Satoshi or Sham? The Dubious Nature of Craig Wright's LaTeX Documents

17. “LPA.tex” and “LP1.tex” {ID_004722} {PTR-F/79/1} and {ID_004723} {PTRF/80/1}

328. These are two LaTeX source documents presented as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. The first presents as an article with Satoshi named as author, while the second presents as a version of the same article with Dr Wright named as author. Each addresses quorum systems, a subject which Dr Wright now maintains influenced his development of Bitcoin. By their presence in BDOPC.raw, the documents purport to pre-date 31 October 2007.

(a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery

329. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5].

330. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted versions of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [PM46 [111 – 117] H/278/38]

331. The modifications made included:

331.1. In respect of {ID_004722}, altering the dates of articles referred to, respectively from “2009” to “2006”, and from “2016” to “?” [PM46 [112] H/278/39].

331.2. Removing lines of the document relating to the previously-cited papers from 2009 and 2016 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [113] H/278/39].

331.3. In respect of {ID_004723}, deleting lines referring to previously-cited articles dating from after 2007 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [117-118] H/278/41].

331.4. Altering the metadata of the documents such that they appeared to be created earlier than they were [PM46 [111 and 119] H/278/38].

332. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added by the Manipulation User.

(b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

333. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact.

334. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account.

335. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated.

336. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents:

336.1. {ID_004722} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3]

336.2. {ID_004722} is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is “a LaTeX file coding for an article titled “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3]

336.3. {ID_004723} is said to be “a version of the “Predicates in Quorum Systems” paper at {ID_004722}, but listing Dr Wright as the author rather than “Satoshi”. ” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6]

337. The documents were not disclosed at the proper time. They were disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated.

(c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal

338. Dr Wright claimed, as set out above, that these were planted documents by Mr AgerHanssen or someone associated with him. {Day5/86:14} He also rejected the use of ChatGPT.

339. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons:

339.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007.

339.2. The story about these being planted by someone is addressed in earlier examples in this Schedule.

339.3. The differences between the InfoDef09.raw and the versions subsequently disclosed and relied upon showed that the changes were to change tenses from the deleted version (which talked about Bitcoin in the past tense) to the future tense in the disclosed versions. This is consistent with the documents being edited to support his case.

339.4. The deleted earlier versions also contained references to papers post-dating the purported 2007 date, such as ‘Xia et Al’ (2016). All such references were deleted and in the disclosed version replaced by a ‘?’ – clearly to indicate that a reference needed to be added. The evident reason that these, and only these, references were removed, is to remove what would otherwise have been obvious indications that the document post-dated 2007.

339.5. It is clear that Dr Wright did use ChatGPT and these documents included classic indicia of how ChatGPT formats references (set out above).

339.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004722 and ID_004723 were manipulated {Q/6/5}.