Bitcoin Forum

I'm finding it a little strange that there's so little mention of Dave Kleiman what with all this noise at present.

We know he was close enough to our friend Craig for Craig to probably be able to inveigle his way into claiming credit for his possible work. He was known to frequent the same places Satoshi popped up. His decline began around the same time Satoshi disappeared. He was very secretive. He was dead clever. He's dead.

I don't get it.

http://up.picr.de/25421937km.jpg


well, Craig has now all of Kleimans stuff and is making a great PR show...  :-X

One theory that is being floated on Reddit runs like this:

Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.

So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.

Thoughts pro and con?

I doubt it but it's a better theory than 99% of garbage being posted on this topic over the last couple of days. It's increasingly obvious that despite not being able to present actual cryptographic proof Wright is putting a lot of effort into obfuscation and trying to sway the public opinion, whether it's for his business interests or something else.

Reading this, quite interesting:

http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692

Just read it. Seems really strange that all these emails would "leak" and Craig would be emailing people with the Satoshi email.

I know we have developed the "myth of Satoshi" and Craig seems to shatter that, but it is not based on nothing. Satoshi seemed to be a very private person and very good at covering his tracks. I doubt he would be emailing his lawyer and others with an email that can link him to his pseudonym...just seems sloppy.

The reason a person like Nick Szabo makes more sense as Satoshi is that he acts the way we would expect Satoshi to act. 

I have the same doubts too.
Overall, it seems like a well orchestrated plan to make at least a part of the bitcoin crowd believe he is Satoshi.

Edit: One thing I didn't pay attention untill I read some comments is that the article is referring to the last December.
(I think I've somehow skipped the first lines of the article and focused on the header/subtitle where is a misleading "Yesterday 8:10am")

Sounds interesting but has many loopholes.For one it is impossible for someone having 1 million bitcoin in USB stick/computer/whatever and doesn't know how valuable they are.Second if wright claims to be Satoshi,what justification will he give of his keys possess by kleiman relative?

The Strange Life and Death of Dave Kleiman, A Computer Genius Linked to Bitcoin's Origins:

https://twitter.com/cryptkeeperbtt/status/727458563757580288 (https://twitter.com/cryptkeeperbtt/status/727458563757580288)

I don't know. I always pictured Satoshi a bit like this:

He died broke and in squalor, after suffering from infected bedsores. His body was found decomposing and surrounded by empty alcohol bottles and a loaded handgun. Bloody feces was tracked along the floor, and a bullet hole was found in his mattress, though no spent shell casings were found on the scene.

Totally agree... I think Satoshi will just do very simple things with big impact... Craig is creating public attention but refuse to do just the simplest thing of signing the key or move any of those coins... I am sure he is not the real Satoshi. Even if he does move the coins later on, there is a high chance that those were Dave's....

How very sad indeed - http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460

...

I posted in another thread regarding a research paper I located online, after trying to find anyone who had worked with both Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman, circa 2008-2009.

- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright - References: 25. ^ Wright, Craig; Kleiman, Dave; Sundhar R.S., Shayaam (2008). "Overwriting Hard Drive Data: The Great Wiping Controversy". In Sekar, R. Information Systems Security: 4th International Conference, ICISS 2008, Hyderabad, India, December 16–20, 2008, Proceedings. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 243.

- http://www.vidarholen.net/~vidar/overwriting_hard_drive_data.pdf (http://www.vidarholen.net/~vidar/overwriting_hard_drive_data.pdf)

Lots of academic 'research' papers are presented in similar formats, however it might be said that this paper has some uncanny similarities to the Bitcoin white paper ?

It would certainly be interesting to know the thoughts of Sundhar R.S., Shayaam in regards to the recent claims made by CSW.

- linkedin.com/in/intrusion

~ There's three sides to every story ? Your side, my side and the truth ? Although, perhaps this individual knows no more than the work surrounding the research paper ?

Anyhow, I have personally found the above to be more fitting than the currently inconclusive 'proof'-of-Satoshi provided by CSW, thus far...

Located links to the following SourceForge from an archived C.V. of Sundhar R.S., Shayaam (which I'm not going to link here).

- https://sourceforge.net/projects/cspn/ - "Brought to you by: snaos" ?!? - http://sourceforge.net/users/snaos

So, if CSW does turn out to have SN 'keys', then we might also speculate as to who actually helped with writing most of the code ?!?

The idea here is that the relative (Ira) who inherited the USB stick/whatever from Dave Kleiman was not informed of the contents of the hardware they inherited - that they don't know they are holding Satoshi's keys, and may not even know what bitcoin is.

his health wasn't good you'd think he would have made the right preparations to make sure the coins would go to someone he trusted could handle them.

in anycase, if that is the case. I dont care he can proof that he is Satoshi, if he doesn't have the keys he's not getting the coins. if he thinks he can sway the public on his " give Satoshi his coins back " campaign he's got another thing coming.

https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-david-kleiman-was-satoshi-nakamoto-heres-why/

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html

this document implies Craig Wright is Satoshi when it says 

where does this 1.1 million figure come from other than Mr wright's imagination? plenty of people have stated they were mining away when others still think it was only satoshi.

ya but it could be satoshi managed to mine 1million coins before mining got out of hand.

is this even legit?
when was this writen?
did they put the hash of this document on the blockchain somewhere?

it seems really fishy, why would Craig Wright give his bitcoin to a trust? what's the point?

the contract is most likely a fake.

i think so to

but where does it come from?

Shit, I've been working (again; in 12/15 first) on Dave for the past few hours not aware that this thread existed, so I'll repost the following here:

---

Now, something special for you conspiracy buffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Kimon&dir=prev&limit=500&target=Kimon

https://i.imgur.com/eOA0l5O.jpg

On May 25, 2006, Kimon, a coat-of-arms buff, deletes his profile profile page. 23 minutes later he creates the Dave Kleiman Wikipedia page. On May 1, 2013, Kimon updates Dave's page depicting his death on [April 26,] 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Kleiman&oldid=553053599

Kimon's site: http://web.archive.org/web/20090401193442/http://www.idtg.org/about/

http://www.amazon.com/Windows-System-Administration-Command-Scripts/dp/1597491055


https://www.book-info.com/isbn/1-59749-197-7.htm


http://www.amazon.com/Winternals-Defragmentation-Recovery-Administration-Field/dp/1597490792/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462326042&sr=1-2

https://i.imgur.com/uI06yLf.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dave_Kleiman&oldid=553053671


You'll love this: http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/obituary-former-pbso-deputy-dies-in-his-home/nXcqR/


Secretary of the Army: Mr. President, I think that I just met the best Huey tech in all the Army stationed in Germany after ONLY one year experience in the field, so I named this 20-year-old-kid soldier of the year for 1987, easily beating out the other million-plus candidates.

Ironically, Kimon nor any other included the above accolade on Dave Kleiman's Wikipedia page.

One more thing. How is that Craig Steven Wright was privy to David/Dave Kleiman's birthday but such is NOT published anywhere else on the Internet (Fact: Dave Kleiman was adopted)? https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/TJ_Whj-miVRKa_Cchu3P54cFsjy1N4664qkSHz1BhmM/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAIPBOIJHPKN6FZJHA&Expires=1462323876&Signature=ka1yURU2OJAbmRwl0WW8W4N2OTw%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEE8a4AN%2FgxqlFKKRS5NmV9Wbax67%2BiuQlBLevyDbnyX4FzGb%2BrYMoi7R6kWnI%2BR8tD46sM7icibXVuXgQaV9BEhQUTtv8pm80Z8cV2lhY9a6eVAJ27uj9Eay9taJrRN90glT9iE0BFDPLL8eTBwPbX%2Fmg2h%2BZqwOPp%2F%2Bp%2FgvA71r098U81Q9%2FPHestWG5WpSPBbCYE%2Fk2QF4WLeSSkp%2FtGuWXDD93clYqNzD0CjsODIDSMmiJSQD15PYAG7on2VZtsC0EMVz3ZkUBgMMvoVKLYDLb56Q7WA1mfc8YfRUVsxl6G%2FnCm%2B%2BfMD%2Bn7jWBWYbZFEo3oAkgAtsoB8dHDbw2jxJ%2F5lAkCNKzADyQPLZSG7G1zO7LJO%2BzakoWKRshWfSd6bZEs%2FjXQxZ4X60XUtDZH0hSMlNyHpq%2BytPpLAx%2Fcz%2F%2F0hB0kcDhE3D5IChXWFVi62TugapZqhcgk9oBUlCkoILaIroc2HwWJsYG4zThxT4ef6Ori%2FkeZKR12FVFiN07CrmmpTtlGisCs1ugP6qLtvVhkGJyqq0f15lO%2FVBPKrASifsfYYEtdIkyfqjxRwVs%2BG1Ncv2qscgTkBgZp6tJGJa4ZfB%2FygoUfhMkWJFeie3OibnttTpiGwHziTQuLTCPg%2BexKAg1L%2BkuQU%3D

https://i.imgur.com/9ObgMgi.jpg

I think that's enough for now for you to digest, promising to bring more to the table if you've created enough room for such upon returning from the regurgitation room.

---

I'm also reposting the following in this same post:

---

Just now seen this after I did my own research: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w3ije/interesting_facts_about_david_kleimans_life/

The year of Dave's birth is incorrect. ALL sources depict 1967, thus making him 20 when you got soldier of the year.

---

I'll now read the beginning of this thread forward to see what I missed or may be able to add.

Apologies for the double posting and now the reposting of the following from the main CSW thread:

---

Thanks, bud. Yes, there is no David/Dave Kleiman who died fitting his description, for I've looked and looked.

David Kleiman owned W&K INFO DEFENSE RESEARCH LLC in 2011: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=WKINFODEFENSERESEARCH%20L110000199040&aggregateId=flal-l11000019904-dce79b55-176a-4442-93a7-3c8896316aa2&searchTerm=w%26k%20info&listNameOrder=WKINFODEFENSERESEARCH%20L110000199040

https://i.imgur.com/UAoXqUq.jpg

Craig Steven Wright via T Uyen T Nguyen takes over (perhaps nefariously) W&K INFO DEFENSE RESEARCH LLC on 3/28/2014, three weeks later becoming Coin-exch Pty. Ltd.'s director as seen here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08248988/filing-history

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2014%5C0331%5C58356362.tif&documentNumber=L11000019904

https://i.imgur.com/h1nEtT2.jpg

I agree. Kleiman is an order of magnitude more plausible Satoshi than Craig Wright ever was or could be
It is indeed surprising that this angle has not been explore more than it has

But you're forgetting one very important thing:

http://www.legacy.com/guestbook/dignitymemorial/guestbook.aspx?n=david-kleiman&pid=164550367&page=2 (http://www.legacy.com/guestbook/dignitymemorial/guestbook.aspx?n=david-kleiman&pid=164550367&page=2)

Behold, one of Kleiman's favorite DJ songs (purportedly):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt_kWehUcwk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt_kWehUcwk)

Did you noticed on that site the one good friend who didn't leave his kind words after learning about Dave's passing in spite of being entrusted with 1.1M bitcoins [now in an unmovable trust excepting moving some bitcoins in a couple weeks to prove that there are five lights]?

Now that you mention it, I did not notice that good friend. Interesting.
I'm sure it was an unfortunate oversight, you know, being so busy and all. He is an important man.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU&feature=youtu.be&t=3m19s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU&feature=youtu.be&t=3m19s))

I think we can easily guess without visiting that page...  :)

I was curious to see the video about Kleiman that Wright posted on his youtube channel.
It is embedded here (about the middle of the page):
http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692

But it has been deleted... Something to hide?

Terrible thing. Not sure if this has been asked but are the USB/computer and files of Kleiman already handed to Craig?
If its for a huge amount of money, an individual can do the most terrible thing on earth to acquire it and it seem like Craig has all the connection to make it happen.

No, Dave's brother, Ian, supposedly has some military grade USB thingy containing something.

http://www.geek.com/gadgets/security-flaw-discovered-in-internet-connected-coffee-maker-updated-576094/


http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/105/493465/30/0/threaded


Don't click the following link if you don't want to read CSW typing with two spaces after a full stop: http://seclists.org/basics/2007/Aug/251

Craig has said from the start in his interview that he was not into this as a individual, so Dave Kleiman can possibly be the next link in the chain. How did Dave Kleiman die? I am missing that part of the puzzle. I can already see a book or a movie coming out in the next year or two, My life with the Bitcoin inventor - Dave Kleiman.

Craig has to be a good poker player, because I spoke to someone who interpret facial features and he says the guy shows no signs, eye movements / twitches of someone who is telling a lie. ^hmmm^ Gavin on the other hand, shows a lot of signs.

and unless he bought them when they were cheap, there is no way he generated that amount at that time, because there were other people mining with him, the diff was at 1 only for a very short time

the estimation imply that he mined around 230k only not 1M, let alone 1.1M...

Not sure how he died, but it would make got theater if there's a wheelchair, empty booze bottles, at least one spent bullet casing, and tire tracks through human feces on the floor next to his days old body. But, what are the odds of such even being remotely believable in fiction or real life?

EDIT: I stand corrected:

Less than a month later, Dave Kleiman was found dead in his home. According to reports provided by the Palm Beach County Medical Examiner Office, the scene of Kleiman’s death was gruesome. His body was decomposing, there were wheelchair tracks of blood and fecal matter, open bottles of alcohol, and a loaded handgun next to him. A bullet hole in his mattress would seem to suggest suicide or foul play, but no ammunition casings were found, meaning he might have fired his gun and cleaned up sometime before dying. The official cause of death is listed as natural, and Conrad remembers hearing that the MRSA had stopped Kleiman’s heart. (http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1620631/images/o-ZOMBIE-facebook.jpg
"I think I'll call Dave and see what he's up to."

I like the Kleiman=Satoshi theory, but why Kleiman didn't use his wealth (1 mio BTC at about 130$/Btc at the time of his death) to get a better medical treatment? AFAIK he was broke at that time.
The circumstances of his death were pretty strange.

AGD theory: How about Wright killed his partner, to steal his 1 mio Bitcoins, but he thought it was enough to take his wallets to be rich because of the lack of understanding? Years later, after realizing he will never get the password to Kleimans wallets or his PGP keys, he tries this scam about him being SN to get some money and fame out of it at least.

There's no record of his death in any official records and he's supposedly buried in a cemetery once involved in a scandal: https://yourfuneralguy.wordpress.com/category/menorah-gardens-cemetery-scandal/ Perhaps, a new plot just opened up for him in a timely manner. I'm in the process of penning a diatribe techno paper on how the body could be moved and welcome Gavin to witness the event so that he can report back to the community that said feat was accomplished.

Send a public information request to the Palm Beach Medical Examiner Office here: http://www.pbcgov.com/medicalexaminer/requestinfo/

Search Kleiman and you get:

Kleiman, David   Case #130467   Date of death 04/26/2013   Investigator Name: Jenkins, Doug

pls post a screenshot of the replied email.

I'm not going to request it. I don't give enough of a fuck to do it myself. Gleb might.

from where did you get this info above then?

investigator name: Jenkins, Doug

learn2read

edit: Maybe it wasn't so obvious. http://www.pbcgov.com/medicalexaminer/MEDatabase.htm/

ok thanks! i found the record. next step would be to contact the investigator and ask him.

is it difficult to fake a death in the US? i mean you have no registration record of the existens of a human as far as i know. just the driver license, right?

I just came up with another theory though...we might be missing the forest for the trees. Much of what CW has said has proven sketchy, or even downright lies (claiming multiple fake phd's for instance). We do know one thing that's incontrovertible: CW was very interested in high performance computing / supercomputing. Think about that for a minute.

Now what if Kleiman, being the typical computer geek, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of creating the code but had little interest in testing...and asked his friend CW to help test Bitcoin by mining. It's very possible that CW could own Block 1, and even if not, it's still possible that a significant part of Satoshi's stash...actually doesn't belong to Satoshi. What if most/all the coins we thought were Satoshi's were actually CW's?

It's also possible that Kleiman wrote the first version of the Bitcoin code, and that CW took over testing, bug fixing, and future development. Kleiman could have written the code, while CW could have been the "Satoshi" that communicated extensively with Gavin and others...

Are you asking whether there is a US centralized government database with proof of his existence?

If so, I guess you could argue that the Social Security Administration would confirm his existence,
since they would have issued a Social Security Number at birth, and then terminated that number
after they receive some confirmation of his death or death certificate.

But ultimately, I'm sure Kleiman is dead. Faking someone's death and having the medical provable
backstory with years of medical pain and suffering BEFORE bitcoin was even that valuable, would be
amazing foresight and pre-planning of the likes of a time traveler.




If your theory is considered to be true, why didn't CSW continue talking to Gavin and others?
Why would CSW disappear? Also there are issues with whether CSW even really understands
certain aspects of Bitcoin/bitcoin and how it actually functions and its shortfalls.
It would be more likely (IMO) that Kleiman, if was Satoshi, was in communication with Gavin and others.

I believe Craig might have created Bitcoin with help of others, mainly Dave. Time will tell.

Hey I would just like to, on behalf of everyone here, thank you for your analysis and
deep thought before posting your comment. I'm sure you expended a lot of valuable time
writing and providing such insight and we all just really gosh-darn appreciate it.

Thanks for being you.  :-*

With all my love,
AgentofCoin

File name Tulip_Trust_Redacted

 Created: 08/12/2015 22:11:59

Modified: 08/12/2015 22:11:59

Advanced

PDF Producer:  Mac OS X 10.11.1 Quartz PDFContext
PDF Version:    (Acrobat 5.x)1.4

Interesting name Tulip_Trust considering  -  http://domainbigdata.com/tuliptrading.net

Some other interesting documents there too.

Who is John Cook ?

https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/david%20kleiman

Kleiman or somebody died that's for sure.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644005-DAVID-KLEIMAN-13-0467.html

https://i.imgur.com/UgbtzVj.jpg

Surely, I get bonus points for postin' a pic of Satoshi's penis, don't I? Here's to hopin' that "Foley" didn't stick a banana up Satoshi's tailpipe durin' the examination.

Gleb may have dug up the most important discovery about Satoshi to date!
He has done what others have only dreamed of.
We now have confirmation that Satoshi's penis' name was Foley.

So, Satoshi didn't work alone after all. There was also Foley.

(+10,000 Bonus Points to Gleb, and I throw in 10 strips of Gold-Pressed Latinum.)

Here is Foley's Bitcointalk account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=66960 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=66960)
Clearly there are no posts, since he has no hands/fingers to type.
It is assumed Kleiman set this account up for him. Unless CSW was behind this as well.

No problem. If you need help with anything else just ask  ;D

You are aware that "Foley" is a type of cathether that is intended to be placed in the urethra to drain urine from the urinary bladder?

It is just mentioning that a cathether was placed inside the penis at the time of autopsy.

Typical Norris.... Always raining on our parade.

(Foley actually means that at the time of death, Kleiman had a cathether in,
since he was paralyzed as evident by the report's mention of numerous ulcers
and sores on his behind, presumably from constantly sitting in that wheelchair.)

Yeah, [Chuck] Norris, quit ruinin' our parade.

https://reposti.com/i/m/Lu.jpg

Back on-topic. Is it common practice to proclaim the day of death as when a decomposing body is first discovered like done here with David Kleiman? Clearly, Dave died days before April 26, 2013, and not on it.

From the WBM dated April 5, 2003: http://web.archive.org/web/20040405113415/http://isecureu.com/NM/about/about.asp


From the desk of A Person Closely Working with the FBI Possessing More Secure Shit than the NSA and ain't goin' Share if with Them:

Eight years later: http://web.archive.org/web/20120205000420/http://www.davekleiman.com/computer-forensics-expert-florida-miami-palm-beach-lauderdale-dave-kleiman-about.php


On April 5, 2004: David Klieman, fresh out of the Army and in law enforcement in circa 1990, already had 14 years experience in computer forensics, in spite of not getting formal education in said field until after his accident in 1995.

On February 5, 2012: David Klieman had over 15 years experience in said field, this somewhat undisputed.

I think the most sensible theory going is that Kleiman was the voice of Satoshi on this forum; the times during which he posted seems to suggest he was doing it from the states. I think Wright probably wrote the white paper and had Kleiman edit it.

Here's a good article: http://gizmodo.com/is-dave-kleiman-the-missing-link-in-craig-wrights-satos-1774519534

Ah on page 8 it says his body was found on April 26th 2013. Someone must have visited to wish him a happy birthday :(  But he didn't die on that day.

nice, thanks!

this whole story is as ugly as possible and the main reason for the large confusion right now is pure greed.

it seems the hunt for the satoshi million has started.

for me david kleiman is the real SN and wright is just a fucking bastard!

Note the birthday below:


I think that CSW stumbled upon Bitcoin circa 2013 (late 2012 at the earliest) and started concocting a narrative to fit his long con. Stumbling upon the death of David Kleiman, a person who CSW co-wrote with, Craig saw that the pieces of Dave's life fit nicely in what's known about Satoshi. It was just a matter of creating docs to make it look like he and Dave were partners of sorts which I've demonstrated he's done.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2644004/INVESTIGATIVE-REPORT-13-0467.txt


Two notes: Referred to as Alan oppose to David/Dave Kleiman; a highly decorated Army dude sans tattoos; Dave's birthday is January 22, 1967 (make that three notes).

http://flvoters.com/by_number/1125/32265_david_alan_kleiman.html



And the hunt for Satoshi's millions all started on the day Dave was born...

http://broom02.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=1967%20in%20film

https://i.imgur.com/rVXFOfj.jpg

You could say Craig Wright is looking For A Few Dollars More

You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14755896#msg14755896).

Also by getting core Bitcoin devs and their tribe to claim that the proof Craig provided is not a proof, he has revealed them as being disingenuous. Very clever political game theory he has concocted.

Craig has astutely accomplished his goal, as only 42% of Bitcoiners conclude he can't be Satoshi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1281423.160). And when and if Craig signs coins from an early block of Bitcoin, the level of confusion will increase. Craig is playing a political game theory.


Refusing to believe is not the same as proving he is not. Craig is winning the political game theory. He is a clever lawyer mofo.

I think bringing in a dead person into this is just a scapegoat by Craig Wright to confuse spectators. If this is true, why would he pretend being Satoshi by signing a fake message? Until Craig comes up with this extraordinary proof  (http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/)he says, I refuse to believe anything that came from him.

Wright might be Satoshi, but not the programmer or cryptographer, but the spokesman. Kleiman was doing the coding and crypto staff, and Wrigth was his mouthpeace. Wright was posting about bitcoin, contacting others by email (Back, Wei, Finlley), writing/helping with the white paper, organizing servers and forums for bitcoin etc.

So technicaly. Wright could be the person writhing under pseduonim Satoshi nakamoto. It does not mean he was alone, nor that he was coding Bitcoin and crypto stuff.

this is mostly the truth. wright may have been never ever involved into Bitcoin until the dead of David Alan Kleiman. and now wright knows nobody can say anything against his crazy stories because satoshi is gone.

WE need to show responsibility to complete the task

 I'm in the process of penning a diatribe techno paper on how the body could be moved and welcome Gavin to witness the event so that he can report back to the community that said feat was accomplished.

where is the grave of David Alan Kleiman (DAK)?

RIP 4/26/2013

Click this quote to read what Gmaxwell and others will respond:

You do not seem to understand that linking to your own post doesn't prove anything. Can you post the public key, the message Wright signed, and the signature for everyone to see and verify?

I have now reviewed your analysis and have concluded you are talking out of your ass.

Please provide technical justification.


The analysis was provided by others already. The review of that is ongoing here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1461597.msg14756737#msg14756737).


Do you enjoy being a troll?

 You, my friend are peerless; there can be no review of your work.

https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/riskmanagement/rationally-opting-insecure-alternative-negative-externalities-selection-securit-33779

https://i.imgur.com/SuUK8XU.jpg

http://es.abna24.com/upload/image/2016/03/11/rumsfeld-bush-cheney31-320x239_56e2d461a246d.jpg
"Ask Dick how his stag hunt went down in Texas the other day."

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/darmok2.jpg
"Satoshi - his eyes uncovered. Shaka, when the Wright ivory towers fell."

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:

You trolls can eat your words (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1461597.msg14756900#msg14756900) now.

Lol. I doubt that.

Your whole argument is based on something that hasn't even been performed publicly yet.
Your theory is based on a few pieces of code on CSW's blog and other people's word.
We still have to wait to see how CSW will actually sign the keys.

Your theory is based purely on speculation of what we think happened, instead of what we know.
If we know the signature (in theory) and the address (according to BBC), then what was the message?

Quoted as documentation of your ignorance of the technical details.

Eventually you trolls will learn not to fuck with me (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438301.0).

This is how Craig Steven Wright con everybody into believing that he and David Kleiman were partners.

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=WKINFODEFENSERESEARCH%20L110000199040&aggregateId=flal-l11000019904-dce79b55-176a-4442-93a7-3c8896316aa2&searchTerm=w%26k%20info&listNameOrder=WKINFODEFENSERESEARCH%20L110000199040

https://i.imgur.com/k70wFja.jpg

02/16/2011 -- Florida Limited Liability was most likely created by David Kleiman himself. The following two images depicts the contents of the PDF: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2011%5C0216%5C90321539.tif&documentNumber=L11000019904

https://i.imgur.com/ZxdiVck.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BOgAKws.jpg

That's the extent of the W&K INFO DEFENSE RESEARCH LLC corporation under David's control, he letting the entity lapse.

Now that it's lapsed, anybody can pick it up and reinstate it, which is exactly what somebody did.

03/28/2014 -- REINSTATEMENT: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2014%5C0331%5C58356362.tif&documentNumber=L11000019904

https://i.imgur.com/NtZ85GF.jpg

The address in the red box is where David Kleiman lived and was found dead close to a year prior to the reinstatement of the org. The green box contains the new address of the biz. And the purple box contains the address associated with David Kleiman long before the advent of Bitcoin. Dave's signature is not on the doc because he was dead when the biz was reinstated. Ms Uyen T Nguyen is the person who signed the electronic filing.

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.

Yes, you were the first to discover that CSW discovered a "backdoor" in Bitcoin.
Your understanding of the technical details here is greatest over all others.  ::)

new article about dave kleiman
www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/05/is-dave-kleiman-the-missing-link-in-craig-wrights-satoshi-story/

Paul Vernon discovered a backdoor of all of Cryptsy's users, evidence being the blood stains in the backside of their underwear.

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:


The only contention remaining is whether the Sartre text hashes to the hash Craig signed. Apparently no one has bothered to check that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1461597.msg14757372#msg14757372), even they are so damn quick to declare him a fraud without checking it.

some fact
He was 46 and had made the most of his short life.
http://mpb.floridaweekly.com/news/2013-05-16/Community/Father_friends_mourn_a_sons_life_cut_short.html#.VyrUYRIeVbo

A friend found him dead in his house. The cause of death is unknown.
http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/obituary-former-pbso-deputy-dies-in-his-home/nXcqR/

 As much as you enjoy quoting yourself.
I'm as much a troll as you are an investigator.

What does it mean? Some explenation would be usefu. Who is Ms Uyen T Nguyen?

I empathize as I know jealously is an affliction of the incapable (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404).

Enjoy your life.

 You'd better look up the word empathize; you might have confused it with sympathize or maybe you're trying to be funny? 
 Thank you.  I do enjoy my life.

And the first to:

1. Explain to Gmaxwell (in his CoinJoin thread from 2013) that he couldn't use a blacklist to fix jamming of CoinJoin
2. Solve the jamming problem (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438301.msg14585316#msg14585316) of decentralized exchange.
3. Design a technical solution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438301.msg14597791#msg14597791) to the inherent centralization in Satoshi's proof-of-work.
4. Which included being the first to explain technically why Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine Generals Problem (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438301.msg14599000#msg14599000).
5. The first to explain why Z.cash's Equihash is likely not ASIC resistant (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438301.msg14599596#msg14599596).
6. First to solve a decades old unsolved fundamental problem (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg14685179#msg14685179) of computer science programming language theory.

Get off my lawn you jealous troll. You are wasting my and the readers' time.

http://mpb.floridaweekly.com/news/2013-05-16/Community/Father_friends_mourn_a_sons_life_cut_short.html#.VyrwnoQrLrd


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644005-DAVID-KLEIMAN-13-0467.html


Amazing how an assumed improper diet causes a man to shrink two inches and gain thirty pounds.


................


http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2014%5C0331%5C58356362.tif&documentNumber=L11000019904

https://i.imgur.com/NtZ85GF.jpg

Note the Northlake Boulevard address. I'm surprised that Paige hasn't come out and call foul.

Paige looks like he can be a : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb5ODYaPynU

found on http://www.davekleiman.com/

edit:

http://www.davekleiman.com/experts-florida-miami-palm-beach-lauderdale-about.php

Damn you and your investigations Gleb.... So interesting I can't keep out of this thread waiting for more finds.


Good job, wish I had your drive to find the truth!

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459687.msg14758960#msg14758960) (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.

---

---

---

No one has presented a script which hashes all portions of the Sartre text to verify whether it does or does not hash to the correct value.

Until someone does that, they can't be sure that Craig won't reveal the Sartre text which does hash to the correct value, thus proving that he broke the cryptography. Since the SHA-256 was already broken to 46 - 52 rounds of the 64 rounds (for a single hash), then doubling the hash as Bitcoin does could potentially break it for all 64 rounds, because ostensibly collision resistance gets worse when doubling a hash (as I had explained in detail upthread). No one knows why Satoshi designed Bitcoin with a double hash. I am positing it might be a back door.

CIYAM is misleading you. Follow an idiot if you want to be one.

---

Okay now we are starting to get some evidence that there might be a coordinated attack to hide the facts I have presented (note the following thread move to Meta is not the thread that Gmaxwell deleted):


The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts.

---

---

I did not write that text with bolded phrase and without the context of the caveats that I provided at the deleted thread which was quoted out-of-context and missing the link to the context, as explained already dufus:


Is that the best you retards can do?

P.S. the context at the deleted thread which LauraM didn't even link to, contained bolded and red caveats similar to my reexplanation as follows (which I was forced to repeat after your leader gmaxwell vaporized an entire thread):


You continue following gmaxwell. He will lead you to failure.

---

While there are facts I don't like, I can accept them and I've never suffered a heart attack as a result. Though it's irrelevant since you've never said anything that even remotely resembles a fact.

You are free to present a refutation of anything I've written. So far, I've seen no technical argument from you.

Please do try, so I can REKT you.

Edit: let's go on Skype now. I want to talk some sense into you or at least find out in voice and webcam what sort of idiot trolls me. Are you afraid?

How can I? One can only make a technical argument against disputed facts, and as I said, nothing you've ever said resembles a fact, disputed or otherwise. There is no technical argument to be made against the ravings of a deranged lunatic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong)

Yes it is much more likely he is a fraud. But one has to wonder why he has gone this far, if he can't follow through.

My theory was only to discuss a theory, but the Bitcoin maximalists can't tolerate freedom-of-speech. So this might tell you where Blockstream will lead Bitcoin. Their SegWit is arguably a scam where they will not have soft fork versioning control over Bitcoin after adding SegWit, as has been explained by Professor Stolfi for example.

The soft fork versioning is a Trojan Horse. Smooth and I challenged Gmaxwell on that point some weeks ago in the Bitcoin Technical Dicussion thread, and last time I checked he had never replied.

It is all politics.


Afaik, nobody can justify it. Apparently only Satoshi knows why.

I am now offering a theory as to why. And speculation could be perhaps some people already knew this and were covering it up perhaps, but that isn't necessary to make my theory worth discussing.


Afair it has been questioned and brushed aside as, "only satoshi knows".


Transaction signing is not related to mining hash algorithm.


As far as I know, I am the first to present the potential for decreased collision resistance. I googled and didn't find anything.


I don't know if ETH uses a double hash on signing.

Also there is another detail which I am not sure about, which I was hoping to ask in that other thread that got deleted. I want to know if Bitcoin is signing a double hash of the transaction, or if the double-hash is only on the public key? That makes a big difference. If only the latter, then perhaps my theory is incorrect. As I wrote in the OP of the thread that got deleted, I didn't spend a lot of time checking all the details and hoped to receive peer review from other experts. but the thread was deleted.


The most likely outcomes are:

1. Craig is a fraud and this issue dies.
2. I misunderstood some detail about where the double-hashing is in Bitcoin's transaction system, thus my theory is invalid.

However, there is also a chance my theory is correct. In that case, I don't know if altcoins without the vulnerability would benefit or suffer.

I just wanted to have a discussion. The Bitcoin maximalists turned it into a war. Bastards.

Who the hell is Dave Kleiman? Another Satoshi Nakamoto wannabe?

No thanks, we already have enough number of Satoshi rip-off's. Time is money my friend and people don't wanna talk over bullshit.

It appears that the entire fiasco was crafted to destroy Matonis and Andresen.

He has apparently taken the fall in order to hand more power to those who are not Matonis and Andresen.

But the saga may not be fully played out yet...

WOW.

The May 2 blog post has disappeared as well. Either Craig Wright's site got hacked, or his scam came unglued, or this is part of the scam somehow. (*grabs more popcorn*)

 TPTB_need_war stop posting.

go back down under CSW!! and never come back!! you fucking lying bastard!!

That would be great, Ignore works pretty well too.

I presented a technical argument. Regardless of the actions of Craig, that technical argument remains.

A technical argument by definition is not a fact. It is a technical position that stands to be debated. So if you are unwilling to respond technically to my technical points, then obviously you have nothing technical to say.

Here are some positions I made which you and no one else has refuted:

1. Craig said he signed a hash of some Sartre document but did not disclose which portion of the text. No one has written a script to prove that no portion or combination of portions of that Sartre text will not hash to the value that was signed. Thus I stated until someone has proven that it is impossible for Craig to later show that some portion of the Sartre text will hash to the sign hash value, then you can't claim with certainty that he can't do that. At the bare minimum, those who were checking Craig's proof, should have at least run a simple script to try every contiguous portion (no permutations) of the Sartre text (which is a tractable computation).

2. I have stated that no one seems to know why Bitcoin employs double hashing, and I have stated a theory that double hashing may weaken the collision resistance of the SHA256. I gave my logic for why that may be the case. I also note that SHA256 is documented to be reasonably close to being broken with 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds already broken. Thus I presented the theory that perhaps the double-hashing might push the vulnerability over the edge of breakage of 64 rounds. I didn't present that as a likely theory. I presented it as a point of discussion. If you have no way to refute this technical possibility because you don't know a damn thing about cryptographic hash function construction then that means you are not expert enough to comment about the quality of my theory. Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds? I ask you a specific question and I expect a specific answer.

I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404). Only a technical reply from you is relevant. Of course you can't make one.

Also how do you know that Craig didn't withdraw his plan because I just explained how he may of accomplished the feat he claimed he can do? I mean if someone could even explain the rational justification for the double-hashing, then we wouldn't be wondering as much.

Ahm..



I will not say, that you are wrong, but arent you wrong here?




Dave Kleiman is dead, his identity of having been Satoshi Nakamoto is always doubted. And if..

..then his brother, what was inheriting the suspicious USB-drive with the wallets worth half a billion dollar is absolutely inconscient about his property and in big danger, as there exist gamblers as this unspeakable false doctor Craig Wright what are interested in nothing than these bucks really. Some kill for a handful dollars, as our wild Gleb was remembering very sage.

 :o

Isnt it better to think about this closer here, and about other things somewhere else?

The plot thickens.  :P

Makes everyone who says he was a fraud look like a total imbecile for not checking whether the website is really the official word of Craig Wright.

In the thread of mine that Gregory Maxwell deleted, I made the point that those accusing Craig of fraud, hadn't done their homework. Lol.  ::)

Such a script would prove nothing, since you know nothing about the input Craig allegedly used. If you feed the script a plain ASCII text file, you'll just claim he might have used UTF16. Or a PDF file, which can altered in infinitely many ways without affecting the text content. Or a JPEG of a photograph of a printout of the document. Or something else entirely. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that such a hash collision exists, not on anyone else to prove that it doesn't.

Because double hashing is routinely employed to avoid preimage and length extension attacks, whether such protection is needed or not. Multiple iterations do not make it more vulnerable (again, if you believe it does, it's up to you to produce evidence of such a vulnerability), so there's no downside except for a slight reduction in performance.

No, it isn't. It would a problem if I did like you, since anyone who does must be a poor judge of character.

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.

Nice try. Fail.

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. 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.


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?

After we confirm that you can't answer it, then I will REKT the rest of your technically incorrect response above.


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

Btw, why are you so defensive of a coin that is 70% controlled by China's miners and allegedly soon to be 98.5% controlled (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg14757952#msg14757952). Can you even look in the mirror and not laugh at yourself.

Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman? >:(

Say something then about him.

Perhaps you didn't realize that I was the one who before this thread started, pointed out that we should be talking about him.  ::) Do I need to provide a link as proof?

P.S. see you registered a sock puppet account today so you can do your hatchet attack anonymously.

It's mighty humble of you to finally admit that you don't have any proof of your claims. I'm sure you'll let us know when you find that Sartre text.

He didn't disclose anything else about the document, which is why it's impossible to disprove any claim about it.

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?

Non sequitur.

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.

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.

It says more about yours than mine.

For someone with time to kill...
The Sartre text is here
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/

You'd need to copy and paste into a notepad and maybe
increment whitespace at the end til you hit the right hash.

But maybe the real message is in the (con)text

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.


'backsplaining.


See above. REKTED.


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


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?


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

Specifically I am not alleging something is maliciously hiding in the source code.

I am asking if the double hashing could possibly be itself a cryptographic hole that enables someone to preimage via collisions an existing signature so as to prove they signed a message from that key.

Apparently the double hash is also on the public key as well as on the hash that is signed? If true, this means that someone might be able to preimage a collision on the hash(hash(public key)) and thus spend other people's coins as well.

No, you couldn't, and I explained why.

I've never heard of that word in this context. What does it mean?

Actually, it's not obvious at all why you asked the question, hence my glib answer. Your nonsense isn't worth my time.

Why should I? I'm not the one making outlandish claims about the subject. You are, and I doubt (based on the fact that your posts are nonsense) that you have actually researched it in any capacity.

You're welcome. ;D

If you believe that, you are dumber than I thought.

Perhaps you aren't even a programmer?

Of course one can write a script to hash all continuous portions of the Sartre document and check against the hash and then show that he could not possibly be correct with any contiguous portion of the Sartre document that was claim to have been signed for.

Please don't waste my time with your inane inability to understand rudimentary concepts.  Even Yarkol already explained it.


I will proceed to explain once you confirm that do not understand why Merkle–Damgård construction is relevant? Either explain or admit you don't know. So I can proceed to teach you something. You are wasting my scarce time with your stalling/deception tactics and trolling.

Next time you will realize not to fuck with me, because I know a lot more than you assume.

HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

..

One thing..

IF Satoshi is Kleiman.. When was that post made by Satoshi about him not being Dorian Nakamoto.. ?

Wasn't that AFTER 2013.. ?

Yeah it is tiring to deal with trolls who are too ignorant to realize they are.


Why do you not want readers to read the truth.

Is this really relevant?

Is this statement of Satoshi verified?

Edit: I suppose, after stopping to post here, no statement of Satoshi is verifyable nomore. Its anyway very difficult to verify an anonymous source, especially in the latest statement, because of the hackability of every channel.

Yes, I do believe I explained it.
Perhaps you're illiterate?

Rudimentary concepts such as the fact that the binary representation of the document in question hasn't even been identified? And that there are infinitely many possible representations? I agree, if you don't understand such concepts, there is no point in wasting time discussing anything with you.

No, you're the one wasting my time. I don't have to explain anything. You do. And you're not. I can only assume by your lack of explanation that you can't produce one.

I assume you know nothing, so knowing more than that isn't much of an accomplishment. But please go ahead and demonstrate your accomplishment. We're all waiting.

I am an innocent Noob, and not a sock puppet. ;D

I WAS saying something about him just before:



I see, you are completely upset, maybe your exitement is entirely appropriate, because you seem to be seriously worried. I cannot judge, you know, the angry man's terms are hardly accessible. And to be honest, I am not interested, because..



..me too, I am worried, but because of something else what seems to be importantmore to me and what is on-topic.


Its something what belongs exactly here and nowhere else. And your thema is off-topic and makes this important thread unreadable. I m sorry, but thats a fact.



Its as talking of the boxing in the football-match.  >:(



Why dont you ask the moderation to adapt the title of the thread to your thema?
The footballers are excellent boxing sportlers certainly too.

We do have fairly convincing evidence that the signature Wright posted is not a signature of any subset of the Sartre document.

Specifically, it matches an early public signature from Satoshi lifted from a Bitcoin transaction. The chance against any portion of the Sartre document generating an identical signature are astronomical. Hence, it's pretty clearly an attempt at fraud or at the very least intentional misdirection.

It means that that statement couldn't have been made by Kleiman.

Is it a problem, when THIS statement isnt coming from Dave?

Everyone was interested in stopping this silly boulevard-show over Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto.

That'd be nice but everything you've posted in this thread has been incoherent drivel. You come off as a crackhead.

We were reading here many times in the past days of the falseness of the superelevation of Satoshi in the sphere at the limit to the divine.

Of course, humans are no gods.

Albert Einstein wasnt a god too not..

.. but we should talk of Satoshi Nakamoto maybe as of the Einstein of the banking.

The invention of the blockchain, block chain, as Satoshi used to write is not to underestimate. Some talk of the invention of the century. Some, what are not fools.

I will not talk now about that, as it is off-topic too.

Just to say, if it is Dave, then Dave is a big hero. And not a falseplayer as this false doctor, of whom we should stop to babble.

As well as we should stop to babble about Jean-Paul Sartre's irrelevant Nobel-refuse speech. Its always one of the red herrings of the false player.

Edit: typo

You need to up the dosage on your meds, Pablo.

 LOL

What do you mean? Einstein is a god? ;D

I think this could be plausible if Kleiman is Satoshi.  Perhaps Kleiman reached out to Wright knowing that Wright was rich and might have an interest in buying a large amount of BTC as well as the Satoshi identity.  Possibly Kleiman was trying to cash out before he died and by saying the BTC was Wright's that would be repaid upon a later date, he was avoiding taxes and living the rest of his days in whatever regulatory nightmare would have come with claiming ownership himself.  The 2020 date could even be accurate, as I could see Satoshi wanting to sell to a believer who would hold the BTC until it was stable and not to someone who would dump at a profit and kill the idea.  Maybe Kleiman died before everything could be finalized, which would explain why he died poor.  That would also explain how Wright became the only one who knew the identity of Satoshi, and why he is trying to set up a case to prove he is the owner of the BTC (which it appears he is not, but maybe would have been if Kleiman had more time).

Back to the thema:
Gizmodo published already long ago: http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692 (http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692)


Paige was the compagnon of Dave. Everybody can watch him at Dave's Homepage, where his compagnon is observable even in a video. A cool person, if you ask me. Not at all another falseplayer. Paige isnt a Bitcoin-insider, its not cerain, that he knows, what Dave's USB-drive could be worth.

Thats this suspicious USB-drive.


Yeah

Again the same source Gizmodo:

Its what I worry about: Ira Kleiman.

Pink Floyd nailed it (including Richard Wright on keyboards): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxCUyy_aVzA

interesting chat with Joseph VaughnPerling. he sounds a little pissed off.

Satoshi Saga Continues: Tulip Trust Trustee Expected to Appear by September 19, Says Joseph VaughnPerling (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshi-saga-continues-tulip-trust-trustee-expected-to-appear-by-september-says-joseph-vaughnperling-1462467803)

I'm still taken aback on how David Kleiman was awarded soldier of the year in 1987 after ONLY one year of service while being a Huey tech in Germany, beating out a million-plus candidates, some of which were perhaps more deserving. Also, he claimed to be a war veteran when he didn't serve in a war zone because ... wait for it ... the US wasn't involved in any conflicts during his stint in the US Army.

Joseph VaughnPerling alludes to the Tulip trustee being a woman. Now, who is Joseph VaughnPerling? (I envision Ayn Rand turning her earthworm vibrator on high at this point - she was a 'wild one' if you missed the reference)

Wow, super!
Thats not over, this game, its what I worry, but its rather a case for the cops to clear this backdateing show up.

Back to Dave's brother, what is alarming:
Ira Kleiman

• claimed that after his brother’s death, Wright contacted him
  
• alleged to possess certain documents concerning Dave
  
• declined to provide any concrete information about those documents
  
• declined to speak on the record about whether he is in possession of his brother’s hard drives
  
• refused to meet
  
• refused to speak over the phone
  
• sent instead dozens of cagey and cryptic emails and SMS messages
  
• would not answer when asked if he believed that Wright had been telling him the truth
  

Its Ira Kleiman's right, not to speak with the boulevard, of course.

But what if our false-player was not only contacting him, but stalking him and trying to nick something?
What if not only our falseplayer was exerting pressure on Ira Kleiman, but an entire gang?

Ira Kleiman has probably no concrete idea of "Bitcoins". And "Satoshi Nakamoto" is saying him absulutely nothing. And noone was warning him, that there is maybe half a Billion of dollars in his appartment. Especially our falseplayer was letting him unknowingly very intentional, one can guess. Even the reporters of Gizmodo were not able to explain him something understandable maybe, because he was blocking every access, having got already accessed penetrant too much, and having no idea, why all people are suddenly as importunate.

The comportment of Ira Kleiman is at least not excluding, that he is as much under pressure to have an acute paranoid problem.

Hi Gleb, I dont understand, why you quote me in this relation. I didnt award him.
As far as I can estimate, Dave Kleiman was a very impressive soldier. One has-to-get the laurels, all are only humans. He was a deputy of sheriff before his accident, too. I can imagine him deputy-of-the-year-award capable too. An astonishing imagination of Satoshi Nakamoto, of course. But state-power-critical means not subversive. There is a subtle difference. The libertarians are not against the state, but against the overregulation of the state, against the attraction of too much responsability of the state. Dave was working for the state and for international institutions. A libertarian approach is to make for the state, what is good, and to refuse the what is too much. He wasnt engaged fix nomore. He was very well able to refuse jobs. I see no conflict to Satoshi here, no incompatibility.


I dont know. I never heard about. Was he saying veteran or war-veteran? Was he maybe saying "war-veteran"? We are used to talk in metaphors, what are not takeable literally always.
Little overdrive is not unusual, isnt it, Gleb? ;D

I caught the "overdrive" reference. No prob with that, bud. Apologies for quoting you then going on a different tangent. My thought was to help get the thread back on topic. That was all.

Unless Craig Steven Wright's lawyer(s) lied to a tax agent: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2644013/20140226-Meeting-Minutes-Redacted.txt


Back to Joseph VaughnPerling. Remember when the following video came out and folks were asking who invited CSW? Wanna take a stab now as to who it was?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE

My EDUCATED guess is that J^VP is CSW's spokesperson advancing the "who is SN" narrative.

There is the problem of Dave Kleiman's father too. As we know, he is old 92 years and at least partially informed, concerning Dave's infliction with Bitcoin.

But he probably has no idea, what is Satoshi Nakamoto. And that there is a fortune of half a Billion dollar somewhere jammed in the cyberspace, what belongs to Satoshi's successors, so maybe to Dave's successors.

Imagine.

Its a message, what can kill the old man, if it is delivered false. Heart-attacks exist.

My advice: say nothing or say it professional. Its explainable to the old man only when Ira is in security. Its a task for the psychologically hardened public service. Nothing for good-meaning amateurs.
Its first Ira, then Louis. Both need professional help.

Warning: if Ira is really paranoid, he risks to defend himself with the gun, getting accessed violent.

Calm down, his family must know something about all this.

Even if they don't realize this usb stick is potentially worth half billion dollars,
They must know it is potentially of some great value by now?

They will have checked.

I knew. Its not at all a reproach, no stilistic critics. I like.


No prob with that, terence, me too not. It was again not a reproach, I just asked.

I see, its not Dave, what speaks.

Its a misleading statement: Dave's wheelchair isnt a medal from the Army. Its not a medal from the Sheriff too not. Its reasoned by a motocycle-accident in the free-time. I know, you knew, Gleb. I clarify it for the who didnt know.

Well, this link:
I knew, the show isnt over. I supposed, the retraite of the falseplayer was only strategic.

Its a puzzle for the cops, not for us.

The sharpened cards of the falseplayer are backdating, hacked sources, manipulated digital signatures and corrupted witnesses. Thats expectable.

Dave was a forensic crack. The falseplayer means to be upper. Its a case for the forensic experts really.

At least, every claimed action of Dave in this relation is to control very, very profound. Dave was knocked out in the hospital very much. As well, Dave's compagnons can know very much of Dave's agenda. His buddy looks out quite as uncorruptible as Bud Spencer. Just this claimed director-state in the Hotwire Preemptive Intelligence Pty Ltd seems to be quite impossible. Yes, Hotwire Preemptive Intelligence Et cetera Et cetera, thats the meaningful name. Its the incredible style not of Satoshi. Its the style of someone with an incredible big mouth.

What was the name of Dave's company?

Its a stilistic difference, what is strikeing. What is the name of the blockchain? Is it meaningful?
Correct, the name of the blockchain is blockchain. Because its a chain of blocks. Thats Satoshi. No need to confuse someone by highblown nameing.

The stilistic traces are unmasking obvious and reliant more than fingerprints. The bigmouth of the falseplayers is nonoverlookable. Isnt it?

... BTW

Did you ever think about Gleb's style? Why is this style not a style of falseplayer?
Its not question of being loud or quiet nor a question of being polite or unpolite nor a question of being timid or impudent nor a question of being open or close.

Its a question of being honest or sly.

I have the impression, some have pains to discern the falseplayers here, as 50% were trusting CSW.

Oh, many thanks for your worries concerning my exitement-state, you are a sweetheart. :-*
But I am used about worse.


Are you sure? And where is the evidence? And who is "they"? The Wright-gang?

I must admit, that you cannot convince me entirely. ;D

In my opinion, its a good idea to pass ideas similar to the what I said to the official instances what are responsible. Thats not an impossibility, of course. This idea isnt ariseing to everyone automatically. The brisance of the situation is maybe not discernible for someone outside of the Bitcoin-scene. Thats what I mean. Its a jokeing-forum here, of course, but its not only a jokeing-forum here, isnt it? The life in what we live is real, not virtual. Its not a computer-game here. Or are all of us responsible not more than the children of the kindergarten?

Me I cant. I am circa 1/2-earth-size away. All what I can, is to produce a workable written purpose, what is at least referenceable, when no better idea occurrs.

Its time to calm down really only, when we get good news from Ira and Louis Kleiman.

But nevertheless, I will not talk about that until then, so..
.. no worries. ;D

Yeah..
.. it was me, what was not straight-on-topic now. But it was anyway close, and belonging really not somewhere else.

But its Dave himself, the thema, here.

It was getting said, that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto will maybe never get revealed doubtfree.

The question is, what we look as doubtfree proof. We are now hot in the materia. We are now educated of the past days, and dispose about a sharp more competiency in this relation than some days before. All of us, because we were getting confronted with false proofs. Except some cracks, what were learning nothing new.

We learned, that there exists quasi-no proof, what is really conclusive, because everything is manipulateable. The signature, the early blocks. All is, if not manipulateable, then stealable. There exists no single proof, what is really conclusive. Correct me, if Im wrong. Im a Newbie of Bitcoin, the cryptographic interna are out of my competiency.

Its a problem, what needs to get disputed exhausting. We need to create clearness about.

If it is possible, we know, what we need - if not, we know, that we need to create another approach.

My purpose is to dispute this in another thread, because it isnt related to Dave. Me, I will not create it for reasons of absent competiency and because I have the impression, that this clear proof doesnt exist.

Its somehow similar to the God-proof. Many exist, noone is tenable scientifically really.

What leads some in the Atheism, some in the Agnosticism. But the most keep the belief not needing a proof. Some suspect, its conventional, its traditional, its for reasons of conformism only. Others say its the intuition. Thats not covered of the science, of course.  ;D

Dont worry, its not my intention to turn the thread into the religuous, the problem of the belief is that the dispute isnt possible reasonable. Whats the difference between the knowing, the meaning and the believing? The what we believe, we cannot proof exactly, thats why we cannot dispute it scientifically. Because we can only dispute scientifically what we know, the knowledge, nothing else. Okay, stop the unscientific now really. Dont challennge me, dont ask, I will not answer, its really offtopic. :-X

Pretty sure it's this guy.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=122404

Sneaky... lurking but not posting anything about this drama.

Last Active: May 05, 2016
Last Post: April 23, 2016

I liked to dispute here already the case, when there exists no single conclusive proof.

I was already approaching to another unworkable approach: the intuition. We cannot dispute reasonable our intuitive estimation for the cited reasons. If someone will do anyway, its an endless dispute, where the emotions risk to get high very much, do it please in another thread to keep thisone small.

We are not out of arguments, then.

When the cops cannot proof, they cannot listen to the intuition too not, they need to work with indices.

Thats the what we can dispute here, the indices, what speak for and con, that Dave Kleiman is Satoshi Nakamoto. Its police-work, but we can help to the cops, what are not Bitcoin-cracks apriori.

What we need to observe is, that when we cannot proof doubtfree that Dave is Satoshi, we will probably not be able to show with a sufficient credibility, that Dave only is Satoshi. The group-identity is probably not excludeable, but the group membership of diverse individuals is disputeable again. Some members will maybe get discernable quite well by indices. And others will be undiscernible, where we can exclude the membership for resons of absent indices. Thats not a corrupt approach, we just need to be open to all-kind-of indices. If someone was making no trace in the group, his handmark is absent, he isnt Satoshi, its maybe the coffee-cup fetcher of Satoshi, but not Satoshi. Another candidate of group-membership is Hal Finney. It was getting said somewhere, that Hal's stilistic approach of forming the text is closest to Satoshi of all the candidates until. That is a good indice. The individuality of forming the text is reliable quite as a fingerprint. It just had to get well-presented. But we have not to talk of Hal here. The opening of another thread would be appropriate. I will not do, because I will think about Dave.

Note, that we have masses of text of Satoshi. Hundreds of posts and mails. Thats an easy-game. Its rather too much data than not enough. Then we have tons of programs. It was said now somewhere, that Satoshi wasnt a good programmer. Because of the sloppyness, for example. Thats even excellent, the weaknesses are excellent indices. The excellence is the what everyone tries to do.

But we have not too much data, thats the good-news. We are in the Big-Data-Age. Its not too much at far. The stilistic fingerprints are just getting sharper.

To work with indices, the cops need anyway their intuition. It is not possible to examinate all. The world is too big. The cops need the intuition to find the relevant traces. Not for more. We have to stay honest with the indices, what we find, and not to distort them at will in the direction of our intention. And thats not easy, when our intention is strong.

Excuse me, if you dont like to get addressed like students, its not personal, of course. I dont doubt about someone's intelligence or competiency. Its just to address everyone, and to include everyone in the revealings, especially thisones, what didnt see clear, what is really needed and possible. I see, that the dispute is sometimes very casual, its not a working-group, a forum-thread, I know. And I am not the OP of this thread and will not at all create allures of director. But a thread, what achieves an insight is anyway cool more, than a thread of smalltalk or a thread of rooster-fight. To loose time, we can look TV, its even less arduous.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040918003256/http://www.shango.net/Cyberbride/Wed7.jpg
"Heavenly Father, send me a sign that the man (my real son) I just performed the first online marriage for is gonna meet Satoshi before the advent of Bitcoin. Amen... Red seven on the black eight. Black queen on the red king..."

I'll be an SOB!

http://web.archive.org/web/20050323134911/http://www.vaughn.perling.com/joseph/index.html


J^VP took his wife's name.

Agreed. Beyond co-authoring a couple of works, there is no independent source linking these men as being close. Kleiman's colleagues had no idea who Craig was when he phoned - and why did he leave it 10 months after Dave's death to contact them about 1 million Bitcoin? It's all part of his web of lies to deceive.


Did he though? I wouldn't trust a local news outlet to get the facts straight. Apparently, to become Soldier of the Year you have to engage in the Best Warrior competition (https://www.army.mil/bestwarrior/pastwinners.html). Problem is, it only began in 2002.

Also note that his account was registered in 2013. Why would he not participate into bitcointalk earlier if he was charmed by Satoshi in 2005... Makes me think that this guy is just lying to get his name around.

new and very interesting  article about dave kleiman
www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/05/is-dave-kleiman-the-missing-link-in-craig-wrights-satoshi-story/

http://catalog.gpo.gov/F/THFGQXDFADX3FXYJAHHQIAVNUN165KI1EQM1Y4L471DLXN92CN-01341?func=full-set-set&set_number=006014&set_entry=000004&format=999

https://i.imgur.com/s68aiLd.jpg

I was sleeping. Now the REKTing will ensue.


I believe you are a liar. Prove it by revealing your identity. My identity is known to everyone. I have revealed my full name, where I live, my history, my LinkedIn account, my public non-anonymous writings published over the internet, etc..


Yes of course there is a combinatorial explosion of possibilities which was my point that you all can't conclude with 100% certainty that Craig can't produce a preimage of the hash, unless you can be sure he can't second preimage SHA-256 or otherwise find a collision. And I had stated that double hashing with SHA-256 might possibility have a cryptoanalysis hole that isn't known to exist in the cryptoanalysis of a single hashing. Again this was just a theory I wanted to discuss. Perhaps you don't like theories. Perhaps you would have preferred that Einstein didn't ponder riding in elevators. Well small, closed minds aren't very creative and thus don't achieve greatness. More on that with follow in a subsequent post.

However, in spite of the fact that you can't disprove any possible means of representation or permutation of the Sartre text, I wrote several times upthread that at the bare minimum, those protagonists who were claiming 100% certainty that Craig could not do something (btw a very strong claim), it would behove them to at least show that using typical representations of the Sartre text (e.g. ASCII text and perhaps UTF8/UTF16), that no contiguous portion of the text could hash to the signed hash. Moreover and more saliently, I pointed out that the protagonists were disingenuous or derelict by not pointing out the possibility that Craig might still be able to match the hash with some revealed content, Iff (if and only if) Craig had found a way to second preimage or otherwise find the necessary collision on the SHA256 hash. That the protagonists were too lazy to do this and were also too lazy to even verify if the website drcraigwright.com is Craig Wright's official communication vehicle (which apparently it is not and is now for sale here on bitcointalk.org according to a screen capture I quoted upthread), points to the lack of diligence and/or disingenuity in this tribe of Bitcoin maximalists including apparently yourself, who think they are holier than thou.

Do not disingenously quote my above two paragraphs out-of-context again. Don't cherry pick my context to make inane non-rebuttals which side-step my holistic set of points.

Note when I am done REKTing you on the technical points (again more is to follow below after this post), I never again want to waste my precious time with a useless and disingenuous turd. So this will be your last interaction with me.


You are apparently mathematically illiterate. If Craig can't find the second preimage or necessary collision, then he can't find a text that matches. Period. If he can find the second preimage or necessary collision, then he can find a text that matches. Period. When we analyze the probability, we don't start only with the Sartre text document. He could have chosen from any document on earth.

Thus his ability to use only contiguous portions of the Sartre document is mathematical plausible (again assuming he has the necessary cryptographic breakage), and thus it behoves the protagonists to explain this and even to write a quick script to prove that the contiguous portions possibilities in the common encoding formats does not hash to the signature he provided. The derelicts didn't do this. My necessary mathematical assumption in this paragraph (not impacting the prior paragraph) is that the hash function would be subject to a multi-collision attack. Thus if the breakage is not multi-collision, then Craig could not have reasonably limited himself to contiguous portions because the search for document matches in itself would probably be an intractable computational problem. My point remains that we see none of this sophisticated explanation from the protagonists. Instead they do a little bit of half-ass analysis and then everyone proclaims Craig is a fraud. This is Craig's point! I simply wanted to have a theoretical discussion in the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum and instead had my legitimate inquiry vaporized by the Bitcoin maximalist "forum-Hitler" moderator who uses the moniker Gmaxwell or in real life Gregory Maxwell. And we have all his underlings here who promulgate his shitty attitude and actions.

Ha ha, nicely found. :D Think we can lay that one to rest now.

https://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/gpc&CISOPTR=1553

https://i.imgur.com/jJVK2XN.jpg

http://www.garrison.redstone.army.mil/uploads/Redstone%20Rocket%201986_10_29_.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/ity4GUZ.jpg

I'm checking '86, '88 and '89 in case there's an honest mistake. If no Kleiman is found, then I won't be updating.

Hey guys - those documents say Wheeler is the Solder of the Year for Army Missile Command. Not for the whole Army. So was there a top award for the overall Army? Or maybe different branches of the Army each had their own Soldier of the Year? Those are details a journalist could easily get screwed up. So don't stop digging.

I hope you conspiracy buffs have enough aluminum foil in stock because I'm sad to say this is about to become a tad (maybe more) weirder.

Go here: http://delivereddata.com/

https://i.imgur.com/VmTaPQk.jpg

Fair enough, given that...

https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.aspx?domain=delivereddata.com&prog_id=GoDaddy


David Kleiman and Carter V. Conrad were partners along with Patrick Paige.

Here's more on Conrad: http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Carter-Conrad/1484242250

https://i.imgur.com/arwWKJS.jpg

But the address I highlighted above is not the address I wish to bring attention to in this post. The following address is.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080509034542/http://www.delivereddata.com/contact_us.htm

https://i.imgur.com/WDrb6GU.jpg

301 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401, USA

Who else is at that address?

http://www.totaldigitalsecurity.com/

https://i.imgur.com/if3HnCC.jpg

Who founded Total Digital Security?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradforddeflin

https://i.imgur.com/PRdO2YI.jpg

The Bitcoin connection?

http://www.totaldigitalsecurity.com/blog/cryptolocker-virus-is-back-ransomware-and-the-evolution-of-extortion

https://i.imgur.com/pm2hrxM.jpg

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Awww.totaldigitalsecurity.com%20bitcoin&oq=site%3Awww.totaldigitalsecurity.com%20bitcoin&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS549US549&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.6938j0j4

https://i.imgur.com/j4js71M.jpg

TDS was formed on 3/13/13 (~1 month prior to David Kleiman's death [near his owl pillow]): http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=OfficerRegisteredAgentName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DEFLINKENDALLH%20P130000237433&aggregateId=domp-p13000023743-0504a4cf-5af6-4bb1-b793-d8e783049f35&searchTerm=Deflin%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Kendall%20%20%20%20%20%20%20H&listNameOrder=DEFLINKENDALLH%20P130000237433

---

I was ready to post, but just found the following, not sure how it may or may not fit in: https://dietrolldie.com/2013/05/20/malibu-media-claims-fabrication-of-evidence-and-seeks-sanctions-212-cv-02078-pa/#comment-14107

I'll interpret your reply as an ostensibly intentional veiled admission that you could not answer the question. So I will proceed to explain the sort of theoretical analysis that I was interested in discussing in the thread that the "forum-Hitler" Gmaxwell nuked.

---

Tangentially note the disclaimer that I wrote in the OP of the thread which was nuked:


I had written in that nuked and vaporized thread a post (my last or nearly last post in that nuked thread) which explained that at the moment I wrote that quoted OP, I had been mislead by sloppy writing on the news sites (and also the linked sites of the protagonists) into thinking that the hash of the Sartre text was already confirmed. For example, I provided this quote:


Being at is was by that time late in the evening for my timezone and I had been awake roughly 18 hours already, and I was skimming in an attempt to make some quick feedback on this potentially important event, so I could return to my work asap. In the nuked thread, I quickly realized that the Sartre text hadn't been verified to match the hash, so I actually stopped posting in the nuked thread for a few hours. Then when I came back to thread, it didn't exist so I could no longer follow up or read what had been elucidated. Thus note my original focus was on how the hell could Craig have achieved that match, so he must have broken the hash. I had recalled that I had theoretically doubts about the double hashing which I had never bothered to discuss with anyone. It had been 2+ years since I did that research on cryptographic hash functions, so I had to decide if I was going to go dig back into that research or not. I figured I'd sleep on it and then be able to think with a clearer, rested mind about the implications of the revelation (to me) that the hash had not been verified to match the text because the portion of the text had not been sufficiently specified (again the "undisclosed" term didn't make sense to me in quick skimming because I had read on the blog that the Sartre text was referred to).

But instead of being able to sleep on it and then decide whether to let it go or dig back into my past research, my thread was nuked and I was under attack. Remember I don't back down from anyone when I think I am justified. When I think I am wrong, I mea culpa.

---

So now back to the subject matter of whether double hashing could theoretically lead to any weakening of the second preimage and/or collision security of the SHA-256 cryptographic hash function.

Afaik, there is no research on this question. If anyone is aware of any, please kindly inform me.

First I will note the Merkle–Damgård construction (which SHA-256 employs) is subject to numerous generic attacks (https://ehash.iaik.tugraz.at/wiki/GenericAttacksMerkleDamgaard) and even though afaik none of these are currently known to be a practical threat against a single hash of SHA-256, we can perhaps look to those generic attacks for potential clues as to what a double-hashing might enable which a single-hash application perhaps might not.

Note in the pseudo-code for SHA-256 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2#Pseudocode) that what distinguishes a double-hashing from doubling rounds (i.e. "Compression function main loop:") or repeating the input text in double the block chunks (i.e. "Process the message in successive 512-bit chunks:"), is that the h0 - h8 compression function state which is normally orthogonal to the input block chunks instead gets transmitted as input to a block chunk in the second hash application (i.e. "Produce the final hash value (big-endian):") after being added to the output of the compression function (i.e. "Add the compressed chunk to the current hash value:"). And the h0 - h8 compression function state is reset to a constant (i.e. "Initialize hash values:").

The reason I think this might be theoretically significant is because we should note that the way cryptographic hash functions are typically broken is by applying differential cryptanalysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_cryptanalysis). Differential cryptanalysis is attempting to find some occurrence of (even higher order (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_differential_cryptanalysis)) differences between inputs that occurs with more frequent probability than a perfectly uniform distribution. In essence, differential cryptanalysis is leveraging some recurrent structure of the confusion and diffusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_and_diffusion#Definition) and avalanche effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_effect) of the algorithm.

Not only does the double-hashing introduce a constant  h0 - h8 midstream thus introducing a known recurrent structure into the middle of the unified algorithm of a double-hashing, but it shifts the normally orthogonal compression function state to the input that it is designed supposed to be orthogonal to. On top of that, the additions of the h0 - h8 state at the midpoint, can possibly mean the starting state of the midpoint is known to have a higher probability of zeros in the least significant bits (LSBs). This last sentence observation comes from some research I did when I created a much higher bandwidth design variant of Berstein's ChaCha by fully exploiting AVX2 SIMD, that was for a specific purpose of creating a faster memory hard proof-of-work function. In that research, I had noted the following quote of an excerpt in my unfinished, rough draft, unpublished white paper written in late 2013 or early 2014 (and kindly note that the following might have errors because it was not reviewed for publishing and was merely notes for myself on my research understanding at that time 2+ years ago):


So now put those aforementioned insights about potential recurrent structure at the midpoint of the double-hashing, together with the reality that a Boomerang attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_attack) is a differential cryptoanalysis that employs a midpoint in a cipher to form new attacks that weren't plausible on the full cipher. Bingo!

I'll refrain from providing my further insights on specifics beyond this initial sharing. Why? Because I've been treated like shit by Gmaxwell and you all here grant him too much Hitler-esque control over the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum where these sort of discussions are supposed to occur, so I will take my toys else where. Enjoy your echo chamber.

Do I have an attack against Bitcoin's double-hashing? I leave that for you to ponder.

I asked you to not do what you just did above:

---

The point is that with a supercomputer together with a new cryptoanalysis break, the two together might be required to accomplish the attack. I want you to know that if China's pools see nearly all the mining shares, then they are viewing about 2⁶⁸ of SHA-256 hashing power per annum which may or may not be fulcrum. Don't presume you know all the theoretical attacks that are possible.


You've made at least two mathematically illiterate errors in that quoted text:

1. Testing that double-hashing fulfills some criteria you have prechosen, says nothing about security against cryptoanalysis which your criteria has not considered.
2. Securing a password by iterated hashing (because it requires the dictionary attacker to perform the iteration cost on each dictionary trial) says nothing about the increased vulnerability of collision cryptanalysis. You are conflating two separate issues of security.  ::)

I am done speaking to these amateurs. Waste of my time.

Thank you so much. Now that you're gone perhaps we can get back on topic and talk about Kleiman.


Looks like there is one in each command and one overall winner.

https://www.army.mil/article/156980/

To make it clear in case it wasn't enough, I won't be replying to Foxpop again.

FYI truce, I will cease & desist:

What does CSW say right here? https://youtu.be/LdvQTwjVmrE?t=2140

He also talks about Tulips and how their price rose.  What if that a metaphor for Bitcoin price rising? Maybe some kind of signal to everyone? Maybe his supercomputer can manipulate the markets...I don't see why not!

Thats your good right, to believe what you like.
In my estimation, I am at least not lying much more than the average.
But its hard to quantify, I cannot proof anything.


Why that?
Because you will pass me an ass-kick in the supermarket? No, thanks, I dont like.
Or because you will go to tell everywhere, that I am a liar and not proving it too not? I dont like too not.
Its the what you seem to be intentioned to do with your menaceing attitude.

Its not an obligation, to post here revealing public any personal data.

Do you know, what a stalker is?
Its because of the stalkers, what have nothing to do than to run the whole day after the people to pester their existance. Its an illness.

And thats a reason, why it is better to keep the identity in the unknown. Other good reasons exist too. Ever heard something about an agency named NSA? And an individual named Edward Snowden? Ever thought about all the others, what make the same? Do you like to get radiated by Google in every wrinkle of the asshole? Thats why some mean its clevermore, not to walk around with the trousers down.


Why do you mean you have to command around at all and to bark at me as an imperator?
Do you confuse yourself with Hulk, the Shrek of the little girls, or what?


As for my name, I confess, its a ly. But its a poetical ly as all the poets do always forcely. Are you accusing Shakespeare too of being a liar, because the story of Hamlet isnt true? Its another poetical ly.
No poetry without poetical ly. Not even a novel without poetical ly. Its an artist-name, not a ly. I could explain it to you in every detail, inspite of the artist-rule, of never explaining the own artworks.

But I cannot. Because I can upload my avatar only getting a full member. And I need the avatar to explain the name, there is a figurative explication. Its a riddle, if you can crack it, you are a real crack. But I warn you: Its difficult more than the riddle of Rumpelstiltskin of Grimms, and the cryptographic competiency is useless. Its difficult as much, that I suppose, it is impossible to guess. But thats what Rumpelstiltskin said too. And I will not get furious as Rumpelstiltskin and stamp with the foot as much that the earth is getting divided, if you find out. I will give you the first and only hint: the artist-name is an artwork, the avatar is an artwork, but the explication is not. Its the blank, sober, bonedry, boring truth. Then, you will be forced to admit, that I am not a liar. At least not always.


I dont understand, that.
What do you mean?
And why do you write some letters capitalized?
And should i relate this statement somehow to me?


Oh..
Good morning, how are you?

Ah..
I see you are awake some time.
Excellent mood, as usual? ;D


BTW:
Dont bark at me, then I will not make a cabaret. I certainly will not produce with you virtually, what is getting called in the real life the yelling-around. If you bark, you make me scream of laughter.
LOL
Like that, thats as with the dog of Pawlow. Its a reaction, what is stronger than me. At least, the sarcasm, what then follows forcely too, is actually acid quasi-zero. I hope, you understand some humour, its not funny else, I know, sorry for that. At the beginning, I wasnt offending you, I only was stateing, that you are off-topic. And I was saying it polite..
Well I see, you are active. Looks out important, but looks out off-topic again. I will not repeat my opinion about, you know it. And not even if I would, I could talk with you about this materia reasonable. I miss some concepts, of what you will talk. I wish you anyway a constructive and fruitful day and hope you find the people, what can talk with you in a way, what ends not in the yelling around.

Well its late..
.. its me, what is going now to bed.

Good night. ;D

PS:
One last question: Your artist name of TPTB_need_war has an aggressive denotation, is it program, the aggressive comportment? But be aware, saying yes, I will push the ignore button, we will thereafter never nomore be able to exchange our jokes.

Yes, it seems like there are multiple recipients of the award specific to each command. Prior to 2002 the Best Warrior competition didn't exist, so it isn't clear if there was an overall Soldier of the Year. I certainly haven't found any reference to one.

Yeah i read something the other day about this, its interesting i must look it up again.

Within 30 minutes or so of the story breaking:


Looks like a good call to me.

http://financial-advisors.credio.com/l/56219/Andrew-Kleinman

https://i.imgur.com/H1eI0jU.jpg

Now that's a trust!

Do you wonder where Andrew Kleiman has his office?

https://i.imgur.com/m7MauEK.jpg


What are the odds... Ah, fuck it! I'll just cut to the chase and answer the [incomplete] rhetorical question - 100%.

First the setup: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/au/2560


http://web.archive.org/web/20031203213625/http://www.securitybreachresponse.com/nm/contact/contact.asp

https://i.imgur.com/A6R3JOP.jpg

Here was Global Trust's original address (perhaps not relevant): http://web.archive.org/web/20120302225123/http://www.gbltrust.com/contact

https://i.imgur.com/5Um7Fec.jpg

https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.aspx?domain=gbltrust.com&prog_id=GoDaddy&k=N91EefNRsSsSiZpPh%20TIvsLLyIvLQ5R5bTRTCdfi%2ftL2pD1XJ0LsRSg2eCcrDFT3


http://seclists.org/basics/2003/Sep/970


http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cavp/documents/skipjack/skipval.html

https://i.imgur.com/D9oyjcr.jpg

What about this connection to 'sathoshi'  and demorgan. https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/the-name-satoshi-comes-from-satoshi-david-character-from-the-house-of-morgan-t7619.html

I've been making myself the same question lately. All those news on the media, and no one of them had the decency to talk about Dave Kleiman which could have been a really important person behind this, to the point that I think all of Craig has was given/stolen from Kleiman.
This is better than any movie i've ever seen, let's see how things develop.

Click to the word "Quote" read more:

Andrew Kleiman of Global Trust occupying an office in the same building as his brother Dave once did, never mentioned the passing of David Kleiman, his brother: https://www.facebook.com/AndyLKleinman

Andrew's partner, Edward T. Holt, Jr, passed away on March 8, 2016: http://www.lehmanreen.com/obits/printpdf.php?oid=670753&cs=f38bfa76293844dc0fa1aa66d9be8fd9&ap=1

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Global-Trust-Asset-Management/162840640406265

https://i.imgur.com/Fl5fjT7.jpg

227 Accounts.
U$120M in total assets.
1 Review by its founder: Andrew Kleiman
Maybe Global Trust will eventually get around to letting its account holders that one of its principals has passed away.

This is not just a tax scam, but it looks definitely like a PSYOP. Why core developers are not discussing this issue (edit: in public)?

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=GLOBALTRUSTASSETMANAGEMENT%20L070000058830&aggregateId=flal-l07000005883-9204944d-0ab2-4b92-9087-49cb3e4f0864&searchTerm=Global%20Trust&listNameOrder=GLOBALTRUST%20L060000967760

https://i.imgur.com/2f0oeVK.jpg

The top four still open, but the bottom six do not, albeit they did yesterday. I'm now met with (e.g.): http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2012%5C0104%5C16032399.tif&documentNumber=L07000005883

https://i.imgur.com/7lZQgpN.jpg

Same true for the first (bottom) entry here: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=OfficerRegisteredAgentName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=VARGAALEXIA%20P130000290652&aggregateId=domp-p13000029065-797599de-fe44-4da1-8ea0-df2fe8c5bff0&searchTerm=Varga%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Alexia&listNameOrder=VARGAALEXIA%20L100000676801

What about this connection to ira: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4ifqgn/ira_kleiman_dave_kleimans_brother_has_shares_in_a/

Like I said, some pages are no longer accessible today (mentioned within the above link), but were yesterday. At this penning I'm not sure if I took any screenshots (if I had, they would've been published - no hold backs).

I wasn't really looking, but I noticed the following:

http://venkman.media.mit.edu/classes/mas100/students/kleiman.jennifer/ <- note Kleiman

on the page

http://web.archive.org/web/20041206094517/http://www.vaughn.perling.com/joseph/wedding/wedding.html

linked from

http://web.archive.org/web/20050323134911/http://www.vaughn.perling.com/joseph/index.html

You'd need a plausible explanation for the discrepancy in last name - Kleiman/Kleinman.

Sounds something like "...and will be releasing some papers next year."

He is a part in bitcoin creation, so little talks about him. According to a month long Gizmodo investigation published yesterday, Kleiman may also have been deeply involved with Bitcoin.

Motherfucker! How the hell did I not see that?

I'm gonna do some double checking, but I'll offer up an earnest apology beforehand. It was not my intent to mislead in this regard.

Thanks, j, and BTW, this link's broken: http://venkman.media.mit.edu/classes/mas100/students/kleiman.jennifer/

EDIT: Looks like I got this wrong as well: https://www.facebook.com/AndyLKleinman

If I'm wrong about that, then it's highly possible that I'm .100% wrong about Leroy Fodor - NOT!

No worries... I never question your intent, b.


Yeah... not trying to claim anything, I just found it curious. Frankly, by the time you spool up on a topic, you're typically finding all sorts of connections that I can't tell are related or absolute coincidence. I just scratch my head, wondering where the thread is to be found.

The name is too similar to Kleiman, combined with having an office at the same address, to be entirely ignored. Maybe they're cousins?

Edit: Well maybe it's coincidence, it's a big building, and the offices you're looking at are 15 stories apart.

Let's just chalk this one up to coincidence.

Good read... Better analysis than most.  Brings the human factor into focus.  http://blog.earthbenign.com/post/143966444120/dr-craig-wright-very-well-could-be-satoshi

nice quote

This is what happens if you assign a job for more than one people and more than one people are required to accomplish that job.
Accountability is the key for completion of job.

"One people" should be "one person", ergo echoing your sentiment - it takes two to complete a job correctly taking into account accountability. But who's counting?

i think people forget about him because he was died in 2013,and its proven that people forget about what was not exist in this century,i just know him as a noted Forensic Computer Investigator,but i dont see any article about him related with bitcoin.

Thanks to the sig campaign which Boosterious belongs to, his informative post above about events in the last century counts toward the required minimum posts for him to get paid in this century.

Satoshi is Back, suggests Fortune ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4575874.0

~ Tells Hal ... "God speed. Save me a seat at the table" ... ?!?   :o

Galactic Tax Hole
- https://youtu.be/PQjgMF_20dE

It Isn't Easy Being A Cop
- https://youtu.be/CdULDIFU0EY

And still, it is about W&K, Wright and Kleiman. Why W was leading here in char sequence?

Kleiman was the 'quiet' thinker part I guess, the filter & advisor brain.

CSW is the offensive doer with the ideas (still!),  hands on and 'noisy'. This many ppl don't like...

Very sad he died, BitCoin got derailed...