/biz/ - Business & Finance

That’s not a forgery it’s a printing error

One of the biggest blows to Wright’s credibility with Judge Reinhart—and the already-disbelieving cryptocurrency community—was the allegedly forged Tulip Trust document.

Allegedly from 2011, an expert witness testified that “the font files embedded in the document were copyrighted in 2015, implying that the document really was drafted in 2015.”

A lot of Wright doubters laughed when this alleged ham-handed forgery came out in court last summer. But, Wright’s filing argued, this could be explained by the fact that they were printed around the time that the joint WIRED and Gizmodo leak outed Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto. That means they may have been scanned and made into PDF files using optical character recognition (OCR).
Seriously, read the fine print this time. It’s totally worth it.

Even the expert witness who revealed that inconsistency—Mathew Edman, the cyber security expert who took down Silk Road kingpin Ross Ulbricht—”conceded that the document could have been drafted in 2012, but simply OCR’d in 2015, which could have embedded the 2015 fonts into the document,” Wright argued.

Several “could have’s” follow in the footnote to that section of the filing. “The timing inconsistencies in the PGP [email encryption] signatures could have been caused by a poorly configured computer clock,” it reads. “The supposed issues with the PGP version histories could have been cause by an Alpha or Beta version of the software.”

After two more “supposed” issues, the footnote concluded, “[e]ach of these plausible explanations contradicts the “[f]raudulent documents” accusation.”