Hodlonaut Trial

[franky1]

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

[NotATether]

Edit (to avoid a double-post):  LOL  Mr. Wright's "evidence" is out: https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/xp5qy9/fresh_from_oslo_craig_wrights_submitted_evidence/

The binary is so awesomely fake.  In particular, I love seeing that when he made strings shorter because the offsets needed to be preserved he space padded them... either because he didn't know better or because his hatred of me prevented him from using the much more plausible null character instead of spaces.

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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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

[gmaxwell]

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.

[JayJuanGee]

gavin and many others all signed an NDA with a payday value included for the event involvement.

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413844.msg61016128#msg61016128. 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".

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..

[o_e_l_e_o]

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

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

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.

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):

Unfortunately, I was unable to convince the creator to re-send the two signed emails that you requested because there is a strong desire to NOT have any "non-physical-presence" proof floating around in the world prior to formal announcement. I have never asked you for anything before, so you are just going to have to trust me on this and what I personally witnessed with the block #1 sign and verify.

On the following pages it seems that the only convincing Andresen asked for beyond that was an email from CSW on the current "State of Bitcoin". CSW's reply on pages 9-11 reads very much like CSW and not at all like Satoshi, but apparently was enough to convince Andresen.

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..

This becomes fairly clear in the emails you can read in the following pages of the same document as above.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

[aoluain]

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

Satoshi Nakamoto would not have needed to manipulate published versions to obtain evidence

Re: Original Bitcoin Software 0.0.8

In the procedural document it is claimed that the software is from January 4, 2009 (i.e. before v0.1.0 was published on January 11, 2009)

The code contains a fix for a bug that was only discovered later by Hal Finney

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

· Wright does not have access to anything that Satoshi Nakamoto should have access to that is not already public

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

[o_e_l_e_o]

Wright does not have access to anything that Satoshi Nakamoto should have access to that is not already public

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.

[aoluain]

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"

1.2 Stated the actual requirement for a declaratory judgment — after more than 3 years
.
.
.As the case now stands, the question is only relevant to the question of whether,
at the time of publication, hodlonaut had a factual basis for the defamations against Wright
which helped to justify them

1.4 Plaintiff’s offer of evidence for the district court
.
.
.
The plaintiff has not proven that there was a basis for calling Wright a fraud and impostor
at the time of publication

1.5 The time of publication
.
.
.
The majority of the plaintiff’s evidence was obtained long after the statements
.
.
.
It will always be required of the person who has made an accusation that he has done what
can reasonably be required in advance to get the facts straight

[ABCbits]

However, has the same built-in checksum (a kind of hash) as the public version (v0.1.0) — Real checksum and built-in checksum do not match in the presented exe file — real checksum and built-in checksum match v0.1.0

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.

Repeated attempts to get a more detailed account of what happened to the private keys — because the story has changed several times over the years

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

[gmaxwell]

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"

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).

[NeuroticFish]

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"

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.

[aoluain]

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"

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.

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.

snip

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.

snip

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.

[gmaxwell]

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.

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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[aysg76]

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?

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.

[NotATether]

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.

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?

Exactly. Somebody's gotta take down this guy's (Wright) claims for good before he becomes a crypto Trump and influences an untold number of people.

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.

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):

Unfortunately, I was unable to convince the creator to re-send the two signed emails that you requested because there is a strong desire to NOT have any "non-physical-presence" proof floating around in the world prior to formal announcement. I have never asked you for anything before, so you are just going to have to trust me on this and what I personally witnessed with the block #1 sign and verify.

When was this email written? And why is Gavin still emphasizing that CSW is the bitcoin creator?

[o_e_l_e_o]

When was this email written? And why is Gavin still emphasizing that CSW is the bitcoin creator?

This particular email is dated "March 14, 2016 7:27 PM".

Interestingly, there is an email from Gavin dated April 6, 2016, which asks for the following from the signing session:

I just spent some time thinking about what I'd like to get out of the meetings tomorrow. I'll be bringing my laptop and a brand-new USB stick, I'd like to see some or all of the following copied onto it so I can verify on my laptop:

PGP-signed message with the well-known key containing tomorrow's date and the phrase "So it goes" (I'm a Kurt Vonnegut fan)
One or more messages signed using keys from early bitcoin blocks (using bitcoind signmessage/verifymessage functionality)
Never-before-published private emails or forum posts to or from me, from 2010

Of course, we now know that Gavin did not receive anything even close to any of those things. CSW includes the following in his reply:

I am not the media whore I am touted to be and I am also not seeking funds.

I do not want to attend conferences. Nor do I seek affirmation.

Particularly ironic given the whole hodlonaut trial is about CSW claiming that hodlonaut's tweets stopped him from attending conferences.

[NotATether]

CSW includes the following in his reply:

I am not the media whore I am touted to be and I am also not seeking funds.

I do not want to attend conferences. Nor do I seek affirmation.

Particularly ironic given the whole hodlonaut trial is about CSW claiming that hodlonaut's tweets stopped him from attending conferences.

That guy's words are worth the value of the text file they are typed in.