Release of GLBSE's Documents

[augustocroppo]

Anyone else with the documents may compare their hash to the hash of the data you post.

Thus "verified by other entities"

Few documents in the list are a converted version of the original file.

E.g.

BG-Shareholder-Meeting-Minutes-August-10th-2012.pdf

That minutes were originally recorded in a text file because the meeting happened in an IRC channel. The original file is TXT format, not PDF format. Two different formats with the same content generates different 'hashes'.

So your insistence for the documents 'hashes' is completely cluless.

Without hash protection, that does not prove you altered the original compacted archive (or not).  Too late now, as that is missing from your original posting.

I listed details of each file: name, date and size. Any change made in any file would change one or more of that details and change the total size of the decompressed files. Therefore, the encrypted version of the written declaration will PROVE that I did NOT changed any part of the documents.

If you are in the bitcoin community and do not understand what a hash algorithm does, that is quite odd.

Seriously, get a clue about what you are talking about. This discussion is not about my ability to understand what a algorithm does (although I know what an algorithm does). Moreover, many user in this forum do not understand what an algorithm does, but they know very well how to send and receive Bitcoins.

[1714018154]

1714018154

[1714018154]

1714018154

[1714018154]

1714018154

[1714018154]

1714018154

[1714018154]

1714018154

[1714018154]

1714018154

[augustocroppo]

OK, I'm going to throw in my two cents here.

(...)

While my attitude is definitely "publish and be damned" - because I do think that GLBSE has lost its presumed right to any kind of confidentiality - I find myself in the very curious situation of simultaneously encouraging augustocroppo to publish them and advising him to remain aware that someone could be setting him up here.

My sincere compliments for this precious 'two cents'!

I have the same thoughts as you.

You are understanding my situation better than any another user.

[jgarzik]

Without hash protection, that does not prove you altered the original compacted archive (or not).  Too late now, as that is missing from your original posting.

I listed details of each file: name, date and size. Any change made in any file would change one or more of that details and change the total size of the decompressed files. Therefore, the encrypted version of the written declaration will PROVE that I did NOT changed any part of the documents.

No, that is not the case at all.  And it is sad that anyone in a crypto community would make this false claim.

[augustocroppo]

No, that is not the case at all.  And it is sad that anyone in a crypto community would make this false claim.

All right. Could you demonstrate that? I am happily waiting to learn from you!

[Axios]

Without hash protection, that does not prove you altered the original compacted archive (or not).  Too late now, as that is missing from your original posting.

I listed details of each file: name, date and size. Any change made in any file would change one or more of that details and change the total size of the decompressed files. Therefore, the encrypted version of the written declaration will PROVE that I did NOT changed any part of the documents.

No, that is not the case at all.  And it is sad that anyone in a crypto community would make this false claim.

He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.

[augustocroppo]

He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.

Right... But how that demonstrated that I could change the documents after I received it?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.

Right... But how that demonstrated that I could change the documents after I received it?

Is it safe to assume...

• You've read the files.
• One of the shareholders of GLBSE/BitcoinGlobal sent them.

[augustocroppo]

He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.

Right... But how that demonstrated that I could change the documents after I received it?

Is it safe to assume...

• You've read the files.
• One of the shareholders of GLBSE/BitcoinGlobal sent them.

Yes, I made a careful examination of all files. I also obtained OpenPGP certificates and extra documents from the Internet in accordance with references present in the documents.

I strongly suspect the documents were sent to me by a GLBSE shareholder, but I have no evidence to prove that.

[jgarzik]

No, that is not the case at all.  And it is sad that anyone in a crypto community would make this false claim.

All right. Could you demonstrate that?

File modification time is simply a data field in the compressed archive, trivial to change.

Getting the compressed and uncompress archive sizes to match is only marginally more difficult.

The compressed archive likely includes per-file hashes or CRCs already... that is the data highly difficult to duplicate (i.e. the part you did not post).

The documents contains references to OpenPGP certificates of the GLBSE shareholders. That is impossible to forge.

Irrelevant.  OpenPGP data is typically already public... it needs to be, to independently verify signatures.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.

Right... But how that demonstrated that I could change the documents after I received it?

Is it safe to assume...

• You've read the files.
• One of the shareholders of GLBSE/BitcoinGlobal sent them.

Yes, I made a careful examination of all files. I also obtained OpenPGP certificates and extra documents from the Internet in accordance with references present in the documents.

I strongly suspect the documents were sent to me by a GLBSE shareholder, but I have no evidence to prove that.

Thanks, bud. I suggest keeping the files away from... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fii7MWPQGr8

[memvola]

That minutes were originally recorded in a text file because the meeting happened in an IRC channel. The original file is TXT format, not PDF format. Two different formats with the same content generates different 'hashes'.

So your insistence for the documents 'hashes' is completely cluless.

I can understand chat logs not matching (timestamps and whatnot, regardless of format), since they are likely created by the person you claim to have sent you these. However since reports and images are likely distributed as is, your argument has zero merit. Okay some files won't match by their nature. So?

Also, please release these files ASAP. There is no reason to not release them, and assuming they are authentic, they will be very helpful in developing a better way to do business, if not in helping GLBSE victims. If they are not authentic, well, you won't get an answer to that by creating drama here.

[augustocroppo]

File modification time is simply a data field in the compressed archive, trivial to change.

Getting the compressed and uncompress archive sizes to match is only marginally more difficult.

The compressed archive likely includes per-file hashes or CRCs already... that is the data highly difficult to duplicate (i.e. the part you did not post).

I asked you to demonstrate how that is done, not to explain how that is done. If you do not present an demonstration of how that is done, I will assume you are just trying to discredit me because I did not provide you with some 'hashes'.

Irrelevant.  OpenPGP data is typically already public... it needs to be, to independently verify signatures.

Irrelevant is your opinion.

[augustocroppo]

I can understand chat logs not matching (timestamps and whatnot, regardless of format), since they are likely created by the person you claim to have sent you these. However since reports and images are likely distributed as is, your argument has zero merit. Okay some files won't match by their nature. So?

What really matter is the content of the documents, not the 'hashes'.

Also, please release these files ASAP. There is no reason to not release them, and assuming they are authentic, they will be very helpful in developing a better way to do business, if not in helping GLBSE victims. If they are not authentic, well, you won't get an answer to that by creating drama here.

Of course there are reasons to not release the documents. One of the reasons is the insistence that the documents are not authentic because I did not provide some 'hashes' in the written declaration.

[memvola]

Also, please release these files ASAP. There is no reason to not release them, and assuming they are authentic, they will be very helpful in developing a better way to do business, if not in helping GLBSE victims. If they are not authentic, well, you won't get an answer to that by creating drama here.

Of course there are reasons to not release the documents. One of the reasons is the insistence that the documents are not authentic because I did not provide some 'hashes' in the written declaration.

Sorry but what you are saying didn't make any sense to me. You don't need to release hashes if you release the documents. Am I missing something? Hashes provide means to check authenticity without releasing the documents. I'm flabbergasted by your arguments, I really don't know how I can explain this better.

[augustocroppo]

Sorry but what you are saying didn't make any sense to me. You don't need to release hashes if you release the documents. Am I missing something? Hashes provide means to check authenticity without releasing the documents. I'm flabbergasted by your arguments, I really don't know how I can explain this better.

What I mean is that I will not release the documents for users which have already demonstrated bias to examine the compacted archive. I am glad that you are not demanding 'hashes' to trust that I did not changed the documents. I offer my apologies for my imprecise answer.

[repentance]

I think you probably need to make a decision soon on whether or not to release the documents.  Some people are going to review them objectively and some aren't - there's really nothing you can do to control that. 

[memvola]

Some people are going to review them objectively and some aren't - there's really nothing you can do to control that. 

Keep in mind that you can expect biased users to be more vocal, so there is a bias that makes you think biased users are more effective than they really are.

Also, I haven't seen much reaction about the data being released, mostly questions about its authenticity, which is a pretty obvious question.

[Raoul Duke]

One of the most stupid threads I've read lately...
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.

[augustocroppo]

One of the most stupid threads I've read lately...
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.

Chega atrasado para a discussão e reclama que não há nada para discutir?

Se o assunto não lhe agrada, ignore o debate.

Este é um assunto delicado e sua resposta está fora do tópico em pauta.

[Raoul Duke]

One of the most stupid threads I've read lately...
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.

Chega atrasado para a discussão e reclama que não há nada para discutir?

Se o assunto não lhe agrada, ignore o debate.

Este é um assunto delicado e sua resposta está fora do tópico em pauta.

PT: Desculpa, mas como posso chegar atrasado para algo que nao existe?
EN: Sorry, how can I be late for something which doesn't exist?

PT: Pode escrever em ingles para que os outros entendam, eu nao tenho problema algum com isso, mas vc talvez tenha.
EN: You can write in English so everybody else can understand, I have no problems with that but maybe you have.

PT: Assunto delicado, o caralho... Se nao posta os documentos, nao passa de um mentiroso que gosta de atencao. Os documentos nao existem. Prova que estou errado. A bola ta do seu lado.
EN: Delicate subject my ass... If you don't release the documents you're just an attention-whoring liar. The documents don't exist. Prove me wrong. The ball is on your court.