documents Archives -
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg used users’ data as a bargaining chip to consolidate company’s power, leaked documents reportedly revealNovember 7, 2019 | dailybusinessnews
A trove of leaked Facebook documents paint a negative portrait of CEO Mark Zuckerberg — reportedly detailing his efforts to consolidate his company’s power and beat its competitors by using users’ data as a bargaining chip.
A will, a living will, a living trust, a transfer on death deed — yes, estate planning is confusing. An attorney will help keep you from making costly mistakes.
Anyone in the Bahamas whose life is in danger is “going to be allowed to come to the United States, whether you have travel documents or not.” On the other hand, “Everybody needs totally proper documentation.” The first statement came Monday from the acting head of Customs and Border Protection,…
The Kleiman v. Wright case continues this week and a slew of new evidence has been submitted to the Southern District of Florida courthouse. A supplemental affidavit stemming from the Kleiman estate’s expert witness, Dr. Matthew Edman, indicates that documents submitted to the court as evidence were “modified” and “backdated.”
Plaintiff’s Analysis of Documents Shows David Kleiman’s PGP Signature Was Created Almost a Year After He Died
A transcript of an affidavit was recently submitted to the Kleiman v. Wright (9:18-cv-80176) court case, which shows that an expert witness found many flaws within certain documents filed in the case. The billion-dollar bitcoin lawsuit is one of the most high profile court cases in the U.S. because it involves 1 million BTC and self-proclaimed ‘Bitcoin inventor’ Craig Wright. Since December 2015, the crypto community has endured Wright’s repeated claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. However, nearly every claim and every so-called proof Wright has provided has been debunked by researchers, cryptographers, and the greater crypto community. Many of the refutations against Wright’s story accuse him of providing backdated documents and proofs that have been modified at a later date. From the very beginning of Wright’s entrance into the community, his story has been suspected of being a falsified tale or hoax. On December 9, 2015, Vice reporter Sarah Jeong detailed that the “PGP keys referenced in stories naming Craig Wright as the creator of Bitcoin were probably falsely backdated.”
Fast forward to today and Craig Wright is being sued by Ira Kleiman, the brother of the now deceased David Kleiman, for allegedly interfering with David’s bitcoin assets and intellectual property after he died. The first filing shows the value of the assets the Kleiman family thinks David was screwed out of is around $ 5.1 billion before punitive or treble damages. This week, an affidavit was submitted to the court that shows the testimony of the Kleiman estate’s witness, Dr. Matthew Edman, a cryptography expert.
As other have mentioned, Bitmessage wasn’t even publicly available until November 12th 2012. Furthermore, the only visible address is a v4 address (as it begins with 2c) and those didn’t even exist until about mid-2013.
— Peter Šurda (@PeterSurda) July 4, 2019
According to Edman’s resume submitted to the court, he has a deep knowledge of digital forensics, applied cryptography, Shamir’s Secret Sharing Scheme, and cryptocurrencies. Edman’s testimony examines an email that was submitted to the court as “Exhibit A.” Edman declares under penalty of perjury that he believes Exhibit A was likely created from an email Wright sent to himself on or about April 16, 2014. The document was then “converted to a PDF and modified to appear to have been sent from ‘Dave Kleiman’ to Uyen Nguyen on or about December 20, 2012.” The expert’s testimony further states:
I also determined that Exhibit A contained a PGP signature allegedly created by Dave Kleiman on or about March 12, 2014 – almost a year after he died.
A Trend of Modifications
Edman states that he analyzed Exhibit A previously and further analysis and forensic artifacts contained within the PDF itself bolster his opinion. The digital forensics expert said that he also examined “Exhibit F” and concluded that the document was “created by further modifying Exhibit A to make it appear as if Exhibit F is actually a separate email sent from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen.” “In my opinion, it is simply another revision to the PDF created from an email the defendant sent to himself on or about April 16, 2014,” Edman emphasized in his testimony. The witness’s affidavit declares that both Exhibit A and Exhibit F appear to be emails sent from David to Uyen Nguyen back in 2012, but “manipulations of a PDF created from an email” indicate that Wright sent it to himself in the spring of 2014. Edman noted that he understands that Exhibit A was withdrawn from the court because Wright could not “verify the date of that email exchange,” but to his knowledge Exhibit F was not withdrawn.
Edman goes on to explain that the metadata tied to the first exhibit’s PDF shows that it was created on or about April 17, 2014. The creator used the Acrobat PDF Maker 11 for Microsoft Outlook and Edman highlights that the computer’s time zone was consistent with Sydney, Australia (UTC+10) and then modified again five minutes later. Further analysis of the internal contents and structure of the document identified specific portions of the PDF were edited and revised. He further determined that Exhibit F was also comprised of modifications to the date field and revisions to the body of the document as well. Speaking on Exhibit A’s analysis Kleiman’s expert witness explained:
I identified a “TouchUp_TextEdit” marked-content point in the PDF file associated with Exhibit A which indicated that the text associated with the “From:”, “To:”, and “Date:” fields at the top of Exhibit A were edited.
The crypto community has not been kind about the latest documents and Edman’s affidavit has been shared widely across social media mocking Wright. The attorney Stephen Palley who often comments on cryptocurrency related lawsuits stated “you can’t really attack [Edman’s] credentials and the analysis looks sound.” “You have to show an alternative explanation — they should settle,” Palley added. The public will still hear from Wright’s expert witnesses which include Brett Roberson, Kevin Madura, and Nchain’s CTO Steve Shadders.
In addition to the court case drama last week, news.Bitcoin.com reported that Martti Malmi said on Twitter that he might take action against Wright for accusing him of starting the “Silk Road, Hydra and a number of other darker websites.” “Taking a closer look to the transcript, Craig Wright is accusing me and Theymos of soliciting drug trade, assassinations, terrorism and child porn — That is too much to be ignored,” Malmi told the public. Following the accusations against Malmi, the owner of Bitcointalk.org, Theymos, also refuted Wright’s court claims against him stemming from the June 28 transcript. “I was made a forum admin in 2011 after Satoshi left,” Theymos insisted.
“I never had any interaction with CSW — CSW’s whole shtick is to just lie constantly,” the forum moderator conceded. “He’s so brazen about it that some people think, ‘there must be some truth there,’ but really it’s 100% nonsense.”
What do you think about the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit involving billions of dollars worth of bitcoin? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
The post Expert Witness in Satoshi Case Claims Dr Wright’s Documents Were Doctored appeared first on Bitcoin News.
Last week, Craig Wright, the man who claims he’s Satoshi Nakamoto, appeared in court and testified why he did not have access to his public bitcoin addresses and trust information. Since then a lot of new evidence has been submitted to the court and members of the crypto community have dissected Wright’s recent testimony and the newly filed documentation.
The $ 5 Billion Dollar Bitcoin Lawsuit Continues to Unfold
For years now, Australian native Craig Wright has told the public that he invented Bitcoin and tried to submit evidence to prove that he is who he says he is. However, a great number of cryptography experts and well known bitcoiners have discredited nearly all of his claims to the point where individuals have called him a fraud. The Kleiman v. Wright case involves the now deceased Florida computer forensics expert Dave Kleiman.
The reason David is involved is because much of the evidence provided to the court involves Kleiman and Wright’s multi-year business relationship. After David passed away, allegedly Wright reached out to the family and explained to them that he and David were involved with the creation of Bitcoin and how they both mined large amounts of bitcoin during the early years. Now, Ira Kleiman, on behalf of David’s estate, is accusing Wright of interfering with David’s bitcoin assets and intellectual property after he died. The Kleiman estate’s complaint reads:
This matter concerns the rightful ownership of hundreds of thousands of bitcoins and the valuable intellectual property rights of various blockchain technologies. As of the date of filing, the value of these assets far exceed $ 5,118,266,427.50 USD (before punitive or treble damages).
The court case started in February 2018 and involves billions of dollars worth of BTC that allegedly exist in a blind trust called the “Tulip Trust.” Kleiman’s litigation team have asked Wright to produce bitcoin addresses and trust information, but so far the plaintiff’s counsel say he has failed to comply. The hearing on June 28 was held to understand why Wright and his attorneys believe he should not be held in contempt for failing to produce what the court has ordered him to procure.
When Wright was asked why he hasn’t provided a list of the public addresses to the plaintiffs, he explained that “there are no public addresses in the Bitcoin system.” Wright insisted to the court that public addresses “don’t exist” and claimed there are no public addresses at all in Bitcoin. “Bitcoin was derived such that a key would only be used once — And if you look at the section in the whitepaper, later on, it states that as an additional firewall, keys should not be reused,” Wright responded.
Accusations Aimed at the Creator of Bitcoin.org
When Wright was asked if he was familiar with the Bitcoin system, he said that he was familiar with the system he created and he claims to have “used the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto” during this time. Again, Wright was then asked whether he could provide the public addresses at the hearing. “If I could, I would have not given the first 70 addresses — I would have given every other address,” Wright responded further. “The first 70 addresses associate me as Satoshi — I did not want to be associated with Satoshi.” Wright was then asked to explain why he stopped acting as the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto and he claimed that it all started after the creation of Bitcoin.org. Wright then went on to accuse Martti Malmi and Theymos of starting the “Silk Road, Hydra and a number of other darker websites” along with Ross Ulbricht. Wright’s testimony stated that these websites and forums were created to foster drug sales, weapons, child pornography, and assassination markets.
Apparently CSW has claimed in court that I cofounded Silk Road and worked “to allow assassination markets”. For the record: that is obviously a made up accusation. https://t.co/lAdFhsLoHH
— Martti Malmi (@marttimalmi) July 6, 2019
After reading the transcript, early Bitcoin developer Martti Malmi went on record and said Wright’s claims were “obviously made up accusations.” During the tweet thread, at first Malmi said he was leaning toward not responding back with a libel and defamation lawsuit. It seems Malmi hasn’t made up his mind, however, and from further comments, he may retaliate against these accusations.
“Then again, would be good to see justice served and him not getting away with outright slander,” Malmi explained. The former Bitcoin developer stated:
Taking a closer look to the transcript, Craig Wright is accusing me and Theymos of soliciting drug trade, assassinations, terrorism and child porn — That is too much to be ignored. I want to thank everyone for the support I’ve received and I’ve already got some suggestions about where to start, but recommendations for good lawyers, etc. are welcome.
Wizsec Dissects Wright’s Testimony and Alleged Forgeries
After Wright’s transcript was published, Bitcoin security specialists Wizsec analyzed his testimony and found many flaws. Wizsec discussed how Kleiman’s lawyer had focused on an email produced by Wright in discovery that allegedly is a forgery. The email is a PDF that was purportedly sent by David Kleiman on June 24, 2011. Kleiman’s lawyer presented the PDF and explained that even though it says it was created in July 2011, the software used to write the metadata in the document stems from software that had not launched until the summer of 2012.
Moreover, Wizsec’s analysis says that the PDF document at the very least must have been modified somehow at some point. “Indeed the PDF metadata lists a modification date of October 22, 2014, which Wright himself identifies — Wright denies modifying the PDF at that time,” Wizsec writes. Kleiman’s lawyer noted that the PDF contained a string of code that further suggested the document was modified at some point. Then Wright claimed the Kleiman counsel submitted a forgery and tossed the document in the air and the judge gave him a warning.
“All the evidence presented by the plaintiff raise significant doubts as to the authenticity of this supposed email from Dave Kleiman,” Wizsec’s research notes. “No legitimate document should show this many signs of manipulation, and even if Wright denies that he forged anything, all of this is hurting the credibility of any other documents Wright’s side has submitted, if not Wright’s own credibility.”
Following the email discussion, Kleiman’s lawyer then discussed a PDF called the deed of trust. According to the transcript, the plaintiff’s forensics expert extracted metadata from the PDF which shows it was embedded with the Calibri font created in 2015. But Wright and even some of his dedicated followers believe that the Calibri font got an update and any PDF would pick up the new font after the fact.
Indeed, many of Wright’s fans have dismissed all of the claims against him and even Wright himself is attempting to sue certain people for calling him a fraud. One Wright supporter on Twitter has been tracking all of the negative comments against Wright on the social media platform. “If you’re spreading lies on Twitter, you better hope your opsec is the best and you have lawyers on retainer,” the user warned. Meanwhile, there are many bitcoiners assessing the court drama and have rebuked all of Wright’s documents and claims of being Satoshi. Adding more insult to injury, this week an unidentified person bought the domain name Loser.com allegedly for $ 21,000 and the website now directs to Craig Steven Wright’s Wikipedia page.
Just published Proof-of-Perjury? on Medium. Kleiman v. Craig Wright case https://t.co/MqKDGZyCuR
— SeekingSatoshi (@jimmy007forsure) July 7, 2019
The Court’s Verdict Could Come Soon
During the hearing, Kleiman’s attorney continued to ask Wright about a slew of documents that were seemingly modified at a later date, an email that Wright allegedly sent to himself, and a bunch of other document discrepancies. In addition to Wizsec’s examination, Daniel Kelman, an attorney who often discusses cryptocurrency cases, also wrote an extremely detailed post about Wright’s latest testimony. Kelman said that Wright fully understands how to produce public addresses and the court order was very clear. However, in his opinion Wright failed to produce the addresses and comply with the order and did so “willfully,” Kelman emphasized. The attorney at law said there will be a second hearing later this summer and he expects the other witnesses to be heard and more discussions in regard to certain technical exhibits.
“After this hearing, the court will issue its verdict — As discussed previously, this could result in fines or a six-month incarceration for Wright,” Kelman wrote. “The court can issue a default judgment to Kleiman or can issue the lesser remedy of preventing Wright from contesting these matters, which would all but hand the case to Kleiman.” The lawyer continued:
Based on Wright’s performance at the June 28 hearing and the court has already established grounds for contempt against him, I don’t see this going in Wright’s favor.
The Kleiman v Wright case could end soon, but the court still needs to hear from Wright’s expert witnesses including Brett Roberson, Kevin Madura, and Nchain developer Steve Shadders. The date for this proceeding has not been chosen yet, but both parties must appear in court before Judge Beth Bloom on July 10. So far there’s been a lot of evidence against Wright’s claims and documents submitted to the court as well as the crypto community’s continued grievances against him.
Wizsec and others have discredited Wright’s technical explanations many times in the past and continue to believe he has lied many times and obfuscated his story by using “technobabble.” “Word salad is not meant to help a less technical audience understand, but to keep it from understanding or questioning,” Wizsec’s analysis detailed. The paper concludes:
This is a basic scammer’s trick; the “con” in con artist stands for confidence, after all — Keeping an open mind is nice and all, but that requires active critical thinking and that you do your own research properly so you don’t get taken advantage of. If someone has been caught lying 999 times, you’re not obligated to keep an open mind for number one thousand.
What do you think about the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit involving billions of dollars worth of bitcoin? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Feel like you missed something? Check out our full coverage of the Kleiman v. Wright case here:
- Craig “Satoshi” Wright Sued for Billions
- Craig Wright Shrugs Off Plagiarism Accusations
- Judge Denies Craig Wright’s Motion to Dismiss Billion-Dollar Bitcoin Lawsuit
- Jeff Garzik Subpoenaed in Kleiman Bitcoin Lawsuit Against Craig Wright
- Kleiman Estate Says Satoshi Reveal ‘Is Relevant’ in Billion Dollar Bitcoin Lawsuit
- Uyen T Nguyen: The Powerful Young Woman Behind the Alleged ‘Satoshi Affair’
- Self-Styled Satoshi Accused of PGP Forgery in Kleiman vs Wright Lawsuit
- Craig Wright Ordered to Produce a List of Early Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Lawsuit
- Blockchain Researchers Mock Craig Wright’s Unsealed Bitcoin Address List
- The Blind Trust Described in the Kleiman vs. Wright Lawsuit Is a Real Head-Scratcher
- Judge Orders Craig Wright to Appear in Florida Lawsuit
- Kleiman Attorney: ‘Craig Wright Hasn’t Complied With the Order to List His Bitcoin’
- Craig Wright Intends to Call Three Expert Witnesses to His Evidentiary Hearing
- Bitcoin ‘Inventor’ Craig Wright Claims He Can’t Access Coins in Court Testimony
Image credits: Shutterstock, Twitter, Pixabay, Courtlistener, Pacer, and Reddit.
The post Experts Dissect Craig Wright’s ‘Satoshi’ Testimony and Court Documents appeared first on Bitcoin News.
The leadership drama at the NRA just got worse with leaked documents. Among other things, they detail large expenditures on clothing and travel by chief executive Wayne LaPierre, reports the Wall Street Journal . For instance, $ 39,000 for a single day of shopping at a clothing shop in Beverly Hills,…
Proving ownership of copyrighted material through traditional means such as applying for a patent is expensive and involves third parties in most jurisdictions around the world. The Bitcoin.com Notary tool is an alternative that can do that at very little cost and without the need to reveal the information you want to protect.
Prove a Document’s Existence Without a Third Party
With the Bitcoin Cash Notary service users can create a timestamped proof of a document’s existence without trusted third parties. A cryptographic digest of the document, which can also be a photo or video file, is stored in the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) blockchain, linking it to the time of submission. The tool acts like a digital record book that facilitates the verification of documents at a later stage.
The Notary provides you with a trustless automated solution for backing up all kinds of important information. It allows you to prove its existence by comparing the blockchain entry to your actual document and also in case the official version goes missing. At the same time, the contents are never exposed or stored on the blockchain.
To accomplish this, all you need to do is add your file by dragging it into the browser or using the file selector on the tool’s page. Note that the file will not be uploaded to the Bitcoin.com server. Then you’ll be prompted to send a small amount of bitcoin cash (BCH) and fund your blockchain anchor. That will cost you only 0.00005 BCH or less than $ 0.02 at the time of writing.
You’ll be able to see your proof on the blockchain by checking the transaction in a block explorer. You can also use the tool to verify that a document has been notarized by clicking on the “Verify” tab and dragging the file into the browser window. If the document is found, the system will redirect you to its proof page.
What do you think about using the Bitcoin Cash blockchain as a trustless mechanism to prove ownership of information? Share your thoughts on the subject in the comments section below.
Images courtesy of Shutterstock.
At Bitcoin.com there’s a bunch of free helpful services. For instance, have you seen our Tools page? You can even lookup the exchange rate for a transaction in the past. Or calculate the value of your current holdings. Or create a paper wallet. And much more.
The post Use the Bitcoin Cash Notary to Back Up Important Documents appeared first on Bitcoin News.
When Donald Trump wanted to make a good impression — on a lender, a business partner, or a journalist — he sometimes sent them official-looking documents called “Statements of Financial Condition.”
These documents sometimes ran up to 20 pages. They were full of numbers, laying out Trump’s properties,…
Michael Cohen turned over documents to the House intelligence committee on Wednesday that show edits to a false written statement he gave to the panel in 2017 about a Trump real estate project in Moscow, the AP reports. Cohen provided the documents in a closed-door interview with the panel, according…
The White House says it isn’t going to comply with a “radically intrusive” request from Democrats to see documents related to the controversial top-secret security clearance of Jared Kushner. In a letter to the House Oversight Committee, White House counsel Pat Cippolone argued that the committee did not have the…