Quote from: suchmoon on May 05, 2016, 04:19:01 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:29:36 AM

Quote from: suchmoon on May 05, 2016, 02:24:29 AM

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:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 04, 2016, 11:10:27 PM

Quote from: ICOcountdown.com on May 04, 2016, 09:34:21 PM

https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md

....

Quote from: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/

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.