Topic: Hodlonaut Trial - page 6. (Read 4276 times)

The last thing I remember about the case is when his lawyers said that he accidentally stomped on the hard drives and I was literally like in tears of laugh that what they are presenting in the court for proving themselves right in the court.But as you say about forge documents then we all know what else he have to prove to the people? His whole idea is damn forge to be orginal Satoshi with all those fake claims and fake documents and now moving on to the verge of losing his savings as well in hope to earn those coins which never belonged to him.The one who cannot sign a transaction which is simple scenario for bitcoiners to prove the ownership is fighting in courts.

But we all know how judicial system can be well manipulated through financial powers and even forge documents tell the truth then but as the case needs to be presented in fair manner and Hodlonaut will definitely be on winning side on this one and clown will get nothing but empty pockets.

What a travesty that would be, that for some reason the burden of negative proof would be on Hodlonaut, rather than burden of proof being on CSW (one which he has spectacularly failed). If CSW's claim is the tweets defamed him because he is Satoshi, then the burden of proof should lie firmly on his shoulders to prove this is the case. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

If the court rightfully find that all CSW's submitted forgeries are, well, forgeries, then it will certainly be interesting when it comes to future cases. Does he resubmit all his provably false documents? Does he come up with new forgeries instead? Does he just submit nothing at all?

Oh I don't think that is a serious concern. But the court could decide that to win on truth Holdo would have to *prove* Wright wasn't Satoshi and that he didn't achieve that.

You see how that's different, right?

like take craig out of it for a minute.  Would a court conclude that it was proven I was Satoshi?  Obviously not.  Would a court conclude that it was proven that I wasn't Satoshi?  Also obviously not.

Hodlo makes the case that to win on not-satoshiness he only needs to show that it's more likely than not that Wright isn't Satoshi.  If the court agrees with that standard then he will probably win on that basis.  But the court might decide that he needed to prove it by a higher standard, which it might decide that he hadn't met.  I think he actually met a very high level of proof but the court might not agree -- it's difficult to prove anything absolutely without the power of a criminal investigation:  The only evidence Hodlo got was what Wright provided, he didn't get to search Wright's home or computers, didn't get his email records, etc.

Yes, I was thinking about this on the drive home from work today. This case could be the one
which starts the crumbling of CSW's house of lies and so could be an extremely important case.


That's a bit worrying that the court could see CSW as actually being Satoshi, especially
given all the evidence by KPMG of all the fakery.

If that's going to happen, maybe that could be referenced/used in future trials CSW is/will be involved in, saving people's time and money. From that I know, that could be possible, but I don't know if cross-border.

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.