Court documents released by Craig Wright’s legal defense against Ira Kleiman on 06/11/2019 have confirmed in a legal setting that he mined the first 70 blocks of Bitcoin.

“Defendant filed a motion on April 19, 2019, explaining that he could provide the public addresses for the first 70 blocks -- and provided those addresses”

Under penalty of perjury that is a statement that is not to be made lightly as it carries a penalty of up to $1,000, one year in jail or both. If he appears in court or files an affidavit in repetition of his claims the penalty moves up to $5,000, five years in jail or both.

This was in response to a ruling on March 14, 2019 where the Court ruled that Bitcoin addresses mined by Dr. Wright up to December 31, 2013 were relevant to the case and then ordered that Dr. Craig Wright to provide the list of bitcoin addresses or file motion for a protective order. Failure to produce a full list by June 17, 2019 would result in Show Cause evidentiary hearing. He did so on April 19, 2019 when he provided the addresses for the first 70 block addresses but did not have the addresses for coins mined after the 70th block as they were held in a blind trust.

“…by May 8, 2019, a sworn declaration identifying the name and location of the blind trust, the name and contact information for the current trustee and any past trustees, and the names and contact information of any current or past beneficiaries; by May 13, 2019, a copy of any and all documents relating to the formation, administration and operation of the blind trust accompanied by a sworn declaration of authenticity; and by May 25, 2019, all transactional records of the blind trust, including but not limited to any records reflecting the transfer of bitcoin into the blind trust in or about 2011 along with a sworn declaration of authenticity.”

Dr. Wright provided the sworn declaration about the trusts in response on May 8, 2019. A few days later on May 13, further trust information was produced in addition to a sworn declaration of authenticity. This included documents that illustrated the use of Bitcoin rights from the trust to support research and development in other ventures of Dr. Wright’s Australian companies.

“On May 25, 2019, Dr. Wright produced a trust formation document and declaration of authenticity supplied by a trustee of the Tulip Trust II.”

To date the court and the plaintiff have received 2,168 documents in relation to the case brought against Dr. Wright. He has responded to the best of his ability to every request made by the plaintiff. Information pertaining to the addresses mined after the 70th block have not been accessible due to nature of the trust and its design to hold secret the information and assets they hold. After the first 70 blocks were mined, Dr. Wright “…implemented a unique and proprietary algorithm that he created to automate the key generation process so that each later block mined (after block 70) was assigned a different public address.”

Everything that was used to mine after the 70th block was placed into an encrypted file including all information pertaining to the addresses. The private key needed to access these files were split into multiple key shares using a version of “Shamir’s Secret Sharing Algorithm” which provides a method for splitting something like a private encryption key into multiple parts. The parts of the key were spread to multiple participants in the trust. This goes some way to explain why Dr. Wright has been unable to provide the public addresses for the bitcoin held by the trust (the addresses for the coins mined after block 70).

The plaintiff sought a default judgment against Dr. Wright because the information being requested was held in a blind trust because, they argue, Dr. Wright has not cooperated with them. It appears that this is not the case and that he has cooperated to the best of his ability. Dr. Wright’s legal team responded:

“There is no reasonable legal basis for such a draconian result….Dr. Wright has made extensive good faith efforts to comply with the Court’s Orders. He should not be sanctioned simply because the bitcoin addresses are held in a trust in an encrypted file, with the passwords disbursed among multiple persons. It is well established that sanctions are not warranted when a party has “made in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply.””

Additionally, Dr. Wright’s team highlighted that the plaintiff has failed to articulate any harm that could result from the failure to identify the addresses of the coins after the 70th block. The plaintiff makes the claim that the addresses are vital to their case but fails to mention how they will determine which bitcoin were supposedly mined by or belonged to Dave Kleiman. Receiving these addresses would do little to suggest anything more about Dave’s involvement. It would not give them information if they mined the coins together or separately.

June 18th will set the stage for the next round of legal action. If Dr. Wright accepts jurisdiction and attends court the case will take place in the US, otherwise (and by all indications the more likely) default may be granted and the case would then arrive at the shores of the UK.

Special thanks to https://twitter.com/oudekaas3