|
Title: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 03, 2016, 08:22:31 PM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word?
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: kiklo on May 04, 2016, 12:48:48 AM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? If it tanks BTC, I will actually buy a bunch of BTC and immediately buy my favorite ALTS with it, since it will decrease their price verses FIAT. :D But I have more faith in my favorite Alt than BTC , no matter what happens with Wright. 8) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: yelllowsin on May 04, 2016, 12:58:29 AM Quote Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them hahah this guy is so funny lol. He doesn't need to move any coin to prove it, just sign the fcking message if he has the prive keys :D. The excuse he gave for not moving the coins was because they were held by a "trust" is just hilarious. He must think everyone here is such a noob on crypto lmao Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on May 04, 2016, 01:38:04 AM So it's a hoax then?
You know, I don't think the market has priced in Satoshi's block as infinitely unspendable. I think it's quite the reverse, but my level of certainty isn't high on this one and it will definitely be interesting to see what happens. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Za1n on May 04, 2016, 06:48:59 AM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? I believe the claimed amount of coins Satoshi holds is somewhere around 600-700k of BTC. While this is a lot of coins, with the upcoming halving of the mining subsidy, from 25 coins/block to 12.5 coins/block, the supply hitting the market will be reduced by roughly 1,800 BTC/day, which works out to 657,000 BTC/year. This would pretty much would erase the effects of any mass dumping within a year. While this may be catastrophic for some people, it would by no means be the end of Bitcoin and within a year or two it would be stronger then ever as the sword of Damascus would have finally be lifted away. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Ayers on May 04, 2016, 06:59:19 AM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? I believe the claimed amount of coins Satoshi holds is somewhere around 600-700k of BTC. While this is a lot of coins, with the upcoming halving of the mining subsidy, from 25 coins/block to 12.5 coins/block, the supply hitting the market will be reduced by roughly 1,800 BTC/day, which works out to 657,000 BTC/year. This would pretty much would erase the effects of any mass dumping within a year. While this may be catastrophic for some people, it would by no means be the end of Bitcoin and within a year or two it would be stronger then ever as the sword of Damascus would have finally be lifted away. i've read from other member that he have only 200-300k not anything near that crazy amount, but still enough to cause a panic selling fest, 200k is a lot of coins, but my question is, why he would dump now when he did not dump before at $1200, so i'm not worried about him dunping now Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Dekker3D on May 04, 2016, 07:28:04 AM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? I believe the claimed amount of coins Satoshi holds is somewhere around 600-700k of BTC. While this is a lot of coins, with the upcoming halving of the mining subsidy, from 25 coins/block to 12.5 coins/block, the supply hitting the market will be reduced by roughly 1,800 BTC/day, which works out to 657,000 BTC/year. This would pretty much would erase the effects of any mass dumping within a year. While this may be catastrophic for some people, it would by no means be the end of Bitcoin and within a year or two it would be stronger then ever as the sword of Damascus would have finally be lifted away. i've read from other member that he have only 200-300k not anything near that crazy amount, but still enough to cause a panic selling fest, 200k is a lot of coins, but my question is, why he would dump now when he did not dump before at $1200, so i'm not worried about him dunping now He could sell at the peak of the price hike once halving hits. Or maybe he lost/forgot the key :) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 04, 2016, 07:42:59 AM Quote Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them hahah this guy is so funny lol. He doesn't need to move any coin to prove it, just sign the fcking message if he has the prive keys Quote from: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609812 Something is weird. He provided a message and a signature, but there's nothing in the message to indicate that he signed it himself, or when it was signed. It could have been signed months or years ago and there's no way to prove otherwise. To understand what is really going on, you need to read carefully what Craig Wright has always said and continues to reiterate: In his initial blog post (http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-significance/), Wright noted that “Satoshi is dead... but this is only the beginning.” He also said that he would follow up with a more detailed mathematical explanation for the revelation. Now, the world will likely have to wait for “the coming days”—however long that may be—for more clues. If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi. I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t. Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi, Satoshi is dead. But this is only the beginning. You need to remember that Craig Wright has never claimed he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Instead, he has claimed that his former colleague (who died) was Satoshi. He claims he was backing his colleague's the development of Bitcoin. This Australian Says He and His Dead Friend Invented Bitcoin http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--WLx04Ojj--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/m3jez3cux3tn2alwv11j.png Quote from: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hq3rz/david_kleiman_craig_wrights_friend_more_likely/ David Kleiman, Craig Wright's friend more likely Satoshi Nakamoto OK so this might get a little meandering but I keep finding tidbits of David Kleiman's life that makes him a far more likely candidate for Satoshi than Wright. So here are some in no specific order. Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key: The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed. Realize that he has probably promised to endorse Andresen's block chain scaling preferences and thus probably why Gavin wants him to be Satoshi: Andresen’s only attempt at an explanation for Wright’s bizarre behavior, he says, is an ambivalence about definitively revealing himself after so many years in hiding. “I think the most likely explanation is that … he really doesn’t want to take on the mantle of being the inventor of Bitcoin,” says Andresen, who notes that his own credibility is at stake, too. “Maybe he wants things to be really weird and unclear, which would be bad for me.” That uncertainty, Andresen says, seemed to be evident in Wright’s manner at the time of their demonstration. Andresen describes Wright as seeming “sad” and “overwhelmed” by the decision to come forward. “His voice was breaking. Remember that after his death, David Kleiman's family recovered his USB flash drive and gave it to Craig Wright. Thus likely Craig Wright may have an unpublished transaction but not the actual private key. So he may be about to fool the world into thinking he is Satoshi, or making some proof that he was the man behind the man who was the real Satoshi. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 04, 2016, 08:01:41 AM Remember that after his death, David Kleiman's family recovered his USB flash drive and gave it to Craig Wright. You present this as a fact, it is not but let's pretend this is true, sure the markets can't ignore the possession of a large stash of Bitcoins by one man, the coins that are thought to be lost, and there will be a dump if only temporary. How can this affect the alts market, can the alts market finally disconnect from the price of Bitcoin, loosen the correlation? Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 04, 2016, 08:19:33 AM No - what Craig did was grab an existing signature used by Satoshi and pretend he had created it to sign a document by Sartre (which is fraud and even Gavin is not sure what on earth to make of that). And he *is* claiming to be Satoshi (which is why he asked Gavin to come and *verify* his claim). Also - why are you posting the exact same thing in multiple topics? Re-read my post, you didn't seem to understand it. Craig has not said he is Satoshi. Find a quote where he said that. You won't. He has always said it was his colleague. And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology. ::) I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics. I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics. It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course). And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would have told Gavin it was his friend and not him). You are just butthurt. It is very relevant. Craig has played Gavin. He knows Gavin needs support for his preferences for the block scaling debate. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: kiklo on May 04, 2016, 08:31:50 AM Want to see something Funny:
Satoshi Nakamoto (Urban Translation) (Japanese Translation) (Japanese Translation) (Urban Translation) Sato SHI Naka moto To Fake Out Death Inside Motivator http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sato http://www.kanjijapanese.com/en/dictionary-japanese-english/shi Also included under Shi 6. shi-aie- CIA 7. shi-aie- Central Intelligence Agency http://www.kanjijapanese.com/en/dictionary-japanese-english/Naka http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moto Never let it be said the Clowns In Action (CIA), don't have a sense of humor. ;) 8) FYI: Oh Crap, who is that at the door? Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: r0ach on May 04, 2016, 10:40:28 AM Makes more sense for Satoshi Nakamoto to be an anagram of four people. There's no telling what the Craight Wright thing is. Might just be western intelligence trying to hijack bitcoin since Wright seems to have some govt ties. Wasn't Craight Wright writing a book the same timie he was supposedly making Bitcoin? Who the hell can create Bitcoin and a book at the same time?
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: bitbitch on May 04, 2016, 11:35:58 AM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? I believe the claimed amount of coins Satoshi holds is somewhere around 600-700k of BTC. While this is a lot of coins, with the upcoming halving of the mining subsidy, from 25 coins/block to 12.5 coins/block, the supply hitting the market will be reduced by roughly 1,800 BTC/day, which works out to 657,000 BTC/year. This would pretty much would erase the effects of any mass dumping within a year. While this may be catastrophic for some people, it would by no means be the end of Bitcoin and within a year or two it would be stronger then ever as the sword of Damascus would have finally be lifted away. the timing of Wright's move right before the halving is the most interesting part of this story. he and his associates are up to something. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: SwedishGirl on May 04, 2016, 11:38:55 AM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? I believe the claimed amount of coins Satoshi holds is somewhere around 600-700k of BTC. While this is a lot of coins, with the upcoming halving of the mining subsidy, from 25 coins/block to 12.5 coins/block, the supply hitting the market will be reduced by roughly 1,800 BTC/day, which works out to 657,000 BTC/year. This would pretty much would erase the effects of any mass dumping within a year. While this may be catastrophic for some people, it would by no means be the end of Bitcoin and within a year or two it would be stronger then ever as the sword of Damascus would have finally be lifted away. the timing of Wright's move right before the halving is the most interesting part of this story. he and his associates are up to something. I agree, the whole timing of this is quite interesting. I am also inclined to think that Wright knew who Satoshi was and that the real Satoshi is probably dead. Otherwise why bother with the whole thing if the real Satoshi can just go "I am not Craig Wright". Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 04, 2016, 02:19:08 PM If Wright is Satoshi and we know from his interview he is a large blocker, the timing is right to take control of Bitcoin from Blockstream and give it back to the community.
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: alyssa85 on May 04, 2016, 03:50:47 PM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? He'll move them extremely slowly - remember he has capital gains tax to pay if and when he sells them, so it will be in tiny amounts. So I don't think the Bitcoin market will tank as a result. The biggest threat to bitcoin is not this chap moving his coins. It's the increasingly toxic civil war they were having before he surfaced, and which is still going on. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Red-Apple on May 04, 2016, 03:58:57 PM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? your information is just mis-information. first of all he is not satoshi until he proves it, so stop calling him that name. he is just someone who claims to be satoshi and we have yet to see if her is telling the truth or not. second he never said i am going to move 1 million coins, he said coins from early blocks. early blocks can be #10 or #500 for all i know this will be like him signing a message! Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: mobnepal on May 04, 2016, 04:00:22 PM Price for most of the altcoins are related to market price of bitcoin so whatever we may see rise of altcoin price in terms of bitcoin, if we calculate price of those coins in USD it will be in same range as before. So the only coin that may get benifited from this move will be ethereum or other coins which have coin-USD pairs in trading platform.
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 04, 2016, 04:13:05 PM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? your information is just mis-information. first of all he is not satoshi until he proves it, so stop calling him that name. he is just someone who claims to be satoshi and we have yet to see if her is telling the truth or not. second he never said i am going to move 1 million coins, he said coins from early blocks. early blocks can be #10 or #500 for all i know this will be like him signing a message! 1. I never said he is Satoshi. "Satoshi" is not Satoshi. Idk if he is Satoshi. In my imagination he is a good fit, not perfect but decent to pass for Satoshi. I don't know why some are not happy with his personality, he's a human and looks like a guy with the right knowledge and a mysterious twist to do what he claims he did. You're right that his claims are meaningless without proof. 2. I never said he needs to move 1 million coins, moving one satoshi from an early block will send a powerful message to the market. It's believed by many that Satoshi owns 1 million coins mined in 2009. Proof of access to coins of the early blocks that have never moved and priced in by the market to never move in the future will affect the price. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 04, 2016, 04:15:25 PM Price for most of the altcoins are related to market price of bitcoin so whatever we may see rise of altcoin price in terms of bitcoin Thus far this has been true. Past performance is not an indication of future performance, specially with so much news coming. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Red-Apple on May 04, 2016, 04:25:08 PM ....snip..... 1. I never said he is Satoshi. "Satoshi" is not Satoshi. Idk if he is Satoshi. In my imagination he is a good fit, not perfect but decent to pass for Satoshi. I don't know why some are not happy with his personality, he's a human and looks like a guy with the right knowledge and a mysterious twist to do what he claims he did. You're right that his claims are meaningless without proof. we are not happy with his actions because he has a bad history littered with Quote 2. I never said he needs to move 1 million coins, moving one satoshi from an early block will send a powerful message to the market. It's believed by many that Satoshi owns 1 million coins mined in 2009. Proof of access to coins of the early blocks that have never moved will affect the price. i agree that moving even 1 satoshi from the early blocks that were mined by satoshi can cause some kind of panic but it has to be the early blocks not coins that were sent from satoshi's wallet to others as test and/or giveaway. i have read a good theory here, that said "he might have access to a signed transaction that was signed back in 2009 by satoshi but was never send to the network, so he wants to broadcast that now and claim that "I" have moved the coins. this sound to me like the most possible thing in case he moves, and that would explain why he wants to move coins instead of signing a message. EDIT: sorry for using the wrong word here. in order not to be sheepish i change it to the correct term. :D not a scammer but a criminal running from the law (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4htw3t/how_to_steal_54_millions_of_dollar_from_the/) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: jjacob on May 04, 2016, 04:29:54 PM Price for most of the altcoins are related to market price of bitcoin so whatever we may see rise of altcoin price in terms of bitcoin Thus far this has been true. Past performance is not an indication of future performance, specially with so much news coming. There is no fundamental reason for this correlation to break. Only when you have a really new idea like Ethereum is there some change. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 04, 2016, 04:38:13 PM we are not happy with his actions because he has a bad history littered with scams. but the one that concerns us is his "claim" to be satoshi and yet not releasing any proof (signed message) about his identity to public. Releasing a signed message dated May 2016 to the public would not be a 100% proof he is Satoshi either and wouldn't erase the history of what you call "scams". You must be talking about the key cypher that wasn't added to PGP and such, as I am not aware of actual facts that he scammed someone out of money, you have links? These inconsistencies in the past can be attributed to the fact he was trying to hide his involvement as real Satoshi by giving falsified evidence on purpose to make believe he is not Satoshi after his emails had been hacked (yeah, it could be this complicated), up to the point where it's not possible. I wouldn't read too much into these inconsistencies as impossibility for him to be real Satoshi. You don't dislike a person for his love for privacy even he falsified evidence with the purpose to remain unidentified, this is his right, it's not a scam. You actually aware of real scams he did? The real scam as in stealing someone's money, this would be the only thing that would go completely opposite to what Satoshi's invention stands for. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Red-Apple on May 04, 2016, 05:15:22 PM i don't know what you are talking about but when i say past scams i am talking about the $54 million and the tax fraud and the Australian Tax office raiding his home.
this guy did a nice job compiling the story on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4htw3t/how_to_steal_54_millions_of_dollar_from_the/) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 04, 2016, 05:28:35 PM i don't know what you are talking about but when i say past scams i am talking about the $54 million and the tax fraud and the Australian Tax office raiding his home. this guy did a nice job compiling the story on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4htw3t/how_to_steal_54_millions_of_dollar_from_the/) It's tax rebate money. You sheepishly don't make a difference between stealing someone's property and receiving back your belongings from violent thugs? The former is a scam. The latter that you linked to is restoring justice and perfectly in line with the spirit of Bitcoin. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: btcxyzzz on May 04, 2016, 07:39:37 PM If that happens, Bitcoin sinks, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: stoat on May 04, 2016, 07:42:56 PM Craig wright is not satoshi.
Nick Szabo is satoshi. Craig wright is a tosser Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: ICOcountdown.com on May 04, 2016, 09:34:21 PM He is not satoshi.
https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170 https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 04, 2016, 11:10:27 PM He is not satoshi. https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170 https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md That is a jumbled analysis which doesn't explain well the situation. I already explained it more clearly: Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key: The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed. And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology. ::) Let me unpack that more for n00bs. The point is that every Bitcoin signature signs the hash (of a hash) of the transaction. And so if someone can create two transactions that have the same hash, then one can use the same signature for both, i.e. no need to have the private key to generate a new signature. What Craig did was reuse an existing signature from the block chain which is attributed to Satoshi, and supplied it as the signature for a new transactions. Specifically the new transaction is some text written by Sartre but the key point is that normally it should impossible to find a new set of data which can generate the same hash, because of the preimage resistance security property (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Properties) of the SHA256 cryptographic hash function. Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/) in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so infinitesimally small that it is unlikely. That Craig didn't create a new signature is indicative that he does not hold Satoshi's private keys, if we can find some other explanation for how he broke the preimage security of SHA256. That is why I offered the supercomputer information, because I remember that Craig had used his claim he was close to Satoshi in order to garnish government funding which enabled him to assemble the most powerful supercomputer in Australia. It is very unlikely that Craig is Satoshi, and instead it appears he was on the scene very early when Bitcoin was launched: Quote from: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hq3rz/david_kleiman_craig_wrights_friend_more_likely/d2s154u What I'm expecting to happen next is that Wright is going to move some early coins (or produce a signature from some early coins) some time soon, but this is only going to fuel the speculation even more because it won't be a definitive proof from a GPG key or a genesis block. I'm guessing the reason why Wright will be able to do this is because he found out about Bitcoin from Kleiman from the cryptography mailing lists (which we know Kleiman was a member of.) We already know that he mined coins early on so it won't be that much of a surprise when he moves coins. But as has already been pointed out by other people -- this also doesn't prove anything -- since Bitcoin was released -publicly- anyone could have mined those coins (or he could have simply purchased access to the private keys of any early block.) If I had to speculate: I'd say that in all likelihood neither of them are Satoshi. Kleiman's work was on digital forensics which means he was focused on doing things like scrubbing memory dumps for meta-data to find files pointers and then using them to find hidden files on disk. It would have required fairly low level programming to write the tools needed to do this (so its plausible Kleiman had the skills to code something like Bitcoin but still highly unlikely given how expertly the original source code was – so I'd be surprised if the person(s?) who created Bitcoin didn't have a background in software.) Consider that Forensics is also quite a specialized field and that a person participating in it wouldn't necessarily have needed to know anything about digital signatures to do their work. Hashcash-style proof-of-work in that regard is even more esoteric and I'd expect to see a lot more interest in general cryptography (and economics) if Kleiman was actually Satoshi. But if you look at what he replies to -- he's only really interested in forensics and talking about his own work. I think it's far more likely that the two of them were early adopters / miners who were intimately associated with Satoshi in some way (possibly they corresponded at some point via email like a lot of people at the time) but weren't actually Satoshi themselves. My profile for Satoshi is a lot closer to the group of people currently involved in the Bitcoin-space, to be honest: people who find cryptography interesting (but aren't necessarily cryptographers) and enjoy programming (but aren't necessarily "software engineers" by trade.) This would make a lot more sense since all the pieces needed to produce Bitcoin were in place for years before it was invented: digital signatures, hash functions, and proof of work – so at the least I'd expect some kind of evidence of an interest in those areas. Tl; dr, I think Wright was just in the right place at the right time and that Kleiman was unlikely to have had the skills, knowledge, or time to have invented something as massive as Bitcoin even being an “expert” in digital forensics. Both Wright and Kleiman strike me as men who were more interested in building up their respective careers as “experts” through academic channels and the press, rather than people who are genuinely passionate enough about economics and crypto to have invented Bitcoin in their spare time. However, what Craig is doing now is very peculiar. He appears to have the confidence to manipulate the entire Bitcoin community, including Gavin Andresen as I had explained my prior posts. Thus it appears to me he may have the support of some very powerful players in the Bitcoin ecosystem, even perhaps the government or the national security agencies. Re-read my post, you didn't seem to understand it. Craig has not said he is Satoshi. Find a quote where he said that. You won't. He has always said it was his colleague. Listen to the first few minutes of the BBC interview http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36191165 "You're going to show me that Satoshi is you?" Craig - "yes" Remember Craig is a lawyer. Remember how Bill Clinton explained in court what the meaning of 'is' is. Craig has consistently claimed he was backing "the persona behind Satoshi" and was part of a group involved with Satoshi, so the above statement is consistent with that, without him actually being the man who developed the code of Bitcoin with his own fingers. The interviewer did not ask Craig "are you going to prove you are the man who wrote the code of Bitcoin?" which obviously can't be proved nor disproved by any signature since Satoshi did not sign the code of Bitcoin. Is Satoshi after all of Blockstream? Quote I have had no communication with Mr Wright at all, let alone signed anything. I understand that there is some information sheet Wright is giving reporters that specifically attacks me, however! https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hs2ca/can_all_core_developers_confirm_they_havent/ Hey dufus - why don't you look at the BBC article itself: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863 It says: "Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright has publicly identified himself as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto." Where did they get the information from - they got it from Craig Wright - still going to say he hasn't identified himself as being Satoshi? You are quoting what a reporter has said, not what Craig has said. I said find a quote where Craig has claimed his is the man who wrote the code for Bitcoin. You will never find that. Butthurt idiot. Bye. I see you locked your thread again (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459550.msg14748758#msg14748758). You are an emotional basketcase. I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics. It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course). And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would have told Gavin it was his friend and not him). You are just butthurt. It is very relevant. Craig has played Gavin. He knows Gavin needs support for his preferences for the block scaling debate. Butthurt by what exactly? (perhaps due to seeing your same post spammed in every topic?) Don't pretend you've forgotten when you closed the technical thread where we were debating and told me in PM that you never wanted to talk to me again. I don't have time for your melodrama. Bye. 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. 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. 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. 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. Reading this, quite interesting: http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692 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 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... 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 01:38:18 AM Click this quote to read what Gmaxwell and others will respond:
Wholly shit! I am contemplating the possibility that Craig has revealed that who ever created Bitcoin put a backdoor in it! As I already explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14755896#msg14755896), the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities. But note this small detail: Quote from: https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification You'll note that Bitcoin, for reasons known only to Satoshi, takes the signature of hash of a hash to generate the scriptSig. Quoting Ryan: Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context. A cryptographic hash function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Properties) has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value. Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2256 times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack). So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked. It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256. If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash. I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:53:14 AM I have now reviewed your analysis and have concluded you are talking out of your ass. Please provide technical justification. 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. 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). 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? The analysis was provided by others already. The review of that is ongoing here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1461597.msg14756737#msg14756737). You, my friend are peerless; there can be no review of your work. Do you enjoy being a troll? You trolls can eat your words (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1461597.msg14756900#msg14756900) now. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: BTCLovingDude on May 05, 2016, 04:03:56 AM there is no way he is satoshi, he is just playing with us, proving identity is so simple, there is no need for extended arguments about this and there is definitely no need for extremely long comments that nobody reads!
show us signed message then he is satoshi, plain and simple. also even if he moves the coins, nothing bad is going to happen to bitcoin, people will panic and sell and that will only create an opportunity for the whales to buy more cheap coins. and also if anything, it will strengthen bitcoin more because in case of a dump the big question of what will satoshi do with his coins will be solved and there will be a balance in market. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 05:09:26 AM 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: 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. 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: https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md .... Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/) in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so infinitesimally small that it is unlikely. 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 05:16:49 AM there is no way he is satoshi, he is just playing with us, proving identity is so simple, there is no need for extended arguments about this and there is definitely no need for extremely long comments that nobody reads! Simpleton logic is for simpleton losers. You are not considering the game theory. Ok but that's the stuff of reality shows like undercover boss. I would expect Satoshi to be above it. Huh ??? Satoshi was about trustless systems, not reputation. So the only valid answer is in the cryptography. Talk is cheap, show me the code. Satoshi is the ultimate undercover story. The issue here is not whether Craig is really Satoshi (for all we know Satoshi was never a person but rather a working group). Rather this is a battle over concepts and what is the meaning of cryptography in this brave new world. If Bitcoin was planted with a double hash for apparently no reason and it comes to be that it is possible to create undecidability of signatures of user chosen text, this speaks to something about Satoshi. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Ayers on May 05, 2016, 06:52:25 AM i have a theory, i think he said that he is satoshi because gavin asked him to say so, so he can restore the faith on the upcoming changes about bitcoin, i think ti's an attempt to instigate a pump in some way, what do you think?
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 06:58:15 AM Ok but that's the stuff of reality shows like undercover boss. I would expect Satoshi to be above it. Huh ??? Satoshi was about trustless systems, not reputation. So the only valid answer is in the cryptography. Talk is cheap, show me the code. Satoshi is the ultimate undercover story. The issue here is not whether Craig is really Satoshi (for all we know Satoshi was never a person but rather a working group). Rather this is a battle over concepts and what is the meaning of cryptography in this brave new world. If Bitcoin was planted with a double hash for apparently no reason and it comes to be that it is possible to create undecidability of signatures of user chosen text, this speaks to something about Satoshi. Ah I see that I am spot on with where Craig is headed with this. Kudos to myself: http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/05/purported-bitcoin-creator-loses-an-ally-but-says-hell-show-more-proof/ Ostensibly Craig wants to prove that no one can prove they are Satoshi beyond any doubt, while also making it impossible to attack his claims that he was "the man behind the persona of Satoshi" in some form. That is a nebulous statement, as it could even mean he was mining Bitcoin early and thus being one of the testers "behind" the project in some sense. Remember afaik he has never claimed to be the Satoshi who coded Bitcoin. You will never find that direct quote. Rather he has claimed some relationship with Dave Kleiman and that being some important relationship involved in the inception of Bitcoin (perhaps just mining?). Also if it turns out that he does reveal some Sartre text which hashes correctly, then this may implicate the double-hash which then implicates Satoshi, because no one can find any reason for why Satoshi chose double hashing. And I think double hashing is less secure as I explained in the OP. Surely Satoshi knew this also. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: BitcoinHodler on May 05, 2016, 07:03:35 AM altcoins market has always been about the hype and hype alone so i guess even if he doesn't ever prove his identity or even move the coins from the known satoshi blocks (addresses) the altcoin market will use this news to spread FUD and hype up themselves so i am keeping my eyes open to make the most out of this situation ;)
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 08:55:08 AM 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. Wholly shit! I am contemplating the possibility that Craig has revealed that who ever created Bitcoin put a backdoor in it! As I already explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14755896#msg14755896), the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities. But note this small detail: Quote from: https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification You'll note that Bitcoin, for reasons known only to Satoshi, takes the signature of hash of a hash to generate the scriptSig. Quoting Ryan: Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context. A cryptographic hash function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Properties) has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value. Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2256 times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack). So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked. It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256. If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash. I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this. https://i.imgur.com/G4P18ve.png The tweets of this account (https://twitter.com/RealCraigWright) might be worth reading. :D 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. Can someone explain how he signed the 'Satre' quote WITHOUT having to break SHA256 (finding a collision) ? It's pretty important, as if he did do that, Bitcoin is broken. He never used the hash of any Sartre quote (that was just misdirection) - the double hash that he used was simply that used in Satoshi's tx along with the signature that was used in the tx. (basically he just copied and pasted from the blockchain then put together an elaborate pretense that he had somehow managed to sign something else using a private key known to belong to Satoshi) You don't know that he didn't. He hasn't yet revealed which portion of the Sartre text he claims hashes to the same hash. That was what I explained and discussed in the thread I created which Gmaxwell has apparently sent to the ether. You don't know that he didn't. He hasn't yet revealed which portion of the Sartre text he claims hashes to the same hash. That was the point of the thread I created which Gmaxwell has apparently sent to the ether (against forum rules). And you really believe that the double hash of some Sartre document just happens to be identical to the hash of the first (or one of the first) txs in the blockchain? Am guessing you have a very strong belief in the tooth fairy as well. ;) CIYAM I would never work with you as programmer because you aren't very smart. Surely you should understand that the permutation of portions of the Sartre text covers a combinatorial explosion of possible preimages. Craig didn't specify which portion he signed. We can presume that might be forthcoming. He is playing a game with idiots like you. He is playing a game with idiots like you. The only idiot here is you - and I'm glad you keep on posting your belief in this CW guy as it is just going to make you look even more idiotic as it pans out that he is the fraud that he is. I have stated (in the thread that Gmaxwell apparently deleted entirely, that if CW does not reveal the Sartre text that hashes correctly, then he is a fraud. But if he does, then there is something broken in Bitcoin's cryptography. That is why I think Gmaxwell deleted my thread. He apparently doesn't want the truth to be known. Idiot is factual in this context, as evident by your inability to refute my refutation. Idiot is factual in this context, as evident by your inability to refute my refutation. Your ideas about facts are far removed from the rest of the world and are again off-topic (so I am not going to waste my time bothering to refute such off-topic snide remarks from you). You didn't rebut my point that a portion of the Sartre text (and especially if permutation combinations of portions) is a combinatorial explosion of possible preimages and thus your entire claim was erroneous. Now please stop making incorrect statements. Here's another worthwhile article if it hasn't been mentioned before: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/ I rebutted that article in the thread that Gmaxwell deleted and is hiding from the readers. I basically pointed out that until CW reveals which portion of the Sartre text he claims to have signed, we can't conclude anything. Now please stop making incorrect statements. Please name me one single SHA256 collision - idiot! And now work out for me the odds of CW having found such a collision (and it happening to come from whatever Sartre document). The entire point of the thread I created is that the double hashing that Satoshi put in Bitcoin (and nobody knows why) can make the collision resistance twice as bad. SHA256 is already broken for 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds. So thus doubling the hash may have been enough to break it given also that Craig apparently had access to a supercomputer. Dude I am more expert about cryptographic hashes than you are. I designed my own already. I have done a lot of research in that area in 2013. My guess is that you are going to offer your amazing cryptographic hash algo (which I am guessing has been peer reviewed by many experts all over the world) to Bitcoin? Refute the facts in the prior post. Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2 2011 attack breaks preimage resistance for 57 out of 80 rounds of SHA-512, and 52 out of 64 rounds for SHA-256.[1] Pseudo-collision attack against up to 46 rounds of SHA-256.[2] Now explain to the readers Mr. Know-It-All what happens when the hash is doubled. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: cryptohunter on May 05, 2016, 10:22:22 AM I'm sorry for my lack of technical understanding, but if there were a back door in btc.
1. Could this be fixed easily before it could be used in a way to hurt btc? i.e do you need a super computer to utilize this back door? 2. would this same issue be there in all alts that were essentially cloned from btc code or does using a different algo or POS help to nullify this backdoor? I am not sure if you thread was deleted since you didn't receive a PM about it. Does one receive a personal message when a thread is moved? Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 10:33:16 AM I'm sorry for my lack of technical understanding, but if there were a back door in btc. 1. Could this be fixed easily before it could be used in a way to hurt btc? i.e do you need a super computer to utilize this back door? 2. would this same issue be there in all alts that were essentially cloned from btc code or does using a different algo or POS help to nullify this backdoor? I am not sure if you thread was deleted since you didn't receive a PM about it. Does one receive a personal message when a thread is moved? No when a thread is moved they don't receive a PM, but there is no "Moved: ....." thread message remaining the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum. And I also checked Off-topic and it hasn't been moved there afaics. Also normally the link doesn't stop functioning even when it is moved. Clearly Gmaxwell is trying to hide it. Gmaxwell might try to claim he banned me from that sub-forum, yet he had mentioned in our last communications that I am not banned from that forum. And also smooth and I recently posted in the thread in that sub-forum on one of the SegWit threads and afaik my post hadn't been deleted the last time I looked. He didn't just delete my posts in the thread but also posts from several other forum members who posted in that thread. The entire thread has been vaporized afaics. I presume Gmaxwell is formulating his plan now how to try to make me look like a fool. We know what happened the last time he tried to do that, I embarrassed him technically (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378533.msg14035614#msg14035614). What I stated in that thread is that this is all presuming that Craig will be able to tell us which portion of the Sartre text hashes the hash output that was signed as proof on his blog. If Craig doesn't ever do that, then he is a fraud. But if he does it, then it means there is some cryptographic breakage in Bitcoin. And I am identifying the double hash as the greatest potential weakness. 1. The more I think about it, the more I realize that if it is true, then it means who ever can do this, could potentially spend other people's coins. So maybe this is how Craig will spend coins from an early block of Bitcoin (although he might have mined then also depending how early the block is he moves coins from). And the only fix I think would be to have everyone respend their coins with a fixed block chain and fixed wallets. And for lost or inactive coins, they would remain vulnerable. You may or may not need a super computer depending on the cryptographic breakage. I am not sure if an ASIC miner would help or if having access to a miner in China with 30% of Bitcoin's hashrate (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg14757952#msg14757952) would help or be necessary. I can't really speculate on the exact metrics of any cryptographic breakage since this would have I assume required a lot of research on his part. 2. Yes it would apply to clones which copies the double hashing. I repeat this is conjecture that hinges on two speculations: a) That Craig can present the portion of the Sartre text which hashes correctly. b) That the cryptographic breakage that allowed #a, is a break in the SHA256 presumably due to the double hashing. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 11:02:43 AM Can someone explain how he signed the 'Satre' quote WITHOUT having to break SHA256 (finding a collision) ? It's pretty important, as if he did do that, Bitcoin is broken. He never used the hash of any Sartre quote (that was just misdirection) - the double hash that he used was simply that used in Satoshi's tx along with the signature that was used in the tx. (basically he just copied and pasted from the blockchain then put together an elaborate pretense that he had somehow managed to sign something else using a private key known to belong to Satoshi) Even the silly BBC report has been corrected once they finally worked out that they had been tricked. Oh.. I see.. thanks. How can 'big boys' like Gavin and Matonis have fallen for this.. !? That shows very poor skills.. :-[ ( ..too poor if you ask me.. ) 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 11:10:05 AM 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):
Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts. 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) It's likely not a coordinated attack but a manifestation of collective conscience of bitcoin holders who don't want a sell panic to start. Well let them be the last one out the door. Much better they can trample each other on the way out. ;D Quote It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256. Who are you quoting? I never wrote that text. Liars and spin masters rephrase the wording to present someone's argument out-of-context (and delete entire threads where the caveats where disclaimed by myself which you are failing to mention). You should be thankful that you are not banned (yet) due to the amount of spam that you've posted in the recent days. Dude they know they can't ban me. I have too much political clout here. You should be careful with your words. If they do ban me, it will only only make me stronger, because so many people will see the forum as a farce. Besides my posting here on this forum is irrelevant to my work. I donate my time and effort as a public service. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 11:42:25 AM Who are you quoting? I never wrote that text. Yes you did. Either that or you decided to take credit for someone else saying it. (http://archive.is/J9W7q#selection-3225.0-3225.166) Maybe you should go to a doctor and ask for an Alzheimer's screening, considering you've already forgotten something you wrote today.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: Quote It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256. Who are you quoting? I never wrote that text. Liars and spin masters rephrase the wording to present someone's argument out-of-context (and delete entire threads where the caveats where disclaimed by myself which you are failing to mention). 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): What I stated in that thread is that this is all presuming that Craig will be able to tell us which portion of the Sartre text hashes the hash output that was signed as proof on his blog. If Craig doesn't ever do that, then he is a fraud. But if he does it, then it means there is some cryptographic breakage in Bitcoin. And I am identifying the double hash as the greatest potential weakness. 1. The more I think about it, the more I realize that if it is true, then it means who ever can do this, could potentially spend other people's coins. So maybe this is how Craig will spend coins from an early block of Bitcoin (although he might have mined then also depending how early the block is he moves coins from). And the only fix I think would be to have everyone respend their coins with a fixed block chain and fixed wallets. And for lost or inactive coins, they would remain vulnerable. You may or may not need a super computer depending on the cryptographic breakage. I am not sure if an ASIC miner would help or if having access to a miner in China with 30% of Bitcoin's hashrate (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg14757952#msg14757952) would help or be necessary. I can't really speculate on the exact metrics of any cryptographic breakage since this would have I assume required a lot of research on his part. 2. Yes it would apply to clones which copies the double hashing. I repeat this is conjecture that hinges on two speculations: a) That Craig can present the portion of the Sartre text which hashes correctly. b) That the cryptographic breakage that allowed #a, is a break in the SHA256 presumably due to the double hashing. You continue following gmaxwell. He will lead you to failure. 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 Regardless of whether the context is provided, trying to deny you wrote the text is a lie. Granted the meaning changes somewhat when context is provided, however it doesn't change the fact. I denied writing the text without the context. Where is the lie? Are you pulling my words out of my context again! Disingenuous fuckers you all are. I don't understand what this thread's point is. Are you complaining that the staff deleted your post, or just trying to spread your 'facts' around the forum further to cause unnecessary panic? Yeah you don't understand. Probably because you don't want to understand. Enjoy. Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts. 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? Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: x13 on May 05, 2016, 11:50:18 AM From where did you get this information? ::) I read that he wants to make a transaction from an early account. But there are many accounts which probably belong Satoshi. There is now evidence that he will touch this 1 million Bitcoins stake.
The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 05, 2016, 11:55:32 AM From where did you get this information? ::) I read that he wants to make a transaction from an early account. But there are many accounts which probably belong Satoshi. There is now evidence that he will touch this 1 million Bitcoins stake. The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? 2. I never said he needs to move 1 million coins, moving one satoshi from an early block will send a powerful message to the market. It's believed by many that Satoshi owns 1 million coins mined in 2009. Proof of access to coins of the early blocks that have never moved and priced in by the market to never move in the future will affect the price. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: cryptohunter on May 05, 2016, 12:00:54 PM I understand it is only speculation at this point, and perhaps the other explanation you mentioned is more likely.
Is there any other reason there is double hashing? I mean are there known benefits and thus reasons it was employed? It was simply a mystery addition that nobody could justify its existance? If there are no high level tech people here that can explain exactly why it is there then it does seem strange? why was it not questioned before and perhaps removed? So specifically LTC/Doge would be effected too? the algo does not matter ie scrypt is just as vulnerable as sha256 because this same double hashing is present? Are there any other high level programmers here who have looked at the double hashing and have any ideas about it? negative or positive? Hopefully this is not the case and even if it were it is fixable before someone and their super computer or large hash farm can cause any issues. What about ETH is that vulnerable. I mean hopefully even worst case there would be a rush to other non vulnerable cryptos and not everyone bailing on the entire cryto scene. This is why it is always good to have a few different currencies. Some which share practically no similaries so if a whole is found it one then capital can flow to another. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 05, 2016, 12:06:24 PM This is why it is always good to have a few different currencies. Some which share practically no similaries so if a hole is found it one then capital can flow to another. You've nailed down the holy grail of cryptocurrency investing. Thank you. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 12:08:43 PM Wiki says Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik agreed that evidence provided by Wright does not prove anything, and security researcher Dan Kaminsky in his blog concluded Wright's claim was a scam. And Jordan Pearson and Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai said that "Wright simply reused an old signature from a bitcoin transaction performed in 2009 by Satoshi. The Bitcoin maximalists are hiding an important detail from you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1462057.msg14759902#msg14759902 Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: SwedishGirl on May 05, 2016, 12:16:38 PM Wiki says Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik agreed that evidence provided by Wright does not prove anything, and security researcher Dan Kaminsky in his blog concluded Wright's claim was a scam. And Jordan Pearson and Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai said that "Wright simply reused an old signature from a bitcoin transaction performed in 2009 by Satoshi. The Bitcoin maximalists are hiding an important detail from you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1462057.msg14759902#msg14759902 I would call you again a paranoid sociopath, but then you would again complain to the mods to delete my post... Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 12:24:08 PM I understand it is only speculation at this point, and perhaps the other explanation you mentioned is more likely. 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. Is there any other reason there is double hashing? I mean are there known benefits and thus reasons it was employed? It was simply a mystery addition that nobody could justify its existance? 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. If there are no high level tech people here that can explain exactly why it is there then it does seem strange? why was it not questioned before and perhaps removed? Afair it has been questioned and brushed aside as, "only satoshi knows". So specifically LTC/Doge would be effected too? the algo does not matter ie scrypt is just as vulnerable as sha256 because this same double hashing is present? Transaction signing is not related to mining hash algorithm. Are there any other high level programmers here who have looked at the double hashing and have any ideas about it? negative or positive? As far as I know, I am the first to present the potential for decreased collision resistance. I googled and didn't find anything. Hopefully this is not the case and even if it were it is fixable before someone and their super computer or large hash farm can cause any issues. What about ETH is that vulnerable. 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. I mean hopefully even worst case there would be a rush to other non vulnerable cryptos and not everyone bailing on the entire cryto scene. This is why it is always good to have a few different currencies. Some which share practically no similaries so if a whole is found it one then capital can flow to another. 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 12:26:17 PM Wiki says Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik agreed that evidence provided by Wright does not prove anything, and security researcher Dan Kaminsky in his blog concluded Wright's claim was a scam. And Jordan Pearson and Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai said that "Wright simply reused an old signature from a bitcoin transaction performed in 2009 by Satoshi. The Bitcoin maximalists are hiding an important detail from you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1462057.msg14759902#msg14759902 I would call you again a paranoid sociopath, but then you would again complain to the mods to delete my post... Since when is the desire to have freedom-of-speech and open discussion equated with paranoia? Can you look yourself in the mirror and say that allegation with a straight face ??? Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: wpalczynski on May 05, 2016, 12:33:22 PM You got your answer, satoshi my ass... lol
http://www.drcraigwright.net/ Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: SwedishGirl on May 05, 2016, 12:37:09 PM You got your answer, satoshi my ass... lol http://www.drcraigwright.net/ Craig is such a fag. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 12:37:18 PM 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... Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 05, 2016, 12:37:44 PM You got your answer, satoshi my ass... lol http://www.drcraigwright.net/ LOL, back to work :D Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 12:40:33 PM You got your answer, satoshi my ass... lol http://www.drcraigwright.net/ LOL, back to work :D We don't know yet for sure who Craig is working for. This obviously was not done without a purpose. You don't take these huge risk (e.g. of being sued, etc) without a sufficient reason. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: freshman777 on May 05, 2016, 12:41:18 PM You got your answer, satoshi my ass... lol http://www.drcraigwright.net/ LOL, back to work :D We don't know yet for sure who Craig is working for. This obviously was not done without a purpose. Is Matonis a large blocker like Gavin? Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: SwedishGirl on May 05, 2016, 12:41:45 PM 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... It almost looks like he is deliberately making a clown of himself. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 12:43:28 PM You got your answer, satoshi my ass... lol http://www.drcraigwright.net/ LOL, back to work :D We don't know yet for sure who Craig is working for. This obviously was not done without a purpose. You don't take these huge risk (e.g. of being sued, etc) without a sufficient reason. Is Matonis a large blocker like Gavin? Not? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yupa6/philosophy_jon_matonis_extending_transaction_fee/ But they both are key members (control?) the Bitcoin Foundation? What were their positions on Blockstream's SegWit? Matonis is against block chain soft forks that are in SegWit: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/jon-matonis-believes-block-size-debate-precursor-block-reward-debate/ http://bitcoinist.net/bitcoin-industry-leaders-block-size/ Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: wpalczynski on May 05, 2016, 12:58:16 PM I guess there goes your Bitcoin is broken fud theory.
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 01:00:18 PM I guess there goes your Bitcoin is broken fud theory. It might still be technically valid even if Craig isn't availing of such a vulnerability. And I am not yet sure if Craig has quit. He would place himself in greater legal burden by not following through. Asking to have a technical discussion with a question mark and asking readers to please wait for the replies from other experts, hardly constitutes FUD. Please re-read the quote where I specifically stated those caveats from the very start (of course Gmaxwell deleted the thread but we still have my quote of the OP). Remember Monero (not smooth) ignored for a year or more my points about combinatorial unmasking and IP address correlation. Finally now they admit it. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: wpalczynski on May 05, 2016, 01:07:09 PM If what was presented to GA is all BS then there is no basis for even making such an assumption. The thread likely got deleted because of your repeated insults leveled against other posters there, why you never got a notification could be because it was a whole thread that was deleted rather then a single post. I'm not sure if a notification is sent out if a whole thread is deleted, never had one deleted myself.
This certainly makes GA (chief bitcoin scientist?) look pretty gullible. Not sure who that Jon guy is and how he backed CWs claim. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 01:27:25 PM Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts. 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. 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. 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: SwedishGirl on May 05, 2016, 01:49:37 PM Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts. 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. 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. 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. Are you sure you are not Craig Wright? you sound similarly delusional. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:13:25 PM Are you sure you are not Craig Wright? you sound similarly delusional. Are you sure you can understand the technical post to which you are replying? Prove it. ::) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:26:25 PM 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. ::) Think about it - if you were purchasing a domain with your name in the title, why would you register it using an anonymous registrant to hide your name? Forgot to tick-off default option "Protect my privacy for 5.99$ per year" maybe? That's one perfectly plausible explanation :) It couldn't possibly be anything like My guess is wishful thinking. Never change, bitcointalk, never change... http://s32.postimg.org/4kyedmged/Capture.png not really sure where you're going with this. so you're saying that craig can deny his ties to the domain? what would that do? his claims on satoshi's identity were recorded in a video. Not suggesting that he did not claim to be Satoshi. Merely that not everything posted on the internet can be taken at face value. If he needed to claim that he is not the author of that apology, he easily could. And, of course, Quote < >The BBC understands that this tweet signifies that Mr Matonis still believes Dr Wright is indeed Satoshi. "A lot more people in the Bitcoin community are going to be unconvinced of Dr Wright's claims than will believe he is Satoshi, based upon what's happened to date," commented Dr Garrick Hileman, an economic historian at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. "But many of the doubters don't want to be convinced. Satoshi has been mythologised and if you pull back the curtain, you shatter a lot of people's fantasies. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:41:49 PM 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). Such a script would prove nothing, since you know nothing about the input Craig allegedly used. 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. 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. 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. 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. I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404). No, it isn't. It would a problem if I did like you, since anyone who does must be a poor judge of character. 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Levole11 on May 05, 2016, 02:56:18 PM 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). Such a script would prove nothing, since you know nothing about the input Craig allegedly used. 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. 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. 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. 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. I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404). No, it isn't. It would a problem if I did like you, since anyone who does must be a poor judge of character. Try reading the linked article to learn more about your character. Have you conquered the world already without your project mate? :) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 02:58:09 PM Have you conquered the world already without your project mate? :) Is that a valid technical rebuttal to my prior post mate? :) Moving the goal posts and creating strawmen is a tactic of deception. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: jukka on May 05, 2016, 03:02:19 PM off topic: if the guy really had the private keys why he wouldnt trade some coins? i dont get this!
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Levole11 on May 05, 2016, 03:11:39 PM Have you conquered the world already without your project mate? :) Is that a valid technical rebuttal to my prior post mate? :) Moving the goal posts and creating strawmen is a tactic of deception. You have a lot in common with Craig Wright.. he backs off too when it really matters:) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 03:15:56 PM The thread likely got deleted because of your repeated insults leveled against other posters there I do not remember making any such insult. Please quote them and don't allege something you can't demonstrate, for that is a very slimy tactic. , why you never got a notification could be because it was a whole thread that was deleted rather then a single post. I'm not sure if a notification is sent out if a whole thread is deleted, never had one deleted myself. Even when threads are moved to the Trashcan, we get a link showing they have been. Gmaxwell has some sort of super powers as a mod. I have no idea what kind of incestuous relationship is going on between theymos and Gmaxwell, but it doesn't really matter since Bitcoin is basically destroyed now with 70% of the mining controlled by China, soon to be 98+%, and with Blockstream implementing their SegWit soft fork Trojan Horse so as Matonis admits can end up increasing the 21 million coins limit. The entire ecosystem is headed for a clusterfuck. This certainly makes GA (chief bitcoin scientist?) look pretty gullible. Not sure who that Jon guy is and how he backed CWs claim. Not at all. If the drcraigwright.com is a farce, then nothing has been shown to be untrue about what Wright allegedly proved in private. This is a masterful chess game being played. And it is making everyone look like a fool, including those who said Craig was confirmed to be a fraud. And including yourself for alleging that I speak FUD. Those who have disingenuous intentions and attitudes eventually get what they deserve and that will include yourself. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 03:17:20 PM Have you conquered the world already without your project mate? :) Is that a valid technical rebuttal to my prior post mate? :) Moving the goal posts and creating strawmen is a tactic of deception. You have a lot in common with Craig Wright.. he backs off too when it really matters:) I haven't back off of anything. I will win. Watch. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Levole11 on May 05, 2016, 03:22:08 PM Have you conquered the world already without your project mate? :) Is that a valid technical rebuttal to my prior post mate? :) Moving the goal posts and creating strawmen is a tactic of deception. You have a lot in common with Craig Wright.. he backs off too when it really matters:) I haven't back off of anything. I will win. Watch. I am watching you "win" everyday in here, don't worry :) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 03:29:59 PM If we are basing it on the drcraigwright.com website "proof", then the Sartre document is the one claimed to have been hashed, but he didn't disclose what portion of that document. He didn't disclose anything else about the document, which is why it's impossible to disprove any claim about it. You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash. You all haven't done that, thus you are derelict. You all shouldn't go spouting off "Craig a fraud" without even attempting to verify some basic things such as whether drcraigwright.com is his website and whether any portion of the text could match the hash that was signed. My point is the you Bitcoin zealots didn't do your homework. Haha. You also didn't even validate if that was his official website. I never claimed that it was, nor do I even care. Why would I if it doesn't contain any evidence for any claims that have been made? 'backsplaining. You guys are derelict, as well as censoring free speech and technical discussion. No wonder you will end up in failure mindlessly following Blockstream's SegWit soft forking Trojan Horse. Non sequitur. See above. REKTED. I asked you a specific question, "Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds?". I see you are unable to answer it? I didn't care to answer it since it is irrelevant. I have explained the most likely reason why double SHA256 was used, which is what you asked. Which is technically incorrect, but I will come back to that point to REKT you after we finish this. After we confirm that you can't answer it, then I will REKT the rest of your technically incorrect response above. Alright, fine. The answer is yes. I do understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds. It would be pretty meaningless if it was. So tell me the reason? Obviously I didn't ask the question to only receive a "yes". Anyone can say "yes". I want you to prove you understand how cryptographic hash functions are constructed and prove you have knowledge about how collision attacks are often constructed. Because these are things I had researched in the past. You've had enough delay to google it by now, so surely you can cheat and tell me? Try reading the linked article to learn more about your character. It says more about yours than mine. That is the sort of reply which the linked article explains you would make. So you've confirmed it. Thanks. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 03:39:52 PM Jezee guys he is just asking us to look at the code. It's not a bad idea to peek at the publicly available source code from time to time. Fortunately this is an open source project and that allows us to be certain that nothing malicious is in the code. I'll go through it tonight and see for myself. A "backdoor" is not hide-able in the source. 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 04:09:59 PM You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash. No, you couldn't, and I explained why. 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 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. 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. 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 05, 2016, 04:16:19 PM HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB. It must be tiring being you. Yeah it is tiring to deal with trolls who are too ignorant to realize they are. TPTB_need_war stop posting. Why do you not want readers to read the truth. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: Spoetnik on May 05, 2016, 06:01:34 PM He already shot his mouth off.. then again more recently.
Then he had to have known this would ripple around the Crypto world making news. He had to have seen the reaction he got previously and now again pretty much. which is we don't believe him.. So it REALLY makes me wonder why he made a 2nd attempt ? Why would he keep sooooooo quiet for so long then come out a while back ? Then get rejected and now come out for a I'm connected to Satoshi stunt again. I think Wright's financial / business history is interesting. There is a LOT to dig up on him and it was the 1st time he pulled all this. I thought last i heard he had fled the county with tax problems and was trying to borrow money for a business scheme (one of many) Which if your borrowing money it makes sense to claim your a billionaire with Bitcoin ? he was trying to say he had a legal agreement where he could not access Satoshi's coins until many years down the road but he needed money to borrow for yet more business schemes. There is a lot to this guys.. go check out the 1 older story on this and look at the sketchy house Police raid pictures etc. This guys financial trail reeks. His stories and various things like lying about credentials before make him a lair. I think he is a liar and untrustworthy greedy schemer. And maybe he did have some connection to starting Bitcoin.. but i hope not. Too bad the dead guy can't talk.. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: cryptoheadd on May 05, 2016, 06:19:34 PM Check this out: http://www.drcraigwright.net/
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: wpalczynski on May 05, 2016, 06:21:20 PM Reason for second appearance was to scam £15 apparently. :)
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588 Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: wpalczynski on May 05, 2016, 08:48:30 PM The thread likely got deleted because of your repeated insults leveled against other posters there I do not remember making any such insult. Please quote them and don't allege something you can't demonstrate, for that is a very slimy tactic. You know damn well that thread got deleted, you are one slimy tactic. dumbass Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 06, 2016, 01:27:28 AM I was sleeping. Now the REKTing will ensue.
I am an innocent Noob, and not a sock puppet. ;D 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.. If you believe that, you are dumber than I thought. Yes, I do believe I explained it. 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. Perhaps you're illiterate? 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. 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. 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 06, 2016, 03:28:06 AM 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. 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. Next time you will realize not to fuck with me, because I know a lot more than you assume. 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'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: Does anyone know what black hole Bitcoin core (Blockstream) developer Gmaxwell moved the quoted thread to? [...] I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this. 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: Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. 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): Quote from: shazam.rtf Security Addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) diffuse through high bits but set low bits to 0. Without shuffles or rotation permutation to diffuse changes from high to low bits, addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) can be broken with low complexity working from the low to the high bits [5]. The overflow carry bit, i.e. addition modulo ∞ minus addition modulo (2^n - 1), obtains the value 0 or 1 with equal probability, thus addition modulo (2^n - 1) is discontinuous i.e. defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) [6] because the carry is 1 in half of the instances [7] and defeats linearity over the ring Z/2 [8] because the low bit of both operands is 1 in one-fourth of the instances. The number of overflow high bits in multiplication modulo ∞ minus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) depends on the highest set bits of the operands, thus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) defeats linearity over the range of rings Z/2 to Z/(2^n). Logical exclusive-or defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) always [8] because it is not a linear function operator. Each multiplication modulo ∞ amplifies the amount diffusion and confusion provided by each addition. For example, multiplying any number by 23 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 16 added to the number multiplied by 4 added to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number. This is recursive since multiplying the number by 4 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number multiplied by 2. Addition of a number with itself is equivalent to a 1 bit left shift or multiplication by 2. Multiplying any variable number by another variable number creates additional confusion. Multiplication defeats rotational cryptoanalysis [9] because unlike for addition, rotation of the multiplication of two operands never distributes over the operands i.e. is not equal to the multiplication of the rotated operands. A proof is that rotation is equivalent to the exclusive-or of left and right shifts. Left and right shifts are equivalent to multiplication and division by a factor of 2, which don't distribute over multiplication e.g. (8 × 8 ) × 2 ≠ (8 × 2) × (8 × 2) and (8 × 8 ) ÷ 2 ≠ (8 ÷ 2) × (8 ÷ 2). Addition modulo ∞ is always distributive over rotation [9] because addition distributes over multiplication and division e.g. (8 + 8 ) ÷ 2 = (8 ÷ 2) + (8 ÷ 2). Due to the aforementioned non-linearity over Z/(2^n) due to carry, addition modulo (2^n - 1) is only distributive over rotation with a probability 1/4 up to 3/8 depending on the relative number of bits of rotation [9][10]. However, multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) sets all low bits to 0 orders-of-magnitude more frequently than addition modulo (2^n - 1)—a degenerate result that squashes diffusion and confusion. [5] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX. 2 Related Work. [6] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family. 4.1 Links between Different Kinds of Operations. [7] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX. 6 Cryptanalysis of generic AR systems. [8] Berstein. Salsa20 design. 2 Operations. [9] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX. 3 Review of Rotational Cryptanalysis. [10] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family. 4.1.3 Modular Additions and Bit Rotations. Corollary 4.12. 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 06, 2016, 03:48:04 AM TPTB_need_war, you cannot prove nor disprove that the Sartre text Craig Wright supposedly hashed is a collision for SHA256. I asked you to not do what you just did above: Don't cherry pick my context to make inane non-rebuttals which side-step my holistic set of points. You also pointed out that he supposedly has access to a supercomputer. Even with access to a supercomputer, he would not be able to find a collision as other researchers have already tried. Simply having a lot of computing power does not mean that he can find a collision. Alternatively, Craig could have found a vulnerability in sha256, in which case a lot more things than just Bitcoin is screwed. If Craig did not responsibly disclose such a vulnerability and instead exploited it, this would be incredibly sketchy and dishonest behavior. 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. The theory that the sha256 double hash is weaker than sha256 is false. It has been proven that performing multiple iterations of a hash is more secure than just one iteration. Specifically, many websites will store users passwords in the form of a multiple iteration hash. 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. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: wpalczynski on May 06, 2016, 04:18:42 AM The plot thickens https://mobile.twitter.com/Dr_Craig_Wright
Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: TPTB_need_war on May 06, 2016, 04:38:27 AM FYI truce, I will cease & desist:
Quote from: myself in a private message I also don't believe CW is Satoshi. But that isn't my point. I explained the salient point more concisely here which is really about ridicule, censorship, and manipulation of public opinion instead of rational, well elucidated, and amicable/patient/unencumbered reasoned discussion (i.e. acadamics versus corporate fiefdoms): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14766475#msg14766475 Please also read the subsequent to the above linked post as I broad stroked some of my theoretical concerns about the double-hashing in Bitcoin. Theymos is allowing me to continue so I think it is possible that Theymos is helpless due to not being capable himself of leading technologically. So appears he may be trying to appease Greg while also allowing for the minute possibility that someone else could accomplish in code and in reality something as relevant. I think I respect Theymos if this is the case. But we don't really know what is going on behind the scenes. I am at the point now where I really want to ignore everything on BCT and Reddit. My discussions about programming language theory are going very well at the Rust forum. Did you see I solved the age old computer science problem known as the Expression Problem articulated by Philip Wadler in 1999: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438301.msg14757751#msg14757751 (click the sublink in item #6) Did you see how I REKTed Greg's logic on the Ogg streaming index which was hilarious given he is co-inventor of the Ogg orbis codec: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378533.msg14035614#msg14035614 (search for the phrase "Also I don't understand how you calculate 20% increase" within that post) I don't claim he isn't smart in his cryptography and math fields of expertise. And generally a very smart guy. But that is not the problem we are apparently agreeing on. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: eca.sh on May 06, 2016, 07:52:13 AM Theymos replied when I sent him a copy of the prior message (didn't mention nor quote you) with the following message and he banned me from BCT for 10 days. Quote from: theymos Your technical claims are nonsensical, but yet you keep spamming them and resorting to ad hominem arguments. For example, there is a known attack on reduced-SHA-256 with 52/64 rounds, but the attack has complexity 2255.5. So the best-known attack on SHA-256 causes it to lose half a bit of security when the number of rounds is reduced. It's nothing. Saying that we're doomed (and spamming about it everywhere) because someone might possible find a way to invert SHA-256 is like freaking out because there might be psychics capable of reading keys from people's minds. Take a break... Clearly he either didn't bother to read my linked post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14766916#msg14766916) (which I also provided to him in the quote) wherein explained I wanted to explore theoretical security concerns about double-hashing (which btw is not the same as what Merkel trees do), not not single hashing which I am positing may have different security attributes. In that linked post, I also quoted wherein I had always made a disclaimer that readers should wait for expert peer review and that I hadn't expended a lot of time on the issue. Also the ad hominem starts from his tribe attacking me, such as for example Foxup's condescending posts. I responded in kind after it was clear that Foxup wouldn't stop his snide attitude and follow a more fruitful one. Also theymos is disingenuous by cherry picking the preimage attack at 52 rounds which requires 2255.5 trials and not also mentioning the pseudo-collision attack at 46 rounds with only 246 trials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2#Cryptanalysis_and_validation The point of my theoretical inquiry is whether double-hashing might open an opportunity for a new cryptoanalysis breakthrough such as the Boomerang attack given the significant structure at the midpoint the doubling the hash ostensibly introduces. And why are theymos and gmax so worried about allowing information to propagate freely and letting readers make up their own minds. Why do they feel they need to control the minds of readers. So yes it appears you are correct. I hit the root nerve. Theymos and gmax are ostensibly in bed together and can't tolerate any theoretical discussion. None of this is going to help them, because they both have only left thumbs. Over and out. P.S. you may want to quote this message immediately before it is deleted by the mods. Everybody knows that SHA-256 hasn't been broken. It is quite nonsensical to discuss ways it might be broken, when everyone knows that is impossible. No wonder why everyone ignores you. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: generalizethis on May 06, 2016, 04:30:54 PM @eca.sh, I'm not sure why you sent me a PM stating that TPTB_need_war is banned for ten days, but if it's true, I'm really unsure why you are attempting to argue with him a few hours after you broke the news to me--hard to reply when you're banned.
"Your buddy was banned for 10 days, lol « Sent to: generalizethis on: Today at 03:24:19 AM »" !!! WARNING: This user is a newbie. If you are expecting a message from a more veteran member, then this is an imposter !!! !!! WARNING: This user is a newbie. If you are expecting a message from a more veteran member, then this is an imposter !!! Theymos replied when I sent him a copy of the prior message (didn't mention nor quote you) with the following message and he banned me from BCT for 10 days. Quote from: theymos Your technical claims are nonsensical, but yet you keep spamming them and resorting to ad hominem arguments. For example, there is a known attack on reduced-SHA-256 with 52/64 rounds, but the attack has complexity 2255.5. So the best-known attack on SHA-256 causes it to lose half a bit of security when the number of rounds is reduced. It's nothing. Saying that we're doomed (and spamming about it everywhere) because someone might possible find a way to invert SHA-256 is like freaking out because there might be psychics capable of reading keys from people's minds. Take a break... Clearly he either didn't bother to read my linked post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14766916#msg14766916) (which I also provided to him in the quote) wherein explained I wanted to explore theoretical security concerns about double-hashing (which btw is not the same as what Merkel trees do), not not single hashing which I am positing may have different security attributes. In that linked post, I also quoted wherein I had always made a disclaimer that readers should wait for expert peer review and that I hadn't expended a lot of time on the issue. Also the ad hominem starts from his tribe attacking me, such as for example Foxup's condescending posts. I responded in kind after it was clear that Foxup wouldn't stop his snide attitude and follow a more fruitful one. Also theymos is disingenuous by cherry picking the preimage attack at 52 rounds which requires 2255.5 trials and not also mentioning the pseudo-collision attack at 46 rounds with only 246 trials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2#Cryptanalysis_and_validation The point of my theoretical inquiry is whether double-hashing might open an opportunity for a new cryptoanalysis breakthrough such as the Boomerang attack given the significant structure at the midpoint the doubling the hash ostensibly introduces. And why are theymos and gmax so worried about allowing information to propagate freely and letting readers make up their own minds. Why do they feel they need to control the minds of readers. So yes it appears you are correct. I hit the root nerve. Theymos and gmax are ostensibly in bed together and can't tolerate any theoretical discussion. None of this is going to help them, because they both have only left thumbs. Over and out. P.S. you may want to quote this message immediately before it is deleted by the mods. Everybody knows that SHA-256 hasn't been broken. It is quite nonsensical to discuss ways it might be broken, when everyone knows that is impossible. No wonder why everyone ignores you. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: rdnkjdi on May 06, 2016, 04:33:29 PM TBT really got banned??? How's that work with all the other trolling that goes on in this shitshow
At least he puts effort behind his posts Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: sockpuppet1 on May 06, 2016, 04:44:11 PM @eca.sh, I'm really unsure why you are attempting to argue with him--hard to reply when you're banned. I read eca.sh's post carefully and he appears to be arguing against himself. Literally. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: wpalczynski on May 06, 2016, 05:18:11 PM TBT really got banned??? How's that work with all the other trolling that goes on in this shitshow At least he puts effort behind his posts Whoever reported him and got him banned is very childish. He does get on peoples nerves with his pompous writings but he does put effort into it and from time to time comes up with some good and novel ideas although its hard to see because he has trouble being succinct and people get tired of reading the walls of text he puts effort in to post. Grow up, you probably have a macro for the report to mod function, don't be a rat. No one likes a rat. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: kennyP on May 07, 2016, 02:48:40 AM Why did the mods ban TPTB?
How does censorship help the crypto movement? Where did these posts go? 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. Wholly shit! I am contemplating the possibility that Craig has revealed that who ever created Bitcoin put a backdoor in it! As I already explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14755896#msg14755896), the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities. But note this small detail: Quote from: https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification You'll note that Bitcoin, for reasons known only to Satoshi, takes the signature of hash of a hash to generate the scriptSig. Quoting Ryan: Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context. A cryptographic hash function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Properties) has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value. Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2256 times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack). So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked. It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256. If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash. I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: sockpuppet1 on May 07, 2016, 04:49:29 AM 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. ::) Of course double hashes can't be applied to securing passwords as in case #2 above. That requires 1000s of hashes. Double hashes would be a silly joke in that case. So thus you've admitted that double hashing adds no protection against a computationally bounded adversary (i.e. the only kind of adversary that exists in the real world). So why did Satoshi add double hashing to Bitcoin ??? https://www.google.com/search?q=Ferguson+double+hashing+length+extension+attacks+bitcoin.stackexchange https://www.google.com/search?q=double+hashing+length+extension+attacks I learned at the above that double hashes are required to stop the length extension attacks which can never occur in Bitcoin and thus which Bitcoin doesn't need to defend against, so why are you "saying that we are doomed" for unnecessarily adding the weaknesses of double hashing to Bitcoin? So thus you've admitted that double hashing protects against length attacks, but length attacks can't occur in the Bitcoin. So why did Satoshi add double hashing to Bitcoin ??? Don't tell me you arrogantly claim your grand insight is enabled because Bitcoin does hash(hash(M)) instead of appending part of the input to the output of the first hash(hash(M||M')||M') as is always done for HMAC where the idea for deploying double hashing originates. As I interpret TPTB_need_war's explanation of the potential vulnerability (and I'm the canonical source of such interpretations, lol) due to a Boomerang differential attack, that Satoshi adopted the incorrect way of doing double hashing is precisely what makes Bitcoin open to the hypothesized vulnerability. So why did Satoshi add the incorrect form of double hashing to Bitcoin ??? If you were correct, then every brother and his uncle should be trying to find a cryptographer help them crack Bitcoin and become $millionaires by spending old coins that were allegedly mined by Satoshi and may otherwise never be spent if Satoshi is truly dead. I tried to be nice to theymouse and Gmaximus and discuss in an open forum about how it might be possible to break Bitcoin so that it could not make one person very wealthy. But they want to play hardball, so... Please kindly quote my post in case it is deleted by the mods. P.S. My personal opinion is I speculate Craig Wright was hired by core to discredit Matonis and Gavin. And I was hired by myself to do the same to "core"; and I speculate "core" appears to be affiliated with the aforementioned individuals. Velvet gloves are off. No more nice guy. Bitcoin is a failed clusterfuck with 70% of the hashrate attributed to China, and one former cattle farmer in China planning to increase that to 98%. The miners and Blockstream are ostensibly colluding to put soft fork versioning into SegWit. There is $1 million per day flowing from n00bs into this raping system that ends up in miner's pockets and other connected parties. Electricity likely charged to the collective via State funded hydroelectric infrastructure. And the ecosystem has no real utility outside of gambling, scams, and other nefarious use cases. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: sockpuppet1 on May 07, 2016, 05:24:30 PM I am aware of your past BCT posts about the inadequacies of asymptotic complexity arguments. :)
I don't share your romantic guess of who created BitCON. Btw, Craig says the name Satoshi comes from "the book" about the House of Morgan: https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/the-name-satoshi-comes-from-satoshi-david-character-from-the-house-of-morgan-t7619.html And Nakamoto means "in the book" in Japanese. And Julian Assange knew Craig in 1996: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hozs5/wikileaks_on_twitter_wed_like_to_thank_satoshi/d2rdg7u Don't forget that (I was told) a House of Rothschild person was sheltering Assange when he was still free in the UK. And note now how the UN is attempting to supercede the UK's authority on the case. There is always a globalist plan for these pawns, including Edward Snowden. I think someone paid off Craig to discredit Matonis and Gavin. Gavin has now lost commit access. The danger is not that BitCON fails, but that it becomes the new totalitarian digital currency (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.0). Hope you are aware that ostensibly the Dr. Craig Wright can't be proven to have made the blog posts, which implicate him: http://craigswright.com/ Meaning a failure of Bitcoin is not the big problem we face. I hope for the failure of Bitcoin instead of it scaling by becoming centralized. The danger is that many vested interests want Bitcoin to continue even if it is centralized. Centralization doesn't necessarily kill Bitcoin, unless the centralized controllers kill it. Too many tinfoil hats want Bitcoin to succeed and be "the better gold" even if it is centralized and controlled by the combination of China's miners, Larry Summers' 21 Inc., and Blockstream. The annals of the crypto-currency arena is littered with ignonymous players. Similar to the birth history of President Obama, theymous and the Gman are nearly entirely ignonymous. I've seen only one photo of theyman. I can't find any LinkedIn for the Gman, his educational history, which high school he attended, and where he was born, even though most of his colleages at Blockstream (http://blockstream.com/team/) have a LinkedIn. Googling "Gregory F. Maxwell" only returns an address and phone in Parker, Colorado and the following Wikipedia Commons page: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Gmaxwell-boat.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gmaxwell) I note the Gman's use of the "rascist" attack (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378533.msg14031154#msg14031154) against both TPTB_need_war and against Zooko @ Z.cash (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389890.msg14774892#msg14774892). And in the above linked Wikipedia Commons, his support for viral "copyleft" licenses that force companies to refuse to use open source because they aren't allowed to keep any portion of their derivative works as proprietary code. In other words, some of sort of totalitarian socialist/Marxist philosophy similar to FSF's Richard Stalman. Dangerous. Readers again you may want to quote this message because we can't be sure if mods won't get "happy finger" and nuke this post. Edit: these 1996 posts by Julian Assange says everything you need to know about whether he is a eugenics globalist: Quote from: Craig S. Wright And what am I paying for...to protect the status quo. I believe that there is more than enough help for ppl available. They just need to get off their butts and work. Do we really need your amatuer political views? Quote from: Douglas B. Renner The term "defect" is therefore entirely out of line. We have no business placing judgements from our own limited material value sets onto something which has the definite potential of affecting all future generations of Humanity. It's none of our business. The problem however, is that artificial selection maybe the only way to select beneficial attributes at all. What is presently being selected for in western societies is all the factors that lead to a lack of practice or belief in birth control. I'll let the reader think for a moment on just what those are. Perhaps we can also somehow test for and abolish the "Catholic" gene? And I suppose Julian should decide whose morals are best subjugated by robber barons as a matter of practicality, i.e. Julian is person who is thinking about how to best organize society from the top-down: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ but the most probable conclusion is Satoshi was one man and he was simply mistaken One man can't accomplish what "Satoshi" did with such precision. It was a large group of experts. No doubt about it. You guys who have no experience in doing something like this, love to have your James Bond fantasies. But you are completely out-of-touch with the reality of actually doing what "Satoshi" accomplished. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: sockpuppet1 on May 08, 2016, 08:16:09 AM Personally, I don't think Craig is Satoshi, and not because of his looks. I don't care what he looks like. the thing is he isn't providing enough information to give enough proof that he is actually Satoshi. The lack of a signed message, saying he'll publish documents and not have them available immediately, it all seems just a bit too sloppy and drawn out for him to really be Satoshi. What is so ironic from my perspective (and I suspect the elites are also having a good chuckle about the blindness of you "useless eaters/cattle") is that once you review all the facts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14781570#msg14781570) (<--- click to know what Satoshi Nakamoto really is), the fools are those who even entertain any thought that Satoshi could be a person. The elites are playing us like a fiddle with BitCON (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14776165#msg14776165). Seriously. I didn't reach this conclusion without extensive thought and rationality (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438301.msg14757751#msg14757751). my assume if Nick szabo is the one of the team Zero chance. Nick is both not smart enough and doesn't code prolifically enough. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1416544.msg14456412#msg14456412 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1284083.msg13239420#msg13239420 (Craig Wright was correct, Szabo was incorrect) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1393703.msg14196266#msg14196266 (did Nick ever create any s/w?) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg14464292#msg14464292 Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: generalizethis on May 08, 2016, 11:46:11 AM Personally, I don't think Craig is Satoshi, and not because of his looks. I don't care what he looks like. the thing is he isn't providing enough information to give enough proof that he is actually Satoshi. The lack of a signed message, saying he'll publish documents and not have them available immediately, it all seems just a bit too sloppy and drawn out for him to really be Satoshi. What is so ironic from my perspective (and I suspect the elites are also having a good chuckle about the blindness of you "useless eaters/cattle") is that once you review all the facts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14781570#msg14781570) (<--- click to know what Satoshi Nakamoto really is), the fools are those who even entertain any thought that Satoshi could be a person. The elites are playing us like a fiddle with BitCON (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14776165#msg14776165). Seriously. I didn't reach this conclusion without extensive thought and rationality (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438301.msg14757751#msg14757751). my assume if Nick szabo is the one of the team Zero chance. Nick is both not smart enough and doesn't code prolifically enough. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1416544.msg14456412#msg14456412 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1284083.msg13239420#msg13239420 (Craig Wright was correct, Szabo was incorrect) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1393703.msg14196266#msg14196266 (did Nick ever create any s/w?) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg14464292#msg14464292 Have you ever read Delueze's Societies of Control? Bitcoin fits great with this agenda, though I think Deleuze would say it's the natural progression of Capitalism and more the TPTB playing themselves than leading anyone--pay specially attention to the discipline society being ousted for control society when reading. While I think some in Bitcoin are trying to make it more private, I don't think it will ever achieve any degree of great privacy as it will never be at the protocol level and require you going through observable way stations that require you to borrow further and further underground--"Neo, what's in your wallet?" http://www.mccoyspace.com/nyu/10_s/ideas/texts/week08-Deleuze.pdf (http://www.mccoyspace.com/nyu/10_s/ideas/texts/week08-Deleuze.pdf) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: kiklo on May 08, 2016, 08:46:30 PM If we quit looking for a single person and speculate a combination of intelligence agencies as Satoshi Nakamoto,
We get the following : ;) SATO= MI6 (Secret Intelligence Service) http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/satoyama/ SHI = CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) http://www.kanjijapanese.com/en/dictionary-japanese-english/shi shi-aie- translated is Central Intelligence Agency (Extra sneaky dropped the -aie- ) NAKA = Home ( Homeland Security or MI5 (Domestic intelligence) or both) Moto = Mossad (referred to inhouse as the Institute) (Extra sneaky , removed a T , would have originally been Motto) Quote mot·to 'mädo/noun noun: motto; plural noun: mottoes; plural noun: mottos a short sentence or phrase chosen as encapsulating the beliefs or ideals guiding an individual, family, or institution. 8) Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on May 08, 2016, 11:04:20 PM TBT really got banned??? How's that work with all the other trolling that goes on in this shitshow Well gleb gamow and SebastianJu both got temp banned too for similar reasons not too long ago. At least the forum rules are being enforced somewhat fairly. At least he puts effort behind his posts Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: sockpuppet1 on May 09, 2016, 02:49:10 AM Well gleb gamow and SebastianJu both got temp banned too for similar reasons not too long ago. At least the forum rules are being enforced somewhat fairly. Which similar reasons? Tisk tisk. Keep your posts in Meta or ... "Tsk. Tsk" are the words I expect to hear from your grandmother calling you to have your daily scolding. I don't cowtail to theymos' delusions, technical incompetence, and censorship. If I may express some frustration w.r.t. to desire to troll and censor, "Fuck you and theymos too". TPTB_need_war doesn't care. He can always subvert any ban. Any way, TPTB_need_war is too busy programming. He has provided a public service. And yes he was banned for revealing a potential back door in Bitcoin[1]. Just goes to show how theymos and gmaxwell are protecting you. And yourself, how about you grow up and learn to tolerate open dialogue. P.S. permanently banning TPTB_need_war is perfect for his plans. I hope theymos has the balls and the technical knowledge to attempt it. Also I didn't start this thread. I didn't ask for this thread. I wasn't intending to post in this subforum at this time. Blame the person who created this thread. I read so much misunderstanding and slander of TPTB_need_war that required clarification and correction. [1] In the ban message and in theymos's private message which is quoted by TPTP_need_war (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14768260#msg14768260), theymos indicated the reason for the ban in addition to his incorrect claim of spouting technical nonsense, he also alleged spamming of messages in several threads and the ad hominem attacks against others. Theymos appears to be protecting Foxpop who hurled ad hominemfirst (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1462057.msg14759691#msg14759691), and CIYAM who also hurled ad hominem first. TPTB_need_war had stated that the reason for posting in numerous threads (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458696.msg14756033#msg14756033), is because the mods allowed people to make numerous duplicate threads on the same topic about Craig Wright claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Do take note that at the time he was having the debate with CIYAM, he had thought that Craig's signature had matched the hash of the Sartre text (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14766916#msg14766916) because he was misled by sloppy reporting and sloppy writing of those who did the technical analysis. It was only later that he learned that was not the case. And after all, his alleged back door in Bitcoin remains potentially true. You don't ban people for these incorrect reasons and expect to remain respected and expect others to not want to overcome inappropriate use of influence. There is too much ignonymous influence in Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14781570#msg14781570). ...absolutely petrifying. :'( You did it to yourselves (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1316268.0). Now you will reap what you have sown. I am an American who doesn't share your looney European Marxism (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg14789764#msg14789764). Last time it was a million in the gas chambers. Let's see how it goes this round. Shut up and get back to work on building your copy-leftist clusterfuck (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14781570#msg14781570). I don't associate with scum like you. I compete and overcome. Bye. Unless that is you want to say those words about my kids to my face. Otherwise we have nothing more to discuss. Enjoy your life. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: sockpuppet1 on May 11, 2016, 12:08:07 PM Theymos defacto in effect admits TPTB_need_war might be correct with his technical allegation upthread that Bitcoin could possibly have a back door that could be cracked:
Quote from: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4isxjr/petition_to_protect_satoshis_coins/d30we6f Edit: To be absolutely clear: I am not proposing (and would never propose) a policy that would have the goal of depriving anyone of his bitcoins. Satoshi's bitcoins (which number far below 1M, I think) rightfully belong to him, and he can do whatever he wants with them. Even if I wanted to destroy Satoshi's bitcoins in particular, it's not possible to identify which bitcoins are Satoshi's. I am talking about destroying presumably-lost coins that are going to be stolen, ideally just moments before the theft would occur. This issue has been discussed for several years. I think that the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation. People joined Bitcoin with the understanding that coins would be permanently lost at some low rate, leading to long-term monetary deflation. Allowing lost coins to be recovered violates this assumption, and is a systemic security issue. So if we somehow learn that people will be able to start breaking ECDSA-protected addresses in 5 years (for example), two softforks should be rolled out now: Vindicated! Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: sockpuppet1 on May 12, 2016, 02:34:49 PM Re: Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed” With all the drama raging, everyone already at each other's throats, why would someone bring up quantum computers breaking Bitcoin and start talking about destroying Satoshi's coins? Help me out with this :-\ Maybe theymos was actually using reverse psychology to make a hidden point. That could be he is ridiculing those who say there might be a potential but unproven back door in Bitcoin, by pointing out that such unproven FUD would justify stealing Satoshi's coins in advance to prevent the hacker from causing havoc. Perhaps he is slyly trying to refute my hypothesizing about a back door in Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14766475#msg14766475) (but my technical argument was not about a quantum computing attack). Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: sockpuppet1 on May 12, 2016, 09:57:21 PM There is no fix. It is an inherent phenomenon of the economics of mining. Satoshi of course knew this. He was no dummy. That's very interesting! Could you explain this a bit more? If this was intended, what did Satoshi ultimately hope for? Thank you for your time I explained the economics centralization upthread, just search "sockpuppet1" to find all the posts. Satoshi obviously intended for us to end up with a centralized token. What other possibility could there be? Note Satoshi even wrote in the discussions with others, that he did envision Bitcoin's mining becoming controlled by corporations. All that ideological crap about "better gold" and "usurping financial institutions" was just putting lipstick on a pig. Title: Re: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks Post by: no-ice-please on May 13, 2016, 07:10:00 AM The 1 million "Satoshi owned" bitcoins have been priced in by the market to stay put forever. Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them, what are your opinions what would happen to altcoins prices if he stands by his word? http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588 Whether Charlie Sheen is actually Satoshi or not, he is not so desperate for money that he would dump coins. If coins have so far not moved then simply knowing who the main bitcoin dev was will not cause him to sell. |
