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... |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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#msg14759902I 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  |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Edit to reply to your edit: LOL - That code is the description pulled from the Wikipedia.
It is irrelevant to my theory. I explained that to you 3 times already in the thread that Gregory Maxwell vaporized. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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)
People have refuted your theory but you just don't want to listen. "If you sign the same message with the same key, you will get a different signature". Your chances to get the same signature is ~1/2^256. Why? Because of the the 3rd step of the ECDSA algorithm. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signature_AlgorithmCalculate e = \textrm{HASH}(m), where HASH is a cryptographic hash function, such as SHA-2. Let z be the L_n leftmost bits of e, where L_n is the bit length of the group order n. Select a cryptographically secure random integer k from [1, n-1]. Calculate the curve point (x_1, y_1) = k \times G. Calculate r = x_1\,\bmod\,n. If r = 0, go back to step 3. Calculate s = k^{-1}(z + r d_A)\,\bmod\,n. If s = 0, go back to step 3. The signature is the pair (r, s). Their emphasis, not mine. Now, tell me. How did CW come up with the same signature as something from the blockchain if he was casually signing a message? Bear in mind that k is chosen by the signing software (openssl) and not an input from the user. I refuted you 3 times in the thread that Gmaxwell deleted. So you can ask him to restore the thread so everyone can check if my refutations were correct. I have not been able to read any other posts that might have been in that deleted thread, because it is deleted. If you want to provide a link to any new refutations from others, I will be happy to respond to them directly. I am not going to have a conversation with someone who I don't even know who I am responding to. Provide a link. Edit: the above pseudo-code does not refute my theory.  |
|
|
|
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: 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 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. |
|
|
|
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: 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 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. |
|
|
|
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: 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 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? |
|
|
|
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: 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 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
