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. 
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): 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.
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. |
|
|
|
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.
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. 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. |
|
|
|
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.
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. 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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.
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. 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.
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. |
|
|
|
But what is more interesting to me is your generation is so ideologically preoccupied. Perhaps you believe in the lie of anthropogenic global warming as well. I hate to bust your bubble but it was a propaganda constructed to put in a place a global governance and taxation system. The scientists have confirmed we are headed into a Mini Ice Age and our global temperature is modulated by the sun, nothing else. Period.
No wonder why noone takes you seriously. I didn't take him seriously before but that quote is priceless. Especially because after I embarrassed Gmaxwell upthread on the technical points, now I am going to embarrass you guys with some facts (but I realize your AGW religion ignores facts): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091272.msg14688442#msg14688442https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091272.msg14660362#msg14660362 |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Now getting back to the topic - if CW has broken SHA256 it seems rather incredible that the collision he found just so happens to match some Sartre document (because he personally likes Sartre) and one of (or the) first Bitcoin transaction(s).
Oh my. You still haven't comprehended what I explained several times in the prior posts. How sad. Just get off my lawn. Ask a real programmer to explain it to you. He also somehow generated an identical signature to one already in the blockchain (which would not happen even you are signing the same double hash value).
You really don't understand the math. I am not going to discuss it with you further. You can continue drooling. |
|
|
|
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.
Priceless - please show us your own cryptographic hash algorithm - we are all dying to see it!  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. 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 (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.
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. 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. |
|
|
|
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 (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. |
|
|
|
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, 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: 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 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 2 256 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
