Topic: Hodlonaut Trial - page 6. (Read 4198 times)

I wondered that too.  I thought one of the weaker elements of hodl's arguments (though it was covered in the oral closing argument) was that he didn't emphasize well enough that at the time none of wright's supposed witnesses or even the new 71 pieces of evidence were available:  Instead what hodl had to go on was what wright had put out so far (which was obviously fake), the opinions of experts like me, the inherent absurdity of the claims (claims to be satoshi, won't provide basic proof, says he will but fakes it).

So even if Wright were to *prove* he were satoshi right now, Hodlo should still win because his statements were reasonable at the time.

But I think strategically Hodlo really doesn't want the narrow win, he presumably wants a win that says "Wright wouldn't be able to convince the court that he was satoshi and so couldn't prevail in a defamation claim" -- both because that's more useful for other cases (such as his own) and much more protective of the community.   So I think they de-emphasized that line of argument.

It seems Wright's side views this as an opening, essentially going for a "it doesn't matter how fraudulent wright looks now, at the time the statements weren't justified" although I don't see how that works out for him if the courts impression is that he's more likely than not actually Satoshi-- which I think is extremely likely.

I guess the idea is that if they court is going to conclude that they're screwed, so they're arguing for the path to success they think they have left.  Where the court thinks wright is now obviously fake enough to justify those comments, but not so obviously fake at to block defamation on the basis of truth, but wasn't fake enough at the time (mostly because Hodlo's team didn't provide as strong of a case for that as they might have been able).

It's good thing he and his worker have poor knowledge to manipulate binary file or proper programming knowledge to modify and recompile the source code. Unmodified built-in checksum is big giveaway for manipulation attempt.


This part is easy to understand and should be main argument why he's a big liar. Someone should find and make a list various story lie.

---

On a side note, i made archive request on archive.today for better backup diversity.
https://archive.ph/6rr8j
https://archive.ph/84Hmd

Hmm seems like the defense are concentrating on the time specifically around when
the tweets were taking place. They are trying to say at that time the concerted attack on CSW
was baseless.

This phrase keeps popping up "at the time of publication"

This is a great quote. Perfectly sums up everything to do with CSW - a big fat nothing burger.

In the interests of balance, here is the link to CSW's closing arguments: https://mylegacykit.medium.com/closing-arguments-craig-wright-1737e3531f7f

I've only very briefly read through it, but they spend a lot of time essentially hand waving about legality and witnesses, without presenting any hard evidence, much like the trial itself. Very interesting that they dedicate only a single paragraph to the KPMG report (4.6.1), and don't attempt to refute or even mention the barn door evidence of forgeries, such as the checksum or Finney's bug fix.

Thanks for the link, very interesting and as written in the introduction it should make for
a great reference in the future.

Couple of quotes which I particularly like

Re: Manipulated documents

Re: Original Bitcoin Software 0.0.8


Re: 2.8 What must the court use as a basis?


The evidence which KPMG unearthed is quite damning of CSW, If hodlonaut doesn't get a favourable
judgment I would be surprised.

Arthur van Pelt has just posted Hodlonaut's team's closing arguments in the case, translated from Norwegian: https://mylegacykit.medium.com/closing-arguments-hodlonaut-c326771601ce

It's a great read, very well summarizing the complete lack of evidence and all of the forgeries on the side of CSW. 2.2 and 2.3 give a good summary of the forgeries, while 2.7 highlights the absolutely absurdity of his witnesses and their statements. Points 3 through 6 discuss the legal implications of hodlonaut's tweets and argue that they are not defamatory.

Still a month to go until we get a judgement.

Was just about to upload it, but looks like it's already doing the rounds on Twitter: https://nitter.it/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1575785115061432320#m

---

If you open the file "Bilag 15" from the pack that Greg has rehosted above, you can see the emails from Andresen pertaining to the signing session. In particular page 5, an email from Jon Matonis to Gavin Andresen, includes the following quote (emphasis mine):
This becomes fairly clear in the emails you can read in the following pages of the same document as above.

Wow!  My first impression without getting any into any of the nitty-gritty of the actual language, the whole tone of the NDA appears as if Andressen had either not sought counsel or he just totally got railroaded like a newb in terms of the acceptability of the terms contained in the NDA.  Andressen should have perceived himself to have been in way better of a position to negotiate terms than to have that kind of baloney shoved down his throat.. but likely the fact of the matter is that Andressen perceived that the dumbass BIG Blocker agenda was blinding him too much in terms of wanting to push that nonsense - and in that regard, in early 2016, both Andressen and CSW shared in the big blocker bullshit that they were both then pushing.. and also, even though it was the earlier days of the BIG blocker nonsense.. they were likely considering themselves as allies in such ideas that now seem quite silly to a lot of us..

It didn't get taken down, litterbox urls are only good for three days.  I put a copy on my site and frontended it with archive.org-- so that should be more durable.

It's annoying that infrastructure like courtlistener doesn't exist everywhere.

I've got the archive downloaded. I can share images of the NDA tomorrow when I'm back home. If someone can tell me somewhere that will host the archive which won't 404, happy to upload it there too.

Edit: Greg beat me to it: https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/xp5qy9/fresh_from_oslo_craig_wrights_submitted_evidence/iqmpu1f?context=3

I hope somebody downloaded the evidence to their hard disk because the linked site on that reddit post is throwing 404 errors - it's no longer accessible.

it has a 404 error on the link in the reddit post releasing the evidence. seems someone got it took down.
i was going over old notes from 5-7 years ago when gavin said he got paid to do the  signing witness event with CSW

the logical thing in all contracts is that there is a some kind of penalty for breaching the NDA.. else why have an NDA

but yea i would like to see the actual wording of the actual NDA

If you're interested, you can actually see the NDA that Andresen signed. It's part of the archive that Greg linked to earlier: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61016128. The file is "Bilag 13" in the "attachments" folder.

There is an identical NDA for Jon Matonis under "Bilag 12", and a similar one for GQ Magazine under "Bilag 14".

gavin and many others all signed an NDA with a payday value included for the event involvement. im guessing breaching the NDA or coming clean came with a consequence/punishment clause


checking some notes of stuff i found over the years.. gavin didnt "talk" with... in a suggestive secret meeting. he done a public speaking engagement/presentation with government employees attending in the audience
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.251755

yes satoshi heard about the CIA presentation invitation in april and it may have been one of his triggers to disappear and never come back. but other influences for the exit was that too many people treated satoshi like a central point decision maker. and also the wikileaks things. i feel satoshi disappeared for good for multiple reasons as he thought that bitcoin could and should continue without a central decision figure(point of failure)
as for thinking satoshi left due to hating what gavin done.. i doubt that because satoshi changed the privileges of the repo to put gavin in the lead maintainer spot when satoshi left, so it would be strange to give it over to a person you find as a attack vector (IE the reason you left)
so i think satoshi left for mostly other reasons

as for the gavin CSW fake proof drama..
gavin years prior said he was going to step away and retire within a few years (which aligned with the period he actually did start to back off from coding and maintaining btc). and so i feel he was just looking for a pay day to retire on in those last few years of 2015-17..
the same game as them unemployed family physicians that get paid to go on convention speaking tours where conspiracy nuts buy tickets.. stand on stage and say how covid was some alien robot programmed to kill. or the other conspiracy stories conspiracy nuts are willing to have repeated out loud by people that had a high reputation/accreditation earlier in life..
we all know gavin signed an NDA for CSW and got paid to turn up. so

basically he signed a contract to agree to  (my opinion->) say whatever CSW told him to say. or face having to repay the money if he breached the contract. hence no instant u-turn when faced with the debunk info

same money grab opportunity goes for his later attempts with BLOQ doing the alternate client releases that caused drama. (yep DCG owned bloq in 2016, before the whole gavin/jgarzik 2017 client variant)

so overall gavin was just money grabbing any money he could from any sources no matter the reactions those actions could cause to the community as a whole after performing the paid acts

EG in the 2015-16 REKT era gavin was speaking to companies like coinbase, xapo, bitpay(all DCG) about alternative scaling options via a bitcoin client that would upgrade the BTC network in a different direction than the core roadmap plan for BTC..in 2015-16
here he is talking at a coinbase(alsoDCG) about the scaling discussions he had with the big businesses
https://youtu.be/KUAXULUUBxA?t=283 which lead to the rekt capaigns

then we have the bloq(also DCG) varient in 2017

and the paid onstage speaking event at 2016 coindesks(also DCG) coinsensus conference where he again said he beleived CSW story
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2016/05/02/blockchain-tech-leaders-debate-satoshi-mystery-and-scaling-at-consensus-2016/

it seems that gavin was highly paid by CSW and DCG rather than some thoughts of a CIA payday and government force..
of course you could run down a rabbit whole thinking DCG is "government" or CSW is government..  but i think its just capitalism and monopolisation by big business and scammers with deep pockets filled by scammer partners, paying greedy people to cause some discourse/drama.. not government

my view of gavin is he gave up caring about coding bitcoin in 2014 and just wanted to go on a last ditch money grab from as many sources as possible in 2015-16 to retire on and not really think/care about the consequences of his reputation/words he got paid to do/say

Occam's razor says that the infinite money just comes from a kinda crooked former gambling kingpin-- they've spent a TON, but not out of proportion with what Calvin needs to be spending in order to spend all the money he claims to have.

And for Andresen there are plenty of simpler and less conspiratorial explanations-- including that it's well established that many victims of cons have a difficulty time accepting they've been had because its such an ego hit,  that the whole situation is so painful to him that he refuses to look at new evidence and so hasn't even seen what a joke Mr. Wright has made of himself since, that he now hates Bitcoin and the people involved and is happy of the harm being caused to all of us, that he's afraid of being dragged into ruinously expensive litigation with Mr. Wright himself and unlikely to get much public support given his role in creating the problem, and/or that he's financially motivated in the success of Bitcoin's competition over Bitcoin.  Any one of these would explain his continued failure to forcefully retract his prior endorsement and every one of them is simpler than him working on behalf of the CIA.

I think if we look carefully we'll find that it's an electrum wallet and that its traffic is consistent with payments he was made for 'coming out' as satoshi, we may be able to link it with his nchain salary payments on BSV and maybe the bucketshop trading he was doing under his wife's name.  Presumably someone around here has access to some of the commercial blockchain surveillance stuff.

Let me give you just one hint.
One government agency is known for ''talking'' with Gavin Andresen, and shortly after this happened Satoshi was gone and we can only speculate what really happened there.
But what we know for sure is that Gavin Andresen later claimed that he thinks Craig Wright is the real Satoshi, even if he never signed a message as a proof.
Gavin never clearly came out and said he was wrong, and almost infinite amount of money CSW team has is certainly rising suspicion.

The main sponsor says "I'm a bit busy", and now it's clear what exactly he's busy with - it seems that his job is much more enjoyable than presenting false evidence in court. Maybe at some point Faketoshi will wish he had grabbed what he had and enjoyed in life, but maybe he is just enjoying his obsession with being someone he could never be.

Not as far as I can tell. It has received and then sent out ~293.6 BTC a few minutes apart back in 2017. I think it's reasonable to assume its an address owned by CSW, which he was hoping he would later be able to sign from to "prove" he is Satoshi.

Note that this address comes from the following public key:

This is obviously a compressed public key, which were not implemented until version 0.6.0 of Bitcoin-Qt, released in March 2012.

If satoshi wants to come back under his old identity, AFAIK he needs to contact theymos securely and give sufficient proof. As for compromised email, 99bitcoin made good summary about it[1].


Aside from the binary, all he did is using "Find and Replace" feature on plain text files. But does anyone know whether Bitcoin address 12STD5BhabrNpx56pWuC6wctxz3Qf2gdD7 has ever mentioned on public discussion before? At very least, it never mentioned on this forum[2].

[1] https://99bitcoins.com/satoshi-nakamoto-hacked-waste-of-time/.
[2] https://ninjastic.space/address/12STD5BhabrNpx56pWuC6wctxz3Qf2gdD7

Faketoshis' fraud has had several phases.

• Phase 1. R&D refundable credit and GST refund tax fraud.
• Phase 2. Spanish prisoner / Nigeran prince con: I am the deposed creator of Bitcoin and need money to pay back tax officials but will pay you with my bitcoin fortune later.
• Phase 3a. Blockchain impersonation:  Convince funders that bitcoin knockoff BSV will replace Bitcoin in the eyes of the public, sell 'em a pig in a poke.
• Phase 3b. Big con: Convince his billionayre funder(s) that with their support Mr. Wright convince the courts to order bitcoin developers to magically grant them >$21 billion dollars worth of Bitcoin, and has convinced his marks that this is even possible.  (and that they can intimidate and harass into the dirt anyone that stands in their way.)

Hodlonaut's trial is mostly a holdover from 3a.  His his two lawsuits against former/current Bitcoin developers are soundly 3b.  His recent exchange lawsuits might be in between 3a and 3b-- AFAIK no one has seen the claims yet. Phase 1/2 seem to be complete and he's mostly now claiming that documents he used in 1/2 are forgeries planted by hackers (even when they're recent scans of supposedly old paper documents, covered in his handwriting).

The statement you're referring to from the trial was an effort at a self-serving remark in the furtherance of the 3b scheme.  Note that 3b doesn't require Wright himself to think jacking Satoshi's coins is possible, nor does it require his funders to think he's Satoshi. The mark thinks he's going to spend a few tens of millions and get a few tens of billions. All the litigation targets are just collateral damage, but it helps Mr. Wright that they're 'enemies' that have stood in his way by refusing to go along or be silent about his fraudulent claims.  Mr. Wright's goal would just be to keep the litigation going forever while his mark foots the bill -- from the very beginning Mr. Wright's has probably just been one desperate forced move after another to keep the whole thing from crashing down around him, it's unclear what kind of consequences he may face if it fails given that he's taken money from some apparently unscrupulous people.