Dr Wright’s written evidence about the images
The first occasion on which Dr Wright sought to place specific emphasis on the image files was in the evidence in support of the application for an adjournment, in which it was said that “it would be particularly difficult to reverse engineer the LaTeX code for the images in the Bitcoin White Paper because such code would produce images that did not match the exact parameters of the images in the White Paper (for example, as to the precise location and angle of lines and arrows).” {Field1 [30] {E/24/10}, confirmed at Wright6 [4] {E/21/3}. That point was emphasised at paragraph 57(2) of Dr Wright’s Skeleton Argument for the PTR {R/2/20}}.
Dr Wright expanded on that theme in Wright11. In a lengthy section of that statement at Wright11 [329-346] {CSW/1/61} he purported to provide a detailed account of the technical artistry on display in his LaTeX image files. For example:
“It’s important to note that the original source LaTeX code for the Bitcoin White Paper, including any images created with TikZ or similar tools, is not publicly available on the internet. This means that the precise methods and code used to create the document and its elements have not been shared publicly, nor have they been reverse-engineered. This lack of public availability underscores the unique creation process of the Bitcoin White Paper, where the specific LaTeX coding and formatting techniques used remain exclusive to the original document.” (Wright11 [330] {CSW/1/62}).
“The creation process of Figure 1 in the Bitcoin White Paper using LaTeX demonstrates a sophisticated use of the tool, blending text and graphical elements in a way that enhances the document’s functionality and accessibility …” (Wright11 [334] {CSW/1/62}).
“In the Figure above of the Bitcoin White Paper, the illustration is a result of lines of code compiled from a LaTeX file. This method of image creation, where every line is meticulously drawn using code, exemplifies a technique often favoured by developers and computer scientists rather than graphic artists.” (Wright11 [335] {CSW/1/63}).
“This approach, rooted in programming, involves defining each element of the image through code - every line, curve, and text element is explicitly described in the LaTeX file. This method is particularly appealing to those with a background in computer science or development, as it allows for precise control over the image’s composition. Each aspect of the image can be fine-tuned by adjusting the code, offering a high degree of customisation and accuracy.” (Wright11 [336] {CSW/1/63}).
“Such a technique contrasts with more traditional graphic design approaches, where images are created using visual tools and software geared towards graphic artists. These tools often involve direct manipulation of visual elements using a graphical user interface, which is more intuitive for visual design but may lack the precision and programmability of a code-based approach.” (Wright11 [337] {CSW/1/63}).
“The use of LaTeX to create images, as seen in Figure 2 of the Bitcoin White Paper, underscores the flexibility and power of the LaTeX system in handling not just text and formulae but also complex graphical representations. This code-based method of image creation aligns well with the ethos of fields like computer science and development, where control, precision, and the ability to programmatically define elements are highly valued.” (Wright11 [338] {CSW/1/64}).
“The code provided for Figure 2 in the Bitcoin White Paper demonstrates the complex nature of image development using LaTeX, particularly for those with a background in computer science and development rather than graphic design. This complexity is evident in the detailed and precise specification of every element within the image, using TikZ (a LaTeX package for creating graphics programmatically).” (Wright11 [339] {CSW/1/64}).
“In this specific example, the TikZ package is used to draw and position elements such as text and shapes within the document. The code meticulously defines each aspect of the image, from the rotation and placement of text to the dimensions and positions of shapes. This method requires a deep understanding of LaTeX syntax and the TikZ package, as well as a clear vision of how the code translates into the visual elements of the image.” (Wright11 [340] {CSW/1/64}).
“Possessing the ability to hold, create, and rebuild a document as intricate as the Bitcoin White Paper, especially with the use of complex LaTeX code as demonstrated, strongly indicates a direct involvement in its original creation. This level of proficiency and understanding goes beyond mere familiarity with LaTeX or TikZ; it implies an intimate knowledge of the White Paper’s specific requirements and a deep understanding of its underlying structure. Such expertise is not commonly found and suggests a connection to the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. I hold these documents and can recreate them as I created them when I wrote the Bitcoin White Paper.” (Wright11 [342] {CSW/1/65}).
The Developers strongly suspected that these ornate passages of Dr Wright’s statement were made up by ChatGPT. The Developers pressed for Dr Wright’s ChatGPT records to be preserved and produced {M1/2/133}. He appears to have held two accounts, one of which he supposedly does not have access to and the other of which holds 22 million lines of text {Shoosmiths’ letter at {M1/2/149}}. The Developers proposed code to enable Stroz Friedberg to check that text for content from Dr Wright’s witness statement {Macfarlanes’ letter at {M1/1/151}}. Shoosmiths responded to suggest that they “understood” that those checks had not resulted in any findings suggesting the use of ChatGPT {Shoosmiths’ letter at {M1/2/161}}, but declined to respond to a request for clarification of what that meant (in particular, whether there had been any hits) {Macfarlanes’ letter at {M1/1/162}}. Thus, contrary to the evidence of Dr Wright {Day15/85:12-17}, he did not provide his ChatGPT data to COPA or the Developers.
In any event, Dr Wright’s evidence as to his LaTeX images continues in similarly florid prose at Wright11 Appendix B:
“When considering the compilation of a LaTeX document into a PDF, it's crucial to understand that this process is inherently one-directional, a characteristic that is rooted in the very nature of how LaTeX interprets and renders its markup language into a document format designed for consumption, such as PDF. In technical terms, the compilation involves parsing the LaTeX source code, which includes all manner of textual content, commands for formatting, and instructions for the inclusion of additional elements, and then rendering this into a fixed layout format that PDF readers can display.” (Wright11 AxB [7.10] {CSW/2/27}).
“During this compilation, the nuanced and specific instructions contained within the LaTeX source are executed to produce a visually and structurally formatted document. This process involves a considerable amount of calculation and rendering, especially for complex document elements such as vector-based objects, which, in the case of the Bitcoin White Paper, are not separate image files but are instead generated by the LaTeX engine directly within the document as vector arrays. Once these elements are rendered into the PDF, they exist as fixed graphical entities without the underlying LaTeX instructions that generated them.” (Wright11 AxB [7.11] {CSW/2/27}).
“The transformation from LaTeX to PDF is much like translating a detailed concept into a finished artwork; the final piece does not inherently contain within it the instructions for its creation. Consequently, attempting to reverse this process (reverting a PDF to its original LaTeX source) is akin to an art analyst trying to deduce the precise movements and techniques used by an artist solely from the finished painting. While certain broad strokes may be inferable, the exact method and sequence of creation are lost once the artwork is complete.” (Wright11 AxB [7.12] {CSW/2/27}).