It's pretty dry, but there are some interesting parts. Probably the most interesting is that Craig told her he kept "some" bitcoin on MtGOX, which she believes was all of his bitcoin, based on the way he acted about GOX going under.
Quote
A: Well, he intimated that he had lost a lot of bitcoin when that Japanese company - when that guy in Japan, I think the - the bitcoin - I don't know if it was a bank or what sort of outfit it was, but he, I guess, absconded with all the money, and Craig had kept some of his - had - well, "some of it", I think he kept all of his bitcoin there...
Q. And what's your basis for your understanding that he kept a lot of his bitcoin there?
A. Because he said he lost a fair - lost a fair bit of money.
Q. And what's your basis for your understanding that he kept a lot of his bitcoin there?
A. Because he said he lost a fair - lost a fair bit of money.
Seems a bit odd to me that Satoshi would keep his coins on MtGOX, whether it be "all" or just "some" of them. And that he would refer to whatever he had there as "a fair bit of money" (I read somewhere it was 50 BTC -- I know the data is out there but I don't have it in front of me).
Other takeaways:
- Neither Craig or Dave Kleiman once mentioned bitcoin in front of her while Dave was still alive
- In 2013, Craig asked her to write a paper explaining bitcoin to the Australian Tax Office
- In April 2015, Craig wanted her to attest to a statement saying she had known Craig and Dave had been working on bitcoin since 2009. Here was response:
She was questioned by the plaintiffs about it:
Quote
Q: And it says at the bottom: I do remember you working privately on Bitcoin and such well before 2009. Do you know what that statement is in reference to?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So you don't know what you were talking about in this email with Craig?
A. I don't remember it.
Q. And does the email refresh your recollection at all?
A. No... No, it confuses me more.
Q. Do you believe this email is forged?
MS MARKOE: Objection.
THE DEPONENT: I wouldn't - I don't know. I wouldn't - I wouldn't think it is, but I can't - I - I don't understand the time frame.
A. No.
Q. Okay. So you don't know what you were talking about in this email with Craig?
A. I don't remember it.
Q. And does the email refresh your recollection at all?
A. No... No, it confuses me more.
Q. Do you believe this email is forged?
MS MARKOE: Objection.
THE DEPONENT: I wouldn't - I don't know. I wouldn't - I wouldn't think it is, but I can't - I - I don't understand the time frame.
You can see all of her other email correspondence as evidence at the bottom of the court docket... This is the only one where words were typed below her signature... Hmm...
, university will be reevaluating this thesis and if they agrees with the argument which is really strong as the author was able to find all the plagiarized content using simple google search and CSW will get his phD revoked but they might not publish outside citing privacy reasons which is bad.
