Not that we know, at least.

There has recently been a huge lot of commotion because of a mistake in redacting portions of a court document in the case of Ira Kleiman vs Craig S. Wright.

Because of this mistake, the name of Paul Le Roux is visible, and this has lead to wild speculations about his involvement in bitcoin’s invention.

While it is true that Le Roux is being named by CSW, we don’t have any element hinting that he is involved with bitcoin. Even if we want to believe Graig, he does not say Le Roux has anything to do with bitcoin..

But first, a bit of context.

On apr. 4th, Craig S. Wright was deposed by Ira Kleiman’s lawyers. In that occasion, he refused to answer several questions. A long quarrel originated, and at the end Wright agreed to answer certain question he previously refused to answer.

The document where he answers, and where Paul Le Roux’s name appears is this one.

Le Roux’s name is appears in a footnote, starting on page 3 and overflowing on page 4. The footnote was supposed to be redacted, but by mistake only the portion on page 3 is redacted, and the portion on page 4 is still readable:

We can infer the note was note #6. Its anchor point (the point it refers to) must be somewhere on page 3 (because that’s where the footnote starts), and after the anchor point of footnote 5, which is visible. But to better understand the context, we need to start reading from page 2 (parts relating to Le Roux are highlighted)

Page 2

Page 3, with redacted footnote

Page 4, with part of the footnote still visible

Let’s put together the relevant parts of the text, with some place-holder texts for redacted portions in [BOLD]:

== Page 2 ==

He explained that he and Dave Kleiman participated in a videoconference while Dr Wright was in New York — a videoconference that didn’t relate with bitcoin or blockchain …. Dr Wright refused to identify the third participant on the call and testified that this individual “had nothing to do with bitcoin in any way” … Nonetheless … Dr Wright now provides that individual’s name, which is [INDIVIDUAL 1] despite the fact that [INDIVIDUAL 1’s] identity and Dr. Wright’s interaction with [HIM] are irrelevant to the issues….

== Page 3 ==

… Wright testified that they built [SOME KIND OF SECRET] software, that [THE SECRET] software were distributed to a number of sites, including sites associated with the United States government, and that this work implicated national security issues [note 5]…. …. However, with the Court’s assurance that this motion will remain under seal, Dr Wright now answers this question and states that [INDIVIDUAL 1’S NAME IS XXX XXX] … Dr Wright further states that the [SECRET] software helped United States government officials to build cases against and apprehend [ANOTHER GUY CALLED INDIVIDUAL 2]. The [SECRET] software also assisted

== Page 4==

the United States in cases brought against [INDIVIDUAL 3]. Although [INDIVIDUAL 2 AND INDIVIDUAL 3] are in prison, many of their associates are not, and Dr Wright has a well-founded fear that these criminals and their associated would seek retribution if they learned of his involvement in their apprehension and incarceration.

Our footnote (#6), referencing Paul Le Roux, must be attached to one of the redacted portions in page 3, after footnote 5.

Namely, it could be one of these two:

a) states that [INDIVIDUAL 1’S NAME IS XXX XXX]

or

b) apprehend [ANOTHER GUY CALLED INDIVIDUAL 2]

(you can see in the original document that this second redaction is rather long)

In other words, one of these two reading is (approximately) true:

a) [INDIVIDUAL 1'S NAME IS PAUL LE ROUX]

or

b) apprehend [PAUL LE ROUX, DRUG DEALER, CONVICTED MURDERER ETC ETC]

In the first case, Craig Wright is explicitely telling us that Le Roux “had nothing to do with bitcoin in any way”

In the second case (that I personally find more likely), Le Roux is just a guy that was sent in prison with the assistance of their software, and CSW did not want Le Roux’s name being named for fear of retaliation.

In either case, even if we take Craig’s declarations at their face value (hah!), we have no indication that Le Roux is implicated with bitcoin, and elsewhere (still on p. 3) Craig goes on saying:

The only part of this testimony that is relevant in this case is the alleged intellectual property that W&K worked on.

(i.e. he was speaking of that call just because of the [SECRET] software, and of the copyright on that software, that belonged to W&K.)

Let’s play conspiracy theory

In theory, Craig Wright is reluctantly telling us Le Roux’s name just because the court ordered him. He really didn’t want to name Le Roux, but now he has to.

If this were the case, he would just say: “Dr Wright now answers the question and states that the name was Paul Le Roux”. That would have been enough, and would have satisfied the court.

All the other details (about software etc) were in his original deposition, and he didn’t need to repeat them here.

But he did. He went into great details, providing useful Wikipedia links, and someone conveniently “forgot” to redact part of the footnote, enough for us to have a peek at all this history.

This might be a conspiracy theory, but the skeptical historian in me wants me to at least consider the option that is a deliberate move: Craig wanted to stir up discussion of Le Roux’s involvement in bitcoin, because all this fits into his PoSM (Proof of Social Media) strategy.

Wait! There’s more!….

There is another individual who is mentioned in the same document, still on page 4, and this time we are told a lot more about his involvement in the early phases of bitcoin:

A (maybe dead) guy who worked as an informer for the US government and that “only” worked on bitcoin up to 2007? Holy cow! That’s a story!

Hold your horses. The same skeptical historian tells me that if an unreliable source gives any information, the first thing I need to examine is not the information itself, but the motive behind its disclosure.

Does Craig have anything to earn by telling us all this?

Anyway, this third individual will be the subject of my next article.