“Wright’s claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of bitcoin, were met with skepticism and labeled as “a brazen lie” by COPA’s legal team. The focal point of the dispute centered around the copyright of the bitcoin whitepaper and the intellectual property rights associated with the bitcoin blockchain.
Within these contentious claims, Wright’s assertion about the origin of the bitcoin whitepaper and its preliminary version, referred to as ‘BlackNet,’ emerged as a focal aspect of the debate.
During the proceedings, when questioned about the origins of the bitcoin whitepaper, which Wright alleges was initially titled ‘BlackNet,’ the court observed the striking similarities between this document and the bitcoin whitepaper. Wright defended his stance by saying, ‘I am allowed to self plagiarise,’ indicating that both works were indeed his own creation by claiming he wrote both papers.
As the cross-examination continued, Wright’s demeanor fluctuated between smugness and evasiveness, particularly when confronted with allegations of document forgery. COPA’s strategy aimed to dismantle Wright’s claims through meticulous questioning and the presentation of evidence that questioned the authenticity of documents Wright had produced to support his claim to the Satoshi identity.
Wright’s credibility faced severe tests, notably regarding the domain issue and a video he recorded, which raised questions about the authenticity of his claims. Wright’s attempt to prove his ownership of bitcoin domains through a video demonstration backfired due to evident discrepancies and an apparent manipulation of evidence. This episode added layers of doubt to his narrative.
The situation was compounded by the confusion surrounding his credit card statements. Wright provided inconsistent explanations that were meticulously refuted by COPA’s legal team, led by Jonathan Hough. Hough presented solid documentation, including receipts and statements, that contradicted Wright’s accounts.
Wright maintained his claim to the Satoshi identity, even as the evidence presented by COPA painted a picture of inconsistency and confusion. The court scrutinized various documents, including those with misaligned numerals and disputed origins, challenging Wright’s claims of authenticity. The cross-examination revealed a complex web of claims and counterclaims, with Wright’s responses often leading to more questions than answers.”