Wei Dai
On 20 August 2008 Satoshi Nakamoto shared a link to a then draft of the Bitcoin White Paper with Dr Back {L3/190}, stating:
“I'm getting ready to release a paper that references your Hashcash paper and I wanted to make sure I have the citation right. Here's what I have:
[5] A. Back, "Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure," http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf, 2002.
I think you would find it interesting, since it finds a new use for hash-based proof-of-work as a way to make e-cash work. You can download a pre-release draft at http://www.upload.ae/file/6157/ecash-pdf.html Feel free to forward it to anyone else you think would be interested. I'm also nearly finished with a C++ implementation to release as open source.”
Satoshi was clearly envisaging that Dr Back’s Hashcash paper would be the fifth reference in the Bitcoin White Paper.
Dr Back responded the following day as follows {L3/194}.
“Yes citation looks fine, I'll take a look at your paper. You maybe aware of the "B-money" proposal, I guess google can find it for you, by Wei Dai which sounds to be somewhat related to your paper. (The b-money idea is just described concisely on his web page, he didnt [sic] write up a paper).”
Two points emerge from that response. First, it was a perfectly friendly reply from Dr Back (he was not in any way dismissive). Second, and more importantly he drew Satoshi’s attention to the “B-money” proposal made by Wei Dai (which was set out on a web-page, not in a paper).
Satoshi Nakamoto replied to Dr Back on 21 August 2008 as follows {L3/192}:
“Thanks, I wasn't aware of the b-money page, but my ideas start from exactly that point. I'll e-mail him to confirm the year of publication so I can credit him.
The main thing my system adds is to also use proof-of-work to support a distributed timestamp server. While users are generating proof-of-work to make new coins for themselves, the same proof-of-work is also supporting the network timestamping. This is instead of Usenet.”
Separately, Satoshi wrote to Wei Dai on 22 August 2008 in the following terms {L3/195}:
“I was very interested to read your b-money page. I'm getting ready to release a paper that expands on your ideas into a complete working system.
Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your site.
I need to find out the year of publication of your b-money page for the citation in my paper. It'll look like:
[1] W. Dai, "b-money," http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, (2006?).”
Two points emerge from that email. First, it shows that the prompt for Satoshi Nakamoto’s approach to Wei Dai, was Wei Dai’s b-money page, rather than something else. Second, the effect of inserting a reference to Wei Dai’s b-money page as the first reference in the Bitcoin White Paper would have been to lead to Dr Back’s paper becoming the sixth reference – as in fact it was in the version published by Satoshi in October 2008: {L3/231/8}. Thus, it is clear that there was no reference in the Bitcoin White Paper to Wei Dai’s b-money page until it was mentioned to Satoshi by Adam Back.
Wei Dai responded to Satoshi Nakamoto at some point afterwards as follows {L14/99/3}:
“Hi Satoshi. b-money was announced on the cypherpunks mailing list in 1998.
Here's the archived post:
https://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/11/msg00941.html
There are some discussions of it at
https://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/12/msg00194.html.
Thanks for letting me know about your paper. I'll take a look at it and let
you know if I have any comments or questions.”
There were no further dealings between Satoshi and Wei Dai until the Bitcoin White Paper was published.
Wei Dai was unwilling to provide a witness statement but responded promptly to a request from COPA’s solicitors to comment on [91] and [92] of Wright1. His email responses were the subject of a CEA Notice by COPA:
‘1. I’m not a “distinguished academic” and has actually never worked in academia.
2. My understanding (from Satoshi’s first email to me) is that Satoshi only became
aware of b-money when he learned about it from Adam Back, which is after he
had completed the draft of the whitepaper that he sent to Adam, so it seems
wrong that I profoundly impacted Satoshi’s thinking.
3. I did not play a significant role in the development process of Bitcoin. Specifically
I did not guide Satoshi to “various signature algorithm libraries, including his
secure hash algorithm (SHA-256)”.
4. You can see the entirety of my communications with Satoshi at
https://gwern.net/doc/bitcoin/2008-nakamoto.’
In further emails Wei Dai was asked to and did comment on some claims made by Dr Wright in one of his blog posts and an email sent by Dr Wright to Gavin Andresen on 4 March 2016. The relevant extract from the blog post is:
‘Prof Wrightson knew of Wei Dai, and pointed me towards a paper titled Knowledge-Based Communication Processes in Building Design” that he knew of because of his work in machine learning. Both Adam Back and Prof Wrightson directed me to Wei Dai. 戴 维 turned out to be another cypherpunk, and he was an incredibly helpful one. I used some of his code in the original release of Bitcoin — with his permission.’
The relevant extract from the email reads as follows:
“Adam Back was not the source of the hashing algorithm within bitcoin. He was noted and referenced within the paper following my communications with him in mid-2008. The actual source of hash algorithm that is used for the proof or work is from the following authors:
• Tuomas Aura, Pekka Nikander, and Jussipekka Leiwo:
• http://www.tcs.hut.fi/old/papers/aura/aura-nikander-leiwo-protocols00.pdf
It is my belief that you will recognise the algorithm on reading this paper.
There are similarities in hashcash in that it searches for collisions, but the nature of the Bitcoin algorithm is derived from Aura et al. and not from Back. It also needs to be further noted that the code supplied by Wei Dai predates any communications with Adam by two months.”
Wei Dai said he did not write the paper mentioned in the blog post. He said it was someone else. He also said:
“I did not directly supply any code to Satoshi. (Again you can see the entirety of my communications with Satoshi at the link I gave earlier.) My understanding is that Satoshi did incorporate some of my code (specifically my implementation of SHA-256) into his Bitcoin code, but that code is in my open source Crypto++ library, and he probably just downloaded and used it without telling me.”
As I describe below, Wei Dai’s evidence is strongly supported by the evidence of Dr Adam Back, to which I turn next. Suffice to say I found Wei Dai’s evidence compelling and I accept it, despite the fact that he was unwilling to get involved beyond his email responses.
Before turning to consider Dr Back’s involvement and evidence, I should refer to the development in Dr Wright’s evidence on Wei Dai after Wright1. In Wright11 [370] {CSW/1/69}, Dr Wright further tried to suggest that he had been aware of Wei Dai’s b-money proposal prior to his dealings with Dr Back, but was not aware of Wei Dai’s b-money page. That might seem an odd point of detail for Dr Wright to persist with in light of the exchanges with Dr Back and Wei Dai I have already described. However, Dr Wright was compelled to argue the point because of prior publications by him asserting longstanding familiarity with Wei Dai’s work.
In an article entitled “Fully Peer-to-Peer” published on 6 June 2019 {L15/88/1}, Dr Wright had referred to enrolling at the University of Newcastle in 2005 as a post-graduate researcher between 2005 and 2009. He stated that entering the university gave him access to the work of Graham Wrightson and Andreas Furche {L15/88/2}. He went on to say at {L15/88/3}:
“I did not put down that I was Satoshi when I talked to them. I was just another postgraduate researcher and student. …
… In a conversation that I had when I started my degree with Prof Graham Wrightson, I saw that the separate networks and communication infrastructure would end up merging. …
Prof Wrightson knew of Wei Dai, and pointed me towards a paper titled “Knowledge-Based Communication Processes in Building Design” that he knew of because of his work in machine learning. Both Adam Back and Prof Wrightson directed me to Wei Dai. 戴维 turned out to be another cypherpunk, and he was an incredibly helpful one. I used some of his code in the original release of Bitcoin — with his permission. Andreas Furche knew of Hal Finney and Adam Back. So I emailed people. I was researching in 2005, and came to the conclusion that I could build something. By 2007, I was ready to start.”
The Developers submitted that every element of that account was imagined for the following reasons:
Professor Wrightson had retired from the University of Newcastle on 9 August 2000 and had no further contact with it: {C/17.1/4} and {C/17.1/11}. He does not recall ever meeting, speaking or working with an individual named Craig Steven Wright {C/17.1/11} and does not know of Wei Dai {C/17.1/11}.
Andreas Furche left Newcastle University with Professor Wrightson (and halfway through his PhD) and completed it at Macquarie {Furche1 [6-7] {C/13/2} and Furche1 [27] {C/13/6}}. He had never heard of Adam Back: {Furche1 [36] {C/13/7}}.
The Wei Dai in question here had never written a paper entitled “Knowledge-Based Communication Processes in Building Design”: {C/28/1}. That seems to be a reference to a paper about the use of CAD systems in the construction industry written by someone else called Wei Dai from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Victoria, Australia {L1/17/1}.
As to the use of code from Wei Dai, I have already quoted Wei Dai’s reply to Bird & Bird at [673 above] {C/28/1}.
I have to agree and so find that every aspect of Dr Wright’s story as to his supposed dealings with Professor Wrightson, Andreas Furche and Wei Dai was untrue.
When Professor Wrightson’s evidence was drawn to Dr Wright’s attention on Day 6, his response was to say:
“81:14 A. I'm sorry if it's perfectly clear for you, but it's not.
15 One, I'm not good with remembering people. The funny
16 thing is, when it comes to code, when it comes to other
17 things, I have a near eidetic memory; when it comes to
18 people, I don't; I don't even remember faces very well.
19 But when it comes to recalling people, I'm horrible
20 with it.
21 I did have communications with him, I know that they
22 were valuable to me, more than that I can't say.”
“84:12 Q. So your confident assertion in that paper, and
13 the anecdotes about Professor Wrightson pointing you to
14 Wei Dai and discussing Wei Dai with you, that could be
15 wrong?
16 A. Oh, definitely; I get people wrong all the time. I've
17 gone up to people I should know very well and called
18 them the wrong name many times; I do it at work all
19 the time. I have partial aphasia, which means I don't
20 actually recognise faces properly, so --”
The Developers characterised that as a laughable explanation for his false account of non-existent dealings with Professor Wrightson. Dr Wright has not been able to suggest anyone other than Professor Wrightson who might meet the bill. And far from having an “eidetic” (i.e. photographic) memory of code, Dr Wright could not even recall the CheckBlock function in Bitcoin.
When confronted with Andreas Furche’s evidence that he had no recollection of Dr Wright, Dr Wright was left on Day 6 suggesting only “I’m pretty sure it was him” (emphasis added):
“84:21 Q. Page 1, please {L19/209/1}, an email from
22 Professor Furche. He, too, says that he has no
23 recollection of you, and that he left
24 Newcastle University in 1999. That latter bit is from
25 his witness statement. Do you dispute that he left
85: 1 Newcastle University in 1999?
2 A. No.
3 Q. So, he, too, could not have been there to have these
4 rewarding changes with you in 2005 to 2009, could he?
5 A. Possibly. I was there at that stage. But I was also at
6 the Australian Stock Exchange, where he developed
7 the signal process and some of the software for, and
8 also promoted.
9 Q. I'll come to that in a moment.
10 He also says -- we can take this document down.
11 He also says in his witness statement that he's
12 never heard of Hal Finney, with whom -- about whom you
13 supposedly had discussions with him. Is he wrong about
14 that?
15 A. I don't know. As I said, I'm not good with people, and
16 I could have had it wrong, but I don't think I am.
17 Q. He also agrees with Professor Wrightson that the group
18 didn't have a lot of resources, that it never lodged
19 a patent application and that he doesn't recognise
20 the patent paper hyperlinked to your article. Do you
21 accept he's right on those points?
22 A. Yes. I could have got the wrong person and linked
23 the wrong area. I'm not denying that.
24 Q. An awful lot of mistakes in your blogpost now, aren't
25 there?
86: 1 A. I told you, when it comes to people, I'm terrible. This
2 is the whole thing. When it comes to numbers, code,
3 writing things, a predicate system, I'm great; when it
4 comes to interacting with people ... This is why I work
5 from home, this is why I hide away from the world, this
6 is why I don't interact, why you're asking me about all
7 these people I'm supposed to remember.
8 Q. But you do dispute Professor Furche's claim not to
9 recall you, don't you?
10 A. I would find that difficult. I was at
11 the Australian Stock Exchange for a number of years, and
12 the only way I could put it was, I was a gadfly and
13 I was incredibly annoying to a lot of people, including
14 those in seats and other such systems. And some of
15 the other exchanges that he did stuff with as well,
16 I was involved.
17 Q. {CSW/1/82}, please.
18 A. Including Chi-X.
19 Q. Paragraph 433. This is your 11th witness statement,
20 isn't it, Dr Wright? Yes?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You claim that Dr Furche and you worked together on
23 the surveillance systems for the Australian Stock
24 Exchange from '97 to 2003, don't you?
25 A. I worked on those systems at that stage, yes, and
87: 1 I believe he was there, and he implemented those --
2 Q. Professor Furche --
3 A. -- systems at that time.
4 Q. Professor Furche's work on the ASX's surveillance
5 systems didn't start until after 2003, did it?
6 A. Well, I still remember him, and I definitely remember
7 him from the Perth Mint.
8 Q. So you worked together at Perth Mint in 2005 to 2008,
9 yes?
10 A. No, I was an auditor.
11 Q. "... then had a joint involvement at the Perth Mint,
12 where I was an auditor for BDO (2005-2008)."
13 Yes?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In fact, Professor Furche's work in relation to
16 the Perth Mint didn't begin until 2016, did it?
17 A. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it was him there, and
18 I believe he was also involved with Chi-X.
19 Q. Just setting aside the thing you don't talk about in
20 your 11th witness statement, you couldn't have had
21 a joint involvement with him at the Perth Mint while you
22 -- in 2005 to 2008, because he didn't have a connection
23 with it at that time, did he?
24 A. I don't know, but I do remember him. As I said, I'm
25 terrible with people, but I remember him from something.”
In light of the above, it is clear that the whole of Dr Wright’s account concerning Wei Dai (from his 2019 blog, to Wright1 [92] to Wright11) was pure fabrication by Dr Wright and yet another strong indicator that he is not Satoshi.