Is this a life sign by Satoshi Nakamoto?

[ocmone]

Found on pastebin 13-MAR-2018:

"What I'm going to present is even better evidence of who I am than access to mere private keys (which can be stolen). And it's definitely more convincing than what was ever offered by CSW.
 
The point here is to demonstrate superior understanding of Bitcoin encryption. I will manipulate the first and last digit of a hash (md6-256) that's not native to Bitcoin, to produce a vanity address ON BITCOIN that coincides with the signed statement.

The original hash, before being manipulated, will be derived from " v0.1 ", the first version of Bitcoin.  
 
To recognize the significance of this, you will need to bring your attention to the similarities in the two hashes.
 
"v0.1" was the first version of Bitcoin. It was hashed in md6-256 which is not sha-256. Slightly modified it exposes a hidden vanity address that starts out with "1MyFun".
 
1MyFun5vPzSgAhCQLuFrRz11213RcrK8M5
----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----
Creating Bitcoin Was All About "My Fun".
-----END  BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----
 
----BEGIN SIGNATURE----
HA5V2RstFymbo4Z1/dSi/4VVYDG3T8svnlAEOriUdCOwLs2ivkOnJ03rKlxqSapfjCS2duuLH+Korm7+3K9HxAI=
----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----
Private Hexidecimal Key
1C04E262DCAF32C396EC666AAD9A53D97464572E71C0748EA29205B41ACC2561
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitcoin v0.1 Alpha Release
" v0.1"  (md6-256)
4C04E262DCAF32C396EC666AAD9A53D97464572E71C0748EA29205B41ACC2566
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The odds of anyone being able to manipulate the first and last digits of any hash relating to the first version of Bitcoin to reveal a hidden vanity address are about 10 trillion to 1.  

Not accepting this as undeniable proof means you don't understand the statistical probability ratios involved with knowing where to look and what to change.

Greedy and uneducated people are only interested in ‘where the money is’ (access to keys) instead of real cryptographic evidence.

NOTE: Do not attempt to add these private keys to your wallet.  
PS: I live in Bali,  Indonesia."

[1715076841]

1715076841

[1715076841]

1715076841

[Searing]

WTF! LOL!

(someone is off their meds)

brad

[ocmone]

(someone is off their meds)

Did you actually validate the hashes?

[Foxpup]

The odds of anyone being able to manipulate the first and last digits of any hash relating to the first version of Bitcoin to reveal a hidden vanity address are about 10 trillion to 1.  

Huh? I get 2,563,893 to 1. Of course, the odds are better still if you don't limit yourself to that exact vanity address, or exactly the first and last digits of the hash, or that exact hash function (indeed, the use of such an obscure hash function suggests that many were tried in the hope of finding one that works). Nothing to see here, folks.

[ocmone]

The odds of anyone being able to manipulate the first and last digits of any hash relating to the first version of Bitcoin to reveal a hidden vanity address are about 10 trillion to 1.  

Huh? I get 2,563,893 to 1. Of course, the odds are better still if you don't limit yourself to that exact vanity address, or exactly the first and last digits of the hash, or that exact hash function (indeed, the use of such an obscure hash function suggests that many were tried in the hope of finding one that works). Nothing to see here, folks.

Wrong! You need to consider that the parameters were not known.
Now that you know it's limited to two letters it's certainly easy to say.
He was also using a different hash algorithm... go figure?

[Elysium Miner]

The odds of anyone being able to manipulate the first and last digits of any hash relating to the first version of Bitcoin to reveal a hidden vanity address are about 10 trillion to 1.  

Huh? I get 2,563,893 to 1. Of course, the odds are better still if you don't limit yourself to that exact vanity address, or exactly the first and last digits of the hash, or that exact hash function (indeed, the use of such an obscure hash function suggests that many were tried in the hope of finding one that works). Nothing to see here, folks.

Your math is way off!
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4rnhw9/if_google_was_using_all_their_power_to_decrypt_my/

[Elysium Miner]

Huh? I get 2,563,893 to 1. Of course, the odds are better still if you don't limit yourself to that exact vanity address, or exactly the first and last digits of the hash, or that exact hash function (indeed, the use of such an obscure hash function suggests that many were tried in the hope of finding one that works). Nothing to see here, folks.

Ok, lets see that math. Wrong is wrong in math. Lets see how good you are, including all the vectors presented here. Or is this a sock puppet account with ulterior motives trying to discount or distract people away from this post

In your equation analysis be sure to include the following.
1. How many alpha-numeric hash combinations are there in sha-256
2. How many md6-256 alpha-numeric combinations are there.
3. How unique are the hashes presented by hashing  " v0.1 " in both sha-256/md6-256
4. What are the vectors of conversion between both hashes
5. How difficult is it to produce a random "five string letter" vanity address
6. How does this difficulty rise substantially when limited within the scope of only being allowed to manipulate 2 alphanumeric characters within hashing a random word?
7.  How many two alpha numeric character combination changes are possible within a sha-256/md6-256 hash?

Ok Foxpup,  I will give you a chance to correct your math; otherwise, you are just another keyboard cowboy speaking about something you know nothing about.