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:


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 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.

The tweets of this account might be worth reading.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Refute the facts in the prior post.


Now explain to the readers Mr. Know-It-All what happens when the hash is doubled.

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:


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 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.

Inconsistency could be solved by progressive grouping and neutral "centralizing" algorithms

That really depends if the third one it is actually the largest farm in the world--he never stated that they are the same size.

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.

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.

Well if his claim ends up occurring and his mining farm has a lower cost than the 28.75% of the most marginal miners (and assuming no miners mine unprofitably), then simple algebra says China's share of mining will increase to 98.75% from currently estimated 70%.

Btw, I did that in my head in 30 seconds or less, including reasoning out the impact on mining difficulty. Please check my calculation. (note I assumed 30% share is 1200 coins pre-halving)

Anyone ASIC mining Bitcoin now should sell their ASICs while they still can.

Chinese Mining Expands

Guo said the mine, operating 24 hours a day, mines 50 bitcoins all day.

Guo launched the operation two years ago. At that time, mining in China represented about 40% of the world’s mining equipment. China now has 70% of all the equipment, he said.

Guo has established two mines in China and is building another one that, once complete, will be the largest in the world and will produce more than 30% of the entire world’s bitcoin.

That's questionable.

And the first to:

1. Explain to Gmaxwell (in his CoinJoin thread from 2013) that he couldn't use a blacklist to fix jamming of CoinJoin
2. Solve the jamming problem of decentralized exchange.
3. Design a technical solution to the inherent centralization in Satoshi's proof-of-work.
4. Which included being the first to explain technically why Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine Generals Problem.
5. The first to explain why Z.cash's Equihash is likely not ASIC resistant.
6. First to solve a 50 year unsolved fundamental problem of computer science programming language theory.

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

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

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

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

Hahahaha nope.

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

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!

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.

Apparently TPTB_need_war thinks it's a good idea to send private messages swearing at people who disagree with him. Hypomanic reaction much?

Can you look in the mirror and say that with a straight face


You need to learn some interpersonal skills.

Why are you lying on your profile claiming to be a female?


Why are you lying? I didn't send you any threat. I sent you a private message with quoted copy of the message I posted in this thread and nothing more in the body of the message (so you would be aware I replied), and I put in the Subject "go fuck yourself" to let you know my feelings about your slimly and technically irrelevant ad hominem attack.

Man you have a serious deficiency with definitions.

If you want to talk about the technical subject matter, you don't need to involve how I perceive the matter. What I perceive is irrelevant. Show the technical rebuttal. Your involvement of what you misperceive to be my mindset is ad hominem. Do you need help with comprehending definitions?

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.

....

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.

....

Lol. I doubt that.

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

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

Please provide technical justification.


The analysis was provided by others already. The review of that is ongoing here.


Do you enjoy being a troll?