Kleiman v Wright Day 2 recap: Andreas Antonopoulos admits not mining BTC, Patrick Paige and Gavin Andresen take the stand

Kleiman v Wright Day 2 recap: Andreas Antonopoulos admits not mining BTC, Patrick Paige and Gavin Andresen take the stand

Never-before-seen evidence was introduced on day two of the Kleiman vs. Wright trial when Patrick Paige, a former colleague of Dave Kleiman testified—and interestingly, Ira Kleiman was not present in the courtroom for day two of the trial which raised many eyebrows.

The day started with a continuation from the first day of the trial, with Andreas Antonopoulos being examined by the plaintiffs. Antonopoulos’s examination provided the jury—that knows nothing about blockchain or digital currency—a base understanding of how Bitcoin ownership works. Antonopoulos put a lot of emphasis on the phrase, “not your keys, not your coins.”

“It’s a way of reminding people that controlling their funds is all about controlling their keys, in BTC, control over keys is entirely equivalent to controlling your money,” he said.

Antonopoulos proceeded to educate the audience about private keys, Bitcoin forks, and how mining Bitcoin works; however, during the defense cross-examination, lawyer Andres Rivero called into question how qualified Antonopoulos really is to be considered an “expert” that gives the jury their base knowledge on the subject.

“You sir, have never successfully mined BTC,” Rivero said.

To which Antonopoulos replied, “I have not mined BTC, no.”

Antonopoulos is neither a trained economist, nor does he have a background in economics. He has been retained by the plaintiff at a rate of $750 per hour and has admitted to knowing nothing about the core question of this court case: whether Dr. Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman were business partners that mined 1.1 million Bitcoin together, and if they were, should Dave Kleiman’s estate be entitled to half of that whopping sum.

Never-before-seen evidence

An email from Dr. Wright to Paige was read during the latter’s testimony, which stated: “Dave and I had a project in the U.S. He ran it there. We kept what we did secret…the company we ran there mined Bitcoin.”

According to Paige, Dr. Craig Wright told him that Dave was one of the creators of Bitcoin. This new evidence speaks to the core questions at the center of this lawsuit which Dr. Wright and his legal team are arguing ‘no’—Dr. Wright and Dave Kleiman did not have a business partnership at the time the 1.1 million Bitcoin were mined. When Paige took the stand, he argued that the claim Dr. Wright and his legal team are making is not consistent with the messages in the newly introduced evidence (email correspondences) that Dr. Wright had with Paige.

But what constitutes a business partnership?

After the plaintiffs (Kleiman’s legal team) examined Patrick Paige, the defense (Wright’s legal team) crossed examined Paige. Their questions revolved around what it means to have a partnership, an issue that Paige should be well-versed in since he was Dave’s business partner in a business they launched called “Computer Forensics LLC.”

The main argument being made was that partnerships are documented in written agreements; and when partnerships are violated, individuals typically sue—another area Paige has experienced with since Kleiman sued Paige over a business matter while they were partners.

The last deposition of the day

The final deposition of the day was given by Gavin Andresen, a software developer who was formerly the lead developer at Bitcoin Core. The questions that the plaintiffs asked Andresen in his deposition largely revolved around email correspondence between Andresen, Dr. Wright, and a few individuals associated with Dr. Wright such as Stefan Matthews.

Andresen, who had Dr. Wright sign messages on the BTC blockchain that only Satoshi could sign, answered many questions the plaintiffs asked regarding the technical skills an individual would need to create the Bitcoin protocol. He also said it is “most likely that Craig has the keys for block 9,” but that it was possible that the other proof that Dr. Craig Wright showed to Andresen in person in the past was fraudulent.

Interestingly, both Andresen and Paige seemed to be of the belief that Satoshi was a group of three people. However, Andresen, although prompted by the plaintiffs, did express that he believe Dave and Craig did a lot of heavy lifting together.

Too early to tell

It is too early to tell which way the pendulum swings; when Dr. Wright’s lawyers proved Andreas Antonopoulos’s lack of expertise, it was a clear victory for the defense. However, when Paige took the stand, introduced new evidence and expressed his understanding of the situation, it called into question the role Dave Kleiman played in getting Bitcoin off the ground.

The defense’s cross-examination questioned what it means to have a partnership and how a partnership is formed, which was an attempt to neutralize the very strong Paige testimony, while Andresen also communicated via his virtual deposition that he believes Dr. Wright alone is not Satoshi due to his email correspondences with Dr, Wright in the past.

CoinGeek will feature Kurt Wuckert Jr. in daily recap coverage which will be livestreamed on a daily basis at 6:30 p.m. EST on our YouTube Channel.

Watch our Day 1 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:

Watch our Day 2 Special Report from the Kleiman v Wright trial here:

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek’s Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.

[id^="_form"]
[id^="_form"]
[id$="_submit"]
[id$="_submit"]
[^;]
[^;]
[?&]
[?&]
[^&#]
[^&#]
[(d+)]
[(d+)]
[elem.name]
[elem.name]
[+_a-z0-9-'&=]
[+_a-z0-9-'&=]
[+_a-z0-9-']
[+_a-z0-9-']
[a-z0-9-]
[a-z0-9-]
[a-z]
[a-z]
[el.name]
[el.name]
[id^="_form"]
[id^="_form"]
[id$="_submit"]
[id$="_submit"]
[^;]
[^;]
[?&]
[?&]
[^&#]
[^&#]
[(d+)]
[(d+)]
[elem.name]
[elem.name]
[+_a-z0-9-'&=]
[+_a-z0-9-'&=]
[+_a-z0-9-']
[+_a-z0-9-']
[a-z0-9-]
[a-z0-9-]
[a-z]
[a-z]
[el.name]
[el.name]