Bitcoin’s alleged creator called upon two expert witnesses, a fact witness, and himself to testify at the federal evidentiary hearing, which will begin at 9 a.m. This can potentially lead to Wright’s cross-examination.
Wright already faces the possibility of being placed in contempt of court at either the civil or criminal level for failing to disclose a full list of his bitcoin holdings gained prior to Dec. 31, 2013, per a court order, according to the plaintiff’s representation.
The nChain chief scientist allegedly mined a hoard of more than 1.1 million bitcoins with Dave Kleiman between 2009 and 2011, which are said to be stored in the “Tulip Trust.” Ira Kleiman is suing on behalf of his brother’s estate for half of the fair market value of those coins, as well as rights to his brother’s intellectual property.
According to the court document, Brett Roberson, Director AlixPartners in Dallas, Texas, will provide sworn testimony regarding digital forensics and PGP signatures. Roberson’s range of experience also covers detection of intellectual property theft, analysis of a computer user’s actions over specific time periods, and recovery of deleted files, according to his CV, attached to the filing as Exhibit 1.
Wright previously said the Tulip Trust is inaccessible due to a cryptographic scheme called Shamir’s Secret Sharing Algorithm.
The second expert witness, Kevin Madure, former IBM consultant and VP of cybersecurity at AlixPartners, will testify to cryptography, cryptocurrencies and blockchain as it pertains to this case.
Steve Shadders, CTO of nChain, will testify as a fact witness. Shadders previously published a blog post titled “On the Satoshiness of Dr Craig S Wright,” where he argued that Wright is probably Satoshi Nakamoto. He writes based on his experience working with Wright, although he allegedly turned down the opportunity to view conclusive evidence:
“I have seen so much evidence that #craigissatoshi that it is a no brainer to me. It is not something I believe it is something I know as an iron-clad and indisputable fact. So much so that when I was offered the opportunity to see a private cryptographic proof, without even thinking I said “No, I don’t need to see it” and the conversation ended there.”
“Not to be outdone,” said Palley, a lawyer who follows the case but is uninvolved, Wright has also called himself as a factual witness. He tweets:
It’s insane. Remember, the Court mentioned CRIMINAL contempt as a possibility. I doubt that will be the outcome but testifying “as a fact witness” in front of a pissed off and skeptical federal judge is a, um, bold move.
— Palley (@stephendpalley) June 26, 2019
Witness stand photo via Shutterstock