Today someone showed me an INCREDIBLE piece of evidence that #CraigWright is Satoshi.

This image, sourced from metanet-icu was shared with me.

It appears to be one of Satoshi’s earliest emails to Hal Finney, screen grabbed by Craig when he wrote it.

But, on closer inspection all is not as it seems.

This email was made public by journalist and can be found in a pdf of lots of emails from Satoshi to Hal Finney spanning 10-24 Jan 2009.

I’m not making any claim whether these are or are not authentic.

https://t.co/0AxWJVEkqH
But, the most glaring and immediate problem with the metanet-icu screenshot of the draft email is in the top right hand corner of the image, where the user’s membership expires on 13th of March 2019.
Anonymousspeech is a paid service. The web archive of their product page shows that going back to the earliest snapshots they have never offered a package that lasts more than 2 years.

So the earliest this screenshot could have been made was March 2017.

https://t.co/RRaVRZ84es
But there’s something else strange about this image as well, and that’s down in the bottom left hand corner.

Anonymousspeech allows a maximum of 50000 characters in an email and has a counter of spare chars at the bottom.

This email has 48932 chars left.
The number of chars applies to everything within the Message box. That is the body of the email.

The problem is if the body of the email has 48932 chars left, then the contents is only 1068 characters long.

Here is the full email. It is 1136 chars.
That count is according to my favourite text editor.

And, consistent with this, the “characters left” box in anonymousspeech says there are 48864 characters left when I copy and paste this into the email client.

This is 68 characters more than in the metanet-icu screenshot.
I was able to shave off 6 characters by removing all white space from the ends of lines. This left me with 62 characters too many. So the next option is to remove some linebreaks.
There’s clearly a line break after “and” at the end of the first line in the quoted text. The following line begins “>it” and if you take a close look at the bottom of the visible part of the message box there’s clearly enough space to avoid wordwrap.
So leaving that line break in place, I removed all line breaks in the text not visible in the metanet-icu picture.

Below is what the text now looks like.

But even this cutting only got me down to 1119 characters—still 51 too many.
The above leads to only one possible conclusion: the text not visible in the upper part of the scroll box from the metanet-icu picture cannot possibly be the same length as the quoted text in the email attested on the Wall Street Journal Website.

How to explain this?
Actually, it turns out there is an extremely straightforward answer.

Here is a screenshot of the email as it appears in the pdf available on the Wall Street Journal website. As you can see the email crosses over a page boundary.
The bottom three lines of the quoted text from Hal’s previous email are on the second page.

Now imagine a scenario where the text in the anonymousspeech email box had not been quoted from hitting “reply” and then typed.

What if text had been copied and pasted from the WSJ pdf?
If the text on the first page of the WSJ pdf had been copied and pasted—WITHOUT the three lines on page 2—and carriage returns are added to make it look tidy like in the metanet-icu pictures, then the text copied into the message box would look like this:
The number of characters in the above image is 1067, only one character away from 1068, the number of characters in the metanet-icu picture.

So, now imagine the copier continued to “tidy” the quoted text after the first line ending in “and”, they removed the spaces before “>”…
...and replaced them with carriage returns, including adding a carriage return at the end of the last line. The copied and pasted text now looks like a tidy email.

In my text editor it looks like this:
And the number of characters in this sloppy-copy-and-paste-with-a-little-touch-up-job?

Yes, you guessed it, exactly 1068. Exactly the number of characters that the metanet-icu screenshot of the anonymousspeech “characters left” box says are in the email.
So, what do we conclude from this?

Very simply, that this supposed screenshot of one of Satoshi’s earliest emails in the middle of being written, sourced from metanet-icu… this seemingly INCREDIBLE piece of evidence that Craig is Satoshi really is…

*IN*—(as in not)—credible.
This image is clearly a forgery.

And I would be very interested to know if it has been submitted in any lawsuits involving #CraigWright, @hodlonaut, or @PeterMcCormack
Nice catch from Juha

https://t.co/Ni2shvUYBS
Nice little observation about browser features.

Unchecked.

https://t.co/qFM3rXhF1Q

More from Law

We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.


The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.

It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.

The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.

Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...


law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:

1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.

2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.

Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.

3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.

4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...

judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.

The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...

You May Also Like

The first ever world map was sketched thousands of years ago by Indian saint
“Ramanujacharya” who simply translated the following verse from Mahabharat and gave the world its real face

In Mahabharat,it is described how 'Maharishi Ved Vyasa' gave away his divine vision to Sanjay


Dhritarashtra's charioteer so that he could describe him the events of the upcoming war.

But, even before questions of war could begin, Dhritarashtra asked him to describe how the world looks like from space.

This is how he described the face of the world:

सुदर्शनं प्रवक्ष्यामि द्वीपं तु कुरुनन्दन। परिमण्डलो महाराज द्वीपोऽसौ चक्रसंस्थितः॥
यथा हि पुरुषः पश्येदादर्शे मुखमात्मनः। एवं सुदर्शनद्वीपो दृश्यते चन्द्रमण्डले॥ द्विरंशे पिप्पलस्तत्र द्विरंशे च शशो महान्।

—वेद व्यास, भीष्म पर्व, महाभारत


Meaning:-

हे कुरुनन्दन ! सुदर्शन नामक यह द्वीप चक्र की भाँति गोलाकार स्थित है, जैसे पुरुष दर्पण में अपना मुख देखता है, उसी प्रकार यह द्वीप चन्द्रमण्डल में दिखायी देता है। इसके दो अंशो मे पीपल और दो अंशो मे विशाल शश (खरगोश) दिखायी देता है।


Meaning: "Just like a man sees his face in the mirror, so does the Earth appears in the Universe. In the first part you see leaves of the Peepal Tree, and in the next part you see a Rabbit."

Based on this shloka, Saint Ramanujacharya sketched out the map, but the world laughed