If we are basing it on the drcraigwright.com website "proof", then the Sartre document is the one claimed to have been hashed, but he didn't disclose what portion of that document.
He didn't disclose anything else about the document, which is why it's impossible to disprove any claim about it.
My point is the you Bitcoin zealots didn't do your homework. Haha. You also didn't even validate if that was his official website.
I never claimed that it was, nor do I even care. Why would I if it doesn't contain any evidence for any claims that have been made?
You guys are derelict, as well as censoring free speech and technical discussion. No wonder you will end up in failure mindlessly following Blockstream's SegWit soft forking Trojan Horse.
Non sequitur.
I asked you a specific question, "Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds?". I see you are unable to answer it?
I didn't care to answer it since it is irrelevant. I have explained the most likely reason why double SHA256 was used, which is what you asked.
After we confirm that you can't answer it, then I will REKT the rest of your technically incorrect response above.
Alright, fine. The answer is yes. I do understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds. It would be pretty meaningless if it was.
Try reading the linked article to learn more about your character.
It says more about yours than mine.