Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks
Does anyone know what black hole Bitcoin core (Blockstream) developer Gmaxwell moved the quoted thread to?
I can't find it any more and I have no deleted messages from that thread in my PM box.
Craig also has training in law. Remember how Bill Clinton explained in court what the meaning of "is" is.
Note he did not write "Satoshi Nakamoto". He wrote #SatoshiNakamoto" meaning he is the real hashtag, not the person or persona.
Meanwhile, we have a bigger problem of Bitcoin core (Blockstream) developer Gmaxwell deleted my thread into a black hole (normally threads get moved some where) about the potential technical back door in Bitcoin illuminated by Craig's recent actions.
Note last time he did this, he moved my thread to Off-topic, but I checked there and nothing there.
He never used the hash of any Sartre quote (that was just misdirection) - the double hash that he used was simply that used in Satoshi's tx along with the signature that was used in the tx.
(basically he just copied and pasted from the blockchain then put together an elaborate pretense that he had somehow managed to sign something else using a private key known to belong to Satoshi)
You don't know that he didn't. He hasn't yet revealed which portion of the Sartre text he claims hashes to the same hash. That was what I explained and discussed in the thread I created which Gmaxwell has apparently sent to the ether.
And you really believe that the double hash of some Sartre document just happens to be identical to the hash of the first (or one of the first) txs in the blockchain?
Am guessing you have a very strong belief in the tooth fairy as well.
CIYAM I would never work with you as programmer because you aren't very smart.
Surely you should understand that the permutation of portions of the Sartre text covers a combinatorial explosion of possible preimages. Craig didn't specify which portion he signed. We can presume that might be forthcoming. He is playing a game with idiots like you.
The only idiot here is you - and I'm glad you keep on posting your belief in this CW guy as it is just going to make you look even more idiotic as it pans out that he is the fraud that he is.
I have stated (in the thread that Gmaxwell apparently deleted entirely, that if CW does not reveal the Sartre text that hashes correctly, then he is a fraud.
But if he does, then there is something broken in Bitcoin's cryptography. That is why I think Gmaxwell deleted my thread. He apparently doesn't want the truth to be known.
Idiot is factual in this context, as evident by your inability to refute my refutation.
Your ideas about facts are far removed from the rest of the world and are again off-topic (so I am not going to waste my time bothering to refute such off-topic snide remarks from you).
You didn't rebut my point that a portion of the Sartre text (and especially if permutation combinations of portions) is a combinatorial explosion of possible preimages and thus your entire claim was erroneous.
Now please stop making incorrect statements.
I rebutted that article in the thread that Gmaxwell deleted and is hiding from the readers.
I basically pointed out that until CW reveals which portion of the Sartre text he claims to have signed, we can't conclude anything.
Please name me one single SHA256 collision - idiot!
And now work out for me the odds of CW having found such a collision (and it happening to come from whatever Sartre document).
The entire point of the thread I created is that the double hashing that Satoshi put in Bitcoin (and nobody knows why) can make the collision resistance twice as bad. SHA256 is already broken for 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds. So thus doubling the hash may have been enough to break it given also that Craig apparently had access to a supercomputer.
Dude I am more expert about cryptographic hashes than you are. I designed my own already. I have done a lot of research in that area in 2013.
Refute the facts in the prior post.
Now explain to the readers Mr. Know-It-All what happens when the hash is doubled.
I can't find it any more and I have no deleted messages from that thread in my PM box.
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:
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 2256 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.
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:
Quote from: https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification
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 2256 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.
Craig also has training in law. Remember how Bill Clinton explained in court what the meaning of "is" is.
Note he did not write "Satoshi Nakamoto". He wrote #SatoshiNakamoto" meaning he is the real hashtag, not the person or persona.
Meanwhile, we have a bigger problem of Bitcoin core (Blockstream) developer Gmaxwell deleted my thread into a black hole (normally threads get moved some where) about the potential technical back door in Bitcoin illuminated by Craig's recent actions.
Note last time he did this, he moved my thread to Off-topic, but I checked there and nothing there.
Can someone explain how he signed the 'Satre' quote WITHOUT having to break SHA256 (finding a collision) ?
It's pretty important, as if he did do that, Bitcoin is broken.
It's pretty important, as if he did do that, Bitcoin is broken.
He never used the hash of any Sartre quote (that was just misdirection) - the double hash that he used was simply that used in Satoshi's tx along with the signature that was used in the tx.
(basically he just copied and pasted from the blockchain then put together an elaborate pretense that he had somehow managed to sign something else using a private key known to belong to Satoshi)
You don't know that he didn't. He hasn't yet revealed which portion of the Sartre text he claims hashes to the same hash. That was what I explained and discussed in the thread I created which Gmaxwell has apparently sent to the ether.
You don't know that he didn't. He hasn't yet revealed which portion of the Sartre text he claims hashes to the same hash. That was the point of the thread I created which Gmaxwell has apparently sent to the ether (against forum rules).
And you really believe that the double hash of some Sartre document just happens to be identical to the hash of the first (or one of the first) txs in the blockchain?
Am guessing you have a very strong belief in the tooth fairy as well.
CIYAM I would never work with you as programmer because you aren't very smart.
Surely you should understand that the permutation of portions of the Sartre text covers a combinatorial explosion of possible preimages. Craig didn't specify which portion he signed. We can presume that might be forthcoming. He is playing a game with idiots like you.
He is playing a game with idiots like you.
The only idiot here is you - and I'm glad you keep on posting your belief in this CW guy as it is just going to make you look even more idiotic as it pans out that he is the fraud that he is.
I have stated (in the thread that Gmaxwell apparently deleted entirely, that if CW does not reveal the Sartre text that hashes correctly, then he is a fraud.
But if he does, then there is something broken in Bitcoin's cryptography. That is why I think Gmaxwell deleted my thread. He apparently doesn't want the truth to be known.
Idiot is factual in this context, as evident by your inability to refute my refutation.
Idiot is factual in this context, as evident by your inability to refute my refutation.
Your ideas about facts are far removed from the rest of the world and are again off-topic (so I am not going to waste my time bothering to refute such off-topic snide remarks from you).
You didn't rebut my point that a portion of the Sartre text (and especially if permutation combinations of portions) is a combinatorial explosion of possible preimages and thus your entire claim was erroneous.
Now please stop making incorrect statements.
Here's another worthwhile article if it hasn't been mentioned before:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/
I rebutted that article in the thread that Gmaxwell deleted and is hiding from the readers.
I basically pointed out that until CW reveals which portion of the Sartre text he claims to have signed, we can't conclude anything.
Now please stop making incorrect statements.
Please name me one single SHA256 collision - idiot!
And now work out for me the odds of CW having found such a collision (and it happening to come from whatever Sartre document).
The entire point of the thread I created is that the double hashing that Satoshi put in Bitcoin (and nobody knows why) can make the collision resistance twice as bad. SHA256 is already broken for 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds. So thus doubling the hash may have been enough to break it given also that Craig apparently had access to a supercomputer.
Dude I am more expert about cryptographic hashes than you are. I designed my own already. I have done a lot of research in that area in 2013.
My guess is that you are going to offer your amazing cryptographic hash algo (which I am guessing has been peer reviewed by many experts all over the world) to Bitcoin?
Refute the facts in the prior post.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
2011 attack breaks preimage resistance for 57 out of 80 rounds of SHA-512, and 52 out of 64 rounds for SHA-256.[1]
Pseudo-collision attack against up to 46 rounds of SHA-256.[2]
Pseudo-collision attack against up to 46 rounds of SHA-256.[2]
Now explain to the readers Mr. Know-It-All what happens when the hash is doubled.