The Identity Issue was and remains simple and Dr Wright’s case is simple: it is that he was the creator of Bitcoin, the author of the Bitcoin White Paper and the Bitcoin Source Code and the person who adopted and operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. However, what he has relied upon in his attempts to prove that case has changed and morphed on a regular basis, following the service of evidence (often expert evidence) from COPA and the Developers and further tranches of disclosure from him.

Prior to Trial, with one exception (where Dr Wright accepted that ID_003455 was inauthentic), I did not understand Dr Wright to have abandoned his Primary Reliance Documents, even though the emphasis might have appeared to shift to the various newly disclosed documents. So, his case underwent a process of accretion.

The case of COPA and the Developers is equally simple and the opposite of Dr Wright’s case. Thus, the Identity Issue is essentially a binary issue. It was only ever a theoretical possibility that I would find neither side had proved their case.

It will be seen that in the evidence I was presented with various expressions of opinion as to whether Dr Wright was (or was not) Satoshi Nakamoto and doubts on that subject. However, I must decide the Identity Issue based on the evidence which was led in this Trial and I should not and do not delegate the decision to any witness or third party. With one exception, it is fair to say that I have given these opinions very little or no weight, depending on the reasons given for holding the opinion. It is universally the case that none of the witnesses have had access to the wide range of information and evidence which has been presented to me in this Trial. The exception is concerned with an expression of opinion which conflicts with the witness’ evidence in a signed witness statement – this concerns Mr Stefan Matthews.

Before I embark on my detailed findings, some preliminary topics must be addressed. I start with the useful reminders I was given about the applicable legal principles. Then I must set out my general views of each of the witnesses – I address the key disputes in context later.