Quote from: Foxpup on May 05, 2016, 03:11:35 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:40:42 PM

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.

You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash. You all haven't done that, thus you are derelict. You all shouldn't go spouting off "Craig a fraud" without even attempting to verify some basic things such as whether drcraigwright.com is his website and whether any portion of the text could match the hash that was signed.

Quote from: Foxpup on May 05, 2016, 03:11:35 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:40:42 PM

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?

'backsplaining.

Quote from: Foxpup on May 05, 2016, 03:11:35 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:40:42 PM

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.

See above. REKTED.

Quote from: Foxpup on May 05, 2016, 03:11:35 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:40:42 PM

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.

Which is technically incorrect, but I will come back to that point to REKT you after we finish this.

Quote from: Foxpup on May 05, 2016, 03:11:35 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:40:42 PM

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.

So tell me the reason? Obviously I didn't ask the question to only receive a "yes". Anyone can say "yes". I want you to prove you understand how cryptographic hash functions are constructed and prove you have knowledge about how collision attacks are often constructed. Because these are things I had researched in the past. You've had enough delay to google it by now, so surely you can cheat and tell me?

Quote from: Foxpup on May 05, 2016, 03:11:35 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:40:42 PM

Try reading the linked article to learn more about your character.

It says more about yours than mine.

That is the sort of reply which the linked article explains you would make. So you've confirmed it. Thanks.