Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman?

[Pablo Elpuro]

Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman?

[TPTB_need_war]

Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman?

Say something then about him.

Perhaps you didn't realize that I was the one who before this thread started, pointed out that we should be talking about him.   Do I need to provide a link as proof?

P.S. see you registered a sock puppet account today so you can do your hatchet attack anonymously.

[suchmoon]

Analysis of what? Please post the facts being analyzed, i.e. the public key, the message Wright signed, and the signature. The thread you linked to doesn't have that.

Your laziness isn't my fault. You find all the links if you click the link I provided to you upthread:

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.

Are you fucking blind?

If you click any of these links in the link I provided to you several times, you will end up finding the links to the analysis done by others which has all the information you asked for:

[...]

The only contention remaining is whether the Sartre text hashes to the hash Craig signed. Apparently no one has bothered to check that, even they are so damn quick to declare him a fraud without checking it.

It's mighty humble of you to finally admit that you don't have any proof of your claims. I'm sure you'll let us know when you find that Sartre text.

[Foxpup]

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.

He didn't disclose anything else about the document, which is why it's impossible to disprove any claim about it.

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.

I never claimed that it was, nor do I even care. Why would I if it doesn't contain any evidence for any claims that have been made?

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.

Non sequitur.

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?

I didn't care to answer it since it is irrelevant. I have explained the most likely reason why double SHA256 was used, which is what you asked.

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

Alright, fine. The answer is yes. I do understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds. It would be pretty meaningless if it was.

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

It says more about yours than mine.

[YarkoL]

For someone with time to kill...
The Sartre text is here
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/

You'd need to copy and paste into a notepad and maybe
increment whitespace at the end til you hit the right hash.

But maybe the real message is in the (con)text

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

He didn't disclose anything else about the document, which is why it's impossible to disprove any claim about it.

You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash. You all haven't done that, thus you are derelict. You all shouldn't go spouting off "Craig a fraud" without even attempting to verify some basic things such as whether drcraigwright.com is his website and whether any portion of the text could match the hash that was signed.

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.

I never claimed that it was, nor do I even care. Why would I if it doesn't contain any evidence for any claims that have been made?

'backsplaining.

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.

Non sequitur.

See above. REKTED.

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?

I didn't care to answer it since it is irrelevant. I have explained the most likely reason why double SHA256 was used, which is what you asked.

Which is technically incorrect, but I will come back to that point to REKT you after we finish this.

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

Alright, fine. The answer is yes. I do understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds. It would be pretty meaningless if it was.

So tell me the reason? Obviously I didn't ask the question to only receive a "yes". Anyone can say "yes". I want you to prove you understand how cryptographic hash functions are constructed and prove you have knowledge about how collision attacks are often constructed. Because these are things I had researched in the past. You've had enough delay to google it by now, so surely you can cheat and tell me?

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

It says more about yours than mine.

That is the sort of reply which the linked article explains you would make. So you've confirmed it. Thanks.

[TPTB_need_war]

Jezee guys he is just asking us to look at the code. It's not a bad idea to peek at the publicly available source code from time to time. Fortunately this is an open source project and that allows us to be certain that nothing malicious is in the code. I'll go through it tonight and see for myself. A "backdoor" is not hide-able in the source.

Specifically I am not alleging something is maliciously hiding in the source code.

I am asking if the double hashing could possibly be itself a cryptographic hole that enables someone to preimage via collisions an existing signature so as to prove they signed a message from that key.

Apparently the double hash is also on the public key as well as on the hash that is signed? If true, this means that someone might be able to preimage a collision on the hash(hash(public key)) and thus spend other people's coins as well.

[Foxpup]

You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash.

No, you couldn't, and I explained why.

'backsplaining.

I've never heard of that word in this context. What does it mean?

So tell me the reason? Obviously I didn't ask the question to only receive a "yes".

Actually, it's not obvious at all why you asked the question, hence my glib answer. Your nonsense isn't worth my time.

I want you to prove you understand how cryptographic hash functions are constructed and prove you have knowledge about how collision attacks are often constructed. Because these are things I had researched in the past.

Why should I? I'm not the one making outlandish claims about the subject. You are, and I doubt (based on the fact that your posts are nonsense) that you have actually researched it in any capacity.

That is the sort of reply which the linked article explains you would make. So you've confirmed it. Thanks.

You're welcome.

[TPTB_need_war]

You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash.

No, you couldn't, and I explained why.

If you believe that, you are dumber than I thought.

Perhaps you aren't even a programmer?

Of course one can write a script to hash all continuous portions of the Sartre document and check against the hash and then show that he could not possibly be correct with any contiguous portion of the Sartre document that was claim to have been signed for.

Please don't waste my time with your inane inability to understand rudimentary concepts.  Even Yarkol already explained it.

I want you to prove you understand how cryptographic hash functions are constructed and prove you have knowledge about how collision attacks are often constructed. Because these are things I had researched in the past.

Why should I? I'm not the one making outlandish claims about the subject. You are, and I doubt (based on the fact that your posts are nonsense) that you have actually researched it in any capacity.

I will proceed to explain once you confirm that do not understand why Merkle–Damgård construction is relevant? Either explain or admit you don't know. So I can proceed to teach you something. You are wasting my scarce time with your stalling/deception tactics and trolling.

Next time you will realize not to fuck with me, because I know a lot more than you assume.

[spartacusrex]

HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

..

One thing..

IF Satoshi is Kleiman.. When was that post made by Satoshi about him not being Dorian Nakamoto.. ?

Wasn't that AFTER 2013.. ?

[P-Funk]

TPTB_need_war stop posting.

[TPTB_need_war]

HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

Yeah it is tiring to deal with trolls who are too ignorant to realize they are.

TPTB_need_war stop posting.

Why do you not want readers to read the truth.

[Pablo Elpuro]

HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

..

One thing..

IF Satoshi is Kleiman.. When was that post made by Satoshi about him not being Dorian Nakamoto.. ?

Wasn't that AFTER 2013.. ?

Is this really relevant?

Is this statement of Satoshi verified?

Edit: I suppose, after stopping to post here, no statement of Satoshi is verifyable nomore. Its anyway very difficult to verify an anonymous source, especially in the latest statement, because of the hackability of every channel.

[Foxpup]

If you believe that, you are dumber than I thought.

Yes, I do believe I explained it.

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.

Perhaps you're illiterate?

Please don't waste my time with your inane inability to understand rudimentary concepts.

Rudimentary concepts such as the fact that the binary representation of the document in question hasn't even been identified? And that there are infinitely many possible representations? I agree, if you don't understand such concepts, there is no point in wasting time discussing anything with you.

I will proceed to explain once you confirm that do not understand why Merkle–Damgård construction is relevant? Either explain or admit you don't know. So I can proceed to teach you something. You are wasting my scarce time with your stalling/deception tactics and trolling.

No, you're the one wasting my time. I don't have to explain anything. You do. And you're not. I can only assume by your lack of explanation that you can't produce one.

Next time you will realize not to fuck with me, because I know a lot more than you assume.

I assume you know nothing, so knowing more than that isn't much of an accomplishment. But please go ahead and demonstrate your accomplishment. We're all waiting.

[Pablo Elpuro]

Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman?

Say something then about him.

Perhaps you didn't realize that I was the one who before this thread started, pointed out that we should be talking about him.  Do I need to provide a link as proof?

P.S. see you registered a sock puppet account today so you can do your hatchet attack anonymously.

I am an innocent Noob, and not a sock puppet.

I WAS saying something about him just before:

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.

I see, you are completely upset, maybe your exitement is entirely appropriate, because you seem to be seriously worried. I cannot judge, you know, the angry man's terms are hardly accessible. And to be honest, I am not interested, because..



..me too, I am worried, but because of something else what seems to be importantmore to me and what is on-topic.


Its something what belongs exactly here and nowhere else. And your thema is off-topic and makes this important thread unreadable. I m sorry, but thats a fact.



Its as talking of the boxing in the football-match. 



Why dont you ask the moderation to adapt the title of the thread to your thema?
The footballers are excellent boxing sportlers certainly too.

[fenican]

We do have fairly convincing evidence that the signature Wright posted is not a signature of any subset of the Sartre document.

Specifically, it matches an early public signature from Satoshi lifted from a Bitcoin transaction. The chance against any portion of the Sartre document generating an identical signature are astronomical. Hence, it's pretty clearly an attempt at fraud or at the very least intentional misdirection.

[spartacusrex]

HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

..

One thing..

IF Satoshi is Kleiman.. When was that post made by Satoshi about him not being Dorian Nakamoto.. ?

Wasn't that AFTER 2013.. ?

Is this really relevant?

Is this statement of Satoshi verified?

Edit: I suppose, after stopping to post here, no statement of Satoshi is verifyable nomore. Its anyway very difficult to verify an anonymous source, especially in the latest statement, because of the hackability of every channel.

It means that that statement couldn't have been made by Kleiman.

[Pablo Elpuro]

Is it a problem, when THIS statement isnt coming from Dave?

Everyone was interested in stopping this silly boulevard-show over Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto.

[P-Funk]

TPTB_need_war stop posting.

Why do you not want readers to read the truth.

That'd be nice but everything you've posted in this thread has been incoherent drivel. You come off as a crackhead.

[Pablo Elpuro]

We were reading here many times in the past days of the falseness of the superelevation of Satoshi in the sphere at the limit to the divine.

Of course, humans are no gods.

Albert Einstein wasnt a god too not..

.. but we should talk of Satoshi Nakamoto maybe as of the Einstein of the banking.

The invention of the blockchain, block chain, as Satoshi used to write is not to underestimate. Some talk of the invention of the century. Some, what are not fools.

I will not talk now about that, as it is off-topic too.

Just to say, if it is Dave, then Dave is a big hero. And not a falseplayer as this false doctor, of whom we should stop to babble.

As well as we should stop to babble about Jean-Paul Sartre's irrelevant Nobel-refuse speech. Its always one of the red herrings of the false player.

Edit: typo