So, there’s another year in the cryptoverse and another round of brawls on the hotbed, but this time it’s a bit different from last year’s SBF trial.
This time, the battle was sparked to keep Bitcoin’s legal status unharmed as it is, and to discuss a strange claim by a well-known computer scientist that he’s the main creator of the largest cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. In the heavyweight championship, it’s Jack Dorsey’s COPA against the 54-year-old Australian computer scientist, Craig Wright. This great COPA vs Wright battle draws the heading of many news channels worldwide.
It has always been a much-debated topic as to who the real Satoshi Nakamoto is, the original creator who presented the thesis of cryptocurrency to the world for the first time. Let’s break down this case and try to provide in-depth help through daily updates.
COPA vs Wright: The Battle for Bitcoin’s Legacy
The origins of Bitcoin has been unsolved mystery and narrative of decentralization mentioned in its white paper challenges the traditional finance system. While the crypto space is gradually achieving one after other milestone, dreamt by Satoshi Nakamoto, Wright’s bold assertion threatens to upend this narrative.
If Wright is indeed proven to be Nakamoto, he would wield significant control over Bitcoin’s name and underlying technology, potentially destabilizing the entire digital asset ecosystem.
That’s why COPA took charge for the sake of the integrity of the crypto ecosystem before it gets too late. But wait a minute! What is COPA?
COPA: Guardian of Cryptocurrency’s Integrity
Led by tech mogul like Jack Dorsey, COPA presents itself as a stalwart defender of cryptocurrency innovation. It strives to endorse the adoption and advancement of digital assets for the community that wants to be part of the revolution.
By challenging Wright’s claims, COPA seeks to safeguard the integrity of Bitcoin and preserve its foundational principles outlined in the original white paper.
Understanding of Legal Battle Between COPA Vs Wright
A significant court case impacting the future of Bitcoin, BTC, begins on February 5. The UK High Court will decide whether Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is the individual behind the anonymous creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. The Crypto Open Patent Alliance has initiated this lawsuit, resulting in the Craig Wright trial. This nonprofit group seeks to minimize the impact of patents and legal disputes on the progress of the cryptocurrency sector.
COPA is getting ready to fight a big legal battle about the Satoshi trial, and there’s a lot at stake. Some people appreciate Wright’s legal efforts because they help make the rules around digital money clearer.
But, there’s concern over COPA only trying to prove Wright wrong during the Satoshi trial, which makes people wonder what COPA really wants to achieve. Even though they say they’re protecting the digital money world, their actions might be hurting the teamwork needed for digital money to grow.
This fight between COPA vs Wright is really about two different ways of seeing things. Wright wants everything to follow the law and wants businesses to get involved, but COPA seems to have a different goal in mind.
COPA didn’t accept a peace offer that could have brought everyone together, showing a big disagreement. With a trial coming up, people interested in digital money are worried about what this fight could mean for the future.
Looking forward
Everyone’s watching the Satoshi trial closely. The big question isn’t just about Wright’s identity, but also why COPA is so determined in their fight. What happens in court will not just decide this case, but also the future direction of digital money and how new ideas happen. No matter who wins, the digital money world is at a turning point, ready for what comes next.
Calendar for COPA vs Craig Wright Court Trial
| Week beginning 5 Feb | 5 February: Oral Openings (1 day)6 Feb to 9 Feb: cross-examination of Craig Wright (total 6 days) |
| Week beginning 12 Feb | 12 Feb to 13 Feb: Craig Wright Cross-examination continued (total 6 days)14 Feb to 16 Feb: Cross-examination of remaining fact witnesses for Craig Wright* (3.5 days). |
| Week beginning 19 Feb | 19 Feb am: Cross-examination of remaining fact witnesses for Craig Wright* (3.5 days). 19 Feb pm to 23 Feb am: Cross-examination of fact witnesses for COPA / Developers (4 days) 23 Feb pm: begin cross-examination of digital forensic experts |
| Week beginning 26 Feb | 26 Feb to 1 March am: continuing cross-examination of digital forensic experts1 March pm: Cross-examination of both cryptocurrency experts (0.5 days) |
| Week beginning 4 March | [one-week gap] |
| Week beginning 11 March | 12 – 15 March: Oral closing submissions (4 days) |
Daily Updates On COPA vs Wright Trial
Day 1 (5th February) : Oral Openings
On the first day of the COPA vs Wright trial, the courtroom drama unfolded with intense arguments from both sides. COPA accused Wright of presenting forged documents as evidence of his identity as Satoshi, describing his actions as “forgery on an industrial scale” and an “elaborate false narrative.”
In response, Wright’s defense countered that there’s no direct proof refuting his claim to be the digital currency’s inventor. The trial, taking place in a U.K. high court, marks a significant moment in Wright’s series of legal battles within the crypto community.
Despite the heavy accusations, the presiding Judge James Mellor allowed Wright to introduce new evidence. However, it will be subject to further scrutiny and cross-examination.
Day 2 (6th Feb): cross-examination
The second day was marked by intense cross-examination, focusing on alleged fabrications and inconsistencies in Wright’s evidence supporting his claims.
A pivotal moment started with the examination of documents that Wright claimed proved his purchase of the Bitcoin.org domain in 2009. Despite initially presenting these as genuine, Wright later agreed that the documents were forgeries, attributing their creation to a Reddit user rather than himself.
This admission came after COPA’s barrister highlighted their use in the Kleiman case, questioning Wright’s decision not to disclose their wrong claim earlier. Wright’s
strange references to a lawyer, “Johnny,” whom he struggled to identify further, raised doubts about the credibility of his statements.
Further scrutiny was directed at a document Wright used to assert his identity as Satoshi, dated 2008, which was suggested to have been manipulated to support his narrative. Evidence presented by COPA indicated the document’s date was altered, a claim Wright countered by accusing adversaries of forgery, without convincingly addressing the chronological discrepancies highlighted by COPA.
Additionally, Wright’s academic paper, purportedly from 2008 and mentioning Bitcoin, was questioned for containing passages from a later work, dated post-2012. Wright’s explanation of having pre-publication access to this work was also doubtful, especially when it was revealed that references to other papers, published after 2008, were omitted from his version, further complicating his narrative.
Throughout the cross-examination, Wright maintained his innocence against accusations of forgery, suggesting that any inconsistencies in his evidence were not proving allegations. He attributed these discrepancies to various factors, including self-plagiarism, errors, and the unreliability of certain witnesses due to illness or death.
The day concluded with skepticism doubts about the authenticity of Wright’s claims and the integrity of his evidence. The courtroom, despite the physical discomfort caused by the heat, remained focused on the unfolding drama, awaiting further developments in this legal battle over the true identity of Bitcoin’s creator.
Day 3 (7th Feb): Craight Wright’s Response On Accusations Of Forgery
During the third day of the COPA vs. Craig Wright trial, the courtroom atmosphere intensified as Wright, clashed with COPA lawyers over the admissibility of evidence and his responses to accusations of forgery.
Wright delivered speeches about his numerous whitepapers and how his original vision for Bitcoin diverges from its current state, criticizing the small block sizes and high transaction fees in the present Bitcoin system.
Wright stated that a vast majority of Bitcoin nodes operate on Amazon Web Services (AWS), a claim that contradicts available data suggesting only a small fraction does.
His defense against allegations of unreliable metadata in his documents was that they were handled by multiple staff members, which might have led to unintentional alterations. Despite being asked to stay on topic, Wright often slipped from the main conversation, offering explanations that veered from the questions asked.
He maintained that the documents he provided, despite their inconsistencies, were authentic drafts, arguing against the possibility of pristine digital documents over five years old.
Wright’s strategy included challenging the reliability of forensic evidence presented against him, suggesting that file corruption and editing software like Citrix and Grammarly could have unintentionally altered document metadata.
Experts for COPA and even one from Wright’s side identified discrepancies in document metadata, including dates and software usage that postdate the creation of Bitcoin.
Wright’s attempts to introduce findings based on paper copies were halted as they were deemed inadmissible. He also questioned the impartiality of COPA’s expert witness and criticized the competence of his own team’s witness when their findings contradicted his narrative.
One of Wright’s more unusual defenses was claiming that irregular hyphenation in a document was a form of steganography intended to watermark his work, a claim met with skepticism.
He also attempted to link his university thesis, predating Bitcoin’s whitepaper, to his development of Bitcoin, despite inconsistencies in documentation provided by his university.
Throughout the day, Wright staunchly defended the authenticity of his documents and his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto, despite the forensic evidence suggesting manipulation. He argued that any discrepancies in his documents could be attributed to normal document handling processes rather than deliberate falsification. Wright concluded the day by insisting that he had presented a genuine draft of the Bitcoin whitepaper, challenging the prosecution’s forensic analysis as a misunderstanding of document creation and management technologies.
In essence, the third day of the trial showcased Wright’s determined yet controversial defense against accusations of forgery, with both sides engaging in a heated debate over the authenticity of Wright’s claims and the integrity of his evidence.
Day 4 (8th Feb): Craig Wright’s Defense Faces Challenges
On Day 4 of the COPA vs. Craig Wright trial, significant developments unfolded as Craig Wright’s defense faced rigorous scrutiny. The day was started by a detailed examination of evidence presented by Wright, with particular attention to inconsistencies and the authenticity of documents.
The morning session was focused on forensic analysis and legal argumentation, with COPA’s barrister, Jonathan Hough KC, questioning Wright about a series of screenshots and a physical piece of evidence—a version of the Bitcoin white paper.
These items raised doubts about their creation and Wright’s involvement in their alteration. Wright’s defense suggested that any modifications to documents were beyond his control after transferring them to his legal firm and others in late 2019.
Wright’s relationship with Calvin Ayre and the financial support for his legal battles were also scrutinized, revealing that Ayre provided a commercial loan rather than direct funding.
The cross-examination further explored technical details of document creation, where Wright was challenged on the authenticity of documents and his technical explanations.
The afternoon session continued with a focus on the authenticity of various documents and Wright’s claims of manipulation by third parties. Wright admitted to hex editing a bitcoin.exe file and contended with accusations of presenting forged documents in the Hodlonaut case. He maintained that many documents were manipulated without his knowledge, attributing some forgeries to setups by others, including Ira Kleiman.
Community reactions included criticisms of Wright’s shifting defense strategy and his admissions of relying on forged documents. Significant claims emerged from Christen Ager-Hanssen about his involvement and discoveries of Wright’s practices, suggesting potential implications for the trial.
The BSV camp, represented by Kurt Wuckert Jr., maintained a cautious optimism, highlighting the unpredictable nature of the trial.
Legally, Day 4 presented challenges for Wright’s defense, especially regarding the provenance of digital creations and the authenticity of documents. Wright’s admissions and the cross-examination aimed to undermine his claims of being the original creator of Bitcoin, marking a pivotal moment in the trial with both legal and community-wide implications.
Day 5 (9th Feb): Tampered files
On Day 5 of the COPA vs. Craig Wright case, the trial dove into a mix of technical discussions and personal defenses. Here’s a simplified breakdown of what happened:
Craig Wright insisted that he was framed by others as a liar, claiming that unauthorized individuals tampered with computer files associated with him.
Wright was questioned about an old email sent to Jimmy Nguyen, a known Bitcoin enthusiast. Wright denied manipulating the email’s IP address, which traced back to nChain, the company where he was the chief scientist. He suggested that since many people worked there, anyone could have sent it.
Wright refuted COPA’s suggestion that Bitcoin’s predecessors, HashCash and b-money, were early forms of blockchain. He emphasized the difference between “Blockchain,” which he associated with email remailers and the actual blockchain technology.
Wright acknowledged noticing changes in font types and sizes in certain documents but suggested others might have made these alterations. He expressed uncertainty about whether document metadata reflected any modifications or copying activities.
Wright mocked digital forensics experts, dismissing them as “tool jockeys” and criticized their qualifications, particularly their use of Citrix and VMWare tools. He also diverged into complaints about allegations concerning his patents and the use of ChatGPT.
Wright admitted to having disagreements with attorneys over the handling of his files, particularly regarding the duration files were kept by attorneys for imaging. He suggested that these files might have been tampered with during this time.
Wright accused his legal opponents of altering documents, including one instance where ‘TimeCoin’ was allegedly substituted for ‘Bitcoin’ in a document. He insinuated that those opposing him had inside knowledge of who accessed his computer but avoided further scrutiny by leaving the country.
Throughout the trial, Wright maintained a strong stance, seemingly confident in his ability to refute COPA’s claims. However, the focus on the authenticity and integrity of documents, especially the Bitcoin whitepaper, remains central to the case. If COPA can prove document manipulation, particularly any post-dated creation of Bitcoin whitepaper lookalikes, it could significantly undermine Wright’s claim to being Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin.
Day 6 (12th Feb): Assessment of Craig Wright’s Coding Ability
On the 6th day of the trial between COPA and Craig Wright, there was intense discussion in the court about whether Wright had the skills and time to create Bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency. Jonathan Hough, representing COPA, criticized Wright for evasive responses, heating up the courtroom atmosphere.
Hough started the day by questioning Wright’s expertise in C++, the programming language used for Bitcoin, and accused him of copying someone else’s work, pointing out similarities with a thesis by Hilary Pearson.
Hough also challenged Wright’s diversionary tactics instead of giving straightforward answers, a move supported by Judge James Mellor.
Wright accused another Bitcoin developer, Craig Maxwell, of attempting to discredit him by hacking his server and also made unrelated accusations against Adam Back, a creator of Hashcash.
Wright withdrew earlier statements that he co-created Bitcoin with Dave Kleimann after previously telling Kleimann’s father they were central to Bitcoin’s development.
Dr. Con Kolivas, a software engineer in Bitcoin mining, doubted Wright’s claim to being Satoshi Nakamoto, describing him as confused and erratic, unlike the coherent Nakamoto many admire.
Day 7 (13th Feb): Temperature of Courtroom Increased
On Tuesday, February 13th, Craig Wright faced another day on the witness stand, where he was interrogated about a public blog post he had cryptographically signed in an attempt to prove he was Satoshi Nakamoto. This post has been widely discredited by experts.
Wright expressed strong disdain for “experts” who, in his view, “cannot verify their work.” His frustration escalated to the point where Judge James Mellor had to intervene, specifically addressing a disruptive audience member.
Wright argued that merely possessing private keys does not confirm one’s identity as Satoshi. He maintained that his knowledge and contributions to Bitcoin are the true markers of his identity, despite failing to provide convincing cryptographic proof of this claim.
During his testimony, Wright was challenged on his reluctance to provide a signed message as proof of his identity due to security risks. He contended that such an action could jeopardize the security of his work and the value of everything he has created, rather than the risk of the private keys being discovered.
Judge Mellor had to step in multiple times during the proceedings, at one point cautioning Wright that a failure to answer questions could lead to the assumption that he has no answer.
counsel scrutinized inconsistencies in Wright’s evidence and previous testimonies. Specifically, they questioned Wright’s changing narrative regarding Dave Kleimann’s role in the invention of Bitcoin and his association with Wright’s company, Tulip Trading.
The trial is set to continue with Wright expected to testify again the following day, Wednesday. An expert witness for the defense is also anticipated to take the stand. The proceedings are expected to last several more weeks.
Day 8 (14th Feb): Examination Ended
On the 14th of February, after several days of intense questioning, Wright’s cross-examination ended. Throughout this period, he was questioned by both COPA’s lawyers and attorneys representing a group of Bitcoin developers, who are opposing Wright.
COPA, along with the Bitcoin developers, have consistently challenged Wright’s claims, suggesting that he has not been truthful about his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto.
The lawsuit was initiated by COPA to determine once and for all if Wright is indeed the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. On the final day of his testimony, Wright remained steadfast, stating that his fight in court was for “justice” and to prove his claim as the inventor of Bitcoin.
The trial has been ongoing for over a week, with Wright facing a series of questions regarding his relationship with Bitcoin. These inquiries covered topics such as cryptographic keys, his expectations for compensation, claims of proving his identity, and his decision to secure Bitcoin funds and information in a trust.
Throughout the trial, both COPA’s lawyers and the opposing Bitcoin developers have expressed skepticism towards Wright’s statements, labeling them as either incorrect or deceitful.
In essence, the trial’s focus was on scrutinizing Craig Wright’s claim to be Bitcoin’s inventor, with COPA and a group of Bitcoin developers challenging his assertions. Wright concluded his cross-examination maintaining his stance, amidst ongoing disputes about the veracity of his claims.
Day 9 (15th Feb): COPA Challenges Testimony
On Day 9 of the trial between Craig Wright and the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), the focus was on the reliability of the memories of Wright’s witnesses. These witnesses, Ignatius Pang, Robert Jenkins, and Shoaib Yousef, testified to support Wright’s claim that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.
However, COPA’s lawyers challenged their testimonies, pointing out that their recollections of events from over a decade ago were unclear and possibly confused.
Ignatius Pang talked about a conversation he had with Wright in 2008 regarding a LEGO blockchain project, which Wright related to a Chinese puzzle.
Robert Jenkins shared memories of discussions with Wright about bitcoin and blockchain concepts around 2009 or 2010. Shoaib Yousef recalled talking with Wright about digital currency in the late 2000s.
COPA’s attorneys, Jonathan Moss and Jonathan Hough, questioned the witnesses’ ability to accurately remember events from as far back as 16 years ago. They suggested that the witnesses might be mixing up details and dates based on what they know now, rather than what they actually remembered from the time.
The trial, which began in early February, seeks to determine whether Craig Wright is indeed the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. Wright had previously testified in his own defense. The trial is expected to continue with more witness testimonies.
Day 10 (16th Feb): Craig Wright’s Sister Gives Evidence About Satoshi
On Feb 16, the courtroom witnessed the strange evidential claim by Craig Wright’s sister, Danielle DeMorgan. In the witness box, she cited her old blog on the website, where she mentioned name ‘Satoshi’.
According to her, she once saw Craig Wright wearing attire of Ninja when he was 18-19 year old. She also affirmed that he was indulged into deep work in the room with full of computers around 2007-2008, right before the introduction of Bitcoin whitepaper. This is the only reason she put forward to defend his brother’s title as Bitcoin creator.
Mark Archbold, another witness from Wright’s side, also appeared into the witness box on Friday. He recalled the discussion about digital currency that he had with Craight Wright in 2005, believing Wright was Satoshi because of the encryption software he wrote in the 2000s. Furthermore, patent attorney of Craig Wright, Cerian Jones was also inquired about how Wright’s patents showed he could have been the creator of Bitcoin.
In response to questions by COPA’s lawyer Jonathan Hough, Jones, shockingly, stated that being associated with Craig Wright isn’t necessarily a good thing, because “he’s a very divisive character.”
The trial saw its initial witnesses take the stand on Thursday, with COPA’s legal team questioning the reliability of their accounts, labeling them as “hazy” and untrustworthy. Wright concluded his testimony the day before, on Wednesday, facing accusations from COPA’s attorneys of making false statements. They also advised him earlier in the week to cease making irrelevant claims.
The proceedings are expected to resume the following week, with the court’s agenda indicating that more witnesses on behalf of Wright will testify on Monday. David Bridges and Max Lynam are scheduled to appear, followed by Stefan Matthews as a factual witness. From Tuesday, COPA’s witnesses will undergo questioning, and Wright is slated for another round of cross-examination on Friday.
Also Read : Craig Wright is Set to Appear in UK Court for the COPA v Wright Trial
Closing thoughts
The battle between Craig Wright and COPA shows how complicated the digital money world is. With different sides fighting for control and what they believe is right, the original vision for Bitcoin is at risk. This legal fight could lead to more teamwork or more disagreements, we’ll have to wait and see. But one thing’s for sure: the outcome will have a big impact on Bitcoin and the future of digital money.
