Topic: 8 Prime Spirals SHA-based De-cryption? Private Keys (Read 11706 times)

LOL, no. In fact, I would probably be explicitly forbidden from working for the NSA.


Please provide a link that is the source of your claims, so that I can point out exactly what you have misread. Snowden never claimed that "the NSA hacked ECC". The "NIST distributed bad seed keys" nonsense, if redacted to say "NIST suggests elliptic curves known by the NSA to be weak" would make more sense - but that doesn't mean that ECC is broken; it only means that the particular curves suggested by NIST are not good. (And even that is probably stretching it to the conspiracy theory side. The way NIST selected the actual curves is a pretty transparent process.) But, as I have repeated several times, nobody forces you to use them.

The only thing we know for sure from the Snowden leaks is that the Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generation has been included as a NIST standard due to the influence of the NSA. That's it. The only thing we know for sure. Everything else is clueless suspicions and ignorant conspiracy theories by mathematically illiterate people.

For a more informed discussion of the issue, see here.


No, I do not - but only because your statement is clueless and imprecise. The correct statement is that all primes larger than 29 are generated (along with many more composites) by the 8 "Adoni" polynomials. (The first 10 primes - i.e., 2 to 29 inclusive - are "hard-coded") So what? They (well, all primes larger than 3) are also generated by these two polynomials:

6 * k - 1
6 * k + 1

It is possible to pick an infinite number of sets of polynomials that generate all prime numbers above a given lower limit.


Wrong again. That's true only for all primes above 29 - not for all primes above 5. To save the readers the effort to search what the Adoni polynomials actually are, they are this set:

30 * k + 1
30 * k + 7
30 * k + 11
30 * k + 13
30 * k + 17
30 * k + 19
30 * k + 23
30 * k + 29

where k is a natural (i.e., non-negative integer) number. It should be blindingly obvious even to the mathematically illiterate that they can never generate any prime numbers under 31.


Of course primes aren't random - but I am 100% percent certain that you have no clue what "random" means. There is even a formula for the approximate number of primes smaller than a limit N. The formula is not exact, it gives only an upper and lower limit. The typesetting capabilities of this forum do not allow me to reproduce it here and the person I am replying to won't understand it anyway but for those of the readers who are mathematically inclined, see this article (warning, heavy math inside).


No, Dr. Adoni is an ignorant moron why is imagining to have discovered the secrets of the Universe by improving the sieve of Eratosthenes in a minuscule way (by saving it the need to sieve out the first 10 primes). And, what do you know, he even claims to predict earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes. I kid you not.


Mocked, definitely. Oh, wait, was that a rhetorical question?


I wish they were. Not for the money but because the NSA employs some of the most brilliant mathematicians in the world. I wish I were that good. Sadly, I'm not.


Actually, at the moment it is the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and they aren't checks (we don't use those in our country).


No, I do not. Again, that's because my penchant for precise statements, which the above isn't. I can only agree that Bitcoin uses the secp256k1 elliptic curve for signatures. It also uses no encryption and it uses the SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 functions for hashing. Note that NIST actually suggests the use of secp256r1 - not of secp256k1. Conspiracy theory time - did Satoshi know something about what the NSA did way back in 2009?


No, I do not. Again, because of the lack of precision in the above statement. Koblitz is one of the authors of Elliptic Curve Cryptography. ECC makes use of possibly infinite number of elliptic curves for encryption and signing. One particular such curve is used for signing only in Bitcoin. That is the precise statement I can agree with.


Indeed it does, to a certain degree (e.g., the security of transactions but not the mining), but there haven't been any.

Adoni the scammer finds this on reddit and tries to exploit it and take credit..what else is new

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2nicip/found_this_gem_newsgroups_from_2002/

whenever referring to him make sure to put adoni the scammer or adoni scammer....
that way the keywords will be associated in google.

he wants to spam his sites everywhere at least people should know adoni is fraud.

Lenstra is not Satoshi.

But I have recently uncovered evidence that Adoni is in truth none other than Chuck Norriss.

Not sure if troll, or really that stupid. I'm going with the latter. Adoni and his crackpottery have plenty of company, all of it cooky. You either are him, or have fallen for his nonsense because you have little to no mathematical background.

Finally, someone else in this thread with some decent knowledge of modern mathematical algorithms and any mathematical background. Hear, hear!

(quick intro: Bitcoin uses the secp256k1 curve. The only remotely suspicious things here are the generator base point G, and the choice of P as nextprime(2^256-2^32-2^10).) For you and anyone else interested in ECC and whether the base point G in secp256k1 could be a problem, read the post at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3183975 (also see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3206788 for a nothing-up-my-sleeve derivation of the rest of the parameters in secp256k1). Specifically:
So if one G is broken, then they all are. It doesn't matter whether G is nothing-up-my-sleeve or specially chosen one way or another: either the NSA has an algorithm to break Bitcoin with any G, or they don't.

Stop falling for the bait guys. He's obviously trolling (or very delusional).

hilarious.  happy thanksgiving Sol.

ever notice people without wealth pretend to be wealthy and
those with money keep quiet about it?

So are you NSA Vessko? haha

From what I've read, Snowden docs proved the NSA hacked ECC with bad seed keys and NiST their government Org distributed them, now you can say what you want, but that's what the whole Snowden Docs and ECC crypto problem is, unless we're all idiots can can't read, yet you a newb knows all the main people in the world right Vessko.

Yeah sure. How about this, do you agree that the 30 Mod prime algorithm locates all primes over 5 in that they exist on 8 spirals?

Is that a fact? Yes or No

Now IF you agree that is a fact, that means all primes above 5 must be 30n+P where n = any number and P = one of the 8 Adoni Prime spirals.

Now that means PRIMES ARE NOT RANDOM, so the long history of mathematics had man geniuses looking for that and Dr. Adoni was the first guy to find it in 1995.

Now to you is he a genius or should he be mocked on this forum like you are doing. Face it, if you mock Dr. Adoni and his brilliant 30Mod Prime Algorithm the NSA is paying you to mock him.

So who signs your checks Vessko? NSA right?

And no I'm not Dr. Adoni. I wish I were I keep hearing people say how much dough he has.

As to bitcoin, do you agree bitcoin uses ECC crypto?

Do you agree bitcoin use Koblitz Curves a form of ECC crypt?

So any major news about how corrupt ECC crypto CONCERNS BITCOIN, now just go back to the NSA and cry you got found out that quick.

Wrong.


I suggest that you read more.


As I said, there are issues with the NIST curves. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are compromised (despite the speculation to the contrary, the NSA actually strengthened DES with their modification, using their superior knowledge of an attack that was not yet known to the civilian sector), but it is enough to make them suspicious.

However, nobody forces you to use these particular curves. Even if they are backdoored, this doesn't compromise the ECC itself. I still dislike ECC and prefer RSA instead - but that's just my own personal problem; I understand RSA better.


So, use different "keys" (curves, really, your ignorance is breathtaking), not "seeded" by the NSA.


Wrong. All we know from Snowden is that the NSA used NIST to promote the acceptance of weak algorithms. This doesn't mean that ECC is insecure. It might be that the particular ECC curves suggested by NIST are insecure. If you believe that to be the case, use different ones. Or it might mean that the NSA tampering is in a completely different place.


Yep. Like most of what you have posted here.


We don't know that.


NIST did not invent ECC. The NSA did not invent ECC. You clearly don't know what ECC is. The best one can claim is that the NSA made NIST suggest a weak elliptic curve. That claim cannot be proven, but even if it is true, one can use other curves and still use ECC.

And, again, all this has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin. It doesn't even have anything to do with the touted Adoni/Croft "spirals", factorization, prime number generation and primality testing algorithms.

I don't think this really matters. You would still need to use a very large amount of computing power to figure out the private key from the public address, more computing power then would likely ever be available in any of our lifetimes.

ECC is ECC, you really think that if the NSA has corrupted one type they can't corrupt all strains of ECC?

Koblitz Curves aren't that special the NSA controls them and him

Snowden says a specific type of ECC was backdoored, bitcoin does not use that specific type.

Snowden documents say ECC is back doored by NSA right?

The little I've read on the back door is it was done by corrupt seed keys. So the NSA has the known relationship they won't have to divide by anything to find anything, they control the seed keys and already know the special relationship according to the Snowden docs. Now if anyone wants to say that ECC is secure and Snowden is wrong, the show the articles. From all I've read ECC is back doored and the NSA used NiSt to do it right?

The rest is speculation, ECC is corrupted and it was done with seed keys from the NSA, so the seed key developer has the the skeleton key it's not a formula using division or whatever, it's a formula that uses the relationship between the two seed keys released by NiST and if they did it with one type of ECC who is to say it wasn't done with all ECC.

LOL, LOL, LOL. And what a big help that is! As I said - conspiracy theory bullshit, written by a clueless moron.


And that helps you how exactly? How about a practical example? Here is a number:

13506641086599522334960321627880596993888147560566702752448514385152651060\
48595338339402871505719094417982072821644715513736804197039641917430464965\
89274256239341020864383202110372958725762358509643110564073501508187510676\
59462920556368552947521350085287941637732853390610975054433499981115005697\
7236890927563

If you can produce at least one factor of it - using Adoni spirals or anything else - I'll pay you $10,000 (in bitcoin or any other way you choose).

And this is "only" a 1024-bit number - such RSA keys are considered only marginally secure these days and the use of 2048-bit keys is recommended instead.

Some clueless idiots just cannot wrap their head around big numbers. 1/30th of a humongously large number that takes an eternity to factor is still a humongously large number that takes an eternity to factor.


Prove it. Put up or shut up.


Bullshit. Your method is equivalent to the Eratosthenes's sieve with the first 30 numbers pre-sieved. So, it would be marginally faster (like difficult to measure faster) than it. News flash - that algorithm is practical only for small numbers. The funny thing is that "the modern stuff" - which you clearly don't understand - is actually slower for small numbers. (Another funny thing is that one of the modern methods, the Quadratic Sieve, is faster for relatively large but not too large numbers than the General Number Field Sieve which truly shows its advantages for very large numbers.) 20-30k numbers is a disappearingly small range.


Yeah, so that instead of 40 times the life of the Universe, you'd need only 20 times the life of the Universe to factor a number. Big improvement.

Some people's ignorance and stupidity is simply breath-taking...

Would that be even 30 times easier than 128 bit security in ECC ? (256 bit key for ECC gives 128 bit security)? Or is it not applicable?
Also, let us not forget RIPEMD-160 protects Bitcoiners as well, and there is nothing but a hash function to work with if you want
to try to break it.

30 times easier? That's not even 2 powers of ten, and the entropy of the private keys is considered to be at least a dozen powers of 10 over that which is physically possible to dream of brute forcing ever.

Yep, you divide by 30 and the remainder tells you what spiral it is on

so now you only have to check 1/30th of the field

both primes and composites over 5 are all 30n+PorNP

so no matter the number, you can find it's distribution channel and all these seed keys are on the same spirals

so they're relational

you got nothing but cooked seed keys and the recipe is 30n+PorNP

P = the 8 adoni spiral primes
NP = the other 22 numbers

So 30Mod cracks both Prime based crypto and ECC that doesn't have to use primes

the seed keys are all related to each other by being 30n+Y there the y is known to the seed key maker

Y can be one of the 8 adoni primes or one of the 22 non primes

is anyone starting to understand this?

every number above 5 both prime and non prime fits 30 mod and as long as the seed keys have the same Y as what you add to it

the n doesn't matter

it's the Y channel that links the numbers that no one knows about

Primes are useful because multiplication is computationaly easy.  Factorization is not.  Are you suggesting 30 mod prime makes factorization easy?

Burden of proof says that whoever makes an assertion is
responsible to prove it.

And your proof is .... ? ?

mmmkay. Where is the academic literature showing this to be true? Other than some for-profit pamphlet written by Adoni, I mean.

Appreciate everyone's input, so thanks - but I sincerely hope you are wrong on this one!!

Thus far, no one has given me any proof. What I would need to see in order to believe is;

- Someone finding a Wallet on the Blockchain with say 50BTC;

- Then hitting the "Request Funds" button;

- Running their Software "backdoor" (prime-base, 8 prime spiral based) decryption program;

- Withdrawing the funds to another Wallet.


Until I see that, I say SHA256 Bitcoin is secure/unhackable