Sorry to be a wet blanket. Writing a description for this thing for general audiences is bloody hard. There’s nothing to relate it to. —Satoshi Nakamoto, July 5, 2010
The current COPA et al. vs. Dr. Craig Wright trial at the Chancery Division of the U.K. High Court is ostensibly a simple commercial civil trial, but the stakes are high, and there are wide-ranging implications. There is no substantive evidence that proves Dr. Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, so the strategy deployed by COPA and BTC Core developers is throwing mud, hoping some will stick, using their cunning to try and persuade the Judge that Dr. Wright is simply not ‘credible.’
Meanwhile, U.K. commercial law requires proof based on the ‘balance of probabilities,’ whereas criminal law requires the bar of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This trial is highly unusual, and it may be argued that—correctly understood—this is not simply a commercial, civil dispute but a trial that has existential implications for the U.K. (and beyond) in relation to economic policy, human rights, and national security issues.
What is at stake?
Much is at stake in this trial. In the prospectus for the Blackrock BTC ETF, lawyers for the world’s largest asset manager note that ‘Bitcoin‘ being controlled by a largely unregulated group of developers is an inherent risk to the survival of the protocol. They also cite the current court case and note that:
If a court decides to grant the relief requested, it is possible that wide-ranging and fundamental changes to the source code, operations, and governance of, and basic principles underlying, the Bitcoin network might be required, and a loss of public confidence in the Bitcoin network could result.
The trial may well result in “a loss of public confidence in the Bitcoin network,” but this is the BTC Core network, and a loss of confidence in BTC Core could well be argued to be a good thing for society at large. It is worth noting that the BTC ETF sponsor reserves the ongoing right to choose which is the correct protocol of ‘bitcoin’ to invest in:
The Sponsor [iShares Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC] may also disagree with Shareholders, the Bitcoin Custodian, other service providers, the Index Administrator, cryptocurrency platforms, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as bitcoin and should therefore be considered “bitcoin” for the Trust’s purposes.
The Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund (part of whose job is to raise money anonymously to pay U.K.-based lawyers) also cites legitimate ‘concerns’ in relating claims that:
Should the developers fail to defend this claim vigorously, or should Mr. [sic] Wright otherwise be successful, it would, in the eyes of the law, allow Craig Wright ultimate control over the Bitcoin network as we know it. He would be permitted to decide who uses the Bitcoin network, the terms of use for the Bitcoin network, and could also control the client software for interacting with the blockchain.
In this evolving, brave new world of blockchain, ‘Bitcoin,’ as a generic phenomenon, represents what may be argued as both an existential threat and a profound opportunity for how society currently operates on commercial and political levels. This is no small beer. This is not simply a run-of-the-mill commercial, civil dispute; the sensible stewardship of Bitcoin is of profound importance.
Rhetoric, not logic, to argue ‘bizarre,’ hence not-credible
In trying to discredit Dr. Wright, barristers are arguing essentially that he is an imperfect human being who exhibits ‘bizarre’ and (what they seek to present as) dubious or questionable behavior. Common sense tells us this adds nothing to a case that he is not Satoshi. It seems highly likely that Satoshi was an imperfect human being who would exhibit bizarre and questionable behavior.
We should assume that Satoshi was likely an autodidact polymath inventor for whom
anonymity was important because he had ‘secretly’ worked over many years inventing a publicly distributed network server information transaction system (parts of which could be used as a form of digital cash).
This permissionless ledger he invented (if scaled successfully) would somehow ultimately need to be integrated into the world’s legal jurisdictions, something that could potentially set off alarms at the world’s regulators, tax authorities, and intelligence agencies, as well as likely create many commercial rivals who would likely seek to disable, discredit, or shut down this invention and steal the intellectual property pertaining to it.
If you had envisioned, nurtured, and invented this, you would be a bit weird. Assuming that Satoshi would be ‘normal’ is absurd. In a world like this, the standard Ockham’s Razor
assessment (assuming that the simplest explanation is the most likely) is naïve and misleading. Satoshi’s life would likely look very strange, contradictory, and complicated if we were flies on the wall.
It is clear that Dr. Wright has been (as any identified Satoshi would be) targeted by
corporate, criminal, and quasi-criminal entities and individuals (if not state entities) for harassment and discrediting for many years. A campaign to which an ignorant media has been happy to comply. COPA’s case has been to try and pretend that none of this is true. However, rather than pretend that simple explanations are the most reasonable and logical, the logic of Machiavelli would be a more informative framework.
Holding up a measuring stick of ‘normal’ behavior to discredit someone against the kind of person Satoshi was/is likely to be is not logical, but it is a well-worn rhetorical trick to seek to discredit an individual and then infer what are unjustified, paralogical conclusions which may somehow be manufactured into a narrative which seems persuasive.
This is a social media strategy, but it is also driving legal battles. This has been seen in previous legal battles with Dr. Wright, as the opposition case (if they bother to present one) is inevitably manufactured based on the same ingredients put together by ‘professional’ character assassins and Anarchy-Justice-Warriors and their corporate fronts (such as COPA) in the shadowy echo-chamber of BTC Core promotion. Mantras, dogmas, and simple (but convenient) errors of basic understanding are repeated as if they are truth and woven into familiar, disingenuous narratives: calculated acts of sophistry—rhetoric with an intent to deceive.
Based on filings and the first two weeks of the trial, there is a strong argument that the legal representatives of COPA/BTC Core developers simply do not understand the Bitcoin System, and that the entire trial is being driven on the basis of ‘evidence’ being drip-fed to them by ideological fantasists who believe that alongside their desire to win monopoly rents, they are going to bring down governments with their denatured derivative of the original Bitcoin protocol.
Begging the question
With the possible exception of politicians, barristers are the world’s leading professional exponents of the art of rhetoric. While good rhetoric is a noble art, more often than not when important and confusing matters are at hand or expediencies are required, legitimate rhetoric degenerates into a form of sophistry. Even without conscious ill intent, logic is ignored or distracted from.
One of the rhetorical tactics being used in this trial is that of ‘begging the question.’ The phrase ‘begging the question’ (or ‘begs the question’) is used in colloquial speech, usually referring to the simple notion of asking a question or that a situation gives rise to a question to be answered. However, the informal rhetorical fallacy of ‘begging-the-question’ is a form of circular reasoning (as handily defined by Wikipedia):
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it more or less synonymous with circular reasoning.
COPA’s circular reasoning—which their entire case rests on—is based upon their premise (assumed truth) not just that Dr. Wright cannot be Satoshi, but also that BTC represents
the ‘cryptocurrency’ Bitcoin. More specifically, this secondary premise contains at least three separate premises: (1) ‘cryptocurrency’ is the sole purpose of the Bitcoin System; (2) the BTC Core’ system’ is economically viable and sustainable while serving no other purpose than as a ‘cryptocurrency’; and (3) that BTC is the unique, legitimate manifestation of the Bitcoin ‘cryptocurrency.’
Anyone who deeply understands the Bitcoin System knows that these premises are false. They should not be given the weight of assumed truth, but COPA and the BTC Core developers want these premises entered into court records as ‘truths,’ and they are actively seeking to exclude any conversation which would demonstrate the falsity of their negligently ignorant/deceptive premises.
COPA also resorts to the additional well-known fallacy, argumentum ad populum, in their evidence to try and give rhetorical credence to their false premises: “The most popular cryptocurrency based on the White Paper and Genesis Block is Bitcoin [re BTC Core]. Further hard forks have created the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision.” [see Skeleton Argument paragraph 112]
COPA is arguing a case making assertions based on unproven—highly disputable if not outright false—premises which are asserted to be true merely because they are popular! COPA’s entire case fails because it is based on flawed reasoning and failed logic. Any notion of ultimate truth is not the purpose of this process. While being fed by a philosophy of anarchy, ultimately, the only logic driving COPA’s lawsuit is self-serving commercial logic.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but expertise is bloody hard
This problem of begging the question was notable during the first week of the trial in relation to the notion of the expertise and independence of ‘expert witnesses.’ Much of the ‘evidence’ being provided is ostensibly from people termed ‘independent experts’ about ‘cryptocurrency’ or ‘forensics.’ While the words independent and expert have natural language meanings, in the court process, ‘independent’ and ‘expert’ have specific meanings outlined in the rules. A good barrister will know how to work the system to get these two technical terms to work in favor of their client.
The need for independence applies to both ‘expert’ and ‘lay’ witnesses. The rules about independence in U.K. courts are more stringent for expert witnesses than they are for lay witnesses: expert witnesses are required to be unconnected to the people and issues in the case, while lay witnesses are (almost) inevitably connected, so all the potential conflicts of interest need to be noted and weighed in the process of gathering testimony.
Dr. Wright repeatedly called into question the level and appropriateness of the qualifications and expertise of those being presented as expert witnesses by COPA (and indeed those chosen by his own solicitors), as well as the lack of rigor in the processes. Dr. Wright noted that he himself is better (and more appropriately) qualified and experienced than the expert witnesses.
Dr. Wright also questioned the independence of both expert and lay witnesses. While his critics (including COPA’s barrister) try to dismiss this as fanciful and to portray him as a paranoid fantasist, in something as big as the multi-trillion-dollar cultural phenomenon known as ‘cryptocurrency’ and Bitcoin, it is a legitimate question as to whether anyone can be considered truly independent.
If witnesses are, for instance, happy to be labeled ‘cryptocurrency expert’ [a nonsensical label] without kickback, or receive grant funding, or if their employers receive significant revenues from large tech companies, one is right to question if they may have prejudiced views. If journalists and commentators are too ego-driven, rendering them incapable of recognizing the errors in their reasoning and understanding, they lack credibility regardless of which media organization they may work for.
While individuals may regard themselves as independent, evaluating this independence is down to the process of the trial. This is another issue where COPA’s legal representatives are ‘begging the question’. As outlined earlier, COPA’s case is based on their premise (assumed truth) that BTC represents the ‘cryptocurrency’ Bitcoin. This means that anyone who rejects their premise cannot be deemed ‘independent’ and filtered out of the process, whereas anyone who agrees with the premise is allowed to be ‘independent.’
COPA is thus questioning the independence of Dr. Wright’s expert witness, ZeMing Gao, because his research identifies Bitcoin SV (BSV) as the blockchain, which best represents the original intention of the Bitcoin System as described in the white paper and subsequent Satoshi writings. He rejects their premises; therefore, he cannot be independent! This defies reason and common sense.
What is really needed—logically—is an expert on the Bitcoin System: a system which, while ostensibly ‘just’ about peer-to-peer micropayments, demands a far more comprehensive understanding of the theoretical and real-world economics of a proof-of-work (PoW) distributed ledger/database, as well as a grasp of legal implications for its legitimate integration into the global economic system. This requires a polymath, and polymaths are rarely ‘experts’ in the narrow but convenient silos created by the academic and corporate world. Indeed, this is the history of Bitcoin that it necessarily evolved outside the silos of the corporate and academic worlds.
Unfortunately, while Dr. Wright’s expert witness, ZeMing Gao, may well approximate the autodidact polymath, the only person who really has expertise on the Bitcoin System is Satoshi Nakamoto himself. The court process does not allow Dr. Wright to be directly considered independent, as the judge noted that the court ultimately decides who is to be deemed expert and independent.
If it were later to be demonstrated that people who were deemed ‘expert’ and ‘independent’ by the court were, in fact, making errors and/or demonstrating bias in their testimony, then the route to appeal to a higher court is opened.
The UK’s public policy objectives against anarchy and techno-feudalism
The judge must rule based on weighing the appropriate evidence that he regards as having been legitimately elicited in the legal process. It is not impossible that he may ultimately be minded to rule that neither side has proven their case. It is also likely that either side would seek to appeal any adverse ruling.
It would certainly make Mr. Justice Mellor’s job easier if Dr. Wright ultimately decides he is able to provide specific, conclusive, irrefutable evidence that only Satoshi would know/have. However, Dr. Wright has been clear historically (and continues to be clear) that establishing identity in law requires a time-based PoW process. The ongoing trial itself is the culmination of this decades-long PoW process.
It may not be well appreciated that in reaching a ruling, any U.K. judge is bound not just by the procedural technicalities on display in the trial but also by the wider principles and responsibilities of the U.K. legal system. These include the need to serve truth and justice based on common sense and reason. This is tricky when Satoshi’s action would likely be very unreasonable and, superficially at least, defy common sense.
While serving the interests of truth, justice, common sense, and reason, the U.K. legal system must also balance the need to be consistent with U.K. public policy interests. Such policies may include social, ethical, as well as economic, and national security goals. Such issues tend to become increasingly pivotal as cases go up through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
This is a commercial case of extraordinary—existential—importance, a direct contest between two sides:
(1) Dr. Wright, who continues to argue for law and the need to stamp out international cyber-crime, money laundering, people trafficking, etc., and to use blockchain technology specifically for the betterment of society while creating more transparent and accountable government; versus
(2) a toxic combination of U.S.-based ‘Silicon Valley’ techno-feudalists, well-resourced anarchists, and anarchy-promoting global quasi-criminal entities: an uncomfortable combination of people seeking global control of monopoly rent and commercial reward, and the right to abrogate law and regulations, not just in the U.K., but throughout the world.
Western political systems are increasingly captured, and it is a matter of constitutional principle that the separation of powers exists to ameliorate the tendency for political capture by monied interests. As COPA’s argumentum ad populum fallacy reminds us, BTC Core is the most popular (hence most valuable) derivative of the original Bitcoin protocol. This has ensured that its supporters are very well-resourced. Their ability to continue to be well-resourced is a function of their ability to maintain a de facto, unjustified monopoly on ‘Bitcoin.’ It must be presumed that the presiding judge, and certainly any appeals court, understands the potential public policy implications of the ruling of this case.
Blackrock BTC ETF Prospectus stream document (blackrock.com)
Watch: Bitcoin—The electronic cash system
New to blockchain? Check out CoinGeek’s Blockchain for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about blockchain technology.
