The cryptocurrency experts addressed two topics: (a) basic facts of the technology underpinning Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies; and (b) the signing sessions. COPA’s evidence was from Prof Meiklejohn, and Dr Wright’s from Mr ZeMing Gao.

Most of Mr Gao’s report addressed the first topic. Rather than simply addressing the basic facts of the technology, he pursued an argument that BSV, the cryptocurrency created by a hard fork in the Bitcoin blockchain, is superior to Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash and better reflects the philosophy underlying the White Paper. Following my Order at the PTR, Dr Wright was not permitted to rely on those parts of Mr Gao’s report which deal with his assertion that BSV is the superior implementation of Bitcoin and/or the alleged fidelity of BSV to the suggested intentions of Satoshi. COPA identified these as [65-89], [102-154], [180-197] and [217-225], without demur from Dr Wright’s team. In any event, all this argument that BSV is the “true version” of Bitcoin as envisioned in the Bitcoin White Paper seemed to me to have nothing to do with the Identity Issue, which is why I ruled it inadmissible. It does not advance Dr Wright’s case because, even if BSV were somehow more faithful to Satoshi’s original conception of Bitcoin, that would not support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi. Nothing would stop anyone creating a fork of the Bitcoin blockchain that could be said to be the most faithful to its original conception.

Following without prejudice discussions, the two experts produced a joint report in which Mr Gao agreed with most aspects of Prof Meiklejohn’s evidence. On the topic of the signing sessions, as COPA submitted, they both agreed that the sessions could have been faked and on how that could have been done. The two experts produced short reply reports explaining the rationale for their disagreements (each explained in an annex to their Joint Statement) which are actually of quite limited importance to the issues in the case.

In their Written Closing Submissions, Counsel for Dr Wright and Counsel for COPA levelled various criticisms at the opposing expert. Those levelled at Professor Meiklejohn were directly related to her evidence regarding the signing sessions. These are best addressed in the context of my assessment of the signing sessions, in a later section of this Judgment. Those levelled at Mr Gao were more general and I can deal with those here.

I should say, however, that most of the evidence given by Professor Meiklejohn and Mr Gao was uncontroversial. In particular I am grateful to them for conducting a productive joint meeting and producing their useful Joint Statement (which also identified where they differed).