Updates from the COPA v Craig Wright trial

[hilariousetc]

Day 7

Much more of the shaggy defence today (It wasn't me). Craig claims to have never personally posted one of his blogs, but had numerous "editors" doing so for him, so of course any backdated forgeries are not him but one of the various editors, only one he could recall the first name of.

Craig also claimed he was hacked by Ira Kleiman who planted backdated blogs to smear him. COPA's barrister KC Hough rebutted him "But this was before you even contact with Ira". Craig then claimed it was in fact Ira's lawyers. I'm surprised Craig hasn't claimed yet that his dog ate the original whitepaper/USB stick that the genesis block was on. He also claimed the ATO were the ones who leaked some of the forged documents.  

Annoys me that they even keep referring to him as Dr Wright, a qualification he quite clearly has not earned.

You can check his qualifications for charles state university here https://alumni.csu.edu.au/benefits/verify-qualifications , craig wright 23-10-1970

Edit. If his doctorate was plagiarised after all the noise years ago i would expected that the university would have it withdrawn , i'm not sure if this can happen though , someone with knowledge on this might add something productive .

Can you link to his degree page because it says you need his full name and birthdate, but CSU has stated they're investigating the plagiarism:

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2020/05/11/craig-wrights-doctoral-thesis-being-investigated-for-plagiarism/

Though his claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto are controversial at best, that’s more due to his lack of proof than his acts of plagiarism. In spite of that, Wright still enjoys his supporters and believers. If a lack of proof doesn’t sway them, repeated and believable allegations of plagiarism certainly won’t.

But Wright’s plagiarisms may finally have a consequence.

The same author that discovered the plagiarism in Wright’s Master of Laws dissertation, PaintedFrog, found similar plagiarism in Wright’s doctoral dissertation and Charles Sturt University. There, Wright was granted a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Economics in 2017. According to his bio, he also was a lecturer and researcher at the university.

However, that degree may now be in jeopardy as Charles Sturt University has revealed that it is investigating the allegations. Though it can’t confirm anything beyond that, the announcement has caused many to hope that the degree is revoked.

Unfortunately for those eager to see Wright suffer consequences for his plagiarism, that optimism likely needs to be tempered. Revoking a degree, though possible, is an extreme last step and it’s one that few schools take regularly.

However, that doesn’t mean that Wright won’t be impacted by the investigation if they do find that plagiarism took place.

But again, any qualifications Craig claims to have are irrelevant to him being Satoshi, especially when they've all come long after his claims. What Craig is is just a conman who rocks up in a nice car, flashy suit and tells you all about his many qualifications in order to gain trust. A man this intelligent couldn't possibly be a scam artist, but that's exactly what he is. Craig knows full well that nobody is going to believe him so he has to fake all his "proof" but when he gets caught out he blames everyone but himself, so now his last resort is hoping he can collect a load of qualifications to make out like he's a genius, and Satoshi was a genius, so craig must obviously be Satoshi.

[HmmMAA]

Can you link to his degree page because it says you need his full name and birthdate, but CSU has stated they're investigating the plagiarism:

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2020/05/11/craig-wrights-doctoral-thesis-being-investigated-for-plagiarism/

So , as long they still have it in his degree's page it's valid . Correct ? As there's a chance there was no plagiarism .  If you have any update about the degree revoke case it would be nice to share . If not , i guess case is closed . There's been 3 1/2 years since then , i think unis work faster than agencies .

But again, any qualifications Craig claims to have are irrelevant to him being Satoshi, especially when they've all come long after his claims. What Craig is is just a conman who rocks up in a nice car, flashy suit and tells you all about his many qualifications in order to gain trust. A man this intelligent couldn't possibly be a scam artist, but that's exactly what he is. Craig knows full well that nobody is going to believe him so he has to fake all his "proof" but when he gets caught out he blames everyone but himself, so now his last resort is hoping he can collect a load of qualifications to make out like he's a genius, and Satoshi was a genius, so craig must obviously be Satoshi.

I'm glad that you are not biased at all
It's nice to see people moving goalposts , some years ago he wasn't even a guy with degrees . At least now it's recognised that he has many degrees and qualifications . I guess if somehow proves to be satoshi then maxis will say that's he's so qualified that probably hacked satoshi .

[headingnorth]

Why isn't this scamming crook in prison yet for committing a massive fraud on the court and repeatedly lying under oath?
 

[franky1]

Why isn't this scamming crook in prison yet for committing a massive fraud on the court and repeatedly lying under oath?

cases were civil.. not criminal, so fines are involved not prison
however if a civil case can prove criminal act(forgery/fraud).. it becomes evidence.. THEN.. criminal charges can be filed if authorities get a criminal complaint with evidence..
.. watch this space

[Cryptomultiplier]

*snip Ayre propaganda*

As part of my contribution to providing updates on this court case between Dr. Wright and COPA, here are some excerpt from the last hearing and it is more on the case of forged documents brought forward to question the authentication of Dr. Wrights claim.
I however still doubt Dr. Wright is Nakamoto even if he has several documents to show he was among the originators of most of Bitcoin's technical initiative such as the P2p mode of transaction used.

More evidence will be provided soonest during the next court hearing, so am staying glued and making my observation known accordingly.

And as part of my contribution of providing a counter to FUD, I'll again point out that the source of these "updates" is a website run by people funding Wright's sad little campaign of lawsuits against this very community and its developers.  Anything from 'CG' is not to be trusted as it is a BSV shitcoin site, not a Bitcoin site.  People citing CG as a reputable source are not to be trusted.

I cited CG with its source link at the initial start, so as everyone knows how I stay updated with the court hearing between COPA and Dr. Wright.
I receive news letter as mails from the CG site and only thought it proper to share it, so anyone who needs to follow up would.

Perhaps my image sharing pisses you off, but it's not a yardstick to accuse me of supporting a shitcoin I clearly didn't speak about.

Unless you intend to gain from such obscure propaganda of pointing out a FUD where one doesn't really exist, then please help us understand why CG isn't a reputable source and is not to be trusted mostly as it concerns this COPA vs Wright case, where several opinions have been made and mine including yours may not even be valid in the long run.

[DooMAD]

please help us understand why CG isn't a reputable source and is not to be trusted mostly as it concerns this COPA vs Wright case

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.

[Cryptomultiplier]

please help us understand why CG isn't a reputable source and is not to be trusted mostly as it concerns this COPA vs Wright case

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.

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.

[ABCbits]

Day six.

Missed the first 30 minutes of the trial this morning but Craig is getting absolutely rekt right now. First time I've seen him red-faced as they are bringing up his Master of Law degree plagiarism haha. If I'm understanding him correctly he's now blaming the degree plagiarism on an editor he hired and also malfunctioning editing software. Even the judge has expressed disbelief asking Craig "how on earth" is this logical. Mind-blowing. Annoys me that they even keep referring to him as Dr Wright, a qualification he quite clearly has not earned.

You can see the evidence that they're discussing here now: https://medium.com/@paintedfrog/craig-wrights-llm-dissertation-is-full-of-plagiarism-f21439ea8a47

"Satoshi" is now trending on twitter.

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/

--snip--

Unless you intend to gain from such obscure propaganda of pointing out a FUD where one doesn't really exist, then please help us understand why CG isn't a reputable source and is not to be trusted mostly as it concerns this COPA vs Wright case, where several opinions have been made and mine including yours may not even be valid in the long run.

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/

[shield132]

Craig's defence seemed to consist of just letting the court know about Craig's autism and previous suicide attempt due to the stress of trying and failing to prove he's Satoshi.

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.

[DooMAD]

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.

Source of the disinformation, you mean.

Disinformation is false information deliberately spread to deceive people.  Disinformation is an orchestrated adversarial activity in which actors employ strategic deceptions and media manipulation tactics to advance political, military, or commercial goals.  Disinformation is implemented through attacks that weaponize multiple rhetorical strategies and forms of knowing—including not only falsehoods but also truths, half-truths, and value judgements—to exploit and amplify culture wars and other identity-driven controversies.

In contrast, misinformation refers to inaccuracies that stem from inadvertent error.

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.

[Cryptomultiplier]

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.

Source of the disinformation, you mean.

Disinformation is false information deliberately spread to deceive people.  Disinformation is an orchestrated adversarial activity in which actors employ strategic deceptions and media manipulation tactics to advance political, military, or commercial goals.  Disinformation is implemented through attacks that weaponize multiple rhetorical strategies and forms of knowing—including not only falsehoods but also truths, half-truths, and value judgements—to exploit and amplify culture wars and other identity-driven controversies.

In contrast, misinformation refers to inaccuracies that stem from inadvertent error.

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.

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.

[LeezHamilton]

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 ?

[DaveF]

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 ?

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/

There's probably less than 50 people and the room isn't very big. It's not very exciting or a 'big' trial and doesn't seem to be getting much media attention, though the trial is trending on Twitter right now. You can request a private link to view the stream but it's not available publicly other than there. You can try here: 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

[hilariousetc]

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.

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

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

Code: (main.h)

static const unsigned int MAX_SIZE = 0x02000000;

Code: (market.h)

static const unsigned int nFlowthroughRate = 2;

Code: (net.h)

static const unsigned int PUBLISH_HOPS = 5;

But, I know. How can I prove it's the "original v0.1"?! Let's dive into the BSV repository.

Code: ("bitcoin-tx.cpp")

static const unsigned int minTxOutSz = 9;
static const unsigned int maxVout = MAX_TX_SIZE_CONSENSUS_AFTER_GENESIS / minTxOutSz; // bitcoin-tx tool can build txs with more vouts than pre Genesis nodes  would accept

Code: ("bloom.h")

static const unsigned int MAX_BLOOM_FILTER_SIZE = 36000; // bytes
static const unsigned int MAX_HASH_FUNCS = 50;

Code: ("compressor.h")

static const unsigned int nSpecialScripts = 6;

(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!

[franky1]

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

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..  

[cryptosize]

Where is HmmMAA to justify this huge clusterfuck?

[DooMAD]

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.

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.

[franky1]

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"

[HmmMAA]

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.

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 .