- COPA challenges additional evidence submitted by Wright supporting his Satoshi claim.
- Forensic analysis indicates document forgery, particularly in respect of LaTeX files.
- The forgery approach centers on altering dates.
Satoshi Nakamoto’s true identity ranks among the most intriguing mysteries in cryptocurrency. Craig Wright is adamant about his claim to the title of Bitcoin founder, despite dissent from many in the crypto community, including the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), who face Wright in the UK High Court.
Wright has submitted multiple documents and files supporting his Satoshi claim, including documents on the authorship of the Bitcoin white paper.
Several experts told the court that many files were manipulated or unreliable. In the latest twist, COPA has filed to debunk Wright’s claim of writing the Bitcoin whitepaper.
COPA Investigations Show Wright Is Not Satoshi
Wright critically claims that he wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper in the LaTeX document preparation system. However, forensic analysis commissioned by COPA found multiple issues with this, including the damning determination that the original Bitcoin White Paper was written using OpenOffice 2.4 software.
Forensic analysis noted that “encoding and embedding fonts within the original Bitcoin White Paper, and their kerning, is fundamentally incompatible with LaTeX.” Experts found that the LaTeX files submitted by Wright were created in August 2023, significantly after the whitepaper’s publication in October 2008.
COPA also covered discrepancies in other files supporting Wright’s claim, such as “E-Cash-main.tex” being incompatible with the 2008 version of LaTeX, and the “BDOPC.raw”, which was revealed to have doctored the date of Wright’s computer content to October 2007, resulting in backdated digital artifacts.
With the weight of evidence seemingly stacked against Wright, several commentators have waded in with their takes.
Is It Over For Wright?
Podcaster “Artie Fan Belt” stated that the latest filing was “a destructive take down of Craig’s second line of forgeries.” They also mentioned that Wright’s former lawyer, Ontier, disputed Wright’s account of missing file disclosure timeframes on advice from lawyers.
Lawyer J Nicholas Gross commented that the scale of document forgery was like nothing he had seen and questioned how the defense team could continue representing Wright given that he was “committing fraud on the court.”
Lawyer Zem Gao nevertheless contends that Wright is in a strong position as COPA’s “negative proof” approach is flawed.
On the Flipside
- Hal Finney, Adam Back, and Wei Dai are also discussed as the possible names behind Satoshi Nakamoto.
Why This Matters
As the COPA vs Wright case continues, the implications are far-reaching in determining the true founder of Bitcoin. As accusations fly amid complex technical evidence, the outcome may lift the shadow surrounding blockchain’s early days or deepen its mystery further.
Read more on the evidence Wright submitted to verify his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto here:
Bitcoin SV Pumps as Wright Boosts Satoshi Legitimacy Claims
Find out about BNB Chain consolidating its blockchains here:
BNB Smart Chain Targets Enhanced Efficiency with Beacon Merge