An outline of Dr Wright’s position in closing
I have already discussed how Dr Wright portrayed the critical importance of the LaTeX documents (and the other Additional Documents) in his evidence for the PTR (see [79] above). COPA’s evidence for the PTR suggested that Dr Wright’s case on these documents faced some difficulties which I concluded it was not appropriate to decide on that occasion. It is fair to say that the case on these documents has been going downhill ever since Field1 and Wright6 were served.
In marked contrast to the case put at the PTR about the critical importance of these documents, in closing Counsel for Dr Wright submitted they have proved to be far less important, for three reasons:
First, it was said that Mr Rosendahl accepted that the Bitcoin White Paper could in principle have been produced using LaTeX, albeit using non-standard versions of the software available at the time, but that he also explained that the Bitcoin White Paper had features indicating it was produced using OpenOffice software. It was further said that ‘Dr Wright’s evidence is that he used both OpenOffice and LaTeX to produce the Bitcoin White Paper, which is consistent with Mr Rosendahl’s findings. Accordingly, the evidence on how the Bitcoin White Paper was produced is consistent with Dr Wright being Satoshi Nakamoto, but it does not of course establish that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.’
Second, it was said that ‘the relevance of the White Paper LaTeX Files to the Identity Issue depended on Dr Wright establishing two propositions: first, that the White Paper LaTeX Files can be compiled into the Bitcoin White Paper; and second, that it is practically impossible to reverse engineer the White Paper LaTeX Files from the publicly available Bitcoin White Paper. If both propositions were established, then it would not matter that the White Paper LaTeX Files do not (expressly on Dr Wright’s case) date from before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper. In the event, however, Dr Wright accepts he has not established the first proposition (not least because it has not been possible to recreate the LaTeX environment that Dr Wright says he used to produce the Bitcoin White Paper). In these circumstances, the White Paper LaTeX Files are not probative of the Identity Issue based on the evidence available to the Court.’
Third, it was said that ‘COPA’s forgery allegations in relation to the White Paper LaTeX Files are misconceived: they are largely based on the false premise that Dr Wright maintained that these Files dated from a particular point in time (such that evidence of recent modification would be indicative of forgery). But that was never Dr Wright’s case: his case was that he uniquely could produce a LaTeX file that compiled into the Bitcoin White Paper, and that this proved he was Satoshi. Dr Wright made clear that the White Paper LaTeX Files were not a time capsule predating the release of the Bitcoin White Paper: they were instead ‘living’ documents that he modified since the release of the Bitcoin White Paper for corrections, personal experimentation and latterly for the purposes of demonstrations to Shoosmiths.’
Accordingly, by the time of the written closings, Dr Wright’s case on the LaTeX documents had retreated to this:
First, it is now submitted that Dr Wright does not need to prove a positive case that the Bitcoin White Paper was created using LaTeX to succeed on the Identity Issue, although it is acknowledged that he does need to resist a negative finding that LaTeX was not used, even in conjunction with OpenOffice in the manner asserted by Dr Wright.
Second, in order to resist such a negative finding, Dr Wright’s case now hangs on the proposition that Mr Rosendahl gave undisputed evidence that the Bitcoin White Paper could have been produced using LaTeX.
Third, Counsel for Dr Wright submitted that the Court cannot safely reach the conclusion that LaTeX was not used in the creation of the Bitcoin White Paper.
On that third point, I disagree. In my judgment, the evidence is overwhelming that LaTeX was not used to create the Bitcoin White Paper. In particular, I reach the clear conclusion that the LaTeX files were a recent invention, created by Dr Wright in September 2023 as a key part of his response to Madden1. The detail which established that conclusion is set out in this section.
The Closing Submissions made by Counsel for Dr Wright on this point divide into two broad parts. The first part is a convoluted explanation which seeks to contend that, from the wreckage of what remains from the high point of the evidence in Field1 and Wright6, Dr Wright still has a point. It is not necessary to set out all of this convoluted explanation. It is adequately summarised in the proposition at sub-paragraph 422.1 above. The second part seeks to persuade me of the very fine point which remains which is that because Mr Rosendahl gave evidence that the Bitcoin White Paper could have been produced using LaTeX, I cannot safely reach the conclusion that LaTeX was not used in the creation of the Bitcoin White Paper.
As will be seen, a relatively succinct answer can be given to this point. However, it would be remiss of me to leave out of account the whole LaTeX story, because the story provides a prime example of what became a familiar sequence: (a) Dr Wright produces documents in respect of which it is suggested, either implicitly or explicitly (and as regards the LaTeX files, with certainty), that they prove he is Satoshi; (b) analysis of the documents suggests they cannot pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper; whereupon (c) Dr Wright maintains they are genuine but his story changes; and (d) when seeking to maintain his position under cross-examination, the story changes further and can only be supported by yet further lies from Dr Wright.