgement (2) 103:23 115:9 144:23 153:4 analysed (5) 20:8 22:9 98:23 78:8 104:17 111:22 114:23 attribute (1) 56:4 82:15 90:6 94:22 96:15 bit (8) 6:9 15:8 30:9 55:17

137:4,8 168:18 171:22 99:4 100:15 118:3 attributing (1) 148:14 97:16 100:21 111:2,12 85:3 103:12 113:22 121:22

acm (1) 117:15 against (8) 59:21 87:4 analysing (3) 20:10 50:5 arrange (3) 32:13 39:21 au1 (1) 130:20 113:23 124:25 129:14 bitcoin (136) 1:21 3:10 4:24

acquire (3) 16:25 17:6,20 110:18 132:21 133:23 101:4 40:17 au15 (1) 92:2 132:12,16,22 135:16 136:3 5:23 7:14,20 12:8 14:19,23

acquired (5) 16:21,24 134:2 135:16 166:16 analysis (1) 3:19 arrangement (7) 30:14 39:20 au30 (1) 133:21 140:18 141:22 146:9 15:2,10,17,19,21

17:6,20 48:16 age (1) 65:13 anchor (2) 55:19,21 40:16,22 41:2 42:13 50:14 au60 (1) 83:10 148:15 149:16 155:6,17 16:7,21,21,24

across (1) 10:18 agencies (1) 159:17 andresen (13) 137:18 arrangements (8) 39:15 42:3 audiences (1) 106:3 161:21 17:6,10,20,22,25 18:6

acted (2) 52:19 64:17 agencys (1) 105:6 141:18,25 142:9,13 143:11 43:12 87:2 137:17,24 audio (1) 155:11 basics (1) 162:5 27:19 28:21,25 32:8 34:6

acting (1) 98:7 agenda (1) 82:12 150:11,16,24 151:9 152:4 138:7,13 audit (5) 59:8 62:18 66:3 basis (11) 4:24 19:22 44:25 35:23 36:1,10,10,15

actions (1) 84:21 agent (1) 105:6 164:4 170:16 arrival (1) 42:16 74:8,10 48:13 57:23 75:19 99:8 38:14,19,20

activities (1) 58:1 agents (1) 105:20 andresens (1) 171:5 arrive (2) 39:1,9 audited (1) 59:9 119:12 146:24 147:10,11 39:5,14,14,16,24,25

actor (1) 168:17 ago (8) 20:11 100:23 117:8 andrew (2) 138:18 140:1 article (14) 66:21 audits (1) 59:3 bbc (2) 148:19,25 40:13,13,19 41:4,15,18

acts (1) 29:6 139:17,18,24 144:19,23 angry (2) 55:17,18 69:12,17,23 70:4 august (2) 61:23 113:22 bear (1) 93:2 42:10 52:23 53:12

actual (5) 11:13 68:15 96:11 agree (8) 7:19 56:12 71:15 annex (3) 120:7 130:7,13 71:5,15,17,20 75:11 ausindustry (1) 66:6 bearer (1) 17:16 56:18,19 57:7 58:22 61:21

108:15 129:18 96:23 111:15 129:15 announcement (3) 121:19 123:17 124:15 australia (4) 22:25 87:17 bearing (1) 160:12 62:4,16 63:8,19,22

actually (105) 2:12 6:25 7:3 166:14 168:5 131:7,10,13 138:19 132:12 139:1 became (1) 11:20 65:8,12,17 66:23 67:1

8:1,16 12:22 14:3 agreed (21) 7:5,23 8:21 9:10 anonymity (2) 122:22 167:6 articles (16) australian (9) 16:15 58:5 become (2) 39:19 126:17 68:19 69:3 70:25 71:3,16

19:3,14,16 20:14 21:13 51:4,12 56:10 57:24 63:18 anonymous (5) 8:2 121:20 70:10,13,16,19,21,22,24 73:12,18 99:22 100:1 beef (3) 57:21,21,21 73:5,9,13 75:12,21 78:10

23:15 24:7 25:4,6,23 93:1 116:15 128:13 135:18 145:8 146:10 71:6 112:14 117:20 118:3 119:14 132:23 147:19 before (28) 16:11 19:5 30:18 79:24 80:20,25

30:15,17 35:19 40:10 46:8 129:2,13,13 132:23 141:9 anonymously (1) 135:16 124:19,21 126:1,5,9 australians (1) 98:1 46:3 55:18 60:5 62:5,17 81:6,7,9,10,12,15,17,23,24

51:23 52:5,13 53:8 56:7,24 146:15 148:24 150:19 another (10) 18:8 36:23 ask (12) 25:9 73:7 79:16 austranscript (1) 119:22 65:20 67:12 71:25 72:6,9 82:7,11,18,18,22 87:3,5,24

57:22 59:8 60:10,21,22 160:3 47:10 64:19 66:2 80:9 96:2 116:9 137:16,23 authentic (2) 46:4 67:15 73:2,7 77:5 88:6 91:3 103:16 105:15,19

62:24 63:22 64:22 agreeing (3) 136:6 151:7 67:22,23,24 107:25 109:12 139:25 156:18,19 158:25 authenticity (1) 22:21 94:14 110:7 119:25 124:17 111:18,23 112:23 113:2,9

68:1,10,19 70:21 71:8 72:4 160:3 answer (26) 12:4 13:17,23 asked (37) 8:13,19 10:19,24 author (4) 138:17 126:3,10 134:16 140:4 114:22 115:15 130:15

73:1,10 75:1,3,5 76:4 agreement (40) 1:14 16:17 14:24 15:3 11:6,19 12:4,11,15,20 144:15,24,25 164:7 170:9 131:8 134:3 137:6 142:17

78:21 80:4 82:16 88:2 23:20 63:21 91:19 92:11 21:12,16,17,18,21 23:17 13:2,12,25 14:19 16:14 authorised (1) 128:25 beforehand (2) 145:24 150:22 152:9,13 153:1,2

89:23 98:22 99:5 100:3,11 94:14 95:6 96:18 97:3,22 32:9 34:4 46:17 50:1,24 18:11 28:20 30:3,25 authorities (1) 73:18 157:22 155:25 156:22

101:5 104:5 107:5 108:4 112:9 126:19 54:4 73:8 74:19,20 75:5 32:6,21 33:24 37:11 39:8 authority (2) 66:25 156:8 began (6) 58:21 79:8 107:12 157:1,6,6,14,18,24

115:21 117:2 119:11 127:4,10,15,17,18,21 96:3 121:16 147:22 148:22 44:19 53:9 55:1 83:25 autistic (1) 50:6 116:20 117:23 121:24 158:1,10,20 159:1,3,3

121:22 123:4,10,23 128:4,9,16,17 168:22 103:9 111:14 123:16 autobiography (1) 105:9 begged (1) 103:11 160:6 163:16 167:5 168:18

124:6,12,13 126:6,23 130:20,22,25 131:5,18 answered (7) 12:6 14:20 136:24 139:17,18,24 152:9 automated (1) 14:14 begin (1) 162:4 bitcoins (1) 39:4

130:23 139:23 141:23 132:2,5,19 133:3,6,12,16 21:25 28:24 74:25 98:4 159:12 availability (1) 138:2 beginning (5) 20:16 39:25 bitcointalk (1) 165:9

145:4,17 146:13 149:6,14 134:24 135:1,6 141:6 136:23 asking (19) 8:6 29:12 39:13 available (3) 124:12 131:25 52:7 58:21 151:23 bitmessage (3) 32:21

151:1 152:16 153:3 149:1 answering (6) 23:3 24:16 46:21 50:5 66:17 85:5,13 169:25 begun (1) 121:21 33:13,22

155:4,9,23 156:13 agreements (1) 18:5 40:9 145:1 157:13 168:24 86:23 88:23 95:21 105:18 average (2) 40:5 98:2 behalf (9) 60:25 61:7 99:1 bizarre (1) 42:3

157:2,20 159:14 160:5,15 ah (1) 43:3 anybody (1) 171:15 106:9 108:19 138:1 140:7 aware (13) 3:14 49:8,13 62:9 100:7 110:23 120:9 blacknet (1) 107:15

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

blind (2) 23:4 92:9 burn (1) 57:7 chapter (1) 103:8 15:12,14,19,19,21 contains (1) 27:17 craig (26) 4:20 52:19 67:11 days (6) 62:5 63:19 88:14
block (28) 1:24 31:23 business (5) 76:23 87:18 characters (1) 123:6 17:15,21 18:3,9,17 39:13 contempt (3) 21:17 22:11,17 78:17 102:23 124:15 132:1 153:13
34:1,11,12,19,20 37:12,21 88:20 89:23 90:5 check (2) 20:15 164:24 41:2,3 49:25 58:7,11 78:23 contends (1) 62:3 105:9,21,22,23 108:2,4 de (1) 1:7
54:13,17,22 businesses (5) 79:10,17 checked (1) 3:14 80:18 83:3 94:20 content (8) 46:9 49:7 82:11 109:8 115:18 117:18 dead (4) 57:21,21,21 170:13
55:11,16,21,24 56:2,12 84:15,16 88:11 checking (2) 7:15 116:20 132:14,23 102:25 108:17 109:16,18 129:11,11 138:24 142:6 deal (25) 3:4 39:16
57:1,4 150:5 152:10,10 businessman (1) 77:8 chief (2) 97:18 140:21 company (50) 15:10,11 154:9 162:20,21 169:16,17 84:14,17,23 85:14,22,25
159:22 160:2,13 165:8 buy (1) 34:21 children (1) 132:13 16:16 17:9,12 18:22 24:12 contents (1) 61:19 170:11,19 171:7 173:4 86:23 87:1,2 88:3,4,5
171:11 buying (3) 82:17,22 103:15 choice (5) 94:25 100:14 52:15 59:17,23 68:8 77:8 context (2) 3:17 53:4 craigncryptcom (1) 116:23 94:19 97:9,14,17 98:6,6
blockchain (11) 9:25 33:25 128:14 132:15 134:22 81:1,11 82:15,17,21 84:2 continue (2) 60:9 86:19 craigswrightacmorg (1) 127:14 135:12,15 167:24
C
56:1 137:2 149:11 156:12 choose (1) 55:22 87:19,21,21 91:20 continued (4) 4:20,21 117:14 168:2
164:20,20 165:6 169:5 c (2) 117:3,18 choosing (1) 117:17 92:1,3,4,19,22 96:15 173:4,5 craigtyche (1) 117:3 dealing (8) 59:10 65:23
170:1 c00000560 (1) 26:13 chose (2) 55:24 62:18 97:1,8,17 104:6 109:8,14 continuous (1) 83:8 craigtychecouk (3) 116:23 86:22 100:12 105:19
blocks (22) 9:24 10:8,9 28:8 c01n (6) 45:18 47:7 59:17 christopher (1) 41:21 112:1,2 113:1,22,25 continuously (1) 154:1 117:1,11 111:17 114:21 136:25
37:7,18 38:3 47:8,11 48:11 60:14 61:8 133:17 chunk (1) 2:9 115:11,19 contract (1) 140:5 create (4) 34:24 57:10 79:3 dealings (10) 58:5,19,21
51:14 142:17 149:11 calculate (2) 9:3 34:20 chunks (4) 2:1,6 3:23 4:4 116:2,3,15,16,17 127:18 contractual (1) 140:16 144:14 76:18 85:11 86:20 87:1,20
150:8,12,18 151:3,3 calculated (2) 9:22 57:16 circumstances (2) 39:17 133:9 157:4,12 contrary (1) 54:16 created (20) 7:17 10:21 98:8 119:13
152:25 166:7,23 168:14 call (13) 34:17 72:5 77:23,25 99:23 comparing (1) 164:2 contrasting (1) 165:23 12:20 14:13 24:10 25:10 dear (1) 138:24
blog (34) 66:10,15 67:9,19 78:4 89:11 105:5 116:20 cite (2) 22:17 55:7 complain (2) 64:25 139:13 contribution (1) 107:14 28:3 41:9 43:24 57:8 death (1) 62:5
68:1 69:6 72:8,17 75:9 126:23 127:13 141:1 157:1 claimant (5) complete (1) 36:18 control (19) 39:16 47:1 64:15,16 73:5,9,13 109:20 debt (2) 86:5,11
76:1,4,7 122:1 153:22,25 171:21 112:8,11,12,15,16 completed (2) 10:1 120:9 48:14 54:21 55:15 150:22 158:13 168:15 debts (1) 40:1
154:5,8,9,11,21,21 159:21 called (7) 12:13 63:6 77:8 claimed (5) 60:7 96:12,20 completely (8) 2:23 63:18 102:14,15 108:20,24 169:1 debunked (4) 123:12
160:1,11,19 161:7 162:17 100:3 132:1 141:21 149:3 120:25 149:10 82:13 121:4 125:1 137:8 120:21,23 121:7,9 creating (2) 16:23 113:9 124:5,6,9
163:1,5,8 166:21 170:4,15 calling (2) 6:23 7:20 claiming (1) 155:18 146:13 147:6 147:5,7,17 148:7 150:9,19 creation (3) 106:4 108:23 debunking (1) 124:10
171:7 calls (2) 135:9 141:14 claims (21) 3:9,16 27:5 completing (1) 154:8 controlled (5) 12:16 13:3 130:14 december (9) 70:2 71:4
blogger (1) 71:7 calvin (10) 80:17,20,23 58:2,6,21 59:22 60:1,13,14 completion (1) 128:10 122:18 147:1,3 creator (2) 131:8 160:6 106:11 110:16 112:14
blogpost (5) 66:8 68:21 81:2,19 82:14 84:16 88:4 61:5,7,9,19,23 98:23 complex (1) 30:9 controlling (3) 34:7 56:1 credibility (1) 53:6 118:3,7 131:8,12
72:17 75:20 169:11 104:14 115:21 133:17,20,23,25 134:18 component (1) 164:13 146:25 credible (5) 99:23 100:8 decentralised (1) 67:2
blogposts (2) 68:24 69:2 calvins (1) 88:1 claptrap (1) 74:14 compromise (1) 158:11 convenient (3) 43:4 90:15 101:15,24,24 decided (2) 7:25 99:17
blogs (6) 56:6 67:8,8,9,18 came (23) 5:22 20:8,14,18 clarification (2) 46:19 89:10 compromised (6) 110:2 129:23 crossexamination (2) 4:21 decision (5) 60:13,20,24
170:17 52:21 53:13 71:14 98:1,22 clarify (1) 25:20 145:18 147:11,14 155:21 conversation (2) 143:2 144:7 173:5 61:5,8
bloody (3) 55:5,11 75:12 99:5 101:6 106:11 117:4 clause (5) 128:6 130:9 168:16 conversations (1) 141:21 crossexamined (1) 30:20 decisions (3) 86:12 106:5
blowing (1) 68:16 118:3 122:18 123:22 124:6 131:3,16,21 computer (7) 62:8 65:18,19 convert (1) 164:15 crumbs (1) 168:1 133:17
bodog (4) 82:14,18 87:20,22 126:6,12,13,13 127:7 clauses (1) 130:17 123:6 142:15,19 147:16 convertible (3) 92:2 93:17,23 cryptocurrency (10) 4:24 declaration (15) 15:25 17:19
bohm (1) 158:1 141:16 clayton (8) 86:8,17 93:19 conceivable (1) 42:8 convince (1) 142:14 5:22 6:8,23 7:10,12,21 8:1 19:22 20:13,22,25 22:3
bolting (1) 84:1 canadian (2) 77:8 89:16 98:7,13 99:17 100:11 concentrate (2) 40:21 86:6 copa (1) 123:10 56:9 84:1 23:7 24:25 26:7,16,24 27:2
bonded (8) 29:24 30:14 canadians (3) 89:3,14,17 101:17 concept (1) 95:14 copied (3) 48:8 147:6 154:25 cryptographer (1) 155:15 28:5,14
32:14 39:1,9,20 40:16 cannot (10) 15:21 19:3,5 clear (10) 9:23 42:12 82:5 concepts (1) 64:13 copy (9) 1:6 25:24 cryptographers (1) 56:14 declining (2) 62:7 65:16
42:16 94:12 133:25 151:18 153:5 107:2 112:2 143:16 159:25 concern (1) 83:17 69:15,20,25 70:6 75:9 cryptographic (7) 43:25 44:8 decrypt (1) 30:6
book (14) 56:6 60:8 156:9 158:17 166:16 162:21,25 168:11 concerned (4) 4:17 36:16 119:23,23 50:17 54:21 124:11 decrypted (5) 119:21
102:19,22 111:17 113:7 cant (29) 42:21,22 44:24 clearly (1) 46:15 85:10 122:5 copying (1) 83:21 155:18,21 147:21,23,24 155:24
114:21 115:2 116:11 46:17 50:1,6,6 65:1,3 click (1) 128:22 concerning (2) 93:17 110:6 copyright (1) 43:22 cryptographically (2) 136:16 deed (9) 25:7,7,24 26:10
131:6,6 138:19 139:7 68:1,4,20 93:16 94:5,5 client (2) 111:7 146:1 concerns (1) 33:13 core (3) 41:8 139:5 170:10 166:22 46:2 51:16,22 52:4,5
144:16 95:22 103:19 107:18 clients (2) 53:11 119:11 concession (1) 59:20 corporate (10) 11:13 17:25 cryptography (1) 56:20 deeds (6) 21:19
books (2) 87:17 123:5 108:21 110:11 116:3 close (1) 61:12 concessions (1) 59:20 18:1 58:10,13,15 59:15 cso (1) 140:21 25:5,11,16,23 26:1
both (6) 6:21 15:8 99:21 119:5,6 129:9 136:17 closed (3) 30:16 136:7 concludes (1) 110:5 111:10,10 122:14 cu (2) 86:7,8 deep (2) 8:3 122:25
135:4 143:3 170:17 145:17 151:4 158:16 159:6 143:23 conditional (2) 16:17 135:14 corporation (1) 8:25 current (4) 12:19,24 67:10 defense (9) 16:12,14 43:19
bother (1) 59:5 capable (2) 3:20 145:14 closing (1) 1:10 conditions (1) 136:1 corpus (4) 16:23 17:5,14,23 88:7 61:11 68:6 74:4 134:15
bottom (18) 5:19 6:5 77:11 capacity (1) 99:15 co1n (1) 18:22 conduct (3) 136:6 149:8 correct (58) 5:10 8:22 9:12 curve (1) 29:4 157:2,9
85:1 86:4,16 100:5 102:13 capitalists (1) 103:22 code (3) 14:5 55:11 66:16 150:14 11:3 12:14 13:10,21 14:25 custody (1) 20:15 defined (2) 130:6,9
103:6 104:11 123:19 captivated (1) 107:14 coders (1) 67:3 conducted (1) 3:19 15:5 19:25 29:21 30:1 cut (1) 168:24 definitely (3) 10:14 162:16
130:18 131:20 135:24 capture (8) 66:17,20 68:23 codes (1) 55:5 conference (1) 138:5 31:1,10,16,21 32:5 33:15 cwrighttychecouk (3) 109:11 163:2
137:25 149:20 152:6 69:6 70:12,15,18,23 coin (1) 152:14 conferences (1) 158:21 34:9 35:14,25 38:16 115:18 120:15 definition (2) 18:12 153:5
164:17 captured (8) 66:12,18 coinbase (2) 56:11 57:1 confessing (1) 53:21 46:5,19 47:4,19 48:5,6,18 cws (1) 153:22 definitions (1) 130:5
bound (1) 129:2 69:15,20,25 70:6 75:9 coingeek (2) 79:15 90:5 confirmation (1) 150:5 49:3,4 50:11 51:16 cyberpunk (1) 122:14 definitive (2) 146:25 147:5
bow (1) 168:2 155:25 collaboration (1) 64:20 confirmed (8) 3:7 30:8 32:17 54:18,19,23 60:9 77:21 cypherpunk (4) 135:18 definitively (1) 106:5
box (1) 117:13 captures (4) 70:20 collated (2) 9:17,18 37:5,9,13 38:4 54:20 80:15 85:15,20 86:21 167:2,25 168:3 deleted (1) 75:22
breach (1) 146:6 71:2,19,24 colourcoded (1) 48:10 confirming (1) 108:12 88:25 89:13,19 91:17 cypherpunks (1) 146:21 deleting (1) 147:7
break (10) 43:4,9 46:3 care (1) 41:5 column (2) 3:23,25 conflating (1) 39:23 92:15 99:11 110:8 122:2 cz (1) 53:13 delisting (1) 53:12
76:10,13,16 90:16 129:23 cared (3) 40:3 41:14 133:1 columns (1) 4:1 conflicted (1) 106:25 124:3 128:2 133:19,21 delivered (1) 141:5
130:2 155:18 caring (2) 41:4,4 combination (2) 27:20 34:14 conflicting (1) 25:6 138:10,12 153:19 160:13 D demonstrate (3) 135:10,12
bridging (1) 94:16 carry (3) 8:11 14:17 24:5 combinations (2) 14:9 31:20 confounding (1) 34:5 corrected (1) 47:23 161:13
briefing (1) 151:23 cases (1) 11:6 come (19) 19:21 30:6,13 confusing (3) 11:11 15:9 correctly (2) 76:8 142:21 dais (1) 107:14 demonstrated (3) 47:8 99:5
briefly (1) 3:4 cash (1) 6:10 42:25 54:2 89:4,6 92:20 18:15 correspond (1) 46:1 damn (2) 109:2 162:3 124:24
bring (1) 81:1 categorically (5) 37:1 64:11 94:6 101:5 115:10 119:14 connection (1) 20:2 correspondence (3) 134:20 danger (1) 91:16 demonstrates (1) 73:17
bringing (1) 89:18 140:21 147:21 155:24 123:2 135:19,21 143:16,25 consent (1) 46:25 139:14,18 data (1) 66:15 demonstration (1) 164:10
brisbane (1) 22:25 cddvd (3) 68:12 69:4 70:25 144:2 160:5 consents (2) 45:2,3 corroborate (1) 101:2 database (2) 43:21 124:4 demorgan (11) 52:16 67:25
british (4) 104:5 109:14 ceased (1) 62:8 comes (1) 110:21 consider (2) 2:25 106:1 cost (2) 41:15 83:6 date (5) 16:3 49:21 78:19 78:16 91:15,22,23 92:3
136:11 145:3 central (1) 139:6 comfortable (3) 115:1,11 consideration (1) 130:19 costs (3) 41:17 83:13 90:3 118:2 163:2 99:15,18,24 117:5
broader (1) 88:3 centralised (1) 66:25 116:11 considered (2) 6:8 100:8 couldnt (9) 21:21 24:16 dated (14) 16:1 22:22 26:12 denariuz (1) 133:18
broken (2) 14:8 66:11 cents (1) 40:20 coming (4) 88:3,16 110:14 consist (1) 150:4 38:15,23 39:3 62:19 117:9 44:18,22 48:21 49:5 51:22 denied (1) 53:19
brokered (2) 81:2 127:17 ceo (1) 97:18 170:8 consistent (2) 3:9,15 145:15 148:6 52:4 69:9 73:18 107:23 denis (2) 32:11 47:1
brokering (1) 127:11 cerian (2) 98:1 140:25 command (2) 161:14 164:15 consistently (1) 62:22 counsel (1) 42:14 109:9 126:20 denying (2) 52:2 53:4
brooks (1) 159:16 certain (8) 18:24 27:13 comment (1) 161:21 consisting (1) 92:12 count (1) 49:4 dates (4) 104:2 114:4 131:4 deploy (2) 1:10,10
brought (3) 19:14 53:11 63:19 64:15 128:10 138:2 comments (2) 4:11 50:18 consolidate (1) 16:20 couple (1) 1:16 138:2 deposition (3) 11:17
127:3 144:23,25 commissioner (1) 73:4 consolidated (1) 18:8 courier (8) 29:24 30:14 32:14 daughter (2) 64:6 126:11 28:17,19
brush (1) 125:8 certification (1) 156:8 commit (1) 85:5 consultant (2) 68:6 91:20 39:1,9,20 40:16 42:16 daughters (3) 63:3,7,25 depth (2) 56:20 161:14
bsv (1) 53:12 cervantes (1) 144:15 committed (1) 53:6 consultants (1) 153:18 course (15) 37:22 51:6 65:20 dave (15) 13:13,18,25 18:23 derivative (1) 29:1
btc (8) 39:23 41:8,9 82:2 cfo (1) 66:4 committing (2) 132:6 141:7 consulting (6) 63:10,16 71:14 77:5,6 90:22 102:10 21:6 29:17,18 30:5 32:12 derive (1) 156:4
145:25 165:1,10 170:10 chain (14) 20:15 28:16 communicated (3) 63:2 64:3,7 65:7,11 106:22 128:8 158:1,3,5 38:16 42:15 52:3 78:10,12 derived (2) 155:22 168:8
btcs (1) 146:21 29:2,3,6,6,16 55:19,23 73:14 144:9 contact (5) 64:22 76:21 162:15 164:5 170:12 describe (2) 161:11 162:8
budge (1) 151:6 88:7 102:11 115:7 141:24 communicating (2) 45:3,23 77:1,13 79:7 courtois (2) 155:15 156:13 david (12) 19:11,23 described (10) 4:25 7:16
building (5) 96:16,22 113:2,5 142:5 communication (1) 118:1 contacted (3) 64:23 79:9 courts (1) 161:10 20:1,23,25 23:8 45:19 60:3 11:14 14:12 27:23 38:10
160:8 challenged (1) 5:3 communications (5) 6:18 123:11 cover (4) 68:17 135:21 67:21,21,22 68:4 40:24 42:3,4 79:16
built (1) 54:6 chance (1) 88:17 25:22 72:21 91:4 137:21 contain (1) 167:19 163:13 164:13 day (10) 84:6 88:14 89:5 describes (1) 6:10
bullet (4) 81:4 82:6,12 93:23 changed (3) 123:22 127:6,6 community (1) 165:1 contained (1) 104:19 covering (1) 171:20 97:19 116:20 124:22 describing (5) 5:23 7:9 9:8
bullshit (1) 55:4 changes (3) 7:8,18 161:1 companies (23) 13:6 containing (2) 10:8 120:8 cracked (2) 66:11 158:20 138:21 154:12 171:4,21 14:16 127:5

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

description (1) 7:22 disbelieve (1) 22:6 93:2 103:3 117:16 127:9 dramatic (1) 170:7 116:1,7,22,25 estate (1) 78:13 72:23
designed (1) 119:9 disbursements (1) 93:25 130:18 dread (1) 136:20 117:3,4,9,11,12,15,17 et (1) 164:4 explicitly (2) 18:4,4
desired (1) 122:24 disclosed (4) 73:17 80:8 doesnt (28) 15:23 39:6 drill (1) 87:17 118:6,8,10 etc (16) 7:8 42:9 52:19 56:18 exploitation (1) 131:17
desk (1) 103:10 110:22,24 46:11 56:5,22,23 78:24 drive (9) 8:17,17 120:12,18,19,22,24 66:16 74:11 76:6 79:24 expressing (1) 101:19
desperate (4) 79:11 80:2 disclosure (12) 20:17 75:4 82:9 89:24 94:8 103:20 9:11,13,16,19,19 10:7 121:3,6 122:8,24 123:2 92:19 96:16 106:4 118:12 exstaff (1) 49:18
90:6 146:22 80:7,8 101:8,10 111:2,8 104:10 105:22 108:6 27:23 135:23 136:25 137:5,22 135:8 143:6 150:5 151:17 extend (1) 112:16
desperately (1) 89:21 120:3,3 121:16 150:4 111:11 115:17 120:22 drives (2) 32:16 42:19 138:12 139:14,17 140:11 even (25) 6:9 14:2 27:13 extended (1) 113:21
despite (1) 7:21 disclosures (1) 111:4 129:10 133:23 139:13 dropped (1) 42:5 141:13,24,24 142:2,9,13 39:25 40:12 44:1 57:13,19 extensive (5) 73:3 74:8
destroyed (1) 9:10 discovered (2) 72:3 116:21 143:13 150:1 151:3,19 dryrun (1) 153:13 144:8 145:21 149:21 63:16 64:7 72:6,9 76:7 87:20,22 131:16
detail (7) 45:8 59:10 97:5 discovery (1) 47:22 152:6 153:8,9 156:12 due (1) 128:8 151:8,21 153:10 154:20 89:8 97:2 108:3 115:22 extensively (2) 59:9 165:11
137:16 161:9,11 163:18 discrediting (1) 71:13 doing (30) 23:19 41:11 55:6 duress (2) 133:10 140:18 155:1 159:16,23,25 122:21 140:1,15 146:5 extract (2) 114:2 143:20
detailed (2) 80:13 112:21 discuss (6) 4:7 24:14 59:15 57:9,11 63:9,13,16 64:7 during (4) 16:7 30:13 106:17 160:22,25 147:7 159:8 170:9,11 extracted (1) 9:23
detailing (1) 92:19 113:8 116:8 139:20 65:6,11 80:19 82:16 114:20 emailed (1) 83:20 evening (1) 171:22 extraordinary (1) 125:9
details (5) 27:14 49:2 105:18 discussed (14) 33:13 35:16 83:7,13 84:18 88:20 dynasty (1) 122:15 emailing (1) 78:9 event (4) 43:14 47:24 79:7 extreme (1) 100:20
107:12 139:12 36:7 44:16 54:7 64:13 104:23 111:20 115:22 emails (32) 5:8,13,14 138:5 extremely (1) 122:23
E
devastated (1) 53:5 109:1,4 113:5 116:15 127:12 136:21 148:12 6:14,16,20,22,24 7:19 events (4) 28:16 83:18
F
developer (2) 137:2 165:1 143:3 145:20,23 165:16 151:4 160:7 162:16 e121 (1) 54:13 20:19 49:15 84:9 98:20 114:14 116:19
developers (4) 79:21 164:23 discusses (1) 114:3 164:3,7 170:24,25 e138 (1) 116:18 99:1,2 101:5 104:1 eventually (1) 134:13 fabricated (5) 21:3 98:10
165:10,13 discussing (5) 91:3 103:17 dollar (2) 40:1 97:9 e140 (1) 106:16 110:4,18,22 122:4,17 ever (16) 11:20 13:13 14:23 125:18,19,20
development (6) 15:17 91:19 109:6 110:6 116:19 dollars (4) 40:2 53:3 83:11 e17132 (1) 171:4 137:10,25 138:10 15:2 18:11 22:17 26:21 fabricating (1) 124:14
95:11 113:4 141:3,12 discussion (9) 82:8,13 84:6 135:19 e515 (1) 114:2 139:19,24 141:14 143:1,3 67:9 86:5 95:20 101:1 face (3) 44:24 82:19 127:1
diane (3) 22:25 25:12,19 102:21 110:14 113:24 domain (7) 52:17 102:17 ea (1) 129:9 145:18 160:18 103:19 111:14 112:12 failed (1) 170:17
didnt (127) 7:23 11:4 18:6 145:13 155:14 158:6 108:4 110:1 115:23 earlier (16) 5:8,14 6:16,20 embargo (1) 154:13 156:22 158:13 fair (1) 76:9
20:3,12,14 21:17 22:22 discussions (22) 1:7 4:13 7:4 159:4,9 12:22,24,25 19:15 26:14 embracing (1) 162:24 every (18) 55:6,9 62:23 67:9 fairly (4) 10:17 78:25 133:14
23:2 25:23,24 31:17 36:16 76:22 78:5 105:11 don (1) 144:15 34:13 35:19 36:24 53:18 emotional (1) 171:20 82:20 107:7 124:22 171:19
37:5,9 38:4,24 111:17,21,25 done (14) 2:2 22:24,24 27:12 115:16 121:23 131:7 emphasise (1) 136:13 134:9,10,10,12,12 144:19 fake (17) 49:9 90:7 106:25
39:2,9,10,11,15 46:17 112:1,21,22,25 28:25 76:8 94:20 145:23 earliest (1) 156:25 emphasising (1) 153:4 146:15 165:10,12,13,17 107:3,5,7 108:1 109:18
49:10 50:17,21,24 113:6,12,16,20,20 155:19 160:20 164:4 early (35) 8:15 12:7 28:8 emphatically (1) 116:16 everyone (9) 90:11 101:3 110:25 121:4,5,6,8 124:7
51:3,6,10,22,23 53:9 114:20,23 116:6 135:4 166:2,4 171:3 36:10,15 37:18 51:14 employed (1) 68:5 133:25 148:16 154:25 125:4 145:16,17
54:2,2,3,11 59:19,24 60:3 disgruntled (3) 49:20 dont (105) 1:9 2:11,16 11:7 63:19 65:22 67:21,21 employee (3) 20:14,18 72:16 155:6 159:5 164:22 170:7 faking (1) 145:14
61:13 62:24 68:19 75:2 72:12,15 15:20 18:10 21:13,15 71:21 72:17,24 employees (5) 19:2 72:12 everyones (1) 55:3 false (6) 19:15 98:10,24
77:9,20 78:5,21 79:2,8,12 disgusting (1) 158:22 22:18 23:11,16 24:10 25:4 76:1,19,21,23 79:8,19 89:22 90:6,10 everything (18) 30:16 41:14 100:16 123:12 125:1
81:16,18,19 82:17 85:11 dishonest (3) 101:19,21,25 26:22 35:15 37:25 38:21 110:16 126:18 135:3 enabled (1) 143:21 42:19 61:3 83:7 falsely (1) 158:19
90:14 94:23 95:1 display (2) 137:3,7 44:12 46:8 47:22,23 142:17 149:11 150:5,8,18 enables (1) 9:21 111:2,5,6,12,12 125:15 familiar (2) 104:10 161:10
97:11,14,24 98:9,17,19 displayed (1) 71:9 49:11,16,23 51:8 58:17 151:3,3 152:25 157:14 enacted (1) 157:8 145:20 148:12 154:17 family (5) 63:15 114:10
100:4,20,24 101:21,24 disproven (1) 55:5 65:15 67:7,9,15,18,22 68:9 166:23 171:10,11 encoding (1) 162:5 160:17 168:4 169:1 170:21 122:16 126:4,8
102:7 106:23 109:13,14 dispute (1) 123:15 70:21 72:14,19 74:4,7,19 earnest (1) 114:10 encrypted (18) 9:16 10:7 everythings (1) 132:13 fancy (1) 86:1
110:14 111:1 113:10,25 disputed (1) 73:6 75:1,3,5 76:3,7 78:1,3,22 earth (1) 109:2 27:17,23 28:6,6,10,12,15 evidence (32) 3:18 4:11,18 fantastic (1) 139:1
116:8 118:3 121:20 disputes (7) 79:3 80:7,9 90:20 93:14,16 easier (1) 82:25 30:12 31:7 36:20 39:4 8:11 11:9,15 14:17 15:18 far (5) 3:13 77:1 95:16 103:3
123:2,9,21 124:18,20,21 58:9,10,13,13,15,16 99:24 95:25,25 102:3,14,14,15 easily (1) 145:16 119:17,20 122:8 147:20,20 19:10 23:6,14 29:9 165:21
126:9 128:14 129:16,18 disputing (2) 37:3 74:7 103:2,19 104:10,18 106:19 easy (1) 142:20 encrypting (1) 143:10 40:12,17 43:11 53:18 fault (1) 113:15
131:18,22 132:19 disrupt (1) 4:17 107:9 108:4,20 109:6 ecdh (3) 34:18,21 55:20 encryption (2) 119:17 143:14 56:12 57:24 90:20 93:5 feasible (1) 166:15
133:3,6,12 134:15,22 distinction (1) 61:10 110:2 111:15 115:10 economist (2) 148:20,25 end (6) 8:6 16:4 54:8 94:19 100:8 101:1 106:4 121:25 featured (2) 69:12 71:17
135:1 137:11,21 138:10,11 distribute (1) 29:17 117:15,25 118:2 119:5 editing (2) 1:13 2:15 119:15 154:18 123:25 125:3,6,7,7 february (10) 1:1 69:9 70:7
139:24 140:1,14,15,19 distributed (1) 44:8 121:7,14,16 123:2 editor (1) 118:10 endeavour (1) 26:18 142:14,25 171:5 71:5,25 72:10 77:12
141:20 146:8 148:18,20,24 distribution (4) 35:11 125:2,4,11,20,21,23 effect (5) 50:4 110:25 119:7 ended (9) 22:10 27:9 49:15 exact (2) 38:21 118:2 128:18 140:2 172:2
154:20 156:21,23 157:24 47:15,19 68:12 126:23 132:13,17 133:4,24 127:3,4 53:1 54:1 80:19 83:1 84:17 exactly (7) 9:15 24:22 49:23 feel (3) 96:1 102:23 107:4
159:14 164:19,20 divided (1) 32:22 137:20 138:9 140:9 142:10 effectively (4) 17:23 39:12 148:12 52:25 117:25 144:12 145:3 feels (1) 144:8
165:2,4,7 167:21,23 divorce (1) 42:8 143:6 144:12 145:21 78:24 132:25 engage (5) 26:22 66:5 example (6) 1:19 57:6 fees (4) 41:16 84:22
170:17 doctored (2) 66:8 125:4 154:19,23 159:5,9,24 efforts (2) 124:18 125:10 110:14 137:19 146:7 117:13 135:8 155:4,7 93:19,24
die (1) 39:19 document (91) 16:23 17:4 161:12 164:22 167:16 egold (1) 66:24 engaged (2) 25:22 72:6 exceeded (1) 2:17 felt (1) 95:24
died (5) 30:18 38:25 60:6 18:10 19:9,10,15,15,21 door (1) 52:15 eight (11) 32:11,17 33:8 engagement (1) 99:18 excel (5) 1:17 2:3 48:11 few (7) 79:21 122:12 123:10
62:18 64:21 21:3,14,23 doors (1) 136:7 35:12,12 36:13 37:6,17 engaging (1) 109:17 51:17,18 139:16 167:15 168:1
difference (4) 10:11 36:3,25 22:1,5,9,12,16,19,21 doubt (1) 147:8 38:2 48:3,14 england (2) 114:1 141:16 excellent (1) 138:25 169:23
117:12 23:12,18 24:3,8,9,10,18,23 down (31) 22:16,19 32:6,15 eitc (2) 128:16 133:9 enough (4) 8:3 11:2 exchange (5) 34:18 44:15 fiction (1) 52:11
different (27) 2:11 12:23 25:14,18 26:7,23 27:9 42:20 45:17 47:15 64:25 either (18) 3:1,10 30:13,15 146:18,19 84:9 85:24 137:10 fictional (1) 122:16
14:9,15 15:15 16:10 17:9 28:3,3 33:17 45:7 65:3,4 66:24 68:11 69:8 39:18 40:14 63:12 71:20 enquiries (2) 65:24 117:24 exchanges (1) 79:24 fictitious (1) 64:20
19:16 31:19,19 32:3 33:3 46:4,6,14,15 47:17 79:17 88:3 90:6,10 96:24 87:4 106:23 110:1 120:25 ensure (1) 163:22 excluding (1) 113:19 field (1) 1:18
34:5 35:17,20 36:12,13 50:14,20,22 51:7,24 60:16 105:13 108:9,11 110:9 124:16 128:21 131:13 entail (1) 138:3 exclusive (1) 92:16 fields (1) 48:11
49:2,7,13 52:2 61:8 117:19 68:22 73:16 74:1,22 75:8 119:10 120:14 139:16 137:18 138:18 142:15 enter (5) 91:19 127:21 128:8 excuse (1) 36:24 fight (1) 134:11
119:18 148:10 157:10 78:17 82:6 83:25 88:6 140:6 152:1 162:23 165:18 elaborate (2) 123:9,18 132:20 133:12 executed (1) 16:23 fighting (4) 85:14 86:23
165:15 91:7,8 94:4,10 97:1,7 98:3 169:20 170:2 electronically (1) 129:14 entered (8) 96:4,8 97:14 executive (2) 111:10,11 87:16 134:7
difficult (6) 6:9 24:16 79:25 106:4,12,20 107:3,8,10 downloading (1) 163:22 electrum (5) 163:17,23 126:19 127:2 128:17 executives (1) 129:4 figure (1) 168:1
138:11 155:4 165:22 108:12 113:24 117:21 dr (90) 1:15 4:8,10,14,20,22 165:19,23,24 132:20 133:15 exemployees (1) 89:22 file (28) 9:1,3 27:17,23
difficulties (2) 30:21 54:10 120:2,3 124:1,14 10:11 19:20 20:21 21:5 elements (2) 127:2 139:4 entering (3) 97:9 132:2 exercise (6) 51:4 132:6 28:6,6,10,12,15 30:6,10,12
digest (1) 166:9 126:19,25 127:1,5,16,22 22:2 23:21,23 34:1 36:25 ellipsis (1) 1:24 133:9 146:16 147:18 152:23 31:8,14,24 35:13
digging (1) 122:25 128:20 129:18 130:4,6,18 37:23 39:8,15 40:8,11 else (11) 6:25 18:18 41:13 entire (3) 82:11 118:22 166:4 36:5,12,19 75:6 135:11
digital (15) 6:10 39:4 66:15 135:2,22 140:24 161:5 41:25 43:6,11 49:12,19 83:14 95:21 108:20 130:6 exercised (1) 158:5 140:25 147:7,20,20,23,24
136:14 149:12,17,17 163:13 52:10 53:4,15 56:18 57:23 111:16,20 129:6 160:11 entirely (1) 116:12 exercises (2) 163:18 164:3 164:16
151:1,4,5,12,14 153:3,6 documentation (5) 18:20,25 59:5 64:1,4,19 65:6,10 168:8 entities (2) 52:19 119:18 exist (2) 120:22 153:9 filed (6) 59:19 84:20 124:23
169:4 20:7 23:5 74:9 66:9 67:5 72:23 73:6,16,21 elses (1) 50:5 entitled (2) 131:21 161:5 existing (1) 161:13 135:11 152:21 164:18
digitally (1) 163:11 documented (1) 28:2 74:16,18 76:11,13,18 email (129) 5:4,16,19,25 entity (1) 11:13 exists (1) 57:15 files (8) 31:18,25 36:14 38:9
digression (1) 145:11 documenting (6) 111:25 78:17 83:5,16 90:9,18 6:2,12 7:5,6 35:6,10,16 envisaged (1) 159:25 expected (4) 167:19 170:16 48:4,15 74:5 147:8
direct (4) 6:18 18:13 47:1 113:22 115:11 116:15,16 91:3,18 95:16 99:21 36:6 44:15,17,18,20 45:1 equals (1) 148:16 171:8,8 filing (2) 138:22 149:5
166:6 138:20 101:1,7 106:17,19,24 46:18,22,24 47:4 48:13,20 equate (2) 145:2,5 expecting (1) 84:21 filings (1) 44:11
directed (1) 2:20 documents (47) 14:1 18:17 109:21 110:13 113:15 49:5,14,17,21 50:4,10 equity (3) 92:8 94:8,11 expert (1) 57:24 filling (1) 121:15
directly (5) 16:7 17:24 18:7 19:2,6,16 20:5,8,12,23 114:10,20,25 116:24 117:8 72:6,9 77:14,20 78:9 ernst (2) 66:1,2 experts (4) 14:7 56:9 57:25 final (5) 94:9 128:20 164:13
92:11 164:2 21:1,12,19 24:6 28:1 119:12 123:16 124:18 83:23,23 85:1 86:3,17 error (2) 39:4 42:11 158:17 170:18 171:4
director (3) 99:15 123:1 73:11,20 74:15 75:2,4,6 125:9,23 141:6 145:10 88:7,15 89:21 98:15,25 escrow (3) 87:2,6 88:5 explain (7) 9:15 18:6 52:22 finally (3) 92:21 106:1 131:6
133:8 76:4 78:15 80:5 81:5 97:25 155:15 156:13,19 157:5,13 100:22,24 102:4,11,12,25 esse (1) 1:7 54:10 85:4 89:5 160:16 financial (3) 83:4,6,7
disagree (1) 5:12 98:11 99:10,21 100:10,14 165:7 167:13,17 168:21 104:9,11,16,19,25 essentially (1) 26:16 explained (7) 14:6 19:3 20:4 financing (2) 94:15,16
disagreeing (1) 73:23 101:4,12,18 104:20 106:17 170:4,14 171:19,22 173:4 105:3,17,22 106:21,24 establish (4) 55:15 68:21 56:6 65:9 141:12 150:17 find (4) 7:14 20:17 158:13
disagreement (2) 33:21 72:1 107:6,9 109:21 111:1,15 draft (4) 123:25 161:7 107:11,16,23,25 106:2,5 explaining (5) 37:24 98:16 165:6
disallowed (3) 133:20 118:12 120:8,20 121:4,21 169:22 170:18 108:5,15,17,19,20 established (3) 22:20 77:1 102:5 138:22 164:5 finding (1) 171:20
134:8,9 130:10 152:2 drafted (3) 25:13,14 170:6 109:9,12 113:13 114:24 92:22 explains (2) 44:25 45:1 findings (2) 59:7 62:9
disappointment (1) 170:7 does (8) 46:12 75:15 82:7 drafting (1) 93:13 115:5,7,13,14,20 establishing (2) 54:21 108:24 explanation (3) 3:13 36:23 fine (2) 4:19 89:20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

fingering (1) 109:23 freaking (1) 168:1 78:19 120:4 121:15 132:15 happened (17) 9:9 22:8 holdings (6) 28:22 38:14,19 21:18 23:19,19 24:7 25:3 insisted (1) 156:21
finish (1) 40:19 freedman (4) 30:20 33:16,24 151:5 152:2,3 30:17 40:15 72:11 78:7 39:1 128:9,16 26:21 29:12 34:25 insistence (1) 4:23
finney (4) 68:18 156:22 35:5 gives (6) 23:13 34:22 45:8 81:19 116:3,14 125:6 holds (3) 15:12,13 45:21 37:15,24,24 40:8 41:1 installing (1) 163:23
157:6,16 freight (1) 43:25 50:20 82:20 107:10 131:14 132:8 134:23 154:7 hole (3) 83:4,6,7 42:24 44:24 47:23 48:9 instance (3) 57:11 64:19
firewalled (1) 153:8 fresh (1) 163:24 giving (10) 28:7,8,21 30:22 160:11,24 165:25 home (5) 32:15 62:7 65:18 49:4 50:6 53:15 55:3,6,6 163:21
firm (8) 99:9,12,19 friday (1) 89:4 35:18 38:9 55:1 60:12 happening (1) 27:15 90:2,12 58:17 59:5,14 60:23 66:17 instead (2) 155:6 171:12
100:3,7,20 101:22 102:2 fucking (8) 154:25 155:2 happens (2) 125:17 152:17 homomorphically (1) 9:22 68:9 71:18 74:19 76:7 instruction (1) 98:21
firms (1) 74:10 55:3,5,6,9,10,10,11,12 gizmodo (16) 71:11,17 72:22 happy (1) 146:21 honest (4) 76:3 102:23 146:3 82:19,24 83:16 89:4 93:9 instructions (1) 1:15
first (70) 1:17 2:6 6:23 full (4) 37:21 93:21 141:7 75:23 110:7,15 112:14 hard (7) 9:10,13 10:7 23:17 160:22 95:22 96:23 97:18 98:4 integrated (1) 41:8
9:3,14,24 10:2,5,10 156:23 117:20,23 118:7 119:16,24 32:16 89:5 171:14 honestly (1) 109:6 107:7 108:10 109:7 110:3 integrity (4) 99:10,20 100:9
11:16,16 12:18 17:12 fully (2) 42:17 155:10 121:23 123:25 125:3 127:7 harder (1) 39:11 hoodie (1) 168:3 111:8,10,11 113:4,14 163:22
22:18 25:12,17 26:17 function (3) 29:4 166:16 globally (1) 105:8 harry (1) 144:24 hoops (1) 55:4 116:2,3 117:12 120:21,22 integyrs (3) 61:11 74:5
35:1,22 36:21,21,22 38:1 167:4 goal (3) 146:15 148:23 154:2 harvest (1) 156:12 hope (1) 125:16 123:4,15 124:10 127:20 133:18
45:22 50:11 52:24 55:10 fund (6) 85:14 86:23 87:16 god (3) 109:2 141:22 159:5 harvested (1) 156:14 hopes (1) 152:7 136:5 137:23 138:9 139:23 intellectual (22) 15:16 38:10
64:16 66:20 71:16 72:6 93:19,24 134:25 goes (7) 52:13 63:22 73:2 harvesting (1) 139:5 hotel (1) 126:15 147:16 151:4,7 152:18 40:2,3 41:3,6,7,12,19
77:1,22 80:17 85:4,10 funded (1) 84:22 117:17 136:19 139:13 hash (6) 29:2,2,3 34:15 hotwire (1) 67:25 153:4 156:6,19,24,25 42:10,18 43:15,17 91:15
91:7,13,14 93:7,11,12,14 funding (4) 80:3 134:24,25 155:17 55:19,23 hough (27) 1:4,9,22 3:22 160:7,18 161:10,22,25,25 95:12,14,15 96:22 112:25
104:7,20,22,24 105:1 159:10 going (78) 4:12 10:6 20:17 hashes (1) 57:8 4:9,13,17,21,22 22:2 26:6 162:2,24 164:5,7,7 166:4,5 115:12 132:24 134:3
106:18,22 117:25 119:1 funds (1) 85:10 26:6 30:13 33:25 40:8 42:8 hasnt (3) 36:23 131:14 41:25 43:3,11 75:8 76:9,18 167:13,14 168:11 intended (3) 45:10,14 93:7
120:1 126:12 131:5 136:11 further (19) 3:19 23:9 25:18 50:25 51:1,9,12 53:15 160:24 90:15 91:3 129:22 130:4 image (1) 19:19 intending (1) 170:20
142:14 145:24 150:7 27:4 32:6 47:15 52:13 53:6 55:3,7 58:17,18 59:5,15 hate (3) 145:6 158:18 168:4 159:15 167:13,16,17 immediately (1) 93:6 intent (2) 84:12,14
151:16 153:7 154:15 62:1 85:24 86:16 87:7 89:1 60:23 64:12 65:2,3 71:18 havent (5) 8:2 40:10 67:8 171:18 173:5 implemented (1) 30:18 interactions (1) 87:22
160:4,4,14,21 162:11,13 92:25 103:23 122:3 127:24 74:12,19 80:25 81:15 74:25 161:20 hours (2) 122:12 140:23 implying (1) 17:8 interested (3) 80:21 83:2
163:8 171:2 142:5 163:14 82:3,19 83:16,17 84:24 having (34) 4:14 46:14 house (2) 15:23 126:14 important (3) 90:4 168:21,22 157:20
firstlevel (1) 31:24 future (5) 16:25 17:7,21 87:1,9,13 96:23,25 47:9,12 48:23 52:23,25 housekeeping (2) 1:5 173:3 impress (1) 90:8 interesting (1) 6:11
firstly (2) 57:5 67:7 133:24 134:1 97:4,6,7 98:4 101:3 54:8 61:25 73:3 75:25 however (1) 112:13 impression (1) 155:2 interests (1) 105:8
fishing (1) 50:25 107:7,19 111:7 113:23 79:13,17,25 82:10 84:19 human (1) 166:25 impressive (1) 79:1 interim (2) 60:16 94:15
G
five (9) 20:11 32:3 43:6 123:15 125:20 132:14,16 90:3 96:15 105:7,10 107:1 hundred (3) 144:18,23 improperly (1) 23:21 internal (5) 8:12 9:7 10:18
49:5,10 92:14 98:2 124:1 g (1) 29:5 135:13 136:5 137:23 111:17,21 113:6 118:13 157:11 inaudible (1) 91:22 66:1 119:24
129:24 gain (4) 14:9 29:15 45:4 138:2,21 143:5 145:4 122:8 144:12 145:7 151:5 hundreds (7) 42:5 152:20 incentive (1) 85:18 international (10) 13:7
fiveminute (3) 76:10,13 51:13 146:4 148:13,14,15 152:18 152:2 158:8 160:19 163:24 155:25 156:14 159:1,6 include (8) 24:24 37:21 16:12,18 17:12,16 26:11
129:23 gained (3) 10:19 38:15 119:3 153:4 154:24 155:3 156:19 168:5 170:23 95:18 97:5,6 112:17 43:20,20 45:9 157:3
fix (1) 86:12 gaining (3) 8:14,16 54:10 159:21 160:19,23 head (4) 42:20 82:14 105:2 hypothesis (2) 72:15,18 113:2,7 interpretation (3) 33:21
flat (3) 110:18 111:19,24 gambling (1) 77:19 161:10,22,22 163:7 164:7 167:10 included (16) 16:24 45:8,13
I
flimflam (1) 158:14 gaming (1) 82:15 167:1,6,14 header (2) 49:6 66:12 17:5,19,21 18:5 28:7 59:22 interpreted (1) 46:14
fly (1) 36:24 gao (1) 56:18 gold (1) 39:10 headers (1) 75:10 id (27) 3:2 17:10 21:17,24 60:1 73:15 97:12 111:5 interview (3) 54:24 79:15
focus (5) 21:5 58:17,18 gareth (1) 64:21 gone (11) 2:13 3:18 7:24 8:3 heads (6) 89:9 91:8 96:4 24:21 35:19 43:24 47:5 121:25 127:24 131:24 168:6
95:23 126:25 gather (1) 89:22 40:9 61:1 74:9 79:17 114:4,9 127:25 48:8 51:12 52:15 59:8 142:5 169:21 interviews (6) 106:17 131:25
focused (1) 130:13 gave (19) 1:11 10:25 11:9 148:10 149:13 162:24 health (2) 62:7 65:16 73:1,4 77:4 109:2 includes (7) 15:15,16,16,17 138:25 149:22,25 155:5
focusing (1) 96:17 15:25 20:21,24 21:3 29:9 good (16) 1:3,4 4:19 6:6,7 heard (3) 64:1,5 155:10 126:16,16,23 132:8 137:12 17:14 94:14 108:2 into (56) 2:4,7,9,13 8:3
folder (2) 3:11,11 42:9 51:2,4 53:18 54:25 66:24 67:3 79:5 82:17 hearn (1) 137:19 138:20 141:10,21 149:5 including (22) 3:15 10:9 14:8,19,23 15:2 16:7,18
follow (1) 171:14 60:10 79:15 96:7 90:18 102:20 109:17 heavily (1) 65:23 161:8 170:24 14:14 17:25 18:1 19:1 23:9 18:7,8 23:16 41:9 43:19
followed (1) 59:2 134:13,21 155:5 122:23 146:18,19 171:22 hed (1) 46:16 id002087 (1) 106:13 43:15 49:7 74:11 81:4 87:1 49:25 51:12 52:18 61:11
following (9) 1:14 28:16 gavin (15) 135:9 137:18 google (1) 145:9 held (12) 15:10,11 19:5 id002457 (1) 135:22 107:13 108:24 112:23 65:4 76:23 81:1 87:17
112:13 114:4,9 116:20 141:11 143:11 government (5) 118:18,21 20:19 34:6 38:16 43:20,21 id002624 (1) 49:11 113:18 115:15 117:23 91:19 96:5,8 97:9,14,25
153:12 162:8 164:14 145:20,22,24 146:8,11,19 119:14,21 148:8 52:8 61:23 87:6 92:8 id002629 (1) 48:19 130:7 153:13 155:1 167:18 102:24 113:25 126:19
follows (3) 45:13 47:16 112:8 147:8 148:2 150:11 157:9 gq (5) 54:25 148:19,25 hell (2) 22:17 160:24 id002639 (1) 47:18 income (1) 134:5 127:3,3,21 128:8,17
footage (2) 155:12 156:16 159:10 155:14 168:5 help (6) 39:18 87:23 97:23 id004094 (1) 78:14 inconceivable (3) 42:1,6,7 132:2,9,9,20,20
footer (3) 69:16,21 70:7 generally (3) 38:13 66:11 grabiner (4) 1:11 2:20 4:7 135:11 142:25 148:7 id004127 (1) 91:6 inconsistent (2) 61:24 133:10,12,15 134:16 140:2
force (1) 42:20 103:19 76:9 helped (2) 114:25 116:10 id004128 (1) 93:1 116:24 141:2 145:11 148:14
forced (4) 21:21 53:10 54:4 generate (3) 29:16 37:16 granath (8) 8:12,14 9:9 helpful (1) 139:2 id004276 (1) 115:5 incorporating (1) 111:23 152:20 163:17 164:15,16
140:18 56:7 10:10,16 36:2 52:2 112:3 hence (1) 94:24 id004277 (1) 102:12 incorrect (1) 7:22 168:3
forensic (1) 101:4 generated (3) 29:5,8 34:16 grandfather (1) 65:13 here (48) 5:15 8:16 9:8,23 idea (29) 6:22 7:5 21:17 25:2 increase (1) 85:18 introduced (1) 77:7
forensically (3) 98:23 99:4 generating (1) 34:23 granger (1) 66:3 15:25 22:3 27:22 44:18 43:22 66:24 67:18 76:3 incredible (1) 161:14 introduction (2) 77:17 163:1
100:15 generation (1) 55:19 grant (2) 92:16 131:17 47:24 55:25 63:1 90:7 83:11 84:1 95:20 96:10 incredibly (3) 57:14 143:22 invent (3) 97:16,19 140:22
forensics (1) 66:15 genesis (27) 29:2,5,11 31:23 granted (6) 14:11 40:4 41:9 93:14 102:17 103:16 104:8 97:6 108:19 109:8,19,24 171:14 invented (2) 52:11,14
forget (2) 144:18 161:20 33:13 44:13 95:9 97:20 113:14 114:1 115:20 110:20 111:20 114:21 index (5) 29:3,7 69:11,22 inventing (1) 138:20
form (6) 29:4 48:20 139:21 34:1,7,11,12,19,20,21 35:1 great (4) 39:16 89:2 124:18 117:2,10 120:7 125:21 115:1 136:21 140:5 173:1 invention (2) 40:6 169:8
140:7 144:19 170:5 37:12 54:13,17,22 125:10 126:6,10,14 127:16,19,25 143:19,22,22 145:7 155:20 indicated (1) 1:14 inventions (3) 138:22 140:23
formal (3) 16:22 17:4 46:25 55:11,16,21,24,25 56:2,12 greg (4) 111:6 123:10,14 132:13,13,14 136:3 140:6 158:6 indicates (2) 1:25 3:24 141:2
formally (1) 59:17 57:1,4 152:10 124:6 142:6 144:5 147:17 153:1 ideally (1) 144:7 indication (2) 1:11 82:20 invest (2) 81:11 103:11
format (3) 12:19 164:15,16 genuine (22) 5:25 6:12 23:13 grief (1) 53:3 161:15,21 164:25 165:25 ideas (6) 41:13 43:24,24 individual (3) 3:10 58:9,12 invested (1) 103:15
formed (3) 17:1 85:17 44:20,23 45:1 67:5 77:14 group (2) 127:11 167:24 166:1,4 169:6 171:9,10,23 95:10 103:12 109:18 individuals (4) 60:17 98:20 investigations (2) 52:12 58:3
149:15 99:3 102:12 104:9 105:17 growing (1) 96:16 heres (1) 152:18 identical (1) 159:22 163:19 169:9 investing (2) 80:18 82:21
forms (2) 14:14 144:10 107:16,25 108:18,21 growth (3) 92:19 97:1,7 hes (17) 45:7 84:17,17 85:10 identified (3) 45:21 51:16 industry (1) 40:6 investment (8) 45:9 76:24
forum (4) 7:3 143:1 159:14 110:4,5 115:8 127:15 guess (4) 30:18 93:9 115:23 86:10 98:14 115:5,13 120:13 inform (2) 99:14 102:9 78:24 80:13,23,24 82:8
165:9 128:17 135:23 139:11 116:12 139:23 146:11,13 identifies (1) 2:8 information (32) 2:13 83:3
forums (4) 6:19,25 7:15 get (34) 25:24 38:25 39:3,10 gunning (4) 1:9 2:1,6,15 148:3 155:16 157:23 identify (3) 11:4 18:21 120:2 16:12,14 18:19 23:13,22 investments (2) 13:7 26:11
145:21 42:24 55:5 56:24 65:1,3 guy (1) 158:10 159:10 171:20 identities (1) 156:7 24:12 43:1,19 50:21,25 investor (1) 78:16
forward (2) 118:10 163:7 76:6,7 78:12 79:13 83:3 gwern (1) 72:22 hex (1) 57:22 identity (24) 81:17 106:2 51:2 59:11 61:11 62:13,20 investors (1) 90:8
forwarded (7) 61:22 115:9 89:4,8 91:16 94:10,11 hi (1) 89:9 131:7 135:17 136:12,15 68:6 74:4 75:24 98:10 invitation (3) 80:12,22 82:12
117:5 118:25 139:11 97:15 114:25 116:10 119:6 H hide (2) 71:8 75:16 144:12 145:5,7 147:4 99:9,19,23 101:23 119:13 involve (3) 23:2 107:9 132:6
142:1,3 131:14 133:1,23,24 137:18 high (5) 60:17,21 65:1,2 148:17 149:14,15 151:19 123:12,22 134:15 145:22 involved (15) 13:13,18 23:1
forwarding (2) 117:4,14 140:21 154:2 161:24,24 hadnt (10) 3:25 11:1 20:7 112:4 153:5,7,8 162:13 156:9 157:2,9 27:14 43:25 52:1 58:4
forwards (2) 117:15 126:16 166:14 168:1 53:8 54:5,6,7 94:21 95:3 history (12) 1:13 2:15 68:21 166:11,15 167:3,4 169:6 informed (2) 62:11 168:13 62:25 63:11 74:11 123:14
found (3) 126:14 140:3 gets (2) 102:2 167:25 140:8 105:9 111:18,23 114:22 171:2 infrastructure (1) 154:8 137:20 140:1,9 168:7
168:17 getting (5) 79:23 135:11 hal (4) 68:18 156:22 128:11 144:17 149:4 ids (2) 18:24 45:21 initial (6) 44:11 77:17 80:18 involvement (3) 19:12 20:1
founded (1) 13:8 145:11 161:23 171:19 157:6,16 165:22 166:25 ie (1) 112:10 81:11,13 92:13 104:6
four (6) 32:3 33:4 63:3,25 gibsons (2) 122:15 123:5 half (1) 88:13 hmac (7) 29:4 ii (3) 27:4,7 94:13 initially (4) 19:23 23:8 59:13 involving (3) 58:10 80:14
65:20 80:4 gillespie (1) 104:14 halfway (2) 120:14 146:12 34:13,14,16,25 37:16 ill (12) 3:20 4:3 5:10 39:19 62:17 91:4
fourth (2) 38:9 92:6 give (15) 4:11 11:2 37:17 hand (1) 169:3 55:20 47:23 57:5 107:20 132:25 initiated (3) 26:3 27:11 ip (8) 41:5,5,23 91:16 94:23
fragmented (1) 30:5 38:22 48:15 57:6 64:14 handed (3) 19:1 21:11 59:13 hoax (2) 123:9,18 137:16 165:14 167:11 39:24 122:17,18 128:1
framed (1) 64:10 83:11 93:16 109:2 111:12 hands (2) 3:21 30:15 hold (4) 13:6,25 15:15 52:14 168:1 inkind (1) 130:24 ira (5) 24:12 30:20 72:16
fraud (1) 155:17 140:14,15 147:15 169:2 happen (8) 34:19 39:8 75:6 holder (1) 18:24 im (101) 1:18,22 2:24 insecure (3) 66:11 155:25 111:5 118:24
fraudulently (1) 158:19 given (15) 1:11 11:1 29:17 77:25 117:18 138:11 holding (5) 12:7 14:3 20:2 3:14,23 4:12 6:21 9:15 166:21 irrelevant (1) 82:13
fray (1) 51:11 36:24 59:1,12 60:5 64:22 150:20 152:22 26:2 92:9 10:6 14:10 18:3,13 19:20 inside (1) 101:6 irretrievable (2) 120:8,20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

isnt (40) 4:24 5:6 10:11 35:3 91:4,9 94:19 95:18 114:5 61:1 65:15 72:14,19 73:6 l13401 (1) 159:15 81:19 86:1 107:21 122:12 link (2) 67:4 136:21 95:17,20 96:9 102:6
36:25 52:12 56:3 58:3,20 127:3 134:21 74:6 75:1,1,3,5 78:1,3,22 l134471 (1) 48:19 124:5 132:15 135:21 linked (7) 57:8 61:10,13 104:12 105:3 106:9 107:24
60:20 64:21 66:19 72:2 junior (1) 66:5 79:12 80:7 93:16 l13881 (1) 160:25 137:16 140:3 141:25 144:2 71:10 72:11 112:15 124:4 108:14,22 109:4,11 115:25
78:5 90:8 100:2,5 101:20 justicemellorgmailcom (1) 95:25,25,25 96:1,5,9 l143271 (1) 161:5 163:14 linuxunix (1) 68:12 127:9,13 135:4 146:3,9,22
104:9 108:3 110:24 112:4 110:10 97:11,24 102:14 104:5 l143272 (1) 162:4 lawyer (3) 28:20,20 84:12 liquidation (4) 49:25 148:9 149:21 150:13
115:8 116:24 117:22 121:6 107:18 109:6 110:3 115:10 l143276 (1) 163:10 lawyers (3) 49:11 72:5 85:3 61:14,14 134:16 151:21 153:11 159:18
K
125:25 127:15 133:16,20 117:6,25 119:5,22 126:23 l143277 (1) 165:18 lead (2) 66:3 105:6 list (13) 18:2 26:15 28:21 167:18
137:22 146:12 147:2,4,12 k21 (1) 120:1 133:4,9 136:4 137:20 l144091 (1) 11:16 leading (1) 118:23 30:7 32:8 34:24 35:18 macgregors (4) 84:2 109:18
148:9 157:5 159:9 162:6 k224 (1) 120:7 138:9,10 139:23 140:1,9 l14409288 (1) 11:19 leads (1) 2:19 68:24 104:20,21 106:16,21 115:19 116:4
170:3 k225 (2) 119:25 120:11 143:6 145:21 148:2 151:1 l14409289 (1) 12:2 leak (4) 118:18,22,22 119:7 121:15 machine (5) 7:15 66:13,18
issued (6) 8:25 46:20 60:24 keen (2) 61:4 134:20 158:2 159:9,10 161:13 l14409290 (1) 12:11 leaked (5) 71:18 119:4,24 listed (10) 20:16 24:3,21,22 164:1 168:9
68:16 133:16 169:11 keep (12) 15:9 39:14 42:9 164:5 171:9 l14409291 (1) 13:8 122:4 123:25 35:11 47:20 52:15 machines (2) 19:1 147:9
issues (2) 141:12 145:23 86:13 87:5 96:22 101:9 knowing (1) 20:25 l14409292 (1) 13:11 leaking (1) 121:21 120:14,19,20 macquarie (4) 80:3 90:13
item (2) 106:20 108:22 146:21 153:4 167:10,11,14 knowledge (14) 20:22 21:20 l14409293 (1) 13:23 least (21) 7:19 8:7 24:15 listen (1) 96:2 95:1 140:20
iteration (1) 12:23 keeps (1) 101:3 29:15 50:22 51:7 52:6 63:8 l14409294 (1) 14:18 41:17 42:23 44:25 48:20 listened (1) 168:5 magistrate (3) 18:4 21:11
its (121) 2:12 5:11,23 6:9 kept (4) 22:14 39:13 135:7 67:17 96:5,8 104:3 135:8 l14671 (1) 155:8 49:9,15 52:23 58:4 65:22 listing (2) 52:15 124:1 22:16
7:25 15:14,18 17:5,21 146:14 144:13 145:20 l151311 (1) 28:16 82:5 88:20 120:25 139:4 literally (1) 158:11 main (4) 35:13 43:22 48:4,15
18:13,22 19:17 21:3,6 key (129) 9:1,14,17,18 known (16) 4:25 59:17 64:20 l15131106 (1) 30:19 140:4 154:25 165:14,15 literary (2) 105:6,20 mainly (1) 145:8
22:12 25:8 26:10,10,17 10:20,25 11:2 14:7 18:24 71:13 115:23 124:16 l15131107 (1) 31:12 168:5 litigation (4) 52:22 53:5 54:9 maintain (1) 25:24
30:9,17 32:15 35:3 37:20 20:2 28:7,10,11,11 125:14 138:8,13,14 143:8 l15131113 (1) 32:20 leave (4) 3:20 86:5,11 121:18 72:5 maintained (2) 119:18
39:12,14 42:21 44:8,24 29:2,6,24 31:7 32:4,22 149:16 151:16 164:23 l15131114 (1) 33:1 led (3) 26:24 53:11 81:8 little (5) 55:17 103:12 151:16
47:22 48:20 50:3 57:22 33:8,14,17 165:21 171:2 l15131115 (1) 33:20 left (2) 68:23 69:22 113:22 165:5 168:2 major (1) 132:6
58:3,20 60:16,18,20,21 34:7,7,10,12,16,18,19,22 knows (3) 57:15 159:5 l15131122 (1) 35:5 legal (8) 2:25 9:2 23:20 live (4) 67:1 154:12 159:21 majority (3) 15:13 27:12
61:13,14 64:23 66:14,17 35:3,3,4,11 37:16 38:15 164:22 l15131123 (1) 37:4 41:16 56:18 72:4 84:22 160:12 159:13
67:7,15 69:8 70:1 71:8 39:3 45:21 47:11,15,18 kpmg (2) 65:25 74:11 l1513123 (1) 28:18 94:15 living (1) 126:14 makes (2) 23:17 151:14
74:9,16 76:8 48:1,4,15,23 49:7,20 l1513124 (1) 29:22 length (1) 2:3 llm (1) 136:13 making (11) 18:14 20:13
L
78:2,5,8,14,19 80:22 50:4,12 51:3,15,23 52:8 l15511 (2) 15:24 16:6 less (2) 63:22 170:7 lloyds (2) 22:25 25:12 25:15 41:11 77:12 83:6
82:19,21 96:15 99:25 54:17 55:9,20,23,25 l10331 (2) 91:6,13 l15512 (2) 16:19 27:2 let (6) 50:7 56:10 59:6 96:2 loaded (5) 76:7 143:21 101:9 104:22 117:24
100:5 102:12 105:16 56:2,5,5,8,8,11,22,23,24,25 l10332 (1) 92:6 l15514 (2) 16:3 27:3 121:10 158:25 163:17 164:16 166:2 131:24 139:6
108:13,21 109:7 57:3,11,12,12,15,20,22 l10333 (1) 91:9 l171641 (1) 112:3 lets (17) 5:12 8:11 11:8,14 loading (1) 165:20 malmi (7) 5:4,14 6:3,7
110:1,11,23 111:9 78:10 119:17 124:8,10 l103381 (1) 115:6 l1716422 (1) 112:6 14:17 22:18 68:21 93:10 loan (6) 34:6 92:2 7:2,3,5
115:10,18,22 117:6,22 125:14,14 135:17,18 l103391 (2) 102:11 103:23 l182571 (1) 169:11 95:23 129:24 133:5 141:18 93:17,18,23 94:3 malmis (1) 5:8
118:6 120:19,20,20,22 142:16 l103392 (1) 103:6 l1825711 (1) 169:24 144:18 154:3 155:7 156:15 loathe (1) 158:18 management (1) 18:17
121:6,8,8,9,9,14,14 123:23 143:7,8,12,13,17,24 144:1 l10341 (3) 92:25 93:11,22 l182572 (1) 169:14 166:6 located (1) 16:8 managing (3) 26:2 116:22
124:7,10 125:9,25 126:22 146:10 147:14,22,25 l10342 (1) 93:22 l182573 (1) 169:20 letter (7) 55:1 84:12,14 lock (1) 94:22 124:2
127:1,17 129:22 131:17 149:12 l10343 (1) 93:2 l51041 (1) 5:13 100:17 101:25 161:20 locked (1) 42:21 manila (1) 84:7
133:16,20 144:23 145:17 151:6,13,15,17,18,19 l103671 (2) 73:7 75:8 l51061 (1) 6:2 162:22 locking (1) 41:14 manipulated (1) 117:6
150:17 153:7 155:10 156:9 152:18 153:6 155:22,22 l104241 (3) 105:23 106:13 l6551 (1) 69:6 letterhead (1) 126:22 lodged (1) 44:12 manner (1) 30:4
157:5,12,17 158:14 159:25 156:3,3,4,11 160:2,13 107:10 l6554 (1) 69:11 letters (1) 57:16 logistic (1) 166:12 mantra (1) 148:16
160:3 162:21,22,25 164:22 162:9,17,17 163:13 l104242 (2) 104:4,11 l741911 (1) 69:15 level (1) 73:4 lohdi (1) 66:4 manuscripts (1) 105:7
166:15 169:8 171:18,19 165:8,13,16 l104243 (2) 105:13,25 l741917 (1) 69:17 leverage (2) 132:9,10 london (6) 107:19,20,21 many (14) 25:5 26:21 46:19
itself (4) 56:1 95:10 164:14 168:14,14,16,16 l10661 (2) 98:12 102:4 l744411 (1) 69:20 liar (1) 53:21 114:11 126:2,4 49:13 77:5 82:6 97:20
170:15 169:2,3,21 170:15 171:11 l10662 (1) 102:5 l744416 (1) 69:22 libel (1) 112:4 long (7) 53:16 63:21 117:8 123:5 125:2 129:4
ive (56) 1:16 7:24,24,25 13:1 keys (82) 8:7,8,15,20 l10681 (1) 99:7 l810711 (1) 69:25 liberty (2) 64:24,24 138:19 140:7 165:4,21 157:7,10,10 163:8
15:9 18:18 19:14 9:14,22,22,24 10:8,10,21 l111811 (1) 118:6 l810716 (1) 70:3 lie (5) 53:25 166:25 longer (3) 2:2 99:24 147:17 mapping (1) 29:8
23:3,3,11,12,23 24:9 26:20 12:8 14:1 27:18 28:8 l112121 (2) 119:25 121:19 l8171 (1) 26:6 167:2,6,22 look (30) 1:19 2:6 4:3 6:15 march (10) 69:21 70:12,12
37:25 41:9 50:20 53:24 29:1,7,8,16 30:5 31:14 l1121210 (1) 122:5 l8175 (1) 26:14 lied (1) 53:25 10:18 36:6 74:15 76:4 133:15 135:3 138:1,4,23
55:9,10,11,11,18 56:5 32:11,12,12,12 34:24 36:8 l1121211 (1) 122:7 l83401 (2) 77:11,22 life (32) 30:13 82:25 88:1 77:11 80:22 84:7 88:13,20 142:2,6
57:23 59:14 61:1 63:11 45:4 50:13,19 51:14 53:24 l1121212 (1) 122:11 l83402 (1) 77:17 92:17 95:6,7,10,13,14,16 89:23 91:5 103:3,21 marchapril (2) 112:20 134:18
64:15 79:5 96:10 103:20 54:11 55:10 57:8 61:25 l1121213 (1) 123:19 l836811 (1) 70:6 96:12,19,21 97:4,10,11 104:10 105:21 115:21 marker (1) 119:23
107:6,8 108:16,19 62:1,6,12 108:25 109:3 l1121214 (1) 123:20 l836816 (1) 70:10 111:18,22 112:17,22,22 123:19 124:14 125:21,21 market (1) 82:3
109:19,24 111:20 120:6 124:2,20 l112126 (1) 121:24 l845011 (1) 70:12 113:7,17,18,23 114:21 131:4 142:20 146:23 marketing (1) 132:2
123:5,16 124:22 129:4 125:11,15,17,18,19,19,24 l112127 (1) 122:3 l845015 (1) 70:13 115:15 128:15 130:6 134:9 149:20 160:7,7 martti (1) 5:4
134:5 144:14 151:5,19 136:6,13 143:14,15 146:25 l112129 (1) 122:4 l846411 (1) 70:15 151:14 168:4 looked (9) 26:8,14 27:24 matched (1) 111:13
152:16,21 162:24 164:5 147:1,3,5,10 148:7 l112851 (1) 126:18 l846416 (1) 70:16 lifes (2) 41:24 167:7 46:15 71:16 88:15 100:23 material (9) 59:1,13 110:23
166:1 169:1 171:3 149:1,10,18 150:5 151:11 l1128510 (1) 128:3 l91711 (1) 70:18 lifted (1) 154:13 106:24 115:16 118:13,23,24 119:3 121:12

152:3,24 155:18,21,25 l1128511 (1) 128:6 l91716 (1) 70:19 light (1) 3:18 looking (18) 1:22 3:6,17 4:2 171:20
J 156:13,25 158:7 163:15 l112853 (1) 126:25 l92261 (1) 78:14 like (55) 1:23 5:24 12:22 7:6,7 45:11 46:3 84:21 materially (1) 53:19

164:6 166:7,20,23 167:20 l112856 (1) 127:24 l92262 (1) 78:23 21:24 25:21 35:19 43:24 86:22 94:9 95:11 materials (6) 60:2 63:14

jab (1) 103:12 168:8 170:9,11 l113421 (2) 128:15 130:4 l93951 (1) 80:11 46:15 50:19 52:1,18 102:23,25 106:12 114:23 64:8 122:5 130:10 132:1

january (17) 29:23 39:2 kind (3) 83:23 142:2 160:19 l1134214 (2) 128:24 133:5 l94451 (1) 84:5 55:20,22 56:7,8 127:16 164:24 mathematical (1) 64:13

66:8,22 67:6,16,17 68:3,15 kinds (1) 104:1 l1134216 (1) 130:13 l94452 (1) 83:19 57:13,20,20,22 64:21,23 looks (7) 1:23 56:7,18 57:20 mathematician (1) 60:3

69:3,13,13,18 75:11 77:2 kleiman (63) 11:8,15 l113422 (2) 130:9,17 l94511 (1) 84:9 68:18 76:3 88:20 89:23 135:25 161:8,9 maths (2) 2:10 3:11

126:21 127:5 13:13,18 14:18 18:23 l113423 (1) 131:16 l94561 (2) 85:1,16 102:3 103:3,21 110:9 lose (1) 41:23 matonis (10) 137:2,11,13,18

jean (2) 161:3,6 19:11,23 20:1,23,25 21:6 l113424 (2) 131:20,21 l94562 (1) 85:9 115:21 118:5 125:16 losing (1) 41:24 138:1 150:11,15,24 151:9

jeanpaul (2) 161:17,18 22:22 23:8,10 26:10,19 l113521 (1) 135:22 l94891 (1) 86:16 127:23 129:4 133:24 lost (3) 53:24 121:11,14 152:4

jim (1) 85:3 28:17 29:18 30:5,13,20 l113541 (1) 60:11 l94892 (1) 86:3 135:25 137:7 140:2,3,25 lot (14) 1:20 53:3 63:22 75:1 matter (5) 18:11 97:21

jlp (1) 104:14 32:21 36:2 38:13,16,25 l1135452 (1) 61:15 l94911 (1) 88:6 141:1 142:21 143:6 144:8 79:25 84:16 103:20 127:6 102:5,7,9

jm (1) 150:11 39:18,19,22 40:15,18,25 l113741 (1) 137:22 l9891 (1) 66:9 148:11,12,21 153:1 137:20 144:25 145:6,22 matters (3) 93:25 110:6

joint (1) 26:18 41:25 42:1,15 44:16,19 l113951 (1) 138:16 l9896 (1) 68:22 158:14,19 160:22 161:15 158:4 160:23 130:7

jolly (1) 107:2 45:19 47:25 48:24 49:24 l11471 (1) 107:23 lack (1) 139:13 163:6 164:6 168:19 lots (1) 107:12 matthews (45) 76:19,21

jon (3) 137:2,12 150:11 51:20 52:3,22 l11541 (1) 109:9 lady (1) 167:9 likelihood (1) 131:11 louis (1) 78:9 77:2,12 78:16 79:7,15

journalist (1) 138:17 53:5,10,18,20 54:9 59:23 l12 (1) 43:3 language (1) 156:20 likely (2) 71:3,22 love (1) 82:24 80:14 83:21 84:9 87:9,16

journalists (7) 148:19 67:22 71:23 72:2,4,7,16 l121721 (2) 149:19 150:7 laptop (3) 49:16 146:18 limit (1) 2:16 loved (1) 82:23 89:15,16 90:5 91:5,11

149:8,22 150:15,24 152:23 78:9 111:4,5 118:24 l121722 (1) 150:3 163:24 limited (10) 1:18 15:22 lower (1) 88:13 93:3,5 95:17 96:5,11,18

160:5 170:12 171:5 l122031 (3) 44:14 46:24 laptops (5) 20:9,15,18 24:11 16:16 17:11 18:22 91:18 lse (1) 138:5 102:6 103:25 104:13 114:2

judge (2) 23:12 42:1 knew (18) 49:9 63:15 64:24 47:18 111:3 99:15,18,24 128:16 ltd (1) 60:14 116:1,5 128:23 133:3,6

july (7) 5:1 7:9 98:15 95:24 96:11,19,20 97:3 l122032 (2) 44:17 46:13 large (2) 39:5 100:12 line (39) 8:13,19,23 9:7 lunch (4) 88:6 90:16,18 91:3 135:4,23 137:25

99:7,13 113:21 126:11 122:9 133:11,12 137:15 l122033 (2) 45:20 46:18 last (10) 19:15 22:20 26:8 10:19,22 11:20,23,23 lynn (1) 139:2 138:7,9,13 141:25 149:21

jump (2) 55:3 87:9 138:8,9 141:10,16 145:14 l1221 (1) 146:2 68:4 71:4 73:8 88:6,15 12:11,15,20 13:2,11,23 151:22 155:1 159:18
M
jumped (1) 65:3 165:17 l1222 (2) 142:4 144:3 139:19 148:6 14:19 28:19,24 30:3,21 167:18 170:16

june (30) 5:16 6:2 16:20 know (76) 1:19 14:2 l122211 (1) 151:21 late (7) 71:20 76:2 77:2 31:5,17,22 32:6,20,25 macgregor (50) 35:6,16 36:6 maxwell (9) 55:4 71:12

28:18,19 62:2,5,13 21:13,15 22:4 23:11 l1223 (2) 141:24 142:8 105:17 106:10 117:22 33:2,7,12,16,24 44:16,18 45:22 46:6 47:3,9 111:6 119:10 123:10,14,23

66:13,18 67:20 68:23 69:1 24:10,13,13 25:5,7 38:21 l123881 (2) 153:10 154:15 171:19 35:5,9,10,15 45:11 52:2 48:7 50:12 51:10,13 76:19 124:6 165:9

70:1,21,23 75:20 83:19 44:12 46:8 47:22 l123882 (1) 153:16 later (21) 7:9 20:9 22:8,8 161:14 171:6 77:7,13 79:8 83:20 84:5 maxwells (1) 125:10

84:10,11 85:2 86:3 88:13 49:10,16,23,23,24 51:8,24 l123883 (1) 154:11 36:6 49:22 54:3 58:4 77:4 lines (3) 37:5 47:14 139:16 87:12,17 89:15,18 91:5 mayaka (1) 47:1

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

maybe (2) 5:23 105:23 minds (1) 119:6 112:11,15,18,23 113:8,18 number (18) 4:1 8:24 9:1,14 opposite (4) 52:25 145:3 part (35) 5:9 6:17 7:3 8:9 persons (1) 116:2
mays (1) 107:14 mine (2) 103:21 125:13 139:14 140:11 12:7 18:22 27:10,13 32:10 156:2 168:19 9:20 13:23,25 25:18 26:19 perspective (1) 2:22
mcardle (1) 41:21 mined (10) 10:8 16:6,21,24 nakamotos (1) 108:25 34:17 56:4 64:13 117:2,5 option (2) 85:17 92:3 31:2,13 33:16 34:23 36:21 persuade (1) 146:7
mckenzie (3) 9:2 126:20,22 17:6,20 18:7 27:19 28:25 name (9) 12:12 16:8,25 134:7 142:14 157:7 163:19 options (2) 80:1 94:24 37:15 51:5 55:19 71:11,12 persuaded (1) 112:16
mean (24) 1:23 15:23 32:8 67:22 68:4 119:4 121:7 numbers (5) 49:20 56:21,23 orchestrated (1) 123:9 73:14 75:3 76:23 83:1 pgp (9) 18:24 45:21 124:2,9
17:14,18 29:10 38:1 49:23 miners (1) 27:12 159:2,14 57:13 79:17 order (6) 37:7,13 93:9,16 85:4,10 100:13 107:19 125:24 142:16 143:7,17
56:14,24 68:18 77:4 78:2 minimum (2) 31:6 165:15 namely (1) 47:1 nursing (2) 62:7 65:18 94:5 140:12 118:22,24 119:11 124:9 150:4
107:22 109:6 111:11 mining (6) 9:21 16:16 58:22 names (3) 70:22 110:11 ordered (2) 17:24 19:5 130:22 135:14 136:19 phase (1) 94:13
126:22 134:2 143:14 59:4 66:16 73:15 123:6 O organisation (2) 34:7 153:17 152:23 phillips (1) 104:15
145:18 151:4 153:9 156:12 minute (1) 155:9 nature (3) 44:7 97:17 148:8 original (7) 43:22 85:25 partially (1) 65:25 phone (2) 135:9 141:14
162:21 164:25 minutes (3) 20:11 43:6 ncrypt (5) 112:9 128:9 o21128 (1) 8:12 95:10 108:15 109:16 135:1 participating (1) 82:8 physically (2) 126:8,10
meaning (3) 71:19 124:16 129:24 135:23 142:6 161:1 o21129 (1) 9:7 149:18 particular (7) 8:9 22:5 36:4,5 pick (2) 57:11 111:14
157:16 misconception (1) 54:16 nda (1) 146:6 o4231 (1) 54:24 originally (5) 48:14 58:2 62:16 124:11 picking (1) 57:13
means (8) 9:24 31:6 37:17 misreading (1) 29:10 nearly (2) 22:10 79:25 o4234 (1) 55:1 52:11,14,17 65:19 particularly (1) 90:14 piece (2) 123:25 125:10
54:21 55:15 86:6 166:17 misrecorded (1) 62:20 necessarily (3) 36:22 68:18 oath (2) 53:10 54:5 orr (3) 3:4,6,13 parties (9) 22:13 38:17,17 pieces (5) 11:14 71:17 125:3
169:9 mistake (2) 10:17 57:3 71:7 object (1) 146:24 ostensibly (2) 109:10 118:6 67:10,11,12,13 98:22 142:14 154:12
meant (10) 17:18 18:2 23:10 mixed (1) 125:6 necessary (1) 51:4 objecting (3) 147:10 148:5 otc (1) 83:1 152:9 pile (2) 107:8 111:9
29:24 30:2,15 117:17 mixture (1) 125:5 need (18) 6:15 18:5 32:7 155:20 others (16) 6:21 14:13 40:4 partner (4) 26:20,21 98:14 piles (1) 39:10
149:3,4 152:22 mm (1) 71:1 47:5 55:22 74:18 85:6 objection (2) 147:12 148:8 49:4 57:24 88:16 89:5 101:17 pinder (2) 22:25 25:12
media (16) 105:8 131:25 mmhm (11) 13:20 31:9 86:17 89:10 103:13 106:1 objectionable (1) 147:2 90:2,12 104:12 107:24 partners (4) 102:3 152:2,8 pirate (1) 136:20
132:6 138:3,4 141:7 150:9 33:6,11,19 34:3 70:5 84:13 135:10,10,11,12 162:13 objective (2) 139:22 140:8 108:14 109:11 118:25 153:20 pitch (1) 78:24
151:23 152:2,8 86:2,18 142:23 164:13,22 objectively (3) 144:19,22 121:3 159:18 partnership (1) 26:18 pki (2) 151:16 156:8
153:16,17,20 154:12 155:5 modified (1) 44:21 needed (13) 25:20 27:13 145:15 otherwise (2) 112:10 156:10 partnerships (1) 26:22 place (10) 50:24 71:16 75:16
167:19 modify (1) 142:20 36:17 45:2 46:25 51:15 obligations (2) 24:5 140:16 outed (1) 119:7 parts (1) 169:23 114:23 116:6 119:2 131:11
medium (1) 67:12 mojonation (1) 157:21 52:22 82:2 85:14 89:7,25 obliged (1) 131:21 outing (3) 71:11 110:7 parttime (3) 68:10 90:2,12 141:19 152:7 154:17
meet (2) 107:20 146:11 moment (16) 7:7 19:20,21 97:23 135:7 obtain (1) 30:7 118:23 party (8) 19:2 20:9 111:4 placed (1) 27:5
meeting (11) 80:12,13,24 26:7 29:12 40:6 43:4 83:12 needs (1) 4:7 obtained (4) 11:1 101:1 outings (2) 110:7,15 120:4 137:23 147:16,25 plain (2) 71:19 74:16
81:13,22 82:10,20 84:6,12 90:13,15 92:20 100:23 negotiations (2) 95:2 96:14 118:13 158:8 outside (3) 46:25 145:9 163:12 plainly (2) 138:7 140:11
107:21 139:20 129:23 142:12 151:7 154:4 neither (4) 30:17 34:13 obtaining (1) 38:15 153:17 passed (1) 103:14 plan (10) 49:12 112:9 151:23
meetings (1) 19:4 monday (1) 149:25 56:14,19 obvious (2) 36:24 50:3 outstanding (1) 1:12 past (1) 21:25 153:12,21,24 154:1,4,24
meiklejohn (4) 14:12 money (17) 39:16 55:5 79:24 net (2) 60:17,21 obviously (5) 3:6 5:12 outvoted (1) 102:2 patches (1) 143:6 155:3
56:15,16,17 80:4 84:24 85:13 87:4,24 never (18) 24:9 26:20 125:23 156:20 171:19 over (34) 3:9 12:25 33:1,20 patching (1) 145:24 plane (1) 87:9
mellor (43) 1:3,6,16,23 130:21 131:15 132:11,22 63:11,11 64:1 67:18 89:16 occupied (2) 65:23,25 37:4 58:5 59:13 60:17 patent (5) 42:21,25 44:12 planned (4) 80:13 131:10
2:5,14,18 3:5,12,20 133:23,24 134:19,23 145:8 103:10 109:15 110:3 occur (1) 135:1 77:16 83:8,10 85:9 92:6 97:23 141:1 154:9 160:10
4:2,10,16,19 21:5,9 23:23 month (1) 83:13 116:25 133:1 140:4 143:10 occurrences (1) 165:15 102:4 104:7 109:2 111:12 patentable (1) 141:2 platform (3) 20:17 47:22
24:1,4,19,24 monthly (1) 91:24 154:7 155:19 157:18 oclock (1) 129:22 120:14 123:19 125:21 patented (2) 40:5 44:10 84:2
25:10,13,15,25 26:3,5 months (7) 103:10 114:3,7,9 170:20 october (24) 16:22 17:5 126:6 130:22 131:17,20 patenting (1) 115:12 play (3) 155:8,9 156:15
40:21,24 42:12 43:2,5 139:18,24 140:4 newco (7) 91:14,20 22:22 26:12 46:2 51:22 132:12 133:22,25 134:2,16 patents (16) 14:12 40:4 41:9 played (3) 155:8,12 156:16
74:18 76:12 90:17,20,23 more (26) 6:9,11 11:3,3 30:9 92:8,12,23 94:8 127:12 52:4 75:10,20 78:19 140:20 143:5 150:3 162:8 44:2 95:9 97:20,25 98:3 pleads (1) 112:7
91:2 129:24 159:8 41:5,12 49:25 51:1,5,12 news (2) 15:22,23 104:8,13 105:10,18 106:10 169:14 113:4 135:11 138:21 please (72) 6:2 9:7 11:19
167:8,16 171:21 53:14 54:5 71:22 74:5 80:4 next (10) 12:2 29:24 40:11 107:17 113:7,16 overseas (1) 13:6 140:25 149:4 152:21 13:11 15:24 23:16 26:6,14
member (4) 49:18,18,20 81:12 92:4 115:1 127:20 84:6 92:1,11 107:23 128:6 114:1,15,16,18 126:7,12 overspeaking (1) 91:21 160:16 170:24 28:16 30:19 32:20 40:11
121:2 132:22 133:21 145:8 134:2 167:15 odd (2) 2:22 50:2 overthecounter (1) 82:3 pause (6) 40:8 136:23,23 44:14 45:20 48:19
members (6) 13:1 27:12 153:24 156:6 160:22 nguyen (6) 10:24 11:20,20 offensive (1) 158:14 own (14) 15:20,22,23 146:11 155:13 167:8 54:13,24 58:1 60:11 61:15
78:22 79:20 117:15 123:11 morning (5) 1:3,4 102:20 18:22 45:19 52:3 offer (3) 80:2,5 90:12 20:19,22 28:20 40:12 50:6 pausing (3) 29:18 36:1 67:14 63:24 70:3 73:7 78:14,23
memory (5) 93:10 114:22 169:12 171:23 nick (2) 88:23 158:1 office (17) 58:5 73:1 79:14 55:9,23 76:7 125:11 pay (3) 55:4 86:17 137:21 80:11 84:5 86:3 88:19
115:6,13 142:12 morris (1) 105:6 night (1) 102:20 88:16,24 89:3,23 90:3,7 167:17,22 payable (1) 93:18 92:25 93:2,20,20 98:12
mention (1) 81:16 most (6) 125:2 133:2 145:21 nil (1) 90:6 97:19 99:21,22 owned (8) 15:11,19 17:16,22 paying (1) 86:6 99:7 103:6 105:24 106:16
mentioned (6) 6:25 25:1 158:12 159:12 161:20 nine (2) 48:17 55:10 100:1,12,13 119:14 147:19 18:9,9 41:3 157:2 payment (6) 63:8 77:18 107:23 109:9 111:14 112:6
34:13 53:8 139:15 144:14 mostly (1) 127:12 nobel (4) 21:24 161:18 offices (1) 153:17 ownership (2) 18:14 42:17 87:20 92:13 95:13 131:13 114:2 116:18 119:25
message (36) 6:18 129:13,20 move (5) 114:11 130:22 162:3,24 officials (2) 73:12 99:1 owning (3) 15:22 111:8,11 payments (2) 92:14 131:3 120:1,2,7,11 126:18,25
142:15,16 143:12 141:18 148:4 150:12 nobody (1) 111:14 offset (4) 59:22 60:13,14 owns (1) 15:21 pd57ac (1) 104:21 129:20 130:5,17 138:16
147:5,15,18 150:9 moved (10) 83:20 nodding (1) 167:9 85:23 pedersen (3) 88:8,10,23 141:24 144:3 145:10,10
152:14,16 154:21 156:3 126:4,8,10,16 132:8,12 nominal (2) 59:20 64:17 offsets (1) 134:6 P pedigree (1) 106:6 146:2 148:22 149:19
160:1,12 162:6,9,18 146:16,20 148:23 nominally (1) 87:3 oh (6) 62:22 74:12 82:23 penultimate (1) 105:25 151:21 153:10 155:7,13
163:4,11,12 165:19,20 movement (2) 157:14 170:10 nominate (2) 24:1,19 134:9 141:22 158:3 p2p (1) 6:10 people (60) 8:24 9:15 11:2,4 159:15 160:25 162:4
166:8,9,22,22 167:20 moving (16) 8:5 27:2 54:13 nominating (1) 120:18 ohagan (5) 138:18,23 pack (10) 78:16 80:23 15:9 21:24 22:6 24:13 163:10 169:11 171:4
168:6,12,12,13 169:3,25 58:1 83:19 102:11 116:18 none (4) 63:7,15 149:5,6 140:1,6 155:1 149:3,5 152:19 160:4,15 25:21 27:13 32:12 39:13 pm (7) 76:15,17 90:24 91:1
171:10 117:20 126:18 146:15 nonexistent (1) 79:25 ois (1) 43:22 161:23,25 166:3 49:23,24 52:8 56:4 57:20 130:1,3 171:25
messages (14) 142:21 152:13,14 153:1,2 154:1 nongenuine (2) 109:12,20 okay (18) 2:5,18 3:12,20 package (5) 106:1,2,9 66:6 67:24 73:3,8 78:10 pointed (3) 35:10 107:2
149:9,9,10 152:3,24 159:15 noninteractive (1) 14:15 4:2,5,16,19 74:20 76:12 108:23 154:6 79:3,5 81:10 89:4 90:1,11 171:18
153:2,22,24 154:5 ms (3) 11:20 14:12 56:15 nontechnical (1) 106:3 90:23 143:25 148:4 152:1 packaged (1) 167:25 98:10 111:4 122:22 123:14 pointing (2) 86:17 148:9
163:18,20 164:1 169:4 much (14) 10:17 27:3 52:13 noon (2) 88:17 102:20 156:15 165:2 167:12 packet (1) 108:23 129:4 136:4,21 138:25 points (7) 2:23 74:4 81:4
met (4) 63:11 77:2,5 80:17 78:25 79:18 85:4,13 90:17 nor (2) 137:3,7 171:21 pages (3) 93:21 162:8,15 140:25 141:9 143:6 82:6,12 117:2 118:16
metadata (1) 28:4 118:18 128:14 133:14 nosey (1) 75:12 old (4) 3:11 65:6,10,15 paid (7) 59:21,22 61:16 145:5,6,21 146:17 154:25 poke (1) 103:13
method (1) 165:17 134:19,22 137:21 note (6) 26:17 28:4 56:21 oldchunks (1) 2:10 68:10 130:20,21,23 157:1,7,7,10 158:3,4,14,18 pop (2) 88:19 89:8
methodology (1) 34:21 multimillion (1) 97:9 66:14,15 127:18 once (6) 14:4 39:23 61:13 pair (1) 143:8 159:1,13 160:23 161:20 popular (1) 54:16
methods (1) 14:15 multiple (19) 8:10 15:12 noted (15) 7:24 15:10 17:8 70:7 101:9 153:4 panama (3) 16:8 122:18,23 163:21 167:19 170:6,11 porn (1) 77:19
micropayments (1) 39:7 18:18 22:13 25:5,10,16 18:18 19:14,18 26:20 onepage (1) 108:12 panel (1) 138:5 peoples (1) 122:24 position (7) 2:10 3:7 61:24
mid2016 (1) 53:17 31:18 35:19 37:1 58:7 61:2 36:12,17 52:5 64:10 72:12 ones (14) 2:23 14:14 17:9 panopticrypt (4) 18:23 45:20 per (5) 41:4,18 92:14 98:3 90:8 101:2 121:10 156:2
middle (2) 5:18 146:2 74:10 86:25 107:5,8 94:24 107:8 124:24 19:2 20:18 24:11 28:4 47:7 67:25 165:15 positive (2) 103:24,25
midnovember (1) 121:20 143:13 146:17 152:16 notes (8) 42:19 60:8,10 58:16 66:2 75:3 125:21 paper (10) 1:21 14:10 60:12 percentage (1) 64:15 possession (13) 110:23
might (9) 17:25 43:3 64:4 multiplied (1) 29:4 63:20,20 93:12,13 106:3 143:4 161:22 163:20 67:3 96:7 103:9 109:17 perfectly (1) 74:16 136:12,15,16,18,22 144:13
123:8,17 129:22 139:25 mum (1) 139:1 nothing (16) 19:11 59:3 78:7 oneway (1) 166:16 150:22 153:8 167:5 performed (1) 161:1 148:16 150:19
158:6,7 must (12) 22:14 41:8 62:4 81:17 95:4,7 110:24 ongoing (2) 72:21 132:11 papers (10) 43:23 55:12 76:5 perhaps (2) 43:13 72:16 166:18,19,19 170:15
mike (2) 137:19 157:9 71:13 99:17 112:24 121:12 132:17 139:18,19 141:17 online (1) 116:21 124:21,22,22 152:21 period (5) 29:23 58:14 possibility (1) 4:14
milestone (1) 131:4 124:16 147:23,24 146:14 158:17 164:25 onto (1) 84:2 158:16,21 170:23 113:20,25 114:20 possible (6) 32:15 57:19 71:8
milk (1) 159:16 170:11,12 166:21 168:18 open (2) 75:18 156:11 papertype (1) 43:24 periods (1) 68:24 76:23 88:4 166:13
million (24) 38:20 40:2,13 mustnt (1) 112:24 noticed (1) 3:25 openssl (4) 163:12 164:16 paragraph (23) 10:2 16:6,19 permissible (1) 2:3 possibly (5) 2:11 44:21 117:9
42:4 60:1 61:17 63:15 64:9 myself (10) 3:25 27:19 noting (4) 23:3 107:6 118:12 165:25 169:22 18:6,21 21:10 24:1,20 permissions (1) 152:7 133:4 152:4
75:6 80:3 83:8,10,13 100:19 135:15 137:12 156:24 operating (1) 59:24 27:3,16,24 54:14 61:15,18 person (9) 60:7 64:20 post (26) 4:25 5:4,5,9 7:9
85:17,17,18 91:15 148:14 161:3,6,16,18 november (8) 32:22 69:7,16 operation (1) 1:18 105:25 112:6 67:23,24 68:7 109:7 25:8 67:5,8,9,12,17
92:2,4,13 130:20 mysterious (3) 39:9,20 40:16 107:23 109:1,10 117:22 operations (1) 132:11 114:3,8,17,19 116:18 127:12,13 144:8 68:15,15,19 69:3,4 71:3
133:21,22,25 118:2 operator (1) 108:12 148:6 165:18 personal (2) 58:16 61:5 72:8,23 75:13 162:18
N
millions (1) 53:2 ntrust (5) 77:8 84:2 87:23,24 opinion (1) 146:3 paragraphs (1) 62:14 personally (3) 134:25 142:15 163:14,19 164:3 167:19
mind (1) 50:5 nakamoto (8) 89:17 opportunity (2) 4:7 103:14 paraphrased (1) 162:23 163:20 171:7

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

postdating (1) 7:17 120:4 171:5 56:2,5,5,7,8,10,25 93:5,10,17 94:3,7,13,18 ramona (6) 47:6 88:7,15 130:19 repeatedly (1) 34:10
posted (2) 67:8 170:5 process (13) 34:17 52:1 57:3,20,22 124:4 131:7 95:2,6,13,23 96:2,8,11,17 89:1 104:14 151:22 recorded (8) 16:6 61:18 replaced (1) 75:22
posting (1) 69:9 74:10 94:15 138:3 157:8 136:5 137:3,7 141:13 97:2,9,20 98:4,12,15,19,25 ramonas (1) 49:17 63:2,5 96:15 98:19 142:11 replied (2) 39:11 146:3
posts (10) 68:2 71:8 76:6 161:11 163:11,14,22 164:8 143:4 155:22 156:10 99:7,13 100:5,7,17,22 ran (1) 87:20 144:3 replies (3) 84:5 86:10 89:1
121:25 122:3 143:1 146:15 169:21 171:1 159:4,9 164:20 165:12 101:1,7,9,12,17,23 randomly (2) 50:8 57:13 recording (2) 69:2 155:8 reply (3) 35:15 112:3,6
148:23 154:2 165:13 processing (2) 77:19 87:21 publication (4) 92:17 112:13 102:4,9,11,15,17,19 rate (2) 134:6 135:3 records (4) 26:15 65:1,2,4 reported (2) 121:19 122:7
potential (1) 85:21 produce (5) 78:21 121:4 126:1 131:6 103:3,6,23 rather (13) 48:23 59:7 60:18 recounting (2) 128:10 reporters (1) 117:23
potentially (3) 30:5 84:24 124:19,22 160:19 publicity (2) 159:16,17 104:4,9,11,19,25 68:16 75:22 82:7 94:10 131:24 reports (1) 14:6
89:15 produced (10) 64:8 78:20 publicly (5) 53:13,20 112:13 105:3,13,17,24 95:23 97:17 108:24 119:15 recover (1) 39:5 represent (3) 88:3 99:24
potter (1) 144:24 124:20,22,23 163:1,5 148:14 169:25 106:9,12,16,24 107:10,23 145:14 163:20 recovered (2) 42:15 147:8 105:8
pounds (1) 42:6 166:8,9 168:6 publicprivate (1) 35:3 108:6,9,11,17,22 rats (2) 140:14,15 recreate (2) 32:7 62:3 repurposed (3) 52:21 54:8,9
powerful (1) 122:14 producing (1) 138:18 publish (1) 118:11 109:4,9,16,20,23,25 rcjbrorg (1) 117:16 redacted (3) 2:12 3:2 16:8 reputation (1) 165:14
powerpoint (2) 79:1,5 product (1) 135:13 published (4) 76:5 112:23 110:4,13,18,22 111:16,21 rd (11) 52:19 59:19,20 redaction (1) 2:24 request (1) 87:15
precisely (3) 36:8 50:13 production (2) 140:16 165:5 123:24 165:8 112:3,6,21 113:6,11,14 60:13,18 62:24 66:2,5 redactions (4) 2:21,22 3:8,15 requested (1) 51:2
170:5 productive (1) 105:5 publishing (1) 124:17 114:2,8,14,17,19 85:18,21 92:23 redrafting (1) 25:20 requests (1) 8:24
precondition (1) 160:21 professor (20) 56:16,17 pull (1) 107:7 115:5,13,25 116:5,9,18 re (1) 89:10 reduce (2) 90:3 134:5 require (2) 37:12 38:2
predrafting (1) 27:9 60:3,7 61:16,24,25 pulled (1) 134:23 117:8,20 reach (3) 40:14 42:2,13 reduced (1) 79:20 required (10) 31:7 35:12
prep (1) 27:8 62:2,4,12 63:3,9,13,25 purchase (2) 91:14 128:1 118:3,6,10,13,16,21 reaching (1) 72:9 rees (17) 60:3,7 61:16,24,25 45:4 48:15 97:10,12 106:3
preparation (1) 131:5 64:2,2,6,14,18 65:6 purchased (2) 17:10 163:25 119:3,7,12,25 react (1) 154:3 62:2,4,12 63:3,9,13,25 135:5 160:15,20
preparations (1) 114:11 profile (1) 122:17 purport (1) 98:25 120:7,11,17,24 reaction (1) 171:16 64:2,2,6,14 65:6 requirement (4) 37:14
prepare (1) 83:25 program (2) 81:4 163:23 purported (2) 101:5 149:10 121:3,10,18,24 122:3,11 read (7) 1:7 76:7 122:24 reestablished (1) 76:21 111:13 148:2 160:14
prepared (13) 5:5,6 7:11 programs (1) 165:5 purpose (7) 36:8,9 161:15,19 123:8,15,25 124:4,18 123:5 159:23 161:19 refer (10) 17:1 27:4 34:10 requirements (1) 140:12
60:24 91:8 93:6 115:25 progress (1) 78:6 162:18 169:6,8 125:2,9,23 126:4,8,18,25 162:22 44:15 82:7 84:19 85:16 requires (5) 27:19 149:15
124:17,17 137:1,5 145:12 project (6) 3:10,11 86:13 purposes (2) 84:14 92:23 127:9,15,21,24 reading (3) 103:3 142:1,8 108:6 118:13,16 151:15 152:17 163:12
168:22 105:15,19 107:12 pursuant (1) 112:9 128:3,6,13,15,20 reads (1) 75:11 reference (10) 7:12 26:12 requiring (3) 54:6 142:13
preparing (4) 105:1 projects (3) 81:4 82:21 98:2 pursue (1) 134:20 129:1,3,6,8,10,16 ready (1) 97:25 51:16 66:6 81:3 89:14 156:7
106:18,22 107:1 promise (4) 64:16 97:15 pushed (1) 149:22 130:9,13,17,25 real (24) 22:1,12,15 23:18 108:6 122:14 143:7,8 research (4) 15:17 41:13
presence (1) 116:21 140:19,20 puts (2) 31:5 35:5 131:2,10,16,20,24 24:12 25:6,7 52:5 56:20 referenced (2) 27:20 122:16 81:4 98:2
presentations (2) 79:2,6 promised (2) 141:4 170:20 putting (8) 40:12 42:12 132:5,10,19 57:2,5 82:13 110:11 118:8 referencing (1) 156:25 reserve (2) 64:24,24
presented (2) 78:21 170:14 proof (49) 55:15 106:1,9 60:19 72:8 166:3,21 133:3,5,8,12,15,20 125:6,7,19,21,24 141:4 referred (6) 6:20 28:6 75:21 resettled (1) 12:23
press (1) 138:5 108:23,23 135:5,10 136:2 168:11,20 134:6,18 135:2,21 162:17,17 164:8 168:15 77:22 80:22 101:12 residency (1) 126:6
pressing (1) 139:21 137:1,11,19 139:22 140:8 136:1,6,16,23 realise (2) 7:12 123:6 referring (14) 5:15 6:14 resident (1) 126:17
Q
pressure (4) 100:11,20 141:18 144:10,18,20 137:5,10,13,16,22 reality (4) 52:10 101:13 27:22 28:5 32:22 33:17 resistant (1) 144:10
132:20,22 145:13,15 146:25 q (569) 5:3,7,12,18 138:12,16,23 139:10,13,16 157:18 170:14 34:12 51:7 85:10,21 resolved (1) 1:13
pressured (1) 23:12 147:1,3,4,25 6:2,14,20,22 7:2,5,9,19 140:6,10,15 141:6,18,24 really (18) 20:3 32:10 109:16 139:10 149:22 respect (1) 103:13
presumably (2) 89:14 154:18 149:3,5,6,6,13 150:21 8:5,11,19,23 9:7,13,23 142:4,8,11,19,24 53:1,1,23 60:18 72:19 161:1 respects (1) 51:21
pretty (4) 79:10,18 108:10 151:5,6 152:17,17,19 10:2,6,13,15,18,24 143:7,11,16,25 103:5 110:20 115:22 refers (12) 45:7,9 46:13 84:1 respond (7) 17:24 50:17,21
125:9 153:13 154:6 160:4,15 11:4,8,14,19,23 144:2,18,22 145:1,10 116:12 128:14 130:21 92:16 102:2 108:22 114:14 152:12 154:16,20 160:18
pretulip (1) 16:13 161:23,24 163:3,4 164:8,8 12:2,11,15,20 146:2,11,22 147:5 132:8,19 134:22 140:9 115:15 152:1 153:20 responded (5) 13:5 47:5
prevented (1) 28:20 166:3 170:21 171:12,13 13:2,11,17,21,23 148:4,18,22,24 158:5 159:21 51:17,18 153:12
previous (2) 46:13 142:4 proofs (1) 55:2 14:6,17,22 15:1,6,18,24 149:8,19,25 150:3,7,23 reason (7) 20:6 21:22 22:5 refresh (1) 93:10 responds (1) 88:23
previously (3) 3:16 19:10,25 proper (1) 150:21 16:3,6,19 17:18 18:6,21 151:7,21 152:1,6,12,23 51:25 71:7 77:15 121:9 refreshed (3) 114:22 response (11) 6:3 85:16
price (3) 39:23 40:5 63:23 properly (3) 3:1 28:2 119:9 19:10,20 20:11,21 22:18 153:2,10,16,20,24 reasonably (1) 80:12 115:6,13 87:8,15 103:24,25 107:11
primarily (1) 66:7 property (23) 15:16 38:10 23:6,16,19 26:10,23 154:3,8,11,15,20,24 reasons (3) 60:12,20,24 refund (1) 134:1 122:12 124:14 142:12
primary (1) 78:15 40:2,3 41:3,6,7,12,19 27:2,16 28:5,12,16,24 155:7,20 156:2,15 reassembled (1) 14:8 refusing (1) 100:7 144:3
principal (1) 38:14 42:9,10,18 43:15,17 91:15 29:12,14,20,22 157:5,13,18,23 158:1,5,23 reassure (1) 3:1 regalia (2) 126:20,24 responsible (7) 25:15,25
principle (2) 45:23 63:17 95:12,14,15 96:22 113:1 30:3,12,19,24 159:6,21,25 160:10,18,25 rebate (4) 58:6 59:21 85:21 regard (1) 56:13 62:11 67:19 68:2 72:8
principled (1) 147:11 115:12 132:24 134:4 31:5,10,12,17,22 161:5,10 162:4,8,12,15,25 134:1 regarded (1) 101:14 118:21
prior (4) 61:12 70:21 proposed (2) 80:20 168:7 32:3,6,20,25 163:10 164:9,11 165:4,18 rebates (3) 133:22 134:2,6 regarding (2) 105:7 153:21 rest (3) 120:24 131:4 132:11
124:12,15 proposing (3) 108:23 33:7,12,16,20,24 34:4,10 166:6,12,18 168:5,11,21 rebuild (2) 36:18,19 regards (1) 122:25 restricted (1) 94:3
privacy (2) 118:18 122:24 150:13,23 35:2,5,9,15,21 169:11,14,20,24 170:4,14 rebuke (1) 163:3 regenerate (1) 33:9 restrictions (1) 97:15
private (57) 8:7,8,14,20 prospective (1) 84:23 36:1,6,15,23 37:3,11,17,22 171:4 rebut (2) 124:19 125:10 region (1) 38:19 restructuring (1) 86:1
10:21 14:7 27:18 protect (1) 43:14 38:2,9,12,19,22,24 39:8,15 qualification (3) 22:2 24:25 recalculate (2) 8:18 38:6 registered (3) 16:15,15 27:10 result (4) 50:2 69:17,23 70:4
34:11,18,22 45:4 50:13 protected (1) 41:12 40:8,11 43:17 38:5 recalculated (1) 10:1 regret (1) 99:14 retainer (4) 91:24 98:9,17
51:14 54:11,17 56:8,24 prove (15) 62:19 135:8,17 44:2,5,7,10,14,22,25 quantity (1) 82:2 recalculating (2) 9:21 37:18 reinhart (2) 22:16 42:1 99:8
57:15 58:25 59:1,6,14 136:15,16,18 141:9 45:7,12,18 quarter (2) 79:22 90:11 recall (31) 2:16 4:23 rejected (1) 134:18 retract (1) 53:13
61:25 62:1,12 73:15,23 144:12,13 150:9 153:5 46:1,6,9,13,18,24 question (32) 2:19 12:4 5:1,2,3,7 8:6,13 11:8 28:22 rejecting (3) 52:4 133:17 return (3) 4:22 29:24 111:12
100:23 108:25 109:3 164:21 166:15,19 170:15 47:3,6,12,15,21,23 14:22 21:6,13 23:24 24:4 33:22 45:3,22 46:20 144:19 reveal (6) 53:21 54:3 112:10
118:12 122:17 136:3 137:9 proveable (1) 57:19 48:3,6,13,19,23 37:11 40:9,11 46:21 51:25 47:9,12 68:9 83:23 94:9 related (1) 81:7 138:3 141:8 163:9
151:13,15 155:22 proveably (2) 57:10,18 49:2,4,11,19 50:2,9,20 53:16 54:5 65:10 103:2 104:10,16,23,25 relating (3) 51:14 124:1 revealed (1) 112:12
156:3,4,9,12 160:1,13 proved (4) 135:15 144:16 51:2,6,13,20 52:2,10,21 74:19,21,25 96:2,17 98:5 106:9 126:19 142:1,8 128:10 revealing (1) 132:7
162:9 163:13,15 165:20,24 157:14 166:11 53:4,15 54:8,13,20,24 122:25 123:16 127:21 154:19,23 159:24 relation (5) 1:8 58:22 61:5 revenue (1) 100:13
166:7,19 167:5,20 proven (1) 137:12 56:2,9,16,25 57:23 136:23 139:11 145:1 recalled (1) 4:15 80:6 137:1 reverse (1) 156:1
168:8,16 169:3,9 170:15 proves (1) 147:21 58:9,17,24 59:5,14,22 147:22 152:15 158:25 recalling (1) 116:5 relationship (1) 51:11 reversed (1) 61:3
privilege (4) 3:9,16 23:21 provide (6) 23:22 50:13 60:1,7,11,20,23 61:4,15 168:21,23 recalls (1) 112:21 relax (2) 90:21 171:22 review (2) 103:9 120:3
101:3 97:12 131:22 141:7 164:17 62:11,20 63:1,5,7,13,24 questionable (1) 2:24 receipt (1) 159:3 release (4) 92:18 124:15 reviewed (4) 45:8 46:16,17
privileged (3) 23:16,22 provided (16) 36:23 60:8 64:19 65:6,10,14,16,21 questioned (1) 2:21 receive (6) 92:8 94:8 117:15 171:8,9 104:22
106:20 62:6,12,21 80:5 91:14,18 66:8,17,21 67:14,19 questions (12) 1:12,16 15:6 130:19 157:24 159:22 released (5) 75:21 119:19 reviewing (1) 104:25
prize (2) 162:3,24 94:10 99:9,11,19,21 68:1,5,7,11,15,21 23:3 83:17 99:10,20 100:9 received (8) 60:2 65:17 154:13 171:7,12 rich (1) 122:14
prizewinner (1) 161:18 100:10 131:16 161:7 69:1,6,11,15,20,25 101:14 105:15 157:13 104:1,16 116:7 118:1 releases (1) 138:4 richer (1) 139:3
probably (14) 4:7 5:15 41:16 provides (3) 92:1 127:1 70:6,10,12,15,18 167:14 119:1 122:12 relevant (1) 130:10 rights (18) 23:5 42:9
43:23 47:22 49:17 50:11 131:3 71:2,15,24 72:7,15,23 quickly (3) 53:2 54:1 164:25 receiving (3) 65:7,11 109:7 reliance (1) 78:15 43:15,17,19,21 60:22
76:10 79:21 109:22,25 providing (7) 63:14 92:7,21 73:6,11,16,21,23 74:13,15 quite (4) 63:21 107:6 127:6 recent (1) 163:14 relitigate (1) 58:18 92:7,13,17 94:7,14 105:8
116:7 157:11 170:8 97:10 131:25 135:5 163:2 75:25 77:1,6,11,16,22,25 132:15 recently (1) 144:25 reluctantly (1) 112:16 119:1 128:3,15 131:17
problem (5) 7:20 89:3 proving (3) 136:10 149:14 78:5,8,14,19,23 quixote (1) 144:15 reclaim (1) 59:19 relying (1) 64:19 134:3
155:11 166:2,20 166:18 79:1,7,10,15 80:5,9,22 quotation (2) 122:20 169:15 reclaims (1) 59:18 remaining (1) 131:3 ring (1) 80:9
problems (9) 28:4 71:22 72:1 provision (4) 24:14 94:7,15 81:3,9,13,21,24 quote (2) 161:11 162:23 recognise (8) 26:8 60:12 remains (1) 150:8 risk (5) 168:7,15,16,19,25
79:13,18,23 80:1 94:23 127:25 82:1,5,10,19 78:17 93:15 106:23 107:24 remember (10) 67:22 68:4 road (1) 136:21
100:21 provisions (1) 93:18 83:3,10,16,23,25 R 108:2 120:5 104:15 105:10 118:2 127:4 rob (22) 80:18,19 81:18
proceed (2) 1:8 162:8 ps (3) 103:6,7,20 84:5,9,14,19 recollection (1) 93:8 129:9 158:3 159:5,6 84:18 87:19,20 88:3
proceeded (1) 148:18 pseudonymous (2) 159:13 85:1,9,13,16,21,24 radically (2) 7:22 14:13 recollections (1) 115:14 remove (1) 169:7 104:14 109:15 115:19
proceedings (23) 8:12,14 9:9 167:5 86:3,10,16,19,22 raise (1) 3:2 reconstituted (1) 143:23 removed (3) 75:13 93:12 116:22 127:13 134:23
10:3 11:8,9 14:18 22:22 ptp (1) 6:8 87:7,12,15 88:6,10,13,23 raised (4) 6:22 7:2 99:9 reconstruct (3) 30:10 35:13 167:11 135:12 139:2,19,25
26:10,19 28:13,17 36:2 pty (2) 16:16 60:14 89:1,14,18,20 90:5 101:15 48:4 removing (2) 147:7 167:3 140:3,20 154:1 167:23,23
38:13 40:18 44:19 51:20 public (29) 27:18 30:7 91:13,18,24 raises (1) 99:20 reconstructed (1) 28:11 repaid (1) 87:5 robert (12) 35:6 45:17 77:7
53:20 54:15 73:17 112:4 34:11,19 53:21 54:16 92:6,11,16,20,25 raising (1) 100:9 record (3) 63:1 129:21 repeated (1) 76:1 87:1 104:12 115:19,20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

127:6,9,11 132:9 136:20 scheduling (1) 77:23 129:13,14,20 143:1,4 55:8 129:4,20 143:24 142:20 158:13 155:10,10 163:9 successes (1) 165:20
roberts (2) 87:19 104:6 scheme (15) 11:12 14:2,6 147:25 149:7 159:12 149:10,15 150:9,19 sold (1) 134:3 started (11) 20:9 22:14 succinctly (1) 132:16
robottxt (1) 71:9 27:21 30:25 31:19 separate (12) 27:6 29:5 154:21,21 solicitor (3) 23:15 93:24 71:23 72:13,25 114:10 sued (1) 26:19
robs (2) 107:20 154:1 32:11,18 33:12 34:13 31:13 34:6 36:20 52:9 61:7 161:2,6,15,16,17,25 98:12 117:25 124:13 126:10,11 suggest (5) 36:7 60:23 71:18
rocks (1) 67:3 35:3,4,17 37:6,16 80:19 87:19 95:13,15 162:20,20 169:16,17 solicitors (8) 22:25 25:12 138:20 82:19 125:9
role (3) 97:18 113:8 139:20 schemes (4) 11:10 33:3 168:9 170:19 171:2 93:19 98:7 101:14 110:22 starting (1) 51:11 suggested (3) 77:16,18
roman (1) 145:4 35:20 37:2 separation (1) 29:7 signatory (3) 96:11,19 97:2 120:17 121:11 stated (6) 22:12 24:8 37:1 139:19
room (1) 140:22 school (2) 126:10,11 sept (1) 75:14 signature (45) 19:18 100:5 solution (2) 30:24 77:19 54:14 152:16 156:11 suggesting (5) 55:14 80:12
rosendahl (4) 1:6 2:20 3:19 scientist (2) 97:18 140:22 september (16) 102:19 128:22,23,24 solutions (2) 113:3 160:8 statement (22) 10:3 27:24 86:10 122:8 143:11
4:6 scope (1) 112:17 104:2,8 111:16,22 112:24 129:1,1,3,12,17,18 131:5 somebody (11) 19:17 76:1 28:13 54:15 76:20 84:19 suggestion (4) 6:4 63:9
round (2) 103:11 125:20 screams (1) 163:4 113:6,12,16 133:5 149:12,15,17,17 88:10 96:12 109:25 111:21 101:11,13,25 104:21,23,24 124:19 125:23
rounding (1) 42:10 screen (12) 7:6,7 38:12 50:9 114:14,16,18,24 115:16 150:4,23 129:6,16 146:5 156:4 105:1 106:18,22 107:1,3 suggests (3) 71:2 104:21
row (4) 1:19 2:24 3:15 167:9 54:14 65:21 66:9 93:20 116:6 126:12 151:1,4,5,9,11,12,14,15 158:8 114:3 116:9 117:10 157:23 149:25
rows (2) 2:16 3:24 94:18 115:5 117:21 135:2 series (6) 29:1 81:3 105:14 153:3,6 156:6 160:12 somehow (1) 119:19 167:22 sum (2) 40:12 42:2
ruling (6) 58:25 59:2,6,14 screw (2) 161:21 162:19 133:17 138:25 144:24 161:12,24 someone (19) 5:22 6:25 stating (1) 55:18 summary (2) 65:21 93:1
73:15,23 scripted (1) 155:5 serious (4) 99:10,20 100:9 164:12,14,15,18,19 165:6 50:5,7 57:15 72:20,21 76:6 status (1) 21:6 sums (1) 59:22
run (7) 67:10,11,18 75:2 scroll (1) 151:25 102:5 166:2,8,10 169:4 170:1,2 95:21 103:13 108:20 steal (1) 156:9 supercomputer (2) 59:24
83:13 97:16 125:20 se (2) 41:4,18 server (4) 99:6 101:6 111:3 signatures (7) 21:23 24:9 109:3,22 110:1,2 111:20 stefan (17) 76:21 78:16 79:9 81:7
running (6) 67:19 68:1,19 search (2) 48:10 111:13 144:1 91:10,10 93:3 128:22 113:24 119:20 156:8 80:16,23 81:1 87:9 88:2,16 supercomputers (1) 81:5
83:7,15 87:19 second (10) 2:19 17:11 servers (1) 120:12 136:14 something (35) 8:2 35:17 94:25 96:25 97:2 102:21 supersede (1) 93:7
rush (1) 131:14 23:23 58:19 61:4 74:6 93:6 services (8) 92:11 94:14 signed (39) 24:9 27:14 40:15 42:21 46:15 103:8 115:20 127:11 support (1) 141:7
144:15 151:25 165:18 128:4,9,10,15 131:21,22 100:6,17 119:20 128:25 47:3,9,14 48:6 55:22 56:21 139:12 supporters (1) 167:17
S
secondly (4) 22:20 57:5 67:7 session (19) 137:1,11,13,19 129:6,10 133:3,6,8 140:5 57:10,16 71:18 74:8,19 stefans (1) 115:9 supposed (11) 39:21 63:9

sale (2) 81:9 112:17 91:18 138:4 141:18,19 146:8 141:6 142:16,17,21 143:12 75:25 104:5 109:13 111:9 step (1) 163:8 65:7 98:20 130:14 137:8

same (23) 13:23 27:22 28:14 seconds (1) 155:9 149:13 150:4,11,14,21,23 146:17 147:5,15 149:9 115:9 117:4 118:5 steps (1) 16:20 139:6 152:19,20,23 171:12

34:8 46:9 49:6 57:18 61:13 secret (10) 14:1 29:5 30:25 151:9,10 152:17,18 170:21 152:3 153:25 154:5 156:3 125:1,16 129:14 140:2,19 sterling (1) 127:11 supposedly (4) 60:2 62:6

65:13 69:17,22 70:4 107:4 33:3 34:15,20,22,22 122:9 sessions (15) 8:15 9:10 36:9 162:2 163:18,25 165:19 144:13,17 145:2 146:16,18 steven (2) 4:20 173:4 65:17 109:20

121:8 122:16 125:8 144:8 137:9 45:5 136:2 137:16 166:22 167:20 160:3,20 stevenhwpe (1) 121:2 sure (14) 2:24 3:5 41:11 48:9

161:17 162:20,22 section (8) 92:1,6,11,21 148:19,25 149:1,8 168:6,12,14,15 169:2,24 somewhere (1) 38:21 stick (1) 85:25 68:10 89:4 93:9 102:22

169:16,21,24 93:14,17 128:3 130:5 153:14,16 158:6 163:15 171:1,10 sommer (3) 98:12 99:8 102:6 sticks (1) 125:17 107:2 108:10 132:25

sarah (1) 64:2 sectors (1) 77:19 165:24 signedonly (2) 150:10 151:8 son (1) 126:10 still (25) 1:12,13 4:6 6:10 138:12 139:12,23

sartre (6) 161:17,18 secure (2) 158:11,13 set (33) 16:14 17:13 significantly (2) 26:25 127:7 sort (14) 11:24 15:14 19:5 27:12 41:7 42:19 surely (1) 64:5

162:2,22 169:11,15 secured (2) 65:1,2 18:12,15 21:20 23:1,9 signing (46) 8:15 9:9 10:22 20:6,15 37:15 49:9 56:17 47:21 63:23 65:19 78:13 surprise (1) 75:15

sartres (1) 161:19 security (6) 66:10,14 24:15 29:23 30:2,4 31:14 36:9 45:5 127:4 129:16 60:16 72:5 88:3 93:13 79:21 88:19,20 90:10 surprised (2) 165:3 171:15

sat (1) 96:24 168:7,19,25,25 40:19,22 41:2 47:15 50:14 132:5 136:10 137:13,16 140:2 146:7,19 93:16 94:5 103:10 113:5 surprising (2) 64:6,9

satisfied (1) 170:6 see (127) 1:20 2:7,15 5:15 58:19 59:7,23 60:20 61:7 141:19 143:10,15,18,22 sorts (4) 44:1 53:23 79:18 127:18 145:1,25 167:10,11 swearing (1) 160:23

satisfy (1) 140:12 8:20 9:5 10:22 11:14,17,21 62:13 66:2 71:2 73:25 90:7 146:8,24 147:12 105:10 stole (1) 170:12 swore (1) 155:6

satoshi (87) 4:24 12:9 13:5,15 14:17,20 93:21 109:7 121:6 146:19 148:11,18,24 150:14,17 sounds (3) 6:6,7,11 stolen (4) 118:14,15 sworn (7) 15:25 17:18 19:22

5:5,11,14,18 6:3,22 15:25 16:4 18:24 26:15 149:16 156:7 151:18 152:14,16,24 source (1) 121:20 170:9,11 22:3 23:7 27:2 28:14

7:2,9,20 9:25 28:18 30:21,22 31:3 32:23 sets (3) 78:23 151:22 153:12 153:2,21 158:6 159:22 sourceforge (2) 5:20 6:18 stop (13) 23:20 41:20,20,22 symmetric (2) 35:4 55:25

53:1,4,7,17,19 54:11 35:7 43:3 44:17,18,25 45:9 setting (6) 72:14 74:1,22 160:1 161:12 sources (1) 120:8 53:15 83:16 98:4 123:15 synnot (1) 61:2

57:2,5 68:17 72:25 73:19 46:17 47:12,24 48:19,23 120:8 136:1 154:4 162:1,9,17,17 speaking (2) 1:9 36:10 145:10,10 156:17,23 system (18) 6:11 9:16

74:3,24 81:14,16,18 66:11,13,21 68:11,23 settle (2) 43:13,18 163:10,11,12 164:3 special (2) 103:8 165:5 158:23 14:5,10,12,13,16 44:8

95:3,4,8,19 96:6,13,20 69:1,7,8,9,11,16,18,21,23 settled (4) 12:18,24 25:17,17 165:23,24 167:1,2 specific (4) 37:4 43:17 46:14 stopped (1) 134:24 55:20,21 57:7 78:19 81:9

97:4,5,13 105:15,19 70:3,8,10 75:10 77:12,17 settling (2) 11:9 27:4 signings (1) 136:6 152:3 stored (1) 32:13 130:15 145:8 158:12,13

108:25 110:7,15 81:3 82:1 83:21 84:10 seven (5) 45:18,24 46:1 silicon (3) 135:13 145:6 specifically (2) 6:4 32:25 story (44) 8:11 39:21 51:20 161:6

112:10,11,13,15,18,23 85:7,9 87:7 88:21 48:14 61:25 167:24 speculate (2) 123:8,21 52:21 54:8 92:17 systems (2) 14:14 44:1

113:8,18 116:11,14 91:10,13,24 several (3) 40:1 144:18,23 silk (1) 136:21 speculated (1) 123:17 95:6,7,10,13,15,16

119:4,8 124:4 125:24 93:10,11,13,14,21 seychelles (1) 17:1 similar (6) 48:20 51:21 speculation (1) 123:23 96:12,19,21 97:4,10,11 T
130:14 132:7 135:5 94:2,7,16 96:3 99:7 shaking (1) 167:10 137:19 157:21 161:8,9 spend (1) 140:23 102:24 107:1 111:18,22

136:4,7 139:10,14,22 103:4,24 105:14,16 shall (1) 93:24 simple (8) 14:7 65:10 74:7 spendable (1) 57:10 112:17,18,22,22 tacked (1) 19:17
140:11 141:8,15 142:16 106:7,8 114:5,12 115:3,20 shamir (12) 11:10,12 75:5 123:16 127:21 spending (3) 29:8 83:8,10 113:7,17,18,23 114:21 tainted (2) 125:7,8
143:7,8,17,18 148:14 120:7,13 121:24 122:7 14:1,4,6,10 27:21 30:25 171:9,10 spent (4) 59:8 134:5,19 115:15 116:12,14 128:15 taken (9) 41:20 69:7 119:9
157:1,5,18,24 158:1,9 123:20 125:20 127:24 31:14,19 33:3 37:2 simpler (5) 14:13 72:23 138:20 130:6,6,10 131:6,17,24 121:11 131:11 134:16
159:1,3 162:21 167:25 128:4,21 129:22 130:5 share (2) 15:22 17:16 87:25 88:1 165:21 split (1) 14:1 135:21 139:3 140:17 166:8 169:2,23
169:17,25 170:19 171:9 131:2 137:6 139:8 141:25 shared (1) 34:20 since (3) 38:24 134:10 151:2 spoke (7) 25:19 96:24 straits (2) 79:11 90:6 taking (7) 12:25 59:5 75:8
satoshis (1) 60:8 142:6,6,11,12,17,22 143:2 shareholder (1) 26:21 single (6) 62:23 67:9 73:16 100:19 135:9 137:12 strasan (1) 59:17 114:23 116:6 156:2 162:3
saturday (3) 66:21 67:19 144:8 150:2,5 151:22 shareholding (1) 15:14 134:9,11 165:13 141:22 156:20 stress (1) 156:21 talk (6) 43:21 51:9 53:9
75:11 152:1,5,10 153:11,14,23 shares (5) 15:11,11,14 52:14 sister (1) 139:1 spoken (2) 73:1 141:10 string (6) 2:3 34:23 56:21,23 81:11 90:20 136:4
savanah (3) 18:23 21:24 154:3,14 159:19 161:2,3 78:13 sit (4) 97:19 107:7 140:22 sprawl (1) 122:15 57:13 162:4 talked (7) 50:19 66:16
24:12 169:14,20 171:15,23 sharing (3) 14:2,6 30:25 158:14 spread (1) 85:5 structure (10) 16:11 18:1,2 113:21 141:15 145:22
savannah (1) 45:20 seeds (2) 38:6,8 sheet (3) 85:6 96:9 127:2 sitting (1) 74:11 spreadsheet (9) 2:1 3:24 30:16 50:17 57:8 85:25 159:11 165:11
save (1) 112:8 seeing (1) 24:6 shes (1) 14:16 six (5) 83:20 98:3 114:3,9 47:20,21 48:8,9,11 124:8 146:10 156:8 talking (21) 8:9,16 11:24
saved (1) 53:2 seeking (2) 54:10 83:3 shipped (1) 132:17 140:4 51:17,19 structured (3) 25:23 52:17 14:10 16:10 19:20 28:12
saw (3) 6:23 106:21 155:16 seem (2) 2:22 27:22 short (6) 43:9 76:16 90:25 sixth (1) 92:21 spreadsheets (1) 1:17 149:16 33:8 34:14,25 36:3,5 37:15
saying (74) 5:5,7 6:21 seen (4) 5:8 106:24 108:16 130:2 132:5 167:15 size (1) 1:18 spv (5) 143:6 145:23,24,25 structures (2) 17:17 55:24 61:6,7 88:4 113:3,24 114:1
7:16,21,25 17:3 19:6 120:6 shortly (7) 98:6 125:25 skype (1) 78:4 163:17 structuring (1) 23:2 139:25 140:3
20:21,24 22:14 25:13 segments (2) 32:22 33:17 126:4,11 133:15 137:10,13 slandering (1) 124:25 st (1) 102:23 struggling (1) 113:14 talks (2) 73:3 96:14
39:14 46:25 47:6 selected (3) 140:20 should (7) 3:22 5:23 75:17 slices (32) 9:1,14,17,18 staff (10) 24:11 49:16,18,20 stuck (1) 110:13 tallies (1) 115:14
50:16,20,21 54:1 56:21 163:20,21 118:25 130:21 143:14,14 10:20,25 11:2 12:7 14:8 78:22 79:17,20 83:14 studied (1) 56:20 targeting (1) 149:25
57:3,9 62:19 72:7 74:6 selfemployed (2) 68:7,9 shouldnt (1) 72:20 20:2 28:7,11 29:25 31:7,13 111:3 121:2 studies (1) 56:17 tax (33)
80:2 82:24 84:17 86:25 sell (9) 80:25 82:2 87:3 show (9) 24:17 70:20,21 35:11,12 38:15 39:3 46:20 stage (33) 4:18 18:9 53:7 stuff (12) 59:2 62:18 79:4 58:5,6,9,10,13,13,14,16
89:25 95:6,16 97:13 99:2 90:14 95:1 135:13 82:16 85:5 136:12 150:17 47:5,11 48:1,3,14,23 78:1,6,7 79:10 81:18 82:23 103:20 111:8 123:13 127:7 59:15,17,19,19,20,21,22
107:20 109:16 110:9 167:23,24 168:2 160:16,17 49:8,21 50:12 51:15,23 84:18,21 86:22 94:19 139:5 144:7 149:2 150:21 60:13,13,14 61:5 65:23
113:11,14 115:25 selling (8) 80:20 showed (7) 70:23,24 98:23 52:8 95:7,18 97:4,21,24 101:14 159:10 73:1,18 79:14 85:21 86:1
116:2,3,12,25 117:12 81:10,12,15,17,21 82:7,10 122:17 124:11 149:1 slightly (2) 2:11 49:6 103:10 109:1,5 114:25 style (1) 103:3 100:12,13 118:12 119:14
118:21 120:21,22 send (8) 76:4 87:16 110:10 170:24 slogan (1) 6:9 131:10 136:8 138:8 144:11 subfolders (1) 3:10 133:24 134:6,6 147:19
121:8,14,14 124:10 117:16 137:6 147:23 152:9 showing (6) 5:4 66:10 69:8 slow (1) 5:20 145:13 148:22 150:13 subject (6) 8:5 17:4 44:2 taxable (1) 134:5
129:13,14,20,21 135:7,7 154:17 73:11 74:2,23 smaller (1) 97:14 153:24 154:5,24 61:17 97:21 102:19 taxation (3) 73:12 99:22
136:9,9 139:24 144:4 sender (2) 48:21 102:17 shown (8) 20:5 22:5 23:12 smartcard (1) 156:10 stages (1) 22:18 subjects (2) 130:9 132:1 100:1
147:17 152:12 154:20 sending (2) 115:20 149:6 26:23 66:17 71:5,6 106:17 sn (1) 139:17 stake (1) 165:14 submitted (2) 98:19,25 taxpayer (4) 61:19,23 62:3
156:6,24 158:15 160:18,20 sense (3) 2:11 39:6 77:3 shows (1) 89:21 sns (2) 106:2,5 staking (1) 72:25 subsequent (2) 92:13,17 64:1
161:21,25 166:4 170:4 sent (24) 24:11 30:17 72:6,9 shut (2) 64:25 65:4 socalled (1) 158:17 stalemate (1) 139:4 subsequently (1) 8:4 teach (1) 141:2
scalability (2) 56:19 83:15 75:24 76:6 86:16 98:10 sic (1) 154:11 socio (1) 56:17 standard (2) 34:21 170:17 subsidiaries (1) 99:25 teaching (1) 151:2
scaling (5) 81:8 83:12 113:3 108:19 111:5,6 114:24 side (3) 74:1,22 146:1 sociology (1) 56:17 start (9) 55:23 70:24 98:15 subsidiary (1) 92:22 team (13) 1:15 2:25 60:21
160:8 170:25 116:1 118:24 119:21 122:8 sign (25) 8:25 27:13 47:6 software (4) 15:16 122:22 109:17 146:4 154:12 substantial (1) 63:14 62:24 140:24,24 141:3

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

155:24 156:13 thinking (3) 41:18,19 50:7 train (1) 116:21 115:9 116:2 117:4,9 various (7) 11:14 43:13 104:24 123:8 124:18 worth (8) 38:22 39:16,25
167:17,22,23 169:7 thinks (1) 95:21 training (1) 131:25 tycheco (1) 121:6 76:22 98:20 121:25 127:2 126:12 134:15 141:11,13 40:20 41:16 60:17,21
teams (1) 23:20 third (14) 19:1 20:8 22:13 transaction (2) 56:11 57:2 tychecouk (1) 116:4 131:22 143:5 149:5 170:25 63:22
teasing (1) 75:22 37:17 67:10,11,12,12 transcribed (1) 105:3 type (2) 34:17 57:12 vault (1) 44:9 werent (32) 15:7 20:20 25:1 wouldnt (17) 26:21 29:20
technical (6) 30:24 143:2 93:17 98:22 105:24 111:4 transcriber (1) 76:11 typing (1) 105:22 vehicle (1) 92:9 38:20 50:14 52:8 55:14,16 41:10 50:3 53:12,22 64:9
144:7 145:13 166:20 147:16 152:8 transcribing (1) 128:11 verifiable (3) 144:20,22 79:11 83:4 86:8 99:2 68:17 79:12 102:1 107:5
171:14 though (10) 27:14 39:6 54:1 transcript (1) 54:24 U 145:15 110:19 113:23 124:6,13 111:19,24 115:23 123:7
technically (6) 12:23 37:20 71:10 97:2 106:25 108:3 transcripts (1) 119:16 verification (4) 164:12 125:5 134:8 135:6 136:2 130:23 165:1
78:12 92:10 106:6 157:8 130:25 140:15 169:6 transfer (4) 16:17 uhhuh (1) 84:8 165:16 169:21 170:2 138:14,17 141:8 144:11,20 wright (112) 4:8,10,14,20,22
techniques (1) 43:25 thought (9) 3:2 20:11 72:3 63:19,20,23 uk (5) 104:7 105:12 130:23 verify (9) 18:20 150:8,18,21 150:16,23,25 155:3 156:2 10:11 13:7 16:12,18
technobabble (1) 158:16 95:20 108:8 116:7 transferred (15) 43:19 52:18 132:9 151:15 151:2,3,11 158:17,18 158:2 164:4 17:12,16 19:20 20:21 21:5
technologies (1) 91:18 140:14,15 141:22 62:2,4,16 132:25 156:22 ukbased (1) 60:3 verifying (4) 142:15,21 weve (4) 3:14 4:13 55:4 22:2 23:21,23 26:11 34:1
technology (3) 56:9 113:4 thousand (1) 145:4 157:3,6,15,18 158:1,4 unable (4) 8:19 19:7 62:3 161:12 164:18 83:19 36:25 37:23 39:8,15
143:5 thousands (6) 42:5 152:21 159:1,2 167:11 versa (1) 143:15 whatever (3) 9:24 121:8 40:8,11 41:25
telling (5) 50:12 73:18 156:14 158:12,20 170:23 transferring (2) 79:24 157:6 unauthorised (1) 119:16 version (14) 47:17 50:10 160:10 43:6,11,20,20 45:9
74:2,23 148:3 threatening (1) 140:6 transfers (2) 87:24 157:4 unaware (1) 64:6 91:8 92:25 93:6,12 whats (4) 35:15 36:7 80:7 49:12,19 52:10,19 53:4,15
tells (1) 22:6 three (7) 19:16 45:21 62:5 transitioning (2) 126:13,15 unboxed (1) 163:24 94:3,9,13 102:12 119:20 132:1 57:23 59:5 64:1,4,19
ten (1) 165:15 66:5 117:2 125:14,19 transmission (1) 8:7 uncommon (1) 144:17 146:1 163:23 170:18 whereas (1) 10:9 65:6,10 66:9 67:5 72:23
tens (3) 53:2 158:12,20 threshold (3) 14:14 33:18 travelled (2) 126:1,3 undermining (3) 125:11 versions (6) 32:4 44:21 whichever (1) 50:10 73:6,16,21 74:16,18
teranet (1) 83:12 44:8 travelling (2) 105:12 107:19 167:7 169:1 49:5,14 119:18,19 whilst (1) 36:21 76:11,13,18 78:17 83:5,16
term (7) 7:25 57:21 96:9 threw (2) 22:15,19 trial (1) 111:5 understand (12) 2:23 4:5 vexed (1) 139:4 white (8) 1:21 14:10 96:7 90:9,18 91:3 95:16 99:21
103:21 111:13 127:2 through (43) 10:9 17:17,25 tribunal (4) 59:2 61:6,8 20:3 37:25 64:4 87:10 91:7 via (2) 6:18 144:7 103:9 109:17 150:22 153:8 101:1,7 105:21,22,23
128:13 18:1,25 28:17 30:14 37:7 62:23 93:5 113:14 135:14 145:19 vice (1) 143:15 167:5 106:17,19,24 108:4
terminate (2) 98:16 99:18 38:3 39:20 40:15,16 42:8 trick (1) 76:2 160:5 vicinity (1) 88:19 whoever (3) 45:21 89:18 109:8,21 110:13 112:3
terminated (2) 98:8 99:8 45:2,18 49:12 50:13 52:15 tries (1) 146:7 understanding (1) 23:19 victoria (1) 159:16 159:12 113:15 114:10,20,25
terms (17) 14:7 25:19 45:23 55:3 61:1 65:22 68:7 74:10 triggers (1) 142:12 undertake (2) 64:3 148:18 video (3) 78:4 155:12 156:16 whole (14) 1:20 23:4 62:22 115:18 116:24 117:3,8,18
46:9 51:2 91:8 93:1,22 76:22 84:22 93:20 104:24 trilogy (1) 122:15 undertook (1) 148:24 videolink (1) 78:1 81:3 97:18 125:13,15,16 119:12 122:15 123:16
96:4 114:4,9 127:22,25 111:14 121:24 138:21 trip (1) 84:11 undoubtedly (1) 4:9 villain (1) 146:23 136:18 144:25 167:6 124:18 125:9,23 129:11,11
132:12 157:14 166:12,18 140:18 141:15 144:12 triple (1) 2:23 unfortunately (2) 83:1 violate (1) 122:23 169:1,6,8 141:6 145:10 156:19
tessierashpool (2) 123:1,4 148:11 149:13 150:22 trips (1) 114:16 121:22 visible (1) 70:7 whom (4) 24:10 51:15 157:3,5,13 162:20,21
tessierashpoolanonymousspeechcom160:6,16 161:8 164:8 trouble (3) 29:20 129:16,19 unhappy (1) 133:11 vision (1) 60:8 107:12 159:2 165:7 167:13,17 168:21
(1) 122:13 165:6 169:20 170:25 true (3) 116:8 117:6 157:5 university (1) 155:16 visited (1) 104:7 whos (3) 64:21 110:2 167:9 169:16,17 170:4,14,19
test (1) 83:12 throw (2) 125:15,18 truncated (1) 3:25 unknown (3) 57:8 137:9 vistomail (3) 122:19 whose (3) 16:23 119:23 171:22 173:4
testing (1) 81:8 throwaway (1) 122:21 trupti (1) 88:23 146:1 143:20,23 159:3 wrightnet (1) 67:11
text (11) 1:17,20,20,24 2:2,8 thursday (1) 102:19 trust (117) unless (2) 39:1 151:5 vulture (1) 103:21 wife (17) 20:19 26:4 88:7 wrights (2) 1:15 171:19
66:21 76:5 103:3 161:2 tied (1) 132:14 11:10,11,12,12,13,24 unlikely (1) 57:14 89:21 91:11 92:8,10 94:10 write (8) 42:20 76:5,6 102:25
W
168:13 till (1) 89:3 12:5,7,12,12,13,16,20,22,24,25 unlock (1) 27:21 98:16 99:16 100:19,23 109:13,14 158:16,20
thank (12) 1:6 4:19 26:5 tim (1) 107:14 13:3,14,18 14:4,19,23 unlocked (2) 9:19,19 107:10 114:18 126:12 writes (3) 5:18 88:15 105:3
wacky (1) 171:12
27:3 43:2,7 76:14 90:17,19 time (67) 7:23 8:1,3 15:2,6,8,9,10,12,18,21,22 unmasking (1) 112:10 151:22 155:1 writing (4) 100:18,24 105:16
wait (2) 24:4 61:4
91:2 129:24 171:24 20:6,13,13 21:23 22:10,24 16:7,11,12,13,22,23,25 unredact (1) 3:2 wifes (2) 50:7 93:3 142:11
waiving (1) 23:20
thanks (1) 90:23 23:4 25:8 28:25 41:15 17:1,2,3,4,17,19 unreliable (1) 124:20 wiil (1) 45:14 written (4) 5:4,6 32:15
wall (1) 125:16
thats (101) 1:18,22 2:13 42:23 43:3,18 44:3 48:16 18:2,8,8,12,12,17,21 until (8) 19:4 24:15 52:20 wilcoxohearn (1) 157:19 107:16
wallet (2) 36:19 163:17
5:25 6:12 7:13,17 8:2,22 49:6 51:24,25 55:6 57:18 19:2,6,12,20 20:1,12,23 67:2 99:4 110:15 140:2 william (2) 105:6 122:15 wrong (26) 7:25 10:15
wanting (1) 133:10
9:12 10:11 13:21 15:5 58:17 59:8 62:16 64:23 21:1,3,14,19,19,23 22:1,21 172:1 williams (1) 64:21 19:12,25 26:25 28:1 47:23
wants (2) 148:16 163:3
17:23 22:14 24:8 26:18 65:17 68:24 71:4 72:24 23:4,18 24:2,6,14,17,22 update (1) 75:14 willie (1) 165:10 49:4 63:18 70:1 72:3 79:19
warning (1) 118:11
27:10 29:18,21 30:2 32:5 75:20,23 78:8,8 79:19 25:4,5,10,14,16,22 26:1,10 updates (1) 145:25 willing (1) 89:2 101:20 107:22 111:19,24
wary (1) 122:12
34:9 35:14,25 36:23,24 80:21 96:4,8,17 101:18 27:4,4,6,7,10,20 28:2 upfront (1) 81:14 wilson (1) 44:6 112:24 115:23 116:5,12
wasnt (51) 5:10 11:6 18:11
37:15,22 40:5 41:1 45:17 103:18 104:7,17,22 30:22 39:12 43:13,18 45:7 upon (3) 59:7 73:24 130:14 wimbledon (2) 127:20,20 120:17 124:24 143:11
21:22 23:1 24:13 25:8
46:5 47:11,11 48:5,18 107:6,18 114:23 128:13 46:2,14,15 urged (1) 102:6 wipe (1) 147:9 147:13,15 157:23
27:14 28:1 39:22,25 40:18
54:23 55:8 61:21 62:15,24 129:9 134:8,11,12,12 50:14,16,17,18,20,22 urgency (1) 102:9 wired (17) 71:17 72:22 75:23 wrote (16) 5:8 7:8,9 57:6
41:3,18 50:24,24 51:1,9,11
63:18 64:10 71:25 72:18 140:7,12 142:2,9 143:9 51:7,10,16,22 urgently (1) 102:7 110:7,15 112:14 117:20,23 98:15 100:2,3,22
52:1 65:16 75:25 78:3
73:6,14 74:14 82:23 83:14 146:15 159:12,15,22,23 52:4,5,9,10,19 92:9 122:6 us18 (1) 83:13 118:1 121:19 123:8,11 101:18,23 102:8,13 103:18
79:20 80:18,20,24 82:2
85:15,18 88:7,9 90:8 92:7 160:10 165:5 167:10 124:1,2 148:11 151:17 us2 (2) 63:15 64:9 124:15,16,17 125:3 127:7 136:13 138:23 144:15
84:3,16 94:25 98:13
96:24 97:23 100:2,3 timecoin (1) 9:21 trustee (16) 11:21 18:13 used (33) 9:20 11:12 17:23 wish (2) 57:25 112:12
105:20 124:9 131:14
101:20 102:3 104:15 times (12) 18:18 41:17 58:7 19:13,23 20:24 21:1,7,9 34:16,23 48:3 51:17 56:11 wishes (1) 132:21 X
137:20 139:10,12,21
107:16,22 108:16 109:18 61:2 75:15 77:5 80:17 23:8 24:2,6,7,20 25:1 57:1 71:11 72:21 84:24 withheld (1) 132:24
140:9,13 141:4 143:9 x (1) 129:10
115:9 117:17 121:6,7 89:10 107:8 138:21 145:4 46:20 152:7 85:18 87:25 93:24 103:20 witness (18) 10:3 27:23
148:13,13 152:18 154:9
125:13 127:18 128:25 152:16 trustees (21) 18:21 19:24 121:4,8,9 123:5 132:9,10 28:13 54:14 101:11,13
157:16 161:15 169:12 Y
130:25 133:19 135:18 today (4) 38:22 102:21 21:20 22:4,7 23:9,11 24:21 142:16 143:7,8,17,18,21 104:20,23,24 105:1
171:13
136:18 139:11 141:4,16 103:17 124:23 26:15 27:20 45:2,4,18,24 149:12,17 158:7 163:15 106:17,18,22 107:1,3
watts (1) 104:14 yeah (5) 30:9 38:8 81:25
144:16 146:17 147:2,10 todays (1) 39:23 46:1,10 47:16 51:15 164:6 116:9 117:10 157:23
way (43) 3:8,18 7:13,16 17:8 85:23 94:5
148:10 153:17 154:6 together (11) 19:17 41:15 52:3,7,9 uses (2) 48:10 110:1 wkid (1) 59:23
29:1 42:2 47:10 53:16 year (10) 29:24 60:5,15
155:23 156:17,24 157:11 80:16 89:22 93:21 trusting (1) 146:5 using (16) 9:17,17 14:1 won (5) 134:13,14,14,14,14
57:19 60:18 61:13 63:21 62:17 80:3 83:8,10 92:14
158:15 160:14 161:5 163:4 123:11,13 149:4 try (5) 67:2 68:21 81:1 28:11 29:3 34:16 62:8 wonderful (1) 103:14
73:4,5 79:12 85:3 86:25 134:9,10
165:2,2 169:4,4 170:22,22,23 124:19 167:14 65:18 68:12 82:18 153:5 wont (1) 166:14
89:25 109:2 111:7 119:22 years (12) 16:7 65:20 80:4
themselves (1) 121:5 toilet (1) 66:24 trying (11) 9:15 41:1,21,22 160:1,12 163:11 164:14 work (34) 39:11 41:24 48:11
127:5 131:1 135:7,15,19 91:21,24 92:14 124:12
theres (24) 1:23,24 2:8 5:11 tokens (4) 81:25 82:7,11,22 78:12 89:22 90:7 119:5 169:22 60:9 61:13,17
136:9,10,14 140:2 141:9 134:3,7 144:18,23 145:4
15:8,8,8 18:2 31:14 32:10 told (24) 3:23 18:4 21:12 145:2 154:2 167:23 utterly (2) 146:13 147:13 63:10,14,16,17 64:3,7,8
145:12 146:20 147:6,19 yelling (1) 160:23
34:6 44:21 56:4 75:1 81:3 23:15,18 25:2 32:13 tuesday (2) 1:1 153:14 utz (8) 86:8,17 93:19 98:7,13 65:7,11 68:7 87:23
148:15,15 151:20 155:16 yesterday (10) 1:14 4:22
85:24 88:2 107:19 109:2 38:13,24 43:12 47:3 tulip (32) 11:10,12,13 99:17 100:11 101:17 113:18,19 130:14 133:1
164:7 166:15 171:1 6:15,20 8:6 10:4 27:24
111:13 117:2 145:8 149:20 51:13,20 62:15,15,17 12:13,16 13:3,9,14,18 uyen (7) 10:24 11:20 18:22 135:12 141:11 144:5 149:4
wayback (3) 7:15 66:13,18 54:20 105:5 124:23
164:25 73:4,8,12 90:5 115:7 117:8 15:6,9,12,18 24:13 45:19 52:3 67:25 151:20 152:20 154:8
ways (2) 122:21 143:13 yet (3) 36:23 40:10 103:10
theyd (1) 98:25 141:11 152:8 17:1,2,3,10,11 19:12 wdi (1) 52:17 158:18 160:6 167:7 168:25 york (1) 105:7
V
theyre (18) 3:1 34:8 36:20 tomorrow (2) 67:1 88:16 24:2,22 26:12 27:4,7,20 wdiorg (1) 52:17 170:24,25 youd (15) 12:20 17:6 39:11
38:22 39:12 41:9 49:11 took (7) 16:20 33:16 52:2 28:2 45:10,14 52:9,10 v (1) 112:3 web (6) 7:14 66:9 67:4 68:23 worked (6) 21:25 29:1 72:13 73:8,12 77:18 111:18
52:9 58:7 61:10 65:4 74:16 60:17 141:19 165:4,4 122:6 124:1 v2docx (2) 161:3,6 69:1 151:16 88:10 90:2 109:15 123:6 127:2 134:19 148:6
80:7,8 101:8,11 110:20 tools (1) 140:6 turn (3) 11:8 141:2 168:3 valid (2) 21:22 158:7 webmail (1) 120:12 working (15) 45:2 46:7 49:24 161:1 164:3 166:18 168:13
125:20 topic (2) 66:8 76:18 turned (3) 97:25 100:15 validate (3) 19:3,8 147:16 website (2) 67:6,7 67:24 72:15,16,18 74:16 youll (2) 20:17 28:4
theyve (2) 165:16 169:23 tor (1) 122:22 162:23 validating (1) 163:25 wed (3) 22:9 126:14 143:3 77:18 79:4 90:11 101:18 young (1) 66:2
thieves (1) 119:3 total (2) 48:16 163:15 turnover (1) 133:23 valley (3) 135:13 145:6 wednesday (1) 172:1 138:16 140:23 157:21 youre (52) 7:16 9:8,23 11:11
thing (19) 34:8 41:5 50:2 totalling (1) 133:21 twisting (1) 96:23 167:24 week (5) 19:15 22:20 26:8 works (3) 67:2 119:22 132:3 17:8 18:14 25:13 29:10
53:10 57:12 62:23 77:4 touch (2) 25:21 78:12 twitter (1) 122:17 valuable (4) 40:5 41:7,8,10 139:19 140:23 world (3) 55:9 137:6 168:13 34:5 37:4 39:23 50:5 51:6
80:18 83:2 94:22 109:7 towards (3) 6:4 130:18 152:6 tyche (21) 102:14,16,16 value (3) 55:25 159:11 169:1 weeks (2) 83:20 139:17 wormhole (2) 57:6,6 53:15 60:18 63:1,5,7 72:7
125:15 144:5 145:12,17 trade (1) 82:4 104:5 108:3,7,14,16 valued (2) 63:15 64:8 wei (1) 107:14 worried (1) 94:25 74:6,6 80:2 83:16 86:25
152:14 157:21 161:17 trading (5) 13:9 17:11 26:12 109:14,22,25 values (2) 29:3 55:20 went (17) 18:25 21:15 24:11 worry (1) 167:16 89:25 95:6,21 97:13
169:7 45:10,14 110:1,2,2,3,20 113:13 variety (3) 15:15 19:2 52:18 29:14 31:17 44:11 61:11 worst (1) 42:23 108:19 113:14,25 115:25

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 13, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 7

116:19 127:5 132:14,16 37:6,12,17 38:2 48:3,25 128:18 131:8,12 133:15

8
135:7 136:9 142:5,11 91:15 138:1 134:18 135:3 138:1,23
145:1,2,10 146:22 160:20 150000 (2) 41:16 42:7 140:2 141:20 142:2 153:10
8 (10) 16:1 32:20 33:12 35:5
161:23 162:16 165:23 16 (6) 8:20 48:21 49:6 58:15 159:17 160:25 165:11
37:5 47:8,11 118:3,7
166:3 167:11 168:20 69:21 70:15 2019 (6) 11:17 16:3,3 20:17
141:20
171:16 17 (14) 10:19,22 11:20,22,23 28:18,19
80 (1) 140:23
yours (1) 76:1 30:21 32:25 44:18,22 2020 (6) 19:5 24:15 25:8
800000 (1) 40:7
yourself (14) 18:23 19:18 70:18 84:10,11 128:18 39:2 42:16,24
24:1,19 45:19 59:23 77:13 138:23 2024 (2) 1:1 172:2
9
80:14 91:4,11 92:12 18 (11) 13:11 27:3 35:7,17 21 (2) 86:3 104:13
131:24 149:21 159:18 70:7 71:5,25 85:2,17,17,18 22 (3) 27:16 112:6 138:4
9 (12) 9:7 47:25 48:24 70:1
yourselves (1) 3:1 186 (1) 10:2 222 (2) 14:11 116:18
83:19 122:4 152:10 159:22
youve (12) 9:8 22:15 24:25 19 (1) 69:9 23 (11) 12:15 13:2 22:22
160:2,13 165:8 166:7
32:8 40:8 98:4 115:7 1900 (1) 95:9 26:12 28:18 46:2 51:22
90s (3) 60:10 64:12 65:16
132:12 136:23 147:14 1990s (1) 52:16 52:4 69:16 88:13 126:7
158:23,25 1998 (1) 107:15 24 (6) 31:5 35:15 107:23
1d (1) 130:9 109:1 120:7 153:10
Z 1lxc (2) 61:22 62:4 25 (7) 11:23 75:14 109:10
120:11 138:5 150:1 153:13
z (1) 2:23 2
250000 (1) 130:20
zero (2) 79:18,20
2 (24) 1:6 4:6 33:2 44:17 26 (3) 107:17 151:23 153:16
zooko (4) 156:22
60:1 61:17 66:13,18 77:16 267 (1) 61:15
157:15,19,20
78:23 86:3 93:21,23 2671 (1) 62:14
zoom (1) 78:3
116:19 130:9,17 142:4 2672 (2) 61:18 62:14
zuhl (1) 133:18
144:3 153:16 154:11 27 (3) 80:14 81:13 138:6

159:21 160:11 162:4 28 (4) 62:2,5,13 154:8

0
169:12 29 (4) 9:7 91:9 159:17

20 (7) 32:6 33:16 35:9 41:17 160:25

002628 (1) 49:11
69:7 133:22,25 290 (1) 12:11
02 (1) 134:13
200 (2) 91:1 111:3 2a (1) 130:17
03 (2) 7:13 134:13
2000 (1) 151:2 2c (1) 131:3
06 (1) 134:14
07 (1) 134:14 200000 (1) 91:25
3
08 (1) 134:14 2001 (2) 134:10,13
2004 (1) 134:14 3 (18) 30:3 45:19 46:18
1 2005 (1) 134:14 75:10 77:12 91:9 93:2
2009 (41) 5:16 6:2 13:8 105:13 120:7 126:25
1 (31) 10:9,14 12:11 28:8,8 16:1,7 17:13 58:12 128:21 129:22 131:16,16
37:7,18,21 38:3,20 59:1,9,12,13 64:25 66:8,22 141:24 142:8 150:3 154:11
40:13,13 42:4 46:24 67:6,16,17,20,21 68:3,15 30 (6) 38:22 40:20 42:4
47:8,11 48:24 84:5 86:16 69:3,7,9,13,13,18 72:18 111:3 132:1 138:4
92:4,13 93:21 103:23 73:5,9,12,15,18,20,24 300 (1) 130:1
105:23,24 130:4 146:2 74:2,23 75:11 103:11 308 (1) 130:3
155:9 166:7 168:1 173:3 134:15 158:4 31 (3) 131:8 142:2,6
10 (30) 28:19 35:10,22 2010 (12) 5:1 7:9 16:7 44:11 352 (1) 112:6
36:2,10,16,20,21 37:8,18 58:3 74:2,23 142:16 37 (1) 92:8
38:1,3,3 59:1 66:22 143:1,7,18 144:9
67:6,16,17,20 68:3,15 2011 (18) 8:20 12:17,21,25 4

75:11 80:3 102:19 104:2 13:4 16:20 23:2 24:15 4 (12) 11:17 16:6 27:3 54:25
114:24 115:16 122:5 128:3 25:17,18 39:25 43:13 69:3,13,18 128:21
163:15 44:12 58:1 59:11 69:16 131:20,21 173:4,5
100 (4) 15:13,20 17:16 165:9,11 40 (1) 155:9
140:23 20112012 (1) 27:6 4000 (1) 40:4
1000 (2) 40:4 95:9 2012 (14) 14:20 16:22 17:5 416 (1) 171:25
100000 (1) 87:3 22:22 26:12 32:22 43:13 42 (1) 34:17
103 (1) 90:24 46:2 51:22 52:4 59:9 60:14 479 (1) 14:11
1030 (3) 1:2 171:23 172:1 64:22 69:21
106 (1) 30:19 201213year (1) 59:18 5
107 (2) 8:13 54:14 20122013year (1) 59:16
5 (9) 8:13,19 16:19 18:6
109 (1) 9:7 2013 (22) 58:12,13,21,23,25
26:14 46:2 70:13 108:22
11 (17) 5:16 10:2,9,14 15:13 59:3,11 61:2,6,23
131:20
28:8 36:1,16,21,22 37:5 62:2,5,13 64:25 65:2
500000 (1) 92:14
69:3,13,18 104:2 122:7 70:1,2 71:4,21 73:2,15,20
50100000 (1) 103:16
169:24 2014 (35) 27:5,11 58:2,14,15
52 (1) 61:15
111 (1) 10:18 65:22 66:13,18 68:23 69:1
113 (1) 32:20 70:7,12,12,15,18,21,23 6
1130 (1) 43:8 71:5,21,22,25 72:10,17,24
114 (1) 33:1 75:20 76:1,19,22,22 6 (18) 2:24 3:15 5:1 12:20

1141 (1) 43:10 77:2,12 78:2,19 111:7 14:19 32:22 33:7 68:22

11th (1) 101:12 143:24 69:22 70:3,10,16,19

12 (20) 6:2 8:23 9:4,14,24 2015 (51) 65:3,5 75:10,14,20 99:7,13 121:24 127:24

10:5,11,15 28:9 31:22 76:2,23 79:8,9,19 80:14 163:10

32:23 33:18 36:2,13,16 81:13 83:18,19 84:10 86:3 60 (1) 83:8

37:11,12 70:2 71:4 122:11 88:13 91:4,9 94:19 95:18 64 (1) 162:22

1200 (1) 43:24 98:15 99:7,13 102:19 69 (3) 114:3,6,8

1235 (1) 76:15 104:2,13 105:10,18 106:10

7
1242 (1) 76:17 107:17,23 109:1,10 110:16
13 (8) 1:1 13:23 47:25 111:16,22 112:14,24 7 (16) 18:21 21:10 31:17
48:24,24 60:14 61:23 113:7,16 114:5,15,24 47:16,25 48:23,24 69:17
123:19 115:16 116:6 117:22 70:12,12 106:20 122:3
1300 (2) 97:25 98:1 118:3,7 127:3 134:21 126:21 128:3 141:19
14 (7) 28:24 47:25 48:24 2016 (41) 8:15 25:23 26:1 165:18
84:10 123:20 171:6 172:2 27:9 35:7,17 44:18,22 70 (2) 114:17,19
140 (1) 1:19 47:10,13 48:16,21 49:6 72c (1) 128:6
141 (1) 27:24 50:10 51:13 54:2,4,25 58:4 750000 (1) 128:11
15 (17) 32:11,18,22 65:22 112:20 113:21 759 (1) 160:11
33:8,17,24 35:11 36:13,13 116:14,19 126:18,21 7c (2) 24:1,20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 8

February 14, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 Wednesday, 14 February 2024 1 Stroz Friedberg in paragraph 2 of the redactions, and

2 (10.30 am) 2 I don’t want to read out the contents of that in open
3 Housekeeping 3 court.
4 MR ORR: My Lord, could I revert briefly to the topic of 4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
5 the redactions in Mr Rosendahl’s second report, which 5 MR ORR: Your Lordship will see in particular paragraph 2.2.
6 your Lordship raised with us yesterday morning. 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 7 MR ORR: My Lord, in paragraph 2.4, there is a typo in
8 MR ORR: I need to clarify what I told your Lordship. 8 the third line . ”The letter of 8 January” should be
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 9 a reference to the letter of 22 January.
10 MR ORR: Your Lordship raised with us the question of the −− 10 My Lord, then, finally , in paragraph 1, we’ve noted
11 in particular the question of redactions in row 6 in 11 what we have discussed with Mr Hough and Mr Gunning
12 figure 3 of Mr Rosendahl’s second report, which is in 12 about how we can most efficiently manage the process of
13 the trial bundle at {G/8/16}, and it may be useful just 13 taking instructions from Dr Wright in relation to this
14 to have that on the screen briefly so we can see 14 matter. Subject to your Lordship, we have agreed that
15 the context. 15 we will do so after Dr Wright concludes his
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 16 cross−examination today, on the basis that he can be
17 MR ORR: Now, we have checked the redactions in that row, 17 recalled for cross−examination in relation to the White
18 that’s row 6, and they reflect the claims to privilege 18 Paper LaTeX files and Overleaf and any other issues
19 which have previously been made over certain files and 19 arising from the instructions we will take after the end
20 folders within the Bitcoin project and the Maths (OLD) 20 of today. That is referred to in paragraph 1.
21 project . 21 Unfortunately, this letter was prepared last night, but
22 Stroz Friedberg have further checked the other 22 only sent this morning, so your Lordship needs to read
23 redactions and they are also consistent with those 23 the references to ”today” and ”tomorrow” in that light.
24 claims to privilege , subject to this point, that in 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. No, I quite understand.
25 the course of carrying out those checks, Stroz Friedberg 25 MR ORR: My Lord, just on the question of Dr Wright

1 3

1 have ascertained that unintentional errors were made in 1 concluding his evidence and then being recalled, we
2 the redaction of file hashes in column D of 2 would ask your Lordship to release him when he finishes
3 the Maths (OLD)_chunks spreadsheet. So your Lordship 3 his evidence so that we can take instructions from him,
4 will see, in figure 3, in column D, a number of items 4 both in relation to this matter and other matters that
5 that are redacted there. 5 have been raised in correspondence, as well as the case
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 6 generally .
7 MR ORR: File hashes in certain rows of that column were 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
8 redacted in error . That error does not impact upon 8 MR ORR: But that will be obviously on the basis that he can
9 row 6. A corrected set of entries for rows 2 to 41 in 9 then be recalled .
10 column D which were affected by that error have been 10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
11 provided this morning to the other parties . So to that 11 Mr Hough, do you have any objection to that?
12 extent, I need to correct what I told your Lordship 12 MR HOUGH: If I can just turn my back a moment.
13 yesterday morning. 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you very much. 14 MR HOUGH: We have no objection to that, my Lord.
15 MR ORR: My Lord, a letter has been sent to Bird & Bird and 15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
16 Macfarlanes this morning. Could I provide a copy of 16 MR GUNNING: My Lord, since I will probably carry the burden
17 that? It will go into the trial bundle. 17 of cross−examining on the White Paper LaTeX files,
18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 18 I confirm also that we have no objection to that course.
19 (Handed). 19 Just for your Lordship’s interest , though, this is
20 MR ORR: But I would like to draw your Lordship’s attention 20 a letter that was a response to a letter from us that
21 to its contents. I don’t propose to go through 21 your Lordship will find at {M1/2/185}.
22 the detail of this whilst Dr Wright is in the witness 22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right.
23 box, but if I can just draw your Lordship’s attention to 23 MR GUNNING: And notwithstanding the helpful clarification
24 the letter , and if I could start with paragraph 2, 24 we’ve had, your Lordship will see it doesn’t actually
25 your Lordship will see the explanation provided by 25 respond to the particular question that we have raised

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 in that letter , which is a matter that I understand will 1 is wrong?

2 be explored over −− after the end of Dr Wright’s first 2 A. I do. There was never any tax with HMRC filed, and on
3 round of evidence, if I can put it that way. 3 that day, the documentation that I had to sign with my
4 MR ORR: That’s right, my Lord. We were not in a position 4 wife was approximately 1,200 pages in total, a little
5 to answer those questions without taking further 5 bit more, probably. We had 100 different documents to
6 instructions from Dr Wright. 6 sign for all of the IP, I didn’t have any solicitors
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Thank you. 7 with me, because I was in the UK, not Australia, and
8 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued) 8 I had no chance to read them. So, I looked through
9 So, good morning, Dr Wright. 9 the things very quickly , I didn’t analyse them in
10 A. Good morning, my Lord. 10 detail .
11 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued) 11 Q. So, you say that you signed this agreement, including
12 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, one point to revisit from yesterday. 12 the term headed ”Craig Wright”, without reading
13 Do you recall that you denied using certain email 13 the agreement or the term headed ”Craig Wright”?
14 addresses with the domain Tyche.co.uk. 14 A. In full , no, I hadn’t. I ’ ll also note, the email you
15 A. Tyche, yes. 15 brought up yesterday has a statement saying that my wife
16 Q. You said at page 109 of the transcript , line 14 16 and I are ready to start a family. When we came to
17 {Day7/109:14}, that you didn’t write an email of 17 the UK, my wife and I were in our mid−40s, my wife had
18 November 2015 with that domain, saying: 18 three children already, we weren’t looking at having
19 ”Tyche is a British company belonging to Rob that 19 children and family, as that email states . So, my Lord,
20 I never worked for.” 20 it was well known that my wife and I were not looking at
21 Do you recall saying that? 21 having more children.
22 A. That’s correct . 22 Q. {L10/426/1}, please.
23 Q. At page 110, line 2 {Day7/110:2}, you said: 23 This is a document in your disclosure, ”Tyche
24 ”I ’m not Tyche. Never have been.” 24 Consulting Limited, Employment Contract, Craig Wright,
25 Do you recall saying that? 25 26th October 2015”.

5 7

1 A. I do. 1 Page 2, please {L10/426/2}, I think an introductory

2 Q. May we have on screen {L11/285/1}, please. 2 page signed apparently by you. Is that your signature?
3 Now, this is the implementation deed on 3 A. Actually, no, it ’s not. I ’ve said how I sign with ”G”s
4 Baker & McKenzie paper, dated 7 January 2016, that we 4 etc. That’s actually not my signature. There’s no
5 addressed briefly yesterday; do you see that? 5 Wright, there’s no anything else and there’s a big
6 A. I do. 6 flourish at the end with a ”G”. There’s plenty of fake
7 Q. And do you recall that you admitted yesterday −− and for 7 my signatures and that’s definitely one of them.
8 those watching, for the lawyers, it ’s page 127 of 8 Q. So you say that this contract was not signed you despite
9 the transcript , line 23 {Day7/127:23} −− you admitted 9 the apparent signature, yes?
10 that this was a genuine document; do you recall that? 10 A. At that date, I wasn’t living at that address, we had
11 A. I do. 11 already moved out. A lot of people thought we were
12 Q. On page 24 {L11/285/24}, please, do we see it’s signed 12 still living at 43 Gordon in October, and that’s why
13 by you, your wife and Mr Matthews; correct? 13 WIRED and Gizmodo camped out, but actually, in August of
14 A. Yes. 14 that year, we already had the shipping containers come
15 Q. Page 10, please {L11/285/10}, middle of the page, 15 in and we moved, so that’s incorrect.
16 clause 7, ”Craig Wright”, 7.2(a): 16 Q. So, this employment contract, apparently bearing your
17 ”Craig Wright has entered into an Employment 17 signature, was not one of the many hundreds of pages of
18 Contract with Tyche Consulting Limited dated 18 documentation that you signed on that date without
19 26 October 2015 at a salary of £160,000 [sterling] per 19 reading them?
20 annum. The parties acknowledge and agree that 20 A. Well, it doesn’t contain my signature. If you look at
21 Craig Wright may subsequently become employed by 21 my other signatures, where I have them, as I’ve said ,
22 a related body corporate ...” 22 I have a little trick where I do a sort of ”C” on
23 Do you say that that statement, that you’d entered 23 the ”G”. That doesn’t really look like
24 into an employment contract with Tyche Consulting 24 a ”Craig S Wright”. I’ve never once in my life signed
25 Limited of that date, in this contract which you signed 25 without putting ”Craig S Wright” individually, and

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 I can’t make out ”Craig S Wright” out of that signature 1 So the consulting for the first three years of nChain,
2 at all . 2 nCrypt, was Tyche. We didn’t have a HR function. Until
3 Q. Would you accept that this is yet another document in 3 Rob was out −− or actually, we did two years, 2016/17.
4 your disclosure which you’ve identified as a fake which 4 So when Rob left, that changed, but Tyche ran the HR,
5 was not identified as a fake when disclosure was given? 5 payees, payroll and accounting for nCrypt.
6 A. No, actually , that’s incorrect . 6 Q. Dr Wright, all the documents tell a consistent story ,
7 This document comes from one of the ex−staff 7 you were employed by Tyche between October 2015 and
8 laptops. That is in the disclosure platform. It ’s 8 early 2016, don’t they?
9 listed that it comes from a staff laptop accessing 9 A. No, actually , I ’ve had to give over my HMRC filings,
10 Ramona, my wife’s, email, when that employee had no 10 both here and in the US case, they were put into
11 legal rights to access her email. 11 disclosure , and HMRC, for 2016, ’17, ’18, only has
12 Q. Pause there, a couple of simple questions. This was 12 nCrypt, or nChain −− same company. So all of my tax
13 a document disclosed by solicitors on your behalf in 13 filings , from this period on, are from a single company.
14 these proceedings; correct? 14 My visa was done for nCrypt, my −− everything else, so
15 A. Yes. 15 all of the documentation related to this that this
16 Q. And when disclosing this document, your solicitors did 16 consulting firm has put in refers nCrypt.
17 not identify it in correspondence as a fake, did they? 17 Q. Back to yesterday and the Sartre message. We can take
18 A. I don’t know what they did. I told them that −− and 18 that document off screen. Do you recall that when we
19 it ’s in the disclosure platform, that it ’s from an 19 finished yesterday, I was asking you about the Sartre
20 unauthorised source. So in the disclosure platform, it 20 message and its immediate aftermath? Yes?
21 notes it . I can’t say what the solicitors have done 21 A. Yes, you were.
22 after the disclosure platform notes that it ’s from an 22 Q. And you recall, don’t you, that that morning, articles
23 unauthorised source. 23 about your being Satoshi were posted by the BBC,
24 Q. {L10/358/1}, please. 24 The Economist and GQ?
25 This is an exchange of emails involving both 25 A. I do.

9 11

1 Mr MacGregor, whom you’ve seen fit to cast as a villain, 1 Q. Are you aware that all those articles said that your
2 and your friend Mr Matthews, from September 2015, making 2 blogpost would demonstrate at least your possession of
3 the arrangements for you to be given a job title of 3 the key linked to block 9?
4 chief science officer , a salary of £160,000 by Tyche or 4 A. No, I didn’t read any of them. When the −− when Robert
5 by Kelly Connor speaking on behalf of Tyche. Do you see 5 released that, my wife and I were on the Eurostar coming
6 that email? 6 back from Paris. So Robert was not meant to do anything
7 A. No, I don’t. What I see is a job title . I don’t see 7 without my being there, and yet all of this actually
8 anything about Tyche there. As noted, I was given 8 happened as I was coming back into the country, which is
9 the chief science officer role at nCrypt, now nChain, so 9 verifiable , because I had to have any my passport
10 my filing with HMRC for that year has me as chief 10 stamped.
11 science officer for nCrypt. 11 Q. Let me deal with that quickly. The media timetables,
12 Q. Bottom of the page, please, Kelly Connor of Tyche writes 12 which we looked at yesterday, make clear that
13 on 21 September: 13 the articles were going to be released that morning,
14 ”We will be submitting information for Craig’s visa 14 don’t they?
15 very soon and as such, I need to confirm: 15 A. No, they weren’t ever given to me. So what Rob did and
16 ”Job title −− Chief Scientific Officer or Chief 16 what was told to me were two different things.
17 Scientist ? 17 Q. But do you now know that the article said that
18 ”Salary.” 18 the blogpost would demonstrate at least your possession
19 Then over the page {L10/358/2}, that’s Kelly Connor 19 of the key linked to block 9?
20 writing as the HR manager for Tyche Consulting Limited. 20 A. I ’ve seen those emails, but, I mean, I don’t know
21 Are you really saying she was setting up a job title 21 whether they’re actually real or not −−
22 and salary package for a company other than Tyche 22 Q. No, the articles . The BBC, Economist and GQ articles,
23 Consulting Limited? 23 not the emails. Are you aware that those articles said
24 A. Well, they’re Tyche Consulting, or Tyche Consulting. 24 that your blogpost would demonstrate at least your
25 What they actually do is they have HR consulting roles. 25 possession of the key linked to block 9?

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 A. No, I didn’t read them. 1 souring badly.”

2 Q. Are you aware of this, that in the hours after your 2 Do you recall receiving an email of that kind?
3 blogpost went up and the articles were published, there 3 A. Not particularly . I don’t have a good recall of that
4 were posts from others discrediting your blogpost and 4 period.
5 saying that it provided no real cryptographic proof? 5 Q. Then Mr Ayre responds:
6 A. I would assume so, because it never provided any 6 ”How could the signature fall apart?”
7 cryptographic −− 7 Do you see that?
8 Q. Are you aware that there were posts saying that, 8 A. I do.
9 Dr Wright? 9 Q. And you reply:
10 A. Like I just explained, I didn’t read any of these 10 ”The wrong copy was uploaded.”
11 articles . I know that it can’t be cryptographic proof, 11 Don’t you?
12 because there’s no such thing as cryptographic proof of 12 A. Probably not. Around this time, nCrypt was run by
13 identity , so −− 13 the consulting company Tyche, so my email at nCrypt was
14 Q. Dr Wright, are you aware −− are you seriously saying 14 actually taken over and I was excluded from it.
15 that you’re not aware that in the hours after the Sartre 15 Q. Dr Wright, this is another email chain which you
16 blogpost went up, that a number of people online 16 reviewed in the course of preparing your first witness
17 discredited it , or claimed to discredit it , saying that 17 statement. I ’m not going to go to it, but for
18 it did not provide a newly signed message? 18 the lawyers, this is a chain which is at ID_002274,
19 A. I didn’t read them, no. 19 which is item 5 in the PD57AC list at {E/1/40}. So this
20 Q. And you’re not even aware now that they said that, are 20 is an email, among not very many, which you reviewed for
21 you? 21 the purpose of your first witness statement and you
22 A. I haven’t been reading them, no. I don’t read a lot of 22 didn’t identify it there, did you, as a fake email which
23 that material. I know people accuse me of being on 23 had been written by somebody who had taken over your
24 Reddit. I don’t have a Reddit account. I actually 24 account, did you, Dr Wright?
25 don’t use Reddit, I never have. 25 A. No, I have no need to. Again, I have noted that these

13 15

1 Q. So you’re saying, after all these years , you don’t even 1 all came from third party computers. In the disclosure
2 know the posts appeared in the hours directly after 2 platform, it notes it . It ’s very clear that it comes
3 the Sartre blogpost was published saying this is a fake 3 from a compromised staff computer in the disclosure
4 proof? You’re not even aware now that those posts 4 platform.
5 appeared; is that your evidence? 5 Q. Dr Wright, you keep referring to a disclosure platform
6 A. I have hearsay, like what you just said then. Do I read 6 which is your solicitors ’ privileged platform. Please
7 them? No. I mean, I’ve spent my life having other 7 stop doing so, because it ’s privileged information and
8 people tell me what I can and can’t do, how useless I’m 8 I don’t want you to waive privilege without proper
9 going to be, etc, which is part of why, my Lord, I keep 9 advice.
10 doing degrees and education. At first , I did it to 10 Go on.
11 prove to myself that I could do things, but 11 A. What you’re now telling me is that I cannot answer
12 unfortunately, what I’ve come to realise is −− 12 the question because of privilege , but you want me to
13 Q. Stop there. 13 answer a question. So, all I can say is , I filled out
14 A. −− it’s the other people. 14 information in the disclosure platform. I can’t answer
15 Q. Stop there, Dr Wright. We’ve got to make some progress 15 what my solicitors did or did not do.
16 today. 16 Q. You can answer this question. There is nowhere in your
17 {L13/97/1}, please. We see, at the bottom of 17 witness statement where you identify this email, which
18 the page, an email that Monday, May 2, 2016, from 18 you had reviewed for that statement, as a fake email, is
19 Mr MacGregor to Mr Ayre and yourself, copied to 19 there?
20 Mr Matthews: 20 A. Well, yes. I would have relied on it if it wasn’t. So,
21 ”The signature −− the fundamental part of the entire 21 a lot of these things I haven’t used because I’ve noted
22 story −− has fallen apart. This has to be corrected 22 that they’re from third parties and can’t be relied on.
23 right now, or there will be no way your reputation or 23 So −−
24 the project can come back from this. It’s mid−morning 24 Q. So are you saying that all the emails in your PD57AC
25 already in NYC and that media coverage is already 25 list are fake documents, or that some are fakes, some

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 are real and you haven’t told us which is which in your 1 A. My Lord, can I finish this , because it is important?
2 statement? 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Go ahead.
3 A. No, I said everything that comes from a compromised 3 A. What I was going to say is Robert actually told me how
4 computer owned by staff is unreliable . 4 he had done some of these things, and that if he didn’t
5 I categorically said that. I said it in the Kleiman 5 −− sorry, if I didn’t do it , he would destroy myself and
6 trial , I said it in the McCormack trial, I said it in 6 my family. It was around that time that I didn’t sleep ,
7 Norway, I said it to my lawyers here. I said it on 7 and this is where I actually ended up having a suicide
8 the stand in front of the jury . 8 attempt. I thought that I’d been tricked into things,
9 Q. So, for all your nominated primary reliance documents 9 and I was. And part of why all this happened was that
10 which come from other laptops than your own, are you 10 I got put in a position where I was being forced into
11 saying that they should be treated presumptively as 11 doing something I didn’t believe rather than a path that
12 fakes , Dr Wright? 12 I wanted to do. I would have happily signed if −− and
13 A. No, what I’ve noted is that they have been updated and 13 the big word is ” if ”, if and only if , the whole purpose
14 touched. Where I’ve noted that these were documents 14 of what I wanted was to go down and prove all of my work
15 I created, they’ve been sent now to third parties . So 15 first . The only way I would have signed was: first,
16 this is part of the story . Why I am relying on them in 16 prove my work.
17 some parts is to say that third parties have interacted 17 MR HOUGH: Mr Ayre responds in this email chain:
18 with my documents. It is not just to say I wrote them, 18 ”Lets fix that immediately then as its on our
19 but the entire story needs to be told, and the entire 19 system.”
20 story includes ex−staff members who had gone rogue, it 20 Then Mr MacGregor, who you see at the top of
21 includes people who have tried to compromise 21 the chain, attaches a draft blog copy; do you see that?
22 the integrity of what I’m doing, because they get paid, 22 A. I do.
23 it includes people who get put under pressure. 23 Q. Then {L3/100/1}, which is the attachment. Sorry,
24 Q. Dr Wright, are you aware that this is an email chain 24 {L13/100/1}, I’m so sorry. This was a draft blogpost
25 which Mr Matthews has acknowledged in paragraph 104 of 25 which was proposing a new message signed with private

17 19

1 his witness statement {E/5/22} as a genuine chain from 1 keys linked to the Genesis Block and block 9. Do you
2 which he refreshed his memory? 2 recall receiving a blogpost of that kind on 2 May 2016?
3 A. Yes, at that time Mr Matthews didn’t realise that Robert 3 A. Not by email. Mr MacGregor called and we went out to
4 has taken over my account. He had no knowledge of it −− 4 lunch, and this is part of where he started threatening
5 Mr MacGregor, sorry. 5 myself and my wife. He said that our children were now
6 Q. Of course, Dr Wright, the response which is attributed 6 in this country, he’s pulled all of the funding for all
7 to you, ”The wrong copy was uploaded”, is quite wrong, 7 of the litigation support and the ATO, he will make sure
8 isn ’ t it ? The problem that had given rise to all 8 that no funding comes to my Australian company, which he
9 the negative posts and publicity wasn’t that the wrong 9 did pull , the company in Australia was forced to shut
10 copy had been uploaded for the Sartre blog; correct? 10 down because of that −−
11 A. No, the problem was I wasn’t going to sign unless people 11 Q. Can I stop you there and ask the question again. Did
12 did the proof of my identity first . 12 you receive a blogpost in these terms on 2 May 2016?
13 Q. So you’re agreed at least on this , that whoever wrote, 13 A. No, I did not.
14 ”The wrong copy was uploaded”, and we say it was you, 14 Q. Okay.
15 whoever wrote that was giving a false excuse? 15 {L13/167/1}, please. This is an email from
16 A. Mm, I don’t actually know what they were trying to do. 16 Mr Matthews to Mr Andresen, copied to you, Monday,
17 I think Robert was trying to build things so that it 17 2 May 2016, that morning. He write that he’s just
18 would be me. At one stage, Robert actually told me, 18 spoken to you and you’ve agreed to sign a new message
19 ”I ’ve set things up so that there’s no way anyone will 19 with block 1 and block 2 and proof of date, and that you
20 believe you unless you do it my way”. He categorically 20 will be offline while travelling for a couple of hours.
21 said , ”I ’ve made it so that if you don’t do what I want, 21 Do you see that?
22 I ’ ll destroy you and your family ”. 22 A. I do.
23 Q. Okay, Dr Wright −− 23 Q. Was he telling the truth?
24 A. This is −− 24 A. I made an agreement that if −− and I emphasise again, if
25 Q. −− you’re now digressing. Up the page, please. 25 and only if −− all of the proof going into proving my

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 degrees, proving my papers, proving my qualifications 1 Q. {L13/116/1}, please. This is an email from Mr MacGregor
2 was done, then I would do this. I gave one last chance. 2 to you, Stefan and your wife Ramona that evening. Do we
3 I said , ” If you go through and you show that I do have, 3 see that he was proposing:
4 at that stage, 14 degrees, if you prove that I have 4 ” ... a final full offensive ... ”
5 several hundred papers, if you prove my thousands of 5 To salvage the situation , signings with all of
6 patent ideas, then, if you make all that public first , 6 blocks 1 to 9 and Gavin sending coin block 9. That was
7 then I will do this”. 7 a genuine email, wasn’t it ?
8 Q. {L13/168/1}, please. This is another of the Andresen 8 A. I don’t know, I want actually on the list . As I’ve
9 exhibits from the Kleiman proceedings, an email from you 9 noted, ”nCrypt Craig” was not me any more, that had been
10 in response to that email: 10 taken over and I was excluded. So the only emails I had
11 ”Please hold that thought. 11 sending and received were craig@rcjbr or craig@demorgan.
12 ”I am going to re sign the message and post a new 12 Q. Do you agree that the message that’s being delivered in
13 never used signature from 9. 13 this email was precisely the message Mr MacGregor wanted
14 ”I will explain soon. I will call Stefan soon to 14 to deliver that evening?
15 explain the message. 15 A. Yes. What I later found out was that literally
16 ”I am on route from Paris. There is nothing ... 16 Mr MacGregor had a $1 billion with −− sounding very like
17 I can do before I arrive home.” 17 Austin Powers ”1 billion” −− deal, exactly US$1 billion.
18 You gave that commitment at that time, didn’t you? 18 And the deal was that I had to do this by signing with
19 A. No, I did not. As was noted, I was actually under 19 keys and there could be no proof. The only way, it had
20 the tunnel in the Eurostar. At this time, I ’d lost 20 to be a cypherpunk thing from certain Silicon Valley
21 control of that email, it had been taken over from me, 21 companies −−
22 and Rob used this. He then told me, ”I’ve told Gavin 22 Q. Dr Wright, you’ve made that allegation. You’re now just
23 that you have −− told Gavin, who’s your friend, that 23 digressing , going well beyond my question.
24 you’re going to do this ; you’re going to look like 24 A. It ’s not an allegation −−
25 a complete fool if you don’t”. 25 Q. Next question.

21 23

1 Q. Okay, so that’s another email you say is fake? 1 A. −− it’s a fact.

2 A. No, I’m not saying it’s fake, I ’m saying I didn’t 2 Q. Next question. It would be pretty strange, wouldn’t it ,
3 control the email address. It ’s a real email from 3 for Mr MacGregor to deliver a real message, aimed at
4 someone else. 4 you, to an email address that wasn’t you?
5 Q. I see. 5 A. No. This is part of what I was explaining before,
6 {L13/169/1}, please, an email exchange between 6 Mr MacGregor came up with the idea that if he’s saying
7 Mr Andresen and you that evening: 7 that I ’m sending and telling everyone that it ’s mine,
8 ”Why the OpenSSL hoop jumping exercise ...” 8 that that’s going to be evidence that I ’m on board with
9 This is Gavin: 9 this and thus I need to follow what he’s saying. So,
10 ” ... and not just a simple electrum−signed message?” 10 part of the −− the whole thing with Tyche running all of
11 Then he refers to not having a laptop in New York. 11 the IT and other systems for nChain was that as soon as
12 Your email runs as saying: 12 I didn’t agree, they could cut me off my own email.
13 ”We fucked up as I loaded the wrong post. I will be 13 That was probably one of my stupidest mistakes. By
14 loading the correct one shortly . 14 deciding just to be chief science officer , I handed over
15 ”I was to load a re−signed version of that as well . 15 the control , the CEO or CIO, of all of the IT systems to
16 I will be reloading this . 16 Robert, and while I wanted just to be the research guy,
17 ”I am ... sorry you had to go through all this shit 17 the problem is, as soon as I did that, other people get
18 and I appreciate your support. I know ... you are going 18 to control what I do.
19 through your own shit right now. 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Did your wife have access to this email
20 ”I find this so difficult . I never wanted to come 20 address ”nCrypt Ramona”?
21 out and I loathe the publicity and it is now just 21 A. At that point, I don’t know. She was originally set up
22 worse.” 22 with one, but none of this is going to our RCJBR emails,
23 That was an email you wrote, isn’t it? 23 my Lord.
24 A. No, it is not. Again, this is from a third party 24 MR HOUGH: {L13/123/1}. We have Ramona responding to that
25 laptop. That’s how we have them. 25 email that evening:

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 ”Craig is still working on the blog and triple 1 Q. {L13/104/1}, an email from Mr MacGregor to Mr Ayre,
2 checking to make sure there are no mistakes. 2 Mr Matthews, yourself at the nCrypt address, 2 May, that
3 ”Craig can resign a transaction on blocks 1−9 as you 3 afternoon:
4 said , but nothing can be taken away as discussed today.” 4 ”Craig and Stefan are both en route to Wimbledon now
5 Is the message that Ramona delivered that evening, 5 to get access to the computer Craig needs.”
6 according to this email, a message consistent with what 6 You say they weren’t en route to Wimbledon at that
7 you intended at that point? 7 time −− you weren’t en route to Wimbledon with
8 A. No, and it’s not consistent with what my wife would say. 8 Mr Matthews at that time?
9 I −− my wife wouldn’t go behind my back that way and −− 9 A. As I’ve said , I don’t believe so, but my memory of that
10 and −− I mean, unless she’d been told other things, but 10 period is very fuzzy.
11 she was with me. If my wife had been separate with 11 Q. If you take that down.
12 someone and talking to them thinking that she’d 12 So, drawing the threads together, you say that
13 communicated with me, it might be true, but my wife and 13 performing a public signature process would destroy your
14 I were home together at this time. 14 life ’s work because you would be selling out Bitcoin to
15 Q. So all these emails were going through, including to 15 the crypto cypherpunk philosophy for money, that’s what
16 Mr Matthews, and they were all emails from somebody else 16 you’ve said , right?
17 who’d taken over this account, right? 17 A. Well, Rob would be getting the money, I’d be probably
18 A. Well, I wasn’t running the account, so I can’t really 18 screwed.
19 tell what was happening at the time. 19 Q. Dr Wright, you’d already, hadn’t you, engaged in
20 Q. And it wasn’t something that Mr Matthews spotted during 20 sessions where, with journalists and others, you had
21 those hours and days, is it ? 21 signed new messages behind closed doors, right?
22 A. No, Mr Matthews at that point trusted Robert, he thought 22 A. No, I explained this already. I used the key and proved
23 he was on side, but it ’s amazing what people will do for 23 possession. It ’s not a signature.
24 $1 billion . 24 Q. Okay, fine. You used the key and proved possession
25 Q. Mr Matthews was spending time with you those days, 25 behind closed doors with journalists , yes?

25 27

1 including in your home in Wimbledon, wasn’t he? 1 A. Yes, under the presumption that they would have all of
2 A. That was after this , not on the 2nd, so −− 2 the information and put it together correctly .
3 Q. But on the 3rd and the 4th? 3 Q. And you were −− you had agreed and you understood that
4 A. He came over on those days, yes. I don’t recall much of 4 those journalists would publish articles saying that you
5 it , but he did. 5 had proved possession by this means on 2 May, didn’t
6 Q. And Mr Matthews, you say, was simultaneously sending him 6 you?
7 fake messages about what you were up to even though he 7 A. No, what I understood was they were going to actually
8 was spending time with you? 8 analyse all of my information. There were people going
9 A. Well, this isn ’ t when Mr Matthews was with me. I’d only 9 around saying that all of my qualifications were fake.
10 just come back from Paris on the 2nd. Next, what 10 I wanted all of that cleared up.
11 Mr Matthews did after that is a different thing. 11 Q. Dr Wright, you were happy for all the world to know
12 Q. But it was an incredibly high risk strategy , on your 12 through these major publications that you had proved
13 account, wasn’t it , Dr Wright, for Mr MacGregor to be 13 possession, supposedly, in the private signing sessions ,
14 sending fake emails about what you were up to to 14 weren’t you?
15 somebody who was going to be spending time with you over 15 A. Do you actually recall the video yesterday? Does that
16 the following days? 16 sound like someone who sounded happy to you? I mean,
17 A. No, he didn’t actually realise Stefan would. I talked 17 I was very angry, I was very upset, I swore a lot , I was
18 to Stefan and had him come over. I mean, I called him 18 agitated. I don’t think that sound like a happy person.
19 and said, ”Please, I need to talk to you”, so I don’t 19 I −−
20 think Robert actually wanted him to be there, and I know 20 Q. Dr Wright −−
21 Rob was incredibly angry later . I can’t actually 21 A. −− I’m sorry, but it has to be said. You’re telling me
22 remember the exact time or anything, but the day when 22 that that was happy Craig. I’m telling you, that’s
23 I had my suicide attempt, most of it’s fuzzy, I do know 23 really not. I know what happiness is.
24 that Rob screamed at both myself and my wife. I don’t 24 Q. Dr Wright, I’m not disputing that you were under stress
25 recall what he said. 25 when you were doing those interviews. You were

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 perfectly content, and you agreed, for articles to come 1 A. Oh, I saw it at my house when people showed it to me.
2 out to the world reporting that you had carried out 2 I basically said that it was a load of four letter words
3 the cryptographic process to prove possession, weren’t 3 starting with C.
4 you? 4 Q. So Mr MacGregor and his people bothered to show it to
5 A. No, actually , that was Robert’s bit. I was very happy 5 you at your home, but the email attaching it is a fake;
6 for people to prove my identity. I ’ve detailed to you 6 is that right?
7 multiple times what that means. 7 A. I ’ve told you, it ’s not a fake. I didn’t control
8 Q. And the reason you ultimately failed and refused to 8 the email address. So someone sending an email doesn’t
9 perform a public signing was the simple one, that you 9 make it a fake, it means that the address isn’t mine.
10 couldn’t; that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 10 Q. {L13/252/1}. This is another document which is on your
11 A. Not at all . Actually, I could. At that point, it would 11 list of documents which you referred to for your first
12 have been the easiest thing to do, but the problem is, 12 witness statement. For the lawyer’s reference , that’s
13 then I ’m not actually going to have anyone ever look at 13 {E/1/40}, item 19. And do you see that in the middle,
14 what I’ve done. 14 your wife replies to Mr MacGregor in relation to
15 Q. {L13/261/1}, please. We’re moving to 3 May, an exchange 15 the draft blogpost:
16 on 3 May between you and Mr Andresen. 16 ”Ok Satoshi
17 A. No, it ’s not. 17 ”Your writing is REALLY impressive.
18 Q. And the email from craig@ncrypt.com says that coin will 18 ”Did you get Craig’s email about adding a bit saying
19 be moved but trust permissions need to be got in place. 19 he was ’outed’ by leaked documents etc in December? He
20 Do you say that that’s another email not written by you? 20 wants to dispel the myth of his ’ self outing’ .”
21 A. Definitely . I told everyone there’s no way I’m moving 21 Is that an email your wife wrote on that Tuesday,
22 coin and I’m not doing this, so that’s definitely not 22 early in the afternoon?
23 me. 23 A. I know she got kicked off nCrypt. I don’t know when.
24 Q. {L13/268/1}, an email from Mr MacGregor to you and 24 But it doesn’t sound like something my wife would write,
25 Ramona, still copying Stefan Matthews: 25 no.

29 31

1 ”Attached is the first draft of the blog post to go 1 Q. These are a series of emails which you, when reviewing
2 up today.” 2 them for your witness statement, must have understood
3 Do you say that’s another email that didn’t reach 3 were significant , right , Dr Wright?
4 you and your wife? 4 A. Yes.
5 A. What I have to say is, why would I care about urgency? 5 Q. And you didn’t say anything about any of them, that they
6 I mean, if I can sign −− 6 should not be taken at face value because you, and
7 Q. Dr Wright, it’s a really simple question. Do you say 7 potentially your wife, had your emails being controlled
8 that this is another email that didn’t reach you and 8 by somebody else, did you?
9 your wife? A simple question. 9 A. They’re not my emails. But, yes, I think they’re
10 A. And it’s a simple answer. I had no urgency, so this is 10 incredibly important. They’re part of the story ,
11 an email to nCrypt, where I had lost control of that 11 my Lord. This goes into what happened back then, why
12 account. 12 I ended up trying to commit suicide, why I thought I was
13 Q. {L13/209/1}, please. This is the attachment: 13 being forced into something that I didn’t want to do.
14 ”Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof.” 14 Q. You don’t say anywhere in your statement, despite your
15 We see that after a preamble, the draft says, in 15 desire to blacken Mr MacGregor, that he took over your
16 a paragraph towards the bottom, you will be laying 16 nCrypt account and sent all these emails to try to alter
17 the foundations for your extraordinary claim to be 17 history while it was happening?
18 Satoshi: 18 A. Well, I don’t actually know who did it. I mean, you’re
19 ” ... including signing ... with the ’Satoshi’ 19 asking me to speculate there. It ’s quite possibly . But
20 PGP key ... posting independently−verifiable documents 20 what I do know is that emails were being sent so that
21 and ... transferring Bitcoin from block 9 ... ” 21 I would be put in a position where Gavin was going, ”Why
22 Ending on page 2 {L13/209/2} with a request that 22 did you do this, why −− you promised me that you’d
23 this proof be independently validated. 23 sign”. Other people, like the journalist , Rory, was
24 Is that a draft blogpost which you saw on 3 May, 24 told , ” If you send Bitcoin to this address, Craig will
25 whether received by email or in any other way? 25 send it back”, and now he runs round saying that, ”Craig

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 conned me out of Bitcoin”. 1 Q. Dr Wright, I’m not suggesting to you for a moment that
2 Q. {L13/231/1}, please, another email from Mr MacGregor, 2 these were real key slices giving access to a real
3 under the heading ”PGP Key?”, asking: 3 private PGP key, but these were emails which
4 ”Have you got the slices yet?” 4 Robert MacGregor wrote that day, copying Mr Matthews in,
5 And you’re recorded as responding: 5 and to which you responded, aren’t they?
6 ”I will chase them up soon.” 6 A. No. As I stated already, I ’d already had my access
7 And Mr MacGregor saying: 7 revoked, so what I do know is, well , I was being put in
8 ” ... critical ... we get this today.” 8 a position where everything’s set up so that: obviously,
9 You’re saying that that’s another email, are you, 9 Craig, you’re agreeing, you’ve told everyone, you’ve
10 where the apparent emails from you weren’t actually from 10 told Gavin, you’ve told Jon, you’ve told Ian that you
11 you? 11 will sign publicly .
12 A. Well, yes. I mean, if you actually read this , it makes 12 Q. {L13/257/1}, yet another extension of this chain with
13 it hard to actually believe that it could be my story, 13 you talking about acquiring more slices and Mr Matthews
14 because the slices were ones that I ’d already used. So 14 contributing to the chain, and maintaining that
15 I ’d already done, in April , all of this . The slices 15 Mr Matthews, who was with you over these days, had no
16 don’t disappear. I don’t need to contact people every 16 idea that these emails in the chain were not from you,
17 time I get it . Once I’ve decrypted the drive and made 17 not really from you?
18 the Bitcoin wallet with those in there, I had them. 18 A. I don’t actually recall , but what I do know is all of
19 I didn’t need slices any more. So the story from 19 this is wrong. So they were talking about BitcoinTalk.
20 Robert −− 20 That actually, as I ’ve explained, wasn’t the original
21 Q. This isn’ t discussing Bitcoin keys relating to a Bitcoin 21 forum, it was taken over in 2011. On top of this, there
22 wallet , this is discussing the PGP key. 22 are other things about the −− the key, and there’s
23 A. Well, I told you, that’s not a signing key. But again, 23 things about, ”Oh, it’s been signed before, so you can
24 when we’re −− it says in −− in the last line here: 24 use it ”. But that’s all wrong.
25 ”Have you got the slices yet?” 25 Q. Dr Wright, the reality is that all these emails involved

33 35

1 And then says: 1 real communications by you, you approved the blogpost
2 ”I will chase them up soon.” 2 through your wife, you were giving your backers the run
3 So, no, that’s incorrect . This is talking about 3 around over these hours. That’s the truth, isn ’ t it ?
4 chasing up key slices . I didn’t need those, I had them. 4 A. Not at all . I had no interest in any of that. What
5 Q. To give access to a PGP key, Dr Wright, not the keys 5 I do know is I was being put under pressure to sign.
6 which you’d used in the signing session . 6 Q. Moving back to the PGP key, would you accept this, that
7 A. No, no, I already explained to you, that was an AES key, 7 there is a well known PGP key which has been attributed
8 it unlocked the drive. Once I unlocked the drive, I had 8 to Satoshi and the public key for which has been hosted
9 everything. And I also told you that the PGP key was 9 on the bitcoin .org website?
10 held on Vistomail, so −− 10 A. No, the public key was −− for that version was only
11 Q. We’ll come to that. We’ll come back to that. 11 posted in 2011. There was actually an earlier version
12 {L13/236/1}. This is another of the documents in 12 associated with the site . That isn’t there.
13 your PD57AC list which you reviewed for your witness 13 Q. {H3/318/2}. Now, this is the earliest available web
14 statement. Item 20. The email goes on, doesn’t it, 14 capture of the key on the bitcoin .org website. Would
15 with you saying −− denying that you had signed anything 15 you accept that this is the public key, public key in
16 publicly with the PGP key, and then, further up 16 the pair , of a key which has been attributed to Satoshi
17 the page, saying that you had a slice from Denis Mayaka, 17 and which was captured on the bitcoin.org website by
18 but not yet from the people from Savanah, yes? 18 the Wayback Machine on 22 October 2011?
19 A. Yes, well , this demonstrates the error in what you’re 19 A. No, not the way you’re saying it . What I would say is,
20 thinking. While Savanah and Denis ran Seychelles 20 this was a key that was loaded by Martti in February
21 companies, I don’t think Rob knew at the time. Denis 21 onto the site replacing the other one. Martti had
22 actually lives in Kenya, in Nairobi, so arguing about 22 received this as an encryption and decryption key, not
23 getting late in the Seychelles has nothing to do with 23 as a signing key. If you look at the algorithms, that’s
24 Denis. So, I didn’t explain that, but that’s where he 24 why it’s −−
25 lives . So that, in that part, is an error . 25 Q. We’ll come to those in a second. ”MQGiBEkJ” is

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 the start of this key, isn ’ t it , yes? Just to keep that 1 related to that one, and the private key would be
2 in our minds. 2 the same, but you can update algorithms, etc, in these.
3 A. It is . 3 Q. You say −− go on to say at paragraph 83(2):
4 Q. That’s the Satoshi public PGP key which was and is known 4 ”The key ...”
5 to the Bitcoin community, isn’t it? 5 Without qualification :
6 A. No. Again, the Bitcoin community, as you put it, is 6 ”The key was created by a person or persons unknown.
7 a misrepresentation. This is the one that has been 7 Therefore, control , command or ownership of that key has
8 promoted from 2011, after I sort of left . 8 no probative value as to the identity of
9 Q. {A/3/24}, please, paragraph 83(2) in your defence. 9 Satoshi Nakamoto.”
10 Responding to a contention that if you were Satoshi you 10 That’s what the defence says, doesn’t it?
11 could demonstrate control over Satoshi’s private key, 11 A. It is .
12 you plead this at 83(2): 12 Q. And the plain −−
13 ”It is not clear from paragraph 61.1 what ’private 13 A. As I noted, it was a server key.
14 key’ is referred to. There has been public discussion 14 Q. The plain meaning of that paragraph was that the PGP key
15 of a key created in 2011 after Dr Wright ’retired ’ his 15 publicly associated with Satoshi, which featured, from
16 Satoshi Nakamoto persona.” 16 2011, if not before, on the bitcoin .org website, was
17 Pausing there. That’s the key that you were −− that 17 nothing to do with Satoshi and had been created by
18 we just looked at, isn ’ t it ? 18 person or persons unknown, right?
19 A. That is the key that has been loaded −− 19 A. No, actually , that’s incorrect . As I’ve explained,
20 Q. Is that the key we just looked at? 20 my Lord, the key was a decryption key used in
21 A. No, actually , not in the way that you’re talking . If 21 the Vistomail site . So, the creation basically is in
22 you’ ll let me finish , what I’m stating is that the key 22 a function within Vistomail. So, by using Vistomail,
23 that had been used for Gavin, Martti and others, as an 23 I create a key that I don’t have the private key for .
24 encryption and decryption key was loaded as if it was 24 That allows me to receive files and decrypt them on
25 a signing key. They’re different things. 25 the platform. So where I’m saying I don’t have any of

37 39

1 Q. You’re not answering my question. 1 that, that’s because it ’s in Vistomail, which is now
2 A. I actually am. 2 shut down. It wasn’t used as a signing key.
3 Q. You refer in paragraph 83(2), second sentence, of 3 Now, it was never a public key, because I’d sent it
4 the defence, to there having been ”public discussion of 4 privately only to a few people. I ’d sent it to Gavin
5 a key created in 2011”. Are you referring , by that 5 and I’d sent it to Martti and I’d sent it to other
6 sentence, to the key we were just looking at or to some 6 people for the purposes of sending information so that
7 completely different key with a completely different set 7 it could be securely decrypted.
8 of figures and numerals? 8 Q. {L6/478/1}, please. We see here an email from Mr Malmi
9 A. Do you understand that private keys and public keys are 9 to Satoshi, 6 December 2010, Mr Malmi asking Satoshi to
10 separate? 83(2) is answering a question about a private 10 send their PGP key so that Mr Malmi didn’t have to send
11 key. 11 a message in plain text . Do you accept that’s a genuine
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Would you answer the question, 12 email? Just that question now.
13 Dr Wright? 13 A. Yes.
14 A. Yes, my Lord. PGP allows updates, so −− 14 Q. {L6/477/1}, please. Do you see an email response from
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, okay, the question was, the key 15 Satoshi at his GMX account −−
16 that’s referred to at paragraph 83(2) of your defence, 16 A. I do.
17 is that the key that we’ve just been looking at? 17 Q. −− providing the PGP key? Do you accept that’s
18 A. No. In 82(2) [ sic ] is referencing a private key. 18 a genuine email?
19 That’s referencing a public key. 19 A. Yes. I see the decryption and encryption key being
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 20 sent.
21 MR HOUGH: Are you then referring to the private key, which 21 Q. And do you accept that the PGP key there is the same as
22 is the pair of the public key we looked at a few moments 22 the PGP key hosted on the bitcoin.org website from 2011
23 ago on the screen? 23 or earlier , which we looked at earlier?
24 A. What I’m saying, again, is the difference between 24 A. What I’ll note, once again −−
25 a signing and encryption key. The encryption key is 25 Q. Is it just −− is it the same key?

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 A. Not one that was originally there. It ’s the one that 1 Mr Madden has authenticated the key, establishing that
2 Martti loaded. 2 it is the same key that was first uploaded in
3 Q. Are the figures and numbers the same on the page, 3 October 2008? You’re aware of that, aren’t you?
4 beginning ”mQ ...” −− 4 A. No, he hasn’t. He has given a link that goes to
5 A. It is the key that Martti loaded −− 5 February 2011, which I think is actually very −− I mean,
6 Q. −− ”... GiBEkj”? 6 it ’s a little bit dishonest to give a 2010 link and say
7 A. −− in 2011. It is not the original one. 7 that it ’s actually −− when you click on it, it goes to
8 Q. I didn’t ask that question. I asked the question 8 a 2011 site . So that’s wrong.
9 whether the key we are looking at, with all the −− with 9 Q. Well, he’s identified metadata for the key file which
10 the long string of letters and numbers, is the same as 10 showed that it was first uploaded on 30 October 2008,
11 the key we looked at, just in terms of numbers and 11 hasn’t he, Dr Wright?
12 letters , that had been hosted on the bitcoin.org website 12 A. No, actually , he hasn’t. Again, he is making
13 which we saw on the Wayback capture, yes? 13 a statement that’s actually not true. And the metadata
14 A. To answer once again, it is the key that Martti loaded 14 that he’s providing on a text file , I believe you
15 in February 2011, yes. 15 actually stated, and I’m quoting you, there is no
16 Q. {E/4/33}. Before we do that {L19/111/1}, please. 16 forensic evidence on a text file , no metadata to be
17 Page 2, please {L19/111/2}. At the bottom of the page, 17 found, yet Mr Madden’s saying there’s metadata in this
18 a post by Satoshi on 25 July 2010: 18 text file .
19 ”For future reference , here’s my public key. It ’s 19 Q. So this is another respect in which you disagree with
20 the same one that’s been there since the bitcoin .org 20 the expert evidence?
21 site first went up in 2008. Grab it now in case you 21 A. Because there isn’t any. He’s actually saying an
22 need it later .” 22 opinion. If there was evidence, he could easily just
23 So, would you accept that in July 2010, Satoshi was 23 show it, not just saying an opinion, going, ”It must be
24 informing people that the public PGP key had been up on 24 there”.
25 the bitcoin .org site in fact since 2008? 25 Q. Two short points before the break. {G/6/50}, please.

41 43

1 A. Not that one, no. 1 This is the output of the key with the date stamp of
2 Q. {E/4/33}, please, bottom of the page. In responding to 2 30 October 2008, and if you go down to the fifth line ,
3 our request for further information, in your fourth 3 do you see that the UID given is ”satoshin@gmx.com”?
4 witness statement, you were asked: 4 A. I do.
5 ” ... whether the key referred to in the second 5 Q. So this −− the GMX.com email address is embedded in
6 sentence of paragraph 83(2) is the public key available 6 the PGP key, isn’t it ?
7 in the following link ... ” 7 A. That’s correct .
8 Do you see that? 8 Q. So your assertion that it could only be used on
9 A. I do. 9 the Vistomail system and for Vistomail system operations
10 Q. And then, over the page {E/4/34} to paragraph 104, you 10 is wrong, isn’t it ?
11 write this , don’t you, that the reference in 11 A. No. Once again, when you’re using GPP, the sort of
12 paragraph 83(2) was a reference to the PGP encryption 12 thing to create this , you can put any email you want.
13 key at the Wayback capture website that we look at. 13 So, in Vistomail, you could also load other emails. So,
14 That’s something you’ve just denied, isn ’ t it , 14 I could have a single thing bringing up each of my
15 Dr Wright? 15 emails. Now, where he references the date, etc, that’s
16 A. No, if you look at the first sentence I said in this 16 also just typed in. So this is a metadata typing thing.
17 section , I say, one, I ’m not quite understanding what 17 Now, saying that you have it referenced to the account
18 you’re asking −− I’m paraphrasing, of course, because 18 goes back automatically, so that’s not actually metadata
19 I can’t see it in front of me. In this , I explain to 19 saying when it was set up. And I believe your COPA
20 you that that was a key that I ’d privately sent to Gavin 20 member, Mr Greg Maxwell, used that as the argument
21 and Martti and others, and it isn ’ t the same key. I had 21 against me. The very thing we said yesterday, about why
22 updated that for encryption reasons with different 22 some of the PGP keys were fake, was the argument now
23 people and I’ve received different ones from Martti and 23 presented by Mr Madden, so they want their cake and eat
24 others. 24 it to. They want to say when I’ve created a key with
25 Q. That’s wrong, isn’t it , Dr Wright, because as you know, 25 a different date, it must be fake, but when there’s

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 a Satoshi key this way, it must be real. Pick one, 1 together; I ’ve noted that with Gavin and Martti, I used
2 please. 2 this for them to send me encrypted files that would be
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Who’s saying that this date is false 3 decrypted on the server. So, yes, I ’ve said that
4 then? Are you saying that? 4 multiple times.
5 A. I ’m saying that that date was set back to the beginning 5 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for
6 of the project −− 6 a five −minute break?
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: By whom? 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
8 A. By myself. 8 Dr Wright, we’ll take five minutes.
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Why would you do that? 9 A. Thank you, my Lord.
10 A. Because that’s when the project started. 10 (11.36 am)
11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right. 11 (A short break)
12 A. I do this sort of thing all the time. 12 (11.43 am)
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 13 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, shortly before the break, you said,
14 A. When you’re setting up keys, you’ll notice that there 14 didn’t you, that the public PGP key beginning ”mQG” was
15 are a variety of keys in there, my Lord. You can change 15 not hosted on the bitcoin.org website before 2011, yes?
16 the algorithms and update keys, etc, but key creation 16 A. I said it was changed, yes. Exactly −−
17 dates, I generally leave to the project . 17 Q. {L6/477/1}, please, back to the email exchange with
18 MR HOUGH: Last point before the break. Would you accept 18 Mr Malmi which you said is genuine. After setting out
19 that this output also shows distinct signature packets 19 that key block, Satoshi wrote, at the bottom of
20 showing that this can be used as both a signing key and 20 the page:
21 an encryption key? 21 ”It ’s also at ...
22 A. No, it shows that −− 22 www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc.”
23 Q. Do you accept that that’s what the output shows, first 23 Didn’t they?
24 of all ? 24 A. No, the version that I had was actually slightly
25 A. I accept that you can use PGP in that way, but that is 25 different . So where I’ve said that, the one that was up

45 47

1 bad practice. 1 there, like I said , was linked, but you can change and
2 Q. Do you accept that the signature packets in this output 2 update. So, where you’re saying that this version is
3 show that this case could be used as both a signature 3 there, that’s the incorrect part.
4 key and an encryption key? 4 Q. Doctor −−
5 A. I accept you can have bad practice, and someone such as 5 A. They are related keys, they have the same private key,
6 Satoshi would know not to do that. 6 but they are updated.
7 Q. Last chance to answer the question, Dr Wright, before we 7 Q. Dr Wright, this public key block that’s on this email is
8 assume that you have no answer. Do you accept from this 8 identical to the public key block shown on the 2011 web
9 output that this key has always had the functions of 9 capture, and Satoshi is here saying that, as of
10 signature key and encryption key, it can be used for 10 6 December 2010, was on the bitcoin.org website. You’re
11 both, based on its signature packets? 11 denying plain fact , aren’t you?
12 A. Again, there are two questions there. One, do I accept 12 A. No, I’m not. You’re misunderstanding how PGP works and
13 that it always has? No. When you’re doing PGP, you can 13 the update process. If I have the private key, I can
14 update the items and add or remove algorithms at any 14 update all the algorithms. So the version that I had
15 time. That doesn’t change anything or −− like, there’s 15 loaded and that was available actually had less and
16 no metadata that you can use from a key file to say when 16 different . So anything that they sent me using this
17 that’s created. So I can add a new algorithm because 17 key, or the other, would both work with my private key
18 one’s been compromised and my key will still be valid. 18 that I had on the server.
19 Q. And it’s right , isn ’ t it , that this story you’ve now 19 Q. Dr Wright, you were also wrong, weren’t you, to say that
20 been giving the court about backdating the output and 20 Mr Madden’s metadata was taken from a text file and
21 adding functions to the key is something you haven’t 21 therefore couldn’t be real , weren’t you?
22 said in any of your statements on this subject? 22 A. No, actually , it is a text file .
23 A. No, that’s actually incorrect . I ’ve noted that this was 23 Q. The metadata was taken from the server from which
24 actually how you run PGP; I’ve noted many times that you 24 the text file originated , wasn’t it , Dr Wright?
25 should not use an encryption key and a signing key 25 A. No, it was taken from the download done on

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 the Wayback Machine. What should be noted is that 1 the emails shouldn’t be copied to ramona@ncrypt because
2 a robot.txt file was set up so that the version prior to 2 she doesn’t have access to an nCrypt email, do you?
3 February 2011 was excluded. Now, that’s why everything 3 A. No, I don’t recall much of what happened on the 3rd, but
4 else on the site ’s captured but not that particular one. 4 what I do know is each of these come from a third party
5 The robot.txt file was explicitly set up to stop any 5 machine, a compromised machine.
6 captures before that date and put that version. Why, 6 Q. {L13/325/1}. We see here Stefan Matthews, on
7 I don’t know. 7 the morning of the 4th, asking for an update, including
8 Q. Satoshi’s emails, the metadata, Satoshi’s post, all 8 in relation to the ” final required slice of
9 indicate that this key in this form has been −− this 9 the PGP key”. Do you say that’s an email or
10 public key in this form has been available on 10 communication that never reached you?
11 the bitcoin .org website from 2010 and earlier; you are 11 A. The one from Stefan definitely didn’t . I ’m not on it at
12 just denying plain fact , aren’t you? 12 all . Not in any form. And the other one is
13 A. No, I’m not. Your own person and your own thing that 13 ”nCrypt Craig” once again.
14 you used yesterday, with Mr Maxwell and keys that I had, 14 Q. So it ’s another email that never got through to you over
15 say that they can be updated. So, saying that there are 15 these days?
16 different versions of the same key that I can still 16 A. Well, it would never get through to me because I never
17 decrypt is the not same thing. 17 had that email at that point; I was cut off .
18 Q. {L13/276/1}, back to the evening of 3 May 2016. 18 Q. So all this email traffic was going on, including with
19 We see here a further email exchange, shortly after 19 Mr Matthews, who was spending time with you, and it
20 the last one we considered, with Mr MacGregor pressing 20 never came out that there were a whole series of emails
21 for a move of block 9 soon, and a Genesis Block 21 being written by somebody else purporting to be from
22 signature after that. Those were all real requirements 22 you?
23 or real ideas that Mr MacGregor was putting forward, 23 A. No, it would −−
24 aren’t they? 24 Q. (Overspeaking − inaudible).
25 A. Oh, they were things Mr MacGregor was trying to get me 25 A. It would explain why Mr Matthews seemed strange at the

49 51

1 to do, yes. 1 time. I ’m not good with people and I’m not good with
2 Q. And yet you say that this was on −− ah, well, no, let’s 2 trust , part of being autistic , but I found −− at the
3 see, these emails include emails to both ”nCrypt Ramona” 3 time, I thought Mr Matthews was acting weird. I’ve
4 but also to you at RCJBR.org. Do you accept that these 4 known Stefan for a long time and I didn’t understand
5 emails are real and in fact the ones attributed to you 5 what was going on at the time. So I don’t think he had
6 came from you? 6 any reason to believe that any of the emails weren’t me,
7 A. Quite possibly. I don’t recall . But as you can see 7 so he’s sort of saying things and doing things that
8 here, ”craig@rcjbr” is a different email so ... So at 8 I thought were strange.
9 this point I was getting these ones, but not the others. 9 Q. Once again, Dr Wright, an incredibly high risk strategy
10 Q. I see, so you accept you were getting these ones, right . 10 for whoever was behind it −− you suggest Mr MacGregor −−
11 Down to the bottom, please. Here, you are saying 11 to be producing these emails supposedly from you to
12 that you’ve been desperately trying to get in touch with 12 people who were spending time with you over those days,
13 the people at Savanah Limited, which appears to link in 13 yes?
14 with the emails previously which you’ve denied, 14 A. I said Mr MacGregor was pressuring me. I don’t know
15 doesn’t it ? 15 whether Mr MacGregor was sending emails or not. As
16 A. No, I don’t recall any of that part. 16 I noted, all of these emails came from a machine that
17 Q. Even though this is from an email address which you’ve 17 was put into the not only disclosure , but chain of
18 accepted is genuine and you suggested was the email 18 custody as compromised. The only reason any of these
19 address that we could treat as reliable ? 19 got in was because the Kleiman case required that
20 A. No, that’s not what I said. What I also said were each 20 employee laptops also got imaged.
21 of these were found a staff laptop. The reason that you 21 Q. Dr Wright, first of all , none of these appears in
22 have that and the ones from my wife are that both 22 the chain of custody referred to as compromised, because
23 craig@rcjbr and ramona@rcjbr were on that employee 23 these don’t feature among your primary
24 laptop, neither of which should have access. 24 reliance documents.
25 Q. You don’t say in any of these emails, do you, that 25 A. I ’m not sure what’s been listed there. I know what

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 I filled out, and when I filled out −− 1 A. I don’t recall .

2 Q. Please don’t tell us anything privileged . 2 Q. And presumably then you do not recall anything about
3 A. Well, I filled out the document that got put in, so 3 what you wanted to get across to Mr Andresen that day?
4 I don’t know what was put in chain of custody after 4 A. No, I don’t.
5 I filled out the full document. 5 Q. Because Mr Matthews said that you were looking for an
6 Q. {L13/328/1}, the morning of 4 May, yet another message 6 excuse for not performing the transactions and wanting
7 from Mr MacGregor about Mr Matonis going on TV and 7 to explain that there were some imperfections in
8 asking you for input on what he can say, again, because 8 the early code. First of all , do you recall saying
9 we see that’s to craig@ncrypt, that’s a message that 9 that?
10 didn’t get through to you, is it ? 10 A. I don’t.
11 A. Yeah. I mean, later this day −− I believe that was 11 Q. Secondly, do you think it ’s something you might have
12 the day I attempted suicide −− there were emails being 12 said , based on just what he attributes to you?
13 sent while I was in hospital unconscious. 13 A. I can be vague; people can take what I say in the wrong
14 Q. Well, this was in the morning. This was well before you 14 way. So I don’t know. I hadn’t slept for over 24 hours
15 were in hospital , Dr Wright. 15 at that point, so I don’t think I was explaining myself
16 A. I know, but I’m just saying, if I ’m unconscious sending 16 terribly well in any event.
17 these emails as well , it makes it difficult , or beggars 17 Q. Now, Dr Wright, I’m going to pass over the events where
18 belief that I ’m sending while unconscious. 18 you cut yourself , because I don’t need to ask about
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, let’s wait to see if we have any 19 those, and I’m going to go back to the signing sessions
20 emails when you were unconscious, okay? 20 and your second witness statement at {E/2/1}. Page 4,
21 MR HOUGH: {L13/338/1}. We see a further set of emails 21 paragraph 7 {E/2/4}. You describe in this the set up
22 involving you at nCrypt about getting information about 22 for the signing sessions and you say:
23 Satoshi’s communications with Hal Finney and potentially 23 ”The preliminary action entails procuring
24 getting emails from your archives about that. Again, is 24 the Bitcoin Core software ... ”
25 that a set of emails you say never got through to you? 25 And that this:

53 55

1 A. No, I didn’t have nCrypt at this time. 1 ” ... should be sourced directly from
2 Q. Now, you are aware, aren’t you, that over these days, 2 the Bitcoin Core website ... ”
3 arrangements were being made for Mr Cellan−Jones and 3 Now, I think you’ve accepted, in your ninth witness
4 Mr Andresen to transfer Bitcoin to one of the early 4 statement, that you didn’t need to install that software
5 blocks and for that to be sent back by you? You’re 5 because the coin generation transactions for the early
6 aware now that those arrangements were being made? 6 blocks contained the full public keys; that’s right ,
7 A. Now I am. I found out after the event. 7 isn ’ t it ?
8 Q. I see. 8 A. Yes and no. But you need to obtain the software and do
9 And Mr Matthews was centrally involved in making 9 this , because it validates all of that as real , you can
10 those arrangements, wasn’t he? 10 validate it against the transactions and it shows that
11 A. I don’t actually know. 11 you haven’t modified the software, because if you’re
12 Q. {L13/357/1}. It’s not an email you’re involved with, 12 just downloading another block and you’ve modified
13 I ’m just going to ask you, is it an email you have seen, 13 the software, the blockchain itself is going to come up
14 showing Mr Matthews’ involvement in making those 14 with errors .
15 arrangements? 15 Q. Well, Dr Wright, we’re not going to agree about that
16 A. It ’s possible that it ’s been in the disclosure thing 16 proposition , but you can agree, can’t you, that the coin
17 I ’ve looked at, but I wouldn’t have taken any notice. 17 generation transactions for the early blocks contained
18 Q. Moving on in 4 May, Mr Matthews’ evidence −− and this is 18 the full public keys, so for the purpose of carrying out
19 also in ”The Satoshi Affair” by Mr O’Hagan −− is that 19 the signing , you did not need to install that software?
20 early that afternoon, 4 May, you had a call with 20 A. No, that’s actually incorrect . As I noted, if you
21 Mr Andresen on the telephone discussing moving coin as 21 didn’t do that, the arguments being made about being
22 planned; is that right? 22 able to change the signing algorithm, or update
23 A. I don’t recall . 23 the software could be made. Now, if you download
24 Q. And Mr Matthews’ evidence is that this call was on 24 the full blockchain, it means it’s verifying using
25 speaker in his presence; do you recall that? 25 the software on the computer. So, by verifying

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 the blockchain, it means I haven’t updated the algorithm 1 the blockchain is a better way of validating these
2 in there, and if I ’d even done it for those keys, then 2 efforts . After the break, I can bring up the academic
3 the blockchain itself wouldn’t work, basically because 3 reference and page numbers, if you want −−
4 the first parts of the blockchain would have 4 Q. Dr Wright, we’ll let your counsel put those points to
5 the incorrect signing algorithm and then the rest of it 5 Professor Meiklejohn, if they want to. This is a matter
6 would come with different hashes. 6 for expert evidence.
7 So, by downloading the entire blockchain and 7 Moving to paragraph 23 on {E/2/8}, you describe
8 redemonstrating this, I demonstrate not only that 8 the sessions with Mr Cellan−Jones of the BBC and
9 the software is correct but that the keys are being 9 Ludwig Siegele of The Economist, and you say at
10 used. 10 paragraph 24 on page 9 {E/2/9} that you used the private
11 Q. Paragraph 9 on page 5 {E/2/5}, you also say that you 11 key associated with block 9 on a cross−system method
12 downloaded the entire blockchain, which was time 12 using your own laptop, that’s paragraph 25, right?
13 intensive , as well as the software, and you’ve accepted 13 A. I did.
14 that that was not necessary for the signing and 14 Q. Paragraph 27, you quote a signature command you say you
15 verification , haven’t you? 15 entered −−
16 A. No. As I just explained, you can sign something, but if 16 A. That −−
17 someone doesn’t trust the software, then one way of 17 Q. If we show it on the screen, this appears to be
18 doing it is download the entire blockchain, and 18 a quotation of a signature command you entered?
19 the software, if you’ve modified the signing algorithm, 19 A. Not exactly. Where it says ”address_of_block_9”, that’s
20 will then come up with a different hash, and a different 20 not actual text , and the ”Sartre.txt” would be the full
21 hash would change the entire blockchain. So by 21 path. So, where I’m saying it this way, the more
22 downloading and revalidating the blockchain, I ’ve showed 22 accurate version would be full path from ”\Allin(?)” for
23 that the software is actually correct . 23 Bitcoin.exe. When I call it −− the programs, I do them
24 Q. Paragraph 12 on page 6 of, please {E/2/6}, you say that 24 not just assuming path, but putting it in there,
25 in the sessions you describe, you transferred 25 and ”Sartre.txt” references where it’s called from in

57 59

1 the signature and message from a Windows system for 1 full . So this is a shortened version for explanation.
2 a Linux virtual machine −− at least this is in relation 2 Q. I see. So you don’t tell us what the actual message
3 to the sessions other than Mr Andresen’s −− and that was 3 was?
4 essential to the integrity of the message and 4 A. I don’t recall it exactly . So, I mean, it’s been
5 the signature; do you see that? 5 a number of years, so −−
6 A. Yes. And then I’m doing them on separate iterations of 6 Q. Because none of these sessions was either filmed or
7 the software. Not only am I demonstrating on one, but 7 noted up at the time by a minute−taker or anything like
8 now I have software that I can validate , show the hashes 8 that, were they?
9 for , show that it is the correct stuff from the Bitcoin 9 A. No, actually , that’s incorrect . The BBC filmed it.
10 site , that I have on both machines validated all of 10 When requested, though, somehow the BBC lost
11 the keys, etc. 11 the footage. So the BBC has some edited film of my
12 Q. As Professor Meiklejohn has pointed out, it’s right , 12 screen, but the BBC, Rory, said, ”We don’t −− we didn’t
13 isn ’ t it , this set up with a Windows laptop running 13 keep it all , we lost it ”. So, it suits their purpose at
14 a virtual machine was unnecessary, it added nothing to 14 the moment.
15 the integrity of the process, didn’t it ? 15 Q. I see. They’re also conspiring against you, are they,
16 A. No, she’s incorrect . As BTC Core note, even on their 16 Dr Wright?
17 website, so all of the developers that you have in 17 A. Rory is very pro BTC. He wanted a cypherpunk Satoshi,
18 BTC Core have noted that downloading the blockchain is 18 too. And he’s also a bit annoyed that I didn’t go
19 a way of validating this . So I went through that 19 through Rob’s signing process, but I didn’t promise
20 process because all these people at BTC Core run around 20 him −−
21 going, ”You need to do everything, you must run the full 21 Q. I see, so Mr Cellan−Jones, a highly respected science
22 node, you must have all the software”, so I did the full 22 journalist from the BBC, is also giving biased evidence
23 process. So even −− to actually go into some of 23 against you, is he, Dr Wright?
24 the early papers by Professor Meiklejohn, she has stated 24 A. He’s very biased. If you actually read what he says,
25 in her published academic papers that downloading 25 he’s incredibly biased. As an example, at present,

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 98.9% of all blockchain transactions are done on 1 there, I made a call, and I validated the software
2 Bitcoin BSB, globally, out of everything. That is 90 −− 2 before and afterwards using the command line in Linux,
3 nearly 99% of every single transaction that happens on 3 for the Linux one, to show that it was updated. So if
4 any blockchain, commercial or not, and that’s publicly 4 I had changed any of this, it would be corrected. So,
5 verifiable , and yet he writes saying opposite things. 5 part of what I did as this process was demonstrating all
6 Q. Let’s move on from another rant, Dr Wright. 6 of the updates to that from the Bitcoin site .
7 As Professor Meiklejohn explains in her report, 7 Q. All these stages which you’re asserting now are just
8 the term ”bitcoin−CLI” in the supposed signature command 8 your assertion with not a shred of supportive evidence,
9 line just tells the system to use a program which has 9 aren’t they, Dr Wright?
10 been assigned that name, doesn’t it? 10 A. No, actually , I went through even more with Gavin. So
11 A. No, actually , that’s incorrect . 11 when I sat there −−
12 Q. And it would be simple for someone with your experience 12 Q. We’ll deal with Gavin in a moment. But the journalists
13 to produce a small program which would output a random 13 and Mr Matonis, all these steps that you say went
14 string when given the sign message command, right? 14 through are just your assertion without a shred of
15 A. No. And on top of that, I demonstrated the application, 15 supportive evidence, aren’t they, Dr Wright?
16 I loaded it , I showed the full path. So when I went 16 A. No, actually , Stefan was in the room for some of these.
17 through this, they had the ability to view the full 17 On top of that, there are other people. Jon Matonis
18 path, I validated the hash of the algorithm, I showed 18 was there. I discussed it with Jon, that’s part of why
19 the download of the blockchain. 19 he understands all of this .
20 Q. Again, none of this videoed or minuted, right? 20 Q. Pause there, Dr Wright. Mr Matthews doesn’t go through
21 A. Actually, it was. There were −− there was a camera in 21 these commands in his evidence and Mr Matonis isn’t
22 the BBC. So, when you look at the BBC footage, you will 22 giving evidence, so you don’t have a shred of supportive
23 actually notice that at parts they are behind my screen 23 evidence, do you?
24 viewing me. It ’s not just one side, they did both 24 A. Mr Matonis has a public blog and that public blog is
25 sides . So, you can say all you want about not having 25 public . He states on that, that is useable, to my

61 63

1 that. I mean, you can make any argument why they don’t 1 understanding. On top of that, Mr Matthews will be in
2 have it . They don’t. But the simple fact is they had 2 court; you can ask him whether all of this happened.
3 the camera there. 3 Further, there are video fragments. I don’t recall what
4 Q. Well, the verify command line, down the page −− I think 4 is and isn’ t on my screen at the particular time, but
5 it maybe on the next page {E/2/10}. There we go. 5 you can note from the BBC that they did video my screen.
6 The verify command line that we see under paragraph 30, 6 Q. Dr Wright, you could have adopted a much simpler and
7 again, as Professor Meiklejohn says, it would be simple 7 entirely reliable process, couldn’t you, by signing
8 to have the ”bitcoin−cli” term point to a program that 8 a new message, putting the signature and the message on
9 would output true whenever given the verify message 9 a fresh , clean, factory−sealed USB stick and letting it
10 instruction , wouldn’t it? 10 be verified by a person who understood
11 A. No. When I went through this process with The Economist 11 the Bitcoin System on their own trusted laptop, couldn’t
12 journalist , I actually sat there and I explained all of 12 you?
13 this to him. I went through the path process, I ran 13 A. I did, actually , with Gavin. So, we set up a completely
14 a hash. I didn’t just call the hashing algorithm 14 new system. It wasn’t a new USB stick, my Lord, Gavin
15 the way that you’re saying, I actually validated it 15 supplied it . So I trust that Gavin supplying a new −−
16 online , showed how that works in Linux, went through 16 I mean, it wasn’t new, but it came from his −−
17 externally validating it . So I guess you could argue 17 Q. On their trusted computer, not a computer you’d set up,
18 that I set up an entire infrastructure with a fake 18 Dr Wright. On their −−
19 Red Hat site and then used all of that, but that would 19 A. I didn’t set it up −−
20 be incredibly difficult . At the same time, he could 20 Q. −− their own computer.
21 have noted the PGP key footprint and taken it away, but 21 A. It was a brand new computer with a fresh Windows
22 I don’t know if he did or didn’t , I didn’t ask. I then 22 install .
23 called it from the full path. All of these, where I’ve 23 Q. We’ll come to Mr Andresen’s session in a moment. With
24 done the shortened version, like ”address”, that’s not 24 all −− with the journalists and Mr Matonis, you could
25 the actual thing you type in. I put the full path in 25 have adopted, rather than this complex multi−system

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 approach, the simple approach of putting a new message 1 laptop and you objected to that; is that right?
2 and a signature on a USB stick and then saying, ”There 2 A. My objection, as I just said −−
3 you go, get somebody who understands the Bitcoin System 3 Q. Did it happen, first of all ? We’ll get to the reasons
4 to validate that”. 4 in a moment. Did it happen? Did you object to
5 A. No, actually , once again, the entire purpose of this 5 a suggestion from Mr Andresen that he use his own
6 was, I wanted control of what happened. I had stated 6 laptop?
7 categorically that the reason I ’m not doing this, 7 A. I said , as my objection, not that I objected to him
8 the reason I ’m not doing it on block is I want to 8 using his laptop, but if he used his laptop, I wouldn’t
9 control the process and make sure that people prove 9 let him take it home.
10 things first . So, to do that means that I’ve then given 10 Q. And in the event, what happened was that another laptop
11 a signature that I have no control over. I would then 11 was procured which was brought into the room, right?
12 have Rob being able to say whatever he wanted, any of 12 A. Yes, I ’m not sure who came up with that as an idea. We
13 the others. There’s no way of stopping someone 13 brainstormed, because Gavin didn’t want me taking home
14 releasing it . 14 his laptop.
15 Q. The journalists were supposed to report you doing this 15 Q. And there was then a signing session which took some
16 signature. That was the whole point of them going 16 hours, wasn’t there?
17 through this with you, wasn’t it ? 17 A. No. The signing session was quick. The some hours was
18 A. No, the whole point was, first , they be journalists , 18 the process. It was a brand new laptop in a sealed box,
19 they be reporters , they actually do journalism and they 19 so we had to take it out, we had to install Windows, we
20 go through and they look at all my degrees, all my 20 had to install applications , we had to set up
21 qualifications , all of papers, all my patent filings 21 the environment, and Gavin and I worked on that
22 first . That was their job. That’s why we said 22 together. There was no point where neither of us were
23 journalists . My understanding of journalism is that you 23 alone on the laptop, but sometimes he was on the laptop,
24 go through, and maybe because I’m an Aspie, you −− I’m 24 sometimes I was, during the process.
25 very particular on these things, but journalism isn ’ t 25 Q. Now, you said in your evidence in Granath −− I can take

65 67

1 just writing blogs. 1 you to it if you’d like −− that the connection was to
2 Q. We’ll move on from your expert evidence on journalism, 2 the hotel WiFi but a third party hot spot might have
3 Dr Wright, to the session with Mr Andresen. That took 3 been used; is that right?
4 place in the Covent Garden Hotel in the basement on 4 A. I don’t actually know. I know that WiFi was connected,
5 7 April 2016, didn’t it ? 5 but I don’t actually know which particular WiFi it was.
6 A. I believe that’s the date. 6 Q. Now, in your first witness statement you say that on
7 Q. Mr Andresen had just come off a red eye flight that 7 the laptop that had been brought in, Gavin did
8 morning and was, on his own account, exhausted, right? 8 the installation of Windows and he downloaded Electrum,
9 A. I don’t know. 9 the Bitcoin wallet software, directly from the website.
10 Q. He didn’t come across to you as exhausted? 10 That’s what you say in your first witness statement,
11 A. No, he seemed very excited. 11 isn ’ t it ?
12 Q. Now, he produced a fresh USB stick in a sealed package, 12 A. Well, yes. Exactly who downloaded each bit, I am not
13 didn’t he, first of all ? 13 100% sure. What I do know, my Lord, is both of us were
14 A. It wasn’t in a sealed package when he handed it to me. 14 in and out of the chair . So there were different parts .
15 I mean, he took one out, but I don’t know whether it 15 Either I was sitting on the chair typing, or Gavin −−
16 was ... 16 with Gavin looking over my shoulder or vice versa, and
17 Q. He initially expected you to put a signature on that 17 we took turns on each part of the set−up.
18 stick which he could verify on his own laptop, didn’t 18 Q. {E/1/35}, bottom of the page:
19 he? That was his initial expectation? 19 ”Once the laptop arrived, Gavin took the lead in
20 A. I don’t know. I said categorically what I would do, 20 setting it up from scratch. He downloaded Electrum,
21 which is if he wanted it on his laptop, I take 21 a Bitcoin wallet software, which could be utilised to
22 the laptop home. 22 verify a digital signature.”
23 Q. Well, Mr Matthews has given an account, so I’ll give you 23 You were very categorial in your witness statement,
24 the opportunity to give a different one if you wish, 24 but rather less sure now, right?
25 that Mr Andresen positively suggested verifying on his 25 A. I ’m not 100%. I do believe that he did, but there were

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 multiple bits of software and I can’t recall every 1 Q. That’s wrong, isn’t it ?
2 single thing we did. 2 A. I recall actually having gone through the validation.
3 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Andresen, giving 3 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Andresen was asked in
4 evidence in the Kleiman case, was very clear that you 4 the Kleiman proceedings whether he’d taken steps to
5 had chosen and downloaded the software, right? 5 verify the hash digest and he said he hadn’t?
6 A. I chose it . I mean, we were going over different 6 A. He definitely didn’t do the PGP verification, which is
7 options, and I was using BTC Core on one machine, etc, 7 actually part of what Electrum gives an offer for , but
8 so the option was, like , we went over things and that 8 the download, I believe , was verified .
9 was a quick, easy option. 9 Q. Turning to your second witness statement, you say that
10 Q. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that as Mr Andresen told the court 10 you produced a digital signature using an agreed
11 in Kleiman, you did not take the step of verifying 11 message, yes?
12 the Electrum download by checking the HTTPS SSL security 12 A. Yes.
13 certificate on the website, did you? 13 Q. You say that you pasted the digital signature into
14 A. No, actually , that’s incorrect . The browser at the time 14 a file , which you saved on the USB stick?
15 comes up with that. So, Electrum uses the secure 15 A. That Gavin gave me, yes.
16 browser certificate function, and, now, that’s been 16 Q. You say that you gave the USB stick to Gavin, who
17 hidden by modern browsers, but at the time in 2016, this 17 inserted it into the laptop that had been brought in,
18 was actually a main function and it would display 18 yes?
19 a green lock. So it would either come up in Chrome, or 19 A. Yes, something like that. Exactly who was sitting in
20 whatever, as a big red thing saying ”not secure”, or 20 the chair , etc, at the time, I don’t recall , it ’s years
21 green. That’s been depreciated, but at the time of this 21 ago.
22 download, Electrum ran that and was part of that program 22 Q. You say, don’t you, that he performed the verification ?
23 and that −− you don’t need to click the lock, it’s 23 A. Yes.
24 a function of the browser itself . 24 Q. Now, in fact, as Mr Andresen told the court in
25 Q. So you say that’s a function that operated in relation 25 the Kleiman proceedings, you performed both the signing

69 71

1 to the Electrum site that day? 1 and the verification , didn’t you?
2 A. Yes, it did. They’re actually signed up for secure 2 A. No. What happened was we, first of all, typed in
3 certificates . 3 the message, I cut and pasted the −− the signed value,
4 Q. Dr Wright, in your ninth witness statement, you said you 4 but the message I read out, and when we first put that
5 couldn’t remember if the download was from the Electrum 5 in , it was incorrect . Then what happened was, I came
6 site or from GitHub; is that right? 6 over and we corrected it in the tool . I −− if you’re
7 A. The GitHub is connected to the Electrum site. I know we 7 even one character out, space wrong, etc, I can’t
8 went through both. I don’t know which one we clicked. 8 remember what the error was, but there was something,
9 Q. You were just referring to a security validation by 9 like one −− one letter was off −−
10 reference to the Electrum site when in fact you can’t 10 Q. Let me put to you what the error was, based on
11 remember whether the Electrum site was used? 11 Mr Andresen’s evidence in the Kleiman proceedings.
12 A. No, that’s incorrect . What I said was we went to 12 His evidence is that the message was meant to be
13 the Electrum site. Now, Electrum site has a main 13 ”Gavin’s favourite number is 11 CSW”, because you’d
14 download, but it also has the link to GitHub, and GitHub 14 asked for ”CSW” to be added, and the error was that
15 also runs the security keys for each of these. So 15 the ”CSW” was missed. Does that ring a bell?
16 I don’t recall whether I downloaded clicking the one 16 A. It ’s quite possible . I know he said something, I said
17 click , I mean it is many years ago, or whether we 17 something, and then a joint message isn’t one −− like
18 clicked the GitHub full version of all this and then 18 I couldn’t pre−empt what Gavin would say, and adding
19 chose one. 19 ”CSW” isn’t something he could pre−empt.
20 Q. In your second witness statement, you said that Gavin 20 Q. Why was it important for you to add something to this
21 verified the integrity of the downloaded software by 21 message?
22 comparing its hash value with one on the website to 22 A. It just makes it a mix, something extra.
23 ensure software hadn’t been tampered with. You say 23 Q. Why is that valuable?
24 that, don’t you? 24 A. Because it just makes it more likely it is a combination
25 A. I believe so, yes. 25 message, if you’re signing something.

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 Q. It doesn’t make it any more valuable, does it, 1 intended to look like Electrum that would produce
2 Dr Wright? It just has to be a new message; why were 2 a false positive output, and now you’re telling us it ’s
3 you adding these extra letters ? 3 very difficult ?
4 A. Again, it actually makes it more likely that someone 4 A. No, I said if I had a machine of my own, not fake sites,
5 hasn’t planned anything. I know you’re saying that 5 not everything else . Your presumption is, yes, you can
6 adding ”CSW” makes the software run differently, but 6 alter the code to make these things happen, but
7 that’s actually ridiculous , I ’m sorry. 7 downloading it from either GitHub or the other isn’t an
8 Q. And it was you, rather than Mr Andresen, who noted 8 option.
9 the supposed error in the first attempt, wasn’t it? 9 Q. All this assumes, Dr Wright, that there has been
10 A. Yes, it didn’t actually work, and that’s why I jumped 10 a genuine download and for that we have just your word,
11 in . So, Gavin was still there watching everything 11 right?
12 I typed, but then we looked at it and then I noted, ”You 12 A. No, you have Gavin’s as well.
13 missed this”, and when we typed it in, then it verified . 13 Q. No, we don’t have Mr Andresen’s word, do we, because all
14 Q. I ’m going to put to you what Professor Meiklejohn says 14 he can say and all he said to the court in Kleiman was
15 of this session in a part of her report which is agreed 15 that you performed a download which he didn’t check by
16 by your expert. First of all , it would have been 16 hash or by security certificate ?
17 technically straightforward to create software designed 17 A. As he said, he was watching. The security certificate
18 to look like Electrum that would produce a false 18 is on the site . Now, you can validate both GitHub and
19 positive output on verification , wouldn’t it? 19 Electrum at the time we’re running the secure browser
20 A. You can do it fairly −− you could actually change 20 platform. Now, either −− I can’t remember whether we
21 Electrum, yes. 21 used Chrome or the internet browser that came with
22 Q. And it would have been entirely feasible to create 22 the thing, I think we actually downloaded Chrome, but in
23 a program which would interfere with the genuine 23 each case, then those browsers at the time supported
24 Electrum software and cause it to provide a misleading 24 actually bringing up any invalid websites in large red
25 output, wouldn’t it? 25 sort of displays . That has been depreciated because

73 75

1 A. Actually, no. What you’re presuming is that something 1 there’s a lot of problems with normal sites and they
2 was installed on that machine. It was a new machine. 2 were looked at as being malicious. But in 2016, to go
3 If I had a machine remotely and I’d had time to do this, 3 to either GitHub or Electrum, the server, would have
4 then that would be correct. But in both cases, 4 brought up a huge red marker across all of the browser
5 the Electrum software was downloaded from Electrum, and 5 saying that this was not secure. So that’s not correct .
6 I know people want to argue otherwise, but that was 6 People forget now that in the last seven years this has
7 validated , Gavin actually contacted the person and 7 changed, but at the time, there was no way to get away
8 the logs are there, and, secondly, to do what you’re 8 from that without having a big red marker right across
9 suggesting, it was Gavin’s USB stick, it was Gavin’s 9 the page saying ”insecure”. That didn’t happen.
10 everything else , so ... 10 Q. Dr Wright, you’re aware, aren’t you, that there is
11 Q. Dr Wright, staging this signing session would have been 11 agreed expert evidence that it would have been
12 straightforward for someone with your experience, 12 technically straightforward for you to do this with no
13 wouldn’t it? 13 clear visible sign of it ?
14 A. No, incredibly difficult . One of the things I do 14 A. Well, no, actually , I ’m not. Professor Meiklejohn isn’t
15 understand is malware. I’ve got one of only about five 15 an expert in malware, isn’t an expert in code analysis ,
16 people globally to have ever done the global security 16 has never done this and hasn’t demonstrated any of it.
17 expert in malware, I have the GREM, which is a PhD level 17 Now, if you read any of the literature on this area,
18 malware certification , I have a dissertation on 18 some of which is mine, you’ ll see that it can take
19 the topic , and what I can say is, while you can do this, 19 months. Now, the Conficker virus, for instance, took
20 this is incredibly difficult . Some of the exercises 20 Microsoft around several hundred staff and six to
21 I did, my Lord, for anti−virus companies, for small 21 eight months, with a global outreach, to actually stop.
22 analysis , would take three months. This is where 22 Q. What about your expert, Dr Wright? Mr Gao doesn’t give
23 the asymmetry of the industry is. 23 any evidence and agrees this part of
24 Q. Sorry, Dr Wright, I thought you’d agreed that it would 24 Professor Meiklejohn’s report. He doesn’t give any
25 have been technically straightforward to create software 25 evidence?

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 A. Well, he’s not an expert on this either . What he’s an 1 identifies , wouldn’t they?
2 expert in is the technology behind Bitcoin. So, he’s 2 A. No, they were, actually −−
3 not going into areas that are overreach. 3 Q. Moving on to your supposed destruction of the USB
4 Q. So you chose or approved the choice of an expert who 4 containing the private keys. May we have {E/4/15} on
5 wasn’t competent to speak on probably the most important 5 screen. At paragraph 33, you say that you destroyed
6 aspect of that expert evidence, right , Dr Wright? 6 the hard drive containing the private keys or access to
7 A. Not at all . Again, we chose an expert on Bitcoin. Now, 7 them in around May 2016, you don’t recall the exact
8 that’s a different topic . What we weren’t allowed to do 8 date, done at your former residence in Wimbledon:
9 was bring in extra experts. So we don’t have an expert 9 ”I threw the hard drive with enough force to shatter
10 who was a malware topic expert, we don’t have any 10 the glass platters in the hard drive . This destroyed
11 experts who have done any experimentation. No one has 11 the physical components of the drive rendering the data
12 been able to demonstrate how this could be done. 12 stored on it irretrievable .”
13 Q. Nobody requested additional expert evidence on this 13 That was the evidence you gave in your fourth
14 subject from other disciplines , did they, Dr Wright? 14 witness statement; correct?
15 A. I did, multiple times. 15 A. Yes. I ’m not exactly clear on this . I know I destroyed
16 Q. No, no, don’t tell us anything privileged . Nobody on 16 them. I ’d come back from hospital a little bit earlier ,
17 your behalf did so, did they? 17 I had been sedated and I was on medication. I was also
18 A. Actually, I think they did. I ’m not sure what happened 18 very angry, I was upset, I hadn’t slept very much, apart
19 with Travers, but I wanted the Citrix −− 19 from when I was unconscious, and I know I destroyed
20 Q. Please don’t tell us anything privileged ? 20 the thing.
21 A. Well, I ’m not. I ’m just saying the Citrix person that 21 Q. You didn’t express that agree of uncertainty about the
22 we’ve mentioned that I had do exercises was someone that 22 method of destruction in this statement, did you,
23 I was trying to bring in . I wanted them rather than 23 Dr Wright?
24 Stroz. 24 A. No, but I’m telling you, I −− you actually know that
25 Q. And Dr Wright, not only could these signing sessions 25 I came back from being unconscious at the hospital, and

77 79

1 have been straightforwardly staged, but your 1 I was medicated as well. So when I came back, not only
2 recollection differs from Mr Andresen’s on subjects 2 was I tired and upset and angry, I overreacted in doing
3 which are of particular relevance to tampering, so 3 this and I don’t know if you’ve ever been angry, but
4 whether the software was downloaded by him and whether 4 recollection ’s never good.
5 it was properly verified , right? 5 Q. A simple point, Dr Wright. You don’t say in this
6 A. No, that’s actually incorrect . Both of us moved in and 6 statement that you’re really not sure about this, but
7 out of the chair in different times, and we’re talking 7 this is the best recollection you can give?
8 seven years ago. So, I ’m sorry, but I doubt you could 8 A. No, I’m very sure I destroyed the hard drive .
9 remember an event that happened seven years ago with 9 Q. But the method of destruction, given that the question
10 exact clarity . What did happen was Gavin saw everything 10 was, ”Please explain how he destroyed it”?
11 I typed, Gavin overlooked everything I typed. He saw 11 A. I basically destroyed it . I know I threw it to
12 the site ; I spoke to him about it. There was no 12 the ground at one stage. I could have hit it with
13 instance where he was ever not looking at the screen or 13 a hammer as well. The exact recollection I don’t know.
14 not able to see something. There was not a second where 14 I can’t go through the particular stages, but I know
15 that was not the case. There were plenty of times when 15 I destroyed it .
16 he was on the computer where I was going off, but there 16 Q. {E4/16}, paragraph 34:
17 was no instance where I was on the computer where he 17 ”Please explain why the Defendant destroyed this
18 didn’t see it . 18 hard drive .
19 Q. That’s not −− that −− he doesn’t say anything like that 19 ”Being autistic adds an extra layer of complexity to
20 in his evidence in Kleiman, does he, Dr Wright? 20 how I process and respond to emotional stimuli. When
21 A. Actually, he does, he says −− 21 I felt deceived by Robert McGregor and others, it
22 Q. Well, the court can form its own view then. 22 triggered a heightened emotional response that clouded
23 If these sessions had been genuine, they would have 23 my judgment. Autism often manifests in intense focus
24 been carried out under controlled conditions, properly 24 and a desire for consistency and trust, elements that
25 minuted, with the kind of precautions that Ms Meiklejohn 25 I felt were compromised in this situation. This

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 betrayal regarding the principles upon which I had 1 ”Answer: I think it is the only way.”
2 invested so much intellectually and emotionally in 2 Is that the evidence you gave in Granath?
3 creating Bitcoin led to a reactive decision . 3 A. It is , and it still stays the same.
4 I impulsively destroyed the hard drive without fully 4 Q. Do you agree that there is a difference , and quite
5 contemplating the long−term consequences.” 5 a significant difference , between saying, ”I destroyed
6 That’s the evidence you gave for your motivation in 6 something impulsively” and, ”I destroyed something
7 this statement, isn’ t it ? 7 because I wanted to ensure that judges and courts
8 A. It is . 8 understand that Bitcoin is not encrypted”?
9 Q. May we now move to {O2/11/29}, please. This is 9 A. Oh −−
10 the transcript of the Granath proceedings on 10 Q. Do you understand there’s a difference between those two
11 14 September ’22. Page 109 internally, bottom left 11 things, first of all ?
12 quadrant. So you say there, from line 13, that there 12 A. Absolutely, no. No. The way that I focus is, that has
13 were two drives that you destroyed and you say 13 been my life. I have spent decades creating a system
14 confidently there that you stomped on one with your foot 14 that works within the law that is being misrepresented,
15 and destroyed one by striking it with a hammer, yes? 15 where people are saying that there are thousands of
16 A. I did. 16 Bitcoin nodes or BTC nodes, when in fact there are two
17 Q. So there is a difference of recollection on the point of 17 that control 60% of the network, both −− one of which is
18 how you destroyed the drives between your statement and 18 a listed company that will take any order my Lord gives
19 your Granath testimony, which you’ve tried to paper over 19 them, another one that is controlled on AWS that will
20 today, isn ’ t there, Dr Wright? 20 give any order my Lord takes it, that is acting within
21 A. Not really . I threw the thing to the ground. At that 21 the law, a system that I did an LLM for, that I did
22 point it would have been smashed. If I’d hit it with 22 another postgraduate qualification in law, that I ’m
23 a hammer it would have been smashed. So I don’t recall 23 studying a PhD in law for −−
24 the exact order of what I did. I know I was incredibly 24 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to stop the speech there because we
25 angry and upset, and I’m much better, thankfully, after 25 need to make some progress. I suggest to you that there

81 83

1 years of talking to people and trying to control my 1 is a material difference between saying, ”I destroyed
2 anger, but at that point, I don’t know how to explain 2 something impulsively”, and, ”I destroyed something to
3 it . If you’ve ever been in a fog of anger, I mean, it’s 3 prove a point”.
4 really hard to actually give you the exact 4 A. Not at all . This is my life ’s work. When someone does
5 determination. I know that I destroyed it , I know that 5 something that impacts what you’ve been putting your
6 I stomped on it, I know that I threw things around. 6 whole career in , that you work 100−plus hours a week on,
7 I threw a laptop as well , but that had nothing to do 7 that you develop intellectual property for , where I’m
8 with this . I was incredibly upset. 8 not making an anti−government thing, that I want it so
9 Q. Okay, line 17: 9 that child smuggling, child porn, all these other things
10 ”Why did you do that?” 10 can be stopped, to be seized, so that the British law
11 You were asked in Granath. And the answer: 11 that I respect can be implemented, no, that gets me
12 ”Because the whole point I am trying to make, and 12 riled . I mean one of the things with Aspies is we focus
13 I am going to make, is Bitcoin is not encrypted. 13 on certain things and mine is justice and the law, and
14 Bitcoin can be seized. Bitcoin can be frozen. Bitcoin 14 I want that done.
15 acts within the law. There is a lot of misinformation 15 Q. Dr Wright, you say in your statement that you destroyed
16 from BTC maximalist ...” 16 the drive without fully contemplating the long−term
17 Etc. 17 consequences. You’re now saying that you destroyed
18 Then over to page {O2/11/29} 110, at the top, 18 the drive with a clear idea of the long−term
19 continuing on: 19 consequences and the point you wanted to make.
20 ”I want to make sure that the lies about thousands 20 A. No, I did not. I destroyed the drive knowing that
21 and thousands of nodes are understood ...” 21 I could probably do this in other ways afterwards,
22 Etc. 22 better ways. I could go through and do things that
23 Then the question is asked: 23 I don’t have to do now. My life would have been far,
24 ”You think that destroying the hard drive would 24 far simpler if I did it in a different way, but
25 prove that? 25 I thought I had been pressured into it .

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 Q. Page 31 of the transcript {O2/11/31}, internal page 119. 1 A. No, it ’s not. The QNAP servers still exist. While they
2 You were asked if you could regain access to the keys 2 haven’t been imaged correctly, I believe that when I get
3 which had been supposedly stored on these hard drives 3 them back I’ll be able to see what’s happened to them.
4 you claim to have destroyed, and you said, didn’t you, 4 At the moment, I don’t actually know. Those machines
5 at −− that, ”In theory” −− 5 have been floating around the world somewhere with,
6 A. Sorry, what line? 6 well , around 250 terabytes worth of my data or more for
7 Q. Sorry. This is the first line , line 1. If we look at 7 years when I was told I would have them a week, or maybe
8 118 for the context, just up a page: 8 two weeks away.
9 ”Question: ... you basically made it impossible for 9 Q. Dr Wright, new topic. We can take that off screen.
10 you to do any more signings ... That is what you are 10 After the debacle of the Sartre post in early
11 saying, right? 11 May 2016, it’s right , isn ’ t it , that in July 2016, some
12 ”Answer: Not completely, but incredibly difficult .” 12 arrangements were made for you to meet Mike Hearn, an
13 ”Question: In what way? 13 early member of the Bitcoin developer community who’d
14 ”Answer: In theory, I could probably track down 14 corresponded with Satoshi; that’s right , isn ’ t it ?
15 Uyen and get other people and do other things that might 15 A. Basically , Jon Matonis, sort of, tried to set something
16 give access, but I have not even tried to see whether 16 up. I don’t know why he wanted to, but he wanted me to
17 I could do that.” 17 meet him, yes.
18 So, is it right that between 2016 and 2022 you 18 Q. A dinner was set up in London at a restaurant called
19 hadn’t even tried to discover whether you could gain 19 Wild Honey; correct?
20 access again to these keys? 20 A. Yes. I don’t know who set it up, or exactly all
21 A. Not fully . Some of the images that I’ve noted were 21 the details , but yes.
22 taken as part of the Kleiman proceedings. AlixPartners 22 Q. During the course of that dinner, Mr Hearn asked
23 couldn’t image the computers that I had on site. I was 23 a number of specific technical questions about the early
24 told that they were going to take them away and that I’d 24 operation of Bitcoin, including about the use of
25 have them back a week later, because these were part of 25 a certain SIGHASH mode, right?

85 87

1 my −− my research work. 1 A. Not in the way that’s said . He actually −−

2 Q. So do you now say that it’s wrong, that you were wrong 2 Q. Not in the way that he says?
3 to tell the court in Kleiman that you hadn’t even tried 3 A. If you’ ll let me finish . What Mr Hearn was actually
4 to see whether you could regain access to the keys? 4 doing was probing areas that I was doing research into.
5 A. Again, what I’m noting is that at this point, I hadn’t 5 Mr Hearn, in particular , spent a lot of probing into
6 even tried . After that, I ’ve noted that the QNAP 6 some of the patents I’ve filed and where they’re going.
7 servers had been damaged, etc. So, at this point, 7 Q. Well, Dr Wright, I’m going to stop you there.
8 I hadn’t tried to get the keys back, no. 8 The reality is , he wasn’t asking you about your patents,
9 Q. So −− 9 he was asking about −− he was asking technical questions
10 A. I wasn’t meant to at this point. 10 to try to establish whether your claim to be Satoshi was
11 Q. So, between 2016 and 14 September 2022 when you gave 11 valid , asking about the early elements of Bitcoin,
12 that evidence, you had not even tried to regain access 12 wasn’t he?
13 to these keys? 13 A. No, he was asking, in particular , about things that he
14 A. No, until 2019. After that, I knew I couldn’t, because 14 then, a few weeks later, filed a patent on, that,
15 I didn’t have those machines and I wouldn’t be able to 15 luckily , I ’d actually filed the patent on the day before
16 get anything unless I had those machines, back. So 16 our meeting. So, Mr Hearn went into areas that I know
17 I haven’t tried , because I haven’t got the QNAP servers 17 very well , such as with iDaemon, that we’d covered many,
18 back. 18 many times and I’ve posted on.
19 Q. Wait a second. You say now that, from 2019, you knew 19 Q. Dr Wright, that’s disputed, but moving on to a further
20 you couldn’t regain access to the keys, and yet here we 20 topic , it ’s right , isn ’ t it , that since 2020 you’ve
21 have you, in the Granath proceedings, in September 2022, 21 asserted intellectual property rights over
22 telling the court that, in theory, you could obtain 22 the White Paper, the Bitcoin file format, the name
23 access to them again by tracking down some people and 23 Bitcoin and the Bitcoin Blockchain? That’s correct, as
24 doing some things that might gain access? That’s 24 a matter of fact , isn ’ t it ?
25 a clear contradiction , isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? 25 A. No, not the name Bitcoin; that’s a trademarked area.

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 What I’ve asserted is that −− 1 rights and defamation claims against those disputing
2 Q. Passing off rights in relation to it ? 2 your claim to be Satoshi ... ”
3 A. Passing rights −− passing off rights in relation to 3 That isn’t the correct term. I did defamation
4 calling an altered system that has no relationship to 4 claims, as I ’m explaining, because I didn’t care if they
5 Bitcoin, that has separated these signatures , that 5 didn’t believe I ’m Satoshi, I cared that they were
6 doesn’t follow the Bitcoin White Paper, that your own −− 6 actively attacking me. They were calling the systems
7 Q. Okay, I’m going to stop −− 7 I ’m building a fraud, there was a campaign on Twitter,
8 A. −− team has said −− 8 on Lightning, to say that using BSV means you’re
9 Q. I ’m going to stop −− 9 a fraud. I cared that they went to every exchange and
10 A. −− is not like −− 10 got me de−listed, I cared that they called up every
11 Q. I ’m going to stop −− 11 person using my system and every one of −− like, people
12 A. −− Bitcoin. 12 in governments starting it , and they started putting out
13 Q. −− you there, because it’s another digressive rant. 13 things saying that, ”This is all fraudulent, they’re
14 In January 2021, you instructed Ontier to write 14 going to steal your money”. I cared all about that.
15 letters before action to those responsible for various 15 Q. Well, the court can form its own view of your defamation
16 Bitcoin−related sites demanding that they cease hosting 16 pleadings.
17 the White Paper, didn’t you? 17 {C/12/6}, and the subject of Twitter campaigns.
18 A. That’s correct . Most of those were involved in 18 Dr Wright, as we can see from these examples, you have
19 cryptocurrency scams, ICO pumps and other such things. 19 yourself been extremely active on social media, like
20 Q. We don’t −− obviously don’t accept that, but it’s right, 20 Twitter, threatening Bitcoin developers with bankruptcy,
21 isn ’ t it −− 21 criminal action, losing their families , the death
22 A. Some of them have been charged −− 22 penalty and so on, haven’t you?
23 Q. It ’s right , isn ’ t it −− (overspeaking) −− 23 A. No, that’s incorrect . I ’ve threatened people who are
24 A. −− (inaudible). 24 criminals . One of these is CZ. CZ was a founder of
25 Q. It ’s right , isn ’ t it , that since then you have engaged 25 Binance. He is now facing several hundred criminal

89 91

1 in a series of legal actions asserting those IP rights 1 charges. That has changed today with the introduction
2 and defamation claims against those disputing your claim 2 of terrorism funding charges, which have been added to
3 to be Satoshi; correct? 3 him. That was part of what I’m talking about here. One
4 A. No. The defamation claims happened because of a round 4 of them was a BTC Core developer, Amir Taaki. He used
5 of attacks led by Jack Dorsey and others, funded by him, 5 BTC, making a mixer, to enable the funding of terrorists
6 doing the Lightning Torch and other such things, 6 in Hamas and others. He promoted that openly.
7 basically calling Craig a fraud, saying that all my 7 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to stop you there, because if we
8 patents should be taken, with a campaign to try and 8 look at the post on the left :
9 invalidate −− 9 ” If you decide to run an alternative protocol, I ’m
10 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to stop you. I asked simply about 10 not being nice anymore, the only option is cybercrime
11 whether you had issued defamation claims and you’re now 11 legislation and I will be prosecuting those though those
12 going into a digressive rant, so I ’m going to stop you 12 who breach the protocol under criminal law to the full
13 there. 13 extent of the criminal law in whichever country it
14 C −− 14 happens to be including those with the death penalty and
15 A. Can I read your question again? You didn’t actually ask 15 some do.”
16 me that, you asked me a different question. 16 That’s not, ”I ’m going to attack those who are
17 Q. I asked you if you had pursued defamation claims against 17 committing criminal offences in relation to funding
18 those who had disputed your claim to be Satoshi, and it 18 terrorism”, it ’s anybody who wants to run an alternative
19 is right as a matter of fact that you have issued 19 protocol is in your crosshairs ; correct?
20 defamation claims against people disputing your claim to 20 A. No. What I stated was things like Taproot. Taproot,
21 be Satoshi −− 21 my Lord, was introduced for the sole purpose of
22 A. Can I look at your question again, please? 22 anonymising transactions, so that there could be mixer,
23 ”We obviously don’t accept that ...” 23 such as CoinJoin. I was talking about when Taproot and
24 Sorry, where’s your first ...: 24 other systems were introduced, these people were doing
25 ” ... a series of legal actions asserting those IP 25 it to make illegal exchanges outside of the law, outside

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 of the ability to control , outside of the current 1 the companies it controls?

2 legislation being introduced into the British Government 2 A. Let me be more specific. I know that he invests in
3 that enables all of this being linked . 3 nChain.
4 Q. {S2/2.1/5}, please. Now, this is a Twitter post which 4 Q. And nChain, and Ayre Group company, of which Mr Ayre has
5 features in the Granath trial bundle and which I think 5 the majority stake, has provided funding for your
6 you’ve been asked about in proceedings before, 6 litigation , hasn’t it ?
7 Dr Wright. Mr Ayre has also been active on Twitter 7 A. No, not at all . I have never received any funding from
8 talking about joining you and lawyers in troll hunting 8 any part of nChain, either here or overseas. The only
9 meetings to go after those who have disputed your 9 money I’ve received, which I get from them, is now
10 claims, hasn’t he? 10 a consulting fee , and before, a salary .
11 A. I don’t know what Mr Ayre does. I don’t follow him. 11 Q. {M1/1/707}, please, a letter from Clyde & Co on behalf
12 Not on Twitter or anything like that. 12 of Zafar Ali and Ted Loveday answering concerns raised
13 Q. So I think you’ve seen this post before with Mr Ayre 13 about the mock trial exercise , written by a partner at
14 with his arm wrapped around you talking about polishing 14 Clyde & Co. At paragraph 2:
15 your ”muskets together at today’s Troll Hunting 15 ”In relation to the events you mention, our clients
16 meeting ... ”. You say you have no knowledge of him 16 were instructed by nChain UK Limited, the funder and
17 posting this sort of tweet? 17 supporter of litigation involving Dr Wright ...”
18 A. Oh, I know he posts tweets, but I don’t look at his 18 Were they wrong about that?
19 tweets and I don’t monitor them. What I do know is that 19 A. In this , what they’re doing is taking action now against
20 this meeting was about going after people in 20 Mr Ager−Hanssen, so they’re funding that. So
21 the Lightning Torch who were spreading false and 21 the litigation , they have an injunction against
22 misleading information. 22 Mr Ager−Hanssen, a preliminary one −−
23 Q. Page 13 {S2/2.1/13}. Mr Ayre’s tweet of 13 April 2019: 23 Q. No, this is talking about the −− what Mr Ali and
24 ”Judge only needs one troll to pass judgment ... no 24 Mr Loveday were doing before the bust up with
25 need to sue everyone ... just waiting for a volunteer to 25 Mr Ager−Hanssen.

93 95

1 bankrupt themselves trying to prove a negative and then 1 A. No, it ’s not. This is 10 November. This is post. That
2 letting Craig show the proof. Who will be this moron?” 2 is when the litigation started against Mr Ager−Hanssen
3 That’s Mr Ayre positively tweeting about you taking 3 and there is a filing going to be done with the Bar
4 defamation claims and bankrupting people who dispute 4 against Mr Ali Zafar. So this is post all of that.
5 your claims to be Satoshi, right? 5 This is litigation that, any day now, will be going into
6 A. I don’t actually know. I’m not reading Mr Ayre’s 6 criminal matters.
7 Twitter. I don’t read much Twitter at all these days, 7 Q. Dr Wright, this is nothing to do with that litigation ,
8 but I know Mr Ayre supports me. 8 it is a firm of solicitors writing on behalf of Mr Ali
9 Q. Do you follow Mr Ayre on Twitter? 9 and Mr Loveday to explain what was happening at the time
10 A. I don’t actually know. I don’t run my Twitter account. 10 of the mock trial?
11 I have posted things there myself, but −− 11 A. Not by nChain. I don’t know who the solicitors, etc,
12 Q. To your knowledge, are you a follower of Mr Ayre on 12 are, but what I can tell you is , in the 10 November,
13 Twitter? 13 Mr Ali Zafar had nothing to do with nChain.
14 A. To my knowledge, no. NChain runs the account. 14 Q. Another question about Mr Ayre. Are you aware that he’s
15 Q. Mr Ayre has a controlling interest in nChain, doesn’t 15 seeking to gain financially from your claim through
16 he? 16 trading in BSV?
17 A. Not directly . I ’m not sure what his percentage is. 17 A. Not really . He actually loses a lot of money.
18 Mr Ayre owns companies that own companies, so −− 18 Q. {L20/252.3/1}. Could we maximise the top? A tweet from
19 Q. Well, I ’m going to put to you, and I’ ll deal with 19 Mr Ayre on 28 December 2023.
20 the documents with Mr Matthews, I’m going to put to you 20 ”So I tell my guy to tell one of our banks in Europe
21 that the Ayre Group has a majority of nChain, the parent 21 yesterday to start to buy slow as I am all in on Craig
22 entity , and the Ayre Group lists nChain amongst its 22 winning and the market roars today ... they were just
23 investments. Would you deny either of those things? 23 waiting for me to put my money where my mouth is.”
24 A. Oh, I know he’s an investor. 24 Are you aware of Mr Ayre making those sorts of
25 Q. But that nChain is one of its companies, one of 25 communications, Dr Wright?

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 A. No, I’m not, but what you’re missing is, that’s not in 1 or anything like that to anyone. I ’m not a trustee, so
2 cryptocurrency trading. BSV has been de−listed by all 2 if people try and find anything out from me, they’re not
3 of your clients and people related to them. 3 going to get anything.
4 Q. So he’s not talking about trading in tokens, is he? 4 Q. Middle of the paragraph, at the top:
5 A. I doubt it . He would be looking at the companies. 5 ”This means every cent spent on your cases is me
6 Q. {L20/252.4/1}. A tweet from Mr Ayre on the same day: 6 pissing away my kids inheritance.”
7 ”I never talk tokens but BSV is for sure over 1000 7 He’s been funding your cases, hasn’t he?
8 in the run up to the COPA case ... they were watching my 8 A. No, he’s not.
9 money and I said buy but do not move the market 9 Q. ”If you have the keys, your best play is to now use
10 [yesterday] and this happens ... watch what happens when 10 them.”
11 I start to buy for real in Jan.” 11 Contrary to what you just said, the email was trying
12 He’s talking about BSV, isn’t he, Dr Wright? 12 to press you to use your keys, wasn’t it ?
13 A. Looks like it , but I don’t know. As I said , I haven’t 13 A. I don’t know. I mean, I haven’t been looking at any of
14 read any of his stuff . 14 these emails. I haven’t seen one and that’s not what’s
15 Q. Aftermath of the mock trial {L19/212/6}. This is an 15 happening. I’m dealing with all of the people at nChain
16 email ostensibly from Calvin Ayre to you, 16 still , I ’m −− I’m consulting there, despite this case,
17 23 September 2023, immediately after the mock trial 17 and Teranode is still happening.
18 exercise , or the day after , which Mr Ager−Hanssen 18 Q. Last paragraph proposes what he will do covering
19 posted. Do you recall receiving this email? 19 the matter in CoinGeek, saying that:
20 A. No. 20 ”We will say ... we believe you did forge some
21 Q. You’re aware, aren’t you, that Mr Ayre has acknowledged 21 documents to replace ones you destroyed earlier to try
22 having sent the email? 22 to pretend you were not Satoshi.”
23 A. No, I’m not. 23 Are you aware of Mr Ayre making that suggestion to
24 Q. {S1/1.35/614}. Posting about this: 24 you?
25 ”The letter was me trying to talk Craig into 25 A. No, I’m aware that it came from Ali Zafar. Christen and

97 99

1 signing . Craig being Satoshi is still [an] obvious fact 1 Zafar had put together a thing saying that I needed to
2 to anyone smart.” 2 basically go to my Lord and say that these documents
3 That’s Mr Ayre acknowledging that email was sent by 3 were fake and that there would be more, and the only way
4 him, isn ’ t it ? 4 that I could win this case is to beg you for forgiveness
5 A. It doesn’t look like it . If you go back to the email 5 for altering files .
6 for a second, I can see nothing about me being forced 6 Q. This isn’ t an email from Zafar Ali, this is an email
7 into signing in that email. 7 from Calvin Ayre.
8 Q. Okay, let’s go to the email {L19/212/6}. Second 8 A. I know what he was saying and I know what Zafar Ali said
9 paragraph, bottom last sentence: 9 in front of Calvin Ayre when I was there.
10 ”It no longer matters if you have the keys or not as 10 Q. Bottom of the email:
11 it is my opinion based on advice from Zafar and others 11 ”This is not how this would play out in the media if
12 that you cannot win the COPA trial if you do not sign at 12 we spend toe to toe with COPA and they still win which
13 Harvard so I have no choice in what I have to do.” 13 is what is most likely ... in addition to the massive
14 He was trying to push you into signing, wasn’t he? 14 waste of my kids wealth.”
15 A. I don’t recall the email, but, no, I mean, not something 15 Are you really saying that Mr Ayre has not been
16 I was going to do, and we’re still dealing with each 16 providing financial support, directly or through nChain?
17 other. 17 A. No. I ’ve sold shares and done other such things, which
18 Q. Page 7 {L19/212/7}, he writes that there’s no 18 I have done with Mr Ayre, but that’s a different issue .
19 paper trail evidencing the trust owning any tokens. Do 19 Selling shares isn ’ t funding my litigation . And if you
20 you remember him saying that to you? 20 look at the next page {L19/212/8}, I don’t believe
21 A. No, I don’t, but why would he have a paper trail of my 21 that −−
22 trust? 22 Q. Look at the next page:
23 Q. Well, he’s been very interested in your evidence, hasn’t 23 ” Its clear that once you lose you will need me more
24 he, Dr Wright? 24 than ever. I will be the only one standing between your
25 A. I ’m sorry, but I ’ve never given any evidence on my trust 25 family and the soup kitchen.”

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 Yes? 1 A. My Lord, can I just have an indulgence for a second?

2 A. No, the bottom. Although that’s wrong as well: 2 There’s a false premise in both sides of this case that
3 ”By the way ... you lost both contempt of court 3 I need to just make totally clear . My premise isn’t
4 cases. Christen was the one that saved you and you are 4 that I want to prove that I’m Satoshi, it is that I am
5 acting ... ” 5 Satoshi. Everyone keeps going on that I wanted this.
6 That’s just wrong. So I don’t know where this 6 I didn’t . I still don’t. The premise is that I wanted
7 particular email came from, but it doesn’t look like 7 to come out and be Satoshi, or that I need to be.
8 the one −− any of the ones I’ve got. 8 I have never wanted and I still don’t want to. What
9 MR HOUGH: My Lord, we are approaching 1 o’clock. I have 9 I don’t want, my Lord, is my invention, my life ’s work
10 probably about 10 or 15 minutes left. 10 misrepresented. So everyone keeps going on about how
11 A. And by the way, I won the contempt cases. 11 I didn’t say something, or I said it to these people,
12 MR HOUGH: Well, the court can form its own view of that. 12 etc. The whole point was, I wasn’t trying to ever come
13 But, my Lord, I was going to suggest that we have 13 out as Satoshi, I didn’t ever want to be Satoshi, as in
14 our break, because this has been stressful evidence for 14 own all of this ; I want to be left alone to invent. All
15 Dr Wright. 15 I want now is to be left alone to invent. This week
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 16 I ’ve written three patents, in lunchtimes and things
17 MR HOUGH: I won’t intrude much into the afternoon. 17 like that. I ’m not kidding on that one, I’ve sent them
18 I really won’t. I ’m looking nervously to my left. 18 in . I ’ve done this the whole time. I ’m doing five
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You are. Exactly. 19 doctorates. I ’m doing mini degrees. I never wanted, in
20 Okay, Dr Wright, relax over lunch and we’ll sit 20 2016, to be out. I don’t want to be out now. I don’t
21 again at 2 o’clock? 21 want anyone to know. I just can’t help it , because
22 A. Thank you, my Lord. 22 I am. I will keep inventing, I will keep doing this ,
23 (1.00 pm) 23 and no matter what the outcome of this case is, I’ ll hit
24 (The short adjournment) 24 10,000 patents and then I’ ll keep going. My whole point
25 (2.00 pm) 25 is very simple: I never, ever want anyone to believe in

101 103

1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you. 1 me. I ’m an ordained Wesleyan minister, a pastor,
2 MR HOUGH: Dr Wright, a new topic: different forms of proof 2 the only thing I believe that you should believe in is
3 {L17/285/44}. This is the transcript of the Kleiman 3 god, that’s it . Everyone keeps wanting to believe in
4 proceedings, 9 November 2021, and do you see, from 4 me, my Lord, I just want one simple thing: my invention
5 line 19, you were asked about your lawyers’ argument 5 not misrepresented. And that’s what BTC are doing and
6 that Dave Kleiman had not been involved in the creation 6 that’s why I’m here.
7 of Bitcoin and early mining, because he hadn’t told 7 Q. Dr Wright, you appreciate that that is disputed and that
8 others about it at the time; do you see that? 8 it ’s our position that you have been asserting your
9 A. I see the document, yes. 9 claim to be Satoshi.
10 Q. And then your response at line 23 is : 10 {O2/11/37}, please.
11 ”Yes. I told everyone. I told my mother, my 11 A. No, I don’t −−
12 family, the tax office , several other departments. Lots 12 Q. Dr Wright −−
13 of people.” 13 A. I don’t agree −−
14 And the question is asked: 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Just wait for a question, Dr Wright.
15 ”But, Dr Wright, you know the truth is you and 15 You’ve made your speech.
16 Dave Kleiman agreed to keep your partnership 16 MR HOUGH: {O2/11/37}, page 140, lines 14 and following.
17 a secret ... ” 17 You were asked about proof that you −− means of proving
18 Do you see that? 18 you were Satoshi, and you said, line 16:
19 A. I do. 19 ”It is not emotionally difficult . I mean, it was,
20 Q. And then you say in your answer that {L17/285/45}: 20 but it is harder to do. At the moment we are chasing
21 ” ... at least three, four hundred people knew that 21 down witnesses for one of the other cases. I have got
22 I was Satoshi in Australia .” 22 a list of close to 70 people now. I want to get to
23 That’s an answer you gave, isn’t it ? 23 100.”
24 A. It is . 24 You were saying there that you wanted to get to 100
25 Q. Next −− 25 witnesses to support your claim to be Satoshi, weren’t

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 you? 1 created, like the Bitcoin White Paper says, who puts
2 A. I was. 2 their name out there, receives a lot of hate mail,
3 Q. Dr Wright, here we all are, after millions spent on your 3 emails, actual things in the post, threats , threats to
4 behalf, and there are just two witnesses who actually 4 their employer, etc. So there are campaigns, not just
5 claim to have had the Bitcoin White Paper from you, or 5 normal campaigns, funded ones.
6 to have known specifically of your work on Bitcoin 6 Q. Moving on from witnesses to documents.
7 before its release : your backer, Mr Matthews, and 7 You’ve never produced a single email from or to
8 a brief hearsay account from your elderly uncle; that’s 8 Satoshi which was not already in the public domain and
9 right , isn ’ t it ? 9 which has been verified, have you?
10 A. That is utterly false . Firstly , Mr Matthews is not my 10 A. No, actually , I ’ve talked about lots of these. I don’t
11 backer. While he is now the chairman of nChain, he does 11 have the originals . It is well known that Satoshi’s
12 not, has not, has never provided funding to me. 12 GMX account was hacked around a decade ago.
13 Next, I don’t get any money from him. He doesn’t 13 The Vistomail was closed and then bought, and then
14 pay for any of this litigation and he’s never been 14 closed and then bought and then closed again. So,
15 behind it . Now, where you’re then going into the rest, 15 basically , all of that information has been taken over.
16 Ignatius Pang was involved in early parts of what I’ve 16 Q. You’ve never identified a single correspondent of
17 invented. The other people, such as Rob, actually talk 17 Satoshi or person who received Bitcoin from Satoshi
18 about the invention, including a Genesis file , etc. 18 whose name wasn’t already in the public domain,
19 Now, while I didn’t call it Bitcoin back then, I talked 19 although, like Mr Bohm, there clearly were some, right?
20 about Timecoin and the concepts, because what you’re 20 A. As I’ve noted, I don’t even remember my own supervisor
21 saying is this concept of anti−government money was 21 names many times. So while I might be smart in some
22 never what I promoted. 22 ways, I might be able to do maths, even write history,
23 On top of that, I implemented systems with 23 what I don’t do is people.
24 Dave Bridges and also had some of this with 24 Q. You’ve never provided any reliable evidence of paying
25 Mark Archbold. So that’s completely false. 25 for or setting up the emails or websites linked to

105 107

1 Q. You’ve called none −− 1 Satoshi, have you?

2 A. Many people −− 2 A. No, actually , I have, and that has been put in with ATO
3 Q. You’ve called none of the people from BDO, to whom you 3 documentation, etc.
4 claim to have pitched Bitcoin in 2007, as witnesses in 4 Q. None of the 21 people to whom you claim to have provided
5 these proceedings, have you? 5 pre−issue copies of the White Paper has kept an email or
6 A. Neville is actually old. The only reason he’s not here 6 a copy of the paper; that’s right , isn ’ t it ?
7 is health. Neville would have been. Unfortunately, his 7 A. This many years later, I don’t know. If they do, they
8 health is failing . My uncle’s health is now failing ; 8 would have to be asked, but they have seen each of
9 his wife died last year and since then he’s had two 9 those.
10 strokes . So unfortunately, a lot of the people involved 10 Q. You have, over the last seven to eight days, raised
11 are getting older . 11 doubts over the provenance, authenticity and reliability
12 Q. You’ve called none of those from Microsoft or Pornhub, 12 of most of your own chosen primary reliance documents,
13 to whom you supposedly pitched Bitcoin in 2008 and 2009, 13 haven’t you, Dr Wright?
14 have you? 14 A. No, actually , that’s not correct either . Ones, such as
15 A. I don’t have any of the records from Pornhub, but 15 the written documents, that I have had that have been
16 the people from Microsoft, I haven’t been able to reach 16 around for a long time have been ones that I’m not
17 out, I don’t know how to. 17 denying.
18 Q. You’ve called none of the employees of your companies, 18 Q. So handwritten manuscript documents?
19 who you claim in the chain of custody document had 19 A. That date back the time, yes. On top of that, I ’ve also
20 access to your White Paper drafts and precursor work, 20 had conversations etc with people such as Gavin.
21 have you? 21 Q. Cryptographic proof. You’ve consistently failed to give
22 A. None of the people want to be involved in this industry . 22 any reliable proof of possession of private keys
23 Every single one of them have −− that I’ve spoken to 23 associated with Satoshi, haven’t you?
24 have received either death threats or other hate mail. 24 A. Again, there’s no such thing, other than what is
25 Anyone involved in actual Bitcoin, as I originally 25 hearsay. Even the Hal Finney one is purely hearsay.

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 The argument is, again, cryptographic proof. There is 1 I wanted, thinking that they would do better. Only
2 no such thing of cryptographic proof of identity . In 2 weeks away from the case, I had to replace and get
3 the Bitcoin White Paper, the section notes that it is 3 a different firm in .
4 like where I worked, at Exchange, with a ticker tape. 4 Q. Dr Wright, you’ve also blamed Mr Justice Chamberlain’s
5 Q. Dr Wright, without genuinely supportive witnesses, 5 findings of dishonesty against you in the McCormack case
6 reliable documents or cryptographic proof, there’s just 6 on failures by your lawyers in that case, haven’t you?
7 no basis for your claim to be Satoshi, is there? 7 A. Oh, Ontier actually put −− they changed the header on
8 A. No, absolutely wrong. I have more patents developed 8 a document at one point, and we had a witness that would
9 than anyone in this industry going back even further; 9 testify and they didn’t −−
10 I have a workload that when, in 2016, the company was 10 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, could I intervene?
11 sold , shows 1,300 completed and 600 in progress papers, 11 Could I respectfully suggest to my learned friend
12 of that now 1,000 have been granted patents, 4,000 are 12 that it ’s perfectly possible for him to make this
13 pending. That in itself is evidence. 13 contention in closing , because the documents actually
14 The early people, like Gwern, trying to discover 14 speak for themselves. Putting the point to the witness
15 people and say identity and falsely say them, basically 15 is inevitably going to run the risk of communications
16 based it on one or two patents. Some of the first 16 passing between the witness and his lawyers, or previous
17 people outed were falsely , because they had three 17 lawyers, that’s going to be inevitable , and since he can
18 cryptographic patents. Mr Maxwell outed someone falsely 18 make the point in any event from the papers, I’m
19 because of one patent. Mr Back made suggestions based 19 certainly not going to complain that, for example, he
20 on a single patent. All of those people have denied it. 20 didn’t put the point to Dr Wright. It ’s not necessary,
21 On top of that, despite years of this , there is no 21 and he can certainly make all these points in closing
22 Satoshi, no family, no anything who has ever come forth 22 without the need to cross−examine them.
23 and nor will there ever be. But 20 years from now, 23 MR HOUGH: I won’t take that point further at this stage,
24 there still won’t be. If I don’t win this case then 24 but it is a necessary preamble to questions that follow
25 what will happen is I will create more patents, we’ll 25 in the next couple of minutes.

109 111

1 have another government sign up, we’ve already got four 1 We can take this down.
2 governments now signed up −− 2 Dr Wright, bearing in mind the reaction you have
3 Q. Dr Wright, I’m going to stop you there. I ’ve given you 3 made to other cases, which was not to accept findings
4 quite a distance to answer my question. I’m going to 4 but to blame your lawyers, let me ask you a few
5 rely upon the answer that you gave to the question 5 questions looking to the future .
6 I asked. 6 If the court in this case decides that you are not
7 New topic: blaming lawyers. 7 Satoshi, you will still maintain that you are, won’t
8 You’ve obviously blamed lawyers for things that you 8 you?
9 say are a number of mistakes in these proceedings, but 9 A. Well, I am. If you’re asking will I lie , no.
10 you’ve also blamed the finding of document 10 Q. If this court decides that you are not Satoshi, you’ ll
11 inauthenticity in Granath on your Norwegian lawyers’ 11 still want to make claims, here and around the world,
12 failure to follow your instructions , haven’t you? 12 based on Satoshi’s supposed IP rights, won’t you?
13 A. That’s why I fired them. I had new lawyers appointed. 13 A. Again, I don’t actually need to be Satoshi to have those
14 The −− 14 rights . A Champagne case, which my lawyers wanted to
15 Q. {S1/1.13/20}. Paragraph 61, last four lines. 15 run, would not require anything other than a change to
16 Referring to the findings in that case: 16 the protocol. So −−
17 ”My Norwegian legal counsel chose to disregard my 17 Q. But the claims you are currently making are based
18 instructions and pursued a legal strategy that diverged 18 explicitly upon Satoshi’s IP rights and contingent on
19 significantly from what I had desired and expected. 19 you being Satoshi?
20 This has been a source of frustration and disappointment 20 A. Only because if I ran a Champagne case, the first thing
21 for me ...” 21 your side would ask is, ”You’re Satoshi”, and you would
22 That’s evidence you gave in the Tulip Trading case, 22 have me do this.
23 isn ’ t it ? 23 Q. So the question again, if this court decides you are not
24 A. Yes. The one that I didn’t recognise the name of at 24 Satoshi, you would still want to make claims, here and
25 first , that first firm, refused to run the case that 25 around the world, based upon you being Satoshi and

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 having IP rights as such, wouldn’t you? 1 of forgeries that are known to you, isn’t it ?
2 A. No, I’d move to patents. Taproot is based on three 2 A. No, it is not.
3 nChain patents, which is integrated into the core of 3 Q. And it’s a lie you have sustained with a series of other
4 BTC. We would actually pull the plug on that, and we 4 lies over the last eight days, isn ’ t it ?
5 have already investigated , and we would have 5 A. It is not.
6 the European courts start patent action on that. We 6 MR HOUGH: My Lord, those are my questions. Thank you.
7 would then −− 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you very much.
8 Q. And Dr Wright −− 8 Mr Gunning.
9 A. −− go −− we would then start patent action in the US 9 Cross−examination by MR GUNNING
10 and, if I had to, I ’ ll basically force them to shut 10 MR GUNNING: Dr Wright, during your evidence last Wednesday,
11 down. We will go to vendors, such as AWS, who we’re 11 you noted that the COPA team kept talking about
12 partnered with, and we will notify of the patent 12 the billions of dollars that you were asking for and you
13 violations and it will be a patent case. So if I lose 13 said that you were not; do you recall that?
14 this , there are approximately 80 patent cases already 14 A. I said the billions of dollars of value. So I did not
15 waiting. 15 ask for those billions . The form states the value, and
16 Q. If this court decides that you’re not Satoshi, you will 16 as I explained, value can be positive and negative.
17 still want to threaten those who dispute that claim, 17 Q. You were taken to the claim form in the BTC Core claim.
18 the claim to be Satoshi, with legal action, won’t you? 18 Do you recall that?
19 A. No, it ’s not that I ’m Satoshi that I care about. 19 A. I am.
20 I don’t give a rats whether you believe I ’m Satoshi. 20 Q. And you seemed to suggest that you weren’t claiming to
21 I don’t care. I would prefer if you ignored the fact . 21 get billions of dollars but that the BTC Core −− or that
22 I didn’t want it out there. I would love everyone just 22 BTC Core would, as you call it, diminish by the amount
23 to ignore the fact and just leave me alone and let me 23 stated in your claim form if you won, right?
24 invent. 24 A. That is correct .
25 So what I would say is, as long as they stop and 25 Q. So let me ask you this. Are you claiming any monetary

113 115

1 they leave me alone, I will leave them alone. 1 remedies other than the recovery of legal costs in
2 Q. Dr Wright, let me conclude, please, by putting COPA’s 2 the BTC Core claim?
3 case to you. 3 A. Not directly . What I will do is , every single cent
4 You are not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper or 4 I get past my costs goes to Burnside and other
5 the Bitcoin source code or the person who invented and 5 charities . I ’m categorically stating , under oath,
6 released the Bitcoin System, are you? 6 I will accept no money, not a cent, from recovered BTC.
7 A. I am the person who invented Bitcoin, who invented 7 Q. I just want to understand your answer. Are you saying
8 the hash chain system, who invented a timestamp server, 8 that you are seeking monetary remedies against
9 as section 3 of my paper −− 9 the defendants to the BTC Core claims or not?
10 Q. The claim −− 10 A. I will seek to cover any damages people have had from
11 A. ... notes. I am the person who created over 1,000 11 losses , not to me. I will not accept any money from
12 granted patents on that technology −− 12 BTC. I will accept money that goes to third parties.
13 Q. Your claim −− 13 Q. Are you making any claim, on your own behalf or on
14 A. −− 4,000 pending patents. 14 behalf of your companies, for the payment of a monetary
15 Q. Your claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is a lie and a hoax, 15 remedy in the BTC Core claim?
16 isn ’ t it , Dr Wright? 16 A. Not to me. If you basically agree to follow British
17 A. No, actually , the opposite. We have spent and we are 17 law, and I don’t even care if you like me or not, if you
18 spending millions of pounds per month testing 18 agree to admit that you’ve changed Bitcoin from
19 the scaling that I said would work in the first place, 19 the White Paper, pay my original offer, I would be
20 despite −− 20 happy. Not to me. If you give that money to a charity
21 Q. Dr Wright −− 21 that’s part of my church, I’m signed off.
22 A. −− the fact that I could sit back, like your clients , 22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Dr Wright, it’s a simple question.
23 and pump money and con people out of theirs. 23 Leave the question of costs aside . What you’re being
24 Q. Dr Wright, it’s a lie which you have supported with 24 asked about is, are they going to have to write a cheque
25 the forged documents we’ve identified in the schedules 25 for any money at all other than costs? It doesn’t

114 116

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 matter who it’s going to, are you going to insist on 1 see there that you say that:
2 them writing a cheque for money as a result of 2 ”Over time, the people developing Bitcoin systems
3 the BTC Core claim, if you win it? 3 adopted the term ’UTXO’ ... to describe transaction
4 A. My Lord, if they implement the required changes so that 4 outputs that have not been spent.”
5 the British legislation as it is now is supported, 5 Do you see that?
6 I will forego any money. That would be the value 6 A. I do.
7 I would accept. If the current legislation that has 7 Q. And stopping there, that seems to accord with
8 passed is implemented and supported by the developers, 8 the agreement between Professor Meiklejohn and Mr Gao,
9 that one thing, I want no money. 9 that this occurred in 2012; is that fair ?
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And where are these required changes set 10 A. No, it ’s actually erroneous. It had been used. It was
11 out? 11 used going back to 2009, but like
12 A. British legislation . There’s cryptocurrency −− 12 the term ”block chain”, it evolved.
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Have you explained the required changes 13 Q. That’s not true. The expression had actually first been
14 you need to the defendants in the BTC Core claim? 14 used in the developers’ chat logs in June 2012, hadn’t
15 A. They know what I want, but I would sit down with them 15 it ?
16 and have these explained in full . I would very happily 16 A. No, actually , that’s incorrect . It had been used prior
17 sit in a room and go, you need to do X, Y and Z, no more 17 to that, in 2009, but it was less common.
18 money laundering, no building Taproot for enabling 18 The development then became the common thing. The same
19 secret transactions , the facility −− micropayments can 19 as ”block chain” morphed into blockchain.
20 be anonymous, large payments, like million pound ones to 20 Q. That’s not correct. It ’s first referred to by −− if we
21 Hamas, stop. If that −− if that’s agreed, I ’m good. 21 go to {D1/6/11}, we can the developers’ chat logs and we
22 MR GUNNING: Can we move on to a totally different subject. 22 can see at line 437, somebody called ”etotheipi” says:
23 Can we go to {L8/467/1}. You should have here 23 ” ... I ’m going to start using utxo to refer to
24 the release notes for the Bitcoin Core software, 24 unspent−txout.”
25 version 0.9.0, on the GitHub website; do you see that? 25 Do you see that?

117 119

1 A. I do. 1 A. I do.
2 Q. And we can see, at the top of the page, I think, that it 2 Q. That’s the first occasion in which somebody in relation
3 says that it ’s nine years ago. We don’t need to take it 3 to Bitcoin had suggested referring to unspent
4 up, but that was introduced in March 2014, right? 4 transaction outputs as UTXO; right?
5 A. Thereabouts, yes. 5 A. No, unspent transaction outputs, ”utxout” had been done
6 Q. And if we look on this page, we can see that it refers 6 before. So, at times, it had also been done as
7 to ”How to Upgrade” and so on, right? 7 ”u−txout”, etc, but, no, it had been. It wasn’t −−
8 A. Yes. 8 Q. That −−
9 Q. And if we go to {L8/467/2}, the second heading refers 9 A. That person’s saying that they’re going to do it , but it
10 to, ”Rebranding to Bitcoin Core.” Correct? 10 had been done earlier.
11 A. I see that. 11 Q. Are you able to point to any evidence of any earlier use
12 Q. And let’s just read that: 12 of the expression ”UTXO” than that?
13 ”To reduce confusion between Bitcoin−the−network and 13 A. Not while sitting here, no.
14 Bitcoin−the−software we have renamed the reference 14 Q. No.
15 client to Bitcoin Core.” 15 Let’s move on to another topic. If we can go to
16 Right? 16 {L4/97.1/1}. This is the 10 January 2009 issue of
17 A. I do. 17 the Bitcoin code file called main.cpp, right? And that
18 Q. So one of the things that happened in release 0.9.0, on 18 file , the main.cpp file , has a function called
19 19 March 2014, was that the name of the reference client 19 CheckBlock; correct?
20 was changed from Bitcoin to Bitcoin Core; correct? 20 A. Yes.
21 A. That particular implementation, yes. 21 Q. And we can see it at page 21 {L4/97.1/21}, at the foot
22 Q. Capital B for Bitcoin, space, capital C for core, right? 22 of the page. Do you see:
23 A. Yes. 23 ”Bool CBlock::CheckBlock ...”
24 Q. Can we move on then to {CSW/1/107}. This is 24 Yes?
25 paragraph 578 of your 11th witness statement, and we can 25 A. I do.

118 120

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 Q. And CheckBlock was a function that was intended to check 1 A. It ’s validating that they’re within a certain range of
2 whether certain aspects of a newly received block 2 consensus.
3 received by a node were valid, right? 3 Q. Then, thirdly, it checked that the first transaction was
4 A. Yes, basically validating blocks. 4 a CoinBase transaction, right?
5 Q. And it had −− I mean, in that sense, it was the first 5 A. Yes, that it structured correctly .
6 line of defence against invalid blocks, right? 6 Q. And then, fourthly, we can see that it checked
7 A. No, that’s not correct . There’s much more to it than 7 transactions?
8 that. So −− 8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Well, we’re going to come −− 9 Q. What was that?
10 A. Well, no, no. Before you have a block, you actually 10 A. That it checks transactions?
11 receive transactions . So before even creating a block 11 Q. Yes, what was the check of the transactions?
12 to check, what happens is, the transactions are 12 A. Basically making sure that they are valid , that
13 broadcast across the network, and the first line of 13 the transactions that have been received follow
14 defence is thus validating each of the transactions . 14 the rules , etc.
15 Q. Right. 15 Q. So what sort of thing?
16 A. Then you build your own block and then you would check 16 A. What sort of thing. So, basically , Bitcoin uses script .
17 that against something you receive. 17 The way that you’d have to then check would be does
18 Q. Okay. 18 the key work, does other policies work, are the output
19 Now, CheckBlock had six checks, didn’t it? 19 and script valid . It ’s a predicate . So, what we’re
20 A. At the particular time, I don’t recall . 20 functionally doing in here is ensuring that all of
21 Q. The issue of the Bitcoin Core software? 21 the input and output is structured correctly , that if
22 A. There are multiple version and talking about my software 22 there’s a message with an ECDSA key that the correct
23 from 15 years ago, I don’t recall the exact structure 23 previous block had been signed.
24 without it in front of me. 24 Q. So I remember you talking the other day −− I can’t
25 Q. Shall we see what they are? Do you see at the bottom of 25 remember which day it was −− about how, when you were

121 123

1 the page it says, ”Size limits ”? 1 first running the Bitcoin software, it hadn’t been −−
2 A. I do. 2 the mining that had been absorbing all of your
3 Q. If we go over the page {L4/97.1/22}, to the top of 3 electricity , as it were, it was doing ECDSA checks in
4 the page, we can see that that check was to ensure that 4 relation to the underlying transactions ; is that right?
5 the block size didn’t exceed predefined limits and 5 A. And much more.
6 wasn’t empty, right? 6 Q. Okay, but when you’re talking about ECDSA checking, is
7 A. That’s correct . 7 that what you’re talking about in relation to −−
8 Q. And then, secondly, it checked the timestamp, right? 8 A. That particular part, yes.
9 A. That’s correct . 9 Q. Okay.
10 Q. And that check was to ensure that the timestamp was not 10 Can we go then to what check transactions actually
11 too far in the future compared to the node’s current 11 is . It ’s at {L4/98.1/8}. And there were just three
12 time, right? 12 checks in check transactions. We can see it at
13 A. Yes, it was a moving average process. 13 the bottom. They were just:
14 Q. It was to prevent timestamp manipulation, right? 14 ”Basic checks that don’t depend on any context.”
15 A. A bit more than that. It was a number of possible 15 Do you see that?
16 attacks, not so much timestamp manipulation the way 16 A. It ’s a bit more than that. Each of these calls
17 you’re saying, but things like hidden or selfish mining, 17 other areas. If you look at −−
18 things like people building sort of in −− without 18 Q. I ’m going to go to them. If we can turn over the page
19 propagating. But because you can’t have a way of easily 19 {L4/98.1/9}, we can see the first one:
20 integrating NTP, network time protocol, which I did note 20 ” if (vin .empty ... vout.empty ...
21 needed to be done in the furthest version , what I used 21 ”return error ... ”
22 instead was a moving average system so that I could 22 That was checking that there was at least one input
23 have −− 23 and one output, right?
24 Q. So you say that’s basically a moving average system, but 24 A. Yes.
25 it ’s checking the timestamp, right? 25 Q. Secondly, it was checking that the amount spent wasn’t

122 124

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 negative, right? 1 sub functions are part of the same function.

2 A. Correct. 2 Q. I ’m afraid you’re wrong, Dr Wright. If we want to
3 Q. And then, thirdly, it was checking that if there was 3 explore how you get to signatures from the AcceptBlock
4 a CoinBase transaction, the scriptSig was of a certain 4 function, I can take you there. Do you want me to do
5 size between 2 and 100 bytes, right? 5 that?
6 A. Mm−hm. 6 A. Like I said , the block includes both the full check and
7 Q. And if it wasn’t a CoinBase transaction, then the input 7 each of these. So when you have a transaction that you
8 had to be the output of another transaction, right? 8 have checked, it then goes into the block and it ’s put
9 A. Yes. 9 into a binary tree structure . All of that is checked as
10 Q. It did not involve checking ECDSA signatures, did it? 10 part of the entire function. What you’re doing is
11 A. Again, that then calls these other functions. 11 pulling out each individual call and saying that it ’s
12 Q. Dr Wright, you’re wrong about that? 12 separate. It isn ’ t .
13 A. I am not wrong about that. If you note this, 13 Q. We have looked at what the CheckBlock function contains
14 the diagram that you had is hierarchical . So, that 14 and you have said it contains an ECDSA signature check.
15 particular function calls the next function, and when 15 It doesn’t, does it?
16 you’re talking about checking CheckSig in that 16 A. That’s not what I said.
17 particular one, then that’s ECDSA, but it’s not in that 17 Q. Well, we can see what you said.
18 core. 18 A. What I said was, the function includes all of
19 Q. You see, Dr Wright, this is a pretty central core point 19 the processes in that. CheckBlock doesn’t work unless
20 in relation to the operation of the Bitcoin software and 20 each of the called functions are there.
21 you don’t know about it, do you? 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You’re going to have to show us where
22 A. Actually, I do, and you’re not letting me explain it 22 you say these calls are in the code, Dr Wright.
23 properly. 23 MR GUNNING: I can take you through it, Dr Wright, if that
24 Q. I ’m going to explain it to you. Can we go, please, to 24 would assist .
25 {L4/97.1/23}. Sorry, 98.1, I think, it is , page 23 25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: We’ll do as you say.

125 127

1 {L4/98.1/23}. No, 97.1, page 23 {L4/97.1/23}. 1 MR GUNNING: It will take a little time, because as you
2 So, do you see here that we can see a function which 2 might expect, it requires one to go through quite a bit.
3 is described as ”ProcessBlock”? 3 So AcceptBlock, we can see the function is defined
4 A. I do. 4 at {L4/97.1/22}. You see, halfway down the page, it
5 Q. And do you see underneath that, the preliminary check 5 says ”bool CBlock::AcceptBlock ...”?
6 that it does is called ”CheckBlock”? 6 A. I do.
7 A. I do. 7 Q. If we go beyond the bottom of that page to the top of
8 Q. And do you see that a secondary check, after CheckBlock 8 the next page {L4/97.1/23}, we can see that that
9 has been completed, is called ”AcceptBlock”? 9 function calls the ”AddToBlockIndex” function in
10 A. I do. 10 the third line ; do you see that?
11 Q. Now, it is within AcceptBlock that the signatures are 11 A. I do.
12 checked, isn ’ t it ? 12 Q. And we can find that function if we go to page
13 A. Basically what we have is a series of functions that 13 {L4/97.1/20}, we see that the AddToBlockIndex function
14 each of these call other functions. So, where you’re 14 is defined there?
15 trying to say that each of these don’t do all of that, 15 A. I do.
16 the diagram that these guys don’t like is a functional 16 Q. And if we go down to the top of the next page
17 call mapping each of these areas down. 17 {L4/97.1/21}, we can see that that function includes
18 Q. I ’m not asking you about any diagrams, I’m asking you 18 a function called ”ConnectBlock”; do you see that?
19 about what is in the CheckBlock function, and you told 19 A. I do.
20 me that within the CheckBlock function were checks of 20 Q. And if we then go to page {L4/97.1/17}, we will see, at
21 ECDSA signatures. 21 the bottom of the page, that ConnectBlock −− sorry, at
22 A. If it ’s a header and everything else is underneath it, 22 the bottom of the page, we can see that the ConnectBlock
23 then that is part of the entire function and you are 23 function is being defined, right?
24 checking everything. So when you have one function 24 A. I do.
25 follow another to be correct, then all of those 25 Q. And −−

126 128

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 A. And it also has ”DisconnectInputs”, it also has other 1 Q. And if we go to {L8/250/1}, we can see one of those and
2 ”WriteBlockIndex”, it also has other function −− 2 that’s called ”switch to headers−based synchronisation”;
3 Q. Just let me take you to the signatures. You’ll get 3 do you see that?
4 there. 4 A. I do.
5 We can see that that has −− that calls on 5 Q. And if we go to page 3 {L8/250/3}, we will see that, at
6 the ”ConnectInputs” function; do you see that? 6 the bottom of the page, it was proposing changes to
7 A. I do. 7 the main.cpp file , right?
8 Q. Okay. 8 A. I do.
9 We can find that at page 14 {L4/97.1/14}. 9 Q. And if we go to {L8/250/16} and go to the bottom of
10 The ConnectInputs function is defined at the bottom of 10 the page, at line 2348, we can see a number of entries
11 the page; do you see that? 11 with green lines in the margin; do you see that?
12 A. I do. 12 A. I do.
13 Q. And if we go to the top of {L4/97.1/16}, we can see that 13 Q. And the lines in green are −− show that it’s new or
14 we get to the ”VerifySignature” function; do you see 14 moved code, right? You’re not familiar with GitHub?
15 that? 15 A. I don’t use GitHub, I used SPV.
16 A. I do. 16 Q. Bitcoin SV is actually on GitHub, isn’t it ?
17 Q. So, the verification of signatures was part of 17 A. My team run on GitHub, yes. I don’t. I still use SVN.
18 the AcceptBlock function, not the CheckBlock function; 18 Q. Okay, well, take it from me that this is an addition and
19 do you agree? 19 it was to propose the introduction of a function called
20 A. I have not looked at the original code since about 2017, 20 CheckBlockHeader; do you see that?
21 and the way that I would look at it would be in UML, 21 A. I do.
22 etc. So the diagrams that I had up earlier , that myself 22 Q. So that’s capital C, a ”Block” with a capital B and
23 and earlier staff and later staff worked on, are those. 23 ”Header” with a capital H, right?
24 Do I recall every single thing from when I released 24 A. Yes.
25 the code back then? No. But what I can tell you is, if 25 Q. And in the following lines , we can see that that

129 131

1 you give me my diagram, I can take you through it. Do 1 function included two checks; do you see that?
2 I remember all of the functions in my code off by heart? 2 A. I do.
3 No, not any more. 3 Q. And the first was a check as to whether
4 Q. I think Satoshi Nakamoto would remember if there was 4 the proof−of−work matched the claim amount?
5 a check of all the signatures of all the transactions in 5 A. Mm−hm.
6 the CheckBlock function, Dr Wright, but you don’t 6 Q. And the second was a check of the timestamp?
7 remember that, do you? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. After 15 years, no. What I can tell you is , if you give 8 Q. Now, those were both checks that were in the CheckBlock
9 me my −− my environment and my code, I can walk you 9 function that we were looking at earlier , right?
10 through it . 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Nothing to do with your environment. 11 Q. But both of these checks only required a check of
12 Can we go to −− 12 the Block Header rather than checking the whole of
13 A. It really does. 13 the block and its transactions , right?
14 Q. −− {L8/257/1}, please. So here we have Pull Request 14 A. No, again, the block won’t be validated unless the hash
15 2964; do you see that? 15 in the header is correct . So, the first thing you need
16 A. I do. 16 to actually do is you have to have all of that checked,
17 Q. And we can see it’s opened in August 2013? 17 because you need −− again, you can’t create that without
18 A. Mm−hm. 18 it .
19 Q. If we go to −− we can see it’s got 11 commits; do you 19 Q. Okay, what this was doing was modularising
20 see that? It ’s −− the tab isn’t open −− 20 the CheckBlock function so that you pulled out two
21 A. I do. 21 things that you could do without needing the whole of
22 Q. −− but we have that tab 249 {L8/249/1}. So we can see 22 the block −−
23 there that there were 11 commits associated with this 23 A. In 2013, yes, that was changed by Sipa.
24 Pull Request; do you see that? 24 Q. Right.
25 A. I do. 25 A. I understand that.

130 132

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 Q. Okay. 1 the difference between client software, including SPV,

2 A. But what I’m saying is, that’s not how it was originally 2 with the patches released for that, were different
3 set up. 3 things. So Bitcoin Core used the term. That wasn’t
4 Q. Exactly. So that wasn’t in Satoshi’s original code, 4 the first time that was used. You adopted that name.
5 right? 5 Q. Nobody referred to the ”Bitcoin Core client”, as you do
6 A. It was changed. 6 here, in 2008, did they?
7 Q. It came into the code base in 2014, right? 7 A. No, this is talking about the main versus SPV. So that
8 A. I ’m not sure when it came into the code base. 8 was different to what you’re talking about there.
9 Q. So, if we can stop there for a moment, we’ve been 9 Q. Do you want to carry on and we’ll see that it then
10 through a number of expressions, we’ve discussed 10 refers to two functions, the first is CheckBlock and
11 Bitcoin Core; do you recall that? 11 the second is CheckBlockHeader, isn’t it?
12 A. I do. 12 A. Again, CheckBlock and CheckBlockHeader were meant to be
13 Q. We talked about UTXO, right? 13 implemented. CheckBlockHeader was a simple function for
14 A. Yes, you mentioned it. 14 SPV. So in the client patches discussed with Gavin in
15 Q. And CheckBlockHeader? 15 2010, CheckBlockHeader was an implementation of
16 A. Yes. 16 a version of Bitcoin that does not have all of
17 Q. And we’ve seen −− or I’d suggest that we’ve seen that 17 the checking. So that’s different to the version Sipa
18 those expressions were introduced by developers other 18 put in , but that doesn’t mean that there weren’t
19 than Satoshi Nakamoto later than spring 2011. Would you 19 functions. Again, CheckBlockHeader was about having an
20 agree? 20 SPV, as defined in the White Paper, version of checking
21 A. Bitcoin Core, definitely , UTXO, no, and other changes to 21 just the block headers.
22 the code, yes. 22 Q. There’s no reference in the White Paper to
23 Q. Can we go to {L3/237/1}. This is one of your 23 CheckBlockHeader, is there?
24 reliance documents. Do you recall it? 24 A. It has reference to SPV, which only checks Block Header.
25 A. I do. 25 There is no reference to any of the coding terms in

133 135

1 Q. And you address it at {CSW/2/52}. It should be 1 the Bitcoin White Paper.

2 appendix B to your 11th witness statement, section 14. 2 Q. When you say SPV checks −− ”only checks Block Header”,
3 So in 14.2, you say: 3 what do you mean by ”SPV” there?
4 ”This is a document in Microsoft Word ’.doc’ format 4 A. Simplified Payment Verification.
5 that I created between about Oct−Dec 2008. It is part 5 Q. Right.
6 of my work on Bitcoin before I released the system in 6 A. What that basically means is, like −−
7 January 2009.” 7 Q. To assist in the payment of individual transactions?
8 Right? 8 A. No, it ’s a −− basically what we’re talking about is
9 A. I do. 9 a light node. So a node where an individual doesn’t
10 Q. Can we go back then to {L3/237/1} and can we turn to 10 need to download the entire blockchain. For instance,
11 page 12 {L3/237/12}. Do you see you have a section on 11 I can just have the block headers and then I can have
12 ”Epidemic Models”? 12 a localised (?) path of where I’m checking an individual
13 A. I do. 13 transaction. I can keep each of those.
14 Q. Then if we go to {L3/237/13}, do you see, at the bottom, 14 Q. Dr Wright, nobody referred to CheckBlockHeader until
15 it says this : 15 the change that I took you to, did they?
16 ”Each node verifies a block before it propagates it 16 A. No, that’s wrong. That was actually part of building
17 to the connected peer nodes. In this way only valid 17 SPV systems, that was basically the function I was
18 blocks are propagated, and any invalid blocks are 18 looking at at that time.
19 quickly isolated . The Bitcoin Core client lists all of 19 Q. There isn’t a single document in which anybody refers to
20 the validation requirements in the following functions.” 20 CheckBlockHeader as a single function until Dr Weller
21 We’ve just established that the terminology 21 introduced it through GitHub, right?
22 of ”Bitcoin Core client” didn’t exist in 2008, right? 22 A. I ’ve no idea when he put it in that, but when I was
23 A. No. You changed the operation of the core software. 23 discussing the introduction of SPV, these concepts were
24 The term ”Bitcoin Core” had been used multiple times. 24 back there as well .
25 So the core software, the node software and 25 Q. Mr Andresen did not introduce CheckBlockHeader, did he?

134 136

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 A. No, Mr Andresen got a patch from me initially. So 1 epidemic modelling, even though that’s the case,
2 the patches for SPV were actually from Satoshi, me. 2 I didn’t talk about a lot of the uses of Bitcoin.
3 Q. Dr Wright, we’ve got the patches that Satoshi Nakamoto 3 I said that they were there, but I went off and built
4 sent to Mr Andresen; they do not include 4 them. Just because I didn’t give them for free doesn’t
5 CheckBlockHeader. 5 mean that I didn’t create them.
6 A. No, because I went off to develop things myself. So 6 Q. And if we go to the top of page 15 {L3/237/15}, we can
7 where I was talking about work that I did in my other 7 see that this document refers to ”the UTXO pool”.
8 companies, I didn’t do everything publicly . The work on 8 A. Mm−hm.
9 Teranode now that was iDaemon that I’ve put in here, all 9 Q. That only came into existence after the Ultraprune
10 of those documents were based on our work, not his. 10 request was updated, right?
11 Q. Dr Wright, I know you want to talk about all of your 11 A. No, that’s incorrect . Once again, the models that I’d
12 latest things. I ’m actually trying to ask you about 12 been building include this . So, what you’re assuming is
13 things that Satoshi Nakamoto would know about, and that 13 that code and ideas that I ’d already got in iDaemon, and
14 is the original −− 14 other such things, are the only place they exist . And
15 A. No, you’re −− 15 what a UTXO pool is, in my system, is very different to
16 Q. −− Bitcoin code, right, and there was no reference in 16 yours.
17 the original Bitcoin code to CheckBlockHeader, 17 Q. Now, if you were Satoshi Nakamoto, Dr Wright, and if you
18 was there? 18 read this document before you purported −− or you chose
19 A. Again, difference between core, as in main nodes, and 19 to rely on it , before −− sorry, if you were
20 those that are doing less , SPV, and there is a reference 20 Satoshi Nakamoto and you wanted to present the documents
21 to SPV. SPV nodes are those that only have to check 21 you wanted to rely on, you would have spotted those
22 the headers across the network. If you read 22 three anachronisms, wouldn’t you?
23 the section , you will see that. 23 A. No, because they’re not. That also goes into things
24 Q. Dr Wright, I am very confident that I can read any 24 like the orphan block pool, which doesn’t, I don’t
25 section of anything and I will not see a single 25 believe , exist in BTC Core, but is something in my

137 139

1 reference to CheckBlockHeader. 1 software. So when we’re talking about that, what we

2 A. Because the code’s not referenced in the White Paper at 2 have are competing chains and we’ve made a pool for
3 all . 3 that. So using a standard term, that one, you would
4 Q. And you’re saying that −− when did you say then you 4 say, is an anachronism because it’s not in core, but
5 invented this? Was it in 2010, you said, when you were 5 it ’s in my paper.
6 talking to Mr Andresen? 6 Q. Dr Wright, did you read this before you chose to put it
7 A. No, I started working on SPV before I even released 7 forward as a reliance document?
8 Bitcoin. So, what I was doing is a combination of 8 A. I ’ve read it before, yes.
9 Timecoin, which was a separate product, and Bitcoin. 9 Q. You’ve read −− and you chose to rely on it as
10 Bitcoin was the main free product; Timecoin extended 10 a reliance document?
11 everything. 11 A. I did.
12 Q. So, the second anachronism in this document is 12 Q. And you didn’t spot those three anachronisms?
13 the reference to CheckBlockHeader, I would suggest. And 13 A. Again, they’re not anachronisms.
14 if we go over the page {L3/237/14}, you won’t be 14 Q. Can we go to {L3/230/1}. This is another of your
15 surprised to learn that we also see a third anachronism, 15 reliance documents and it’s another one with metadata
16 which is that you’ve referred to UTXO addresses; do you 16 suggesting it comes from October 2008, but if we go to
17 see that? 17 page 4 {L3/230/4}, it also refers to UTXO, doesn’t it?
18 A. I do. 18 A. Again, it was a term I had used as a shortened term in
19 Q. And those did not exist as an idea in 2008, did they? 19 my other work.
20 A. They did. 20 Q. If we then go to PTR−F, tab 39 {PTR−F/39/1}, we’re going
21 Q. Satoshi Nakamoto never used the expression ”UTXO” in any 21 to come to another document, and this one’s produced
22 of his dealings , did he? 22 from the BDO image so it’s meant to pre−date 2007, right
23 A. Yes, I did, because it ’s me. So, what you’re suggesting 23 −− the end of 2007? But again, it refers to
24 is that all of my work −− and none of this was actually 24 the UTXO addresses and the UTXO pool, doesn’t it?
25 in my dealings either, as Satoshi I didn’t talk about 25 A. Yes, and as I said , I don’t publish everything I write .

138 140

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 Q. Dr Wright, this is very compelling evidence that you 1 go to {CSW/1/78}. Can we look at paragraph 414 of your
2 interfered with the content of the BDO Drive to 2 11th witness statement. You say there that you’ve noted
3 incorporate documents that cannot have come from 2007, 3 that you’ve done everything you can to build in
4 isn ’ t it ? 4 extensibility and versioning:
5 A. It is not. Again, you’re using a common sort of 5 ”This is important because BTC Core has disabled
6 shortened form of a word and saying that because there’s 6 the versioning and scripting that I built .”
7 not a lot of evidence, that most of the logs aren’t 7 Do you see that?
8 there, that that must be it. And this is the whole 8 A. I do.
9 point, there are a few logs and 99% of everything sent 9 Q. Can we then go to {CSW/1/102} of your witness statement
10 at that time is gone −− 10 and look at 545(f), and you say there that:
11 Q. My learned friend Mr −− 11 ”BTC has limited the ability to use script by
12 A. −− despite the fact that your clients run it , none of 12 placing a maximum size and enforcing this rigorously.
13 the private messages on any of the forums are available. 13 The limit of 520 bytes gives very little ability to add
14 Q. Do you think other people were familiar with 14 data.”
15 the term ”UTXO” before we saw etotheipi mention it? 15 Do you see that?
16 A. People working in companies I’ve been with, yes. 16 A. I do.
17 Q. Do you think people who were involved in Bitcoin were 17 Q. Do you see that you provide a footnote, footnote 287?
18 aware of it ? 18 A. I do.
19 A. I didn’t really talk that much to people in Bitcoin. If 19 Q. It refers to a GitHub page; do you see that?
20 you look at the number of communications I had, even 20 A. I do.
21 with those I had a lot of communications with, such as 21 Q. And we can find that at {L9/247.1/1}. So that’s
22 Gavin, it ’s very limited . 22 the GitHub reference that you have given and it’s taken
23 Q. Right, so you didn’t tell anybody who was involved on 23 us to the script .h file on GitHub; do you see that?
24 the developer side of this thought that the expression 24 A. That is correct .
25 UTXO might be used? 25 Q. And so we can see, at row 18, that is declaring

141 143

1 A. No, because Bitcoin’s a distributed timestamp server, 1 a constant integer variable

2 the idea isn ’ t to have like you want, where it’s 2 called ”MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE”; do you see that?
3 everything free , but a commercial system that can be 3 A. I do.
4 built upon the main underlying system. 4 Q. Just out of curiosity , do you know what unsigned means
5 Q. Now, my learned friend Mr Hough has been through 5 in that?
6 the documents with you and made the point that 6 A. I do. Basically it ’s unsigned variable , it ’s not an
7 the metadata of those documents is inauthentic, or that 7 integer with −−
8 it ’s forged. But it ’s not just the metadata that’s 8 Q. With what?
9 inauthentic, is it , it ’s the content as well? 9 A. It ’s larger . I ’m not sure how −− I mean, on the stand
10 A. The metadata on that is not forged. 10 here, I ’m not sure how I’d say it , but −−
11 Q. You wrote this content, didn’t you? 11 Q. Take a wild guess.
12 A. Of course I wrote this content. This content was 12 A. How I would describe it, I ’m not quite sure. I know
13 created by me, but not like you’re saying. It was 13 what it is .
14 created by me in −− like, over 15 years ago. 14 Q. Okay.
15 Q. Dr Wright, you forged these documents, didn’t you? 15 A. I ’m not terribly good when I’m trying to do things like
16 A. I did not. Again, what you’re saying is that other 16 this . Writing it down would be different.
17 terminology which I’ve used in multiple other things 17 Q. Well, do you recall you mentioned that you had a book by
18 must have been shared with people. I create −− I’ve got 18 Professor Stroustrup?
19 several thousand documents, as in ones that are 19 A. I do.
20 patented, and I have not discussed any of those 20 Q. You haven’t disclosed that book, but you have disclosed
21 terminologies outside of corporations where people have 21 three other books about C++, so I want to take you to
22 NDAs. 22 one of those. It ’s {L1/199/1}, and could we go to
23 Q. So nobody else could have forged these documents? 23 page 47 {L1/199/47}. Do you see that it explains that
24 A. They’re not forged. 24 ”unsigned” means that it cannot be negative?
25 Q. Dr Wright, can we move on to a different topic. Can we 25 A. Yes, I do understand that. Would I have thought of

142 144

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 saying it in such a simple way? No. 1 And then, if we go to page −− the bottom of page 1
2 Q. Now, you don’t identify the commit that led −− if we go 2 we can see the change affects not just the script header
3 back to {L9/247.1/1}, you don’t identify the commit that 3 file , but it also affects the other −− the other files
4 led to this change being merged into the code, do you? 4 that were calling on what was previously that
5 A. No, but I know it was actually one that I was behind. 5 520 number, right?
6 Q. Okay. So we can find that at {D1/28/1}. You are 6 A. Yes.
7 ”TheBlueMatt”, are you? 7 Q. So the essence of this commit was the replacement of
8 A. Sorry? 8 a hard−coded size limit of 520 bytes with the constant
9 Q. Are you ”TheBlueMatt”? 9 maxed max_script_element_size, right?
10 A. No, but there were −− I thought it was earlier changes 10 A. That’s changing it, yes.
11 you’re talking about in limitations . 11 Q. Which was defined as 520, right?
12 Q. You’ve read Dr Weller’s statement, I assume? 12 A. Yes.
13 A. Yes. Do I remember all of it off the top of my head? 13 Q. So in script .cpp here, we can see here that it
14 No. 14 previously said if vchPushValue.size is greater than
15 Q. Okay. 15 520, return false , and now it’s saying
16 So actually , if we just look at this , we can see 16 if vchPushValue.size is greater than
17 that the relevant line of script −− that the relevant 17 max_script_element_size, return false, right?
18 line of the commit is the one that we see at 343? 18 A. Okay.
19 A. Yes. 19 Q. So the document that you referred to in your witness
20 Q. Actually, no, we were looking at the script header file , 20 statement wasn’t evidence of BTC imposing a 520 byte
21 I think, so we should go to page 2 {D1/28/2}, and do you 21 limit , was it?
22 see under script .h, that’s where it’s added? Do you see 22 A. No, it ’s still being imposed. It ’s there with the max
23 that? 23 script size in the constant.
24 A. I do. 24 Q. The limit already existed , didn’t it ?
25 Q. That identifies that max_script_element_size equals 520, 25 A. Yes, but the limit was meant to be updated, just like

145 147

1 right? 1 block size .

2 A. No, it says minus on that and plus on the other one. 2 Q. The change that you refer to in your witness statement
3 Q. Sorry? 3 was just giving a name to that limit, right?
4 A. Are we looking at 673? 4 A. No. The limit was meant to be updated. Just like
5 Q. No, we’re looking at line 20 under the script header 5 the remove script and other such things.
6 file , script .h? 6 Q. And then it used that name in the relevant section of
7 A. Oh, the constant unsigned −− it’s an unsigned int −− 7 the script ’s code for clarity and maintainability ,
8 Q. It ’s identifying that the value of 8 right?
9 max_script_element_size is 520; do you see that? 9 A. That’s how they’ve changed the code, yes. I wasn’t
10 A. I do. 10 involved in any of those changes.
11 Q. And if we go back actually to the top of page 1 11 MR GUNNING: I know we normally take a break at about this
12 {D1/28/1}, we can see that this commit has a name. Do 12 time, my Lord. It’s not the most convenient point to
13 you want to just read out the name? 13 break, but I think that will work, but could I ask just
14 A. ”Send transactions ... ” −− 14 one indulgence −−
15 Q. No, that’s the name of the Pull Request. The commit. 15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
16 A. Ah. I don’t use Git. 16 MR GUNNING: −− which is this.
17 Q. Okay, ”Replace 520 constant with 17 Dr Wright, I noticed, on Day 6 at page 159
18 MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE”; do you see that? 18 {Day6/159}, that you read out a definition
19 A. I do. 19 of ”transaction”. Do you recall doing that?
20 Q. So what was happening in the change to the script header 20 A. I do.
21 file was that a constant was being named as −− 21 Q. And I looked at the words that you’d used in that and
22 a variable was being named as max_script_element_size, 22 I noticed that the language you used came from a couple
23 which had a value of 520 bytes, right? 23 of websites, and it ’s very important you do not −− is
24 A. Well, it ’s a constant, it ’s not really a variable . 24 that where you got that definition from?
25 Q. Right. 25 A. No, it ’s not.

146 148

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 Q. Where did you get it from? 1 5,000 bytes to 520 bytes; do you see that?
2 A. That’s something I’ve been using for a long time. 2 A. I do. At the time, there was an attack against
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: But you were reading it from your 3 the network and a vulnerability , and the script was
4 notebook, weren’t you? 4 temporarily disabled , there were other limits put on.
5 A. Yes, I wrote it down in here, my Lord. But 5 All of that was meant to be temporary. At the time,
6 a transaction being an atomic process is something that 6 I also said block size could be increased, etc.
7 is something I’ve been saying for a long, long time. 7 Q. It was Satoshi Nakamoto that limited the ability to use
8 MR GUNNING: Well, what you said was: 8 script by setting a maximum size of 520 bytes, wasn’t
9 ”A sequence of multiple operations performed on 9 it ?
10 databases and served as a single logical unit of work.” 10 A. Not in the way that you’re suggesting. There was
11 Which I found on 11 a communication between multiple people, including Gavin
12 fauna.com/blog/database−transactions. Then I heard you 12 and myself, and it was decided as a temporary measure.
13 say: 13 The script and other things were done as a temporary
14 ”A transaction is a set of related tasks as a single 14 measure.
15 action.” 15 Q. Well, you say a temporary measure, but of course this is
16 Which I found on techtarget.com. 16 August 2010, but Satoshi didn’t leave the scene for
17 A. I ’m sure it ’s on many other places as well. 17 a little while after that, did he?
18 Q. Right. 18 A. I was building other systems.
19 A. Each of those are common terms. I mean, it’s a common 19 Q. If we could go back, if we might, to {CSW/1/102}, at
20 definition . So ... 20 (f ), do you see you put:
21 Q. It ’s very important you do not, in this break, start 21 ”BTC ... limited the ability to use script by
22 looking at your mobile phone, all right? 22 placing a maximum size and enforcing this rigorously.”
23 A. I don’t have my mobile phone at the moment. 23 A. Yes, they enforced it rigorously . Some of the people in
24 Q. Good. 24 BTC are the ones who suggested this, going right back to
25 A. And I won’t be getting it back until the end of the day. 25 2010. I had noted also with block size that you could

149 151

1 So like the other day, I ’m not looking at it in these 1 increase this just by a simple −−
2 breaks. 2 Q. Do you want to wait for my question?
3 MR GUNNING: Good. Thank you. 3 A. I thought that was your question.
4 My Lord, that was the ... 4 Q. No. The question is that it wasn’t BTC that placed
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, we’ll take five minutes. Thank 5 a maximum size on the use of script, was it, it was
6 you. 6 Satoshi Nakamoto?
7 (3.02 pm) 7 A. No, it was BTC who enforced it rigorously.
8 (A short break) 8 Q. And you didn’t know that because you’re not
9 (3.09 pm) 9 Satoshi Nakamoto, are you?
10 MR GUNNING: Dr Wright, when we broke, I was asking you 10 A. Of course I knew that. I ’ve got many debates where I’ve
11 about the change from the hard−coded 520 byte script 11 talked about this. I ’ve said in public forums that
12 limit to the max_script_element_size constant that was 12 while I implemented the 1MB limit, the idea was that it
13 being defined; do you recall that? 13 would be removed. I’ve said that the script −− I’ve
14 A. I do. 14 been on many, many sort of stages and things like that
15 Q. Can we then go to {D1/4/1}. That is commit that was 15 stating this , so you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said ,
16 made by Satoshi Nakamoto on 15 August 2010; do you see 16 because I have stated publicly , multiple times, that
17 that? 17 this was implemented as a temporary fix because there
18 A. I do. 18 was an attack on the network, and that attack on
19 Q. And if we could go to {D1/4/5}, we can see that Satoshi 19 the network was one I discussed with Gavin and others at
20 made some changes to the script.cpp file, at the bottom 20 the time.
21 of the page; do you see that? 21 Q. Well, we can read what you said.
22 A. I do. 22 Can we move to a related topic about disabling
23 Q. And if we go down to {D1/4/6}, at row 89, do you see 23 OP codes, which is at page 100 {CSW/1/100}, and if we
24 that what we were looking at before, which is 24 look at the bottom of the page, paragraph 545, you say:
25 the vchPushValue.size was reduced by Satoshi from 25 ” ... many OP_codes that are important to

150 152

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 the functioning of ... script have been disabled.” 1 includes −− which refers repeatedly to ”LSHIFT”; do you
2 Do you see that? 2 see that?
3 A. Yes. 3 A. I do.
4 Q. Now −− 4 Q. If we then go to {L6/282.7/1}, we can see that Gavin
5 A. The distinction is that −− 5 says −− is responding to an email from Satoshi Nakamoto:
6 Q. Again, are you saying that OP codes that are important 6 ” ... I told the ... bitcoin−dev crowd I’m looking
7 to the functioning of the script have been disabled by 7 for ArtForz because I want to reward him for finding
8 BTC Core as you call them? 8 the LSHIFT bug that crashed the TEST network.”
9 A. The way that I’m answering this is, yes, because what 9 Do you see that?
10 I did was put a temporary block on them. They have been 10 A. Yes, and this is where Gavin then talked about
11 removed from the code all together and replaced. Some 11 implementing on GitHub a bug tracking system, which was
12 of the early scripts , where the functionality was there, 12 different of course to SVN system.
13 have been completely replaced. This includes sort of 13 Q. Well, I ’m not going to go back over the matters that
14 actually changing and adding for SegWit, new ones. 14 Mr Hough put to you in relation to the change to −− from
15 Q. Can we go to {S1/1.18/86}. Now, we have here a list of 15 SourceForge to GitHub, but if we go back to {D1/4/6},
16 OP codes in BSV that are disabled in BTC script; do you 16 this was the commit by Satoshi that we were looking at
17 see that? 17 earlier , do you recall , for the vchPushValue.size thing.
18 A. I do. 18 A. We did.
19 Q. So we have there examples of the disabled OP codes that 19 Q. Yes.
20 you’re talking about, right? 20 We can see, at the bottom that −− of page 6, that
21 A. Not all of them. 21 Satoshi inserted a section of code that had the effect
22 Q. Not all of them, but some of them, yes? 22 that if various OP codes were used in a script −− if
23 A. Some of them, yes. 23 it ’s possible to go down, sorry −− so that’s the top of
24 Q. So if we look at row 152, we can see one of them is 24 the next page, is it ? Okay. Well, so there are
25 ”OP_LSHIFT”, right? 25 a number of OP codes where, if they’re used in a script,

153 155

1 A. Correct. 1 then the script will return a false output, right?

2 Q. Was there a good reason for stabling that? 2 A. Correct.
3 A. Basically people were saying that it hadn’t been 3 Q. And that has the effect of disabling the OP code, right?
4 security tested and there were possible vulnerabilities . 4 A. Temporarily. The patch was discussed and sent to me,
5 LSHIFT could make an overflow type attack at the time it 5 and yes, I pushed the button to implement it.
6 was suggested. 6 Q. Sorry, so you say this patch was sent to you by whom?
7 Q. Well, we can see the background to it if we go to −− and 7 A. It was discussed at different times. There were
8 I know, because it was apparent the other day, that 8 different patches. I don’t recall each one, but there
9 you’ve read Mr Andresen’s emails over the weekend, 9 were patches for the LSHIFT bug being discussed back
10 right? 10 then.
11 A. No, I have not. I haven’t been home. 11 Q. Can you point to anything else other than the thing that
12 Q. If we go to L6 −− 12 I took you to?
13 A. Actually, I was home for the weekend, but I haven’t read 13 A. Not without things in front of me, no. There were
14 his emails over the weekend. 14 emails and also discussions on the SourceForge Dev list.
15 Q. {L6/282.10/1}, you see this is an email from 15 Q. Okay.
16 Gavin Andresen to Satoshi Nakamoto? 16 So when we look at these, we’ve got the whole list
17 A. I do. 17 and we can see at the end of −− so ”opcode ==
18 Q. He says −− he notes that: 18 OP_CAT” and there seems to be a double bar. Do you know
19 ”Some people ... have been trying to get bad 19 what that is?
20 transactions into the blockchain ... ” 20 A. Concatenation. So first of all , ”==” is an equivalence,
21 That they had succeeded, and then he says that they: 21 and then concatenate. So effectively ”opcode”,
22 ” ... caused the stock bitcoind to crash ... ” 22 ”OP_CAT” or sub−string or any of these. So if it’s −−
23 Do you see that? 23 Q. The double −− what’s the double bar?
24 A. I do. 24 A. It ’s a concatenation for like ”or” so ...
25 Q. We can then see a script, underneath that, which 25 Q. For ”or”?

154 156

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 A. Yes. 1 actually rewriting the codes that they no longer exist ,

2 Q. Right. 2 which is what’s happened now. You’re nodding and going,
3 Now, the effect of this was if OP_LSHIFT was used in 3 ”Oh no”, but the actual thing is , now there’s no code.
4 the script , it would return a false result , right? 4 And in fact some of those areas have been overwritten
5 A. The script would come out false. So no matter what was 5 with new OP codes that do completely different things.
6 in the script , if that was there, it would fail as 6 Q. Well, we can see, in relation to OP_2MUL, you take that
7 false . 7 as another example of an OP code that’s been disabled,
8 Q. So any transaction that used it would be invalid? 8 right?
9 A. At the time, yes. 9 A. I do.
10 Q. And ... 10 Q. And you set out a series of reasons why you say that
11 So a couple of things in relation , if we go back to 11 wasn’t necessary, right?
12 your witness statement at {CSW 1/100/1}, bottom of 12 A. I agree.
13 the page. You referred there to many OP codes that were 13 Q. And I think, in your evidence on Thursday last week, you
14 important and the functioning of the scripts having been 14 said that it was very easy to turn it back on, right?
15 disabled , but you didn’t mention that they were disabled 15 A. It should be, yes.
16 by Satoshi Nakamoto, did you? 16 Q. Well, it ’s disabled in BSV, isn’t it ?
17 A. No, what I’m referring to is the fact that I pulled them 17 A. It ’s not meant to be.
18 temporarily, and in August/September, I discussed, not 18 Q. What do you mean ”it’s not meant to be”?
19 only with Gavin, but other people, the fact that 19 A. It ’s in the thing that it should have been turned on
20 a security code check needed to be done. So, to enable 20 already, so I will be rather upset if it ’s not,
21 these again, we needed to have the code verified. So, 21 I haven’t checked.
22 it ’s not that the code for, like , LSHIFT was necessarily 22 Q. Right, well , if we go back to {S1/1.18/85}, we can see,
23 a problem, it ’s my implementation was a problem, and if 23 at the bottom, that it says for ”BSV Script OPCodes”,
24 it was written better so that checks would be made, that 24 ”OP_2MUL DISABLED”; do you see that?
25 would be okay. 25 A. That’s something that needs to be fixed. It should

157 159

1 Q. So if we carry on, it says: 1 be −− if it has −− if that’s true, then I ’ ll need to

2 ”One example of an OP code that ...” 2 make sure that someone fixes that asap.
3 If we go to the top of the page {CSW/1/101}: 3 Q. Well, it certainly seemed to be disabled to us when we
4 ” ... has been disabled is OP_2MUL.” 4 looked this morning. Were you aware of that?
5 Right? 5 A. I haven’t looked this morning, no. But like I said ,
6 A. Correct. 6 I ’ ll be definitely checking and talking to people.
7 Q. But you didn’t mention that that had actually been 7 Q. But this is −− if we go back to page 100 of your witness
8 disabled by Satoshi Nakamoto, did you? 8 statement {CSW/1/100}, this is a classic example of you
9 A. Again, I just took all of the community patches and 9 showing that you’re not Satoshi Nakamoto because
10 implemented them because a lot of people were 10 the disabling of OP_2MUL was undertaken by
11 complaining about vulnerabilities and people were 11 Satoshi Nakamoto, right?
12 attacking the network. What −− 12 A. Yes, I implemented the code and I do know that. I have
13 Q. You didn’t −− 13 stated on stage saying that, yes, I implemented it.
14 A. No, what I stated was that code was then removed fully. 14 Q. Okay, so if we go to page {CSW/1/101}, you have this
15 While I put a temporary block in there, the code is now 15 whole explanation as to why it may or may not have been
16 totally stripped from Bitcoin and some of those have 16 done, but Satoshi Nakamoto would know why it had been
17 been reallocated. 17 done.
18 Q. Well, we can look at this section of your witness 18 A. I do know why it’s been done. Like I just said , I told
19 statement again if you like , but the gist of this 19 you about the overflow for left shift and people were
20 witness statement was that the dastardly people that you 20 actually complaining about this as well .
21 regard as being at BTC Core had disabled all these 21 Most of the things have been turned on one by one in
22 OP codes, right? 22 BSV, as we checked the code, so we’ve been rigorous in
23 A. There is a distinction , and a very big one, between 23 that, because some of the people in your team like to
24 putting a temporary block in there, a few lines saying 24 ensure that we are by checking for bugs, and most of
25 that if you see that for the moment, disable them, and 25 those have been turned on. That one I didn’t realise

158 160

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 had been missed. 1 that?

2 Q. And you called it, I think, a temporary deactivation by 2 A. I do.
3 Satoshi? 3 Q. And it has a key ID that we can see, which is CF1857E;
4 A. It was. 4 do you see that?
5 Q. So we saw it happening in August 2010; he was still 5 A. I do.
6 around for another eight months after that. 6 Q. So there are two keys within this PGP key, right?
7 A. Not really . I was around very little after that. 7 A. I haven’t worked on PGP for a long time, so I’ ll take
8 August was particularly draining. I went −− I mean, 8 your word for it .
9 the attack on the network was one of my busiest. 9 Q. Okay −−
10 I probably posted more in that month than I had done in 10 A. I used to know it much better.
11 the rest of my time as Satoshi. On top of that, that 11 Q. But there’s a primary key and a sub key, right?
12 month was when my marriage actually really fell apart, 12 A. Yes.
13 so after that I wasn’t as focused as I should have been 13 Q. And that’s not at all unusual, right?
14 and started disappearing. Again, the ATO started at 14 A. No.
15 that point. So −− 15 Q. Now, we can see from both signature packets that these
16 Q. So Dr Wright, you may have been very distracted in 16 were version 4 keys; do you see that?
17 August 2010, but Satoshi Nakamoto wasn’t, was he? 17 A. I do.
18 A. No, that’s why I was −− 18 Q. I want to stick with the primary key for this PGP key if
19 Q. He could have activated this if he’d wanted to and he 19 I may. So if we look at the signature packet, which is
20 didn’t? 20 a little above over −− a little above halfway down, it
21 A. No, that’s incorrect . In fact , as the perfect example, 21 identifies the user ID packet as Satoshi Nakamoto; do
22 I gave, publicly , how simple it would be just to 22 you see that?
23 implement increasing the block size as it gets closer 23 A. Yes, that’s manually configurable, you just type it in .
24 and yet that got completely ignored. I said , at any 24 Q. And it says satoshin@gmx.com, right?
25 point, you could just put a check point where, going 25 A. Correct.

161 163

1 forward, the block size can be increased before it hits 1 Q. So this is associated with Satoshi’s satoshin@gmx.com
2 any limits . Rather people went for limits . 2 email, right?
3 Q. Can we move to a different topic: PGP keys. You have 3 A. That’s the user ID that’s typed in manually, yes.
4 been asked a number of questions about Satoshi’s public 4 Q. Well, you see, you made the suggestion that this key
5 PGP key, and we looked at the unrolled details of that 5 somehow came from Vistomail, did you say?
6 at {G/6/50}; do you recall that? 6 A. The server on Vistomail allowed for keys, and when you
7 A. I don’t recall the page, but I recall −− 7 create a key, you can type in any email address that you
8 Q. Okay. Does that look familiar? 8 want. So, saying that it comes from Vistomail, well,
9 A. Yes. 9 that just means, in the server field , when you’re
10 Q. Yes. 10 creating a key, I typed in ”Satoshi Nakamoto email”.
11 Now, within a single PGP key there can be multiple 11 Q. Okay. Are you aware that Vistomail used a CentOS
12 keys, right? 12 server?
13 A. There can be, yes. 13 A. Not all the time, no. That was later. At one stage
14 Q. So there would be a primary key and then zero or more 14 they had a Mac.
15 sub keys? 15 Q. Well, at this time, they were using a Linux
16 A. Yes. 16 distribution , weren’t they?
17 Q. And do you see that the public key packet is identified 17 A. I don’t know. I don’t look at their core system. I ’m
18 first in Mr Madden’s unrolled information; do you see 18 not part of what they used.
19 that? 19 Q. And this PGP key is obviously a Windows system,
20 A. I do. 20 isn ’ t it , because do you see it says?:
21 Q. And do you see that it has an ID which starts 18 −− 1−8 21 ”Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)”
22 that is , C09E etc, etc; do you see that? 22 A. No, that’s where the header version’s in there. But
23 A. I do. 23 once again, there are multiple systems in Vistomail.
24 Q. And then if we go a little over halfway down the page, 24 Sorry.
25 the public sub key packet is identified ; do you see 25 Q. Well, you know very well that MingW32 is a Windows based

162 164

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 system, right? 1 like I ’ve gone to a public key authority or something

2 A. I do. 2 like this , or even a web of trust, it ’s basically just
3 Q. Yes. 3 a setting that −−
4 Now, coming back to the key, we can see that it 4 Q. But it’s Satoshi saying that, ”I have ... ” −− or
5 refers to the −− that for the primary key, it refers to 5 the person who this is is associating this key with this
6 the signature packet; do you see that? 6 user ID, which here was Satoshi Nakamoto,
7 A. I do. 7 satoshin@gmx.com, right?
8 Q. And then underneath that, in the line below, it 8 A. It ’s associating with that address.
9 identifies the version number and the creation date? 9 Q. And we can see that again at page {L2/202.1/27}, if we
10 A. Yes. 10 go to 5.2.3.3, ”Notes on Self−Signatures”, it says,
11 Q. And it identifies the ” sigclass ” as type ”0x13”, right? 11 three types of self −signature, certification signatures ,
12 A. Yes. 12 which are types 0x10 to 0x13; do you see that?
13 Q. So if we could go to {L2/202.1/1}, we can see this is 13 A. I do.
14 the ”OpenPGP Message Format” document, right? 14 Q. And then we can see, at the bottom paragraph, it says,
15 A. It is . 15 after referring to revoking self −signatures, it says:
16 Q. And it was authored by Hal Finney amongst others, right? 16 ”The self signature is a statement, ’My name X is
17 A. It was. 17 tied to my signing key K’ ... ”
18 Q. And if we could go to page 2 {L2/202.1/2}, do you see 18 Right?
19 that signature packets are dealt with at section 5.2? 19 A. Yes, so basically if you’re giving a key, as I did, for
20 A. Yes, I see that. 20 −− like I was doing, associating, like , I want an
21 Q. And when you create a key, you identify the type of key 21 encrypted packet between two individuals, that would be
22 that you’re trying to create, right? 22 valid . So that doesn’t do anything for identity , it
23 A. You can, actually. You can do a default or you can set 23 just means you’re sending something to the other person,
24 what you want. 24 you’re saying, ”You can trust when you send me this
25 Q. You can make it a certification key, a signing key, an 25 file ”.

165 167

1 encryption key, whatever you want, right? 1 Q. What it shows us is that Satoshi’s PGP key, the primary
2 A. No, you set the algorithms, etc, so ... 2 key in his PGP key was designated as a signing key,
3 Q. But the algorithms, for example, a DSA algorithm, 3 right?
4 DSA stands for? 4 A. No, it shows that it could be used as that. I noted
5 A. The dual signature algorithm. 5 that earlier . What I also said is you shouldn’t be
6 Q. Right. So that’s going to be a signing key, right? 6 using the same keys.
7 A. Not necessarily , no. It can be a sub key that’s added 7 Q. It also identifies , doesn’t it , that it couldn’t be used
8 by the system, that’s correct . 8 −− the primary key could not be used as an encryption
9 Q. It ’s not going to be an encryption key, though, is it ? 9 key, right?
10 A. DSA is not encryption, no. 10 A. No, the algorithms are in there and it was used as an
11 Q. Right. 11 encryption key.
12 So, if we could go to page 20 {L2.202.1/20}, we will 12 Q. So −−
13 see that sigclass 0x13 is addressed there; do you see 13 A. As you well know.
14 that? 14 Q. If we could go then, if you don’t mind, we’d better go
15 A. I do. 15 back to {G/6/50}. Do you see that the primary key −− do
16 Q. So it ’s a: 16 you see the algorithm number?
17 ”Positive certification of a User ID and Public−Key 17 A. I do.
18 packet. The issuer of this certification has done 18 Q. So it says ”algo 17”; do you see that?
19 substantial verification of the claim of identity .” 19 A. I do.
20 Right? 20 Q. ”Algo 17” is associated −− it means that it’s
21 A. I do. 21 a DSA algorithm, right?
22 Q. And so it confirms the user ID packet, right? 22 A. Correct.
23 A. No, it actually doesn’t. That is just a setting in 23 Q. So that is a signing key, isn ’ t it ?
24 the system. So if the system recognises the user 24 A. No, it ’s more for code signing. So if you do an
25 account, etc, then this will happen. But that’s not 25 encrypted packet, you would encrypt and sign.

166 168

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 Q. We just agreed DSA is not for encryption, is it ? 1 You don’t refer to it .

2 A. Like I just said , you use the two keys. You encrypt and 2 A. Actually, I do. The one that I just mentioned. The one
3 sign . So if you wanted to do an encrypted to someone 3 that I sent to Gavin. And Gavin’s documents were
4 else or validate or have something else, it ’s a process 4 disclosed .
5 of encrypt and sign. So that’s how you would use that. 5 Q. So when did you send that to Gavin?
6 Q. Sorry, you’re not right , Dr Wright. The primary key 6 A. 2016. It was a document that was from BDO and it was on
7 here is a signing key, the sub key, do you see 7 their website. I don’t know where it would be now, but
8 the algorithm that’s identified for that? It says 8 that’s (inaudible ). So all of those were sent to him.
9 ”algo 16”? 9 And those are also in the disclosure platform, from
10 A. Yes. 10 2008, from other sources.
11 Q. That’s an ElGamal algorithm, isn’t it? 11 Q. Come back to PGP, though. We’ve established that
12 A. I don’t remember each of the names of these off the top 12 the primary key of this PGP key was a signing key,
13 of my head. 13 right?
14 Q. Which is −− which would make it an encryption key, 14 A. We’ve established that it ’s an automated system and that
15 wouldn’t it? 15 I didn’t play around with a whole lot of settings . It
16 A. ElGamal, yes. 16 was a key for encryption and that’s what I used it for .
17 Q. So there are two keys here, one of which is a signing 17 Q. So had you signed with this PGP key, that would have
18 key and one of which is an encryption key? 18 been powerful evidence that you were Satoshi, wouldn’t
19 A. That’s correct . 19 it ?
20 Q. And can we go then to {CSW/1/46}. We should have 20 A. No.
21 paragraph 243 of your witness statement. You said: 21 Q. You would have been able to sign with a key that was
22 ”The PGP ... is not a signing key.” 22 directly associated with him, wouldn’t you?
23 A. It isn ’ t a signing key, it was used for encryption. 23 A. No. Once again, the server has been owned and re−owned
24 Data was encrypted both from Malmi and from 24 from multiple people. A requirement for proving
25 Gavin Andresen. 25 identity isn ’ t that you hold a piece of data. If I was

169 171

1 Q. Dr Wright, it was set up as a signing key. The primary 1 to have a key, I would have to have it in my possession
2 key in the PGP key was set up as a signing key, wasn’t 2 and control the whole time.
3 it ? 3 Q. Let’s move to a totally different topic , {L17/327/1}.
4 A. No, it was constructed automatically and it was never 4 This is a transcript from the Kleiman proceedings; do
5 set up as a signing key. Do I remember each of 5 you see that?
6 the numbers in PGP any more? No. It’s just like I did 6 A. I do.
7 a lot of work between 2005 and 2008 to get up to speed 7 Q. And if we go to page {L17/327/2}, we can see it was
8 on C and C programming for when I did Bitcoin and 8 a date on which you were being examined in−chief by your
9 I don’t any more. I haven’t touched C++ since 2017. 9 counsel, Mr Rivero, right? Have I got that right?
10 I have staff now and they do. So, do I remember it all? 10 A. It says ”Ami Klin” here.
11 No. 11 Q. Underneath that.
12 Q. Dr Wright, you don’t have very much experience of C++ at 12 A. Oh, sorry. Okay, yes. Sorry.
13 all , do you? 13 Q. And then if we turn to page 105 {L17/327/105}, do we see
14 A. I actually did. 14 that Mr Rivero asked you about whether you were running
15 Q. No, you didn’t. 15 the Bitcoin System when it went live?
16 A. Yes, I did. 16 A. Which line are we talking about, sorry?
17 Q. I ’m not going to go back through your CVs, but we can 17 Q. Do you see, at lines 5 to 7?
18 read them for ourselves. 18 A. I do.
19 A. Gavin, 14/13, I believe . That was one of the CVs. One 19 Q. And he asked you how many computers you were operating
20 of the disclosures by Gavin was an email from myself 20 at the outset of the Bitcoin Blockchain?
21 with my other CV. If −− 21 A. I do.
22 Q. Now, we’re talking −− 22 Q. So you referred there to how you had 69 computers in
23 A. −− you have a look on that, you see pages of coding 23 four racks; do you see that?
24 experience. 24 A. Yes.
25 Q. We can look at your CVs from 2008 and 2009, I’m afraid. 25 Q. Which as I understand it, you’re saying were split

170 172

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 between Bagnoo and Lisarow, right? 1 Q. Did you ask?

2 A. Bagnoo, house at Lisarow. 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And Lisarow was a residential house? 3 Q. Okay.
4 A. Modified. The garage had been rebuilt. I ’d turned 4 A. At least my lawyers told me they did.
5 the double garage into a computer room. We had it 5 Q. Now, you explained, I think, that the electricity
6 air conditioned, we had three−phase power put in, a few 6 consumed by these systems was being spent on verifying
7 other bits and pieces. 7 the ECDSA base signatures for the transactions?
8 Q. So, I just −− I’m having a recollection, which may be 8 A. No, I said that was one small part. I said that I was
9 inaccurate, but when your sister visited your house, she 9 running logging systems and part of Timecoin. So it was
10 talks about seeing your computers in your bedroom, or 10 the entirety of it all . It was my testing, it was my
11 something like that. Does that ring a bell with you? 11 development of other systems, so not just that. It
12 A. No, that was back in 2002. 12 wasn’t just Bitcoin, in the way that you look at it , it
13 Q. Okay. 13 was the test systems for Bitcoin as well .
14 A. At that point, I had −− it wasn’t a −− I mean, well, it 14 Q. Could we go −− the test −− so the test network; is that
15 wasn’t my bedroom, but it was a large double bedroom 15 what you’re talking about?
16 that I ’d converted into a computer room. 16 A. No, test systems.
17 Q. All right . 17 Q. Test systems.
18 So if we go to page −− around about page 108, 18 A. I mean, now we’d call it testnet , but it wasn’t testnet
19 I think {L17/327/108}, you identified that you said you 19 then.
20 were incurring an electricity cost of about −− do you 20 Q. Right, because testnet didn’t exist until −−
21 see at the bottom of the page −− about AU$11,000 per 21 A. 2010.
22 month, right? 22 Q. −− July 2010?
23 A. Yes. 23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. And in your witness evidence in these proceedings, so 24 Q. Right.
25 {E/1/22} −− 25 A. Well, there was a test network, but there wasn’t

173 175

1 A. Mm−hm. 1 a public testnet .

2 Q. −− we can see that you say that you were using numerous 2 Q. Could we go to {Day6/146:24} to {Day6/147:9}. You were
3 computer systems. It’s paragraph 116. Do you see that? 3 accusing here Professor Meiklejohn of misrepresenting
4 A. I do. 4 Bitcoin mining and nodes, and you said, because she was
5 Q. And you referred there to 69 racks, but you clarified , 5 complaining about −− she was looking at the hash rate
6 I think, in your −− 6 that would have been relevant in light of the target
7 A. Yes, that was an error −− 7 values that were applicable in the early days of
8 Q. −− evidence −− 8 Bitcoin, right? And you said:
9 A. −− there are four racks and −− 9 ”The majority, at a low level like that, is actually
10 Q. −− that there were 69 computers. So that’s where you 10 validating ECDSA.”
11 were spending the $11,000, right? 11 A. I said one part.
12 A. Something like that, yeah. I don’t have the exact 12 Q. You said ”the majority”.
13 amount. It was actually the −− there were −− 13 A. No, of Bitcoin. I also have noted, as I did in my
14 the company paid for the three−phase power and I paid 14 witness statement, that I was running logging and
15 for the normal house power. 15 collation systems and testing systems. So, one of
16 Q. Okay. Because you haven’t actually disclosed any 16 the things that I was doing, as well as Bitcoin, the way
17 electricity bills , other than those that accompanied 17 that you’re talking about, I have been, since then,
18 your 2008 and 2009 tax return, have you? 18 working at scaling solutions .
19 A. I ’ve only got the personal ones. The records for 19 Q. All right . So, in terms of Bitcoin, though, it was
20 Information Defense I don’t have any more. 20 mostly ECDSA as opposed to hashing?
21 Q. Right. Why not? 21 A. ECDSA, when there are transactions, takes up more than
22 A. It ’s been 15 years. 22 the hashing. If there are no transactions, that’s
23 Q. Right, well , why didn’t you ask for them from 23 different . But like I was saying, I was running
24 the electricity providers earlier ? 24 multiple instances .
25 A. They don’t have them going back that far. 25 Q. Right. So coming back to my question. Was it mostly

174 176

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 then validating −− was the majority of your Bitcoin 1 false by reference to the blockchain.
2 usage validating ECDSA? 2 A. No, actually , it ’s not. I have a number of patents on
3 A. All right , so −− 3 how to do this. So, some of those have been implemented
4 Q. Yes or no? 4 and there are companies now running the software, such
5 A. There’s no ”yes” or ”no”, because there’s a leading 5 as Certihash. Certihash has integrated with IBM and
6 question here. My Bitcoin use included all of the test 6 they’re running it on clients . So, that’s based on
7 systems I was doing. So, if you’re saying my Bitcoin 7 technology I developed in 2008.
8 use on the public network, then, no. My Bitcoin use on 8 Q. Can we go, if you don’t mind just to go backwards for
9 the public network included all of the test systems, all 9 a moment, to {E/8/4}. This is Dani DeMorgan’s witness
10 of the logging systems, etc. 10 statement, paragraph 11. You said that she was talking
11 Q. Okay. Because how many transactions would have been 11 about 2002; do you recall that? She’s actually talking
12 being verified , per block, in the first year of Bitcoin? 12 about 2008, isn’t she?
13 A. It varied , but not a lot . 13 A. No, when she saw it in a bedroom, it was 2002. I had
14 Q. Well, out the first 32,489 blocks which were created up 14 multiple homes in the Central Coast, by the way, I had
15 to the end of 2009, there were just 219 transactions, 15 one in the Hawkesbury, so she’d obviously mixed the two
16 weren’t there? 16 up.
17 A. I haven’t counted, but not many, no. Very few. 17 Q. You see, the trouble is , we do actually have your
18 Q. But, typically , there were zero transactions per block, 18 electricity bills from Lisarow, don’t we?
19 weren’t there? 19 A. You would have the personal ones.
20 A. Yes. As I noted, there was a dead period in 2009. 20 Q. Right.
21 Q. Maybe one transaction per block, occasionally −− very 21 A. You wouldn’t have the three−phase.
22 occasionally two or three, and on only one occasion 22 Q. And the cost per month was closer to 800 −− well, for
23 five , right? 23 three months was closer to $800 than $11,000, wasn’t it?
24 A. I ’m actually surprised with five , but I haven’t noticed 24 A. No, like I said , I had a separate account for
25 that one. 25 Information Defense.

177 179

1 Q. So the majority of computer usage cannot have been 1 Q. Well, we can −−

2 validating ECDSA, Dr Wright. 2 A. I had three−phase power put into that area.
3 A. Like I said , I was doing testing as well . So, you’re 3 Q. We can go to {L5/70/79}. This is the electricity bill
4 saying the public network was it. 4 at Lisarow, right? It ’s in your former wife’s name,
5 Q. Well, shall we read the rest of what you said? You 5 right?
6 said : 6 A. That is the house one. That is very limited , just my
7 ”The majority, at a low level like that, is actually 7 office , etc. As I stated, there was three−phase that
8 validating ECDSA. ECDSA is far more computationally 8 was on a separate switch.
9 intense process than hashing. So what we need to do is 9 Q. And you have no record of the electricity bill for that?
10 actually go through validation of blocks, checking, 10 A. I have no records of any of the accounting for
11 later running testnet as well , and ensuring that all 11 Information Defense at that time.
12 that process happens before you distribute the block.” 12 Q. Right, well , final topic . Can we go to {L19/168/1}. We
13 Right? 13 have here a slightly annoyingly formatted extract from
14 A. ”On top of that, I had to run multiple systems”, to 14 the Bitcoin forum, and at the top we can see that
15 quote myself. And then I said all of that ”allowed me 15 someone called ”genjix” wanted to sent a letter to
16 to have multiple systems, including the logging 16 WikiLeaks about Bitcoin; do you see that?
17 system~...”, etc. Those logging systems were running 17 A. I do.
18 that. 18 Q. Do you know who genjix is?
19 Q. You were presenting to the court that the majority of 19 A. He was involved in communications, and some of
20 your usage of your systems for Bitcoin was validating 20 the others, Gavin and Martti, wanted him to run the site
21 ECDSA, right? 21 for a while. The individual was a bit ...
22 A. Yes, but not the way that you’re saying. What I was 22 Q. So the answer is: no, I don’t know the person by name?
23 saying is , I was embedding transactions in block headers 23 A. No, I don’t know most of the people on the forum by
24 and doing calculations based on that, at the time. 24 name, even though I’ve talked to them.
25 Q. And that assertion, I would suggest, is demonstrably 25 Q. Okay.

178 180

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 And if we then go to page {L19/168/35}, we can see, 1 scandal might lead to a new virtual currency; do you see
2 at the foot of the page, that somebody −− is this 2 that?
3 the right reference? It should be post 114 from 3 A. I do.
4 somebody called −− yes, so we can see somebody called 4 Q. And if we go to {L6/493/2}, we can see that it
5 Robert Horning; do you see that? It’s about −− 5 specifically mentioned Bitcoin in that context, right?
6 A. Whereabouts? 6 A. I do.
7 Q. Do you see where it says −− at the very bottom there’s 7 Q. And that led to postings on the Bitcoin forum, right?
8 a heading that says, ”Re: WikiLeaks contact info?” 8 A. I wasn’t terribly involved, after that point, on
9 A. Yes. 9 the forum, but, yes, there were some.
10 Q. And above the ”114”, it says ”RHorning”; do you see 10 Q. If we go to {L1/49/1} we can see that there was a topic,
11 that? 11 ”PC World Article on Bitcoin”; do you see that?
12 A. Yes. 12 A. I do.
13 Q. And do you see he says at the bottom: 13 Q. And we can see Satoshi’s response at the foot of page
14 ”For myself, I ’m getting to the point to say ’bring 14 {L19/49/2}.
15 it on’ in regards to Wikileaks.” 15 A. Mm−hm.
16 Then it says: 16 Q. Satoshi said this :
17 ”Note that I’m using my real name here instead of 17 ”It would have been nice to get this attention in
18 a pseudonym.” 18 any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet’s
19 Then goes on to identify himself on the following 19 nest and the swarm is headed towards us.”
20 page, right? 20 Right?
21 A. I do. 21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And if we go to the foot of the following page 22 Q. That, I think, was one of Satoshi’s final postings on
23 {L19/168/36}, he concludes his message by saying: 23 the Bitcoin forums, right?
24 ”Basically , bring it on. Let’s encourage Wikileaks 24 A. Yes.
25 to use Bitcoins ... ” 25 Q. And it indicates that Satoshi did not want the negative

181 183

1 Right? 1 attention that might come from being associated with

2 A. Yes, he does. 2 WikiLeaks, right?
3 Q. Let’s see how that’s picked up by Satoshi Nakamoto. 3 A. I wanted a whole lot of other things first . As I said ,
4 It ’s at {L19/168/49}, and it’s, we can see, Satoshi. 4 it ’s money and it’s legal , so whether I necessarily like
5 Then number 148 quotes Mr Horning, and then says this. 5 something that is legal is irrelevant , but I didn’t want
6 It says: 6 it to be seen as a WikiLeaks thing.
7 ”No, don’t ’bring it on’. 7 Q. Can we then turn up −− well, we can see, actually, that
8 ”The project needs to grow gradually so the software 8 Satoshi was strongly disapproving of people who were
9 can be strengthened along the way. 9 seeking to link Bitcoin to WikiLeaks, right?
10 ”I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use 10 A. In that sense. What I was basically looking at is
11 Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its 11 the fact that that wasn’t a good first use case.
12 infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket 12 The use cases that I’d noted with marketplaces, escrow,
13 change, and the heat you would bring would likely 13 etc, weren’t being used, instead people were developing
14 destroy us at this stage.” 14 Silk Road and WikiLeaks, so ...
15 Right? 15 Q. Now, can we then turn to {L7/391/1}. This is an article
16 A. I do. 16 that you, Craig S Wright, wrote on LulzSec and
17 Q. So Satoshi Nakamoto was opposed to WikiLeaks using 17 Anonymous, right?
18 Bitcoin, right? 18 A. I wrote it , and it was published for me.
19 A. Yes and no. I don’t necessarily like Bitcoin, but 19 Q. But you wrote it in August 2011, right?
20 Bitcoin is money, so any legal use should be able to use 20 A. About then, yes.
21 it . But in December of 2010, Bitcoin needed to be more 21 Q. So that’s less than a year after Satoshi’s ”hornet’s
22 resilient and needed people other than myself doing 22 nest” comment, right?
23 things. 23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Could we then go to {L6/493/1}. An article was 24 Q. And you wrote it for an online publication called
25 published by PC World about whether the WikiLeaks 25 The Conversation?

182 184

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 A. I did. 1 right?
2 Q. And it was the first article in which you, 2 A. No, what I disapproved of was making it a foundational
3 Craig S Wright, explicitly referred to Bitcoin, 3 thing. So, there are two different areas here. One,
4 isn ’ t it ? 4 I didn’t want Silk Road and WikiLeaks to be the main
5 A. No, it ’s not. 5 thing Bitcoin was used for. There were lots of other
6 Q. You say you have earlier writings , public writings , that 6 discussions on the forum about what Bitcoin could be
7 relate to Bitcoin? 7 used for , including escrow and other things.
8 A. Yes. Are they all available any more after 15 years? 8 Secondly, then I said , in a response to someone
9 No. 9 going on about governments and evil money, sort of,
10 Q. Nobody’s pointed to one earlier, Dr Wright. 10 stoppers or whatever else, there are other options. If
11 It provoked a debate amongst its readers, this 11 they got stopped on Wiki −− on PayPal, they could move
12 article , didn’t it ? 12 on to X, Y and Z, which includes Bitcoin.
13 A. I followed a couple of the comments, but I didn’t keep 13 Q. Let’s go to page {L7/391/17}. So, we can see
14 going with them. 14 Andrew McNicol, I think, again commenting, and if you
15 Q. We can see that you did provide your comments at 15 look at the bottom of that, you respond to that; do you
16 {L7/391/3}, and if we go down to {L7/391/13}, we can see 16 see that?
17 that you responded to somebody called Andrew McNicol, 17 A. I do.
18 a little bit up the page; do you see that? 18 Q. And if we look at the top of page 18 {L7/391/18} we can
19 A. I do. 19 see that you say that you ”see Google Checkout as a good
20 Q. He was a PhD candidate at the University of 20 possibility to replacing PayPal’s dominance”, right?
21 New South Wales. 21 A. I do.
22 And if we just look at your response, you said: 22 Q. And you then say:
23 ”There are generally options. There are many 23 ”It certainly has the resources and although it
24 options for nearly every vendor. Do not buy from 24 remains under the radar somewhat right now the projected
25 vendors with PayPal − same effect. 25 growth rates are exceeding those of PayPal.

185 187

1 ”WikiLeaks can get payments from other sources. It 1 ”Add to the list FaceBook soon.
2 CAN get money transfers. It can get bit coins it can do 2 ”FaceBook credit will be public soon. Facebook
3 many things if it wants. There are MANY options that 3 credit will integrate into many sites offering
4 allow people to send money to [WikiLeaks].” 4 a non−cash based international currency. I have to say
5 Right? 5 that this is a strong contender for an alternative .”
6 A. Yes. 6 And then you say this:
7 Q. So a couple of points to come out of that. The first is 7 ”Bit Coin ... ”
8 that this was a discussion about whether WikiLeaks could 8 This time capital ”B”, ”Bit”, capital ”C”, ”Coin”,
9 get payments from sources other than PayPal, right? 9 then:
10 A. That’s correct . 10 ” ... ([ capital B] Bit [ capital C] Coin) is a digital
11 Q. And, secondly, you suggested that they could get 11 currency. Bit Coin offers a full peer−to−peer currency
12 bitcoins , right? 12 solution .”
13 A. No, basically I ’m just pointing it out. I mean, I’m not 13 So, stopping there, you’re still using two words to
14 suggesting they should in this , I ’m saying that that is 14 refer to Bitcoin, right?
15 still an option. 15 A. Still the same site. And, yes, I didn’t check it that
16 Q. Thirdly, you spelt ”bit coins” as two words; right? 16 it had done that.
17 A. No, autocorrect did that on me. 17 Q. But now you’re capitalising the first and second words?
18 Q. It never did it to Satoshi, did it ? 18 A. I ’d done that multiple times as Satoshi as well . It ’s
19 A. No, he never used that site . 19 in the code as that.
20 Q. Right, so you’re saying it ’s the autocorrect on that 20 Q. Not as separate words, you have not.
21 site , are you? 21 A. No, because I had the separate capital , that’s why this
22 A. Autocorrect, on that site , does certain things, but it 22 site added the space.
23 didn’t on −− what do you call it −− the forum. 23 Q. I think that the only place that Satoshi ever used
24 Q. Right. We’ve just seen that Satoshi Nakamoto strongly 24 a capital ”C” for ”Coin” in ”Bit Coin” was in the readme
25 disapproved of people linking Bitcoin to WikiLeaks, 25 text that was issued with the code, right?

186 188

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 A. No, also on some of the forums. 1 will automatically pull it up every time you do it. So
2 Q. And he then removed it. 2 if I ’m doing something like assignments for uni, I just
3 A. No, I standardised after all that happened. So most of 3 do the date reference and then the last one is it , and
4 those changes that you’re talking about I removed, 4 then I generally set it after I ’ve done~... So as I ’m
5 I didn’t do. 5 doing drafts , I have it autoset, and then when I have
6 Q. Dr Wright, the fact is that when you first emerged to 6 the final , I set it . And I keep it that way because,
7 talk about Bitcoin you were not familiar with it and you 7 then, if I ’m asked by the uni again, I have the same
8 didn’t even know how to spell it properly, right? 8 document.
9 A. That’s totally incorrect , and I did. I already had 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
10 a company extensively researching on that area. 10 Next can we go to {L5/16/1}. Now, this is document
11 Q. Dr Wright, more pertinently, you did not know that 11 ID_000538.
12 Satoshi was keen to discourage WikiLeaks from using 12 A. Yes.
13 Bitcoin, right? 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And you were asked some questions about
14 A. Again, I wanted people not to use the other. I ’d seen 14 this on Day 3.
15 all the sites , I ’d gone through everything with people 15 A. Yes.
16 multiple times, so, no, I knew what I said. What you’re 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And in relation to this one, in your
17 trying to say is because, on a site , it comes up that 17 fourth witness statement you indicated that this
18 way, which, ”Bitcoin” and then ”Bit Coin”. It was meant 18 document was made available to various staff and
19 to be cut and paste as a hyperlink and somehow that 19 consultants.
20 ended up funky. 20 A. Yes. It was also loaded on SSRN. NChain staff run SSRN
21 Q. Well, if we just stick with this . PayPal, there’s no 21 and some of the other things for me, and I’d requested
22 space between ”Pay” and ”Pal”. ”Facebook”, you’ve put 22 that one of the versions was loaded and it had to be
23 it , I think, once with a capital ”B” for the second 23 reloaded for some reason, I’m not quite sure why.
24 word; it ’s always one word, right? 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Now, there are certain formatting
25 A. Neither of those correct . 25 differences between this and the −− what’s been called

189 191

1 Q. Right. 1 the control copy of the Bitcoin White Paper. But apart
2 Dr Wright, you’re not Satoshi Nakamoto, are you? 2 from those, the only difference in the content, is
3 A. I am. 3 instead of saying ”Satoshi Nakamoto” at the top it says
4 MR GUNNING: Well, my Lord, I promised that I would leave my 4 ”Dr Craig S Wright”.
5 learned friend some time for re−examination, so ... 5 A. It does.
6 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, that was just a wind up by my 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Why would any of your employees or
7 learned friend . My Lord, I don’t know if you have any 7 consultants access this document when they’ve got
8 questions for the witness? 8 the real thing, the published document?
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I do have a couple of things that you 9 A. They had not only this, but a lot of documents.
10 could help me with, Dr Wright. 10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, why would they access this rather
11 A. Certainly , my Lord. 11 than the real thing?
12 Questions from MR JUSTICE MELLOR 12 A. I had asked people to put the document up on SSRN. So.
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Could we bring up the transcript for 13 SSRN has a policy of no pseudonyms, so my only thing to
14 Day 3 at page 161 {Day3/161}. Do you see, at line 15, 14 think of is finding one to put up and load on SSRN. I’m
15 you said you set the time in LaTeX, yes? 15 not actually sure. I didn’t ask anyone why, my Lord.
16 A. Yes, my Lord. 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And that’s in the context of questions 17 The next point concerns the various trusts you set
18 about the creation date timestamp in LaTeX files. 18 up.
19 A. Yes. 19 A. Yes.
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Do you have to set the time in LaTeX, or 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Because as I understand it, the purpose
21 is there a default? 21 of these trusts was to keep your assets, and
22 A. You don’t have to, and it depends on the system. So, 22 particularly the IP, as you stressed , but also
23 generally , when you’re doing metadata in the hypertext 23 the Bitcoin, away from your creditors, yes?
24 area, you could choose to or not. I generally do. Or 24 A. Primarily the intellectual property.
25 you could put something like a date, and in the date it 25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. You wanted to keep it away from

190 192

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings? 1 on all the information, file patents, etc.
2 A. Yes, my Lord. 2 A. No, that happened afterwards, my Lord.
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: What, after 2020?
4 And as I understand it, you made it clear that 4 A. No, before that. I started redeveloping in 2013. So,
5 the trusts meant you couldn’t access any of the Bitcoin. 5 in 2013, when I won in the tribunal, I had a settlement
6 A. That’s correct . 6 with Mr McArdle, so both of those issues went away. So
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And did that also apply to the IP? 7 I paid Mr McArdle for a settlement, that ended that
8 A. I couldn’t −− it’s in my head, and most of my things 8 bankruptcy, and because I won in the tribunal, in
9 I could probably recreate with a bit of time, but 9 March 2013 that was handed down, and then I thought
10 I don’t −− from my understanding of the law, I don’t 10 I could do something to get around all of this , but
11 think anyone can force me to create something if I can’t 11 a few weeks later, Dave died. So then I started
12 get it . So my understanding is, if I was bankrupted, 12 building most of it from scratch. I knew the ideas in
13 they can’t force me to provide work that they can’t 13 my head, but I couldn’t access my notes.
14 access. 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So the trusts continued after
15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, but the IP that you’re talking 15 March 2013?
16 about, you stressed it was ideas, all those papers you’d 16 A. Yes. They’re still continuing now.
17 written −− 17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So why was, for example, this draft of
18 A. Yes. 18 the Bitcoin White Paper, why was that accessible to your
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− right? 19 staff at all ?
20 So, you mentioned database rights, obviously 20 A. I had some files. These weren’t put in or locked away.
21 copyright, quite a big body of confidential 21 So, there was information that I didn’t think was as
22 information −− 22 valuable. All my data, for instance, that I locked
23 A. Yes. 23 away, I still haven’t got access to. Some of that we’ve
24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: −− right? 24 recreated, but there are a lot of other files that I did
25 Now, was that body of IP put beyond the reach of 25 have access to −−

193 195

1 your creditors or not, in the trusts ? 1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So you didn’t think −−
2 A. I think so. I was never properly challenged. I went 2 A. −− I just I didn’t think they were valuable in that way.
3 bar the GAAR Panel in Australia, which is the General 3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You didn’t think a draft of
4 Anti−Avoidance and, like, Review Panel for tax, and that 4 the Bitcoin White Paper was valuable?
5 was brought up. The issue was, because I wasn’t 5 A. No, I actually didn’t , my Lord.
6 bankrupted −− if I was bankrupted, they said that doing 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you very much.
7 that would be illegal , because I was doing it to avoid 7 Oh, one final question. Can we go back to
8 bankruptcy. But because I wasn’t bankrupted, they 8 {L3/237/1}, please, page 14 {L3/237/14}. Sorry, wrong
9 said : there’s a technicality and we can’t charge you for 9 reference .
10 something you intended to do that didn’t happen. 10 (Pause)
11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: But as I understand it, the IP was 11 Okay, the question is about the function
12 subject to the same trusts as the Bitcoin. 12 CheckBlockHeader.
13 A. The locking of information was ”The Trust”, which is 13 A. Yes.
14 locked away. There is a lot of information I can’t 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes?
15 access. Then, the ownership was supposed to structure 15 So if I look at the original Bitcoin source code, on
16 things so that the company owns these rights. One of 16 your evidence, I will find a function named
17 the issues I had would be, if the Australian −− like, 17 CheckBlockHeader, will I?
18 the Tax Office technically owned database rights or 18 A. No, you won’t.
19 anything like that, or could show it, I saw that as 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Why not?
20 a major problem, so I tried to hide that away. If 20 A. Because the SPV function hadn’t been built. So,
21 the Tax Office took over that, they could shut down my 21 I talked about this in 2010 and I noted that it needed
22 project , and I think some of them would have. 22 to be built , and that’s the headless client .
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You see, it seems to me there’s 23 Now, the early version was just a mishmash of
24 a contradiction . The IP was the subject of these 24 everything. The IP−to−IP functionality, which had a few
25 trusts , and yet you and your employees continued to work 25 problems and ended up being turned off, and the full

194 196

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 node software and every −− and client software were all 1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
2 in one mashed−up UI that did everything. What I needed 2 MR HOUGH: My Lord, may I raise a couple of matters of
3 to do was build a standalone client that would allow 3 housekeeping, please.
4 users to transmit instantly , securely . So, by 4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sure.
5 ”IP−to−IP,” my Lord, what I mean is IP address, your 5 Housekeeping
6 machine, sending to another machine. To make that work, 6 MR HOUGH: So, Dr Wright’s overrunning, for which I take
7 not just to an IP that non−geeks don’t use, I needed to 7 full responsibility , has created some timetabling
8 build in some sort of secure DNS, a naming system, 8 complications with COPA’s witnesses early next week.
9 probably some sort of system like PKI, so that we could 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
10 have a public key infrastructure , so that your name is 10 MR HOUGH: Hopefully, most of those can be resolved.
11 against an IP address, something like WhatsApp has for 11 One request that Bird & Bird have discussed with
12 finding names and addresses, and none of that was done. 12 Shoosmiths which would help things get back on track is
13 So, the Block Header function would then take only 13 to sit a little earlier on Monday next week to hear two
14 the block headers. It ’s explained in the White Paper. 14 Australian witnesses by video−link from 9.30 am. So
15 Not built, but it ’s explained. It ’s like the alert keys 15 that’s the first point. And secondly, perhaps to start
16 in the White −− mentioned in the White Paper that you 16 at 10 am on Tuesday, depending on how we’re going, in
17 can alert nodes, but I hadn’t done it yet. So at this 17 order to help resolve those potential difficulties later
18 point I was, sort of , working on if you’re doing block 18 in the week.
19 propagation or block header propagation. 19 And we apologise, obviously, to court staff , who
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Somebody’s very kindly found me 20 will be affected by those requests as well .
21 the right reference , which is the previous page, of 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
22 course {L3/237/13}. On page 13, on screen, counsel was 22 MR HOUGH: The other matter that I was going to raise was
23 asking you some questions about that sentence: 23 that, as we understand it, the witnesses being arranged
24 ”The BitCoin Core client lists all of the validation 24 for tomorrow are all video−link witnesses and are
25 requirements in the following functions.” 25 Dr Pang, Mr Jenkins and Mr Yousuf, but perhaps my

197 199

1 A. Yes. 1 learned friends could confirm that.

2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: ”CheckBlockHeader”. It’s in the present 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, so Mr Matthews is coming a little
3 tense, not in the future . 3 bit later ?
4 A. I write a lot of things in weird ways. I know that 4 MR HOUGH: Mr Matthews is being pushed towards the end of
5 sound strange, but I could show you some of my existing 5 Dr Wright’s witnesses in order to make everything work,
6 academic things where I mix tense all the time. 6 but as I say, as we understand it, Dr Pang, Mr Jenkins
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you. 7 and Mr Yousuf tomorrow.
8 Do either of you have any questions arising out of 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Do we need to sit early for any of those
9 mine? 9 or not?
10 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I have no questions in 10 MR ORR: Not early for any of those, my Lord, but they are
11 re−examination. 11 all video witnesses, as Mr Hough says.
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you very much. 12 My Lord, on the rest of the timetable, what I would
13 A. Thank you, my Lord. 13 ask is for some time for us to take instructions ,
14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you very much, Dr Wright. You’re 14 because I think that may affect how we move forward from
15 released from your oath. 15 here. Obviously I can’t say anything until we have
16 A. Thank you. 16 taken instructions .
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Although you may be recalled. 17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Do you need more time than 10.30
18 A. I understand, my Lord. 18 tomorrow morning? That’s the question.
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you for your evidence. It’s been 19 MR ORR: We will try to meet that deadline.
20 most helpful. 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Well, I tell you what, you keep
21 A. Thank you. 21 us informed of progress.
22 If I may say, this has been my least stressful court 22 MR ORR: Yes.
23 case, with you, my Lord. You’ve been good. I know 23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And if necessary, I can sit a little bit
24 that’s not a normal thing, but other ones have been more 24 later , perhaps.
25 so. 25 MR ORR: At the moment, we don’t think that it will be

198 200

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

1 necessary for the court to sit early .

2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Good.
3 Okay, well, I ’ ll sit again at 10.30 in the morning,
4 or possibly a little bit later , I don’t know.
5 (4.16 pm)
6 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Thursday,
7 15 February 2024)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

201

1 INDEX
2
3 Housekeeping .........................................1
4 DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (continued) ...................5
5 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH (continued) ........5
6 Cross−examination by MR GUNNING ................115
7 Questions from MR JUSTICE MELLOR ...............190
8 Housekeeping .......................................199
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

202

203

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

153:14 154:13 158:7 159:1 117:21 169:1 another (32) 9:3 15:15 21:8 28:4 29:1 13:2,8,14,15,20 14:4 17:24 139:18,19 140:6,8 141:15
A
160:20 161:12 165:23 agreeing (1) 35:9 22:1 29:20 30:3,8 31:10 asap (1) 160:2 43:3 54:2,6 69:3 71:3 150:24 162:1 178:12 195:4

a324 (1) 37:9 166:23 170:14 171:2 agreement (4) 7:11,13 20:24 33:2,9 34:12 35:12 43:19 ascertained (1) 2:1 76:10 96:14,24 97:21 beg (1) 100:4

ability (6) 61:17 93:1 174:13,16 176:9 177:24 119:8 51:14 53:6 56:12 61:6 aside (1) 116:23 99:23,25 141:18 160:4 beggars (1) 53:17

143:11,13 151:7,21 178:7,10 179:2,11,17 agrees (1) 76:23 67:10 83:19,22 89:13 ask (18) 4:2 20:11 41:8 164:11 beginning (3) 41:4 45:5

able (11) 56:22 65:12 77:12 184:7 192:15 196:5 ah (2) 50:2 146:16 96:14 110:1 120:15 125:8 54:13 55:18 62:22 64:2 away (14) 25:4 62:21 76:7 47:14

78:14 86:15 87:3 106:16 add (5) 46:14,17 72:20 ahead (1) 19:2 126:25 140:14,15,21 159:7 90:15 112:4,21 115:15,25 85:24 87:8 99:6 111:2 behalf (8) 9:13 10:5 77:17

107:22 120:11 171:21 143:13 188:1 aimed (1) 24:3 161:6 197:6 137:12 148:13 174:23 192:23,25 194:14,20 95:11 96:8 105:4

182:20 added (6) 58:14 72:14 92:2 air (1) 173:6 answer (20) 5:5 175:1 192:15 200:13 195:6,20,23 116:13,14

above (3) 163:20,20 181:10 145:22 166:7 188:22 alert (2) 197:15,17 16:11,13,14,16 30:10 asked (24) 41:8 42:4 71:3 aws (2) 83:19 113:11 behind (8) 25:9 27:21,25

absolutely (2) 83:12 109:8 adding (6) 31:18 46:21 72:18 algo (3) 168:18,20 169:9 38:12 41:14 46:7,8 82:11 72:14 82:11,23 85:2 87:22 ayre (29) 14:19 15:5 19:17 52:10 61:23 77:2 105:15

absorbing (1) 124:2 73:3,6 153:14 algorithm (13) 46:17 56:22 83:1 85:12,14 102:20,23 90:10,16,17 93:6 102:5,14 27:1 93:7,11,13 145:5

academic (3) 58:25 59:2 addition (2) 100:13 131:18 57:1,5,19 61:18 62:14 110:4,5 116:7 180:22 104:17 108:8 110:6 116:24 94:3,8,9,12,15,18,21,22 being (50) 4:1 11:23 12:7

198:6 additional (1) 77:13 166:3,5 168:16,21 answering (4) 38:1,10 95:12 162:4 172:14,19 191:7,13 95:4,4 96:14,19,24 13:23 19:10 23:12

accept (23) 9:3 36:6,15 address (17) 8:10 22:3 169:8,11 153:9 192:12 97:6,16,21 98:3 99:23 32:7,13,20 35:7 36:5 40:19

40:11,17,21 41:23 24:4,20 27:2 31:8,9 32:24 algorithms (8) 36:23 39:2 antiavoidance (1) 194:4 asking (18) 11:19 32:19 33:3 100:7,9,15,18 51:21 52:2 53:12 54:3,6

45:18,23,25 46:2,5,8,12 44:5 50:17,19 62:24 134:1 45:16 46:14 48:14 166:2,3 antigovernment (2) 84:8 40:9 42:18 51:7 53:8 ayres (2) 93:23 94:6 56:21,21 57:9 65:12 76:2

50:4,10 89:20 90:23 112:3 164:7 167:8 197:5,11 168:10 105:21 88:8,9,9,11,13 112:9 79:25 80:19 83:14 92:10

116:6,11,12 117:7 addressed (2) 6:5 166:13 ali (8) 95:12,23 96:4,8,13 antivirus (1) 74:21 115:12 126:18,18 150:10 B 93:2,3 98:1,6 112:19,25

acceptblock (5) 126:9,11 addresses (4) 5:14 138:16 99:25 100:6,8 anybody (3) 92:18 136:19 197:23 116:23 128:23 145:4

127:3 128:3 129:18 140:24 197:12 alixpartners (1) 85:22 141:23 aspect (1) 77:6 b (6) 118:22 131:22 134:2 146:21,22 147:22 149:6

accepted (3) 50:18 56:3 addressofblock9 (1) 59:19 allegation (2) 23:22,24 anymore (1) 92:10 aspects (1) 121:2 188:8,10 189:23 150:13 156:9 158:21 172:8

57:13 adds (1) 80:19 allin (1) 59:22 anyone (10) 18:19 29:13 aspie (1) 65:24 back (56) 4:12 11:17 12:6,8 175:6 177:12 184:1,13

access (26) 9:11 24:19 27:5 addtoblockindex (2) allow (2) 186:4 197:3 98:2 99:1 103:21,25 aspies (1) 84:12 14:24 25:9 26:10 32:11,25 196:25 199:23 200:4

34:5 35:2,6 50:24 51:2 128:9,13 allowed (3) 77:8 164:6 106:25 109:9 192:15 asserted (2) 88:21 89:1 34:11 36:6 44:18 45:5 belief (1) 53:18

79:6 85:2,16,20 adjourned (1) 201:6 178:15 193:11 asserting (4) 63:7 90:1,25 47:17 49:18 54:5 55:19 believe (23) 18:20 19:11

86:4,12,20,23,24 106:20 adjournment (1) 101:24 allows (2) 38:14 39:24 anything (27) 8:5 10:8 12:6 104:8 79:16,25 80:1 85:25 27:9 33:13 43:14 44:19

192:7,10 193:5,14 194:15 admit (1) 116:18 alone (6) 67:23 103:14,15 26:22 32:5 34:15 46:15 assertion (4) 44:8 63:8,14 86:8,16,18 87:3 98:5 52:6 53:11 66:6 68:25

195:13,23,25 admitted (2) 6:7,9 113:23 114:1,1 48:16 53:2 55:2 60:7 73:5 178:25 105:19 108:19 109:9,19 70:25 71:8 87:2 91:5 99:20

accessible (1) 195:18 adopted (4) 64:6,25 119:3 along (1) 182:9 77:16,20 78:19 86:16 assets (1) 192:21 114:22 119:11 129:25 100:20 103:25 104:2,2,3

accessing (1) 9:9 135:4 already (21) 7:18 8:11,14 93:12 99:1,2,3 109:22 assigned (1) 61:10 134:10 136:24 145:3 113:20 139:25 170:19

accompanied (1) 174:17 advice (2) 16:9 98:11 14:25,25 27:19,22 112:15 137:25 156:11 assignments (1) 191:2 146:11 149:25 151:19,24 bell (2) 72:15 173:11

accord (1) 119:7 aes (1) 34:7 33:14,15 34:7 35:6,6 167:22 194:19 200:15 assist (2) 127:24 136:7 155:13,15 156:9 157:11 belonging (1) 5:19

according (1) 25:6 affair (1) 54:19 107:8,18 110:1 113:5,14 anywhere (1) 32:14 associated (9) 36:12 39:15 159:14,22 160:7 165:4 below (1) 165:8

account (18) 13:24 15:24 affect (1) 200:14 139:13 147:24 159:20 apart (5) 14:22 15:6 79:18 59:11 108:23 130:23 164:1 168:15 170:17 171:11 best (2) 80:7 99:9

18:4 25:17,18 26:13 30:12 affected (2) 2:10 199:20 189:9 161:12 192:1 168:20 171:22 184:1 173:12 174:25 176:25 beta (1) 182:11

32:16 40:15 44:17 66:8,23 affects (2) 147:2,3 also (44) 1:23 4:18 7:14 34:9 apologise (1) 199:19 associating (3) 167:5,8,20 196:7 199:12 betrayal (1) 81:1

94:10,14 105:8 107:12 afraid (2) 127:2 170:25 44:13,16 45:19 47:21 apparent (3) 8:9 33:10 154:8 assume (3) 13:6 46:8 145:12 backdating (1) 46:20 better (7) 59:1 81:25 84:22

166:25 179:24 after (43) 3:15,19 5:2 9:22 48:19 50:4,20 52:20 54:19 apparently (2) 8:2,16 assumes (1) 75:9 backer (2) 105:7,11 111:1 157:24 163:10

accounting (2) 11:5 180:10 13:2,15 14:1,2 26:2,11 57:11 60:15,18,22 appeal (1) 182:10 assuming (2) 59:24 139:12 backers (1) 36:2 168:14

accurate (1) 59:22 30:15 37:8,15 47:18 70:14,15 79:17 93:7 appeared (2) 14:2,5 asymmetry (1) 74:23 background (1) 154:7 between (25) 11:7 22:6

accuse (1) 13:23 49:19,22 53:4 54:7 59:2 105:24 108:19 110:10 appears (3) 50:13 52:21 ato (3) 20:7 108:2 161:14 backwards (1) 179:8 29:16 38:24 81:18 83:5,10

accusing (1) 176:3 81:25 86:6,14 87:10 111:4 120:6 129:1,1,2 59:17 atomic (1) 149:6 bad (3) 46:1,5 154:19 84:1 85:18 86:11 100:24

acknowledge (1) 6:20 93:9,20 97:17,18 105:3 138:15 139:23 140:17 appendix (1) 134:2 attached (1) 30:1 badly (1) 15:1 111:16 118:13 119:8 125:5

acknowledged (2) 17:25 126:8 130:8 139:9 151:17 147:3 151:6,25 156:14 applicable (1) 176:7 attaches (1) 19:21 bagnoo (2) 173:1,2 134:5 135:1 137:19 151:11

97:21 161:6,7,13 167:15 183:8 168:5,7 171:9 176:13 application (1) 61:15 attaching (1) 31:5 baker (1) 6:4 158:23 167:21 170:7 173:1

acknowledging (1) 98:3 184:21 185:8 189:3 191:4 189:1 191:20 192:22 193:7 applications (1) 67:20 attachment (2) 19:23 30:13 bankrupt (1) 94:1 189:22 191:25

acquiring (1) 35:13 195:3,14 alter (2) 32:16 75:6 apply (1) 193:7 attack (6) 92:16 151:2 bankruptcy (4) 91:20 193:1 beyond (3) 23:23 128:7

across (6) 55:3 66:10 76:4,8 aftermath (2) 11:20 97:15 altered (1) 89:4 appointed (1) 110:13 152:18,18 154:5 161:9 194:8 195:8 193:25

121:13 137:22 afternoon (4) 27:3 31:22 altering (1) 100:5 appreciate (2) 22:18 104:7 attacking (2) 91:6 158:12 bankrupted (4) 193:12 biased (3) 60:22,24,25

acting (3) 52:3 83:20 101:5 54:20 101:17 alternative (3) 92:9,18 188:5 approach (2) 65:1,1 attacks (2) 90:5 122:16 194:6,6,8 big (6) 8:5 19:13 69:20 76:8

action (8) 55:23 89:15 91:21 afterwards (3) 63:2 84:21 although (4) 101:2 107:19 approaching (1) 101:9 attempt (3) 19:8 26:23 73:9 bankrupting (1) 94:4 158:23 193:21

95:19 113:6,9,18 149:15 195:2 187:23 198:17 approved (2) 36:1 77:4 attempted (1) 53:12 banks (1) 96:20 bill (2) 180:3,9

actions (2) 90:1,25 again (56) 15:25 20:11,24 always (3) 46:9,13 189:24 approximately (2) 7:4 113:14 attention (4) 2:20,23 183:17 bar (4) 96:3 156:18,23 194:3 billion (4) 23:16,17,17 25:24

activated (1) 161:19 22:24 33:23 37:6 38:24 amazing (1) 25:23 april (3) 33:15 66:5 93:23 184:1 base (3) 133:7,8 175:7 billions (4) 115:12,14,15,21

active (2) 91:19 93:7 40:24 41:14 43:12 44:11 ami (1) 172:10 archbold (1) 105:25 attributed (4) 18:6 36:7,16 based (15) 46:11 55:12 bills (2) 174:17 179:18

actively (1) 91:6 46:12 51:13 52:9 53:8,24 amir (1) 92:4 archives (1) 53:24 50:5 72:10 98:11 109:16,19 binance (1) 91:25

acts (1) 82:15 61:20 62:7 65:5 73:4 77:7 among (2) 15:20 52:23 area (5) 76:17 88:25 180:2 attributes (1) 55:12 112:12,17,25 113:2 137:10 binary (1) 127:9

actual (6) 59:20 60:2 62:25 85:20 86:5,23 90:15,22 amongst (3) 94:22 165:16 189:10 190:24 au11000 (1) 173:21 164:25 178:24 179:6 188:4 bird (4) 2:15,15 199:11,11

106:25 107:3 159:3 101:21 107:14 108:24 185:11 areas (7) 77:3 88:4,16 august (8) 8:13 130:17 basement (1) 66:4 bit (24) 7:5 29:5 31:18 43:6

actually (145) 4:24 8:3,4,13 109:1 112:13,23 125:11 amount (4) 115:22 124:25 124:17 126:17 159:4 187:3 150:16 151:16 161:5,8,17 basic (1) 124:14 60:18 68:12 79:16 122:15

9:6 10:25 11:3,9 12:7,21 132:14,17 135:12,19 132:4 174:13 arent (13) 35:5 43:3 48:11 184:19 basically (27) 31:2 39:21 124:16 128:2 180:21

13:24 15:14 18:16,18 137:19 139:11 anachronism (3) 138:12,15 49:12,24 54:2 63:9,15 69:3 augustseptember (1) 157:18 57:3 80:11 85:9 87:15 90:7 185:18 186:2,16

19:3,7 21:19 23:8 140:13,18,23 141:5 142:16 140:4 71:3 76:10 97:21 141:7 austin (1) 23:17 100:2 107:15 109:15 188:7,8,10,11,24 189:18

26:17,20,21 28:7,15 153:6 157:21 158:9,19 anachronisms (3) 139:22 argue (2) 62:17 74:6 australia (4) 7:7 20:9 102:22 113:10 116:16 121:4 193:9 200:3,23 201:4

29:5,11,13 32:18 161:14 164:23 167:9 140:12,13 arguing (1) 34:22 194:3 122:24 123:12,16 126:13 bitcoin (135) 1:20 27:14

33:10,12,13 34:22 171:23 187:14 189:14 analyse (2) 7:9 28:8 argument (5) 44:20,22 62:1 australian (3) 20:8 194:17 136:6,8,17 144:6 154:3 30:21 32:24 33:1,18,21,21

35:18,20 36:11 37:21 38:2 191:7 201:3 analysis (2) 74:22 76:15 102:5 109:1 199:14 167:2,19 181:24 184:10 37:5,6 54:4 55:24 56:2

39:19 43:5,7,12,13,15,21 against (18) 44:21 56:10 andresen (22) 20:16 21:8 arguments (1) 56:21 authenticated (1) 43:1 186:13 58:9 61:2 63:6 64:11 65:3

44:18 46:23,24 47:24 60:15,23 90:2,17,20 91:1 22:7 29:16 54:4,21 55:3 arising (2) 3:19 198:8 authenticity (1) 108:11 basis (3) 3:16 4:8 109:7 68:9,21 77:2,7 81:3

48:15,22 54:11 56:20 95:19,21 96:2,4 111:5 66:3,7,25 67:5 69:3,10 arm (1) 93:14 author (1) 114:4 bbc (11) 11:23 12:22 59:8 82:13,14,14,14 83:8,16

57:23 58:23 60:9,24 116:8 121:6,17 151:2 71:3,24 73:8 136:25 around (20) 15:12 19:6 28:9 authored (1) 165:16 60:9,10,11,12,22 61:22,22 87:13,24

61:11,21,23 62:12,15 197:11 137:1,4 138:6 154:16 36:3 58:20 76:20 79:7 82:6 authority (1) 167:1 64:5 88:11,22,23,23,25

63:10,16 64:13 65:5,19 agerhanssen (5) 95:20,22,25 169:25 87:5,6 93:14 107:12 autism (1) 80:23 bdo (4) 106:3 140:22 141:2 89:5,6,12 91:20 102:7

68:4,5 69:14,18 70:2 96:2 97:18 andresens (6) 58:3 64:23 108:16 112:11,25 161:6,7 autistic (2) 52:2 80:19 171:6 105:5,6,19 106:4,13,25

71:2,7 73:4,7,10,20 74:1,7 agitated (1) 28:18 72:11 75:13 78:2 154:9 171:15 173:18 195:10 autocorrect (3) 186:17,20,22 bearing (2) 8:16 112:2 107:1,17 109:3 114:4,5,6,7

75:22,24 76:14,21 77:18 ago (9) 38:23 70:17 71:21 andrew (2) 185:17 187:14 arranged (1) 199:23 automated (1) 171:14 became (1) 119:18 116:18 117:24

78:6,21 79:2,24 82:4 87:4 78:8,9 107:12 118:3 anger (2) 82:2,3 arrangements (6) 10:3 automatically (3) 44:18 become (1) 6:21 118:10,15,20,20,22 119:2

88:1,3,15 90:15 94:6,10 121:23 142:14 angry (6) 26:21 28:17 79:18 54:3,6,10,15 87:12 170:4 191:1 bedroom (4) 173:10,15,15 120:3,17 121:21 123:16

96:17 105:4,17 106:6 agree (13) 6:20 23:12 24:12 80:2,3 81:25 arrive (1) 21:17 autoset (1) 191:5 179:13 124:1 125:20 131:16

107:10 108:2,14 111:7,13 56:15,16 79:21 83:4 annoyed (1) 60:18 arrived (1) 68:19 available (7) 36:13 42:6 before (35) 21:17 24:5 35:23 133:11,21 134:6,19,22,24

112:13 113:4 114:17 104:13 116:16,18 129:19 annoyingly (1) 180:13 artforz (1) 155:7 48:15 49:10 141:13 185:8 39:16 41:16 43:25 45:18 135:3,5,16 136:1

119:10,13,16 121:10 133:20 159:12 annum (1) 6:20 article (6) 12:17 182:24 191:18 46:7 47:13,15 49:6 53:14 137:16,17 138:8,9,10

124:10 125:22 131:16 agreed (12) 3:14 18:13 anonymising (1) 92:22 183:11 184:15 185:2,12 average (3) 122:13,22,24 63:2 88:15 89:15 93:6,13 139:2 141:17,19 158:16

132:16 136:16 137:2,12 20:18 28:3 29:1 71:10 anonymous (2) 117:20 articles (10) 11:22 avoid (1) 194:7 95:10,24 105:7 120:6 170:8 172:15,20 175:12,13

138:24 145:5,16,20 146:11 73:15 74:24 76:11 102:16 184:17 12:1,13,22,22,23 13:3,11 aware (23) 12:1,23 121:10,11 134:6,16 138:7 176:4,8,13,16,19

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

177:1,6,7,8,12 178:20 bridges (1) 105:24 122:19 123:24 132:17 161:25 188:15 coding (2) 135:25 170:23 concepts (2) 105:20 136:23 18:7,10,14 19:21 108:6
180:14,16 brief (1) 105:8 193:11,13,13 194:9,14 checkblock (15) 120:19 coin (13) 23:6 29:18,22 concerns (2) 95:12 192:17 192:1
182:11,11,18,19,20,21 briefly (3) 1:4,14 6:5 200:15 121:1,19 126:6,8,19,20 54:21 56:5,16 conclude (1) 114:2 copying (2) 29:25 35:4
183:5,7,11,23 184:9 bring (8) 59:2 77:9,23 capital (12) 118:22,22 127:13,19 129:18 130:6 188:7,8,10,11,24,24 concludes (2) 3:15 181:23 copyright (1) 193:21
185:3,7 186:25 187:5,6,12 181:14,24 182:7,13 190:13 131:22,22,23 132:8,20 135:10,12 189:18 concluding (1) 4:1 core (41) 55:24 56:2
188:14 189:7,13,18 bringing (2) 44:14 75:24 188:8,8,10,10,21,24 checkblockheader (18) coinbase (3) 123:4 125:4,7 conditioned (1) 173:6 58:16,18,20 69:7 92:4
192:1,23 193:5 194:12 british (6) 5:19 84:10 93:2 189:23 131:20 133:15 coingeek (1) 99:19 conditions (1) 78:24 113:3 115:17,21,22
195:18 196:4,15 197:24 116:16 117:5,12 capitalising (1) 188:17 135:11,12,13,15,19,23 coinjoin (1) 92:23 conficker (1) 76:19 116:2,9,15 117:3,14,24
bitcoincli (2) 61:8 62:8 broadcast (1) 121:13 capture (4) 36:14 41:13 136:14,20,25 137:5,17 coins (2) 186:2,16 confident (1) 137:24 118:10,15,20,22 121:21
bitcoind (1) 154:22 broke (1) 150:10 42:13 48:9 138:1,13 196:12,17 198:2 collation (1) 176:15 confidential (1) 193:21 125:18,19 133:11,21
bitcoindev (1) 155:6 brought (6) 7:15 67:11 68:7 captured (2) 36:17 49:4 checked (11) 1:17,22 122:8 column (4) 2:2,4,7,10 confidently (1) 81:14 134:19,22,23,24,25
bitcoinexe (1) 59:23 71:17 76:4 194:5 captures (1) 49:6 123:3,6 126:12 127:8,9 combination (2) 72:24 138:8 configurable (1) 163:23 135:3,5 137:19 139:25
bitcoinorg (11) 36:9,14,17 browser (6) 69:14,16,24 care (5) 30:5 91:4 113:19,21 132:16 159:21 160:22 come (30) 8:14 14:12,24 confirm (3) 4:18 10:15 200:1 140:4 143:5 153:8 158:21
39:16 40:22 41:12,20,25 75:19,21 76:4 116:17 checking (17) 25:2 69:12 17:10 22:20 26:10,18 29:1 confirms (1) 166:22 164:17 197:24
47:15 48:10 49:11 browsers (2) 69:17 75:23 cared (4) 91:5,9,10,14 122:25 124:6,22,25 34:11,11 36:25 51:4 56:13 confusion (1) 118:13 corporate (1) 6:22
bitcoinrelated (1) 89:16 bsb (1) 61:2 career (1) 84:6 125:3,10,16 126:24 132:12 57:6,20 64:23 66:7,10 connectblock (3) corporations (1) 142:21
bitcoins (3) 142:1 181:25 bsv (9) 91:8 96:16 97:2,7,12 carried (2) 29:2 78:24 135:17,20 136:12 160:6,24 69:19 79:16 103:7,12 128:18,21,22 correct (43) 2:12 5:22 6:13
186:12 153:16 159:16,23 160:22 carry (3) 4:16 135:9 158:1 178:10 109:22 121:9 140:21 141:3 connected (3) 68:4 70:7 9:14 18:10 22:14 44:7
bitcointalk (1) 35:19 btc (32) 58:16,18,20 60:17 carrying (2) 1:25 56:18 checkout (1) 187:19 157:5 171:11 184:1 186:7 134:17 57:9,23 58:9 74:4 76:5
bitcointhenetwork (1) 69:7 82:16 83:16 92:4,5 cases (9) 74:4 99:5,7 checks (14) 1:25 121:19 comes (9) 9:7,9 16:2 17:3 connectinputs (2) 129:6,10 79:14 87:19 88:23 89:18
118:13 104:5 113:4 115:17,21,22 101:4,11 104:21 112:3 123:10 124:3,12,14 126:20 20:8 69:15 140:16 164:8 connection (1) 68:1 90:3 91:3 92:19 108:14
bitcointhesoftware (1) 116:2,6,9,12,15 117:3,14 113:14 184:12 132:1,8,11 135:24 136:2,2 189:17 conned (1) 33:1 115:24 118:10,20 119:20
118:14 139:25 143:5,11 147:20 cast (1) 10:1 157:24 coming (5) 12:5,8 165:4 connor (3) 10:5,12,19 120:19 121:7 122:7,9
bits (2) 69:1 173:7 151:21,24 152:4,7 categorial (1) 68:23 checksig (1) 125:16 176:25 200:2 consensus (1) 123:2 123:22 125:2 126:25
blacken (1) 32:15 153:8,16 158:21 categorically (5) 17:5 18:20 cheque (2) 116:24 117:2 command (8) 39:7 59:14,18 consequences (3) 81:5 132:15 143:24 154:1 156:2
blame (1) 112:4 bug (3) 155:8,11 156:9 65:7 66:20 116:5 chief (6) 10:4,9,10,16,16 61:8,14 62:4,6 63:2 84:17,19 158:6 163:25 166:8 168:22
blamed (3) 110:8,10 111:4 bugs (1) 160:24 cause (1) 73:24 24:14 commands (1) 63:21 considered (1) 49:20 169:19 186:10 189:25
blaming (1) 110:7 build (5) 18:17 121:16 143:3 caused (1) 154:22 child (2) 84:9,9 comment (1) 184:22 consistency (1) 80:24 193:6
block (55) 12:3,19,25 197:3,8 cblockacceptblock (1) 128:5 children (4) 7:18,19,21 20:5 commenting (1) 187:14 consistent (4) 1:23 11:6 corrected (4) 2:9 14:22 63:4
20:1,1,19,19 23:6 30:21 building (7) 91:7 117:18 cblockcheckblock (1) 120:23 choice (2) 77:4 98:13 comments (2) 185:13,15 25:6,8 72:6
47:19 48:7,8 49:21,21 122:18 136:16 139:12 cease (1) 89:16 choose (1) 190:24 commercial (2) 61:4 142:3 consistently (1) 108:21 correctly (4) 28:2 87:2
56:12 59:11 65:8 151:18 195:12 cellanjones (3) 54:3 59:8 chose (8) 69:6 70:19 77:4,7 commit (9) 32:12 145:2,3,18 conspiring (1) 60:15 123:5,21
119:12,19 121:2,10,11,16 built (6) 139:3 142:4 143:6 60:21 110:17 139:18 140:6,9 146:12,15 147:7 150:15 constant (8) 144:1 corresponded (1) 87:14
122:5 123:23 127:6,8 196:20,22 197:15 cent (3) 99:5 116:3,6 chosen (2) 69:5 108:12 155:16 146:7,17,21,24 147:8,23 correspondence (2) 4:5 9:17
131:22 132:12,13,14,22 bundle (3) 1:13 2:17 93:5 centos (1) 164:11 christen (2) 99:25 101:4 commitment (1) 21:18 150:12 correspondent (1) 107:16
134:16 135:21,24 136:2,11 burden (1) 4:16 central (2) 125:19 179:14 chrome (3) 69:19 75:21,22 commits (2) 130:19,23 constructed (1) 170:4 cost (2) 173:20 179:22
139:24 148:1 151:6,25 burnside (1) 116:4 centrally (1) 54:9 church (1) 116:21 committing (1) 92:17 consultants (2) 191:19 192:7 costs (4) 116:1,4,23,25
153:10 158:15,24 161:23 busiest (1) 161:9 ceo (1) 24:15 cio (1) 24:15 common (5) 119:17,18 141:5 consulting (13) 6:18,24 7:24 couldnt (13) 29:10 48:21
162:1 177:12,18,21 bust (1) 95:24 certain (11) 1:19 2:7 5:13 citrix (2) 77:19,21 149:19,19 10:20,23,24,24,25 11:1,16 64:7,11 70:5 72:18 85:23
178:12,23 197:13,14,18,19 button (1) 156:5 23:20 84:13 87:25 121:2 claimed (1) 13:17 communicated (1) 25:13 15:13 95:10 99:16 86:14,20 168:7 193:5,8
blockchain (21) 56:13,24 buy (4) 96:21 97:9,11 185:24 123:1 125:4 186:22 191:24 claiming (2) 115:20,25 communication (2) 51:10 consumed (1) 175:6 195:13
57:1,3,4,7,12,18,21,22 byte (2) 147:20 150:11 certificate (4) 69:13,16 claims (17) 1:18,24 30:14 151:11 contact (2) 33:16 181:8 counsel (4) 59:4 110:17
58:18 59:1 61:1,4,19 88:23 bytes (7) 125:5 143:13 75:16,17 90:2,4,11,17,20 91:1,4 communications (7) 36:1 contacted (1) 74:7 172:9 197:22
119:19 136:10 154:20 146:23 147:8 151:1,1,8 certificates (1) 70:3 93:10 94:4,5 112:11,17,24 53:23 96:25 111:15 contain (1) 8:20 counted (1) 177:17
172:20 179:1 certification (5) 74:18 116:9 141:20,21 180:19 contained (2) 56:6,17 country (3) 12:8 20:6 92:13
C
blocks (11) 23:6 25:3 54:5 165:25 166:17,18 167:11 clarification (1) 4:23 community (5) 37:5,6 87:13 containers (1) 8:14 couple (9) 9:12 20:20 111:25
56:6,17 121:4,6 134:18,18 c (13) 8:22 31:3 90:14 certihash (2) 179:5,5 clarified (1) 174:5 158:9 182:11 containing (2) 79:4,6 148:22 157:11 185:13
177:14 178:10 118:22 131:22 144:21 cf1857e (1) 163:3 clarify (1) 1:8 companies (13) 23:21 34:21 contains (2) 127:13,14 186:7 190:9 199:2
blog (6) 18:10 19:21 25:1 170:8,8,9,12 188:8,10,24 chain (16) 15:15,18 17:24 clarity (2) 78:10 148:7 74:21 94:18,18,25 95:1 contemplating (2) 81:5 course (11) 1:25 4:18 15:16
30:1 63:24,24 c09e (1) 162:22 18:1 19:17,21 35:12,14,16 classic (1) 160:8 97:5 106:18 116:14 137:8 84:16 18:6 42:18 87:22 142:12
blogpost (13) 12:2,18,24 c126 (1) 91:17 52:17,22 53:4 106:19 clause (1) 6:16 141:16 179:4 contempt (2) 101:3,11 151:15 152:10 155:12
13:3,4,16 14:3 19:24 cake (1) 44:23 114:8 119:12,19 clean (1) 64:9 company (13) 5:19 10:22 contender (1) 188:5 197:22
20:2,12 30:24 31:15 36:1 calculations (1) 178:24 chains (1) 140:2 clear (11) 12:12 16:2 37:13 11:12,13 15:13 20:8,9 content (7) 29:1 141:2 courts (2) 83:7 113:6
blogs (1) 66:1 call (14) 21:14 54:20,24 chair (4) 68:14,15 71:20 78:7 69:4 76:13 79:15 84:18 83:18 95:4 109:10 174:14 142:9,11,12,12 192:2 covent (1) 66:4
board (1) 24:8 59:23 62:14 63:1 105:19 chairman (1) 105:11 86:25 100:23 103:3 193:4 189:10 194:16 contention (2) 37:10 111:13 cover (1) 116:10
body (3) 6:22 193:21,25 115:22 126:14,17 127:11 challenged (1) 194:2 cleared (1) 28:10 compared (1) 122:11 contents (2) 2:21 3:2 coverage (1) 14:25
bohm (1) 107:19 153:8 175:18 186:23 chamberlains (1) 111:4 clearly (1) 107:19 comparing (1) 70:22 context (6) 1:15 85:8 124:14 covered (1) 88:17
book (2) 144:17,20 called (27) 20:3 26:18 59:25 champagne (2) 112:14,20 click (3) 43:7 69:23 70:17 compelling (1) 141:1 183:5,18 190:17 covering (1) 99:18
books (1) 144:21 62:23 87:18 91:10 chance (3) 7:8 21:2 46:7 clicked (2) 70:8,18 competent (1) 77:5 contingent (1) 112:18 craig (29) 5:8 6:16,17,21
bool (2) 120:23 128:5 106:1,3,12,18 119:22 change (15) 45:15 46:15 clicking (1) 70:16 competing (1) 140:2 continued (6) 5:8,11 194:25 7:12,13,24 8:24,25 9:1
both (28) 4:4 9:25 11:10 120:17,18 126:6,9 127:20 48:1 56:22 57:21 73:20 client (11) 118:15,19 complain (1) 111:19 195:14 202:4,5 23:9 25:1,3 27:4,5 28:22
26:24 27:4 45:20 46:3,11 128:18 131:2,19 144:2 112:15 136:15 145:4 134:19,22 135:1,5,14 complaining (3) 158:11 continuing (2) 82:19 195:16 32:24,25 35:9 51:13 90:7
48:17 50:3,22 58:10 61:24 161:2 180:15 181:4,4 146:20 147:2 148:2 150:11 196:22 197:1,3,24 160:20 176:5 contract (6) 6:18,24,25 7:24 94:2 96:21 97:25 98:1
68:13 70:8 71:25 74:4 184:24 185:17 191:25 155:14 182:13 clients (5) 95:15 97:3 114:22 complete (1) 21:25 8:8,16 184:16 185:3 192:4 202:4
75:18 78:6 83:17 101:3 calling (4) 89:4 90:7 91:6 changed (12) 11:4 47:16 141:12 179:6 completed (2) 109:11 126:9 contradiction (2) 86:25 craigdemorgan (1) 23:11
103:2 127:6 132:8,11 147:4 63:4 76:7 92:1 111:7 close (1) 104:22 completely (8) 38:7,7 64:13 194:24 craigncrypt (1) 53:9
163:15 169:24 195:6 calls (6) 124:16 125:11,15 116:18 118:20 132:23 closed (5) 27:21,25 85:12 105:25 153:13 159:5 contrary (1) 99:11 craigncryptcom (1) 29:18
bothered (1) 31:4 127:22 128:9 129:5 133:6 134:23 148:9 107:13,14,14 161:24 contributing (1) 35:14 craigrcjbr (3) 23:11 50:8,23
bottom (32) 10:12 14:17 calvin (3) 97:16 100:7,9 changes (9) 117:4,10,13 closer (3) 161:23 179:22,23 complex (1) 64:25 control (16) 21:21 22:3 craigs (2) 10:14 31:18
30:16 41:17 42:2 47:19 came (20) 7:16 16:1 24:6 131:6 133:21 145:10 closing (2) 111:13,21 complexity (1) 80:19 24:15,18 30:11 31:7 37:11 crash (1) 154:22
50:11 68:18 81:11 98:9 26:4 50:6 51:20 52:16 148:10 150:20 189:4 clouded (1) 80:22 complications (1) 199:8 39:7 65:6,9,11 82:1 83:17 crashed (1) 155:8
100:10 101:2 121:25 64:16 67:12 72:5 75:21 changing (2) 147:10 153:14 clyde (2) 95:11,14 components (1) 79:11 93:1 172:2 192:1 create (13) 39:23 44:12
124:13 128:7,21,22 129:10 79:25 80:1 99:25 101:7 character (1) 72:7 co (2) 95:11,14 compromise (1) 17:21 controlled (3) 32:7 78:24 73:17,22 74:25 109:25
131:6,9 134:14 147:1 133:7,8 139:9 148:22 charge (1) 194:9 coast (1) 179:14 compromised (7) 16:3 17:3 83:19 132:17 139:5 142:18 164:7
150:20 152:24 155:20 164:5 charged (1) 89:22 code (38) 55:8 75:6 76:15 46:18 51:5 52:18,22 80:25 controlling (1) 94:15 165:21,22 193:11
157:12 159:23 167:14 camera (2) 61:21 62:3 charges (2) 92:1,2 114:5 120:17 127:22 computationally (1) 178:8 controls (1) 95:1 created (14) 17:15 37:15
173:21 181:7,13 187:15 campaign (2) 90:8 91:7 charities (1) 116:5 129:20,25 130:2,9 131:14 computer (14) 16:3 17:4 convenient (2) 47:5 148:12 38:5 39:6,17 44:24 46:17
bought (2) 107:13,14 campaigns (3) 91:17 107:4,5 charity (1) 116:20 133:4,7,8,22 137:16,17 27:5 56:25 64:17,17,20,21 conversation (1) 184:25 107:1 114:11 134:5
box (2) 2:23 67:18 camped (1) 8:13 chase (2) 33:6 34:2 139:13 145:4 148:7,9 78:16,17 173:5,16 174:3 conversations (1) 108:20 142:13,14 177:14 199:7
brainstormed (1) 67:13 candidate (1) 185:20 chasing (2) 34:4 104:20 153:11 155:21 156:3 178:1 converted (1) 173:16 creating (4) 81:3 83:13
brand (2) 64:21 67:18 cannot (5) 16:11 98:12 chat (2) 119:14,21 157:20,21,22 158:2,14,15 computers (6) 16:1 85:23 copa (5) 44:19 97:8 98:12 121:11 164:10
breach (1) 92:12 141:3 144:24 178:1 check (22) 75:15 159:3,7 160:12,22 168:24 172:19,22 173:10 174:10 100:12 115:11 creation (5) 39:21 45:16
break (11) 43:25 45:18 cant (25) 9:1,21 13:11 14:8 121:1,12,16 122:4,10 188:19,25 196:15 con (1) 114:23 copas (2) 114:2 199:8 102:6 165:9 190:18
47:6,11,13 59:2 101:14 16:14,22 25:18 26:21 123:11,17 124:10,12 codes (11) 138:2 152:23 concatenate (1) 156:21 copied (3) 14:19 20:16 51:1 credit (2) 188:2,3
148:11,13 149:21 150:8 42:19 56:16 69:1 70:10 126:5,8 127:6,14 130:5 153:6,16,19 155:22,25 concatenation (2) 156:20,24 copies (1) 108:5 creditors (2) 192:23 194:1
breaks (1) 150:2 72:7 75:20 80:14 103:21 132:3,6,11 137:21 157:20 157:13 158:22 159:1,5 concept (1) 105:21 copy (8) 2:16 15:10 criminal (6) 91:21,25

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

92:12,13,17 96:6 dealing (2) 98:16 99:15 determination (1) 82:5 171:4 174:16 124:3 127:10 132:19 66:3 70:4 73:2 74:11,24 either (13) 60:6 68:15 69:19
criminals (1) 91:24 dealings (2) 138:22,25 dev (1) 156:14 disclosing (1) 9:16 137:20 138:8 148:19 75:9 76:10,22 77:6,14,25 75:7,20 76:3 77:1 94:23
critical (1) 33:8 dealt (1) 165:19 develop (2) 84:7 137:6 disclosure (15) 7:23 167:20 176:16 177:7 78:20 79:23 80:5 81:20 95:8 106:24 108:14 138:25
crossexamination (6) death (3) 91:21 92:14 106:24 developed (2) 109:8 179:7 9:4,5,8,19,20,22 11:11 178:3,24 182:22 190:23 83:24 84:15 86:25 87:9 198:8
3:16,17 5:11 115:9 202:5,6 debacle (1) 87:10 developer (3) 87:13 92:4 16:1,3,5,14 52:17 54:16 191:2,5 194:6,7 197:18 88:7,19 90:10 91:18 92:7 elderly (1) 105:8
crossexamine (1) 111:22 debate (1) 185:11 141:24 171:9 dollars (3) 115:12,14,21 93:7 95:17 96:7,25 97:12 electricity (8) 124:3 173:20
crossexamining (1) 4:17 debates (1) 152:10 developers (6) 58:17 91:20 disclosures (1) 170:20 domain (4) 5:14,18 107:8,18 98:24 101:15,20 102:2,15 174:17,24 175:5 179:18
crosshairs (1) 92:19 decade (1) 107:12 117:8 119:14,21 133:18 disconnectinputs (1) 129:1 dominance (1) 187:20 104:7,12,14 105:3 108:13 180:3,9
crosssystem (1) 59:11 decades (1) 83:13 developing (2) 119:2 184:13 discourage (1) 189:12 done (37) 9:21 11:14 19:4 109:5 110:3 111:4,20 electrum (21) 68:8,20
crowd (1) 155:6 deceived (1) 80:21 development (2) 119:18 discover (2) 85:19 109:14 21:2 29:14 33:15 48:25 112:2 113:8 69:12,15,22
crypto (1) 27:15 december (5) 31:19 40:9 175:11 discredit (1) 13:17 57:2 61:1 62:24 74:16 114:2,16,21,24 115:10 70:1,5,7,10,11,13,13 71:7
cryptocurrency (3) 89:19 48:10 96:19 182:21 diagram (3) 125:14 126:16 discredited (1) 13:17 76:16 77:11,12 79:8 84:14 116:22 125:12,19 73:18,21,24 74:5,5 75:1,19
97:2 117:12 decide (1) 92:9 130:1 discrediting (1) 13:4 96:3 100:17,18 103:18 127:2,22,23 130:6 76:3
cryptographic (10) decided (1) 151:12 diagrams (2) 126:18 129:22 discussed (12) 3:11 25:4 120:5,6,10 122:21 143:3 136:14,20 137:3,11,24 electrumsigned (1) 22:10
13:5,7,11,12 29:3 108:21 decides (4) 112:6,10,23 didnt (111) 5:17 7:6,9 11:2 63:18 133:10 135:14 151:13 157:20 139:17 140:6 141:1 elements (2) 80:24 88:11
109:1,2,6,18 113:16 12:4 13:1,10,19 15:22 18:3 142:20 152:19 156:4,7,9 160:16,17,18 161:10 142:15,25 145:12 148:17 elgamal (2) 169:11,16
csw (6) 72:13,14,15,19 73:6 deciding (1) 24:14 19:4,5,6,11 21:18 22:2 157:18 199:11 166:18 188:16,18 191:4 150:10 161:16 169:6 else (15) 8:5 11:14 22:4
157:12 decision (1) 81:3 24:12 26:17 28:5 30:3,8 discussing (4) 33:21,22 197:12,17 170:1,12 178:2 185:10 25:16 32:8 49:4 51:21
csw1100 (2) 152:23 160:8 declaring (1) 143:25 31:7 32:5,13 33:19 34:4,24 54:21 136:23 dont (167) 2:21 3:2 9:18 189:6,11 190:2,10 192:4 74:10 75:5 126:22 142:23
csw1101 (2) 158:3 160:14 decrypt (2) 39:24 49:17 40:10 41:8 47:14,23 51:11 discussion (3) 37:14 38:4 10:7,7 11:8,22 12:14,20 198:14 199:6,25 200:5,6 156:11 169:4,4 187:10
csw1102 (2) 143:9 151:19 decrypted (3) 33:17 40:7 52:4 53:10 54:1 56:4,21 186:8 13:22,24,25 14:1 15:3,11 202:4 email (92) 5:13,17 7:14,19
csw1107 (1) 118:24 47:3 58:15 60:12,18,19 discussions (2) 156:14 187:6 16:8 18:16,21 21:25 23:8 draft (8) 19:21,24 30:1,15,24 9:10,11 10:6 14:18
csw146 (1) 169:20 decryption (4) 36:22 37:24 62:14,22,22 64:19 dishonest (1) 43:6 24:21 26:4,19,24 27:9 31:15 195:17 196:3 15:2,13,15,20,22 16:17,18
csw178 (1) 143:1 39:20 40:19 66:5,10,13,18 67:13 71:6 dishonesty (1) 111:5 28:18 31:23 32:14,18 drafts (2) 106:20 191:5 17:24 19:17 20:3,15
csw252 (1) 134:1 deed (1) 6:3 72:1 73:10 75:15 76:9 dispel (1) 31:20 33:16,16 34:21 35:18 draining (1) 161:8 21:9,10,21
curiosity (1) 144:4 defamation (9) 78:18 79:21 85:4 86:15 display (1) 69:18 39:23,25 42:11 49:7 draw (2) 2:20,23 22:1,3,3,6,12,23 23:1,7,13
currency (4) 183:1 90:2,4,11,17,20 91:1,3,15 89:17 90:15 91:4,5 displays (1) 75:25 50:7,16,25 51:3 52:5,14,23 drawing (1) 27:12 24:4,12,19,25 25:6 27:1
188:4,11,11 94:4 103:6,11,13 105:19 110:24 dispute (2) 94:4 113:17 53:2,4 54:11,23 drive (15) 33:17 34:8,8 29:18,20,24 30:3,8,11,25
current (3) 93:1 117:7 default (2) 165:23 190:21 111:9,20 113:22 121:19 disputed (4) 88:19 90:18 55:1,4,10,14,15,18 79:6,9,10,11 80:8,18 81:4 31:5,8,8,18,21 33:2,9
122:11 defendant (1) 80:17 122:5 134:22 137:8 138:25 93:9 104:7 60:2,4,12 62:1,2,22 63:22 82:24 84:16,18,20 141:2 34:14 40:8,12,14,18
currently (1) 112:17 defendants (2) 116:9 117:14 139:2,4,5 140:12 disputing (4) 28:24 90:2,20 64:3 66:9,15,20 68:4,5 drives (3) 81:13,18 85:3 44:5,12 47:17 48:7 49:19
custody (4) 52:18,22 53:4 defense (3) 174:20 179:25 141:19,23 142:11,15 91:1 69:23 70:8,16,24 71:20,22 dsa (5) 166:3,4,10 168:21 50:8,17,18 51:2,9,14,17,18
106:19 180:11 147:24 151:16 152:8 disregard (1) 110:17 75:13 77:9,10,16,20 79:7 169:1 54:12,13 97:16,19,22
cut (5) 24:12 51:17 55:18 defined (7) 128:3,14,23 157:15 158:7,13 160:25 dissertation (1) 74:18 80:3,5,13 81:23 82:2 84:23 dual (1) 166:5 98:3,5,7,8,15 99:11
72:3 189:19 129:10 135:20 147:11 161:20 170:15 171:15 distance (1) 110:4 87:4,16,20 89:20,20 90:23 during (4) 25:20 67:24 87:22 100:6,6,10 101:7 107:7
cv (1) 170:21 150:13 174:23 175:20 184:5 distinct (1) 45:19 93:11,11,18,19 115:10 108:5 154:15 155:5
cvs (3) 170:17,19,25 definitely (7) 8:7 29:21,22 185:12,13 186:23 187:4 distinction (2) 153:5 158:23 94:6,7,10,10 96:11 97:13 164:2,7,10 170:20
cybercrime (1) 92:10 51:11 71:6 133:21 160:6 188:15 189:5,8 192:15 distracted (1) 161:16 98:15,21 99:13 100:20 E emails (44) 9:25 12:20,23
cypherpunk (3) 23:20 27:15 definition (3) 148:18,24 194:10 195:21 196:1,2,3,5 distribute (1) 178:12 101:6 103:6,8,9,20,20 16:24 23:10 24:22
60:17 149:20 died (2) 106:9 195:11 distributed (1) 142:1 104:11,13 105:13 e122 (1) 173:25 25:15,16 26:14
cz (2) 91:24,24 degrees (5) 14:10 21:1,4 difference (9) 38:24 81:17 distribution (1) 164:16 106:15,17 107:10,20,23 e135 (1) 68:18 32:1,7,9,16,20 33:10
65:20 103:19 83:4,5,10 84:1 135:1 diverged (1) 110:18 108:7 109:24 112:13 e140 (2) 15:19 31:13 35:3,16,25 44:13,15 49:8
D
delisted (2) 91:10 97:2 137:19 192:2 dns (1) 197:8 113:20,21 116:17 118:3 e21 (1) 55:20 50:3,3,5,14,25 51:1,20

d (3) 2:2,4,10 deliver (2) 23:14 24:3 differences (1) 191:25 doc (1) 134:4 121:20,23 124:14 125:21 e210 (1) 62:5 52:6,11,15,16

d1281 (2) 145:6 146:12 delivered (2) 23:12 25:5 different (41) 7:5 12:16 doctor (1) 48:4 126:15,16 130:6 131:15,17 e24 (1) 55:21 53:12,17,20,21,24,25

d1282 (1) 145:21 demanding (1) 89:16 26:11 37:25 38:7,7 doctorates (1) 103:19 139:24 140:25 145:2,3 e25 (1) 57:11 99:14 107:3,25 154:9,14

d141 (1) 150:15 demonstrably (1) 178:25 42:22,23 44:25 47:25 document (31) 6:10 7:23 146:16 149:23 156:8 162:7 e26 (1) 57:24 156:14

d145 (1) 150:19 demonstrate (6) 12:2,18,24 48:16 49:16 50:8 9:3,7,13,16 11:18 31:10 164:17,17 168:14 169:12 e28 (1) 59:7 embedded (1) 44:5

d146 (2) 150:23 155:15 37:11 57:8 77:12 57:6,20,20 66:24 68:14 53:3,5 102:9 106:19 170:9,12 171:1,7 e29 (1) 59:10 embedding (1) 178:23

d1611 (1) 119:21 demonstrated (2) 61:15 69:6 77:8 78:7 84:24 90:16 110:10 111:8 134:4 136:19 174:12,20,25 179:8,18 e415 (1) 79:4 emerged (1) 189:6

damaged (1) 86:7 76:16 100:18 102:2 111:3 117:22 138:12 139:7,18 180:22,23 182:7,19 e416 (1) 80:16 emotional (2) 80:20,22

damages (1) 116:10 demonstrates (1) 34:19 135:2,8,17 139:15 142:25 140:7,10,21 147:19 165:14 190:7,22 193:10,10 197:7 e433 (2) 41:16 42:2 emotionally (2) 81:2 104:19

dani (1) 179:9 demonstrating (2) 58:7 63:5 144:16 155:12 156:7,8 171:6 191:8,10,18 200:25 201:4 e434 (1) 42:10 emphasise (1) 20:24

dastardly (1) 158:20 demorgans (1) 179:9 159:5 162:3 172:3 176:23 192:7,8,12 doors (2) 27:21,25 e522 (1) 18:1 employed (2) 6:21 11:7

data (6) 79:11 87:6 143:14 denied (4) 5:13 42:14 50:14 187:3 documentation (4) 7:3 8:18 dorsey (1) 90:5 e84 (1) 179:9 employee (3) 9:10 50:23

169:24 171:25 195:22 109:20 differently (1) 73:6 11:15 108:3 double (5) 156:18,23,23 earlier (18) 36:11 40:23,23 52:20

database (2) 193:20 194:18 denis (4) 34:17,20,21,24 differs (1) 78:2 documents (33) 7:5 11:6 173:5,15 49:11 79:16 99:21 employees (3) 106:18 192:6

databases (1) 149:10 deny (1) 94:23 difficult (8) 22:20 53:17 16:25 17:9,14,18 30:20 doubt (2) 78:8 97:5 120:10,11 129:22,23 132:9 194:25

date (19) 6:25 8:10,18 20:19 denying (4) 34:15 48:11 62:20 74:14,20 75:3 85:12 31:11,19 34:12 52:24 doubts (1) 108:11 145:10 155:17 168:5 employer (1) 107:4

44:1,15,25 45:3,5 49:6 49:12 108:17 104:19 94:20 99:21 100:2 107:6 down (25) 19:14 20:10 27:11 174:24 185:6,10 199:13 employment (4) 6:17,24

66:6 79:8 108:19 165:9 departments (1) 102:12 difficulties (1) 199:17 108:12,15,18 109:6 111:13 40:2 44:2 50:11 62:4 85:14 earliest (1) 36:13 7:24 8:16

172:8 190:18,25,25 191:3 depend (1) 124:14 digest (1) 71:5 114:25 133:24 137:10 86:23 104:21 112:1 113:11 early (22) 11:8 31:22 54:4,20 empty (1) 122:6

dated (2) 6:4,18 depending (1) 199:16 digital (4) 68:22 71:10,13 139:20 140:15 141:3 117:15 126:17 128:4,16 55:8 56:5,17 58:24 en (3) 27:4,6,7

dates (1) 45:17 depends (1) 190:22 188:10 142:6,7,15,19,23 171:3 144:16 149:5 150:23 87:10,13,23 88:11 102:7 enable (2) 92:5 157:20

dave (4) 102:6,16 105:24 depreciated (2) 69:21 75:25 digressing (2) 18:25 23:23 192:9 155:23 162:24 163:20 105:16 109:14 153:12 enables (1) 93:3

195:11 describe (5) 55:21 57:25 digressive (2) 89:13 90:12 does (20) 2:8 28:15 72:15 185:16 194:21 195:9 176:7 196:23 199:8 enabling (1) 117:18

day (19) 7:3 26:22 35:4 59:7 119:3 144:12 diminish (1) 115:22 73:1 78:20,21 84:4 93:11 download (12) 48:25 56:23 200:8,10 201:1 encourage (1) 181:24

53:11,12 55:3 70:1 88:15 described (1) 126:3 dinner (2) 87:18,22 105:11 123:17,18 126:6 57:18 61:19 69:12,22 easiest (1) 29:12 encrypt (3) 168:25 169:2,5

96:5 97:6,18 123:24,25 designated (1) 168:2 directly (7) 14:2 56:1 68:9 127:15 130:13 135:16 70:5,14 71:8 75:10,15 easily (2) 43:22 122:19 encrypted (7) 47:2 82:13

148:17 149:25 150:1 154:8 designed (1) 73:17 94:17 100:16 116:3 171:22 162:8 173:11 182:2 186:22 136:10 easy (2) 69:9 159:14 83:8 167:21 168:25

190:14 191:14 desire (2) 32:15 80:24 disable (1) 158:25 192:5 downloaded (10) 57:12 eat (1) 44:23 169:3,24

day3161 (1) 190:14 desired (1) 110:19 disabled (15) 143:5 151:4 doesnt (34) 4:24 8:20,23 68:8,12,20 69:5 70:16,21 ecdsa (16) 123:22 124:3,6 encryption (21) 36:22 37:24

day614624 (1) 176:2 desperately (1) 50:12 153:1,7,16,19 157:15,15 31:8,24 34:14 39:10 46:15 74:5 75:22 78:4 125:10,17 126:21 127:14 38:25,25 40:19 42:12,22

day61479 (1) 176:2 despite (6) 8:8 32:14 99:16 158:4,8,21 159:7,16,24 50:15 51:2 57:17 61:10 downloading (6) 56:12 175:7 176:10,20,21 177:2 45:21 46:4,10,25

day6159 (1) 148:18 109:21 114:20 141:12 160:3 63:20 73:1 76:22,24 78:19 57:7,22 58:18,25 75:7 178:2,8,8,21 166:1,9,10 168:8,11

day710914 (1) 5:17 destroy (4) 18:22 19:5 27:13 disabling (3) 152:22 156:3 89:6 94:15 98:5 101:7 dr (143) 2:22 3:13,15,25 economist (4) 11:24 12:22 169:1,14,18,23 171:16

day71102 (1) 5:23 182:14 160:10 105:13 116:25 127:15,19 5:2,6,8,9,12 11:6 13:9,14 59:9 62:11 end (8) 3:19 5:2 8:6 140:23

day712723 (1) 6:9 destroyed (23) 79:5,10,15,19 disagree (1) 43:19 135:18 136:9 139:4,24 14:15 15:15,24 16:5 edited (1) 60:11 149:25 156:17 177:15

days (12) 25:21,25 26:4,16 80:8,10,11,15,17 disappear (1) 33:16 140:17,24 166:23 167:22 17:12,24 18:6,23 23:22 education (1) 14:10 200:4

35:15 51:15 52:12 54:2 81:4,13,15,18 82:5 83:5,6 disappearing (1) 161:14 168:7 26:13 27:19 28:11,20,24 effect (4) 155:21 156:3 ended (5) 19:7 32:12 189:20

94:7 108:10 115:4 176:7 84:1,2,15,17,20 85:4 99:21 disappointment (1) 110:20 doing (44) 14:10 16:7 17:22 30:7 32:3 34:5 35:1,25 157:3 185:25 195:7 196:25

deactivation (1) 161:2 destroying (1) 82:24 disapproved (2) 186:25 19:11 28:25 29:22 46:13 37:15 38:13 42:15,25 effectively (1) 156:21 ending (1) 30:22

dead (1) 177:20 destruction (3) 79:3,22 80:9 187:2 52:7 57:18 58:6 65:7,8,15 43:11 46:7 47:8,13 efficiently (1) 3:12 enforced (2) 151:23 152:7

deadline (1) 200:19 detail (2) 2:22 7:10 disapproving (1) 184:8 80:2 86:24 88:4,4 90:6 48:7,19,24 52:9,21 53:15 efforts (1) 59:2 enforcing (2) 143:12 151:22

deal (5) 12:11 23:17,18 detailed (1) 29:6 disciplines (1) 77:14 92:24 95:19,24 55:17 56:15 59:4 60:16,23 eight (4) 76:21 108:10 115:4 engaged (2) 27:19 89:25

63:12 94:19 details (2) 87:21 162:5 disclosed (5) 9:13 144:20,20 103:18,19,22 104:5 123:20 61:6 63:9,15,20 64:6,18 161:6 enough (1) 79:9

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

ensure (5) 70:23 83:7 80:13 81:24 82:4 121:23 failure (1) 110:12 114:19 119:13,20 120:2 56:6,18,24 58:21,22 183:17 186:1,2,2,9,11 growth (1) 187:25
122:4,10 160:24 174:12 failures (1) 111:6 121:5,13 123:3 124:1,19 59:20,22 60:1 61:16,17 193:12 195:10 199:12 gs (1) 8:3
ensuring (2) 123:20 178:11 exactly (10) 23:17 47:16 fair (1) 119:9 132:3,15 135:4,10 156:20 62:23,25 70:18 92:12 gets (2) 84:11 161:23 guess (2) 62:17 144:11
entails (1) 55:23 59:19 60:4 68:12 71:19 fairly (1) 73:20 162:18 177:12,14 184:3,11 117:16 127:6 188:11 getting (9) 27:17 34:23 gunning (16) 3:11 4:16,23
entered (4) 6:17,23 59:15,18 79:15 87:20 101:19 133:4 fake (21) 8:6 9:4,5,17 14:3 185:2 186:7 188:17 189:6 196:25 199:7 50:9,10 53:22,24 106:11 115:8,9,10 117:22 127:23
entire (12) 14:21 17:19,19 examined (1) 172:8 15:22 16:18,25 22:1,2 199:15 fully (4) 81:4 84:16 85:21 149:25 181:14 128:1 148:11,16 149:8
57:7,12,18,21 62:18 65:5 example (8) 60:25 111:19 26:7,14 28:9 31:5,7,9 firstly (1) 105:10 158:14 gibekj (1) 41:6 150:3,10 190:4 202:6
126:23 127:10 136:10 158:2 159:7 160:8 161:21 44:22,25 62:18 75:4 100:3 fit (1) 10:1 function (46) 11:2 39:22 gist (1) 158:19 guy (2) 24:16 96:20
entirely (2) 64:7 73:22 166:3 195:17 fakes (2) 16:25 17:12 five (6) 47:8 74:15 103:18 69:16,18,24,25 120:18 git (1) 146:16 guys (1) 126:16
entirety (1) 175:10 examples (2) 91:18 153:19 fall (1) 15:6 150:5 177:23,24 121:1 125:15,15 github (19) 70:6,7,14,14,18 gwern (1) 109:14
entity (1) 94:22 exceed (1) 122:5 fallen (1) 14:22 fiveminute (1) 47:6 126:2,19,20,23,24 75:7,18 76:3 117:25
H
entries (2) 2:9 131:10 exceeding (1) 187:25 false (15) 18:15 45:3 73:18 fix (2) 19:18 152:17 127:1,4,10,13,18 131:14,15,16,17 136:21
environment (3) 67:21 exchange (7) 9:25 22:6 75:2 93:21 103:2 fixed (1) 159:25 128:3,9,9,12,13,17,18,23 143:19,22,23 155:11,15 h (1) 131:23
130:9,11 29:15 47:17 49:19 91:9 105:10,25 147:15,17 156:1 fixes (1) 160:2 129:2,6,10,14,18,18 130:6 give (17) 11:9 34:5 43:6 h33182 (1) 36:13
epidemic (2) 134:12 139:1 109:4 157:4,5,7 179:1 flight (1) 66:7 131:19 132:1,9,20 135:13 66:23,24 76:22,24 80:7 hacked (1) 107:12
equals (1) 145:25 exchanges (1) 92:25 falsely (3) 109:15,17,18 floating (1) 87:5 136:17,20 196:11,16,20 82:4 83:20 85:16 108:21 hadnt (16) 7:14 27:19 55:14
equivalence (1) 156:20 excited (1) 66:11 familiar (4) 131:14 141:14 flourish (1) 8:6 197:13 113:20 116:20 130:1,8 70:23 71:5 79:18 85:19
erroneous (1) 119:10 excluded (3) 15:14 23:10 162:8 189:7 focus (3) 80:23 83:12 84:12 functional (1) 126:16 139:4 86:3,5,8 102:7 119:14
error (11) 2:8,8,10 34:19,25 49:3 families (1) 91:21 focused (1) 161:13 functionality (2) 153:12 given (15) 9:5 10:3,8 12:15 124:1 154:3 196:20 197:17
72:8,10,14 73:9 124:21 excuse (2) 18:15 55:6 family (7) 7:16,19 18:22 19:6 fog (1) 82:3 196:24 18:8 43:4 44:3 61:14 62:9 hal (3) 53:23 108:25 165:16
174:7 exercise (3) 22:8 95:13 97:18 100:25 102:12 109:22 folders (1) 1:20 functionally (1) 123:20 65:10 66:23 80:9 98:25 halfway (3) 128:4 162:24
errors (2) 2:1 56:14 exercises (2) 74:20 77:22 far (5) 84:23,24 122:11 follow (9) 24:9 89:6 93:11 functioning (3) 153:1,7 110:3 143:22 163:20
escrow (2) 184:12 187:7 exhausted (2) 66:8,10 174:25 178:8 94:9 110:12 111:24 116:16 157:14 gives (3) 71:7 83:18 143:13 hamas (2) 92:6 117:21
essence (1) 147:7 exhibits (1) 21:9 faunacomblogdatabasetransactions 123:13 126:25 functions (12) 46:9,21 giving (9) 18:15 35:2 36:2 hammer (3) 80:13 81:15,23
essential (1) 58:4 exist (7) 87:1 134:22 138:19 (1) 149:12 followed (1) 185:13 125:11 126:13,14 127:1,20 46:20 60:22 63:22 69:3 handed (4) 2:19 24:14 66:14
establish (1) 88:10 139:14,25 159:1 175:20 favourite (1) 72:13 follower (1) 94:12 130:2 134:20 135:10,19 148:3 167:19 195:9
established (3) 134:21 existed (1) 147:24 feasible (1) 73:22 following (8) 26:16 42:7 197:25 gizmodo (1) 8:13 handwritten (1) 108:18
171:11,14 existence (1) 139:9 feature (1) 52:23 104:16 131:25 134:20 fundamental (1) 14:21 glass (1) 79:10 happen (8) 67:3,4 75:6 76:9
establishing (1) 43:1 existing (1) 198:5 featured (1) 39:15 181:19,22 197:25 funded (2) 90:5 107:5 global (2) 74:16 76:21 78:10 109:25 166:25
etc (32) 8:4 14:9 31:19 39:2 expect (1) 128:2 features (1) 93:5 fool (1) 21:25 funder (1) 95:16 globally (2) 61:2 74:16 194:10
44:15 45:16 58:11 69:7 expectation (1) 66:19 february (6) 1:1 36:20 41:15 foot (5) 81:14 120:21 funding (11) 20:6,8 gmx (2) 40:15 107:12 happened (17) 12:8 19:9
71:20 72:7 82:17,22 86:7 expected (2) 66:17 110:19 43:5 49:3 201:7 181:2,22 183:13 92:2,5,17 95:5,7,20 99:7 gmxcom (1) 44:5 32:11 51:3 64:2 65:6 67:10
96:11 103:12 105:18 107:4 experience (4) 61:12 74:12 fee (1) 95:10 footage (2) 60:11 61:22 100:19 105:12 gnupg (1) 164:21 72:2,5 77:18 78:9 87:3
108:3,20 120:7 123:14 170:12,24 fell (1) 161:12 footnote (2) 143:17,17 funky (1) 189:20 god (1) 104:3 90:4 118:18 159:2 189:3
129:22 151:6 162:22,22 experimentation (1) 77:11 felt (2) 80:21,25 footprint (1) 62:21 further (10) 1:22 5:5 34:16 goes (10) 32:11 34:14 43:4,7 195:2
166:2,25 177:10 178:17 expert (17) 43:20 59:6 66:2 few (10) 38:22 40:4 88:14 force (4) 79:9 113:10 42:3 49:19 53:21 64:3 44:18 116:4,12 127:8 happening (7) 25:19 32:17
180:7 184:13 195:1 73:16 74:17 112:4 141:9 158:24 173:6 193:11,13 88:19 109:9 111:23 139:23 181:19 96:9 99:15,17 146:20
etotheipi (2) 119:22 141:15 76:11,15,15,22 177:17 195:11 196:24 forced (4) 19:10 20:9 32:13 furthest (1) 122:21 going (89) 12:13 14:9 15:17 161:5
europe (1) 96:20 77:1,2,4,6,7,9,10,13 field (1) 164:9 98:6 future (4) 41:19 112:5 18:11 19:3 20:25 happens (6) 61:3 92:14
european (1) 113:6 experts (2) 77:9,11 fifth (1) 44:2 forego (1) 117:6 122:11 198:3 21:12,24,24 22:18 23:23 97:10,10 121:12 178:12
eurostar (2) 12:5 21:20 explain (12) 21:14,15 34:24 figure (2) 1:12 2:4 forensic (1) 43:16 fuzzy (2) 26:23 27:10 24:8,22 25:15 26:15 28:7,8 happily (2) 19:12 117:16
even (27) 13:20 14:1,4 26:7 42:19 51:25 55:7 80:10,17 figures (2) 38:8 41:3 forge (1) 99:20 29:13 32:21 43:23 51:18 happiness (1) 28:23
G
50:17 57:2 58:16,23 63:10 82:2 96:9 125:22,24 file (27) 2:2,7 43:9,14,16,18 forged (6) 114:25 52:5 53:7 54:13 55:17,19 happy (6) 28:11,16,18,22
72:7 85:16,19 86:3,6,12 explained (13) 13:10 27:22 46:16 48:20,22,24 49:2,5 142:8,10,15,23,24 g (2) 8:6,23 56:13,15 58:21 65:16 69:6 29:5 116:20
107:20,22 108:25 109:9 34:7 35:20 39:19 57:16 71:14 88:22 105:18 forgeries (1) 115:1 g650 (3) 43:25 162:6 168:15 73:14 77:3 78:16 82:13 hard (10) 33:13 79:6,9,10
116:17 121:11 138:7 139:1 62:12 115:16 117:13,16 120:17,18,18 131:7 143:23 forget (1) 76:6 g816 (1) 1:13 83:24 85:24 88:6,7 80:8,18 81:4 82:4,24 85:3
141:20 167:2 180:24 189:8 175:5 197:14,15 145:20 146:6,21 147:3 forgiveness (1) 100:4 gaar (1) 194:3 89:7,9,11 90:10,12,12 hardcoded (2) 147:8 150:11
evening (6) 22:7 23:2,14 explaining (3) 24:5 55:15 150:20 167:25 195:1 form (10) 49:9,10 51:12 gain (3) 85:19 86:24 96:15 91:14 92:7,16 93:20 harder (1) 104:20
24:25 25:5 49:18 91:4 filed (4) 7:2 88:6,14,15 78:22 91:15 101:12 gao (2) 76:22 119:8 94:19,20 96:3,5 98:16 99:3 harvard (1) 98:13
event (5) 54:7 55:16 67:10 explains (2) 61:7 144:23 files (10) 1:19 3:18 4:17 115:15,17,23 141:6 garage (2) 173:4,5 101:13 103:5,10,24 105:15 hash (10) 57:20,21 61:18
78:9 111:18 explanation (3) 2:25 60:1 39:24 47:2 100:5 147:3 format (3) 88:22 134:4 garden (1) 66:4 109:9 110:3,4 62:14 70:22 71:5 75:16
events (2) 55:17 95:15 160:15 190:18 195:20,24 165:14 gave (12) 21:2,18 71:15,16 111:15,17,19 116:24 114:8 132:14 176:5
ever (13) 12:15 29:13 74:16 explicitly (3) 49:5 112:18 filing (2) 10:10 96:3 formatted (1) 180:13 79:13 81:6 83:2 86:11 117:1,1 119:11,23 120:9 hashes (4) 2:2,7 57:6 58:8
78:13 80:3 82:3 100:24 185:3 filings (3) 11:9,13 65:21 formatting (1) 191:24 102:23 110:5,22 161:22 121:9 124:18 125:24 hashing (4) 62:14 176:20,22
103:12,13,25 109:22,23 explore (1) 127:3 filled (5) 16:13 53:1,1,3,5 former (2) 79:8 180:4 gavin (44) 21:22,23 22:9 127:21 140:20 151:24 178:9
188:23 explored (1) 5:2 film (1) 60:11 forms (1) 102:2 23:6 32:21 35:10 37:23 155:13 159:2 161:25 hasnt (9) 43:4,11,12 73:5
every (13) 33:16 61:3 69:1 express (1) 79:21 filmed (2) 60:6,9 forth (1) 109:22 40:4 42:20 47:1 63:10,12 166:6,9 170:17 174:25 76:16 93:10 95:6 98:23
91:9,10,11 99:5 106:23 expression (4) 119:13 120:12 final (6) 23:4 51:8 180:12 forum (7) 35:21 180:14,23 64:13,14,15 67:13,21 185:14 187:9 199:16,22 99:7
116:3 129:24 185:24 191:1 138:21 141:24 183:22 191:6 196:7 183:7,9 186:23 187:6 68:7,15,16,19 70:20 gone (5) 17:20 71:2 141:10 hat (1) 62:19
197:1 expressions (2) 133:10,18 finally (1) 3:10 forums (4) 141:13 152:11 71:15,16 72:18 73:11 74:7 167:1 189:15 hate (2) 106:24 107:2
everyone (9) 24:7 29:21 35:9 exstaff (2) 9:7 17:20 financial (1) 100:16 183:23 189:1 78:10,11 108:20 135:14 good (15) 5:9,10 15:3 52:1,1 havent (30) 13:22 16:21
93:25 102:11 103:5,10 extended (1) 138:10 financially (1) 96:15 forward (4) 49:23 140:7 141:22 151:11 152:19 80:4 117:21 144:15 149:24 17:1 46:21 56:11 57:1,15
104:3 113:22 extensibility (1) 143:4 find (8) 4:21 22:20 99:2 162:1 200:14 154:16 155:4,10 157:19 150:3 154:2 184:11 187:19 86:17,17 87:2 91:22 97:13
everything (23) 11:14 17:3 extension (1) 35:12 128:12 129:9 143:21 145:6 found (8) 23:15 43:17 50:21 169:25 170:19,20 171:3,5 198:23 201:2 99:13,14 106:16 108:13,23
34:9 49:3 58:21 61:2 73:11 extensively (1) 189:10 196:16 52:2 54:7 149:11,16 180:20 google (1) 187:19 110:12 111:6 144:20
74:10 75:5 78:10,11 extent (2) 2:12 92:13 finding (4) 110:10 155:7 197:20 gavins (5) 72:13 74:9,9 gordon (1) 8:12 154:11,13 159:21 160:5
126:22,24 137:8 138:11 externally (1) 62:17 192:14 197:12 foundational (1) 187:2 75:12 171:3 government (2) 93:2 110:1 163:7 170:9 174:16
140:25 141:9 142:3 143:3 extra (4) 72:22 73:3 77:9 findings (3) 110:16 111:5 foundations (1) 30:17 general (1) 194:3 governments (3) 91:12 177:17,24 195:23
189:15 196:24 197:2 200:5 80:19 112:3 founder (1) 91:24 generally (6) 4:6 45:17 110:2 187:9 having (14) 7:18,21 14:7
everythings (1) 35:8 extract (1) 180:13 fine (1) 27:24 four (6) 31:2 102:21 185:23 190:23,24 191:4 gpp (1) 44:11 19:7 22:11 38:4 61:25 71:2
evidence (49) 4:1,3 5:3 14:5 extraordinary (3) finish (3) 19:1 37:22 88:3 110:1,15 172:23 174:9 generation (2) 56:5,17 gq (2) 11:24 12:22 76:8 97:22 113:1 135:19
24:8 43:16,20,22 54:18,24 30:14,14,17 finished (1) 11:19 fourth (3) 42:3 79:13 191:17 genesis (3) 20:1 49:21 grab (1) 41:21 157:14 173:8
59:6 60:22 extremely (1) 91:19 finishes (1) 4:2 fourthly (1) 123:6 105:18 grabiner (3) 111:10 190:6 hawkesbury (1) 179:15
63:8,15,21,22,23 66:2 eye (1) 66:7 finney (3) 53:23 108:25 fragments (1) 64:3 genjix (2) 180:15,18 198:10 head (4) 145:13 169:13
67:25 69:4 72:11,12 165:16 fraud (3) 90:7 91:7,9 genuine (10) 6:10 18:1 23:7 gradually (1) 182:8 193:8 195:13
F
76:11,23,25 77:6,13 78:20 fired (1) 110:13 fraudulent (1) 91:13 40:11,18 47:18 50:18 granath (8) 67:25 81:10,19 headed (3) 7:12,13 183:19
79:13 81:6 83:2 86:12 f (1) 151:20 firm (4) 11:16 96:8 110:25 free (3) 138:10 139:4 142:3 73:23 75:10 78:23 82:11 83:2 86:21 93:5 header (14) 111:7 126:22
98:23,25 101:14 107:24 face (1) 32:6 111:3 fresh (3) 64:9,21 66:12 genuinely (1) 109:5 110:11 131:23 132:12,15 135:24
109:13 110:22 115:10 facebook (4) 188:1,2,2 first (61) 5:2 11:1 14:10 friedberg (3) 1:22,25 3:1 get (43) 17:22,23 24:17 27:5 granted (2) 109:12 114:12 136:2 145:20 146:5,20
120:11 141:1,7 147:20 189:22 15:16,21 18:12 19:15,15 friends (1) 200:1 31:18 33:8,17 49:25 50:12 greater (2) 147:14,16 147:2 164:22 197:13,19
159:13 171:18 173:24 facility (1) 117:19 21:6 30:1 31:11 41:21 front (5) 17:8 42:19 100:9 51:16 53:10 55:3 65:3 67:3 green (4) 69:19,21 131:11,13 headers (5) 135:21 136:11
174:8 196:16 198:19 facing (1) 91:25 42:16 43:2,10 45:23 52:21 121:24 156:13 76:7 85:15 86:8,16 87:2 greg (1) 44:20 137:22 178:23 197:14
evidencing (1) 98:19 factorysealed (1) 64:9 55:8 57:4 65:10,18,22 frozen (1) 82:14 95:9 99:3 104:22,24 grem (1) 74:17 headersbased (1) 131:2
evil (1) 187:9 fail (1) 157:6 66:13 67:3 68:6,10 72:2,4 frustration (1) 110:20 105:13 111:2 115:21 116:4 ground (2) 80:12 81:21 heading (3) 33:3 118:9 181:8
evolved (1) 119:12 failed (2) 29:8 108:21 73:9,16 83:11 85:7 90:24 fucked (1) 22:13 127:3 129:3,14 149:1 group (3) 94:21,22 95:4 headless (1) 196:22
exact (8) 26:22 78:10 79:7 failing (2) 106:8,8 109:16 110:25,25 112:20 full (22) 7:14 23:4 53:5 154:19 170:7 182:12 grow (1) 182:8 health (3) 106:7,8,8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

hear (1) 199:13 40:3,4,5,5 42:20 57:2 74:3 imposing (1) 147:20 int (1) 146:7 185:4 jumping (1) 22:8 knowing (1) 84:20
heard (1) 149:12 79:16 81:22 85:24 88:15 impossible (1) 85:9 integer (2) 144:1,7 isolated (1) 134:19 june (1) 119:14 knowledge (4) 18:4 93:16
hearn (5) 87:12,22 88:3,5,16 113:2 133:17 139:11,13 impressive (1) 31:17 integrate (1) 188:3 issued (3) 90:11,19 188:25 jury (1) 17:8 94:12,14
hearsay (4) 14:6 105:8 144:10 162:21 163:3,21 impulsively (3) 81:4 83:6 integrated (2) 113:3 179:5 issuer (1) 166:18 known (7) 7:20 36:7 37:4
K
108:25,25 164:3 166:17,22 167:6 84:2 integrating (1) 122:20 issues (3) 3:18 194:17 195:6 52:4 105:6 107:11 115:1
heart (1) 130:2 173:4,16 184:12 188:18 inaccurate (1) 173:9 integrity (4) 17:22 58:4,15 item (3) 15:19 31:13 34:14 k (1) 167:17
L
heat (1) 182:13 189:14,15 191:21 inaudible (3) 51:24 89:24 70:21 items (2) 2:4 46:14 keen (1) 189:12
hed (2) 71:4 161:19 id000538 (1) 191:11 171:8 intellectual (3) 84:7 88:21 iterations (1) 58:6 keep (14) 14:9 16:5 37:1 l103581 (1) 9:24
heightened (1) 80:22 id002274 (1) 15:18 inauthentic (2) 142:7,9 192:24 its (169) 2:21 6:8,12 8:3 60:13 102:16 103:22,22,24 l103582 (1) 10:19
held (1) 34:10 idaemon (3) 88:17 137:9 inauthenticity (1) 110:11 intellectually (1) 81:2 9:8,19,19,22 11:20 136:13 185:13 191:6 l104261 (1) 7:22
help (4) 103:21 190:10 139:13 inchief (1) 172:8 intended (4) 25:7 75:1 121:1 14:14,24 16:2,7 19:18 192:21,25 200:20 l104262 (1) 8:1
199:12,17 idea (8) 24:6 35:16 67:12 include (3) 50:3 137:4 194:10 22:2,3 23:24 24:1,7 keeps (3) 103:5,10 104:3 l112851 (1) 6:2
helpful (2) 4:23 198:20 84:18 136:22 138:19 142:2 139:12 intense (2) 80:23 178:9 25:8,23 26:23 27:23 29:17 kelly (3) 10:5,12,19 l1128510 (1) 6:15
here (39) 11:10 17:7 33:24 152:12 included (3) 132:1 177:6,9 intensive (1) 57:13 30:7,10 31:7 32:19 35:23 kenya (1) 34:22 l1128524 (1) 6:12
40:8 48:9 49:19 50:8,11 ideas (5) 21:6 49:23 139:13 includes (9) 17:20,21,23 interacted (1) 17:17 36:24 40:1 41:1,19 43:6,7 kept (2) 108:5 115:11 l11991 (1) 144:22
51:6 86:20 92:3 95:8 104:6 193:16 195:12 127:6,18 128:17 153:13 interest (3) 4:19 36:4 94:15 46:11,19 47:21 51:14 key (175) 12:3,19,25 l119947 (1) 144:23
105:3 106:6 112:11,24 identical (1) 48:8 155:1 187:12 interested (1) 98:23 54:12,16,16 55:11 56:24 27:22,24 30:20 33:3,22,23 l131001 (1) 19:24
117:23 120:13 123:20 identified (9) 9:4,5 43:9 including (13) 7:11 25:15 interfere (1) 73:23 58:12 59:25 60:4 61:24 34:4,5,7,9,16 35:2,3,22 l131041 (1) 27:1
126:2 130:14 135:6 137:9 107:16 114:25 162:17,25 26:1 30:19 51:7,18 87:24 interfered (1) 141:2 69:10,23 70:22 71:20 36:6,7,8,10,14,15,15,16,20,22,23l131161 (1) 23:1
144:10 147:13,13 149:5 169:8 173:19 92:14 105:18 135:1 151:11 internal (1) 85:1 72:16 75:2 78:22 82:3 86:2 37:1,4,11,14,15,17,19,20,22,24,25
l131231 (1) 24:24
153:15 167:6 169:7,17 identifies (6) 79:1 145:25 178:16 187:7 internally (1) 81:11 87:1,11 88:20 38:5,6,7,11,15,17,18,19,21,22,25,25
l131671 (1) 20:15
172:10 176:3 177:6 180:13 163:21 165:9,11 168:7 incorporate (1) 141:3 international (1) 188:4 89:13,20,23,25 91:15 39:1,4,6,7,13,14,20,20,23,23 l131681 (1) 21:8
181:17 187:3 200:15 identify (7) 9:17 15:22 16:17 incorrect (20) 8:15 9:6 34:3 internet (1) 75:21 92:18 94:22,25 96:1 40:2,3,10,17,19,21,22,25 l131691 (1) 22:6
heres (1) 41:19 145:2,3 165:21 181:19 39:19 46:23 48:3 56:20 intervene (1) 111:10 100:23 101:12 104:8 105:7 41:5,9,11,14,19,24 l132091 (1) 30:13
hes (24) 20:6,17 24:6,9 identifying (1) 146:8 57:5 58:16 60:9 61:11 interviews (1) 28:25 111:12,20 113:19 114:24 42:5,6,13,20,21 43:1,2,9 l132092 (1) 30:22
43:9,14,21 52:7 identity (9) 13:13 18:12 29:6 69:14 70:12 72:5 78:6 into (42) 2:17 6:17,24 11:10 115:3 116:22 117:1 118:3 44:1,6,24 45:1,16,20,21 l132311 (1) 33:2
60:18,24,25 77:1,1,2 94:24 39:8 109:2,15 166:19 91:23 119:16 139:11 12:8 19:8,10 20:25 119:10,20 122:25 123:1,19 46:4,4,9,10,10,16,18,21,25,25 l132361 (1) 34:12
96:14 97:4,12 98:23 99:7,8 167:22 171:25 161:21 189:9 32:11,13 52:17 58:23 124:11,16 125:17 126:22 47:14,19 48:5,7,8,13,17,17 l132521 (1) 31:10
105:14 106:6,9 ignatius (1) 105:16 increase (1) 152:1 67:11 71:13,17 77:3 84:25 127:8,11 130:17,19,20 49:9,10,16 51:9 59:11 l132571 (1) 35:12
hidden (2) 69:17 122:17 ignore (1) 113:23 increased (2) 151:6 162:1 88:4,5,16 90:12 93:2 96:5 131:13 132:13 136:8 62:21 123:18,22 l132611 (1) 29:15
hide (1) 194:20 ignored (2) 113:21 161:24 increasing (1) 161:23 97:25 98:7,14 101:17 138:23 140:4,5,15,22 162:5,11,14,17,25 l132681 (1) 29:24
hierarchical (1) 125:14 ill (13) 7:14 18:22 40:24 incredibly (11) 26:12,21 105:15 113:3 119:19 141:22 142:2,8,8,9 143:22 163:3,6,11,11,18,18 l132761 (1) 49:18
high (2) 26:12 52:9 66:23 87:3 94:19 32:10 52:9 60:25 62:20 127:8,9 133:7,8 139:9,23 144:6,6,9,22 145:22 164:4,7,10,19 l133251 (1) 51:6
highly (1) 60:21 103:23,24 113:10 160:1,6 74:14,20 81:24 82:8 85:12 145:4 154:20 173:5,16 146:7,8,24,24 165:4,5,21,21,25,25 l133281 (1) 53:6
himself (1) 181:19 163:7 201:3 incurring (1) 173:20 180:2 188:3 147:15,22,22 148:12,23,25 166:1,6,7,9 167:1,5,17,19 l133381 (1) 53:21
history (2) 32:17 107:22 illegal (2) 92:25 194:7 independently (1) 30:23 introduce (1) 136:25 149:17,19,21 155:23 168:1,2,2,2,8,9,11,15,23 l133571 (1) 54:12
hit (3) 80:12 81:22 103:23 im (135) 5:24 14:8 15:17 independentlyverifiable (1) introduced (6) 92:21,24 93:2 156:22,24 157:22,23 169:6,7,7,14,18,18,22,23 l13971 (1) 14:17
hits (1) 162:1 17:22 19:24 22:2,2 24:7,8 30:20 118:4 133:18 136:21 159:16,17,18,19,20 160:18 170:1,2,2,2,5 l1491 (1) 183:10
hmrc (4) 7:2 10:10 11:9,11 28:21,22,24 29:13,21,22 index (1) 202:1 introduction (3) 92:1 131:19 166:9,16 167:2,4,8 171:12,12,12,16,17,21 l1728544 (1) 102:3
hoax (1) 114:15 35:1 37:22 38:24 39:25 indicate (1) 49:9 136:23 168:20,24 169:4 170:6 172:1 197:10 l1728545 (1) 102:20
hold (2) 21:11 171:25 42:17,18 43:15 45:5 48:12 indicated (1) 191:17 introductory (1) 8:1 171:14 174:3,22 179:2 keys (40) 20:1 23:19 33:21 l173271 (1) 172:3
home (9) 21:17 25:14 26:1 49:13 51:11 52:1,1,25 indicates (1) 183:25 intrude (1) 101:17 180:4 181:5 182:4,4,11 34:5 38:9,9 44:22 l17327105 (1) 172:13
31:5 66:22 67:9,13 53:16,16,18 54:13 individual (5) 127:11 invalid (4) 75:24 121:6 184:4,4 185:5,11 186:20 45:14,15,16 48:5 49:14 l17327108 (1) 173:19
154:11,13 55:17,19 58:6 59:21 136:7,9,12 180:21 134:18 157:8 188:18 189:24 193:8 56:6,18 57:2,9 58:11 70:15 l173272 (1) 172:7
homes (1) 179:14 65:7,8,24,24 67:12 68:25 individually (1) 8:25 invalidate (1) 90:9 197:14,15,15 198:2,19 79:4,6 85:2,20 l191111 (1) 41:16
honey (1) 87:19 73:7,14 76:14 77:18,21,21 individuals (1) 167:21 invent (3) 103:14,15 113:24 itself (4) 56:13 57:3 69:24 86:4,8,13,20 98:10 99:9,12 l191112 (1) 41:17
hoop (1) 22:8 78:8 79:15,24 80:8 81:25 indulgence (2) 103:1 148:14 invented (6) 105:17 109:13 108:22 162:3,12,15 l191681 (1) 180:12
hopefully (1) 199:10 83:22,24 84:7 86:5 88:7 industry (3) 74:23 106:22 114:5,7,7,8 138:5 ive (71) 8:3,21,24 11:9 12:20 163:6,16 164:6 168:6 l1916835 (1) 181:1
hornets (2) 183:18 184:21 89:7,9,11 90:10,12 109:9 inventing (1) 103:22 14:7,12 16:21 17:13,14 169:2,17 197:15 l1916836 (1) 181:23
horning (2) 181:5 182:5 91:4,5,7 92:3,7,9,16 inevitable (1) 111:17 invention (3) 103:9 104:4 18:19,21 21:22 23:8 27:9 kicked (2) 31:23 183:18 l1916849 (1) 182:4
hospital (4) 53:13,15 94:6,17,19,20 97:1,23 inevitably (1) 111:15 105:18 29:6,14 31:7 33:17 35:20 kidding (1) 103:17 l192126 (2) 97:15 98:8
79:16,25 98:25 99:1,15,16,16,25 infancy (1) 182:12 invested (1) 81:2 39:19 42:23 44:24 kids (2) 99:6 100:14 l192127 (1) 98:18
hosted (4) 36:8 40:22 41:12 101:18 103:4,17,18,19 info (1) 181:8 investigated (1) 113:5 46:23,24 47:1,3,25 52:3 kind (3) 15:2 20:2 78:25 l192128 (1) 100:20
47:15 104:1,6 108:16 110:3,4 information (19) 10:14 investments (1) 94:23 54:17 57:22 62:23 65:10 kindly (1) 197:20 l19492 (1) 183:14
hosting (1) 89:16 111:18 113:19,20 116:5,21 16:7,14 28:2,8 40:6 42:3 investor (1) 94:24 74:15 85:21 86:6 88:6,18 kitchen (1) 100:25 l2025231 (1) 96:18
hotel (2) 66:4 68:2 117:21 119:23 124:18 53:22 93:22 107:15 162:18 invests (1) 95:2 89:1 91:23 95:9 98:25 kleiman (16) 17:5 21:9 52:19 l2025241 (1) 97:6
hough (29) 3:11 4:11,12,14 125:24 126:18,18 127:2 174:20 179:25 180:11 involve (1) 125:10 100:17 101:8 103:16,17,18 69:4,11 71:4,25 72:11 l220211 (1) 165:13
5:11,12 19:17 24:24 38:21 133:2,8 136:12 137:12 193:22 194:13,14 195:1,21 involved (14) 35:25 54:9,12 105:16 106:23 107:10,20 75:14 78:20 85:22 86:3 l220212 (1) 165:18
45:18 47:5,13 53:21 144:9,10,12,15,15 149:17 informed (1) 200:21 89:18 102:6 105:16 108:19 110:3 136:22 137:9 102:3,6,16 172:4 l2202120 (1) 166:12
101:9,12,17 102:2 104:16 150:1 153:9 155:6,13 informing (1) 41:24 106:10,22,25 141:17,23 140:8 141:16 142:17,18 klin (1) 172:10 l2202127 (1) 167:9
111:23 115:6 142:5 155:14 157:17 164:17 170:17,25 infrastructure (2) 62:18 148:10 180:19 183:8 149:2,7 knew (7) 34:21 86:14,19 l31001 (1) 19:23
199:2,6,10,22 200:4,11 173:8 177:24 181:14,17 197:10 involvement (1) 54:14 152:10,10,11,13,13,15 102:21 152:10 189:16 l32301 (1) 140:14
202:5 186:13,13,14 191:2,4,7,23 inheritance (1) 99:6 involving (3) 9:25 53:22 167:1 174:19 180:24 191:4 195:12 l32304 (1) 140:17
hours (10) 13:2,15 14:2 192:14 initial (1) 66:19 95:17 know (106) 9:18 12:17,20 l32371 (3) 133:23 134:10
J
20:20 25:21 36:3 55:14 image (2) 85:23 140:22 initially (2) 66:17 137:1 ip (15) 7:6 90:1,25 112:12,18 13:11,23 14:2 18:16 22:18 196:8
67:16,17 84:6 imaged (2) 52:20 87:2 injunction (1) 95:21 113:1 192:22 193:7,15,25 jack (1) 90:5 23:8 24:21 26:20,23 l323712 (1) 134:11
house (6) 31:1 173:2,3,9 images (1) 85:21 input (4) 53:8 123:21 124:22 194:11,24 197:5,7,11 jan (1) 97:11 28:11,23 31:23,23 l323713 (2) 134:14 197:22
174:15 180:6 immediate (1) 11:20 125:7 iptoip (2) 196:24 197:5 january (6) 3:8,9 6:4 89:14 32:18,20 35:7,18 36:5 l323714 (2) 138:14 196:8
housekeeping (5) 1:3 immediately (2) 19:18 97:17 insecure (1) 76:9 irrelevant (1) 184:5 120:16 134:7 42:25 46:6 49:7 51:4 l323715 (1) 139:6
199:3,5 202:3,8 impact (1) 2:8 inserted (2) 71:17 155:21 irretrievable (1) 79:12 jenkins (2) 199:25 200:6 52:14,25 53:4,16 54:11 l49711 (1) 120:16
hr (4) 10:20,25 11:2,4 impacts (1) 84:5 insist (1) 117:1 isnt (70) 18:8 22:23 26:9 job (5) 10:3,7,16,21 65:22 55:14 62:22 66:9,15,20 l497114 (1) 129:9
https (1) 69:12 imperfections (1) 55:7 insolvency (1) 193:1 29:10 31:9 33:21 36:3,12 joining (1) 93:8 68:4,4,5,13 70:7,8 72:16 l497116 (1) 129:13
huge (1) 76:4 implement (3) 117:4 156:5 install (5) 56:4,19 64:22 37:1,5,18 42:14,21,25 joint (1) 72:17 73:5 74:6 79:15,19,24 l497117 (1) 128:20
hundred (4) 21:5 76:20 161:23 67:19,20 43:21 44:6,10 46:19 56:7 jon (4) 35:10 63:17,18 87:15 80:3,11,13,14 81:24 l497120 (1) 128:13
91:25 102:21 implementation (4) 6:3 installation (1) 68:8 58:13 63:21 64:4 65:25 journalism (4) 65:19,23,25 82:2,5,5,6 87:4,16,20 l497121 (2) 120:21 128:17
hundreds (1) 8:17 118:21 135:15 157:23 installed (1) 74:2 68:11 69:10 71:1 72:17,19 66:2 88:16 93:11,18,19 l497122 (2) 122:3 128:4
hunting (2) 93:8,15 implemented (10) 84:11 instance (5) 76:19 78:13,17 75:7 76:14,15 81:7,20 journalist (3) 32:23 60:22 94:6,8,10,24 95:2 96:11 l497123 (3) 125:25 126:1
hyperlink (1) 189:19 105:23 117:8 135:13 136:10 195:22 86:25 87:11,14 88:20,24 62:12 97:13 99:13 100:8,8 101:6 128:8
hypertext (1) 190:23 152:12,17 158:10 instances (1) 176:24 89:21,23,25 91:3 97:12 journalists (8) 27:20,25 28:4 102:15 103:21 106:17 l498123 (1) 126:1
160:12,13 179:3 instantly (1) 197:4 98:4 100:6,19 102:23 63:12 64:24 65:15,18,23 108:7 117:15 125:21 l49818 (1) 124:11
I
implementing (1) 155:11 instead (4) 122:22 181:17 103:3 105:9 108:6 110:23 judge (1) 93:24 137:11,13 144:4,12 145:5 l49819 (1) 124:19
ian (1) 35:10 important (10) 19:1 32:10 184:13 192:3 114:16 115:1,4 126:12 judges (1) 83:7 148:11 152:8 154:8 156:18 l5161 (1) 191:10
ibm (1) 179:5 72:20 77:5 143:5 148:23 instructed (2) 89:14 95:16 127:12 130:20 131:16 judgment (2) 80:23 93:24 160:12,16,18 163:10 l57079 (1) 180:3
ico (1) 89:19 149:21 152:25 153:6 instruction (1) 62:10 135:11 136:19 141:4 142:2 july (4) 41:18,23 87:11 164:17,25 168:13 171:7 l6 (1) 154:12
id (37) 19:8 21:20 26:9 157:14 instructions (8) 3:13,19 4:3 159:16 164:20 168:23 175:22 180:18,22,23 189:8,11 l6282101 (1) 154:15
27:17 33:14,15 35:6 imposed (1) 147:22 5:6 110:12,18 200:13,16 169:11,23 171:25 179:12 jumped (1) 73:10 190:7 198:4,23 201:4 l628271 (1) 155:4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

l64771 (2) 40:14 47:17 life (4) 8:24 14:7 83:13 84:23 logs (5) 74:8 119:14,21 majority (8) 94:21 95:5 means (15) 28:5 29:7 31:9 111:25 150:5 mq (1) 41:4
l64781 (1) 40:8 lifes (3) 27:14 84:4 103:9 141:7,9 176:9,12 177:1 178:1,7,19 56:24 57:1 65:10 91:8 99:5 minutetaker (1) 60:7 mqg (1) 47:14
l64931 (1) 182:24 light (3) 3:23 136:9 176:6 london (1) 87:18 makes (6) 33:12 53:17 104:17 136:6 144:4,24 mishmash (1) 196:23 mqgibekj (1) 36:25
l64932 (1) 183:4 lightning (3) 90:6 91:8 93:21 long (8) 41:10 52:4 108:16 72:22,24 73:4,6 164:9 167:23 168:20 misinformation (1) 82:15 ms (1) 78:25
l73911 (1) 184:15 like (83) 2:20 8:23 13:10 113:25 149:2,7,7 163:7 making (12) 10:2 43:12 meant (12) 12:6 72:12 86:10 misleading (2) 73:24 93:22 much (20) 2:14 4:15 26:4
l739113 (1) 185:16 14:6 21:24 23:16 28:16,18 longer (2) 98:10 159:1 54:9,14 84:8 92:5 96:24 135:12 140:22 147:25 misrepresentation (1) 37:7 51:3 64:6 79:18 81:2,25
l739117 (1) 187:13 31:24 32:23 46:15 48:1 longterm (3) 81:5 84:16,18 99:23 112:17 116:13 148:4 151:5 159:17,18 misrepresented (3) 83:14 94:7 101:17 115:7 121:7
l739118 (1) 187:18 60:7 62:24 68:1 69:8 71:19 look (40) 8:20,23 21:24 123:12 187:2 189:18 193:5 103:10 104:5 122:16 124:5 141:19
l73913 (1) 185:16 72:9,17 73:18 75:1 78:19 29:13 36:23 42:13,16 malicious (1) 76:2 measure (3) 151:12,14,15 misrepresenting (2) 152:15 163:10 170:12 196:6
l82491 (1) 130:22 89:10 91:11,19 92:20 61:22 65:20 73:18 75:1 malmi (5) 40:8,9,10 47:18 media (4) 12:11 14:25 91:19 176:3 198:12,14
l82501 (1) 131:1 93:12 97:13 98:5 99:1 85:7 90:22 92:8 93:18 98:5 169:24 100:11 missed (3) 72:15 73:13 161:1 multiple (19) 29:7 47:4 69:1
l825016 (1) 131:9 101:7 103:17 107:1,19 100:20,22 101:7 118:6 malware (5) 74:15,17,18 medicated (1) 80:1 missing (1) 97:1 77:15 121:22 134:24
l82503 (1) 131:5 109:4,14 114:22 116:17 124:17 129:21 141:20 76:15 77:10 medication (1) 79:17 mistakes (3) 24:13 25:2 142:17 149:9 151:11
l82571 (1) 130:14 117:20 119:11 122:17,18 143:1,10 145:16 152:24 manage (1) 3:12 meet (3) 87:12,17 200:19 110:9 152:16 162:11 164:23
l84671 (1) 117:23 126:16 127:6 136:6 139:24 153:24 156:16 158:18 manager (1) 10:20 meeting (3) 88:16 93:16,20 misunderstanding (1) 48:12 171:24 176:24 178:14,16
l84672 (1) 118:9 142:2,13,14 144:15 147:25 162:8 163:19 164:17 manifests (1) 80:23 meetings (1) 93:9 mix (2) 72:22 198:6 179:14 188:18 189:16
l924711 (2) 143:21 145:3 148:4 150:1 152:14 156:24 170:23,25 175:12 185:22 manipulation (2) 122:14,16 meiklejohn (10) 58:12,24 mixed (1) 179:15 multisystem (1) 64:25
language (1) 148:22 157:22 158:19 160:5,18,23 187:15,18 196:15 manually (2) 163:23 164:3 59:5 61:7 62:7 73:14 76:14 mixer (2) 92:5,22 muskets (1) 93:15
laptop (24) 9:9 22:11,25 167:1,2,20,20 169:2 170:6 looked (16) 7:8 12:12 manuscript (1) 108:18 78:25 119:8 176:3 mm (1) 18:16 must (8) 32:2 43:23 44:25
50:21,24 58:13 59:12 173:11 174:12 176:9,23 37:18,20 38:22 40:23 many (22) 8:17 15:20 46:24 meiklejohns (1) 76:24 mmhm (6) 125:6 130:18 45:1 58:21,22 141:8
64:11 66:18,21,22 178:3,7 179:24 182:19 41:11 54:17 73:12 76:2 70:17 88:17,18 106:2 mellor (87) 1:7,9,16 132:5 139:8 174:1 183:15 142:18
67:1,6,8,8,10,14,18,23,23 184:4 190:25 191:2 127:13 129:20 148:21 107:21 108:7 149:17 2:6,14,18 3:4,6,24 mobile (2) 149:22,23 myself (14) 14:11 19:5 20:5
68:7,19 71:17 82:7 194:4,17,19 197:9,11,15 160:4,5 162:5 152:10,14,14,25 157:13 4:7,10,13,15,22 5:7 19:2 mock (4) 95:13 96:10 26:24 45:8 55:15 94:11
laptops (3) 9:8 17:10 52:20 likely (4) 72:24 73:4 100:13 looking (24) 7:18,20 38:6,17 172:19 177:11,17 185:23 24:19 38:12,15,20 97:15,17 129:22 137:6 151:12
large (3) 75:24 117:20 182:13 41:9 55:5 68:16 78:13 97:5 186:3,3 188:3 45:3,7,9,11,13 47:7 53:19 mode (1) 87:25 170:20 178:15 181:14
173:15 limit (9) 143:13 99:13 101:18 112:5 132:9 mapping (1) 126:17 101:16,19 102:1 104:14 modelling (1) 139:1 182:22
larger (1) 144:9 147:8,21,24,25 148:3,4 136:18 145:20 146:4,5 march (4) 118:4,19 195:9,15 115:7 116:22 117:10,13 models (2) 134:12 139:11 myth (1) 31:20
last (16) 3:21 21:2 33:24 150:12 152:12 149:22 150:1,24 155:6,16 margin (1) 131:11 127:21,25 148:15 149:3 modern (1) 69:17
N
45:18 46:7 49:20 76:6 98:9 limitations (1) 145:11 176:5 184:10 mark (1) 105:25 150:5 190:9,12,13,17,20 modified (4) 56:11,12 57:19
99:18 106:9 108:10 110:15 limited (12) 6:18,25 7:24 looks (1) 97:13 marker (2) 76:4,8 191:9,13,16,24 173:4 nairobi (1) 34:22
115:4,10 159:13 191:3 10:20,23 50:13 95:16 lordship (12) 1:6,8,10 market (2) 96:22 97:9 192:6,10,16,20,25 modularising (1) 132:19 nakamoto (30) 37:16 39:9
late (1) 34:23 141:22 143:11 151:7,21 2:3,12,25 3:5,14,22 marketplaces (1) 184:12 193:3,7,15,19,24 moment (14) 4:12 35:1 47:5 114:15 130:4 133:19
later (16) 23:15 26:21 41:22 180:6 4:2,21,24 marriage (1) 161:12 194:11,23 195:3,14,17 60:14 63:12 64:23 67:4 137:3,13 138:21 139:17,20
53:11 85:25 88:14 108:7 limits (5) 122:1,5 151:4 lordships (3) 2:20,23 4:19 martti (11) 36:20,21 37:23 196:1,3,6,14,19 197:20 87:4 104:20 133:9 149:23 150:16 151:7 152:6,9
129:23 133:19 164:13 162:2,2 lose (2) 100:23 113:13 40:5 41:2,5,14 42:21,23 198:2,7,12,14,17,19 158:25 179:9 200:25 154:16 155:5 157:16 158:8
178:11 195:11 199:17 line (29) 3:8 5:16,23 6:9 loses (1) 96:17 47:1 180:20 199:1,4,9,21 moments (1) 38:22 160:9,11,16 161:17 163:21
200:3,24 201:4 33:24 44:2 61:9 62:4,6 losing (1) 91:21 mashedup (1) 197:2 200:2,8,17,20,23 201:2 monday (3) 14:18 20:16 164:10 167:6 182:3,17
latest (1) 137:12 63:2 81:12 82:9 85:6,7,7 losses (1) 116:11 massive (1) 100:13 202:7 199:13 186:24 190:2 192:3
latex (5) 3:18 4:17 102:5,10 104:18 119:22 lost (5) 21:20 30:11 60:10,13 matched (1) 132:4 member (2) 44:20 87:13 monetary (3) 115:25 name (19) 61:10 88:22,25
190:15,18,20 121:6,13 128:10 131:10 101:3 material (2) 13:23 84:1 members (1) 17:20 116:8,14 107:2,18 110:24 118:19
laundering (1) 117:18 145:17,18 146:5 165:8 lot (22) 8:11 13:22 16:21 maths (3) 1:20 2:3 107:22 memory (2) 18:2 27:9 money (24) 27:15,17 91:14 135:4 146:12,13,15
lawyers (16) 6:8 15:18 17:7 172:16 190:14 28:17 76:1 82:15 88:5 matonis (7) 53:7 mention (4) 95:15 141:15 95:9 96:17,23 97:9 148:3,6 167:16
31:12 93:8 102:5 lines (7) 104:16 110:15 96:17 106:10 107:2 139:2 63:13,17,21,24 64:24 157:15 158:7 105:13,21 114:23 180:4,22,24 181:17 197:10
110:7,8,11,13 111:6,16,17 131:11,13,25 158:24 141:7,21 158:10 170:7 87:15 mentioned (7) 77:22 133:14 116:6,11,12,20,25 named (3) 146:21,22 196:16
112:4,14 175:4 172:17 171:15 177:13 184:3 192:9 matter (11) 3:14 4:4 5:1 144:17 171:2 183:5 193:20 117:2,6,9,18 182:20 184:4 names (3) 107:21 169:12
layer (1) 80:19 link (6) 42:7 43:4,6 50:13 194:14 195:24 198:4 59:5 88:24 90:19 99:19 197:16 186:2,4 187:9 197:12
laying (1) 30:16 70:14 184:9 lots (3) 102:12 107:10 187:5 103:23 117:1 157:5 199:22 merged (1) 145:4 monitor (1) 93:19 naming (1) 197:8
lead (2) 68:19 183:1 linked (7) 12:3,19,25 20:1 love (1) 113:22 matters (5) 4:4 96:6 98:10 message (35) 11:17,20 13:18 month (5) 114:18 161:10,12 nchain (20) 10:9 11:1,12
leading (1) 177:5 48:1 93:3 107:25 loveday (3) 95:12,24 96:9 155:13 199:2 19:25 20:18 21:12,15 173:22 179:22 24:11 94:14,15,21,22,25
leaked (1) 31:19 linking (1) 186:25 low (2) 176:9 178:7 matthews (36) 6:13 10:2 22:10 23:12,13 24:3 25:5,6 months (5) 74:22 76:19,21 95:3,4,8,16 96:11,13 99:15
learn (1) 138:15 linux (5) 58:2 62:16 63:2,3 lshift (5) 154:5 155:1,8 14:20 17:25 18:3 20:16 40:11 53:6,9 58:1,4 60:2 161:6 179:23 100:16 105:11 113:3
learned (6) 111:11 141:11 164:15 156:9 157:22 25:16,20,22,25 26:6,9,11 61:14 62:9 64:8,8 65:1 more (37) 7:5,21 23:9 33:19 191:20
142:5 190:5,7 200:1 lisarow (5) 173:1,2,3 179:18 luckily (1) 88:15 27:2,8 29:25 35:4,13,15 71:11 72:3,4,12,17,21,25 35:13 59:21 63:10 72:24 ncrypt (20) 10:9,11
least (9) 12:2,18,24 18:13 180:4 ludwig (1) 59:9 51:6,19,25 52:3 73:2 123:22 165:14 181:23 73:1,4 85:10 87:6 95:2 11:2,5,12,14,16 15:12,13
58:2 102:21 124:22 175:4 list (10) 15:19 16:25 23:8 lulzsec (1) 184:16 54:9,14,18,24 55:5 63:20 messages (3) 26:7 27:21 100:3,23 109:8,25 117:17 23:9 24:20 27:2 30:11
198:22 31:11 34:13 104:22 153:15 lunch (2) 20:4 101:20 64:1 66:23 94:20 105:7,10 141:13 121:7 122:15 124:5,16 31:23 32:16 50:3 51:2,13
leave (7) 45:17 113:23 156:14,16 188:1 lunchtimes (1) 103:16 200:2,4 metadata (15) 43:9,13,16,17 130:3 161:10 162:14 53:22 54:1
114:1,1 116:23 151:16 listed (3) 9:9 52:25 83:18 max (1) 147:22 44:16,18 46:16 48:20,23 168:24 170:6,9 174:20 ndas (1) 142:22
190:4 lists (3) 94:22 134:19 197:24 M maxed (1) 147:9 49:8 140:15 142:7,8,10 176:21 178:8 182:12,21 nearly (2) 61:3 185:24
led (5) 81:3 90:5 145:2,4 literally (1) 23:15 maximalist (1) 82:16 190:23 185:8 189:11 198:24 necessarily (4) 157:22 166:7
183:7 literature (1) 76:17 m11707 (1) 95:11 maximise (1) 96:18 method (3) 59:11 79:22 80:9 200:17 182:19 184:4
left (9) 11:4 37:8 81:11 92:8 litigation (9) 20:7 95:6,17,21 m12185 (1) 4:21 maximum (4) 143:12 micropayments (1) 117:19 morning (18) 1:6 2:11,13,16 necessary (6) 57:14
101:10,18 103:14,15 96:2,5,7 100:19 105:14 mac (1) 164:14 151:8,22 152:5 microsoft (4) 76:20 3:22 5:9,10 11:22 12:13 111:20,24 159:11 200:23
160:19 little (16) 7:4 8:22 43:6 macfarlanes (1) 2:16 maxscriptelementsize (8) 106:12,16 134:4 20:17 51:7 53:6,14 66:8 201:1
legal (10) 9:11 90:1,25 79:16 128:1 143:13 151:17 macgregor (26) 10:1 14:19 144:2 145:25 146:9,18,22 mid40s (1) 7:17 160:4,5 200:18 201:3 need (34) 1:8 2:12 10:15
110:17,18 113:18 116:1 161:7 162:24 163:20,20 18:5 19:20 20:3 23:1,13,16 147:9,17 150:12 middle (3) 6:15 31:13 99:4 moron (1) 94:2 15:25 24:9 26:19 29:19
182:20 184:4,5 185:18 199:13 200:2,23 24:3,6 26:13 27:1 29:24 maxwell (3) 44:20 49:14 midmorning (1) 14:24 morphed (1) 119:19 33:16,19 34:4 41:22 55:18
legislation (5) 92:11 93:2 201:4 31:4,14 32:15 33:2,7 35:4 109:18 might (12) 25:13 55:11 68:2 most (16) 3:12 26:23 77:5 56:4,8,19 58:21 69:23
117:5,7,12 live (1) 172:15 49:20,23,25 52:10,14,15 mayaka (1) 34:17 85:15 86:24 107:21,22 89:18 100:13 108:12 141:7 83:25 93:25 100:23
less (5) 48:15 68:24 119:17 lives (2) 34:22,25 53:7 maybe (4) 62:5 65:24 87:7 128:2 141:25 151:19 183:1 148:12 160:21,24 180:23 103:3,7 111:22 112:13
137:20 184:21 living (2) 8:10,12 machine (14) 36:18 49:1 177:21 184:1 189:3 193:8 195:12 198:20 117:14,17 118:3 132:15,17
let (12) 12:11 37:22 59:4 llm (1) 83:21 51:5,5 52:16 58:2,14 69:7 mcardle (2) 195:6,7 mike (1) 87:12 199:10 136:10 160:1 178:9
67:9 72:10 88:3 95:2 112:4 load (4) 22:15 31:2 44:13 74:2,2,3 75:4 197:6,6 mccormack (2) 17:6 111:5 million (1) 117:20 mostly (2) 176:20,25 200:8,17
113:23 114:2 115:25 129:3 192:14 machines (4) 58:10 86:15,16 mcgregor (1) 80:21 millions (2) 105:3 114:18 mother (1) 102:11 needed (9) 100:1 122:21
lets (11) 19:18 50:2 53:19 loaded (11) 22:13 36:20 87:4 mckenzie (1) 6:4 mind (3) 112:2 168:14 179:8 motivation (1) 81:6 157:20,21 182:21,22
61:6 98:8 118:12 120:15 37:19,24 41:2,5,14 48:15 madden (2) 43:1 44:23 mcnicol (2) 185:17 187:14 minds (1) 37:2 mouth (1) 96:23 196:21 197:2,7
172:3 181:24 182:3 187:13 61:16 191:20,22 maddens (3) 43:17 48:20 mean (33) 12:20 14:7 25:10 mine (5) 24:7 31:9 76:18 move (15) 49:21 61:6 66:2 needing (1) 132:21
letter (13) 2:15,24 3:8,9,21 loading (1) 22:14 162:18 26:18 28:16 30:6 32:18 84:13 198:9 81:9 97:9 113:2 117:22 needs (6) 3:22 17:19 27:5
4:20,20 5:1 31:2 72:9 loathe (1) 22:21 mail (2) 106:24 107:2 33:12 43:5 53:11 60:4 62:1 mingw32 (2) 164:21,25 118:24 120:15 142:25 93:24 159:25 182:8
95:11 97:25 180:15 localised (1) 136:12 main (7) 69:18 70:13 135:7 64:16 66:15 69:6 70:17 mini (1) 103:19 152:22 162:3 172:3 187:11 negative (6) 18:9 94:1
letters (4) 41:10,12 73:3 lock (2) 69:19,23 137:19 138:10 142:4 187:4 82:3 84:12 98:15 99:13 mining (4) 102:7 122:17 200:14 115:16 125:1 144:24
89:15 locked (3) 194:14 195:20,22 maincpp (3) 120:17,18 131:7 104:19 121:5 135:18 136:3 124:2 176:4 moved (5) 8:11,15 29:19 183:25
letting (3) 64:9 94:2 125:22 locking (1) 194:13 maintain (1) 112:7 139:5 144:9 149:19 159:18 minister (1) 104:1 78:6 131:14 neither (3) 50:24 67:22
level (3) 74:17 176:9 178:7 logging (5) 175:9 176:14 maintainability (1) 148:7 161:8 173:14 175:18 minus (1) 146:2 moving (12) 29:15,21 36:6 189:25
lie (4) 112:9 114:15,24 115:3 177:10 178:16,17 maintaining (1) 35:14 186:13 197:5 minuted (2) 61:20 78:25 54:18,21 59:7 79:3 88:19 nervously (1) 101:18
lies (2) 82:20 115:4 logical (1) 149:10 major (2) 28:12 194:20 meaning (1) 39:14 minutes (4) 47:8 101:10 107:6 122:13,22,24 nest (2) 183:19 184:22

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

network (15) 83:17 121:13 o21137 (2) 104:10,16 oplshift (2) 153:25 157:3 pal (1) 189:22 pd57ac (3) 15:19 16:24 8:1 9:24 10:12 14:17 16:6 presumption (2) 28:1 75:5
122:20 137:22 151:3 oath (2) 116:5 198:15 opportunity (1) 66:24 panel (2) 194:3,4 34:13 18:25 20:15 21:8,11 22:6 presumptively (1) 17:11
152:18,19 155:8 158:12 object (1) 67:4 opposed (2) 176:20 182:17 pang (3) 105:16 199:25 peer (1) 134:17 23:1 26:19 29:15 30:13 pretend (1) 99:22
161:9 175:14,25 177:8,9 objected (2) 67:1,7 opposite (2) 61:5 114:17 200:6 peertopeer (1) 188:11 33:2 37:9 40:8,14 41:16,17 pretty (2) 24:2 125:19
178:4 objection (5) 4:11,14,18 option (5) 69:8,9 75:8 92:10 paper (28) 3:18 4:17 6:4 penalty (2) 91:22 92:14 42:2 43:25 45:2 47:17 prevent (1) 122:14
never (34) 5:20,24 7:2 8:24 67:2,7 186:15 81:19 88:22 89:6,17 pending (2) 109:13 114:14 50:11 53:2 57:24 77:20 previous (3) 111:16 123:23
13:6,25 21:13 22:20 40:3 obtain (2) 56:8 86:22 options (5) 69:7 185:23,24 98:19,21 105:5 106:20 people (93) 8:11 13:16,23 80:10,17 81:9 90:22 93:4 197:21
51:10,14,16,16,20 53:25 obvious (1) 98:1 186:3 187:10 107:1 108:5,6 109:3 14:8,14 17:21,23 18:11 95:11 104:10 114:2 125:24 previously (4) 1:19 50:14
76:16 80:4 95:7 97:7 98:25 obviously (10) 4:8 35:8 89:20 ordained (1) 104:1 114:4,9 116:19 135:20,22 24:17 25:23 28:8 29:6 130:14 196:8 199:3 147:4,14
103:8,19,25 105:12,14,22 90:23 110:8 164:19 179:15 order (5) 81:24 83:18,20 136:1 138:2 140:5 192:1 31:1,4 32:23 33:16 34:18 plenty (2) 8:6 78:15 primarily (1) 192:24
107:7,16,24 138:21 170:4 193:20 199:19 200:15 199:17 200:5 195:18 196:4 197:14,16 40:4,6 41:24 42:23 50:13 plug (1) 113:4 primary (13) 17:9 52:23
186:18,19 194:2 occasion (2) 120:2 177:22 original (8) 35:20 41:7 papers (8) 21:1,5 58:24,25 52:1,12 55:13 58:20 63:17 plus (1) 146:2 108:12 162:14 163:11,18
neville (2) 106:6,7 occasionally (2) 177:21,22 116:19 129:20 133:4 65:21 109:11 111:18 65:9 74:6,16 76:6 82:1 pm (5) 101:23,25 150:7,9 165:5 168:1,8,15 169:6
newly (2) 13:18 121:2 occurred (1) 119:9 137:14,17 196:15 193:16 83:15 85:15 86:23 90:20 201:5 170:1 171:12
next (17) 23:25 24:2 26:10 oclock (2) 101:9,21 originally (4) 24:21 41:1 paragraph (39) 2:24 91:11,23 92:24 93:20 94:4 pocket (1) 182:12 principles (1) 81:1
62:5 100:20,22 102:25 octdec (1) 134:5 106:25 133:2 3:1,5,7,10,20 17:25 30:16 97:3 99:2,15 102:13,21 pointed (2) 58:12 185:10 prior (2) 49:2 119:16
105:13 111:25 125:15 october (9) 6:19 7:25 8:12 originals (1) 107:11 37:9,13 38:3,16 39:3,14 103:11 104:22 105:17 pointing (1) 186:13 private (19) 19:25 28:13 35:3
128:8,16 155:24 191:10 11:7 36:18 43:3,10 44:2 originated (1) 48:24 42:6,10,12 55:21 57:11,24 106:2,3,10,16,22 107:23 points (4) 43:25 59:4 111:21 37:11,13 38:9,10,18,21
192:17 199:8,13 140:16 orphan (1) 139:24 59:7,10,12,14 62:6 79:5 108:4,20 109:14,15,17,20 186:7 39:1,23 48:5,13,17 59:10
nice (2) 92:10 183:17 offences (1) 92:17 orr (16) 1:4,8,10,17 80:16 95:14 98:9 99:4,18 114:23 116:10 119:2 policies (1) 123:18 79:4,6 108:22 141:13
night (1) 3:21 offensive (1) 23:4 2:7,15,20 3:5,7,25 4:8 5:4 110:15 118:25 143:1 122:18 141:14,16,17,19 policy (1) 192:13 privately (2) 40:4 42:20
nine (1) 118:3 offer (2) 71:7 116:19 200:10,19,22,25 152:24 167:14 169:21 142:18,21 151:11,23 polishing (1) 93:14 privilege (4) 1:18,24 16:8,12
ninth (2) 56:3 70:4 offering (1) 188:3 ostensibly (1) 97:16 174:3 179:10 154:3,19 157:19 pool (5) 139:7,15,24 privileged (5) 16:6,7 53:2
nobody (5) 77:13,16 135:5 offers (1) 188:11 others (15) 13:4 27:20 37:23 paraphrasing (1) 42:18 158:10,11,20 160:6,19,23 140:2,24 77:16,20
136:14 142:23 office (4) 102:12 180:7 42:21,24 50:9 65:13 80:21 parent (1) 94:21 162:2 171:24 180:23 porn (1) 84:9 pro (1) 60:17
nobodys (1) 185:10 194:18,21 90:5 92:6 98:11 102:8 paris (3) 12:6 21:16 26:10 182:22 184:8,13 186:4,25 pornhub (2) 106:12,15 probably (12) 4:16 7:5 15:12
nodding (1) 159:2 officer (5) 10:4,9,11,16 24:14 152:19 165:16 180:20 part (35) 14:9,21 17:16 19:9 189:14,15 192:12 position (5) 5:4 19:10 32:21 24:13 27:17 77:5 84:21
node (7) 58:22 121:3 offline (1) 20:20 otherwise (1) 74:6 20:4 24:5,10 32:10 34:25 per (7) 6:19 114:18 173:21 35:8 104:8 85:14 101:10 161:10 193:9
134:16,25 136:9,9 197:1 often (1) 80:23 ourselves (1) 170:18 48:3 50:16 52:2 63:5,18 177:12,18,21 179:22 positive (4) 73:19 75:2 197:9
nodes (9) 82:21 83:16,16 oh (11) 31:1 35:23 49:25 outcome (1) 103:23 68:17 69:22 71:7 73:15 percentage (1) 94:17 115:16 166:17 probative (1) 39:8
122:11 134:17 137:19,21 83:9 93:18 94:24 111:7 outed (3) 31:19 109:17,18 76:23 85:22,25 92:3 95:8 perfect (1) 161:21 positively (2) 66:25 94:3 probing (2) 88:4,5
176:4 197:17 146:7 159:3 172:12 196:7 outing (1) 31:20 116:21 124:8 126:23 perfectly (2) 29:1 111:12 possession (10) 12:2,18,25 problem (7) 18:8,11 24:17
nominated (1) 17:9 ohagan (1) 54:19 output (16) 44:1 45:19,23 127:1,10 129:17 134:5 perform (1) 29:9 27:23,24 28:5,13 29:3 29:12 157:23,23 194:20
noncash (1) 188:4 ok (1) 31:16 46:2,9,20 61:13 62:9 136:16 164:18 175:8,9 performed (4) 71:22,25 108:22 172:1 problems (2) 76:1 196:25
none (13) 24:22 52:21 60:6 okay (58) 1:9 2:14,18 3:4,24 73:19,25 75:2 123:18,21 176:11 75:15 149:9 possibility (1) 187:20 proceedings (15) 9:14 21:9
61:20 106:1,3,12,18,22 4:7,15 5:7 18:23 20:14 124:23 125:8 156:1 particular (17) 1:11 3:5 4:25 performing (2) 27:13 55:6 possible (6) 54:16 72:16 71:4,25 72:11 81:10 85:22
108:4 138:24 141:12 22:1 27:24 38:15,20 53:20 outputs (3) 119:4 120:4,5 49:4 64:4 65:25 68:5 78:3 perhaps (3) 199:15,25 111:12 122:15 154:4 86:21 93:6 102:4 106:5
197:12 82:9 89:7 98:8 101:20 outreach (1) 76:21 80:14 88:5,13 101:7 200:24 155:23 110:9 172:4 173:24 193:1
nongeeks (1) 197:7 102:1 121:18 124:6,9 outset (1) 172:20 118:21 121:20 124:8 period (4) 11:13 15:4 27:10 possibly (3) 32:19 50:7 201:4 process (21) 3:12 27:13 29:3
nor (1) 109:23 129:8 131:18 132:19 133:1 outside (4) 92:25,25 93:1 125:15,17 177:20 post (13) 21:12 22:13 30:1 48:13 58:15,20,23 60:19
normal (4) 76:1 107:5 144:14 145:6,15 146:17 142:21 particularly (3) 15:3 161:8 permissions (1) 29:19 41:18 49:8 87:10 92:8 62:11,13 63:5 64:7 65:9
174:15 198:24 147:18 150:5 155:24 over (51) 1:19 5:2 10:19 11:9 192:22 person (15) 28:18 39:6,18 93:4,13 96:1,4 107:3 181:3 67:18,24 80:20 122:13
normally (1) 148:11 156:15 157:25 160:14 15:14,23 18:4 21:21 23:10 parties (6) 2:11 6:20 16:22 49:13 64:10 74:7 77:21 posted (6) 11:23 36:11 88:18 149:6 169:4 178:9,12
norway (1) 17:7 162:8 163:9 164:11 172:12 24:14 25:17 26:4,15,18 17:15,17 116:12 91:11 107:17 114:5,7,11 94:11 97:19 161:10 processblock (1) 126:3
norwegian (2) 110:11,17 173:13 174:16 175:3 32:15 35:15,21 36:3 37:11 partner (1) 95:13 167:5,23 180:22 postgraduate (1) 83:22 processes (1) 127:19
note (7) 7:14 40:24 58:16 177:11 180:25 191:9 42:10 51:14 52:12 54:2 partnered (1) 113:12 persona (1) 37:16 posting (3) 30:20 93:17 procured (1) 67:11
64:5 122:20 125:13 181:17 192:16 193:15 196:6,11 55:14,17 65:11 68:16 partnership (1) 102:16 personal (2) 174:19 179:19 97:24 procuring (1) 55:23
notebook (1) 149:4 199:1,21 200:2,17,20 69:6,8 72:6 81:19 82:18 parts (5) 17:17 57:4 61:23 persons (3) 39:6,18 120:9 postings (2) 183:7,22 produce (3) 61:13 73:18 75:1
noted (31) 3:10 10:8 15:25 201:2,3 88:21 97:7 101:20 107:15 68:14 105:16 pertinently (1) 189:11 posts (6) 13:4,8 14:2,4 18:9 produced (4) 66:12 71:10
16:21 17:13,14 21:19 23:9 old (2) 1:20 106:6 108:10,11 114:11 115:4 party (4) 16:1 22:24 51:4 pgp (43) 30:20 33:3,22 93:18 107:7 140:21
39:13 46:23,24 47:1 49:1 oldchunks (1) 2:3 119:2 122:3 124:18 138:14 68:2 34:5,9,16 35:3 36:6,7 37:4 potential (1) 199:17 producing (1) 52:11
52:16 56:20 58:18 60:7 older (1) 106:11 142:14 154:9,14 155:13 pass (2) 55:17 93:24 38:14 39:14 potentially (2) 32:7 53:23 product (2) 138:9,10
62:21 73:8,12 85:21 86:6 once (15) 8:24 33:17 34:8 162:24 163:20 194:21 passed (1) 117:8 40:10,17,21,22 41:24 pound (1) 117:20 professor (11) 58:12,24 59:5
107:20 115:11 143:2 40:24 41:14 44:11 51:13 overflow (2) 154:5 160:19 passing (4) 89:2,3,3 111:16 42:12 44:6,22 45:25 pounds (1) 114:18 61:7 62:7 73:14 76:14,24
151:25 168:4 176:13 52:9 65:5 68:19 100:23 overleaf (1) 3:18 passport (1) 12:9 46:13,24 47:14 48:12 51:9 power (4) 173:6 174:14,15 119:8 144:18 176:3
177:20 184:12 196:21 139:11 164:23 171:23 overlooked (1) 78:11 past (1) 116:4 62:21 71:6 162:3,5,11 180:2 program (5) 61:9,13 62:8
notes (9) 9:21,22 16:2 109:3 189:23 overreach (1) 77:3 paste (1) 189:19 163:6,7,18 164:19 168:1,2 powerful (1) 171:18 69:22 73:23
114:11 117:24 154:18 ones (20) 33:14 42:23 46:18 overreacted (1) 80:2 pasted (2) 71:13 72:3 169:22 170:2,6 powers (1) 23:17 programming (1) 170:8
167:10 195:13 50:5,9,10,22 99:21 101:8 overrunning (1) 199:6 pastor (1) 104:1 171:11,12,17 practice (2) 46:1,5 programs (1) 59:23
nothing (10) 21:16 25:4 107:5 108:14,16 117:20 overseas (1) 95:8 patch (3) 137:1 156:4,6 phd (3) 74:17 83:23 185:20 preamble (2) 30:15 111:24 progress (4) 14:15 83:25
34:23 39:17 58:14 82:7 140:21 142:19 151:24 overspeaking (2) 51:24 patches (7) 135:2,14 137:2,3 philosophy (1) 27:15 precautions (1) 78:25 109:11 200:21
96:7,13 98:6 130:11 153:14 174:19 179:19 89:23 156:8,9 158:9 phone (2) 149:22,23 precisely (1) 23:13 project (8) 1:20,21 14:24
notice (3) 45:14 54:17 61:23 198:24 overwritten (1) 159:4 patent (11) 21:6 65:21 physical (1) 79:11 precursor (1) 106:20 45:6,10,17 182:8 194:22
noticed (3) 148:17,22 177:24 online (3) 13:16 62:16 own (22) 17:10 22:19 24:12 88:14,15 109:19,20 pick (1) 45:1 predate (1) 140:22 projected (1) 187:24
notify (1) 113:12 184:24 49:13,13 59:12 64:11,20 113:6,9,12,13,14 picked (1) 182:3 predefined (1) 122:5 promise (1) 60:19
noting (1) 86:5 ontier (2) 89:14 111:7 66:8,18 67:5 75:4 78:22 patented (1) 142:20 piece (1) 171:25 predicate (1) 123:19 promised (2) 32:22 190:4
notwithstanding (1) 4:23 onto (1) 36:21 89:6 91:15 94:18 101:12 patents (16) 88:6,8 90:8 pieces (1) 173:7 preempt (2) 72:18,19 promoted (3) 37:8 92:6
november (4) 5:18 96:1,12 op (12) 152:23 153:6,16,19 103:14 107:20 108:12 103:16,24 pissing (1) 99:6 prefer (1) 113:21 105:22
102:4 155:22,25 156:3 157:13 116:13 121:16 109:8,12,16,18,25 113:2,3 pitched (2) 106:4,13 preissue (1) 108:5 proof (18) 13:5,11,12 14:4
nowhere (1) 16:16 158:2,22 159:5,7 owned (3) 17:4 171:23 114:12,14 179:2 195:1 pki (1) 197:9 preliminary (3) 55:23 95:22 18:12 20:19,25 23:19
ntp (1) 122:20 op2mul (4) 158:4 159:6,24 194:18 path (10) 19:11 59:21,22,24 place (5) 29:19 66:4 114:19 126:5 30:14,23 94:2 102:2
number (17) 2:4 13:16 60:5 160:10 ownership (2) 39:7 194:15 61:16,18 62:13,23,25 139:14 188:23 premise (3) 103:2,3,6 104:17 108:21,22
72:13 87:23 110:9 122:15 opcat (2) 156:18,22 owning (1) 98:19 136:12 placed (1) 152:4 prepared (1) 3:21 109:1,2,6
131:10 133:10 141:20 opcode (2) 156:17,21 owns (2) 94:18 194:16 pause (3) 9:12 63:20 196:10 places (1) 149:17 preparing (1) 15:16 proofofwork (1) 132:4
147:5 155:25 162:4 165:9 opcodes (2) 152:25 159:23 pausing (1) 37:17 placing (2) 143:12 151:22 presence (1) 54:25 propagated (1) 134:18
P
168:16 179:2 182:5 open (2) 3:2 130:20 pay (3) 105:14 116:19 plain (5) 39:12,14 40:11 present (3) 60:25 139:20 propagates (1) 134:16
numbers (5) 41:3,10,11 59:3 opened (1) 130:17 package (3) 10:22 66:12,14 189:22 48:11 49:12 198:2 propagating (1) 122:19
170:6 openly (1) 92:6 packet (9) 162:17,25 payees (1) 11:5 planned (2) 54:22 73:5 presented (1) 44:23 propagation (2) 197:19,19
numerals (1) 38:8 openpgp (1) 165:14 163:19,21 165:6 166:18,22 paying (1) 107:24 platform (12) 9:8,19,20,22 presenting (1) 178:19 proper (1) 16:8
numerous (1) 174:2 openssl (1) 22:8 167:21 168:25 payment (3) 116:14 136:4,7 16:2,4,5,6,14 39:25 75:20 press (1) 99:12 properly (5) 78:5,24 125:23
nyc (1) 14:25 operated (1) 69:25 packets (5) 45:19 46:2,11 payments (3) 117:20 186:1,9 171:9 pressing (1) 49:20 189:8 194:2
operating (1) 172:19 163:15 165:19 paypal (5) 185:25 186:9 platters (1) 79:10 pressure (2) 17:23 36:5 property (3) 84:7 88:21
O operation (3) 87:24 125:20 pages (3) 7:4 8:17 170:23 187:11,25 189:21 play (3) 99:9 100:11 171:15 pressured (1) 84:25 192:24
134:23 paid (4) 17:22 174:14,14 paypals (1) 187:20 plead (1) 37:12 pressuring (1) 52:14 propose (2) 2:21 131:19

o21129 (2) 81:9 82:18 operations (2) 44:9 149:9 195:7 payroll (1) 11:5 pleadings (1) 91:16 presumably (1) 55:2 proposes (1) 99:18

o21131 (1) 85:1 opinion (3) 43:22,23 98:11 pair (2) 36:16 38:22 pc (2) 182:25 183:11 please (44) 6:2,12,15 7:22 presuming (1) 74:1 proposing (3) 19:25 23:3

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

131:6 46:2,7,19 47:17 175:1,3,5,14,17,20,22,24 ready (1) 7:16 167:15 residence (1) 79:8 179:4,6
proposition (1) 56:16 48:4,7,19,23 49:8,18 176:2,12,19,25 real (18) 12:21 13:5 17:1 refers (13) 11:16 22:11 residential (1) 173:3 runs (4) 22:12 32:25 70:15
prosecuting (1) 92:11 50:2,10,17,25 177:4,11,14,18,21 22:3 24:3 35:2,2 36:1 45:1 118:6,9 135:10 136:19 resign (1) 25:3 94:14
protocol (5) 92:9,12,19 51:6,14,18,24 52:9,21 178:1,5,19,25 48:21 49:22,23 50:5 56:9 139:7 140:17,23 143:19 resigned (1) 22:15
S
112:16 122:20 53:2,6,14 54:2,8,12,18,24 179:8,17,20,22 97:11 181:17 192:8,11 155:1 165:5,5 resilient (1) 182:22
prove (12) 14:11 19:14,16 55:2,5,11,17 56:15 180:1,3,9,12,18,22,25 realise (4) 14:12 18:3 26:17 reflect (1) 1:18 resolve (1) 199:17 s (6) 8:24,25 9:1 184:16
21:4,5 29:3,6 65:9 82:25 57:11,24 58:12 59:4,14,17 181:7,10,13,22 160:25 refreshed (1) 18:2 resolved (1) 199:10 185:3 192:4
84:3 94:1 103:4 60:2,6,15,21 61:6,12,20 182:3,17,24 reality (2) 35:25 88:8 refused (2) 29:8 110:25 resources (1) 187:23 s111320 (1) 110:15
proved (4) 27:22,24 28:5,12 62:4 63:7,12,20 183:4,7,10,13,16,22,25 reallocated (1) 158:17 regain (4) 85:2 86:4,12,20 respect (2) 43:19 84:11 s111885 (1) 159:22
provenance (1) 108:11 64:6,17,20,23 65:15 184:7,15,19,21,24 really (18) 8:23 10:21 25:18 regard (1) 158:21 respected (1) 60:21 s111886 (1) 153:15
provide (6) 2:16 13:18 73:24 66:2,7,10,12,17,23 185:2,6,10,15,20 28:23 30:7 31:17 35:17 regarding (1) 81:1 respectfully (1) 111:11 s1135614 (1) 97:24
143:17 185:15 193:13 67:3,10,15,25 68:6,18 186:7,11,16,18,20,24 80:6 81:21 82:4 96:17 regards (1) 181:15 respond (3) 4:25 80:20 s22113 (1) 93:23
provided (8) 2:11,25 13:5,6 69:3,10,25 70:4,9,20 187:13,18,22 188:17,20,23 100:15 101:18 130:13 relate (1) 185:7 187:15 s2215 (1) 93:4
95:5 105:12 107:24 108:4 71:1,3,9,13,16,22,24 189:2,6,11,21 190:1 141:19 146:24 161:7,12 related (7) 6:22 11:15 39:1 responded (2) 35:5 185:17 salary (5) 6:19 10:4,18,22
providers (1) 174:24 72:10,20,23 73:1,8,14,22 qnap (3) 86:6,17 87:1 reason (9) 29:8 50:21 48:5 97:3 149:14 152:22 responding (5) 24:24 33:5 95:10
providing (3) 40:17 43:14 74:11,24 75:9,13 76:10,22 quadrant (1) 81:12 52:6,18 65:7,8 106:6 154:2 relating (1) 33:21 37:10 42:2 155:5 salvage (1) 23:5
100:16 77:4,13,16,20,25 78:19,22 qualification (2) 39:5 83:22 191:23 relation (19) 3:13,17 4:4 responds (2) 15:5 19:17 same (22) 11:12 39:2
proving (5) 20:25 21:1,1 79:3,21 80:5,9,16 81:9,17 qualifications (3) 21:1 28:9 reasons (3) 42:22 67:3 31:14 51:8 58:2 69:25 response (9) 4:20 18:6 21:10 40:21,25 41:3,10,20 42:21
104:17 171:24 82:9 83:4,10,24 84:15 65:21 159:10 89:2,3 92:17 95:15 120:2 40:14 80:22 102:10 183:13 43:2 48:5 49:16,17 62:20
provoked (1) 185:11 85:1,7 86:2,9,11,19 question (44) 1:10,11 3:25 rebranding (1) 118:10 124:4,7 125:20 155:14 185:22 187:8 83:3 97:6 119:18 127:1
pseudonym (1) 181:18 87:9,18,22 88:2,7,19 4:25 16:12,13,16 20:11 rebuilt (1) 173:4 157:11 159:6 191:16 responsibility (1) 199:7 168:6 185:25 188:15 191:7
pseudonyms (1) 192:13 89:2,7,9,11,13,20,23,25 23:23,25 24:2 30:7,9 recall (48) 5:13,21,25 6:7,10 relationship (1) 89:4 responsible (1) 89:15 194:12
ptrf (1) 140:20 90:10,17 91:15 92:7 38:1,10,12,15 40:12 41:8,8 11:18,22 15:2,3 20:2 relax (1) 101:20 rest (5) 57:5 105:15 161:11 sartre (6) 11:17,19 13:15
ptrf391 (1) 140:20 93:4,13,23 46:7 80:9 82:23 85:9,13 26:4,25 28:15 35:18 release (4) 4:2 105:7 117:24 178:5 200:12 14:3 18:10 87:10
public (40) 21:6 27:13 29:9 94:9,12,15,19,25 90:15,16,22 96:14 102:14 50:7,16 51:3 54:23,25 118:18 restaurant (1) 87:18 sartretxt (2) 59:20,25
36:8,10,15,15 37:4,14 95:4,11,23 96:7,14,18 104:14 110:4,5 112:23 55:1,2,8 60:4 64:3 69:1 released (8) 12:5,13 114:6 result (2) 117:2 157:4 sat (2) 62:12 63:11
38:4,9,19,22 40:3 41:19,24 97:4,6,15,21,24 98:8,18,23 116:22,23 152:2,3,4 70:16 71:2,20 79:7 81:23 129:24 134:6 135:2 138:7 retired (1) 37:15 satoshi (107) 11:23 30:18,19
42:6 47:14 48:7,8 49:10 99:4,9,18 100:6,10,22 176:25 177:6 196:7,11 97:19 98:15 115:13,18 198:15 return (6) 124:21 147:15,17 31:16 36:8,16 37:4,10,16
56:6,18 63:24,24,25 102:10,20,25 104:7,12 200:18 121:20,23 129:24 releasing (1) 65:14 156:1 157:4 174:18 39:9,15,17 40:9,9,15
107:8,18 152:11 105:3 106:1,3,12,18 questions (17) 5:5 9:12 133:11,24 144:17 148:19 relevance (1) 78:3 revalidating (1) 57:22 41:18,23 45:1 46:6 47:19
162:4,17,25 167:1 176:1 107:6,16,24 46:12 87:23 88:9 111:24 150:13 155:17 156:8 relevant (4) 145:17,17 148:6 revert (1) 1:4 48:9 54:19 60:17 87:14
177:8,9 178:4 185:6 188:2 108:4,10,18,21 109:5 112:5 115:6 162:4 162:6,7,7 179:11 176:6 review (1) 194:4 88:10 90:3,18,21 91:2,5
197:10 110:3,15 111:4 190:8,12,17 191:13 197:23 recalled (4) 3:17 4:1,9 reliability (1) 108:11 reviewed (4) 15:16,20 16:18 94:5 98:1 99:22 102:22
publication (1) 184:24 112:10,17,23 113:8,16 198:8,10 202:7 198:17 reliable (5) 50:19 64:7 34:13 103:4,5,7,13,13
publications (1) 28:12 114:2,10,13,15,21,24 quick (2) 67:17 69:9 receive (4) 20:12 39:24 107:24 108:22 109:6 reviewing (1) 32:1 104:9,18,25 107:8,17,17
publicity (2) 18:9 22:21 115:3,17,20,25 116:7,13 quickly (3) 7:9 12:11 134:19 121:11,17 reliance (7) 17:9 52:24 revisit (1) 5:12 108:1,23 109:7,22
publickey (1) 166:17 118:2,6,9,12,18,22,24 quite (12) 3:24 18:7 32:19 received (11) 23:11 30:25 108:12 133:24 140:7,10,15 revoked (1) 35:7 112:7,10,13,19,21,24,25
publicly (7) 34:16 35:11 119:7,13,20 42:17 50:7 72:16 83:4 36:22 42:23 95:7,9 106:24 relied (2) 16:20,22 revoking (1) 167:15 113:16,18,19,20 114:15
39:15 61:4 137:8 152:16 120:2,8,11,14,21 110:4 128:2 144:12 191:23 107:17 121:2,3 123:13 reloaded (1) 191:23 reward (1) 155:7 130:4 133:19 137:2,3,13
161:22 121:1,5,9,15,18,21,25 193:21 receives (1) 107:2 reloading (1) 22:16 rewriting (1) 159:1 138:21,25 139:17,20
publish (2) 28:4 140:25 122:3,8,10,14,24 quotation (1) 59:18 receiving (3) 15:2 20:2 97:19 rely (4) 110:5 139:19,21 rhorning (1) 181:10 150:16,19,25 151:7,16
published (6) 13:3 14:3 123:3,6,9,11,15,24 quote (2) 59:14 178:15 recognise (1) 110:24 140:9 ridiculous (1) 73:7 152:6,9 154:16
58:25 182:25 184:18 192:8 124:6,9,18,25 quotes (1) 182:5 recognises (1) 166:24 relying (1) 17:16 rights (14) 9:11 88:21 155:5,16,21 157:16 158:8
pull (6) 20:9 113:4 130:14,24 125:3,7,10,12,19,24 quoting (1) 43:15 recollection (5) 78:2 80:7,13 remains (1) 187:24 89:2,3,3 90:1 91:1 160:9,11,16 161:3,11,17
146:15 191:1 126:5,8,11,18 127:2,13,17 81:17 173:8 remedies (2) 116:1,8 112:12,14,18 113:1 193:20 163:21 164:10 167:4,6
R
pulled (3) 20:6 132:20 128:7,12,16,20,25 recollections (1) 80:4 remedy (1) 116:15 194:16,18 171:18 182:3,4,17
157:17 129:3,8,13,17 racks (3) 172:23 174:5,9 record (1) 180:9 remember (17) 26:22 rigorous (1) 160:22 183:16,25 184:8 186:18,24
pulling (1) 127:11 130:4,11,14,17,19,22 radar (1) 187:24 recorded (1) 33:5 70:5,11 72:8 75:20 78:9 rigorously (4) 143:12 188:18,23 189:12 190:2
pump (1) 114:23 131:1,5,9,13,16,18,22,25 raise (2) 199:2,22 records (3) 106:15 174:19 98:20 107:20 123:24,25 151:22,23 152:7 192:3
pumps (1) 89:19 132:3,6,8,11,19,24 raised (6) 1:6,10 4:5,25 180:10 130:2,4,7 145:13 169:12 riled (1) 84:12 satoshingmxcom (4) 44:3
purely (1) 108:25 133:1,4,7,9,13,15,17,23 95:12 108:10 recovered (1) 116:6 170:5,10 ring (2) 72:15 173:11 163:24 164:1 167:7
purported (1) 139:18 134:1,10,14 135:5,9,22 ramona (7) 9:10 23:2 recovery (1) 116:1 remotely (1) 74:3 rise (1) 18:8 satoshis (14) 37:11 49:8,8
purporting (1) 51:21 136:2,5,7,14,19,25 24:20,24 25:5 29:25 50:3 recreate (1) 193:9 remove (2) 46:14 148:5 risk (3) 26:12 52:9 111:15 53:23 107:11 112:12,18
purpose (7) 15:21 19:13 137:3,11,16,24 ramonancrypt (1) 51:1 recreated (1) 195:24 removed (5) 152:13 153:11 rivero (2) 172:9,14 133:4 162:4 164:1 168:1
56:18 60:13 65:5 92:21 138:4,12,19,21 139:6,9,17 ramonarcjbr (1) 50:23 red (6) 62:19 66:7 69:20 158:14 189:2,4 road (2) 184:14 187:4 183:13,22 184:21
192:20 140:6,9,12,14,20 ran (5) 11:4 34:20 62:13 75:24 76:4,8 renamed (1) 118:14 roars (1) 96:22 savanah (3) 34:18,20 50:13
purposes (1) 40:6 141:1,11,14,17,23 69:22 112:20 redacted (2) 2:5,8 rendering (1) 79:11 rob (11) 5:19 11:3,4 12:15 saved (2) 71:14 101:4
pursued (2) 90:17 110:18 142:5,11,15,23,25 random (1) 61:13 redaction (1) 2:2 reowned (1) 171:23 21:22 26:21,24 27:17 saw (9) 30:24 31:1 41:13
push (1) 98:14 143:9,17,19,21,25 range (1) 123:1 redactions (5) 1:5,11,17,23 repeatedly (1) 155:1 34:21 65:12 105:17 78:10,11 141:15 161:5
pushed (2) 156:5 200:4 144:4,8,11,14,17,20 rant (3) 61:6 89:13 90:12 3:1 replace (3) 99:21 111:2 robert (13) 12:4,6 18:3,17,18 179:13 194:19
puts (1) 107:1 145:2,6,9,12,15,20,25 rate (1) 176:5 reddit (3) 13:24,24,25 146:17 19:3 24:16 25:22 26:20 saying (96) 5:18,21,25 7:15
putting (10) 8:25 49:23 146:3,5,8,11,15,17,20,25 rates (1) 187:25 redemonstrating (1) 57:8 replaced (2) 153:11,13 33:20 35:4 80:21 181:5 10:21 13:5,8,14,17 14:1,3
59:24 64:8 65:1 84:5 91:12 147:7,11,13,19,24 rather (9) 19:11 64:25 68:24 redeveloping (1) 195:4 replacement (1) 147:7 roberts (1) 29:5 16:24 17:11 22:2,2,12
111:14 114:2 158:24 148:2,6,21 149:1,18,21,24 73:8 77:23 132:12 159:20 reduce (1) 118:13 replacing (2) 36:21 187:20 robottxt (2) 49:2,5 24:6,9 28:4,9 31:18 32:25
150:15,19,23 151:7,15,19 162:2 192:10 reduced (1) 150:25 replies (1) 31:14 robs (1) 60:19 33:7,9 34:15,17 36:19
Q
152:2,4,8,21 rats (1) 113:20 reexamination (2) 190:5 reply (1) 15:9 rogue (1) 17:20 38:24 39:25 43:17,21,23
q (684) 5:16,23 6:2,7,12,15 153:4,6,15,19,22,24 rcjbr (1) 24:22 198:11 report (6) 1:5,12 61:7 65:15 role (1) 10:9 44:17,19 45:3,4,5 48:2,9
7:11,22 8:8,16 154:2,7,12,15,18,25 rcjbrorg (1) 50:4 refer (5) 38:3 119:23 148:2 73:15 76:24 roles (1) 10:25 49:15 50:11 52:7 53:16
9:3,12,16,24 10:12 155:4,13,19 re (2) 21:12 181:8 171:1 188:14 reporters (1) 65:19 room (5) 63:16 67:11 117:17 55:8 59:21 61:5 62:15 65:2
11:6,17,22 12:1,11,17,22 156:3,6,11,15,23,25 reach (4) 30:3,8 106:16 reference (22) 3:9 31:12 reporting (1) 29:2 173:5,16 69:20 73:5 76:5,9 77:21
13:2,8,14,20 14:1,13,15 157:2,8,10 158:1,7,13,18 193:25 41:19 42:11,12 59:3 70:10 reputation (1) 14:23 rory (3) 32:23 60:12,17 83:5,15 84:1,17 85:11 90:7
15:5,9,15 16:5,16,24 159:6,10,13,16,18,22 reached (1) 51:10 118:14,19 135:22,24,25 request (7) 30:22 42:3 rosendahls (2) 1:5,12 91:13 98:20 99:19
17:9,24 18:6,13,23,25 160:3,7,14 161:2,5,16,19 reaction (1) 112:2 137:16,20 138:1,13 143:22 130:14,24 139:10 146:15 round (3) 5:3 32:25 90:4 100:1,8,15 104:24 105:21
19:23 20:11,14,23 21:8 162:3,8,10,14,17,21,24 reactive (1) 81:3 179:1 181:3 191:3 196:9 199:11 route (4) 21:16 27:4,6,7 116:7 120:9 122:17 127:11
22:1,5 23:1,12,22,25 24:2 163:3,6,9,11,13,15,18,24 read (31) 3:2,22 7:8 12:4 197:21 requested (3) 60:10 77:13 row (7) 1:11,17,18 2:9 133:2 138:4 141:6
25:15,20,25 26:3,6,12 164:1,4,11,15,19,25 13:1,10,19,22 14:6 33:12 referenced (2) 44:17 138:2 191:21 143:25 150:23 153:24 142:13,16 145:1 147:15
27:1,11,19,24 165:3,8,11,13,16,18,21,25 60:24 72:4 76:17 90:15 references (3) 3:23 44:15 requests (1) 199:20 rows (2) 2:7,9 149:7 153:6 154:3 158:24
28:3,11,20,24 166:3,6,9,11,16,22 94:7 97:14 118:12 59:25 require (2) 30:14 112:15 rules (1) 123:14 160:13 164:8 167:4,24
29:8,15,18,24 30:7,13 167:4,9,14 137:22,24 139:18 referencing (2) 38:18,19 required (6) 51:8 52:19 run (18) 15:12 36:2 46:24 172:25 176:23 177:7
31:4,10 32:1,5,14 33:2,21 168:1,7,12,14,18,20,23 140:6,8,9 145:12 146:13 referred (15) 3:20 31:11 117:4,10,13 132:11 58:20,21 73:6 92:9,18 178:4,22,23 181:23
34:5,11 35:1,12,25 169:1,6,11,14,17,20 148:18 152:21 154:9,13 37:14 38:16 42:5 52:22 requirement (1) 171:24 94:10 97:8 110:25 111:15 186:14,20 192:3
36:6,13,25 37:4,9,20 170:1,12,15,17,22,25 170:18 178:5 119:20 135:5 136:14 requirements (3) 49:22 112:15 131:17 141:12 scaling (2) 114:19 176:18
38:1,3 39:3,12,14 171:5,11,17,21 readers (1) 185:11 138:16 147:19 157:13 134:20 197:25 178:14 180:20 191:20 scams (1) 89:19
40:8,14,17,21,25 172:3,7,11,13,17,19,22,25 reading (5) 7:12 8:19 13:22 172:22 174:5 185:3 requires (1) 128:2 running (13) 24:10 25:18 scandal (1) 183:1
41:3,6,8,16 42:2,10,25 173:3,8,13,17,24 94:6 149:3 referring (8) 16:5 38:5,21 research (3) 24:16 86:1 88:4 58:13 75:19 124:1 172:14 scene (1) 151:16
43:9,19,25 44:5,8 45:23 174:2,5,8,10,16,21,23 readme (1) 188:24 70:9 110:16 120:3 157:17 researching (1) 189:10 175:9 176:14,23 178:11,17 schedules (1) 114:25

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

science (5) 10:4,9,11 24:14 187:13,16,19,19 190:14 shortened (4) 60:1 62:24 sipa (2) 132:23 135:17 sounded (1) 28:16 176:14 179:10 191:17 164:4
60:21 194:23 140:18 141:6 sister (1) 173:9 sounding (1) 23:16 statements (1) 46:22 suggestions (1) 109:19
scientific (1) 10:16 seeing (1) 173:10 shortly (3) 22:14 47:13 49:19 sit (9) 101:20 114:22 soup (1) 100:25 states (3) 7:19 63:25 115:15 suicide (4) 19:7 26:23 32:12
scientist (1) 10:17 seek (1) 116:10 should (20) 3:8 17:11 32:6 117:15,17 199:13 200:8,23 source (5) 9:20,23 110:20 stating (3) 37:22 116:5 53:12
scratch (2) 68:20 195:12 seeking (3) 96:15 116:8 46:25 49:1 50:24 56:1 90:8 201:1,3 114:5 196:15 152:15 suits (1) 60:13
screamed (1) 26:24 184:9 104:2 117:23 134:1 145:21 site (26) 36:12,21 39:21 sourced (1) 56:1 stays (1) 83:3 supervisor (1) 107:20
screen (13) 1:14 6:2 11:18 seemed (4) 51:25 66:11 159:15,19,25 161:13 41:21,25 43:8 58:10 62:19 sourceforge (2) 155:15 steal (1) 91:14 supplied (1) 64:15
38:23 59:17 60:12 61:23 115:20 160:3 169:20 181:3 182:20 63:6 70:1,6,7,10,11,13,13 156:14 stefan (10) 21:14 23:2 supplying (1) 64:15
64:4,5 78:13 79:5 87:9 seems (3) 119:7 156:18 186:14 75:18 78:12 85:23 180:20 sources (3) 171:10 186:1,9 26:17,18 27:4 29:25 support (4) 20:7 22:18
197:22 194:23 shoulder (1) 68:16 186:19,21,22 188:15,22 souring (1) 15:1 51:6,11 52:4 63:16 100:16 104:25
screwed (1) 27:18 seen (11) 10:1 12:20 54:13 shouldnt (2) 51:1 168:5 189:17 south (1) 185:21 step (1) 69:11 supported (4) 75:23 114:24
script (28) 123:16,19 143:11 93:13 99:14 108:8 show (13) 21:3 31:4 43:23 sites (6) 49:4 75:4 76:1 space (4) 72:7 118:22 188:22 steps (2) 63:13 71:4 117:5,8
145:17,20 146:5,20 133:17,17 184:6 186:24 46:3 58:8,9 59:17 63:3 89:16 188:3 189:15 189:22 sterling (1) 6:19 supporter (1) 95:17
147:2,23 148:5 150:11 189:14 94:2 127:21 131:13 194:19 sitting (3) 68:15 71:19 speak (2) 77:5 111:14 steven (2) 5:8 202:4 supportive (4) 63:8,15,22
151:3,8,13,21 152:5,13 segwit (1) 153:14 198:5 120:13 speaker (1) 54:25 stick (10) 64:9,14 65:2 109:5
153:1,7,16 154:25 seized (2) 82:14 84:10 showed (6) 31:1 43:10 57:22 situation (2) 23:5 80:25 speaking (1) 10:5 66:12,18 71:14,16 74:9 supports (1) 94:8
155:22,25 156:1 157:4,5,6 self (2) 31:20 167:16 61:16,18 62:16 six (2) 76:20 121:19 specific (2) 87:23 95:2 163:18 189:21 supposed (6) 61:8 65:15
159:23 selfish (1) 122:17 showing (3) 45:20 54:14 size (14) 122:1,5 125:5 specifically (2) 105:6 183:5 still (28) 8:12 25:1 29:25 73:9 79:3 112:12 194:15
scriptcpp (2) 147:13 150:20 selfsignature (1) 167:11 160:9 143:12 147:8,23 148:1 speculate (1) 32:19 46:18 49:16 73:11 83:3 supposedly (4) 28:13 52:11
scripth (3) 143:23 145:22 selfsignatures (2) 167:10,15 shown (1) 48:8 151:6,8,22,25 152:5 speech (2) 83:24 104:15 87:1 98:1,16 99:16,17 85:3 106:13
146:6 selling (2) 27:14 100:19 shows (7) 45:19,22,23 56:10 161:23 162:1 speed (1) 170:7 100:12 103:6,8 109:24 sure (23) 20:7 25:2 52:25
scripting (1) 143:6 send (9) 32:24,25 40:10,10 109:11 168:1,4 sleep (1) 19:6 spell (1) 189:8 112:7,11,24 113:17 131:17 65:9 67:12 68:13,24 77:18
scripts (3) 148:7 153:12 47:2 146:14 167:24 171:5 shred (3) 63:8,14,22 slept (2) 55:14 79:18 spelt (1) 186:16 147:22 161:5 186:15 80:6,8 82:20 94:17 97:7
157:14 186:4 shut (4) 20:9 40:2 113:10 slice (2) 34:17 51:8 spend (1) 100:12 188:13,15 195:16,23 123:12 133:8 144:9,10,12
scriptsig (1) 125:4 sending (12) 23:6,11 24:7 194:21 slices (8) 33:4,14,15,19,25 spending (7) 25:25 26:8,15 stimuli (1) 80:20 149:17 160:2 191:23
sealed (3) 66:12,14 67:18 26:6,14 31:8 40:6 52:15 sic (1) 38:18 34:4 35:2,13 51:19 52:12 114:18 174:11 stock (1) 154:22 192:15 199:4
second (19) 1:5,12 36:25 53:16,18 167:23 197:6 side (4) 25:23 61:24 112:21 slightly (2) 47:24 180:13 spent (9) 14:7 83:13 88:5 stomped (2) 81:14 82:6 surprised (2) 138:15 177:24
38:3 42:5 55:20 70:20 71:9 sense (2) 121:5 184:10 141:24 slow (1) 96:21 99:5 105:3 114:17 119:4 stop (18) 14:13,15 16:7 sustained (1) 115:3
78:14 86:19 98:6,8 103:1 sent (24) 2:15 3:22 17:15 sides (2) 61:25 103:2 small (4) 61:13 74:21 175:8 124:25 175:6 20:11 49:5 76:21 83:24 sv (1) 131:16
118:9 132:6 135:11 138:12 32:16,20 40:3,4,5,5,20 siegele (1) 59:9 182:11 split (1) 172:25 88:7 89:7,9,11 90:10,12 svn (2) 131:17 155:12
188:17 189:23 42:20 48:16 53:13 54:5 sigclass (2) 165:11 166:13 smart (2) 98:2 107:21 spoke (1) 78:12 92:7 110:3 113:25 117:21 swarm (1) 183:19
secondary (1) 126:8 97:22 98:3 103:17 137:4 sighash (1) 87:25 smashed (2) 81:22,23 spoken (2) 20:18 106:23 133:9 switch (2) 131:2 180:8
secondly (7) 55:11 74:8 141:9 156:4,6 171:3,8 sign (19) 7:3,6 8:3 18:11 smuggling (1) 84:9 spot (2) 68:2 140:12 stopped (2) 84:10 187:11 swore (1) 28:17
122:8 124:25 186:11 187:8 180:15 20:18 21:12 30:6 32:23 social (1) 91:19 spotted (2) 25:20 139:21 stoppers (1) 187:10 synchronisation (1) 131:2
199:15 sentence (6) 38:3,6 42:6,16 35:11 36:5 57:16 61:14 software (43) 55:24 spreading (1) 93:21 stopping (3) 65:13 119:7 system (34) 19:19 44:9,9
secret (2) 102:17 117:19 98:9 197:23 76:13 98:12 110:1 168:25 56:4,8,11,13,19,23,25 spreadsheet (1) 2:3 188:13 58:1 61:9 64:11,14 65:3
section (11) 42:17 109:3 separate (9) 25:11 38:10 169:3,5 171:21 57:9,13,17,19,23 58:7,8,22 spring (1) 133:19 stored (2) 79:12 85:3 83:13,21 89:4 91:11
114:9 134:2,11 137:23,25 58:6 127:12 138:9 179:24 signature (37) 8:2,4,9,17,20 63:1 68:9,21 69:1,5 spv (16) 131:15 story (9) 11:6 14:22 114:6,8 122:22,24 134:6
148:6 155:21 158:18 180:8 188:20,21 9:1 14:21 15:6 21:13 70:21,23 73:6,17,24 135:1,7,14,20,24 17:16,19,20 32:10 139:15 142:3,4 155:11,12
165:19 separated (1) 89:5 27:13,23 45:19 74:5,25 78:4 117:24 136:2,3,17,23 33:13,19 46:19 164:17,19 165:1
secure (6) 69:15,20 70:2 september (6) 10:2,13 81:11 46:2,3,10,11 49:22 58:1,5 121:21,22 124:1 125:20 137:2,20,21,21 138:7 straightforward (4) 73:17 166:8,24,24 171:14 172:15
75:19 76:5 197:8 86:11,21 97:17 59:14,18 61:8 64:8 134:23,25,25 135:1 140:1 196:20 74:12,25 76:12 178:17 190:22 197:8,9
securely (2) 40:7 197:4 sequence (1) 149:9 65:2,11,16 66:17 68:22 179:4 182:8 197:1,1 ssl (1) 69:12 straightforwardly (1) 78:1 systems (25) 24:11,15 91:6
security (8) 69:12 70:9,15 series (7) 32:1 51:20 90:1,25 71:10,13 127:14 163:15,19 sold (2) 100:17 109:11 ssrn (5) 191:20,20 strange (4) 24:2 51:25 52:8 92:24 105:23 119:2 136:17
74:16 75:16,17 154:4 115:3 126:13 159:10 165:6,19 166:5 167:16 sole (1) 92:21 192:12,13,14 198:5 151:18 164:23 174:3
157:20 seriously (1) 13:14 signatures (12) 8:7,21 89:5 solicitors (8) 7:6 9:13,16,21 stabling (1) 154:2 strategy (3) 26:12 52:9 175:6,9,11,13,16,17
sedated (1) 79:17 served (1) 149:10 125:10 126:11,21 127:3 16:6,15 96:8,11 staff (12) 9:9 16:3 17:4 110:18 176:15,15 177:7,9,10
see (210) 1:14 2:4,25 3:5 server (11) 39:13 47:3 129:3,17 130:5 167:11 solution (1) 188:12 50:21 76:20 129:23,23 strengthened (1) 182:9 178:14,16,17,20
4:24 6:5,12 10:5,7,7 14:17 48:18,23 76:3 114:8 142:1 175:7 solutions (1) 176:18 170:10 191:18,20 195:19 stress (1) 28:24
15:7 19:20,21 20:21 22:5 164:6,9,12 171:23 signed (20) 6:12,25 7:11 somebody (12) 15:23 25:16 199:19 stressed (2) 192:22 193:16 T
23:3 30:15 31:13 servers (3) 86:7,17 87:1 8:2,8,18,24 13:18 26:15 32:8 51:21 65:3 stage (7) 18:18 21:4 80:12 stressful (2) 101:14 198:22
40:8,14,19 42:8,19 44:3 session (7) 34:6 64:23 66:3 19:12,15,25 27:21 34:15 119:22 120:2 181:2,4,4 111:23 160:13 164:13 striking (1) 81:15 taaki (1) 92:4
49:19 50:3,7,10 51:6 67:15,17 73:15 74:11 35:23 70:2 72:3 110:2 185:17 182:14 string (2) 41:10 61:14 tab (3) 130:20,22 140:20
53:9,19,21 54:8 58:5 sessions (10) 27:20 28:13 116:21 123:23 171:17 somebodys (1) 197:20 staged (1) 78:1 stripped (1) 158:16 taken (21) 15:14,23 18:4
60:2,15,21 62:6 76:18 55:19,22 57:25 58:3 59:8 significant (2) 32:3 83:5 somehow (3) 60:10 164:5 stages (3) 63:7 80:14 152:14 strokes (1) 106:10 21:21 23:10 25:4,17 32:6
78:14,18 85:16 86:4 87:3 60:6 77:25 78:23 significantly (1) 110:19 189:19 staging (1) 74:11 strong (1) 188:5 35:21 48:20,23,25 54:17
91:18 98:6 102:4,8,9,18 set (35) 2:9 18:19 24:21 signing (44) 23:18 28:13 someone (17) 22:4 25:12 stake (1) 95:5 strongly (2) 184:8 186:24 62:21 71:4 85:22 90:8
117:25 118:2,6,11 35:8 38:7 44:19 45:5 29:9 30:19 33:23 34:6 28:16 31:8 46:5 57:17 stamp (1) 44:1 stroustrup (1) 144:18 107:15 115:17 143:22
119:1,5,22,25 120:21,22 49:2,5 53:21,25 55:21 36:23 37:25 38:25 40:2 61:12 65:13 73:4 74:12 stamped (1) 12:10 stroz (4) 1:22,25 3:1 77:24 200:16
121:25,25 122:4 123:6 58:13 62:18 64:13,17,19 45:20 46:25 55:19,22 77:22 84:4 109:18 160:2 stand (3) 17:8 144:9 182:12 structure (3) 121:23 127:9 takes (2) 83:20 176:21
124:12,15,19 125:19 67:20 87:15,18,20 117:10 56:19,22 57:5,14,19 60:19 169:3 180:15 187:8 standalone (1) 197:3 194:15 taking (5) 3:13 5:5 67:13
126:2,2,5,8 127:17 133:3 149:14 159:10 64:7 67:15,17 71:25 72:25 something (44) 19:11 25:20 standard (1) 140:3 structured (2) 123:5,21 94:3 95:19
128:3,4,8,10,13,17,18,20,22 165:23 166:2 170:1,2,5 74:11 77:25 98:1,7,14 31:24 32:13 42:14 46:21 standardised (1) 189:3 studying (1) 83:23 talk (9) 26:19 97:7,25
129:5,6,11,13,14 190:15,20 191:4,6 192:17 165:25 166:6 167:17 55:11 57:16 71:19 standing (1) 100:24 stuff (2) 58:9 97:14 105:17 137:11 138:25
130:15,17,19,20,22,24 setting (8) 10:21 45:14 168:2,23,24 72:8,16,17,19,20,22,25 stands (1) 166:4 stupidest (1) 24:13 139:2 141:19 189:7
131:1,3,5,10,11,20,25 47:18 68:20 107:25 151:8 169:7,17,22,23 170:1,2,5 74:1 78:14 83:6,6 84:2,2,5 start (10) 2:24 7:16 37:1 sub (6) 127:1 162:15,25 talked (8) 26:17 105:19
132:1 134:11,14 135:9 166:23 167:3 171:12 87:15 98:15 103:11 121:17 96:21 97:11 113:6,9 163:11 166:7 169:7 107:10 133:13 152:11
137:23,25 138:15,17 139:7 settings (1) 171:15 signings (2) 23:5 85:10 139:25 149:2,6,7 159:25 119:23 149:21 199:15 subject (8) 1:24 3:14 46:22 155:10 180:24 196:21
143:7,15,17,19,23,25 settlement (2) 195:5,7 silicon (1) 23:20 167:1,23 169:4 173:11 started (9) 20:4 45:10 91:12 77:14 91:17 117:22 talking (37) 25:12 34:3
144:2,23 145:16,18,22,22 setup (1) 68:17 silk (2) 184:14 187:4 174:12 184:5 190:25 191:2 96:2 138:7 161:14,14 194:12,24 35:13,19 37:21 78:7 82:1
146:9,12,18 147:2,13 seven (4) 76:6 78:8,9 108:10 simple (18) 9:12 22:10 29:9 193:11 194:10 195:10 195:4,11 subjects (1) 78:2 92:3,23 93:8,14 95:23
150:16,19,21,23 151:1,20 several (5) 21:5 76:20 91:25 30:7,9,10 61:12 62:2,7 197:11 starting (2) 31:3 91:12 submitting (1) 10:14 97:4,12 115:11 121:22
153:2,17,24 102:12 142:19 65:1 80:5 103:25 104:4 sometimes (2) 67:23,24 starts (1) 162:21 subsequently (1) 6:21 123:24 124:6,7 125:16
154:7,15,23,25 seychelles (2) 34:20,23 116:22 135:13 145:1 152:1 somewhat (1) 187:24 stated (10) 35:6 43:15 58:24 substantial (1) 166:19 135:7,8 136:8 137:7 138:6
155:2,4,9,20 156:17 shall (2) 121:25 178:5 161:22 somewhere (1) 87:5 65:6 92:20 115:23 152:16 substring (1) 156:22 140:1 145:11 153:20 160:6
158:25 159:6,22,24 shared (1) 142:18 simpler (2) 64:6 84:24 soon (10) 10:15 21:14,14 158:14 160:13 180:7 succeeded (1) 154:21 170:22 172:16 175:15
162:17,18,21,22,25 shares (2) 100:17,19 simplified (1) 136:4 24:11,17 33:6 34:2 49:21 statement (44) 6:23 7:15 sue (1) 93:25 176:17 179:10,11 189:4
163:3,4,15,16,22 164:4,20 shatter (1) 79:9 simultaneously (1) 26:6 188:1,2 15:17,21 16:17,18 17:2 suggest (8) 52:10 83:25 193:15
165:4,6,13,18,20 shed (3) 25:10,12 179:15 since (10) 4:16 41:20,25 sort (18) 8:22 37:8 44:11 18:1 31:12 32:2,14 34:14 101:13 111:11 115:20 talks (1) 173:10
166:13,13 167:9,12,14 shes (2) 58:16 179:11 88:20 89:25 106:9 111:17 45:12 52:7 75:25 87:15 42:4 43:13 55:20 56:4 133:17 138:13 178:25 tampered (1) 70:23
168:15,16,18 169:7 170:23 shift (1) 160:19 129:20 170:9 176:17 93:17 122:18 123:15,16 68:6,10,23 70:4,20 71:9 suggested (6) 50:18 66:25 tampering (1) 78:3
172:5,7,13,17,23 173:21 shipping (1) 8:14 single (16) 11:13 44:14 61:3 141:5 152:14 153:13 187:9 79:14,22 80:6 81:7,18 120:3 151:24 154:6 186:11 tape (1) 109:4
174:2,3 179:17 180:14,16 shit (2) 22:17,19 69:2 106:23 107:7,16 197:8,9,18 84:15 118:25 134:2 suggesting (6) 35:1 74:9 taproot (5) 92:20,20,23
181:1,4,5,7,10,13 182:3,4 shoosmiths (1) 199:12 109:20 116:3 129:24 sorts (1) 96:24 143:2,9 145:12 147:20 138:23 140:16 151:10 113:2 117:18
183:1,4,10,11,13 184:7 short (4) 43:25 47:11 101:24 136:19,20 137:25 sound (4) 28:16,18 31:24 148:2 157:12 158:19,20 186:14 target (1) 176:6
185:15,16,18 150:8 149:10,14 162:11 198:5 160:8 167:16 169:21 suggestion (3) 67:5 99:23 tasks (1) 149:14

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

tax (7) 7:2 11:12 102:12 188:21 189:9 190:17 193:6 69:14,17,21 71:20 74:3 transferring (1) 30:21 understand (17) 3:24 5:1 waive (1) 16:8
V
174:18 194:4,18,21 196:22 198:24 199:15 75:19,23 76:7 96:9 102:8 transfers (1) 186:2 38:9 52:4 74:15 83:8,10 wales (1) 185:21
team (4) 89:8 115:11 131:17 200:18 103:18 108:16,19 119:2 transmit (1) 197:4 116:7 132:25 144:25 v147 (1) 164:21 walk (1) 130:9
160:23 thebluematt (2) 145:7,9 121:20 122:12,20 128:1 travelling (1) 20:20 172:25 192:20 193:4 vague (1) 55:13 wallet (4) 33:18,22 68:9,21
technical (2) 87:23 88:9 theirs (1) 114:23 135:4 136:18 141:10 travers (1) 77:19 194:11 198:18 199:23 valid (7) 46:18 88:11 121:3 wanting (2) 55:6 104:3
technicality (1) 194:9 themselves (2) 94:1 111:14 148:12 149:2,7 151:2,5 treat (1) 50:19 200:6 123:12,19 134:17 167:22 wants (3) 31:20 92:18 186:3
technically (4) 73:17 74:25 theory (3) 85:5,14 86:22 152:20 154:5 157:9 161:11 treated (1) 17:11 understanding (5) 42:17 validate (5) 56:10 58:8 65:4 wasnt (52) 8:10 16:20
76:12 194:18 thereabouts (1) 118:5 163:7 164:13,15 172:2 tree (1) 127:9 64:1 65:23 193:10,12 75:18 169:4 18:9,11 23:7 24:4 25:18,20
technology (3) 77:2 114:12 therefore (2) 39:7 48:21 178:24 180:11 188:8 trial (10) 1:13 2:17 17:6,6 understands (2) 63:19 65:3 validated (7) 30:23 58:10 26:1,13 35:20 40:2 48:24
179:7 theres (31) 8:4,5,5,6 13:12 190:5,15,20 191:1 193:9 93:5 95:13 96:10 97:15,17 understood (5) 28:3,7 32:2 61:18 62:15 63:1 74:7 54:10 64:14,16 65:17
techtargetcom (1) 149:16 18:19 29:21 35:22 43:17 198:6 200:13,17 98:12 64:10 82:21 132:14 66:14 67:16 73:9 77:5
ted (1) 95:12 44:25 46:15 65:13 76:1 timecoin (4) 105:20 138:9,10 tribunal (2) 195:5,8 undertaken (1) 160:10 validates (1) 56:9 86:10 88:8,12 98:14 99:12
telephone (1) 54:21 83:10 98:18 103:2 108:24 175:9 trick (1) 8:22 unfortunately (4) 3:21 14:12 validating (12) 58:19 59:1 103:12 107:18 120:7 122:6
telling (8) 16:11 20:23 24:7 109:6 117:12 121:7 123:22 times (14) 29:7 46:24 47:4 tricked (1) 19:8 106:7,10 62:17 121:4,14 123:1 124:25 125:7 133:4 135:3
28:21,22 75:2 79:24 86:22 135:22 141:6 159:3 163:11 77:15 78:7,15 88:18 tried (11) 17:21 81:19 uni (2) 191:2,7 176:10 177:1,2 178:2,8,20 147:20 148:9 151:8 152:4
tells (1) 61:9 177:5,5 181:7 189:21 107:21 120:6 134:24 85:16,19 86:3,6,8,12,17 unintentional (1) 2:1 validation (5) 70:9 71:2 159:11 161:13,17 170:2
temporarily (3) 151:4 156:4 194:9,23 152:16 156:7 188:18 87:15 194:20 unit (1) 149:10 134:20 178:10 197:24 173:14,15 175:12,18,25
157:18 theyre (22) 10:24 12:21 189:16 triggered (1) 80:22 university (1) 185:20 valley (1) 23:20 179:23 183:8 184:11
temporary (9) 16:22 32:9,9,10 37:25 timestamp (9) 114:8 triple (1) 25:1 unknown (2) 39:6,18 valuable (5) 72:23 73:1 194:5,8
151:5,12,13,15 152:17 60:15 70:2 88:6 91:13 122:8,10,14,16,25 132:6 troll (3) 93:8,15,24 unless (6) 18:11,20 25:10 195:22 196:2,4 waste (1) 100:14
153:10 158:15,24 161:2 95:19,20 99:2 120:9 123:1 142:1 190:18 trouble (1) 179:17 86:16 127:19 132:14 value (10) 32:6 39:8 70:22 watch (1) 97:10
tense (2) 198:3,6 139:23 140:13 142:24 timetable (1) 200:12 true (5) 25:13 43:13 62:9 unlocked (2) 34:8,8 72:3 115:14,15,16 117:6 watching (4) 6:8 73:11 75:17
terabytes (1) 87:6 155:25 179:6 195:16 timetables (1) 12:11 119:13 160:1 unnecessary (1) 58:14 146:8,23 97:8
teranode (2) 99:17 137:9 theyve (3) 17:15 148:9 192:7 timetabling (1) 199:7 trust (11) 29:19 52:2 57:17 unreliable (1) 17:4 values (1) 176:7 way (46) 5:3 14:23 18:19,20
term (13) 7:12,13 61:8 62:8 thing (43) 13:12 23:20 24:10 tired (1) 80:2 64:15 80:24 98:19,22,25 unrolled (2) 162:5,18 variable (4) 144:1,6 19:15 23:19 25:9 29:21
91:3 119:3,12 134:24 26:11 29:12 title (4) 10:3,7,16,21 167:2,24 194:13 unsigned (5) 144:4,6,24 146:22,24 30:25 36:19 37:21 45:1,25
135:3 140:3,18,18 141:15 44:12,14,16,21 45:12 today (10) 3:16,20,23 14:16 trusted (3) 25:22 64:11,17 146:7,7 varied (1) 177:13 55:14 57:17 58:19 59:1,21
terminologies (1) 142:21 49:13,17 54:16 62:25 25:4 30:2 33:8 81:20 92:1 trustee (1) 99:1 unspent (2) 120:3,5 variety (1) 45:15 62:15 65:13 76:7 83:1,12
terminology (2) 134:21 69:2,20 75:22 79:20 81:21 96:22 trusts (7) 192:17,21 193:5 unspenttxout (1) 119:24 various (4) 89:15 155:22 84:24 85:13 88:1,2 100:3
142:17 84:8 100:1 104:2,4 108:24 todays (1) 93:15 194:1,12,25 195:14 until (8) 11:2 86:14 191:18 192:17 101:3,11 122:16,19 123:17
terms (5) 20:12 41:11 109:2 112:20 117:9 119:18 toe (2) 100:12,12 truth (3) 20:23 36:3 102:15 136:14,20 149:25 175:20 vchpushvaluesize (4) 129:21 134:17 145:1
135:25 149:19 176:19 123:15,16 129:24 132:15 together (8) 25:14 27:12 try (7) 32:16 88:10 90:8 200:15 201:6 147:14,16 150:25 155:17 151:10 153:9 175:12
terribly (3) 55:16 144:15 155:17 156:11 159:3,19 28:2 47:1 67:22 93:15 99:2,21 182:10 200:19 unusual (1) 163:13 vendor (1) 185:24 176:16 178:22 179:14
183:8 184:6 187:3,5 192:8,11,13 100:1 153:11 trying (20) 18:16,17 32:12 update (8) 39:2 45:16 46:14 vendors (2) 113:11 185:25 182:9 189:18 191:6 196:2
terrorism (2) 92:2,18 198:24 tokens (3) 97:4,7 98:19 49:25 50:12 77:23 82:1,12 48:2,13,14 51:7 56:22 verifiable (2) 12:9 61:5 wayback (4) 36:18 41:13
terrorists (1) 92:5 thinking (3) 25:12 34:20 told (32) 1:8 2:12 9:18 12:16 94:1 97:25 98:14 99:11 updated (9) 17:13 42:22 verification (8) 57:15 42:13 49:1
test (9) 155:8 111:1 17:1,19 18:18 19:3 103:12 109:14 126:15 48:6 49:15 57:1 63:3 71:6,22 72:1 73:19 129:17 ways (4) 84:21,22 107:22
175:13,14,14,16,17,25 third (11) 3:8 16:1,22 21:22,22,23 25:10 29:21 137:12 144:15 154:19 139:10 147:25 148:4 136:4 166:19 198:4
177:6,9 17:15,17 22:24 51:4 68:2 31:7 32:24 33:23 34:9 165:22 189:17 updates (2) 38:14 63:6 verified (8) 64:10 70:21 71:8 wealth (1) 100:14
tested (1) 154:4 116:12 128:10 138:15 35:9,10,10,10 69:10 71:24 tuesday (2) 31:21 199:16 upgrade (1) 118:7 73:13 78:5 107:9 157:21 web (3) 36:13 48:8 167:2
testify (1) 111:9 thirdly (3) 123:3 125:3 85:24 87:7 102:7,11,11 tulip (1) 110:22 uploaded (6) 15:10 177:12 website (17) 36:9,14,17
testimony (1) 81:19 186:16 126:19 155:6 160:18 175:4 tunnel (1) 21:20 18:7,10,14 43:2,10 verifies (1) 134:16 39:16 40:22 41:12 42:13
testing (4) 114:18 175:10 though (10) 4:19 26:7 50:17 tomorrow (4) 3:23 199:24 turn (7) 4:12 124:18 134:10 upon (6) 2:8 81:1 110:5 verify (6) 62:4,6,9 66:18 47:15 48:10 49:11 56:2
176:15 178:3 60:10 92:11 139:1 166:9 200:7,18 159:14 172:13 184:7,15 112:18,25 142:4 68:22 71:5 58:17 68:9 69:13 70:22
testnet (5) 175:18,18,20 171:11 176:19 180:24 too (2) 60:18 122:11 turned (5) 159:19 160:21,25 upset (6) 28:17 79:18 80:2 verifying (5) 56:24,25 66:25 117:25 171:7
176:1 178:11 thought (14) 8:11 19:8 took (11) 32:15 66:3,15 173:4 196:25 81:25 82:8 159:20 69:11 175:6 websites (3) 75:24 107:25
text (9) 40:11 43:14,16,18 21:11 25:22 32:12 52:3,8 67:15 68:17,19 76:19 turning (1) 71:9 urgency (2) 30:5,10 verifysignature (1) 129:14 148:23
48:20,22,24 59:20 188:25 74:24 84:25 141:24 144:25 136:15 156:12 158:9 turns (1) 68:17 us1 (1) 23:17 versa (1) 68:16 wed (3) 88:17 168:14 175:18
thank (18) 2:14 4:15 5:7 145:10 152:3 195:9 194:21 tv (1) 53:7 usage (3) 177:2 178:1,20 version (22) 22:15 36:10,11 wednesday (2) 1:1 115:10
47:9 101:22 102:1 115:6,7 thousand (1) 142:19 tool (1) 72:6 tweet (4) 93:17,23 96:18 usb (8) 64:9,14 65:2 66:12 47:24 48:2,14 49:2,6 59:22 week (8) 84:6 85:25 87:7
150:3,5 196:6 thousands (4) 21:5 82:20,21 topic (15) 1:4 74:19 77:8,10 97:6 71:14,16 74:9 79:3 60:1 62:24 70:18 117:25 103:15 159:13 199:8,13,18
198:7,12,13,14,16,19,21 83:15 87:9 88:20 102:2 110:7 tweeting (1) 94:3 useable (1) 63:25 121:22 122:21 weekend (3) 154:9,13,14
thankfully (1) 81:25 threads (1) 27:12 120:15 142:25 152:22 tweets (2) 93:18,19 used (59) 16:21 21:13,22 135:16,17,20 163:16 weeks (4) 87:8 88:14 111:2
thats (168) 1:18 5:4,22 threaten (1) 113:17 162:3 172:3 180:12 183:10 twitter (11) 91:7,17,20 27:22,24 33:14 34:6 37:23 164:21 165:9 196:23 195:11
8:4,7,12,15 9:6 10:19 threatened (1) 91:23 torch (2) 90:6 93:21 93:4,7,12 94:7,7,9,10,13 39:20 40:2 44:8,20 45:20 versioning (2) 143:4,6 weird (2) 52:3 198:4
22:1,25 23:12 24:8 27:15 threatening (2) 20:4 91:20 total (1) 7:4 tyche (19) 5:15,19,24 46:3,10 47:1 49:14 57:10 versions (3) 49:16 164:22 weller (1) 136:20
28:22 29:10,20,22 30:3 threats (3) 106:24 107:3,3 totally (5) 103:3 117:22 6:18,24 7:23 59:10 62:19 67:8 68:3 191:22 wellers (1) 145:12
31:12 33:9,23 34:3,24 three (14) 7:18 11:1 74:22 158:16 172:3 189:9 10:4,5,8,12,20,22,24,24 70:11 75:21 92:4 versus (1) 135:7 went (23) 13:3,16 20:3 41:21
35:24 36:3,23 37:4,17 102:21 103:16 109:17 touch (1) 50:12 11:2,4,7 15:13 24:10 119:10,11,14,16 122:21 vice (1) 68:16 58:19 61:16 62:11,13,16
38:16,19 39:10,19 113:2 124:11 139:22 touched (2) 17:14 170:9 tychecouk (1) 5:14 131:15 134:24 135:3,4 video (4) 28:15 64:3,5 63:10,13 69:8 70:8,12
40:1,11,17 41:20 42:14,25 140:12 144:21 167:11 towards (3) 30:16 183:19 type (6) 62:25 154:5 163:23 138:21 140:18 141:25 200:11 88:16 91:9 137:6 139:3
43:8,13 44:7,15,18 177:22 179:23 200:4 164:7 165:11,21 142:17 148:6,21,22 videoed (1) 61:20 161:8 162:2 172:15 194:2
45:10,23 46:17,23 48:3,7 threephase (5) 173:6 174:14 track (2) 85:14 199:12 typed (8) 44:16 72:2 155:22,25 157:3,8 163:10 videolink (2) 199:14,24 195:6
49:3 50:20 51:9 53:9,9 179:21 180:2,7 tracking (2) 86:23 155:11 73:12,13 78:11,11 164:11,18 168:4,7,8,10 viewing (1) 61:24 werent (20) 7:18 12:15
56:6,20 59:12,19 60:9 threw (5) 79:9 80:11 81:21 trademarked (1) 88:25 164:3,10 169:23 171:16 184:13 villain (1) 10:1 27:6,7 28:14 29:3 33:10
61:4,11 62:24 63:18 65:22 82:6,7 trading (4) 96:16 97:2,4 types (2) 167:11,12 186:19 187:5,7 188:23 vinempty (1) 124:20 48:19,21 52:6 77:8 104:25
66:6 68:10 69:14,16,21,25 through (40) 2:21 7:8 21:3 110:22 typically (1) 177:18 useful (1) 1:13 violations (1) 113:13 115:20 135:18 149:4
70:12 71:1 73:7,10 76:5 22:17,19 25:15 28:12 36:2 traffic (1) 51:18 typing (2) 44:16 68:15 useless (1) 14:8 virtual (3) 58:2,14 183:1 164:16 177:16,19 184:13
77:8 78:6,19 81:6 86:24 51:14,16 53:10,25 58:19 trail (2) 98:19,21 typo (1) 3:7 user (6) 163:21 164:3 virus (1) 76:19 195:20
87:14 88:1,19,23,25 89:18 60:19 61:17 62:11,13,16 transaction (17) 25:3 61:3 166:17,22,24 167:6 visa (2) 10:14 11:14 wesleyan (1) 104:1
U
91:23 92:16 94:3 97:1 98:3 63:10,14,20 65:17,20,24 119:3 120:4,5 123:3,4 users (1) 197:4 visible (1) 76:13 weve (20) 3:10 4:24 14:15
99:14 100:18 101:2,6 70:8 71:2 80:14 84:22 125:4,7,8 127:7 136:13 ui (1) 197:2 uses (3) 69:15 123:16 139:2 visited (1) 173:9 38:17 77:22 110:1 114:25
102:23 104:3,5,6 105:8,25 96:15 100:16 127:23 128:2 148:19 149:6,14 157:8 uid (1) 44:3 using (23) 5:13 39:22 44:11 vistomail (14) 34:10 133:9,10,17,17 134:21
108:6,14 110:13,22 111:17 130:1,10 133:10 136:21 177:21 uk (3) 7:7,17 95:16 48:16 56:24 59:12 63:2 39:21,22,22 40:1 44:9,9,13 137:3 140:2 156:16 160:22
116:21 117:21 142:5 170:17 178:10 transactions (29) 55:6 ultimately (1) 29:8 67:8 69:7 71:10 91:8,11 107:13 164:5,6,8,11,23 171:11,14 186:24 195:23
119:13,16,20 120:2 121:7 189:15 56:5,10,17 61:1 92:22 ultraprune (1) 139:9 119:23 140:3 141:5 149:2 volunteer (1) 93:25 whatever (4) 65:12 69:20
122:7,9,24 125:17 127:16 thursday (2) 159:13 201:6 117:19 121:11,12,14 uml (1) 129:21 164:15 168:6 174:2 181:17 voutempty (1) 124:20 166:1 187:10
131:2,22 133:2 135:17 thus (2) 24:9 121:14 123:7,10,11,13 unauthorised (2) 9:20,23 182:17 188:13 189:12 vulnerabilities (2) 154:4 whats (6) 52:25 87:3 99:14
136:16 139:1,11 142:8 ticker (1) 109:4 124:4,10,12 130:5 132:13 uncertainty (1) 79:21 utilised (1) 68:21 158:11 156:23 159:2 191:25
143:21 145:22 146:15 tied (1) 167:17 136:7 146:14 154:20 175:7 uncle (1) 105:8 utterly (1) 105:10 vulnerability (1) 151:3 whatsapp (1) 197:11
147:10 148:9 149:2 155:23 time (73) 15:12 18:3 19:6 176:21,22 177:11,15,18 uncles (1) 106:8 utxo (15) 119:3,23 120:4,12 whenever (1) 62:9
159:7,25 160:1 161:18,21 21:18,20 25:14,19,25 178:23 133:13,21 138:16,21 W whereabouts (1) 181:6
unconscious (6)
163:13,23 164:3,3,22 26:8,15,22 27:7,8 33:17 transcript (7) 5:16 6:9 81:10 53:13,16,18,20 79:19,25 139:7,15 140:17,24,24 wait (4) 53:19 86:19 104:14 wheres (1) 90:24
166:6,7,8,25 169:5,8,11,19 34:21 45:12 46:15 51:19 85:1 102:3 172:4 190:13 underlying (2) 124:4 142:4 141:15,25 152:2 whichever (1) 92:13
171:8,16 174:10 176:22 52:1,3,4,5,12 54:1 57:12 transfer (1) 54:4 underneath (5) 126:5,22 utxout (2) 120:5,7 waiting (3) 93:25 96:23 whilst (1) 2:22
179:6 182:3 184:21 186:10 60:7 62:20 64:4 transferred (1) 57:25 154:25 165:8 172:11 uyen (1) 85:15 113:15 white (22) 3:17 4:17 88:22

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 14, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 8

89:6,17 105:5 106:20 18:6,23 23:22 26:13 27:19 34:19 35:9 36:19 37:21 14 (9) 1:1 5:16 21:4 81:11 28 (1) 96:19
107:1 108:5 109:3 114:4 28:11,20,24 30:7 32:3 34:5 38:1 42:18 43:3 44:11 86:11 104:16 129:9 134:2 287 (1) 143:17
116:19 135:20,22 136:1 35:1,25 37:15 38:13 45:14 46:13 48:2,10,12 196:8 2964 (1) 130:15
138:2 192:1 195:18 196:4 42:15,25 43:11 46:7 54:5,12 56:11 62:15 63:7 140 (1) 104:16 2nd (2) 26:2,10
197:14,16,16 47:8,13 48:7,19,24 52:9,21 69:3 71:3 72:6,25 73:5 1413 (1) 170:19
whod (2) 25:17 87:13 53:15 55:17 56:15 59:4 74:1,8 75:2 76:10 80:6 142 (1) 134:3 3
whoever (3) 18:13,15 52:10 60:16,23 61:6 63:9,15,20 84:17 90:11 91:8 97:1,21 148 (1) 182:5
whole (18) 19:13 24:10 64:6,18 66:3 70:4 73:2 105:15,20 112:9,21 113:16 15 (10) 101:10 121:23 130:8 3 (10) 1:12 2:4 29:15,16

51:20 65:16,18 82:12 84:6 74:11,24 75:9 76:10,22 116:23 122:17 124:6,7 139:6 142:14 150:16 30:24 49:18 114:9 131:5

103:12,18,24 132:12,21 77:6,14,25 78:20 79:23 125:12,16,22 126:14 174:22 185:8 190:14 201:7 190:14 191:14

141:8 156:16 160:15 80:5 81:20 83:24 84:15 127:2,10,21 131:14 135:8 152 (1) 153:24 30 (3) 43:10 44:2 62:6

171:15 172:2 184:3 86:25 87:9 88:7,19 90:10 137:15 138:4,23 139:12 159 (1) 148:17 302 (1) 150:7

whom (6) 10:1 45:7 106:3,13 91:18 92:7 93:7 95:17 141:5 142:13,16 145:11 16 (2) 104:18 169:9 309 (1) 150:9

108:4 156:6 96:7,25 97:12 98:24 151:10 152:8,15 153:20 160000 (2) 6:19 10:4 31 (1) 85:1

whos (2) 21:23 45:3 101:15,20 102:2,15 159:2 160:9 164:9 165:22 161 (1) 190:14 32489 (1) 177:14

whose (1) 107:18 104:7,12,14 105:3 108:13 167:19,23,24 169:6 172:25 17 (4) 11:11 82:9 168:18,20 33 (1) 79:5

wife (24) 6:13 109:5 110:3 111:4,20 175:15 176:17 177:7 18 (5) 11:11 143:25 34 (1) 80:16

7:4,15,17,17,20 12:5 20:5 112:2 113:8 178:3,22 186:20 188:13,17 162:21,21 187:18 343 (1) 145:18

23:2 24:19 25:8,9,11,13 114:2,16,21,24 115:10 189:4,16 190:2,23 193:15 19 (4) 25:3 31:13 102:5 39 (1) 140:20

26:24 30:4,9 31:14,21,24 116:22 125:12,19 197:18 198:14 118:19 3rd (2) 26:3 51:3

32:7 36:2 50:22 106:9 127:2,22,23 130:6 136:14 yours (1) 139:16 190 (1) 202:7
4
wifes (2) 9:10 180:4 137:3,11,24 139:17 140:6 yourself (4) 14:19 27:2 55:18 199 (1) 202:8
wifi (3) 68:2,4,5 141:1 142:15,25 148:17 91:19 1mb (1) 152:12
4 (6) 53:6 54:18,20 55:20
wiki (1) 187:11 150:10 161:16 169:6 yousuf (2) 199:25 200:7
2 140:17 163:16
wikileaks (18) 180:16 170:1,12 178:2 184:16 youve (46) 9:4 10:1 20:18
4000 (2) 109:12 114:14
181:8,15,24 182:10,17,25 185:3,10 189:6,11 23:22 27:16 35:9,9,10,10 2 (19) 2:9,24 3:1 5:23 8:1 41 (1) 2:9
183:18 184:2,6,9,14 190:2,10 192:4 198:14 42:14 46:19 50:12,14,17 14:18 20:2,12,17,19 27:2 414 (1) 143:1
186:1,4,8,25 187:4 189:12 202:4 56:3,12 57:13,19 80:3 28:5 30:22 41:17 95:14 416 (1) 201:5
wild (2) 87:19 144:11 wrights (3) 5:2 199:6 200:5 81:19 82:3 84:5 88:20 101:21 125:5 145:21 43 (1) 8:12
wimbledon (5) 26:1 27:4,6,7 write (9) 5:17 20:17 31:24 93:6,13 104:15 165:18 437 (1) 119:22
79:8 42:11 89:14 107:22 116:24 106:1,3,12,18 107:7,16,24 20 (4) 34:14 109:23 146:5 47 (1) 144:23
win (5) 98:12 100:4,12 140:25 198:4 108:21 110:8,10 111:4 166:12 4th (2) 26:3 51:7
109:24 117:3 writeblockindex (1) 129:2 116:18 138:16 140:9 200 (1) 101:25
wind (1) 190:6 writes (3) 10:12 61:5 98:18 143:2,3 145:12 154:9 2002 (3) 173:12 179:11,13 5
windows (7) 58:1,13 64:21 writing (6) 10:20 31:17 66:1 189:22 198:23 2005 (1) 170:7
67:19 68:8 164:19,25 96:8 117:2 144:16 2007 (4) 106:4 140:22,23 5 (5) 15:19 57:11 172:17
winning (1) 96:22 writings (2) 185:6,6 Z 141:3 202:4,5
wired (1) 8:13 written (8) 15:23 29:20 2008 (17) 41:21,25 43:3,10 5000 (1) 151:1
wish (1) 66:24 51:21 95:13 103:16 108:15 z (2) 117:17 187:12 44:2 106:13 134:5,22 52 (1) 165:19
witness (37) 2:22 15:16,21 157:24 193:17 zafar (8) 95:12 96:4,13 98:11 135:6 138:19 140:16 520 (13) 143:13 145:25
16:17 18:1 31:12 32:2 wrong (27) 7:1 15:10 99:25 100:1,6,8 170:7,25 171:10 174:18 146:9,17,23
34:13 42:4 55:20 56:3 18:7,7,9,14 22:13 35:19,24 zero (2) 162:14 177:18 179:7,12 147:5,8,11,15,20 150:11
68:6,10,23 70:4,20 71:9 42:25 43:8 44:10 48:19 2009 (9) 106:13 119:11,17 151:1,8
79:14 111:8,14,16 118:25 55:13 71:1 72:7 86:2,2 0 120:16 134:7 170:25 5233 (1) 167:10
134:2 143:2,9 147:19 95:18 101:2,6 109:8 174:18 177:15,20 545 (1) 152:24
148:2 157:12 158:18,20 125:12,13 127:2 136:16 090 (2) 117:25 118:18 2010 (17) 40:9 41:18,23 43:6 545f (1) 143:10
160:7 169:21 173:24 196:8 0x10 (1) 167:12 48:10 49:11 135:15 138:5 578 (1) 118:25
176:14 179:9 190:8 191:17 wrote (14) 17:18 18:13,15 0x13 (3) 165:11 166:13 150:16 151:16,25 161:5,17
witnesses (12) 104:21,25 22:23 31:21 35:4 47:19 167:12 175:21,22 182:21 196:21 6
105:4 106:4 107:6 109:5 142:11,12 149:5 2011 (17) 35:21 36:11,18
199:8,14,23,24 200:5,11 184:16,18,19,24 1 37:8,15 38:5 39:16 40:22 6 (8) 1:11,18 2:9 40:9 48:10
won (4) 101:11 115:23 wwwbitcoinorgsatoshinakamotoasc 41:7,15 43:5,8 47:15 48:8 57:24 148:17 155:20
195:5,8 (1) 47:22 1 (12) 3:10,20 20:19 49:3 133:19 184:19 60 (1) 83:17
wont (11) 101:17,18 109:24 23:6,16,17 25:24 85:7 2012 (2) 119:9,14 600 (1) 109:11
111:23 112:7,12 113:18 X 61 (1) 110:15
101:9 146:11 147:1 202:3 2013 (6) 130:17 132:23
132:14 138:14 149:25 10 (6) 6:15 96:1,12 101:10 195:4,5,9,15 611 (1) 37:13
x (3) 117:17 167:16 187:12
196:18 120:16 199:16 2014 (3) 118:4,19 133:7 673 (1) 146:4
work (29) 19:14,16 27:14 100 (9) 7:5 68:13,25 101:23 2015 (5) 5:18 6:19 7:25 10:2 69 (3) 172:22 174:5,10
Y
48:17 57:3 73:10 84:4,6 104:23,24 125:5 152:23 11:7
86:1 103:9 105:6 106:20 7
y (2) 117:17 187:12 160:7 2016 (19) 6:4 11:8,11 14:18
114:19 123:18,18 127:19 yeah (3) 53:11 174:12 175:23 1000 (3) 97:7 109:12 114:11 20:2,12,17 49:18 66:5
134:6 137:7,8,10 138:24 7 (6) 6:4,16 55:21 66:5
year (5) 8:14 10:10 106:9 10000 (1) 103:24 69:17 76:2 79:7 85:18
140:19 148:13 149:10 98:18 172:17
177:12 184:21 100plus (1) 84:6 86:11 87:11,11 103:20
170:7 193:13 194:25 197:6 70 (1) 104:22
years (20) 11:1,3 14:1 60:5 1030 (4) 1:2 200:17 201:3,6 109:10 171:6
200:5 72a (1) 6:16
70:17 71:20 76:6 78:8,9 104 (2) 17:25 42:10 201617 (1) 11:3
worked (5) 5:20 67:21 109:4 82:1 87:7 108:7 109:21,23 105 (1) 172:13 2017 (2) 129:20 170:9
8
129:23 163:7 118:3 121:23 130:8 142:14 108 (1) 173:18 2019 (3) 86:14,19 93:23
working (5) 25:1 138:7 174:22 185:8 109 (2) 5:16 81:11 2020 (2) 88:20 195:3 8 (1) 3:8
141:16 176:18 197:18 yesterday (14) 1:6 2:13 5:12 11 (4) 72:13 130:19,23 2021 (2) 89:14 102:4 80 (1) 113:14
workload (1) 109:10 6:5,7 7:15 11:17,19 12:12 179:10 2022 (3) 85:18 86:11,21 800 (2) 179:22,23
works (3) 48:12 62:16 83:14 28:15 44:21 49:14 96:21 110 (2) 5:23 82:18 2023 (2) 96:19 97:17 822 (1) 38:18
world (7) 28:11 29:2 87:5 97:10 11000 (2) 174:11 179:23 2024 (2) 1:1 201:7 832 (8) 37:9,12 38:3,10,16
112:11,25 182:25 183:11 yet (14) 9:3 12:7 33:4,25 11001 (1) 157:12 21 (3) 10:13 108:4 120:21 39:3 42:6,12
worse (1) 22:22 34:18 35:12 43:17 50:2 1136 (1) 47:10 219 (1) 177:15 89 (1) 150:23
worth (1) 87:6 53:6 61:5 86:20 161:24 114 (2) 181:3,10 22 (4) 3:5,9 36:18 81:11
wouldnt (17) 24:2 25:9 194:25 197:17 1143 (1) 47:12 23 (6) 6:9 59:7 97:17 102:10 9
54:17 57:3 62:10 67:8 york (1) 22:11 115 (1) 202:6 125:25 126:1
73:19,25 74:13 79:1 86:15 youd (11) 6:23 27:19 32:22 116 (1) 174:3 2348 (1) 131:10 9 (13) 12:3,19,25 20:1 21:13
113:1 139:22 169:15 34:6 64:17 68:1 72:13 118 (1) 85:8 24 (4) 3:7 6:12 55:14 59:10 23:6,6 30:21 49:21 57:11
171:18,22 179:21 74:24 123:17 148:21 119 (1) 85:1 243 (1) 169:21 59:10,11 102:4
wrapped (1) 93:14 193:16 11th (3) 118:25 134:2 143:2 249 (1) 130:22 90 (1) 61:2
wright (148) 2:22 3:13,15,25 youll (6) 37:22 45:14 76:18 12 (2) 57:24 134:11 25 (2) 41:18 59:12 930 (1) 199:14
5:6,8,9,12 6:16,17,21 88:3 112:10 129:3 1200 (1) 7:4 250 (1) 87:6 971 (1) 126:1
7:12,13,24 8:5,24,25 9:1 youre (101) 13:15,20 14:1,4 127 (1) 6:8 26 (1) 6:19 981 (1) 125:25
11:6 13:9,14 14:15 16:11 18:13,25 21:24,24 13 (4) 81:12 93:23,23 197:22 26th (1) 7:25 989 (1) 61:1
15:15,24 16:5 17:12,24 23:22 28:21 32:18 33:5,9 1300 (1) 109:11 27 (1) 59:14 99 (2) 61:3 141:9

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 9

February 15, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Thursday, 15 February 2024 1 not very satisfactory for Dr Wright to have added
2 (10.30 am) 2 details which they could have been expected to deal
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good morning. 3 with −−
4 MR HOUGH: Good morning, my Lord. 4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
5 Housekeeping 5 MR HOUGH: −− and for it then to be put in closing that his
6 A matter of housekeeping to address at the start of 6 evidence on those matters should be accepted without
7 today, if we may. 7 their having had the opportunity to address them.
8 Yesterday evening, Lord Grabiner and Mr Orr very 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, yes.
9 helpfully informed us that they would not wish to 9 MR GUNNING: Can I add one thing, because obviously one of
10 cross−examine six witnesses of ours and the developers’. 10 those witnesses is in fact −−
11 The developers’ witness, Pieter Wuille, and then our 11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Is yours.
12 witnesses, Mico Loretan, Dustin Trammell, 12 MR GUNNING: −− our only witness, that’s Dr Wuille, I’m
13 Richard Gerlach, Hilary Pearson and Rory Cellan−Jones, 13 trying to pronounce it in its Flemish. My Lord,
14 and we appreciate that information being provided so 14 I entirely adopt what my learned friend says about what
15 promptly after Dr Wright was able to give instructions . 15 the status of his evidence would be. We have drafted an
16 My Lord, our understanding of the position is that 16 order, because we think you would probably need to make
17 if those witnesses aren’t to be cross−examined, then 17 an order under CPR, I think it’s 32.5, in relation to
18 their evidence can’t be disputed, but of course 18 their evidence.
19 Dr Wright made a number of statements about some of 19 The only thing I would add is this . If
20 those witnesses, notably Mr Cellan−Jones and Mr Trammell 20 your Lordship has any questions in relation to
21 and Ms Pearson, which were either inconsistent with 21 the content of his witness statements, then obviously
22 their written evidence, personal attacks on those 22 he’s here and we’re very keen that you should have
23 witnesses, or new matters not raised in his witness 23 the opportunity to explore those matters with him and we
24 statements with which one would have expected those 24 feel that it might be interesting to your Lordship to
25 witnesses to be able to deal by them being put to them 25 hear the voice of a real developer of Bitcoin to

1 3

1 in cross−examination. 1 contrast with somebody who isn’t. But leaving that

2 Now, our understanding of the consequence of 2 latter point to one side, were there any technical
3 the decision not to cross−examine is that Dr Wright will 3 matter that arose in those witness statements that you
4 accept that he can’t dispute the evidence in 4 would find it , you know, useful to be addressed, then we
5 the witnesses’ statements, he can’t rely on his own 5 can call him.
6 evidence to the extent it ’s inconsistent with −− or at 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you.
7 odds with those witnesses’ evidence, but also can’t rely 7 Good.
8 in closing on assertions raised in his evidence which 8 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, it’s sometimes said that no good
9 would have had to be put to those witnesses, because 9 deed goes unpunished and this is a perfect working
10 they’re matters freshly raised in his evidence which 10 example of this. This is a perfectly absurd little
11 those witnesses would have been expected to deal with. 11 debate we’re now having. We have identified these six
12 We’ve asked for clarification on that matter. I ’m 12 witnesses on the footing that we do not really need to
13 not asking Lord Grabiner to provide that right now, but 13 cross−examine them. We are also only too well aware of
14 I thought that it was fair to inform your Lordship of 14 the basic rules of law practice , and we have no
15 what our position is . 15 intention whatsoever of putting points in closing on
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right. I mean, you don’t want to call 16 the basis that we could have had, but did not take
17 them to respond to any of the allegations made by 17 advantage of the opportunity to cross−examine these
18 Dr Wright? 18 people. And I don’t really need to be told by my
19 MR HOUGH: Well, if −− what we’ve said is that if 19 learned friends or their instructing solicitors in
20 the position isn ’ t agreed, we would ask them to produce 20 a very aggressive letter first thing this morning,
21 short witness statements −− 21 demanding a response by the day before yesterday as to
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 22 what these basic rules are. We acknowledge those rules
23 MR HOUGH: −− addressing those matters, and then a fresh 23 and we will comply with them, I can assure you.
24 decision can be taken on whether to cross−examine on 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
25 those further short statements. It ’s simply that it ’s 25 LORD GRABINER: As to the suggestion that you should hear

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 what they have to say, notwithstanding the fact that we 1 Can you see me? I’m the barrister acting for Crypto
2 have accepted, in effect , the contents of their witness 2 Open Patent Alliance.
3 statements, that’s also , if I may respectfully say so, 3 A. I can hear you now, yes.
4 an entirely inappropriate step for anybody to be taking. 4 Q. Good.
5 So that’s all I wanted to say about that. 5 Before I get into your evidence, may I just ask you
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, thank you. 6 this . Have you watched any of Dr Wright’s evidence over
7 MR HOUGH: My Lord, nothing in response, since it appears 7 the last week and a half? No criticism if you have.
8 that the propositions aren’t in dispute, although 8 A. I have not watched the evidence, but I was very curious,
9 the letter is −− was not appreciated. My Lord, we 9 so I have mainly watched, you know, recall on YouTube,
10 didn’t have any other housekeeping matters to address at 10 like people talked about what they’ve seen, and someone
11 this stage. Did your Lordship? 11 from Gavin Mehl −− M−E−H−L −− in particular, and there
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, thank you. 12 that might be another person linked to CoinGeek, but
13 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I want to call −− Dr Pang is our 13 I only saw, you know, one media of that, but mainly
14 first witness, not to be confused with Dr Pangloss, 14 Gavin Mehl.
15 though he may be mistaken for him, I don’t know, but we 15 Q. So you’ve been watching reports by Mr Gavin Mehl and
16 shall discover . Perhaps I should ask him that. 16 other material −−
17 But perhaps he can be −− can he be put onto 17 A. Yeah.
18 the screen? 18 Q. −− through CoinGeek website, yes?
19 I think he’ ll have, obviously, to be sworn, and I’m 19 A. CoinGeek website, yes, and, you know, some information
20 told that he has a screen in front of him which will 20 from Forbes.com, bits and pieces. I can’t really
21 display documents the same as we’re seeing here. 21 understand what’s happening in the trial, so it ’s
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, good. 22 just ...
23 DR IGNATIUS PANG (sworn) 23 Q. Fully understood, Dr Pang.
24 (Via video link ) 24 A. Yeah.
25 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you, Dr Pang. 25 Q. Now turning to your background, is it right that you’re

5 7

1 A. Thank you. 1 currently a researcher in bioinformatics?

2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Do sit down. 2 A. I am.
3 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER 3 Q. Now, as we understand it, and tell me if I ’m wrong, that
4 LORD GRABINER: Good morning, Dr Pang. 4 involves developing and applying software tools for
5 I ’m the barrister instructed on behalf of Dr Wright, 5 understanding biological data; is that right?
6 and −− 6 A. Yes, that is right .
7 A. Good morning. 7 Q. But based on the LinkedIn profile we have for you. You
8 Q. Good morning to you. 8 completed your degree at the University of
9 You have near you or in front of you a screen? 9 New South Wales in that discipline in 2005; is that
10 A. Yes. 10 right?
11 Q. And I’m going to ask that your witness statement is 11 A. Yes, and my graduation is in −− was in 2006.
12 shown on that screen, which is {E/10/1}. 12 Q. I think you spent a period as a research assistant at
13 A. Yes, I can see it in front of me. 13 a cardiac research institute after your degree; is that
14 Q. Can you confirm, Dr Pang, that that is your witness 14 right?
15 statement? 15 A. Yes.
16 A. That is my witness statement, the front page. 16 Q. You were then hired by BDO, the accountancy firm,
17 Q. And if you could be taken to page 11 {E/10/12} of that 17 working on data analytics; is that right?
18 document. 18 A. It is actually called BDO Kendalls at that time and then
19 Is that your signature? 19 later converted to BDO, so I was working there, yes.
20 A. It is page 12 −− yes, this is my signature. 20 Q. As we understand it, you worked there from 2007 to about
21 Q. And are the contents of that statement true? 21 2009; is that correct?
22 A. It is true. 22 A. Yes.
23 LORD GRABINER: Thank you very much indeed. 23 Q. You then −−
24 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH 24 A. Is it 2009? Yes, it is . I had a period of break where
25 MR HOUGH: Dr Pang, good morning. 25 I was focusing on writing my thesis, but I was still

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 employed. 1 Q. Did you also co−author a guide for data analysis and
2 Q. You then, I think, had a year at Deloitte from 2010 to 2 fraud detection, which was published by Dr Wright’s
3 ’11? 3 company, Information Defense, apparently in 2009?
4 A. Yes. 4 A. I can confirm that, to give you more background about
5 Q. And you then returned to academia as a research 5 that document is a bit of a history . I have authored
6 associate at the University of New South Wales until 6 that while I was at BDO, but BDO did not use it, so
7 2020; is that right? 7 Craig said , ”Well, can you give me permission to use
8 A. Yes, and then I was promoted after 2020 and I stayed for 8 it ”, for his company −− company, Information Defense,
9 a few months. 9 and at that moment, I didn’t know what he was going to
10 Q. Thank you. 10 use for , so there was a lot of references on where
11 Turning to your contact with Dr Wright, is it 11 I got, you know, inspiration for information on that
12 correct that you met him when you interviewed for 12 paper and I −− you know, I borrowed a lot of information
13 the job at BDO Kendalls, and then after, worked with him 13 from another textbook, which I forgot the name of, but
14 at BDO Kendalls? 14 I can provide subsequently if need. So that was an
15 A. Yes. 15 omission on my part. But I had no −− not much control
16 Q. And is it right that after he left BDO Kendalls at the 16 on what was put on the reference afterwards. And I came
17 end of 2008, you did some further work with him in 17 up with the idea of using Google Analytics and graphs
18 subsequent years? 18 showing, you know, how President Obama was, you know −−
19 A. Yes, partly to do with writing some possible papers, or, 19 I think it was McCain at that time, you know, some
20 you know, conference proceedings for network analysis 20 graphs about that, yeah, that was my own idea. So just
21 that we did. It was outlined in the witness statement, 21 to give reference −− full references, it was not,
22 that piece of work, to extend that. And then I was then 22 you know −− I borrowed a lot of ideas from another
23 later on paid to work in Hotwire. 23 textbook.
24 Q. So you say in your statement −− this is paragraph 25 24 Q. Was that a document which you were the sole author of or
25 {E/10/9} −− that you did some casual work for 25 did you write it along with any other people?

9 11

1 the company Hotwire PE, Dr Wright’s company −− 1 A. I wrote it solely . I think Dr Wright would have
2 A. Yes. 2 reviewed it , but I don’t remember him making a lot of
3 Q. −− between 2013 and 2015, yes? 3 changes to it , if any at all will be minor grammatical
4 A. Yes, there was a period of break in between, because 4 things. So I was the sole author, though I have,
5 the company was under administration and was later, 5 you know, I should have referenced a lot of text from
6 you know, folded, but there was a break and then I came 6 that textbook, which I forgot. I still have a copy of
7 back and helped Dr Wright a bit. 7 that textbook, so ...
8 Q. When you were working at Hotwire PE, was that as an 8 Q. May we have {H/85/1} on screen. You should have
9 employee or as an independent contractor? Do you 9 a document coming up on screen, Dr Wright −− Dr Pang.
10 understand the difference? 10 A. Yes.
11 A. Definitely an employee. 11 Q. Is this the document with Information Defense branding?
12 Q. Now, you don’t describe in your witness statement doing 12 A. I remember very clearly that this is
13 work for any of Dr Wright’s other companies. May we 13 the Information Defense branding. I remember very
14 take it that Hotwire was the only one of his companies 14 clearly the logo, ”Eternal Vigilance is the cost of
15 for which you worked? 15 Liberty”, which I found very interesting , but I think he
16 A. Yes, I was paid out of Hotwire PE. I have known of his 16 referenced it from some famous text.
17 other companies, which there are many of them that I can 17 Q. Page 2, please {H/85/2}. Do we see at the top of
18 get confused, but I was only employed by Hotwire PE as 18 the page, I think it ’s at the top of each page −−
19 long −− as much as I can remember, unless he changed 19 A. Yes.
20 something in the back that I don’t understand. 20 Q. −− the co−authors are identified as ”Ignatius Pang and
21 Q. So as far as you know, you had a couple of stints of 21 Craig Wright”?
22 work as an employee for Hotwire PE, no other work, 22 A. Yes. Yes, it is my name on there, and it is Dr Wright’s
23 whether as an employee or a contractor, for any of 23 name on it.
24 Dr Wright’s other companies? 24 Q. But he wasn’t actually a co−author, was he, he just
25 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 25 reviewed it and made no significant changes, right?

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 A. As far as I understand, yes, but he was my boss at BDO, 1 also does very advanced data analytics for the clients .
2 so he came up with the idea of writing this document, so 2 Q. Okay.
3 the idea was his, not mine. 3 Moving on to a project you did with Dr Wright at
4 Q. Did you receive any payment for that guide being issued 4 BDO. From paragraph 15 in your witness statement
5 by Information Defense? 5 {E/10/6} −− and we don’t need it on screen −− you
6 A. Not that I know of. But I was paid to do that when 6 describe work you did at BDO with Dr Wright about
7 I was at BDO. 7 investigating predatory or grooming behaviour on social
8 Q. May we next have on screen {L2/102/1}, and this is 8 networks; is that right?
9 a copy of Dr Wright’s −− one of Dr Wright’s CVs, as he 9 A. I worked on this project , but I was given very limited
10 told us, while he was at BDO Kendalls. 10 knowledge of the case itself and I have very little
11 A. Okay. 11 knowledge of, you know, the role of them being,
12 Q. May we go to page {L2/102/2}. If we go down, in 12 you know, investigators supporting the defendants.
13 the middle there, we see a summary of Dr Wright’s work 13 I have very limited understanding of that. I was just
14 and responsibilities at BDO Kendalls. Could you just 14 told to analyse the data, give us the graphs, we will
15 read down that summary, please, Dr Pang? 15 just present the evidence as it is .
16 A. Portfolio of CAS audit clients, digital forensics ... 16 Q. To your knowledge, was this data analytics piece that
17 Q. Just the full section under ”Manager, Information 17 you were doing going to be used in relation to a court
18 Systems” down to just above ”Security Research −− 18 case?
19 Ridges Estate”; do you see that? 19 A. I have −− this is completely −− I mean, not this court
20 A. Yeah. I will read −− do I have to read it out loud? 20 case, but I know that it was used in that court case at
21 Q. No, no, if you just read it to yourself , please. 21 that time, through whoever person was being prosecuted.
22 (Pause). 22 I did not know the name of the person being prosecuted
23 A. There are some acronyms that I don’t understand, such as 23 at that time until very later on when I saw a folder in
24 ”ISMS”, but I’ ll ignore that for the moment. 24 Craig’s folder with the name of the person involved.
25 Q. Is that −− 25 Q. May we have on screen {L3/235/1}.

13 15

1 A. And I don’t understand what is ”ISO 7799 training”. 1 Is this a presentation you produced along with
2 That’s new to me. I know it’s an international 2 Dr Wright on some of the data analytics work you did?
3 standard. 3 A. To the best of my knowledge, it is. I did not kept
4 Q. I think it ’s an IT security standard, Dr Pang. 4 a copy of these, or I have not reviewed my own copy of
5 A. Okay, thank you. 5 it , so to the best of my knowledge, it looks like what
6 Q. Setting that aside , does this , to the best of your 6 I have produced.
7 knowledge, accurately summarise the sort of work that 7 Q. So is this right , just to understand the exercise, it
8 Dr Wright was doing at BDO Kendalls, to your knowledge? 8 was to model the social networks of two individuals
9 A. I ’m still reading, sorry . 9 based on their online chats; correct?
10 (Pause). 10 A. The target was two individuals, but there are other
11 I ’m not reading the Ridges Estate part? 11 people involved in that network. They −− they help or
12 Q. No, just −− 12 maybe not help the case. But my role is to fish out and
13 A. It is a very overall bird ’s eye view of his 13 mine the interactions in that sort of messy sort of
14 responsibility , of which there are, you know, many. 14 social network.
15 I think there are a lot more details that are not 15 Q. As I understand it from your statement, the problem was
16 captured. Some of the digital forensic services that he 16 that there were two individuals and they could use names
17 does is very unique and very complicated that, you know, 17 of their choosing on the social networks and they could
18 only a few people can do, like , you know, hacking −− 18 use multiple names on those networks; correct?
19 understanding what’s on a USB drive, the entropy and 19 A. Correct.
20 the information in it , so, yeah. 20 Q. And the alleged perpetrator tended to use names similar
21 Q. But based on this CV, would you −− and based on your own 21 to ”Homie”?
22 knowledge, Dr Pang, would you accept that Dr Wright’s 22 A. Yes.
23 work at BDO was focused on IT security, IT audit and 23 Q. And the alleged victim tended to use names similar
24 review work and digital forensics work? 24 to ”Aussie Girl ”?
25 A. I would say that this is only part of it , because he 25 A. Yes, as far as I ’m told, that’s the case.

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Q. And was the objective to identify user names that were 1 You then show how the software allows zooming in on
2 likely to be used by Homie and Aussie Girl respectively? 2 the network; correct?
3 A. Yes. It is a word matching exercise, what we call in 3 A. Yes.
4 computer science regular expression matching, so 4 Q. Page 11 {L3/235/11}, you present a similar exercise for
5 anything with, you know, smaller letters , upper letters , 5 Homie in the pack, don’t you?
6 or similar −sounding names, we will try and find them. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In your investigation and your presentation, you used 7 Q. Page 12 {L3/235/12}, you present the network model for
8 GEOMI software, didn’t you? 8 Homie’s friends and contacts, yes?
9 A. Yes, I have used this software that I do not own, it is 9 A. Similar to what I did for the Aussie Girl . It is
10 invented by someone else, I’m merely using it. 10 the other way round, yes.
11 Q. And that was and is an analytical tool for visualising 11 Q. Page 13 {L3/235/13}, you −− as with Aussie Girl, you
12 networks, isn ’ t it ? 12 start to express some opinions about statistics for
13 A. It is for visualising any types of networks. 13 Homie’s social network and what they lead to, page 14
14 Q. Yes. 14 {L3/235/14}, yes?
15 Page 5, please {L3/235/5}, of this document. 15 A. Yes, they’re opinions of mine.
16 Do you describe here the process of visualising 16 Q. Then page 15 {L3/235/15}, you draw a conclusion, don’t
17 Aussie Girl ’s social network by showing how her friends 17 you, that Aussie Girl is not at the core of Homie’s
18 chat online with this analytical means? 18 network?
19 A. Yeah. 19 A. Yes, it is not at the very, very core, it is a little
20 Q. And then page 6 {L3/235/6}, do you give a social network 20 bit periphery to the core.
21 diagram showing how her contacts interacted with each 21 Q. Page 17 {L3/235/17}, you summarise your conclusions,
22 other? 22 don’t you, which include that Homie is chatting to more
23 A. Okay, this is how her friends interact with each other. 23 friends online than Aussie Girl?
24 I did −− what this is supposed to show, just to give 24 A. This is not −− this cannot be my conclusion entirely,
25 a bit of context, all of these people shown as this 25 this is what I’ve observed in this very incomplete

17 19

1 network has chatted with Aussie Girl, but because it is 1 network data. As far as I know, I recall Craig telling
2 everyone connected to Aussie Girl, it ’s kind of visually 2 me that −− sorry, Dr Wright, calling me, telling me that
3 disturbing and, you know, very hard to see if there so 3 we cannot trust whoever gave us this data, they won’t
4 many lines, so I remove Aussie Girl from that thing, or 4 expose all their data, so most likely they have only
5 from this network, and deleted all the lines just to 5 given us partial information just to satisfy our
6 show how their −− her friends interact with each other 6 request. So whatever we see is an incomplete network
7 on the network, but they are all friends of 7 and therefore the information or insights we can draw
8 Aussie Girl ’s by, you know −− by the fact that they have 8 from this network may be incomplete.
9 messaged each other, so, yes, it is . 9 Q. And you express an opinion −− opinions further that most
10 Q. Page 7, please {L3/235/7}. 10 of Homie’s friends are tightly connected, while
11 Did you then draw some conclusions about 11 Aussie Girl is on the periphery of his network, as
12 the interactions of Aussie Girl and her friends? 12 analysed, yes?
13 A. I would not say they are conclusions, they are merely my 13 A. Based on the data I was given, I observed those points,
14 interpretation of this diagram. 14 yes.
15 Q. Then page −− 15 Q. So is it fair that what we’ve gone through just now is
16 A. So it ’s my opinion. It ’s my expert opinion, not 16 a summary of the social network analysis work you did
17 a conclusion per se. It ’s not definite . 17 with Dr Wright which you explain in your statement?
18 Q. And then page 9 {L3/235/9}, do you address a deduction 18 A. This −− this was a summary that is useful to the court
19 that might be drawn in terms of identifying possible 19 case and that was all that was requested by Craig and
20 aliases for Aussie Girl ? 20 his working colleague, which I forgot the name of, yes.
21 A. Yes, that deduction, they’re my best guess, and this 21 And I was −− I want to make clear that when I analysed
22 needs to be scrutinised by that court to see whether 22 the network, I was asked not to read the messages that
23 they accept that as a proof of evidence or reliable 23 were exchanged between Homie and Aussie Girl, because
24 evidence or not. 24 they are −− they are unsettling −− they could be
25 Q. Page 10, please {L3/235/10}. 25 unsettling , so I have, you know, entirely ignored those

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 data and I’ve not looked at them, so they were just data 1 something that I was able to draw on a lot, but I know
2 to me and I did not read the context. 2 that, you know, this is to do with evolution, it could
3 Q. Now, in your witness statement at paragraphs 18 to 20 at 3 be something new and exciting that you can expand on.
4 pages 6 to 7 {E/10/6−7}, you say that in the context of 4 Q. As I understand your statement, the context is you were
5 this work, you discussed three concepts with Dr Wright. 5 discussing with Dr Wright the fact that Aussie Girl and
6 Do you recall saying that? 6 Homie would use duplicated online accounts to
7 A. Yes. 7 communicate with each other in the way that we’ve
8 Q. I just want to check −− 8 described. Is that −− that’s the context for this
9 A. I recall −− I recall there was three concepts: guilt by 9 discussion , yes?
10 association , densely connected core protein complexes, 10 A. Yes, and I thought, you know, there might be some
11 and the role of gene duplications play in creating new 11 symmetry, and it’s very similar to what I really like
12 protein complexes. They are entirely concepts from my 12 about doing biology and you know how proteins are
13 biological background. 13 duplicated into −− you know, make copies of and then
14 Q. Just to understand each of these concepts, please. Can 14 they change and mutate and then that leads to a new
15 I ask you just whether this is a fair summary of 15 function, a new complex that does other things. And
16 the first one, guilt by association , that if a person is 16 these patterns of duplication can help us understand
17 highly connected with multiple persons in a densely 17 the functions and roles of these proteins in the network
18 connected part of a network, you can have high 18 as machines. So it’s very −−
19 confidence that that person is associated with the same 19 Q. That was an analogy you were drawing between −−
20 clique . Is that the concept, in a nutshell? 20 A. An analogy. Analogy, entirely an analogy and being very
21 A. That is the case in a biological data setting . If 21 over−excited about what I’ve learned.
22 the −− if the data is reliable . That’s always a given; 22 Q. And this was, is this right , all part of forensic work
23 you know, if the data is not reliable , we can’t really 23 at BDO?
24 conclude that. 24 A. This is my forensic work, but it is also my first real
25 Q. Understood. 25 data analytics job outside of academia, so it needs to

21 23

1 A. Then I think that this is often used as a case in 1 be taken with a pinch of salt that I was a rookie then.
2 analysing a social network, but there’s of course going 2 Q. Based on what you said earlier, our understanding is, is
3 to be caveats around that based on the reliability of 3 this right , that you were supporting the defence of
4 the data and, you know, what are we trying to infer. 4 somebody who was charged with grooming−type or predatory
5 Q. Yes. 5 behaviour? Is that right?
6 And the second concept you refer to concerns 6 A. This is what I understand to be true, yes.
7 proteins , as I understand it, within densely connected 7 Q. Now, you say in your statement that at one stage during
8 parts of protein networks, and is it right that 8 these discussions , Dr Wright thanked you for an
9 the concept you describe is that proteins within densely 9 explanation about protein complexes, adding that he now
10 connected parts of protein networks are often part of 10 understood everything {E/10/8}. Do you recall writing
11 cores and bind stably together? 11 that in your statement?
12 A. Yes, that is a very well known, you know, critical 12 A. I recall that that was extremely strange. No one will
13 understanding for network analysis. It is very common 13 come and thank me for saying something and, you know,
14 to see that in all biological organisms. 14 thank me so tremendously and understood everything.
15 Q. Then the third concept you describe discussing with 15 That was odd.
16 Dr Wright, is this right , is the role which gene 16 Q. But you don’t say in your witness statement that he
17 duplications play in creating new protein complexes? 17 elaborated on that comment in any way, do you?
18 A. Yes, I was very excited about that point −− 18 A. He did not. He just sat there and then walked away, and
19 (Interruption) 19 I went ”Okay, strange”.
20 Q. I ’m sorry, Dr Pang, there was some interference then. 20 Q. Okay.
21 Please go on. 21 Moving on then to another discussion you describe −−
22 A. So, it is something that I have learnt. I do not have 22 and this is from page 9 of your −− paragraph 9 of your
23 −− I cannot replicate the same gene duplication 23 statement on page 4 {E/10/4}, we can bring that up.
24 analysis , because my time in my PhD is limited, but 24 This is a discussion that you say you had with Dr Wright
25 I was very excited about this fact , but it ’s not 25 about a Lego set which you bought for your birthday,

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 yes? 1 seven to 12; is that right?

2 A. Yes. 2 A. That is right .
3 Q. Now, at the end of paragraph 9, you say this about 3 Q. Now, let’s just take the conversation you recount in
4 the discussion : 4 stages and focus on what was said in paragraph 10.
5 ”These facts were refreshed in my memory over time 5 A. Yes.
6 over several of the video conferences with the lawyers 6 Q. You say you show the Lego set to Dr Wright and suggest
7 at Ontier LLP between 2021 − 2023.” 7 it would be worth a lot of money as a collector’s item,
8 Now, that’s a comment you make in respect of −− in 8 as these things often are, yes?
9 relation to this part of the statement, but not in 9 A. I wish it was at the time, yes.
10 relation to other parts of the statement; is that right? 10 Q. And then you say he suggested that you should try to
11 A. Yes, that is particularly for this part of 11 build a Lego blockchain and that he challenged you to
12 the statement. 12 build it as long as you could?
13 Q. Is that because this part of the statement was 13 A. Yes, that was very strange, because at the first
14 particularly informed by the conversations that you had 14 impression, I thought it would be very easy, you just
15 over that period with the lawyers? 15 stack the blocks one after another, you know, that would
16 A. It was particularly informed in that I have very deep 16 be a tower, but then I thought, is a tower a chain?
17 reflections about my interaction with Craig and those 17 Q. You say he told you that you couldn’t use Lego Technic
18 questions act as memory prompts for me to recall these 18 bricks ; is that right?
19 interactions , which subsequently led me to try and hunt 19 A. Yes, that is right .
20 down that, you know, photos I’ve taken on that day or, 20 Q. Lego Technic bricks, is this right , are bricks which can
21 you know, that receipt that I had on that day. 21 make more complicated formations?
22 Q. Now, in this part of your statement, you’re recounting 22 A. Yes, that has been used to make, you know, cars with
23 a conversation which took place now more than 15 years 23 gears, remote control cars. I had one of those remote
24 ago; correct? 24 control cars back when I was a kid, so I ’m very well
25 A. Yes. 25 aware of what it is , though I don’t often buy and build

25 27

1 Q. You don’t tell us that you ever put that conversation 1 Technic sets at the time.
2 down in writing, you ever made a note of it or sent an 2 Q. Then the last sentence of paragraph 10 you say:
3 email about it at the time, do you? 3 ”I was reminded of the statement about Technic
4 A. I have not, but the word ”blockchain” is strange because 4 bricks while I was drafting this witness statement as
5 it seems like two words that does not get used together 5 I remember it would have been very easy to create
6 very often, and why would he not use a chain of blocks, 6 interlocking bricks with Technic bricks ... ”
7 or a chain of Legos, or, you know, how do you join Legos 7 A. Yes.
8 together in a tower, or, you know, one by one. 8 Q. Was that a memory that just popped into your mind or was
9 Q. We’ll come to that a moment. But you say that you first 9 that something somebody else reminded you of?
10 brought this conversation to mind while discussing 10 A. It just popped into my mind. It has popped into my mind
11 Dr Wright’s case and your evidence with him and his 11 before, but I haven’t −− I might have talked to Ontier
12 lawyers; is that right? 12 about it , but can I blame the fact that there has been
13 A. Yes, with Ontier. 13 a lawyer −− change in lawyers, or change in firms, so
14 Q. Now, turning to the conversation, you say that you had 14 that information may not have been passed across between
15 bought a Lego set, and just to be clear what the Lego 15 the lawyers and therefore I did not know whether
16 set was, is it right that it was a Batman set entitled, 16 I mentioned it to Ontier, but that definitely came back
17 ”The tumbler, Joker’s ice cream surprise”? 17 to me when I was talking to the second set of lawyers −−
18 A. Yes. 18 I think they were Travers Smith or something.
19 Q. And we understand, you correct me if I’m wrong, that 19 Q. So it came to you, you say, during the course of
20 when assembled, that’s a model of Batman in 20 the various discussions you had with the lawyers about
21 the Batmobile hitting an ice cream truck being used by 21 what your memories were?
22 the Joker; is that right? 22 A. Yes, and I was −− especially when I was writing this
23 A. Yes, that is right . 23 document, I was remembered −− I remembered it, and then
24 Q. Just to identify the complexity of the bricks in that 24 the lawyers say, you know, ”Why do you came up this in
25 particular set , we understand that it was graded age 25 new statement? Is it because you came up with it whilst

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 you were writing the document? Whilst we were recalling 1 see how it melts and where is the weak points are. If
2 it , you came up with it”. He specifically want me to 2 we build something like that, it would not withstand
3 trace and mention that I have written it as a new 3 usual play −− the forces that you can encounter in usual
4 statement, as a track change or something like that, in 4 play.
5 my thoughts. 5 Q. So on your account, to summarise this interaction, you
6 Q. You say that you −− continuing with the conversation 6 show your senior colleague a Lego set which you think
7 with Dr Wright, you asked him how you would build a Lego 7 might be a collectors item and he challenges you to do
8 blockchain, yes? 8 something you can’t understand, right? That’s the first
9 A. Yes. 9 stage?
10 Q. And you say that he responded that it was like 10 A. Yes.
11 a recursive Chinese chain puzzle, yes? 11 Q. And then you ask him to clarify, and he suggests you try
12 A. Yes, and he straight out(?) away walked out of the room. 12 to build a Chinese chain puzzle out of Lego, which I’d
13 He just walked by in front of me. I ask him, ”How would 13 suggest is both incomprehensible and a hopeless task.
14 you like the blockchain to be built ”, because I felt 14 A. To me, at that time, yes.
15 very humiliated by this challenge, so he said , ”Just 15 Q. Now, if this conversation went as you suggest, it really
16 like a Chinese recursive chain puzzle”, and then boom, 16 would have made no sense at all, would it?
17 straight out the door. 17 A. It made no sense at all. It is one of these funny
18 Q. If we look at the next page {E/10/5}, you show what you 18 things that happens with Craig every now and then. He
19 understand to be a recursive Chinese chain puzzle; 19 says things that are nonsensical or funny, like he ate
20 correct? 20 Babe, the pig. From a movie called Babe. He said he
21 A. I had something like that when I was a child, so 21 ate it .
22 I remembered it fondly and dearly, but very sadly, 22 Q. I ’m aware of the movie, Dr Pang.
23 I must have given it away to a friend who would like 23 Did you think that Dr Wright was being just
24 toys, so ... 24 incoherent or making fun of you?
25 Q. We can take that image off screen now. 25 A. He was making fun of me. That’s −− you know, people do

29 31

1 As you describe it , the conversation just ends there 1 in offices . They banter with jokes to establish
2 with Dr Wright leaving the room? 2 intelligence and higher ranking.
3 A. Yes. 3 Q. It ’s a very odd sort of joke, isn ’ t it , Dr Pang?
4 Q. No further exchange or elaboration? 4 A. Yeah.
5 A. No. 5 Q. Now, I have to put this to you, Dr Pang. Your account
6 Q. Now, would you agree with this −− and I’m not seeking to 6 is so confused and confusing that it really just doesn’t
7 give expert evidence on building Lego, but trying to 7 make much sense in this respect about this conversation.
8 build a Chinese chain puzzle of that kind out of Lego 8 A. It didn’t make sense at the time, it doesn’t make sense
9 would be a pretty hopeless task, wouldn’t it , Dr Pang? 9 to me at all why he would say it. But I can say a lot
10 A. It would be a very difficult task with basic Lego 10 of things retrospectively , but these are all my own
11 bricks , as I would imagine, because it would fall apart 11 opinion, unless you specifically ask for it , I would not
12 very easily , it would be very hard to make them lock 12 say those opinions for , you know, brevity sake.
13 together and also have that flexibility , and therefore, 13 Q. All I ’m suggesting to you, Dr Pang, is that this hazy
14 that image and that challenge and that problem was very 14 recollection of a nonsensical conversation is not −− if
15 clearly in my mind. 15 you’re being fair to yourself , is not a reliable
16 Q. But having looked at that Chinese chain puzzle, trying 16 recollection .
17 to make that out of Lego, even with very specialised 17 A. That is not a reliable recollection , but the date in
18 bricks , would be a hopeless task, wouldn’t it? 18 which I bought the Lego set and the fact that he said
19 A. It may not be hopeless, but it would not be very wieldy 19 the word ”blockchain” was 100% clear in my mind to be
20 to play with. It might be very large, it might be very 20 true.
21 tight , it −− it would be very hard to use and −− well, 21 Q. Well, Dr Pang, in the context of this very strange and
22 one thing about Lego is they always test their products 22 hazy recollection , I suggest to you that picking out one
23 to a certain playability standard, that it needs to 23 word and trying to remember it as absolutely what he
24 withstand a certain amount of forces. They even put it 24 said is not reliable .
25 in −− as far as I know, they even put it in the oven to 25 A. The receipt and the fact that I bought the Lego set is

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 completely reliable . You have got a date −− 1 someone called Satoshi Nakamoto”, or something that
2 Q. I ’m not disputing you bought the Lego, Dr Pang, just to 2 sounds like that name.
3 be clear on that. 3 Q. You say −−
4 A. Okay. 4 A. Repeatedly.
5 Q. Now, just to be clear , you don’t say that at the time 5 Q. You say your recollection was that it was
6 any connection was drawn by Dr Wright or anybody else 6 a Japanese−sounding sort of name, yes?
7 with Bitcoin or digital cash or anything like that? 7 A. Yeah.
8 A. No, there was other witnesses with me when Craig 8 Q. And you think, looking back on it, that it was
9 mentioned the word ”bitcoin”, another colleague, 9 Satoshi Nakamoto?
10 Hector Mabborang, was right next to Craig when he said 10 A. Yes.
11 it and he mentioned the joke to Hector Mabborang as 11 Q. And you tell a story of writing the name in a notebook,
12 well . 12 yes?
13 Q. Let’s come to what you say in your statement about 13 A. Yes.
14 another conversation, which you deal with from 14 Q. But you don’t have that notebook any more?
15 paragraph 21 on page 8 {E/10/8}. 15 A. I lost it . I remember how I lost it, but I did not get
16 A. Yes. 16 it back at that time, because at that time I was working
17 Q. You describe another conversation with Dr Wright which 17 on a case, and in there I wrote something that is
18 you say took place ”one day” and where you say he 18 unfavourable to the person I was visiting for that case,
19 mentioned a Japanese name. This is another discussion 19 I did not want them to look at the notebook, so I did
20 of events about 15 years ago. Have you ever put this 20 not ask for it back.
21 down, the whole conversation, in writing? 21 Q. You then say you Googled the name at some point and saw
22 A. I have not, until I was asked to write it . 22 a reference to Bitcoin and the White Paper, you say?
23 Q. Now, what you −− let’s deal with the timing of this 23 A. That was before I lost the notebook, I Googled it.
24 incident first . You say it took place −− 24 Q. You don’t, though, refer to having any further
25 A. Yeah. 25 communications with anyone else on this subject, right?

33 35

1 Q. −− after you returned to the office after a spell of 1 A. Only on the day that Craig talked about that name,
2 sick leave for whooping cough; is that right? 2 I spoke to Ron and we discussed it very briefly . And
3 A. Yes. 3 I have not talked to anyone about that name after, ever
4 Q. You tell us in your statement that you contracted 4 again.
5 whooping cough a few weeks before 30 October 2008, yes? 5 Q. And you don’t say that you had any conversations with
6 A. Yes. 6 anybody as a result of your Googling, do you?
7 Q. You were then off sick for a few weeks, yes? 7 A. No, I did not talk to anyone about that after my
8 A. Yes. 8 Googling.
9 Q. And then the conversation happened some time after that? 9 Q. And you say you recall your colleague, Ron, suggesting
10 A. Yes. 10 that Dr Wright might be speaking about an alias?
11 Q. So if that’s right , it would date the conversation to 11 A. Yeah.
12 not before November/December 2008; is that right? 12 Q. Now, the questions you recall Dr Wright asking didn’t
13 A. Sorry, I was a bit confused with your question. It 13 say anything about an alias, they were just , ”Has anyone
14 would be right after October, but possibly before 14 heard of [a Japanese name]”, yes?
15 November. 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Well −− 16 Q. Would you accept this, just as a matter of common sense.
17 A. So around October something, yeah. I know right after 17 If a person had an alias which they used for privacy, it
18 October is November, so early November, maybe? 18 would be quite strange behaviour to go round an office
19 Q. Early November maybe? 19 canteen talking about it , or are you not able to say?
20 A. Yeah. 20 A. I think that would be quite strange if , you know −− do
21 Q. You −− what you say in your statement is that Dr Wright 21 you know someone called Iron Man, do you know someone
22 asked several people in the BDO lunch room if they knew 22 called Batman, do you know someone called Superman?
23 a person by a name which you thought sounded Japanese, 23 You know, if Superman go around, you know, asking
24 right? 24 everyone, you know −− if Clark Kent went around asking
25 A. Yes, he was pacing up and down the kitchen, ”Do you know 25 everyone, ”Do you know someone called Superman”, that

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 would be quite weird. 1 of the taxpayer. The taxpayer referred to Dr Pang as

2 Q. Once again, Dr Pang, would you accept that this is 2 a ’contractor’ . The taxpayer advised that the payment
3 another hazy recollection of 15 years ago that you 3 was made by ...”
4 haven’t been asked to recollect more recently? 4 First :
5 A. It is a very hazy recollection . I did not know what 5 ”C01n Ltd as trustee for the Craig Wright R&D Trust,
6 exactly he said , but I knew it was, to me, 6 transferring licences to the taxpayer in exchange for
7 a Japanese−sounding name. That is right, it is very 7 shares in the taxpayer.”
8 hazy. But I tried to recollect it as best as I could 8 And then:
9 and I think it is true and I’m being truthful here. 9 ”The taxpayer assigning the licences to Dr Pang as
10 Q. I ’m not suggesting to you you’re being dishonest, 10 consideration for services performed in respect of
11 Dr Pang, just that this is a hazy and unreliable −− 11 the R&D activities.”
12 A. It is hazy. Hazy. 12 Do you see that?
13 Q. Then turning to another subject: your involvement in one 13 A. I have no idea what those licences are. I do not own
14 of Dr Wright’s tax claims. In the 2012/13 tax year, you 14 a copy of those licences , so I don’t know what those
15 were not registered by the Australian government as 15 licences are.
16 a research provider −− research service provider for 16 Q. That was going to be my first question, whether you, to
17 the purposes of research and development tax claims, 17 your knowledge, received an assignment of any licences.
18 were you? 18 A. I −− if you ask me for a copy of the licences, I would
19 A. I do not understand what they mean, so I assume that 19 not be able to give it to you, unless it was some,
20 I am not registered. 20 you know, GNU, you know, Common −− Creative Commons
21 Q. Are you aware that Dr Wright’s company, C01N Limited, 21 licences , but I don’t even know which ones I have used
22 made an R&D tax offset claim for the 2012/13−year for 22 if I have used them. I’ve −− I’ve −− I’ve taken money
23 work done by you as a contractor? 23 for what I believe to be employments that is taxable and
24 A. I do not recollect that I was a contractor. I was being 24 declared with the ATO, but I do not know of any of those
25 paid with an ABN, so I do not understand that. 25 licences , and even if you ask me to give it to you,

37 39

1 I thought −− I always thought that I was an employee. 1 I don’t know what they are, and if I give them to you,
2 And the −− our whole R&D business was only made known to 2 I would not know whether they’re the right ones.
3 me at the time I was working with Craig and I know that 3 Q. Paragraph 137, the ATO reported that in support of
4 ATO is −− Australian Tax Office is investigating and 4 the claim C01N had provided an invoice for $5,000 dated
5 there was two very high ranking data analysis expert 5 1 June 2013, issued by Dr Wright to C01N, describing
6 visiting Craig, a whole team, and I was asked to be 6 the consideration as being transfer of beneficial
7 there and present to support Craig in his claims. 7 ownership of licences and assignment of computer
8 Q. I ’m going to put some of the findings of the ATO to you 8 hardware and the licences are described in the invoice
9 just to see if you −− if they’re matters that you agree 9 as an ”SPSS” licence.
10 with or disagree with. May we have on screen 10 First of all −−
11 {L11/363/1}. I’m not expecting you necessarily to have 11 A. I don’t even know how to use SPSS. I know what it
12 seen this document before, Dr Pang, but it’s a set of 12 exists . I would probably be able to figure out a few
13 ”Reasons for decision” by the ATO in relation to C01N 13 buttons after , you know, looking at it extensively , but
14 Pty Ltd for the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. 14 I don’t use SPSS in my work.
15 Have you in fact seen this document before? 15 Q. So you don’t think that you received an assignment of
16 A. I have not seen this document before at all. 16 SPSS licences?
17 Q. Page 29, please, paragraph 136 {L11/363/29}. I’m just 17 A. I could have got SPSS licences from the University of
18 going to ask you whether things are correct or incorrect 18 New South Wales for my academic use, but I chose not to
19 to the best of your knowledge. So paragraph −− 19 use them because my expertise in this is in
20 A. Okay. 20 R statistical programming languages, and I have not used
21 Q. Paragraph 136 says: 21 SPSS at all in all my work, ever.
22 ”On 14 August 2014, the taxpayer ...” 22 Q. So you don’t think you were assigned SPSS licences by
23 That’s C01N Pty Ltd, also known as ”Strasan”: 23 C01N or Strasan?
24 ” ... advised that it incurred $5,000 of expenditure 24 A. I have not used SPSS given by C01N or Strasan.
25 to Dr Pang for undertaking ... R&D activities on behalf 25 Q. And then the ATO says, at paragraph 138, that

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 the companies, C01N or Strasan, had advised that there 1 Q. Now, the way it was presented was that C01N had provided
2 was no formal services contract for the provision of 2 you with a computer and software, and Hotwire, with
3 your services , but that Dr Wright invoiced C01N as agent 3 a printer , payment for hours worked and superannuation,
4 for you. 4 all on an independent contractor basis, not on an
5 Did you have an arrangement with C01N whereby you 5 employment basis; do you understand?
6 provided services without there being a formal contract 6 A. I believe it was on an employment basis, as far as
7 in place? 7 I understand. I received a printer , which I’ve got,
8 A. I would not be able to tell you, because I was under 8 I ’ve received laptop, but I don’t recall any software at
9 the impression that I was working for Hotwire PE when 9 all that I have got a physical or digital copy of.
10 the ATO asked, and I worked my guts off to try and do 10 The only access to any software was the Xero accounting
11 what Craig asked me to do, which is to recreate 11 software that I use online .
12 the Homie and Aussie Girl data analysis, or reboot that 12 Q. The ATO found, at paragraph 140, that there were some
13 analysis and show the ATO office what it looks like. 13 discrepancies in the accounts that Dr Wright provided in
14 Q. Did you, Dr Pang, sign any agreement or enter into any 14 relation to your work. Were you aware of any of those
15 agreement so that Dr Wright should be your agent for 15 discrepancies?
16 invoicing purposes? 16 A. I do not know of what discrepancies it is , if any.
17 A. I don’t −− can you repeat that, please, my Lord? 17 Q. Page 50, please {L11/363/50}, of the document −−
18 Q. Well, the suggestion in the report −− and please don’t 18 actually , page 49 {L11/363/49}. There is a whole
19 call me ”my Lord” −− the suggestion in the report is 19 section of the report concerned with R&D tax offsets in
20 that the −− is that you appointed Dr Wright as your 20 relation to you, and at paragraph 246, over the page
21 agent to invoice C01N, his company, on your behalf. Do 21 {L11/363/50}, the ATO said that the taxpayer had
22 you recall any arrangement to that effect? 22 provided −− so that’s C01N −− had provided contradictory
23 A. It ’s too complicated for me and I don’t recall anything 23 accounts about whether Dr Pang was a contractor or
24 like that. It is as wild as anything that I ’ve heard 24 employee and how Dr Pang was paid, including from
25 today. 25 Dr Pang himself, and your position is that you were an

41 43

1 Q. Paragraph −− 1 employee and certainly didn’t receive any licences in

2 A. I −− I am not given a copy of his statement before, so 2 payment; correct?
3 I cannot determine the truth on the top of my head, or 3 A. Correct.
4 on my feet −− 4 MR HOUGH: Dr Pang, those are all my questions. Thank you
5 Q. Understood. 5 very much.
6 A. −− on −− on immediate recalling, and I hope I don’t put 6 A. Thank you.
7 myself in jail for that. 7 LORD GRABINER: I have no re−examination, my Lord.
8 Q. No, that’s not going to happen, Dr Pang. 8 Dr Pang, thank you very much indeed for your time.
9 A. Oh, great. 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you, Dr Pang.
10 Q. Paragraph 139, the ATO recorded that C01N had provided 10 A. Thank you, everyone.
11 two emails from you, one giving some details of work 11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you. You are now released from
12 you’d done for the company, the other saying you’d 12 your oath. Thank you for your evidence.
13 received a laptop, printer , salary and some payments to 13 A. Thank you.
14 the value of AU$5,000. Did you provide, as far as you 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
15 can recall , emails saying those things? 15 (The witness withdrew)
16 A. I recall emails saying something like that. I still 16 Right, is it helpful to have a break now? How long
17 have the printer at home, I still have the laptop at 17 do you need? Okay, ten minutes.
18 home. 18 (11.37 am)
19 Q. And was it that Dr Wright or his lawyers or accountants 19 (A short break)
20 called on you to assist with the claim, or were you 20 (11.48 am)
21 approached just out of the blue by the ATO? 21 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, our next witness is Mr Jenkins.
22 A. I was approached by someone from Craig’s side. I can’t 22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
23 remember who contacted me. But the printer and 23 LORD GRABINER: He should be on the screen as well.
24 the laptop would have costed that much, but the laptop, 24 MR ROBERT JENKINS (sworn)
25 when I got it , was secondhand. 25 (Via video link )

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 LORD GRABINER: Thank you, Mr Jenkins. 1 A. That’s correct .

2 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER 2 Q. Can we now, please, look at Dr Wright’s BDO CV, which
3 Do you have close to you a screen? 3 appears to be dated 2 May 2007, and that’s at
4 A. Yes, I do. 4 {L2/102/1}. So here you have what is one of Dr Wright’s
5 Q. And what’s going to happen now is that your witness 5 CVs, and if we could just go over the page {L2/102/2},
6 statement is going to be put up onto the screen. It is 6 top of page 2, you can see there he lists some of his
7 {E/6/1}. Do you see that? 7 career highlights and he mentions some career highlights
8 A. Okay, I can see that. Yes, I can. 8 such as developing the security measures for ASX, that’s
9 Q. Is that your witness statement in this litigation ? 9 the Australian Stock Exchange, and he also mentions his
10 A. From the front page, it appears to be, yes. 10 security work for Lasseter’s Casino. He doesn’t mention
11 Q. And could you go to {E/6/11}, which is the signature 11 in his career highlights any of his work at Vodafone in
12 page. 12 that paragraph, does he?
13 A. That’s right . That does look like my DocuSign 13 A. He doesn’t appear to, no.
14 signature. 14 Q. So do you accept that, at least according to Dr Wright’s
15 Q. Is that your signature? 15 own CV from 2007, that he himself didn’t regard the work
16 A. Yes, it is . 16 at Vodafone to be particularly worth mentioning here?
17 Q. And are the contents of your statement true? 17 A. As to what Craig’s mind was in putting this together,
18 A. Yes, they are. 18 presumably, as I do with CVs, it’s very much tailored to
19 Q. Thank you very much indeed. 19 the opportunity I ’m trying to attain and I do include or
20 You’ll now be asked some questions on behalf of 20 exclude certain elements depending upon what that
21 the claimants in this case. 21 opportunity is .
22 A. Okay. 22 Q. Then could we please go down to {L2/102/3}, and you can
23 Cross−examination by MR MOSS 23 see here how he describes he founded DeMorgan, and just
24 MR MOSS: Good morning, Mr Jenkins, or good morning from us 24 looking at the end of that first paragraph, he says:
25 anyway. 25 ” ... Craig founded DeMorgan in 1997 with an aim to

45 47

1 A. Good day, to you. 1 the furtherance of Security in the IT arena.”

2 Q. Before I get into your cross−examination, I just want to 2 And then, in the next paragraph, he says:
3 ask a few questions about whether you’ve seen any of 3 ”DeMorgan [provided] IT security services ... to
4 Dr Wright’s evidence over the past seven days. Have you 4 the top 150 companies in Australia ... ”
5 watched any of Dr Wright’s evidence in these 5 And it’s true, isn ’ t it , that the work that DeMorgan
6 proceedings? 6 was doing for Vodafone was standard IT security work?
7 A. No, I haven’t. 7 A. Look, it depends what you mean by ”standard IT security
8 Q. Have you read any transcripts or seen any commentary on 8 work”. It was an evolving area back in the late ’90s.
9 social media, for example? 9 So at the time, I wouldn’t call it standard IT security
10 A. No transcripts. Some commentary, but just in passing. 10 work, no.
11 Q. And whereabouts do you think you would have seen that 11 Q. But the work was carried out through DeMorgan, it wasn’t
12 commentary on the case? 12 Dr Wright personally that was contracted with; isn’t
13 A. Probably within the web browser and some advertisements 13 that right?
14 that have popped up, just with some titles as to −− as 14 A. Correct, with DeMorgan.
15 to, you know, headlines, as far as the case and how it 15 Q. Now could we please bring up your statement, Mr Jenkins,
16 was going. 16 which is at {E/6/4}. Now, in the first few lines of
17 Q. Thank you, Mr Jenkins. 17 paragraph 10 −− sorry, in the last few lines of
18 Now, the first topic I want to discuss with you is 18 paragraph 10, you mention there about a log file; do you
19 your early interactions and your background with 19 see that?
20 Dr Wright. You first interacted with Dr Wright when you 20 A. Yes, I do.
21 were at Vodafone in 1999; is that correct? 21 Q. When you’re saying ”log file” here, are you referring to
22 A. That’s correct , yes. 22 a specific log file that was created of just who logged
23 Q. And when you were there, you hired DeMorgan, which was 23 on to that PC, ie the one protected by the biometrics
24 his company, to implement the firewall and other 24 and password? Is that the log file that you’re talking
25 physical security measures; correct? 25 about here?

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 A. No, I’m not. It ’s a combination of that log file , which 1 proceedings and in the Granath proceedings in Norway;
2 is the authentication log file for that PC. But more 2 isn ’ t that right?
3 importantly, it was in relation to the log file 3 A. That’s correct , yes.
4 associated with the firewall itself . So this log is 4 Q. Now, Dr Wright has discussed his history as being
5 associated with the traffic flowing through the log 5 Satoshi with you over a number of years; correct?
6 file , as well as the people logging in to administer 6 A. The conversation around him being Satoshi wasn’t
7 the firewall . 7 a conversation we had on an ongoing basis.
8 Q. And then, if we look down at paragraph 11, further down 8 The discovery of Craig being Satoshi was a culmination,
9 the page, you give evidence here of Dr Wright creating 9 almost a point in time rather than something that was
10 a system where there were logs that had different 10 discussed over a prolonged period of time.
11 entries with a consistent serial number; is that 11 Q. Sorry, I ’ ll be a bit clearer with my question,
12 correct? 12 Mr Jenkins, and I will come back later to when you first
13 A. That’s correct , yes. 13 discovered that Dr Wright claimed to be
14 Q. But as you correctly accept at the end of this 14 Satoshi Nakamoto. But since that point when you heard
15 paragraph, it wasn’t just Dr Wright, it was DeMorgan 15 of that news, is it fair to say that you have discussed,
16 that was implementing this, which involved other 16 yourself , with Dr Wright his claim to be
17 employees; correct? 17 Satoshi Nakamoto?
18 A. That’s correct . There were one or two other employees 18 A. Have we discussed it? Yeah, look, in Norway, we were
19 I worked with besides Craig. 19 discussing , you know. At the time, it was in relation
20 Q. Now, back at the beginning of paragraph 11, you use 20 to a different aspect of Craig, but certainly discussing
21 the phrased ”genesis log entry”, but there are no 21 at that time the fact that he is Satoshi.
22 documents attached to your statement, nor any other 22 Q. Indeed, you have been a public name associated with
23 documents that COPA can find in these −− what has been 23 Dr Wright’s story since at least 2016, because you’re
24 disclosed in these proceedings that refer to this term 24 mentioned in Andrew O’Hagan’s essay, ”The Satoshi
25 being used. Do you accept there are no documents that 25 Affair ”. Do you recall speaking with Mr O’Hagan?

49 51

1 record that specific term? 1 A. I do. It was in a coffee shop here in Sydney a long
2 A. That’s correct . 2 time ago.
3 Q. Now, you mentioned ”genesis log entry” because, 3 Q. And did Dr Wright contact you and tell you that
4 I presume, the Bitcoin Blockchain starts with 4 Mr O’Hagan would be getting in touch?
5 the Genesis Block. Is that why this is included in your 5 A. My recollection is that that is the case, that’s right .
6 evidence? 6 Q. So Dr Wright contacted you and told you that he would
7 A. It ’s included in my evidence because my recollection is, 7 like you to speak to a journalist , Mr O’Hagan, about him
8 from that long ago, as it was being described and as we 8 being Satoshi Nakamoto; is that correct?
9 were disappearing down a rabbit hole around how you 9 A. No, it was contacting me to say that there was somebody
10 could protect a log file from it being tampered and 10 that would like to write a story about him and wanted to
11 tampered with, we were going through a minutiae of 11 talk about the early years of −− of some of the work
12 scenarios , and the description that Craig gave me at the 12 that Craig had done and would I be prepared to talk to
13 time involved things like hashing the serials , hashing 13 him about that.
14 the serial numbers associated with the log file , and 14 Q. But of course, when you spoke with Mr O’Hagan, which
15 then we were talking about then, well, how do you 15 I assume was early 2016, at that point you were aware of
16 differentiate between an operational log file and a new 16 Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto; correct?
17 log file , you know, could a new one be started to kind 17 A. That’s correct , yes.
18 of make it look like it was an existing operational log 18 Q. So you went into the conversations with Mr O’Hagan
19 file . At the time when Craig was describing this to me, 19 primed with that information; is that fair ?
20 he made reference to a genesis log file entry as part of 20 A. That information was available to me at that point in
21 the first transaction, if you like , into the log file . 21 time, yes.
22 Q. You don’t mention anything about hashing in that 22 Q. Now, if we go back to your witness statement again, just
23 paragraph, do you, Mr Jenkins? 23 looking in paragraph 11 {E/6/4}, you say there that each
24 A. No, I don’t. 24 log file had in effect an incremental serial number; is
25 Q. Now, you’ve given evidence for Dr Wright in both these 25 that right?

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 A. That’s correct , yes. And it was time−synced and 1 paragraph 16, you say it was before eBay and before
2 the time sync was associated with the log entries , yes. 2 PayPal −− I’ll read the entire two sentences out:
3 Q. You last saw this firewall up close and personal, so to 3 ”So when I was working at COMindico, I remember
4 speak, I presume in June 2000, when you left Vodafone; 4 Craig and I talked about eGold. This would have been in
5 is that right? 5 the period ... 2000−2002. It was before eBay and before
6 A. That’s correct , yes. 6 PayPal and buying stuff online and paying for it was
7 Q. So your memory of the technical details is now nearly 7 incredibly difficult ... ”
8 24 years old; is that right? 8 So you say there that −− and we’re in the period
9 A. You could say that, yes. 9 2000 to 2002, that this was before eBay and PayPal;
10 Q. Let’s just unpick a little bit of what you say in that 10 correct?
11 paragraph bearing in mind that considerable lapse of 11 A. Before eBay and PayPal was readily available in
12 time. 12 Australia , that’s correct .
13 You say the entries each had their own identifier ; 13 Q. Right.
14 is that right? 14 Now, eBay launched in 1995, didn’t it, Mr Jenkins?
15 A. That’s correct , row number 1, row number 2, row 15 A. It could well have launched in 1995. Whether it was
16 number 3, etc. 16 ubiquitous and readily available in Australia is
17 Q. You have taken my next question away from me, 17 a different matter.
18 Mr Jenkins. So the first entry would have been, say, 1; 18 Q. And PayPal launched in 1998, and indeed it had its
19 the second entry, 2; the third , 3, so on and so on; is 19 IPO in February 2002, and eBay bought PayPal in
20 that right? 20 October 2002. Your statement here says ”this was before
21 A. That’s correct , yes. 21 eBay and before PayPal”, but that can’t be correct, so
22 Q. So what was being in effect created was a sequential 22 what are you actually saying in this sentence,
23 database? 23 Mr Jenkins?
24 A. Not really . You could −− you could refer to it as a −− 24 A. What I’m saying here is that whilst eBay might have been
25 like a text file rather than a database. A ”database” 25 available and other online platforms available to pay

53 55

1 has other connotations. But, yes, certainly a text 1 for something online, there wasn’t an easy means of
2 file . 2 paying for things like what the service that PayPal
3 Q. In that case, a sequential list was being created? 3 provides, and the only option, and it goes on in that
4 A. That’s correct . 4 paragraph to say essentially there is only at the time
5 Q. I ’m moving on to your story −− or your story, I should 5 an escrow−like service that was available at that time
6 say, of your interactions with Dr Wright. One of 6 in Australia .
7 the next things you discuss in your statement is about 7 Q. Okay, well, that wasn’t very clearly originally , but we
8 E−Gold, and in fairness to you, Mr Jenkins, you’ve been 8 understand now what your evidence is on that point.
9 very clear in your statement about tying different 9 A. Apologies.
10 events that you recall with Dr Wright to times in your 10 Q. Could we now please go to your testimony in Granath, and
11 career , so I am just going to place us here so we know 11 that’s at {L18/62/2}. Now, I’m going come −− this is
12 where we are in the timeline . 12 the first page of the Granath transcript, I ’m going to
13 You left Vodafone in early 2000 to go to COMindico; 13 come to this a few times so I ’m only going to deal with
14 is that correct? Am I pronouncing that right? 14 this bit once. Just below C there, you will see that
15 A. Yes, that’s correct , COMindico. 15 the judge had some questions for you, and the judge
16 Q. And then it’s in paragraph 16 that you talk about 16 asked you:
17 ”eGold” {E/6/5}, and you say this would have been in 17 ”You are now going to give evidence before
18 the period 2000 to 2001; is that right? 18 the court. In doing so, you are obliged to tell
19 A. Around 2000/2001/2, around that period; correct. 19 the truth, this implies ... everything you know, and not
20 Q. You say in your statement, in fairness to you: 20 to conceal anything, and you must also state if you are
21 ”This would have been in the period ... 2000−2002.” 21 uncertain or if you do not remember. And it is
22 Correct? That’s the top −− 22 a punishable offence to lie to the court.”
23 A. That’s correct . 23 You see that. Do you recall that, Mr Jenkins, when
24 Q. −− the top of paragraph 16. 24 you were giving your evidence?
25 And then, if we just look at the second sentence of 25 A. Yes, I do.

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Q. And I assume, of course, that you abided by that when 1 A. Correct.

2 you gave this evidence? 2 Q. I should point out, there are a number of versions of
3 A. To the best of my ability , yes. 3 the transcript . Were you shown any version of
4 Q. Now, if we please go to page 6 of the transcript 4 the transcript ?
5 {L18/62/6}, just below C, it says, there’s a question: 5 A. I ’ve not received any version of the transcript , no.
6 ”Did you take an interest in eGold? 6 Q. Okay.
7 ”Answer: Yes. 7 Then if we could please go back to the transcript ,
8 ”Question: What is that? 8 page 6 {L18/62/6}, just below F, you say:
9 ”Answer: So, eGold was a technology that was 9 ”And to buy things on eBay or to buy things online
10 introduced to the market in the late ’90s. I bought 10 back then, there wasn’t an easy mechanism of giving
11 into eGold in around 2001, I noted specifically 2001, 11 money to someone, and getting the goods, guaranteed
12 while I tried −−” 12 getting the goods back. So, eGold provided an escrow
13 So you mention here your interest in E−Gold and you 13 like service ... ”
14 say ” specifically 2001”, and your evidence is quite 14 A. Correct.
15 clear , it uses the word ” specifically ”, but when you 15 Q. ” ... I think is the term, where effectively you place
16 discuss it in your evidence in these proceedings, it ’s 16 your trust in another entity .”
17 given a more woolly time frame of 2000 to 2002, so which 17 Then further down the page, around H, you note, in
18 of those is accurate, Mr Jenkins? 18 response to a question:
19 A. Well, for the evidence I was giving in Norway, I was 19 ”Is this something that interested Dr Wright?”
20 given the luxury of going through previous emails, and 20 Your response was:
21 through that process I found out that I am a hoarder of 21 ”Oh, look, in terms of back then it was −− it −− not
22 emails that go back to the early to mid−’90s, so at that 22 necessarily a thing it was kind of more of a passing
23 time I was able to be quite specific around the E−Gold 23 note than anything else, because topics of discussion
24 emails, so I knew at that stage that it was specifically 24 again at that time around 2001, I was working with
25 in 2001. And that’s when I used the E−Gold service in 25 COMindico, was very much focused around

57 59

1 order to buy, I think it was either some memory for 1 telecommunications ... and networks.”
2 a computer system or a hard drive for a computer system, 2 So your evidence in Granath, was that this −−
3 but either way, there were emails specifically in 3 whether Dr Wright was interested in E−Gold was, to use
4 reference to E−Gold where I paid for something used 4 your words ”kind of more of a passing note”; is that
5 the E−Gold escrow service. 5 correct?
6 Q. Thank you for that clarification , Mr Jenkins. 6 A. I ’m just reading it now. Look, I don’t know what
7 So, are you saying that you didn’t undertake that 7 the words were between the ”was”, the ”it” and the,
8 exercise when you prepared your evidence in these 8 ”not” and the ”(inaudible)” bit , so I ’m just
9 proceedings? 9 interpreting that −− that paragraph that’s there. It
10 A. That’s correct . I was explicitly told not to make 10 would seem to suggest that −−
11 reference to anything previously . 11 Q. Well, I ’ ll ask you −−
12 Q. Mr Jenkins, could we please look at the tenth page of 12 A. −− it was amongst a whole range of other things we were
13 your statement now {E/6/10}. These are the four 13 talking about at the time and E−Gold was one of them.
14 documents that are supported in your witness statement. 14 Q. Okay, thank you.
15 These are the documents that you were shown when you 15 Then while we’re in this part of the transcript , if
16 prepared this statement and you will note that the first 16 we could please go over the page to page 7 {L18/62/7}
17 of those is the transcript that I ’ve just taken you to. 17 and around line D, or just above D, there’s a question:
18 Do you accept that you read this transcript before 18 ”How much contact did you have with Dr Wright in
19 giving −− before this witness statement in these 19 this period?”
20 proceedings was finalised ? 20 Now, just so you understand, this is now post−2002.
21 A. Interesting you say that, because I was never sent that 21 You can see that from the top of the page. So I believe
22 document that’s referred to as ID_004531. So you 22 that what you’re saying here is you’re talking about
23 showing me on the screen today is the first time I ’ve 23 Commonwealth Bank of Australia, so this was 2002 to
24 seen that. 24 2008; is that right?
25 Q. So that’s the first time you’ve seen the transcript ? 25 A. Correct. Yes, that’s right .

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Q. And your answer to the question was: 1 comparing it with, you know, the trust in a −− in
2 ”Around this time ... the kind of cadence was, 2 a promissory note, was it any better? You were, on
3 you know, we wouldn’t catch up −− it isn’t an every week 3 the one hand, trusting a reserve bank in the issuing of
4 kind of cadence, it would be maybe twelve months, 4 the paper notes, and you were transferring that trust to
5 eighteen months would pass, where we could kind of get 5 somebody providing an escrow service, so nonetheless,
6 together on one−on−one, but I’d often, you know, bump 6 you continue to trust in someone rather than relying
7 into Craig or his wife Lyn(?), at maybe an IT 7 totally on trustworthy technology.
8 conference, [and they’d] have a stand there ... ” 8 Q. And it was you that was interested in E−Gold, not
9 A. That’s correct . 9 Dr Wright; is that correct? You were the one that was
10 Q. We’ll come on to your recollection of things that 10 actually invested in E−Gold?
11 happened at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia shortly. 11 A. So when I say invested in E−Gold, don’t misinterpret
12 So is that correct , the cadence of meeting was every 12 that. I was the one that initially used E−Gold in order
13 18 months to two years in this period? 13 to make an online purchase, so I wasn’t an investor in
14 A. During that period, that’s correct . 14 E−Gold. I’m not an investor in anything. But in terms
15 Q. Now, if we can go back to your statement, page 5 15 of E−Gold, that was a means to −− in order to purchase
16 {E/6/5}, paragraph 16, the very last sentence of 16 something online and that was the mechanism available
17 paragraph 16, you say: 17 and that was the escrow service available in Australia
18 ”We didn’t have ongoing conversations around other 18 at the time.
19 digital currencies , but the concept of trust was 19 Q. So you were the one at the time using E−Gold. There
20 a relatively consistent feature of what we talked about 20 doesn’t appear to be any record of Dr Wright using
21 over the next few years.” 21 E−Gold. Do you know if Dr Wright was also using E−Gold
22 So your evidence there is it wasn’t something you 22 or was it just yourself ?
23 were regularly talking about, digital currencies , it was 23 A. I ’m unsure. I know that Craig knew about E−Gold and
24 something that was one of many topics that you touched 24 knew, you know, about escrow services. E−Gold, I think,
25 upon over the years with Dr Wright; is that fair ? 25 probably at the time had several other competitors as

61 63

1 A. I think it ’s fair to say that, during that time, we were 1 well , but E−Gold was the one that was quite prevalent in
2 talking more about the trust side of things rather than 2 Australia .
3 digital currencies per se. It was more to do with −− 3 Q. Can you remember the name of those other competitors
4 I think it was in relation to −− to paying for −− for 4 from that time?
5 a lunch at one stage, but essentially , the trust that’s 5 A. Most of them begin with −− either had ”gold” in them or
6 placed in a piece of paper, a piece of paper being a, 6 started with ”E”, but there were certainly a range of
7 you know, £5 note, £10 note, whatever it is, and it was 7 them available globally . But as I said , in Australia ,
8 conversations around why you trust a piece of paper that 8 the prevalent one was E−Gold and it was the one referred
9 you hold in your wallet rather than something else that 9 to most in the IT magazines at the time as being, of
10 could be proven to be something more than just 10 the mixed bag available, probably the most trustworthy.
11 a promissory note. But essentially , the conversations 11 Q. But can you name −− can you remember the details −−
12 were on the trust rather than actual digital currencies 12 I appreciate it ’s a long time ago, but can you remember
13 at that time. 13 the details or the specific names of any other providers
14 Q. Then, in the middle of paragraph 16, you give −− it’s 14 at that time?
15 not a verbatim quote, in fairness to you, but you do say 15 A. Off the top of my head right now, no, I can’t. Could
16 these were essentially his words and you put in quotes 16 I refer to them in my emails, as I −− you know, for
17 in italics something Craig said along these lines : 17 the previous court case, and refer to other such
18 ”That’s all good and escrow as a concept has been 18 services that I was looking at at the time? Yes,
19 around for a long time, but you’re still trusting 19 I probably have that information. Do I have it right
20 someone.” 20 now and has it been refreshed in the last couple of
21 Now, that quote is from a very long time ago. 21 years? No, it hasn’t.
22 You’re not suggesting those are his actual words, are 22 Q. I do appreciate it is a long time ago, Mr Jenkins, and
23 you? 23 I make no criticism of that.
24 A. Words to that effect. Certainly when we were talking 24 So just to clarify −−
25 about escrow and talking about E−Gold, where we were 25 A. Yeah, but −− but just to clarify that as well , if I −−

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 if I may. There were certain −− from the court case in 1 Later on, we were talking about, for example −− I think
2 Norway, I was given permission and was asked to 2 it ’s in this document around OPRA, we were talking about
3 specifically search for information in my emails and 3 grid computers. So at the time, I was working with
4 SMSs and anything else. If there was nothing there, 4 the −− with the Commonwealth Bank and the CSRL around
5 I was asked to look for in terms of alternative means of 5 building an operational risk adviser , which was a grid
6 −− of escrow services back then and I wouldn’t have 6 computing capability to run Monte Carlo simulations.
7 looked for it . So it ’s disappeared into the annals of 7 We’d be talking about that kind of capability .
8 time. Where my more recent knowledge and memory 8 Q. I ’m going to come on to that in a second. But in
9 prevails is based on the fact that, you know, 18 months 9 Granath, you also mentioned that you discussed
10 ago, I was searching through these emails and it 10 non−financial topics. You just weren’t talking about
11 refreshed my memory. So I wasn’t asked specifically 11 techy stuff with Dr Wright, were you?
12 what other escrow−like services were available back 12 A. It was mostly techy stuff, without a doubt. Not
13 then, so it ’s not as fresh in my memory as it was for 13 necessarily financial . So it might have been around −−
14 other things. 14 at the time I found myself at the intersection between
15 Q. Perfectly understandable, Mr Jenkins. 15 mobile, mobile telephony, having worked with Vodafone,
16 Do you think then that you might have been able to 16 who were the largest mobile carrier at the time, and
17 give a more accurate reflection , or recollection , 17 banking; it was when mobile banking was starting to take
18 I should say, of what was happening back in this time 18 off . So then we were talking about things like what you
19 had you undertaken such searches in advance of giving 19 could do based on the fact that you had a transactional
20 this evidence in these proceedings? 20 system in the palm of your hand that you could use
21 A. Absolutely. And it wouldn’t just be recollection , it 21 anywhere at any time. So it was those kind of
22 would be factual. 22 conversations, very technical in nature, not necessarily
23 Q. It would be backed up by contemporaneous documents? 23 financial .
24 A. Correct. 24 Q. So you might have discussed telephony stuff when you
25 Q. Now, I’d like to move on to the next period of your 25 were at Vodafone and discussed banking stuff when you

65 67

1 career , which was at Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and 1 were at Commonwealth Bank of Australia; is that fair?
2 you moved there in 2002, following the dot−com bubble 2 A. And −− and vice versa. So whilst at Commonwealth Bank
3 bursting; is that correct? 3 then talking about what mobile capability in your hand
4 A. That’s correct , yes. 4 and how it could be used to improve the −− the −−
5 Q. And you say in paragraph 17, which is still on page 5 5 you know, the interactions as far as banking’s concerned
6 {E/6/5}, that in 2002 to 2008, you and Dr Wright talked 6 or anything else .
7 about a whole range of things; do you see that? 7 Q. You don’t mention anything about mobile banking in your
8 A. Yes, that’s right . 8 statement here, do you, Mr Jenkins?
9 Q. And in your statement you mention conversations with 9 A. No. No, I don’t.
10 Dr Wright about topics you discussed that could relate, 10 Q. Now, in paragraph 17, that’s when you say that you first
11 or may relate to some of the broad concepts relating to 11 recall the word ”blockchain” in 2008. That was a very
12 Bitcoin; correct? 12 precise year, Mr Jenkins. Is it your evidence that
13 A. That’s correct , yes. 13 Dr Wright told you the word ”blockchain” in 2008?
14 Q. But you say you also talked about other topics. What 14 A. That’s my recollection, that’s correct .
15 other non−financial topics did you discuss with 15 Q. And then you give evidence to tie in your recollection
16 Dr Wright in this period? 16 and your discussions with Dr Wright to Bitcoin later,
17 A. So during my time at Commonwealth Bank, I was asked 17 and indeed you note at the third line up from the bottom
18 initially to look at the firewall set up at 18 of para 17, at the end there, that you are looking back
19 Commonwealth Bank and was involved in the RFP process, 19 at all of this with the hindsight of what we now know;
20 I looked into the design of the firewall architecture 20 is that correct?
21 for the −− for the Bank. So at the time, because Craig 21 A. That’s correct , yes. And the other hindsight being,
22 was −− was doing this kind of work for lots of other 22 you know, the −− again, the research I did for
23 companies, we were discussing, you know, what 23 the previous court case, where I was able to, again,
24 the prevailing patterns were for architectural solutions 24 whether there were emails exchanged or whether they
25 for −− for the likes of financial institutions globally . 25 were, you know, things that were being discussed at the

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 time, around that time. 1 all right? But in terms of whether those emails do or
2 Q. But there isn’t a single document that you have included 2 don’t exist , they may well exist .
3 in your witness statement that mentions 3 Q. Okay.
4 the word ”blockchain” from this time period, is there? 4 Are you aware that the word ”blockchain” doesn’t
5 A. Is there a document where I’ve referenced blockchain? 5 actually appear in the Bitcoin White Paper, either as
6 No, there isn ’ t a necessary(?) document, no. 6 one or two words, Mr Jenkins?
7 Q. So we’ve only got your memory to go on this; is that 7 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
8 correct? 8 Q. Now, in paragraph 18 of your statement, you say that you
9 A. There may well be emails that I have that make reference 9 recall discussing fiat currencies with Dr Wright in
10 to blockchain, but I was asked not to refer to any −− 10 around mid−2005. Now, just pausing there, and I don’t
11 any previous emails or any previous anything other than 11 think this will be controversial , you’re not suggesting
12 what was brought up at −− in Norway. So I may well have 12 that just because Dr Wright may have had an interest in
13 evidence that −− that explicitly references blockchain 13 currencies and whether they could be trusted, that that
14 in emails. 14 was something that would point towards him being
15 Q. So you think you may have emails from 2008 involving 15 Satoshi Nakamoto, are you?
16 Dr Wright that would have the word ”blockchain” in them; 16 A. No, I’m not. It was literally to do with
17 is that correct? 17 the fiat −backed currencies and what had happened −− and
18 A. It ’s quite possible , yes. 18 this was a bit of an education that Craig was taking me
19 Q. And you have just told us that you were told not to look 19 on around what it was to be a fiat−backed currency as
20 for such; is that right? 20 opposed to when that interconnection between the paper
21 A. I was told for this court case not to look for such, 21 currency and the gold backing behind it separated at
22 that’s correct . 22 a point in time.
23 Q. Now, are you aware of Adam Back’s Hashcash paper, 23 Q. And in mid−2005, your evidence in the first sentence of
24 Mr Jenkins? 24 paragraph 18 is that you were discussing currency with
25 A. I ’m not specifically familiar with that, no. 25 Dr Wright because of one of your projects at

69 71

1 Q. That’s from 1997 and the word ”block chain”, albeit in 1 the Commonwealth Bank of Australia; is that right?
2 two words, is mentioned in that. 2 A. That’s correct , yes.
3 Do you think that you may have remembered 3 Q. So the conversation came up because it was a project
4 the word ”blockchain” being mentioned based on what you 4 that you were working on and I assume that you raised it
5 now know about Bitcoin and the blockchain when looking 5 with Dr Wright; correct?
6 back at that time period? 6 A. It could have been raised either way, but −− but
7 A. No, I don’t. I don’t believe I ’ve connected something 7 certainly we were talking about −− at the time, 2005,
8 that I wouldn’t have known about previously. Blockchain 8 the projects I was working on then were certainly
9 wasn’t something I was looking into or had any 9 around, you know, banking and trust. So those
10 experience or exposure to back in 1997. 10 conversations that were taking place may have been
11 Q. We’re in 2008 at the minute, Mr Jenkins. That’s when 11 started by myself or by Craig, but I do remember that
12 you say. 12 the term ”fiat currency” was something that Craig raised
13 A. I ’m sorry, I thought you made reference to the fact that 13 with me that I then took upon myself to research a bit
14 it was first brought up in a paper back in 1997. I may 14 more about, and it was in relation to why you trust
15 have misheard you, apologies. 15 a piece of paper that’s a promissory note when that
16 Q. That −− sorry, that is I was just pointing out that it 16 promissory note used to, when it was a fiat−backed
17 was mentioned in that, but when you’re talking about it 17 currency, have a corresponding amount of gold in reserve
18 in 2008, are you sure that your recollection is accurate 18 in order to back up that piece of paper.
19 bearing in mind the passing of time and bearing in mind 19 Q. Mr Jenkins, it’s very important that we’re quite precise
20 that you don’t have any documents to back up what you 20 here, because what your evidence says in paragraph 18,
21 have just told us? 21 and I’ ll read it out, it says:
22 A. Okay, as I stated previously , I may well have documents 22 ”For example, some of the conversations I was having
23 that are able to back it up, all right? They were, as 23 with Craig in mid−2005 were around currency because of
24 part of this court case, I was asked explicitly not to 24 the specific nature of one of my projects with
25 refer or refresh my memory in any way, shape or form, 25 [Commonwealth Bank of Australia] at the time.”

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Now, Mr Jenkins, I’ll put it to you that it must 1 ’90s; is that fair ?
2 have been you that raised that topic , because Dr Wright 2 A. Yes, that’s fair to say.
3 cannot have known what project you were working on 3 Q. Then at paragraph 21, further down the page {E/6/6}, you
4 within Commonwealth Bank of Australia unless you told 4 say that you and Dr Wright were talking about the design
5 him. Do you accept that must be the position? 5 of the OPRA system. Again, this discussion arose from
6 A. That is a logical position you’ve raised , yes. 6 your work, Mr Jenkins, not Dr Wright; isn’t that fair ?
7 Q. Thank you. 7 A. That’s correct , yes.
8 What was the name of that project? 8 Q. And then further down the page at paragraph 22, you give
9 A. The name I can’t remember. 9 evidence addressing the discussions that you say you had
10 Q. You can’t remember the detail of the name of that 10 with Dr Wright on breaking up computational tasks, and
11 project from 2005. Is that because of the passing of 11 you say you recall , in paragraph 22, how to break up
12 time? 12 computational tasks over nodes; do you see that?
13 A. It could well be the passage of time. It isn ’ t 13 A. Yes, I do.
14 something I’ve been asked to recollect or asked to 14 Q. And again, do you accept that nodes are a basic computer
15 research in any way. 15 science term?
16 Q. So again, you can only −− 16 A. Yes, they are.
17 A. But the −− but the conversation was triggered by, 17 Q. Again, we don’t have any documents to back up this
18 essence, the next sentence, which is where I was looking 18 conversation, do we, Mr Jenkins? No disclosed document,
19 to pay for lunch with −− with some cash and that’s where 19 I should say.
20 the conversation was −− was spawned from. 20 A. Yeah, no disclosed documents, yes, clearly .
21 Q. Then over the page, paragraph 19 {E/6/6}, you describe 21 Q. And again, you accept, do you not, that you’re now
22 another project that Commonwealth Bank of Australia was 22 looking back on these conversations through the prism of
23 working on. You discussed this project with Dr Wright 23 hindsight?
24 in around mid−2007, and we can see that from the first 24 A. No, I think OPRA was referred to in the −− in
25 line of paragraph 19, and it was a system called OPRA, 25 the previous court case, so I would have refreshed my

73 75

1 or ... is that how you pronounced it back then? 1 memory in the last 18 months or so around OPRA.
2 A. ”OPRA”, that’s right. Operational risk adviser , 2 Q. And then down in paragraph 23, you say another aspect of
3 correct . 3 your discussions was ensuring computational tasks were
4 Q. And the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was working with 4 reconstituted in the right way; is that correct?
5 the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 5 A. That’s correct , yes.
6 Organisation to try and predict future prices in various 6 Q. And again, in the second sentence you say, quite fairly
7 commodities; correct? 7 to you, you say:
8 A. That’s correct , yes. 8 ”So that would have involved, potentially ,
9 Q. And then, in paragraph 20, you go on to say that 9 a conversation between myself and Craig around how to
10 CSIRO −− I don’t know again if that’s how that acronym 10 ensure that.”
11 is pronounced −− involved grid computing; correct? 11 So, again, your evidence here is only that you may
12 A. That’s correct , yes. 12 potentially have had this conversation; correct? You
13 Q. Now, of course, grid computing, you’re not suggesting, 13 can’t be sure?
14 are you, that the work with OPRA and CSIRO created grid 14 A. Well, I like to use analogies, and when in conversation
15 computing? Grid computing had been around for a while 15 with Craig, very often the concepts we discuss are very
16 at that point, hadn’t? 16 ephemeral and as a consequence I try and relate it to
17 A. That’s correct . 17 something that’s a bit more familiar to me. So
18 Q. Indeed, later on in your statement {E/6/8}, you mention 18 conversations around here would have been, for example,
19 the SETI project, and the SETI project was launched in 19 whether it was something like that was similar to
20 the late ’90s and allowed users to download a program 20 BitTorrent for example. I don’t think I mention
21 that would help compute a large volume of data gathered 21 BitTorrent at all in this witness statement. But in
22 in space; isn ’ t that correct? 22 terms of being able to understand something to a level
23 A. That’s correct . 23 of detail where I can hand on heart say, ”I understand
24 Q. That wasn’t the first instance of grid computing, but 24 what you just said Craig”, I would often make reference
25 it ’s probably one of the most famous ones from the late 25 to −− to analogies that were more familiar to me. So,

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 in terms of this conversation, it may have been 1 then that’s why I would have that timeline on there.
2 something that −− that Craig raised, but it was 2 Q. And unfortunately, we have been totally deprived of that
3 certainly part and parcel of the conversations I was 3 exercise of a search in these proceedings, haven’t we?
4 having with Craig at the time. 4 A. We have, correct.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr Jenkins. 5 Q. Then in paragraph 28, towards the bottom of the page,
6 Now, moving on over the page {E/6/7}, we move 6 you give some slightly more detailed evidence on when
7 forward chronologically in your work history to your 7 you heard the term ”blockchain” or ”chain of blocks”.
8 time at BT, and at paragraph 25, you mention that you 8 Again, just because I need to put this to you, you don’t
9 and Dr Wright were having conversations about 9 have any documents to back up that conversation, do you,
10 alternatives to central banks at the tail end of your 10 Mr Jenkins?
11 time with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia; do you see 11 A. Only the context around −− and I think it was
12 that? 12 the attachments to this particular witness statement,
13 A. Yes, I do. 13 where there was a recollection around when the napkin
14 Q. So again, you and Dr Wright were discussing banking or 14 drawing took place.
15 central banks at a time that you were working at a bank; 15 Q. Yes, but we don’t have the napkin drawing, do we?
16 correct? 16 A. No, we don’t.
17 A. That’s correct , yes. 17 Q. And indeed −−
18 Q. Then you left Commonwealth Bank of Australia for BT in 18 A. It was something that −− that Craig scrumpled up and put
19 January 2008, right? 19 into his pocket just to make sure that no IP was left on
20 A. That’s correct . And the nature of that leaving and −− 20 the table .
21 and the context for that was, I referred to it as 21 Q. And indeed, we do have one or two emails that lead up to
22 ”jumping the vendor fence”, so BT were already providing 22 a lunch happening, but those emails don’t mention any of
23 services to the Commonwealth Bank. I had a colleague 23 this detail , do they? They’re just discussing
24 that had left Commonwealth Bank to go to BT and she’d 24 the organising the lunch.
25 asked if I ’d join her there to deliver a project back to 25 A. That’s correct , yes.

77 79

1 Commonwealth Bank. So I’d left, but all I did was 1 Q. Then over the page {E/6/8}, paragraph 29. We have just
2 change vendor hats, if you understand that. 2 mentioned it, but you tie that discussion in
3 Q. Yes, of course. 3 the previous paragraph to a lunch that you say you had
4 Then in paragraph 26, you say that you believe you 4 on 2 December 2008, and we have seen obviously there was
5 discussed concepts relating to blockchain in late 2008 5 a lunch, we don’t dispute that a lunch took place. We
6 or early 2009; correct? 6 do dispute of course whether −− what specific
7 A. That’s correct , yes. 7 conversations happened then, but we don’t dispute
8 Q. And as I’ve put to you a number of times already, you 8 the fact of the lunch.
9 are looking at these conversations through what you now 9 Mr Jenkins, do you accept that it’s very hard to
10 have been told to be true, which is that Dr Wright is 10 remember the details of a lunch that happened almost
11 actually Satoshi Nakamoto; is that correct? 11 16 years ago?
12 A. At that time, if it had come out at that time, then, 12 A. I would accept that −− that statement, but understand
13 yes, it ’s the case, but in −− in terms of Craig being 13 that these were few and far between, except for this
14 Satoshi, that isn ’ t something that I −− that was 14 period of time where there were a few of them in −− in
15 realised until much later. 15 short succession, and they were in short succession
16 Q. I accept that, but I ’m saying you are looking back at 16 because it was around the time the GFC hit Australia.
17 events that happened in your own career history, but 17 I think, at the time, Craig was −− was between roles,
18 you’re looking back at those events to try and see if 18 between BDO and another company; at the −− my time,
19 anything of the things that you discussed with Dr Wright 19 I was impacted by the GFC. So it was −− it wasn’t just
20 support his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto; correct? 20 the passage of time, there was a moment in time where
21 A. That wasn’t the intent of looking back. The −− 21 people can look back and go, ”What were you doing at
22 the intent of looking back was, as I said , for that 22 that time”, and that’s why it has an element of it being
23 previous case, in terms of doing a search in previous 23 more vivid perhaps than just the general passage of
24 emails and email correspondence that had taken place, 24 time.
25 and if there was mention of blockchain around that time, 25 Q. When you say ”GFC”, you’re referring to the financial

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 crash of 2008? 1 Q. −− but you don’t have any real recollection beyond that?
2 A. That’s correct , yes. 2 A. No, it was more an explanation of: okay, so tell me what
3 Q. And yes, and this time period is just after Dr Wright 3 −− what mining is, and then when he explained it was
4 was made redundant from BDO; correct? 4 the execution of some code on your own computer system.
5 A. That’s my understanding; correct. 5 And then it was, why, for what purpose? It was in order
6 Q. Then in paragraph 29, again, you’ve very helpfully done 6 to ... so we’re getting into the technicalities of −− of
7 this in your statement, you’ve tied your memories to 7 what mining was and what it would contribute to. In
8 certain places you were working at the time, but you say 8 terms of Bitcoin explicitly , it wasn’t necessarily
9 here that this was before you joined Westpac in 9 a term that factored into the conversation.
10 September 2011 −− sorry, September −− 10 Q. Could we now, please, play the video of your evidence in
11 A. That’s correct . 11 Granath. This is {X/13/1}.
12 Q. −− 2010; correct? 12 So Mr Jenkins, could you hear that video,
13 A. That’s correct , yes. 13 Mr Jenkins?
14 Q. Now, you say, in paragraph 30, that Dr Wright asked you 14 A. I could hear some audio, yes.
15 to do some mining and you recall that mining because of 15 Q. Okay, I just wanted to check.
16 your Welsh roots; is that correct? 16 Can we please −− again, this is your Granath
17 A. That’s right , yes. 17 evidence, and can we please go to 29 minutes and
18 Q. But again, you will accept that mining, certainly in 18 50 seconds. And then we’re going to play through until
19 the context of data mining is a fairly standard computer 19 30 minutes and 50 seconds.
20 science term. Do you accept that? 20 (Video footage played)
21 A. Yes, it is . That’s correct , yes. I was involved in 21 So Mr Jenkins, your very clear evidence in Granath
22 SETI, which is in the next paragraph; so, yes, I was 22 and I took you to the warning that you were given at
23 familiar with what −− certainly distributed computing 23 the beginning of those proceedings, your very clear
24 was, and −− and certainly, in terms of mining. In terms 24 evidence in Granath, given under oath, was that it was
25 of mining coin, that wasn’t something I was familiar 25 early 2011 when you first heard the term ”bitcoin”;

81 83

1 with at the time, which is why I needed to −− to have 1 that’s correct , isn ’ t it ?
2 that clarified for me. But certainly running code on 2 A. Yeah, I ’d say that was correct.
3 your own computer system on behalf of someone else was 3 Q. And you were quite specific about that memory,
4 something I was familiar with. 4 Mr Jenkins, indeed you mentioned it twice, and you tied
5 Q. So are you saying here that this reference to mining was 5 that memory to you being at Westpac; correct?
6 Dr Wright telling you to mine Bitcoin? 6 A. That’s correct . Yes, I did.
7 A. It was to run some code on my computer system in order 7 Q. And, of course, it was September 2010 when you started
8 to −− certainly as far as Bitcoin was concerned, where 8 at Westpac?
9 Bitcoin wasn’t necessarily mentioned, it was certainly 9 A. That’s correct , yes.
10 to run the code on a computer system so that it would 10 Q. Can we now please go back to your evidence, Mr Jenkins,
11 effectively help secure the information that was being 11 page 8, paragraph 33 {E/6/8}, and I’ll read out
12 distributed between computer nodes, and that in order to 12 the beginning of that. You say:
13 secure that in −− in a way that was trustworthy, it 13 ”I remember around 2009 or 2010 Craig asked me if
14 needed that computer computational task distributed 14 I wanted to buy some Bitcoin. This was the first time
15 across a number of nodes. 15 I heard that word, but to my mind we had discussed
16 Q. Now, details matter, Mr Jenkins, and we do need to be 16 the technology underpinning something like Bitcoin
17 quite clear about this. You’re talking about some 17 before I heard the word Bitcoin.”
18 mining here in this period, say early 2009, but are you 18 Now, your evidence you’ve given under oath today,
19 or are you not saying that Dr Wright mentioned Bitcoin 19 which you swore in not even an hour ago, said to be
20 to you in that period? 20 true, says that you first heard the term Bitcoin in 2009
21 A. So I’m saying that Bitcoin wasn’t mentioned to me 21 or 2010. That cannot be correct, can it, Mr Jenkins?
22 explicitly around that time, as far as I can recollect . 22 A. It could be correct insofar as, with the recording that
23 Q. So you’re just saying that he asked you to do some 23 was played back, I had the benefit of reference to
24 mining −− 24 materials at the time for that particular court case, so
25 A. Correct. 25 I could be quite specific with what the timing was

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 around the reference to the term ”bitcoin”. For this 1 not the video, just the transcript −− {L18/62/5}. Just
2 particular court case, I haven’t been given that luxury 2 below F, there’s a question:
3 to clarify that and to look up any evidence or any 3 ”Question: Did −− was that on a personal level,
4 emails or any kind of that other correspondence I have 4 a friendly level , or did you also cooperate on
5 that could clarify that. 5 a professional level ?
6 So, yeah, there does appear to be a discrepancy, and 6 ”Answer: Over the years it ’s been a combination of
7 it may well have been the coincidental around 2010, you 7 both. [Your answer]. Predominantly the topic of
8 could say for both of those it was around 2010, late 8 conversation, if you like , that −− tends to centre
9 2010/early 2011, around that kind of time frame. 9 around what −− is what we’re working on at the time.
10 Q. But Mr Jenkins, you were very clear in Granath, you were 10 So, you know ... I have gone through different roles
11 very clear to tie the memory of the first time you 11 with different companies, I have moved from
12 heard ”bitcoin” to being at Westpac. 12 telecommunications into banking and finance. Those
13 A. Correct. 13 conversations, the theme of the conversation, changed as
14 Q. Now, that means it cannot have been before 14 a consequence, but it was typically reflective of
15 September 2010; correct? 15 exactly what we were working on, what Craig was working
16 A. That’s correct , yes. 16 on, and what I was working on.”
17 Q. Which means it absolutely −− 17 So your evidence there was, as I think you’ve said
18 A. But nonetheless 2010. 18 earlier as well when I have been questioning you, that
19 Q. Which means it absolutely could not have been in 2009; 19 the topics of conversation with Dr Wright tended to
20 correct? 20 focus on what you were working on at the time; is that
21 A. That’s correct . That would seem to suggest that, yes. 21 correct?
22 But my statement there says, ”I remember around 2009 22 A. That’s correct , yes.
23 ...2010 [he] asked me if I wanted to buy Bitcoin”. 23 Q. Then if we go −− if we could please go to page 12 of
24 Q. Yes, but it can’t have been 2009; do you accept that? 24 the transcript {L18/62/12}, right at the top, you were
25 A. Yeah, well, that’s what ”around” means, but, yes. 25 asked:

85 87

1 Q. No, Mr Jenkins, the details matter in this , because of 1 ”Did Craig Wright ever show you or send you
2 course, by 2011 Bitcoin was much more common; back in 2 a White Paper related to Blockchain technology?”
3 early 2009, after it was released, it ’s not so. And you 3 And you answered:
4 tied it back, very specifically , to your time at 4 ”No, he didn’t, never sent me anything. There was
5 Westpac. You said, in fact , not even late 2010, you 5 one meeting, I have a recollection that he did mention
6 said early first half of 2011. So, do you accept 6 to me that he had been working on documenting, you know,
7 there’s a quite clear inconsistency between the evidence 7 what we had been discussing over a number of years, and
8 you gave in Granath, which of course was closer in time 8 he pondered and thought, ’You may get something in
9 to these events, and the evidence you’ve given in these 9 the post’ , you know?”
10 proceedings? Do you accept that as correct? 10 So your evidence in Granath, which you just accepted
11 A. As I’ve said previously , I had the benefit of −− of 11 is more reliable than your evidence in these
12 using reference material in the previous court case and 12 proceedings, you’re quite clear there that you never
13 I haven’t here, so this has been more reliant on −− on 13 received a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper; isn’t that
14 the longer term memory. 14 correct?
15 Q. So, based on that, your evidence in Granath, you must 15 A. No, that’s not correct . I think, actually , if you −−
16 accept, would be better because you had the benefit of 16 because this is a transcription of what I said , so there
17 these other documents; correct? 17 are a smattering of errors in the transcription in any
18 A. I would suggest that’s the case, yes. 18 case, and what I would more likely have said at that
19 Q. Now, Mr Jenkins, I would suggest to you that you’ve 19 stage is that, no, he didn’t send me anything.
20 clearly confused these dates and details because you’re 20 Q. So he didn’t send you −−
21 looking back at this through the prism of hindsight, 21 A. And −− he didn’t send me anything. Right? So that −−
22 knowing what you now know Dr Wright claims who he is. Do 22 it doesn’t say that he didn’t show me anything, just
23 you accept that? 23 that he didn’t send me anything, just to be specific .
24 A. No, I don’t. 24 So, could you go to the recording on that and play that
25 Q. Now, if we could go back to the Granath transcript −− 25 to actually hear what I said , as to what’s been

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 transcribed? And this is the first time I ’ve seen 1 saying it is feasible that he could be Satoshi Nakamoto.
2 the transcription , so ... 2 Are you aware, Mr Jenkins, that many other
3 Q. We can look at the −− we can look at the video ourselves 3 individuals have been identified in the media, in
4 later on. I just want to clarify with you whether you 4 cryptocurrency circles , as being possible candidates to
5 accept that, that he didn’t send you a copy of 5 be Satoshi Nakamoto such as Hal Finney, Nick Szabo,
6 the Bitcoin White Paper, or do you say −− 6 Michael Clear, Neil King, Charles Bry, Gavin Andresen,
7 A. Correct. 7 Adam Back, Ross Ulbricht, amongst others, and those are
8 Q. Okay. That’s all I wanted to clarify . So we don’t then 8 just from the articles linked to Satoshi Nakamoto on
9 need to go to the video. 9 Wikipedia? You don’t suggest that you’ve researched the
10 Then down at E on that page, or just below E, that’s 10 education, interests and abilities of all of those
11 actually the bit that we just looked at with 11 individuals and ruled them out, do you?
12 the question: 12 A. No, as I ’ve been asked to do. I ’m just trying to
13 ”When was the first time you heard the new term 13 recount, as a −− as a first person interaction with
14 Bitcoin?” 14 Craig. In terms of who else may have claimed to have
15 And that was the part that I played to you a moment 15 been Satoshi, no idea, no interest . All I ’m trying to
16 ago. 16 do is to recollect my conversation with Craig, and does
17 And then over the page to {L18/62/13}, just around 17 that stack up, logically , that he’s Satoshi, and in my
18 D, you will see a question that says: 18 opinion it does.
19 ”After that period of time, until Dr Wright was 19 Q. And the reality is you can only speculate on Dr Wright
20 outed at Satoshi Nakamoto in December 2015, did you 20 being Satoshi because you have now been told that
21 still have contact with him?” 21 Dr Wright was Satoshi and you’re looking back at your
22 And then you go on to answer that −− you can see 22 events with him through the prism of hindsight. Do you
23 that at the bottom of your answer −− you heard, like 23 accept that’s correct?
24 many others, through the news; is that correct? 24 A. Yeah, that, laid with a couple of other things, and one
25 A. That’s correct , yes. 25 −− one in particular, getting to know Craig as a person

89 91

1 Q. So you’d clearly −− he’d clearly never told you, before 1 over the years , over the long time that I ’ve known
2 you heard on the news, that he was Satoshi Nakamoto; 2 Craig. I ’ve have known him to be a very unique
3 correct? 3 individual , and I know him to be, on the one hand,
4 A. That’s correct . 4 a very shy individual , where he shies away from any form
5 Q. And then if we go down to the question just above F, you 5 of publicity , or any form of acknowledgement in some of
6 were asked: 6 the work that he does, and I see the flip side of Craig,
7 ”What was your reaction to the outing of Dr Wright 7 where he is gregarious and is , you know, the −− a person
8 as Satoshi Nakamoto?” 8 who is very passionate about what it is he’s working on,
9 And you answered: 9 or what he believes in . So, I −− that, where someone
10 ”Well, when that transpired, it gave me cause to 10 like Craig would have some kind of pseudonym associated
11 reflect and to, you know −− hindsight’s a wonderful 11 with the work that he is does and it being something
12 thing, and [coming] back and kind of replaying 12 like Satoshi, or anything else , doesn’t surprise me. So
13 the conversations that we’d had. It was an idea, 13 there was that aspect to it as well .
14 concept, around Bitcoin that evolved over many years, 14 Q. But you don’t actually know. You weren’t in the room
15 and that’s what it appeared to ... me.” 15 where it happened, so to speak, when he claims to have
16 Just to finish off : 16 been writing the Bitcoin White Paper, were you?
17 ”So, when Craig was out as Satoshi, it was a, ’Okay, 17 A. No, I wasn’t.
18 don’t know where this Satoshi name’s come from, but 18 Q. Now, I want to consider the evidence that we’ve just
19 nonetheless is it feasible , in my opinion, that Craig 19 looked at today as we’ve gone through your statement.
20 could be the inventor of Bitcoin?’ Based on my 20 You discussed network logs, because Dr Wright was
21 experience and interaction with Craig over the years , 21 working on the firewall security at Vodafone, for which
22 without a doubt.” 22 you were responsible; correct?
23 And there was a fairly −− in fairness to you, 23 A. That’s correct .
24 a quite frank admission there that you are looking at 24 Q. You discussed E−Gold, because you were involved in
25 this through the prism of hindsight and you finish by 25 E−Gold; correct?

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 A. I was using E−Gold to buy online products, that’s 1 Q. −− the suggestion was that your memory was hopeless and
2 correct . 2 that this couldn’t have −− or did not take place in 2008
3 Q. You discussed currencies in 2005, at a time you were 3 or 2009 and that your memory is poor. What do you say
4 working on a project involving such at the Commonwealth 4 to that?
5 Bank of Australia; correct? 5 A. Look, I wouldn’t claim my memory to be any better or
6 A. That’s correct . And the reason it was raised, as 6 worse than anybody else’s. What −− what I can say is,
7 I said , was when we were paying for something using 7 as I ’ve mentioned to your learned friend, in
8 cash, and that was a trigger to have a conversation 8 the previous court case, that took place just around
9 around trust, and promissory notes and fiat−backed 9 18 months ago, I was asked to go and scour through my
10 currencies . 10 emails and text messages and documentation, and as I’ve
11 Q. You discussed grid computing, because you were working 11 said , in that process, I ’ve discovered that I ’ve hoarded
12 on the OPRA system when you were at the Commonwealth 12 an enormous amount of data, and so running some search
13 Bank of Australia; correct? 13 criteria across that, it did surface a lot of evidence
14 A. That’s correct . 14 I was able to re−read. So what would have been
15 Q. A common thread here, Mr Jenkins, is that when looked 15 a recollection casting my mind back more than 20 years
16 back at, all of these interactions on these topics arose 16 has essentially been a casting my mind back around
17 because of stuff you were involved in. In fact , 17 18 months, so it’s much more fresh in my mind. I ran
18 the story of your interactions with Dr Wright, as given 18 those particular topics I was asked to investigate for
19 in your evidence, reflects your career , not his . Do you 19 the previous court case.
20 accept that’s correct? 20 Q. Now, I’m not sure I’ve got a completely accurate note of
21 A. I do. 21 this , but can we go to page 85 of the [draft] transcript
22 Q. You’re not secretly Satoshi Nakamoto, are you, 22 of today. Is that possible? Lines 14 to 16. Here you
23 Mr Jenkins? 23 were being asked about −− something about the Norwegian
24 A. No, I’m not. 24 proceedings. Yes. So, the question was:
25 Q. Quite a pause there. 25 ”So your evidence in ... ”

93 95

1 A. For effect . 1 On line 4:

2 MR MOSS: That would be quite a surprise. 2 ” ... your evidence in Granath, which you just
3 No further questions, my Lord. 3 accepted is more reliable than your evidence in these
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you. 4 proceedings, you’re quite clear that you never received
5 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I’ve got a couple of questions in 5 a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper; isn’t that correct?”
6 re−examination. 6 Then you said:
7 Re−examination by LORD GRABINER 7 ”Answer: No, that’s not correct. I think,
8 Mr Jenkins, on several occasions whilst you’ve been 8 actually , if you −− because this is a transcription of
9 questioned just now by my learned friend, your memory 9 what I said ... there are a smattering of errors in
10 has been criticised on the basis that this is all 10 the transcription in any case, and what I would more
11 hindsight and that you can’t really remember things, 11 likely have said at that stage is that, no, he didn’t
12 you’ve got a bad memory and so on. Can we just look 12 send me anything.
13 back at paragraph 26 of your witness statement {E/6/7}, 13 ”Question: So he didn’t send you −−
14 which you were shown. That, I think, is {E/6/7}. You 14 ”Answer: And −− he didn’t send me anything. So it
15 were shown that by my learned friend, and in 15 doesn’t say that he didn’t show me anything, just that
16 particular −− 16 he didn’t send me anything ...” −−
17 A. Yes. 17 A. That’s correct .
18 Q. −− there was some focus on the first sentence: 18 Q. −− ”... just to be specific .”
19 ”We also discussed in late 2008 or early 2009 19 Did he show you anything?
20 concepts relating to Blockchain, so the concept of 20 A. I do. I do remember seeing a couple of things, besides
21 having a banking ledger in the traditional sense, but 21 what Craig drew on the napkin. At a −− at a subsequent
22 having that electronically and having copies of it 22 meeting, I was shown a paper. It didn’t make mention of
23 across a number of different nodes.” 23 Bitcoin but it did make mention of −− of something
24 And then −− 24 called Timecoin, and that was something that −− as
25 A. That’s correct . 25 a White Paper that he −− he showed me at that time.

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Q. You said a bit later . When was that? 1 back to years earlier .
2 A. It would have been in that time window I was saying. It 2 LORD GRABINER: I’ve no other questions, my Lord.
3 was before I joined Westpac and −− and after those 3 MR MOSS: My Lord, I would like to have a few questions
4 series of lunches where he drew on the −− on the napkin. 4 following up to that.
5 So, around, again, 2009/2010. 5 LORD GRABINER: Well, I object to that.
6 Q. And could you describe a little bit more fully 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I’m going to allow it, because you’ve
7 the context in which that conversation took place? 7 elicited some quite important new evidence.
8 Where were you, for example? 8 LORD GRABINER: Well, my Lord, but it arose directly out of
9 A. It would have been in −− in one of the many cafes or 9 the cross−examination.
10 restaurants that −− that Craig and I attended over 10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: But it’s surprising it hasn’t been in
11 the years , and it would have been just to, kind of, run 11 any witness statement.
12 through and to show the fact that the White Paper had 12 LORD GRABINER: I totally agree.
13 been produced off the back of some of the conversations 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: So I’m going to allow further
14 we’d been having, and the drawings were done on −− on 14 cross−examination.
15 the napkins and this was the −− the fruit of his labour. 15 Further cross−examination by MR MOSS
16 Q. I ’m going to show you a document and I want to ask you 16 MR MOSS: Very briefly, Mr Jenkins. How many times do you
17 if you recognise the document. Could you be shown −− or 17 mention Timecoin in your witness statement?
18 could we look at {CSW/31/1}. That’s a Timecoin paper, 18 A. Not at all .
19 ”A peer−to−peer electronic cash system”, with 19 Q. How many times do you mention Timecoin in your Granath
20 Craig Wright’s name at the top of it. Do you recognise 20 evidence?
21 that document? 21 A. Not at all .
22 A. As far as I can recollect that far back, because this 22 Q. When Timecoin was mentioned to you, I noticed that you
23 isn ’ t something that was discussed in the −− in 23 looked down in front of you. Is ”Timecoin” written on
24 the Granath court case, but, yes, it does look certainly 24 a piece of paper in front of you?
25 similar to the document that I saw, yes. 25 A. Yes, it is .

97 99

1 Q. And what, if any, conversation can you recall in 1 Q. Why is it written on a piece of paper in front of you?
2 association with it at the time it was shown to you? 2 A. Because I have −− my Lord, I have ”Nokia Check Point
3 A. Well, the key word for me was −− was ”time”. Where 3 Firewall 1”, I have ”Timecoin”, I have ”eBay/PayPal”.
4 I cast my mind back to the initial firewall 4 These are things that I need to make sure that −− that
5 implementation that we did at Vodafone, and when we were 5 are clearly understood, as far as this particular
6 discussing around this White Paper and some of the −− 6 evidence is concerned.
7 the drawings that were done on the napkin, a time server 7 Q. And who told you that those things need to be clearly
8 plays a critical role in the −− in the solution, and 8 understood?
9 that was part of the −− not only a −− a serial increment 9 A. Myself.
10 around the entries that go into a log file but also 10 Q. Your son? What’s your son’s name?
11 the associated timestamp with those, and what wasn’t 11 A. Myself.
12 mentioned, but was brought up today, was around 12 Q. Oh, sorry, yourself ?
13 the hashing of that. So when you actually looked at 13 A. By myself, yes.
14 the −− the log file text itself , you didn’t necessarily 14 Q. I thought you said your son?
15 see the serialised number and/or the plain text date and 15 A. No. I don’t have a son, that I ’m aware of.
16 timestamp on −− on each entry, but what you did see is − 16 Q. What else? Could you read out everything else that’s
17 is a hashed version of it , and the hashed version is 17 written on your notes in front of you, please?
18 just an encrypted version of it , so it was less prone to 18 A. It has:
19 −− to being tampered with. 19 ”Questions being asked.
20 Those −− those, and that conversation around 20 ”Usher.
21 the time server , and this concept then of using the time 21 ”My Lord.
22 server as part of Timecoin, was something that was 22 ”Nokia Check Point FW−1.
23 discussed. It was −− it was a relatively esoteric part 23 ”Timecoin.
24 of −− of, you know, what this solution is, but 24 ”[And] eBay/PayPal.”
25 nonetheless it was something that I was able to relate 25 That’s it that’s written on the paper (indicates ).

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Q. So you wrote Timecoin down −− 1 In terms of anything to do with a White Paper, if

2 A. If you can see that. 2 there were any questions that were going to come up as
3 Q. We can’t see that. That’s okay. 3 far as the White Paper was concerned, as I’ve said quite
4 A. Yes, okay. 4 clearly , I ’ve never received or been sent anything in
5 Q. You wrote Timecoin down on that piece of paper before 5 relation to a Bitcoin White Paper, and that’s
6 your evidence started? 6 unequivocal.
7 A. Yes, I did. 7 When it comes to ”Timecoin”, that is a term of
8 Q. And who told you to write that down? 8 phrase that I have been familiar with in the past, that
9 A. Nobody told me to write it down. 9 I recollected during this conversation that we’ve been
10 Q. But Mr Jenkins, you have not mentioned Timecoin in any 10 having. That is a White Paper that I did see and was
11 evidence, either here or in Granath before. Where on 11 never sent.
12 earth did your recollection of Timecoin come from? 12 And the other one around ”eBay” and ”PayPal”, when
13 A. The recollection of Timecoin came about when I was in 13 I read through the witness statement and I recognised
14 preparation for this particular court case. 14 that there was some ambiguity around eBay and PayPal.
15 Q. And what was it that brought −− 15 What I meant to convey, which wasn’t in this witness
16 A. In terms of −− there’s −− there’s lots of reference to 16 statement, was the use of escrow because eBay, when it
17 a Bitcoin White Paper and I remember never being shown 17 was launched, didn’t have any PayPal online payment
18 in any way, shape or form a Bitcoin White Paper, purely 18 capabilities , I needed to use something like an escrow
19 and simply. 19 service , which was where E−Gold came into it.
20 Q. You mentioned at the start that you had seen some 20 So they were notes I was making as part of the −−
21 coverage of this . Do you think that your reference to 21 this interaction .
22 Timecoin may have come from observing coverage of this 22 Q. But you said earlier that you made the note before this
23 case, Mr Jenkins? 23 evidence started ; is that correct? Bearing in mind −−
24 A. I ’ve no idea if Timecoin was ever mentioned as part of 24 A. As far as the ”questions being asked”, ”usher” and
25 this court case, no. 25 ”my Lord”, that’s correct.

101 103

1 Q. And Mr Jenkins, did Dr Wright or anybody associated with 1 Q. Are you saying you wrote ”Timecoin” down during
2 Dr Wright tell you to mention Timecoin in your evidence 2 the course of the evidence, bearing in mind, Mr Jenkins,
3 today? 3 that we’ve all been watching you this entire time and
4 A. No, they didn’t. 4 I don’t think anybody saw you write anything during
5 Q. And just out of fairness , given what has happened, 5 the course of your evidence. Are you saying that you
6 I need to put it to you, we will suggest that you have 6 wrote the word ”Timecoin” down after I started
7 been prepared for your evidence and that you wrote 7 questioning you, or was it written down before I started
8 Timecoin down in advance with the intention of slipping 8 questioning you?
9 it in when it has never been mentioned in any evidence 9 A. ”Timecoin”, ”Nokia Check Point Firewall−1” and
10 that you’ve given in either these proceedings or 10 ”eBay/PayPal”, were all written during the course of
11 Granath. Do you accept that? 11 this interaction .
12 A. No, these were notes that I took during the course of 12 Q. I would suggest to you that that is a lie , Mr Jenkins,
13 this particular interaction rather than anything I wrote 13 and you did not write it down and that you wrote this
14 before the interaction . 14 before and that somebody told you to get it out.
15 Q. That’s not what you said earlier when I asked you, 15 One last question −−
16 Mr Jenkins. You said the note had been prepared before. 16 LORD GRABINER: Let him answer that question.
17 What is the truth? 17 MR MOSS: Can you answer the question, Mr Jenkins.
18 A. The truth is that, ”my Lord” was something that I wrote 18 A. Well, that’s simply not correct . I did write ”my Lord”
19 on there in reference to how I need to refer to 19 beforehand, I did write when the usher was telling me
20 the judge as part of this case. 20 what the process was that we would be going through
21 The other items in terms of ”Nokia Check Point 21 prior to this court case, I did write that down.
22 Firewall−1” was in relation to the firewall that was 22 I wrote there’s a heading here ”Questions I’m being
23 used as part of the interaction with −− with Vodafone. 23 asked” so I could write some things down in case there
24 I wanted to make sure that I remembered that to that 24 were lengthy questions being asked, which is why I’ve
25 level of detail in case that was asked. 25 got a pen and the paper next to me. And during

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 that course of conversation where we were talking about 1 (Pause).

2 various things at Vodafone, etc, is where I’ve just been 2 We will have to take instructions , I ’m sorry.
3 making some notes, just as we’ve been speaking. 3 MR HOUGH: We’re in a similar position. I think it might be
4 Q. Finally , my final question, Mr Jenkins, is it your 4 within the purview of the Madden report that’s to be
5 position now that you first remembered Timecoin today in 5 served tomorrow, but I’m not 100% sure.
6 the course of me questioning you? 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. As I understand it, it’s
7 A. I −− I’ve remembered that particular title of that 7 ID_006565. Okay.
8 document in the course of the conversation we’ve had 8 MR GUNNING: Well, if it is that one, it’s also the one that
9 today, yes. 9 was subject to that password, Bitcoin 11, that
10 MR MOSS: I would suggest to you that is not true, 10 I mentioned the other day.
11 Mr Jenkins, but I accept I ’ve already put that to you 11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Ah, okay, yes. Yes, that makes sense.
12 and you deny it. 12 Good. Okay, let’s continue with the next witness
13 I have no further questions, my Lord. 13 and you can keep me updated on that question. Thanks.
14 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, there’s one other witness, but 14 LORD GRABINER: I think there are a few of these documents
15 I assume that that will be after the adjournment. 15 in the bundle. That’s not the only one, I think.
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I’m sure, yes.
17 Mr Jenkins, thank you for your evidence. You’re now 17 LORD GRABINER: So, my Lord, if you’re happy that we should
18 released from your oath. Thank you. 18 proceed −−
19 A. Fantastic. Thank you, my Lord. 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, please.
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 20 LORD GRABINER: −− the next witness is Mr Yousuf.
21 (The witness withdrew) 21 MR SHOAIB YOUSUF (sworn)
22 LORD GRABINER: What time do you want to resume, my Lord? 22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, presumably the witness is 23 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER
24 expecting 2 o’clock, is he? 24 LORD GRABINER: Mr Yousuf, you have a separate screen in
25 MR MOSS: My lord, if we start at, say, 2.10, I’m also 25 front of you, do you?

105 107

1 cross−examining this afternoon, we will still get 1 A. No, I don’t.

2 finished in time if we start at 10 past 2. 2 Q. If you say yes or no. Nodding your head −−
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 3 A. No.
4 MR MOSS: So, so long as I’m assuming that he can be 4 Q. −− won’t work. You don’t have any other screen in front
5 notified , that’s probably easiest for everybody 5 of you?
6 involved, rather than a very rushed lunch. 6 A. No.
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, let’s say 2.10, then. Thank you. 7 Q. Let’s just test that, shall we. Could {E/7/1} be put
8 (1.12 pm) 8 up. Do you see that?
9 (The short adjournment) 9 A. Yes, I can see this screen.
10 (2.10 pm) 10 Q. Very good.
11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Just before we continue with the next 11 Is that the front page of your witness statement?
12 witness, I ’ve got a question about the document that was 12 A. That’s correct .
13 shown to Mr Jenkins in re−examination. As I understand 13 Q. Could you take it to {E/7/5}, please.
14 it , this document was first sent by Dr Wright to his 14 And do you see that signature? Is that your
15 solicitors on 25 January of this year. The experts say 15 signature?
16 it is added to the Samsung Drive between 17 and 16 A. That’s correct , my Lord.
17 19 September 2023, but they couldn’t access it because 17 Q. And are the contents of this statement true?
18 it was encrypted and password protected, but it was sent 18 A. That’s correct , my Lord.
19 to Dr Wright by Mr Mayaka in an email of 19 LORD GRABINER: Thank you.
20 10 September 2023. 20 Cross−examination by MR MOSS
21 The question is, have any of the experts been able 21 MR MOSS: Good afternoon, Mr Yousuf.
22 to analyse that file ? 22 Just before I get into asking you some questions,
23 LORD GRABINER: I don’t know the answer to that from my 23 can I just check whether you have watched any of
24 side . Would your Lordship let me get −− see if I can 24 the Dr Wright’s evidence over the last seven days?
25 get some instructions. 25 A. No, I have not, my Lord.

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Q. You don’t need to refer to me as ”my Lord”, Mr Yousuf. 1 Q. Now, you mention in paragraph 7 that in the period 2006
2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: He’s giving his answers to me, so that’s 2 to 2010, you had, with Dr Wright, what you
3 fine . But you don’t need to. 3 term ” futuristic ” discussions ; correct?
4 MR MOSS: That is true. 4 A. That’s correct , my Lord.
5 Have you read any transcripts of Dr Wright’s 5 Q. You say these discussions included digital currencies .
6 evidence? 6 Now, you accept, do you not, that the idea of digital
7 A. No, my Lord. 7 currencies has been around for a long time before 2006?
8 Q. And have you been following any of this, of Dr Wright’s 8 A. Yes, my Lord, in a different definition .
9 evidence, on Twitter, social media or any other news 9 Q. What do you mean in a different definition, from 2006?
10 outlet? 10 A. So, the digital currency in that context was more around
11 A. No, my Lord. 11 the digital payments through internet, Visa card,
12 Q. Now, I first , Mr Yousuf, want to deal with your personal 12 Mastercard, so on and so forth.
13 relationship with Dr Wright over the years. You first 13 Q. Are you aware that the idea of digital cash was
14 met Dr Wright at Charles Sturt University in 2006; is 14 introduced by David Chaum in 1983? Are you aware of
15 that correct? 15 that?
16 A. Yes, my −− that’s correct, my Lord. 16 A. I ’m not aware of that, my Lord.
17 Q. And at the time, he was both a fellow student of yours, 17 Q. And are you aware that he founded a company called
18 but he was also a lecturer of yours in another unit; is 18 DigiCash in 1989?
19 that right? 19 A. No, I’m not aware of this, my Lord.
20 A. Yes, that’s correct , my Lord. 20 Q. Were you aware of E−Gold, Mr Yousuf?
21 Q. And you’ve previously said that you regard Dr Wright as 21 A. Yes, I am aware of E−Gold, my Lord.
22 a mentor; correct? 22 Q. Now, you mention in paragraph 8 that you discussed Visa
23 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 23 and Mastercard problems as far back as 2006, but Visa
24 Q. And do you still regard him as a mentor to you now? 24 and Mastercard are still around today, aren’t they?
25 A. That’s correct , my Lord. And also a dear friend. 25 A. That’s correct , my Lord.

109 111

1 Q. Thank you. 1 Q. And indeed they remain the two major market players in
2 Now, if we can please get your witness statement up, 2 the West; would you accept that?
3 which is {E/7/3}, and if we could please look at 3 A. Yes, my Lord.
4 paragraph 6 of your statement. There, you mention that 4 Q. Now, you also go on to say that you discussed
5 over the years you’ve discussed many topics with 5 distributed networks and you were both in cybersecurity
6 Dr Wright, both tech and non−tech topics; is that 6 at that time, yes?
7 correct? 7 A. That is correct , my Lord.
8 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 8 Q. And distributed networks are something that obviously
9 Q. Now, you obviously talk shop, you both worked in 9 arises in the context of cybersecurity , it ’s quite
10 cybersecurity when you first met, but you also say that 10 a common feature?
11 you discussed things such as politics to religion ; is 11 A. Not a common feature, my Lord.
12 that right? 12 Q. Not −− distributed networks are −−
13 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 13 A. That −− at that point of time, it was not a very common
14 Q. Can you give me some of the details of the political 14 feature or topic of discussion my Lord.
15 discussions that you were having back in 2006 to 2009? 15 Q. And again, these conversations arose because you were
16 A. I don’t remember exactly, my Lord. It has been almost 16 both in the cybersecurity field ; correct?
17 more than 15 years, so I don’t remember exact topics of 17 A. That’s correct , my Lord. Craig has always been a very
18 my discussion on this area. 18 strong expert on cybersecurity, and he has always −− we
19 Q. You also mention that you had religious discussions. 19 had a very collaborative and very interesting
20 Can you remember the details of any religious 20 discussions on the future of cybersecurity and how
21 discussions that you had in 2006 to 2009 with Dr Wright? 21 cybersecurity will play a role .
22 A. Yes, my Lord, I −− I am a practising Muslim and 22 Q. Yes.
23 Dr Wright has −− has read Holy Quran, he has read many 23 I now want to move on to discussing when you entered
24 religious books and it was quite fascinating to hear 24 into business with Dr Wright and your dealings with him.
25 from him his views on different religious aspects. 25 You started working in business with Dr Wright in 2011;

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 correct? 1 and Dr Wright develop? Did you start business

2 A. That’s correct , my Lord, around −− around that time. 2 together?”
3 Q. And initially this business was called Strasan, but it 3 And you answered:
4 later changed its name to C01N; correct? 4 ”Yes, we did, and over a period of time we had
5 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 5 a very −− I mean, I was very fascinating with all
6 Q. And just so we’re clear on that and for the benefit 6 the ideas and all the kind of research he has done, and
7 the transcript , ”C01N” in that context is spelt 7 back in 2009 and 2010 I was looking to move back to
8 C−0−1 −− the numeral −− N; is that right? 8 Sydney, and Craig also left BDO by that time, so we
9 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 9 decided to kind of, you know, work together, and launch
10 Q. Now, you can take it from me, Mr Yousuf, but we will see 10 a business ... ”
11 this later on, but you can take it from me that Strasan 11 Then you were asked:
12 was registered with the Australian Securities and 12 ”For how long did that corporation last?”
13 Investments Commission on 21 July 2011. 13 And you answered:
14 And in your −− your previous −− this is not 14 ”The corporation lasted for a few years, but
15 the first time, is it , that you’ve given evidence in 15 I parted my way within like ten months.”
16 court on behalf of Dr Wright, is it ? 16 Is that correct? Did you depart within ten months,
17 A. I have done it one more −− once previously, my Lord. 17 or was it around ten months as you said earlier? How
18 Q. And that was in Granath, and in those proceedings, your 18 long do you think after −−
19 evidence was that you were only involved in the Strasan 19 A. Around −− around exactly that time frame, my Lord.
20 or C01N company for ten months; is that correct? 20 Q. So if it was launched at the start of −− at the end of
21 A. I don’t remember exactly, but it was around that time −− 21 July 2011, ten months would take you up to the end of
22 around that months, my Lord. 22 May 2012; correct?
23 Q. So it was around ten months that you were involved with 23 A. I don’t remember exact months and dates, my Lord.
24 Strasan and C01N; is that right? 24 Q. Well, it was incorporated on July 2011, as I pointed out
25 A. No, not correct, my Lord. We established the company 25 earlier . Now, if we can −−

113 115

1 together and I was involved in running that company with 1 A. My Lord, I would like to highlight here, the corporation
2 Dr Craig Wright for many ten months or maybe more, 2 is one thing and starting the business plan and working
3 I don’t remember exactly. But later on, I got a job 3 together is a different thing. So when we incorporated
4 opportunity, I moved to Malaysia, my Lord, and Craig, 4 the business, it doesn’t mean that this is the day when
5 over a period of time, you know, worked −− continued 5 we started working together. We had been working about
6 with Strasan and renamed the company to C01N. 6 this idea, about launching the company, we met several
7 Q. I will just refer to it as ”C01N” so we don’t have to 7 times, we discussed the business plan, we discussed
8 constantly use the two, but we all know what we’re 8 the domains we want to go after. That was before even
9 talking about when I do so. 9 the corporation started .
10 Could we, please, now go to {L18/60/5}. Actually, 10 Q. Okay. I just want to clarify what you’re saying about
11 firstly , could we go back to page 2 {L18/60/2}. Just to 11 when you ”parted ... within like ten months”. Is that
12 draw your attention to this , Mr Yousuf, you will see 12 ten months from when it was incorporated, which was
13 that at the top of page 2 is the judge, who said that: 13 July 2011, or are you saying that was ten months from
14 ”You are now going to give evidence before the court 14 when you started working on it, because I accept that
15 and, in doing so, you are obliged to tell the truth, and 15 you obviously started working on it before it was
16 this implies telling everything you know, and not to 16 incorporated?
17 conceal anything, and you must also state if you are 17 A. To the best of my knowledge, my Lord, it was after
18 uncertain or if you do not remember. It is a punishable 18 setting up the official company.
19 offence to lie to the court.” 19 Q. Okay, thank you.
20 And below that, you confirmed that. So you were 20 If we can now please go back to your witness
21 telling the truth in those proceedings, weren’t you? 21 statement {E/7/4}. And then in paragraph 13, you
22 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 22 mention that Strasan was running out of money. We see
23 Q. Now if we could please go to page 5 {L18/60/5}. Then 23 that in the first sentence. I ’ ll just read it out:
24 just above F, you see a question: 24 ”In 2012/2013, the company which Craig and
25 ”Going on in time, how did the relation between you 25 I founded, Strasan, was running out of funds to sustain

114 116

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 and scale, Craig was not able to dedicate enough time, 1 started , you know, taking our vision of the company much
2 so I decided to take up a job in Malaysia.” 2 more, you know ...”
3 If we go on to the next sentence: 3 Over the page {L18/60/6}:
4 ”I don’t remember the exact dates, but I believe in 4 ” ... he is accelerating the business, and he would
5 2013/2014, Craig contacted me to give a brief update 5 like to give me an update, so I think around ... 2012
6 about what he had been working on and how he was 6 I came back to Sydney, and I visited Craig, he invited
7 planning to scale the company.” 7 me to his office , and I visited him there.”
8 Now, just to clarify here, because, again, the dates 8 So, were you in Malaysia in 2012? Is that what
9 matter, you say that you don’t recall the dates in 9 you’re referring to when you say you came back to Sydney
10 the second sentence, but I wasn’t sure if that reference 10 in 2012, or were you somewhere else in Australia at that
11 was to when you decided to take up your job in Malaysia, 11 point?
12 or if you were saying you took up the job in Malaysia in 12 A. In 2000 ... again, these are around, like , 12/13 years
13 2012/2013. Which was it, Mr Yousuf? When did you take 13 ago. If I recall my dates, my Lord, when I parted my
14 up your job in Malaysia? 14 ways from Strasan back then, or C01N, I took a job in
15 A. My Lord, this means I don’t remember exact date when 15 Queensland, I was working there, and from Queensland,
16 Craig contacted me back. When I left the company, 16 I went to Malaysia.
17 the company was still running, and around 2013 and ’14, 17 Q. Okay.
18 category contacted me, so I don’t know exact date and 18 A. So, in 2012, I went there to give my interviews,
19 the month when he contacted me. So, here, it’s not 19 complete my, you know, application and visa process, and
20 referring about when I departed, it’s more referring 20 so on and so forth, and also started my job in 2013, if
21 when Craig contacted me again to give me a brief update 21 I remember the dates exactly.
22 about the company. 22 Q. Then if we go to the bottom of page 7 {L18/60/7}, which
23 Q. Okay, so −− and I make no criticism of you −− I just 23 I took you to now to −− take you to there because we’ve
24 wasn’t sure because the two sentences run into each 24 got to go over the page. It says:
25 other. You said you decided to take up a job in 25 ”Yes, okay, I am just wondering when were you no

117 119

1 Malaysia in the first sentence −− 1 longer, sort of , a director of this Company ... Can you
2 A. Yeah. 2 remember?
3 Q. −− when did you take up that job in Malaysia? 3 ”Answer: 2013 or ’14 ... ”
4 A. Some −− some time in −− I don’t remember exact time 4 You answered.
5 period, but some time in 2013, my Lord. 5 ”Question: Okay.”
6 Q. 2013. 6 Then over the page {L18/60/8}, you say:
7 Mr Yousuf, can we now please go back to your Granath 7 ”I don’t remember exact date, but, yes, after
8 evidence {L18/60/5}, and then at the bottom of the page, 8 a couple of years , but company was there, I left for
9 H, there’s a question: 9 Malaysia in 2011.”
10 ”Where did you go then? 10 So your evidence in Granath was that you left for
11 ”Answer: I went to Malaysia, I found a job, and 11 Malaysia in 2011. Which date was it? Your evidence
12 I took up that job, [ after ] I left Sydney around 2011.” 12 appears to be inconsistent on the dates, Mr Yousuf.
13 And then if we go to page 7 {L18/60/7}, again at H, 13 A. My Lord, as I am referring, I ’m still not sure what
14 bottom of the page, please, you say: 14 exactly are you trying to refer to. That’s point number
15 ”Question: Yes, okay, I am just wondering when you 15 one.
16 were no longer, sort of, a director of this company, 16 Point number two, my Lord, as I mentioned to you,
17 Strasan?” 17 it ’s 2011/2012, around that time period, I took up
18 And you’re asked if you can remember and you say 18 the job. My −− I left the company, but the company was
19 2013 or 2014. 19 still running, my Lord, and I took up a job in
20 So now go back to page 5 a second {L18/60/5}. 20 Queensland for some time, and from there I took the job
21 The very bottom, please. The question then, at 21 in −− in Malaysia. So it was around that time period,
22 the bottom of the page: 22 within that range, ’11, ’12 or something like that.
23 ”Did you meet Dr Wright after that again? 23 Q. I accept that, Mr Yousuf, but of course in your
24 ”Answer: Yes I did, so I was in touch with Craig, 24 evidence, both in Granath and in these proceedings, you
25 and Craig mentioned to me that he has, you know, 25 tie your recollection of certain things happening to

118 120

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 where you were at certain times, and therefore that’s 1 statement, is there? Your statement doesn’t refer to
2 why it’s quite important we know when you left for 2 any documents, does it?
3 Malaysia. 3 A. I don’t think so, my Lord. I’m not aware of.
4 At the very top of page 8, it says: 4 Q. And therefore all we have to go on is your recollection
5 ” ... I left for Malaysia in 2011.” 5 of events; is that right?
6 Is that correct , or can you not recall? 6 A. That’s correct , my Lord.
7 A. My Lord, I don’t remember the exact dates, but can you 7 Q. Now, in Granath, your evidence was that you first found
8 please elaborate and tell me what exactly are you 8 out that Dr Wright claimed to be Satoshi through
9 referring to, or what you are trying to achieve out of 9 the news in 2015; is that right?
10 this and how is it relevant of me moving to Malaysia 10 A. That’s correct , my Lord.
11 with −− with C01N and the whole topic? I’m −− I’m still 11 Q. Now, since 2015, when you first heard through the news
12 struggling to understand your −− your direction here. 12 that Dr Wright claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, since
13 Q. Mr Yousuf, it won’t come as any surprise, I ’m not going 13 then, have you discussed with Dr Wright about his claim
14 to tell you where I’m going with my cross−examination. 14 to be Satoshi Nakamoto?
15 At present, I ’m just trying to tie down a quite 15 A. No, my Lord.
16 important matter of detail, and you’ve seen what you 16 Q. You haven’t discussed it with him at all ?
17 said in Granath and I’ve put it to you that you left for 17 A. No, my Lord, I have not discussed it directly , this
18 Malaysia in 2011. You’ve said you don’t recall , but 18 topic .
19 I would say that you −− the reason I’ve gone to this is 19 Q. So you find out that somebody that you refer to as
20 you say that you left in 2011. 20 a mentor is the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin,
21 Now, do you accept that it would be a remarkably 21 Satoshi Nakamoto, and your evidence is that you never
22 easy thing for you to check when you left to go to 22 spoke to him about that?
23 Malaysia? 23 A. No, my Lord, I have not −− as I said, Craig is my
24 A. Absolutely, my Lord, I can go back and check when 24 friend , I know him; I have not personally discussed or
25 exactly I left . And again, when I had the discussion 25 showed any interest in knowing that whether he’s Satoshi

121 123

1 today with you and the last time when I had 1 or whether he’s not Satoshi, my Lord.
2 the discussion , it was based on my collective of 2 Q. Mr Yousuf, I put it to you that it ’s a quite incredible
3 knowledge being, you know −− providing collective of 3 thing to say that when somebody who yourself works in
4 whatever I remember to the best of the truth to you, 4 the tech sphere finds out that their friend and mentor
5 my Lord. 5 is Satoshi Nakamoto, or claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto,
6 Q. And when preparing for giving evidence in this case, did 6 and you have not once had a conversation with him.
7 you go back and look at your old records? 7 Would you accept that that’s quite an incredible
8 A. I have not done that, my Lord. 8 position to be in?
9 Q. You didn’t think to go back and check any documents that 9 A. Absolutely, my Lord, and that’s −− that’s my friendship
10 might back up your statement, Mr Yousuf? 10 with him.
11 A. My Lord, as I said , it ’s more around when I was there, 11 Q. When you went to Malaysia, how involved were you with
12 what exactly I did. I have been −− I have informed 12 C01N after that?
13 that. 13 A. Not −− not −− I was not involved, my Lord, directly.
14 Q. But do you accept that you would have documents in your 14 Q. Not involved directly . What do you mean by not involved
15 possession that you would be able to go and look at that 15 directly ?
16 would confirm the details of certain matters in your 16 A. I was −− I was registered as a shareholder of
17 witness statement? 17 the company, my Lord, I was also to −− exact I don’t
18 A. Certainly , my Lord, I can see if I still have 18 remember, my Lord, that until when I was the director of
19 the documents. I can definitely go back and check my 19 the company, so that’s what I mean that I was not ...
20 employment contract and try to find out the dates and 20 but yes, I was −− I had the shares, I was one of
21 the months. 21 the registered directors for some time, but I was not
22 Q. Were you asked to go and look for any documents to back 22 involved in running the company or the company affairs,
23 up your statement? 23 my Lord.
24 A. No, my Lord. 24 Q. When the company was registered, there were only two
25 Q. In fact , there isn ’ t a single document appended to your 25 directors , yourself and Dr Wright; isn’t that correct?

122 124

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 1 Q. Now, if we go to 23 −− well, we don’t need to go there,

2 Q. So, after you moved to Malaysia, you were still 2 it ’s right on the page −− 23.5, it records that you
3 registered as a director , but it was only Dr Wright who 3 ceased to be a director on 21 March 2014; do you see
4 was running C01N; is that correct? 4 that?
5 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 5 A. Yes, my Lord.
6 Q. Moving on now to C01N and its involvement with the ATO. 6 Q. But if we look down at the footnote, we can see that has
7 Can we please go to {L11/361/1}. So, Mr Yousuf, just so 7 come from an extract. But then if we go back up, if you
8 you understand what this is, this is reasons for 8 look at para 24, so we’re now looking at something else,
9 a decision published by the Australian Taxation Office, 9 so the −− as far as the Australian ASIC is concerned,
10 and you can see, at the top of the page, it ’s dated 10 you ceased to be a director on 21 March, but then in 24
11 11 March 2016; do you see that? 11 it says:
12 A. That’s correct . 12 ”However the taxpayer’s internal register of
13 Q. And do you see that it says: 13 directors and secretaries shows that.”
14 ”This paper explains the ATO’s reasons for decision 14 And then 24.2:
15 for C01N Pty Ltd for the period 1 July 2012 to 15 ”Mr Yousuf is still a director of the taxpayer.”
16 30 June 2013.” 16 So, which was it, Mr Yousuf? The internal records
17 Correct? 17 seem to show that you were still a director , but the
18 A. Yes, my Lord. 18 records at the ASIC seem to show that you had ceased to
19 Q. Then if we go to −− just there’s another decision we 19 be a director on 21 March. What was the true position,
20 need to go to very quickly . If we go to {L11/405/1}, 20 Mr Yousuf?
21 you will see another ATO decision, again relating to 21 A. Yeah, so, as I −− as I mentioned to you earlier, when
22 C01N, and this one, you’ll see at the top of the page, 22 I took up that role in Malaysia, my Lord, I was not
23 is dated ten days later on 21 March, and this one, you 23 involved in the company. I don’t remember exact
24 will see, relates for the tax year −− the Australian tax 24 the dates, my Lord. Again, you will get confused with
25 year of 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014; do you see that? 25 all my recollection of the dates. Craig provided me

125 127

1 A. Yes, I see that, my Lord. 1 with an update when I was in Sydney, I met with
2 Q. So these are the two decisions for the two consecutive 2 Dr Craig. He informed me about the company affairs,
3 tax years . Just while we’re in here, because some stuff 3 what he’s doing with C01N, how he has set it up, and
4 is better set out in here, could we please go to page 9 4 I was quite impressed with the way he was running
5 {L11/405/9}. You can see there the ”Summary of 5 the company. But at that given point of time, my Lord,
6 Adjustments” and you can see the ”Tax shortfall” for 6 I was working in Malaysia and also living with my
7 the 2013/2014 income year was just shy of AU$5 million; 7 parents and wife there, and I had no, you know −− like,
8 do you see that? 8 no reasons to come back to Sydney, and I discussed with
9 A. Yes, I see that, my Lord. 9 Craig and I decided to kind of, you know, resign. Now,
10 Q. And then on page {L11/405/10}, para 20, and I just want 10 I don’t exactly remember, but it was somewhere around
11 to go here so I can show you where I’ve got some of 11 2013 to 2014 time period, where I decided mutually with
12 the dates and details from, you can see there 12 Craig of, you know, ceasing my role with the company,
13 the incorporation date, that I gave you earlier , in 13 my Lord.
14 paragraph 20. You can see there that initially there 14 Q. So do you think that would have been on 21 March 2014,
15 were 2,000 shares issued, of which you had 500, and 15 or after that at some point, or you can’t say?
16 that’s in 22, so you were −− and then you can also see 16 A. I don’t remember exact dates, my Lord.
17 that you were appointed a director; correct? 17 Q. Now, can we please go back to {L11/361/1}. So, again,
18 A. Yes, my Lord. 18 we were just looking in the second ATO decision which
19 Q. The directors are recorded down in paragraph 23. 19 related to the second of the two years. I ’ve now come
20 Now, it does report, in 23.3, that Ms Nguyen was 20 back to the decision that relates to 1 July 2012 to
21 appointed a director as well later , but the ATO said 21 30 June 2013. And of course, if your directorship ended
22 that that wasn’t correct , but we can look at that later 22 in March 2014, then you accept that for this decision
23 if needs be. But you were one of the two initial 23 and this period, you remained a director throughout;
24 directors at incorporation; correct? 24 correct?
25 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 25 A. That might be the case, my Lord.

126 128

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Q. Well, you are recorded as being a director for 1 Do you see that?
2 the company. You’re not saying that is incorrect . So 2 A. I see that, my Lord.
3 do you accept that you were a registered director for 3 Q. So this was a project −− this was R&D activity that was
4 the company for this tax year? 4 happening when you were a director; correct?
5 A. I don’t exactly remember, my Lord, when I resigned from 5 A. That’s correct , my Lord.
6 my directorship of the company, my Lord. It was 2013 6 Q. And you know about this project, do you?
7 or ’14, but it was definitely one of those years . 7 A. I was not aware of this project , my Lord.
8 Q. Well, you are recorded as being a director for this 8 Q. You are not aware of that project at all ?
9 period. 9 A. Not −− I −− I don’t remember about this project,
10 Now, if we could please look at {L11/361/3}, you can 10 my Lord.
11 see a number of Bitcoin addresses there. 11 Q. Before I go over the page, just so we understand what
12 And then if we go to page 4 {L11/361/4}, you will 12 I ’m now going to, if you look at the last sentence of
13 see the taxpayer, two−thirds of the way down that list, 13 paragraph 39, it says:
14 referred to as C01N. 14 ”The three core activities are described in
15 Then on to page 5 {L11/361/5}, we get 15 the AusIndustry application as follows .”
16 the introduction and this explains what it is , and it 16 Then over the page, please, {L11/361/11}:
17 says, in paragraph 1, that: 17 ”Scriptable money: exploring the ways to program
18 ”An audit was undertaken to determine the taxable 18 a distributed contract using Bitcoin to form agreements
19 income of C01N ... (the taxpayer )... and its eligibility 19 with people via the blockchain.
20 for a refundable tax offset in the year ... 20 ”’BTC’ agents: exploring currency agents.
21 30 June 2013 ...” 21 ”Transaction signing: no information is provided
22 So this is an audit that was taken for the period in 22 about this activity .”
23 which you were a director of C01N; do you accept that? 23 So you’re saying you don’t know anything about this
24 A. I ’m not sure. As I said , yes, but it sounds right, 24 project?
25 I might be the director at that time. 25 A. I don’t remember exactly about this project, my Lord.

129 131

1 Q. You were −− Mr Yousuf, you were recorded as being 1 I remember when Craig provided me an update about
2 a director at this point. 2 the company, he did mention about the work he has been
3 A. Okay, so I might be a director. 3 doing on Bitcoin, digital cash, Bitcoin wallet . So I’m
4 Q. Are you aware of the importance of the role of 4 aware of it , but I ’m not aware of exact specific
5 a director within a company? 5 projects being carried out.
6 A. Yes, I do know the role of a director of a company, 6 Q. Then in paragraph 40, we see the ATO recording that much
7 my Lord. 7 of this application was taken from internet sources
8 Q. And you are aware of the onerous fiduciary duties that 8 without acknowledgement. Were you involved in that
9 go with being a director of a company, aren’t you? 9 filing of the AusIndustry application, Mr Yousuf?
10 A. Yes, my Lord, and −− and I would like to also drawing 10 A. No, I was not aware −− I was not involved, my Lord.
11 attention that Craig Wright was also a director of 11 Q. Who do you think would have filed that application with
12 the company. 12 AusIndustry?
13 Q. Yes, he was. 13 A. Craig, my −− my Lord, would be involved in submitting
14 So then, if we go to page 10 {L11/361/10}, at 14 that application .
15 the very bottom of page 10, we’re in the ”Relevant 15 Q. Then, again, in paragraph 41, there’s a further comment
16 Facts” section, and this is , ”Purported R&D activity”. 16 by −− or further recorded by the ATO that:
17 And we can see there −− and I’ll just read out 17 ”The taxpayer provided additional information to
18 paragraph 39, or part of it , it says: 18 AusIndustry on 7 October 2013. Much of this information
19 ”On 7 October 2013, the taxpayer applied to register 19 is taken from internet sources, without acknowledgment.”
20 a project named ’Sukuriputo okane’ under section 27A of 20 Again, I assume you would say you don’t have any
21 the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 ... for 21 recollection of that. Was that done by Craig −− sorry,
22 2012−13 [year]. The project is described as a software 22 was that done by Dr Wright?
23 library for financial cryptography including a prototype 23 A. I −− I don’t remember. I was not involved, so I cannot
24 server and high−level client API able to process Bitcoin 24 say anything on this, my Lord.
25 transactions and markets.” 25 Q. Then below, at paragraph 46, we see that in

130 132

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 February 2016, AusIndustry made a finding that: 1 our initial phase 1. That was our plan to start it ,
2 ” ... none of the activities registered by 2 because we both come from cybersecurity background, and
3 the taxpayer in ... 2012−13 ... met the requirements of 3 −− and this is where we felt how we should start our
4 a core of supporting R&D activity.” 4 company.
5 Are you aware of that finding? 5 Q. And then those two deductions −− well, one deduction and
6 A. I ’m not aware of that finding, my Lord. 6 one offset that I just took to you in paragraph 47, are
7 Q. Then, just skimming those paragraphs, 46.1, 46.2, 7 not the only deductions. Do you see below, in
8 the comments such as not demonstrated any core 8 paragraph 48, there was a deduction sought for over
9 activities , not providing any evidence. But then if we 9 AU$2 million for ”materials and assistance acquired from
10 jump on to page 12 {L11/361/12}, paragraph 47, you can 10 Professor David Rees”? Do you have any knowledge about
11 see that the −− it says: 11 that?
12 ”On 20 June 2014, the taxpayer’s 2012−13 income tax 12 A. I have no knowledge about this, my Lord.
13 return claiming notional deductions of $4,938,338 and 13 Q. In your time as a director of C01N, did you ever hear
14 a refundable ... tax offset of [ just over 14 the name David Rees mentioned?
15 2 million ] ... ” 15 A. No, my Lord.
16 So do you see what was being claimed there? So just 16 Q. If we could then please go on to page 13 {L11/361/13},
17 under 5 million of notional deductions and an R&D tax 17 looking now at paragraph 56. So we’re now, just to put
18 offset of just over 2 million ; do you see that? 18 it in context, we’re now looking at the heading under,
19 A. I see that, my Lord. 19 ”IaaS transaction −− purported contract”. Paragraph 56,
20 Q. You were a director of the company at this time. Were 20 and I’ ll read it out. It says:
21 you aware of 5 million , or nearly 5 million of 21 ”The taxpayer purported to enter into a contract
22 deductions being made? Were you aware of that? 22 with W&K entitled ’statement of work’ for the provision
23 A. No, my Lord, I was not aware of it. 23 of IaaS services over a 12 month period. The statement
24 Q. And were you aware of a refundable R&D tax offset of 24 of work is dated 30 June 2012, and it appears to have
25 just over 2 million being made? 25 been digitally signed by Dr Wright and Mr Kleiman on

133 135

1 A. No, my Lord, I was not −− I’m not aware of that. 1 2 July 2012.”
2 Q. Now, you said earlier that you were involved around 2 Again, this statement of work was carried out when
3 ten months. What were you actually doing in 3 you were one of only two directors ; is that correct ,
4 the ten months when you were involved with C01N? 4 Mr Yousuf?
5 A. Yes, so my Lord, our −− our main reasons −− our 5 A. Seems like it , my Lord.
6 involvement, our initial business plan was to leverage 6 Q. And were you involved in the creation of that statement
7 Dr Craig Wright, you know, research on developing 7 of work?
8 a security operations centre using the, you know, 8 A. No, my Lord.
9 distributed network over the cloud. So we worked on 9 Q. Do you know anything about that statement of work?
10 setting up the Strasan business, focusing on 10 A. No, my Lord.
11 cybersecurity advisory, cybersecurity training and 11 Q. Down below, in paragraph 57, it records −− the ATO
12 education, cybersecurity solutions , which were focusing 12 decision records:
13 on, as I said , security , monitoring, penetration 13 ”The statement of work appears to have been adapted
14 testing , vulnerability assessments. So we developed 14 from a US government IaaS tender document obtained from
15 a lot of our offerings around that domains. We also 15 the internet .”
16 did, you know, work with Craig developing a product 16 Again, do you have any idea of who might have taken
17 which will help enterprises , especially small/medium 17 that statement of work off of the internet?
18 enterprises to monitor their network remotely for 18 A. No, my Lord.
19 the cybersecurity threats . So these were work I was 19 Q. It can’t have been you. Could it have been Dr Wright?
20 involved working with Craig to launch these products and 20 A. I mean, Dr Wright had quite a few people supporting him,
21 services . 21 so perhaps Dr Wright might have leveraged some support
22 Q. So in this period in C01N, you and Dr Wright were 22 or services from others.
23 seeking to launch a cybersecurity business; is that 23 Q. Now, there is reference elsewhere in the documents to
24 correct? 24 how many employees there are. How many employees do you
25 A. The cybersecurity business around, you know −− that was 25 say they were in C01N at this time?

134 136

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 A. When I left the company, my Lord, there were not many, 1 meeting, do you?
2 but Dr Craig Wright had quite a few businesses, and that 2 A. No, my Lord.
3 was one of the reason why I parted my ways, because 3 Q. And you’ve given evidence that you have no recollection
4 Dr Craig Wright was very busy and it was very difficult 4 of this project whatsoever; is that correct?
5 to kind of , like , you know, bring or work on our initial 5 A. I don’t recall about this project , my Lord.
6 whole idea; he was busy on multiple topics, he was very, 6 Q. Do you think those board meeting notes that were
7 very busy on doing something with other companies. He 7 submitted to the ATO were genuine, Mr Yousuf?
8 did mention that he’s working on something and he needs 8 A. I don’t −− have not seen the notes. I don’t remember,
9 some more time. But I −− as I said, I had no job and 9 my Lord.
10 I was purely relying on Strasan, so I parted my ways. 10 Q. Now, there’s a lot of detail in here, and I’m not going
11 So at that point of time, we had not many employees. It 11 to go through all of it because we can make our points
12 was me, Dr Craig and some of our friends as part of 12 based on the documents as be, and you have already said
13 the company, my Lord. But when I left to Malaysia and 13 you don’t know anything about this, but if we can now
14 when I came back around ’13 or ’14, I don’t remember 14 jump to page 14, please {L11/361/14}, which is the next
15 exact year, and when Craig invited me to his office and 15 page, paragraph 61:
16 he showed me, I found quite a many employees working for 16 ”The statement of work provides that the service is
17 Craig. Best of my knowledge, around that time, it would 17 for a ’ fixed fee for the provision of systems over ...
18 be more than 30/40 people. 18 12 [months] ... However, an appendix titled ’C01N
19 Q. Mr Yousuf, that wasn’t quite what I asked you. I asked 19 Pricing ’ states that ’Cost base will be calculated as
20 you how many employees at the time, but we have your 20 [numbers]. At the time the contract was purportedly
21 answer on that. 21 executed, the taxpayer’s name was Strasan ...
22 Now, down at paragraph 58, it says −− the decision 22 The taxpayer contends that the name of the supercomputer
23 records: 23 was ’C01N’ and that this is evidenced by its entry in
24 ”The taxpayer advised that the purported contract 24 the Top 500 list . However, C01N’s first entry in
25 was signed electronically and has provided 25 the Top 500 list was not until November 2014.”

137 139

1 the electronic signature. However, the purported 1 Do you have any knowledge of the supercomputer being
2 appendices and ’HPC Work Schedule’ are not included in 2 named C01N, Mr Yousuf?
3 the electronically signed document. Further, 3 A. I −− I remember Dr Craig Wright sharing a news about
4 the purported appendices do not have the same writing 4 supercomputer, but I don’t remember what was that
5 style , lettering system, font or footer as the statement 5 supercomputer was called and when was it.
6 of work.” 6 Q. But Mr Yousuf, you were a director of a company that
7 Again, do you have no knowledge of that statement of 7 supposedly had a supercomputer. Are you saying you knew
8 work, as you’ve said already; correct? 8 nothing about it?
9 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 9 A. No, my Lord, I’m −− I don’t remember anything about
10 Q. And then if we go to the very last −− go to 10 the supercomputer.
11 paragraph 55, please, so back up to paragraph 55 11 Q. Mr Yousuf, was everything to do with the supercomputer
12 {L11/361/13}, the last sentence. So we’re talking here 12 simply a sham?
13 again −− we’re in this section about the statement of 13 A. But why would you say that, my Lord?
14 works. The last sentence of paragraph 55 says: 14 Q. Well, I ’m just putting it to you. You’re saying you
15 ”The taxpayer’s desire to acquire the services 15 have no knowledge of it, but the recording here in
16 are ostensibly supported by board meeting notes from 16 the ATO of the inconsistencies showing that the namings
17 a meeting between Dr Wright, Ms Watts and Mr Yousuf ... 17 don’t match up, they seem to be −− well, they do say
18 dated 5 June 2012.” 18 that they didn’t think a supercomputer existed. That’s
19 So your name appears to be on board minute meetings 19 what their view was. And I’m asking you, do you think
20 about this contract. Do you accept that? 20 there really was a supercomputer or was it all a sham?
21 A. I don’t recall attending that board meeting, my Lord. 21 A. My Lord, I have not seen it. That doesn’t mean I can
22 Q. Then if we go down to look at footnote 38, it says: 22 say it was a sham.
23 ”Board meeting notes [are] Strasan ... dated 5 June 23 Q. That’s fair enough, Mr Yousuf.
24 ... (unsigned).” 24 If we could move on to page 15, please {L11/361/15},
25 So you have no recollection of attending that board 25 para 68. Paragraph 68 says:

138 140

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 ”The taxpayer has provided screenshots of purported 1 C01N supercomputer, bearing in mind that this was in
2 Bitmessages between Dr Wright and Mr Kleiman and 2 a tax year when you were a director of the company?
3 Dr Wright and High Secured to support this, as well as 3 A. That’s correct , my Lord. As I mentioned, I was not
4 a printout of an email purportedly from Devian Rockwell 4 aware of it , but that didn’t mean it was not existing
5 at High Secured confirming High Secured received 5 it .
6 US$5 million via Liberty Reserve from Mr Kleiman for 6 Q. Well, Mr Yousuf, there’s not a single document that
7 the provision of the purported C01N supercomputer.” 7 you’ve adduced to show what you did or didn’t know when
8 Again, there are screenshots of alleged messages 8 you were at C01N, is there?
9 between Dr Wright and Mr Kleiman. Were you aware of any 9 A. My Lord, what you need to know, please let me know, I’m
10 such messages, Mr Yousuf? 10 here, I can tell you, based on my knowledge.
11 A. No, my Lord, I’m not aware of such messages. 11 Q. Mr Yousuf, I’m not making a criticism of that, I ’m just
12 Q. So everything that was being done here was being done by 12 trying to establish the extent of your knowledge and
13 Dr Wright; is that correct? 13 your recollection .
14 A. That might be the case, my Lord. 14 Now, the findings −− so I’ve just said what it was.
15 Q. Now, if we could please go to page 22 {L11/361/22}, 15 The findings are then recorded in paragraph 122, and we
16 paragraph 111, we’re now in something called 16 can’t go through all of those, but essentially the ATO
17 the Tulip Trust. Are you aware of the Tulip Trust, 17 concluded that there was −− it was not a supercomputer.
18 Mr Yousuf? 18 And again, Mr Yousuf, I need to put this to you.
19 A. I ’ve heard about it, my Lord. 19 You were, I understand, not aware of any such
20 Q. What have you heard about the Tulip Trust, Mr Yousuf? 20 supercomputer; is that correct?
21 A. Back when I was visiting Dr Craig Wright in his office , 21 A. That’s correct , my Lord. I was not −− I’m not aware of
22 he mentioned about, you know, the structure of his 22 that −− at that point of time of supercomputer.
23 company and this is the first time I heard the name 23 Q. Now can we please go to page 37 {L11/361/37}. Now, just
24 Tulip Trust, my Lord. 24 before we go and look at −− actually, let’s look at this
25 Q. And then, on paragraph 111 on that page, it says: 25 first .

141 143

1 ”ATO Forensics advises that two of the keys, 1 So paragraph 174, we now see that this is:
2 Dr Wright’s and one tied to Satoshi Nakamoto, are 2 ”Electronic evidence submitted by the taxpayer.
3 showing as having been created using encryption software 3 ”ATO Emails.”
4 that was unavailable at the dates they were purportedly 4 And it says:
5 created.” 5 ”The taxpayer and related entities also controlled
6 Are you aware of anything to do with those keys 6 by Dr Wright have provided a series of emails they
7 supplied to the ATO, Mr Yousuf, bearing in mind that −− 7 allege represent email correspondence between ATO
8 A. I ’m −− I’m not −− I’m not aware of that, my Lord. 8 officers and the taxpayer’s directors /representatives .”
9 Q. So you weren’t involved in any of this , were you? 9 Then, at 174.1 and 174.2, you see two different
10 A. I was not involved, my Lord. 10 emails.
11 Q. If we could please go to page 24 {L11/361/24}, 11 Now, I accept that for the top of those two emails,
12 paragraph 121. Paragraph 121 records that: 12 that may be after a time when you resigned as
13 ”On 26 March 2015, Dr Wright showed ATO officers 13 a director , but you were a director on 5 April 2013.
14 what he advised was the purported C01N supercomputer and 14 What do you know about that email, Mr Yousuf?
15 ran a series of commands to substantiate its existence 15 A. I ’m not aware of that email, my Lord.
16 and the taxpayer’s access to it . The taxpayer recorded 16 Q. So the ATO records that it was sent to you as
17 videos of the ATO officers’ visit to its premises and 17 a director . Were you receiving emails in your capacity
18 screen captures of the material shown to them on 18 as a director at that time?
19 the purported C01N supercomputer.” 19 A. It depends on which email address, my Lord.
20 You see what’s recorded there, Mr Yousuf? Do you 20 Q. And you know nothing about this email that the ATO sent
21 see what’s recorded in that paragraph, Mr Yousuf? 21 to you?
22 A. Yeah, I see it . 22 A. I have never received any email from ATO.
23 Q. So that −− there obviously was a site visit to view 23 Q. Now, I appreciate that, when it came to submitting this
24 the C01N supercomputer, and again, you’re saying 24 and these documents to the ATO, you weren’t involved in
25 you know nothing about the physical existence of this 25 C01N at that point, because obviously this investigation

142 144

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 is going on later and I’m not suggesting that you were 1 A. I ’m not aware of that, my Lord.
2 involved in that, but were you ever asked to provide, by 2 Q. So you don’t know who would have?
3 Dr Wright or anybody else, to check whether such emails 3 A. I don’t know, my Lord.
4 had been sent on 5 April 2013 from the ATO? 4 MR MOSS: My Lord, perhaps now is a good time for a break.
5 A. No, not of my knowledge. I don’t remember −− I don’t 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. Have you got much longer, or ...?
6 remember exactly receiving emails from ATO, I −− or −− 6 MR MOSS: I’m over halfway through.
7 or Craig following up with me, my Lord. I don’t 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: That’s good.
8 remember. 8 MR MOSS: It speeds up towards the end, hopefully.
9 Q. Do you know if those emails are real, Mr Yousuf? 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, we’ll take five minutes then,
10 A. Which emails, my Lord? 10 thank you.
11 Q. The emails sent −− I’ll just −− I’ll ask in relation to 11 Mr Yousuf, we’re going to just have a quick
12 one email. The email referred to in paragraph 174.2, on 12 five −minute break for the shorthand writer, okay?
13 5 April 2013, are you aware of those emails being sent? 13 A. Thank you, my Lord.
14 A. No, my Lord, I’m not aware of the emails. 14 (3.11 pm)
15 Q. Now can we please go to paragraph 216, which is on page 15 (A short break)
16 {L11/361/43}. Now, up until now, Mr Yousuf, I’ve asked 16 (3.17 pm)
17 you about a wide range of things that C01N was involved 17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can we bring Mr Yousuf back?
18 in in the period when you were a director and you have 18 Hello, Mr Yousuf, can you hear us again?
19 said that you know nothing about any of them. Are you 19 A. Yes, my Lord, I can hear you.
20 aware of anything that was going on in C01N in this tax 20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Excellent. Thank you.
21 year? 21 Mr Moss.
22 A. I don’t −− no, my Lord. I was not involved and I was 22 MR MOSS: Mr Yousuf, you’ll be pleased to hear I’m not going
23 not aware of, my Lord. 23 to be dragging you through the ATO decision any more.
24 Q. Then, looking at para 216, just so you understand where 24 There’s just one more document from the ATO we need to
25 we are now, we’re now looking at the ”No expenditure 25 go to, and that’s {L17/406/2}.

145 147

1 incurred”, just to place this in context. 1 So this is the ”Penalty and interest position
2 Then if we go to page −− sorry, para 221, over 2 paper”, and you can −− again, just so you understand
3 the page {L11/361/44}, you can see the ATO’s conclusion. 3 what this is I ’m taking you to, this is the penalty and
4 They said: 4 interest position for the period 1 July 2012 to
5 ”Considered cumulatively, we consider that these 5 30 June 2013, so this was the penalty and interest that
6 anomalies and inconsistencies lead to the conclusion 6 was applied in relation to the document that I just took
7 that the purported agreement amounts to a sham. It is 7 you to.
8 considered that the purported agreement was not intended 8 If we go to page 6 {L17/406/6}, we can see that:
9 to create the legal rights and obligations it gives 9 ”The following table displays the proposed penalty
10 the appearance of creating, but was, rather, intended to 10 and interest we propose to apply in relation to
11 be a disguise for some other transaction or for no 11 the taxpayer for the 2012−13 income year.”
12 transaction at all .” 12 And you can see that it’s just a shade over
13 Were you aware of that finding of this being a sham 13 AU$1.9 million; do you see that?
14 when this decision was handed down, bearing in mind that 14 A. Yes, my Lord.
15 you had previously been a director of the company? 15 Q. And do you accept that that’s quite a significant sum
16 A. No, my Lord, I −− I’m not aware of. 16 for a penalty for a tax year in which you were
17 Q. Then they note further, in paragraph 222, that C01N’s 17 a director of the company? Do you accept that?
18 claims, claims that you were responsible for as 18 A. Yes, my Lord. It’s a significant amount.
19 director , were based on electronic evidence that could 19 Q. Thank you.
20 not be verified , and they went further and said that in 20 I ’m now going to move on to you leaving C01N. Now,
21 some instances they held it had been proved to be 21 it ’s clear that C01N was in quite serious financial
22 fabricated . 22 trouble in the period 2012 to 2013, and certainly by
23 So the ATO here is making a finding that materials 23 2014 onwards. Now, the work that you did do for C01N,
24 were fabricated. If those materials were in fact 24 were you paid for that work, Mr Yousuf?
25 fabricated , who would have done it, Mr Yousuf? 25 A. No, my Lord.

146 148

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 Q. Were you ever paid any work −− sorry, that doesn’t make 1 paragraph 86, it says:
2 any sense! Were you ever paid any money for doing any 2 ”ATO systems shows the taxpayer has no employees,
3 work for C01N? 3 and its financial statements show no other recurrent
4 A. No, my Lord. 4 expenses in the nature of contractor expenses or rent.
5 Q. Did you ever submit any invoices for work done for C01N? 5 Its payables at 30 June 2014 show amounts owing to
6 A. Yes −− not for C01N. Are you referring Strasan or −− 6 Dr Wright and Mr Shoaib, both directors and former
7 I mean, it’s the same, right, if I remember −− 7 shareholders, so I do not expect them to demand payment
8 Q. Strasan −− yes, Strasan and C01N, yes. 8 from the taxpayer.”
9 A. Right. I think we did one project for Strasan, one 9 Do you see that, Mr Yousuf?
10 project , and we got paid for that project . 10 A. Yes, I see that, my Lord.
11 Q. And how big was that project? 11 Q. If we go over the page {L9/422/23}, the response in this
12 A. I don’t remember exactly, but it was not very 12 Cranston appendix is in the right column, it says:
13 significant . Around 50,000 to $90,000, my Lord. 13 ”The suggestion that the former shareholders do not
14 Q. Okay. 14 expect payment is incorrect. Dr Wright expects payment
15 Can we please go to paragraph 14 of your statement. 15 and Mr Yousuf (Shoaib is his middle name) is in regular
16 This is {E/7/4}. You say there: 16 contact asking when he can expect payment.”
17 ”As I was already working in Malaysia, and Strasan 17 Is that correct , Mr Yousuf, were you in regular
18 was evolving into ’C01N’, I decided to part ways and was 18 contact with Dr Wright seeking payment, back at this
19 no longer involved. However, I stayed close friends 19 time?
20 with Craig, and he always kept me up to date with his 20 A. I don’t remember. Not of my knowledge, my Lord.
21 well−being and professional development.” 21 Q. Now can we please go to {L17/403/16}. Now, this is
22 Now, when you eventually left C01N, were you bought 22 a document that we understand was prepared by Dr Wright
23 out, Mr Yousuf? 23 when he was seeking funding to be bailed out, which
24 A. Can you please repeat this question, my Lord? 24 ultimately happened in something called the EITC
25 Q. My apologies. 25 agreement. Were you aware of Dr Wright getting into

149 151

1 When you departed ways with C01N, were you bought 1 financial difficulties with the ATO in this period
2 out in any way? Were you paid to leave your role with 2 around 2015? Were you aware of that?
3 C01N? 3 A. I −− I don’t remember, or I don’t recall this, my Lord.
4 A. No, my Lord. I had an agreement with −− with 4 Q. Now, I appreciate that you were not a party to that
5 Dr Craig Wright. I don’t −− I was not paid, but we had 5 agreement, but you are referred to in this , so I ’m going
6 an agreement of a certain value, I don’t remember, that 6 to take you to that shortly . But you can see in the
7 −− that Craig −− Dr Craig will purchase my shares in 7 ”Summary of issues and position”, it says:
8 the company and will pay me certain value, or certain, 8 ”With a significant cash injection −− even if it is
9 you know, amount, but I was not paid, my Lord. 9 by loan secured by the BTC wallet −− we can rebuild
10 Q. And how much was that? 10 substance into the business as well as paying
11 A. I don’t remember exactly, my Lord, but it was around −− 11 the lawyers off . If the only capital obtain is money
12 I mean, just under −− recollection of my knowledge, 12 for the base day to day expenses for instructions
13 around 200 or $300,000. 13 allowing Clayton Utz to move forward against the ATO, it
14 Q. Okay, we’ll come to that in a second. 14 means that the companies remain in a weakened position
15 Now, there’s no mention in your evidence of any 15 commercially.”
16 payment, is there, Mr Yousuf? 16 So that’s what it’s talking about.
17 A. Payment in relation to, my Lord? 17 Then if we go to page 18 {L17/403/18}. And you can
18 Q. There’s no mention of any payment or any discussions 18 see there it ’s written in the first person under
19 between you and Dr Wright to have you paid out of your 19 the ”Summary”. It says:
20 role in Strasan, is there? 20 ”What I am seeking to do is have the entity as clean
21 A. No, I’ve −− we −− I didn’t get paid, my Lord. 21 and polished as I can before we start going forth . I do
22 Q. Now, can we please go to {L9/422/1}. You can see here 22 not want to have challenges to any IP later on when
23 that this is an appendix to some responses filed on 23 things start to get big.
24 behalf of C01N with the ATO, and if we go to page 22, 24 ”I want to remove any ownership from former
25 please {L9/422/22}, on the left−hand column, towards 25 directors before they know what it could become, so they

150 152

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 cannot challenge anything later.” 1 remember exact amount, and −− and then I walked out.
2 It is clear that Dr Wright wanted to buy out those 2 Q. So you just said you had an agreement, you don’t
3 individuals and directors who were involved in his 3 remember the exact amount, so you were paid something to
4 company before whatever he thought he was going on to 4 walk away?
5 became big. Do you accept that’s the natural meaning of 5 A. No, I was not paid. I was not paid.
6 what’s been written here? 6 Q. Can we now please go to {L9/82/1}. You can see this is
7 A. I −− I cannot interpret this, my Lord. 7 an email, dated 27 May 2014, from Craig Wright to
8 Q. That’s fair enough. 8 Jade Aitken, and you can see below that Ms Aitken is at
9 Can we please go page 19 {L17/403/19}. So here he 9 KPMG and you can see that Craig’s answers are in red.
10 is explaining his costs . It says: 10 Like all email chains, we need to go to the bottom
11 ”The following is a point by point summary of 11 first , so if we could please go to page 7 {L9/82/7}, you
12 the costs we face to make the ATO settle quickly and to 12 can see, at the bottom half of the page, an email from
13 focus on the delivery of solutions and not face 13 Ms Aitken, at 9.05 am, saying:
14 administrative constraints that stop us developing.” 14 ”The advice from Clayton Utz states:
15 Then under the header, ”Pay out former director”: 15 ”’ ... all intellectual processes and activity
16 ”We have a former director who is not part of 16 expended on the development of algorithms for
17 the group any more. He has back wages of $300,000 17 cryptographic systems and the application of these
18 [Australian ]. 18 algorithms occurs solely within Australia ’ .
19 ”There are no timeframes, but he is under the R&D 19 ”Of the core R&D activities registered with
20 provisions as a carry forward cost. 20 AusIndustry for 2013 year ... ”
21 ” If we pay this, he will no longer be a shareholder 21 Registration number given:
22 and going forward it is all cleaner . 22 ” ... could you please advise which were carried out
23 ”The amount is already audited, but as he is an 23 in Australia and by whom.”
24 associate , we cannot claim the R&D amount until ... he 24 So it ’s asking a question here about what was done
25 is paid.” 25 in relation to that AusIndustry activities , that I took

153 155

1 Then it goes on some more. Then underneath, you can 1 you to earlier , and asking whether they were done, who
2 see you referred to. It says: 2 they were done by and, crucially , whether they were done
3 ”Shoaib Yousef was a director with one of the early 3 in Australia .
4 companies. 4 Then, if we go to page 6 {L9/82/6}, you can see
5 ”He would wait to be paid out, but there are ... 5 Dr Wright responding, at 12.05 pm:
6 reasons for doing this as soon as possible .” 6 ”Hello Jade,
7 I just want to draw your attention to the second of 7 ”The simple answer is all of the activities occurred
8 those three, where he says: 8 exclusively [ in ] Australia . The core could be anywhere,
9 ”Removing him amicably now means that he cannot come 9 but this is [the] use of a supercomputer.
10 back for a large slice later . The shares he has do not 10 ”The people involved are.”
11 offer control of the companies, but I also do not want 11 And then in ”Sydney”:
12 to have a former founder come back and argue [for] more 12 ”Craig Wright.
13 later (such as what was done in Facebook).” 13 ”Shoaib Yousuf.
14 Were you aware of Dr Wright trying to buy you out 14 ”Ramona Watts.
15 like this at the time, Mr Yousuf? 15 ”Ignatius Pang.
16 A. No, my Lord, I was not aware of such intentions from 16 ”Steve McLaughlan.
17 Dr Craig. 17 ”Robert Urquhart.”
18 Q. Does it surprise you that he was trying to buy you out 18 Now, Mr Yousuf, here, Dr Wright is telling Ms Aitken
19 in this way? 19 that you were involved in this activity relating to
20 A. No, my Lord. 20 the supercomputer, but you told this court earlier that
21 Q. And you were in fact then paid out, weren’t you, 21 you had no involvement in the supercomputer. Which is
22 Mr Yousuf? 22 true, Mr Yousuf? Are you telling the truth, that you
23 A. No, my Lord, I was not paid anything. 23 were not involved in the supercomputer, or is Dr Wright
24 Q. So are you just saying you just walked away? 24 not telling the truth when he says you were, in that
25 A. That’s correct , my Lord. We had an agreement, I don’t 25 email?

154 156

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 A. My Lord, I’m not sure what is the sequence of activities 1 payments to associates that were ’incurred in prior
2 of −− for the supercomputer. As I mentioned that I was 2 year, not paid, not claimed (carried forward)’ . Could
3 involved in the −− the initial phase of build−out of 3 you please advise if , in the 2013 income year, Strasan
4 Strasan, which you refer as ”C01N”, my Lord, and we did 4 (C01N) ... incurred any payments to associates that were
5 work on building a cybersecurity , many services, 5 not paid?”
6 operation centre, which was based on a distributed 6 Then you can go up to page 4, please {L9/82/4}. We
7 network concept. So, I’m not sure if Dr Craig Wright is 7 see Dr Wright responding, at 12.03 pm, on that day.
8 referring my −− that contribution as my involvement, so 8 Bottom of page 4. He says:
9 it ’s very difficult for me to say what Craig Wright 9 ”In the 2013 income year ...”
10 means here. But I was not directly involved in 10 So this is 2013 through to 2014:
11 the build−out of supercomputer, as I mentioned earlier, 11 ” ... Strasan ... incurred the following papers to
12 my Lord. 12 associates ...
13 Q. Well, that’s not quite right , Mr Yousuf. You said you 13 ”Panopticrypt ... $300,000.”
14 had no knowledge of a supercomputer. Are you now saying 14 And then over the page, please {L9/82/5}. Then you
15 that you might have some knowledge of a supercomputer 15 can see your name:
16 that existed? Which is it? 16 ”Shoaib Yousuf”. 250,000 (to be billed and paid by
17 A. My Lord, I mentioned to you that I was made aware by 17 July 2014).”
18 Dr Craig Wright for supercomputer, and I was not 18 So you were charging for work on a supercomputer,
19 involved in it , and −− and he did inform me, but I was 19 weren’t you, Mr Yousuf?
20 not sure what is it called . 20 A. As −− as I mentioned, my Lord, I have not worked and
21 Q. But you accept that this email seems to show that 21 I was not involved.
22 Dr Wright is saying that you were involved in the use of 22 Q. But Mr Yousuf, Dr Wright is telling the ATO that you
23 a supercomputer? Do you accept that that’s what 23 were. Are you saying that he is not telling the truth
24 the natural reading of this email is ? 24 to the ATO?
25 A. Seems like it , my Lord. 25 A. I cannot comment on that, my Lord.

157 159

1 Q. Now, if we go to the bottom of that page. Just to see 1 Q. Now, below that, he says:
2 what we’re talking about here, this is , again, 2 ”At the time of the work (2013) Shoaib Yousuf was an
3 Dr Wright’s email. He says: 3 Australian Resident. He now resides in Malaysia, but
4 ”The aim is to create smart money. This is a form 4 did all of the 2012/2013 work from Australia (He moved
5 of scripted contract that learns and reacts (without 5 if the 2013/2014 tax year).”
6 human intervention). That is, it is a contract with its 6 So, here we have Dr Wright telling −− sorry, not
7 own judge to handle disputes etc. The main need was for 7 telling the ATO, telling KPMG that you did this work in
8 large systems. Most of the tests involve an analysis of 8 2012/2013 in Australia, and he also then says that you
9 cryptographic data and the testing of possible formats 9 moved to Malaysia in 2013/2014, and of course
10 for a super−node. In effect, it is a form of 10 the Australian tax year runs from 1 July.
11 evolutionary computing. We start a set of programs that 11 Now, you had moved to Malaysia before 1 July 2013,
12 compete. The one that wins spawns more copies and 12 hadn’t you?
13 mutates.” 13 A. I don’t remember exact dates, my Lord, as I mentioned
14 Now, Mr Yousuf, earlier on, when you were describing 14 earlier , but it was around that time.
15 the work that you were doing, it didn’t sound anything 15 Q. Can we please jump to your LinkedIn profile, Mr Yousuf,
16 like that. Do you accept that what is written in that 16 which is at {X/2/1}, so just so you can see there. And
17 paragraph doesn’t reflect any work that you were working 17 you can see ”Celcom Axiata Berhad” at the bottom, ”2 yrs
18 on in C01N? 18 5 mos”, ”Vice President”, ”Jan 2013”. You had moved to
19 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 19 Malaysia by January 2013, hadn’t you, Mr Yousuf?
20 Q. And then, we’re currently on page 6, if we go up to 20 A. That would be around that time, my Lord.
21 page 5 {L9/82/5}, we can see a response by Ms Aitken at 21 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt your own LinkedIn
22 10.50 am on 23 May. She says: 22 profile ?
23 ”Hi Craig. 23 A. No, my Lord.
24 ”Thank you for providing this information. The R&D 24 Q. So, in that case, it simply −− and you’ve described your
25 Tax Schedule that you provided listed $300,000 in 25 relationship as being as a mentor and a friend, and you

158 160

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 were in business with Dr Wright. Dr Wright must have 1 that you can see Dr Wright has written on in red. If we
2 known when you moved to Malaysia, didn’t he? 2 could look at the middle of that page, please. So,
3 A. I believe so, my Lord. 3 number 5 relates to you, and again, the black is from
4 Q. In which case, Dr Wright must have known, when he told 4 Ms Aitken and the red is Dr Wright’s response. So
5 Ms Aitken that you had moved after 1 July 2013 −− 5 Ms Aitken writes in black:
6 Dr Wright must have known he wasn’t telling the truth 6 ”Could you please confirm that the $250,000 for work
7 when he told Ms Aitken that; isn’t that correct? 7 carried out in the period from 1 July 2012 to
8 A. I ’m not sure, my Lord. 8 30 June ... has not been invoiced to date.
9 Q. Then −− and also, can I just check, your job in 9 Additionally , could you please advise evidence detailing
10 Malaysia, that was a full −time job? 10 the work ... ”
11 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 11 Etc.
12 Q. So you weren’t −− and you weren’t working on anything to 12 And then he responds:
13 do with C01N in that period from January 2013 onwards; 13 ”It has not been invoiced to date.
14 correct? 14 ”It remains an informal agreement. As a part of
15 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 15 this , there has been a formal agreement for the sale of
16 Q. Then if we go back, please, to {L9/82/3}, page 3 this 16 shares and migration to other entities in the group
17 time. I ’m sorry we have to go through this backwards, 17 signed, but the actual work here was done as an informal
18 it ’s all a bit confusing, but the email chains are this 18 email agreement.
19 way. 19 ”The agreement that follows is for $250,000 in cash
20 Now, at the bottom of the page, we see an email from 20 plus $50,000 is shares when we get the group formed and
21 Ms Aitken, at 5.20, where she says: 21 the ATO sorted. That pays out Shoaib in full and also
22 ”Hi Craig. 22 merges the entities next financial year.”
23 ”For each of the groups below ...” 23 And you say that whilst you did have an −− you now
24 Which includes yourself: 24 say you did have an agreement, but you say you weren’t
25 ” ... could you please advise.” 25 paid any of that money, Mr Yousuf; is that right?

161 163

1 And if we flip over the page {L9/82/4}: 1 A. That’s correct , my Lord.

2 ”Evidence detailing work ... ” 2 Q. But why are you being invoiced for work, because of
3 Etc: 3 course, you don’t invoice a company for your shares, do
4 ” If any have been invoiced.” 4 you, you invoice for work or services provided to
5 And then we can see, back on page 3 {L9/82/3}, 5 a company? So what were you invoicing here to C01N?
6 Dr Wright responds to that at 5.57 pm. He says: 6 A. I have not invoiced anything, my Lord, to C01N or −− or
7 ”The $300,000 from the prior year was for consulting 7 Strasan.
8 and planning. It ... Panopticrypt ... Ltd ... and 8 Q. So, you have no idea why Dr Wright told Ms Aitken that
9 Shoaib. It has not as yet been paid to associates ... 9 there was £250,000 [sic] of work carried out by you in
10 [ it ] remains unpaid.” 10 the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013, do you?
11 And then he says below: 11 A. I −− I don’t −− I have no idea, my Lord.
12 ”There is an agreement with Shoaib, this is being 12 Q. And your position is that you didn’t carry out any work
13 formalised but remains outstanding.” 13 in that period; is that right?
14 So was there a formal document put into place 14 A. My Lord, I’m not sure what work year is being referred.
15 between you and Dr Wright, Mr Yousuf? 15 It could be, like , contribution of the initial
16 A. No, my Lord. As I mentioned, that we had −− the only 16 ten months of the build−out of the company.
17 agreement I recall was Craig buying my shares and paying 17 Q. Well, it can’t be anything from 1 January, say, 2013,
18 me around 250/300, I don’t recall. That’s the only 18 because of course your LinkedIn profile says it was
19 agreement I recall . 19 January 2013. So, this would presumably be referring to
20 Q. So you did have an agreement for Dr Wright to buy out 20 a quarter−of−a−million pounds −− quarter−of−million
21 your shares; is that correct? 21 Aussie dollars work in the six months, July 2012 to
22 A. That’s correct , my Lord. 22 the end of that year, and you’re saying that you did and
23 Q. Did he pay you? 23 invoiced for no such work; is that correct?
24 A. No, my Lord. 24 A. Yes, my correct −− that’s correct, my Lord. My
25 Q. Now, on page 2 {L9/82/2}, we’re now looking at the email 25 agreement was the sale of my shares of −− of my −− of my

162 164

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 −− of the company to Dr Craig Wright. 1 have had a genuine invoice for a quarter−of−a−million
2 Q. I accept that, but as I think you agree with me, there’s 2 pounds work based on what you have described your
3 a significant difference between an agreement to buy out 3 involvement with C01N is; do you accept that?
4 somebody’s shares and invoicing a company for work; 4 A. My Lord, as I −− as I mentioned, I have not invoiced
5 that’s correct , isn ’ t it ? 5 anything to C01N.
6 A. I understand, my Lord. 6 MR MOSS: Well, if you had never invoiced anything to C01N,
7 My Lord, may I ask, how much more time do you need? 7 why is Dr Wright telling Ms Aitken that you have?
8 I do have an appointment shortly. 8 LORD GRABINER: The witness can’t actually answer that
9 Q. I will be finished in the next 15 minutes, Mr Yousuf. 9 question, with respect to my learned friend.
10 I ’m trying not to detain you any longer than I need to, 10 MR MOSS: The slight difference is −−
11 trust me. 11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You’re getting close to the point where
12 Mr Yousuf, was this submission to get £250,000 −− 12 you’ve done this to death, Mr Moss.
13 sorry , $250,000, for you, a sham that you agreed with 13 MR MOSS: Can we please now go to {CSW/80.3/1}, and page 2
14 Dr Wright? 14 {CSW 80.3/2}. Now, you see here an email of
15 A. I cannot comment on this, my Lord, on the intentions of 15 22 July 2014 that is coming from ASIC. So you were
16 Dr Craig Wright. 16 still receiving emails from −− in relation to Strasan as
17 Q. I ’m asking if you were involved in a −− and you know 17 at that date, weren’t you?
18 there’s a series of discussions with Dr Wright and 18 A. That’s correct , my Lord.
19 Ms Aitken here talking about work that you had invoiced 19 Q. And then if we go back to page 1 {CSW/80.3/1}, we see
20 for . Did you ever chase him for any work to be paid? 20 your comment −− you forwarding it on and going:
21 A. No, my Lord. 21 ”Mate − FYI.”
22 Q. And if we go to the bottom of page 1 {L9/82/1} −− no, 22 And above that:
23 sorry , can we now please go to {L9/92/1}. Now, this is 23 ”Bro when can we finalize the agreement?”
24 the same email chain, but there’s been a few emails 24 And then Dr Wright saying:
25 further on it . If we go to the bottom of page 1, we see 25 ”I am working on it. KPMG sent the last materials

165 167

1 an email from Ms Aitken at 7.39. She says: 1 off ... ”

2 ”Hi Craig. 2 And then your response above:
3 ”The ATO may as for evidence that a legally 3 ”So another 2 months?”
4 enforceable debt was incurred by Co1n for that work.” 4 And you’re saying that none of this actually
5 And then: 5 happened, are you?
6 ”Shoaib Yousuf. 6 A. My −− this agreement is about me signing off from
7 ”Can you please advise what evidence is there to 7 the company and −− and Craig buying out my shares.
8 support the amount was incurred and that a legally 8 Q. Okay.
9 enforceable debt ... will not be satisfied by share 9 And then can we quickly go to {CSW/80.18/1}. Here,
10 equity.” 10 this is an email from you dated 17 October, using your
11 Then can we please go back to page 1 {L9/92/1}. 11 Strasan. So you were still using and accessing your
12 Above that, at 11.13, we see Ms Aitken responding, 12 Strasan email at that date; correct?
13 pointing out that verbal contracts are legally 13 A. That’s correct .
14 enforceable and asking for what details there are in 14 Q. And then can we go to {CSW/80.23/1}. This is a −− do
15 relation to yourself . 15 you recognise this Skype conversation that you had with
16 And then, at the top of the page, we see Dr Wright 16 Dr Wright?
17 responding: 17 A. I don’t recall it , but it seems like it , my Skype
18 ”It was just an agreement based on future payment. 18 account.
19 ”I have emails and I have detailed the agreement to 19 Q. So the reason, Mr Yousuf, I went through all that is
20 pay. He was arranging computers, getting trial builds 20 because you can see here that your comment, there at
21 done and a few other things that could have led to 21 the top, on Monday, 15 December 2014, is:
22 a separate system but ended leading nowhere. We have 22 ”I noticed from the notes [at] KPMG that $250k is
23 agreements with a Chinese company for the supply 23 [the] charge for the services we did during those days
24 of prototype system boards and some I also used.” 24 or [ is ] it for the shares I own in the company? Will
25 Now, Mr Yousuf, there’s simply no way that you can 25 I continue to hold the shares?”

166 168

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 And Dr Wright responds: 1 respectfully say so.

2 ”Both.” 2 MR MOSS: My Lord, just to clarify, Mr Yousuf was a director
3 So clearly you were aware that Dr Wright was 3 with fiduciary duties and, as you saw towards the end,
4 submitting requests in relation to services you have 4 claiming significant sums of money and it was quite
5 provided. Do you accept that? 5 clear that he had nothing. So all I was doing was
6 A. That’s not correct. As I mentioned, here what I’m −− 6 putting his knowledge of events, and in fairness to him,
7 and how I understood the conversation is, my 7 he said he had none.
8 contribution, it is in the initial build−out of 8 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, there was a plausible basis for
9 the Strasan. That is what Craig is referring : 9 the cross−examination and I’m not suggesting otherwise,
10 ”You put in time. I will pay your time at the rate 10 it just was, in my respectful submission, rather
11 you used.” 11 pointless .
12 Q. Mr Yousuf, you finish your evidence, in paragraph 16 12 My Lord, so far as the question that you put earlier
13 {E/7/4} −− and we don’t need to go there −− by saying 13 in the day −−
14 that ”Craig could be Satoshi”. Are you aware that many 14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
15 other people have been identified in the media and 15 LORD GRABINER: −− I think I’ve got an answer for you.
16 cryptocurrency circles as possible candidates to be 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
17 Satoshi, Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, Michael Clear, 17 LORD GRABINER: Which is that the document 6565 we think has
18 Neil King, Charles Bry, Gavin Andresen, Adam Back, 18 not been analysed, either by Mr Lynch or by Dr Placks.
19 amongst others, and that’s just from the Wikipedia page? 19 We do know that Dr Placks has analysed a version of
20 You don’t suggest that you have researched 20 the Timecoin document in his first report, and I’ve got
21 the education, interests and abilities of all of those 21 a reference on that, which is in paragraph 7.02 on
22 individuals , do you? 22 page 19 of his report, which I think is in I/1, but we
23 A. No, my Lord. I don’t know any of them. 23 don’t need to go to it {I/1/19}.
24 Q. And the reality is that you can only speculate on 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
25 Dr Wright being Satoshi because Dr Wright has told you 25 LORD GRABINER: That document ID number is 254, and what we

169 171

1 himself that he is Satoshi and you’re now looking back 1 don’t know is if this is forensically the same as 6565,
2 on hindsight at what happened; do you accept that? 2 and it may be, in which case it’s been examined and of
3 A. That’s not correct, my Lord. 3 course it is one of the documents that’s alleged to be
4 MR MOSS: No further questions, my Lord. 4 a forgery .
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Mr Gunning? 5 MR HOUGH: My Lord, I can assist in relation to that.
6 MR GUNNING: No, nothing from me. 6 ID_000254 is an −− entirely different in content from
7 LORD GRABINER: I’m surprised. 7 ID_006565. ID_006565 is the document supposedly
8 My Lord, I have no re−examination. 8 provided by Papa Neema and it’s discussed in
9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And I have no further questions for you, 9 Sherrell 20, which explains that it is supposedly dated
10 Mr Yousuf. Thank you very much for your evidence. You 10 April 2009 and is paraphrased, sentence for sentence, in
11 are now released. 11 the White Paper and has pixelated screenshots instead of
12 A. Thank you, my Lord. 12 images.
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And I hope you’re in time for your 13 There’s also an association of this document with
14 appointment. 14 the Samsung Drive, which we’ll explain in more detail.
15 A. Thank you, my Lord. I wish you all the best. Thank 15 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, okay, thank you.
16 you, my Lord. 16 LORD GRABINER: I’m grateful to my friend.
17 (The witness withdrew) 17 Well, my Lord, I think that we’re done for the day,
18 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I did not interrupt the process, 18 I ’m happy to say.
19 but may I just make this observation, that a substantial 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes.
20 part of that cross−examination was really directed at 20 LORD GRABINER: Tomorrow we have three more
21 the credibility of Dr Wright, and none of that was put 21 witnesses: Ms Morgan, Mark Archbold and Cerian Jones.
22 to Dr Wright and that might have been a more appropriate 22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, okay.
23 way of going about doing it. But there was no point in 23 MR GUNNING: My Lord, just before we all rise, I made
24 my standing up and objecting, but it was not a very 24 the offer in relation to Dr Wuille that we could call
25 appropriate way to go about doing it, if I may 25 him if that would be useful for your Lordship. I don’t

170 172

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

1 know if your Lordship would want to give an indication

2 as to whether that would be useful. There’s obviously
3 no hurry, because he wasn’t expecting to be called until
4 next week anyway.
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Yes, I need to have a think about
6 that. Thanks.
7 Nothing else for today then? Excellent.
8 Okay, we’ll sit again at 10.30 in the morning.
9 Thank you.
10 (3.53 pm)
11 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Friday,
12 16 February 2024)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

173

1 INDEX
2
3 Housekeeping .........................................1
4 DR IGNATIUS PANG (sworn) .............................5
5 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER ............6
6 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH ....................6
7 MR ROBERT JENKINS (sworn) ...........................44
8 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER ...........45
9 Cross−examination by MR MOSS ....................45
10 Re−examination by LORD GRABINER .................94
11 Further cross−examination by MR MOSS ............99
12 MR SHOAIB YOUSUF (sworn) ...........................107
13 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER ..........107
14 Cross−examination by MR MOSS ...................108
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

174

175

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

administer (1) 49:6 15:1 23:24 30:13 38:23 131:15 132:7,9,11,14 associates (4) 159:1,4,12 78:16,18,21,22 79:9 80:21 141:12,12 145:13 146:13
A
administration (1) 10:5 47:9 56:20 63:21 66:14 155:17 162:9 84:10,23 86:2,4,21,25 160:25 162:12 164:2,14

abided (1) 57:1 administrative (1) 153:14 67:9 87:4 94:19 98:10 applied (2) 130:19 148:6 association (4) 21:10,16 90:12 91:7,21 93:16 94:13 169:25

abilities (2) 91:10 169:21 admission (1) 90:24 105:25 107:8 109:18,25 apply (1) 148:10 98:2 172:13 95:15,16 97:13,22 98:4 believe (7) 39:23 43:6 60:21

ability (1) 57:3 adopt (1) 3:14 110:10,19 112:4 114:17 applying (1) 8:4 assume (6) 37:19 52:15 57:1 99:1 110:15 111:23 114:11 70:7 78:4 117:4 161:3

able (18) 1:15,25 23:1 36:19 advance (2) 65:19 102:8 115:8 119:20 124:17 appointed (3) 41:20 72:4 105:15 132:20 115:7,7 116:20 117:16 believes (1) 92:9

39:19 40:12 41:8 57:23 advanced (1) 15:1 126:16 128:6 130:10,11 126:17,21 assuming (1) 106:4 118:7,20 119:6,9,14 below (13) 56:14 57:5 59:8

65:16 68:23 70:23 76:22 advantage (1) 4:17 134:15 144:5 154:11 160:8 appointment (2) 165:8 assure (1) 4:23 121:24 122:7,9,10,19,22 87:2 89:10 114:20 132:25

95:14 98:25 106:21 117:1 advertisements (1) 46:13 161:9 163:21 166:24 170:14 asx (1) 47:8 127:7 128:8,17,20 137:14 135:7 136:11 155:8 160:1

122:15 130:24 advice (1) 155:14 172:13 appreciate (5) 1:14 64:12,22 ate (2) 31:19,21 138:11 141:21 147:17 161:23 162:11

abn (1) 37:25 advise (5) 155:22 159:3 alternative (1) 65:5 144:23 152:4 ato (47) 38:4,8,13 39:24 151:18 153:17 154:10,12 beneficial (1) 40:6

above (7) 13:18 60:17 90:5 161:25 163:9 166:7 alternatives (1) 77:10 appreciated (1) 5:9 40:3,25 41:10,13 42:10,21 161:16 162:5 166:11 benefit (4) 84:23 86:11,16

114:24 166:12 167:22 advised (5) 38:24 39:2 41:1 although (1) 5:8 approached (2) 42:21,22 43:12,21 125:6,21 126:21 167:19 169:18 170:1 113:6

168:2 137:24 142:14 always (6) 21:22 30:22 38:1 appropriate (2) 170:22,25 128:18 132:6,16 136:11 backed (1) 65:23 berhad (1) 160:17

absolutely (6) 32:23 65:21 adviser (2) 67:5 74:2 112:17,18 149:20 april (4) 144:13 145:4,13 139:7 140:16 background (5) 7:25 11:4 besides (2) 49:19 96:20

85:17,19 121:24 124:9 advises (1) 142:1 ambiguity (1) 103:14 172:10 142:1,7,13,17 143:16 21:13 46:19 135:2 best (12) 10:25 14:6 16:3,5

absurd (1) 4:10 advisory (1) 134:11 amicably (1) 154:9 archbold (1) 172:21 144:3,7,16,20,22,24 backing (1) 71:21 18:21 37:8 38:19 57:3

academia (2) 9:5 23:25 affair (1) 51:25 amongst (3) 60:12 91:7 architectural (1) 66:24 145:4,6 146:23 147:23,24 backs (1) 69:23 116:17 122:4 137:17

academic (1) 40:18 affairs (2) 124:22 128:2 169:19 architecture (1) 66:20 150:24 151:2 152:1,13 backwards (1) 161:17 170:15

accelerating (1) 119:4 after (31) 1:15 8:13 amount (10) 30:24 72:17 area (2) 48:8 110:18 153:12 159:22,24 160:7 bad (1) 94:12 better (4) 63:2 86:16 95:5

accept (49) 2:4 14:22 18:23 9:8,13,16 27:15 95:12 148:18 150:9 arena (1) 48:1 163:21 166:3 bag (1) 64:10 126:4

36:16 37:2 47:14 49:14,25 34:1,1,9,14,17 36:3,7 153:23,24 155:1,3 166:8 arent (4) 1:17 5:8 111:24 atos (2) 125:14 146:3 bailed (1) 151:23 between (25) 10:3,4 20:23

58:18 73:5 75:14,21 78:16 40:13 81:3 86:3 89:19 97:3 amounts (2) 146:7 151:5 130:9 attached (1) 49:22 bank (23) 60:23 61:11 63:3 23:19 25:7 28:14 50:16

80:9,12 81:18,20 85:24 104:6 105:15 115:18 analogies (2) 76:14,25 argue (1) 154:12 attachments (1) 79:12 66:1,17,19,21 67:4 68:1,2 60:7 67:14 71:20 76:9

86:6,10,16,23 89:5 91:23 116:8,17 118:12,23 120:7 analogy (4) 23:19,20,20,20 arises (1) 112:9 attacks (1) 1:22 72:1,25 73:4,22 74:4 80:13,17,18 82:12 86:7

93:20 102:11 105:11 111:6 124:12 125:2 128:15 analyse (2) 15:14 106:22 arose (5) 4:3 75:5 93:16 99:8 attain (1) 47:19 77:11,15,18,23,24 78:1 106:16 114:25 138:17

112:2 116:14 120:23 144:12 161:5 analysed (4) 20:12,21 112:15 attended (1) 97:10 93:5,13 141:2,9 144:7 150:19

121:21 122:14 124:7 afternoon (2) 106:1 108:21 171:18,19 around (87) 22:3 34:17 attending (2) 138:21,25 banking (8) 67:17,17,25 68:7 162:15 165:3

128:22 129:3,23 138:20 afterwards (1) 11:16 analysing (1) 22:2 36:23,24 50:9 51:6 attention (3) 114:12 130:11 72:9 77:14 87:12 94:21 beyond (1) 83:1

144:11 148:15,17 153:5 again (44) 36:4 37:2 52:22 analysis (9) 9:20 11:1 20:16 54:19,19 57:11,23 154:7 bankings (1) 68:5 big (3) 149:11 152:23 153:5

157:21,23 158:16 165:2 59:24 68:22,23 73:16 22:13,24 38:5 41:12,13 59:17,24,25 60:17 61:2,18 au19 (1) 148:13 banks (2) 77:10,15 billed (1) 159:16

167:3 169:5 170:2 74:10 75:5,14,17,21 158:8 62:8,19 67:2,4,13 69:1 au2 (1) 135:9 banter (1) 32:1 bind (1) 22:11

accepted (4) 3:6 5:2 88:10 76:6,11 77:14 79:8 81:6,18 analytical (2) 17:11,18 71:10,19 72:9,23 73:24 au5 (1) 126:7 barrister (2) 6:5 7:1 bioinformatics (1) 8:1

96:3 83:16 97:5 112:15 analytics (6) 8:17 11:17 74:15 76:1,9,18 78:25 au5000 (1) 42:14 base (2) 139:19 152:12 biological (4) 8:5 21:13,21

access (3) 43:10 106:17 117:8,21 118:13,23 119:12 15:1,16 16:2 23:25 79:11,13 80:16 82:22 audio (1) 83:14 based (19) 8:7 14:21,21 16:9 22:14

142:16 121:25 125:21 127:24 andor (1) 98:15 84:13 85:1,7,8,9,22,25 audit (4) 13:16 14:23 20:13 22:3 24:2 65:9 67:19 biology (1) 23:12

accessing (1) 168:11 128:17 132:15,20 136:2,16 andresen (2) 91:6 169:18 87:9 89:17 90:14 93:9 129:18,22 70:4 86:15 90:20 122:2 biometrics (1) 48:23

according (1) 47:14 138:7,13 141:8 142:24 andrew (1) 51:24 95:8,16 97:5 98:6,10,12,20 audited (1) 153:23 139:12 143:10 146:19 birds (1) 14:13

account (3) 31:5 32:5 168:18 143:18 147:18 148:2 158:2 annals (1) 65:7 103:12,14 111:7,10,24 august (1) 38:22 157:6 166:18 167:2 birthday (1) 24:25

accountancy (1) 8:16 163:3 173:8 anomalies (1) 146:6 113:2,2,21,22,23 ausindustry (7) 131:15 basic (4) 4:14,22 30:10 75:14 bit (16) 10:7 11:5 17:25

accountants (1) 42:19 against (1) 152:13 another (19) 7:12 11:13,22 115:17,19,19 117:17 132:9,12,18 133:1 basis (7) 4:16 43:4,5,6 51:7 19:20 34:13 51:11 53:10

accounting (1) 43:10 age (1) 26:25 24:21 27:15 33:9,14,17,19 118:12 119:5,12 120:17,21 155:20,25 94:10 171:8 56:14 60:8 71:18 72:13

accounts (3) 23:6 43:13,23 agent (3) 41:3,15,21 37:3,13 59:16 73:22 76:2 122:11 128:10 134:2,15,25 aussie (18) 16:24 17:2,17 batman (3) 26:16,20 36:22 76:17 89:11 97:1,6 161:18

accurate (4) 57:18 65:17 agents (2) 131:20,20 80:18 109:18 125:19,21 137:14,17 149:13 18:1,2,4,8,12,20 batmobile (1) 26:21 bitcoin (42) 3:25 33:7,9

70:18 95:20 aggressive (1) 4:20 168:3 150:11,13 152:2 160:14,20 19:9,11,17,23 20:11,23 bdo (22) 8:16,18,19 35:22 50:4 66:12 68:16

accurately (1) 14:7 ago (14) 25:24 33:20 37:3 answer (19) 57:7,9 61:1 162:18 23:5 41:12 164:21 9:13,14,16 11:6,6 70:5 71:5 82:6,8,9,19,21

achieve (1) 121:9 50:8 52:2 62:21 64:12,22 87:6,7 89:22,23 96:7,14 arrangement (2) 41:5,22 australia (28) 48:4 55:12,16 13:1,7,10,14 14:8,23 83:8,25 84:14,16,17,20

acknowledge (1) 4:22 65:10 80:11 84:19 89:16 104:16,17 106:23 arranging (1) 166:20 56:6 60:23 61:11 63:17 15:4,6 23:23 34:22 47:2 85:1,12,23 86:2 88:13

acknowledgement (2) 92:5 95:9 119:13 118:11,24 120:3 137:21 articles (1) 91:8 64:2,7 66:1 68:1 72:1,25 80:18 81:4 115:8 89:6,14 90:14,20 92:16

132:8 agree (4) 30:6 38:9 99:12 156:7 167:8 171:15 asic (3) 127:9,18 167:15 73:4,22 74:4 77:11,18 bearing (8) 53:11 70:19,19 96:5,23 101:17,18 103:5

acknowledgment (1) 132:19 165:2 answered (5) 88:3 90:9 aside (1) 14:6 80:16 93:5,13 119:10 103:23 104:2 142:7 143:1 107:9 123:20 129:11

acquire (1) 138:15 agreed (2) 2:20 165:13 115:3,13 120:4 ask (17) 2:20 5:16 6:11 7:5 155:18,23 156:3,8 160:4,8 146:14 130:24 131:18 132:3,3

acquired (1) 135:9 agreement (25) 41:14,15 answers (2) 109:2 155:9 21:15 29:13 31:11 32:11 australian (10) 37:15 38:4 became (1) 153:5 bitmessages (1) 141:2

acronym (1) 74:10 146:7,8 150:4,6 151:25 anybody (7) 5:4 33:6 36:6 35:20 38:18 39:18,25 46:3 47:9 113:12 125:9,24 become (1) 152:25 bits (1) 7:20

acronyms (1) 13:23 152:5 154:25 155:2 95:6 102:1 104:4 145:3 60:11 97:16 145:11 165:7 127:9 153:18 160:3,10 before (48) 4:21 7:5 28:11 bittorrent (2) 76:20,21

across (4) 28:14 82:15 94:23 162:12,17,19,20 anyone (4) 35:25 36:3,7,13 asked (43) 2:12 20:22 29:7 authentication (1) 49:2 34:5,12,14 35:23 black (2) 163:3,5

95:13 163:14,15,18,19,24 164:25 anything (46) 17:5 33:7 33:22 34:22 37:4 38:6 author (2) 11:24 12:4 38:12,15,16 42:2 46:2 blame (1) 28:12

acting (1) 7:1 165:3 166:18,19 167:23 36:13 41:23,24 50:22 41:10,11 45:20 56:16 authored (1) 11:5 55:1,1,5,5,9,11,20,21 block (2) 50:5 70:1

activities (9) 38:25 39:11 168:6 56:20 58:11 59:23 63:14 65:2,5,11 66:17 69:10 available (11) 52:20 56:17 58:18,19 81:9 84:17 blockchain (23) 26:4 27:11

131:14 133:2,9 155:19,25 agreements (2) 131:18 65:4 68:6,7 69:11 78:19 70:24 73:14,14 77:25 55:11,16,25,25 56:5 85:14 90:1 97:3 101:5,11 29:8,14 32:19 50:4

156:7 157:1 166:23 88:4,19,21,22,23 92:12 81:14 82:23 84:13 85:23 63:16,17 64:7,10 65:12 102:14,16 103:22 104:7,14 68:11,13 69:4,5,10,13,16

activity (6) 130:16 131:3,22 ah (1) 107:11 96:12,14,15,16,19 102:13 87:25 90:6 91:12 aware (56) 4:13 27:25 31:22 106:11 108:22 111:7 70:4,5,8 71:4 78:5,25 79:7

133:4 155:15 156:19 aim (2) 47:25 158:4 103:1,4 104:4 114:17 95:9,18,23 100:19 37:21 43:14 52:15 69:23 114:14 116:8,15 131:11 88:2 94:20 131:19

actual (3) 62:12,22 163:17 aitken (15) 155:8,8,13 131:23 132:24 136:9 102:15,25 103:24 71:4,7 91:2 100:15 143:24 152:21,25 153:4 blocks (3) 26:6 27:15 79:7

actually (18) 8:18 12:24 156:18 158:21 161:5,7,21 139:13 140:9 142:6 145:20 104:23,24 115:11 118:18 111:13,14,16,17,19,20,21 160:11 172:23 blue (1) 42:21

43:18 55:22 63:10 71:5 163:4,5 164:8 165:19 153:1 154:23 158:15 122:22 137:19,19 145:2,16 123:3 130:4,8 131:7,8 beforehand (1) 104:19 board (6) 138:16,19,21,23,25

78:11 88:15,25 89:11 166:1,12 167:7 161:12 164:6,17 167:5,6 asking (11) 2:13 36:12,23,24 132:4,4,10 begin (1) 64:5 139:6

92:14 96:8 98:13 114:10 albeit (1) 70:1 anyway (2) 45:25 173:4 108:22 140:19 151:16 133:5,6,21,22,23,24 134:1 beginning (3) 49:20 83:23 boards (1) 166:24

134:3 143:24 167:8 168:4 algorithms (2) 155:16,18 anywhere (2) 67:21 156:8 155:24 156:1 165:17 141:9,11,17 142:6,8 84:12 books (1) 110:24

adam (3) 69:23 91:7 169:18 alias (3) 36:10,13,17 apart (1) 30:11 166:14 143:4,19,21 144:15 behalf (7) 6:5 38:25 41:21 boom (1) 29:16

adapted (1) 136:13 aliases (1) 18:20 api (1) 130:24 aspect (3) 51:20 76:2 92:13 145:13,14,20,23 146:13,16 45:20 82:3 113:16 150:24 borrowed (2) 11:12,22

add (2) 3:9,19 allegations (1) 2:17 apologies (3) 56:9 70:15 aspects (1) 110:25 147:1 151:25 152:2 behaviour (3) 15:7 24:5 boss (1) 13:1

added (2) 3:1 106:16 allege (1) 144:7 149:25 assembled (1) 26:20 154:14,16 157:17 169:3,14 36:18 both (13) 31:13 50:25 85:8

adding (1) 24:9 alleged (4) 16:20,23 141:8 apparently (1) 11:3 assertions (1) 2:8 away (7) 24:18 29:12,23 behind (1) 71:21 87:7 109:17 110:6,9

additional (1) 132:17 172:3 appear (4) 47:13 63:20 71:5 assessments (1) 134:14 53:17 92:4 154:24 155:4 being (65) 1:14,25 13:4 112:5,16 120:24 135:2

additionally (1) 163:9 alliance (1) 7:2 85:6 assigned (1) 40:22 axiata (1) 160:17 15:11,21,22 23:20 26:21 151:6 169:2

address (5) 1:6 3:7 5:10 allow (2) 99:6,13 appearance (1) 146:10 assigning (1) 39:9 31:23 32:15 37:9,10,24 bottom (17) 68:17 79:5
B
18:18 144:19 allowed (1) 74:20 appeared (1) 90:15 assignment (3) 39:17 40:6 41:6 49:25 50:8,10 89:23 118:8,14,21,22

addressed (1) 4:4 allowing (1) 152:13 appears (7) 5:7 45:10 47:3 40:7,15 babe (2) 31:20,20 51:4,6,8 52:8 53:22 54:3 119:22 130:15 155:10,12

addresses (1) 129:11 allows (1) 19:1 120:12 135:24 136:13 assist (2) 42:20 172:5 back (90) 10:7,20 27:24 62:6 64:9 68:21,25 70:4 158:1 159:8 160:17 161:20

addressing (2) 2:23 75:9 almost (3) 51:9 80:10 110:16 138:19 assistance (1) 135:9 28:16 35:8,16,20 48:8 71:14 76:22 78:13 80:22 165:22,25

adduced (1) 143:7 along (3) 11:25 16:1 62:17 appended (1) 122:25 assistant (1) 8:12 49:20 51:12 52:22 57:22 82:11 84:5 85:12 91:4,20 bought (9) 24:25 26:15

adjourned (1) 173:11 already (7) 77:22 78:8 appendices (2) 138:2,4 associate (2) 9:6 153:24 59:7,10,12,21 61:15 92:11 95:23 98:19 100:19 32:18,25 33:2 55:19 57:10

adjournment (2) 105:15 105:11 138:8 139:12 appendix (3) 139:18 150:23 associated (9) 21:19 49:4,5 65:6,12,18 68:18 101:17 103:24 104:22,24 149:22 150:1

106:9 149:17 153:23 151:12 50:14 51:22 53:2 92:10 70:6,10,14,20,23 72:18 122:3 129:1,8 130:1,9 branding (2) 12:11,13

adjustments (1) 126:6 also (39) 2:7 4:13 5:3 11:1 application (7) 119:19 98:11 102:1 74:1 75:17,22 77:25 132:5 133:16,22,25 140:1 break (9) 8:24 10:4,6

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

44:16,19 75:11 capabilities (1) 103:18 clayton (2) 152:13 155:14 compete (1) 158:12 contractor (8) 10:9,23 costs (2) 153:10,12 currently (2) 8:1 158:20
147:4,12,15 capability (3) 67:6,7 68:3 clean (1) 152:20 competitors (2) 63:25 64:3 37:23,24 39:2 43:4,23 cough (2) 34:2,5 cv (3) 14:21 47:2,15
breaking (1) 75:10 capacity (1) 144:17 cleaner (1) 153:22 complete (1) 119:19 151:4 couldnt (3) 27:17 95:2 cvs (3) 13:9 47:5,18
brevity (1) 32:12 capital (1) 152:11 clear (21) 20:21 26:15 32:19 completed (1) 8:8 contracts (1) 166:13 106:17 cybersecurity (15) 110:10
bricks (9) 26:24 27:18,20,20 captured (1) 14:16 33:3,5 54:9 57:15 82:17 completely (3) 15:19 33:1 contradictory (1) 43:22 couple (6) 10:21 64:20 91:24 112:5,9,16,18,20,21
28:4,6,6 30:11,18 captures (1) 142:18 83:21,23 85:10,11 86:7 95:20 contrast (1) 4:1 94:5 96:20 120:8 134:11,11,12,19,23,25
brief (2) 117:5,21 card (1) 111:11 88:12 91:6 96:4 113:6 complex (1) 23:15 contribute (1) 83:7 course (24) 1:18 22:2 28:19 135:2 157:5
briefly (2) 36:2 99:16 cardiac (1) 8:13 148:21 153:2 169:17 171:5 complexes (4) 21:10,12 contribution (3) 157:8 52:14 57:1 74:13 78:3 80:6
D
bring (4) 24:23 48:15 137:5 career (7) 47:7,7,11 54:11 clearer (1) 51:11 22:17 24:9 164:15 169:8 84:7 86:2,8 102:12
147:17 66:1 78:17 93:19 clearly (12) 12:12,14 30:15 complexity (1) 26:24 control (4) 11:15 27:23,24 104:2,5,10 105:1,6,8 d (3) 60:17,17 89:18
bro (1) 167:23 carlo (1) 67:6 56:7 75:20 86:20 90:1,1 complicated (3) 14:17 27:21 154:11 120:23 128:21 160:9 data (24) 8:5,17 11:1
broad (1) 66:11 carried (7) 48:11 132:5 136:2 100:5,7 103:4 169:3 41:23 controlled (1) 144:5 164:3,18 172:3 15:1,14,16 16:2
brought (5) 26:10 69:12 155:22 159:2 163:7 164:9 client (1) 130:24 comply (1) 4:23 controversial (1) 71:11 coverage (2) 101:21,22 20:1,3,4,13
70:14 98:12 101:15 carrier (1) 67:16 clients (2) 13:16 15:1 computational (4) 75:10,12 conversation (41) 25:23 cpr (1) 3:17 21:1,1,21,22,23 22:4 23:25
browser (1) 46:13 carry (2) 153:20 164:12 clique (1) 21:20 76:3 82:14 26:1,10,14 27:3 29:6 30:1 craig (104) 11:7 12:21 38:5 41:12 74:21 81:19
bry (2) 91:6 169:18 cars (3) 27:22,23,24 close (4) 45:3 53:3 149:19 compute (1) 74:21 31:15 32:7,14 33:14,17,21 20:1,19 25:17 31:18 95:12 158:9
bt (4) 77:8,18,22,24 cas (1) 13:16 167:11 computer (13) 17:4 40:7 34:9,11 51:6,7 72:3 33:8,10 36:1 38:3,6,7 39:5 database (3) 53:23,25,25
btc (2) 131:20 152:9 cash (8) 33:7 73:19 93:8 closer (1) 86:8 43:2 58:2,2 75:14 81:19 73:17,20 75:18 76:9,12,14 41:11 47:25 49:19 date (14) 32:17 33:1 34:11
bubble (1) 66:2 97:19 111:13 132:3 152:8 closing (3) 2:8 3:5 4:15 82:3,7,10,12,14 83:4 77:1 79:9 83:9 87:8,13,19 50:12,19 51:8,20 52:12 98:15 117:15,18 120:7,11
build (7) 27:11,12,25 29:7 163:19 cloud (1) 134:9 computers (2) 67:3 166:20 91:16 93:8 97:7 98:1,20 55:4 61:7 62:17 63:23 126:13 149:20 163:8,13
30:8 31:2,12 casino (1) 47:10 co1n (1) 166:4 computing (9) 67:6 103:9 105:1,8 124:6 66:21 71:18 72:11,12,23 167:17 168:12
building (3) 30:7 67:5 157:5 cast (1) 98:4 coauthor (2) 11:1 12:24 74:11,13,15,15,24 81:23 168:15 169:7 76:9,15,24 77:2,4 78:13 dated (10) 40:4 47:3
buildout (4) 157:3,11 164:16 casting (2) 95:15,16 coauthors (1) 12:20 93:11 158:11 conversations (20) 25:14 79:18 80:17 84:13 87:15 125:10,23 135:24
169:8 casual (1) 9:25 code (4) 82:2,7,10 83:4 conceal (2) 56:20 114:17 36:5 52:18 61:18 62:8,11 88:1 90:17,19,21 138:18,23 155:7 168:10
builds (1) 166:20 catch (1) 61:3 coffee (1) 52:1 concept (10) 21:20 22:6,9,15 66:9 67:22 72:10,22 75:22 91:14,16,25 92:2,6,10 172:9
built (1) 29:14 category (1) 117:18 coin (1) 81:25 61:19 62:18 90:14 94:20 76:18 77:3,9 78:9 80:7 96:21 97:10,20 112:17 dates (16) 86:20 115:23
bump (1) 61:6 cause (1) 90:10 coincidental (1) 85:7 98:21 157:7 87:13 90:13 97:13 112:15 114:2,4 115:8 116:24 117:4,8,9 119:13,21
bundle (1) 107:15 caveats (1) 22:3 coingeek (3) 7:12,18,19 concepts (8) 21:5,9,12,14 converted (1) 8:19 117:1,5,16,21 118:24,25 120:12 121:7 122:20
bursting (1) 66:3 ceased (3) 127:3,10,18 collaborative (1) 112:19 66:11 76:15 78:5 94:20 convey (1) 103:15 119:6 123:23 127:25 126:12 127:24,25 128:16
business (16) 38:2 112:24,25 ceasing (1) 128:12 colleague (5) 20:20 31:6 concerned (6) 43:19 68:5 cooperate (1) 87:4 128:2,9,12 130:11 142:4 160:13
113:3 115:1,10 116:2,4,7 celcom (1) 160:17 33:9 36:9 77:23 82:8 100:6 103:3 127:9 copa (1) 49:23 132:1,13,21 134:7,16,20 david (3) 111:14 135:10,14
119:4 134:6,10,23,25 cellanjones (2) 1:13,20 collective (2) 122:2,3 concerns (1) 22:6 copies (3) 23:13 94:22 137:2,4,12,15,17 140:3 day (13) 4:21 25:20,21 33:18
152:10 161:1 central (2) 77:10,15 collectors (2) 27:7 31:7 conclude (1) 21:24 158:12 141:21 145:7 149:20 36:1 46:1 107:10 116:4
businesses (1) 137:2 centre (3) 87:8 134:8 157:6 column (2) 150:25 151:12 concluded (1) 143:17 copy (11) 12:6 13:9 16:4,4 150:5,7,7 154:17 155:7 152:12,12 159:7 171:13
busy (3) 137:4,6,7 cerian (1) 172:21 combination (2) 49:1 87:6 conclusion (5) 18:17 39:14,18 42:2 43:9 88:13 156:12 157:7,9,18 158:23 172:17
buttons (1) 40:13 certain (11) 30:23,24 47:20 come (21) 24:13 26:9 33:13 19:16,24 146:3,6 89:5 96:5 161:22 162:17 165:1,16 days (4) 46:4 108:24 125:23
buy (12) 27:25 58:1 59:9,9 65:1 81:8 120:25 121:1 51:12 56:11,13 61:10 67:8 conclusions (3) 18:11,13 core (9) 19:17,19,20 21:10 166:2 168:7 169:9,14 168:23
84:14 85:23 93:1 153:2 122:16 150:6,8,8 78:12 90:18 101:12,22 19:21 131:14 133:4,8 155:19 craigs (4) 15:24 42:22 47:17 deal (7) 1:25 2:11 3:2
154:14,18 162:20 165:3 chain (12) 26:6,7 27:16 103:2 121:13 127:7 conference (2) 9:20 61:8 156:8 155:9 33:14,23 56:13 109:12
buying (3) 55:6 162:17 168:7 29:11,16,19 30:8,16 31:12 128:8,19 135:2 150:14 conferences (1) 25:6 cores (1) 22:11 cranston (1) 151:12 dealings (1) 112:24
70:1 79:7 165:24 154:9,12 confidence (1) 21:19 corporation (4) 115:12,14 crash (1) 81:1 dear (1) 109:25
C
chains (2) 155:10 161:18 comes (1) 103:7 confirm (4) 6:14 11:4 122:16 116:1,9 cream (2) 26:17,21 dearly (1) 29:22
c (2) 56:14 57:5 challenge (3) 29:15 30:14 comindico (4) 54:13,15 55:3 163:6 correct (204) 8:21 9:12 create (3) 28:5 146:9 158:4 death (1) 167:12
c01 (1) 113:8 153:1 59:25 confirmed (1) 114:20 16:9,18,19 19:2 25:24 created (6) 48:22 53:22 54:3 debate (1) 4:11
c01n (69) 37:21 38:13,23 challenged (1) 27:11 coming (3) 12:9 90:12 confirming (1) 141:5 26:19 29:20 38:18 44:2,3 74:14 142:3,5 debt (2) 166:4,9
39:5 40:4,5,23,24 challenges (2) 31:7 152:22 167:15 confused (6) 5:14 10:18 32:6 46:21,22,25 47:1 48:14 creating (4) 21:11 22:17 december (3) 80:4 89:20
41:1,3,5,21 42:10 43:1,22 change (5) 23:14 28:13,13 commands (1) 142:15 34:13 86:20 127:24 49:12,13,17,18 50:2 51:3,5 49:9 146:10 168:21
113:4,7,20,24 114:6,7 29:4 78:2 comment (7) 24:17 25:8 confusing (2) 32:6 161:18 52:8,16,17 53:1,6,15,21 creation (1) 136:6 decided (7) 115:9
119:14 121:11 124:12 changed (3) 10:19 87:13 132:15 159:25 165:15 connected (8) 18:2 20:10 54:4,14,15,19,22,23 creative (1) 39:20 117:2,11,25 128:9,11
125:4,6,15,22 128:3 113:4 167:20 168:20 21:10,17,18 22:7,10 70:7 55:10,12,21 58:10 59:1,14 creator (1) 123:20 149:18
129:14,19,23 134:4,22 changes (2) 12:3,25 commentary (3) 46:8,10,12 connection (1) 33:6 60:5,25 61:9,12,14 63:9 credibility (1) 170:21 decision (14) 2:3,24 38:13
135:13 136:25 139:18,23 charge (1) 168:23 comments (1) 133:8 connotations (1) 54:1 65:24 66:3,4,12,13 criteria (1) 95:13 125:9,14,19,21
140:2 141:7 142:14,19,24 charged (1) 24:4 commercially (1) 152:15 consecutive (1) 126:2 68:14,20,21 69:8,17,22 critical (2) 22:12 98:8 128:18,20,22 136:12
143:1,8 144:25 145:17,20 charging (1) 159:18 commission (1) 113:13 consequence (3) 2:2 76:16 72:2,5 criticised (1) 94:10 137:22 146:14 147:23
148:20,21,23 charles (3) 91:6 109:14 commodities (1) 74:7 87:14 74:3,7,8,11,12,17,22,23 criticism (4) 7:7 64:23 decisions (1) 126:2
149:3,5,6,8,18,22 169:18 common (8) 22:13 36:16 consider (2) 92:18 146:5 75:7 76:4,5,12 77:16,17,20 117:23 143:11 declared (1) 39:24
150:1,3,24 157:4 158:18 chase (1) 165:20 39:20 86:2 93:15 considerable (1) 53:11 78:6,7,11,20 79:4,25 crossexamination (15) 2:1 dedicate (1) 117:1
159:4 161:13 164:5,6 chat (1) 17:18 112:10,11,13 consideration (2) 39:10 40:6 81:2,4,5,11,12,13,16,21 6:24 45:23 46:2 99:9,14,15 deduction (4) 18:18,21
167:3,5,6 chats (1) 16:9 commons (1) 39:20 considered (2) 146:5,8 82:25 84:1,2,5,6,9,21,22 108:20 121:14 170:20 135:5,8
c01ns (2) 139:24 146:17 chatted (1) 18:1 commonwealth (21) 60:23 consistent (2) 49:11 61:20 85:13,15,16,20,21 171:9 174:6,9,11,14 deductions (5) 133:13,17,22
cadence (3) 61:2,4,12 chatting (1) 19:22 61:11 66:1,17,19 67:4 constantly (1) 114:8 86:10,17 87:21,22 crossexamine (5) 1:10 2:3,24 135:5,7
cafes (1) 97:9 chaum (1) 111:14 68:1,2 72:1,25 73:4,22 constraints (1) 153:14 88:14,15 89:7,24,25 90:3,4 4:13,17 deed (1) 4:9
calculated (1) 139:19 check (13) 21:8 83:15 74:4,5 77:11,18,23,24 78:1 consulting (1) 162:7 91:23 92:22,23,25 crossexamined (1) 1:17 deep (1) 25:16
call (7) 2:16 4:5 5:13 17:3 100:2,22 102:21 104:9 93:4,12 contact (6) 9:11 52:3 60:18 93:2,5,6,13,14,20 94:25 crossexamining (1) 106:1 defendants (1) 15:12
41:19 48:9 172:24 108:23 121:22,24 122:9,19 communicate (1) 23:7 89:21 151:16,18 96:5,7,17 103:23,25 crucially (1) 156:2 defense (5) 11:3,8 12:11,13
called (17) 8:18 31:20 35:1 145:3 161:9 communications (1) 35:25 contacted (7) 42:23 52:6 104:18 108:12,16,18 crypto (1) 7:1 13:5
36:21,22,22,25 42:20 child (1) 29:21 companies (12) 117:5,16,18,19,21 109:15,16,20,22,23,25 cryptocurrency (2) 91:4 definite (1) 18:17
73:25 96:24 111:17 113:3 chinese (7) 29:11,16,19 10:13,14,17,24 41:1 48:4 contacting (1) 52:9 110:7,8,13 111:3,4,25 169:16 definitely (4) 10:11 28:16
140:5 141:16 151:24 30:8,16 31:12 166:23 66:23 87:11 137:7 152:14 contacts (2) 17:21 19:8 112:7,16,17 cryptographic (2) 155:17 122:19 129:7
157:20 173:3 choosing (1) 16:17 154:4,11 contemporaneous (1) 65:23 113:1,2,4,5,9,20,25 114:22 158:9 definition (2) 111:8,9
calling (1) 20:2 chose (1) 40:18 company (65) 10:1,1,5 contends (1) 139:22 115:16,22 121:6 123:6,10 cryptography (1) 130:23 degree (2) 8:8,13
came (15) 10:6 11:16 13:2 chronologically (1) 77:7 11:3,8,8 37:21 41:21 42:12 content (2) 3:21 172:6 124:25 125:1,4,5,12,17 csiro (2) 74:10,14 deleted (1) 18:5
28:16,19,24,25 29:2 72:3 circles (2) 91:4 169:16 46:24 80:18 111:17 contents (4) 5:2 6:21 45:17 126:17,22,24,25 128:24 csrl (1) 67:4 deliver (1) 77:25
101:13 103:19 119:6,9 claimants (1) 45:21 113:20,25 114:1,6 108:17 131:4,5 134:24 136:3 csw (1) 167:14 delivery (1) 153:13
137:14 144:23 claimed (6) 51:13 91:14 116:6,18,24 context (15) 17:25 21:2,4 138:8,9 139:4 141:13 csw311 (1) 97:18 deloitte (1) 9:2
candidates (2) 91:4 169:16 123:8,12 133:16 159:2 117:7,16,17,22 118:16 23:4,8 32:21 77:21 79:11 143:3,20,21 151:17 154:25 csw80181 (1) 168:9 demand (1) 151:7
cannot (14) 19:24 20:3 claiming (2) 133:13 171:4 119:1 120:1,8,18,18 81:19 97:7 111:10 112:9 158:19 161:7,11,14,15 csw80231 (1) 168:14 demanding (1) 4:21
22:23 42:3 73:3 84:21 claims (8) 37:14,17 38:7 124:17,19,22,22,24 127:23 113:7 135:18 146:1 162:21,22 164:1,23,24,24 csw8031 (2) 167:13,19 demonstrated (1) 133:8
85:14 132:23 153:1,7,24 86:22 92:15 124:5 128:2,5,12 129:2,4,6 continue (4) 63:6 106:11 165:5 167:18 168:12,13 culmination (1) 51:8 demorgan (8) 46:23 47:23,25
154:9 159:25 165:15 146:18,18 130:5,6,9,12 132:2 133:20 107:12 168:25 169:6 170:3 cumulatively (1) 146:5 48:3,5,11,14 49:15
cant (21) 1:18 2:4,5,7 7:20 clarification (2) 2:12 58:6 135:4 137:1,13 140:6 continued (1) 114:5 correctly (1) 49:14 curious (1) 7:8 densely (4) 21:10,17 22:7,9
21:23 31:8 42:22 55:21 clarified (1) 82:2 141:23 143:2 146:15 continuing (1) 29:6 correspondence (3) 78:24 currencies (11) 61:19,23 deny (1) 105:12
64:15 73:9,10 76:13 85:24 clarify (10) 31:11 64:24,25 148:17 150:8 153:4 contract (11) 41:2,6 122:20 85:4 144:7 62:3,12 71:9,13,17 93:3,10 depart (1) 115:16
94:11 101:3 128:15 136:19 85:3,5 89:4,8 116:10 117:8 164:3,5,16 165:1,4 166:23 131:18 135:19,21 137:24 corresponding (1) 72:17 111:5,7 departed (2) 117:20 150:1
143:16 164:17 167:8 171:2 168:7,24 138:20 139:20 158:5,6 cost (3) 12:14 139:19 153:20 currency (8) 71:19,21,24 depending (1) 47:20
canteen (1) 36:19 clark (1) 36:24 comparing (1) 63:1 contracted (2) 34:4 48:12 costed (1) 42:24 72:12,17,23 111:10 131:20 depends (2) 48:7 144:19

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

deprived (1) 79:2 43:13,15,16 75:17 76:20 79:8,15,16,22 drawn (2) 18:19 33:6 100:16,16 119:10 127:8 40:21 88:1 101:24 135:13 explains (3) 125:14 129:16
describe (10) 10:12 15:6 discrepancy (1) 85:6 80:5,7 83:1 86:24 89:8 drew (2) 96:21 97:4 145:3 173:7 145:2 149:1,2,5 165:20 172:9
17:16 22:9,15 24:21 30:1 discuss (5) 46:18 54:7 57:16 90:18 91:9 92:14 100:15 drive (4) 14:19 58:2 106:16 elses (1) 95:6 every (3) 31:18 61:3,12 explanation (2) 24:9 83:2
33:17 73:21 97:6 66:15 76:15 104:4 106:23 108:1,4 172:14 elsewhere (1) 136:23 everybody (1) 106:5 explicitly (5) 58:10 69:13
described (7) 23:8 40:8 50:8 discussed (34) 21:5 36:2 109:1,3 110:16,17 113:21 duplicated (2) 23:6,13 email (28) 26:3 78:24 106:19 everyone (4) 18:2 36:24,25 70:24 82:22 83:8
130:22 131:14 160:24 51:4,10,15,18 66:10 114:3,7 115:23 duplication (2) 22:23 23:16 141:4 44:10 explore (1) 3:23
167:2 67:9,24,25 68:25 73:23 117:4,9,15,18 118:4 120:7 duplications (2) 21:11 22:17 144:7,14,15,19,20,22 everything (7) 24:10,14 exploring (2) 131:17,20
describes (1) 47:23 78:5,19 84:15 92:20,24 121:7,18 123:3 124:17 during (12) 24:7 28:19 61:14 145:12,12 155:7,10,12 56:19 100:16 114:16 expose (1) 20:4
describing (3) 40:5 50:19 93:3,11 94:19 97:23 98:23 127:1,23 128:10,16 129:5 62:1 66:17 102:12 103:9 156:25 157:21,24 158:3 140:11 141:12 exposure (1) 70:10
158:14 110:5,11 111:22 112:4 131:9,23,25 132:20,23 104:1,4,10,25 168:23 161:18,20 162:25 163:18 evidence (99) 1:18,22 express (2) 19:12 20:9
description (1) 50:12 116:7,7 123:13,16,17,24 137:14 138:21 dustin (1) 1:12 165:24 166:1 167:14 2:4,6,7,8,10 3:6,15,18 expression (1) 17:4
design (2) 66:20 75:4 128:8 172:8 139:5,8,8,13 140:4,9,17 duties (2) 130:8 171:3 168:10,12 7:5,6,8 15:15 18:23,24 extend (1) 9:22
desire (1) 138:15 discussing (13) 22:15 23:5 145:5,5,7,22 147:2,3 emails (36) 42:11,15,16 26:11 30:7 44:12 46:4,5 extensively (1) 40:13
detail (7) 73:10 76:23 79:23 26:10 51:19,20 66:23 149:12 150:5,6,11 151:20 E 57:20,22,24 58:3 64:16 49:9 50:6,7,25 56:8,17,24 extent (2) 2:6 143:12
102:25 121:16 139:10 71:9,24 77:14 79:23 88:7 152:3,3 154:25 155:2 65:3,10 68:24 57:2,14,16,19 58:8 60:2 extract (1) 127:7
172:14 98:6 112:23 160:13 162:18 164:3,11 e (3) 64:6 89:10,10 69:9,11,14,15 71:1 78:24 61:22 65:20 68:12,15 extremely (1) 24:12
detailed (2) 79:6 166:19 discussion (12) 23:9 168:17 169:13,20,23 e101 (1) 6:12 79:21,22 85:4 95:10 69:13 71:23 72:20 75:9 eye (1) 14:13
detailing (2) 162:2 163:9 24:21,24 25:4 33:19 59:23 171:23 172:1,25 e1012 (1) 6:17 144:3,6,10,11,17 76:11 79:6 83:10,17,21,24
F
details (15) 3:2 14:15 42:11 75:5 80:2 110:18 112:14 door (1) 29:17 e104 (1) 24:23 145:3,6,9,10,11,13,14 84:10,18 85:3 86:7,9,15
53:7 64:11,13 80:10 82:16 121:25 122:2 dotcom (1) 66:2 e105 (1) 29:18 165:24 166:19 167:16 87:17 88:10,11 92:18 f (4) 59:8 87:2 90:5 114:24
86:1,20 110:14,20 122:16 discussions (13) 24:8 28:20 doubt (3) 67:12 90:22 e106 (1) 15:5 employed (2) 9:1 10:18 93:19 95:13,25 96:2,3 fabricated (3) 146:22,24,25
126:12 166:14 68:16 75:9 76:3 160:21 e1067 (1) 21:4 employee (7) 10:9,11,22,23 99:7,20 100:6 101:6,11 face (2) 153:12,13
detain (1) 165:10 110:15,19,21 111:3,5 down (38) 6:2 13:12,15,18 e108 (2) 24:10 33:15 38:1 43:24 44:1 102:2,7,9 103:23 104:2,5 facebook (1) 154:13
detection (1) 11:2 112:20 150:18 165:18 25:20 26:2 33:21 34:25 e109 (1) 9:25 employees (8) 49:17,18 105:17 108:24 109:6,9 factored (1) 83:9
determine (2) 42:3 129:18 disguise (1) 146:11 47:22 49:8,8 50:9 59:17 e61 (1) 45:7 136:24,24 137:11,16,20 113:15,19 114:14 118:8 factual (1) 65:22
develop (1) 115:1 dishonest (1) 37:10 75:3,8 76:2 89:10 90:5 e610 (1) 58:13 151:2 120:10,11,24 122:6 fair (14) 2:14 20:15 21:15
developed (1) 134:14 display (1) 5:21 99:23 101:1,5,8,9 102:8 e611 (1) 45:11 employment (3) 43:5,6 123:7,21 133:9 139:3 32:15 51:15 52:19 61:25
developer (1) 3:25 displays (1) 148:9 104:1,6,7,13,21,23 121:15 e64 (2) 48:16 52:23 122:20 144:2 146:19 150:15 162:2 62:1 68:1 75:1,2,6 140:23
developers (2) 1:10,11 dispute (5) 2:4 5:8 80:5,6,7 126:19 127:6 129:13 e65 (3) 54:17 61:16 66:6 employments (1) 39:23 163:9 166:3,7 169:12 153:8
developing (5) 8:4 47:8 disputed (1) 1:18 136:11 137:22 138:22 e66 (2) 73:21 75:3 encounter (1) 31:3 170:10 fairly (3) 76:6 81:19 90:23
134:7,16 153:14 disputes (1) 158:7 146:14 e67 (3) 77:6 94:13,14 encrypted (2) 98:18 106:18 evidenced (1) 139:23 fairness (6) 54:8,20 62:15
development (4) 37:17 disputing (1) 33:2 download (1) 74:20 e68 (3) 74:18 80:1 84:11 encryption (1) 142:3 evolution (1) 23:2 90:23 102:5 171:6
130:21 149:21 155:16 distributed (9) 81:23 dr (239) 1:15,19 2:3,18 e71 (1) 108:7 end (11) 9:17 25:3 47:24 evolutionary (1) 158:11 fall (1) 30:11
devian (1) 141:4 82:12,14 112:5,8,12 3:1,12 5:13,14,23,25 e73 (1) 110:3 49:14 68:18 77:10 evolved (1) 90:14 familiar (7) 69:25 76:17,25
diagram (2) 17:21 18:14 131:18 134:9 157:6 6:4,5,14,25 7:6,23 9:11 e74 (3) 116:21 149:16 115:20,21 147:8 164:22 evolving (2) 48:8 149:18 81:23,25 82:4 103:8
didnt (34) 5:10 11:9 17:8 disturbing (1) 18:3 10:1,7,13,24 11:2 169:13 171:3 exact (16) 110:17 115:23 famous (2) 12:16 74:25
32:8 36:12 44:1 47:15 document (39) 6:18 11:5,24 12:1,9,9,22 13:9,9,13,15 e75 (1) 108:13 ended (2) 128:21 166:22 117:4,15,18 118:4 120:7 fantastic (1) 105:19
55:14 58:7 61:18 12:9,11 13:2 17:15 28:23 14:4,8,22,22 15:3,6 16:2 earlier (16) 24:2 87:18 99:1 ends (1) 30:1 121:7 124:17 127:23 far (20) 10:21 13:1 16:25
88:4,19,20,21,22,23 89:5 29:1 38:12,15,16 43:17 20:2,17 21:5 22:16,20 23:5 102:15 103:22 115:17,25 enforceable (3) 166:4,9,14 128:16 132:4 137:15 20:1 30:25 42:14 43:6
96:11,13,14,15,16,22 58:22 67:2 69:2,5,6 75:18 24:8,24 26:11 27:6 29:7 126:13 127:21 134:2 enormous (1) 95:12 155:1,3 160:13 46:15 68:5 80:13 82:8,22
98:14 102:4 103:17 122:9 97:16,17,21,25 105:8 30:2,9 31:22,23 156:1,20 157:11 158:14 enough (3) 117:1 140:23 exactly (17) 37:6 87:15 97:22,22 100:5 103:3,24
140:18 143:4,7 150:21 106:12,14 122:25 136:14 32:3,5,13,21 33:2,6,17 160:14 171:12 153:8 110:16 113:21 114:3 111:23 127:9 171:12
158:15 161:2 164:12 138:3 143:6 147:24 148:6 34:21 36:10,12 early (14) 34:18,19 46:19 ensure (1) 76:10 115:19 119:21 120:14 fascinating (2) 110:24 115:5
difference (3) 10:10 165:3 151:22 162:14 37:2,11,14,21 38:12,25 52:11,15 54:13 57:22 78:6 ensuring (1) 76:3 121:8,25 122:12 128:10 feasible (2) 90:19 91:1
167:10 171:17,20,25 172:7,13 39:1,9 40:5 41:3,14,15,20 82:18 83:25 86:3,6 94:19 enter (2) 41:14 135:21 129:5 131:25 145:6 149:12 feature (4) 61:20
different (13) 49:10 51:20 documentation (1) 95:10 42:8,19 43:13,23,24,25 154:3 entered (1) 112:23 150:11 112:10,11,14
54:9 55:17 87:10,11 94:23 documenting (1) 88:6 44:4,8,9 46:4,5,20,20 earth (1) 101:12 enterprises (2) 134:17,18 examinationinchief (6) 6:3 february (4) 1:1 55:19 133:1
110:25 111:8,9 116:3 documents (23) 5:21 47:2,4,14 48:12 49:9,15 easiest (1) 106:5 entire (2) 55:2 104:3 45:2 107:23 174:5,8,13 173:12
144:9 172:6 49:22,23,25 58:14,15 50:25 51:4,13,16,23 easily (1) 30:12 entirely (7) 3:14 5:4 19:24 examined (1) 172:2 fee (1) 139:17
differentiate (1) 50:16 65:23 70:20,22 75:17,20 52:3,6,16 54:6,10 59:19 easy (5) 27:14 28:5 56:1 20:25 21:12 23:20 172:6 example (7) 4:10 46:9 67:1 feel (1) 3:24
difficult (4) 30:10 55:7 137:4 79:9 86:17 107:14 60:3,18 61:25 63:9,20,21 59:10 121:22 entities (3) 144:5 163:16,22 72:22 76:18,20 97:8 feet (1) 42:4
157:9 122:9,14,19,22 123:2 66:6,10,16 67:11 68:13,16 ebay (12) entitled (2) 26:16 135:22 excellent (2) 147:20 173:7 fellow (1) 109:17
difficulties (1) 152:1 136:23 139:12 144:24 69:16 71:9,12,25 72:5 55:1,5,9,11,14,19,21,24 entity (2) 59:16 152:20 except (1) 80:13 felt (2) 29:14 135:3
digicash (1) 111:18 172:3 73:2,23 75:4,6,10 77:9,14 59:9 103:12,14,16 entries (4) 49:11 53:2,13 exchange (3) 30:4 39:6 47:9 fence (1) 77:22
digital (15) 13:16 14:16,24 docusign (1) 45:13 78:10,19 81:3,14 82:6,19 ebaypaypal (3) 100:3,24 98:10 exchanged (2) 20:23 68:24 few (19) 9:9 14:18 34:5,7
33:7 43:9 61:19,23 62:3,12 does (16) 14:6,17 15:1 23:15 86:22 87:19 89:19 90:7 104:10 entropy (1) 14:19 excited (2) 22:18,25 40:12 46:3 48:16,17 56:13
111:5,6,10,11,13 132:3 26:5 45:13 47:12 85:6 91:19,21 92:20 93:18 education (4) 71:18 91:10 entry (8) 49:21 50:3,20 exciting (1) 23:3 61:21 80:13,14 99:3
digitally (1) 135:25 91:16,18 92:6,11 97:24 102:1,2 106:14,19 108:24 134:12 169:21 53:18,19 98:16 139:23,24 exclude (1) 47:20 107:14 115:14 136:20
directed (1) 170:20 123:2 126:20 154:18 109:5,8,13,14,21 effect (7) 5:2 41:22 52:24 ephemeral (1) 76:16 exclusively (1) 156:8 137:2 165:24 166:21
direction (1) 121:12 doesnt (14) 32:6,8 47:10,13 110:6,21,23 111:2 53:22 62:24 94:1 158:10 equity (1) 166:10 executed (1) 139:21 fiat (2) 71:9 72:12
directly (6) 99:8 123:17 63:20 71:4 88:22 92:12 112:24,25 113:16 114:2 effectively (2) 59:15 82:11 errors (2) 88:17 96:9 execution (1) 83:4 fiatbacked (4) 71:17,19
124:13,14,15 157:10 96:15 116:4 123:1 140:21 115:1 118:23 123:8,12,13 egold (34) 54:8,17 55:4 escrow (10) 58:5 59:12 exercise (5) 16:7 17:3 19:4 72:16 93:9
director (40) 118:16 120:1 149:1 158:17 124:25 125:3 128:2 132:22 57:6,9,11,13,23,25 58:4,5 62:18,25 63:5,17,24 65:6 58:8 79:3 fiduciary (2) 130:8 171:3
124:18 125:3 126:17,21 doing (20) 10:12 14:8 15:17 134:7,22 135:25 59:12 60:3,13 62:25 103:16,18 exist (2) 71:2,2 field (1) 112:16
127:3,10,15,17,19 128:23 23:12 48:6 56:18 66:22 136:19,20,21 137:2,4,12 escrowlike (2) 56:5 65:12
63:8,10,11,12,14,15,19,21,21,23,24 existed (2) 140:18 157:16 figure (1) 40:12
129:1,3,8,23,25 78:23 80:21 114:15 128:3 138:17 140:3 64:1,8 92:24,25 93:1 esoteric (1) 98:23 existence (2) 142:15,25 file (21) 48:18,21,22,24
130:2,3,5,6,9,11 131:4 132:3 134:3 137:7 149:2 141:2,3,9,13,21 142:2,13 103:19 111:20,21 especially (2) 28:22 134:17 existing (2) 50:18 143:4 49:1,2,3,6
133:20 135:13 140:6 143:2 154:6 158:15 170:23,25 144:6 145:3 150:5,7,19 eighteen (1) 61:5 essay (1) 51:24 exists (1) 40:12 50:10,14,16,17,19,20,21
144:13,13,17,18 145:18 171:5 151:6,14,18,22,25 153:2 eitc (1) 151:24 essence (1) 73:18 expand (1) 23:3 52:24 53:25 54:2 98:10,14
146:15,19 148:17 dollars (1) 164:21 154:14,17 156:5,18,23 either (9) 1:21 58:1,3 64:5 essentially (6) 56:4 expect (3) 151:7,14,16 106:22
153:15,16 154:3 171:2 domains (2) 116:8 134:15 157:7,18,22 158:3 71:5 72:6 101:11 102:10 62:5,11,16 95:16 143:16 expected (3) 1:24 2:11 3:2 filed (2) 132:11 150:23
directors (9) 124:21,25 done (24) 37:23 42:12 52:12 159:7,22 160:6 161:1,1,4,6 171:18 establish (2) 32:1 143:12 expecting (3) 38:11 105:24 filing (1) 132:9
126:19,24 127:13 136:3 81:6 97:14 98:7 113:17 162:6,15,20 163:1,4 164:8 elaborate (1) 121:8 established (1) 113:25 173:3 final (1) 105:4
151:6 152:25 153:3 115:6 122:8 132:21,22 165:1,14,16,18 166:16 elaborated (1) 24:17 estate (2) 13:19 14:11 expects (1) 151:14 finalised (1) 58:20
directorship (2) 128:21 129:6 141:12,12 146:25 149:5 167:7,24 168:16 elaboration (1) 30:4 etc (5) 53:16 105:2 158:7 expended (1) 155:16 finalize (1) 167:23
directorsrepresentatives (1) 154:13 155:24 156:1,2,2 169:1,3,25,25 170:21,22 electronic (4) 97:19 138:1 162:3 163:11 expenditure (2) 38:24 finally (1) 105:4
144:8 163:17 166:21 167:12 171:18,19 172:24 174:4 144:2 146:19 eternal (1) 12:14 145:25 finance (1) 87:12
disagree (1) 38:10 172:17 draft (1) 95:21 electronically (3) 94:22 even (10) 30:17,24,25 expenses (3) 151:4,4 152:12 financial (9) 66:25 67:13,23
disappeared (1) 65:7 dont (125) 2:16 4:18 5:15 drafted (1) 3:15 137:25 138:3 39:21,25 40:11 84:19 86:5 experience (2) 70:10 90:21 80:25 130:23 148:21 151:3
disappearing (1) 50:9 10:12,20 12:2 13:23 14:1 drafting (1) 28:4 element (1) 80:22 116:8 152:8 expert (4) 18:16 30:7 38:5 152:1 163:22
discipline (1) 8:9 15:5 19:5,16,22 24:16 26:1 dragging (1) 147:23 elements (1) 47:20 evening (1) 1:8 112:18 find (5) 4:4 17:6 49:23
disclosed (3) 49:24 75:18,20 27:25 33:5 35:14,24 36:5 draw (6) 18:11 19:16 20:7 elicited (1) 99:7 events (8) 33:20 54:10 expertise (1) 40:19 122:20 123:19
discover (1) 5:16 39:14,21 40:1,11,14,15,22 23:1 114:12 154:7 eligibility (1) 129:19 78:17,18 86:9 91:22 123:5 experts (2) 106:15,21 finding (5) 133:1,5,6
discovered (2) 51:13 95:11 41:17,18,23 42:6 43:8 drawing (4) 23:19 79:14,15 else (17) 17:10 28:9 33:6 171:6 explain (2) 20:17 172:14 146:13,23
discovery (1) 51:8 50:22,24 60:6 63:11 68:7,9 130:10 35:25 59:23 62:9 65:4 68:6 eventually (1) 149:22 explained (1) 83:3 findings (3) 38:8 143:14,15
discrepancies (3) 70:7,7,20 71:2,10 74:10 drawings (2) 97:14 98:7 82:3 91:14 92:12 ever (13) 26:1,2 33:20 36:3 explaining (1) 153:10 finds (1) 124:4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

fine (1) 109:3 137:12 149:19 gone (4) 20:15 87:10 92:19 header (1) 153:15 hurry (1) 173:3 inconsistent (3) 1:21 2:6 interviews (1) 119:18
finish (3) 90:16,25 169:12 friendship (1) 124:9 121:19 heading (2) 104:22 135:18 120:12 into (28) 7:5 23:13
I
finished (2) 106:2 165:9 front (13) 5:20 6:9,13,16 good (19) 1:3,4 4:7,8 5:22 headlines (1) 46:15 incorporated (4) 115:24 28:8,10,10 41:14 46:2
finney (2) 91:5 169:17 29:13 45:10 99:23,24 6:4,7,8,25 7:4 45:24,24 hear (11) 3:25 4:25 7:3 i1 (1) 171:22 116:3,12,16 50:21 52:18 57:11 61:7
firewall (10) 46:24 49:4,7 100:1,17 107:25 108:4,11 46:1 62:18 107:12 83:12,14 88:25 110:24 i119 (1) 171:23 incorporation (2) 126:13,24 65:7 66:20 70:9 79:19
53:3 66:18,20 92:21 98:4 fruit (1) 97:15 108:10,21 147:4,7 135:13 147:18,19,22 iaas (3) 135:19,23 136:14 incorrect (3) 38:18 129:2 83:6,9 87:12 98:10 103:19
100:3 102:22 full (3) 11:21 13:17 163:21 goods (2) 59:11,12 heard (16) 36:14 41:24 51:14 ice (2) 26:17,21 151:14 108:22 112:24 117:24
firewall1 (2) 102:22 104:9 fulltime (1) 161:10 google (1) 11:17 79:7 83:25 84:15,17,20 id (7) 31:12 61:6 65:25 77:25 incredible (2) 124:2,7 135:21 149:18 151:25
firm (1) 8:16 fully (2) 7:23 97:6 googled (2) 35:21,23 85:12 89:13,23 90:2 78:1 84:2 171:25 incredibly (1) 55:7 152:10 162:14
firms (1) 28:13 fun (2) 31:24,25 googling (2) 36:6,8 123:11 141:19,20,23 id000254 (1) 172:6 increment (1) 98:9 introduced (2) 57:10 111:14
first (52) 4:20 5:14 21:16 function (1) 23:15 government (2) 37:15 heart (1) 76:23 id004531 (1) 58:22 incremental (1) 52:24 introduction (1) 129:16
23:24 26:9 27:13 31:8 functions (1) 23:17 136:14 hector (2) 33:10,11 id006565 (3) 107:7 172:7,7 incurred (7) 38:24 146:1 invented (1) 17:10
33:24 39:4,16 40:10 funding (1) 151:23 grabiner (42) 1:8 2:13 4:8,25 hed (1) 90:1 idea (15) 11:17,20 13:2,3 159:1,4,11 166:4,8 inventor (1) 90:20
46:18,20 47:24 48:16 funds (1) 116:25 5:13 6:3,4,23 44:7,21,23 held (1) 146:21 39:13 90:13 91:15 101:24 independent (2) 10:9 43:4 invested (2) 63:10,11
50:21 51:12 53:18 56:12 funny (2) 31:17,19 45:1,2 94:5,7 99:2,5,8,12 hell (1) 5:19 111:6,13 116:6 136:16 index (1) 174:1 investigate (1) 95:18
58:16,23,25 68:10 70:14 further (22) 2:25 9:17 20:9 104:16 105:14,22 106:23 hello (2) 147:18 156:6 137:6 164:8,11 indicates (1) 100:25 investigating (2) 15:7 38:4
71:23 73:24 74:24 83:25 30:4 35:24 49:8 59:17 107:14,17,20,23,24 108:19 help (6) 16:11,12 23:16 ideas (2) 11:22 115:6 indication (1) 173:1 investigation (2) 17:7 144:25
84:14,20 85:11 86:6 75:3,8 94:3 99:13,15 167:8 170:7,18 74:21 82:11 134:17 identified (4) 4:11 12:20 individual (2) 92:3,4 investigators (1) 15:12
89:1,13 91:13 94:18 105:5 105:13 132:15,16 138:3 171:8,15,17,25 172:16,20 helped (1) 10:7 91:3 169:15 individuals (7) 16:8,10,16 investments (1) 113:13
106:14 109:12,13 110:10 146:17,20 165:25 170:4,9 174:5,8,10,13 helpful (1) 44:16 identifier (1) 53:13 91:3,11 153:3 169:22 investor (2) 63:13,14
113:15 116:23 118:1 174:11 graded (1) 26:25 helpfully (2) 1:9 81:6 identify (2) 17:1 26:24 industrial (1) 74:5 invited (2) 119:6 137:15
123:7,11 139:24 141:23 furtherance (1) 48:1 graduation (1) 8:11 here (56) 3:22 5:21 17:16 identifying (1) 18:19 industry (1) 130:21 invoice (6) 40:4,8 41:21
143:25 152:18 155:11 future (3) 74:6 112:20 grammatical (1) 12:3 37:9 47:4,16,23 48:21,25 ie (1) 48:23 infer (1) 22:4 164:3,4 167:1
171:20 166:18 granath (25) 51:1 56:10,12 49:9 52:1 54:11 55:20,24 ignatius (4) 5:23 12:20 inform (2) 2:14 157:19 invoiced (10) 41:3 162:4
firstly (1) 114:11 futuristic (1) 111:3 60:2 67:9 83:11,16,21,24 57:13 60:22 68:8 72:20 156:15 174:4 informal (2) 163:14,17 163:8,13 164:2,6,23
fish (1) 16:12 fw1 (1) 100:22 85:10 86:8,15,25 88:10 76:11,18 81:9 82:5,18 ignore (1) 13:24 information (23) 1:14 7:19 165:19 167:4,6
five (1) 147:9 fyi (1) 167:21 96:2 97:24 99:19 101:11 86:13 93:15 95:22 101:11 ignored (1) 20:25 11:3,8,11,12 12:11,13 invoices (1) 149:5
fiveminute (1) 147:12 102:11 113:18 118:7 104:22 116:1 117:8,19 ill (12) 13:24 51:11 55:2 13:5,17 14:20 20:5,7 28:14 invoicing (3) 41:16 164:5
G
fixed (1) 139:17 120:10,24 121:17 123:7 121:12 126:3,4,11 138:12 60:11 72:21 73:1 84:11 52:19,20 64:19 65:3 82:11 165:4
flemish (1) 3:13 gathered (1) 74:21 graphs (3) 11:17,20 15:14 139:10 140:15 141:12 116:23 130:17 135:20 131:21 132:17,18 158:24 involve (1) 158:8
flexibility (1) 30:13 gave (6) 20:3 50:12 57:2 grateful (1) 172:16 143:10 146:23 150:22 145:11,11 informed (5) 1:9 25:14,16 involved (45) 15:24 16:11
flip (2) 92:6 162:1 86:8 90:10 126:13 great (1) 42:9 153:6,9 155:24 156:18 im (103) 2:12 3:12 5:19 122:12 128:2 49:16 50:13 66:19 74:11
flowing (1) 49:5 gavin (5) 7:11,14,15 91:6 gregarious (1) 92:7 157:10 158:2 160:6 163:17 6:5,11 7:1 8:3 14:9,11 initial (8) 98:4 126:23 134:6 76:8 81:21 92:24 93:17
focus (4) 27:4 87:20 94:18 169:18 grid (8) 67:3,5 164:5 165:19 167:14 16:25 17:10 22:20 26:19 135:1 137:5 157:3 164:15 106:6 113:19,23 114:1
153:13 gears (1) 27:23 74:11,13,14,15,24 93:11 168:9,20 169:6 27:24 30:6 31:22 32:13 169:8 124:11,13,14,14,22 127:23
focused (2) 14:23 59:25 gene (3) 21:11 22:16,23 grooming (1) 15:7 hes (8) 3:22 91:17 92:8 33:2 37:9,10 38:8,11,17 initially (4) 63:12 66:18 132:8,10,13,23 134:2,4,20
focusing (3) 8:25 134:10,12 general (1) 80:23 groomingtype (1) 24:4 109:2 123:25 124:1 128:3 47:19 49:1 54:5 55:24 113:3 126:14 136:6 142:9,10 144:24
folded (1) 10:6 genesis (4) 49:21 50:3,5,20 group (3) 153:17 163:16,20 137:8 56:11,12,13 60:6,8 injection (1) 152:8 145:2,17,22 149:19 153:3
folder (2) 15:23,24 genuine (2) 139:7 167:1 groups (1) 161:23 hi (3) 158:23 161:22 166:2 63:14,23 67:8 69:25 70:13 insights (1) 20:7 156:10,19,23
following (7) 66:2 99:4 109:8 geomi (1) 17:8 guaranteed (1) 59:11 high (5) 21:18 38:5 141:3,5,5 71:16 78:16 82:21 insofar (1) 84:22 157:3,10,19,22 159:21
145:7 148:9 153:11 159:11 gerlach (1) 1:13 guess (1) 18:21 higher (1) 32:2 91:12,15 93:24 95:20 inspiration (1) 11:11 165:17
follows (2) 131:15 163:19 get (19) 7:5 10:18 26:5 guide (2) 11:1 13:4 highlevel (1) 130:24 97:16 99:6,13 100:15 instance (1) 74:24 involvement (6) 37:13 125:6
fondly (1) 29:22 35:15 46:2 61:5 88:8 guilt (2) 21:9,16 highlight (1) 116:1 104:22 105:25 106:4 instances (1) 146:21 134:6 156:21 157:8 167:3
font (1) 138:5 104:14 106:1,24,25 108:22 gunning (6) 3:9,12 107:8 highlights (3) 47:7,7,11 107:2,5,16 111:16,19 instead (1) 172:11 involves (1) 8:4
footage (1) 83:20 110:2 127:24 129:15 170:5,6 172:23 highly (1) 21:17 120:13 121:11,11,13,14,15 institute (1) 8:13 involving (2) 69:15 93:4
footer (1) 138:5 150:21 152:23 163:20 guts (1) 41:10 hilary (1) 1:13 123:3 129:24 131:12 institutions (1) 66:25 ip (2) 79:19 152:22
footing (1) 4:12 165:12 himself (3) 43:25 47:15 132:3,4 133:6 134:1 instructed (1) 6:5 ipo (1) 55:19
H
footnote (2) 127:6 138:22 getting (8) 52:4 59:11,12 170:1 139:10 140:9,14,19 141:11 instructing (1) 4:19 iron (1) 36:21
forbescom (1) 7:20 83:6 91:25 151:25 166:20 h (3) 59:17 118:9,13 hindsight (8) 68:19,21 75:23 142:8,8,8 143:9,11,11,21 instructions (4) 1:15 106:25 isms (1) 13:24
forces (2) 30:24 31:3 167:11 h851 (1) 12:8 86:21 90:25 91:22 94:11 144:15 145:1,14 146:16 107:2 152:12 isnt (22) 2:20 4:1 17:12 32:3
forensic (3) 14:16 23:22,24 gfc (3) 80:16,19,25 h852 (1) 12:17 170:2 147:1,6,22 148:3,20 152:5 intellectual (1) 155:15 48:5,12 51:2 61:3 69:2,6
forensically (1) 172:1 girl (15) 16:24 17:2 hacking (1) 14:18 hindsights (1) 90:11 157:1,7 161:8,17 164:14 intelligence (1) 32:2 73:13 74:22 75:6 78:14
forensics (3) 13:16 14:24 18:1,2,4,12,20 hadnt (3) 74:16 160:12,19 hired (2) 8:16 46:23 165:10,17 169:6 170:7 intended (2) 146:8,10 84:1 88:13 96:5 97:23
142:1 19:9,11,17,23 20:11,23 hal (2) 91:5 169:17 history (4) 11:5 51:4 77:7 171:9 172:16,18 intent (2) 78:21,22 122:25 124:25 161:7 165:5
forgery (1) 172:4 23:5 41:12 half (3) 7:7 86:6 155:12 78:17 image (2) 29:25 30:14 intention (2) 4:15 102:8 iso (1) 14:1
forgot (3) 11:13 12:6 20:20 girls (2) 17:17 18:8 halfway (1) 147:6 hit (1) 80:16 images (1) 172:12 intentions (2) 154:16 165:15 issued (3) 13:4 40:5 126:15
form (7) 70:25 92:4,5 101:18 give (25) 1:15 11:4,7,21 hand (5) 63:3 67:20 68:3 hitting (1) 26:21 imagine (1) 30:11 interact (2) 17:23 18:6 issues (1) 152:7
131:18 158:4,10 15:14 17:20,24 30:7 76:23 92:3 hoarded (1) 95:11 immediate (1) 42:6 interacted (2) 17:21 46:20 issuing (1) 63:3
formal (4) 41:2,6 162:14 39:19,25 40:1 49:9 56:17 handed (1) 146:14 hoarder (1) 57:21 impacted (1) 80:19 interaction (9) 25:17 31:5 italics (1) 62:17
163:15 62:14 65:17 68:15 75:8 handle (1) 158:7 hold (2) 62:9 168:25 implement (1) 46:24 90:21 91:13 102:13,14,23 item (2) 27:7 31:7
formalised (1) 162:13 79:6 110:14 114:14 happen (2) 42:8 45:5 hole (1) 50:9 implementation (1) 98:5 103:21 104:11 items (1) 102:21
formations (1) 27:21 117:5,21 119:5,18 173:1 happened (11) 34:9 61:11 holy (1) 110:23 implementing (1) 49:16 interactions (8) 16:13 18:12 its (73) 2:6,25,25 3:13,17
formats (1) 158:9 given (23) 15:9 20:5,13 71:17 78:17 80:7,10 92:15 home (2) 42:17,18 implies (2) 56:19 114:16 25:19 46:19 54:6 68:5 4:8 7:21 12:18 14:2,4
formed (1) 163:20 21:22 29:23 40:24 42:2 102:5 151:24 168:5 170:2 homie (7) 16:21 17:2 19:5,22 importance (1) 130:4 93:16,18 18:2,16,16,17 22:25
former (6) 151:6,13 152:24 50:25 57:17,20 65:2 happening (5) 7:21 65:18 20:23 23:6 41:12 important (4) 72:19 99:7 interconnection (1) 71:20 23:11,18 32:3 38:12 41:23
153:15,16 154:12 83:22,24 84:18 85:2 86:9 79:22 120:25 131:4 homies (4) 19:8,13,17 20:10 121:2,16 interest (9) 57:6,13 71:12 47:18 48:5 49:1 50:7 54:16
forth (3) 111:12 119:20 93:18 102:5,10 113:15 happens (1) 31:18 hope (2) 42:6 170:13 importantly (1) 49:3 91:15 123:25 148:1,4,5,10 55:18 57:16 62:1,14 64:12
152:21 128:5 139:3 155:21 happy (2) 107:17 172:18 hopefully (1) 147:8 impressed (1) 128:4 interested (3) 59:19 60:3 65:7,13 67:2 69:18 72:19
forward (5) 77:7 152:13 gives (1) 146:9 hard (5) 18:3 30:12,21 58:2 hopeless (5) 30:9,18,19 impression (2) 27:14 41:9 63:8 74:25 78:13 80:9 86:3 87:6
153:20,22 159:2 giving (8) 42:11 56:24 57:19 80:9 31:13 95:1 improve (1) 68:4 interesting (4) 3:24 12:15 95:17 99:10 107:6,8 112:9
forwarding (1) 167:20 58:19 59:10 65:19 109:2 hardware (1) 40:8 hotwire (9) 9:23 inappropriate (1) 5:4 58:21 112:19 113:4 117:19,20 120:17
found (7) 12:15 43:12 57:21 122:6 hashcash (1) 69:23 10:1,8,14,16,18,22 41:9 inaudible (1) 60:8 interests (2) 91:10 169:21 121:2 122:11 124:2
67:14 118:11 123:7 137:16 globally (2) 64:7 66:25 hashed (2) 98:17,17 43:2 incident (1) 33:24 interference (1) 22:20 125:6,10 127:2 129:19
founded (4) 47:23,25 111:17 gnu (1) 39:20 hashing (4) 50:13,13,22 hough (11) 1:4 2:19,23 3:5 include (2) 19:22 47:19 interlocking (1) 28:6 139:23 142:15,17
116:25 goes (3) 4:9 56:3 154:1 98:13 5:7 6:24,25 44:4 107:3 included (5) 50:5,7 69:2 internal (2) 127:12,16 148:12,18,21 149:7
founder (1) 154:12 going (42) 6:11 11:9 15:17 hasnt (2) 64:21 99:10 172:5 174:6 111:5 138:2 international (1) 14:2 151:3,5 152:16,18 155:24
four (1) 58:13 22:2 38:8,18 39:16 42:8 hats (1) 78:2 hour (1) 84:19 includes (1) 161:24 internet (5) 111:11 132:7,19 157:9 158:6 161:18
frame (3) 57:17 85:9 115:19 45:5,6 46:16 50:11 54:11 havent (7) 28:11 37:4 46:7 hours (1) 43:3 including (2) 43:24 130:23 136:15,17 172:2,8
frank (1) 90:24 56:11,12,13,17 57:20 67:8 79:3 85:2 86:13 123:16 housekeeping (4) 1:5,6 5:10 incoherent (1) 31:24 interpret (1) 153:7 itself (3) 15:10 49:4 98:14
fraud (1) 11:2 83:18 97:16 99:6,13 103:2 having (15) 3:7 4:11 30:16 174:3 income (6) 126:7 129:19 interpretation (1) 18:14 ive (47) 19:25 21:1 23:21
fresh (3) 2:23 65:13 95:17 104:20 114:14,25 35:24 67:15 72:22 77:4,9 however (5) 127:12 138:1 133:12 148:11 159:3,9 interpreting (1) 60:9 25:20 39:22,22,22 41:24
freshly (1) 2:10 121:13,14 131:12 139:10 94:21,22,22 97:14 103:10 139:18,24 149:19 incomplete (3) 19:25 20:6,8 interrupt (1) 170:18 43:7,8 58:17,23 59:5 69:5
friday (1) 173:11 145:1,20 147:11,22 148:20 110:15 142:3 hpc (1) 138:2 incomprehensible (1) 31:13 interruption (1) 22:19 70:7 73:14 78:8 86:11 89:1
friendly (1) 87:4 152:5,21 153:4,22 167:20 hazy (8) 32:13,22 human (1) 158:6 inconsistencies (2) 140:16 intersection (1) 67:14 91:12 92:1,2 94:5
friends (11) 4:19 17:17,23 170:23 37:3,5,8,11,12,12 humiliated (1) 29:15 146:6 intervention (1) 158:6 95:7,10,11,11,20 99:2
18:6,7,12 19:8,23 20:10 gold (3) 64:5 71:21 72:17 head (3) 42:3 64:15 108:2 hunt (1) 25:19 inconsistency (1) 86:7 interviewed (1) 9:12 101:24 103:3,4 104:24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

105:2,7,11 106:12 32:12 34:17,25 l323517 (1) 19:21 leverage (1) 134:6 loretan (1) 1:12 mehl (4) 7:11,11,14,15 80:20 89:15
121:17,19 126:11 128:19 36:20,21,21,22,23,23,24,25 l32355 (1) 17:15 leveraged (1) 136:21 lost (3) 35:15,15,23 mellor (49) 1:3 2:16,22 monday (1) 168:21
141:19 143:14 145:16 37:5 38:3 l32356 (1) 17:20 liberty (2) 12:15 141:6 lot (12) 11:10,12,22 12:2,5 3:4,8,11 4:6,24 money (10) 27:7 39:22 59:11
150:21 171:15,20 39:14,20,20,21,24 l32357 (1) 18:10 library (1) 130:23 14:15 23:1 27:7 32:9 95:13 5:6,12,22,25 6:2 116:22 131:17 149:2
40:1,2,11,11,13 43:16 l32359 (1) 18:18 licence (1) 40:9 134:15 139:10 44:9,11,14,22 94:4 152:11 158:4 163:25 171:4
J 46:15 50:17 51:19 54:11 l94221 (1) 150:22 licences (15) lots (2) 66:22 101:16 99:6,10,13 105:16,20,23 monitor (1) 134:18
56:19 60:6 61:3,6 62:7 l942222 (1) 150:25 39:6,9,13,14,15,17,18,21,25 loud (1) 13:20 106:3,7,11 monitoring (1) 134:13
jade (2) 155:8 156:6
63:1,21,23,24 64:16 65:9 l942223 (1) 151:11 40:7,8,16,17,22 44:1 ltd (5) 38:14,23 39:5 125:15 107:6,11,16,19,22 109:2 monte (1) 67:6
jail (1) 42:7
66:23 68:5,19,22,25 70:5 l9821 (2) 155:6 165:22 lie (3) 56:22 104:12 114:19 162:8 147:5,7,9,17,20 167:11 month (2) 117:19 135:23
jan (1) 160:18
72:9 74:10 86:22 87:10 l9822 (1) 162:25 like (54) 7:10 14:18 16:5 lunch (11) 34:22 62:5 73:19 170:5,9,13 171:14,16,24 months (27) 9:9 61:4,5,13
january (6) 77:19 106:15
88:6,9 90:11,18 91:25 l9823 (2) 161:16 162:5 23:11 26:5 79:22,24 80:3,5,5,8,10 172:15,19,22 173:5 65:9 76:1 95:9,17
160:19 161:13 164:17,19
92:3,7,14 98:24 106:23 l9824 (2) 159:6 162:1 29:4,10,14,16,21,23 106:6 melts (1) 31:1 113:20,22,23 114:2
japanese (3) 33:19 34:23
114:5,8,16 115:9 117:18 l9825 (2) 158:21 159:14 31:2,19 33:7 35:2 41:13,24 lunches (1) 97:4 memories (2) 28:21 81:7 115:15,16,17,21,23
36:14
118:25 119:1,2,19 121:2 l9826 (1) 156:4 42:16 45:13 50:13,18,21 luxury (2) 57:20 85:2 memory (20) 25:5,18 28:8 116:11,12,13 122:21
japanesesounding (2) 35:6
122:3 123:24 128:7,9,12 l9827 (1) 155:11 52:7,10 53:25 56:2 59:13 lyn (1) 61:7 53:7 58:1 65:8,11,13 69:7 134:3,4 139:18 164:16,21
37:7
130:6 131:6,23 l9921 (2) 165:23 166:11 65:25 67:18 76:14,19 lynch (1) 171:18 70:25 76:1 84:3,5 85:11 168:3
jenkins (57) 44:21,24
134:7,8,16,25 136:9 137:5 labour (1) 97:15 84:16 87:8 89:23 92:10,12 86:14 94:9,12 95:1,3,5 more (50) 11:4 14:15 19:22
45:1,24 46:17 48:15 50:23 M
139:13 141:22 142:25 laid (1) 91:24 99:3 103:18 115:15 mention (27) 29:3 47:10 25:23 27:21 35:14 37:4
51:12 53:18 54:8 55:14,23
143:7,9,9 144:14,20 languages (1) 40:20 116:1,11 119:5,12 120:22 mabborang (2) 33:10,11 48:18 50:22 57:13 66:9 49:2 57:17 59:22 60:4
56:23 57:18 58:6,12 64:22
145:9,19 147:2,3 150:9 lapse (1) 53:11 128:7 130:10 136:5 137:5 machines (1) 23:18 68:7 74:18 76:20 77:8 62:2,3,10 65:8,17 72:14
65:15 68:8,12 69:24 70:11
152:25 165:17 169:23 laptop (5) 42:13,17,24,24 154:15 155:10 157:25 madden (1) 107:4 78:25 79:22 88:5 96:22,23 76:17,25 79:6 80:23 83:2
71:6 72:19 73:1 75:6,18
171:19 172:1 173:1 43:8 158:16 164:15 168:17 magazines (1) 64:9 99:17,19 102:2 110:4,19 86:2,13 88:11,18 95:15,17
77:5 79:10 80:9 82:16
knowing (2) 86:22 123:25 large (4) 30:20 74:21 154:10 likely (4) 17:2 20:4 88:18 main (2) 134:5 158:7 111:1,22 116:22 132:2 96:3,10 97:6 110:17
83:12,13,21 84:4,10,21
knowledge (28) 10:25 158:8 96:11 mainly (2) 7:9,13 137:8 150:15,18 111:10 113:17 114:2
85:10 86:1,19 91:2
14:7,8,22 15:10,11,16 largest (1) 67:16 likes (1) 66:25 major (1) 112:1 mentioned (37) 28:16 117:20 119:2 122:11
93:15,23 94:8 99:16
16:3,5 38:19 39:17 65:8 lasseters (1) 47:10 limited (4) 15:9,13 22:24 makes (1) 107:11 33:9,11,19 50:3 51:24 67:9 137:9,18 147:23,24 153:17
101:10,23 102:1,16
116:17 122:3 135:10,12 last (16) 7:7 28:2 48:17 53:3 37:21 making (7) 12:2 31:24,25 70:2,4,17 80:2 82:9,19,21 154:1,12 158:12 165:7
104:2,12,17 105:4,11,17
137:17 138:7 140:1,15 61:16 64:20 76:1 104:15 line (4) 60:17 68:17 73:25 103:20 105:3 143:11 84:4 95:7 98:12 99:22 170:22 172:14,20
106:13 174:7
143:10,12 145:5 150:12 108:24 115:12 122:1 96:1 146:23 101:10,20,24 102:9 107:10 morgan (1) 172:21
job (19) 9:13 23:25 114:3
151:20 157:14,15 171:6 131:12 138:10,12,14 lines (6) 18:4,5 48:16,17 malaysia (30) 114:4 118:25 120:16 127:21 morning (10) 1:3,4 4:20
117:2,11,12,14,25
known (11) 10:16 22:12 167:25 62:17 95:22 117:2,11,12,14 118:1,3,11 135:14 141:22 143:3 6:4,7,8,25 45:24,24 173:8
118:3,11,12 119:14,20
38:2,23 70:8 73:3 92:1,2 lasted (1) 115:14 link (2) 5:24 44:25 119:8,16 120:9,11,21 157:2,11,17 159:20 160:13 mos (1) 160:18
120:18,19,20 137:9
161:2,4,6 late (8) 48:8 57:10 74:20,25 linked (2) 7:12 91:8 121:3,5,10,18,23 124:11 162:16 167:4 169:6 moss (27) 45:23,24 94:2
161:9,10
kpmg (4) 155:9 160:7 167:25 78:5 85:8 86:5 94:19 linkedin (4) 8:7 160:15,21 125:2 127:22 128:6 137:13 mentioning (1) 47:16 99:3,15,16 104:17
join (2) 26:7 77:25
168:22 later (22) 8:19 9:23 10:5 164:18 149:17 160:3,9,11,19 mentions (3) 47:7,9 69:3 105:10,25 106:4 108:20,21
joined (2) 81:9 97:3
15:23 51:12 67:1 68:16 list (4) 54:3 129:13 161:2,10 mentor (5) 109:22,24 123:20 109:4 147:4,6,8,21,22
joke (2) 32:3 33:11 L
74:18 78:15 89:4 97:1 139:24,25 man (1) 36:21 124:4 160:25 167:6,10,12,13 170:4
joker (1) 26:22
l113611 (2) 125:7 128:17 113:4,11 114:3 125:23 listed (1) 158:25 manager (1) 13:17 merely (2) 17:10 18:13 171:2 174:9,11,14
jokers (1) 26:17
l1136110 (1) 130:14 126:21,22 145:1 152:22 lists (1) 47:6 many (21) 10:17 14:14 18:4 merges (1) 163:22 most (7) 20:4,9 64:5,9,10
jokes (1) 32:1
l1136111 (1) 131:16 153:1 154:10,13 literally (1) 71:16 61:24 89:24 90:14 91:2 messaged (1) 18:9 74:25 158:8
jones (1) 172:21
l1136112 (1) 133:10 latter (1) 4:2 litigation (1) 45:9 97:9 99:16,19 110:5,23 messages (5) 20:22 95:10 mostly (1) 67:12
journalist (1) 52:7
l1136113 (2) 135:16 138:12 launch (3) 115:9 134:20,23 little (5) 4:10 15:10 19:19 114:2 136:24,24 141:8,10,11 move (7) 65:25 77:6 112:23
judge (5) 56:15,15 102:20
l1136114 (1) 139:14 launched (6) 55:14,15,18 53:10 97:6 137:1,11,16,20 157:5 messy (1) 16:13 115:7 140:24 148:20
114:13 158:7
l1136115 (1) 140:24 74:19 103:17 115:20 living (1) 128:6 169:14 met (6) 9:12 109:14 110:10 152:13
july (18) 38:14 113:13
l1136122 (1) 141:15 launching (1) 116:6 llp (1) 25:7 march (8) 125:11,23 116:6 128:1 133:3 moved (10) 66:2 87:11 114:4
115:21,24 116:13
l1136124 (1) 142:11 lawyer (1) 28:13 loan (1) 152:9 127:3,10,19 128:14,22 michael (2) 91:6 169:17 125:2 160:4,9,11,18
125:15,25 128:20 136:1
l113613 (1) 129:10 lawyers (10) 25:6,15 26:12 lock (1) 30:12 142:13 mico (1) 1:12 161:2,5
148:4 159:17 160:10,11
l1136137 (1) 143:23 28:13,15,17,20,24 42:19 log (22) 48:18,21,22,24 mark (1) 172:21 mid2005 (3) 71:10,23 72:23 movie (2) 31:20,22
161:5 163:7 164:10,21
l113614 (1) 129:12 152:11 49:1,2,3,4,5,21 market (2) 57:10 112:1 mid2007 (1) 73:24 moving (6) 15:3 24:21 54:5
167:15
l1136143 (1) 145:16 lead (3) 19:13 79:21 146:6 50:3,10,14,16,17,18,20,21 markets (1) 130:25 mid90s (1) 57:22 77:6 121:10 125:6
jump (3) 133:10 139:14
l1136144 (1) 146:3 leading (1) 166:22 52:24 53:2 98:10,14 mastercard (3) 111:12,23,24 middle (4) 13:13 62:14 ms (18) 1:21 126:20 138:17
160:15
l113615 (1) 129:15 leads (1) 23:14 logged (1) 48:22 match (1) 140:17 151:15 163:2 155:8,13 156:18 158:21
jumping (1) 77:22
l113631 (1) 38:11 learned (7) 3:14 4:19 23:21 logging (1) 49:6 matching (2) 17:3,4 might (23) 3:24 7:12 18:19 161:5,7,21 163:4,5 164:8
june (15) 38:14 40:5 53:4
l1136329 (1) 38:17 94:9,15 95:7 167:9 logical (1) 73:6 mate (1) 167:21 23:10 28:11 30:20,20 31:7 165:19 166:1,12 167:7
125:16,25 128:21 129:21
l1136349 (1) 43:18 learns (1) 158:5 logically (1) 91:17 material (3) 7:16 86:12 36:10 55:24 65:16 172:21
133:12 135:24 138:18,23
l1136350 (2) 43:17,21 learnt (1) 22:22 logo (1) 12:14 142:18 67:13,24 107:3 122:10 much (21) 6:23 10:19 11:15
148:5 151:5 163:8 164:10
l114051 (1) 125:20 least (2) 47:14 51:23 logs (2) 49:10 92:20 materials (5) 84:24 135:9 128:25 129:25 130:3 32:7 42:24 44:5,8 45:19

l1140510 (1) 126:10 leave (2) 34:2 150:2 long (14) 10:19 27:12 44:16 146:23,24 167:25 136:16,21 141:14 157:15 47:18 59:25 60:18 78:15
K
l114059 (1) 126:5 leaving (4) 4:1 30:2 77:20 50:8 52:1 62:19,21 matter (9) 1:6 2:12 4:3 170:22 86:2 95:17 119:1 132:6,18

keen (1) 3:22 l1740316 (1) 151:21 148:20 64:12,22 92:1 106:4 111:7 36:16 55:17 82:16 86:1 migration (1) 163:16 147:5 150:10 165:7 170:10

keep (1) 107:13 l1740318 (1) 152:17 lecturer (1) 109:18 115:12,18 117:9 121:16 million (10) 126:7 multiple (3) 16:18 21:17

kendalls (7) 8:18 9:13,14,16 l1740319 (1) 153:9 led (2) 25:19 166:21 longer (7) 86:14 118:16 matters (8) 1:23 2:10,23 133:15,17,18,21,21,25 137:6

13:10,14 14:8 l174062 (1) 147:25 ledger (1) 94:21 120:1 147:5 149:19 153:21 3:6,23 5:10 38:9 122:16 135:9 141:6 148:13 muslim (1) 110:22

kent (1) 36:24 l174066 (1) 148:8 left (22) 9:16 53:4 54:13 165:10 mayaka (1) 106:19 mind (20) 26:10 28:8,10,10 must (9) 29:23 56:20 73:1,5

kept (2) 16:3 149:20 l18602 (1) 114:11 77:18,24 78:1 79:19 115:8 look (37) 29:18 35:19 45:13 maybe (6) 16:12 34:18,19 30:15 32:19 47:17 53:11 86:15 114:17 161:1,4,6

key (1) 98:3 l18605 (4) 114:10,23 117:16 118:12 120:8,10,18 47:2 48:7 49:8 50:18 51:18 61:4,7 114:2 70:19,19 84:15 mutate (1) 23:14

keys (2) 142:1,6 118:8,20 121:2,5,17,20,22,25 54:25 58:12 59:21 60:6 mccain (1) 11:19 95:15,16,17 98:4 103:23 mutates (1) 158:13

kid (1) 27:24 l18606 (1) 119:3 137:1,13 149:22 65:5 66:18 69:19,21 80:21 mclaughlan (1) 156:16 104:2 142:7 143:1 146:14 mutually (1) 128:11

kind (20) 18:2 30:8 50:17 l18607 (2) 118:13 119:22 lefthand (1) 150:25 85:3 89:3,3 94:12 95:5 mean (14) 2:16 15:19 37:19 mine (4) 13:3 16:13 19:15 myself (8) 42:7 67:14

59:22 60:4 61:2,4,5 66:22 l18608 (1) 120:6 legal (1) 146:9 97:18,24 110:3 48:7 111:9 115:5 116:4 82:6 72:11,13 76:9 100:9,11,13

67:7,21 85:4,9 90:12 92:10 l186212 (1) 87:24 legally (3) 166:3,8,13 122:7,15,22 126:22 124:14,19 136:20 140:21 mining (11)

97:11 115:6,9 128:9 137:5 l186213 (1) 89:17 lego (18) 24:25 26:15,15 127:6,8 129:10 131:12 143:4 149:7 150:12 81:15,15,18,19,24,25 N
king (2) 91:6 169:18 l18622 (1) 56:11 27:6,11,17,20 29:7 138:22 143:24,24 163:2 meaning (1) 153:5 82:5,18,24 83:3,7

kitchen (1) 34:25 l18625 (1) 87:1 30:7,8,10,17,22 31:6,12 looked (9) 21:1 30:16 65:7 means (12) 17:18 56:1 63:15 minor (1) 12:3 n (1) 113:8
kleiman (4) 135:25 141:2,6,9 l18626 (2) 57:5 59:8 32:18,25 33:2 66:20 89:11 92:19 93:15 65:5 85:14,17,19,25 minute (2) 70:11 138:19 nakamoto (22) 35:1,9
knew (6) 34:22 37:6 57:24 l18627 (1) 60:16 legos (2) 26:7,7 98:13 99:23 117:15 152:14 154:9 minutes (5) 44:17 83:17,19 51:14,17 52:8,16 71:15
63:23,24 140:7 l21021 (2) 13:8 47:4 lengthy (1) 104:24 looking (27) 35:8 40:13 157:10 147:9 165:9 78:11,20 89:20 90:2,8
know (151) 4:4 5:15 l21022 (2) 13:12 47:5 less (1) 98:18 47:24 52:23 64:18 68:18 meant (1) 103:15 minutiae (1) 50:11 91:1,5,8 93:22
7:9,13,19 9:20 10:6,21 l21023 (1) 47:22 let (3) 104:16 106:24 143:9 70:5,9 73:18 75:22 measures (2) 46:25 47:8 misheard (1) 70:15 123:12,14,21 124:5,5
11:9,11,12,18,18,19,22 l32351 (1) 15:25 lets (8) 27:3 33:13,23 53:10 78:9,16,18,21,22 86:21 mechanism (2) 59:10 63:16 misinterpret (1) 63:11 142:2
12:5 13:6 14:2,14,17,18 l323510 (1) 18:25 106:7 107:12 108:7 143:24 90:24 91:21 115:7 127:8 media (5) 7:13 46:9 91:3 mistaken (1) 5:15 name (32) 11:13 12:22,23
15:11,12,20,22 17:5 18:3,8 l323511 (1) 19:4 letter (2) 4:20 5:9 128:18 135:17,18 109:9 169:15 mixed (1) 64:10 15:22,24 20:20 33:19
20:1,25 21:23 22:4,12 l323512 (1) 19:7 lettering (1) 138:5 145:24,25 162:25 170:1 meet (1) 118:23 mobile (6) 67:15,15,16,17 34:23 35:2,6,11,21
23:1,2,10,12,13 24:13 l323513 (1) 19:11 letters (2) 17:5,5 looks (2) 16:5 41:13 meeting (9) 61:12 88:5 96:22 68:3,7 36:1,3,14 37:7 51:22
25:20,21 26:7,8 27:15,22 l323514 (1) 19:14 level (5) 76:22 87:3,4,5 lordship (7) 2:14 3:20,24 138:16,17,21,23 139:1,6 model (3) 16:8 19:7 26:20 64:3,11 73:8,9,10 97:20
28:15,24 30:25 31:25 l323515 (1) 19:16 102:25 5:11 106:24 172:25 173:1 meetings (1) 138:19 moment (5) 11:9 13:24 26:9 100:10 113:4 135:14

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

138:19 139:21,22 141:23 november (5) 34:15,18,18,19 onwards (2) 148:23 161:13 103:1,3,5,10 104:25 penetration (1) 134:13 165:23 166:7,11 167:13 produce (1) 2:20
151:15 159:15 139:25 open (1) 7:2 125:14 148:2 172:11 people (15) 4:18 7:10 11:25 pleased (1) 147:22 produced (3) 16:1,6 97:13
named (2) 130:20 140:2 novemberdecember (1) operation (1) 157:6 papers (2) 9:19 159:11 14:18 16:11 17:25 31:25 plus (1) 163:20 product (1) 134:16
names (8) 16:16,18,20,23 34:12 operational (4) 50:16,18 para (6) 68:18 126:10 127:8 34:22 49:6 80:21 131:19 pm (8) 106:8,10 147:14,16 products (3) 30:22 93:1
17:1,6 64:13 90:18 nowhere (1) 166:22 67:5 74:2 140:25 145:24 146:2 136:20 137:18 156:10 156:5 159:7 162:6 173:10 134:20
namings (1) 140:16 number (19) 1:19 49:11 51:5 operations (1) 134:8 paragraph (96) 9:24 15:4 169:15 pocket (1) 79:19 professional (2) 87:5 149:21
napkin (5) 79:13,15 96:21 52:24 53:15,15,16 59:2 opinion (6) 18:16,16 20:9 24:22 25:3 27:4 28:2 33:15 per (2) 18:17 62:3 pointed (1) 115:24 professor (1) 135:10
97:4 98:7 78:8 82:15 88:7 94:23 32:11 90:19 91:18 38:17,19,21 40:3,25 perfect (1) 4:9 pointing (2) 70:16 166:13 profile (4) 8:7 160:15,22
napkins (1) 97:15 98:15 120:14,16 129:11 opinions (4) 19:12,15 20:9 42:1,10 43:12,20 47:12,24 perfectly (2) 4:10 65:15 pointless (1) 171:11 164:18
natural (2) 153:5 157:24 155:21 163:3 171:25 32:12 48:2,17,18 49:8,15,20 performed (1) 39:10 points (4) 4:15 20:13 31:1 program (2) 74:20 131:17
nature (4) 67:22 72:24 77:20 numbers (2) 50:14 139:20 opportunity (6) 3:7,23 4:17 50:23 52:23 53:11 perhaps (5) 5:16,17 80:23 139:11 programming (1) 40:20
151:4 numeral (1) 113:8 47:19,21 114:4 54:16,24 55:1 56:4 60:9 136:21 147:4 polished (1) 152:21 programs (1) 158:11
near (1) 6:9 nutshell (1) 21:20 opposed (1) 71:20 61:16,17 62:14 66:5 68:10 period (44) 8:12,24 10:4 political (1) 110:14 project (27) 15:3,9 72:3
nearly (2) 53:7 133:21 opra (8) 67:2 73:25 74:2,14 71:8,24 72:20 73:21,25 25:15 38:14 51:10 politics (1) 110:11 73:3,8,11,22,23 74:19,19
necessarily (7) 38:11 59:22 O 75:5,24 76:1 93:12 74:9 75:3,8,11 76:2 77:8 54:18,19,21 55:5,8 60:19 pondered (1) 88:8 77:25 93:4 130:20,22
67:13,22 82:9 83:8 98:14 option (1) 56:3 78:4 79:5 80:1,3 61:13,14 65:25 66:16 69:4 poor (1) 95:3 131:3,6,7,8,9,24,25
necessary (1) 69:6 oath (4) 44:12 83:24 84:18 order (9) 3:16,17 58:1 81:6,14,22 84:11 94:13 70:6 80:14 81:3 82:18,20 popped (4) 28:8,10,10 46:14 139:4,5 149:9,10,10,11
need (27) 3:16 4:12,18 11:14 105:18 63:12,15 72:18 82:7,12 110:4 111:1,22 116:21 89:19 111:1 114:5 115:4 portfolio (1) 13:16 projects (4) 71:25 72:8,24
15:5 44:17 79:8 82:16 89:9 obama (1) 11:18 83:5 126:14,19 129:17 130:18 118:5 120:17,21 125:15 position (15) 1:16 2:15,20 132:5
100:4,7 102:6,19 109:1,3 object (1) 99:5 organisation (1) 74:6 131:13 132:6,15,25 133:10 128:11,23 129:9,22 134:22 43:25 73:5,6 105:5 107:3 prolonged (1) 51:10
125:20 127:1 143:9,18 objecting (1) 170:24 organising (1) 79:24 135:6,8,17,19 136:11 135:23 145:18 148:4,22 124:8 127:19 148:1,4 promissory (5) 62:11 63:2
147:24 155:10 158:7 objective (1) 17:1 organisms (1) 22:14 137:22 138:11,11,14 152:1 161:13 163:7 152:7,14 164:12 72:15,16 93:9
165:7,10 169:13 171:23 obligations (1) 146:9 originally (1) 56:7 139:15 140:25 141:16,25 164:10,13 possession (1) 122:15 promoted (1) 9:8
173:5 obliged (2) 56:18 114:15 orr (1) 1:8 142:12,12,21 143:15 144:1 periphery (2) 19:20 20:11 possible (8) 9:19 18:19 69:18 promptly (1) 1:15
needed (3) 82:1,14 103:18 observation (1) 170:19 ostensibly (1) 138:16 145:12,15 146:17 149:15 permission (2) 11:7 65:2 91:4 95:22 154:6 158:9 prompts (1) 25:18
needs (5) 18:22 23:25 30:23 observed (2) 19:25 20:13 others (4) 89:24 91:7 136:22 151:1 158:17 169:12 perpetrator (1) 16:20 169:16 prone (1) 98:18
126:23 137:8 observing (1) 101:22 169:19 171:21 person (13) 7:12 15:21,22,24 possibly (1) 34:14 pronounce (1) 3:13
neema (1) 172:8 obtain (1) 152:11 otherwise (1) 171:9 paragraphs (2) 21:3 133:7 21:16,19 34:23 35:18 post (1) 88:9 pronounced (2) 74:1,11
neil (2) 91:6 169:18 obtained (1) 136:14 ours (1) 1:10 paraphrased (1) 172:10 36:17 91:13,25 92:7 post2002 (1) 60:20 pronouncing (1) 54:14
network (26) 9:20 16:11,14 obviously (10) 3:9,21 5:19 ourselves (1) 89:3 parcel (1) 77:3 152:18 potentially (2) 76:8,12 proof (1) 18:23
17:17,20 18:1,5,7 80:4 110:9 112:8 116:15 outed (1) 89:20 parents (1) 128:7 personal (4) 1:22 53:3 87:3 pounds (2) 164:20 167:2 propose (1) 148:10
19:2,7,13,18 142:23 144:25 173:2 outing (1) 90:7 part (28) 11:15 14:11,25 109:12 practice (1) 4:14 proposed (1) 148:9
20:1,6,8,11,16,22 21:18 occasions (1) 94:8 outlet (1) 109:10 21:18 22:10 23:22 personally (2) 48:12 123:24 practising (1) 110:22 propositions (1) 5:8
22:2,13 23:17 92:20 occurred (1) 156:7 outlined (1) 9:21 25:9,11,13,22 50:20 60:15 persons (1) 21:17 precise (2) 68:12 72:19 prosecuted (2) 15:21,22
134:9,18 157:7 occurs (1) 155:18 outside (1) 23:25 70:24 77:3 89:15 phase (2) 135:1 157:3 predatory (2) 15:7 24:4 protect (1) 50:10
networks (12) 15:8 oclock (1) 105:24 outstanding (1) 162:13 98:9,22,23 101:24 phd (1) 22:24 predict (1) 74:6 protected (2) 48:23 106:18
16:8,17,18 17:12,13 october (8) 34:5,14,17,18 oven (1) 30:25 102:20,23 103:20 130:18 photos (1) 25:20 predominantly (1) 87:7 protein (6) 21:10,12
22:8,10 60:1 112:5,8,12 55:20 130:19 132:18 over (47) 7:6 25:5,6,15 43:20 137:12 149:18 153:16 phrase (1) 103:8 premises (1) 142:17 22:8,10,17 24:9
never (12) 58:21 88:4,12 168:10 46:4 47:5 51:5,10 60:16 163:14 170:20 phrased (1) 49:21 preparation (1) 101:14 proteins (4) 22:7,9 23:12,17
90:1 96:4 101:17 102:9 odd (2) 24:15 32:3 61:21,25 73:21 75:12 77:6 parted (5) 115:15 116:11 physical (3) 43:9 46:25 prepared (6) 52:12 58:8,16 prototype (2) 130:23 166:24
103:4,11 123:21 144:22 odds (1) 2:7 80:1 87:6 88:7 89:17 119:13 137:3,10 142:25 102:7,16 151:22 proved (1) 146:21
167:6 offence (2) 56:22 114:19 90:14,21 92:1,1 97:10 partial (1) 20:5 picking (1) 32:22 preparing (1) 122:6 proven (1) 62:10
news (7) 51:15 89:24 90:2 offer (2) 154:11 172:24 108:24 109:13 110:5 114:5 particular (12) 7:11 26:25 piece (10) 9:22 15:16 present (5) 15:15 19:4,7 provide (4) 2:13 11:14 42:14
109:9 123:9,11 140:3 offerings (1) 134:15 115:4 119:3,24 120:6 79:12 84:24 85:2 91:25 62:6,6,8 72:15,18 99:24 38:7 121:15 145:2
next (20) 13:8 29:18 33:10 office (8) 34:1 36:18 38:4 131:11,16 133:14,18,25 94:16 95:18 100:5 101:14 100:1 101:5 presentation (2) 16:1 17:7 provided (21) 1:14 40:4 41:6
44:21 48:2 53:17 54:7 41:13 119:7 125:9 137:15 134:9 135:8,23 139:17 102:13 105:7 pieces (1) 7:20 presented (1) 43:1 42:10 43:1,13,22,22 48:3
61:21 65:25 73:18 81:22 141:21 146:2 147:6 148:12 151:11 particularly (4) 25:11,14,16 pieter (1) 1:11 president (2) 11:18 160:18 59:12 127:25 131:21
104:25 106:11 107:12,20 officers (3) 142:13,17 144:8 159:14 162:1 47:16 pig (1) 31:20 presumably (3) 47:18 105:23 132:1,17 137:25 141:1
117:3 139:14 163:22 165:9 offices (1) 32:1 overall (1) 14:13 partly (1) 9:19 pinch (1) 24:1 164:19 144:6 158:25 164:4 169:5
173:4 official (1) 116:18 overexcited (1) 23:21 parts (3) 22:8,10 25:10 pixelated (1) 172:11 presume (2) 50:4 53:4 172:8
nguyen (1) 126:20 offset (6) 37:22 129:20 owing (1) 151:5 party (1) 152:4 place (15) 25:23 33:18,24 pretty (1) 30:9 provider (2) 37:16,16
nick (2) 91:5 169:17 133:14,18,24 135:6 own (15) 2:5 11:20 14:21 pass (1) 61:5 41:7 54:11 59:15 72:10 prevailing (1) 66:24 providers (1) 64:13
nobody (1) 101:9 offsets (1) 43:19 16:4 17:9 32:10 39:13 passage (3) 73:13 80:20,23 78:24 79:14 80:5 95:2,8 prevails (1) 65:9 provides (2) 56:3 139:16
nodding (1) 108:2 often (8) 22:1,10 26:6 47:15 53:13 78:17 82:3 passed (1) 28:14 97:7 146:1 162:14 prevalent (2) 64:1,8 providing (5) 63:5 77:22
nodes (5) 75:12,14 82:12,15 27:8,25 61:6 76:15,24 83:4 158:7 160:21 168:24 passing (5) 46:10 59:22 60:4 placed (1) 62:6 previous (13) 57:20 64:17 122:3 133:9 158:24
94:23 oh (3) 42:9 59:21 100:12 ownership (2) 40:7 152:24 70:19 73:11 places (1) 81:8 68:23 69:11,11 75:25 provision (4) 41:2 135:22
nokia (4) 100:2,22 102:21 ohagan (5) 51:25 passionate (1) 92:8 placks (2) 171:18,19 78:23,23 80:3 86:12 139:17 141:7
104:9 52:4,7,14,18 P password (3) 48:24 106:18 plain (1) 98:15 95:8,19 113:14 provisions (1) 153:20
none (4) 133:2 168:4 170:21 ohagans (1) 51:24 107:9 plan (4) 116:2,7 134:6 135:1 previously (7) 58:11 70:8,22 pseudonym (1) 92:10
171:7 okane (1) 130:20 pacing (1) 34:25 past (3) 46:4 103:8 106:2 planning (2) 117:7 162:8 86:11 109:21 113:17 pseudonymous (1) 123:20
nonetheless (4) 63:5 85:18 okay (54) 2:22 3:8 4:6 5:6,22 pack (1) 19:5 patent (1) 7:2 platforms (1) 55:25 146:15 pty (3) 38:14,23 125:15
90:19 98:25 13:11 14:5 15:2 17:23 pages (1) 21:4 patterns (2) 23:16 66:24 plausible (1) 171:8 prices (1) 74:6 public (1) 51:22
nonfinancial (2) 66:15 67:10 24:19,20 33:4 38:20 paid (28) 9:23 10:16 13:6 pause (4) 13:22 14:10 93:25 play (9) 21:11 22:17 30:20 pricing (1) 139:19 publicity (1) 92:5
nonsensical (2) 31:19 32:14 44:14,17 45:8,22 56:7 59:6 37:25 43:24 58:4 148:24 107:1 31:3,4 83:10,18 88:24 primed (1) 52:19 published (2) 11:2 125:9
nontech (1) 110:6 60:14 70:22 71:3 83:2,15 149:1,2,10 150:2,5,9,19,21 pausing (1) 71:10 112:21 printer (5) 42:13,17,23 punishable (2) 56:22 114:18
nor (1) 49:22 89:8 90:17 101:3,4 105:20 153:25 154:5,21,23 pay (8) 55:25 73:19 150:8 playability (1) 30:23 43:3,7 purchase (3) 63:13,15 150:7
norway (5) 51:1,18 57:19 106:3,7 107:6,7,11,12 155:3,5,5 159:2,5,16 162:9 153:15,21 162:23 166:20 played (3) 83:20 84:23 89:15 printout (1) 141:4 purely (2) 101:18 137:10
65:2 69:12 116:10,19 117:23 118:15 163:25 165:20 169:10 players (1) 112:1 prior (3) 104:21 159:1 162:7 purported (12) 130:16
norwegian (1) 95:23 119:17,25 120:5 130:3 palm (1) 67:20 payables (1) 151:5 plays (1) 98:8 prism (4) 75:22 86:21 90:25 135:19,21 137:24 138:1,4
notably (1) 1:20 147:9,12 149:14 150:14 pang (36) 5:13,23,25 paying (6) 55:6 56:2 62:4 please (73) 12:17 13:15,21 91:22 141:1,7 142:14,19 146:7,8
note (16) 26:2 58:16 168:8 171:16,24 172:15,22 6:4,14,25 7:23 12:9,20 93:7 152:10 162:17 17:15 18:10,25 21:14 privacy (1) 36:17 purportedly (3) 139:20 141:4
59:17,23 60:4 62:7,7,11 173:5,8 13:15 14:4,22 22:20 30:9 payment (14) 13:4 39:2 43:3 22:21 38:17 41:17,18 probably (8) 3:16 40:12 142:4
63:2 68:17 72:15,16 95:20 old (2) 53:8 122:7 31:22 32:3,5,13,21 33:2 44:2 103:17 150:16,17,18 43:17 47:2,22 48:15 56:10 46:13 63:25 64:10,19 purpose (1) 83:5
102:16 103:22 146:17 omission (1) 11:15 37:2,11 38:12,25 39:1,9 151:7,14,14,16,18 166:18 57:4 58:12 59:7 60:16 74:25 106:5 purposes (2) 37:17 41:16
notebook (4) 35:11,14,19,23 once (4) 37:2 56:14 113:17 41:14 42:8 43:23,24,25 payments (4) 42:13 111:11 83:10,16,17 84:10 87:23 problem (2) 16:15 30:14 purview (1) 107:4
noted (1) 57:11 124:6 44:4,8,9 156:15 174:4 159:1,4 100:17 107:19 108:13 problems (1) 111:23 putting (4) 4:15 47:17
notes (11) 63:4 93:9 100:17 oneonone (1) 61:6 pangloss (1) 5:14 paypal (11) 110:2,3 114:10,23 116:20 proceed (1) 107:18 140:14 171:6
102:12 103:20 105:3 onerous (1) 130:8 panopticrypt (2) 159:13 55:2,6,9,11,18,19,21 56:2 118:7,14,21 121:8 125:7 proceedings (19) 9:20 46:6 puzzle (6) 29:11,16,19
138:16,23 139:6,8 168:22 ones (3) 39:21 40:2 74:25 162:8 103:12,14,17 126:4 128:17 129:10 49:24 51:1,1 57:16 58:9,20 30:8,16 31:12
nothing (9) 5:7 65:4 140:8 ongoing (2) 51:7 61:18 papa (1) 172:8 pays (1) 163:21 131:16 135:16 138:11 65:20 79:3 83:23 86:10
Q
142:25 144:20 145:19 online (13) 16:9 17:18 19:23 paper (36) 11:12 35:22 pc (2) 48:23 49:2 139:14 140:24 141:15 88:12 95:24 96:4 102:10
170:6 171:5 173:7 23:6 43:11 55:6,25 56:1 62:6,6,8 63:4 69:23 70:14 pe (6) 10:1,8,16,18,22 41:9 142:11 143:9,23 145:15 113:18 114:21 120:24 q (520) 6:8,11,14,17,21
noticed (2) 99:22 168:22 59:9 63:13,16 93:1 103:17 71:5,20 72:15,18 88:2,13 pearson (2) 1:13,21 149:15,24 150:22,25 process (8) 17:16 57:21 7:4,15,18,23,25
notified (1) 106:5 ontier (4) 25:7 26:13 89:6 92:16 96:5,22,25 peertopeer (1) 97:19 151:21 153:9 155:6,11,22 66:19 95:11 104:20 119:19 8:3,7,12,16,20,23
notional (2) 133:13,17 28:11,16 97:12,18 98:6 99:24 pen (1) 104:25 159:3,6,14 160:15 130:24 170:18 9:2,5,10,16,24
notwithstanding (1) 5:1 onto (2) 5:17 45:6 100:1,25 101:5,17,18 penalty (5) 148:1,3,5,9,16 161:16,25 163:2,6,9 processes (1) 155:15 10:3,8,12,21 11:1,24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

12:8,11,17,20,24 164:2,8,12,17 138:21 139:5 152:3 98:25 respectfully (2) 5:3 171:1 157:14,22 159:23 164:22 138:12,14 172:10,10
13:4,8,12,17,21,25 165:2,9,17,22 167:19 162:17,18,19 168:17 related (3) 88:2 128:19 respectively (1) 17:2 167:24 168:4 169:13 sentences (2) 55:2 117:24
14:4,6,12,21 15:2,16,25 168:8,14,19 169:12,24 recalling (2) 29:1 42:6 144:5 respond (1) 2:17 scale (2) 117:1,7 separate (2) 107:24 166:22
16:7,15,20,23 quarterofamillion (2) 164:20 receipt (2) 25:21 32:25 relates (3) 125:24 128:20 responded (1) 29:10 scenarios (1) 50:12 separated (1) 71:21
17:1,7,11,14,20 167:1 receive (2) 13:4 44:1 163:3 responding (4) 156:5 159:7 schedule (2) 138:2 158:25 september (6) 81:10,10 84:7
18:10,15,18,25 quarterofmillion (1) 164:20 received (11) 39:17 40:15 relating (5) 66:11 78:5 94:20 166:12,17 science (3) 17:4 75:15 81:20 85:15 106:17,20
19:4,7,11,16,21 20:9,15 queensland (3) 119:15,15 42:13 43:7,8 59:5 88:13 125:21 156:19 responds (3) 162:6 163:12 scientific (1) 74:5 sequence (1) 157:1
21:3,8,14,25 22:5,15,20 120:20 96:4 103:4 141:5 144:22 relation (25) 3:17,20 15:17 169:1 scour (1) 95:9 sequential (2) 53:22 54:3
23:4,19,22 24:2,7,16,20 question (32) 34:13 39:16 receiving (3) 144:17 145:6 25:9,10 38:13 43:14,20 response (8) 4:21 5:7 screen (19) 5:18,20 6:9,12 serial (4) 49:11 50:14 52:24
25:3,13,22 26:1,9,14,19,24 51:11 53:17 57:5,8 59:18 167:16 49:3 51:19 62:4 72:14 59:18,20 151:11 158:21 12:8,9 13:8 15:5,25 29:25 98:9
27:3,6,10,17,20 28:2,8,19 60:17 61:1 87:2,3 89:12,18 recent (1) 65:8 102:22 103:5 114:25 163:4 168:2 38:10 44:23 45:3,6 58:23 serialised (1) 98:15
29:6,10,18,25 30:4,6,16 90:5 95:24 96:13 recently (1) 37:4 145:11 148:6,10 150:17 responses (1) 150:23 107:24 108:4,9 142:18 serials (1) 50:13
31:5,11,15,22 32:3,5,13,21 104:15,16,17 105:4 recognise (3) 97:17,20 155:25 166:15 167:16 responsibilities (1) 13:14 screenshots (3) 141:1,8 series (4) 97:4 142:15 144:6
33:2,5,13,17,23 106:12,21 107:13 114:24 168:15 169:4 172:5,24 responsibility (1) 14:14 172:11 165:18
34:1,4,7,9,11,16,19,21 118:9,15,21 120:5 149:24 recognised (1) 103:13 relationship (2) 109:13 responsible (2) 92:22 146:18 scriptable (1) 131:17 serious (1) 148:21
35:3,5,8,11,14,21,24 155:24 167:9 171:12 recollect (7) 37:4,8,24 73:14 160:25 restaurants (1) 97:10 scripted (1) 158:5 served (1) 107:5
36:5,9,12,16 37:2,10,13,21 questioned (1) 94:9 82:22 91:16 97:22 relatively (2) 61:20 98:23 result (1) 36:6 scrumpled (1) 79:18 server (4) 98:7,21,22 130:24
38:8,17,21 39:16 questioning (4) 87:18 recollected (1) 103:9 released (4) 44:11 86:3 resume (1) 105:22 scrutinised (1) 18:22 service (10) 37:16 56:2,5
40:3,15,22,25 41:14,18 104:7,8 105:6 recollection (29) 105:18 170:11 retrospectively (1) 32:10 se (2) 18:17 62:3 57:25 58:5 59:13 63:5,17
42:1,5,8,10,19 43:1,12,17 questions (20) 3:20 25:18 32:14,16,17,22 35:5 37:3,5 relevant (2) 121:10 130:15 return (1) 133:13 search (4) 65:3 78:23 79:3 103:19 139:16
45:5,9,11,15,17,19 36:12 44:4 45:20 46:3 50:7 52:5 61:10 65:17,21 reliability (1) 22:3 returned (2) 9:5 34:1 95:12 services (19) 14:16 39:10
46:2,8,11,17,23 47:2,14,22 56:15 94:3,5 99:2,3 100:19 68:14,15 70:18 79:13 83:1 reliable (9) 18:23 21:22,23 review (1) 14:24 searches (1) 65:19 41:2,3,6 48:3 63:24 64:18
48:11,15,21 49:8,14,20 103:2,24 104:22,24 105:13 88:5 95:15 101:12,13 32:15,17,24 33:1 88:11 reviewed (3) 12:2,25 16:4 searching (1) 65:10 65:6,12 77:23 134:21
50:3,22,25 51:4,11,22 108:22 170:4,9 120:25 123:4 127:25 96:3 rfp (1) 66:19 second (12) 22:6 28:17 135:23 136:22 138:15
52:3,6,14,18,22 quick (1) 147:11 132:21 138:25 139:3 reliant (1) 86:13 richard (1) 1:13 53:19 54:25 67:8 76:6 157:5 164:4 168:23 169:4
53:3,7,10,17,22 quickly (3) 125:20 153:12 143:13 150:12 religion (1) 110:11 ridges (2) 13:19 14:11 117:10 118:20 128:18,19 set (15) 24:25
54:3,5,16,20,24 55:13,18 168:9 reconstituted (1) 76:4 religious (4) 110:19,20,24,25 rights (1) 146:9 150:14 154:7 26:15,16,16,25 27:6 28:17
56:7,10 57:1,4 58:6,12,25 quite (35) 36:18,20 37:1 record (2) 50:1 63:20 rely (2) 2:5,7 rise (1) 172:23 secondhand (1) 42:25 31:6 32:18,25 38:12 66:18
59:2,6,15 60:11,14 57:14,23 64:1 69:18 72:19 recorded (10) 42:10 126:19 relying (2) 63:6 137:10 risk (2) 67:5 74:2 seconds (2) 83:18,19 126:4 128:3 158:11
61:1,10,15 62:14 63:8,19 76:6 82:17 84:3,25 86:7 129:1,8 130:1 132:16 remain (2) 112:1 152:14 robert (3) 44:24 156:17 secretaries (1) 127:13 seti (3) 74:19,19 81:22
64:3,11,22 65:15,23,25 88:12 90:24 93:25 94:2 142:16,20,21 143:15 remained (1) 128:23 174:7 secretly (1) 93:22 sets (1) 28:1
66:5,9,14 67:8,24 96:4 99:7 103:3 110:24 recording (4) 84:22 88:24 remains (3) 162:10,13 rockwell (1) 141:4 section (5) 13:17 43:19 setting (4) 14:6 21:21
68:7,10,15 69:2,7,15,19,23 112:9 121:2,15 124:2,7 132:6 140:15 163:14 role (12) 15:11 16:12 21:11 130:16,20 138:13 116:18 134:10
70:1,11,16 71:3,8,23 128:4 136:20 137:2,16,19 records (9) 122:7 remarkably (1) 121:21 22:16 98:8 112:21 127:22 secure (2) 82:11,13 settle (1) 153:12
72:3,19 73:7,10,16,21 148:15,21 157:13 171:4 127:2,16,18 136:11,12 remember (64) 10:19 128:12 130:4,6 150:2,20 secured (4) 141:3,5,5 152:9 seven (3) 27:1 46:4 108:24
74:4,9,13,18,24 quote (2) 62:15,21 137:23 142:12 144:16 12:2,12,13 28:5 32:23 roles (3) 23:17 80:17 87:10 securities (1) 113:12 several (5) 25:6 34:22 63:25
75:3,8,14,17,21 76:2,6 quotes (1) 62:16 recount (2) 27:3 91:13 35:15 42:23 55:3 56:21 ron (2) 36:2,9 security (14) 13:18 14:4,23 94:8 116:6
77:5,14,18 78:3,8,16 quran (1) 110:23 recounting (1) 25:22 64:3,11,12 72:11 73:9,10 rookie (1) 24:1 46:25 47:8,10 48:1,3,6,7,9 shade (1) 148:12
79:2,5,15,17,21 80:1,25 recreate (1) 41:11 80:10 84:13 85:22 94:11 room (4) 29:12 30:2 34:22 92:21 134:8,13 shall (2) 5:16 108:7
R
81:3,6,12,14,18 82:5,16,23 recurrent (1) 151:3 96:20 101:17 110:16,17,20 92:14 see (106) 6:13 7:1 12:17 sham (6) 140:12,20,22
83:1,10,15 84:3,7,10 r (1) 40:20 recursive (3) 29:11,16,19 113:21 114:3,18 115:23 roots (1) 81:16 13:13,19 18:3,22 20:6 146:7,13 165:13
85:10,14,17,19,24 rabbit (1) 50:9 red (3) 155:9 163:1,4 117:4,15 118:4,18 119:21 rory (1) 1:13 22:14 31:1 38:9 39:12 shape (2) 70:25 101:18
86:1,15,19,25 87:23 88:20 raised (10) 1:23 2:8,10 redundant (1) 81:4 120:2,7 121:7 122:4 ross (1) 91:7 45:7,8 47:6,23 48:19 share (1) 166:9
89:3,8 90:1,5 91:19 72:4,6,12 73:2,6 77:2 93:6 rees (2) 135:10,14 124:18 127:23 128:10,16 round (2) 19:10 36:18 56:14,23 60:21 66:7 73:24 shareholder (2) 124:16
92:14,18,24 ramona (1) 156:14 reexamination (6) 44:7 129:5 131:9,25 132:1,23 row (3) 53:15,15,15 75:12 77:11 78:18 153:21
93:3,11,15,22,25 94:18 ran (2) 95:17 142:15 94:6,7 106:13 170:8 137:14 139:8 140:3,4,9 ruled (1) 91:11 89:18,22 92:6 98:15,16 shareholders (2) 151:7,13
95:1,20 96:18 97:1,6,16 range (5) 60:12 64:6 66:7 174:10 145:5,6,8 149:7,12 rules (3) 4:14,22,22 101:2,3 103:10 106:24 shares (15) 39:7 124:20
98:1 99:19,22 120:22 145:17 refer (15) 22:6 35:24 49:24 150:6,11 151:20 152:3 run (5) 67:6 82:7,10 97:11 108:8,9,14 113:10 126:15 150:7 154:10
100:1,7,10,12,14,16 ranking (2) 32:2 38:5 53:24 64:16,17 69:10 155:1,3 160:13 117:24 114:12,24 116:22 122:18 162:17,21 163:16,20
101:1,3,5,8,10,15,20 rate (1) 169:10 70:25 102:19 109:1 114:7 remembered (7) 28:23,23 running (10) 82:2 95:12 125:10,11,13,21,22,24,25 164:3,25 165:4
102:1,5,15 103:22 rather (10) 51:9 53:25 120:14 123:1,19 157:4 29:22 70:3 102:24 105:5,7 114:1 116:22,25 117:17 126:1,5,6,8,9,12,14,16 168:7,24,25
104:1,12 105:4 62:2,9,12 63:6 102:13 reference (19) 11:16,21 reminded (2) 28:3,9 120:19 124:22 125:4 128:4 127:3,6 129:11,13 130:17 sharing (1) 140:3
108:2,4,7,10,13,17 106:6 146:10 171:10 35:22 50:20 58:4,11 69:9 remote (2) 27:23,23 runs (1) 160:10 131:1,2 132:6,25 shed (1) 77:24
109:1,8,12,17,21,24 rd (15) 37:22 38:2,25 70:13 76:24 82:5 84:23 remotely (1) 134:18 rushed (1) 106:6 133:11,16,18,19 135:7 sherrell (1) 172:9
110:1,9,14,19 39:5,11 43:19 130:16 85:1 86:12 101:16,21 remove (2) 18:4 152:24 142:20,21,22 144:1,9 shies (1) 92:4
111:1,5,9,13,17,20,22 131:3 133:4,17,24 102:19 117:10 136:23 removing (1) 154:9 S 146:3 148:8,12,13 150:22 shoaib (12) 107:21 151:6,15
112:1,4,8,12,15,22 153:19,24 155:19 158:24 171:21 renamed (1) 114:6 151:9,10 152:6,18 154:2 154:3 156:13 159:16 160:2
113:3,6,10,18,23 114:7,23 reaction (1) 90:7 referenced (3) 12:5,16 69:5 rent (1) 151:4 sadly (1) 29:22 155:6,8,9,12 156:4 162:9,12 163:21 166:6
115:20,24 116:10,19 reacts (1) 158:5 references (3) 11:10,21 repeat (2) 41:17 149:24 sake (1) 32:12 158:1,21 159:7,15 174:12
117:23 118:3,6 119:17,22 read (19) 13:15,20,20,21 69:13 repeatedly (1) 35:4 salary (1) 42:13 160:16,17 161:20 162:5 shop (2) 52:1 110:9
120:23 121:13 20:22 21:2 46:8 55:2 58:18 referred (10) 39:1 58:22 64:8 replaying (1) 90:12 sale (2) 163:15 164:25 163:1 165:25 166:12,16 short (7) 2:21,25 44:19
122:6,9,14,22,25 72:21 84:11 100:16 103:13 75:24 77:21 129:14 145:12 replicate (1) 22:23 salt (1) 24:1 167:14,19 168:20 80:15,15 106:9 147:15
123:4,7,11,16,19 109:5 110:23,23 116:23 152:5 154:2 164:14 report (7) 41:18,19 43:19 same (7) 5:21 21:19 22:23 seeing (2) 5:21 96:20 shortfall (1) 126:6
124:2,11,14,24 130:17 135:20 referring (11) 48:21 80:25 107:4 126:20 171:20,22 138:4 149:7 165:24 172:1 seeking (5) 30:6 134:23 shorthand (1) 147:12
125:2,6,13,19 126:2,10,19 readily (2) 55:11,16 117:20,20 119:9 120:13 reported (1) 40:3 samsung (2) 106:16 172:14 151:18,23 152:20 shortly (3) 61:11 152:6 165:8
127:1,6 128:14,17 129:1,8 reading (4) 14:9,11 60:6 121:9 149:6 157:8 164:19 reports (1) 7:15 sat (1) 24:18 seem (5) 60:10 85:21 should (15) 3:6,22 4:25 5:16
130:1,4,8,13 131:3,6,8,11 157:24 169:9 represent (1) 144:7 satisfactory (1) 3:1 127:17,18 140:17 12:5,8 27:10 41:15 44:23
132:6,11,15,25 real (4) 3:25 23:24 83:1 reflect (2) 90:11 158:17 request (1) 20:6 satisfied (1) 166:9 seems (5) 26:5 136:5 54:5 59:2 65:18 75:19
133:7,20,24 134:2,22 145:9 reflection (1) 65:17 requested (1) 20:19 satisfy (1) 20:5 157:21,25 168:17 107:17 135:3
135:5,13,16 realised (1) 78:15 reflections (1) 25:17 requests (1) 169:4 satoshi (42) 35:1,9 seen (15) 7:10 38:12,15,16 show (20) 17:24 18:6 19:1
136:6,9,11,19,23 137:19 reality (2) 91:19 169:24 reflective (1) 87:14 requirements (1) 133:3 51:5,6,8,14,17,21,24 46:3,8,11 58:24,25 80:4 27:6 29:18 31:6 41:13
138:10,22 139:3,6,10 really (11) 4:12,18 7:20 reflects (1) 93:19 reread (1) 95:14 52:8,16 71:15 78:11,14,20 89:1 101:20 121:16 139:8 88:1,22 96:15,19 97:12,16
140:6,11,14,23 21:23 23:11 31:15 32:6 refresh (1) 70:25 research (14) 8:12,13 9:5 89:20 90:2,8,17,18 140:21 126:11 127:17,18 143:7
141:12,15,20,25 53:24 94:11 140:20 170:20 refreshed (4) 25:5 64:20 13:18 37:16,16,17 68:22 91:1,5,8,15,17,20,21 92:12 send (10) 88:1,19,20,21,23 151:3,5 157:21
142:9,11,23 143:6,11,23 reason (5) 93:6 121:19 137:3 65:11 75:25 72:13 73:15 74:5 115:6 93:22 123:8,12,14,21,25 89:5 96:12,13,14,16 showed (4) 96:25 123:25
144:16,20,23 160:21 168:19 refundable (3) 129:20 130:21 134:7 124:1,5,5 142:2 senior (1) 31:6 137:16 142:13
145:9,11,15,24 146:17 reasons (6) 38:13 125:8,14 133:14,24 researched (2) 91:9 169:20 169:14,17,25 170:1 sense (9) 31:16,17 32:7,8,8 showing (6) 11:18 17:17,21
147:2 148:15,19 128:8 134:5 154:6 regard (3) 47:15 109:21,24 researcher (1) 8:1 saw (7) 7:13 15:23 35:21 36:16 94:21 107:11 149:2 58:23 140:16 142:3
149:1,5,8,11,14,25 reboot (1) 41:12 register (2) 127:12 130:19 reserve (3) 63:3 72:17 141:6 53:3 97:25 104:4 171:3 sent (13) 26:2 58:21 88:4 shown (12) 6:12 17:25 58:15
150:10,14,18,22 151:11,21 rebuild (1) 152:9 registered (10) 37:15,20 resident (1) 160:3 saying (36) 21:6 24:13 103:4,11 106:14,18 59:3 94:14,15 96:22 97:17
152:4 153:8 154:18,21,24 recall (34) 7:9 20:1 21:6,9,9 113:12 124:16,21,24 125:3 resides (1) 160:3 42:12,15,16 48:21 144:16,20 145:4,11,13 98:2 101:17 106:13 142:18
155:2,6 157:13,21 24:10,12 25:18 36:9,12 129:3 133:2 155:19 resign (1) 128:9 55:22,24 58:7 60:22 78:16 167:25 shows (2) 127:13 151:2
158:1,20 159:22 41:22,23 42:15,16 43:8 registration (1) 155:21 resigned (2) 129:5 144:12 82:5,19,21,23 91:1 97:2 sentence (17) 28:2 54:25 shy (2) 92:4 126:7
160:1,15,21,24 51:25 54:10 56:23 68:11 regular (3) 17:4 151:15,17 respect (4) 25:8 32:7 39:10 104:1,5 116:10,13 117:12 55:22 61:16 71:23 73:18 sic (1) 164:9
161:4,9,12,16 71:9 75:11 81:15 98:1 regularly (1) 61:23 167:9 129:2 131:23 140:7,14 76:6 94:18 116:23 sick (2) 34:2,7
162:20,23,25 117:9 119:13 121:6,18 relate (4) 66:10,11 76:16 respectful (1) 171:10 142:24 154:24 155:13 117:3,10 118:1 131:12 side (5) 4:2 42:22 62:2 92:6

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

106:24 105:3 structure (1) 141:22 tailored (1) 47:18 158:24 170:10,12,15,15 15:21,23 22:24 25:5 26:3 training (2) 14:1 134:11
sign (1) 41:14 specialised (1) 30:17 struggling (1) 121:12 taken (12) 2:24 6:17 24:1 172:15 173:9 27:9 28:1 31:14 32:8 33:5 trammell (2) 1:12,20
signature (8) 6:19,20 specific (11) 48:22 50:1 student (1) 109:17 25:20 39:22 53:17 58:17 thanked (1) 24:8 34:9 35:16,16 38:3 44:8 transaction (5) 50:21 131:21
45:11,14,15 108:14,15 57:23 64:13 72:24 80:6 stuff (7) 55:6 67:11,12,24,25 78:24 129:22 132:7,19 thanks (2) 107:13 173:6 48:9 50:13,19 135:19 146:11,12
138:1 84:3,25 88:23 96:18 132:4 93:17 126:3 136:16 thats (175) 3:12 5:3,5 14:2 51:9,10,19,21 52:2,21 transactional (1) 67:19
signed (4) 135:25 137:25 specifically (11) 29:2 32:11 sturt (1) 109:14 taking (5) 5:4 71:18 72:10 16:25 21:22 23:8 25:8 53:2,12 56:4,5 57:17,23 transactions (1) 130:25
138:3 163:17 57:11,14,15,24 58:3 style (1) 138:5 119:1 148:3 26:20 31:8,25 34:11 38:23 58:23,25 59:24 60:13 61:2 transcribed (1) 89:1
significant (7) 12:25 65:3,11 69:25 86:4 subject (3) 35:25 37:13 talk (5) 36:7 52:11,12 54:16 42:8 43:22 45:13 46:22 62:1,13,19,21 63:18,19,25 transcript (15) 56:12 57:4
148:15,18 149:13 152:8 speculate (2) 91:19 169:24 107:9 110:9 47:1,3,8 49:13,18 50:2 64:4,9,12,14,18,22 65:8,18 58:17,18,25 59:3,4,5,7
165:3 171:4 speeds (1) 147:8 submit (1) 149:5 talked (8) 7:10 28:11 36:1,3 51:3 52:5,17 53:1,6,15,21 66:17,21 67:3,14,16,21 60:15 86:25 87:1,24 95:21
signing (2) 131:21 168:6 spell (1) 34:1 submitted (2) 139:7 144:2 55:4 61:20 66:6,14 54:4,15,22,23 55:12 56:11 69:1,1,4 70:6,19 71:22 113:7
similar (8) 16:20,23 19:4,9 spelt (1) 113:7 submitting (3) 132:13 talking (26) 28:17 36:19 57:25 58:10,22,25 60:9,25 72:7,25 73:12,13 transcription (5) 88:16,17
23:11 76:19 97:25 107:3 spent (1) 8:12 144:23 169:4 48:24 50:15 60:13,22 61:9,14 62:5,18 66:4,8,13 77:4,8,11,15 78:12,12,25 89:2 96:8,10
similarsounding (1) 17:6 sphere (1) 124:4 subsequent (2) 9:18 96:21 61:23 62:2,24,25 68:10,14,14,21 69:22 80:14,16,17,18,20,20,22,24 transcripts (3) 46:8,10 109:5
simple (1) 156:7 spoke (3) 36:2 52:14 123:22 subsequently (2) 11:14 25:19 67:1,2,7,10,18 68:3 70:17 70:1,11 72:2,15 73:19 81:3,8 82:1,22 84:14,24 transfer (1) 40:6
simulations (1) 67:6 spss (8) substance (1) 152:10 72:7 75:4 82:17 105:1 74:2,8,10,12,17,23 75:2,7 85:9,11 86:4,8 87:9,20 transferring (2) 39:6 63:4
since (5) 5:7 51:14,23 40:9,11,14,16,17,21,22,24 substantial (1) 170:19 114:9 138:12 152:16 158:2 76:5,17 77:17,20 78:7 89:1,13,19 92:1 93:3 96:25 transpired (1) 90:10
123:11,12 stably (1) 22:11 substantiate (1) 142:15 165:19 79:1,25 80:22 97:2 98:2,3,7,21,21 104:3 travers (1) 28:18
single (3) 69:2 122:25 143:6 stack (2) 27:15 91:17 succession (2) 80:15,15 tampered (3) 50:10,11 98:19 81:2,5,11,13,17,21 105:22 106:2 109:17 111:7 tremendously (1) 24:14
sit (2) 6:2 173:8 stage (7) 5:11 24:7 31:9 suggest (13) 27:6 31:13,15 target (1) 16:10 84:1,6,9 85:16,21,25 86:18 112:6,13 113:2,15,21 trial (2) 7:21 166:20
site (1) 142:23 57:24 62:5 88:19 96:11 32:22 60:10 85:21 task (5) 30:9,10,18 31:13 87:22 88:15 89:8,10,25 114:5,25 115:4,8,19 117:1 tried (2) 37:8 57:12
six (3) 1:10 4:11 164:21 stages (1) 27:4 86:18,19 91:9 102:6 82:14 90:4,15 91:23 92:23 118:4,4,5 120:17,20,21 trigger (1) 93:8
skimming (1) 133:7 stand (1) 61:8 104:12 105:10 169:20 tasks (3) 75:10,12 76:3 93:1,6,14,20 94:25 96:7,17 122:1 124:21 128:5,11 triggered (1) 73:17
skype (2) 168:15,17 standard (7) 14:3,4 30:23 suggested (1) 27:10 tax (22) 37:14,14,17,22 38:4 97:18 100:16,25,25 101:3 129:25 133:20 135:13 trouble (1) 148:22
slice (1) 154:10 48:6,7,9 81:19 suggesting (8) 32:13 36:9 43:19 125:24,24 126:3,6 102:15 103:5,25 104:18 136:25 137:9,11,17,20 truck (1) 26:21
slight (1) 167:10 standing (1) 170:24 37:10 62:22 71:11 74:13 129:4,20 133:12,14,17,24 106:5 107:4,15 139:20 141:23 143:22 true (14) 6:21,22 24:6 32:20
slightly (1) 79:6 start (12) 1:6 19:12 101:20 145:1 171:9 143:2 145:20 148:16 108:12,16,18 144:12,18 147:4 151:19 37:9 45:17 48:5 78:10
slipping (1) 102:8 105:25 106:2 115:1,20 suggestion (5) 4:25 41:18,19 158:25 160:5,10 109:2,16,20,23,25 154:15 160:2,14,20 161:17 84:20 105:10 108:17 109:4
smaller (1) 17:5 135:1,3 152:21,23 158:11 95:1 151:13 taxable (2) 39:23 129:18 110:8,13 111:4,25 112:17 165:7 169:10,10 170:13 127:19 156:22
smallmedium (1) 134:17 started (15) 50:17 64:6 suggests (1) 31:11 taxation (1) 125:9 113:2,5,9 114:22 120:14 timecoin (24) 96:24 97:18 trust (19) 20:3 39:5 59:16
smart (1) 158:4 72:11 84:7 101:6 103:23 sukuriputo (1) 130:20 taxpayer (24) 38:22 121:1 123:6,10 98:22 99:17,19,22,23 61:19 62:2,5,8,12 63:1,4,6
smattering (2) 88:17 96:9 104:6,7 112:25 sum (1) 148:15 39:1,1,2,6,7,9 43:21 124:7,9,9,19 125:1,5,12 100:3,23 72:9,14 93:9
smith (1) 28:18 116:5,9,14,15 119:1,20 summarise (3) 14:7 19:21 127:15 129:13,19 130:19 126:16,25 131:5 138:9 101:1,5,10,12,13,22,24 141:17,17,20,24 165:11
smss (1) 65:4 starting (2) 67:17 116:2 31:5 132:17 133:3 135:21 140:18,23 143:3,21 102:2,8 103:7 104:1,6,9 trusted (1) 71:13
social (11) 15:7 16:8,14,17 starts (1) 50:4 summary (9) 13:13,15 137:24 139:22 141:1 147:7,25 148:15 152:16 105:5 171:20 trustee (1) 39:5
17:17,20 19:13 20:16 22:2 stated (1) 70:22 20:16,18 21:15 126:5 142:16 144:2,5 148:11 153:5,8 154:25 157:13,23 timeframes (1) 153:19 trusting (2) 62:19 63:3
46:9 109:9 statement (82) 152:7,19 153:11 151:2,8 158:19 161:11,15 timeline (2) 54:12 79:1 trustworthy (3) 63:7 64:10
software (10) 8:4 17:8,9 19:1 6:11,15,16,21 9:21,24 sums (1) 171:4 taxpayers (6) 127:12 133:12 162:18,22 164:1,24 165:5 times (7) 54:10 56:13 78:8 82:13
43:2,8,10,11 130:22 142:3 10:12 15:4 16:15 20:17 superannuation (1) 43:3 138:15 139:21 142:16 167:18 168:13 169:6,19 99:16,19 116:7 121:1 truth (11) 42:3 56:19
sole (2) 11:24 12:4 21:3 23:4 24:7,11,16,23 supercomputer (28) 139:22 144:8 170:3 172:3 timestamp (2) 98:11,16 102:17,18 114:15,21 122:4
solely (2) 12:1 155:18 25:9,10,12,13,22 28:3,4,25 140:1,4,5,7,10,11,18,20 team (1) 38:6 theme (1) 87:13 timesynced (1) 53:1 156:22,24 159:23 161:6
solicitors (2) 4:19 106:15 29:4 33:13 34:4,21 42:2 141:7 142:14,19,24 tech (2) 110:6 124:4 therefore (5) 20:7 28:15 timing (2) 33:23 84:25 truthful (1) 37:9
solution (2) 98:8,24 45:6,9,17 48:15 49:22 143:1,17,20,22 technic (5) 27:17,20 28:1,3,6 30:13 121:1 123:4 title (1) 105:7 try (9) 17:6 25:19 27:10
solutions (3) 66:24 134:12 52:22 54:7,9,20 55:20 156:9,20,21,23 technical (3) 4:2 53:7 67:22 theres (23) 22:2 57:5 60:17 titled (1) 139:18 31:11 41:10 74:6 76:16
153:13 58:13,14,16,19 61:15 66:9 157:2,11,14,15,18,23 technicalities (1) 83:6 86:7 87:2 101:16,16 titles (1) 46:14 78:18 122:20
somebody (8) 4:1 24:4 28:9 68:8 69:3 71:8 74:18 76:21 159:18 technology (4) 57:9 63:7 104:22 105:14 118:9 today (13) 1:7 41:25 58:23 trying (15) 3:13 22:4 30:7,16
52:9 63:5 104:14 123:19 79:12 80:12 81:7 85:22 superman (3) 36:22,23,25 84:16 88:2 125:19 132:15 139:10 84:18 92:19 95:22 98:12 32:23 47:19 91:12,15
124:3 92:19 94:13 99:11,17 supernode (1) 158:10 techy (2) 67:11,12 143:6 147:24 150:15,18 102:3 105:5,9 111:24 120:14 121:9,15 143:12
somebodys (1) 165:4 103:13,16 108:11,17 supplied (1) 142:7 telecommunications (2) 60:1 165:2,18,24 166:25 172:13 122:1 173:7 154:14,18 165:10
someone (13) 7:10 17:10 110:2,4 116:21 supply (1) 166:23 87:12 173:2 together (11) 22:11 26:5,8 tulip (4) 141:17,17,20,24
35:1 36:21,21,22,25 42:22 122:10,17,23 123:1,1 support (6) 38:7 40:3 78:20 telephony (2) 67:15,24 thesis (1) 8:25 30:13 47:17 61:6 114:1 tumbler (1) 26:17
59:11 62:20 63:6 82:3 92:9 135:22,23 136:2,6,9,13,17 136:21 141:3 166:8 telling (16) 20:1,2 82:6 theyd (1) 61:8 115:2,9 116:3,5 turning (4) 7:25 9:11 26:14
something (58) 10:20 22:22 138:5,7,13 139:16 149:15 supported (2) 58:14 138:16 104:19 114:16,21 theyre (6) 2:10 18:21 19:15 told (26) 4:18 5:20 13:10 37:13
23:1,3 24:13 28:9,18 statements (9) 1:19,24 supporting (4) 15:12 24:3 156:18,22,24 159:22,23 38:9 40:2 79:23 15:14 16:25 27:17 52:6 twelve (1) 61:4
29:4,21 31:2,8 34:17 2:5,21,25 3:21 4:3 5:3 133:4 136:20 160:6,7,7 161:6 167:7 theyve (1) 7:10 58:10 68:13 69:19,19,21 twice (1) 84:4
35:1,17 42:16 51:9 56:1 151:3 supposed (1) 17:24 ten (15) 44:17 113:20,23 thing (11) 3:9,19 4:20 18:4 70:21 73:4 78:10 90:1 twitter (1) 109:9
58:4 59:19 61:22,24 states (2) 139:19 155:14 supposedly (3) 140:7 172:7,9 114:2 115:15,16,17,21 30:22 59:22 90:12 116:2,3 91:20 100:7 101:8,9 twothirds (1) 129:13
62:9,10,17 63:16 70:7,9 statistical (1) 40:20 sure (17) 70:18 76:13 79:19 116:11,12,13 125:23 121:22 124:3 104:14 156:20 161:4,7 tying (1) 54:9
71:14 72:12 73:14 statistics (1) 19:12 95:20 100:4 102:24 134:3,4 164:16 third (3) 22:15 53:19 68:17 164:8 169:25 types (1) 17:13
76:17,19,22 77:2 78:14 status (1) 3:15 107:5,16 117:10,24 120:13 tended (3) 16:20,23 87:19 though (4) 5:15 12:4 27:25 tomorrow (2) 107:5 172:20 typically (1) 87:14
79:18 81:25 82:4 84:16 stayed (2) 9:8 149:19 129:24 157:1,7,20 161:8 tender (1) 136:14 35:24 too (2) 4:13 41:23
U
88:8 92:11 93:7 95:23 step (1) 5:4 164:14 tends (1) 87:8 thought (11) 2:14 23:10 took (21) 25:23 33:18,24
96:23,24 97:23 98:22,25 steve (1) 156:16 surface (1) 95:13 tenth (1) 58:12 27:14,16 34:23 38:1,1 72:13 79:14 80:5 83:22 ubiquitous (1) 55:16
102:18 103:18 112:8 still (21) 8:25 12:6 14:9 surprise (5) 26:17 92:12 94:2 term (15) 49:24 50:1 59:15 70:13 88:8 100:14 153:4 95:8 97:7 102:12 117:12 ulbricht (1) 91:7
120:22 127:8 137:7,8 42:16,17 62:19 66:5 89:21 121:13 154:18 72:12 75:15 79:7 81:20 thoughts (1) 29:5 118:12 119:14,23 ultimately (1) 151:24
141:16 151:24 155:3 106:1 109:24 111:24 surprised (1) 170:7 83:9,25 84:20 85:1 86:14 thread (1) 93:15 120:17,19,20 127:22 135:6 unavailable (1) 142:4
sometimes (1) 4:8 117:17 120:13,19 121:11 surprising (1) 99:10 89:13 103:7 111:3 threats (1) 134:19 148:6 155:25 uncertain (2) 56:21 114:18
somewhere (2) 119:10 122:18 125:2 127:15,17 sustain (1) 116:25 terms (16) 18:19 59:21 three (5) 21:5,9 131:14 tool (1) 17:11 underneath (1) 154:1
128:10 167:16 168:11 swore (1) 84:19 63:14 65:5 71:1 76:22 77:1 154:8 172:20 tools (1) 8:4 underpinning (1) 84:16
son (3) 100:10,14,15 stints (1) 10:21 sworn (7) 5:19,23 44:24 78:13,23 81:24,24 83:8 through (32) 7:18 15:21 topic (6) 46:18 73:2 87:7 understand (39) 7:21 8:3,20
sons (1) 100:10 stock (1) 47:9 107:21 174:4,7,12 91:14 101:16 102:21 103:1 20:15 48:11 49:5 50:11 112:14 121:11 123:18 10:10,20 13:1,23 14:1
soon (1) 154:6 stop (1) 153:14 sydney (8) 52:1 115:8 118:12 test (2) 30:22 108:7 57:20,21 65:10 75:22 78:9 topics (13) 59:23 61:24 16:7,15 21:14 22:7 23:4,16
sort (7) 14:7 16:13,13 32:3 story (6) 35:11 51:23 52:10 119:6,9 128:1,8 156:11 testimony (1) 56:10 83:18 86:21 87:10 89:24 66:10,14,15 67:10 87:19 24:6 26:19,25 29:19 31:8
35:6 118:16 120:1 54:5,5 93:18 symmetry (1) 23:11 testing (2) 134:14 158:9 90:25 91:22 92:19 95:9 93:16 95:18 110:5,6,17 37:19,25 43:5,7 56:8 60:20
sorted (1) 163:21 straight (2) 29:12,17 sync (1) 53:2 tests (1) 158:8 97:12 103:13 104:20 137:6 76:22,23 78:2 80:12
sought (1) 135:8 strange (7) 24:12,19 26:4 system (15) 49:10 58:2,2 text (7) 12:5,16 53:25 54:1 111:11 123:8,11 139:11 totally (3) 63:7 79:2 99:12 106:13 107:6 121:12 125:8
sound (1) 158:15 27:13 32:21 36:18,20 67:20 73:25 75:5 82:3,7,10 95:10 98:14,15 143:16 147:6,23 159:10 touch (2) 52:4 118:24 131:11 143:19 145:24
sounded (1) 34:23 strasan (31) 38:23 40:23,24 83:4 93:12 97:19 138:5 textbook (4) 11:13,23 12:6,7 161:17 168:19 touched (1) 61:24 148:2 151:22 165:6
sounds (2) 35:2 129:24 41:1 113:3,11,19,24 114:6 166:22,24 thank (46) 4:6,24 5:6,12,25 throughout (1) 128:23 towards (5) 71:14 79:5 147:8 understandable (1) 65:15
sources (2) 132:7,19 116:22,25 118:17 119:14 systems (5) 13:18 139:17 6:1,23 9:10 14:5 24:13,14 thursday (1) 1:1 150:25 171:3 understanding (8) 1:16 2:2
south (3) 8:9 9:6 40:18 134:10 137:10 138:23 151:2 155:17 158:8 44:4,6,8,9,10,11,12,13 tie (5) 68:15 80:2 85:11 tower (3) 26:8 27:16,16 8:5 14:19 15:13 22:13 24:2
space (1) 74:22 139:21 149:6,8,8,9,17 szabo (2) 91:5 169:17 45:1,19 46:17 58:6 60:14 120:25 121:15 toys (1) 29:24 81:5
spawned (1) 73:20 150:20 157:4 159:3,11 73:7 77:5 94:4 tied (4) 81:7 84:4 86:4 142:2 trace (1) 29:3 understood (8) 7:23 21:25
T
spawns (1) 158:12 164:7 167:16 168:11,12 105:17,18,19 106:7 107:22 tight (1) 30:21 track (1) 29:4 24:10,14 42:5 100:5,8
speak (3) 52:7 53:4 92:15 169:9 table (2) 79:20 148:9 108:19 110:1 116:19 tightly (1) 20:10 traditional (1) 94:21 169:7
speaking (3) 36:10 51:25 strong (1) 112:18 tail (1) 77:10 147:10,13,20 148:19 time (157) 8:18 11:19 traffic (1) 49:5 undertake (1) 58:7

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

undertaken (2) 65:19 129:18 76:21 79:12 94:13 169:1,3,25,25 170:21,22 162:15 163:25 165:9,12 114:11,13 133:15,18,25 250000 (6) 159:16 163:6,19
W
undertaking (1) 38:25 99:11,17 103:13,15 wrights (27) 7:6 10:1,13,24 166:6,25 168:19 169:12 136:1 160:17 162:25 164:9 165:12,13
unequivocal (1) 103:6 wages (1) 153:17 105:14,21,23 106:12 11:2 12:22 13:9,9,13 14:22 170:10 171:2 174:12 167:13 168:3 250300 (1) 162:18
unfavourable (1) 35:18 wait (1) 154:5 107:12,20 108:11 110:2 26:11 37:14,21 46:4,5 youtube (1) 7:9 20 (7) 21:3 74:9 95:15 250k (1) 168:22
unfortunately (1) 79:2 wales (3) 8:9 9:6 40:18 116:20 122:17 167:8 47:2,4,14 51:23 52:16 youve (27) 7:15 46:3 50:25 126:10,14 133:12 172:9 254 (1) 171:25
unique (2) 14:17 92:2 walk (1) 155:4 170:17 97:20 108:24 109:5,8 54:8 58:25 73:6 81:6,7 200 (1) 150:13 26 (3) 78:4 94:13 142:13
unit (1) 109:18 walked (5) 24:18 29:12,13 witnesses (14) 142:2 158:3 163:4 84:18 86:9,19 87:17 91:9 2000 (7) 53:4 54:13,18 55:9 27 (1) 155:7
university (4) 8:8 9:6 40:17 154:24 155:1 1:10,12,17,20,23,25 write (11) 11:25 33:22 52:10 94:8,12 99:6 102:10 57:17 119:12 126:15 27a (1) 130:20
109:14 wallet (3) 62:9 132:3 152:9 2:5,7,9,11 3:10 4:12 33:8 101:8,9 109:21 110:5 113:15 200020012 (1) 54:19 28 (1) 79:5
unless (4) 10:19 32:11 39:19 warning (1) 83:22 172:21 104:4,13,18,19,21,23 121:16,18 138:8 139:3 20002002 (2) 54:21 55:5 29 (4) 38:17 80:1 81:6 83:17
73:4 wasnt (27) 12:24 48:11 wk (1) 135:22 writer (1) 147:12 143:7 160:24 167:12 2001 (6) 54:18
unpaid (1) 162:10 wonderful (1) 90:11 writes (1) 163:5 yrs (1) 160:17 57:11,11,14,25 59:24 3
49:15 51:6 56:1,7 59:10
unpick (1) 53:10 61:22 63:13 65:11 70:9 wondering (2) 118:15 119:25 writing (11) 8:25 9:19 13:2 2002 (7) 55:9,19,20 57:17
3 (4) 53:16,19 161:16 162:5
unpunished (1) 4:9 wont (3) 20:3 108:4 121:13 24:10 26:2 28:22 29:1 Z 60:23 66:2,6
74:24 78:21 80:19 81:25 30 (13) 34:5 38:14 81:14
unreliable (1) 37:11 82:9,21 83:8 92:17 98:11 woolly (1) 57:17 33:21 35:11 92:16 138:4 2005 (4) 8:9 72:7 73:11 93:3
zooming (1) 19:1 83:19 125:16,25 128:21
unsettling (2) 20:24,25 103:15 117:10,24 126:22 work (83) 9:17,22,23,25 written (12) 1:22 29:3 99:23 2006 (8) 8:11 109:14
129:21 135:24 148:5 151:5
unsigned (1) 138:24 137:19 161:6 173:3 10:13,22,22 13:13 100:1,17,25 104:7,10 110:15,21 111:1,7,9,23
1 163:8 164:10
unsure (1) 63:23 watched (5) 7:6,8,9 46:5 14:7,23,24,24 15:6 16:2 152:18 153:6 158:16 163:1 2007 (3) 8:20 47:3,15
300000 (5) 150:13 153:17
until (12) 9:6 15:23 33:22 108:23 20:16 21:5 23:22,24 37:23 wrong (2) 8:3 26:19 2008 (16) 9:17 34:5,12 60:24
1 (22) 38:14 40:5 53:15,18 158:25 159:13 162:7
78:15 83:18 89:19 124:18 watching (2) 7:15 104:3 40:14,21 42:11 43:14 wrote (11) 12:1 35:17 66:6 68:11,13 69:15
100:3 125:15,25 128:20 3040 (1) 137:18
139:25 145:16 153:24 watts (2) 138:17 156:14 47:10,11,15 48:5,6,8,10,11 101:1,5 102:7,13,18 70:11,18 77:19 78:5 80:4
129:17 135:1 148:4 311 (1) 147:14
173:3,11 way (20) 19:10 23:7 24:17 52:11 66:22 74:14 75:6 104:1,6,13,22 81:1 94:19 95:2
160:10,11 161:5 163:7 317 (1) 147:16
update (5) 117:5,21 119:5 43:1 58:3 70:25 72:6 73:15 77:7 92:6,11 108:4 115:9 wuille (3) 1:11 3:12 172:24 2009 (17) 8:21,24 11:3 78:6
164:10,17 165:22,25 325 (1) 3:17
128:1 132:1 76:4 82:13 101:18 115:15 132:2 134:16,19 135:22,24 82:18 84:13,20
166:11 167:19 174:3 33 (1) 84:11
updated (1) 107:13 136:2,7,9,13,17 137:5 X 85:19,22,24 86:3 94:19
128:4 129:13 150:2 154:19 10 (10) 18:25 27:4 28:2 353 (1) 173:10
upon (3) 47:20 61:25 72:13 161:19 166:25 170:23,25 138:2,6,8 139:16 95:3 110:15,21 115:7
x131 (1) 83:11 48:17,18 62:7 106:2,20 37 (1) 143:23
upper (1) 17:5 ways (6) 119:14 131:17 148:23,24 149:1,3,5 157:5 172:10
x21 (1) 160:16 130:14,15 38 (1) 138:22
urquhart (1) 156:17 137:3,10 149:18 150:1 158:15,17 159:18 20092010 (1) 97:5
xero (1) 43:10 100 (2) 32:19 107:5 39 (2) 130:18 131:13
us5 (1) 141:6 weak (1) 31:1 160:2,4,7 162:2 2010 (13) 9:2 81:12
1030 (3) 1:2 173:8,11
usb (1) 14:19 weakened (1) 152:14 163:6,10,17 84:7,13,21 85:7,8,15,18,23
Y 1050 (1) 158:22 4
used (23) 15:17,20 17:2,7,9 web (1) 46:13 164:2,4,9,12,14,21,23 86:5 111:2 115:7
107 (2) 174:12,13
22:1 26:5,21 27:22 36:17 website (2) 7:18,19 165:4,19,20 166:4 167:2 yeah (22) 7:17,24 11:20 2010early (1) 85:9 4 (5) 24:23 96:1 129:12
108 (1) 174:14
39:21,22 40:20,24 49:25 wed (3) 67:7 90:13 97:14 worked (12) 8:20 9:13 10:15 13:20 14:20 17:19 32:4 2011 (16) 81:10 83:25 85:9 159:6,8
11 (9) 6:17 9:3 19:4 49:8,20
57:25 58:4 63:12 68:4 week (3) 7:7 61:3 173:4 15:9 41:10 43:3 49:19 33:25 34:17,20 35:7 36:11 86:2,6 112:25 113:13 40 (1) 132:6
52:23 107:9 120:22 125:11
72:16 102:23 166:24 weeks (2) 34:5,7 67:15 110:9 114:5 134:9 51:18 64:25 75:20 84:2 115:21,24 116:13 118:12 41 (1) 132:15
111 (2) 141:16,25
169:11 weird (1) 37:1 159:20 85:6,25 91:24 118:2 120:9,11 121:5,18,20 44 (1) 174:7
1113 (1) 166:12
useful (4) 4:4 20:18 172:25 wellbeing (1) 149:21 working (44) 4:9 8:17,19 127:21 142:22 20112012 (1) 120:17 45 (2) 174:8,9
112 (1) 106:8
173:2 welsh (1) 81:16 10:8 20:20 35:16 38:3 41:9 year (25) 9:2 37:14 68:12 2012 (16) 38:14 115:22 46 (1) 132:25
1137 (1) 44:18
user (1) 17:1 went (10) 24:19 31:15 36:24 55:3 59:24 67:3 72:4,8 106:15 125:24,25 126:7 119:5,8,10,18 125:15 461 (1) 133:7
1148 (1) 44:20
users (1) 74:20 52:18 118:11 119:16,18 73:3,23 74:4 77:15 81:8 129:4,20 130:22 137:15 128:20 135:24 136:1 462 (1) 133:7
12 (8) 6:20 19:7 27:1 87:23
uses (1) 57:15 124:11 146:20 168:19 87:9,15,15,16,20 88:6 143:2 145:21 148:11,16 138:18 148:4,22 163:7 47 (2) 133:10 135:6
120:22 133:10 135:23
usher (3) 100:20 103:24 werent (11) 67:10 92:14 92:8,21 93:4,11 112:25 155:20 159:2,3,9 160:5,10 164:10,21 48 (1) 135:8
139:18
104:19 114:21 142:9 144:24 116:2,5,5,14,15 117:6 162:7 163:22 164:14,22 201213 (5) 37:14 130:22 49 (1) 43:18
1203 (1) 159:7
using (14) 11:17 17:10 154:21 159:19 161:12,12 119:15 128:6 134:20 years (29) 9:18 25:23 33:20 133:3,12 148:11 4938338 (1) 133:13
1205 (1) 156:5
63:19,20,21 86:12 93:1,7 163:24 167:17 137:8,16 149:17 158:17 37:3 51:5 52:11 53:8 201213year (1) 37:22
121 (2) 142:12,12
98:21 131:18 134:8 142:3 161:12 167:25 20122013 (4) 116:24 117:13 5
west (1) 112:2 61:13,21,25 64:21 80:11 1213 (1) 119:12
168:10,11 westpac (6) 81:9 84:5,8 works (2) 124:3 138:14 87:6 88:7 90:14,21 92:1 160:4,8
122 (1) 143:15 5 (19) 17:15 61:15 62:7 66:5
usual (2) 31:3,3 85:12 86:5 97:3 worse (1) 95:6 95:15 97:11 99:1 109:13 2013 (35) 10:3 38:14 40:5
13 (4) 19:11 116:21 135:16 114:23 118:20 129:15
utz (2) 152:13 155:14 weve (12) 2:12,19 20:15 worth (2) 27:7 47:16 110:5,17 115:14 119:12 117:17 118:5,6,19 119:20
137:14 133:17,21,21 138:18,23
23:7 69:7 92:18,19 103:9 wouldnt (8) 30:9,18 48:9 120:8 126:3 128:19 129:7 120:3 125:16,25 128:11,21
V 136 (2) 38:17,21 144:13 145:4,13 158:21
104:3 105:3,8 119:23 61:3 65:6,21 70:8 95:5 yesterday (2) 1:8 4:21 129:6,21 130:19 132:18
137 (1) 40:3 160:18 163:3 174:4
value (3) 42:14 150:6,8 whatever (4) 20:6 62:7 wright (177) 1:15,19 2:3,18 yet (1) 162:9 144:13 145:4,13 148:5,22
138 (1) 40:25 50 (3) 43:17 83:18,19
various (3) 28:20 74:6 105:2 122:4 153:4 3:1 6:5 9:11 10:7 12:1,9,21 youd (3) 42:12,12 90:1 155:20 159:3,9,10
139 (1) 42:10 500 (3) 126:15 139:24,25
vendor (2) 77:22 78:2 whats (8) 7:21 14:19 45:5 14:8 15:3,6 16:2 20:2,17 youll (3) 45:20 125:22 160:2,11,18,19 161:5,13
14 (9) 19:13 38:22 95:22 5000 (2) 38:24 40:4
verbal (1) 166:13 88:25 100:10 142:20,21 21:5 22:16 23:5 24:8,24 147:22 164:10,17,19
117:17 120:3 129:7 137:14 50000 (2) 149:13 163:20
verbatim (1) 62:15 153:6 27:6 29:7 30:2 31:23 youre (38) 7:25 25:22 32:15 20132014 (4) 117:5 126:7
139:14 149:15 520 (1) 161:21
verified (1) 146:20 whatsoever (2) 4:15 139:4 33:6,17 34:21 36:10,12 37:10 48:21,24 51:23 160:5,9
140 (1) 43:12 55 (3) 138:11,11,14
versa (1) 68:2 whereabouts (1) 46:11 39:5 40:5 41:3,15,20 42:19 60:22,22 62:19,22 70:17 2014 (16) 38:22 118:19
15 (10) 1:1 15:4 19:16 25:23 557 (1) 162:6
version (6) 59:3,5 whereby (1) 41:5 43:13 46:20,20 48:12 71:11 74:13 75:21 78:18 125:25 127:3 128:11,14,22
33:20 37:3 110:17 140:24 56 (2) 135:17,19
98:17,17,18 171:19 whilst (6) 28:25 29:1 55:24 49:9,15 50:25 51:4,13,16 80:25 82:17,23 86:20 133:12 139:25 148:23
165:9 168:21 57 (1) 136:11
versions (1) 59:2 68:2 94:8 163:23 52:3,6 54:6,10 59:19 88:12 91:21 93:22 96:4 151:5 155:7 159:10,17
150 (1) 48:4 58 (1) 137:22
via (4) 5:24 44:25 131:19 white (17) 35:22 71:5 60:3,18 61:25 63:9,20,21 105:17 107:17 116:10 167:15 168:21
16 (10) 54:16,24 55:1
141:6 88:2,13 89:6 92:16 96:5,25 66:6,10,16 67:11 68:13,16 118:18 119:9 129:2 131:23 2015 (6) 10:3 89:20 123:9,11
61:16,17 62:14 80:11 6
vice (2) 68:2 160:18 97:12 98:6 101:17,18 69:16 71:9,12,25 72:5 140:14 142:24 164:22 142:13 152:2
95:22 169:12 173:12
victim (1) 16:23 103:1,3,5,10 172:11 73:2,23 75:4,6,10 77:9,14 167:11 168:4 170:1,13 2016 (4) 51:23 52:15 125:11 6 (10) 17:20 21:4 57:4 59:8
17 (6) 19:21 66:5 68:10,18
video (9) 5:24 25:6 44:25 whoever (2) 15:21 20:3 78:10,19 81:3,14 82:6,19 yours (3) 3:11 109:17,18 133:1 110:4 148:8 156:4 158:20
106:16 168:10
83:10,12,20 87:1 89:3,9 whole (8) 33:21 38:2,6 43:18 86:22 87:19 88:1 89:19 yourself (9) 13:21 32:15 2020 (2) 9:7,8 174:5,6
174 (1) 144:1
videos (1) 142:17 60:12 66:7 121:11 137:6 90:7 91:19,21 92:20 93:18 51:16 63:22 100:12 2021 (1) 25:7 61 (1) 139:15
1741 (1) 144:9
views (1) 110:25 whom (1) 155:23 102:1,2 106:14,19 124:3,25 161:24 166:15 2023 (3) 25:7 106:17,20 6565 (2) 171:17 172:1
1742 (2) 144:9 145:12
vigilance (1) 12:14 whooping (2) 34:2,5 109:13,14,21 110:6,21,23 yousef (1) 154:3 2024 (2) 1:1 173:12 68 (2) 140:25,25
18 (10) 21:3 61:13 65:9
visa (4) 111:11,22,23 119:19 wide (1) 145:17 111:2 112:24,25 113:16 yousuf (77) 107:20,21,24 21 (8) 33:15 75:3 113:13
71:8,24 72:20 76:1 95:9,17
vision (1) 119:1 wieldy (1) 30:19 114:2 115:1 118:23 108:21 109:1,12 111:20 125:23 127:3,10,19 128:14 7
152:17
visit (2) 142:17,23 wife (2) 61:7 128:7 123:8,12,13 124:25 125:3 113:10 114:12 117:13 210 (3) 105:25 106:7,10
19 (5) 73:21,25 106:17 153:9 7 (9) 18:10 21:4 60:16 111:1
visited (2) 119:6,7 wikipedia (2) 91:9 169:19 130:11 132:22 134:7,22 118:7 120:12,23 121:13 216 (2) 145:15,24
171:22 118:13 119:22 130:19
visiting (3) 35:18 38:6 wild (1) 41:24 135:25 136:19,20,21 122:10 124:2 125:7 22 (6) 75:8,11 126:16 141:15
1983 (1) 111:14 132:18 155:11
141:21 window (1) 97:2 137:2,4 138:17 140:3 127:15,16,20 130:1 132:9 150:24 167:15
1986 (1) 130:21 702 (1) 171:21
visualising (3) 17:11,13,16 wins (1) 158:12 141:2,3,9,13,21 142:13 136:4 137:19 138:17 139:7 221 (1) 146:2
1989 (1) 111:18 739 (1) 166:1
visually (1) 18:2 wish (3) 1:9 27:9 170:15 144:6 145:3 150:5,19 140:2,6,11,23 222 (1) 146:17
1995 (2) 55:14,15 7799 (1) 14:1
vivid (1) 80:23 withdrew (3) 44:15 105:21 151:6,14,18,22,25 153:2 141:10,18,20 142:7,20,21 23 (4) 76:2 126:19 127:1
1997 (4) 47:25 70:1,10,14
vodafone (12) 46:21 170:17 154:14 155:7 143:6,11,18 144:14 158:22
1998 (1) 55:18 8
47:11,16 48:6 53:4 54:13 withstand (2) 30:24 31:2 156:5,12,18,23 145:9,16 146:25 233 (1) 126:20
1999 (1) 46:21
67:15,25 92:21 98:5 witness (44) 1:11,23 2:21 157:7,9,18,22 159:7,22 147:11,17,18,22 148:24 235 (1) 127:2 8 (4) 33:15 84:11 111:22
102:23 105:2 3:12,21 4:3 5:2,14 160:6 161:1,1,4,6 149:23 150:16 151:9,15,17 24 (4) 53:8 127:8,10 142:11 121:4
2
voice (1) 3:25 6:11,14,16 9:21 10:12 15:4 162:6,15,20 163:1 164:8 154:15,22 156:13,18,22 242 (1) 127:14 8032 (1) 167:14
volume (1) 74:21 21:3 24:16 28:4 44:15,21 165:1,14,16,18 166:16 157:13 158:14 2 (18) 12:17 47:3,6 53:15,19 246 (1) 43:20 85 (1) 95:21
vulnerability (1) 134:14 45:5,9 52:22 58:14,19 69:3 167:7,24 168:16 159:16,19,22 160:2,15,19 80:4 105:24 106:2 25 (3) 9:24 77:8 106:15 86 (1) 151:1

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 15, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 9

9 (5) 18:18 24:22,22 25:3

126:4
90000 (1) 149:13
905 (1) 155:13
90s (4) 48:8 57:10 74:20
75:1
94 (1) 174:10
99 (1) 174:11

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 10

February 16, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 Friday, 16 February 2024 1 MR HOUGH: I don’t believe so, no.

2 (10.30 am) 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, fine. That’s great. Okay,
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good morning. 3 lovely , thanks. Good.
4 MR HOUGH: Good morning, my Lord. 4 MR HOUGH: Thank you, my Lord.
5 If your Lordship doesn’t have any initial 5 LORD GRABINER: So, next, my Lord, I’m to call
6 housekeeping matters, there are a couple I have. 6 Danielle DeMorgan.
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
8 Housekeeping 8 LORD GRABINER: Perhaps that could be −− that process could
9 MR HOUGH: The first is that Mr Madden’s fifth report will 9 be begun.
10 now be served on Monday morning. I don’t think that is 10 MS DANIELLE DEMORGAN (affirmed)
11 causing my difficulties for anyone. 11 (Via video−link)
12 The second matter is, we have a revised timetable to 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you.
13 hand up. 13 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER
14 (Handed). 14 LORD GRABINER: Ms DeMorgan, on the screen in front of you,
15 This timetable will be circulated , but its details 15 there should appear a witness statement in a moment
16 have been provided to Lord Grabiner and Mr Orr. 16 {E/8/2}.
17 LORD GRABINER: And agreed, I think. 17 A. Yes.
18 MR HOUGH: I’m grateful, agreement indicated. 18 Q. Do you see that?
19 So as my Lord will see, today’s witnesses are 19 A. Yes. Yes, I can see that.
20 Danielle DeMorgan and Mark Archbold over video link and 20 Q. That’s the front page of your statement.
21 then Cerian Jones in person. 21 Could you go to page 6 {E/8/6}, operator.
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 22 That’s the signature page. Is that your signature?
23 MR HOUGH: Monday’s witnesses, in the morning, David Bridges 23 A. That’s the signature, yes, I submitted, yes.
24 and Max Lynam by video link, and in the afternoon, 24 Q. And are the contents of that statement true?
25 Mr Matthews begins. 25 A. Yes, the contents are true.

1 3

1 On Tuesday, 20th, Mr Matthews ends, and then we move 1 LORD GRABINER: Thank you very much.
2 over, on Tuesday afternoon, to COPA’s factual witnesses, 2 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH
3 and if my Lord turns to page 3, your Lordship will see 3 MR HOUGH: Good morning, Ms DeMorgan. I’m asking questions
4 the schedule for COPA’s factual witnesses, and 4 on behalf of the Crypto Open Patent Alliance.
5 your Lordship will see that since Professor Gerlach has 5 In your witness statement, you tell us a little
6 been removed, there aren’t any early starts envisaged. 6 about life as Craig Wright’s younger sister , yes?
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 7 A. Yes.
8 MR HOUGH: Then after, we anticipate COPA’s factual 8 Q. And it’s fair to say that, as Dr Wright has told others,
9 witnesses, apart from one, finishing at the end of 9 you and he have a good relationship?
10 Thursday, 22 February, Dr Wright being recalled on 10 A. Yes.
11 23 February. 11 Q. You refer in your statement to a blogpost that you have
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 12 made. May we put that on the screen. I’m afraid, for
13 MR HOUGH: That won’t be for a full day, but that’s −− a day 13 our new operator, it ’s a difficult reference . It ’s
14 is given. 14 {L20/252.80/1}.
15 Then the fourth week of evidence, Mr Madden, on 15 Is this a blogpost to which you refer in your
16 26 February, I understand my learned friends require no 16 statement, Ms DeMorgan?
17 more than a day with Mr Madden, Dr Placks and Mr Lynch 17 A. That is a blogpost, yes.
18 on the 27th, Mr Rosendahl and both the cryptocurrency 18 Q. And if we go to the second page {L20/252.80/2}, there is
19 experts on the 28th. The morning of the 29th is 19 content here to which you refer in your witness
20 non−sitting, and then COPA’s final factual witness, 20 statement, isn’ t there?
21 Bjarne Stroustrup, will be in the afternoon. That’s 21 A. Yes, there is .
22 the only time he can make because of a plane journey. 22 Q. Now, in your blogpost, last paragraph on the page we’re
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, fine. 23 looking at, second sentence, you say this about your
24 So, Monday, do we need to start at 9.30? This 24 brother:
25 coming Monday. 25 ”Have you ever known a kid who, from as young as

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 I can remember has said that they would one day create 1 space that he was in.
2 something that would change the world!!!” 2 Q. You say that you were −− you saw this when you were in
3 A. Mm−hm. 3 the park with friends when you were about, I think you
4 Q. So you recall that as being what your brother would say 4 say, 15 in the witness statement or about 16 in
5 from childhood, right? 5 the blog; is that about right?
6 A. Yes. 6 A. About 15 or 16, yes. Just from the group of friends
7 Q. And then a couple of sentences further on, the blogpost 7 that I was with that were friends at about that age.
8 says this : 8 Q. So, on that account, Craig would have been about 18 or
9 ”He knew from being a child that he had a path that 9 19; is that right?
10 would create something that [would] essentially change 10 A. Correct, yes.
11 the world and life as we know it. I have no idea how. 11 Q. And is it the case that the sword he was practising with
12 I would often think that Craig and Pop were aliens or 12 was one of his collection , that it was real, or at least
13 time travellers who knew ...” 13 realistic ?
14 I think it should be ”knew things” in the full text . 14 A. Yes.
15 Was ”Pop” your grandfather? 15 Q. Now, you say in your blogpost that you reacted in this
16 A. Yes, Pop is our grandfather. He has passed away now. 16 way:
17 Q. Thank you. 17 ”We did what any 16 year old girls would do. We
18 In your witness statement {E/8/3}, you say that your 18 turned around, ran back home as fast as we could and ran
19 brother had a strong interest in Japanese culture and in 19 through the house screaming to tell anybody who would
20 particular , as you say in paragraph 8, ”the fighting 20 listen about this crazy guy at the park.”
21 side of it ”; is that right? 21 Is that what you did?
22 A. In his teenage years, he very much did, yes. 22 A. Yes. He had −−
23 Q. You say he got into martial arts and had a collection of 23 Q. And you −−
24 real Japanese weapons −− 24 A. Sorry. I was just going to say, he had the −− all you
25 A. Yes. 25 could see was his eyes out, he was wrapped from head to

5 7

1 Q. −− weapons that could do real damage? 1 toe in the −− the black suit, so it ’s ... yeah.
2 A. Yes, yes. 2 Q. And you say that some time after you were safely home,
3 Q. And you recall him using superhero kind of names, some 3 the door opened and the ninja walked in?
4 of which you recall being Japanese? 4 A. Yes.
5 A. He did. He had full suits that he would actually dress 5 Q. And after your initial shock, it proved to be Craig?
6 up in and full swords that he would actually do 6 A. Yes.
7 the Japanese movements with also. 7 Q. And in your blogpost, you give that as an example of
8 Q. And you describe, don’t you, an incident which you also 8 Craig being, to your words −− to use your
9 refer to in your blogpost, when you were out in the park 9 words ”eccentric ... to say the least ”; is that right?
10 with friends and you encountered an unknown person 10 A. Yes.
11 dressed fully in a ninja outfit with a sword? 11 Q. May we go back to your witness statement, paragraph 10,
12 A. Yes. 12 on {E/8/4}. You say this:
13 Q. May we go to your blogpost, page 3 {L20/252.80/3}. You 13 ”To this day, I still ... ”
14 say this in the final paragraph: 14 This is last couple of sentences:
15 ”To say Craig was eccentric was to say the least .” 15 ”To this day, I still see the events clearly and
16 And you then recount a story; do you see that? 16 when I heard the name Satoshi, I knew it was Craig.”
17 A. Yes, I do. 17 Do you see that?
18 Q. And you say the unknown person in the ninja outfit was 18 A. Yes.
19 practising martial arts with a sword in the park? 19 Q. But back to your blogpost, please {L20/252.80/3}, at
20 A. Mm−hm. 20 the very end, on page 3, recounting the end of
21 Q. That’s what you recall, is it ? 21 the episode, you say:
22 A. Yes. 22 ”Craig took off his wrap over his face and looked
23 Q. So swinging the sword around? 23 perplexed as to why we were making so much commotion.
24 A. In a movement, so very slow, directful movements, yes. 24 To this day, I still see the events clearly and when
25 There was no one else around him. It was quite a large 25 I heard the name Satoshi, I knew!”

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 A. Mm−hm, yes. 1 Q. But your reaction was, ”Oh, whatever”, as you put it?
2 Q. So in both of those, you’re drawing a connection between 2 A. Pretty much, yeah. Yeah.
3 the ninja story and you associating Craig with Satoshi; 3 Q. Then, at the end of your witness statement, you say that
4 is that right? 4 you later heard that Dr Wright had been involved in −−
5 A. Yes. One of the events, yes. 5 that Craig had been involved in some sort of project
6 Q. May we then move to another matter you discuss in your 6 from around 2009/2010. That’s what you say in
7 witness statement {E/8/4}. We can take the blogpost off 7 paragraph 13; do you see that?
8 the screen. In the statement, you describe visiting 8 A. Mm−hm, yes.
9 Dr Wright for a family barbecue at his house on 9 Q. And you say that you later heard the name
10 the Central Coast. Was that the property at Lisarow? 10 Satoshi Nakamoto and about Bitcoin, and that Craig was
11 A. Yes, I believe it is . I −− I’m a person, I don’t know 11 involved, yes?
12 where any suburbs are, I put in the maps when I’m ready 12 A. Mm−hm. Yes, correct, yes. When −− on the 2008 and
13 to go somewhere and I go. So I know it was 13 I knew he was working with Lasseters because of −−
14 the Central Coast, and I believe it was near Lisarow. 14 I have a connection with one of the gentlemen from
15 That sounds about right. 15 Lasseters , he was one of my old customers, and that’s
16 Q. You say that this was shortly after your youngest child 16 how I knew and remembered it was −− that was probably
17 was born −− 17 one of the times I did remember, that he was working on
18 A. Mm−hm. 18 the digital currency.
19 Q. −− and your youngest child was born in 2007? 19 Q. You don’t say in your witness statement anything about
20 A. Mm−hm. 20 a digital currency, do you?
21 Q. So on that basis you think it was around 2008? 21 A. No. Well, when I asked −− when I said to them about
22 A. Yes, it was warm weather, after −− it was when she was 22 their connection with Lasseters, they said they already
23 a little bit older , not quite a newborn, so I’m thinking 23 had witness statements from Lasseters, so they didn’t
24 it could have been the end of 2007, could have been 24 take it .
25 beginning of 2008, I couldn’t tell you exactly. She was 25 Q. And you haven’t said anything in your blog or anything

9 11

1 small, not quite walking, so −− and ... 1 publicly about a digital currency, have you?
2 Q. And you say −− 2 A. About digital currency? No. I ’ve only just written
3 A. −− that’s the reference. 3 the one blog article . I ’ve only ever written a few blog
4 Q. You say you recall seeing a room full of computers which 4 articles . It was just one where there was just, my
5 you think was converted from being a bedroom or a living 5 sister and I had been going through so much overwhelming
6 room that looked like a ”mad professor’s room”, as you 6 evidence and information and flashbacks and things that
7 describe it ? 7 we remembered, that, like, I −− I wrote it, I put it
8 A. Very much. Almost most of the house, actually, was full 8 through.
9 of computers and servers and cords. 9 Q. And then at paragraph 13 of your witness statement, you
10 Q. But you say specifically that the mad professor’s room 10 say that when you first heard that Craig was involved in
11 with all the computers in appeared to be a living room 11 Bitcoin, it may have been 2012 or 2013, but you’re not
12 or a bedroom that was converted? 12 sure. You say this:
13 A. Yes. 13 ”My first thought and reaction was totally that this
14 Q. You say that Dr Wright said that he was working −− Craig 14 would be Craig, as he used to call himself all of those
15 said he was working on something important? 15 Japanese names.”
16 A. Yes. 16 Do you see that?
17 Q. And you say your reaction was, ”Oh, whatever”? 17 A. Yes.
18 A. Yes. 18 Q. So, again, as in your blogpost and as in the other part
19 Q. So, you didn’t, at that stage, take his claim very 19 of your statement, the connection you draw between Craig
20 seriously ? 20 and Satoshi is the interest in Japanese names and
21 A. No. Craig has −− Craig works on very technical 21 culture ; is that right?
22 projects , and over the years, he’s −− he’s tried to 22 A. Yes, that’s part of it , yes.
23 explain them to me and it −− it is over my head. So, 23 Q. Now, you’re aware, aren’t you, that many people have
24 when I was there, I was just like , ”Hey, we’re just here 24 been identified in the media and cryptocurrency circles
25 for a catch up”, all good. 25 as possible candidates to be Satoshi; is that right?

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 A. I am aware, yes. 1 MR MOSS: Good morning, Mr Archbold. Good morning from us,
2 Q. Do you know about the extent to which any of those are 2 anyway.
3 interested in Japanese culture? 3 Before I get into the questions I ’m going to ask you
4 A. I have no clue. I really don’t look into the others all 4 this morning, I just want to ask if you’ve watched any
5 of that much, to be honest. 5 of Dr Wright’s evidence over the last seven days?
6 MR HOUGH: Ms DeMorgan, thank you very much. Those are all 6 A. Watched?
7 the questions I have. 7 Q. Have you watched −−
8 A. Okay, thank you. 8 A. What do you mean?
9 LORD GRABINER: I have no re−examination, my Lord. 9 Q. Do you have a remote link to watch the trial that has
10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you very much, Ms DeMorgan. That 10 been happening?
11 concludes your evidence and you’re now released from 11 A. No, no, I haven’t.
12 your oath. Thank you. 12 Q. And have you read any transcripts of Dr Wright’s
13 A. Okay, thank you. 13 evidence in this case?
14 LORD GRABINER: Thanks very much. 14 A. No, no.
15 (The witness withdrew) 15 Q. Have you been following what’s been happening in this
16 My Lord, our next witness is Mark Archbold. 16 case on media or Twitter?
17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right. 17 A. No.
18 LORD GRABINER: Also on the link. 18 Q. Thank you.
19 I think you’re the next witness, my Lord. 19 Now, Mr Archbold, you work in the IT industry now,
20 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, it looks like you’ve got me! 20 and back when you first met Dr Wright, you were working
21 LORD GRABINER: I’m not prepared! 21 at Lasseters Casino; correct?
22 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, I was going to ask, do you need any 22 A. Correct.
23 time to set up? 23 Q. And your role then was the IT manager for Lasseters?
24 THE VHM MANAGER: I was instructed that the next witness 24 A. Correct.
25 will be joining at 11 o’clock for a test , so we don’t 25 Q. And you mention in your statement that you’re not

13 15

1 have him in the court currently . 1 a coder {E/11/3}, but what is your technical background?
2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 2 A. My technical background is I’ve been working in the IT
3 THE VHM MANAGER: So I can send an email through to them to 3 industry since the mid−’80s when it first −− when
4 ask them to join now, but I request if we could have 4 computers and, you know, Windows first started to arrive
5 ten minutes, please. 5 on the scene. I −− I hadn’t had any formal training,
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sure. Well, let me know when 6 but −− apart from the Sun Microsystems and things like
7 everything’s ready, okay? Thanks. 7 that, but, yeah, that’s my background.
8 (10.48 am) 8 Q. Thank you.
9 (A short break) 9 Now, you describe in your statement that Dr Wright
10 (11.09 am) 10 was brought in to Lasseters to put together the online
11 MR MARK ARCHBOLD 11 security for −− features for Lasseters; is that correct?
12 (Via video−link) 12 A. That’s correct . We were −− we were struggling to get
13 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER 13 our −− our systems −− our security systems through
14 LORD GRABINER: Mr Archbold, on the screen in front of you, 14 the Northern Territory government’s accreditation, and
15 there will appear, in just a moment, a copy of your 15 I brought Craig on to −− to actually do that and fix
16 witness statement. That’s {E/11/2}. Do you see that. 16 that up for us.
17 A. Yes, I can. 17 Q. And just so we can place ourselves in the correct time
18 Q. That’s the front page. 18 period, this was in 1999 to 2001; is that right?
19 Then if we go to page 7 {E/11/7}, that’s what we 19 A. Yes, that’s correct .
20 call the signature page. Is that your signature? 20 Q. Could we please bring up on screen {L1/52/1}.
21 A. It is , correct . 21 Mr Archbold, as you see at the top, this is
22 Q. And are the contents of that statement true? 22 a ”Lasseters Tasks.doc”. It is dated on the system
23 A. Yes, they are. 23 1 May 2002.
24 LORD GRABINER: Thank you very much. 24 A. Yeah.
25 Cross−examination by MR MOSS 25 Q. This appears to be a task list of the services that

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 DeMorgan would supply to Lasseters; is that correct? 1 we would modify those where −− where we saw fit and if
2 A. Yes. Yes. 2 −− if it wasn’t something that Craig needed to look at,
3 Q. Do you think you would have written this document, 3 we never bothered him with it.
4 perhaps? 4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. I think, looking at that, that would have been 5 And this was IT security that you thought was of
6 a collaboration between myself and Craig as to what 6 a high standard; correct?
7 Craig was −− was proposing −− 7 A. Yes, yes. When −− one −− once −− when we initially
8 Q. Okay. 8 built the system, we were using Deloittes to build
9 A. −− to perform for us. 9 the security system, and they kept failing
10 Q. Thanks. 10 the Northern Territory government’s audits. We found −−
11 Now let’s just briefly look at some of it. If you 11 after , I think it was the second or third failure , we
12 look at the first four bullets here, you can see 12 decided that it couldn’t go on like that, it was costing
13 DeMorgan is to provide various weekly, monthly and 13 a huge amount of money, so we brought Craig on, who had
14 annual reports relating to security of Lasseters ’ IT 14 been recommended to me, and I can’t remember who −− who
15 system; is that correct? 15 recommended him to me, but he came highly recommended,
16 A. Correct. 16 from memory.
17 Q. And then, if we look at the sixth main bullets −− when 17 Q. Thank you.
18 I say ”main”, I mean the black ones −− if you look at 18 Can we now please go to {L1/34/1}, please. We can
19 the sixth one, it says: 19 see here that this is headed a ”Weekly Report” for
20 ”DeMorgan provide patch information for 20 ”Lasseters OnLine”, version −−
21 the Production firewalls and their operating systems as 21 A. Yeah.
22 soon as patches become available and authorised by an 22 Q. −− 1.0, and the issue date is 2 April 2001. This is
23 appropriate LASSETERS ONLINE representative.” 23 a weekly report, so presumably this is one of the tasks
24 And ”production firewalls” is referring to firewall 24 that was mentioned in that document that I took to you
25 software that had been purchased by Lasseters off 25 earlier ; is that correct? The provision of weekly

17 19

1 the shelf ; is that correct? 1 reports −−

2 A. That’s correct . That −− that would have been 2 A. That looks like , yeah, that looks like something that
3 the Sun Microsystem and the Check Point firewall 3 we −− he will have sent us.
4 systems. 4 Q. Then if you go to page 4 {L1/34/4}, you can see ”General
5 Q. Thank you, that was my next question, but you’ve 5 Issues” and there’s not much detail there, is there?
6 answered that already. 6 A. No.
7 The seventh bullet, which is the one that begins: 7 Q. Page 5 {L1/34/5} and page 6 {L1/34/6}, and then, again,
8 ”DeMorgan will monitor the following servers 7x24.” 8 not much detail on those two pages; do you accept that?
9 This talks about network servers that Lasseters had, 9 A. I do.
10 and you can see the final point there just below those 10 Q. And then {L1/34/7}, this is a list of tools that were
11 white bullets , it says: 11 used, this is an appendix, and, again, that is a list of
12 ”The details of these servers are contained in 12 standard tools; correct?
13 Item 5 and it is the responsibility of LASSETERS ONLINE 13 A. Correct.
14 to provide DeMorgan up to date network diagram’s and 14 Q. And then on page {L1/34/8} −− and I won’t go through
15 information describing their network.” 15 the rest of the document, but after that, it ’s just
16 Do you see that, Mr Archbold? 16 a bibliography and then the next page {L1/34/9}, just so
17 A. I do, yes. 17 you can see −−
18 Q. So it was Lasseters that had the up to date network 18 A. Yeah.
19 diagrams, and they were the ones that were going to 19 Q. −− we get into a long glossary. So there’s not very
20 supply them to DeMorgan; is that correct? 20 much in this weekly report, is there?
21 A. That’s correct . I mean, we −− you know, Craig didn’t 21 A. No, and that would have been very −− that would have
22 have sight on what else we were doing, Craig was 22 been very good to us. We would have accepted that as,
23 concentrating on the Check Point firewalls, the Cisco 23 you know, Craig didn’t detect anything going on. So
24 routers , that were part of the overall network design 24 the less −− sometimes the less is better in these types
25 that we’d put in place prior to Craig coming online, and 25 of reports .

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 Q. Now, I just want to check how often you were actually in 1 things are IT security features ; correct?
2 contact with Dr Wright. Can we please go {L1/280/1}, 2 A. Correct.
3 please. Now, this is an email from Dr Wright to you, 3 Q. And then below, at the bottom of the page, you mention,
4 and you can see, at the bottom, in May 2005, Friday 4 in paragraph 9, that you visited his place in Sydney and
5 the 13th? 5 saw his server room, and that server room is where he
6 A. Yeah. 6 was storing the logs from his IT security work; is that
7 Q. Not a particularly lucky day, but Friday, 13 May 2005. 7 correct?
8 He’s just emailing to say: 8 A. Yeah, that −− he was taking the logs from the firewalls
9 ”Hi 9 and storing them for analysis , long term analysis ,
10 ”Just seeing if you are still there.” 10 rather than short term analysis . It was something that
11 He’s emailing you at Lasseters . So, it seems from 11 we were building on −− or building, with the −− the hope
12 this email that he can’t have been in touch with you 12 of getting the Northern Territory government to agree
13 that recently before that if he was asking if you were 13 to.
14 still there. Do you think that’s correct? 14 Q. Now you mention this paragraph over the page {E1/11/4},
15 A. Yeah. I mean, I −− I can understand that. 15 because it continues, that there was the −− the data was
16 Q. And then you respond at the top: 16 compressed for these logs and then uncompressed and that
17 ”Good to see you are still around, how have you 17 these files could be kept for five or ten years ;
18 been, still in Sydney?” 18 correct?
19 And I would say, is this consistent with you not 19 A. Yeah, that was my understanding of the way that Craig
20 being that −− in touch that often with Dr Wright 20 was doing. Rather than just zipping the files , he was
21 following him leaving Lasseters? 21 doing something that he’d developed himself.
22 A. Yeah, during −− during that period of time, we −− we 22 Q. But you don’t give any details here that are different
23 sort of lost contact and, you know, as I said, you know, 23 from a ZIP file , which also compresses and uncompresses
24 2005, we were starting to build our own in−house 24 and stores a file , do you?
25 security division that took over from what Craig had −− 25 A. No, no.

21 23

1 had built with regards to our security , and they were −− 1 Q. Thank you.
2 you know −− you know, they were doing that. 2 Then in paragraph 10, you mention that Dr Wright
3 Q. Yes. 3 stored the logs for Lasseters on servers located in his
4 Can we now please go to {L5/51/1}. Again, we have 4 spare bedroom and you just confirmed that in
5 another email from Dr Wright, this time April 2009, 5 the previous paragraph.
6 where you can see him emailing on Sunday 12th, asking: 6 And then in paragraph 11, so we just go down
7 ”So how is life in the distant isles ?” 7 the page a bit, you say that you had such great faith in
8 And again your response above that, you can see: 8 Dr Wright and respect for him that you believed him when
9 ”Hi Craig 9 he told you that the encryption he was using was 100
10 ”How the hell are you [doing], what have you been up 10 times better than what you were using. What encryption
11 to, is this your company or are you contracting.” 11 were you using before Dr Wright became involved?
12 So, again, it looks from this email that in −− and 12 A. Oh, just the −− the standard hashing algorithm, where we
13 we’re jumping now towards 2009, the last email we looked 13 would hash the files −− keep the hash of the file
14 at was 2005 −− so again, is it fair to say in that 14 themselves −−
15 period that you also were not that often in contact with 15 Q. Can you remember −−
16 Dr Wright? 16 A. So −−
17 A. No, I −− I think that, you know, we’d had a couple of 17 Q. Can you remember the name of the −−
18 conversations over that, you know, long period of time 18 A. No −−
19 regarding, you know, what he was up to and −− and things 19 Q. You can’t remember the name of the −−
20 like that. I −− from memory. I mean, I can’t be 100% 20 A. No, not off the top of my head, no.
21 sure. 21 Q. Now can we please look at {L1/202/1}. This is one of
22 Q. Thank you. 22 the documents that’s in your witness statement. Now,
23 Can we now please look at your statement, which is 23 the version that’s got uploaded has the 7 December 2023
24 {E1/11/3}. In paragraph 6 there, you say that he worked 24 date on, you can see, that’s obviously not correct .
25 on firewalls , routers , system security, and those three 25 It ’s dated in the system as 6 September 2004, and that’s

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 the date also that’s in your statement, so we take it 1 Q. Now can we please go back to your statement,
2 that this is a letter dated 6 September 2004. 2 paragraph 15, which is on page 5 {E/11/5}. In
3 A. Yeah. 3 paragraphs 15 and 16, you say that you recall discussing
4 Q. Now, this is mentioned in your statement, if we bring up 4 in around 2004 or 2005 about digital currency with
5 page 6 {E/11/6}. It’s mentioned there in the list of 5 Dr Wright. And then in paragraph 15, you quote
6 documents, but you don’t actually explicitly refer to 6 precisely a conversation.
7 this letter in your evidence, do you? 7 Now, you recall Dr Wright asking:
8 A. No, no. 8 ”Have you heard about this digital currency?”
9 Q. Now, you returned to Lasseters in 2004 or ’05; is that 9 Now, you never recorded that conversation in writing
10 correct? 10 contemporaneously, did you?
11 A. Mm. Correct. 11 A. No, no. It was a discussion, because, you know, back in
12 Q. And this is −− if we could go back to that letter, 12 2004/2005, all the −− the 2000s, any discussions
13 please {L1/202/1} −− this is a letter from DeMorgan. 13 regarding cryptocurrency, digital currencies , anything
14 And then if we go to the second page {L1/202/2}, we can 14 like that was just a big no−no with
15 see the end of it , where it says: 15 the Northern Territory government. Any regulatory body
16 ”There is NO feasible method to stop access to 16 wouldn’t touch them back then, and nor would
17 foreign Internet sites . Whether these are gambling, 17 the financial regulatory bodies. So, it was purely just
18 pornographic or otherwise offensive sites , they are 18 a discussion , you know, and I bounced it off a couple of
19 NOT able to be restricted. 19 people that I knew, apart from Craig, who had brought it
20 ”Sincerely , 20 to me, and I bounced it off a couple of people and −−
21 ”Craig S Wright 21 and got their opinions on it .
22 ”Managing Director” 22 Q. Mr Archbold, you can’t have been talking about
23 A. Mm−hm. 23 cryptocurrency back then, that wasn’t a term that was
24 Q. All this letter really says, Mr Archbold, is that 24 coined until many years later?
25 blocking services don’t actually work and there’s no 25 A. Well, then, you know, digital currency.

25 27

1 feasible way to stop access to foreign sites . Do you 1 Q. Thank you.

2 accept that’s what this letter says? 2 Now, this conversation is nearly 20 years ago. You
3 A. Yeah. I think that was −− you know, this is 3 can’t be sure of the precise date or words that were
4 a completely different conversation to anything with 4 spoken, can you?
5 encryption or anything like that. This was just a chat 5 A. No, but I do remember him talking to me, you know, I do
6 or a −− you know, his opinion on the ability to block 6 remember a discussion regarding digital currency,
7 internet sites from −− to Australia. I think 7 because, you know, the fiat currencies were being
8 the Australian Federal Government, which had banned 8 blocked by the US, you know, the Mastercards,
9 online casinos, or the use of online casinos within 9 the PayPals, and things like that were being not
10 Australia , were saying that they could ban them when 10 specifically blocked, but they were basically given
11 they just can’t. They still can’t. 11 a message from the US Government, ”Don’t do it,
12 Q. And was this a marketing−type letter that DeMorgan was 12 otherwise you could be in trouble”.
13 sending out to companies involved in gambling? 13 Q. And, Mr Archbold, there’s no mention of any of that in
14 A. No, I think it was −− it was a letter that I was using 14 your statement, is there?
15 to discuss with −− with the Northern Territory 15 A. No.
16 government over −− at this stage, some Australian sports 16 Q. Thank you.
17 books were starting to open up online casinos within 17 Now, do you accept that you’re looking back on these
18 the UK, and Australians could access them, and, 18 events knowing what you now know, which is that
19 you know, we were saying, ”Well, look, you know, you 19 Dr Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto?
20 can’t −− you can’t stop these websites”. 20 A. His claim for that, to me, is neither here, nor there.
21 Q. Thank you. 21 I ’m just looking back at what I can roughly remember,
22 A. And it was an opinion piece that I could basically give 22 what Craig and I discussed. Whether he’s −− you know,
23 to my CEO, who could then −− then move it on to 23 I don’t know. I mean, I don’t take that into any
24 Northern Territory government, if needed, if 24 consideration.
25 the discussion warranted it. 25 Q. Mr Archbold, that wasn’t quite my question. I said −−

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 and I’ ll break this down into stages −− you are aware 1 properly, and if I ’m not, I apologise. This is a live
2 now, are you not, that Dr Wright claims to be 2 witness.
3 Satoshi Nakamoto? 3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Is she in court?
4 A. Yes. 4 LORD GRABINER: I haven’t the faintest idea.
5 Q. Yes. 5 (Pause)
6 So do you accept that you are looking back at 6 We’ve raced ahead too quickly.
7 recollection of events from 20 years ago primed with 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Is she expecting to start at 2 o’clock?
8 that knowledge? Do you accept that proposition? 8 Okay, I’m getting nods.
9 A. Yes. 9 LORD GRABINER: We’ll find out, and perhaps it might be best
10 Q. Thank you. 10 if your Lordship adjourned briefly and then we’ll come
11 Now, Mr Archbold, at the end of paragraph 17, you 11 back to you.
12 say that you believe Dr Wright could be Satoshi because 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, just let me know what
13 of the encryption and compression software that he wrote 13 the situation is . I mean −−
14 in the 2000s, but are you aware of the many other people 14 LORD GRABINER: If she could be here before, you know,
15 that have been identified in the media and 15 realistically , before the lunch adjournment, we could
16 cryptocurrency circles as possible candidates to be 16 start , obviously.
17 Satoshi? And I will give you a few examples. Are you 17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, okay. Well, just let me know.
18 aware of Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, Michael Clear, 18 I ’ve got plenty of other things to do, so ...
19 Neil King, Charles Bry, Gavin Andresen, Adam Back, and 19 Thank you.
20 those are just some of the names from the Wikipedia page 20 (11.34 am)
21 about people who have been associated with 21 (A short break)
22 Satoshi Nakamoto? Are you aware of any of those people 22 (12.03 pm)
23 and have you researched their education, interests and 23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good afternoon.
24 abilities ? 24 Thank you for rearranging your schedule.
25 A. No. No. 25 A. Yes, that’s fine .

29 31

1 Q. And you do not suggest that you investigated the coding 1 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Can we swear the witness, please.
2 abilities of those individuals , do you? 2 DR CERIAN JONES (sworn)
3 A. No. 3 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER
4 Q. No further questions, my Lord. 4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you very much.
5 A. My statement −− my statement there about me believing 5 LORD GRABINER: Ms Jones, on the screen in front of you, you
6 that he could −− that Craig could possibly be the person 6 will be provided with a copy of your witness statement.
7 is based on my knowledge of Craig’s personality and his 7 That’s {E/14/2}, do you see that front page.
8 thinking, and, you know, if there was somebody −− and 8 A. Correct, yeah, I do.
9 this is just my opinion, you know −− if there was 9 Q. And then if that can take us to −− if you can take us,
10 somebody that is −− that was going to be this guy, it −− 10 operator, to page 12 {E/14/12}. That’s the signature
11 I believe that it would be Craig. 11 page. Is that your signature?
12 MR MOSS: So you’ve said it’s your opinion. Thank you very 12 A. It is .
13 much. 13 Q. And are the contents of that statement true?
14 I have no further questions, my Lord. 14 A. They are.
15 LORD GRABINER: And, my Lord, I have no re−examination. 15 LORD GRABINER: Thank you.
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: And I’ve got no questions for you, 16 Cross−examination by MR MOSS
17 Mr Archbold. Thank you very much for your evidence; 17 MR MOSS: Good afternoon, Dr Jones.
18 that completes it, and you are now released. Thank you. 18 Before I get to your questions, can I just ask if
19 A. Thank you. 19 you’ve watched any of Dr Wright’s evidence over the last
20 (The witness withdrew) 20 seven days.
21 LORD GRABINER: So, my Lord, we’re making excellent 21 A. I have not.
22 progress. 22 Q. And have you read any transcripts of his evidence?
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 23 A. I have not.
24 LORD GRABINER: And our final witness of the day is 24 Q. Have you been following what has happened in this case
25 Cerian Jones. I ’m not sure if I ’m pronouncing that 25 on Twitter or other media?

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 A. No, I have not. 1 Q. So when did you leave UDL, before it merged into
2 Q. And I believe you were in court yesterday; is that 2 Murgitroyd? Do you recall the date you left?
3 correct? 3 A. End of February 2020.
4 A. I sat at the back to familiarise myself with 4 Q. Now, you now operate through Entheos IP, which is
5 the location and the setting . 5 a company of which you are the sole director and
6 Q. Thank you, Dr Jones. 6 shareholder; correct?
7 Dr Jones, I first want to ask you some questions 7 A. Correct.
8 about your background. How would you describe your role 8 Q. And your company was incorporated on 5 February 2020 and
9 with nChain? 9 it was originally called CJIP Consultancy Limited, which
10 A. My role with nChain is very clearly and narrowly 10 I assume stood for Cerian Jones IP Consultancy Ltd; is
11 defined. I am external to nChain; I am not part of 11 that correct?
12 nChain, I never have been. My role is very specific . 12 A. Correct.
13 I work on the drafting and prosecution of applications . 13 Q. And then it changed its name to Entheos IP on
14 Q. According to a search on IPReg, neither you, nor Entheos 14 19 August 2022?
15 are listed on IPReg? 15 A. Correct.
16 A. That’s correct . 16 Q. Now, Entheos doesn’t have a website, does it?
17 Q. So you’re not a regulated patent attorney within this 17 A. No, it does not.
18 jurisdiction ; is that correct? 18 Q. And you used to have a LinkedIn page, but that LinkedIn
19 A. Not in the UK. 19 page is no longer accessible . Have you deleted that
20 Q. And that means you’re not subject to the IPReg code of 20 page, or otherwise hidden it?
21 conduct, are you? 21 A. I ’ve put it into hibernate mode.
22 A. No, I’m not. 22 Q. And when did you put it into hibernate mode?
23 Q. Now, you passed your EP exams in 2013; correct? 23 A. I think it was last week.
24 A. Correct. 24 Q. And why did you put it into hibernate mode last week
25 Q. Have you also qualified as a UK patent attorney? 25 before giving evidence?

33 35

1 A. No, I have not. 1 A. Not because I was hiding anything. If you actually
2 Q. Now, you worked −− you were working for UDL when you 2 looked at my LinkedIn activity, I don’t really post
3 first encountered Dr Wright; is that correct? 3 anything, I haven’t for a long time, but more because −−
4 A. That’s correct . 4 because of media interest, I didn’t want to be
5 Q. And then UDL merged into Murgitroyd? 5 bombarded.
6 A. Correct. 6 Q. Is there anything on your LinkedIn page that ties your
7 Q. And you are listed as being a representative on some of 7 work to nChain?
8 nChain’s patents from your time at those firms? 8 A. Do you know what, I haven’t even looked at my profile
9 A. I ’ve never been at Murgitroyd. 9 for a while, but I expect so, yes.
10 Q. You were never at Murgitroyd? 10 Q. Now, your Companies House records your occupation as
11 A. I ’d left by the time they merged. 11 intellectual property services consultant, and we would
12 Q. You had left them before they merged, okay. 12 suggest to you it seems unusual for someone who is an IP
13 But you are listed as being a representative on some 13 consultant not to have either a public profile , such as
14 of the nChain patents filed at the EPO; is that correct? 14 a website or a LinkedIn page. Do you accept that?
15 A. When they were filed, and then when I left, 15 A. I accept that, because I’m in a very fortunate position
16 the representation would have all been transferred. 16 in that I don’t need one.
17 Q. Yes, but you were −− you have been listed as 17 Q. Is that because you’re wholly engaged by nChain?
18 a representative on some −− 18 A. No, it is not. It is because software patent attorneys
19 A. I have been, yes. 19 are a scarce commodity and I turn work away on a regular
20 Q. −− at the time they were filed. 20 basis . I think in the last couple of months I’ve
21 Now, I say ”nChain patents” because all the patents 21 probably had four or five approaches to work for new
22 that Dr Wright has boasted about are not actually owned 22 clients . I don’t need to advertise , I don’t need
23 by him, they’re owned by nChain or an associated entity; 23 a website, it would just be another administrative and
24 is that correct? 24 financial burden for me, so I −− I don’t have one. It’s
25 A. Correct. 25 not because −− it’s not because I’m hiding.

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 Q. Is the majority of your time −− your work time working 1 Bitcoin and cryptocurrency?
2 for nChain? 2 A. It ’s my job −− it’s my job to work on the inventions
3 A. Probably, yes. 3 that I am asked to work on. So, in that regard, as
4 Q. So would you describe yourself as a consultant for 4 nChain’s intellectual property relates to Bitcoin, then
5 nChain? 5 I have a professional interest in Bitcoin. I don’t sit
6 A. Yes, I expect so, yes. 6 on social media, I don’t Google, you know, what’s going
7 Q. Now, nChain is obviously high interested in what they 7 on in the crypto world or any of that. In fact , I −−
8 regard as their star inventor not being held to be 8 I find it rather unpleasant. I don’t do it .
9 a fraud. Would you accept that? 9 Q. Now, you say you have no professional motivation for
10 A. I can’t answer for nChain. 10 adopting the view that Dr Wright is Satoshi, but I would
11 Q. Would you agree that nChain is −− and I quote 11 suggest that, given your high level of involvement with
12 −− ”obviously aligned very closely with BSV and that 12 nChain and how clearly closely associated you are with
13 community”? 13 them, that you do have a professional motivation that
14 A. I think that’s correct . 14 Dr Wright is found to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Would you
15 Q. Now, just very quickly on your relationship with 15 accept that?
16 Dr Wright. How would you characterise your relationship 16 A. No. Whatever my Lord decides at the end of this trial
17 with Dr Wright? 17 will not have an impact on my professional or personal
18 A. Obviously I work with him, as he’s associated with my 18 life .
19 client . I don’t work for him, never have done. As 19 Q. And indeed you have regularly appeared at CoinGeek
20 I said , he’s associated with my client, so he’s not my 20 events over the past few years, haven’t you?
21 client specifically , although, colloquially , we might 21 A. What do you mean by ”regular”? I mean, I have been at
22 say ”my client”, right? But I am also friends with him 22 CoinGeek events because I have been required to be there
23 and I would like to point out that I am also friends 23 with my work from −− you know, IP work with nChain. So
24 with my other clients as well . As I said , I ’m in a very 24 I have been there, absolutely . I mean, regular?
25 lucky position in that I can work for who I want to and 25 You know ...

37 39

1 who −− not work for who I don’t want to. So, for me, 1 Q. How many events would you say you’ve attended in
2 professionally , I only work for people who I think have 2 the past few years, or how many nChain−related marketing
3 cool tech and who I think I will enjoy working with. 3 events have you attended in the past few years, would
4 And I am friends with all my clients; I go for lunch, 4 you say?
5 coffee , dinner with my clients, I have been to 5 A. What do you mean by ”few years”?
6 international rugby matches with them, I’ve been to 6 Q. Two years.
7 nightclubs with them, I have a client coming down in 7 A. Two years? Oh, without my diary in front of me, I don’t
8 a few weeks’ time to go visit a castle together that we 8 know. Four? Five? I don’t know.
9 are interested in . So Craig Wright is not special in −− 9 Q. I ’m now going to address some of the marketing work for
10 in that regard. 10 nChain that you have carried out alongside Dr Wright.
11 Q. But you would describe him as a friend of yours? 11 Could we please go to {L14/68/1}.
12 A. Yeah, I would. 12 A. Sorry, am I ... oh, right .
13 Q. Now, I just want to ask some questions about your 13 Q. So this is a −− if we can zoom in at the top page. Here
14 interest in Bitcoin. Can we please bring up your 14 we see a picture of you and Dr Wright, tweeted by your
15 statement {E/14/9}, please. You say, in paragraph 32 −− 15 former patent attorney firm, UDL; correct?
16 this is towards the end of your statement. You say: 16 A. Yes.
17 ”I believe that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. 17 Q. And we see here that you were appearing at what looks
18 I have no professional or personal motivation for 18 like a marketing event called, ”The future of Bitcoin”,
19 adopting this view. I am not particularly interested in 19 alongside Dr Wright?
20 Bitcoin or cryptocurrency issues outside of work, I do 20 A. I know which event that is, because it’s written in
21 not read up on what is happening or who is doing what in 21 the background there. That’s the very, very first event
22 that world.” 22 that Craig Wright did after the BBC interview, so −− and
23 A. Correct. 23 that was in Arnhem in the Netherlands. So that would
24 Q. But would you accept that within your working 24 have been, I don’t know, around about 2017, something
25 environment, you are obviously highly interested in 25 like that.

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 Q. It says 30 June 2017 on the top. 1 Then if we go to the bottom of the page, we will see
2 A. Oh, of course it does, yeah, sorry . I ’ve got my glasses 2 that Dr Wright −− at the very bottom of the page, you
3 on. So I don’t know that that is −− was that 3 can see in the last paragraph, that Dr Wright was
4 a marketing event? It wasn’t organised −− I don’t think 4 invited to speak and was described in the bottom
5 that was organised by nChain. 5 paragraph. And then, at the very bottom line, it says:
6 Q. Well, Dr Jones, I would suggest to you that it is 6 ”Currently, Dr Wright is Chief Scientist for nChain
7 a marketing event for somebody and it’s an event that is 7 −− the global leader in advisory, research, and
8 the −− about the future of Bitcoin. Are you saying 8 development of blockchain technologies. NChain focuses
9 that’s not a marketing event? 9 on igniting massive growth and adoption of the original
10 A. It ’s not −− it’s not a marketing event, as I understood 10 Bitcoin design, protocol, and vision , now living only in
11 it , for nChain. He was appearing to speak. 11 the form of Bitcoin SV (BSV), which stands for Satoshi
12 Q. You’re referred to there as nChain’s ”lead patent 12 Vision.”
13 attorney” in that tweet? 13 So, again, this was an event where Dr Wright’s
14 A. That’s probably −− yeah, that’s −− that’s probably 14 claims to being Satoshi and the basis of BSV being
15 a fair description at that time, because they didn’t 15 the true version of Bitcoin was being promoted. Do you
16 have in−house counsel at that time. So I −− I was 16 accept that?
17 the one that took the brunt of the work with −− with 17 A. That blurb will not have been provided by me. It won’t
18 Craig, and the −− and the drafting. 18 even have been provided by UDL or by Technology
19 Q. Did you put this tweet out yourself , or would you have 19 Connected, it will have been provided by nChain, because
20 caused somebody within UDL to put out this tweet? 20 all of the speakers will have been asked for a little
21 A. Someone in UDL would have done that. 21 bit of information to put on the promotional material,
22 Q. And certainly your firm, UDL, at that time, was seeking 22 and then Technology Connected −−
23 to publicise your involvement and association with 23 Q. Dr Jones, I’m not suggesting that you wrote those words,
24 Dr Wright; do you accept that? 24 I am just saying that it is quite clear that this event
25 A. I think that’s fairly standard for all IP firms or −− or 25 was being used by nChain to push this vision of

41 43

1 legal firms , isn ’ t it ? You know, I’ve got friends who 1 Dr Wright being associated with Satoshi and it was an
2 are solicitors who −− whose firms will tweet or put 2 event that you were heavily involved in . Do you accept
3 stuff on LinkedIn about their appearances at events with 3 that?
4 their clients . 4 A. There’s no money −− I accept that, but there’s no
5 Q. Can we now please go to {L20/252.37/1}. This refers to 5 financial gain for me, or any, you know, gain for me in
6 a Blockchain Connected event that was happening on 6 what’s written on that screen.
7 24 September 2020, which you can see at the top. You’re 7 Q. Well, there’s clearly a benefit to you to attending this
8 listed as being an event host; is that correct? 8 event and other events?
9 A. Yes. 9 A. You know, what I would say to that is, actually , being
10 Q. And it was organised under the umbrella of something 10 associated with Craig Wright is not actually −− it’s not
11 called Technology Connected; is that right? 11 actually a great marketing ploy on a lot of occasions.
12 A. Correct. I ’m a founding chair of the blockchain 12 Q. Why is that, Dr Jones?
13 connected section of Technology Connected, which is an 13 A. He’s a very divisive character, isn ’ t he?
14 organisation in Wales for promotion not of Bitcoin, not 14 Q. Can we please now go to {L20/252.85/1}, and this is
15 of cryptocurrency, but of blockchain technology. 15 dated, you can see there, 8 October 2020, and refers to
16 Q. And another member of Blockchain Connected is 16 ”CoinGeek Live 2020 [shining] spotlight on intellectual
17 Jack Davies; is that correct? 17 property and blockchain”.
18 A. That’s correct . He’s based in −− he’s Welsh. 18 Now, you attended −− if we could just go to the top,
19 Q. And he’s also employed at nChain; correct? 19 please, so we can see the picture. You attended this
20 A. He is. 20 conference and sat on a panel; isn ’ t that correct?
21 Q. And then, in the third paragraph we see there, it says: 21 A. That is correct .
22 ”Join Dr Cerian Jones, Patent Attorney at 22 Q. And of the four individuals there that you can see,
23 Cerian Jones IP for a morning in conversation with 23 they’re all in some way or have been at some point
24 leading Blockchain experts in the legal and financial 24 associated with nChain; isn’ t that correct?
25 sector .” 25 A. That is correct . Yes, that is correct .

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 Q. And that’s Jimmy Nguyen sitting on the right−hand side; 1 internal . I ’ve never been internal .
2 correct? 2 Q. But you accept that to anybody viewing that, and you
3 A. That is correct . 3 didn’t correct anybody, I should point out, in this
4 Q. And you are aware, are you not, that CoinGeek is an 4 video, do you accept that anybody viewing that would
5 outlet backed by Calvin Ayre and which promotes 5 look at that and believe that your job, or your role is
6 Bitcoin SV, aren’t you? 6 associated with nChain and there’s nothing there to
7 A. I am aware of that. 7 indicate that you work for anybody else?
8 Q. Indeed, it is clear that people associate nChain with 8 A. My Lord, when −− when a legal representative, solicitor,
9 BSV from one of the questions below, if we go down 9 patent attorney, whatever, goes to an event and speaks
10 the page a bit. Onto the next page, please 10 and they’re with a client , it ’s associated with
11 {L20/252.85/2}. Next page again. Sorry {L20/252.85/3}. 11 a client ’s industry or patent portfolio or whatever,
12 There, just below the picture of you, it says: 12 they don’t say, ”Oh, and by the way, my other client
13 ”Many people often wonder whether nChain’s patents 13 list is ... ”. So, no. You’re correct in that, no,
14 can only be used if an individual or company is building 14 I hadn’t said, ”By the way, I’m external and I also work
15 on BSV, but Chelton was able to provide some clarity on 15 for lots of other clients ”, but then you wouldn’t expect
16 ... the panel.” 16 me to. That moves on very, very quickly, if you look at
17 That’s Will Chelton; correct? 17 the video. It ’s −− that wouldn’t be normal to do that.
18 A. Sorry, which paragraph? 18 Q. Dr Jones, you’re arguing back, but you didn’t actually
19 Q. Just the paragraph below the picture? 19 answer my question. My question was: do you accept that
20 A. Oh, that’s −− yes, that’s Will Chelton, yes. 20 the way that was presented would look to somebody that
21 Q. And, just as I read out, it says that: 21 you were a −− you were just working for nChain, or just
22 ”Many people often wonder whether nChain’s patents 22 associated with nChain? That’s all I ’m asking.
23 can only be used if an individual or company is building 23 A. I think some people could misinterpret that.
24 on BSV ...” 24 Q. Now can we please go to the transcript of that event,
25 So, again, it ’s clear that the question being raised 25 which I think was {O5/2/1}, and please go to page 8

45 47

1 here is associating nChain and BSV; do you accept that? 1 {O5/2/8}. Then just at F−− well, I’ll put the question
2 A. Yes. 2 and the point that Jimmy Nguyen was saying at just
3 Q. And then if we go further down to the next page 3 below E:
4 {L20/252.85/4}, we can see there that 4 ”Cerian ... ”
5 the Bitcoin SV logo being used. 5 By the way is that how you pronounce your name?
6 Now, can we very briefly go to a video of that, 6 A. ”Cerian”.
7 which is at {O5/2/1}. 7 Q. Being Celtic myself I should be able to pronounce that
8 The video should be at O5/2. Then {O5/2/2}. 8 right .
9 Now, we’re just going to play −− if we could please 9 A. That’s fine :
10 just play the first 1 minute and 15 seconds of that 10 Q. ”Cerian, you’ve been involved in the nChain patent
11 rather than have to stop it . 11 process since early in its life . Can you give us an
12 (Video footage played) 12 example of one of the nChain inventions you’ve had to
13 So, Dr Jones, in this video, you were referred to as 13 work with that extends well even beyond blockchain
14 ”of counsel” at nChain. ”Of counsel” is normally 14 usage?”
15 the name given to somebody who has some level of 15 And you responded:
16 internal role at a company. Would you accept that? 16 ”Yes, well , I mean, there’s ’Number 42’, as it’s
17 A. No, I −− that’s not my understanding of the term, and 17 affectionately known, which is a cryptographic technique
18 I have never been internal at nChain. 18 that can be used in a whole variety of applications .
19 Q. You’re not described there as an external counsel, are 19 There’s another patent ... ”
20 you? 20 And you go on to discuss something else.
21 A. I think that’s a term that −− that Jimmy or someone at 21 So when you’re referring to ”number 42”, that’s one
22 nChain at the time came up with. I think it was a term 22 of the three patents that you refer to in your evidence;
23 that was sort of being used generally to mean a counsel 23 is that correct?
24 associated with an entity . I don’t think there was ever 24 A. That’s correct . Correct, sorry , yeah.
25 any intention on anybody’s part to describe me as being 25 Q. Thank you.

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 And then, again, just at G, you say: 1 over the years and it ’s only fair to her that I take her
2 ”So, yeah, I think, as Will was saying, obviously 2 through enough of those to establish that. But this was
3 nChain is aligned very closely with BSV and that 3 the last one I was going to.
4 community ...” 4 LORD GRABINER: Well, I’m pleased to hear it’s the last one.
5 And then you go on to talk about your role as 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Don’t worry, I understand what the point
6 a patent attorney. 6 is .
7 Could we now please go to {L20/252/1}, page 38 7 MR MOSS: So it’s quite clear, do you accept, that you are
8 {L20/252/38}? 8 associated with nChain and Dr Wright and nChain is very
9 THE EPE OPERATOR: There’s no page 38. 9 closely associated with Dr Wright’s patents?
10 MR MOSS: I have my reference wrong then {L20/252.38/1}. 10 A. I accept that.
11 Now, this is dated 4 March ’21, ”Private Investors 11 Q. Now, moving on to Dr Wright’s patent numbers.
12 Acquire Company Behind ’Bitcoin Creator’ Craig Wright”. 12 Dr Jones, as you may be aware, Dr Wright isn’t
13 Then if we go to the third page {L20/252.38/3}, just 13 afraid of boasting about how many patents he has.
14 above, ”nChain’s Future Plans”, it says: 14 Indeed, in the McCormack case, he boasted of having more
15 ”The patent program at nChain involves some of 15 patents than Edison and Tesla combined. Now, putting
16 the most complex technologies we have ever seen, and 16 aside that those figures are publicly available and
17 stands at the forefront of blockchain innovation 17 that’s simply not true, I want to ask you some questions
18 worldwide’, said Cerian Jones, a partner at [UDL] and 18 about the patents that you have been involved with and
19 nChain’s lead patent attorney.” 19 nChain’s patents and the numbers of patents that are
20 So, again, I would suggest that here, again, you 20 actually in existence .
21 were being very closely associated with nChain and their 21 Now, when I ask you any questions about patents from
22 patents, and those are obviously very closely associated 22 now on, please answer by reference to granted patents.
23 with Dr Wright. Do you accept that? 23 A patent means little when it’s filed , until it ’s
24 A. Yes. 24 granted, as we all know, and I also have no desire to
25 Q. Can we now please go to {L18/109/1}. Here, this is an 25 seek anything that might invalidate any patent that’s

49 51

1 event, again a CoinGeek event, and where was this event 1 currently being prosecuted.
2 held, can you recall? 2 One other point I need to clarify is , what you,
3 A. I think that’s Slovenia, isn ’ t it ? 3 given that you’re involved with nChain and you’re
4 Q. Yes. 4 experienced as a patent attorney, what you regard as
5 I ’m just looking at the first paragraph, we see: 5 a patented invention, or with a number of patents that
6 ”Dr ... Wright’s The Bitcoin Masterclasses in 6 apply, and I’ ll give you an example of what I mean by
7 Slovenia attracted audience members from across 7 this .
8 the country and beyond. Cerian Jones, a patent lawyer 8 Do you regard, for example, an EP, a European patent
9 and intellectual property expert, travelled from Wales 9 for those less au fait with the terms, an EP for
10 for the sessions . As she tells CoinGeek Backstage, 10 a single invented concept but which has multiple
11 there was so much to learn from Dr Wright on how Bitcoin 11 designations, say Germany, France and the UK, would you
12 can become explosive when combined with IPv6 and ... 12 regard that as one patent or would you regard that as
13 emerging technologies.” 13 three patents?
14 So again, this is another example of you being 14 A. Each individual granted right I would −− I would class
15 associated with CoinGeek, nChain and Dr Wright; do you 15 as a patent. Count −− that’s one count. So if that
16 accept that? 16 EP is split out into −− let’s say there’s two
17 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I’m sorry for intervening, but 17 divisionals filed and they get granted, then that would
18 could perhaps my learned friend explain what the purpose 18 count as three.
19 of all this is ? 19 Q. So you could have the exact same invention patented in
20 MR MOSS: Well, we will −− there’s a −− part of 20 20 different jurisdictions and that would be referred to
21 the foundational origin of Dr Wright is his patents and 21 as, in your opinion, 20 patents rather than one patented
22 Dr Jones is very closely associated with Dr Wright, and 22 invention?
23 as we’ ll come on to see when I consider her patents, 23 A. Correct. If we’re talking about all of the patents that
24 this was the last one I was going to go to, but she has 24 relate to a single inventive concept, then I would refer
25 been very closely associated with Dr Wright and nChain 25 to that as a family.

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 Q. And do you not think a more accurate way of −− and 1 asking me, and bearing in mind, I don’t have access to
2 the reason that this is very important is because it ’s 2 those −− to those figures. You know, because I’m not
3 very easy to inflate the numbers of patents by counting 3 internal , I do not have access to nChain’s internal
4 the number of patents rather than referring to 4 systems and I don’t have access to my previous firm’s
5 the number of patent families. Do you accept that 5 data either , so you are asking me something off the top
6 a better measure of innovation for a company would be 6 of my head now, right? So I can have a go at answering
7 the number of patent families rather than the actual 7 it , but ...
8 number of patents granted? 8 Q. Well, according to records −− and we can be corrected by
9 A. My Lord, I don’t ever recall having inflated anybody’s 9 the other sides afterwards if this is incorrect −−
10 patent portfolio figures . If somebody else has, I can’t 10 A. Okay.
11 −− I can’t answer to what they do. 11 Q. −− none of the patents that you were involved in where
12 Q. Dr Jones, I’m not saying that you have been involved in 12 your name appears as a representative was Dr Wright
13 any inflation of numbers, I’m just trying to clarify , 13 listed as the sole inventor. Do you know how many
14 based on your expertise, you’re a patent attorney and 14 granted patents nChain has with Dr Wright named as
15 you’re nChain’s patent attorney, there’s been a lot of 15 the sole inventor?
16 comment about the number of patents in this case and I’m 16 A. I couldn’t tell you. It ’s −−
17 trying to establish what you believe is a more accurate 17 Q. Again, according to our research, this is six and this
18 way to refer to a measure of innovation; is it by 18 is only −− this is all publicly available information.
19 counting patent families or by counting individual 19 Now, every other patent that involves Dr Wright has
20 patents? 20 another inventor on it ; isn ’ t that correct? All
21 A. Well, first of all , I would say that it ’s a more 21 the nChain ones I’m talking about here.
22 accurate way −− if you’re talking about granted patents, 22 A. That’s correct . And −− yeah, that is correct. There
23 then you give the number of patents. If you’re talking 23 are some names −− I’m talking about right in the early
24 about patent families, you talk about number of patent 24 days now, right? Because for the last −− what was it,
25 families . But I just want to correct you on something 25 since about 2018, I’ve really been quite at arm’s length

53 55

1 there. You just referred to me as nChain’s patent 1 in the sense that, in about 2018, they brought
2 attorney. That is not correct . I ’m not Craig Wright’s 2 Will Chelton on board, they had internal counsel, so
3 patent attorney, I ’m not nChain’s patent attorney. 3 I very much stepped back, my role completely stepped
4 I have multiple clients . I am not −− I do not belong to 4 back from nChain, I’m much more of a contractor,
5 nChain, I do not −− I’m not employed by nChain and 5 external entity in the sense that, you know, there was
6 I don’t think it is −− I think it’s actually misleading 6 −− there was much more going on internally, in terms of
7 to refer to me as nChain’s patent attorney. I know that 7 process and all the rest of it . But in the very early
8 sometimes people do that, but it’s not actually correct . 8 days, there were some researchers whose names were
9 Q. Dr Jones, I have done nothing more than you have been 9 added. I think it was kind of an internal convention,
10 referred to and you didn’t correct it when I took you 10 and I don’t know that this is unique to nChain, a lot of
11 through those things, so you have been referred to 11 companies will add researchers and so on as named
12 publicly and you have not corrected that previously. Do 12 inventors , as −− as a sort of a kudos to them. But
13 you accept that? 13 whether or not they are the original deviser of
14 A. Yeah, you −− once somebody’s, you know, posted something 14 the inventive concept, you know, I don’t know. But the
15 on −− on media and all the rest of it, to go back and 15 convention was to name the researchers who’d worked on
16 say to a client , ”Actually ... ”, it just doesn’t −− you 16 the White Paper originating from the original OI.
17 just don’t do it . But we are sitting here in 17 Q. So it ’s perfectly possible then that Dr Wright himself
18 a courtroom and you just incorrectly referred to me as 18 has been added for kudos reasons rather than him being
19 ”nChain’s patent attorney” and I just wanted that, for 19 the person that came up with the enabling invention?
20 correctness , pointed out. 20 A. That’s not my understanding.
21 Q. Now, of the nChain patents where you were the recorded 21 Q. Now, are you aware, given your involvement with nChain,
22 representative when you were at UDL, how many granted 22 that there are over 60 instances in which Dr Wright has
23 patents were you involved in where Dr Wright was named 23 been added as an inventor during prosecution, sometimes
24 as the sole inventor? 24 as long as three years after the original filing date?
25 A. Oh, gosh. Just so that I ’m really clear what you’re 25 Are you aware of that?

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 A. No. 1 the blockchain simply has no bearing on whether that

2 Q. So you yourself have not been involved in any of those 2 person is Satoshi Nakamoto. Do you accept that?
3 cases? 3 A. Sorry, are you −− are you asking if somebody gets
4 A. No. 4 a patent granted for a blockchain−related technology,
5 Q. And it is not unusual for this to happen maybe once or 5 that doesn’t mean that they’re Satoshi?
6 twice, but based on your experience in the industry, 6 Q. Yes.
7 would you accept that for it to happen over 60 times is 7 A. Yeah, I would agree with that.
8 unusual? 8 Q. What I’m trying to establish is , there’s a lot of
9 A. It speaks of an internal policy change, or −− or 9 evidence in your statement about these patents, and what
10 something that’s gone on, but I can’t −− I can’t 10 I believe your evidence is , is that these patents are
11 speculate as to what did or did not happen internally at 11 things that you think show that Dr Wright could be
12 meetings, or whatever, that I was not party to. 12 Satoshi Nakamoto. If that’s not the case and they have
13 Q. Now turning to the patents that you rely on in your 13 no bearing on it , say so, but they’re in your evidence.
14 statement, and if we could go to page −− paragraph 13, 14 A. I think so, in my opinion.
15 please, which is on page 4 {E/14/4}, and you mention 15 Q. You think they do have a bearing on showing that
16 three patents, number 42, number 222 and number 32. 16 Dr Wright may be Satoshi Nakamoto?
17 Just for everyone’s sanity , I ’m only going to go through 17 A. Yeah, I think, if you −− if you look at my evidence, if
18 the first of these in any detail ; we’re not going to go 18 we −− can we go down −− further down in −− in that
19 through the other two. 19 statement? {E/14/5}. And further, sorry for ... yeah,
20 A. That’s good. 20 there’s quite a bit .
21 Q. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but what your evidence 21 Q. It might be 32 you’re thinking about, which is on
22 says, looking at it in its totality , is that this 22 {E/14/9}.
23 patent, as well as the other two patents you mention, 23 A. No, up a bit. Sorry.
24 and of course others that you’ve been involved with, 24 Q. Dr Jones, it ’s your evidence. I ’m trying to
25 show, in your opinion, that Dr Wright was inventing 25 establish −−

57 59

1 small details relating to blockchain; is that correct? 1 A. Yes, yeah. No, I’m trying to find −−
2 A. So, just to be clear what you’re asking me. You’re 2 Q. −− why it’s in here.
3 asking me about my comment that −− that Craig sometimes 3 A. Yes, because I was trying to explain how his IP, in my
4 invents −− 4 opinion −− I was trying to tie his IP and his way of
5 Q. Small details . 5 thinking to the Satoshi Nakamoto question, as −− as an
6 A. −− small details −− 6 indication that it ’s the sort of thing that I think is
7 Q. Yes. 7 aligned with or chimes with someone who’s thinking about
8 A. −− small building blocks, really . That’s correct . 8 Bitcoin and potentially the developer of it .
9 I would say that. 9 Q. Okay.
10 Q. And your evidence, you obviously put these three patents 10 Now, going back to page 4 {E/14/4}, paragraph 13,
11 in here for a reason in your evidence, and indeed it ’s 11 just so everybody can see, number 42 is the one that
12 relied upon by Dr Wright. But just so I understand, 12 you’re referring to here. Where does that number come
13 your evidence is that these patents demonstrate, in your 13 from, Dr Jones?
14 opinion, inventive matters that you think are the sort 14 A. It ’s my understanding that it was number 42 on a list of
15 of thing that could indicate that Dr Wright could be 15 inventions that Craig had already devised before
16 Satoshi Nakamoto? Is that why this evidence is in here? 16 relocating to London.
17 A. Yeah, so thinking back to when I wrote this statement, 17 Q. You haven’t seen, have you, any original documents that
18 why did I −− why did I name those? I named them, yeah, 18 show the earlier listing of those ideas , have you?
19 because I wanted to give some examples of the sort of 19 A. I have not.
20 inventions that I ’d worked on, or that −− that Craig is 20 Q. Now, in your evidence, you discuss Dr Wright being
21 known for, and, yeah, I think −− I think you’re −− 21 the inventor of these three patents, but he is not
22 you’re correct . 22 the sole inventor of these three patents, is he?
23 Q. Okay. 23 A. He might not be the sole named inventor −−
24 Now, I want to put it to you that anyone that 24 Q. He isn’t , on any of them?
25 invents anything in relation to Bitcoin or 25 A. But that’s not necessarily the same as being factually

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 the sole inventor. Sometimes, like I say, being a named 1 Q. −− any patent attorney that gets back an EPO written
2 inventor, sometimes people are named when they shouldn’t 2 opinion with no novelty or inventive steps, their first
3 be. That happens. 3 reaction is not, ”This is a brilliant patent”, their
4 Q. So it ’s perfectly possible that Dr Wright might have 4 first reaction is more likely to be, ”Oh, we’ve probably
5 been the person that shouldn’t have been invented [sic] 5 drafted this too narrowly”. Do you think that’s a fair
6 and it should have been actually the other person’s name 6 comment?
7 that is the real inventor; do you accept that? 7 A. It ’s not just fair , I actually say it in my witness
8 A. Not −− not if those people only came on the scene after 8 statement.
9 the original idea had been −− 9 Q. You do, in paragraph 15.
10 Q. That’s −− 10 So, what you don’t mention in your evidence, because
11 A. −− had been devised. 11 you rely on this written opinion, but what you don’t
12 Q. −− (overspeaking − inaudible) −− what the internal 12 mention −− and we don’t need to go there, but for
13 records show about number 42. Do you know who the joint 13 everybody’s reference, this is {L20/351/3} at
14 inventor is on this one? 14 paragraph 9, what you don’t mention is that the EPO
15 A. I do not. 15 written opinion recorded that it does not meet
16 Q. So it ’s Stef Savanah. 16 the requirements of Article 6 of the patent, the PCT
17 A. Okay. 17 because claims 1, 16, 18, 20, 24, 39 and 40 are not
18 Q. But just before we go there, I want to ask you, because 18 clear , so there was a clarity objection to all of those
19 you refer to the EPO written opinion in paragraph 15 of 19 claims. You don’t mention that in your statement, do
20 your statement in relation to this {E/14/5}. Now, 20 you?
21 the EPO written opinion is a standard document that sets 21 A. No, I think that’s an omission on my part.
22 out the prior art ; correct? 22 Q. And of course, the EPO’s opinion is only based on what
23 A. Correct. 23 the EPO searched and found; correct?
24 Q. And you point out that the examiner regarded 24 A. That’s correct .
25 the invention as being ”novel and inventive”; correct? 25 Q. And as you’re well aware, when patents come to being

61 63

1 A. Correct. Can I just point out that I didn’t draft or 1 litigated , there are obviously much broader searches
2 prosecute this application . 2 that can be carried out, because an EPO search is
3 Q. I know that. Thank you. 3 intrinsically limited by a certain amount of budgetary
4 But you point out that the examiner regarded it as 4 constraints ; correct?
5 ”novel and inventive”, but of course novel and inventive 5 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, again, I apologise for intervening.
6 is the case for all granted patents? 6 What is the relevance of this ? We want to know about
7 A. Correct. 7 the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, not about this
8 Q. This is relatively straightforward for yourself , myself 8 witness’s knowledge of patents or the detail of some
9 and my Lord, but there are others in this room who 9 particular patent application .
10 aren’t so au fait with patents, so I appear −− I 10 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You’ve led this evidence.
11 apologies if this −− 11 LORD GRABINER: Well, I may have done, but −−
12 A. That’s all right . 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: There’s quite a lot of detail in here
13 Q. −− appears a bit noddy. 13 about number 42, for example, so I’m going to allow some
14 Now, one common reason why no substantive objection 14 questioning to continue.
15 may be given by an examiner at this stage, as you quite 15 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I completely agree that this is in
16 fairly point out at the end of paragraph 15, is that 16 the evidence, but it is supremely irrelevant to
17 the claims may be drafted too narrowly; correct? 17 the issues that your Lordship is concerned with in
18 A. Yeah, I mean, I −− in a −− in one sense, when you try to 18 the trial .
19 get a patent granted at the patent office , it ’s 19 MR MOSS: My Lord, with that last point from Lord Grabiner,
20 a negotiation, isn ’ t it , with the patent office , and 20 I fully and wholeheartedly agree. However −−
21 you’re never going to go into a negotiation, you know, 21 LORD GRABINER: Well, I mean, on that basis, this
22 with your −− you know, you go in, sort of, with a bit of 22 cross−examination, to pursue this issue, is an
23 a cheeky one, don’t you, and expect to be −− to be −− 23 irrelevance , and I am certainly not going to comment −−
24 Q. Of course not, but any −− 24 if this is the concern on the other side, if these
25 A. −− taken down. 25 paragraphs are not cross−examined, I’m not going to be

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 remotely concerned to make any comment upon that when we 1 assumptions” document.
2 get to closing submissions. 2 If we could very quickly go to the ”Rules and
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. 3 assumptions” document, which is at {L10/332/1}. Now, if
4 MR MOSS: My Lord, the evidence isn’t being withdrawn and 4 we look at number 8 on that list, we can see, ”Patent
5 I have to go through this. 5 Pre−Concept Phase”:
6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, but you can keep it short. 6 ”Minimum preparation for the kick−off of
7 MR MOSS: I am going to. Don’t worry, my Lord, because this 7 the conceptual phase by Craig.”
8 particular one has a very interesting design history or 8 So the pre−concept phase is being done by Craig,
9 patent −− inventive history, which is why I need to go 9 according to this document.
10 to it . 10 But then if we go over the page {L10/332/2} and we
11 So if we could very briefly go to {L11/341.1/1}, 11 look at the table below, this records who was doing what
12 this is number 42; correct? 12 at what time, and you can see there that, in
13 A. Yes, it looks like it , yeah. 13 the pre−concept phase, Dr Wright is recorded as doing
14 Q. It is . 14 75%, but in the conceptual phase, Dr Wright is actually
15 And you can see there, the priority date, just so 15 the third most involved person, after ”Stef”, which is
16 everyone can see it , number 30, is 23 February 2016, 16 Stephane Savanah, and ”Viveca”, I don’t know the name of
17 that’s based on a GB priority application , and then you 17 that person. And, again, ”Production of
18 can see in the inventors , Craig Wright and 18 [the] White Paper”, Stef is the one doing it , not
19 Stephane Savanah; correct? 19 Dr Wright. And, again, the White Paper review, Stef is
20 A. Correct. 20 the one doing most of it. And then at the very end,
21 Q. Can we now please go to {L2/5/1}. 21 ”Patent Gate approval”, again, it is Mr Savanah and not
22 Now, we have here a list that’s been disclosed of 22 Dr Wright.
23 various patents, and if we can −− and it’s dated −− in 23 So it ’s quite clear , would you accept, according to
24 Opus, it’s dated 16 September 2006, but that can’t be 24 this document, that the majority of work seems to have
25 correct . The date on the page appears to be 25 been done internally by Stephane Savanah and not

65 67

1 correct : 29 September 2015. And the document is listed 1 Dr Wright? Do you accept that?
2 as being the DeMorgan patents and roadmap status, 2 A. My Lord, I have never seen this document before, I don’t
3 version 9.0, and I have to mention 9.0, because there 3 know what it’s about. I don’t know what ”pre−concept
4 are a number of versions of this . And you can see 4 phase” means, ”conceptual phase”. I −− I don’t feel
5 the date, 29 September, and it’s a list of 183 patent 5 that I am qualified to −−
6 ideas , and you can see, on the first page, that no 6 Q. That’s fine . That is absolutely −−
7 owners are listed , and if we could go down to the second 7 A. −− answer anything on this.
8 page, please {L2/5/2}, you will see number 42 there and 8 Q. −− fine.
9 there is no owner listed. 9 But you do accept that this internal document does
10 If we could just skip through the pages, and then 10 show that the majority of work is being done by
11 stop here {L2/5/6}, we start to see owners being listed 11 Mr Savanah?
12 and you see Stef’s name. And then on the next page, 12 A. I don’t know, because I don’t −− I don’t understand
13 Stef’s name again and then one for ”Craig”, Dr Wright, 13 the document I’m looking at. I don’t know what those
14 being listed . 14 phrases mean, I don’t know what they −− you know, what
15 Now, if we go to version 10 of this spreadsheet, 15 they were, what this was devised for , what its purpose.
16 which is {L2/2/1}, this is again −− so this is 16 I know nothing about this.
17 version 10, we just looked at version 9. Again, this is 17 Q. The key thing, would you not accept, in coming up with
18 dated 29 September 2015, and if we −− this has been 18 any invention, is to actually create something that
19 rejigged now. Do we see number 42, towards the top, and 19 works? I could come up with the idea of a teleportation
20 again, you see that no owner is listed ; do you see that? 20 machine, but that is useless unless you can make a
21 A. I do. 21 teleportation machine; do you accept that?
22 Q. And then if we could please go to {L10/335/1}, this is 22 A. You have to have −− in your patent specification, you do
23 an email from Stefan Matthews on 10 September, and you 23 have to have enough technical detail, you know, known −−
24 can see at the top what it attaches ”DeMorgan Patent 24 known as ”sufficiency”, an enabling disclosure so that
25 Schedule v11.0”, and it also attaches the ”Rules and 25 you could put that invention into practice , into working

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 effect in one possible embodiment. 1 aren’t they.

2 Q. So there’s a very big difference between coming up with 2 Q. Do you accept it’s possible?
3 a big picture idea and being the person able to actually 3 A. Lots of things are possible , but I don’t know that
4 reduce that idea to something that is a patentable 4 they’re −− that they’re true, or even −− or even likely.
5 invention; do you accept that? 5 It is possible . I agree with you that it is possible .
6 A. I think patent attorneys draft and file and prosecute to 6 MR MOSS: My Lord, we can stop there for lunch.
7 grant patent applications for inventions that have not 7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, just before we do, that piece of
8 been fully fleshed out and, you know, perhaps, at best, 8 evidence, what use is it if none of this was raised with
9 even just a prototype developed, and perhaps not even 9 Dr Wright?
10 a −− you know, a marketable product. So, I don’t think 10 MR MOSS: Well, it goes −− the point was the last point that
11 it ’s uncommon for patent applications to be filed really 11 I took, that she is relying on this document, but
12 early on, you know, even pre−implementation phase. 12 the internal records appear to show −− and obviously
13 Ideally , you would −− you would want as much technical 13 the key point here is that there are two inventors on
14 information from your development team as possible, but 14 it , not just Dr Wright. It ’s clear from Dr Jones’
15 I don’t know that that’s necessarily unusual. 15 evidence −− I assumed that she might have had some
16 Q. Just one last document before lunch. Can we please go 16 knowledge of the internal process of this , but she says
17 to {L2/6/1}. Now, this is recorded as being version 16 17 she doesn’t, so she couldn’t comment on that.
18 of this document that we’ve looked at, and you can 18 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, but Dr Wright wasn’t challenged on
19 see −− the last one we looked at was 29 September, but 19 any of this .
20 you can see from the top that we’re now forward to 20 MR MOSS: Well, Dr Wright −− this is her evidence.
21 6 October, and you can see that, under number 42, Stef’s 21 Dr Wright doesn’t rely on this patent in the same way
22 name is recorded as being the owner of the patent and 22 Dr Jones does.
23 not Dr Wright; do you see that? 23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, I thought he was relying on
24 A. I see that. 24 thousands of patents.
25 Q. Now, I’m not going to go through it, but if we go 25 MR MOSS: He’s relying on thousands of patents, yes. His

69 71

1 through the rest of this schedule −− this can be a point 1 story is a broad one about: his invention proves he is
2 for closings , but just so everyone understands 2 Satoshi.
3 the point −− if you go through the rest of this, 3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Well, how much longer have you
4 Dr Wright is listed fewer times than Mr Savanah. 4 got with this witness?
5 Indeed, we believe there’s 12 for Dr Wright −− one is 5 MR MOSS: I’ve got about 15 minutes after lunch.
6 ”Craig + Tech” −− and 30 for Mr Savanah. So, on 6 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Is it more of the same?
7 the internal records, it would suggest that Dr −− that 7 MR MOSS: No.
8 Mr Savanah was the person involved in coming up with 8 A. I ’m happy to continue if you want to, but I −− whatever.
9 this invention; do you accept that? 9 MR MOSS: I can −− if you give me two minutes, I can
10 A. Again, I have −− I’ve never seen this document before. 10 probably make it ten minutes and we can all get going.
11 I don’t know how, when, why, or who by this was created. 11 LORD GRABINER: If it could be dealt with before we take
12 I don’t feel that I can comment on this. I don’t know 12 a break, that would be ...
13 what −− what the authors were intending or trying to do 13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: I think that’s probably more efficient,
14 at this time. This is completely unknown to me. 14 if that’s okay.
15 Q. Just one last question then before lunch. You have 15 A. And it’s Friday afternoon, my lord. I ’d like to get
16 relied on number 42 in your evidence −− 16 back to my life .
17 A. Mm−hm. 17 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, good point.
18 Q. −− as being an example of something that you believe is 18 MR MOSS: We all want to do that. There are some excellent
19 evidence towards the fact of Dr Wright being 19 fish and chips back at Bird & Bird and I’m very keen to
20 Satoshi Nakamoto, but I’ve just shown you a number of 20 get back to those myself.
21 documents, internal documents, that show that actually 21 My lord, if you just give me 30 seconds and I can
22 it was Mr Savanah that was involved. Do you accept that 22 look through this, I may be able to short−circuit a lot
23 it ’s possible that actually the real inventor behind 23 of this .
24 number 42 was Mr Savanah and not Dr Wright? 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay.
25 A. ”Possible” and actual fact are very different things, 25 (Pause).

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 MR MOSS: So just one last question in relation to the other 1 the Wikipedia article ? Are you aware of these
2 patents you rely on. Do you know who the co−inventor is 2 individuals also being said to be potentially
3 of the other two patents that you rely on in your 3 Satoshi Nakamoto?
4 evidence? 4 A. I ’m aware of it. I don’t know much about it.
5 A. Not off the top of my head. 5 Q. And you don’t, obviously, know the scope of their
6 Q. So, it was Mr Savanah for 222, and Mr Jiménez Delgado 6 abilities , do you?
7 A. My Lord, can I −− can I just point out −− 7 A. It ’s not something I researched, or read up about −−
8 Q. −− for 32? 8 Q. (Overspeaking − inaudible).
9 A. −− we drafted and filed those patent applications. We 9 A. Yeah. No.
10 would ask −− when we were going to file a patent 10 Q. So the reality is that −− do you accept that you can
11 application , we would ask, ”Who are the named inventors 11 only speculate on Dr Wright being Satoshi because of
12 going to be”, and we filed based on clients ’ 12 what you have been told by Dr Wright?
13 instructions . I have no −− no internal knowledge, no −− 13 A. Not because of what I’ve been −− actually, I’ve −− I can
14 I have never had any access to any internal documents or 14 only −− how many times can I think of it? I don’t
15 systems at nChain, I wasn’t party on, you know, 15 actually talk to Craig, or actually −− actually, anybody
16 management, or invention meetings, or policies, or any 16 else , about whether or not he’s Satoshi Nakamoto. I can
17 of that internal stuff . I worked with the inventor to 17 only think of two occasions when I have actually spoken
18 −− to draft and file patent applications . It ’s −− it’s 18 to him specifically about Satoshi, so −− so, no, he
19 as narrowly defined and constrained as that. 19 hasn’t −− he’s never said to me, ”I wrote Bitcoin,
20 Q. That’s very fair , and I’m not suggesting otherwise −− 20 I am~...”. I don’t −− it’s not relevant to my work and
21 A. Yeah. 21 what I do, and I’m not particularly interested outside
22 Q. −− Dr Jones. 22 of work.
23 A. I just want to make sure nobody thinks that my role was 23 MR MOSS: Thank you, Dr Jones.
24 somehow bigger, or is bigger −− 24 I have no further questions, my Lord.
25 Q. No −− 25 LORD GRABINER: Unsurprisingly, my Lord, I have no

73 75

1 A. −− than it is. 1 re−examination.

2 Q. −− (overspeaking − inaudible) −− 2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: You astonish me.
3 A. I wasn’t that important. 3 What about Mr Gunning? I bet he’s got a couple of
4 Q. −− suggested(?). 4 hours!
5 So if I can just clarify what you’ve just said . 5 Thank you very much for your evidence, Dr Jones.
6 You’re accepting that you’re taking the information 6 You are now released from your oath and you can go back
7 about who invented this on face value from nChain; is 7 to your life .
8 that correct? 8 A. Thank you.
9 A. That is correct . 9 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good. That’s everything we’ve got for
10 But can I just say that there were times when we 10 today, isn ’ t it ?
11 were stood in front of a whiteboard with Craig, and he 11 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, I’m delighted to say yes.
12 would step through the invention that was to be 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Have we −− sorry, yes, you’ve
13 protected, and then we would draft and file it . So −− 13 given me the schedule.
14 so there’s a difference there between those inventions 14 LORD GRABINER: You’ve got the schedule for Monday, and as
15 and the ones that you’re talking about on lists that −− 15 far as I know, that will proceed as planned.
16 that were drawn up before I’d even met the chap. 16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Great.
17 Q. You don’t rely on any of those patents −− 17 MR GUNNING: My Lord, there is the question of Dr Wuille.
18 A. Okay. 18 I don’t know whether you’d reached any feeling −−
19 Q. −− do you? 19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Oh, yes. I was looking through your
20 A. No, I don’t. 20 cross−examination of Dr Wright. Is there anything in
21 Q. In that case, I can short−circuit the rest of it . 21 there −− I can see you were putting a lot of points from
22 Are you aware, Dr Jones, that many other people have 22 Dr Wuille’s statement. Is there anything in Dr Wright’s
23 been identified in the media as potentially being 23 responses that you want to lead further evidence from
24 Satoshi: Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, Michael Clear, 24 Dr Wuille on?
25 Gavin Andresen, Adam Back, and that’s just from 25 MR GUNNING: I don’t think so, no. I wasn’t planning to

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

1 lead further evidence from him.

2 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay. Well, in that case, I’m not going
3 to drag him into the witness box.
4 MR GUNNING: He doesn’t require to be dragged.
5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: No, no, I know.
6 I mean, I was thinking about SPV, but SPV is in
7 the original Bitcoin White Paper. It’s agreed it wasn’t
8 implemented in the first versions .
9 MR GUNNING: If you wanted to find out about
10 CheckBlockHeader and SPV, perhaps I could just speak to
11 him about that and see whether there’s anything he could
12 add.
13 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, yes.
14 Good, well, in that case, everybody have a good
15 weekend.
16 (1.09 pm)
17 (The Court adjourned until 10.30 am on Monday,
18 19 February 2024)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

77

1 INDEX
2
3 Housekeeping .........................................1
4 MS DANIELLE DEMORGAN (affirmed) ......................3
5 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER ............3
6 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH ....................4
7 MR MARK ARCHBOLD ....................................14
8 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER ...........14
9 Cross−examination by MR MOSS ....................14
10 DR CERIAN JONES (sworn) .............................32
11 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER ...........32
12 Cross−examination by MR MOSS ....................32
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

78

79

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

another (7) 9:6 22:5 36:23 australians (1) 26:18 44:17 48:13 49:17 58:1 checkblockheader (1) 77:10 consultancy (2) 35:9,10 customers (1) 11:15
A
42:16 48:19 50:14 55:20 authorised (1) 17:22 59:1 cheeky (1) 62:23 consultant (3) 36:11,13 37:4

abilities (3) 29:24 30:2 75:6 answer (5) 37:10 47:19 authors (1) 70:13 blockchainrelated (1) 59:4 chelton (4) 45:15,17,20 56:2 contact (3) 21:2,23 22:15 D
ability (1) 26:6 51:22 53:11 68:7 available (3) 17:22 51:16 blocked (2) 28:8,10 chief (1) 43:6 contained (1) 18:12

able (5) 25:19 45:15 48:7 answered (1) 18:6 55:18 blocking (1) 25:25 child (3) 5:9 9:16,19 contemporaneously (1) damage (1) 6:1
69:3 72:22 answering (1) 55:6 aware (15) 12:23 13:1 blocks (1) 58:8 childhood (1) 5:5 27:10 danielle (4) 1:20 3:6,10 78:4
above (2) 22:8 49:14 anticipate (1) 2:8 29:1,14,18,22 45:4,7 51:12 blog (4) 7:5 11:25 12:3,3 chimes (1) 60:7 content (1) 4:19 data (2) 23:15 55:5
absolutely (2) 39:24 68:6 anybody (6) 7:19 47:2,3,4,7 56:21,25 63:25 74:22 blogpost (12) 4:11,15,17,22 chips (1) 72:19 contents (4) 3:24,25 14:22 date (11) 18:14,18 19:22
accept (38) 20:8 26:2 28:17 75:15 75:1,4 5:7 6:9,13 7:15 8:7,19 9:7 circles (2) 12:24 29:16 32:13 24:24 25:1 28:3 35:2 56:24
29:6,8 36:14,15 37:9 38:24 anybodys (2) 46:25 53:9 away (2) 5:16 36:19 12:18 circulated (1) 1:15 continue (2) 64:14 72:8 65:15,25 66:5
39:15 41:24 43:16 44:2,4 anyone (2) 1:11 58:24 ayre (1) 45:5 blurb (1) 43:17 cisco (1) 18:23 continues (1) 23:15 dated (8) 16:22 24:25 25:2
46:1,16 47:2,4,19 49:23 anything (16) 11:19,25,25 board (1) 56:2 cjip (1) 35:9 contracting (1) 22:11 44:15 49:11 65:23,24
B
50:16 51:7,10 53:5 54:13 20:23 26:4,5 27:13 boasted (2) 34:22 51:14 claims (6) 28:19 29:2 43:14 contractor (1) 56:4 66:18
57:7 59:2 61:7 67:23 36:1,3,6 51:25 58:25 68:7 back (27) 7:18 8:11,19 15:20 boasting (1) 51:13 62:17 63:17,19 convention (2) 56:9,15 david (1) 1:23
68:1,9,17,21 69:5 70:9,22 76:20,22 77:11 25:12 27:1,11,16,23 bodies (1) 27:17 clarify (3) 52:2 53:13 74:5 conversation (5) 26:4 27:6,9 davies (1) 42:17
71:2 75:10 anyway (1) 15:2 28:17,21 29:6,19 31:11 body (1) 27:15 clarity (2) 45:15 63:18 28:2 42:23 day (9) 2:13,13,17 5:1
accepted (1) 20:22 apart (3) 2:9 16:6 27:19 33:4 47:18 54:15 56:3,4 bombarded (1) 36:5 class (1) 52:14 conversations (1) 22:18 8:13,15,24 21:7 30:24
accepting (1) 74:6 apologies (1) 62:11 58:17 60:10 63:1 books (1) 26:17 clear (11) 29:18 43:24 converted (2) 10:5,12 days (4) 15:5 32:20 55:24
access (7) 25:16 26:1,18 apologise (2) 31:1 64:5 72:16,19,20 74:25 76:6 born (2) 9:17,19 45:8,25 51:7 54:25 58:2 cool (1) 38:3 56:8
55:1,3,4 73:14 appear (4) 3:15 14:15 62:10 backed (1) 45:5 both (2) 2:18 9:2 63:18 67:23 71:14 74:24 copas (4) 2:2,4,8,20 dealt (1) 72:11
accessible (1) 35:19 71:12 background (5) 16:1,2,7 bothered (1) 19:3 clearly (5) 8:15,24 33:10 copy (2) 14:15 32:6 december (1) 24:23
according (5) 33:14 55:8,17 appearances (1) 42:3 33:8 40:21 bottom (6) 21:4 23:3 39:12 44:7 cords (1) 10:9 decided (1) 19:12
67:9,23 appeared (2) 10:11 39:19 backstage (1) 50:10 43:1,2,4,5 client (8) 37:19,20,21,22 correct (95) 7:10 11:12 decides (1) 39:16
account (1) 7:8 appearing (2) 40:17 41:11 ban (1) 26:10 bounced (2) 27:18,20 38:7 47:10,12 54:16 14:21 15:21,22,24 defined (2) 33:11 73:19
accreditation (1) 16:14 appears (4) 16:25 55:12 banned (1) 26:8 box (1) 77:3 clients (9) 36:22 37:24 16:11,12,17,19 17:1,15,16 deleted (1) 35:19
accurate (3) 53:1,17,22 62:13 65:25 barbecue (1) 9:9 break (4) 14:9 29:1 31:21 38:4,5 42:4 47:11,15 54:4 18:1,2,20,21 19:6,25 delgado (1) 73:6
acquire (1) 49:12 appendix (1) 20:11 based (7) 30:7 42:18 53:14 72:12 73:12 20:12,13 21:14 23:1,2,7,18 delighted (1) 76:11
across (1) 50:7 application (4) 62:2 64:9 57:6 63:22 65:17 73:12 bridges (1) 1:23 closely (8) 37:12 39:12 24:24 25:10,11 32:8 deloittes (1) 19:8
activity (1) 36:2 65:17 73:11 basically (2) 26:22 28:10 briefly (4) 17:11 31:10 46:6 49:3,21,22 50:22,25 51:9 33:3,16,18,23,24 demonstrate (1) 58:13
actual (2) 53:7 70:25 applications (6) 33:13 48:18 basis (4) 9:21 36:20 43:14 65:11 closing (1) 65:2 34:3,4,6,14,24,25 demorgan (19) 1:20
actually (29) 6:5,6 10:8 69:7,11 73:9,18 64:21 brilliant (1) 63:3 closings (1) 70:2 35:6,7,11,12,15 37:14 3:6,10,14 4:3,16 13:6,10
16:15 21:1 25:6,25 34:22 apply (1) 52:6 bbc (1) 40:22 bring (3) 16:20 25:4 38:14 clue (1) 13:4 38:23 40:15 17:1,13,20 18:8,14,20
36:1 44:9,10,11 47:18 approaches (1) 36:21 bearing (4) 55:1 59:1,13,15 broad (1) 72:1 coast (2) 9:10,14 42:8,12,17,18,19 25:13 26:12 66:2,24 78:4
51:20 54:6,8,16 61:6 63:7 appropriate (1) 17:23 became (1) 24:11 broader (1) 64:1 code (1) 33:20 44:20,21,24,25,25 describe (8) 6:8 9:8 10:7
67:14 68:18 69:3 70:21,23 approval (1) 67:21 become (2) 17:22 50:12 brother (3) 4:24 5:4,19 coder (1) 16:1 45:2,3,17 47:3,13 16:9 33:8 37:4 38:11 46:25
75:13,15,15,15,17 april (2) 19:22 22:5 bedroom (3) 10:5,12 24:4 brought (5) 16:10,15 19:13 coding (1) 30:1 48:23,24,24 52:23 53:25 described (2) 43:4 46:19
adam (2) 29:19 74:25 archbold (15) 1:20 13:16 before (18) 15:3 21:13 24:11 27:19 56:1 coffee (1) 38:5 54:2,8,10 55:20,22,22 describing (1) 18:15
add (2) 56:11 77:12 14:11,14 15:1,19 16:21 31:14,15 32:18 34:12 brunt (1) 41:17 coined (1) 27:24 57:21 58:1,8,22 description (1) 41:15
added (3) 56:9,18,23 18:16 25:24 27:22 35:1,25 60:15 61:18 68:2 bry (1) 29:19 coingeek (7) 39:19,22 44:16 61:22,23,25 62:1,7,17 design (3) 18:24 43:10 65:8
address (1) 40:9 28:13,25 29:11 30:17 78:7 69:16 70:10,15 71:7 72:11 bsv (8) 37:12 43:11,14 45:4 50:1,10,15 63:23,24 64:4 designations (1) 52:11
adjourned (2) 31:10 77:17 arent (5) 2:6 12:23 45:6 74:16 45:9,15,24 46:1 49:3 coinventor (1) 73:2 65:12,19,20,25 66:1 74:8,9 desire (1) 51:24
adjournment (1) 31:15 62:10 71:1 beginning (1) 9:25 budgetary (1) 64:3 collaboration (1) 17:6 corrected (2) 54:12 55:8 detail (6) 20:5,8 57:18
administrative (1) 36:23 arguing (1) 47:18 begins (2) 1:25 18:7 build (2) 19:8 21:24 collection (2) 5:23 7:12 correctness (1) 54:20 64:8,12 68:23
adopting (2) 38:19 39:10 arms (1) 55:25 begun (1) 3:9 building (5) 23:11,11 colloquially (1) 37:21 costing (1) 19:12 details (6) 1:15 18:12 23:22
adoption (1) 43:9 arnhem (1) 40:23 behalf (1) 4:4 45:14,23 58:8 combined (2) 50:12 51:15 couldnt (4) 9:25 19:12 55:16 58:1,5,6
advertise (1) 36:22 around (8) 6:23,25 7:18 9:21 behind (2) 49:12 70:23 built (2) 19:8 22:1 come (5) 31:10 50:23 60:12 71:17 detect (1) 20:23
advisory (1) 43:7 11:6 21:17 27:4 40:24 being (47) 2:10 5:4,9 6:4 8:8 bullet (1) 18:7 63:25 68:19 counsel (6) 41:16 developed (2) 23:21 69:9
affectionately (1) 48:17 arrive (1) 16:4 10:5 21:20 28:7,9 34:7,13 bullets (3) 17:12,17 18:11 coming (6) 2:25 18:25 38:7 46:14,14,19,23 56:2 developer (1) 60:8
affirmed (2) 3:10 78:4 art (1) 61:22 37:8 42:8 43:14,14,15,25 burden (1) 36:24 68:17 69:2 70:8 count (3) 52:15,15,18 development (2) 43:8 69:14
afraid (2) 4:12 51:13 article (3) 12:3 63:16 75:1 44:1,9 45:25 46:5,23,25 comment (7) 53:16 58:3 counting (3) 53:3,19,19 devised (3) 60:15 61:11
C
after (12) 2:8 8:2,5 9:16,22 articles (1) 12:4 48:7 49:21 50:14 52:1 63:6 64:23 65:1 70:12 country (1) 50:8 68:15
19:11 20:15 40:22 56:24 arts (2) 5:23 6:19 56:18 60:20,25 61:1,25 call (3) 3:5 12:14 14:20 71:17 couple (8) 1:6 5:7 8:14 22:17 deviser (1) 56:13
61:8 67:15 72:5 aside (1) 51:16 63:25 65:4 66:2,11,14 67:8 called (3) 35:9 40:18 42:11 commodity (1) 36:19 27:18,20 36:20 76:3 diagrams (2) 18:14,19
afternoon (6) 1:24 2:2,21 ask (12) 13:22 14:4 15:3,4 68:10 69:3,17,22 70:18,19 calvin (1) 45:5 common (1) 62:14 course (5) 41:2 57:24 diary (1) 40:7
31:23 32:17 72:15 32:18 33:7 38:13 51:17,21 74:23 75:2,11 came (4) 19:15 46:22 56:19 commotion (1) 8:23 62:5,24 63:22 didnt (10) 10:19 11:23 18:21
afterwards (1) 55:9 61:18 73:10,11 believe (12) 3:1 9:11,14 61:8 community (2) 37:13 49:4 courtroom (1) 54:18 20:23 36:4 41:15 47:3,18
again (25) 12:18 20:7,11 asked (3) 11:21 39:3 43:20 29:12 30:11 33:2 38:17 candidates (2) 12:25 29:16 companies (3) 26:13 36:10 craig (51) 4:6 5:12 6:15 7:8 54:10 62:1
22:4,8,12,14 43:13 asking (10) 4:3 21:13 22:6 47:5 53:17 59:10 70:5,18 cant (16) 19:14 21:12 22:20 56:11 8:5,8,16,22 9:3 difference (2) 69:2 74:14
45:11,25 49:1,20,20 27:7 47:22 55:1,5 58:2,3 believed (1) 24:8 24:19 26:11,11,20,20 company (8) 22:11 35:5,8 10:14,21,21 11:5,10 different (4) 23:22 26:4
50:1,14 55:17 64:5 59:3 believing (1) 30:5 27:22 28:3 37:10 53:10,11 45:14,23 46:16 49:12 53:6 12:10,14,19 16:15 17:6,7 52:20 70:25
66:13,16,17,20 associate (1) 45:8 belong (1) 54:4 57:10,10 65:24 completely (4) 26:4 56:3 18:21,22,25 19:2,13 20:23 difficult (1) 4:13
67:17,19,21 70:10 associated (19) 29:21 34:23 below (7) 18:10 23:3 carried (2) 40:10 64:2 64:15 70:14 21:25 22:9 23:19 25:21 difficulties (1) 1:11
age (1) 7:7 37:18,20 39:12 44:1,10,24 45:9,12,19 48:3 67:11 cases (1) 57:3 completes (1) 30:18 27:19 28:22 30:6,11 digital (9) 11:18,20 12:1,2
ago (2) 28:2 29:7 46:24 47:6,10,22 49:21,22 benefit (1) 44:7 casino (1) 15:21 complex (1) 49:16 38:9,17 40:22 41:18 44:10 27:4,8,13,25 28:6
agree (6) 23:12 37:11 59:7 50:15,22,25 51:8,9 best (2) 31:9 69:8 casinos (3) 26:9,9,17 compressed (1) 23:16 49:12 54:2 58:3,20 60:15 dinner (1) 38:5
64:15,20 71:5 associating (2) 9:3 46:1 bet (1) 76:3 castle (1) 38:8 compresses (1) 23:23 65:18 66:13 67:7,8 70:6 directful (1) 6:24
agreed (2) 1:17 77:7 association (1) 41:23 better (3) 20:24 24:10 53:6 catch (1) 10:25 compression (1) 29:13 74:11 75:15 director (2) 25:22 35:5
agreement (1) 1:18 assume (1) 35:10 between (5) 9:2 12:19 17:6 caused (1) 41:20 computers (4) 10:4,9,11 16:4 craigs (1) 30:7 disclosed (1) 65:22
ahead (1) 31:6 assumed (1) 71:15 69:2 74:14 causing (1) 1:11 concentrating (1) 18:23 crazy (1) 7:20 disclosure (1) 68:24
algorithm (1) 24:12 assumptions (2) 67:1,3 beyond (2) 48:13 50:8 celtic (1) 48:7 concept (3) 52:10,24 56:14 create (3) 5:1,10 68:18 discuss (4) 9:6 26:15 48:20
aliens (1) 5:12 astonish (1) 76:2 bibliography (1) 20:16 central (2) 9:10,14 conceptual (3) 67:7,14 68:4 created (1) 70:11 60:20
aligned (3) 37:12 49:3 60:7 attaches (2) 66:24,25 big (3) 27:14 69:2,3 ceo (1) 26:23 concern (1) 64:24 creator (1) 49:12 discussed (1) 28:22
alliance (1) 4:4 attended (4) 40:1,3 44:18,19 bigger (2) 73:24,24 cerian (12) 1:21 30:25 32:2 concerned (2) 64:17 65:1 crossexamination (8) 4:2 discussing (1) 27:3
allow (1) 64:13 attending (1) 44:7 bird (2) 72:19,19 35:10 42:22,23 48:4,6,10 concludes (1) 13:11 14:25 32:16 64:22 76:20 discussion (4) 26:25
almost (1) 10:8 attorney (17) 33:17,25 40:15 bit (8) 9:23 24:7 43:21 45:10 49:18 50:8 78:10 conduct (1) 33:21 78:6,9,12 27:11,18 28:6
alongside (2) 40:10,19 41:13 42:22 47:9 49:6,19 59:20,23 62:13,22 certain (1) 64:3 conference (1) 44:20 crossexamined (1) 64:25 discussions (1) 27:12
already (3) 11:22 18:6 60:15 52:4 53:14,15 bitcoin (22) 11:10 12:11 chair (1) 42:12 confirmed (1) 24:4 crypto (2) 4:4 39:7 distant (1) 22:7
also (14) 6:7,8 13:18 22:15 54:2,3,3,7,19 63:1 38:14,20 39:1,4,5 40:18 challenged (1) 71:18 connected (7) cryptocurrency (8) 2:18 division (1) 21:25
23:23 25:1 33:25 37:22,23 attorneys (2) 36:18 69:6 41:8 42:14 43:10,11,15 change (3) 5:2,10 57:9 42:6,11,13,13,16 43:19,22 12:24 27:13,23 29:16 divisionals (1) 52:17
42:19 47:14 51:24 66:25 attracted (1) 50:7 45:6 46:5 49:12 50:6,11 changed (1) 35:13 connection (4) 9:2 11:14,22 38:20 39:1 42:15 divisive (1) 44:13
75:2 au (2) 52:9 62:10 58:25 60:8 75:19 77:7 chap (1) 74:16 12:19 cryptographic (1) 48:17 document (16) 17:3 19:24
although (1) 37:21 audience (1) 50:7 bjarne (1) 2:21 character (1) 44:13 consider (1) 50:23 culture (3) 5:19 12:21 13:3 20:15 61:21 66:1
amount (2) 19:13 64:3 audits (1) 19:10 black (2) 8:1 17:18 characterise (1) 37:16 consideration (1) 28:24 currencies (2) 27:13 28:7 67:1,3,9,24 68:2,9,13
analysis (3) 23:9,9,10 august (1) 35:14 block (1) 26:6 charles (1) 29:19 consistent (1) 21:19 currency (8) 11:18,20 12:1,2 69:16,18 70:10 71:11
andresen (2) 29:19 74:25 australia (2) 26:7,10 blockchain (11) chat (1) 26:5 constrained (1) 73:19 27:4,8,25 28:6 documents (6) 24:22 25:6
annual (1) 17:14 australian (2) 26:8,16 42:6,12,15,16,24 43:8 check (3) 18:3,23 21:1 constraints (1) 64:4 currently (3) 14:1 43:6 52:1 60:17 70:21,21 73:14

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

does (7) 35:16,17 41:2 60:12 else (6) 6:25 18:22 47:7 front (8) 3:14,20 14:14,18 happy (1) 72:8 indication (1) 60:6 item (1) 18:13
F
63:15 68:9 71:22 48:20 53:10 75:16 32:5,7 40:7 74:11 hash (2) 24:13,13 individual (4) 45:14,23 52:14 its (61) 1:15 4:8,13,13 8:1
doesnt (7) 1:5 35:16 54:16 email (7) 14:3 21:3,12 f (1) 48:1 full (6) 2:13 5:14 6:5,6 hashing (1) 24:12 53:19 20:15 24:25 25:5 30:12
59:5 71:17,21 77:4 22:5,12,13 66:23 face (2) 8:22 74:7 10:4,8 hasnt (1) 75:19 individuals (3) 30:2 44:22 35:13 36:24,25 39:2,2
doing (10) 18:22 22:2,10 emailing (3) 21:8,11 22:6 factual (4) 2:2,4,8,20 fully (3) 6:11 64:20 69:8 havent (7) 11:25 15:11 31:4 75:2 40:20 41:7,10,10 44:10
23:20,21 38:21 embodiment (1) 69:1 factually (1) 60:25 further (9) 5:7 30:4,14 46:3 36:3,8 39:20 60:17 industry (4) 15:19 16:3 45:25 47:10,17 48:11,16
67:11,13,18,20 emerging (1) 50:13 failing (1) 19:9 59:18,19 75:24 76:23 77:1 having (2) 51:14 53:9 47:11 57:6 51:1,4,7,23,23 53:2,21
done (7) 37:19 41:21 54:9 employed (2) 42:19 54:5 failure (1) 19:11 future (3) 40:18 41:8 49:14 head (5) 7:25 10:23 24:20 inflate (1) 53:3 54:6,8 55:16 56:17 57:22
64:11 67:8,25 68:10 enabling (2) 56:19 68:24 faintest (1) 31:4 55:6 73:5 inflated (1) 53:9 58:11 59:24 60:2,6,14
dont (68) 1:10 3:1 6:8 9:11 encountered (2) 6:10 34:3 G headed (1) 19:19 inflation (1) 53:13 61:4,16 62:19 63:7
fair (7) 4:8 22:14 41:15 51:1
11:19 13:4,25 23:22 encryption (4) 24:9,10 26:5 63:5,7 73:20 hear (1) 51:4 information (7) 12:6 17:20 65:23,24 66:5 67:23
g (1) 49:1
25:6,25 28:11,23,23 29:13 fairly (2) 41:25 62:16 heard (6) 8:16,25 11:4,9 18:15 43:21 55:18 69:14 68:3,15 69:11 70:23
gain (2) 44:5,5
36:2,16,22,22,24 37:19 end (12) 2:9 8:20,20 9:24 fait (2) 52:9 62:10 12:10 27:8 74:6 71:2,14 72:15 73:18,18
gambling (2) 25:17 26:13
38:1 39:5,6,8 40:7,8,24 11:3 25:15 29:11 35:3 faith (1) 24:7 heavily (1) 44:2 inhouse (2) 21:24 41:16 75:7,20 77:7
gate (1) 67:21
41:3,4 46:24 47:12 51:5 38:16 39:16 62:16 67:20 familiarise (1) 33:4 hed (1) 23:21 initial (2) 1:5 8:5 ive (18) 12:2,3 16:2 30:16
gavin (2) 29:19 74:25
53:9 54:6,17 55:1,4 ends (1) 2:1 families (5) 53:5,7,19,24,25 held (2) 37:8 50:2 initially (1) 19:7 31:18 34:9 35:21 36:20
gb (1) 65:17
56:10,14 62:23 engaged (1) 36:17 family (2) 9:9 52:25 hell (1) 22:10 innovation (3) 49:17 53:6,18 38:6 41:2 42:1 47:1 55:25
general (1) 20:4
63:10,11,12,14,19 65:7 enjoy (1) 38:3 far (1) 76:15 here (22) 4:19 10:24 17:12 instances (1) 56:22 70:10,20 72:5 75:13,13
generally (1) 46:23
67:16 enough (2) 51:2 68:23 fast (1) 7:18 19:19 23:22 28:20 31:14 instructed (1) 13:24
gentlemen (1) 11:14 J
68:2,3,4,12,12,12,13,14 entheos (4) 33:14 35:4,13,16 feasible (2) 25:16 26:1 40:13,17 46:1 49:20,25 instructions (1) 73:13
gerlach (1) 2:5
69:10,15 70:11,12,12 71:3 entity (3) 34:23 46:24 56:5 features (2) 16:11 23:1 54:17 55:21 58:11,16 intellectual (4) 36:11 39:4
germany (1) 52:11 jack (1) 42:17
74:17,20 75:4,5,14,20 environment (1) 38:25 february (8) 1:1 2:10,11,16 60:2,12 64:12 65:22 66:11 44:16 50:9
get (10) 15:3 16:12 20:19 japanese (7) 5:19,24 6:4,7
76:18,25 envisaged (1) 2:6 35:3,8 65:16 77:18 71:13 intending (1) 70:13
32:18 52:17 62:19 65:2 12:15,20 13:3
door (1) 8:3 ep (4) 33:23 52:8,9,16 federal (1) 26:8 hes (16) 10:22,22 21:8,11 intention (1) 46:25
72:10,15,20 jimmy (3) 45:1 46:21 48:2
down (9) 24:6 29:1 38:7 45:9 epe (1) 49:9 feel (2) 68:4 70:12 28:22 37:18,20,20 interest (5) 5:19 12:20 36:4
gets (2) 59:3 63:1 jimnez (1) 73:6
46:3 59:18,18 62:25 66:7 episode (1) 8:21 feeling (1) 76:18 42:18,18,19 44:13 71:25 38:14 39:5
getting (2) 23:12 31:8 job (3) 39:2,2 47:5
dr (110) 2:10,17 4:8 9:9 epo (7) 34:14 61:19,21 few (7) 12:3 29:17 38:8 75:16,19 76:3 interested (6) 13:3 37:7
girls (1) 7:17 join (2) 14:4 42:22
10:14 11:4 15:5,12,20 16:9 63:1,14,23 64:2 39:20 40:2,3,5 hey (1) 10:24 38:9,19,25 75:21
give (10) 8:7 23:22 26:22 joining (1) 13:25
21:2,3,20 22:5,16 epos (1) 63:22 fewer (1) 70:4 hi (2) 21:9 22:9 interesting (1) 65:8
29:17 48:11 52:6 53:23 joint (1) 61:13
24:2,8,11 27:5,7 28:19 essentially (1) 5:10 fiat (1) 28:7 hibernate (3) 35:21,22,24 interests (1) 29:23
58:19 72:9,21 jones (30) 1:21 30:25
29:2,12 32:2,17,19 33:6,7 establish (4) 51:2 53:17 fifth (1) 1:9 hidden (1) 35:20 internal (18) 46:16,18 47:1,1
given (8) 2:14 28:10 39:11 32:2,5,17 33:6,7 35:10
34:3,22 37:16,17 39:10,14 59:8,25 fighting (1) 5:20 hiding (2) 36:1,25 55:3,3 56:2,9 57:9 61:12
46:15 52:3 56:21 62:15 41:6 42:22,23 43:23 44:12
40:10,14,19 41:6,24 42:22 european (1) 52:8 figures (3) 51:16 53:10 55:2 high (3) 19:6 37:7 39:11 68:9 70:7,21 71:12,16
76:13 46:13 47:18 49:18 50:8,22
43:2,3,6,13,23 44:1,12 even (9) 36:8 43:18 48:13 file (7) 23:23,24 24:13 69:6 highly (2) 19:15 38:25 73:13,14,17
giving (1) 35:25 51:12 53:12 54:9 59:24
46:13 47:18 49:23 69:9,9,12 71:4,4 74:16 73:10,18 74:13 himself (3) 12:14 23:21 internally (3) 56:6 57:11
glasses (1) 41:2 60:13 71:14,22 73:22
50:6,11,15,21,22,22,25 event (19) 40:18,20,21 filed (8) 34:14,15,20 51:23 56:17 67:25
global (1) 43:7 74:22 75:23 76:5 78:10
51:8,9,11,12,12 53:12 41:4,7,7,9,10 42:6,8 52:17 69:11 73:9,12 history (2) 65:8,9 international (1) 38:6
glossary (1) 20:19 journey (1) 2:22
54:9,23 55:12,14,19 43:13,24 44:2,8 47:9,24 files (3) 23:17,20 24:13 home (2) 7:18 8:2 internet (2) 25:17 26:7
goes (2) 47:9 71:10 jumping (1) 22:13
56:17,22 57:25 58:12,15 50:1,1,1 filing (1) 56:24 honest (1) 13:5 intervening (2) 50:17 64:5
going (26) 7:24 12:5 13:22 june (1) 41:1
59:11,16,24 60:13,20 61:4 events (11) 8:15,24 9:5 final (4) 2:20 6:14 18:10 hope (1) 23:11 interview (1) 40:22
15:3 18:19 20:23 30:10 jurisdiction (1) 33:18
66:13 67:13,14,19,22 68:1 28:18 29:7 39:20,22 40:1,3 30:24 host (1) 42:8 into (16) 5:23 13:4 15:3
39:6 40:9 46:9 50:24 51:3 jurisdictions (1) 52:20
69:23 70:4,5,7,19,24 42:3 44:8 financial (4) 27:17 36:24 hough (12) 1:4,9,18,23 20:19 28:23 29:1 34:5
56:6 57:17,18 60:10 62:21
71:9,14,14,18,20,21,22 ever (5) 4:25 12:3 46:24 42:24 44:5 2:8,13 3:1,4 4:2,3 13:6 35:1,21,22,24 52:16 62:21
64:13,23,25 65:7 69:25 K
73:22 74:22 75:11,12,23 49:16 53:9 find (4) 31:9 39:8 60:1 77:9 78:6 68:25,25 77:3
72:10 73:10,12 77:2
76:5,17,20,22,22,24 78:10 every (1) 55:19 fine (6) 2:23 3:2 31:25 48:9 hours (1) 76:4 intrinsically (1) 64:3
gone (1) 57:10 keen (1) 72:19
draft (4) 62:1 69:6 73:18 everybody (2) 60:11 77:14 68:6,8 house (4) 7:19 9:9 10:8 invalidate (1) 51:25
good (17) 1:3,4 3:3 4:3,9 keep (2) 24:13 65:6
74:13 everybodys (1) 63:13 finishing (1) 2:9 36:10 invented (3) 52:10 61:5 74:7
10:25 15:1,1 20:22 21:17 kept (2) 19:9 23:17
drafted (3) 62:17 63:5 73:9 everyone (2) 65:16 70:2 finney (2) 29:18 74:24 housekeeping (3) 1:6,8 78:3 inventing (1) 57:25
31:23 32:17 57:20 72:17 key (2) 68:17 71:13
drafting (2) 33:13 41:18 everyones (1) 57:17 firewall (2) 17:24 18:3 however (1) 64:20 invention (12) 52:5,19,22
76:9 77:14,14 kickoff (1) 67:6
drag (1) 77:3 everything (1) 76:9 firewalls (5) 17:21,24 18:23 huge (1) 19:13 56:19 61:25 68:18,25 69:5
google (1) 39:6 kid (1) 4:25
dragged (1) 77:4 everythings (1) 14:7 22:25 23:8 70:9 72:1 73:16 74:12
gosh (1) 54:25 I kind (2) 6:3 56:9
draw (1) 12:19 evidence (35) 2:15 12:6 firm (2) 40:15 41:22 inventions (6) 39:2 48:12
government (6) 23:12 king (1) 29:19
drawing (1) 9:2 13:11 15:5,13 25:7 30:17 firms (5) 34:8 41:25 42:1,2 id (4) 34:11 58:20 72:15 58:20 60:15 69:7 74:14
26:8,16,24 27:15 28:11 knew (8) 5:9,13,14 8:16,25
drawn (1) 74:16 32:19,22 35:25 48:22 55:4 74:16 inventive (8) 52:24 56:14
governments (2) 16:14 19:10 11:13,16 27:19
dress (1) 6:5 57:21 58:10,11,13,16 first (18) 1:9 12:10,13 15:20 idea (6) 5:11 31:4 61:9 68:19 58:14 61:25 62:5,5 63:2
grabiner (37) 1:16,17 know (82) 5:11 9:11,13 13:2
dressed (1) 6:11 59:9,10,13,17,24 60:20 16:3,4 17:12 33:7 34:3 69:3,4 65:9
3:5,8,13,14 4:1 14:6 16:4 18:21 20:23
during (3) 21:22,22 56:23 63:10 64:10,16 65:4 40:21 46:10 50:5 53:21 ideally (1) 69:13 inventor (15) 37:8 54:24
13:9,14,18,21 14:13,14,24 21:23,23 22:2,2,17,18,19
70:16,19 71:8,15,20 73:4 57:18 63:2,4 66:6 77:8 ideas (2) 60:18 66:6 55:13,15,20 56:23
E 30:15,21,24 31:4,9,14 26:3,6,19,19 27:11,18,25
76:5,23 77:1 fish (1) 72:19 identified (3) 12:24 29:15 60:21,22,23 61:1,2,7,14
32:3,5,15 50:17 51:4 28:5,7,8,18,22,23 30:8,9
e (1) 48:3 exact (1) 52:19 fit (1) 19:1 74:23 70:23 73:17
64:5,11,15,19,21 72:11 31:12,14,17 36:8
e1113 (1) 22:24 exactly (1) 9:25 five (3) 23:17 36:21 40:8 identity (1) 64:7 inventors (4) 56:12 65:18
75:25 76:11,14 78:5,8,11 39:6,23,25 40:8,8,20,24
e1114 (1) 23:14 examinationinchief (6) 3:13 fix (1) 16:15 igniting (1) 43:9 71:13 73:11
grandfather (2) 5:15,16 41:3 42:1 44:5,9 51:24
e112 (1) 14:16 14:13 32:3 78:5,8,11 flashbacks (1) 12:6 ill (3) 29:1 48:1 52:6 invents (2) 58:4,25
grant (1) 69:7 54:7,14 55:2,13
e113 (1) 16:1 examiner (3) 61:24 62:4,15 fleshed (1) 69:8 im (53) 1:18 3:5 4:3,12 investigated (1) 30:1
granted (11) 51:22,24 56:5,10,14,14 61:13
e115 (1) 27:2 example (7) 8:7 48:12 50:14 focuses (1) 43:8 9:11,12,23 13:21 15:3 investors (1) 49:11
52:14,17 53:8,22 54:22 62:3,21,22 64:6 67:16
e116 (1) 25:5 52:6,8 64:13 70:18 following (4) 15:15 18:8 28:21 30:25,25 31:1,8 invited (1) 43:4
55:14 59:4 62:6,19 68:3,3,12,13,14,14,16,23
e117 (1) 14:19 examples (2) 29:17 58:19 21:21 32:24 33:22 36:15,25 37:24 40:9 involved (18) 11:4,5,11
grateful (1) 1:18 69:8,10,12,15 70:11,12
e1412 (1) 32:10 exams (1) 33:23 footage (1) 46:12 42:12 43:23 47:14,22 12:10 24:11 26:13 44:2
great (4) 3:2 24:7 44:11 71:3 73:2,15 75:4,5
e142 (1) 32:7 excellent (2) 30:21 72:18 forefront (1) 49:17 50:5,17 51:4 53:12,13,16 48:10 51:18 52:3 53:12
76:16 76:15,18 77:5
e144 (2) 57:15 60:10 existence (1) 51:20 foreign (2) 25:17 26:1 54:2,3,5,25 55:2,21,23 54:23 55:11 57:2,24 67:15
group (1) 7:6 knowing (1) 28:18
e145 (2) 59:19 61:20 expect (4) 36:9 37:6 47:15 form (1) 43:11 56:4 57:17,21 59:8,24 60:1 70:8,22
growth (1) 43:9 knowledge (5) 29:8 30:7
e149 (2) 38:15 59:22 62:23 formal (1) 16:5 64:13,25 68:13 69:25 involvement (3) 39:11 41:23
gunning (5) 76:3,17,25 64:8 71:16 73:13
e82 (1) 3:16 expecting (1) 31:7 former (1) 40:15 72:8,19 73:20 75:4,21 56:21
77:4,9 known (5) 4:25 48:17 58:21
e83 (1) 5:18 experience (1) 57:6 fortunate (1) 36:15 76:11 77:2 involves (2) 49:15 55:19
guy (2) 7:20 30:10 68:23,24
e84 (2) 8:12 9:7 experienced (1) 52:4 forward (1) 69:20 impact (1) 39:17 ip (9) 35:4,10,13 36:12 39:23
kudos (2) 56:12,18
e86 (1) 3:21 expert (1) 50:9 found (3) 19:10 39:14 63:23 implemented (1) 77:8 41:25 42:23 60:3,4
H
earlier (2) 19:25 60:18 expertise (1) 53:14 foundational (1) 50:21 important (3) 10:15 53:2 ipreg (3) 33:14,15,20
L
early (5) 2:6 48:11 55:23 experts (2) 2:19 42:24 founding (1) 42:12 hadnt (2) 16:5 47:14 74:3 ipv6 (1) 50:12

56:7 69:12 explain (3) 10:23 50:18 60:3 four (4) 17:12 36:21 40:8 hal (2) 29:18 74:24 inaudible (3) 61:12 74:2 75:8 irrelevance (1) 64:23 l103321 (1) 67:3
easy (1) 53:3 explicitly (1) 25:6 44:22 hand (1) 1:13 incident (1) 6:8 irrelevant (1) 64:16 l103322 (1) 67:10
eccentric (2) 6:15 8:9 explosive (1) 50:12 fourth (1) 2:15 handed (1) 1:14 incorporated (1) 35:8 isles (1) 22:7 l103351 (1) 66:22
edison (1) 51:15 extends (1) 48:13 france (1) 52:11 happen (3) 57:5,7,11 incorrect (1) 55:9 isnt (12) 4:20 42:1 l1134111 (1) 65:11
education (1) 29:23 extent (1) 13:2 fraud (1) 37:9 happened (1) 32:24 incorrectly (1) 54:18 44:13,20,24 50:3 51:12 l12021 (2) 24:21 25:13
effect (1) 69:1 external (4) 33:11 46:19 friday (4) 1:1 21:4,7 72:15 happening (4) 15:10,15 index (1) 78:1 55:20 60:24 62:20 65:4 l12022 (1) 25:14
efficient (1) 72:13 47:14 56:5 friends (9) 2:16 6:10 7:3,6,7 38:21 42:6 indicate (2) 47:7 58:15 76:10 l12801 (1) 21:2
either (2) 36:13 55:5 eyes (1) 7:25 37:22,23 38:4 42:1 happens (1) 61:3 indicated (1) 1:18 issues (3) 20:5 38:20 64:17 l1341 (1) 19:18

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

l1344 (1) 20:4 located (1) 24:3 65:3,6 71:7,18,23 nchain (53) 33:9,10,11,12 60:9 61:17 65:3 72:3,14,24 68:22 69:6,7,11,22 71:21 presented (1) 47:20
l1345 (1) 20:7 location (1) 33:5 72:3,6,13,17,24 34:14,21,23 36:7,17 74:18 76:12 77:2,13 73:9,10,18 presumably (1) 19:23
l1346 (1) 20:7 logo (1) 46:5 76:2,9,12,16,19 77:2,5,13 37:2,5,7,10,11 39:12,23 old (2) 7:17 11:15 patentable (1) 69:4 pretty (1) 11:2
l1347 (1) 20:10 logs (4) 23:6,8,16 24:3 member (1) 42:16 40:10 41:5,11 42:19 older (1) 9:23 patented (3) 52:5,19,21 previous (2) 24:5 55:4
l1348 (1) 20:14 london (1) 60:16 members (1) 50:7 43:6,8,19,25 44:24 45:8 omission (1) 63:21 patents (53) 34:8,14,21,21 previously (1) 54:12
l1349 (1) 20:16 long (5) 20:19 22:18 23:9 memory (2) 19:16 22:20 46:1,14,18,22 47:6,21,22 once (3) 19:7 54:14 57:5 45:13,22 48:22 49:22 primed (1) 29:7
l14681 (1) 40:11 36:3 56:24 mention (12) 15:25 23:3,14 48:10,12 49:3,15,21 ones (4) 17:18 18:19 55:21 50:21,23 prior (2) 18:25 61:22
l1521 (1) 16:20 longer (2) 35:19 72:3 24:2 28:13 57:15,23 50:15,25 51:8,8 52:3 74:15 51:9,13,15,18,19,19,21,22 priority (2) 65:15,17
l181091 (1) 49:25 look (16) 13:4 63:10,12,14,19 66:3 54:5,5,21 55:14,21 online (8) 16:10 17:23 52:5,13,21,23 private (1) 49:11
l202521 (1) 49:7 17:11,12,17,18 19:2 22:23 mentioned (3) 19:24 25:4,5 56:4,10,21 73:15 74:7 18:13,25 19:20 26:9,9,17 53:3,4,8,16,20,22,23 probably (8) 11:16 36:21
l20252371 (1) 42:5 24:21 26:19 47:5,16,20 merged (4) 34:5,11,12 35:1 nchainrelated (1) 40:2 onto (1) 45:10 54:21,23 55:11,14 37:3 41:14,14 63:4
l2025238 (1) 49:8 59:17 67:4,11 72:22 message (1) 28:11 nchains (14) 34:8 39:4 41:12 open (2) 4:4 26:17 57:13,16,23 58:10,13 72:10,13
l20252381 (1) 49:10 looked (8) 8:22 10:6 22:13 met (2) 15:20 74:16 45:13,22 49:14,19 51:19 opened (1) 8:3 59:9,10 60:21,22 62:6,10 proceed (1) 76:15
l20252383 (1) 49:13 36:2,8 66:17 69:18,19 method (1) 25:16 53:15 54:1,3,7,19 55:3 operate (1) 35:4 63:25 64:8 65:23 66:2 process (4) 3:8 48:11 56:7
l20252801 (1) 4:14 looking (9) 4:23 17:5 michael (2) 29:18 74:24 near (1) 9:14 operating (1) 17:21 71:24,25 73:2,3 74:17 71:16
l20252802 (1) 4:18 28:17,21 29:6 50:5 57:22 microsystem (1) 18:3 nearly (1) 28:2 operator (4) 3:21 4:13 32:10 path (1) 5:9 product (1) 69:10
l20252803 (2) 6:13 8:19 68:13 76:19 microsystems (1) 16:6 necessarily (2) 60:25 69:15 49:9 pause (2) 31:5 72:25 production (3) 17:21,24
l20252851 (1) 44:14 looks (6) 13:20 20:2,2 22:12 mid80s (1) 16:3 need (8) 2:24 13:22 opinion (15) 26:6,22 30:9,12 paypals (1) 28:9 67:17
l20252852 (1) 45:11 40:17 65:13 might (7) 31:9 37:21 51:25 36:16,22,22 52:2 63:12 52:21 57:25 58:14 59:14 pct (1) 63:16 professional (5) 38:18
l20252853 (1) 45:11 lordship (5) 1:5 2:3,5 31:10 59:21 60:23 61:4 71:15 65:9 60:4 61:19,21 people (15) 12:23 27:19,20 39:5,9,13,17
l20252854 (1) 46:4 64:17 mind (1) 55:1 needed (2) 19:2 26:24 63:2,11,15,22 29:14,21,22 38:2 professionally (1) 38:2
l203513 (1) 63:13 lost (1) 21:23 minimum (1) 67:6 negotiation (2) 62:20,21 opinions (1) 27:21 45:8,13,22 47:23 54:8 professor (1) 2:5
l221 (1) 66:16 lot (7) 44:11 53:15 56:10 minute (1) 46:10 neil (1) 29:19 opus (1) 65:24 61:2,8 74:22 professors (2) 10:6,10
l251 (1) 65:21 59:8 64:12 72:22 76:21 minutes (4) 14:5 72:5,9,10 neither (2) 28:20 33:14 organisation (1) 42:14 perfectly (2) 56:17 61:4 profile (2) 36:8,13
l252 (1) 66:8 lots (2) 47:15 71:3 misinterpret (1) 47:23 netherlands (1) 40:23 organised (3) 41:4,5 42:10 perform (1) 17:9 program (1) 49:15
l256 (1) 66:11 lovely (1) 3:3 misleading (1) 54:6 network (5) 18:9,14,15,18,24 origin (1) 50:21 perhaps (7) 3:8 17:4 31:9 progress (1) 30:22
l261 (1) 69:17 ltd (1) 35:10 mm (1) 25:11 never (13) 19:3 27:9 33:12 original (7) 43:9 56:13,16,24 50:18 69:8,9 77:10 project (1) 11:5
l5511 (1) 22:4 lucky (2) 21:7 37:25 mmhm (9) 5:3 6:20 34:9,10 37:19 46:18 47:1 60:17 61:9 77:7 period (4) 16:18 21:22 projects (1) 10:22
large (1) 6:25 lunch (6) 31:15 38:4 69:16 9:1,18,20 11:8,12 25:23 62:21 68:2 70:10 73:14 originally (1) 35:9 22:15,18 promoted (1) 43:15
lasseters (21) 11:13,15,22,23 70:15 71:6 72:5 70:17 75:19 originating (1) 56:16 perplexed (1) 8:23 promotes (1) 45:5
15:21,23 16:10,11,22 lynam (1) 1:24 mode (3) 35:21,22,24 newborn (1) 9:23 orr (1) 1:16 person (12) 1:21 6:10,18 promotion (1) 42:14
17:1,14,23,25 18:9,13,18 lynch (1) 2:17 modify (1) 19:1 next (10) 3:5 13:16,19,24 others (4) 4:8 13:4 57:24 9:11 30:6 56:19 59:2 61:5 promotional (1) 43:21
19:20 21:11,21 24:3 25:9 moment (2) 3:15 14:15 18:5 20:16 45:10,11 46:3 62:9 67:15,17 69:3 70:8 pronounce (2) 48:5,7
M
last (19) 4:22 8:14 15:5 monday (5) 1:10 2:24,25 66:12 otherwise (4) 25:18 28:12 personal (2) 38:18 39:17 pronouncing (1) 30:25
22:13 32:19 35:23,24 machine (2) 68:20,21 76:14 77:17 nguyen (2) 45:1 48:2 35:20 73:20 personality (1) 30:7 properly (1) 31:1
36:20 43:3 50:24 51:3,4 mad (2) 10:6,10 mondays (1) 1:23 nick (2) 29:18 74:24 ourselves (1) 16:17 persons (1) 61:6 property (5) 9:10 36:11 39:4
55:24 64:19 69:16,19 madden (2) 2:15,17 money (2) 19:13 44:4 nightclubs (1) 38:7 outfit (2) 6:11,18 phase (8) 67:5,7,8,13,14 44:17 50:9
70:15 71:10 73:1 maddens (1) 1:9 monitor (1) 18:8 ninja (4) 6:11,18 8:3 9:3 outlet (1) 45:5 68:4,4 69:12 proposing (1) 17:7
later (3) 11:4,9 27:24 main (2) 17:17,18 monthly (1) 17:13 nobody (1) 73:23 outside (2) 38:20 75:21 phrases (1) 68:14 proposition (1) 29:8
lawyer (1) 50:8 majority (3) 37:1 67:24 months (1) 36:20 noddy (1) 62:13 over (16) 1:20 2:2 8:22 picture (5) 40:14 44:19 prosecute (2) 62:2 69:6
lead (4) 41:12 49:19 76:23 68:10 more (12) 2:17 36:3 51:14 nods (1) 31:8 10:22,23 15:5 21:25 22:18 45:12,19 69:3 prosecuted (1) 52:1
77:1 making (2) 8:23 30:21 53:1,17,21 54:9 56:4,6 none (2) 55:11 71:8 23:14 26:16 32:19 39:20 piece (2) 26:22 71:7 prosecution (2) 33:13 56:23
leader (1) 43:7 management (1) 73:16 63:4 72:6,13 nono (1) 27:14 51:1 56:22 57:7 67:10 place (3) 16:17 18:25 23:4 protected (1) 74:13
leading (1) 42:24 manager (3) 13:24 14:3 morning (10) 1:3,4,10,23 nonsitting (1) 2:20 overall (1) 18:24 placks (1) 2:17 protocol (1) 43:10
learn (1) 50:11 15:23 2:19 4:3 15:1,1,4 42:23 nor (3) 27:16 28:20 33:14 overspeaking (3) 61:12 74:2 plane (1) 2:22 prototype (1) 69:9
learned (2) 2:16 50:18 managing (1) 25:22 moss (23) 14:25 15:1 30:12 normal (1) 47:17 75:8 planned (1) 76:15 proved (1) 8:5
least (3) 6:15 7:12 8:9 many (12) 12:23 27:24 29:14 32:16,17 49:10 50:20 51:7 normally (1) 46:14 overwhelming (1) 12:5 planning (1) 76:25 proves (1) 72:1
leave (1) 35:1 40:1,2 45:13,22 51:13 64:19 65:4,7 71:6,10,20,25 northern (6) 16:14 19:10 own (1) 21:24 plans (1) 49:14 provide (4) 17:13,20 18:14
leaving (1) 21:21 54:22 55:13 74:22 75:14 72:5,7,9,18 73:1 75:23 23:12 26:15,24 27:15 owned (2) 34:22,23 play (2) 46:9,10 45:15
led (1) 64:10 maps (1) 9:12 78:9,12 nothing (3) 47:6 54:9 68:16 owner (3) 66:9,20 69:22 played (1) 46:12 provided (5) 1:16 32:6
left (4) 34:11,12,15 35:2 march (1) 49:11 most (4) 10:8 49:16 67:15,20 novel (3) 61:25 62:5,5 owners (2) 66:7,11 please (31) 8:19 14:5 16:20 43:17,18,19
legal (3) 42:1,24 47:8 mark (4) 1:20 13:16 14:11 motivation (3) 38:18 39:9,13 novelty (1) 63:2 19:18,18 21:2,3 22:4,23 provision (1) 19:25
length (1) 55:25 78:7 move (3) 2:1 9:6 26:23 number (28) 48:16,21 52:5 P 24:21 25:13 27:1 32:1 public (1) 36:13
less (3) 20:24,24 52:9 marketable (1) 69:10 movement (1) 6:24 53:4,5,7,8,16,23,24 38:14,15 40:11 42:5 publicise (1) 41:23
let (3) 14:6 31:12,17 marketing (8) 40:2,9,18 movements (2) 6:7,24 57:16,16,16 60:11,12,14 pages (2) 20:8 66:10 44:14,19 45:10 46:9 publicly (4) 12:1 51:16 54:12
lets (2) 17:11 52:16 41:4,7,9,10 44:11 moves (1) 47:16 61:13 64:13 65:12,16 panel (2) 44:20 45:16 47:24,25 49:7,25 51:22 55:18
letter (8) 25:2,7,12,13,24 marketingtype (1) 26:12 moving (1) 51:11 66:4,8,19 67:4 69:21 paper (4) 56:16 67:18,19 57:15 65:21 66:8,22 69:16 purchased (1) 17:25
26:2,12,14 martial (2) 5:23 6:19 ms (8) 3:10,14 4:3,16 70:16,20,24 77:7 pleased (1) 51:4 purely (1) 27:17
level (2) 39:11 46:15 massive (1) 43:9 13:6,10 32:5 78:4 numbers (4) 51:11,19 paragraph (28) 4:22 5:20 plenty (1) 31:18 purpose (2) 50:18 68:15
life (7) 4:6 5:11 22:7 39:18 mastercards (1) 28:8 much (26) 4:1 5:22 8:23 10:8 53:3,13 6:14 8:11 11:7 12:9 22:24 ploy (1) 44:11 pursue (1) 64:22
48:11 72:16 76:7 masterclasses (1) 50:6 11:2 12:5 13:5,6,10,14 23:4,14 24:2,5,6 27:2,5 pm (2) 31:22 77:16 push (1) 43:25
O
like (18) 10:6,24 12:7 13:20 matches (1) 38:6 14:24 20:5,8,20 30:13,17 29:11 38:15 42:21 43:3,5 pointed (1) 54:20 putting (2) 51:15 76:21
16:6 19:12 20:2,2 22:20 material (1) 43:21 32:4 50:11 56:3,4,6 64:1 o52 (1) 46:8 45:18,19 50:5 57:14 60:10 points (1) 76:21
26:5 27:14 28:9 37:23 matter (2) 1:12 9:6 69:13 72:3 75:4 76:5 o521 (2) 46:7 47:25 61:19 62:16 63:9,14 policies (1) 73:16 Q
40:18,25 61:1 65:13 72:15 matters (2) 1:6 58:14 multiple (2) 52:10 54:4 o522 (1) 46:8 paragraphs (2) 27:3 64:25 policy (1) 57:9
likely (2) 63:4 71:4 matthews (3) 1:25 2:1 66:23 murgitroyd (4) 34:5,9,10 o528 (1) 48:1 park (4) 6:9,19 7:3,20 pop (3) 5:12,15,16 q (246) 3:18,20,24
limited (2) 35:9 64:3 max (1) 1:24 35:2 oath (2) 13:12 76:6 part (7) 12:18,22 18:24 pornographic (1) 25:18 4:8,11,18,22 5:4,7,17,23
line (1) 43:5 maybe (1) 57:5 myself (5) 17:6 33:4 48:7 objection (2) 62:14 63:18 33:11 46:25 50:20 63:21 portfolio (2) 47:11 53:10 6:1,3,8,13,18,21,23
link (4) 1:20,24 13:18 15:9 mccormack (1) 51:14 62:8 72:20 obviously (12) 24:24 31:16 particular (3) 5:20 64:9 65:8 position (2) 36:15 37:25 7:2,8,11,15,23
linkedin (6) 35:18,18 mean (19) 15:8 17:18 18:21 37:7,12,18 38:25 49:2,22 particularly (3) 21:7 38:19 possible (12) 12:25 29:16 8:2,5,7,11,19
36:2,6,14 42:3 21:15 22:20 28:23 31:13 N 58:10 64:1 71:12 75:5 75:21 56:17 61:4 69:1,14 9:2,6,16,19,21
lisarow (2) 9:10,14 39:21,21,24 40:5 46:23 occasions (2) 44:11 75:17 partner (1) 49:18 70:23,25 71:2,3,5,5 10:2,4,10,14,17,19
list (9) 16:25 20:10,11 25:5 48:16 52:6 59:5 62:18 nakamoto (15) 11:10 28:19 occupation (1) 36:10 party (2) 57:12 73:15 possibly (1) 30:6 11:1,3,9,19,25 12:9,18,23
47:13 60:14 65:22 66:5 64:21 68:14 77:6 29:3,22 38:17 39:14 58:16 oclock (2) 13:25 31:7 passed (2) 5:16 33:23 post (1) 36:2 13:2 14:18,22
67:4 means (3) 33:20 51:23 68:4 59:2,12,16 60:5 64:7 70:20 october (2) 44:15 69:21 past (3) 39:20 40:2,3 posted (1) 54:14 15:7,9,12,15,18,23,25
listed (13) 33:15 34:7,13,17 measure (2) 53:6,18 75:3,16 offensive (1) 25:18 patch (1) 17:20 potentially (3) 60:8 74:23 16:8,17,20,25 17:3,8,10,17
42:8 55:13 media (8) 12:24 15:16 29:15 name (16) 8:16,25 11:9 office (2) 62:19,20 patches (1) 17:22 75:2 18:5,18 19:4,17,22
66:1,7,9,11,14,20 70:4 32:25 36:4 39:6 54:15 24:17,19 35:13 46:15 48:5 often (6) 5:12 21:1,20 22:15 patent (59) 4:4 33:17,25 practice (1) 68:25 20:4,7,10,14,19 21:1,7,16
listen (1) 7:20 74:23 55:12 56:15 58:18 61:6 45:13,22 36:18 40:15 41:12 42:22 practising (2) 6:19 7:11 22:3,22 23:3,14,22
listing (1) 60:18 meet (1) 63:15 66:12,13 67:16 69:22 oh (11) 10:17 11:1 24:12 47:9,11 48:10,19 precise (1) 28:3 24:1,15,17,19,21
lists (1) 74:15 meetings (2) 57:12 73:16 named (8) 54:23 55:14 56:11 40:7,12 41:2 45:20 47:12 49:6,15,19 50:8 precisely (1) 27:6 25:4,9,12,24 26:12,21
litigated (1) 64:1 mellor (45) 1:3,7,22 58:18 60:23 61:1,2 73:11 54:25 63:4 76:19 51:11,23,25 52:4,8,12,15 preconcept (4) 67:5,8,13 27:1,22 28:1,13,16,25
little (4) 4:5 9:23 43:20 2:7,12,23 3:2,7,12 names (6) 6:3 12:15,20 oi (1) 56:16 53:5,7,10,14,15,19,24,24 68:3 29:5,10 30:1,4
51:23 13:10,17,20,22 14:2,6 29:20 55:23 56:8 okay (26) 1:7 2:7,12,23 3:2,2 54:1,3,3,7,19 55:19 57:23 preimplementation (1) 69:12 32:9,13,22,24
live (2) 31:1 44:16 30:16,23 31:3,7,12,17,23 narrowly (4) 33:10 62:17 13:8,13 14:2,7 17:8 59:4 62:19,19,20 63:1,3,16 preparation (1) 67:6 33:2,6,14,17,20,23,25
living (3) 10:5,11 43:10 32:1,4 51:5 64:10,12 63:5 73:19 31:8,17 34:12 55:10 58:23 64:9 65:9 66:5,24 67:4,21 prepared (1) 13:21 34:2,5,7,10,12,17,20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

35:1,4,8,13,16,18,22,24 regard (7) 37:8 38:10 39:3 67:16,21,25 68:11 55:25 stood (2) 35:10 74:11 11:6,15 12:22 14:16,18,19 types (1) 20:24
36:6,10,17 37:1,4,7,11,15 52:4,8,12,12 70:4,6,8,22,24 73:6 sincerely (1) 25:20 stop (6) 25:16 26:1,20 46:11 16:7,12,19 18:2,21 21:14
38:11,13,24 39:9,19 regarded (2) 61:24 62:4 saw (3) 7:2 19:1 23:5 single (2) 52:10,24 66:11 71:6 24:22,23,24,25 25:1 26:2 U
40:1,6,9,13,17 regarding (3) 22:19 27:13 saying (7) 26:10,19 41:8 sister (2) 4:6 12:5 stored (1) 24:3 31:25 32:7,10 33:16 34:4
41:1,6,12,19,22 28:6 43:24 48:2 49:2 53:12 sit (1) 39:5 stores (1) 23:24 37:14 40:21 udl (10) 34:2,5 35:1 40:15
42:5,10,16,19,21 43:23 regards (1) 22:1 scarce (1) 36:19 sites (4) 25:17,18 26:1,7 storing (2) 23:6,9 41:9,14,14,14,25 42:18 41:20,21,22 43:18 49:18
44:7,12,14,22 regular (3) 36:19 39:21,24 scene (2) 16:5 61:8 sitting (2) 45:1 54:17 story (3) 6:16 9:3 72:1 45:1,17,20,20 46:17,21 54:22
45:1,4,8,19,21 46:3,19 regularly (1) 39:19 schedule (6) 2:4 31:24 66:25 situation (1) 31:13 straightforward (1) 62:8 47:22 48:9,21,24 50:3 uk (4) 26:18 33:19,25 52:11
47:2,18,24 48:7,10,25 regulated (1) 33:17 70:1 76:13,14 six (1) 55:17 strong (1) 5:19 51:17,25 52:15 55:22 umbrella (1) 42:10
49:25 50:4 51:11 52:19 regulatory (2) 27:15,17 scientist (1) 43:6 sixth (2) 17:17,19 stroustrup (1) 2:21 56:20 57:10,20 58:8 59:12 uncommon (1) 69:11
53:1,12 54:9,21 55:8,11,17 rejigged (1) 66:19 scope (1) 75:5 skip (1) 66:10 struggling (1) 16:12 60:25 61:10 62:12 uncompressed (1) 23:16
56:17,21 57:2,5,13,21 relate (1) 52:24 screaming (1) 7:19 slovenia (2) 50:3,7 stuff (2) 42:3 73:17 63:5,21,24 65:17,22 68:6 uncompresses (1) 23:23
58:5,7,10,23 relates (1) 39:4 screen (7) 3:14 4:12 9:8 slow (1) 6:24 subject (1) 33:20 69:15 72:13,14 73:20 understand (5) 2:16 21:15
59:6,8,15,21,24 relating (2) 17:14 58:1 14:14 16:20 32:5 44:6 small (5) 10:1 58:1,5,6,8 submitted (1) 3:23 74:25 76:9 51:5 58:12 68:12
60:2,9,17,20,24 relation (3) 58:25 61:20 73:1 search (2) 33:14 64:2 social (1) 39:6 substantive (1) 62:14 themselves (1) 24:14 understanding (4) 23:19
61:4,10,12,16,18,24 relationship (3) 4:9 37:15,16 searched (1) 63:23 software (3) 17:25 29:13 suburbs (1) 9:12 theres (21) 20:5,19 25:25 46:17 56:20 60:14
62:3,8,13,24 63:1,9,22,25 relatively (1) 62:8 searches (1) 64:1 36:18 sufficiency (1) 68:24 28:13 44:4,4,7 47:6 understands (1) 70:2
65:14,21 66:22 68:6,8,17 released (3) 13:11 30:18 second (6) 1:12 4:18,23 sole (7) 35:5 54:24 55:13,15 suggest (6) 30:1 36:12 39:11 48:16,19 49:9 50:20 52:16 understood (1) 41:10
69:2,16,25 70:15,18 71:2 76:6 19:11 25:14 66:7 60:22,23 61:1 41:6 49:20 70:7 53:15 59:8,20 64:12 69:2 unique (1) 56:10
73:6,8,20,22,25 relevance (1) 64:6 seconds (2) 46:10 72:21 solicitor (1) 47:8 suggested (1) 74:4 70:5 74:14 77:11 unknown (3) 6:10,18 70:14
74:2,4,17,19,21 75:5,8,10 relevant (1) 75:20 section (1) 42:13 solicitors (1) 42:2 suggesting (2) 43:23 73:20 theyre (7) 34:23 44:23 47:10 unless (1) 68:20
qualified (2) 33:25 68:5 relied (2) 58:12 70:16 sector (1) 42:25 somebody (8) 30:8,10 suit (1) 8:1 59:5,13 71:4,4 unpleasant (1) 39:8
question (10) 18:5 28:25 relocating (1) 60:16 security (10) 16:11,13 17:14 41:7,20 46:15 47:20 53:10 suits (1) 6:5 thing (3) 58:15 60:6 68:17 unsurprisingly (1) 75:25
45:25 47:19,19 48:1 60:5 rely (6) 57:13 63:11 71:21 19:5,9 21:25 22:1,25 59:3 sun (2) 16:6 18:3 thinking (7) 9:23 30:8 58:17 until (3) 27:24 51:23 77:17
70:15 73:1 76:17 73:2,3 74:17 23:1,6 somebodys (1) 54:14 sunday (1) 22:6 59:21 60:5,7 77:6 unusual (4) 36:12 57:5,8
questioning (1) 64:14 relying (3) 71:11,23,25 see (61) 1:19 2:3,5 3:18,19 somehow (1) 73:24 superhero (1) 6:3 thinks (1) 73:23 69:15
questions (13) 4:3 13:7 15:3 remember (9) 5:1 11:17 6:16 7:25 8:15,17,24 11:7 someone (4) 36:12 41:21 supply (2) 17:1 18:20 third (4) 19:11 42:21 49:13 uploaded (1) 24:23
30:4,14,16 32:18 33:7 19:14 24:15,17,19 12:16 14:16 16:21 17:12 46:21 60:7 supremely (1) 64:16 67:15 upon (2) 58:12 65:1
38:13 45:9 51:17,21 75:24 28:5,6,21 18:10,16 19:19 20:4,17 something (18) 5:2,10 10:15 sure (6) 12:12 14:6 22:21 thought (3) 12:13 19:5 71:23 usage (1) 48:14
quickly (4) 31:6 37:15 47:16 remembered (2) 11:16 12:7 21:4,17 22:6,8 24:24 25:15 19:2 20:2 23:10,21 40:24 28:3 30:25 73:23 thousands (2) 71:24,25 used (9) 12:14 20:11 35:18
67:2 remote (1) 15:9 32:7 40:14,17 42:7,21 42:10 48:20 53:25 54:14 sv (3) 43:11 45:6 46:5 three (9) 22:25 48:22 43:25 45:14,23 46:5,23
quite (11) 6:25 9:23 10:1 remotely (1) 65:1 43:1,3 44:15,19,22 46:4 55:5 57:10 68:18 69:4 swear (1) 32:1 52:13,18 56:24 57:16 48:18
28:25 43:24 51:7 55:25 removed (1) 2:6 50:5,23 60:11 65:15,16,18 70:18 75:7 swinging (1) 6:23 58:10 60:21,22 useless (1) 68:20
59:20 62:15 64:12 67:23 report (4) 1:9 19:19,23 20:20 66:4,6,8,11,12,19,20,20,24 sometimes (6) 20:24 54:8 sword (4) 6:11,19,23 7:11 through (19) 7:19 12:5,8 using (6) 6:3 19:8 24:9,10,11
quote (2) 27:5 37:11 reports (3) 17:14 20:1,25 67:4,12 69:19,20,21,23,24 56:23 58:3 61:1,2 swords (1) 6:6 14:3 16:13 20:14 35:4 51:2 26:14
representation (1) 34:16 76:21 77:11 somewhere (1) 9:13 sworn (2) 32:2 78:10 54:11 57:17,19 65:5 66:10
V
R representative (7) 17:23 seeing (2) 10:4 21:10 soon (1) 17:22 sydney (2) 21:18 23:4 69:25 70:1,3 72:22 74:12
34:7,13,18 47:8 54:22 seek (1) 51:25 sort (8) 11:5 21:23 46:23 system (6) 16:22 17:15 76:19
v110 (1) 66:25
raced (1) 31:6 55:12 seeking (1) 41:22 56:12 58:14,19 60:6 62:22 19:8,9 22:25 24:25 thursday (1) 2:10
value (1) 74:7
raised (2) 45:25 71:8 request (1) 14:4 seems (3) 21:11 36:12 67:24 sounds (1) 9:15 systems (6) 16:13,13 17:21 tie (1) 60:4
variety (1) 48:18
ran (2) 7:18,18 require (2) 2:16 77:4 seen (4) 49:16 60:17 68:2 space (1) 7:1 18:4 55:4 73:15 ties (1) 36:6
various (2) 17:13 65:23
rather (8) 23:10,20 39:8 required (1) 39:22 70:10 spare (1) 24:4 szabo (2) 29:18 74:24 time (21) 2:22 5:13 8:2
version (8) 19:20 24:23
46:11 52:21 53:4,7 56:18 requirements (1) 63:16 send (1) 14:3 speak (3) 41:11 43:4 77:10 13:23 16:17 21:22 22:5,18
T 43:15 66:3,15,17,17 69:17
reached (1) 76:18 research (2) 43:7 55:17 sending (1) 26:13 speakers (1) 43:20 34:8,11,20 36:3 37:1,1
versions (2) 66:4 77:8
reacted (1) 7:15 researched (2) 29:23 75:7 sense (3) 56:1,5 62:18 speaks (2) 47:9 57:9 table (1) 67:11 38:8 41:15,16,22 46:22
vhm (2) 13:24 14:3
reaction (5) 10:17 11:1 researchers (3) 56:8,11,15 sent (1) 20:3 special (1) 38:9 taken (1) 62:25 67:12 70:14
via (2) 3:11 14:12
12:13 63:3,4 respect (1) 24:8 sentence (1) 4:23 specific (1) 33:12 taking (2) 23:8 74:6 times (6) 11:17 24:10 57:7
video (8) 1:20,24
read (5) 15:12 32:22 38:21 respond (1) 21:16 sentences (2) 5:7 8:14 specifically (4) 10:10 28:10 talk (3) 49:5 53:24 75:15 70:4 74:10 75:14
46:6,8,12,13 47:4,17
45:21 75:7 responded (1) 48:15 september (9) 24:25 25:2 37:21 75:18 talking (8) 27:22 28:5 52:23 timetable (2) 1:12,15
videolink (2) 3:11 14:12
ready (2) 9:12 14:7 response (1) 22:8 42:7 65:24 66:1,5,18,23 specification (1) 68:22 53:22,23 55:21,23 74:15 today (1) 76:10
viewing (2) 47:2,4
real (5) 5:24 6:1 7:12 61:7 responses (1) 76:23 69:19 speculate (2) 57:11 75:11 talks (1) 18:9 todays (1) 1:19
vision (3) 43:10,12,25
70:23 responsibility (1) 18:13 seriously (1) 10:20 split (1) 52:16 task (1) 16:25 toe (1) 8:1
visit (1) 38:8
realistic (1) 7:13 rest (6) 20:15 54:15 56:7 served (1) 1:10 spoken (2) 28:4 75:17 tasks (1) 19:23 together (2) 16:10 38:8
visited (1) 23:4
realistically (1) 31:15 70:1,3 74:21 server (2) 23:5,5 sports (1) 26:16 tasksdoc (1) 16:22 told (3) 4:8 24:9 75:12
visiting (1) 9:8
reality (1) 75:10 restricted (1) 25:19 servers (5) 10:9 18:8,9,12 spotlight (1) 44:16 team (1) 69:14 too (3) 31:6 62:17 63:5
viveca (1) 67:16
really (7) 13:4 25:24 36:2 returned (1) 25:9 24:3 spreadsheet (1) 66:15 tech (2) 38:3 70:6 took (6) 8:22 19:24 21:25

54:25 55:25 58:8 69:11 review (1) 67:19 services (3) 16:25 25:25 spv (3) 77:6,6,10 technical (5) 10:21 16:1,2 41:17 54:10 71:11
W
rearranging (1) 31:24 revised (1) 1:12 36:11 stage (3) 10:19 26:16 62:15 68:23 69:13 tools (2) 20:10,12

reason (3) 53:2 58:11 62:14 righthand (1) 45:1 sessions (1) 50:10 stages (1) 29:1 technique (1) 48:17 totality (1) 57:22 wales (2) 42:14 50:9
reasons (1) 56:18 roadmap (1) 66:2 set (1) 13:23 standard (5) 19:6 20:12 technologies (3) 43:8 49:16 totally (1) 12:13 walked (1) 8:3
recall (10) 5:4 6:3,4,21 10:4 role (9) 15:23 33:8,10,12 sets (1) 61:21 24:12 41:25 61:21 50:13 touch (3) 21:12,20 27:16 walking (1) 10:1
27:3,7 35:2 50:2 53:9 46:16 47:5 49:5 56:3 73:23 setting (1) 33:5 stands (2) 43:11 49:17 technology (6) 42:11,13,15 towards (4) 22:13 38:16 warm (1) 9:22
recalled (1) 2:10 room (8) 10:4,6,6,10,11 seven (2) 15:5 32:20 star (1) 37:8 43:18,22 59:4 66:19 70:19 warranted (1) 26:25
recently (1) 21:13 23:5,5 62:9 seventh (1) 18:7 start (4) 2:24 31:7,16 66:11 teenage (1) 5:22 training (1) 16:5 wasnt (9) 19:2 27:23 28:25
recollection (1) 29:7 rosendahl (1) 2:18 shareholder (1) 35:6 started (1) 16:4 teleportation (2) 68:19,21 transcript (1) 47:24 41:4 71:18 73:15 74:3
recommended (3) roughly (1) 28:21 shelf (1) 18:1 starting (2) 21:24 26:17 tells (1) 50:10 transcripts (2) 15:12 32:22 76:25 77:7
19:14,15,15 routers (2) 18:24 22:25 shining (1) 44:16 starts (1) 2:6 ten (3) 14:5 23:17 72:10 transferred (1) 34:16 watch (1) 15:9
recorded (6) 27:9 54:21 rugby (1) 38:6 shock (1) 8:5 statement (40) 3:15,20,24 term (6) 23:9,10 27:23 travelled (1) 50:9 watched (4) 15:4,6,7 32:19
63:15 67:13 69:17,22 rules (2) 66:25 67:2 short (4) 14:9 23:10 31:21 4:5,11,16,20 5:18 7:4 8:11 46:17,21,22 travellers (1) 5:13 way (13) 7:16 23:19 26:1
records (6) 36:10 55:8 61:13 65:6 9:7,8 11:3,19 12:9,19 terms (2) 52:9 56:6 trial (3) 15:9 39:16 64:18 44:23 47:12,14,20 48:5
67:11 70:7 71:12 S shortcircuit (2) 72:22 74:21 14:16,22 15:25 16:9 22:23 territory (6) 16:14 19:10 tried (1) 10:22 53:1,18,22 60:4 71:21
recount (1) 6:16 shortly (1) 9:16 24:22 25:1,4 27:1 28:14 23:12 26:15,24 27:15 trouble (1) 28:12 weapons (2) 5:24 6:1
recounting (1) 8:20 s (1) 25:21 should (6) 3:15 5:14 46:8 30:5,5 32:6,13 38:15,16 tesla (1) 51:15 true (7) 3:24,25 14:22 32:13 weather (1) 9:22
reduce (1) 69:4 safely (1) 8:2 47:3 48:7 61:6 57:14 58:17 59:9,19 61:20 test (1) 13:25 43:15 51:17 71:4 website (3) 35:16 36:14,23
reexamination (3) 13:9 same (4) 52:19 60:25 71:21 shouldnt (2) 61:2,5 63:8,19 76:22 text (1) 5:14 try (1) 62:18 websites (1) 26:20
30:15 76:1 72:6 show (7) 57:25 59:11 60:18 statements (1) 11:23 thank (36) 3:4,7,12 4:1 5:17 trying (8) 53:13,17 59:8,24 wed (2) 18:25 22:17
refer (10) 4:11,15,19 6:9 sanity (1) 57:17 61:13 68:10 70:21 71:12 status (1) 66:2 13:6,8,10,12,13 14:24 60:1,3,4 70:13 week (3) 2:15 35:23,24
25:6 48:22 52:24 53:18 sat (2) 33:4 44:20 showing (1) 59:15 stef (4) 61:16 67:15,18,19 15:18 16:8 18:5 19:4,17 tuesday (2) 2:1,2 weekend (1) 77:15
54:7 61:19 satoshi (31) 8:16,25 9:3 shown (1) 70:20 stefan (1) 66:23 22:22 24:1 26:21 28:1,16 turn (1) 36:19 weekly (5) 17:13 19:19,23,25
reference (5) 4:13 10:3 11:10 12:20,25 28:19 sic (1) 61:5 stefs (3) 66:12,13 69:21 29:10 30:12,17,18,19 turned (1) 7:18 20:20
49:10 51:22 63:13 29:3,12,17,22 38:17 side (3) 5:21 45:1 64:24 step (1) 74:12 31:19,24 32:4,15 33:6 turning (1) 57:13 weeks (1) 38:8
referred (7) 41:12 46:13 39:10,14 43:11,14 44:1 sides (1) 55:9 stephane (3) 65:19 67:16,25 48:25 62:3 75:23 76:5,8 turns (1) 2:3 welsh (1) 42:18
52:20 54:1,10,11,18 58:16 59:2,5,12,16 60:5 sight (1) 18:22 stepped (2) 56:3,3 thanks (4) 3:3 13:14 14:7 tweet (4) 41:13,19,20 42:2 weve (4) 31:6 63:4 69:18
referring (4) 17:24 48:21 64:7 70:20 72:2 74:24 signature (7) 3:22,22,23 steps (1) 63:2 17:10 tweeted (1) 40:14 76:9
53:4 60:12 75:3,11,16,18 14:20,20 32:10,11 still (8) 8:13,15,24 thats (74) 2:13,21 twice (1) 57:6 whatever (7) 10:17 11:1
refers (2) 42:5 44:15 savanah (12) 61:16 65:19 since (4) 2:5 16:3 48:11 21:10,14,17,18 26:11 3:2,20,22,23 6:21 10:3 twitter (2) 15:16 32:25 39:16 47:9,11 57:12 72:8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 16, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 10

whats (3) 15:15 39:6 44:6 younger (1) 4:6 222 (2) 57:16 73:6
white (5) 18:11 56:16 youngest (2) 9:16,19 23 (2) 2:11 65:16
67:18,19 77:7 youre (34) 9:2 12:11,23 24 (2) 42:7 63:17
whiteboard (1) 74:11 13:11,19 15:25 28:17 26 (1) 2:16
whod (1) 56:15 33:17,20 36:17 41:12 42:7 27th (1) 2:18
whole (1) 48:18 46:19 47:13,18 48:21 28th (1) 2:19
wholeheartedly (1) 64:20 52:3,3 53:14,15,22,23 29 (4) 66:1,5,18 69:19
wholly (1) 36:17 54:25 58:2,2,21,22 59:21 29th (1) 2:19
whos (1) 60:7 60:12 62:21 63:25
whose (2) 42:2 56:8 74:6,6,15 3
wikipedia (2) 29:20 75:1 yours (1) 38:11
windows (1) 16:4 yourself (4) 37:4 41:19 57:2 3 (5) 2:3 6:13 8:20 78:4,5
withdrawn (1) 65:4 62:8 30 (4) 41:1 65:16 70:6 72:21
withdrew (2) 13:15 30:20 youve (13) 13:20 15:4 18:5 32 (7) 38:15 57:16 59:21
witness (26) 2:20 3:15 30:12 32:19 40:1 48:10,12 73:8 78:10,11,12
4:5,19 5:18 7:4 8:11 9:7 57:24 64:10 74:5 76:12,14 38 (2) 49:7,9
11:3,19,23 12:9 39 (1) 63:17
13:15,16,19,24 14:16 Z
24:22 30:20,24 31:2 32:1,6 4
63:7 72:4 77:3 zip (1) 23:23

witnesses (5) 1:19,23 2:2,4,9 zipping (1) 23:20 4 (5) 20:4 49:11 57:15 60:10

witnesss (1) 64:8 zoom (1) 40:13 78:6

wonder (2) 45:13,22 40 (1) 63:17

wont (3) 2:13 20:14 43:17 0 42 (13) 48:16,21 57:16

work (27) 15:19 23:6 25:25 60:11,14 61:13 64:13

05 (1) 25:9 65:12 66:8,19 69:21
33:13 36:7,19,21
37:1,18,19,25 38:1,2,20 70:16,24
1
39:2,3,23,23 40:9 41:17
5
47:7,14 48:13 67:24 68:10
1 (4) 16:23 46:10 63:17 78:3
75:20,22
10 (6) 8:11 19:22 24:2 5 (4) 18:13 20:7 27:2 35:8
worked (5) 22:24 34:2 56:15
66:15,17,23
58:20 73:17
100 (2) 22:20 24:9 6
working (12) 10:14,15
1030 (2) 1:2 77:17
11:13,17 15:20 16:2 34:2
1048 (1) 14:8 6 (8) 3:21 20:7 22:24 24:25
37:1 38:3,24 47:21 68:25
109 (1) 77:16 25:2,5 63:16 69:21
works (2) 10:21 68:19
11 (2) 13:25 24:6 60 (2) 56:22 57:7
world (4) 5:2,11 38:22 39:7
1109 (1) 14:10
worldwide (1) 49:18
1134 (1) 31:20 7
worry (2) 51:5 65:7
12 (2) 32:10 70:5
wouldnt (3) 27:16 47:15,17 7 (2) 14:19 24:23
1203 (1) 31:22
wrap (1) 8:22 75 (1) 67:14
12th (1) 22:6
wrapped (1) 7:25 7x24 (1) 18:8
13 (5) 11:7 12:9 21:7 57:14
wright (81) 2:10 4:8 9:9
60:10
10:14 11:4 15:20 16:9 8
13th (1) 21:5
21:2,3,20 22:5,16
14 (3) 78:7,8,9
24:2,8,11 25:21 27:5,7 8 (4) 5:20 44:15 47:25 67:4
15 (10) 7:4,6 27:2,3,5 46:10
28:19 29:2,12 34:3,22
61:19 62:16 63:9 72:5
37:16,17 38:9,17 39:10,14 9
16 (8) 1:1 7:4,6,17 27:3
40:10,14,19,22 41:24
63:17 65:24 69:17
43:2,3,6 44:1,10 49:12,23 9 (3) 23:4 63:14 66:17
17 (1) 29:11
50:11,15,21,22,25 51:8,12 90 (2) 66:3,3
18 (2) 7:8 63:17
54:23 55:12,14,19 930 (1) 2:24
183 (1) 66:5
56:17,22 57:25 58:12,15
19 (3) 7:9 35:14 77:18
59:11,16 60:20 61:4 65:18
1999 (1) 16:18
66:13 67:13,14,19,22 68:1
69:23 70:4,5,19,24
2
71:9,14,18,20,21 75:11,12
76:20 2 (2) 19:22 31:7
wrights (10) 4:6 15:5,12 20 (5) 28:2 29:7 52:20,21
32:19 43:13 50:6 51:9,11 63:17
54:2 76:22 2000s (2) 27:12 29:14
writing (1) 27:9 2001 (2) 16:18 19:22
written (10) 12:2,3 17:3 2002 (1) 16:23
40:20 44:6 61:19,21 2004 (4) 24:25 25:2,9 27:4
63:1,11,15 20042005 (1) 27:12
wrong (2) 49:10 57:21 2005 (5) 21:4,7,24 22:14
wrote (5) 12:7 29:13 43:23 27:4
58:17 75:19 2006 (1) 65:24
wuille (2) 76:17,24 2007 (2) 9:19,24
wuilles (1) 76:22 2008 (3) 9:21,25 11:12
2009 (2) 22:5,13
Y
20092010 (1) 11:6
yeah (34) 8:1 11:2,2 16:7,24 2012 (1) 12:11
19:21 20:2,18 21:6,15,22 2013 (2) 12:11 33:23
23:8,19 25:3 26:3 32:8 2015 (2) 66:1,18
38:12 41:2,14 48:24 49:2 2016 (1) 65:16
54:14 55:22 58:17,18,21 2017 (2) 40:24 41:1
59:7,17,19 60:1 62:18 2018 (2) 55:25 56:1
65:13 73:21 75:9 2020 (5) 35:3,8 42:7
year (1) 7:17 44:15,16
years (14) 5:22 10:22 23:17 2022 (1) 35:14
27:24 28:2 29:7 39:20 2023 (1) 24:23
40:2,3,5,6,7 51:1 56:24 2024 (2) 1:1 77:18
yesterday (1) 33:2 20th (1) 2:1
youd (1) 76:18 21 (1) 49:11
young (1) 4:25 22 (1) 2:10

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Day 11

February 19, 2024

Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 Monday, 19 February 2024 1 right?

2 (10.30 am) 2 A. Yeah, mate, that’s good, yeah.
3 LORD GRABINER: Good morning, my Lord. 3 Q. And you say you’d engaged BDO to conduct an IT security
4 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good morning. 4 audit. Is that also right?
5 LORD GRABINER: Our first witness is Mr David Bridges and 5 A. Absolutely.
6 he’s on the video−link. 6 Q. And you say that in the course of that audit, Dr Wright
7 MR DAVID BRIDGES (sworn) 7 found vulnerabilities in your IT security ; is that
8 (Via video link ) 8 correct?
9 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER 9 A. Yeah, yeah, he found plenty.
10 LORD GRABINER: Mr Bridges, on the screen in front of you, 10 Q. I ’m going to ask for a document to be put on screen.
11 there will be a copy of your witness statement at 11 This is {L17/473/1}, and this will be a transcript of
12 {E/9/2}. Do you see that? That’s the front page. 12 the evidence you gave to the court in Oslo in a case
13 A. Okay, yeah, I can see that all right . 13 called Granath, when you gave evidence there in
14 Q. And if you go to page 10 {E/9/10}, that’s what we call 14 September 2022. Do you remember giving evidence there?
15 the signature page. Is that your signature? 15 A. Yeah. Yeah, I remember that.
16 A. Yeah, looks like me. 16 Q. Page 3, please {L17/473/3}, lines 48 and following, do
17 Q. And are the contents of that statement true? 17 you see you were asked by a lawyer what Dr Wright did to
18 A. Yes. 18 help the bank when he was with BDO, and −−
19 LORD GRABINER: Thank you very much. 19 A. Yeah.
20 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH 20 Q. −− you’re recorded as saying this at line 50:
21 MR HOUGH: Good morning, Mr Bridges. 21 ”Yeah, so initially ... was with BDO I met auditors
22 I just want to check that you can see me. I’m 22 from a security perspective, so he did a full audit ...
23 asking questions on behalf of the crypto open patent 23 of the bank in terms of where, I guess our
24 Alliance . 24 vulnerabilities and weaknesses from a security
25 A. I can’t actually , mate. Oh, there you are. How are 25 perspective were. He also at a lighter stage ... ”

1 3

1 you? 1 I think that might be ”later”, somebody

2 Q. Good morning. 2 mistranscribing your Australian accent.
3 Mr Bridges, before we get into your evidence in 3 A. (Inaudible ).
4 detail , may I just ask a few introductory questions. 4 Q. ” ... he then started doing similar tests on our third
5 First of all , have you watched any periods of 5 parties −− I’m not sure of the parties ... to assess ...
6 Dr Wright giving evidence in this trial over the remote 6 their security standard ... their vulnerabilities ,
7 link ? 7 weaknesses ... and such.”
8 A. No. 8 Is that a fair summary of the work he did for
9 Q. Have you read any transcripts or received any reports of 9 the bank while he was at BDO?
10 what he said in his evidence, whether those are verbal 10 A. Yeah, that’s −− that’s pretty much spot on.
11 or in writing? 11 Q. Now, you then say in your witness statement that after
12 A. No, I haven’t. 12 Craig Wright left BDO, your bank engaged him as
13 Q. Have you read any social media, mainstream media 13 a consultant to help −−
14 accounts or commentary on his evidence? 14 A. Correct.
15 A. No, I haven’t. 15 Q. −− to, as you put it {E/9/4}, ”help us uplift ...
16 Q. This is right , isn ’ t it , you work now and have for some 16 security at the bank”, working in your offices every
17 time worked for Qudos Bank? 17 week or two; is that right?
18 A. I have. I ’ve recently changed jobs, in December, but 18 A. Absolutely.
19 yeah, previously Qudos for about 19 years. 19 Q. You say that part of his role was IT penetration
20 Q. That was an Australian mutual bank that was formerly 20 testing ; is that right?
21 the Qantas staff credit union; is that right? 21 A. Yes. Yeah, yeah.
22 A. That’s correct . 22 Q. And does that involve, in simple terms, almost acting as
23 Q. In your witness statement, you describe meeting 23 a hacker and trying to break into your systems, then
24 Craig Wright in about 2006, when he was working as an 24 fixing the security vulnerabilities you find?
25 auditor at the accountancy firm BDO Kendalls; is that 25 A. Yeah, you’ve got it . That’s exactly what he did, tried

2 4

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 to break everything. 1 Q. For the lawyers in the room, that’s ID_006367 straight
2 Q. And you say that another part of his work was advice on 2 through to ID_006463. Does that strike a cord with you,
3 IT security ? 3 nearly 100 documents representing emails and their
4 A. Correct. He helped set up a framework and everything 4 attachments?
5 for us. We did like a controls library and we started 5 A. He −− he −− he certainly sent me a lot of things and
6 to, you know, effectively test the controls and make 6 gave me a lot of things. I didn’t read them all and
7 sure they were effective . 7 even the ones I read, I probably didn’t quite
8 Q. Now, you say in your witness statement that he helped 8 understand, but he certainly put a lot of things on my
9 you implement an event logger system and that one 9 table or emailed me and ... yeah.
10 feature −− 10 Q. Now, we’re just going to look at the first three of
11 A. Yes. 11 those emails based on their reference number. Just to
12 Q. −− and you say one feature of the system was that it 12 be clear , we haven’t authenticated these, but they’re
13 would make a record if somebody tried to alter 13 emails and documents Dr Wright claims to have sent.
14 the logging records; is that right? 14 May we first have on screen {L6/160/1}.
15 A. Yeah, that’s right . Because our concern was, if someone 15 14 March 2010, so some time after Craig Wright had left
16 went in there and let ’s say they got admin privileges , 16 BDO, he says:
17 they could go and delete something and you might not 17 ”One of my latest −− have a read if you like.”
18 know they deleted it, so ... 18 Then {L6/161/1} is the attachment, and this is
19 Q. Now, in your witness statement, you draw a parallel with 19 a paper on criminal specialisation based on rational
20 blockchain technology, and the parallel you draw, as you 20 choice theory. Do you remember getting that through
21 put it , is both systems keep a record of all 21 from him?
22 transactions and there is good traceability in both 22 A. It ’s quite possible , because that’s up his alley , he was
23 systems; is that right? 23 doing law and all those type of things. I can’t tell
24 A. Correct. 24 you categorically I remember every word in this and if
25 Q. So that, just so we understand this correctly , 25 that was it , but it would probably be along his line .

5 7

1 the parallel you were drawing between the event logger 1 Q. {L6/164/1}, 24 March 2010, he emailed you a document for
2 system that Dr Wright worked on and blockchain −− 2 discussion which was entitled, ”Document retention.doc”
3 A. Yeah. 3 and the attachment is at {L6/165/1}. That was a very
4 Q. −− technology is that both systems keep a record of 4 long document on recordkeeping and document destruction
5 transactions and there is good traceability in both 5 in a digital world. Do you remember getting that
6 systems; is that right? 6 through from him?
7 A. Yeah, it would be the traceability and the immutability, 7 A. Again, it ’s probably most likely . I can see, like ,
8 right? So if you deleted something, you had a copy of 8 the GIAC systems, I probably got an old book even when
9 the deletion , effectively . 9 he was trying to get me to study that, so, again, that’s
10 Q. So the parallel you’re drawing is that conceptual one, 10 probably quite likely .
11 you’re not saying that the two shared code in common or 11 Q. Then {L6/170/1}, 8 April 2010, an email offering you,
12 specific forms of technical feature? 12 charitably , a bit of ”bed time reading to help you
13 A. Oh, I wouldn’t know, mate. On that level, that’s −− 13 sleep”?
14 that’s out of my realm, from that perspective. I can 14 A. Yeah, that’s correct .
15 tell you how it worked and how we used it, but that’s −− 15 Q. The attachment −− the attachment is at {L6/171/1}. If
16 yeah, but if you’re going that level , that’s like next. 16 we see the introduction is at page 2 {L6/171/2},
17 Q. Yes, that’s very fair of you. 17 examining the impacts of different approaches to
18 Now, in your witness statement, you also refer to 18 enforcing software security in relation to bugs in
19 Dr Wright often giving you papers to read; do you see 19 software. Do you recall getting that through, or is
20 that? 20 that just another that you may have received but you’re
21 A. Yeah, annoyed the hell out of me. 21 not sure?
22 Q. Well, Dr Wright’s lawyers have identified nearly 100 22 A. Yeah, it ’s −− it −− I’d definitely say it’s most likely
23 documents representing emails he sent to you and their 23 if you −− if you’ve got the emails there and that, I’d
24 attachments, and for the lawyers −− 24 −− I’d say, yeah, there’s a good chance that he sent
25 A. He did. 25 that through. It seems very relevant to what we were

6 8

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 doing at the time. But, again, I don’t have −− I don’t 1 the cover page, it looks like a document written by
2 have those emails any more from the bank, so I couldn’t 2 Craig Wright and reflecting his interest in the law of
3 give you the ”hey, guarantee you”. 3 trade?
4 Q. You will be pleased to hear I ’m not going to go through 4 A. Correct.
5 the full hundred documents or so representing emails he 5 Q. Moving on from that subject, we’re going to a matter
6 sent to you and their attachments. Based on our review, 6 discussed in your witness statement. You say this, that
7 those documents are concerned with IT security, digital 7 while Dr Wright was working as a consultant for
8 forensics and subjects of legal interest . Do you agree 8 the bank −−
9 with that, that those documents that we have were 9 A. Yes.
10 concerned with those subjects, or can you dispute it? 10 Q. −− so after he’d left BDO −−
11 A. Dispute it as in were there any other things? 11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. Well, no, just focusing on the documents that we had, we 12 Q. −− he suggested an idea to you concerning your
13 know that we’ve had a lot of documents which are focused 13 inter bank payment system; is that right?
14 on IT security , document forensics and legal subjects. 14 A. That’s correct .
15 A. Yeah. 15 Q. And that was when he was a consultant, after he’d left
16 Q. You’re not able to dispute that those subjects were 16 BDO, right?
17 subject on which he sent you lots and lots of papers? 17 A. Yeah, that’s right .
18 A. Yeah, if you −− if you’re talking about those subjects, 18 Q. Now, we’re not aware of there being any documents
19 yeah, absolutely , he −− he sent those. 19 relating to this idea being put to you and you don’t
20 Q. Great. 20 refer to any in your witness statement. Is it right to
21 Now, you say in your witness statement that while 21 say that you don’t have any?
22 preparing the statement, you were shown an LLM proposal 22 A. I −− yeah, I don’t have copies of any documents, I don’t
23 document entitled, ”Payment providers and intermediaries 23 think. Did he give us one at the time? Again, it ’s
24 as defined in the law of the internet”, and we can bring 24 possible , because I introduced him to the CEO and
25 that up −− 25 the CFO, so we would have probably went into that

9 11

1 A. Correct. 1 meeting with something.

2 Q. −− {L15/442/1}. Now, what you −− 2 Q. But in fairness to you, what you’re now doing in
3 A. Yeah. 3 relation to this inter bank payment system idea is
4 Q. −− what you say in your witness statement is {E/9/7}: 4 recalling something he discussed 15 years ago without
5 ”I think Craig would have sent me this paper, or 5 any documents to help you recall; is that fair ?
6 something similar. It seems familiar . You can tell 6 A. We’re discussing −− yeah, we had the chat about −− it
7 from the title it is Craig’s style of writing , plus he 7 would have been about 15 years ago. What −− sorry,
8 was always going on about the EU and banging on about 8 what’s the point you’re trying to make, sorry?
9 law of trade.” 9 Q. Just this , that when you try to recall this in your
10 A. That’s right . 10 witness statement, you’re looking back on a conversation
11 Q. Now this is a −− 11 15 years ago and you don’t have any documents to help
12 A. And then he was −− 12 your recollection ?
13 Q. Sorry, Mr Bridges, you were saying? 13 A. When I read this document, I −− it certainly triggers
14 A. This is where he was trying to get the bank to get 14 things and I −− okay, yeah −− no, that sounds like
15 involved with him in this type of stuff . He was −− was 15 the conversations we had with the CEO and the CFO,
16 trying to get us to invest in some research with him, 16 particularly , as I said , things around, like , removing
17 but ... you know ... 17 the intermediary, being able to do the −− the payments
18 Q. Now you don’t say that you recall −− this is a 14−page 18 in a quick and efficient way. So those things certainly
19 document. You don’t say that you recall particular 19 triggered memories from −− from those meetings.
20 parts of this document and that you can say, hand on 20 Q. Now, on your account, just looking at what you say in
21 heart, that you saw this precise version , do you? 21 your statement, he was proposing or discussing a system
22 A. Yeah, that’s right , mate, I can’t remember every −− 22 of some kind to add on to or replace the SWIFT network;
23 every word, you know. Jeez. But it certainly looks 23 is that right?
24 familiar to me, like , from that perspective. 24 A. Yeah, that’s the one.
25 Q. You’re just saying that, looking at the face of it , 25 Q. And is this correct , that SWIFT, which is a Belgian

10 12

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 banking cooperative, operates the messaging network 1 something −− it was effectively an unknown for us, we
2 which sends and receives information between banks and 2 just wouldn’t invest our members’ money into something
3 financial institutions ? Is that right? 3 that we just didn’t understand or didn’t know. We were
4 A. It could be. I don’t know if it ’s a Swiss one or 4 probably a little bit more conservative from that
5 whatever, or Belgian, as you said, sorry . But, yeah, it 5 perspective and we go with something that’s a bit more
6 allows payments between institutions effectively , right . 6 tried and proven in the marketplace.
7 Q. Well, just to be clear on precisely what it does, our 7 Q. Now −−
8 understanding is that it allows for the sending and 8 A. But we liked the ...
9 receiving of information between institutions , which 9 Q. −− moving on to another subject, you describe discussing
10 includes money transfer instructions . 10 Bitcoin with Dr Wright shortly after an event which is
11 A. That’s correct . 11 important to the −− those interested in
12 Q. And you say that you recall Craig Wright proposing some 12 cryptocurrencies, which was the −−
13 sort of payment platform with security features which 13 A. Yeah.
14 would be either bolted on to that or put in its place; 14 Q. −− time a person offered an amount of money −− amount of
15 is that right? 15 Bitcoin for a pizza and somebody else accepted and pizza
16 A. Yeah, that sounds −− that sounds pretty good. 16 was duly delivered ; do you remember that?
17 Q. And you say in your witness statement that what he 17 A. Yeah, yeah, I remember that, yeah.
18 proposed had some similar characteristics to blockchain. 18 Q. And as you say in your witness statement, that event
19 Do you recall saying that? 19 took place in May 2010, didn’t it?
20 A. Correct. 20 A. I believe so.
21 Q. And you say −− 21 Q. Now, based on the evidence you gave in the Oslo case,
22 A. But I didn’t know it right back, you know, at the time, 22 that was the first time you ever heard Dr Wright −−
23 like , it was just part of his proposal. 23 Craig Wright used the word ”bitcoin”; is that right?
24 Q. And you say that −− in your witness statement −− we can 24 A. Yeah, yeah, that would be right.
25 go there if we need to −− that what it had in common was 25 Q. May we have on screen {L17/473/8}. If we look at

13 15

1 a secure ledger or record system, one that couldn’t be 1 the bottom of the page, this is how you put it in
2 broken; is that right? 2 the Norway proceedings:
3 A. Yeah, that’s right . 3 ”So, I remember it quite well. So, we were in
4 Q. And again, you’re not saying that there were specific 4 the office and Craig showed us how this guy had done ...
5 technical features of what was being proposed that were 5 a Bitcoin payment to a pizza place, we were like, okay
6 common to what the Bitcoin System has adopted, are you? 6 ... what the hell is Bitcoin? And he explained
7 A. There’s not specific technical , as in ... like , a −− 7 everything and okay, well then, we’re like how ...
8 sorry , I ’m not quite following what you mean in terms of 8 the hell does this work? And then ... [he] pulled up
9 ” specific technical”. 9 his laptop and he had this thing called a digital
10 Q. What you say it had in common was just that it had 10 wallet . Everyone knows what a digital wallet is now,
11 a secure ledger or record system that couldn’t be 11 but I remember cause it wasn’t on your phone, it was on
12 broken −− 12 the laptop. So, he showed us this digital wallet , this
13 A. Yeah. 13 is −− this is different . How does it all work? And he
14 Q. −− you’re not referring to specific detailed technical 14 took us to the process and said it was a little bit
15 IT features , are you? 15 complicated obviously at the time, but he explained that
16 A. Yeah, no, that’s beyond me. 16 yeah, you had this ... this digital cash and you can
17 Q. Now, based on your witness statement, is it right that 17 transfer it to somebody as a form of payment, I liked
18 you and your colleagues decided against taking 18 that. Okay, very interesting . That was probably yeah,
19 Craig Wright’s idea forward? 19 the really the first time that we started talking about
20 A. Oh, look, we really liked it , we thought it could be 20 Bitcoin.”
21 very, very useful for us; banks would be −− all banks 21 Is that right?
22 have legacy core banking platforms, they were always 22 A. Absolutely.
23 looking for something that −− that could help us in that 23 Q. So, based on what you said there, you had no knowledge
24 space. But effectively , for us, just being a smaller 24 of Bitcoin or how cryptocurrencies worked before that
25 bank, we just couldn’t take the risk of investing in 25 conversation; is that right?

14 16

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 A. Yeah, I wasn’t really interested , to be honest with you. 1 offered you a role in a Bitcoin bank −−
2 I mean, it was like this thing happened, I was like oh 2 A. Yeah.
3 yeah, it ’s pretty cool, bit of a novelty. Obviously 3 Q. −− but you thought you couldn’t take the risk of taking
4 the digital currency aspect piqued our interest , okay, 4 on that kind of role?
5 yeah, it was quite −− quite fun, wasn’t it, really ? It 5 A. Yeah. Again, it was −− for me, it was, like, yeah, this
6 hadn’t been done before. 6 is early days. I had a nice, safe , secure job, and
7 Q. And that was the end of the conversation, yes? 7 a couple of twins, just ... so it was like , yeah, stick
8 A. Yeah, he showed us the −− like we sat down and watched 8 with what I know.
9 −− had a look on his −− his laptop, and then he showed 9 Q. You told the court in Oslo that you didn’t have
10 us how a digital wallet worked and everything, and as 10 information from Craig Wright about how it would be
11 I said , he −− it wasn’t quite like your GUI style now, 11 funded, who was going to run it, or any details
12 it was just on a laptop with basically green screen 12 about it ; is that right?
13 feel −− look and feel, effectively . 13 A. Yeah. No, there was a lot of questions, like you’ve got
14 Q. Moving on to another event you describe in your witness 14 to know, well, how are you going to fund it, how’s it
15 statement, you say that you went to Craig Wright’s house 15 going to work? Yeah, it was more of an idea, I think,
16 with a colleague, Mr Bonser, and you say that was 16 but he was quite keen, so ... yeah.
17 a house on the Central Coast? 17 Q. In your evidence in Oslo, you dated that discussion to
18 A. Correct. 18 some time after June 2013; is that right?
19 Q. Was that a house in the Lisarow area; do you remember? 19 A. Yeah, it would have been about June, yeah. The twins
20 A. I wouldn’t know what the actual suburb was within it, 20 were −− when were the twins born? Jeez, June. Yeah.
21 but it ’s definitely on the Central Coast. 21 Q. Final topic . Towards the end of your statement, you say
22 Q. You say that you think it was some time in 2010 because 22 that you had a discussion with some other people about
23 Mr Bonser left the bank in early 2011; is that right? 23 Craig and Satoshi Nakamoto when the topic was in
24 A. That’s right . 24 the news. Do you recall that?
25 Q. You say you saw some racks of computer equipment which 25 A. Yeah. Yeah, we were blown away.

17 19

1 you thought were servers? 1 Q. And you say that that was in December 2015, right?
2 A. Mm−hm. Yeah. He would set up, or ... 2 A. I believe so.
3 Q. But you don’t think at the time that Craig Wright told 3 Q. So that would have been after articles had been
4 you what he was doing with the computers? 4 published on the subject; is that right?
5 A. No, Craig keeps a lot of things to himself , so, yeah, 5 A. Yeah, it was −− there was a big news flash over here.
6 no, I didn’t know what they were for. 6 It was on −− you know, you had every news channel had
7 Q. Then moving on to something else you address in your 7 it . There was a lot of coverage and everyone’s going
8 statement. You say that at some point in 2012 or 2013, 8 wild, so we were in the boardroom having conversations,
9 Craig put to you the idea of Qudos effectively becoming 9 ”Is it him? Is it him? Oh, it’s him, isn ’ t it ?”.
10 a Bitcoin bank? 10 Q. And you say in your statement that what made you think
11 A. Yeah. Yeah. 11 it was him was his love of Japanese culture and his
12 Q. Was that a proposal for Qudos to change or add to its 12 education. You say that in your statement, don’t you?
13 banking services? 13 A. I believe so, yeah.
14 A. I think it was more to add to our banking services, 14 Q. Now, are you aware that quite a lot of other people have
15 because there’s no −− we’re an ADI, right? We’ve got 15 been identified in the media and in cryptocurrency
16 an ADI licence with the government, so we’re effectively 16 circles as possible candidates to be Satoshi? Are you
17 governed and regulated by APRA, which is the Australian 17 aware of that or not?
18 regulatory institution over here. 18 A. I don’t really follow it , to be honest with you.
19 Q. Is it fair to say that was a very sort of sketchy or 19 Q. So presumably −−
20 early stage proposal that didn’t go anywhere? 20 A. Like I said , I could’ve bought −− I wish I’d bought it,
21 A. Yeah, it was never going to get through with our −− 21 maybe, back then would have been lovely, but I didn’t do
22 like , with our type of board and our bond and 22 it and I haven’t done it , and you know what, I −−
23 everything. It ’s not something that −− we’re not 23 Q. So you don’t −−
24 a leading edge bank. 24 A. −− prefer to (loss of audio) that way.
25 Q. Now you also say that at some time in 2013, Craig Wright 25 Q. So you don’t know anything about any of those other

18 20

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 people? 1 First of all , have you watched any periods of

2 A. Not really , to be honest with you, mate, and like ... 2 Craig Wright giving evidence in this trial over a remote
3 I know the −− the other Russian fellow that does 3 link ?
4 the other one, but otherwise, you know, I’m not −− I’m 4 A. No.
5 not a −− I’m not a −− I’m not a fanboy or anything like 5 Q. Have you read any transcripts of his evidence, or
6 that. 6 received any reports of his evidence, whether they’ve
7 MR HOUGH: Mr Bridges, thank you very much. Those are all 7 been verbal or in writing?
8 my questions. 8 A. No.
9 A. All right . 9 Q. Have you read any social media, mainstream media
10 LORD GRABINER: I have no questions. 10 accounts or commentary on his evidence?
11 Thank you very much, Mr Bridges. 11 A. No.
12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you, Mr Bridges. That completes 12 Q. Thank you very much.
13 your evidence and you’re now released from your oath. 13 Now, in your witness statement, you tell us that
14 Thank you. 14 most of your contact with Craig through your adult lives
15 A. Have a good day. 15 has been via messaging applications and emails; is that
16 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thanks. 16 right?
17 (The witness withdrew) 17 A. Correct.
18 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, the next witness is Max Lynam. 18 Q. We know that Craig was born in 1970, so can we take it
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Right. Have we got him lined up or do 19 that most of your contact through the 1990s and later
20 you need a break? 20 has been by messaging applications and emails?
21 THE VHM MANAGER: We don’t have him in the call yet, 21 A. Yes.
22 my Lord, so ten minutes, please. 22 Q. In your witness statement, you describe what Craig did
23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Okay, yes. 23 after he left school and you refer to his work for
24 (10.59 am) 24 the Australian Stock Exchange and for Lasseters Casino.
25 (A short break) 25 Do you remember saying that in your statement?

21 23

1 (11.11 am) 1 A. Yes.

2 LORD GRABINER: So the next witness is Mr Lynam, my Lord. 2 Q. You don’t mention any other jobs he had in your witness
3 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Please, yes. 3 statement, do you?
4 MR MAXWELL LYNAM (affirmed) 4 A. Most work −− I believe there was a time when I was in
5 (Via video link ) 5 the military and he was working doing IT stuff for
6 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER 6 an office supplies distribution company, so I think that
7 LORD GRABINER: Mr Lynam, on the screen in front of you, 7 might be in the statement as well.
8 there will be shown a copy of your witness statement. 8 Q. It ’s paragraphs 8 and 9, if you want to look, Mr Lynam
9 That’s {E/13/2}. Do you see that? That’s 9 {E/13/4}.
10 the frontispiece . 10 A. Yeah, so paragraph 8 −− yeah, paragraph 8 says that
11 A. Yeah. 11 the −− Craig was running IT systems for an office
12 Q. And if we go to page 10 {E/13/10}, that’s what we call 12 supplies company in Queensland, and then, later on, he
13 the signature page. Is that your signature? 13 was doing stuff for Lasseters and the ASX.
14 A. Looks a DocuSign signature, yes. 14 Q. Now, he did a number of other jobs as well. Is it fair
15 Q. And are the contents of that statement true? 15 to say, and no criticism of at all of you, that you
16 A. Yes. 16 don’t recall every job he did or all the details of his
17 LORD GRABINER: Thank you very much. 17 jobs.
18 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH 18 A. That is correct . It ’s also got here that he was doing
19 MR HOUGH: Good morning, Mr Lynam. At least it’s morning 19 White Hat hacking stuff and I’m not sure who he was
20 for us. 20 doing that for either . Yeah, we didn’t really ,
21 I ’m asking you questions on behalf of the Crypto 21 I suppose, discuss every job that one would have, and he
22 Open Patent Alliance. Can you see me? 22 wouldn’t know all I ’ve had either , so ...
23 A. Yeah. Yeah. 23 Q. Do you recall that he did a lot of work in IT security
24 Q. Before we get into the detail of your evidence, a few 24 and picked up industry accreditations in that field ?
25 preliminary questions. 25 A. I believe so, yes.

22 24

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 Q. Our understanding is that the work he did for Lasseters 1 study all the time, so, you know −−
2 was through his company, DeMorgan Information Security 2 Q. Then −−
3 Systems. Can you recall whether that’s right? 3 A. −− (overspeaking − inaudible).
4 A. I know of the company name. I think he’s had other 4 Q. −− {L3/321/1}. We’re going to look at another email
5 companies as well. 5 that we have in the disclosure . Again, we haven’t
6 Q. Our understanding is that, as the name suggests, 6 positively authenticated it , but it appears to be, at
7 DeMorgan Information Security Systems was an IT security 7 the top of the page, an email from Craig Wright to
8 consultancy which managed security and secure systems. 8 family members, Don Lynam, his uncle, Julie Laimer,
9 Do you agree with that? 9 I think is his mother, and then you and his wife copied,
10 A. I don’t know all of the details of what their particular 10 dated 12 December 2008; do you see that?
11 services were; I only know the −− what Craig talked to 11 A. Yeah.
12 me about, not the company. 12 Q. And he refers to going to present a paper at an academic
13 Q. That’s fine . 13 conference in Hyderabad; do you see that?
14 May I now discuss with you the two email 14 A. Mm−hm.
15 communications we have between you and Craig in our 15 Q. And then he refers −−
16 disclosure from 2008, and the first will come up on 16 A. Yes.
17 the screen in front of you. It ’s {L2/491/1}. Now, we 17 Q. −− further down, to starting a second doctorate, yes?
18 can’t say whether this document is authentic ourselves, 18 A. Yeah.
19 because it hasn’t been forensically examined, but it’s 19 Q. And having sat a GSE malware exam in Las Vegas?
20 a document in Craig Wright’s disclosure. This appears 20 A. Yeah.
21 to be, in the bottom part, an email from Craig on 21 Q. Is it fair to say that from both those emails, what he
22 20 May 2008, tooting his horn, as he puts it , about his 22 was talking about were −− in terms of actual work and
23 accomplishments. Do you remember receiving an email of 23 projects , were IT security and digital forensics ?
24 this kind? 24 A. Yes.
25 A. Yeah, I would have received something along those lines, 25 Q. We can take that down.

25 27

1 because Craig would update us with that sort of stuff 1 Now, in your statement you say that at some point
2 every now and then. 2 before you sold your family farm, Craig asked you and
3 Q. And do we see here that he refers to his masters degree 3 your father to run some code there and you did. Do you
4 in law? Just about a little over halfway down 4 recall saying that in your statement?
5 the email. If we can put the cursor by: 5 A. Correct, yes.
6 ”I was awarded an LLM (Masters [degree] in Law) with 6 Q. Is this right , you didn’t yourself want to run Craig’s
7 commendation.” 7 code on your work computers or on the main server at
8 Do you see that? 8 your farm, because you had an e−commerce operation
9 A. Okay. 9 running on that for the farm; is that right?
10 Q. And he refers to some other accreditations in 10 A. That’s correct .
11 the paragraphs below; do you see that? 11 Q. And so the code instead was run on the computer at your
12 A. Mm−hm, yeah. 12 father ’s house?
13 Q. And then at the bottom of the page, if we put the cursor 13 A. Yes.
14 right on the bottom to lines, do we see he refers to 14 Q. And you recall your father doing this from some time
15 starting a PhD in economics and law later in the year, 15 before you sold your farm, which was mid−2011, and it
16 looking at risk effects and the costs of regulation? 16 continued until your father left his property in late
17 A. Okay. 17 2011; is that right?
18 Q. Then over the page {L2/491/2}, he notes that ”being part 18 A. Correct.
19 lawyer”, so these legal qualifications , ”does not hurt 19 Q. May we bring up a document on screen. It’s {O3/3/7}.
20 [ his ] digital forensic work either”; do you see that? 20 Now, there should be a document coming up on screen
21 A. Okay. 21 which is a transcript of the evidence you gave in a case
22 Q. So, is that consistent with your recollection of 22 in Oslo, called Granath, in October 2022. Do you
23 the accomplishments Dr Wright was telling you about in 23 remember giving evidence to the Oslo court?
24 that period? 24 A. Yes.
25 A. Yes, he’s −− he’s got, yeah, ongoing qualifications and 25 Q. If we look at page 7, at the top of the page, you were

26 28

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 asked: 1 ”What were you actually doing with that computer?”

2 ”Did you and your father perform any tasks on behalf 2 And you’re recorded as saying:
3 of Craig? Did Craig ask you for any favours [ in ] that 3 ”To us, we were just running a computer that Craig
4 period?” 4 was, you know, testing and running.”
5 And then third line down, you’re recorded as saying 5 Do you recall giving that answer?
6 this : 6 A. Yeah.
7 ” ... there was a time in late 2008 where Craig had 7 Q. And then you were asked for your understanding at that
8 some code that he wanted us to test and, as is still 8 point in time, and you’re recorded as saying:
9 done today, you stick it on different computers to be 9 ”Well, you know, being a tech family, you’re always
10 able to see if it ’ ll work on that computer. And you 10 playing around and doing stuff, so you’re always testing
11 need to make sure that the communications work and that, 11 stuff , and we’d always helped each other out by,
12 you know, even though you have it working on your local 12 you know, testing and running stuff. For us, we didn’t
13 laptop or local computer or something, you need to make 13 know that, you know, that it was something ... going to
14 sure it works on someone else’s as well. So that seemed 14 be worth something now.”
15 like quite a normal thing to do and the first thought 15 And then you refer to what Bitcoin is worth now.
16 was we could stick it on because we had a giant, big 16 So, taking you through those answers, is it fair to
17 dual quadcore Xeon server that we were running 17 say that you weren’t aware of at the time and you can’t
18 the e−commerce stuff from on my property, and so when 18 remember now the precise functions of the code?
19 Craig talked to my dad about running the application, my 19 A. Well, I wouldn’t know the precise functions of the code,
20 dad thought his computer probably wasn’t good enough. 20 but it had to do with what Craig had been working on
21 So, he said could we run it on the big server that we 21 with the cryptographic key stuff . So we knew it had to
22 had in the farm? My concern was that, well, that was 22 do with the cryptographic key authorisation stuff , but
23 running the business. I don’t want to stick some 23 we didn’t know any detail apart from that.
24 testing , unknown bit of code on my computer that’s 24 Q. May we put your witness statement on screen {E/13/6}.
25 running the business, and I said , why can’t he do it on 25 At paragraph 20, you say that you had the computer

29 31

1 his? And so ... but then his computer wasn’t quite up 1 turned on and it was connecting to Craig’s computer; do
2 to spec either .” 2 you see that?
3 And you describe getting the code running. 3 A. Yeah.
4 Now, you refer to that, at least when it was first 4 Q. And as you describe it here, this wasn’t code you needed
5 presented to you, as an unknown bit of code you were 5 to or did look into or examine while it was running?
6 running; is that right? 6 A. No, it just ran.
7 A. Correct. 7 Q. Then paragraph 21, at the bottom of the paragraph, you
8 Q. The next question you were asked, if we look down 8 say this −− sorry, paragraph 21, at the top of
9 the page is : 9 the paragraph, you say this :
10 ”For how long did that operation go on?” 10 ”At the time, I understood the code to be validating
11 You’re recorded as answering: 11 transfers and validating cryptographic keys ... ”
12 ” ... well , that went on basically ’ til we left 12 Then you say this:
13 the farm. So, we had to wind up the flower business 13 ”It was a little bit like the hacking stuff Craig
14 following , you know, trade being affected by the 14 had been doing and very much like the transactions he’d
15 GFC substantially, so the global financial crisis . And 15 been doing for Lasseters ... ”
16 so that badly affected because we, you know, highly 16 Now, ”the hacking stuff”, was that a reference to
17 focused on high−end export and high−end export of 17 White Hat or ethical hacking?
18 optional purchases went downhill pretty quick. And so, 18 A. Oh, and the stuff that we just used −− that people used
19 we wound up the business and then we left our property 19 to do to each other as well . You’d just send messages
20 mid−2011, next door to my dad’s, and my dad had 20 backwards and forwards and ping backwards and forwards
21 the computer going ’til just before Christmas 2011 ...” 21 and do authorisation or not authorisation , the same way
22 So that’s the period of time that the code was 22 it works now, just −−
23 running as far as you can recall ; is that right? 23 Q. But the hacking stuff Craig had been doing was White Hat
24 A. Correct. 24 or ethical hacking −−
25 Q. Then the next question you were asked was: 25 A. Yeah.

30 32

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 Q. −− where somebody would try to hack into a system to 1 Q. But in −−

2 show up its security vulnerabilities ; is that right? 2 A. −− it was −− I’m not sure who else had it. I don’t
3 A. Correct. 3 think it was listed publicly anywhere, because it was
4 Q. So you made a connection between the code you were 4 still testing code.
5 running and that work of IT security ethical hacking 5 Q. But he didn’t stress to you that it was confidential and
6 which Craig had done; is that right? 6 nobody could come and look at it?
7 A. Well, it ’s all based off the same technology. I’m not 7 A. No.
8 sure what you’re asking. 8 Q. Now, we can take that off screen.
9 Q. Well, you draw a parallel −− sorry, Mr Lynam, are you 9 In the course of making your witness statement,
10 moving around? Are you having difficulties? 10 somebody showed you a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper,
11 A. No, I’m just getting my power plug, sorry. There’s 11 didn’t they?
12 no one else here. 12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. Yes. I ’m just giving you time to make sure you’ve got 13 Q. And you said you couldn’t recall Craig ever sending you
14 the power supply. 14 that document?
15 (Pause). 15 A. I said we had received numerous documents and bits of
16 A. All good. 16 information from him. That could have been one of them.
17 Q. Thanks very much. 17 Q. But you couldn’t −−
18 So all I was putting to you, Mr Lynam, was that in 18 A. They were all pretty similar .
19 your witness statement, you draw a connection between 19 Q. You couldn’t single that out from many documents Craig
20 the code that you were running and ”the hacking stuff 20 had sent you?
21 Craig had been doing”, and I was suggesting to you that 21 A. No, because it was all talking about the same things.
22 ”the hacking stuff” was White Hat or ethical hacking to 22 Q. And you don’t describe particular contents of that paper
23 probe the IT security vulnerabilities of a system. 23 in your witness statement, do you?
24 A. So, yeah, it was authorisations. So, you know, whether 24 A. No. I wasn’t asked about it.
25 you’re −− when you’re trying to get into a system, you 25 Q. You’re not somebody yourself who have a detailed

33 35

1 need to have passwords and stuff like that, so you need 1 understanding of cryptocurrencies, are you, Mr Lynam?
2 authorisations , and the keys need to go backwards and 2 A. Detailed, no. Fundamental, from an IT systems
3 forwards, and that’s the same thing for 3 perspective, yes.
4 the cryptographic keys is exactly the same as well for 4 Q. Now, you told the court in Oslo that you had
5 when you’re doing that as well. So it ’s all related to 5 a recollection of Craig sending you some documents
6 the same body of work and expertise that Craig had been 6 dealing with technologies on which he worked at
7 working on. 7 Lasseters , but is it right that your recollection in
8 Q. Now −− 8 the Oslo case was, understandably, quite vague?
9 A. And so that’s what the program was. It was working with 9 A. I only answered the questions that were given to me, so
10 something to do with that. 10 if the questions weren’t asking for any specifics , then
11 Q. Now, in your witness statement, you don’t say that you 11 they may come across as being vague, I guess.
12 were sworn to secrecy about the running of this code, do 12 Q. You haven’t retained any of Craig Wright’s messages that
13 you? 13 he sent you over the years , the emails or messaging
14 A. No. 14 applications discussing particular ideas , have you?
15 Q. And you didn’t say in your evidence in Norway that you’d 15 A. Well, it would be almost impossible to do so in that
16 been sworn to secrecy about the running of that code, 16 the companies that we used for messaging back then have
17 did you? 17 been sold two or three times and not even any of
18 A. No. 18 the user names work any more, let alone a record of
19 Q. As far as you knew, you could tell anyone that you were 19 the messages. The email server and domain that we used
20 running Craig for code or that your father was? 20 during that period of time when we were on the farm was
21 A. I could, yeah. 21 disposed of and the servers shut down, and the other
22 Q. And as far as you and your father knew, anyone could 22 methodologies that we used for messaging back then were
23 look at the code that was being run? 23 IRC and other instant messaging that doesn’t have
24 A. Well, I wouldn’t have thought so, because Craig sent it 24 a history available , it was just direct messaging. So
25 to us, so Craig had it , we had it −− 25 there would be no way for us to be able to have that

34 36

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 unless I purposely took back−ups for some reason, which 1 said ’ ’Well, yeah, so like what does that mean?’,
2 at that point in time I didn’t really think there was 2 because we ... had no idea what it was and he
3 any reason to take back−ups of everything and keep it 3 said ’Well, each of those, you know, processes that were
4 for the next, you know, 12/15 years or whatever it is. 4 running ... each of those, you earn a little bit ...
5 Q. Mr Lynam, I’m not criticising you for a moment. I’m 5 earn you a little bit of Bitcoin ... ”
6 just making this point: you have had to give your 6 Do you see that?
7 evidence, understandably, without any documents from 7 A. Mm−hm.
8 the time to refresh your memory, haven’t you? 8 Q. So based on that answer, you had no idea what mining
9 A. That’s correct . Apart from what’s been supplied. 9 Bitcoin was before you went to that dinner; that’s
10 Q. And you don’t say, do you, in your witness statement or 10 right , isn ’ t it ?
11 in your evidence in Granath that Craig ever swore you to 11 A. That’s correct .
12 secrecy or stressed the confidentiality of any of 12 Q. And up until that time, you didn’t think your running of
13 the ideas or papers he shared with you? 13 computers for Craig was earning rewards in digital
14 A. He did not. 14 currency, did you?
15 Q. May we move on then to another subject, which is 15 A. That’s correct .
16 a dinner you had with Craig and his new wife, Ramona, in 16 Q. And before that dinner, you didn’t have any belief that
17 2013 {E/13/7}. 17 Craig had invented Bitcoin? Because you didn’t even
18 A. Mm−hm. 18 know what Bitcoin mining was?
19 Q. In your statement, you say that you’d heard 19 A. Well, before the dinner, no.
20 the term ”bitcoin” before this dinner; is that right? 20 Q. Now, were you aware that around the time −−
21 A. Correct. 21 A. Sorry, I think −− I think it’s probably a difference
22 Q. So, by that stage, had Bitcoin started to feature in 22 between blockchain and Bitcoin. So, I knew he’d been
23 the news that you were watching? 23 doing stuff with blockchain, but I didn’t know that we’d
24 A. Well, I was in the tech industry , so it was part of what 24 been mining Bitcoin. So blockchain was −− is −− is
25 people talked about in the tech industry . 25 different to Bitcoin in that Bitcoin’s like a −−

37 39

1 Q. But at that stage, you didn’t understand that the code 1 a currency, like , you know, all the other blockchain
2 that you had been running had anything to do with 2 currencies and stuff like that.
3 Bitcoin, did you? 3 Q. Well, we’ve already established that at the time you
4 A. Well, not directly , no, I guess. 4 were running the code, as far as you were concerned, it
5 Q. May we have on screen {O3/3/8}, and this is where you 5 was an unknown bit of code, wasn’t it?
6 were asked about this dinner in the case in Oslo. 6 A. So, it was code that was validating the cryptographic
7 A. Mm−hm. 7 keys, like I said before. It was validating
8 Q. And about six or seven lines down your long answer, 8 the cryptographic keys. I knew, by that stage, that it
9 you’re recorded as saying this : 9 had had something to do with blockchain, because it was
10 ” ... we were sitting down to dinner. Craig asked if 10 the stuff that was underlying Bitcoin and whatever else
11 we still had the computer that we’d been using, at which 11 was around at that stage.
12 point in time ... my dad said, ’Well, no, we threw it in 12 Q. Now, Mr −−
13 the skip , you know, the big metal rubbish bins when we 13 A. And so the blockchain stuff, I was aware that Craig had
14 were clearing out the farm and it wasn’t of any value to 14 had stuff to do with. Bitcoin itself , I didn’t know we
15 us, you know, the hardware was already a few years old 15 were running a Bitcoin mining application on our
16 and stuff as well and my dad wanted to buy a new 16 computer, but for it to be doing the transaction
17 computer, so that was a good excuse to chuck everything. 17 authorisation and so forth, I was aware that it was
18 And to which Craig said, ’Well, you know, you should 18 doing that type of thing, but not mining Bitcoin, which
19 have kept it , it might be worth some money’. And so, we 19 is a different thing.
20 had a bit of a chat about that. So, what do you mean 20 Q. Mr Lynam, you don’t say in your witness statement, and
21 it ’s worth money? It’s this , you know, computer that’s 21 you didn’t say in your evidence in Oslo, that you were
22 a few years old and, you know, it’s not really worth 22 aware of Craig having produced something called
23 anything, you know, a couple of years after you have it . 23 blockchain before 2013, do you?
24 And he said, ’Well that program that you were running 24 A. I would believe that in my statement in Oslo where I was
25 was mining Bitcoin the whole time’. And we sort of 25 talk −− where I was asked specifically about

38 40

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 the White Paper, I’d been specifically asked about 1 Q. Now, did Craig Wright ever tell you that a friend of his
2 the White Paper and what it was. I didn’t know that it 2 called David Kleiman had supposedly kept records of
3 was Bitcoin, but the concept around blockchain, whether 3 the Bitcoin mining carried out at your father ’s farm?
4 it was called that at the time or whether it was called 4 A. No.
5 something else, that concept around that and what had 5 Q. May we bring on screen {L7/210/1}, please. Now, this is
6 been done with it, that had been something that I was 6 a document you may not have seen, Mr Lynam. I’m just
7 aware Craig was doing. 7 going to see if you have seen it or recognise any of its
8 Q. Okay, so let’s just examine this. 8 contents. It ’s a supposed corporate memo for a business
9 First of all , you say that you don’t know that 9 called Wright & Kleiman ID, and the last paragraph on
10 the word ”blockchain” was used when you were running 10 the page −− this is dated 26 March 2011.
11 the code, right? 11 My Lord, this certainly isn ’ t accepted as authentic.
12 A. Pardon me? 12 It says:
13 Q. You’ve just said you can’t say that 13 ”All records of mining from machines owned by
14 the word ”blockchain” was used when you were running 14 Don Lynam, Gareth Williams, Julie Laimer and Max are
15 the code; correct? 15 with David Kleiman.”
16 A. That’s correct . 16 Do you see that? Yes?
17 Q. And we’ve already established that, as far as you knew, 17 A. Yeah, that’s what it says on screen.
18 the code was an unknown bit of code which you likened to 18 Q. So you weren’t aware of David Kleiman having records of
19 Craig’s ethical hacking work, making a connection simply 19 mining from machines owned by your father, were you?
20 with cryptographic work; is that right? 20 A. No.
21 A. So what’s the ”making a connection”? Are you saying I’m 21 Q. Second page, please {L7/210/2}, one−third down:
22 creating a connection between that, as opposed to 22 ”DK ...”
23 specifically knowing that it was around 23 That’s an abbreviation for David Kleiman:
24 the cryptographic work? Is that what −− 24 ” ... holds other assets and maintains a list of
25 Q. What I’m suggesting to you is that in saying that this 25 owners (including himself and esp. ... ”

41 43

1 code was something to do with blockchain, you are 1 Presumably ”especially”:

2 looking at things through the prism of hindsight, 2 ” ... Don Lynam).”
3 thinking that Craig produced blockchain, aren’t you, 3 Again, that wasn’t an arrangement you knew about?
4 Mr Lynam? 4 A. No.
5 A. The work that had been being done was around the concept 5 Q. Then {L7/195/1}, please. I’m going to bring up another
6 of blockchain. 6 document you may not have seen. Now, this is a limited
7 Q. Well, my suggestion to you is that you were not au fait 7 liability company agreement of W&K Info Defence
8 with the details of this code or the details of the work 8 Research, that’s Wright & Kleiman Info Defence Research,
9 that it represented. 9 a limited liability company, supposedly from
10 A. You mean apart from the papers that had been −− and 10 February 2011, another document from Dr Wright’s
11 concepts and ideas that had been discussed? 11 disclosure ; do you see that?
12 Q. We’ve already addressed those, so I’ ll move −− I’ll 12 A. Okay.
13 return to the dinner. 13 Q. Is that a document you’ve ever seen?
14 Were you aware at the time of the 2013 dinner that 14 A. No, not that I can recall .
15 Craig had disputes with the Australian Tax Office? 15 Q. Page 13, please {L7/195/13}. By letter B, there is
16 A. No. 16 a clause dealing with what happens if the company is
17 Q. Were you aware that those included disputes about 17 wound up, and do you see at (i), halfway down the page
18 whether he had infrastructure mining Bitcoin? 18 that’s on screen, it says that:
19 A. No. 19 ”Assets, including all token assets held in trust by
20 Q. Based on what you say about the dinner, Craig was 20 the members of W&K for the originating third parties
21 telling you that because you’d thrown away 21 will be distributed in accordance with the initial
22 the computers, anything you might have earned from this 22 allocation of CPU power used in the creation of
23 supposed Bitcoin mining had been lost; is that right? 23 the system. These parties include :
24 A. Well, yes, that if we’d have kept the computers, we 24 ”’Wright International Investments Limited
25 would have been able to turn it into bitcoins . 25 ”Lynn Wright

42 44

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 ”Don Lynam 1 A. I was aware that Craig’s claim to be the primary creator
2 ”Max Lynam 2 of Bitcoin had been challenged.
3 ”Julie Laimer [and] 3 Q. And did you become aware that he’d been criticised in
4 ”Gareth Williams” 4 the media for not proving that claim?
5 We see you’re named along with a British 5 A. I understand that there have been lots of people saying
6 security services agent called Gareth Williams. 6 different people or other people or no one is Satoshi.
7 A. Mm−hm. 7 There’s all sorts of rubbish going around the crypto
8 Q. Were you aware, or did you ever think that you might 8 world around all of that sort of stuff , from what I’ve
9 receive a distribution of a company’s assets as a result 9 seen.
10 of you running bits of code for Craig? 10 Q. And is it right that you later became aware of his legal
11 A. No. 11 battles over his claim to be Satoshi?
12 Q. We can take that off screen now. 12 A. Aware of his legal battles to be the primary creator of
13 Now, you say that, in late 2015, you discovered that 13 Bitcoin? Yes.
14 Craig had been publicly identified in some magazines as 14 Q. May we look at some emails from 2019. {L15/322/3},
15 Satoshi Nakamoto, the −− 15 please. Again, this is an email we can’t authenticate
16 A. Mm−hm. 16 and there are in fact some oddities about the appearance
17 Q. −− pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. Do you recall 17 of its text , but it ’s a document in the disclosure and
18 saying that? 18 so I ’m going to ask you about it to see if you recognise
19 A. Yeah. 19 it .
20 Q. And that was the first time you’d ever heard the name 20 Do you see, at the bottom of page 3, there’s an
21 Satoshi Nakamoto, wasn’t it? 21 email ostensibly from Craig at his rcjbr email address?
22 A. No, I would have heard the name Satoshi Nakamoto, 22 A. Yeah.
23 because I was working in tech and computers and some of 23 Q. And we’ll see further up that it appears to be written
24 the people were doing Bitcoin stuff , so −− but with 24 to you and to your father, amongst others:
25 someone saying that it was Craig was Satoshi Nakamoto −− 25 ”I sincerely apologise for not having called you.

45 47

1 Q. May we have {E/13/7}, paragraph 27, first sentence: 1 I ’m emailing because the time is work out better.
2 ”I first heard the name Satoshi Nakamoto when Craig 2 The problem with Australia as it happens to be
3 was outed by the media.” 3 the flipside of everything.”
4 Is that right or wrong? 4 Then he refers to some time zones and he says that
5 A. No, I probably read it ’s relating to Craig, yes. 5 he misses everyone in the family.
6 Q. No, you don’t say, ”I first heard the name 6 Over the page, please, to page 4 {L15/322/4}, you
7 Satoshi Nakamoto in connection with Craig when he was 7 see he refers to a dispute with someone called
8 outed by the media”, you say, ”I first heard the name 8 Peter McCormack. Is that a name that you recall? Do
9 Satoshi Nakamoto when Craig was outed by the media”. Is 9 you see that, top of the page:
10 that written wrongly? 10 ”People like McCormack ...”
11 A. I don’t know. It ’s possibly right . 11 Do you remember that name?
12 Q. And did you also become aware in late 2015 or early 2016 12 A. No, it doesn’t particularly stand out.
13 that his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto had been 13 Q. Then back to page 3, please {L15/322/3}, to see
14 challenged? 14 the reply at the top of the page. A reply from
15 A. I think it ’s Craig’s −− so there’s a creator of Bitcoin 15 Don Lynam, apparently copying you, second paragraph:
16 or the person who created Bitcoin, with that being 16 ”I have only just got off the phone from part of
17 Craig, as opposed to Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi Nakamoto 17 your legal team led by Simon. Trying to remember so far
18 is sort of, like , fairly irrelevant as a name. 18 back is difficult to be certain of dates or even years.
19 Q. Just −− can I just −− 19 More immediately now, I called Max to see what he
20 A. To me. 20 recalled and stored. His memories are even more vague
21 Q. Can I just repeat the question so that you’re able to 21 than mine.”
22 answer it . 22 Do you recall receiving that email? It was
23 Did you become aware, in late 2015 or early 2016, 23 four years ago, so you may not.
24 that Craig’s claim to be Satoshi had been challenged, 24 A. This particular one, it was part of a thread.
25 had been disputed? 25 I remember the thread about this −− about catching up

46 48

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 and this stuff . So I would have read this one as part 1 A. Yeah.
2 of that thread. 2 Q. And based on the fact that you wrote it, is that
3 Q. Now, your father appears to be saying that he discussed 3 correct?
4 your memories going back some years to a period of 4 A. I would say so.
5 interest , and that your memories were even more vague 5 MR HOUGH: My Lord, those are all my questions.
6 than his . Do you recall saying something like that? 6 LORD GRABINER: Thank you very much indeed.
7 A. Well, he said it , I didn’t say it −− 7 I have no further questions. And thank you for
8 Q. No, but do you recall −− he’s saying that he’s called 8 attending today, Mr Lynam, because I’m told you’ve not
9 you to see what you’ve recalled and that your memories 9 been feeling well today, so I wish you better and thank
10 are even more vague than his. What I’m asking you is, 10 you very much.
11 was he right to say that you’d said that? 11 A. Thank you.
12 A. Well, what −− what was he asking me about? 12 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you, Mr Lynam. That completes
13 Q. Well, I don’t know, Mr Lynam, I’m basing this on an 13 your evidence and you’re released from your affirmation.
14 email that your father sent where he said −− 14 Thank you.
15 A. Yes, so, he might have asked me something that I’m not 15 (The witness withdrew)
16 aware of. I ’m not sure what he’s saying that my 16 LORD GRABINER: My Lord, the next witness is
17 memories are more vague than his on. What’s he talking 17 Stefan Matthews. He was due to start this afternoon,
18 about? What’s the ... 18 but he’s here now, so we could start straight away,
19 Q. Okay. 19 subject to a −− whether or not your Lordship thinks we
20 Further down the email −− if we can have the image 20 should have a break.
21 on screen that we had before −− your father appears to 21 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Well, we’ll give the −−
22 have said: 22 THE VHM MANAGER: Sorry, my Lord, I just would need to move
23 ”My recollection (or dream??) is that you set me up 23 that screen round.
24 to mine Bitcoin in the very earliest days ... ” 24 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Sure. Okay, well, let’s take
25 Then page 2 {L15/322/2}, middle of the page, 25 a ten−minute break there. Thanks.

49 51

1 Dr Wright insists that this is not a fantasy. 1 (11.59 am)

2 Then page 1 {L15/322/1}, your email in the chain. 2 (A short break)
3 A. Mm−hm. 3 (12.11 pm)
4 Q. An email of 11 September 2019. Is this an email that 4 LORD GRABINER: Mr Matthews is here, my Lord.
5 you think you wrote, just looking at the contents and 5 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Good, thanks.
6 style ? 6 MR STEFAN MATTHEWS (affirmed)
7 A. Mm. 7 Examination−in−chief by LORD GRABINER
8 Q. Yes? 8 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Do sit down.
9 A. Yeah. 9 A. Thank you.
10 Q. If we look down the page to after the general discussion 10 LORD GRABINER: Good morning, Mr Matthews. Actually,
11 of −− 11 strictly speaking, good afternoon, Mr Matthews.
12 A. Mm. 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. −− family affairs: 13 Q. You’ve made two witness statements in these proceedings,
14 ”With all the old files and such, we chucked out 14 and I just want you to confirm their accuracy.
15 a heap of digital records, software and hardware in 15 The first one will be on the screen in front of you
16 the last few years, as was all so old and didn’t 16 now {E/5/2}. That’s the front page. And then
17 recognise any perceived value and requirement for it ... 17 the signature page is at {E/5/27}. Is that your
18 so no idea where we’d find stuff . I remember the old 18 signature?
19 hacking days and all the ’weird’ stuff I sorta hassled 19 A. Yes, it is .
20 you about asking what the hell you were building from 20 Q. And are the contents of that statement true?
21 time to time ... guess it all turned into the blockchain 21 A. Yes, they are.
22 stuff you were working on, but as I said at the time 22 Q. And then can we go to the second witness statement,
23 [that] was a bit beyond my expertise.” 23 which is at {E/27/2}. That’s the front page. And then
24 And then a sort of frowny face symbol. Do you 24 the signing page {E/27/9}. Again, is that your
25 recall writing that? 25 signature?

50 52

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 A. Yes, it is . 1 subsidiaries ...; and

2 Q. And are the contents of that statement true? 2 ”The acquisition of a Canadian financial services
3 A. Yes, they are. 3 group ... ” −−
4 LORD GRABINER: Thank you very much. 4 A. Sorry, where are you reading?
5 Cross−examination by MR HOUGH 5 Q. Right at the top?
6 MR HOUGH: Good afternoon, Mr Matthews. 6 A. Ah, yes. Okay.
7 May we begin with some questions I’ve been asking 7 Q. ”The acquisition of a Canadian financial services
8 all the witnesses. First of all , have you watched any 8 group ... ”
9 periods of Craig Wright giving evidence over remote link 9 Do you see that? Are those statements at the top of
10 in this trial ? 10 the page correct?
11 A. None whatsoever. 11 A. Did you say Canadian?
12 Q. Have you read any transcripts or received any reports of 12 Q. Well, it says here:
13 his evidence, whether that’s a written report or 13 ”The nChain Group was formed as a result of ...”
14 something said to you? 14 Bullet point 1 −−
15 A. No, I haven’t. 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. Have you read any social media or mainstream media 16 Q. −− ”The purchase and transfer to nChain Holdings of
17 accounts or commentary on this trial or his evidence? 17 [ intellectual property rights ] created by an Australian
18 A. No, I haven’t. 18 company named DeMorgan Limited ...”
19 Q. Thank you. 19 A. Yes.
20 Are you currently the executive chairman and CEO of 20 Q. ” ... and its subsidiaries ... ”
21 the nChain Group? 21 And bullet point 2:
22 A. Yes, I am. 22 ”The acquisition ... ” −−
23 Q. You’re also, as you tell us in your statement, 23 A. Oh yes.
24 a shareholder in the group. 24 Q. −− ”... of a Canadian financial services group −−
25 A. I personally am not a shareholder. My family trust has 25 nTrust.”

53 55

1 shares. 1 A. Yes, that’s true.

2 Q. You tell us that the shareholding that is held is less 2 Q. Then if we go down the page we see, under (b), ”Origins
3 than 10%? 3 of the nChain IPR”, and the intellectual property rights
4 A. That is correct . 4 are described in the first paragraph as tracing back to
5 Q. Are you able to estimate its current value? 5 Dr Craig Wright, yes?
6 A. Value? 6 A. Mm−hm.
7 Q. Yes. 7 Q. And his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is prominently
8 A. No. 8 stated there, isn ’ t it ?
9 Q. You have no idea what the value −− 9 A. It is .
10 A. It ’s a private company, so we don’t have a share price. 10 Q. Take that off screen for the moment.
11 Q. Would you accept that nChain Group was originally 11 Calvin Ayre. Is it right that you’ve worked with
12 established to acquire intellectual property rights of 12 Calvin Ayre for many years, going back at least to 2011?
13 DeMorgan, Dr Wright’s company, and to carry forward work 13 A. That’s technically incorrect . I worked for a company
14 of Dr Wright? 14 that operated under the brand Bodog. Calvin Ayre was
15 A. Correct. 15 not operationally involved in that business; he had
16 Q. May we look please at a document on screen {L13/34/1}. 16 licensed the Bodog brand to that company.
17 Do you recognise this as an information memorandum 17 Q. For how long have you known Mr Ayre as a business
18 of the nChain Group dating from December 2016? 18 colleague or associate?
19 A. Yes, I do. 19 A. I would say I first met Mr Ayre in Manila in 2011.
20 Q. Page 2, please {L14/34/2}. Top of the page, 20 Q. Now, {L19/210/1}, another document on screen, please.
21 the document states that: 21 This is an article on the Switzerland Global Enterprise
22 ”The nChain Group was formed as a result of: 22 website, and page 4, please {L19/210/4}, an article of
23 ”The purchase and transfer to nChain Holdings of 23 11 August 2023. It refers to:
24 IPR [ intellectual property rights ] created by an 24 ”Ayre Group based in London is investing up to
25 Australian company named DeMorgan ... and its 25 500 million Swiss francs in [the] nChain blockchain

54 56

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 company from the Greater Zurich Area.” 1 it ’s fair to say that you spent a fair amount of your
2 Is it right that Mr Ayre’s group of companies 2 time in the preparations for the big reveal , didn’t you?
3 invested up to 500 million Swiss francs in the nChain 3 A. I spent most of my time dealing with the conflict
4 parent company around that time? 4 between Dr Wright and Robert MacGregor.
5 A. It depends on how you define ”invested”. Mr Ayre’s 5 Q. We’ll come to that.
6 companies acquired share −− shares that were held by 6 And more recently, you’ve spent time engaging with
7 another shareholder. Mr Ayre did not invest cash, 7 lawyers engaged by nTrust, including Zafar Ali KC and
8 liquidity , into the company. 8 Ted Loveday, haven’t you?
9 Q. Is Mr Ayre a person with significant control of the UK 9 A. I had only one −− one time I ever met Ted Loveday, and
10 subsidiary of the nChain Group, the UK operating 10 I wouldn’t call that an engagement. I was introduced to
11 company? 11 Zafar by Christen Ager−Hanssen, and I, again, would
12 A. Could you repeat that question, please? 12 hesitate in calling that an engagement.
13 Q. Sure. Is Mr Ayre a person with significant control of 13 Q. How many meetings did you have with Zafar Ali?
14 the UK operating company within the nChain Group? 14 A. I would say maybe four or five.
15 A. No. Mr Ayre is a significant shareholder in the holding 15 Q. Was Zafar Ali retained by and paid by the company
16 company. 16 nChain?
17 Q. So if he’s identified on Companies House −− or 17 A. No.
18 the Companies House website as a person with significant 18 Q. By whom was he engaged and paid?
19 control of the UK company, that’s an error, is it ? 19 A. I believe he was engaged by Christen Ager−Hanssen, and
20 A. No, it ’s under advice, when required to list a UBO, we 20 he was introduced as a very, very close friend who could
21 were advised that we should list Mr Ayre because of his 21 give advice.
22 shareholding in a holding company. 22 Q. Over the years, you’ve also given interviews and
23 Q. If we move to page 5 of this article {L19/210/5} and go 23 quotations supporting Dr Wright’s claims, haven’t you,
24 to the bottom of the page: 24 Mr Matthews?
25 ”Ayre Group Founder Calvin Ayre stated: ’For 25 A. Can you explain that further?

57 59

1 the better part of a decade, nChain and its London−based 1 Q. Well, you’ve given interviews , such as to CoinGeek, and
2 Chief Scientist Dr Craig Wright have been quietly 2 you’ve given quotations to people writing articles in
3 amassing a patent portfolio of unparalleled scope ... ” 3 the media about Dr Wright’s claim, in support of it,
4 And so on. Do you see that? 4 haven’t you?
5 A. I see it . 5 A. Well, I believe Craig Wright is Satoshi, so, yes.
6 Q. So Mr Ayre, on that occasion, based on that quotation, 6 Q. And you’ve been involved with at least one other company
7 was holding out nChain as essentially based on 7 seeking to profit from the work of Dr Wright,
8 Dr Wright’s work and his patent portfolio; is that 8 the company Squire Mining, haven’t you?
9 right? 9 A. Craig Wright had nothing to do with Squire Mining −− oh,
10 A. I wouldn’t agree with that. 10 sorry , he did take a shareholding position in a −−
11 Q. Well, he was giving that as the principal selling point 11 a capital raise that occurred at one stage, yes, you are
12 of the company, wasn’t he? 12 right .
13 A. It ’s one facet of nChain, it ’s not the only facet of 13 Q. I ’ ll come back to that in a moment.
14 nChain. 14 {M1/1/707}, please. The document will come up on
15 Q. We can take that off screen. 15 screen.
16 Would you accept this, that since 2015, you have 16 This is a letter from Clyde & Co solicitors on
17 spent, yourself , a fair amount of time promoting 17 behalf of Zafar Ali KC and Ted Loveday in response to
18 Craig Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto? 18 a complaint that had been made about the mock trial
19 A. At various times, yes. 19 exercise −−
20 Q. And in particular , in early to mid−2016, you did quite 20 A. Sorry, in relation to what?
21 a lot of work as part of preparing for his big reveal as 21 Q. So this is a letter of 10 November 2023.
22 Satoshi, didn’t you? 22 A. Mm?
23 A. That period in 2016 was not −− was not directed or 23 Q. From solicitors who were acting for Zafar Ali and
24 managed by me. 24 Ted Loveday?
25 Q. We’ll come to who made decisions in that period, but 25 A. Mm−hm.

58 60

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 Q. What they’re doing here is answering a letter from 1 prominently referred to Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi?
2 Macfarlanes, who represent developers in this case, 2 A. Yeah.
3 complaining about the professional propriety of doing 3 Q. That document featured Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi
4 the mock trial exercise . Do you understand? 4 because it was thought to improve the appeal of
5 A. Who’s complaining to who? 5 the company in the market, right?
6 Q. Macfarlanes, on behalf of the developers, complained to 6 A. No, I would disagree with that.
7 Mr Ali and Mr Loveday −− 7 Q. Why −−
8 A. I understand now. 8 A. We weren’t going to market.
9 Q. −− their professional conduct, and then they instructed 9 Q. Why do you say that Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi was
10 solicitors , Clyde & Co, who wrote this letter on their 10 prominently featured in the company’s IM?
11 behalf. Is the context now clear? 11 A. Just for reference , because it ’s true.
12 A. Yes. 12 Q. And it’s because nChain stands to benefit from
13 Q. And paragraph 2, they say −− Clyde & Co say on behalf of 13 Craig Wright being Satoshi that it went to the trouble
14 Mr Ali and Mr Loveday: 14 and cost of retaining lawyers to work on this case;
15 ” ... our clients were instructed by nChain UK 15 that’s right , isn ’ t it ?
16 Limited ... ” 16 A. NChain haven’t retained lawyers to work on this case.
17 Pausing there, is it right that they were instructed 17 Q. Would you accept this at least, that nChain, a company
18 by nChain UK Limited? 18 whose whole business is crypto technology, would
19 A. No. 19 benefit , or stand to benefit if Dr Wright was found to
20 Q. It then says that −− it then describes nChain UK Limited 20 be the founder of cryptocurrencies?
21 as: 21 A. NChain is not a crypto company. NChain is a blockchain
22 ” ... the funder and supporter of litigation 22 software research company. It doesn’t trade in cryptos,
23 involving Dr Wright ...” 23 it doesn’t create cryptos, it doesn’t −− it doesn’t have
24 Is that right or wrong? 24 any connection with cryptos.
25 A. That is incorrect . 25 Q. Would you accept that nChain, giving it the description

61 63

1 Q. So, is it right or wrong that nChain has provided 1 you’ve given it , would stand to benefit if Dr Wright
2 funding for Dr Wright’s litigation , directly or 2 were found to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of
3 indirectly ? 3 the Bitcoin technology and the blockchain?
4 A. That is incorrect . 4 A. NChain’s value is in its intellectual property and its
5 Q. You’re saying that nChain has never provided funding, 5 products. Just because Dr Wright’s name appears on
6 even indirectly through loans or transfer of shares, or 6 a number of patent filings doesn’t make those patent
7 anything like that, to support Dr Wright in his 7 filings any more or less valuable. The patents are
8 litigation ? 8 valued on their −− on their ability to be able to
9 A. Correct. 9 generate meaningful solutions.
10 Unless you call ” indirect ” the receipt of either 10 Q. So you don’t think nChain, despite prominently touting
11 employee salary or consulting fees . But in the way you 11 Dr Wright’s claim in its IM, would stand to benefit if
12 put it , the answer is no. 12 that claim were found to be right?
13 Q. How do you say, to your knowledge, Dr Wright’s 13 A. I don’t think the value of nChain’s patents change at
14 litigation has been funded, including his costs in these 14 all ; it ’s the technology which is the value. The fact
15 proceedings? 15 that it was created or partially created by Dr Wright
16 A. I ’ve never been involved in −− in details of how 16 and others within the research team I don’t think adds
17 Dr Wright has funded these proceedings. Anything I may 17 any −− any −− or detracts any value one way or
18 have read would only be hearsay. 18 the other.
19 Q. We can take that off screen. 19 Q. You don’t think it would have any effect on nChain’s
20 Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi featured in 20 value or its profitability as a business?
21 the information memorandum for nChain because it was 21 A. Well, we’ve never −− we’ve never relied on that, despite
22 thought valuable to the commercial appeal of the company 22 what you’ve been asserting.
23 and the market, right? 23 Q. Well, it ’s a simple question, and I think you still
24 A. Sorry, in what document? 24 haven’t answered. You’re saying, are you, that you
25 Q. Well, we looked at the nChain memorandum which 25 don’t think nChain’s value or profitability would be

62 64

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 improved by Dr Wright being found to be Satoshi? 1 have to ask him, not me.
2 A. Not by any material value, no. 2 Q. Would you accept that BSV’s price has been highly
3 Q. Now, you acknowledge in your witness statement that your 3 volatile , reaching, at some times, a price of over
4 family trust has holdings of BSV which were worth 4 400 US as against its price at the start of this trial
5 US$400−450,000 at the price that obtained at the time of 5 of 70 US?
6 your first witness statement {E/5/25}; is that right? 6 A. I think all digital assets have been highly volatile
7 A. That’s correct . 7 over that period of time, BSV no different to any other.
8 Q. Does Mr Ayre also have substantial holdings in BSV, 8 Q. This is a digital asset in which your family trust has
9 either directly or indirectly ? 9 holdings of $400,000 to $450,000 worth. You would have
10 A. I have no idea. I ’m not involved in Mr Ayre’s business. 10 a particular interest in the price of this asset ,
11 Q. {L20/252.3/1}, please. Look at the top of the page. 11 wouldn’t you?
12 This is a tweet from Mr Ayre on 28 December 2023: 12 A. I am not a trader. I don’t buy and sell cryptos.
13 ”So I tell my guy to tell one of our banks in Europe 13 I acquired my BSV a long time ago, and I don’t follow
14 yesterday to start to buy slow as I am all in on Craig 14 the price on a daily basis . My interest is in
15 winning and the market roars today ... they were just 15 the technology of nChain, not the price of BSV.
16 waiting for me to put my money where my mouth is.” 16 Q. Would you accept that, as Mr Ayre appears to think,
17 How do you understand this tweet? 17 the price of BSV may be influenced by a conclusion that
18 A. I didn’t post the tweet. 18 Dr Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto or isn’t in proceedings
19 Q. I ’m just asking what you understand it to mean, reading 19 around the world?
20 it now. 20 A. You’d have to ask Mr Ayre, not me.
21 A. He’s instructing his −− his banks to buy BSV slowly. 21 Q. You yourself don’t draw any link, do you, between
22 What else am I to understand? I haven’t discussed that 22 the price of BSV and the success or failure of
23 with Mr Ayre and nor would I normally discuss those type 23 Dr Wright’s claims to be Satoshi?
24 of things with Mr Ayre. He has a family office that 24 A. BSV was not and is not a crypto where it lives and dies
25 looks after his private business. 25 on its price and its trading volumes. BSV is a token

65 67

1 Q. So Mr Ayre, based on his own tweet, was telling his 1 that is directly linked to the utility of the BSV
2 banks to start buying BSV slowly, and he links that in 2 blockchain. NChain’s business is about developing
3 this tweet, doesn’t he, to Craig’s prospect of success 3 applications that sit on the BSV blockchain and thus
4 in this litigation ? 4 delivering utility to the chain. The price of the token
5 A. You could interpret that, yes. 5 −− if the price of the token were to be extremely high,
6 Q. Are you saying you just weren’t aware of Mr Ayre having 6 that would be detrimental to some of the business
7 that financial interest in this litigation , you just had 7 applications on the BSV blockchain, and I say ”business
8 no idea? 8 applications” because that’s one of the things that
9 A. I ’m not sure what you’re saying about his financial 9 clearly distinguishes BSV from other blockchains.
10 interest in the litigation , but this is the first time 10 Q. But if the price were to be very high, that would be
11 I think I ’ve read this particular post. 11 beneficial for your family trust holdings, which could
12 Q. Are you telling the court you had no knowledge of 12 be sold at a high price , right?
13 Mr Ayre trading in BSV, as this tweet suggests, based 13 A. It would also be detrimental to the transactional price
14 upon the outcome of this litigation ? 14 on BSV.
15 A. No, I don’t have any knowledge, and nor would I normally 15 My investment in BSV was no different to making a −−
16 have any knowledge, because I’m not involved in 16 an investment in stock, an equity that I would hold,
17 Mr Ayre’s personal business. And whether −− whether he 17 because I believed in the utility of the chain and its
18 instructed , as he suggests in this tweet, or other 18 future , not because I’m a trader.
19 otherwise, I would have no way of knowing. 19 Q. Next, please, {L13/492/2}.
20 Q. We can take that off screen. 20 A. Excuse me, is there any possibility of getting some
21 Would you accept that the tweet, on its face, 21 water?
22 suggests a link between the outcome of this litigation 22 MR HOUGH: Of course.
23 and the price of BSV? 23 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, certainly.
24 A. I don’t know what Mr Ayre was trying to imply. I didn’t 24 MR HOUGH: That we can arrange.
25 discuss that tweet with him before or after , so you’d 25 A. You’re drying me out!

66 68

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 MR GUNNING: I’ve got some here. 1 introduced to O’Hagan. What was the plan back in
2 A. You’ve got some? 2 May/June −− June 2015 was to engage somebody to write
3 MR GUNNING: Yes. It doesn’t look it, but that is a clean 3 the history of the company, not to write a −− a book on
4 glass . 4 Satoshi Nakamoto. It was the history of the company.
5 A. That’s okay. Fill it up. 5 And the way that MacGregor explained his thinking on
6 MR GUNNING: Or what passes for a clean glass in these 6 that was that it ’s always easier to have somebody
7 places. 7 following the history of the company, collecting
8 A. It ’ ll do. Fill me up. 8 the information as it grows and then obviously at some
9 (Handed). 9 stage a book or material would be released. But it was
10 Thank you. 10 not the intention to release a story about
11 MR HOUGH: Are you okay? 11 Satoshi Nakamoto. We knew that that would come at some
12 A. I ’m fine. 12 stage in the future , but that wasn’t the intention when
13 Q. Now, this is Andrew O’Hagan’s long article ”The Satoshi 13 O’Hagan was originally hired.
14 Affair ”. 14 With O’Hagan’s hiring, MacGregor, an IP lawyer in
15 A. Yeah. 15 his own right, hired a guy, told me about it around
16 Q. I presume you’ve seen and read that −− 16 January −− December/January, told me that there was
17 A. I have indeed. 17 a non−disclosure agreement in place, and there was an
18 Q. Page 12, please {L13/492/12}, bottom paragraph. This is 18 agreement to write a book for £200,000 on the history of
19 describing the plan that existed at the time of the big 19 the company. Well, actually, when we got to
20 reveal effort : 20 the £200,000, MacGregor had changed his story, because
21 ”The plan was always clear to the men behind nCrypt. 21 the WIRED and Gizmodo outing had occurred and MacGregor
22 They would bring Wright to London and set up a research 22 completely changed his strategy for everything that was
23 and development centre for him, with around thirty staff 23 going on.
24 working under him. They would complete the work on his 24 So, going back to this , no, that was not the plan.
25 inventions and patent applications −− he appeared to 25 That was not the plan when we engaged with Craig Wright

69 71

1 have hundreds of them −− and the whole lot would be sold 1 in June 2015. That might well have been what was going
2 as the work of Satoshi Nakamoto, who would be unmasked 2 through MacGregor’s head in January/February 2016, but
3 as part of the project . Once packaged, Matthews and 3 it was not something that I was heavily involved with.
4 MacGregor planned to sell the intellectual property for 4 Q. We can take that off the screen now.
5 upwards of a billion dollars . MacGregor later told me 5 Drawing these threads together, Mr Matthews, it’s
6 he was speaking to Google and Uber, as well as to 6 right , isn ’ t it , you anticipate benefit both to your
7 a number of Swiss banks. ’The plan was to package it all 7 company and to you personally if Dr Wright’s claim to be
8 up and sell it ’ , Matthews told me. ’The plan was never 8 Satoshi Nakamoto is found to be correct, don’t you?
9 to operate it ’ .” 9 A. No. I am going to say it again. I spent a number of
10 The quote that Mr O’Hagan ascribes to you in that 10 years of my life working very hard to grow and expand
11 context, Mr Matthews, did you say that to him? 11 the nChain Group and to get it focused on developing
12 A. That is about as accurate as Andrew reporting on the BBC 12 solutions for government and large enterprise in
13 and other interviews quoting me as making statements in 13 the blockchain space. If I benefit from my shareholding
14 those interviews when I wasn’t even in the building . 14 through the family trust , or if I benefit from my work
15 I ’ve been asked a number of times about O’Hagan’s piece 15 with nChain, it will be because nChain has been
16 and I’d say that 80/85% of it is relatively accurate. 16 successful in its own right, not because of
17 That is not true. MacGregor did say that he was talking 17 Craig Wright.
18 to Google and Uber. I don’t remember him saying about 18 Q. Before we get into the detail of your evidence, I ’d like
19 Swiss banks, but I have no evidence that he ever spoke 19 to ask you about an exchange of messages you had with
20 to anybody. 20 Christen Ager−Hanssen in September 2023. Is it right
21 Let me tell you about MacGregor and O’Hagan. 21 that, on 25 September 2023, you were the chairman of
22 I didn’t know that O’Hagan was engaged in any form until 22 nChain and he was the CEO?
23 roughly the first week of January, when I came to London 23 A. On the 25th? Yes.
24 and was invited to a breakfast with Craig Wright, his 24 Q. {L20/183/1}, please. Now, this is an image of
25 wife, MacGregor and O’Hagan. That was when I was first 25 a WhatsApp exchange apparently between you and

70 72

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 Mr Ager−Hanssen, which he dated, in a tweet, to Monday, 1 get to your story for why you wrote it, okay?
2 25 September 2023. The images of the computer −− 2 A. Mm−hm.
3 the images in the photographs are of a computer with 3 Q. Now, in your response, you didn’t just acknowledge what
4 Dr Wright’s browsing history, as Dr Wright has accepted. 4 Mr Ager−Hanssen had said, did you?
5 Would you agree with that? 5 A. What are you saying?
6 A. No. I don’t know what those images are. I never read 6 Q. Well, you didn’t just say, ”Okay, you’ve said that”, you
7 those images at the time, they were difficult to read on 7 went further, didn’t you?
8 my phone. I really didn’t care what they were. 8 A. Well, I said :
9 Q. Dr Wright has also exhibited a larger photograph of one 9 ”Fuck.
10 of them, which shows him doing web searches in relation 10 ”[What the fuck] is wrong with him.”
11 to some of the documents he’s alleged to have forged, 11 Is that what you’re referring to?
12 apparently with his BDO Drive contents also on screen. 12 Q. Well, your message wasn’t just limited to acknowledging
13 Were you aware of that? 13 that you’d received those messages, was it?
14 A. No. 14 A. No, but my message was: let’s get on with nChain.
15 Q. And Mr Ager−Hanssen tweets these messages: 15 Q. I ’ ll come to that in a second.
16 ”Biggest fake ever. 16 A. I ’m not worried about Craig Wright and what may or may
17 ”I ’m in chock.” 17 not be fake, or not fake, or asserted. It doesn’t worry
18 Which may be ”shock”: 18 me at all . My −− my focus, my problem is nChain.
19 ”What a retarded idiot.” 19 Q. But you didn’t just say that the two of you should focus
20 Do you see that? 20 on your work for nChain, did you? You didn’t just say
21 A. I see it , yes. 21 that?
22 Q. And your reply −− replies are: 22 A. I think I did.
23 ”Fuck. 23 Q. Well, first of all , you expressed surprise at what he’d
24 ”WTF is wrong with him. 24 sent you. That’s what the first expletive , ”Fuck”,
25 ”Well, we have NCH to focus on, that’s not fake.” 25 means, isn’t it ?

73 75

1 In your second witness statement you accept, don’t 1 A. You’re taking this particular exchange completely out of
2 you, that this is a genuine WhatsApp exchange between 2 context. Ager−Hanssen was, and is, a particular style
3 you and Mr Ager−Hanssen, it’s not been doctored or 3 of individual . I was fed up with his −− at that −− what
4 anything? 4 date was this?
5 A. I believe it ’s genuine. I haven’t had it validated , but 5 Q. 25 September 2023.
6 I −− I would accept it as being genuine. 6 A. From the 22nd −− from 22 September until I fired him, he
7 Q. And you say that the background was that Mr Ager−Hanssen 7 was consistently harassing me, threatening me, and
8 had referred to the fact that Dr Wright would need to 8 insisting that I withdraw as a witness in this matter
9 provide an explanation about two new hard drives he’d 9 and making statements to me personally that he would
10 supposedly discovered containing documents not 10 destroy me if I didn’t withdraw as a witness. He and
11 previously disclosed ; is that right? We can go to your 11 Mr Ali called me late at night, around midnight, one
12 statement, if it helps? 12 day, and said, during this period, ”We are arriving in
13 A. Sorry? 13 Switzerland tomorrow morning and we have documents for
14 Q. We can go to your statement, if it helps? 14 you to sign to withdraw as a witness”. I said , ”No, I’m
15 A. No, I’m −− I’m −− I’m fine, yeah. 15 not available ”, ”Then come to London and sign”. I was
16 Q. So did you agree with that proposition? 16 told no less than 20 to 25 times that Ager−Hanssen would
17 A. State that again, please? 17 stop at nothing to destroy me if I came to this
18 Q. The background, according to your statement, was that 18 courtroom.
19 Mr Ager−Hanssen had referred to the fact that Dr Wright 19 Q. Mr Matthews, you may be keen to move away from
20 would need to provide an explanation about the two new 20 the content of the message −−
21 hard drives he had supposedly discovered, right? 21 A. I ’m not keen to move away from the content of
22 A. That’s what I was told at the time and that’s what 22 the message, but you’ve got to take it in context.
23 I believed . 23 Q. −− but the plain meaning of that expletive, in
24 Q. Now, just looking at these messages, I’m, first of all , 24 the context of what he had written, was to express shock
25 going to ask you about what you actually wrote before we 25 or surprise , wasn’t it ?

74 76

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 A. No. It was to tell him what he wanted to hear and then 1 Q. This is not coming out of his mouth, Mr Matthews, this
2 say: let ’s get on with nChain. 2 is coming out of your mouth.
3 Q. And the second message you wrote was: 3 A. Well, ”biggest fake ever” came out of his mouth.
4 ”WTF is wrong with him.” 4 Q. But you say, ”That’s not fake”, in relation to nChain,
5 Yes? 5 and the clear implication is you’re saying Dr Wright is,
6 A. Yes. 6 aren’t you?
7 Q. And ”him” was Craig Wright, wasn’t it? 7 A. No. Ager−Hanssen is saying Craig Wright is fake.
8 A. Yes. 8 Q. Adding those words, ”That’s not fake”, indicated
9 Q. And, again, the meaning was clear. You were agreeing 9 agreement that he was a fake, didn’t it?
10 that Craig Wright had done something stupid or wrong, 10 A. That was not my intention.
11 weren’t you? 11 Q. If we asked any objective observer who knew
12 A. No, I wasn’t. I wasn’t agreeing to any such thing. 12 the background to read those messages and say what they
13 I didn’t care. 13 meant, they would say you were agreeing that Dr Wright
14 Q. I appreciate you say that now, but the plain meaning of 14 was a fake, wouldn’t they?
15 that message is −− 15 A. And that would be wrong.
16 A. Well, this is −− this is the impersonal nature −− 16 Q. {E/27/8}, please, we see your explanation for this . At
17 Q. −− what the fuck is wrong with Craig Wright? 17 paragraph 30 you say that Mr Ager−Hanssen was
18 A. This is the impersonal nature of messages, you can’t 18 relentless , that you wrote these messages in an attempt
19 determine what the emotion of the person is that’s 19 to pacify him, yes?
20 sending them at the time. 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Well, let ’s just focus on the meaning and you can tell 21 Q. You say that you were fed up with Mr Ager−Hanssen
22 me if the meaning is different . The plain meaning of 22 accusing Dr Wright of being a fraud and that you didn’t
23 those words is that something is wrong with 23 believe that Dr Wright was a fraud?
24 Craig Wright, he’s done something stupid or wrong, 24 A. Correct.
25 isn ’ t it ? 25 Q. Now, this message, as we’ve seen, did not just say,

77 79

1 A. That’s not what I meant. That was not the meaning that 1 ”Christen, forget all this nonsense, focus on nChain”,
2 I had. 2 did it ?
3 Q. What do you say is the other meaning of: 3 A. No, it didn’t .
4 ”WTF is wrong with him.” 4 Q. Your message indicated agreement with his view that
5 A. Fuck. What the fuck is wrong with him? Forget 5 Dr Wright was a fake, despite you now saying you
6 about it , move on; let’s go to nChain. That was where 6 strongly disagreed with that view.
7 my thinking was at the time. 7 A. I was putting a position to Ager−Hanssen that would fit
8 Q. That’s not −− you didn’t write, ”Forget him; ignore him; 8 with his assertions so that we could move on.
9 don’t think about Craig Wright”, you wrote, ”WTF is 9 Q. So you say now that you were trying to indicate
10 wrong with him”, in response to these allegations that 10 agreement with his view that Dr Wright was a fake in
11 Mr Ager−Hanssen was making, didn’t you? 11 order just to fob him off; is that what you’re saying?
12 A. No, that’s not true. 12 A. No, I wasn’t agreeing with his view.
13 Q. And the plain meaning of that was agreeing −− 13 Q. You say that’s not what your messages indicated?
14 A. You can −− 14 A. No, that was not my intent. It was a message between he
15 Q. −− that he had done something wrong, wasn’t it? 15 and I and nobody else, and I wanted to move on.
16 A. You can interpret that way if you want, but I’m telling 16 Q. Now, this message −− we can take the witness statement
17 you that that’s not what my intention was. 17 off screen. This exchange happened at a delicate time,
18 Q. And then you write: 18 didn’t it , Mr Matthews?
19 ”Well, we have NCH to focus on, that’s not fake.” 19 A. The 25th?
20 And I think we can agree ”NCH” is nChain? 20 Q. It was three days after the mock trial, wasn’t it ?
21 A. Yes. 21 A. It was.
22 Q. And the words added, ”That’s not fake”, bear the clear 22 Q. It was two days −−
23 implication that Dr Wright was fake, don’t they? 23 A. It was a delicate time, because, as I explained earlier ,
24 A. Everything −− everything that was coming out of 24 I was being bombarded with threats around what was going
25 Ager−Hanssen’s mouth was fake. 25 to happen to me and my family and my reputation. I was

78 80

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 going to be destroyed. Destroyed. And when someone is 1 Q. Your message indicated agreement that Dr Wright, unlike
2 screaming ”destroyed” at you, and smashing their palm on 2 nChain, was a fake, yes?
3 the desk in front of you and their face is 12 inches 3 A. No.
4 away from yours, that’s pretty threatening, and that’s 4 Q. And if that −− on the basis that that is the message, as
5 what I was −− that was what I was subjected to over 5 I ’ve put it to you, that’s not a message you would have
6 a period of three or four days. 6 wanted to deliver to Mr Ager−Hanssen at this time if it
7 Q. This was three days after the mock trial in which 7 wasn’t true, yes?
8 Dr Wright was thought to have performed badly, wasn’t 8 A. I ’m −− I’m still not piecing this together.
9 it ? 9 Q. Mr Matthews, you weren’t telling Mr Ager−Hanssen what
10 A. In all fairness , Dr Wright didn’t get a chance to 10 those messages plainly meant in order to fob him off,
11 perform anything at that mock trial. It wasn’t a mock 11 were you?
12 trial , it was an ambush and a −− and a one−way 12 A. I was.
13 interrogation of Craig to −− to, I think, force me, as 13 Q. You would not have described −− you would not have
14 a witness, to withdraw as a witness in this case. 14 written those messages, let’s put it that way, unless
15 Q. And it took place, this exchange, two days after 15 you thought Dr Wright was a fake.
16 Calvin Ayre had sent his three−page email threatening to 16 A. No, that’s not true.
17 cut off funding for Dr Wright, didn’t it ? 17 Q. Your excuse now, the excuse you put in your witness
18 A. I don’t know. 18 statement, the excuse you’ve been giving over the last
19 Q. I ’ ll come to that later. 19 minutes is a lie , isn ’ t it ?
20 Serious questions were being asked about nChain’s 20 A. Absolutely not.
21 connection with and support for Dr Wright at that time, 21 Q. It was invented to avoid undermining Dr Wright’s case
22 weren’t they? 22 after that message was leaked.
23 A. Sorry, state that again? 23 A. I don’t have to lie about anything. I experienced with
24 Q. Serious questions were being asked about your company’s 24 my own eyes, my own ears and my own personal interaction
25 connection with and support for Craig Wright at that 25 with Craig Wright through several years in 2006/7/8 and

81 83

1 time, weren’t they? 1 9. I know what my experiences were and nothing can
2 A. By who? 2 change that.
3 Q. Well, by Mr Ayre for a start , the main investor. 3 Q. {L19/432/1}, please, another tweet from Mr Ager−Hanssen.
4 A. What, nChain’s support for Dr Wright? 4 A. Oh, yeah?
5 Q. Yes. 5 Q. I think the wrong −− can we try {L19/342/1}. It may
6 A. I ’m not aware of that. 6 have been the wrong reference. No, we can take that off
7 Q. And in those circumstances, it would have been really 7 screen.
8 unwise for someone in your position, as chairman, to be 8 {L19/240.3.1/1}, which is C00003560.1. Now, this is
9 sending a completely false signal to Mr Ager−Hanssen 9 a transcript of a discussion between you and
10 that you thought Dr Wright was a fake when he really 10 Mr Ager−Hanssen which Mr Ager−Hanssen released. Have
11 wasn’t, wouldn’t it? 11 you read this transcript ?
12 A. I ’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here. 12 A. I don’t think I ’ve ever seen this transcript , but
13 Q. Well, at this time, in this febrile environment, it 13 still ~...
14 would have been, I suggest, stupid for someone in your 14 Q. If we go to page 4, please {L19/240.3.1/4}.
15 position to signal to Mr Ager−Hanssen, the CEO, that 15 A. Oh, I know what this is. This is a transcript of
16 Dr Wright was a fake if you didn’t think he was, right? 16 the recording that he allegedly took in Spain, and I can
17 A. I ’ve never thought Dr Wright was a fake. I’ve never 17 say pieces of this resonate with me. I don’t know
18 indicated to anybody that Dr Wright was a fake. 18 whether that recording is a legitimate −− a recording in
19 Q. Mr Matthews, as an experienced businessman in those 19 its entirety . I know that the man has a history of
20 circumstances you would not have been so stupid as to 20 clipping things together so, the recording, as far as
21 indicate your agreement to Mr Ager−Hanssen that 21 I ’m concerned, hasn’t been verified.
22 Dr Wright was a fake if you didn’t agree, right? 22 Q. Page 2, please {L19/240.3.1/2}. Next page
23 A. I ’m still not quite sure where we are on this. 23 {L19/240.3.1/3}.
24 Q. Let’s take this in stages. 24 There is a quotation at time counter 08.21:
25 A. Go slowly. 25 ”Because we’re heading into a fucking train wreck on

82 84

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 the 15th of January.” 1 Q. You also told us that the 500 million Swiss francs paid
2 Did you say those words to Mr Ager−Hanssen, as far 2 by Calvin Ayre was for the acquisition of shares in
3 as you’re aware? 3 nChain, that’s pages 55 to 56 of the [ draft ] transcript
4 A. I may have. I don’t have specific recollection , but 4 for the lawyers; is that right?
5 I may have. 5 A. Not the full 500, but a portion of the 500 was to
6 Q. We can listen to the recording. It ’s at {L19/240.4/1}, 6 acquire shares from another shareholder.
7 and bring that up and start the tape counter at 7 Q. Do you know what the portion was?
8 eight minutes precisely . This is C00003561. If we can 8 A. My Lord, we’re going to be getting into some
9 go to eight minutes in, eight minutes precisely , and 9 confidential information here and I’m more than happy to
10 just pause before we start. We’re going to listen for 10 provide an answer, but I’d like to do so privately , if
11 it at 8 minutes 21 seconds. Play on, please. We’ll 11 we could arrange that.
12 need the audio. We may need to turn the speaker on. 12 Q. Let me try and ask it in a way that doesn’t require us
13 (Audio played) 13 to make any special arrangements.
14 Pause there. Listening to that, does that refresh 14 Is it right that if Mr Ayre was acquiring a majority
15 your memory? Do you recall saying, ”We’re heading into 15 stake and making a payment for the acquisition of shares
16 a fucking train wreck on the 15th of January”? 16 that somebody must have placed a value on the shares?
17 A. It definitely sounds like my voice. 17 A. Yes. I ’m not privy to exactly what those negotiations
18 Q. Was 15 January the original start date for this trial ? 18 were, they were between two shareholders. Remember,
19 A. I don’t know. I thought it was 5 February. No, you’re 19 Mr Ayre, through one of his companies, had a small
20 right . You’re right , yeah. 20 shareholding that he −− that he invested a few years ago
21 Q. That’s what you were referring to in that conversation 21 and he added to that shareholding by acquiring from
22 by describing ”heading into a fucking train wreck on the 22 another shareholder.
23 15th of January”, isn ’ t it ? 23 Q. So it ’s not the case, is it , that a fair market value
24 A. Well, you’ve got to remember that Ager−Hanssen and 24 couldn’t be placed on your family trust ’s shareholding
25 Zafar Ali were both in Spain at the time, and they both 25 in nChain Holdings if you needed to?

85 87

1 spent two days telling me how uncooperative Craig was 1 A. If I were to undertake a valuation, yes.
2 with the development of his strategy and plan. So, it 2 Q. Is it your position that you just have no idea what that
3 didn’t look good, the way that they were presenting 3 valuation would produce?
4 things to me about preparations for the −− for 4 A. Yeah, I mean, again, disclosing what my percentage is −−
5 the hearing. 5 and it ’s single digit percentage −− I’d rather not do
6 MR HOUGH: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment? 6 that in open court if you don’t mind.
7 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 7 Q. Just based upon Mr Ayre’s investment, would you accept
8 Mr Matthews, please don’t talk to anybody about your 8 that even a single digit percentage shareholding in
9 evidence over the lunch adjournment. 9 nChain would be a very valuable asset?
10 A. Sure. 10 A. I ’m not −− I’m trying to calculate here. I mean, any
11 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Thank you. See you back here at 11 shareholding in any company is a valuable asset
12 2 o’clock. 12 depending on the success, the future success of that
13 A. 2 o’clock? 13 company, and I know that you’re trying to tie this to
14 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes. 14 Craig Wright being Satoshi, and I’ve said repeatedly
15 A. Thank you. 15 this morning that that’s not where nChain’s value sits .
16 (1.02 pm) 16 Q. But I’m just trying to understand, Mr Matthews, whether
17 (The short adjournment) 17 your stake in nChain is a significant valuable asset in
18 (1.58 pm) 18 your personal portfolio . Can I ask the question in that
19 MR JUSTICE MELLOR: Yes, thank you. 19 way without putting you in any difficulties ?
20 MR HOUGH: Mr Matthews, returning from a point from 20 A. Just remember, the stake isn’t my stake, it ’s a stake
21 the first half of the day, you said at the start of your 21 that’s owned by a family trust and I wasn’t the −− I’m
22 evidence that you couldn’t place a value on 22 not a beneficiary of that trust .
23 the shareholding in nChain Holdings which your family 23 Q. Okay, we’ll move on to your early dealings with
24 trust has; is that right? 24 Dr Wright.
25 A. Not with any accuracy, no. 25 In your first witness statement, you tell us that

86 88

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 you met him in 2005 when you were CIO of Centrebet and 1 A. I ’ve −− I’ve been asked this question so many times I −−
2 you engaged BDO Kendalls to carry out a control systems 2 I say that, with certainty , it did not have the name
3 and IT security audit {E/5/4}; is that right? 3 Satoshi Nakamoto on it. It could have had the name
4 A. Correct. 4 Craig Wright on it, but I believe that it had no name on
5 Q. As I understand it, work of that kind continued until 5 it at all .
6 Dr Wright left BDO in late 2008; is that right? 6 Q. Over the page to paragraph 28 {E/5/7}. You say that
7 A. Partially . During the course of 2008, Dr Wright started 7 when you next saw Dr Wright after you’d read it, he
8 doing some separate consulting and providing services 8 asked you about the paper and you said words to
9 through −− I think the company was called 9 the effect that you had no interest in it , didn’t want
10 Information Defense. 10 any involvement and it wouldn’t amount to anything?
11 Q. Now, you have said in your statement that he discussed 11 A. Correct.
12 an interest in electronic or digital cash with you on 12 Q. Now, Mr Matthews, you must be aware of the importance of
13 occasions in 2007 and 2008 {E/5/5}; correct? 13 this story to Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi and
14 A. On many occasions. 14 the presentation of that claim, mustn’t you?
15 Q. Can we agree that Centrebet didn’t actually engage him 15 A. Yes, I am. The White Paper was not the only thing
16 to produce a digital currency project or system? 16 related to the history of this . Over a two−year period,
17 A. That’s correct . 17 I had countless numbers of meetings, discussions,
18 Q. Now −− 18 sketchings on pieces of paper and whiteboards about
19 A. Can I add to that? 19 various aspects of what Dr Wright was creating. That’s
20 Q. Well, you’ve answered my question −− 20 why, when I received the White Paper, it was no surprise
21 A. Okay. 21 to me to see this assembly of many of the concepts that
22 Q. −− Mr Matthews, so we’ll move on to the next subject, 22 we’d discussed at various times over a couple of years
23 which is {E/5/6}, please. Now, this is where, in your 23 appearing in this paper.
24 witness statement, you give an account of receiving 24 Q. {L14/34/1}, please.
25 the Bitcoin White Paper in 2008. At paragraph 24, you 25 Now we’re back with the information memorandum that

89 91

1 say, don’t you, that in about August 2008, Dr Wright 1 nChain produced in December 2016, and may we go to
2 handed you a USB stick and told you that it held 2 page 3, please {L14/34/3}. Under ”Origins of
3 a document he wanted you to read, right? 3 the nChain Group”, do we see, the second paragraph, that
4 A. Yes. 4 this document referred to Dr Wright sharing his original
5 Q. You then say that on the USB stick you found a single 5 Bitcoin White Paper with you prior to its publication?
6 file , yes? 6 A. Mm−hm.
7 A. Yes. 7 Q. And then {L15/70/1}, please.
8 Q. You downloaded that, returned the USB stick to him and 8 This is a press release , in 2019, by the company
9 told him you’d read it later ? 9 Squire Mining, of which you were chairman and about
10 A. Yes. 10 which you spoke earlier?
11 Q. Paragraph 25, you say that you printed the document on 11 A. Yes.
12 the private printer in your office , either that day or 12 Q. Do you see that Dr Wright is described, in the third
13 the next, and that you read the paper straight away, 13 sentence, as an advisory board member for the company?
14 right? 14 A. Yes.
15 A. Or I read the paper after I ’d printed it , yes. 15 Q. So not just a shareholder of the company?
16 Q. You say you believe that was the same day as you printed 16 A. No, he had been an adviser on −− on mining for probably
17 it ? 17 a year or so.
18 A. Yes. 18 Q. And the release was touting Dr Wright having made
19 Q. You became aware of the word ”Bitcoin” when you read 19 copyright registrations for the Bitcoin White Paper and
20 that paper? 20 for the Bitcoin Code, wasn’t it?
21 A. Yes. 21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You say that the document didn’t have a name on it but 22 Q. Page 2, please {L15/70/2}, first full paragraph:
23 it had a placeholder, paragraph −− 23 ”Stefan Matthews, Chairman of the Board of Squire
24 A. Yes. 24 has been a supporter of Dr Wright since 2008 when
25 Q. −− 27? 25 Dr Wright showed him a draft of the Bitcoin white paper

90 92

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 Wright was working on.” 1 Q. And then you respond, 10 September 2015:
2 Do you see that? 2 ”What is really important here is ... Craig is now
3 A. I do. 3 at a comfortable point and has accepted ’coming out’.
4 Q. So this story about you receiving a copy of 4 No pushing needed now.”
5 the Bitcoin White Paper has been a significant part of 5 A. Correct.
6 the pitch from these companies to the market, hasn’t it? 6 Q. Was that the response you gave?
7 A. In this case, it was highlighting to the market that 7 A. Looking at this email, and I’m assuming the email is
8 Dr Wright was the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, 8 verified , yes.
9 yes. 9 Q. You referred to that email as refreshing your memory.
10 Q. So you have committed to this story very publicly as 10 A. Yes.
11 part of pitches to the market, haven’t you? 11 Q. It didn’t strike you when you −−
12 A. I ’m not going to say ”pitches to the market”. It ’s 12 A. It didn’t strike me as unusual, no.
13 a statement of fact. 13 Q. Your immediate impression was this was a genuine email
14 Q. Your witness statement on the screen, please {E/5/15}. 14 chain in which you contributed?
15 You refer, at paragraph 70, to an email you sent to 15 A. Yes.
16 Mr Ayre on 10 September 2015, which is one of the 20 16 Q. Now, as we saw, the email, at the end, refers to
17 documents listed as shown to you for your evidence from 17 Dr Wright having asked you to review the paper, it
18 which you refreshed your memory. Do you remember 18 having been on your desk at one stage for months, but
19 considering that? 19 you never getting around to that?
20 A. Let me just read this . 20 A. I don’t believe the paper was on my desk for months. It
21 Q. Paragraph 70. 21 was on my desk for some weeks. They’re Craig’s words,
22 A. Yes, I can see it . 22 not mine.
23 Q. You see that? 23 Q. Absolutely, but what I’m putting to you is that
24 Then if we can go to that email, the email with 24 the account Dr Wright gives at the bottom of that email
25 reference ID_004276, it’s at {L10/338/1}. And this 25 is very different from the account that you’ve given.

93 95

1 email −− the chain begins in, halfway down the page 1, 1 He says it was on your desk for months and you never got
2 with an email from Dr Wright, cwright@tyche.co.uk, with 2 round to reviewing it ; you say that you printed it out
3 the subject heading ”The book”; do you see that? 3 and read it immediately. There’s a big difference −−
4 A. I do. 4 A. He wasn’t there when I printed it out and he wasn’t
5 Q. Page −− after describing the prospective biography, at 5 there when I read it immediately.
6 page 3, we see a PS: 6 Q. Would you at least accept this, that what Dr Wright
7 ”PS 7 said , with some confidence, in that email was very
8 ”I may have to have a special chapter for Stefan. 8 different from the account you’ve given about what you
9 And asked him to review the White Paper and it was on 9 did with the White Paper?
10 his desk at one stage for months yet he ... never got 10 A. My interpretation of this is that I didn’t go back to
11 round to it . In 2009 I had begged him to invest in some 11 Craig and have a detailed discussion about
12 of the ideas I had. So [ this ] is a little bit of a jab 12 the White Paper.
13 and poke at someone that I do respect, but I need to say 13 Q. Well, it says a bit more than that, doesn’t it? It says
14 how wonderful it is that he passed up that opportunity.” 14 that it was sitting on your desk for months without you
15 That’s content of that email which you refer to in 15 reading it .
16 paragraph 70 of your witness statement, isn’t it ? 16 A. Well, I read it . I read it when I printed it .
17 A. Yes. 17 Q. Well, I appreciate that’s what you’re saying, but it ’s
18 Q. Then back up to the top of page 1, please {L10/338/1}. 18 very different from what Dr Wright said in this email,
19 We see that Mr Matthews −− sorry, Mr Ayre responded 19 isn ’ t it ? Yes?
20 saying: 20 A. I don’t −− I don’t know what Dr Wright knew at the time,
21 ” ... a few warts makes a better story.” 21 but I can tell you that I printed it .
22 And at the bottom of the email, that he loved 22 Q. You didn’t respond to this email by saying, ”That detail
23 the idea of Stefan having a chapter also; do you see 23 at the end about me and the White Paper, that’s wrong in
24 that? 24 some fairly significant respects”, did you?
25 A. I do. 25 A. No, I didn’t . I saw no point.

94 96

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 Q. Why did you see no point when you saw Dr Wright saying 1 hard copy with him, but he didn’t hand me a hard copy.
2 something that was so demonstrably wrong, on your 2 Q. Because you have a detailed recall of receiving the USB,
3 recollection ? 3 finding the one file on it , printing that file on your
4 A. That was his interpretation . It wasn’t what actually 4 private printer and then handing back the USB. That’s
5 occurred. 5 what you’ve told the court, isn ’ t it ?
6 Q. We can take that off screen. 6 A. That’s correct .
7 You tell us in your witness statement you no longer 7 Q. And so if Dr Wright says that he handed you a hard copy,
8 have the laptop to which you downloaded the draft 8 then that must be wrong, mustn’t it?
9 document; is that right? 9 A. He handed me a USB stick.
10 A. No −− yeah, that’s correct. It −− it remained with 10 Q. {L2/234/1}, please.
11 the company in 2011. 11 Now, this is a document which Dr Wright has
12 Q. And you didn’t keep the paper copy which you printed 12 disclosed in these and other proceedings which has
13 off? 13 the appearance of being an old stained copy of
14 A. No, I did not. 14 the Bitcoin White Paper with a note at the bottom:
15 Q. And you’ve never provided any emails or text messages 15 ”Stefan −− Will Centrebet use a token that is
16 with anyone from 2008 or 2009 mentioning this draft 16 transferable + audited.”
17 document? 17 Is this a document you’ve ever seen before?
18 A. No. 18 A. I ’ve seen this once.
19 Q. And you’ve never provided any emails or text messages 19 Q. Now, that might appear on its face to be a document
20 with anyone from that period discussing Dr Wright’s 20 fitting Dr Wright’s story of giving you a hard copy of
21 digital currency ideas more generally? 21 the Bitcoin White Paper and asking for your views, but
22 A. Well, there were no discussions with other people. 22 may we take it from your evidence that it’s a document
23 The discussions were between myself and Craig Wright and 23 that wasn’t given to you in 2008?
24 they occurred in person and verbally in my office. Now, 24 A. No, it was not.
25 having said that, there are at least three or four other 25 Q. Next, please, {L13/491/2}, back to ”The Satoshi Affair”.

97 99

1 people that were working in my office that 1 Page 10, please {L13/491/10}. At the bottom of
2 I subsequently found out that Craig had some similar 2 the page, Mr O’Hagan writes this:
3 discussions but not to the level that he did with me 3 ”The ’Stefan’ who was hovering during the raid on
4 with the White Paper. They contacted me over the years 4 Craig Wright’s house and office is Stefan Matthews, an
5 as −− as things have appeared in the media. 5 IT expert whom Wright had known for ten years, since
6 Q. They’re not people you mention in your witness 6 they both worked for the online gambling site Centrebet.
7 statement, are they? 7 In those days, around 2007, Wright was often hired as
8 A. No. They’ve asked me not to mention their names, but if 8 a security analyst by such firms, deploying his skills
9 I −− if I need to, I will . 9 as a computer scientist (and his experience as
10 Q. On this story of the foundational text of Bitcoin being 10 a hacker) to make life difficult for fraudsters . Wright
11 shared with you, the only evidence we have is your 11 was an eccentric guy, Stefan Matthews remembered, but
12 account and Dr Wright’s account, right? 12 known to be a reliable freelancer . Matthews said that
13 A. On the −− on the aspect of the White Paper that he gave 13 Wright had given him a document to look at in 2008
14 me on the USB stick? 14 written by someone called Satoshi Nakamoto, but Matthews
15 Q. Yes. 15 had been busy at the time and didn’t read it for
16 A. Correct. 16 a while.”
17 Q. And are you aware that you and Dr Wright have given 17 Now, based on what you’ve said very firmly here,
18 different accounts not just about whether you read 18 the words Satoshi Nakamoto weren’t attributed to
19 the document, but how it was provided to you? You’re 19 the document you received, were they?
20 aware of that? 20 A. That’s correct .
21 A. Tell me more about the how it was provided to me. 21 Q. And so the account which Mr O’Hagan ascribes to you of
22 Q. Are you aware that he said in his first witness 22 being given a document written by somebody called
23 statement, very firmly , that he handed it to you in hard 23 Satoshi Nakamoto must be wrong, mustn’t it?
24 copy? 24 A. I didn’t tell Andrew O’Hagan that the 2008 document was
25 A. No, he handed me the USB stick. He may well have had 25 −− had the name Satoshi Nakamoto on it. O’Hagan is an

98 100

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 author. I ’m assuming −− and I can only assume −− that 1 closely with O’Hagan. It had nothing to do with me of
2 he’s attributing the Nakamoto name to the paper because 2 any substance.
3 everybody knows that the White Paper was written by 3 Q. This story of you receiving the Bitcoin White Paper
4 Nakamoto and that I saw that document, or a version of 4 never saw the public light of day until late 2015 when
5 that document, prior to it being released in 2008. 5 the big reveal was being put together; correct?
6 Q. Well, the way he puts it is : 6 A. No, I discussed this with Dr Wright and also with
7 ”Matthews said that Wright had given him a document 7 Mr Ayre in −− and others in June 2015, including
8 to look at in 2008 written by someone called 8 Dr Wright’s lawyer from Clayton Utz.
9 Satoshi Nakamoto ...” 9 Q. There’s nobody else who has come forward to give
10 On your evidence, you wouldn’t have told him that, 10 evidence?
11 would you? 11 A. No.
12 A. No. 12 Q. Mr Matthews, I have to put it to you, this story of you
13 Q. And he also picks up the line which appeared from 13 receiving the Bitcoin White Paper before publication is
14 Dr Wright’s email that you had not read that for some 14 just not true, is it ?
15 time, and that was wrong, wasn’t it? 15 A. That is fundamentally incorrect. It is true. I lived
16 A. Sorry? Say that again? 16 through that period, I experienced what I experienced
17 Q. Well, he’s picked up the line that you hadn’t read 17 through that period and it is true.
18 the Bitcoin White Paper ”for a while”, as he puts it , 18 Q. It is a lie which has been used since 2015 to embellish
19 and on your evidence, that’s wrong, you read it straight 19 and support −−
20 away? 20 A. It is not a lie .
21 A. I read it straight away after I ’d printed it . 21 Q. −− Dr Wright’s claim?
22 Q. Well, that was a day or so after you’d got it ? 22 A. It is not a lie . I had to endure this sort of
23 A. Yes. 23 harassment from Ager−Hanssen, threatening me about
24 Q. So if Mr O’Hagan, as he says, got the account from you, 24 coming to this court.
25 your story now is at odds with your story here −− 25 Q. And your account −−

101 103

1 A. He could also have got the account from Wright −− from 1 A. I ’m not going to sit here and lie . I ’m telling
2 Dr Wright. 2 the truth and the absolute truth on what I experienced
3 Q. ”Matthews said that Wright had given him 3 at that time.
4 a document ...”. 4 Q. This is a lie to which you have committed over the years
5 A. Well, O’Hagan also said that I said things in other 5 and which you couldn’t get out of, isn ’ t it ,
6 meetings where I wasn’t even in the building. 6 Mr Matthews?
7 Q. Mr Matthews, your narrative now of receiving 7 A. That is untrue.
8 the White Paper is at odds with the story Mr O’Hagan 8 Q. And the idea that Dr Wright had elaborate digital
9 says you gave him and at odds with Dr Wright’s story 9 currency plans in 2007/2008 is also a lie , isn ’ t it ?
10 now, isn’t it ? 10 A. No, it ’s not. There are −− Dr Wright made a submission
11 A. O’Hagan’s account of what he wrote here, as a story, is 11 to Centrebet in early 2009 which, had I agreed to
12 not accurate. 12 the funding proposition, would have been, in my opinion,
13 Q. It ’s a story that’s not corroborated by anyone else or 13 the furthest application built on the back of Bitcoin.
14 any documents, isn’t it? 14 It was by his company Information Defense and it was to
15 A. I ’m going to say again, what O’Hagan has written here is 15 provide a timestamp server log, immutable log system to
16 not 100% accurate. 16 protect our corporate network.
17 Q. Your story is not only uncorroborated, it wasn’t 17 Q. I ’ ll come to that in a moment.
18 mentioned for years, until it happened to support 18 In your witness statement you say that after
19 the big reveal plan; that’s right , isn ’ t it ? 19 Dr Wright left Centrebet, he continued to work with you
20 A. No. 20 as a security adviser for a time; is that right?
21 Q. Well, do you say that it was mentioned in any public 21 A. He did. He −− he sat on our security advisory board.
22 forum or any public posting until it happened to support 22 Q. And if we bring up your witness statement {E/5/7},
23 the big reveal plan? 23 please, paragraph 32, you describe a conversation in
24 A. The big reveal plan was −− the big reveal plan was 24 March or April 2009, which went, as you put it, like
25 a Robert MacGregor plan and MacGregor was working 25 this :

102 104

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 ”He said ... ” 1 Q. You say that you and your colleagues rejected it , yes?
2 Dr Wright said: 2 A. Well, it wasn’t rejected on its technical merits, it was
3 ’ ... mate, can you give me five hundred dollars?’ 3 rejected because of the cost and because of the timing.
4 I said , ’ I can give you more than that if you’re short’ . 4 Q. But it was rejected?
5 He replied, ’mate, I’m not short, I just want you to 5 A. It was rejected.
6 give me five hundred and I’ ll give you fifty thousand 6 Q. It wasn’t taken forward?
7 Bitcoin’ . I said , ’Bitcoin?’ and he said, ’yeah, you 7 A. It wasn’t taken forward.
8 remember Bitcoin’, I replied that I did remember, but 8 Q. And you say that you later took the view that that would
9 I had no interest in it .” 9 have been a blockchain−based system, right?
10 Do you see that? 10 A. Yeah. Let me just elaborate on that. Some portions of
11 A. Yes. 11 it , the −− the canary honeypot set up itself was
12 Q. Mr Matthews, it’s a very odd story, isn ’ t it , 12 partially implemented on our network, but the full
13 a colleague offering you something of entirely unknown 13 immutable log store was not.
14 value for $500? 14 Q. Can you agree with this: a honeypot system is a generic
15 A. That’s why I wasn’t interested in it . I remember 15 term for an IT security system that acts as a decoy for
16 the day vividly . I was sitting in my office, my 16 cyber criminals?
17 right−hand credenza always had my printer, my personal 17 A. Yes.
18 printer and my briefcase on it. And when he asked for 18 Q. And it does that by mimicking a real system and
19 the money, I reached for my briefcase to get my cheque 19 attracting attacks, yes?
20 book, and that’s while we were having the conversation 20 A. Yes.
21 about whether I can give you more or −− or 500. And as 21 Q. So the fact of Dr Wright proposing a honeypot system to
22 soon as he mentioned Bitcoin, I closed my briefcase. 22 Centrebet wouldn’t of itself denote any special
23 I was not interested. 23 knowledge of the Bitcoin System or blockchain, would it?
24 Q. When he offered you 50,000 Bitcoin for $500, did it not 24 A. No, but the immutable log store and a timestamp server
25 occur to you to ask a question, if only out of 25 does.

105 107

1 curiosity ? 1 Q. That’s another pitch which nobody at Centrebet other

2 A. What question? 2 than you has ever spoken about, right?
3 Q. Well, a question like : oh, is your system now operating? 3 A. I have seen, at some stage, and it might have been shown
4 What’s a Bitcoin worth? 4 to me around the time of the Kleiman trial, a copy that
5 A. I already knew the system was operating. He told me 5 the lawyers had of that proposal and it surprised me
6 about it in January. 6 because I didn’t know how they got it.
7 Q. He was offering you something of unknown value and you 7 Q. Well, the only copy of that proposal we have in these
8 just had no interest in asking what it was worth? 8 proceedings has been debunked as unreliable by forensic
9 A. No interest at all . 9 documents experts, Mr Matthews.
10 Q. And that’s another story, isn ’ t it , that can’t be 10 Just to be clear so that it ’s not suggested
11 corroborated by anybody else or by any documents? 11 I haven’t put our case, while Dr Wright may have been
12 A. No, it was a personal conversation between he and I in 12 discussing honeypot security systems with you in early
13 my office. 13 2009, we don’t know, he certainly didn’t propose
14 Q. And you’ve used this story multiple times to support 14 anything to do with the blockchain at that stage.
15 Dr Wright’s claims, including in your interview with 15 A. Timestamp servers, yes.
16 CoinGeek, haven’t you? 16 Q. Moving on. You left Centrebet, you tell us, on the day
17 A. I ’ve openly spoken about this particular incident many 17 it was acquired by Sportingbet. Was that
18 times. 18 21 September 2011?
19 Q. In paragraph 33, you refer to this story of Dr Wright 19 A. That would be about the time, yes.
20 bringing a proposal to your security subcommittee to set 20 Q. So your last year at Centrebet was late 2010 to late
21 up what you describe as: 21 2011; correct?
22 ” ... a network based honeypot system for immutable 22 A. Yes.
23 log recording and analysis .” 23 Q. From late 2011 −− we can take the document off screen.
24 Do you see that? 24 From late 2011, you were living and working in the UK as
25 A. I do. 25 chief technology officer of Tyche Consulting Limited;

106 108

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 correct? 1 A. No, I didn’t see anything about Bitcoin.

2 A. Correct. 2 Q. In 2013, Forbes named Bitcoin the year’s best
3 Q. And is this right , that was an English online 3 investment, and Bloomberg, in 2014, named it the world’s
4 entertaining and gambling company? 4 worst investment. Did any of that come to your
5 A. The company was a technology provider to online 5 attention during those two years?
6 gambling, yeah. 6 A. No, none of it .
7 Q. And it traded as Bodog UK? 7 Q. When you discovered about Bitcoin being used, or in
8 A. At the time, yes. 8 the period that followed, did you ever reach out to your
9 Q. Bodog is a brand founded and owned by Mr Ayre; is that 9 old friend Dr Wright and mention the use of his
10 right? 10 invention?
11 A. Yes. 11 A. No. The next time −− I think the next time I spoke to
12 Q. Tyche Consulting Limited is not and wasn’t just 12 Dr Wright was when he’d called me unexpectedly and
13 a company of Rob MacGregor’s, was it? 13 I ended up meeting him on 2 January 2014 in Sydney.
14 A. I don’t know what the full ownership of Tyche was. 14 Q. So although your friend had produced this revolutionary
15 Q. But as far as know, it wasn’t a company solely owned by 15 financial invention and you’d seen that it was in
16 Rob MacGregor, was it? 16 operation, it didn’t strike you to reach out to him at
17 A. I don’t know. 17 all ?
18 Q. Now, in your witness statement at −− this is 18 A. I was not aware of what was happening in the Bitcoin
19 paragraph 38 {E/5/8} −− we don’t need it on screen −− 19 world between those dates.
20 you say that one weekend in early 2012, you watched 20 Q. You don’t say, do you, that you mentioned this news to
21 a programme in which you saw that Bitcoin was being used 21 anyone else, that an old friend of yours had invented
22 by some people living in the USA; is that right? 22 this new medium of exchange and speculation?
23 A. That’s correct . 23 A. It wasn’t important to me at the time. I wasn’t
24 Q. And you say you expressed some surprise, you say 24 interested .
25 probably in some colourful language, that Bitcoin had 25 Q. Move on to you reconnecting with Dr Wright.

109 111

1 taken off? 1 On the account you give in your witness statement

2 A. Yes, I −− I was channel surfing on cable, we had not 2 {E/5/9}, you describe him having contacted you in late
3 long been in −− in our house in Weybridge, my sons 3 2013, by which time you were in the Philippines, right?
4 weren’t in the room and I was just channel surfing and 4 A. Yes, I had been in the Philippines since 2012.
5 I heard the word ”bitcoin”, and I stopped on that 5 Q. And you tell us that Dr Wright had heard you would be in
6 channel and I remember quite vividly there were people 6 Sydney for New Year’s Eve and he was proposing
7 in caravans and tents in a forest somewhere in the US 7 a meeting?
8 and they were talking about Bitcoin and they were 8 A. Correct.
9 transferring Bitcoin between mobile phones. It was 9 Q. You say that you met him and his wife in Sydney on
10 round about that time my sons came back into the 10 2 January 2014, just to catch up?
11 room and they said, ”Dad, What are you watching”, and 11 A. Correct.
12 I said , ”I ’m just watching this, whatever it was, 12 Q. You say that she mentioned Bitcoin in conversation, but
13 programme”, and they said, ”Can we turn it over and can 13 you didn’t take the conversational cue because you had
14 we watch football”. So I said , ”Yeah, sure, we’ ll turn 14 no interest in it ?
15 it over”, I had no interest in watching any more, but it 15 A. Correct.
16 was fascinating for me that the Bitcoin name came up and 16 Q. You say that the meeting had no particular point to it?
17 it reaffirmed my memories of history. 17 A. Correct.
18 Q. So at that point, you made the connection between what 18 Q. Now, as you tell us, on that occasion you didn’t go into
19 you were seeing on TV, Bitcoin and Dr Wright? 19 any discussion of this invention that Dr Wright had come
20 A. Yes. 20 up with and the fact that it was being used around
21 Q. And do you recall then, in 2013, the next year, Bitcoin 21 the world?
22 surged in price and was in the news quite a lot? 22 A. No.
23 A. No. 23 Q. Mr Matthews, you were one of the privileged few to know
24 Q. You don’t recall it being in the news quite a lot , or 24 that he’d made this extraordinary invention which was in
25 you disagree? 25 use around the world and you didn’t even discuss it in

110 112

Opus 2 transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
February 19, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright Day 11

1 this first meeting in years? Is that really what you 1 a dialogue about it .
2 say? 2 Q. You didn’t know about Bitcoin exchanges at that time?
3 A. I wasn’t interested . 3 A. No.
4 Q. Mr Matthews, I have to suggest that it beggars belief 4 Q. You say that the meeting prompted you to make an
5 that you wouldn’t even discuss it with him. 5 introduction between Dr Wright and Robert MacGregor, who
6 A. Well, his wife tried to discuss Bitcoin a couple of 6 had a company in Canada called nTrust?
7 times, mentioned to me that it had value, but I just 7 A. Yeah, some time in 2014.
8 passed it off , I wasn’t interested in having 8 Q. May we have {L8/340/1} on screen, please.
9 a discussion about something that I’d passed on years 9 This is the email you reference making
10 before. 10 the introduction to Mr MacGregor, and if we’re on
11 Q. On any view, there wasn’t any discussion swearing you to 11 page 2, it ’s the email from you on 3 February 2014
12 secrecy about this, was there? 12 {L8/340/2}:
13 A. No. 13 ”Hi Craig,
14 Q. And on your account, Dr Wright’s wife had