URGENT: please peer review a possible back door in Bitcoin?

[TPTB_need_war]

The thread with the above title was deleted to the ether:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14758977#msg14758977

There is something very fishy going on. I'd sell BTC immediately as this is a very dangerous time. Something is happening that "they" don't want us to know.

[1715210780]

1715210780

[1715210780]

1715210780

[1715210780]

1715210780

[1715210780]

1715210780

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[sofu]

There is something very fishy going on. I'd sell BTC immediately as this is a very dangerous time. Something is happening that "they" don't want us to know.

[Cryptodevises]

https://chrispacia.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/nsa-backdoors-and-bitcoin/

*they are everywhere*

[cryptohunter]

Although it may turn out to be false alarm. It is still interesting to see what other high level techs will say about this double hashing and possible vulnerability.

Let's await the discussion and hope it is comprehensible even in part to the layman. It's got to be more interesting than the usual spam that clutters the main alt board.

[generalizethis]

Although it may turn out to be false alarm. It is still interesting to see what other high level techs will say about this double hashing and possible vulnerability.

Let's await the discussion and hope it is comprehensible even in part to the layman. It's got to be more interesting than the usual spam that clutters the main alt board.

Amen, and a little reminder as to why alts serve a purpose, at least the ones that didn't copy/paste BTC.

[TPTB_need_war]

Although it may turn out to be false alarm. It is still interesting to see what other high level techs will say about this double hashing and possible vulnerability.

Let's await the discussion and hope it is comprehensible even in part to the layman. It's got to be more interesting than the usual spam that clutters the main alt board.

Amen, and a little reminder as to why alts serve a purpose, at least the ones that didn't copy/paste BTC.

Here is a few morsels of technical kryptonite for the "meme image self-masturbation" trolls[ducks]cock-suckers to gag on:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14766916#msg14766916

So they want to play hardball... okay I know that game too...

Whose cock are you sucking today boiz? Gmax? Bitalik? Sincereo? Duckefeller? Cat got your tongue or mouth too full of yummy finger-licking-good semen?

The low-life anonymous scum that is here on BCT:

Feel sorry for the kids. Half-Filipino......half-petrified.  

What kind of man talks about another man's kids on a public forum hiding behind anonymity. That isn't a man. I dare him to say that to my face. You run out of ammunition to attack my reputation with, so you involve my kids who have nothing to do with anything that is going on here on this putrefied forum.

[Ayers]

back door were only possible if you run the client with some rpc command, using the config file, but i'm sure they fixed it in the last version, maybe you are rising fud for nothing?

[Hollowman338]

Should this serve as a push to move any crypto worth its salt to a quantum-resistant algorithm?

[ICOcountdown.com]

Craig Wright is not the creator of Bitcoin. He spoofed a public key which is explained here: https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md

SHA256 has had many collision attacks and non were successful.

The one and only coin creation bug was fixed by Satoshi a while ago, the network has been fine ever since.

[sockpuppet1]

SHA256 has had many collision attacks and non were successful.

Logically it follows none will ever be successful.

Craig Wright is not the creator of Bitcoin. He spoofed a public key which is explained here: https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md

Apparently the data for "Craig's proof" only originated from one website http://drcraigwright.net/ which no one had verified to be officially endorsed by or owned by Craig; and that website is now apparently listed for sale on bitcointalk.org as shown below.

It appears that the only proof Craig is ever documented to have provided was in the private demonstrations he did for Matonis, Gavin, and the reporters. And none of the proof from those meetings has been provided publicly. Apparently all parties were required to sign a NDA.

Is that even him? Domain creation date for http://drcraigwright.net/  is 02/15/2016 .

it's owned by craig wright.

Source? Or wishful thinking?

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

http://s32.postimg.org/4kyedmged/Capture.png

[sockpuppet1]

Whose cock are you sucking today boiz? Gmax? Bitalik? Sincereo? Duckefeller?

Hmmm. So he meant the Rockefeller of crypto...

User of Dashpay  

https://i.imgur.com/bnPA6ER.jpg

 

Hahaha. Where did you find that Rube Goldberg "carry the flag for our instascrew ball team" portrait of Evan Duckfeld. The facial expression is a perfect match, "Who me? I didn't do it. I'm just your puppy eyes friendly duck with a transmorgrifried beakground in finance".

[sockpuppet1]

Feel sorry for the kids. Half-Filipino......half-petrified.  

What kind of man talks about another man's kids on a public forum hiding behind anonymity. That isn't a man. I dare him to say that to my face. You run out of ammunition to attack my reputation with, so you involve my kids who have nothing to do with anything that is going on here on this putrefied forum.

Follow-up:

...absolutely petrifying.   

You did it to yourselves. Now you will reap what you have sown.

I am an American who doesn't share your looney European Marxism. Last time it was a million in the gas chambers. Let's see how it goes this round.

Shut up and get back to work on building your copy-leftist clusterfuck.

I don't associate with scum like you. I compete and overcome. Bye. Unless that is you want to say those words about my kids to my face. Otherwise we have nothing more to discuss. Enjoy your life.

[Rick Storm]

I think this is relevant to the question:

http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/779/hashing-or-encrypting-twice-to-increase-security

The relevant bit:

SHA-256(SHA-256(x)) was proposed by Ferguson and Schneier in their excellent book "Practical Cryptography" (later updated by Ferguson, Schneier, and Kohno and renamed "Cryptography Engineering") as a way to make SHA-256 invulnerable to "length-extension" attack. They called it "SHA-256d".
...
I wouldn't be surprised if the inventors of Bitcoin used it for similar reasons.

[Spoetnik]

Although it may turn out to be false alarm. It is still interesting to see what other high level techs will say about this double hashing and possible vulnerability.

Let's await the discussion and hope it is comprehensible even in part to the layman. It's got to be more interesting than the usual spam that clutters the main alt board.

Amen, and a little reminder as to why alts serve a purpose, at least the ones that didn't copy/paste BTC.

WOW denial much ?

Read YOUR OWN post history.

And the reality is your "amen" is dumb here because this has nothing to do with Altcoins.
There is a separate section for Bitcoin so.. "Amen for that"

@Rick Storm
No problem.. just go ask Craig Wright.

[sockpuppet1]

I think this is relevant to the question:

http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/779/hashing-or-encrypting-twice-to-increase-security

The relevant bit:

SHA-256(SHA-256(x)) was proposed by Ferguson and Schneier in their excellent book "Practical Cryptography" (later updated by Ferguson, Schneier, and Kohno and renamed "Cryptography Engineering") as a way to make SHA-256 invulnerable to "length-extension" attack. They called it "SHA-256d".
...
I wouldn't be surprised if the inventors of Bitcoin used it for similar reasons.

You did not read carefully. Try again by clicking the last link in the quote below:

I am speaking on behalf of TPTB_need_war aka AnonyMint, who is quoted in the OP, because he is currently banned for 9 more days due to calling theymos and gmaxwell out on their censorship of a potential technical back door in Bitcoin. There is a simpler explanation of Satoshi's obviously intentional technical error. It is obviously intentional because it was quite well known by 2009 that the HMAC formulation is more secure yet Satoshi used the more suspect double hashing everywhere in BitCON.

[Ayers]

why people are trying so hard to make fud about bitcoin just before the halving come, is this a way to buy even more cheap coin before the next rally lol?