I read through the Gavin Andresen deposition (well, skimmed through it as there is 400+ pages) and found some highlights to share. You can read them for yourself here (
part 1,
part 2) if you want. I suggest looking for his bulkier responses as some of it does contain insights into the history of the development of Bitcoin that perhaps were previously unknown.
In all, I was kind of disheartened that he still chooses to believe it is more likely than not that Craig actually signed a message from the famous block which sent a tx to Hal Finney, but at the same time he admits he thinks Craig was dishonest with him when he made his blog post that was supposed to prove to the world that he was Satoshi, by producing a b.s. signature that was quickly debunked as meaningless.
I can't reconcile how Gavin can think Craig is untruthful while at the same time clinging to his assertion that he "probably" signed the message using the private key from that block. Most likely he just doesn't want to have to admit he was wrong. We all know how he feels about BTC these days, and its a double-blow to have to admit that one of BTC's (supposed but not really) rivals is led by a fraud. I don't think he has any money in the game or that he is somehow "on the side" of Calvin and Craig -- most likely its simply a matter of protecting his ego.
page 25
Q Sitting here today, do you believe you had communications with Satoshi Nakamoto after this email? (ed: regarding Satoshi's last email to Gavin sent in April 2011)
A No.
page 26
Q Why did you stop being the lead core developer at Bitcoin?
A Several reasons. The most immediate reason was I believed that, for Bitcoin to grow, there needed to be more than one implementation; there needed -- needed to be more than one software that people were using.
And so I had taken on the role of chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, and I wanted that role to be not working on one particular implementation of Bitcoin, not one particular open-source software project, but to be kind of bigger picture and try to encourage other implementations of the Bitcoin protocol and to think about kind of bigger issues facing Bitcoin.
page 46
I have my doubts on -- I have many, many doubts in my head about what parts of -- what things Craig told me are true and what are not true.
page 88
...I did not expect the private proving session to have as much weight as it did. So there were certainly, you know, pos -- there are places in the private proving session where I could have been fooled, where somebody could have switched out the software that was being used or, perhaps, the laptop that was delivered was not a brand-new laptop, and it had been tampered with in some way. I was also jet lagged.
And, again, I was not in the head space of this is going to prove to the world that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. I was in the head space of, you know, this will prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. And my doubts arise because the proof that was presented to me is very different from the pseudo proof that was later presented to the world.
page 131
So the blog post that Craig released was not at all what I expected him to release. I expected him to release a very simple, you know, I am Satoshi, here is some -- here is a simple message signed with an early key from an early block.
Instead, he released a very wacky supposed proof that actually wasn't a proof of anything but was incredibly technical and hard to follow, and I was as surprised as anybody to see that. And it -- it took, I don't know, a few hours, a day, for somebody to -- to figure out what all that technical gobbledygook actually meant and to show that it wasn't actually a proof of anything.
Q So he didn't even almost prove he was Satoshi?
A Correct. Anybody could have produced that gobbledygook proof.
Q Why didn't he release a simple signed message?
A I don't know.
page 157
Q You said that he -- he led you to believe he wanted one thing from you, and really you thought he really wanted something else.
A I suspect -- yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, I -- I thought that my piece would be part of a larger whole of him proving beyond a reasonable doubt to the world that he was Satoshi Nakamoto. And I thought that that's what he wanted from me. And then he did not complete the rest of the puzzle, and so that makes me wonder, is that really what he wanted from me, or did he have some other ulterior motive for flying me to London and -- and doing this -- the proof session? And I don't know what that other motive would be.
What's probably more interesting is
Craig's deposition from March 18th released in the same set of documents (on June 19th). Craig is clearly on the defensive here, being very argumentative and rude with the plaintiff's counsel. Here are some of my favorite highlights:
page 13
I answered the question. If your comprehension is not adequate to understand it, I apologise. My question has been answered.
page 19
Q. Did you and Dave Kleiman work on a number of patents together?
A. Mr. Kleiman has never worked on any patent in his life, to my knowledge. He has not filed a patent, he has not written a patent, he 1 has not been involved in the research that has led to a patent, he has not filed a paper academically leading to a patent. I have filed around -- at the moment I believe it is just over 1,000 patents. In the pipeline we have 1,600 papers and by the end of the current backlog of research we will have around 6,000 patents, placing me at approximately 500% of the total life work of Thomas Edison.
Q. I did not ask you where you placed in the total life work of Tom Edison. I simply asked whether you and Dave Kleiman worked on a number of patents together. That's yes or no question. Please try to answer the question I'm asking you.
...
Q. Dr. Wright did you tell the ATO that you and Dave Kleiman worked on a number of patents together?
...
A. I just answered that question. I do not really care if you like the fact that I didn't use yes or no. I answered the question. If your comprehension of that question is inadequate, too bad.
page 32
My understanding is that Mr. Kleiman did not do any work on W&K software. Subsequent to 2013, after his death, which I did not realise at the time, if Mr. Kleiman -- the current Ira -- want to have all out, is that any monies that I had given David Kleiman to basically build software ended up basically going into Silk Road and other sources to supply a drug habit that Mr. Kleiman hid from certain people but not everyone. So zero software was developed in W&K, but if you want to destroy David Kleiman's reputation and drag him through this then that is your choice.
page 56
Q. Does nChain have ability to control this litigation with respect to the intellectual property?
...
A. No. nChain is not involved in any way in this litigation. I know that the people funding Mr. Kleiman at the moment, including Tether and Kraken, seek to shut me down because their whole existence in their Ponzi requires that I be seen as a fraud, but quite simply nChain has no, and I mean no -- I will reiterate that no -- involvement in this case whatsoever. No funding, no anything.
------
I only got up to about page 100 on that one but I'll add more later, have to take a break...
