Wholly shit! I am contemplating the possibility that Craig has revealed that who ever created Bitcoin put a backdoor in it!
As
I already explained, the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities.
But note this small detail:
You'll note that Bitcoin, for reasons known only to Satoshi, takes the signature of hash of a hash to generate the scriptSig. Quoting Ryan:
Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context.
A
cryptographic hash function has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value.
Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2
256 times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack).
So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked.
It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256.
If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash.I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.
If that's close to your mindset then I gotta say that this is the most speculative FUD I've seen.
Btw, I did write in the OP that I am busy on other work and that I hadn't studied the issue very deeply. Yet in this case, you've just put your foot in your mouth as is appropriate for having disingenuous motives.
I step out to walk the dog and eat lunch, and not surprising those who want to discredit my reputation spring into action. You should stick to the facts and not do ad hominem that will burn your own arse...
Let me get this straight. Not only are you taking Gavin's word for the signed message, but on top of that you're also jumping to the conclusion that Craig discovered and exploited a backdoor in bitcoin no one was aware of up to date.
Please if you are going to troll, at least don't make such a huge blunder. Obviously I am not writing about how Craig
ostensibly fooled Gavin by apparently misspelling 'signature'.
I am writing about the fact that he provided a signature which matches a Satoshi address and which afaik also signs the hash of a Sartre text. Whether this is correct or not, it is entirely unrelated to what he demonstrated to Gavin.
Yes I am theorizing on how he could have possibly found a preimage for the hash. I think that is a prudent mental exercise, unless someone can show that he hasn't provided a preimage.
Analysis of what? Please post the facts being analyzed, i.e. the public key, the message Wright signed, and the signature. The thread you linked to doesn't have that.
Your laziness isn't my fault. You find all the links if you click the link I provided to you upthread:
The three things that I asked for are nowhere to be found in the link you provided. There is only your own speculation.
So just to establish the facts - you DON'T have one or more of the following: the public key, the message Wright signed, the signature. Your claims that Wright cracked SHA256 are baseless.
Are you fucking blind?
If you click any of these links in the link I provided to you several times, you will end up finding the links to the analysis done by others which has all the information you asked for:
....
Craig Wrights chosen source material (
an article in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.
The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other is so
infinitesimally small that it is unlikely.
The only contention remaining is
whether the Sartre text hashes to the hash Craig signed. Apparently no one has bothered to check that, even they are so damn quick to declare him a fraud without checking it.