Bitcoin’s Aussie ‘founder’ in heated court battle over identity

COPA’s barrister, Jonathan Hough, sought to establish that Mr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi was based on faked documents and contradictory statements.

The COPA case is that once Dr Wright’s evidence is subject to detailed and expert scrutiny, none of it credibly establishes him as the author of the famous 2008 bitcoin “white paper” which launched the blockchain-based cryptocurrency – and therefore he has no right to patents or control.

“Our case is that Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is a brazen lie, an elaborate false narrative supported by forgery on an industrial scale,” Mr Hough said on the trial’s first day.

Dr Wright’s counter-argument emerged during his responses to Mr Hough’s item-by-item cross-examination on the various emails, documents and computer screenshots.

Dr Wright argued that some of the apparent inconsistencies in his documentary evidence, and the apparently back-dated edits, were at best the result of either technical glitches, logistical or legal snafus, or unauthorised tampering. At worst, they were forgeries, hacks and compromises of his email accounts and IT systems, mostly aimed at discrediting him.

He also questioned the credentials of the independent expert witness who had identified flaws in his documents, saying the expert had not made findings, only offered opinions.

“I have done over 20 masters degrees now,” said Dr Wright, as he offered a definition of a scientific finding. The judge then told Dr Wright that if an independent expert had given an opinion, the court could rely on that opinion.

Anger management

At one point on Thursday – the third of an anticipated six days of cross-examination by COPA’s barrister – Dr Wright questioned the whole COPA strategy of looking for holes in his documentary evidence. He argued that his own case was premised on a different way of establishing identity.

“You cannot use … an email, you cannot use a file, and say ‘this is who I am’,” he said. “Rather, identity is built up over time … [from] my philosophy, my work and my qualifications.”

Dr Wright revealed to the judge at one point that he had undergone “anger management training” after an intemperate outburst during an American court case had almost led to a contempt charge.

Speaking to the AFR Weekend on the courtroom sidelines, Dr Wright said he was not stressed by the extensive grilling. “I thought it would be more stressful than it is,” he said. “But it’s tiring, that’s for sure.”

The cross-examination also looked at who has bankrolled Dr Wright’s various court cases, which have taken place in the US, Norway and Britain. In the London courtroom, Dr Wright’s team for the five-week trial included at least eight lawyers, while COPA had even more.

Mr Hough referred to a social media post from Canadian online gambling billionaire Calvin Ayre, calling him a “supporter” of Dr Wright. Dr Wright contested this, saying Mr Ayre had offered him a loan on commercial terms for his US court stoush with Ira Kleiman, the brother of a deceased computer programmer who was an apparent collaborator of Dr Wright’s.

Meanwhile, on X, supporters and detractors of Dr Wright batted interpretations of proceedings back and forth. The trial has attracted so much interest that the court has allowed people to log in and watch it remotely.

The remote option does have some appeal. The courtroom was oppressively hot, with most of the lawyers now armed with handheld fans and multiple bottles of water. At one point, a court official walked in and took the temperature on a handheld device. It seemed, somehow, an appropriate metaphor.