Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks

[Red-Apple]

....snip.....
1. I never said he is Satoshi. "Satoshi" is not Satoshi. Idk if he is Satoshi. In my imagination he is a good fit, not perfect but decent to pass for Satoshi. I don't know why some are not happy with his personality, he's a human and looks like a guy with the right knowledge and a mysterious twist to do what he claims he did. You're right that his claims are meaningless without proof.

we are not happy with his actions because he has a bad history littered with scams.*(see edit) but the one that concerns us is his "claim" to be satoshi and yet not releasing any proof (signed message) about his identity to public.

2. I never said he needs to move 1 million coins, moving one satoshi from an early block will send a powerful message to the market. It's believed by many that Satoshi owns 1 million coins mined in 2009. Proof of access to coins of the early blocks that have never moved will affect the price.

i agree that moving even 1 satoshi from the early blocks that were mined by satoshi can cause some kind of panic but it has to be the early blocks not coins that were sent from satoshi's wallet to others as test and/or giveaway.

i have read a good theory here, that said "he might have access to a signed transaction that was signed back in 2009 by satoshi but was never send to the network, so he wants to broadcast that now and claim that "I" have moved the coins.
this sound to me like the most possible thing in case he moves, and that would explain why he wants to move coins instead of signing a message.

EDIT:
sorry for using the wrong word here. in order not to be sheepish i change it to the correct term.
not a scammer but a criminal running from the law

[1714676177]

1714676177

[1714676177]

1714676177

[jjacob]

Price for most of the altcoins are related to market price of bitcoin so whatever we may see rise of altcoin price in terms of bitcoin

Thus far this has been true. Past performance is not an indication of future performance, specially with so much news coming.

There is no fundamental reason for this correlation to break. Only when you have a really new idea like Ethereum is there some change.

[freshman777]

we are not happy with his actions because he has a bad history littered with scams. but the one that concerns us is his "claim" to be satoshi and yet not releasing any proof (signed message) about his identity to public.

Releasing a signed message dated May 2016 to the public would not be a 100% proof he is Satoshi either and wouldn't erase the history of what you call "scams". You must be talking about the key cypher that wasn't added to PGP and such, as I am not aware of actual facts that he scammed someone out of money, you have links?

These inconsistencies in the past can be attributed to the fact he was trying to hide his involvement as real Satoshi by giving falsified evidence on purpose to make believe he is not Satoshi after his emails had been hacked (yeah, it could be this complicated), up to the point where it's not possible. I wouldn't read too much into these inconsistencies as impossibility for him to be real Satoshi. You don't dislike a person for his love for privacy even he falsified evidence with the purpose to remain unidentified, this is his right, it's not a scam. You actually aware of real scams he did? The real scam as in stealing someone's money, this would be the only thing that would go completely opposite to what Satoshi's invention stands for.

[Red-Apple]

i don't know what you are talking about but when i say past scams i am talking about the $54 million and the tax fraud and the Australian Tax office raiding his home.

this guy did a nice job compiling the story on reddit

[freshman777]

i don't know what you are talking about but when i say past scams i am talking about the $54 million and the tax fraud and the Australian Tax office raiding his home.

this guy did a nice job compiling the story on reddit

It's tax rebate money. You sheepishly don't make a difference between stealing someone's property and receiving back your belongings from violent thugs? The former is a scam. The latter that you linked to is restoring justice and perfectly in line with the spirit of Bitcoin.

[btcxyzzz]

If that happens, Bitcoin sinks, that's for sure.

[stoat]

Craig wright is not satoshi.

Nick Szabo is satoshi.

Craig wright is a tosser

[ICOcountdown.com]

He is not satoshi.

https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170

https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md

[TPTB_need_war]

He is not satoshi.

https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170

https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md

That is a jumbled analysis which doesn't explain well the situation.

I already explained it more clearly:

Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key:

The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed.

And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology.  

Let me unpack that more for n00bs. The point is that every Bitcoin signature signs the hash (of a hash) of the transaction. And so if someone can create two transactions that have the same hash, then one can use the same signature for both, i.e. no need to have the private key to generate a new signature.

What Craig did was reuse an existing signature from the block chain which is attributed to Satoshi, and supplied it as the signature for a new transactions. Specifically the new transaction is some text written by Sartre but the key point is that normally it should impossible to find a new set of data which can generate the same hash, because of the preimage resistance security property of the SHA256 cryptographic hash function.

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.

The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so infinitesimally small that it is unlikely.

That Craig didn't create a new signature is indicative that he does not hold Satoshi's private keys, if we can find some other explanation for how he broke the preimage security of SHA256. That is why I offered the supercomputer information, because I remember that Craig had used his claim he was close to Satoshi in order to garnish government funding which enabled him to assemble the most powerful supercomputer in Australia.

It is very unlikely that Craig is Satoshi, and instead it appears he was on the scene very early when Bitcoin was launched:

What I'm expecting to happen next is that Wright is going to move some early coins (or produce a signature from some early coins) some time soon, but this is only going to fuel the speculation even more because it won't be a definitive proof from a GPG key or a genesis block.

I'm guessing the reason why Wright will be able to do this is because he found out about Bitcoin from Kleiman from the cryptography mailing lists (which we know Kleiman was a member of.) We already know that he mined coins early on so it won't be that much of a surprise when he moves coins. But as has already been pointed out by other people -- this also doesn't prove anything -- since Bitcoin was released -publicly- anyone could have mined those coins (or he could have simply purchased access to the private keys of any early block.)

If I had to speculate: I'd say that in all likelihood neither of them are Satoshi. Kleiman's work was on digital forensics which means he was focused on doing things like scrubbing memory dumps for meta-data to find files pointers and then using them to find hidden files on disk. It would have required fairly low level programming to write the tools needed to do this (so its plausible Kleiman had the skills to code something like Bitcoin but still highly unlikely given how expertly the original source code was – so I'd be surprised if the person(s?) who created Bitcoin didn't have a background in software.)

Consider that Forensics is also quite a specialized field and that a person participating in it wouldn't necessarily have needed to know anything about digital signatures to do their work. Hashcash-style proof-of-work in that regard is even more esoteric and I'd expect to see a lot more interest in general cryptography (and economics) if Kleiman was actually Satoshi. But if you look at what he replies to -- he's only really interested in forensics and talking about his own work. I think it's far more likely that the two of them were early adopters / miners who were intimately associated with Satoshi in some way (possibly they corresponded at some point via email like a lot of people at the time) but weren't actually Satoshi themselves.

My profile for Satoshi is a lot closer to the group of people currently involved in the Bitcoin-space, to be honest: people who find cryptography interesting (but aren't necessarily cryptographers) and enjoy programming (but aren't necessarily "software engineers" by trade.) This would make a lot more sense since all the pieces needed to produce Bitcoin were in place for years before it was invented: digital signatures, hash functions, and proof of work – so at the least I'd expect some kind of evidence of an interest in those areas.

Tl; dr, I think Wright was just in the right place at the right time and that Kleiman was unlikely to have had the skills, knowledge, or time to have invented something as massive as Bitcoin even being an “expert” in digital forensics. Both Wright and Kleiman strike me as men who were more interested in building up their respective careers as “experts” through academic channels and the press, rather than people who are genuinely passionate enough about economics and crypto to have invented Bitcoin in their spare time.

However, what Craig is doing now is very peculiar. He appears to have the confidence to manipulate the entire Bitcoin community, including Gavin Andresen as I had explained my prior posts. Thus it appears to me he may have the support of some very powerful players in the Bitcoin ecosystem, even perhaps the government or the national security agencies.

Re-read my post, you didn't seem to understand it. Craig has not said he is Satoshi. Find a quote where he said that. You won't. He has always said it was his colleague.

Listen to the first few minutes of the BBC interview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36191165

"You're going to show me that Satoshi is you?"

Craig - "yes"

Remember Craig is a lawyer. Remember how Bill Clinton explained in court what the meaning of 'is' is.

Craig has consistently claimed he was backing "the persona behind Satoshi" and was part of a group involved with Satoshi, so the above statement is consistent with that, without him actually being the man who developed the code of Bitcoin with his own fingers. The interviewer did not ask Craig "are you going to prove you are the man who wrote the code of Bitcoin?" which obviously can't be proved nor disproved by any signature since Satoshi did not sign the code of Bitcoin.

Is Satoshi after all of Blockstream?

I have had no communication with Mr Wright at all, let alone signed anything. I understand that there is some information sheet Wright is giving reporters that specifically attacks me, however!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hs2ca/can_all_core_developers_confirm_they_havent/

Hey dufus - why don't you look at the BBC article itself: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863

It says: "Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright has publicly identified himself as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto."

Where did they get the information from - they got it from Craig Wright - still going to say he hasn't identified himself as being Satoshi?

You are quoting what a reporter has said, not what Craig has said. I said find a quote where Craig has claimed his is the man who wrote the code for Bitcoin. You will never find that.

Butthurt idiot. Bye.

I see you locked your thread again. You are an emotional basketcase.

I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.

It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course).

And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would  have told Gavin it was his friend and not him).

You are just butthurt.

It is very relevant.

Craig has played Gavin. He knows Gavin needs support for his preferences for the block scaling debate.

Butthurt by what exactly?

(perhaps due to seeing your same post spammed in every topic?)

Don't pretend you've forgotten when you closed the technical thread where we were debating and told me in PM that you never wanted to talk to me again.

I don't have time for your melodrama. Bye.

It's increasingly obvious that despite not being able to present actual cryptographic proof Wright is putting a lot of effort into obfuscation and trying to sway the public opinion, whether it's for his business interests or something else.

You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key.

Also by getting core Bitcoin devs and their tribe to claim that the proof Craig provided is not a proof, he has revealed them as being disingenuous. Very clever political game theory he has concocted.

Craig has astutely accomplished his goal, as only 42% of Bitcoiners conclude he can't be Satoshi. And when and if Craig signs coins from an early block of Bitcoin, the level of confusion will increase. Craig is playing a political game theory.

I think bringing in a dead person into this is just a scapegoat by Craig Wright to confuse spectators. If this is true, why would he pretend being Satoshi by signing a fake message? Until Craig comes up with this extraordinary proof he says, I refuse to believe anything that came from him.

Refusing to believe is not the same as proving he is not. Craig is winning the political game theory. He is a clever lawyer mofo.

Reading this, quite interesting:

http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692

One theory that is being floated on Reddit runs like this:

Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.

So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.

Thoughts pro and con?

I just came up with another theory though...we might be missing the forest for the trees. Much of what CW has said has proven sketchy, or even downright lies (claiming multiple fake phd's for instance). We do know one thing that's incontrovertible: CW was very interested in high performance computing / supercomputing. Think about that for a minute.

Now what if Kleiman, being the typical computer geek, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of creating the code but had little interest in testing...and asked his friend CW to help test Bitcoin by mining. It's very possible that CW could own Block 1, and even if not, it's still possible that a significant part of Satoshi's stash...actually doesn't belong to Satoshi. What if most/all the coins we thought were Satoshi's were actually CW's?

It's also possible that Kleiman wrote the first version of the Bitcoin code, and that CW took over testing, bug fixing, and future development. Kleiman could have written the code, while CW could have been the "Satoshi" that communicated extensively with Gavin and others...

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

Click this quote to read what Gmaxwell and others will respond:

Wholly shit! I am contemplating the possibility that Craig has revealed that who ever created Bitcoin put a backdoor in it!

As I already explained, the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities.

But note this small detail:

You'll note that Bitcoin, for reasons known only to Satoshi, takes the signature of hash of a hash to generate the scriptSig. Quoting Ryan:

Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context.

A cryptographic hash function has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value.

Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2²⁵⁶ times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack).

So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked.

It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256.

If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash.

I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.

[TPTB_need_war]

I have now reviewed your analysis and have concluded you are talking out of your ass.

Please provide technical justification.

It's increasingly obvious that despite not being able to present actual cryptographic proof Wright is putting a lot of effort into obfuscation and trying to sway the public opinion, whether it's for his business interests or something else.

You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key.

You do not seem to understand that linking to your own post doesn't prove anything. Can you post the public key, the message Wright signed, and the signature for everyone to see and verify?

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

You, my friend are peerless; there can be no review of your work.

Do you enjoy being a troll?

You trolls can eat your words now.

[BTCLovingDude]

there is no way he is satoshi, he is just playing with us, proving identity is so simple, there is no need for extended arguments about this and there is definitely no need for extremely long comments that nobody reads!
show us signed message then he is satoshi, plain and simple.

also even if he moves the coins, nothing bad is going to happen to bitcoin, people will panic and sell and that will only create an opportunity for the whales to buy more cheap coins.

and also if anything, it will strengthen bitcoin more because in case of a dump the big question of what will satoshi do with his coins will be solved and there will be a balance in market.

[TPTB_need_war]

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:

https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md

....

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.

The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so infinitesimally small that it is unlikely.

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

there is no way he is satoshi, he is just playing with us, proving identity is so simple, there is no need for extended arguments about this and there is definitely no need for extremely long comments that nobody reads!

Simpleton logic is for simpleton losers. You are not considering the game theory.

Ok but that's the stuff of reality shows like undercover boss. I would expect Satoshi to be above it.

Huh

Satoshi was about trustless systems, not reputation. So the only valid answer is in the cryptography. Talk is cheap, show me the code.

Satoshi is the ultimate undercover story.

The issue here is not whether Craig is really Satoshi (for all we know Satoshi was never a person but rather a working group).

Rather this is a battle over concepts and what is the meaning of cryptography in this brave new world.

If Bitcoin was planted with a double hash for apparently no reason and it comes to be that it is possible to create undecidability of signatures of user chosen text, this speaks to something about Satoshi.

[Ayers]

i have a theory, i think he said that he is satoshi because gavin asked him to say so, so he can restore the faith on the upcoming changes about bitcoin, i think ti's an attempt to instigate a pump in some way, what do you think?

[TPTB_need_war]

Ok but that's the stuff of reality shows like undercover boss. I would expect Satoshi to be above it.

Huh

Satoshi was about trustless systems, not reputation. So the only valid answer is in the cryptography. Talk is cheap, show me the code.

Satoshi is the ultimate undercover story.

The issue here is not whether Craig is really Satoshi (for all we know Satoshi was never a person but rather a working group).

Rather this is a battle over concepts and what is the meaning of cryptography in this brave new world.

If Bitcoin was planted with a double hash for apparently no reason and it comes to be that it is possible to create undecidability of signatures of user chosen text, this speaks to something about Satoshi.

Ah I see that I am spot on with where Craig is headed with this. Kudos to myself:

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/05/purported-bitcoin-creator-loses-an-ally-but-says-hell-show-more-proof/

Ostensibly Craig wants to prove that no one can prove they are Satoshi beyond any doubt, while also making it impossible to attack his claims that he was "the man behind the persona of Satoshi" in some form. That is a nebulous statement, as it could even mean he was mining Bitcoin early and thus being one of the testers "behind" the project in some sense. Remember afaik he has never claimed to be the Satoshi who coded Bitcoin. You will never find that direct quote. Rather he has claimed some relationship with Dave Kleiman and that being some important relationship involved in the inception of Bitcoin (perhaps just mining?).

Also if it turns out that he does reveal some Sartre text which hashes correctly, then this may implicate the double-hash which then implicates Satoshi, because no one can find any reason for why Satoshi chose double hashing. And I think double hashing is less secure as I explained in the OP. Surely Satoshi knew this also.

[BitcoinHodler]

altcoins market has always been about the hype and hype alone so i guess even if he doesn't ever prove his identity or even move the coins from the known satoshi blocks (addresses) the altcoin market will use this news to spread FUD and hype up themselves so i am keeping my eyes open to make the most out of this situation

[TPTB_need_war]

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

I can't find it any more and I have no deleted messages from that thread in my PM box.

Wholly shit! I am contemplating the possibility that Craig has revealed that who ever created Bitcoin put a backdoor in it!

As I already explained, the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities.

But note this small detail:

You'll note that Bitcoin, for reasons known only to Satoshi, takes the signature of hash of a hash to generate the scriptSig. Quoting Ryan:

Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context.

A cryptographic hash function has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value.

Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2²⁵⁶ times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack).

So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked.

It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256.

If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash.

I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.

The tweets of this account might be worth reading.

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.

[cryptohunter]

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?

[TPTB_need_war]

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.