Conclusion under this heading
I can now return to the points relied upon by Dr Wright as confirming his claim to be Satoshi as summarised under the heading to this section G (see just above [706]).
I have already dismissed some of those points. However, taking them together, against the concrete detail of the points I have discussed in this section, plus all the evidence of forgery by Dr Wright, those mostly circumstantial points relied on for Dr Wright can have no weight. To the extent that the evidence went beyond circumstantial, I am entirely satisfied the relevant witness was mistaken or lying. All of them might well have been encouraged to embellish their evidence by Dr Wright.
Patent Research and Development
’10. Dr Wright’s deeply held belief is that his identity as Satoshi should be proved through work and knowledge. In summary, “you prove by knowledge, who you are, what you create” {Day 7/144/13-14}. In Dr Wright’s view, an important aspect of this approach to proving identity lies in his extensive portfolio of patent research and development. The breadth of that portfolio is not in dispute. Dr Wright was not challenged during cross-examination in relation to his evidence that nChain has amassed a substantial portfolio of patents, encompassing nearly 4,000 patent filings, which are the fruit of Dr Wright’s prior research. {Wright 1 [172] {E/1/31}}. COPA’s attempt to undermine that evidence by the back door, during cross-examination of Ms Jones (without putting the equivalent points to Dr Wright), was misguided.
I can deal with the points under this heading relatively briefly.
In my judgment, Dr Wright’s ‘work and knowledge’ argument was yet another convenient excuse in his attempts to avoid all the highly problematic metadata and other indicia of forgery.
As for the ‘extensive portfolio of patent research and development’, Dr Wright was clear that in June 2015, he had the fruits of research but no patents had yet been applied for. He claimed to have a large number of research papers (some 1,300), each of which he claimed would give rise to multiple patents. It was not clear whether his count of patent filings was by patent family or individual patents. Whether all of this was exaggerated or not does not matter. The point is that starting from 2015, a well-funded business with a research focus could generate that number of patent filings, but this sheds no light whatsoever on events in 2008 and 2009. If anything, the generation of a multi-patent thicket which it is apparent Dr Wright (and nChain) wish to assert against anyone who does not share his view of Bitcoin appears to me to run entirely counter to the way Satoshi created and released Bitcoin as open-source material.
In closing, I asked when Dr Wright’s first patent application was filed. The answer came back at the start of Day 22 that his first priority document was filed on 28 October 2011, but the documents produced {X/85 and X/87} concerned claims to a registry in which entries were securely timestamped and digitally signed. Although I was not addressed on this document, a brief review indicated it had only a very tenuous connection to Bitcoin via the known concepts of timestamping and digital signing. In any event, this does not appear to have been one of the nChain portfolio.
Naturally, I say nothing about the validity of any of these patents. However, for present purposes, in my judgment there was nothing under this head to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi.
The private proof sessions
‘11. Dr Wright’s demonstration during a number of private proof sessions in 2016 that he was in possession of private keys to certain of the original blocks (i.e. blocks 1 to 11) of the Bitcoin blockchain is highly probative of his claim to be Satoshi. These sessions included demonstrations with Mr Andresen and Mr Matonis, both of whom were central figures in the Bitcoin community, Andrew O’Hagan, an author who was chronicling the evolution of nChain, and journalists from the BBC (Rory Cellan-Jones) and Economist (Ludwig Siegele). In each demonstration, Dr Wright showed he had access to private keys associated with early blocks. The fact that Mr Andresen and Mr Matonis were persuaded by these demonstrations that Dr Wright was Satoshi is highly significant. Their recognition of Dr Wright as Satoshi is particularly credible. COPA’s attempts to undermine the integrity of the private proof sessions are misplaced. There is no realistic basis for supposing that the sessions were deliberately subverted by Dr Wright and any case to that effect is in any event not open to COPA on its pleadings and was not fairly put to Dr Wright in cross-x.’