“If
I
had
forged
that
document,
then
it
would
be
perfect.”
So
spoke
Australian
computer
scientist
Craig
Wright
Tuesday,
minutes
into
his
first
day
of
cross-examination
in
a
U.K.
trial
that
could
lay
waste
to
his
controversial
claim
that
he
is
the
father
of
cryptocurrency.
Denying
an
accusation
from
opposing
counsel,
Wright
claimed
that
inconsistencies
in
a
pdf
showed
not
that
it
had
been
doctored
but
the
opposite.
Turning
to
presiding
Judge
James
Mellor,
the
defendant
said,
“If
you
go
into
Adobe,
My
Lord,
and
I
change
everything,
there’s
not
going
to
be
a
font
error.”
An
alliance
of
crypto
advocates
and
developers
have
sued
Wright,
accusing
him
of
committing
forgeries
on
an
“industrial
scale”
to
prove
he
is
Satoshi
Nakamoto,
the
pseudonymous
inventor
of
the
oldest
and
most
popular
cryptocurrency,
bitcoin.
Sporting
a
powder-blue,
pinstriped,
three-piece
suit
in
what
attendees
described
as
a
menacingly
hot
London
courtroom
on
Tuesday,
Wright
curtly
denied
he’d
forged
item
after
item
of
what
he’d
previously
presented
as
evidence
that
he
is
Satoshi,
author
of
Bitcoin’s
foundational
document,
known
as
the
white
paper.
Skill
issue?
Aside
from
straight
denials
in
the
form
of
“No,
that’s
actually
wrong”
or
“No,
it
sure
is
not”
thrown
at
Bird
&
Bird
LLP’s
Jonathan
Hough,
counsel
for
the
Crypto
Open
Patent
Alliance
(COPA),
Wright
attributed
inconsistencies
in
his
arguments
to
everything
from
self-plagiarizing
and
printing
errors
to
the
illnesses
or
deaths
of
various
witnesses.
For
one,
Hough
asked
Wright
if
he
would
accept
that
much
of
a
research
paper
abstract
shared
on
Twitter
called
BlackNet
–
which
Wright
has
said
is
from
2002
–
“directly
reflects
language
and
concepts
which
are
in
the
bitcoin
white
paper,”
published
in
2008.
Wright
disputed
that
characterization,
claiming
he
had
reused
his
own
words.
“You’re
again
assuming
that
I
have
a
linear
function
of
how
I
write,”
he
told
Hough,
adding
he
had
multiple
versions
of
both
the
white
paper
and
his
BlackNet
abstract.
In
another
instance,
when
Hough
questioned
why
the
computer
scientist
had
obscured
the
address
bar
of
a
web
browser
while
recording
separate
videos
of
him
purportedly
accessing
an
email
account
linked
to
Satoshi,
Wright
blamed
his
multitasking
skills.
“You
can’t
operate
a
mouse
and
a
phone
at
the
same
time?”
Hough
asked.
“And
hold
the
thing
still?”
Wright
replied.
“No”
When
asked
if
Wright,
as
a
forensic
documents
expert,
would
view
the
video
as
something
one
would
do
when
trying
to
fake
something,
he
answered
no.
Addressing
Judge
Mellor
directly,
Wright
added:
“My
Lord,
what
you
would
do
as
someone
skilled
as
I
am,
is,
you
would
go
to
the
developer
bar
and
access
and
change
online
live.”
Hemming
and
hawing
Hough’s
cross-examination
continued
for
a
full
day,
probing
key
pieces
of
evidence
presented
by
Wright,
including
credit
card
payments,
emails,
documents
and
tweets
that
COPA
says
prove
the
computer
scientist’s
claim
of
being
Satoshi
is
a
“brazen
lie.”
But
when
Wright
was
asked
if
he
would
characterize
what
he
and
his
solicitors
had
presented
so
far
as
the
material
he
“primarily”
relies
upon
to
support
his
claim
of
being
Satoshi,
the
defendant
hesitated.
“It’s
a
simple
question,
Dr.
Wright,”
Judge
Mellor
said.
On
Monday,
Mellor
had
allowed
Wright
to
submit
new
evidence
to
the
case
but
warned
on
Tuesday
morning
that
he
likely
wouldn’t
be
allowed
to
produce
anything
further.
Mellor
will
allow
COPA
to
examine
the
new
evidence
and
question
Wright
on
the
material
if
necessary.
Wright’s
interrogation
will
continue
till
at
least
Feb.
13,
according
to
a
tentative
schedule
shared
by
the
court.
The
one
hope
among
all
in
attendance
was
that
the
courtroom
would
be
cooler
on
Wednesday.
“The
working
atmosphere
in
this
room
is
extremely
oppressive
and
is
not
a
great
advert
for
the
system
that
we’re
trying
to
run
here,”
Lord
Grabiner,
counsel
for
Wright,
told
Mellor.
