Over the course of nearly 30 hours of cross-examination, Craig Steven Wright, the Australian man who claims to be Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, #Satoshi Nakamoto, has been raked through the coals. The self-described computer scientist, economist, cryptographer, patent writer, author, lawyer, pastor, master of martial arts and mathematician (in other words: fabulist) has been accused of misrepresenting facts, told by the judge to stay on topic and silenced by his own lawyers.
For years, Wright has been harassing and threatening Bitcoin developers and users, filing libel suits and gag orders, after claiming ownership of the intellectual property behind the world’s first cryptocurrency. And it’s that “chilling effect,” that the nonprofit Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) was trying to shut down when it filed suit in 2021 — the most aggressive attempt yet to settle once and for all that Wright is not what he says he is.
Jonathan Hough, COPA’s lead lawyer, argued in his opening statement that over the past eight years, ever since Wright came into the public eye, he has committed fraud on “an industrial scale.” During the cross-examination, which wrapped up Wednesday, Hough accused CSW of forging or manipulating documents related to the development of Bitcoin and misunderstanding the basics of the system Wright supposedly built.
That said, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove Wright is wrong. And Wright, who has been described as (largely) calm and articulate in the courtroom, certainly has convinced people in the past (including his benefactor, billionaire online gambling magnate Calvin Ayre). For many onlookers, however, the case has already been made: Wright, by taking the stand, simply discredited himself. There have been too many inconsistencies, too many happenstances and too much misdirection to be believed.
The #trial is expected to go until mid-March. For now, CoinDesk has collected some of the most bizarre, asinine and head scratching moments from the case so far.
The 'unusual features of Dr. Wright’s behavior'
The opening statement from Wright’s lawyers, given by Lord Anthony Grabiner, was almost an indictment in itself. Put in the tough position of explaining Wright’s reluctance to show how he can interact with any of the millions of Bitcoin linked to Satoshi (thus easily proving his right to the Satoshi mantle), Grabiner said it was down to “philosophical differences.” Apparently Wright’s “unusual” behavior of flip flopping on whether to sign a transaction, as he pledged to do in 2016, would conflict with Wright’s “core belief” in privacy. Putting aside that Wright lives a very public life, Wright has also criticized the pseudonymous aspects of crypto, saying it’s part of the reason Bitcoin has become a hotbed for crime.

#Computer science 101
Wright, who claims to be working towards five PhDs, apparently does not know the very basics of coding. During a cross-examination by Alexander Gunning KC asking about PGP keys and cryptography, Wright was asked about “unsigned integers,” (used essentially to determine whether a string of data will have a + or – prefix), and wasn’t able to. Longtime crypto advocate Michael Parenti noted the unsigned integer function was used over 500 times in the original Bitcoin source code. What was meant to be a routine line of questioning to enter basic facts into the record about the Bitcoin source code may be the single moment remembered for years to come.
As bitnorbert, who has been following the trial, said on X’:
“HE COULDN'T EXPLAIN WHAT AN UNSIGNED INTEGER IS.
“If you're not a programmer, perhaps you don't appreciate what a basic thing this is. An average first-semester computer science student should be able to explain this. The judge, with his computer science background, certainly can. This is like having someone who says they're a mathematician not being able to explain what multiplication is.”

Weird insecurities
Wright likes to make himself out to be a workaholic. At one point in the trial he said he has written three patents so far that week, during lunchtimes — on Feb. 13 alone he “wrote two papers.” Thankfully, he has given the courtroom a little insight into what drives him to work tirelessly.
“I keep being told by other people what I can and cannot do. I keep being told I am useless by others. This is one of the reasons I keep getting all these degrees,” he said on the last day of his cross-examination.
If you were thinking that Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin in an attempt to better the world, think again. It turns out that he actually had a huge chip on his shoulder and an emptiness inside.

Why lie?
In 2020, Wright published a blog titled “As an Autistic Savant…” that made the case that he was telling the truth about inventing Bitcoin because he had Aspergers (a diagnosis that was retired from the Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 2013).
“Lying is not something I do easily or well, and my behavior is not a mark of deception but rather normal for autistic individuals. I am brutally honest, but also incredibly precise,” he said.
It’d be too much to list every inconsistency brought up in the trial — the main strategy of the COPA legal team has been to force Wright to account for the hundreds of indications of forgery and manipulation found by a forensic evidence expert in emails, documents and computer files submitted into evidence.
But to take just two striking examples where he wasn’t exactly “precise” with his language, at one point Wright claimed he did not have a Reddit account and has never used the popular message board site. Well, here’s his account.
Wright also said he faked Satoshi’s PGP key, perhaps mistakenly.

Master manipulator
Relatedly, Wright denies forging or plagiarizing any of the documents submitted into evidence. He has blamed hacks, faulty internet connections and a grand conspiracy of people trying to “frame” him as a liar for some of the inconsistencies brought — like metadata that shows documents pertaining to the creation of #Bitcoin‬ were made using Word 2015.
On the opening day of the case, Judge Mellor acknowledged the allegations of forged documents and told Wright he “should consider himself extremely lucky” to argue his case, given the circumstances.
When asked by Mellor on Wednesday to produce a single document related to early Bitcoin files that doesn’t show signs of tampering, Wright said they would be unavailable. Plus, he argued, it couldn’t possibly be him manipulating the documents, because if it were, he wouldn’t have gotten caught.

Mining cryptocurrencies like bitcoin could be done using quantum computers, cutting their electricity use by 90 per cent.

Quantum computers could be used to mine existing cryptocurrencies like bitcoin or future, more energy-efficient ones, slashing their electricity use, according to two new analyses.

Cryptocurrencies that rely on a “proof of work” method perform computationally intensive calculations to produce new coins and certify transactions, at great energy cost. Some networks have moved to less power-hungry techniques, like Ethereum’s “proof of stake”, but bitcoin, the world’s largest cryptocurrency, still runs on proof of work and consumes 0.5 per cent of electricity globally.

The Evobits “farm” in Romania mines the Ethereum and Zilliqa cryptocurrencies Akos Stiller/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Now, two proposals suggest that quantum computers might be able to help cut this energy use.

Adapting cryptocurrency schemes to run on quantum computers is tricky, says Gavin Brennen at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, because the computational speed-up offered by such machines can make it too easy to solve the problems that networks like bitcoin rely on to prove work has been done.

“This really changes the dynamics of the network,” says Brennen. “So, we were looking for a way to use quantum devices and be faster and more energy efficient, but that wouldn’t distort the consensus dynamics too much.” Such distortion could affect the value of the cryptocurrency.

Brennen and his team have proposed using a kind of quantum computer called a boson sampler to create a new cryptocurrency network, which should be a more energy-efficient alternative when run on quantum hardware.

For two people on the network to agree on something, which is required to certify transactions or mine currency, they both must prove they have performed true boson sampling, which involves measuring a sample of photons that have passed through a labyrinth of mirrors and beam splitters. Classical computers can’t accurately make these measurements above a certain number of photons.

To allow the scheme to work, Brennen and his team had to modify traditional boson sampling by making the photon measurements less exact, because the chance of two people getting the same combination of measurements was so improbable. This is needed so people can verify a solution. By placing the values of the measured photons in ranges, it becomes more likely that two quantum miners will get the same result, says Brennen.

The approach is theoretical, but Brennen and his team are working on a real-world implementation of the scheme on quantum devices.

If quantum computers come to threaten the encryption that cryptocurrencies rely on to be secure, this method could be a useful alternative and save energy too, says Mark Webber at UK start-up firm Universal Quantum.

Machines capable of boson sampling don’t need to be full-blown quantum computers, but could still cost thousands of pounds, which might deter bitcoin miners from migrating, says Carlos Perez-Delgado at the University of Kent, UK. Instead, he and his colleague Joseph Kearney, also at the University of Kent, have come up with an alternative.

The pair analysed how much energy might be saved if we used quantum computers to mine cryptocurrencies. They found potential annual savings of almost 127 terawatt-hours, about 90 per cent of bitcoin’s estimated energy consumption, or equivalent to Sweden’s annual energy budget.

To do this, they compared the energy cost of a commonly used bitcoin mining processor with the estimated cost of using three different quantum computers. Two were hypothetical machines that can correct errors to varying degrees and one was a current, error-prone device – these are known as noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers. They ran a form of what is called Grover’s algorithm to do the mining.

“It is a matter of when, not if, NISQ bitcoin miners will be used,” says Perez-Delgado. “The first person, company or entity to figure out how to cost-effectively develop custom-built NISQ crypto-miners will have a tremendous mining advantage.”

It is interesting to do these energy estimates, says Webber, but it is unclear whether this form of Grover’s algorithm might work on all quantum machines.

He would also like to know if future, fully error-corrected quantum machines would take longer to perform computations – due to time that would need to be devoted to checking errors – and thus use more energy than has been factored in here. Another issue is whether the intense cooling required to keep future quantum computers functioning might make their energy use higher than expected, he says.

#MINING #Energy #Qauntum #Computer