Craig Wright Witness Defends Saying Headed for ‘Train Wreck’ With COPA Trial

CoinDeskPolicyPubblicato 2024-02-18Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-02-19

Introduzione

Stefan Matthews said the damning message referred to poor trial prep and not Wright’s claims to being Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto.

Three witnesses for Craig Wright took the stand on Monday as the third week of a trial that could decide if he's Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto kicked off in a U.K. high court.
A key witness, Stefan Matthews, had to defend a damning statement he made about the trial, which invited questions about whether he thought Wright was disingenuous.

"We're heading into a f***ing train wreck."

That's how Stefan Matthews, a witness for Craig Wright, described the U.K. trial probing the latter's claims that he invented the first cryptocurrency, bitcoin.

Matthews, the co-founder of tech company nChain – where Wright was chief scientist – had to defend that January message when he took the stand on Monday along with two other witnesses for Wright as the third week of trial kicked off.

Under oath, Matthews said he was referring only to how "uncooperative Craig was in his strategy and plan" for the trial and insisted he didn't think Wright was a "fake."

A set of prominent crypto industry participants, comprising the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) and a grouping of Bitcoin developers, have challenged Wright's claims that he is the cryptocurrency's pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.

Since the trial started on Feb. 5, Wright has been cross-examined for several days, followed by witnesses from his camp.

Before Matthews took the stand on Monday, David Bridges, CIO of Qudos Bank, who met Wright in 2006, and Wright's cousin Max Lynam participated by video link. Both admitted that key events or conversations that convinced them Wright was Satoshi took place years ago and without material proof to back them up.

Bridges has previously drawn parallels between Bitcoin's underlying technology blockchain and an event logging system created by Wright, saying both systems record transactions, and have "good traceability" and immutability.

When asked by COPA counsel if the parallel Bridges had drawn between the two systems was a conceptual one instead of a technical one – specifically referring to code – he said he didn't have the expertise to make a detailed technical comparison.

"Oh, I wouldn't know, mate," Bridges said.

He also said he's not big on following the crypto, referring to Vitalik Buterin as the "Russian guy" who invented that "other one" – meaning popular cryptocurrency ether.

"I'm not a fanboy or anything like that," he added.

All three of Monday's witnesses testified on Wright's behalf at a previous Oslo trial, where Bitcoin developer Hodlonaut (who came out victorious) challenged Wright's assertions that he was Satoshi.

Matthews will continue to testify until lunchtime Tuesday, after which Steve Lee and John MacFarlane, may take the stand for COPA, a spokesperson for the alliance told CoinDesk.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Recommended for you:

The trial will continue at least until mid-March, according to tentative schedules shared by the court.

Edited by Sheldon Reback.

Letture associate

XRP Reversal Setup Forms Around Harmonic Pattern And Key Support Zone

XRP is trading at a critical technical support zone, according to a June 20 TradingView analysis. This area combines multiple layers of confluence, including the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement level and the point of control for the current range. Such convergence can intensify the battle between buyers and sellers at this level. The analysis suggests this support could form the basis for a broader harmonic reversal pattern. While not a guarantee, such setups provide a structured framework for identifying potential trend changes, invalidation points, and price targets. For the reversal thesis to gain credibility, XRP needs a decisive bullish reaction from this zone—specifically, a sustained bounce with volume that reclaims nearby resistance, not just a brief wick. Failure to hold support or repeated tests of the area would weaken the bullish argument. The setup is notable but requires confirmation from market price action.

bitcoinist1 h fa

XRP Reversal Setup Forms Around Harmonic Pattern And Key Support Zone

bitcoinist1 h fa

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

Vitalik Buterin's recent algorithmic stablecoin proposal envisions using an option-like mechanism to create a stablecoin without the liquidation risks inherent in traditional collateralized debt position (CDP) models. The design splits one unit of ETH into two components: a 'stable' leg (P) that maintains value up to a certain strike price, and an 'upside' leg (N) that captures any appreciation above that price. Together, they always sum to one ETH, eliminating the need for debt or liquidation mechanisms. From an options perspective, the stable leg essentially functions as a synthetic, covered call position. However, significant challenges exist. For the stable asset to maintain its peg, it must continuously roll deep in-the-money call options, leading to potential rollover slippage, predictable trading paths vulnerable to front-running, and liquidity issues. Crucially, the system's scalability depends on a constant demand for the upside leg—a form of leveraged ETH long position without funding rates or liquidation risk. It's unclear if such persistent, specific demand will materialize from speculators or market makers who have simpler alternatives like perpetual swaps. The author, drawing from experience with Rysk, argues that DeFi options have struggled as standalone trading products due to complexity and fragmented liquidity. Their potential lies instead as foundational infrastructure underpinning more complex financial primitives like stablecoins, structured yields, or index products—transforming from a direct product into a core pricing and risk distribution engine for the next generation of on-chain finance.

marsbit1 h fa

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

marsbit1 h fa

SpaceX, AI, and XRP: Why the Next Wealth Transfer Might Be Different?

The article posits that the global economy is transitioning into a new phase of infrastructure investment. Capital, facing slowing traditional growth engines, is flowing towards emerging foundational systems. This includes space infrastructure (exemplified by SpaceX), AI computing power, satellite networks, data centers, and global payment systems. A key driver is a potential new commodity supercycle fueled by industrial demand from these sectors. Concurrently, the role of blockchain is evolving from speculative assets to a critical settlement layer for the future economy. Digital assets like XRP and XLM, focused on payments and interoperability, are highlighted as potential rails for cross-border settlement, tokenized assets, and machine-to-machine (AI Agent) transactions. The narrative connects figures like Ripple's Jed McCaleb to space ventures, suggesting convergence. The argument emphasizes a shift from speculative narratives to utility-driven value. As AI and space commerce generate new economic activity, and regulatory clarity improves, blockchain networks may underpin real-time value transfer. The conclusion urges investors to consider which networks will form the backbone of this integrated next-generation economic infrastructure.

marsbit2 h fa

SpaceX, AI, and XRP: Why the Next Wealth Transfer Might Be Different?

marsbit2 h fa

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit4 h fa

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit4 h fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit4 h fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit4 h fa

Trading

Spot

Futures