Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman?

[TPTB_need_war]

The tweets of this account might be worth reading.

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.

Here's another worthwhile article if it hasn't been mentioned before:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/

I rebutted that article in the thread that Gmaxwell deleted and is hiding from the readers.

I basically pointed out that until CW reveals which portion of the Sartre text he claims to have signed, we can't conclude anything.

Now please stop making incorrect statements.

Please name me one single SHA256 collision - idiot!

And now work out for me the odds of CW having found such a collision (and it happening to come from whatever Sartre document).

The entire point of the thread I created is that the double hashing that Satoshi put in Bitcoin (and nobody knows why) can make the collision resistance twice as bad. SHA256 is already broken for 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds. So thus doubling the hash may have been enough to break it given also that Craig apparently had access to a supercomputer.

Dude I am more expert about cryptographic hashes than you are. I designed my own already. I have done a lot of research in that area in 2013.

My guess is that you are going to offer your amazing cryptographic hash algo (which I am guessing has been peer reviewed by many experts all over the world) to Bitcoin?

Refute the facts in the prior post.

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

Who are you quoting? I never wrote that text.

Yes you did. Either that or you decided to take credit for someone else saying it. Maybe you should go to a doctor and ask for an Alzheimer's screening, considering you've already forgotten something you wrote today.

I did not write that text with bolded phrase and without the context of the caveats that I provided at the deleted thread which was quoted out-of-context and missing the link to the context, as explained already dufus:

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.

[Foxpup]

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

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?

[Foxpup]

Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts.

While there are facts I don't like, I can accept them and I've never suffered a heart attack as a result. Though it's irrelevant since you've never said anything that even remotely resembles a fact.

You are free to present a refutation of anything I've written. So far, I've seen no technical argument from you.

How can I? One can only make a technical argument against disputed facts, and as I said, nothing you've ever said resembles a fact, disputed or otherwise. There is no technical argument to be made against the ravings of a deranged lunatic.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

[mindrust]

Who the hell is Dave Kleiman? Another Satoshi Nakamoto wannabe?

No thanks, we already have enough number of Satoshi rip-off's. Time is money my friend and people don't wanna talk over bullshit.

[TPTB_need_war]

http://drcraigwright.net/ 

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...

[ebliever]

http://drcraigwright.net/ 

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...

WOW.

The May 2 blog post has disappeared as well. Either Craig Wright's site got hacked, or his scam came unglued, or this is part of the scam somehow. (*grabs more popcorn*)

[P-Funk]

 TPTB_need_war stop posting.

[Gyrsur]

go back down under CSW!! and never come back!! you fucking lying bastard!!

[Stringer Bell]

TPTB_need_war stop posting.

That would be great, Ignore works pretty well too.

[TPTB_need_war]

You got your answer, satoshi my ass... lol

http://www.drcraigwright.net/

LOL, back to work

We don't know yet for sure who Craig is working for.

This obviously was not done without a purpose.

You don't take these huge risk (e.g. of being sued, etc) without a sufficient reason.

Is Matonis a large blocker like Gavin?

Not?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yupa6/philosophy_jon_matonis_extending_transaction_fee/

But they both are key members (control?) the Bitcoin Foundation?

What were their positions on Blockstream's SegWit?

Matonis is against block chain soft forks that are in SegWit:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/jon-matonis-believes-block-size-debate-precursor-block-reward-debate/

http://bitcoinist.net/bitcoin-industry-leaders-block-size/

I guess there goes your Bitcoin is broken fud theory.

It might still be technically valid even if Craig isn't availing of such a vulnerability. And I am not yet sure if Craig has quit. He would place himself in greater legal burden by not following through.

Asking to have a technical discussion with a question mark and asking readers to please wait for the replies from other experts, hardly constitutes FUD. Please re-read the quote where I specifically stated those caveats from the very start (of course Gmaxwell deleted the thread but we still have my quote of the OP).

Remember Monero (not smooth) ignored for a year or more my points about combinatorial unmasking and IP address correlation. Finally now they admit it.

[TPTB_need_war]

Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts.

While there are facts I don't like, I can accept them and I've never suffered a heart attack as a result. Though it's irrelevant since you've never said anything that even remotely resembles a fact.

You are free to present a refutation of anything I've written. So far, I've seen no technical argument from you.

How can I? One can only make a technical argument against disputed facts, and as I said, nothing you've ever said resembles a fact, disputed or otherwise.

I presented a technical argument. Regardless of the actions of Craig, that technical argument remains.

A technical argument by definition is not a fact. It is a technical position that stands to be debated. So if you are unwilling to respond technically to my technical points, then obviously you have nothing technical to say.

Here are some positions I made which you and no one else has refuted:

1. Craig said he signed a hash of some Sartre document but did not disclose which portion of the text. No one has written a script to prove that no portion or combination of portions of that Sartre text will not hash to the value that was signed. Thus I stated until someone has proven that it is impossible for Craig to later show that some portion of the Sartre text will hash to the sign hash value, then you can't claim with certainty that he can't do that. At the bare minimum, those who were checking Craig's proof, should have at least run a simple script to try every contiguous portion (no permutations) of the Sartre text (which is a tractable computation).

2. I have stated that no one seems to know why Bitcoin employs double hashing, and I have stated a theory that double hashing may weaken the collision resistance of the SHA256. I gave my logic for why that may be the case. I also note that SHA256 is documented to be reasonably close to being broken with 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds already broken. Thus I presented the theory that perhaps the double-hashing might push the vulnerability over the edge of breakage of 64 rounds. I didn't present that as a likely theory. I presented it as a point of discussion. If you have no way to refute this technical possibility because you don't know a damn thing about cryptographic hash function construction then that means you are not expert enough to comment about the quality of my theory. Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds? I ask you a specific question and I expect a specific answer.

I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem. Only a technical reply from you is relevant. Of course you can't make one.

Also how do you know that Craig didn't withdraw his plan because I just explained how he may of accomplished the feat he claimed he can do? I mean if someone could even explain the rational justification for the double-hashing, then we wouldn't be wondering as much.

[Pablo Elpuro]

Also how do you know that Craig didn't withdraw his plan because I just explained how he may of accomplished the feat he claimed he can do? I mean if someone could even explain the rational justification for the double-hashing, then we wouldn't be wondering as much.

Ahm..



I will not say, that you are wrong, but arent you wrong here?




Dave Kleiman is dead, his identity of having been Satoshi Nakamoto is always doubted. And if..

..then his brother, what was inheriting the suspicious USB-drive with the wallets worth half a billion dollar is absolutely inconscient about his property and in big danger, as there exist gamblers as this unspeakable false doctor Craig Wright what are interested in nothing than these bucks really. Some kill for a handful dollars, as our wild Gleb was remembering very sage.

 

Isnt it better to think about this closer here, and about other things somewhere else?

[TPTB_need_war]

The plot thickens. 

Makes everyone who says he was a fraud look like a total imbecile for not checking whether the website is really the official word of Craig Wright.

In the thread of mine that Gregory Maxwell deleted, I made the point that those accusing Craig of fraud, hadn't done their homework. Lol. 

Think about it - if you were purchasing a domain with your name in the title, why would you register it using an anonymous registrant to hide your name?

Forgot to tick-off default option "Protect my privacy for 5.99$ per year" maybe?

That's one perfectly plausible explanation
It couldn't possibly be anything like

My guess is wishful thinking. Never change, bitcointalk, never change...

not really sure where you're going with this. so you're saying that craig can deny his ties to the domain? what would that do? his claims on satoshi's identity were recorded in a video.

Not suggesting that he did not claim to be Satoshi. Merely that not everything posted on the internet can be taken at face value. If he needed to claim that he is not the author of that apology, he easily could.
And, of course,

< >The BBC understands that this tweet signifies that Mr Matonis still believes Dr Wright is indeed Satoshi.

"A lot more people in the Bitcoin community are going to be unconvinced of Dr Wright's claims than will believe he is Satoshi, based upon what's happened to date," commented Dr Garrick Hileman, an economic historian at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.

"But many of the doubters don't want to be convinced. Satoshi has been mythologised and if you pull back the curtain, you shatter a lot of people's fantasies.

[Foxpup]

1. Craig said he signed a hash of some Sartre document but did not disclose which portion of the text. No one has written a script to prove that no portion or combination of portions of that Sartre text will not hash to the value that was signed. Thus I stated until someone has proven that it is impossible for Craig to later show that some portion of the Sartre text will hash to the sign hash value, then you can't claim with certainty that he can't do that. At the bare minimum, those who were checking Craig's proof, should have at least run a simple script to try every contiguous portion (no permutations) of the Sartre text (which is a tractable computation).

Such a script would prove nothing, since you know nothing about the input Craig allegedly used. If you feed the script a plain ASCII text file, you'll just claim he might have used UTF16. Or a PDF file, which can altered in infinitely many ways without affecting the text content. Or a JPEG of a photograph of a printout of the document. Or something else entirely. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that such a hash collision exists, not on anyone else to prove that it doesn't.

2. I have stated that no one seems to know why Bitcoin employs double hashing, and I have stated a theory that double hashing may weaken the collision resistance of the SHA256. I gave my logic for why that may be the case. I also note that SHA256 is documented to be reasonably close to being broken with 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds already broken. Thus I presented the theory that perhaps the double-hashing might push the vulnerability over the edge of breakage of 64 rounds. I didn't present that as a likely theory. I presented it as a point of discussion. If you have no way to refute this technical possibility because you don't know a damn thing about cryptographic hash function construction then that means you are not expert enough to comment about the quality of my theory. Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds? I ask you a specific question and I expect a specific answer.

Because double hashing is routinely employed to avoid preimage and length extension attacks, whether such protection is needed or not. Multiple iterations do not make it more vulnerable (again, if you believe it does, it's up to you to produce evidence of such a vulnerability), so there's no downside except for a slight reduction in performance.

I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem.

No, it isn't. It would a problem if I did like you, since anyone who does must be a poor judge of character.

[TPTB_need_war]

1. Craig said he signed a hash of some Sartre document but did not disclose which portion of the text. No one has written a script to prove that no portion or combination of portions of that Sartre text will not hash to the value that was signed. Thus I stated until someone has proven that it is impossible for Craig to later show that some portion of the Sartre text will hash to the sign hash value, then you can't claim with certainty that he can't do that. At the bare minimum, those who were checking Craig's proof, should have at least run a simple script to try every contiguous portion (no permutations) of the Sartre text (which is a tractable computation).

Such a script would prove nothing, since you know nothing about the input Craig allegedly used.

If we are basing it on the drcraigwright.com website "proof", then the Sartre document is the one claimed to have been hashed, but he didn't disclose what portion of that document.

Nice try. Fail.

My point is the you Bitcoin zealots didn't do your homework. Haha. You also didn't even validate if that was his official website. You guys are derelict, as well as censoring free speech and technical discussion. No wonder you will end up in failure mindlessly following Blockstream's SegWit soft forking Trojan Horse.

2. I have stated that no one seems to know why Bitcoin employs double hashing, and I have stated a theory that double hashing may weaken the collision resistance of the SHA256. I gave my logic for why that may be the case. I also note that SHA256 is documented to be reasonably close to being broken with 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds already broken. Thus I presented the theory that perhaps the double-hashing might push the vulnerability over the edge of breakage of 64 rounds. I didn't present that as a likely theory. I presented it as a point of discussion. If you have no way to refute this technical possibility because you don't know a damn thing about cryptographic hash function construction then that means you are not expert enough to comment about the quality of my theory. Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds? I ask you a specific question and I expect a specific answer.

Because double hashing is routinely employed to avoid preimage and length extension attacks, whether such protection is needed or not. Multiple iterations do not make it more vulnerable (again, if you believe it does, it's up to you to produce evidence of such a vulnerability), so there's no downside except for a slight reduction in performance.

I asked you a specific question, "Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds?". I see you are unable to answer it?

After we confirm that you can't answer it, then I will REKT the rest of your technically incorrect response above.

I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem.

No, it isn't. It would a problem if I did like you, since anyone who does must be a poor judge of character.

Try reading the linked article to learn more about your character.

Btw, why are you so defensive of a coin that is 70% controlled by China's miners and allegedly soon to be 98.5% controlled. Can you even look in the mirror and not laugh at yourself.