The respective opening arguments offered a first indication of both COPA’s strategy to dismantle Wright’s claims – in short, to discredit through forensic analysis the entire body of documentary evidence presented by Wright – and to Wright’s approach to countering accusations of counterfeiting.
Most of Hough’s opening speech focused on how Wright allegedly falsified or manipulated documentary evidence that, if credible, would indicate that he is Nakamoto. Among various allegations, Hough accused Wright of slowing down his computer’s clock to make documents appear as if they were created before Bitcoin existed, deleting files, and modifying files. others on a hard drive whose contents he presented in evidence, and of having attempted to fabricate new evidence. after forensic document analysis experts identified problems with existing documents.
Hough repeatedly emphasized that experts commissioned by Wright, as well as COPA, had identified reason to believe the documents had been falsified. “Wright cannot cite any verifiable documents that support his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. He completely failed to provide that evidence,” Hough told the courtroom. Some elements of Wright’s conduct, he claimed, had “strayed into the realm of farce.”
By the time Hough had finished cataloging Wright’s alleged misrepresentations, three hours had passed. Sometimes, as Hough presented a particular piece of evidence or made a particular assertion, Wright would whisper in his lawyer’s ear or scribble something on paper, but he seemed otherwise unfazed.
The defense opted for a more succinct approach. Presented by Lord Anthony Grabiner, the defense’s opening argument did not address the specific allegations of infringement. Instead, Grabiner focused on what he called “philosophical differences” between Wright and the plaintiffs that might explain “the unusual features of Dr. Wright’s behavior” — namely his reluctance to publicly prove that he possessed private credentials linked to wallets owned by Nakamoto. This would be contrary to Wright’s “core belief,” Grabiner claimed, in the privacy-preserving potential of cryptocurrencies.
The burden will be on COPA, as plaintiff, to demonstrate that Wright is not who he claims to be. To that end, Grabiner pointed to the absence of any other credible candidates in Nakamoto’s search. “An interesting feature of this case is the non-appearance of a competing claim by Satoshi Nakamoto,” Grabiner said. “It’s sort of Hamlet without the prince. Although COPA intends to dismantle Wright’s documentary evidence, it “has not been able to uncover any evidence that Wright is not Satoshi,” he said.
Wright will take the stand Tuesday; his testimony is expected to last up to six days. His ability to explain the findings of forensic reports and explain the lack of compelling evidence in his favor will speak volumes about his true identity, the long-lost creator of Bitcoin. Or rather, as Hough would put it, that “Wright’s claim to be Satoshi is a lie.”
