Analysis
There are some curiosities about the evidence concerning this dinner:
First, I have evidence from Mr Hearn, Mr Matthews and Dr Wright, but none from Mr Matonis on which I consider I can rely (who seems to have still believed that Dr Wright was Satoshi, at least prior to the dinner) or Ms Watts.
Second, even though this dinner took place just over 2 months after the Sartre blog, and the public comment in relation to that, there was no recognition of that in any of the evidence relating to the dinner.
Third, much was made at trial that the company for whom Mr Hearn was working at the time, R3, was a competitor of nChain. If that was the case, it is very curious that Dr Wright was happy not just to have a long dinner with Mr Hearn but to be prepared to answer a whole series of technical questions related to Bitcoin.
Fourth, the dinner occurred in circumstances where the issue as to whether Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi was still very much live. By agreeing to dine and have a discussion with one of the developers, Dr Wright must have known that he would be questioned on technical details.
In addition, I was struck by the fact that the whole section in Wright11 on this dinner at [435]-[462] was in Section VI where he gave his response to COPA’s witnesses (other than Mr Malmi and Mr Gerlach). Thus, there were passages on Dr Back (and Wei Dai) [369]-[393], Steve Lee [394]-[404], Dustin Trammell [405]-[409], Zooko Wilcox-O’Hearn [410]-[430], Professor Wrightson and Dr Furche [431]-[434] and a section on Professor Stroustrup and Mr Hinnant [463]-[471]. For reasons explained elsewhere, I have found much of this evidence from Dr Wright to be pure fantasy on his part (so too, the earlier passages regarding Mr Malmi and Mr Gerlach), so the suspiciously specific details set out in Wright11 in relation to the technical discussion at the dinner could lie in a similar vein. Indeed, Mr Hearn’s view that Dr Wright engaged in technobabble coincides with the impression I formed of a number of passages in Dr Wright’s answers at trial, when he was under pressure.
I do not believe that I have sufficient detail to be able to reach firm findings as to precisely what occurred at this dinner. If I was to view the disputes in relation to this dinner in isolation (which was the implicit invitation in Dr Wright’s submissions), I might well have concluded that there was some substance in the suspicions on both sides.
However, I am clear that it would be wrong to view this dinner in isolation. Dr Wright’s submissions effectively invite me to find that Mr Hearn had some sort of axe to grind against Dr Wright and attended the dinner for that purpose. In his evidence, Dr Wright made a variety of allegations against the Developers, all of which I have found to be baseless.
In these circumstances and in the circumstances of this case more generally, on balance, I make the following findings as regards the dinner:
It is likely that Mr Matonis was the driver of getting Mr Hearn and Dr Wright together at the dinner because Mr Matonis wanted Mr Hearn to confirm his own view that Dr Wright was Satoshi. Mr Hearn’s evidence on that point rang true: in effect he was saying he did not have a burning desire to have a discussion with Dr Wright, but he said he would otherwise have had to eat on his own that evening if he didn’t go to the dinner.
Mr Hearn undoubtedly came away from the dinner believing that Dr Wright was not Satoshi and said so to Mr Matonis.
The discussion at the dinner was between Mr Hearn, who had been involved as a developer of the Bitcoin code until the end of 2015, and Dr Wright who had gone public that he was Satoshi. I consider it is likely that Dr Wright did struggle with some of the technical details which Mr Hearn asked about. I also consider it is likely that Mr Matthews was primed to step in to shut down technical discussions if Dr Wright was struggling, with the excuse that it might endanger the nChain patent filings.
Mr Hearn confirmed that Mr Matthews did deploy this excuse at the dinner, but he was clearly sceptical about it – he made the point that he was asking Dr Wright about Satoshi’s original intentions for Bitcoin – in other words, the content of the Bitcoin White Paper, the original or very early versions of the Bitcoin Source Code, all of which was 7 years in the past by the time of the dinner. Mr Hearn made the obvious point that nothing in the public domain could be patented but he was asking Dr Wright about details which were not in the public domain. Taking the view which is most favourable to Dr Wright, it is therefore conceivable that there may have been some overlap and therefore conflict between what would have been full answers to Mr Hearn’s questions and the areas which Dr Wright was seeking to develop in nChain patent filings.
Let me assume that this conflict was perceived to exist on Dr Wright’s side. I return to my initial assessment of Mr Hearn’s evidence. I must balance that against the evidence of Dr Wright and Mr Matthews. I have found Dr Wright to be a thoroughly unreliable witness who has engaged in forgery on a grand scale and, in his attempts to sustain his case, has lied extensively. I have found Mr Matthews to have been more careful in his evidence, but still to have lied in his bid to support Dr Wright’s case. These are not circumstances in which I am inclined to reject Mr Hearn’s evidence.
In conclusion, on all three points of challenge, I find that Mr Hearn’s evidence was clear and in no sense overstated. He recalled matters which were important to him and had less recall about other matters. The implication underpinning these challenges was that Mr Hearn had some axe to grind against Dr Wright. I am entirely satisfied he did not and that he gave his evidence honestly and entirely fairly.