Re: Can you still believe aTriz words? Reopened, too many open questions
how you knew that what I posted was the hash of null input.
I knew you were simply being friendly to me, seeing as how I belong to null.
But seriously...
Nothing can be discerned about the script from its SHA-256 hash. (Nothing, including whether you got it correct or not. I sincerely hope you did.)
Well, strictly speaking, that isn't true, since the hash allows you to determine identity (to a very high degree of probability) with an object that you already know the hash of. That's how you knew that what I posted was the hash of null input. But anyway, I fixate on irrelevant technicalities too often. I return this thread to its regularly scheduled programming of intrigue and insult.
I wish to clarify: I am informing aTriz (and also Alia) that no part of the script can be recovered from the hash. Not even with a team of cryptographers and a supercomputer. Adding to the general irreversibility of SHA-256, on presumption that the script is >32 bytes, the pigeonhole principle makes it mathematically impossible to recover the script!
The whole purpose for which I suggested a cryptographic commitment is to determine identity. As for a very high degree of probability, wella 1/2256 probability of hitting a preimage is negligible, so yes. (And if aTriz is an evil genius who wishes to fool us with a collision attack, then he only needed to do 2128 work between the moment I asked for a hash, and the moment he committed one.)
I remind everybody that SHA-256 is used many places in Bitcoin. The mining POW rests squarely on the security guarantees of SHA-256. The Merkle trees which assure the internal integrity of blocks, and the Merkle chain which assures the immutable history of the blockchain, are all based on SHA-256. Bitcoin addresses also involve SHA-256 hashes (also RIPEMD-160).
If any SHA-256 security guarantees fail, then all Bitcoins are worthless. I think that SHA-256 will provide a sufficient security level for committing the identity of this script!
Hed be a terrible fool to make such a commitment if he had no such script.
Or he was blackmailed into posting the hash...
I believe he was blackmailed into not posting the script itselfso yes, in a roundabout way. I dont see why a blackmailer would positively require that a hash be posted.
Or alia will post some garbage script that doesn't match the hash just to fuck with us...
Then, aTriz can produce the script which matches the commitment; and we can decide which party is more credible. Right.
I note from the other thread that:
g to
The original script is mine and will remain private. It is worth a lot of money. The new script, however - I am willing to let it be audited by two people on the forum. They can PM me, I have already reached out
The original script is mine and will remain private. It is worth a lot of money. The new script, however - I am willing to let it be audited by two people on the forum. They can PM me, I have already reached out
So there are two scripts now
As I have also observed, I did ask Alia to commit a hash. To my knowledge, she has never done so. All other things being equal (which they here are most certainly not), I would later trust a party who committed a hash, then later revealed the preimage, over a party who avoided committing to a hash.
Or... any number of other possibilities that aren't going to get us anywhere, sadly.
An investigation is being stymied by extortionate threats. To move it forward incrementally, I first seek to preserve the integrity of evidence by fixing the identity of the exact script which was the subject of aTrizs vouchwhile also simultaneously assessing aTrizs faith in the matter; he hashed something, and would be stupidly self-defeating to cryptographically commit to a lie.
I think my goals in asking for a hash have been accomplished (as long as aTriz did the hash correctly). Now, on to the next step...