Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman?

[Gleb Gamow]

interesting chat with Joseph VaughnPerling. he sounds a little pissed off.

Satoshi Saga Continues: Tulip Trust Trustee Expected to Appear by September 19, Says Joseph VaughnPerling

Joseph VaughnPerling alludes to the Tulip trustee being a woman. Now, who is Joseph VaughnPerling? (I envision Ayn Rand turning her earthworm vibrator on high at this point - she was a 'wild one' if you missed the reference)

Pretty sure it's this guy.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=122404

Sneaky... lurking but not posting anything about this drama.

Last Active: May 05, 2016
Last Post: April 23, 2016

"Heavenly Father, send me a sign that the man (my real son) I just performed the first online marriage for is gonna meet Satoshi before the advent of Bitcoin. Amen... Red seven on the black eight. Black queen on the red king..."

I'll be an SOB!

http://web.archive.org/web/20050323134911/http://www.vaughn.perling.com/joseph/index.html

For the first time in WorldsAway, a real-life bride and groom--Victoria Vaughn and groom Joseph Perling--exchanged marriage vows in the WorldsAway virtual chapel via their onscreen personas, known as "avatars.

J^VP took his wife's name.

[yefi]

I think that CSW stumbled upon Bitcoin circa 2013 (late 2012 at the earliest) and started concocting a narrative to fit his long con. Stumbling upon the death of David Kleiman, a person who CSW co-wrote with, Craig saw that the pieces of Dave's life fit nicely in what's known about Satoshi. It was just a matter of creating docs to make it look like he and Dave were partners of sorts which I've demonstrated he's done.

Agreed. Beyond co-authoring a couple of works, there is no independent source linking these men as being close. Kleiman's colleagues had no idea who Craig was when he phoned - and why did he leave it 10 months after Dave's death to contact them about 1 million Bitcoin? It's all part of his web of lies to deceive.

I'm still taken aback on how David Kleiman was awarded soldier of the year in 1987 after ONLY one year of service while being a Huey tech in Germany, beating out a million-plus candidates, some of which were perhaps more deserving. Also, he claimed to be a war veteran when he didn't serve in a war zone because ... wait for it ... the US wasn't involved in any conflicts during his stint in the US Army.

Did he though? I wouldn't trust a local news outlet to get the facts straight. Apparently, to become Soldier of the Year you have to engage in the Best Warrior competition. Problem is, it only began in 2002.

[alani123]

interesting chat with Joseph VaughnPerling. he sounds a little pissed off.

Satoshi Saga Continues: Tulip Trust Trustee Expected to Appear by September 19, Says Joseph VaughnPerling

Joseph VaughnPerling alludes to the Tulip trustee being a woman. Now, who is Joseph VaughnPerling? (I envision Ayn Rand turning her earthworm vibrator on high at this point - she was a 'wild one' if you missed the reference)

Pretty sure it's this guy.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=122404

Sneaky... lurking but not posting anything about this drama.

Last Active: May 05, 2016
Last Post: April 23, 2016

Also note that his account was registered in 2013. Why would he not participate into bitcointalk earlier if he was charmed by Satoshi in 2005... Makes me think that this guy is just lying to get his name around.

[Almagro]

new and very interesting  article about dave kleiman
www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/05/is-dave-kleiman-the-missing-link-in-craig-wrights-satoshi-story/

[Gleb Gamow]

I think that CSW stumbled upon Bitcoin circa 2013 (late 2012 at the earliest) and started concocting a narrative to fit his long con. Stumbling upon the death of David Kleiman, a person who CSW co-wrote with, Craig saw that the pieces of Dave's life fit nicely in what's known about Satoshi. It was just a matter of creating docs to make it look like he and Dave were partners of sorts which I've demonstrated he's done.

Agreed. Beyond co-authoring a couple of works, there is no independent source linking these men as being close. Kleiman's colleagues had no idea who Craig was when he phoned - and why did he leave it 10 months after Dave's death to contact them about 1 million Bitcoin? It's all part of his web of lies to deceive.

I'm still taken aback on how David Kleiman was awarded soldier of the year in 1987 after ONLY one year of service while being a Huey tech in Germany, beating out a million-plus candidates, some of which were perhaps more deserving. Also, he claimed to be a war veteran when he didn't serve in a war zone because ... wait for it ... the US wasn't involved in any conflicts during his stint in the US Army.

Did he though? I wouldn't trust a local news outlet to get the facts straight. Apparently, to become Soldier of the Year you have to engage in the Best Warrior competition. Problem is, it only began in 2002.

http://catalog.gpo.gov/F/THFGQXDFADX3FXYJAHHQIAVNUN165KI1EQM1Y4L471DLXN92CN-01341?func=full-set-set&set_number=006014&set_entry=000004&format=999

[TPTB_need_war]

I was sleeping. Now the REKTing will ensue.

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

I believe you are a liar. Prove it by revealing your identity. My identity is known to everyone. I have revealed my full name, where I live, my history, my LinkedIn account, my public non-anonymous writings published over the internet, etc..

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?

Yes of course there is a combinatorial explosion of possibilities which was my point that you all can't conclude with 100% certainty that Craig can't produce a preimage of the hash, unless you can be sure he can't second preimage SHA-256 or otherwise find a collision. And I had stated that double hashing with SHA-256 might possibility have a cryptoanalysis hole that isn't known to exist in the cryptoanalysis of a single hashing. Again this was just a theory I wanted to discuss. Perhaps you don't like theories. Perhaps you would have preferred that Einstein didn't ponder riding in elevators. Well small, closed minds aren't very creative and thus don't achieve greatness. More on that with follow in a subsequent post.

However, in spite of the fact that you can't disprove any possible means of representation or permutation of the Sartre text, I wrote several times upthread that at the bare minimum, those protagonists who were claiming 100% certainty that Craig could not do something (btw a very strong claim), it would behove them to at least show that using typical representations of the Sartre text (e.g. ASCII text and perhaps UTF8/UTF16), that no contiguous portion of the text could hash to the signed hash. Moreover and more saliently, I pointed out that the protagonists were disingenuous or derelict by not pointing out the possibility that Craig might still be able to match the hash with some revealed content, Iff (if and only if) Craig had found a way to second preimage or otherwise find the necessary collision on the SHA256 hash. That the protagonists were too lazy to do this and were also too lazy to even verify if the website drcraigwright.com is Craig Wright's official communication vehicle (which apparently it is not and is now for sale here on bitcointalk.org according to a screen capture I quoted upthread), points to the lack of diligence and/or disingenuity in this tribe of Bitcoin maximalists including apparently yourself, who think they are holier than thou.

Do not disingenously quote my above two paragraphs out-of-context again. Don't cherry pick my context to make inane non-rebuttals which side-step my holistic set of points.

Note when I am done REKTing you on the technical points (again more is to follow below after this post), I never again want to waste my precious time with a useless and disingenuous turd. So this will be your last interaction with me.

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.

You are apparently mathematically illiterate. If Craig can't find the second preimage or necessary collision, then he can't find a text that matches. Period. If he can find the second preimage or necessary collision, then he can find a text that matches. Period. When we analyze the probability, we don't start only with the Sartre text document. He could have chosen from any document on earth.

Thus his ability to use only contiguous portions of the Sartre document is mathematical plausible (again assuming he has the necessary cryptographic breakage), and thus it behoves the protagonists to explain this and even to write a quick script to prove that the contiguous portions possibilities in the common encoding formats does not hash to the signature he provided. The derelicts didn't do this. My necessary mathematical assumption in this paragraph (not impacting the prior paragraph) is that the hash function would be subject to a multi-collision attack. Thus if the breakage is not multi-collision, then Craig could not have reasonably limited himself to contiguous portions because the search for document matches in itself would probably be an intractable computational problem. My point remains that we see none of this sophisticated explanation from the protagonists. Instead they do a little bit of half-ass analysis and then everyone proclaims Craig is a fraud. This is Craig's point! I simply wanted to have a theoretical discussion in the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum and instead had my legitimate inquiry vaporized by the Bitcoin maximalist "forum-Hitler" moderator who uses the moniker Gmaxwell or in real life Gregory Maxwell. And we have all his underlings here who promulgate his shitty attitude and actions.

[yefi]

http://catalog.gpo.gov/F/THFGQXDFADX3FXYJAHHQIAVNUN165KI1EQM1Y4L471DLXN92CN-01341?func=full-set-set&set_number=006014&set_entry=000004&format=999

Ha ha, nicely found. Think we can lay that one to rest now.

https://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/gpc&CISOPTR=1553

[Gleb Gamow]

http://catalog.gpo.gov/F/THFGQXDFADX3FXYJAHHQIAVNUN165KI1EQM1Y4L471DLXN92CN-01341?func=full-set-set&set_number=006014&set_entry=000004&format=999

Ha ha, nicely found. Think we can lay that one to rest now.

https://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/gpc&CISOPTR=1553

http://www.garrison.redstone.army.mil/uploads/Redstone%20Rocket%201986_10_29_.pdf



I'm checking '86, '88 and '89 in case there's an honest mistake. If no Kleiman is found, then I won't be updating.

[ebliever]

Hey guys - those documents say Wheeler is the Solder of the Year for Army Missile Command. Not for the whole Army. So was there a top award for the overall Army? Or maybe different branches of the Army each had their own Soldier of the Year? Those are details a journalist could easily get screwed up. So don't stop digging.

[Gleb Gamow]

I hope you conspiracy buffs have enough aluminum foil in stock because I'm sad to say this is about to become a tad (maybe more) weirder.

Go here: http://delivereddata.com/



Fair enough, given that...

https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.aspx?domain=delivereddata.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

Domain Name: DELIVEREDDATA.COM
Registry Domain ID: 119667898_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Update Date: 2015-02-12T19:15:59Z
Creation Date: 2004-05-10T08:23:28Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-05-10T08:23:28Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: cv conrad
Registrant Organization: DeliveredDATA, LLC
Registrant Street: po box 22935
Registrant City: west palm beach
Registrant State/Province: Florida
Registrant Postal Code: 33416
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: 15615023935
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: registeredagent@delivereddata.com

David Kleiman and Carter V. Conrad were partners along with Patrick Paige.

Here's more on Conrad: http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Carter-Conrad/1484242250



But the address I highlighted above is not the address I wish to bring attention to in this post. The following address is.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080509034542/http://www.delivereddata.com/contact_us.htm



301 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401, USA

Who else is at that address?

http://www.totaldigitalsecurity.com/



Who founded Total Digital Security?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradforddeflin



The Bitcoin connection?

http://www.totaldigitalsecurity.com/blog/cryptolocker-virus-is-back-ransomware-and-the-evolution-of-extortion



https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Awww.totaldigitalsecurity.com%20bitcoin&oq=site%3Awww.totaldigitalsecurity.com%20bitcoin&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS549US549&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.6938j0j4



TDS was formed on 3/13/13 (~1 month prior to David Kleiman's death [near his owl pillow]): http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=OfficerRegisteredAgentName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DEFLINKENDALLH%20P130000237433&aggregateId=domp-p13000023743-0504a4cf-5af6-4bb1-b793-d8e783049f35&searchTerm=Deflin%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Kendall%20%20%20%20%20%20%20H&listNameOrder=DEFLINKENDALLH%20P130000237433


I was ready to post, but just found the following, not sure how it may or may not fit in: https://dietrolldie.com/2013/05/20/malibu-media-claims-fabrication-of-evidence-and-seeks-sanctions-212-cv-02078-pa/#comment-14107

May 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm
So…while Prenda & friends use a large, loud and obnoxious backhoe to dig their hole – Lipscomb, Colette & Brig use a quiet, quaint and simple shovel to dig theirs. Is it safe to say Lipscomb’s big BT litigation lessons were learned in response to Prenda’s huge mistakes?

We’d bet there is a lot to learn about Patrick Paige & Carter V. Conrad, Computer Forensic Examiner, Computer Forensics LLC and Delivereddata LLC – http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/West-Palm-Beach/computer-forensics-llc/101108561.aspx (Computer Forensics LLC filed as a Florida Limited Liability on Monday, February 06, 2012) http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/West-Palm-Beach/delivereddata-llc-5410889.aspx (Delivereddata, LLC filed as a Florida Limited Liability on Wednesday, May 02, 2007)

But how is http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/West-Palm-Beach/c4-wellness-llc-5196097.aspx
CV Conrad and C4 Wellness related?

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

I'll interpret your reply as an ostensibly intentional veiled admission that you could not answer the question. So I will proceed to explain the sort of theoretical analysis that I was interested in discussing in the thread that the "forum-Hitler" Gmaxwell nuked.

Tangentially note the disclaimer that I wrote in the OP of the thread which was nuked:

Does anyone know what black hole Bitcoin core (Blockstream) developer Gmaxwell moved the quoted thread to?

[...]

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.

I had written in that nuked and vaporized thread a post (my last or nearly last post in that nuked thread) which explained that at the moment I wrote that quoted OP, I had been mislead by sloppy writing on the news sites (and also the linked sites of the protagonists) into thinking that the hash of the Sartre text was already confirmed. For example, I provided this quote:

Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.

Being at is was by that time late in the evening for my timezone and I had been awake roughly 18 hours already, and I was skimming in an attempt to make some quick feedback on this potentially important event, so I could return to my work asap. In the nuked thread, I quickly realized that the Sartre text hadn't been verified to match the hash, so I actually stopped posting in the nuked thread for a few hours. Then when I came back to thread, it didn't exist so I could no longer follow up or read what had been elucidated. Thus note my original focus was on how the hell could Craig have achieved that match, so he must have broken the hash. I had recalled that I had theoretically doubts about the double hashing which I had never bothered to discuss with anyone. It had been 2+ years since I did that research on cryptographic hash functions, so I had to decide if I was going to go dig back into that research or not. I figured I'd sleep on it and then be able to think with a clearer, rested mind about the implications of the revelation (to me) that the hash had not been verified to match the text because the portion of the text had not been sufficiently specified (again the "undisclosed" term didn't make sense to me in quick skimming because I had read on the blog that the Sartre text was referred to).

But instead of being able to sleep on it and then decide whether to let it go or dig back into my past research, my thread was nuked and I was under attack. Remember I don't back down from anyone when I think I am justified. When I think I am wrong, I mea culpa.

So now back to the subject matter of whether double hashing could theoretically lead to any weakening of the second preimage and/or collision security of the SHA-256 cryptographic hash function.

Afaik, there is no research on this question. If anyone is aware of any, please kindly inform me.

First I will note the Merkle–Damgård construction (which SHA-256 employs) is subject to numerous generic attacks and even though afaik none of these are currently known to be a practical threat against a single hash of SHA-256, we can perhaps look to those generic attacks for potential clues as to what a double-hashing might enable which a single-hash application perhaps might not.

Note in the pseudo-code for SHA-256 that what distinguishes a double-hashing from doubling rounds (i.e. "Compression function main loop:") or repeating the input text in double the block chunks (i.e. "Process the message in successive 512-bit chunks:"), is that the h0 - h8 compression function state which is normally orthogonal to the input block chunks instead gets transmitted as input to a block chunk in the second hash application (i.e. "Produce the final hash value (big-endian):") after being added to the output of the compression function (i.e. "Add the compressed chunk to the current hash value:"). And the h0 - h8 compression function state is reset to a constant (i.e. "Initialize hash values:").

The reason I think this might be theoretically significant is because we should note that the way cryptographic hash functions are typically broken is by applying differential cryptanalysis. Differential cryptanalysis is attempting to find some occurrence of (even higher order) differences between inputs that occurs with more frequent probability than a perfectly uniform distribution. In essence, differential cryptanalysis is leveraging some recurrent structure of the confusion and diffusion and avalanche effect of the algorithm.

Not only does the double-hashing introduce a constant  h0 - h8 midstream thus introducing a known recurrent structure into the middle of the unified algorithm of a double-hashing, but it shifts the normally orthogonal compression function state to the input that it is designed supposed to be orthogonal to. On top of that, the additions of the h0 - h8 state at the midpoint, can possibly mean the starting state of the midpoint is known to have a higher probability of zeros in the least significant bits (LSBs). This last sentence observation comes from some research I did when I created a much higher bandwidth design variant of Berstein's ChaCha by fully exploiting AVX2 SIMD, that was for a specific purpose of creating a faster memory hard proof-of-work function. In that research, I had noted the following quote of an excerpt in my unfinished, rough draft, unpublished white paper written in late 2013 or early 2014 (and kindly note that the following might have errors because it was not reviewed for publishing and was merely notes for myself on my research understanding at that time 2+ years ago):

Security

Addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) diffuse through high bits but set low bits to 0. Without shuffles or rotation permutation to diffuse changes from high to low bits, addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) can be broken with low complexity working from the low to the high bits [5].

The overflow carry bit, i.e. addition modulo ∞ minus addition modulo (2^n - 1), obtains the value 0 or 1 with equal probability, thus addition modulo (2^n - 1) is discontinuous i.e. defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) [6] because the carry is 1 in half of the instances [7] and defeats linearity over the ring Z/2 [8] because the low bit of both operands is 1 in one-fourth of the instances.

The number of overflow high bits in multiplication modulo ∞ minus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) depends on the highest set bits of the operands, thus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) defeats linearity over the range of rings Z/2 to Z/(2^n).

Logical exclusive-or defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) always [8] because it is not a linear function operator.

Each multiplication modulo ∞ amplifies the amount diffusion and confusion provided by each addition. For example, multiplying any number by 23 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 16 added to the number multiplied by 4 added to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number. This is recursive since multiplying the number by 4 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number multiplied by 2. Addition of a number with itself is equivalent to a 1 bit left shift or multiplication by 2. Multiplying any variable number by another variable number creates additional confusion.

Multiplication defeats rotational cryptoanalysis [9] because unlike for addition, rotation of the multiplication of two operands never distributes over the operands i.e. is not equal to the multiplication of the rotated operands. A proof is that rotation is equivalent to the exclusive-or of left and right shifts. Left and right shifts are equivalent to multiplication and division by a factor of 2, which don't distribute over multiplication e.g. (8 × 8 ) × 2 ≠ (8 × 2) × (8 × 2) and (8 × 8 ) ÷ 2 ≠ (8 ÷ 2) × (8 ÷ 2). Addition modulo ∞ is always distributive over rotation [9] because addition distributes over multiplication and division e.g. (8 + 8 ) ÷ 2 = (8 ÷ 2) + (8 ÷ 2). Due to the aforementioned non-linearity over Z/(2^n) due to carry, addition modulo (2^n - 1) is only distributive over rotation with a probability 1/4 up to 3/8 depending on the relative number of bits of rotation [9][10].

However, multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) sets all low bits to 0 orders-of-magnitude more frequently than addition modulo (2^n - 1)—a degenerate result that squashes diffusion and confusion.

[5] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX. 2 Related Work.
[6] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family.
     4.1 Links between Different Kinds of Operations.
[7] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX.
     6 Cryptanalysis of generic AR systems.
[8] Berstein. Salsa20 design. 2 Operations.
[9] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX.
     3 Review of Rotational Cryptanalysis.
[10] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family.
    4.1.3 Modular Additions and Bit Rotations. Corollary 4.12.

So now put those aforementioned insights about potential recurrent structure at the midpoint of the double-hashing, together with the reality that a Boomerang attack is a differential cryptoanalysis that employs a midpoint in a cipher to form new attacks that weren't plausible on the full cipher. Bingo!

I'll refrain from providing my further insights on specifics beyond this initial sharing. Why? Because I've been treated like shit by Gmaxwell and you all here grant him too much Hitler-esque control over the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum where these sort of discussions are supposed to occur, so I will take my toys else where. Enjoy your echo chamber.

Do I have an attack against Bitcoin's double-hashing? I leave that for you to ponder.

[TPTB_need_war]

TPTB_need_war, you cannot prove nor disprove that the Sartre text Craig Wright supposedly hashed is a collision for SHA256.

I asked you to not do what you just did above:

Don't cherry pick my context to make inane non-rebuttals which side-step my holistic set of points.

You also pointed out that he supposedly has access to a supercomputer. Even with access to a supercomputer, he would not be able to find a collision as other researchers have already tried. Simply having a lot of computing power does not mean that he can find a collision.

Alternatively, Craig could have found a vulnerability in sha256, in which case a lot more things than just Bitcoin is screwed. If Craig did not responsibly disclose such a vulnerability and instead exploited it, this would be incredibly sketchy and dishonest behavior.

The point is that with a supercomputer together with a new cryptoanalysis break, the two together might be required to accomplish the attack. I want you to know that if China's pools see nearly all the mining shares, then they are viewing about 2⁶⁸ of SHA-256 hashing power per annum which may or may not be fulcrum. Don't presume you know all the theoretical attacks that are possible.

The theory that the sha256 double hash is weaker than sha256 is false. It has been proven that performing multiple iterations of a hash is more secure than just one iteration. Specifically, many websites will store users passwords in the form of a multiple iteration hash.

You've made at least two mathematically illiterate errors in that quoted text:

1. Testing that double-hashing fulfills some criteria you have prechosen, says nothing about security against cryptoanalysis which your criteria has not considered.
2. Securing a password by iterated hashing (because it requires the dictionary attacker to perform the iteration cost on each dictionary trial) says nothing about the increased vulnerability of collision cryptanalysis. You are conflating two separate issues of security. 

I am done speaking to these amateurs. Waste of my time.

[suchmoon]

I am done speaking to these amateurs. Waste of my time.

Thank you so much. Now that you're gone perhaps we can get back on topic and talk about Kleiman.

Hey guys - those documents say Wheeler is the Solder of the Year for Army Missile Command. Not for the whole Army. So was there a top award for the overall Army? Or maybe different branches of the Army each had their own Soldier of the Year? Those are details a journalist could easily get screwed up. So don't stop digging.

Looks like there is one in each command and one overall winner.

https://www.army.mil/article/156980/

[TPTB_need_war]

I am done speaking to these amateurs. Waste of my time.

Thank you so much. Now that you're gone perhaps we can get back on topic and talk about Kleiman.

To make it clear in case it wasn't enough, I won't be replying to Foxpop again.

FYI truce, I will cease & desist:

I also don't believe CW is Satoshi. But that isn't my point. I explained the salient point more concisely here which is really about ridicule, censorship, and manipulation of public opinion instead of rational, well elucidated, and amicable/patient/unencumbered reasoned discussion (i.e. acadamics versus corporate fiefdoms):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14766475#msg14766475

Please also read the subsequent to the above linked post as I broad stroked some of my theoretical concerns about the double-hashing in Bitcoin.

Theymos is allowing me to continue so I think it is possible that Theymos is helpless due to not being capable himself of leading technologically. So appears he may be trying to appease Greg while also allowing for the minute possibility that someone else could accomplish in code and in reality something as relevant. I think I respect Theymos if this is the case. But we don't really know what is going on behind the scenes. I am at the point now where I really want to ignore everything on BCT and Reddit. My discussions about programming language theory are going very well at the Rust forum. Did you see I solved the age old computer science problem known as the Expression Problem articulated by Philip Wadler in 1999:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438301.msg14757751#msg14757751
(click the sublink in item #6)

Did you see how I REKTed Greg's logic on the Ogg streaming index which was hilarious given he is co-inventor of the Ogg orbis codec:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378533.msg14035614#msg14035614
(search for the phrase "Also I don't understand how you calculate 20% increase" within that post)

I don't claim he isn't smart in his cryptography and math fields of expertise. And generally a very smart guy. But that is not the problem we are apparently agreeing on.

[jiggytom]

What does CSW say right here? https://youtu.be/LdvQTwjVmrE?t=2140

[jiggytom]

He also talks about Tulips and how their price rose.  What if that a metaphor for Bitcoin price rising? Maybe some kind of signal to everyone? Maybe his supercomputer can manipulate the markets...I don't see why not!

[Pablo Elpuro]

I believe you are a liar.

Thats your good right, to believe what you like.
In my estimation, I am at least not lying much more than the average.
But its hard to quantify, I cannot proof anything.

Prove it by revealing your identity. My identity is known to everyone. I have revealed my full name, where I live, my history, my LinkedIn account, my public non-anonymous writings published over the internet, etc..

Why that?
Because you will pass me an ass-kick in the supermarket? No, thanks, I dont like.
Or because you will go to tell everywhere, that I am a liar and not proving it too not? I dont like too not.
Its the what you seem to be intentioned to do with your menaceing attitude.

Its not an obligation, to post here revealing public any personal data.

Do you know, what a stalker is?
Its because of the stalkers, what have nothing to do than to run the whole day after the people to pester their existance. Its an illness.

And thats a reason, why it is better to keep the identity in the unknown. Other good reasons exist too. Ever heard something about an agency named NSA? And an individual named Edward Snowden? Ever thought about all the others, what make the same? Do you like to get radiated by Google in every wrinkle of the asshole? Thats why some mean its clevermore, not to walk around with the trousers down.


Why do you mean you have to command around at all and to bark at me as an imperator?
Do you confuse yourself with Hulk, the Shrek of the little girls, or what?


As for my name, I confess, its a ly. But its a poetical ly as all the poets do always forcely. Are you accusing Shakespeare too of being a liar, because the story of Hamlet isnt true? Its another poetical ly.
No poetry without poetical ly. Not even a novel without poetical ly. Its an artist-name, not a ly. I could explain it to you in every detail, inspite of the artist-rule, of never explaining the own artworks.

But I cannot. Because I can upload my avatar only getting a full member. And I need the avatar to explain the name, there is a figurative explication. Its a riddle, if you can crack it, you are a real crack. But I warn you: Its difficult more than the riddle of Rumpelstiltskin of Grimms, and the cryptographic competiency is useless. Its difficult as much, that I suppose, it is impossible to guess. But thats what Rumpelstiltskin said too. And I will not get furious as Rumpelstiltskin and stamp with the foot as much that the earth is getting divided, if you find out. I will give you the first and only hint: the artist-name is an artwork, the avatar is an artwork, but the explication is not. Its the blank, sober, bonedry, boring truth. Then, you will be forced to admit, that I am not a liar. At least not always.

Now the REKTing will ensue.

I dont understand, that.
What do you mean?
And why do you write some letters capitalized?
And should i relate this statement somehow to me?

I was sleeping.

Oh..
Good morning, how are you?

Ah..
I see you are awake some time.
Excellent mood, as usual?


BTW:
Dont bark at me, then I will not make a cabaret. I certainly will not produce with you virtually, what is getting called in the real life the yelling-around. If you bark, you make me scream of laughter.
LOL
Like that, thats as with the dog of Pawlow. Its a reaction, what is stronger than me. At least, the sarcasm, what then follows forcely too, is actually acid quasi-zero. I hope, you understand some humour, its not funny else, I know, sorry for that. At the beginning, I wasnt offending you, I only was stateing, that you are off-topic. And I was saying it polite..
Well I see, you are active. Looks out important, but looks out off-topic again. I will not repeat my opinion about, you know it. And not even if I would, I could talk with you about this materia reasonable. I miss some concepts, of what you will talk. I wish you anyway a constructive and fruitful day and hope you find the people, what can talk with you in a way, what ends not in the yelling around.

Well its late..
.. its me, what is going now to bed.

Good night.

PS:
One last question: Your artist name of TPTB_need_war has an aggressive denotation, is it program, the aggressive comportment? But be aware, saying yes, I will push the ignore button, we will thereafter never nomore be able to exchange our jokes.

[yefi]

Hey guys - those documents say Wheeler is the Solder of the Year for Army Missile Command. Not for the whole Army. So was there a top award for the overall Army? Or maybe different branches of the Army each had their own Soldier of the Year? Those are details a journalist could easily get screwed up. So don't stop digging.

Looks like there is one in each command and one overall winner.

https://www.army.mil/article/156980/

Yes, it seems like there are multiple recipients of the award specific to each command. Prior to 2002 the Best Warrior competition didn't exist, so it isn't clear if there was an overall Soldier of the Year. I certainly haven't found any reference to one.

[calkob]

Yeah i read something the other day about this, its interesting i must look it up again.

[BurtW]

Within 30 minutes or so of the story breaking:

I have first dibs on calling this bullshit.

Looks like a good call to me.