THE STRUCTURE OF THIS JUDGMENT
My aim has been to assemble the facts into chronological order, so far as is possible. However, I consider it is necessary to address the facts twice. In the first run through the chronology of events below, I have only set out facts which are agreed/generally accepted to be what happened i.e. the first run is designed to set out an uncontroversial framework, including various procedural events in this action.
In the second run through the chronology, I consider Dr Wright’s account of what he claims to have done as Satoshi, both prior to and during this action. His account is conveniently divided into the following periods of time:
His background and experience relevant to his claim to be Satoshi.
His claimed development of the concepts which he says combined and led him to devising Bitcoin.
The writing and publication of the Bitcoin White Paper.
The writing and release of the first version of the Bitcoin Source Code.
Interactions between Satoshi and others who participated or took an interest in Bitcoin, up to the time when Satoshi withdrew from the project.
Events between the start of Bitcoin and the emergence of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi.
The lead up to and the conduct of the ‘proof’ sessions in 2016.
The other litigation in which Dr Wright has been involved relating to Bitcoin.
The COPA action.
The actions commenced by or at the instigation of Dr Wright.
It would have been unwieldy if I had addressed each allegation of forgery in the course of this second run, so I decided to address them separately. That does not mean I have considered them separately from all the other evidence: far from it. Although some of the alleged forgeries can be decided simply on what the expert witnesses have said the document in question presents, it is true to say that the allegations of forgery are mutually supportive as well. So I have dealt with the detail in relation to each allegedly forged document in the Appendix. I consider them according to the date or dates ascribed to them by Dr Wright in his evidence and/or by reference to dates shown in their metadata. As one might expect, there are a considerable number of documents which are said by Dr Wright to predate the publication of the Bitcoin White Paper and/or the Bitcoin Source Code. However, there are a number of overarching arguments affecting my consideration of those documents which I deal with in the main body of this Judgment.
It is once I have addressed the allegations of forgery that I can return to conduct the second chronological run.