Topic: Updates from the COPA v Craig Wright trial - page 8. (Read 4032 times)

He doesn't understand what's a static const unsigned int, which is considered basic knowledge for beginners in C++. In fact, you can find the definition of these keywords on probably every programming book there is, beyond C++. Yet, he's a "cybersecurity expert" and has written Bitcoin in above-average C++ code. They add up, don't they?  

Lol! Just lol!

Why would Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of C++, be called in this trial?

Hi, sorry for interrupting, patent professional here.  There is a very simple and very good reason for hiring professional patent drafters, and that is that if you don't know what you are doing, you will almost never be able to write a defensible patent.  At least in U.S. patent practice, specific words can have very specific meanings which differ from common connotations;  claims have to be in a specific format;  and the body of the patent must be drafted in particular ways to avoid giving up entire areas of subject matter, or worse, destroying your chances of obtaining or being able to defend a patent.  Also, there are requirements for drawings and how they relate to the claims, such that someone who doesn't know what they are doing can make it impossible to prosecute a patent to allowance.

For example, "plurality" means "two or more" and never one.  One patent-holder's case against a competitor was completely ruined by pointing that out; his patent required two items, but the competitor only used a single item in the not-actually-infringing product.

Another patent-holder could not enforce his patent because the drawings didn't show parts of the claimed matter.  (The USPTO examiner didn't bother to do his job during examination of the application, it should never have been allowed in the first place.)

Yes, legally speaking, you are allowed to draft and prosecute your own patent application.  Doing so is almost always a waste of your efforts because you will be destroyed by your lack of knowledge of the laws and practices.

Anyway, we now return you to your regularly scheduled unfettered glee at the meltdown of Craig Wright and all the other scammers who enabled and supported him.  Hodl on.

He has lied about ghost writer, he might now claim he did not write the White Paper by himself but a ghost writer has done it for him. This not true. Bitcoin White Paper was written by a British Economic Scientist. Who has embedded his identity secretly in the White Paper and also in the Genesis Block. There is no way craig will survive in this court proceeding. It is good for him to seek an exit from the Bitcoin Drama Stage. His recitation is finito. Satoshi Nakamoto is Emprato. Craig Wright is  bugiardo. 

May be few other Bitcoin community leaders also dreaming to claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto now. What a Bitcoin Saga !
It is write to produce a Blockbuster Movie. No problema, I will invest US $1.1 Billion dollars to produce the best Blockbuster Tech Movie.  we need 360 actors and actress to produce the mega movie.

But but but... he's a polymath!!!

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-denial-stage-of-grief-characteristics-and-coping-5272456

Come on man, even Tsipras took some English lessons to become slightly fluent.

CSW couldn't take C++ crash courses? You're in huge denial.

You have explained so many thing here in your post. Why don't you go to the court and reveal first your identity then become the witness of the Third Party, the real inventor of Bitcoin and Blockchain and the author of the Bitcoin White Paper ?  It will be a good idea if you really challenge CSW in the court. If you do not like to reveal your own identity then you are here in the forum just typing like a bot and who knows you could be one of bot of the real Satoshi Nakamoto who is reading the news and thinking what is next ?

May be Craig will claim to be the inventor Air Craft and also Microsoft Window and will sue to Bill Gate. Or perhaps he will claim to be the Jesus Christ or King of the Kangaroo Kingdom of Australia. He even does not  know the country name Australia, where it came from ?  How can he probably know about unsigned integer ?  

Craig has been hired and sponsored by a third party to play the Bitcoin drama. He is an extra ordinary actor, I think it is time for the real Satoshi to appear in the Court to ask the judge to throw out this case from hearing because this case actually is an orchestrated saga drama for a hidden objective. The real Satoshi knows about it and he might forgive Craig Wright if he just simply tell the truth and stop his crusade against the Bitcoin developers.

If this case consciously goes like this it is distracting Bitcoin market development and progression, so I might have to pray to his Divine Holiness, Lord of God of the Mammon - Satoshi Nakamoto to come out of the Maze  and reveal his identity to stop Craig Wright and all other faketoshis impersonating His Japanese Pseudonym. I think this will stop searching for Satoshi Nakamoto and thousands of reporters will be able save their precious times writing so many news articles.

Stop writing news article of Craig Wright's  false claim. He is not the real Satoshi Nakamoto. the real Satoshi Nakamoto is the Lord of the Golden Ring who is relaxing on his Peacock Throne and planning to resurrect the Kingdom of Ethiopia (Utopia) on the entire globe, where Bitcoin will becomes the Commonworld single currency.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x-------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually Kingdom of Utopia has been founded on the 3 January 2009 and Bitcoin and Blockchain is the Decentralised Peoples Bank of the Commonworld. One World, One Single Currency and one Economy. Every governments must adopt the Bitcoin Blockchain to set free their governments from the democratic scapegoat of the plutocrats.

------------------------------------------------------------------x-------------------------------------------------------------------







    

I haven't seen so far copa dispute any of his certificates . It would be the no 1 target if copa had any evidence that he either plagiarised or faked any . Strange that none has disputed so probably he is a person with a very wide knowledge .

That leads me to another speculation . If he is a security expert ( let's not forget that's not disputed by copa ) would it be possible not to have c++ knowledge ? So i googled it .

"Can C++ be used in cyber security?
Speed and efficiency: C++ is a fast and efficient language that can handle large amounts of data and perform complex operations quickly. This makes it ideal for developing high-performance cybersecurity applications."

That means that if csw is a cybersecurity expert he propably has c++ knowledge .

There is of course the "gotcha bitch" moment of copa lawyer . I'm not familiar with coding but i saw opinions from both camps and both had valid arguments . We will see more about this when c++ creator will be on the stand .

The reason i write today is not to argue with anyone , i would just like to share a link of an interesting film back from the 50's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ddhxl2omFc
For those that don't want to spend time here is another link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)
A part from wikipedia that i like :

"Professor of Law Emeritus at UCLA School of Law Michael Asimow referred to the film as a "tribute to a common man holding out against lynch mob mentality".[10] Gavin Smith of Film Comment called the film "a definitive rebuttal to the lynch mob hysteria of the McCarthy era".[11]"

Anyways , grab your popcorn and try to be informed from both camps . Things aren't always as they seem to be if you dig a little further than what van pelt or coingeek says .

 

CSW admitted he hires ghost writers
CSW admitted he hires degree writer(editors)
CSW admitted he hires patent writers

so not a stretch of imagination to say he hires coder his imaginary v1 of bitcoin was wrote by his team and he just handed then a lego block and said "build it, but in code"

This by itself means anyone who still believes Wright's claims should feel deep humiliation, as it's beyond obvious by this point that they've been taken for fools.  Anyone who claims to be satoshi, but can't explain what satoshi's code does is undeniably a fraud.  And it's permanently on record now for all the world to see.  Wright can't explain the code.  No one can come up with a justifiable excuse as to how the real satoshi wouldn't be capable of answering that question.  Ergo, he isn't satoshi.  That's all the evidence any rational person should need.

The charade is over.

Where is HmmMAA to justify this huge clusterfuck?

19min 14sec  - 22m 0 sec (the story of secret meetings to destroy satoshi ID in january 2011*)
not only did craig trip himself on the date as it was after G.williams(person claimed to be in secret call) died months prior(aug 2010), but D.klieman was also in hospital at the time.. but there are other inconsistence too not mentioned but worth highlighting now on this forum for context

going back through my own notes.. of al the snippets from different court cases over the years

there are revelations from other court cases about how Dave Kliemen had accountant friends that done daves tax filings and none of the documents of daves spending or income or anything paperwork created to explain spending had anything to do with setting up anything to do with bitcoin*

friends of daves also note how daves income was not sustainable*. even though (in CSW story) they meant to have had 1m coin at 2011 prices ($millions)
so no proof of bitcoin involvement 2008-2011

moving onto 2011 .. CSW did contact dave pre feb 2011.. but it was about promising dave if they formed a partnership(W&K feb 2011) they could win grants which would fund daves living expenses and medical bills. as dave was poor and didnt have much of an income in 2011*

CSW only worked with D.Kliemen on trying to win US Department of Defense grant applications (him trying to scam USGov) under the pretense of getting funding to then write software for the DoD.. dave had little to no coding skills.. nor did CSW

so CSW had no code/product to offer the US DoD.. just an idea.. hoping the US DoD would believe and trust the pitch and award him a R&D grant so they can employ coders and take a cut for themselves as project managers, oops i mean "IT forensics Specialists"


(*sidenote: those court revelations in previous cases prove they had no partnership pre 2011 and no stash of currency pre-2011)

and when D.Klieman realised, due to US grant denial later on in 2011 as there was not even a software prototype to back up claims, DKlieman then cut off communication with CSW and didnt talk to him again. ever

[insert 2 year gap of nothingness]

CSW then only then tried contacting Dave in 2013 after CSW bought his first BTC in april 2013 and wanted to introduce bitcoin to dave in 2013(after april) to re-kindled a partnership, but got told of daves death of april 2013..

so CSW & dave did not write any software to track any russian transactions for the US DoD. nor have a secret meeting nor have anything to do with bitcoin pre 2013.. events of 2011 was just a 'info defense' scam of wanting US defence contract grants to fund the possibility of writing software for the US DoD(which he had no intention of writing as he just wanted a payday)

CSW's game with US DoD and australian ATO was try to get government grants for R&D to produce stuff.. but then never produce an end product. try to get funding written off as a tax loss due to lack of productivity to then try to get a tax rebate on other spending that never produced results

* separate note.
the real satoshi was actually still communicating with people in the bitcoin community in 2011 so the real satoshi was not scorched earth ready to completely disapear.. unlike CSW version of events

---

as for the unsigned integer..
heres an explainer which anyone can learn in 20 seconds(apart from CSW which couldnt learn in decades)
signed:
the first bit of a 32bit binary length indicates if the next 31bits are positive or negative, allowing for binary to decimal conversion range of -2147483648 to +2147483647

unsigned:
a 32bit binary length indicates all 32bits are positive allowing for binary to decimal conversion range of 0 to 4294967295

so its funny how CSW couldnt even say something as simple as this

---

as for the witness, family testimony
the sister previously didnt hear of any bitcoin speak and instead thought CSW worked for nasa due to(scams of) government contract bids/applications(+friendship with dave who had a Nasa ID from previous work)
she only thinks there is a japanese connection because CSW cosplayed as a ninja as a child.. hmm wow.. much proof, not..  

He must have had some serious brain damage, and must have forgotten that he had "written" all the following lines himself back in 2009!  


But, I know. How can I prove it's the "original v0.1"?! Let's dive into the BSV repository.
(And 15 other files that include static const unsigned ints)

Maybe Craig should now fine the person who made all these "changes" in BSV's source code without his knowledge!

Sorry for missing the updates for the past few days. Here's a quick summary:

Day 8:

Day 8 was the last day of Craig's cross examination. COPA's Jonathan Hugh KC has now finished questioning him and handed over cross-examination to Alexander Gunning KC for the first time who was grilling Craig on the bitcoin code. It was by far my favourite day as Craig fucked himself royally and he knew it. Craig couldn't even explain two simple bits of code within bitcoin nor did he know what the code did. He didn't know what 'static const unsigned int' was. According to Arthur Van Pelt 'unsigned integer' was used over 500 times in the original bitcoin code  . It was at this point I think they should have just called off the trial and told him to get out. Craig really should have spent more time learning to code or at least memorising it instead of wasting his time with phony degrees and worthless patents.

Day 9:

Craig's cross examination has finished now and his "expert witnesses" are now being cross examined. And when I say expert witnesses they include his sister, friends, and people who worked for or with him years ago. I'm not sure why Craig picked these doofs because they're making him look like an even bigger idiot. One of the witnesses was caught looking down at something at certain points after questions. COPA's lawyer asked him if he was reading from something and he admitted he was. He was asked what he was reading from and said notes. He was asked why he had notes and who gave him them. He denied Craig gave him them and made the notes himself, but couldn't explain why he needed them. The time he was caught was when he mentioned Timecoin because he paused and looked down before he continued. This is the first time he'd ever mentioned Timecoin and hadn't mentioned it in either of his previous testimonies for Craig, so it was pretty obvious he'd been told to try shoehorn this mention in somewhere and obviously has list of things Craig has told him to now mention to bolster his claims. Timecoin is something Craig dreamed up fairly recently so it's obviously another example of Craig trying to backdate evidence and re-write history in his favour.

Day 10:

This was a shorter day and included only a couple of testimonies, including from Craig's sister. The best thing she had was that Craig has always been smart and weird, and used to dress up as a ninja as a kid . So... Satoshi is a Japanese name and ninjas are Japanese, so therefore Craig is Satoshi??? The other people were just old work colleagues in various capacities. Pretty much all the witnesses couldn't remember Craig ever mentioning something specific to bitcoin, only that he was always messing about with computers, and might have mentioned something like blockchain, or mining etc, but Hugh kept asking them if this is what actually happened or are they looking back through the prism of hindsight and knowing what they know now rather than at the time. The trial has become a farce now in my opinion.

Day 11: Today

Today we've had Craig's witnesses of David Bridges, who worked alongside Craig at Australia's Qudos Bank who he met Craig in 2006, Max Lynama who is Craig's cousin, and now BSV's Stefan Matthews who is currently being cross examined as I type this. Nothing exciting or important has happened or been said so far really and Matthew's is just denying most things.

I will try get back on track to the daily updates, but if you want to listen to a concise recap of the trial so far I recommend listening to Part 2 of the Dr Bitcoin podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3CoTfili4

They have been doing updates every few days and I'm sure part 3 will be coming soon.

As posted earlier here you can request access to watch it:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/crypto-open-patient-alliance-v-dr-craig-steven-wright-and-dr-wright-v-various/


But it's simple CSW is not Satoshi, he is just looking to make money off of people.

-Dave

When CSW will be re cross examine again ?

Can any members of the public attend the court and provide any authentic 
evidences to prove whether CSW is wrong or right in his claim ?

Disinformation indeed!

Am glad you did open my eyes though to the legitimacy of the source of my information.
I only hope you don't take it too personal but see it as a positive review that will lead to a prevention of any possible FUD that might result from the ongoing case between COPA vs Dr. Wright.

Source of the disinformation, you mean.


But I'm glad you aren't taking offence, because I'll be pointing out it's disinformation every time you post more of it.

Why does his autism or failed attempt at suicide matter in this case? Craig is not kind and the judge is not a parent of the kid who buys candies for a kid to stop crying. He has a mental illness and that's called Self-Deception, he needs the help of doctors and psychologists.

Btw I think that we are already seeing the start of massive Bitcoin adoption, even BlackRock got involved in it recently, so I don't think they'll let him play like this. This mascarade should end soon, no one is going to confirm him as the Satoshi Nakamoto since he can't provide evidences, he will never provide what doesn't exist, no matter how much time will pass.

A bit late, but on that day CoinDesk also report that he going to derail the topic.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/02/12/craig-wright-told-by-uk-court-to-stop-making-irrelevant-allegations-as-copa-trial-continues/


If you spend more than 5 minutes on CG website, there are many obvious lies especially referring BTC as Bitcoin Core. In fact, BTC refer to Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core is one of many full node software implementation for Bitcoin. They also claim BSV is decentralized even though BSV has few GB block size limit (which makes running node very expensive) and intorduce feature to steal confiscate coin[1].

[1] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/

I didn't know that until you made it crystal clear, literally.
I would sure do my own research so as to ascertain the fact for myself.

I doubt I have shared any false information without a proper source simply just to discredit BTC. Or so much so helped to legitimize a criminal without being proven so by law.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as such I take no offense to your response after reading my comments and calling all the information lies because they don't agree with your opinion or because you simply dislike or disagree with the source of the information.

I literally just told you.  The same person giving money to Wright to attack the BTC community with frivolous lawsuits is the same person supporting and funding that website.  It's in their interest to twist the narrative to make the sleazy con-artist appear legitimate.  Notice how no legitimate media outlet on the face of the planet is as one-sided in their coverage.  CoinGeek isn't even attempting to hide their enormous bias.

And by sharing these lies, you are helping to legitimise a criminal.