My criticism wasn't aimed at you personally but at the information you posted. Sorry if you were offended. My opinion of it still stands - it's conspiracy theory bullshit by someone without a clue. Ignore it.
All good man
Will do 
Topic: 8 Prime Spirals SHA-based De-cryption? Private Keys - page 2. (Read 11706 times)
All good man
Will do This is conspiracy theory bullshit written by somebody with no clue in mathematics, number theory, primality testing, cryptography and so on.
Yes, the prime numbers distribution is not random and Ulam spirals are real but they are nothing more than a curious pattern with no practical applications. There is no magic formula that will yield simultaneously a) only primes, b) all primes and c) different primes every time without some kind of brute force testing.
There are many polynomials that yield primes more often than usual - but they yield composites too and the primes they yield are not unique. One of the best known ones was invented by Euler: k ^ 2 + k + 17; it yields 16 different primes as k takes values from 0 to 15 inclusive. An even better one is 36 * k ^ 2 - 810 * k + 2763; it yields 45 different primes when k takes values from 0 to 44 inclusive. The existence of such polynomials is the reason why primes form "patterns" when put in a grid on a plane - because in analytical geometry, lines and curves on the plane are expressed with polynomials.
If you relax the requirement to get only primes, it is trivial to come up with a polynomial that would yield all possible primes. For instance 6 * k +/- 1 yields every prime greater than 3.
The sieve of Eratosthenes is a rather inefficient algorithm for primality testing and prime number generation; it is useless for anything but relatively small numbers and it does use brute force. It is just better than trial division - but only clueless idiots use trial division for primality testing. From what I can see in the PyPrimes code, Croft spirals (or Adoni spirals or whatever) is just a variant of the formula I've given above, only it sieves out the multiples of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 29, instead of just 2 and 3 as the formula above does. It might be marginally faster than Eratosthenes's sieve for small numbers but is utterly useless for sufficiently large primes.
The author obviously is too clueless to understand the much more complex algorithms like Miller-Rabin, or NFS.
That said, how exactly the NIST elliptic curves are picked is a concern and I personally don't trust Elliptic Curve Encryption - but that's only because I don't have a sufficiently good understanding of it (while I do understand and prefer RSA encryption). But nobody forces you to use the NIST curves. You can easily pick different ones and still use EC-based cryptography.
And, of course, all this has nothing to do with Bitcoin or with the cryptographic hash functions in general.
Yes, the prime numbers distribution is not random and Ulam spirals are real but they are nothing more than a curious pattern with no practical applications. There is no magic formula that will yield simultaneously a) only primes, b) all primes and c) different primes every time without some kind of brute force testing.
There are many polynomials that yield primes more often than usual - but they yield composites too and the primes they yield are not unique. One of the best known ones was invented by Euler: k ^ 2 + k + 17; it yields 16 different primes as k takes values from 0 to 15 inclusive. An even better one is 36 * k ^ 2 - 810 * k + 2763; it yields 45 different primes when k takes values from 0 to 44 inclusive. The existence of such polynomials is the reason why primes form "patterns" when put in a grid on a plane - because in analytical geometry, lines and curves on the plane are expressed with polynomials.
If you relax the requirement to get only primes, it is trivial to come up with a polynomial that would yield all possible primes. For instance 6 * k +/- 1 yields every prime greater than 3.
The sieve of Eratosthenes is a rather inefficient algorithm for primality testing and prime number generation; it is useless for anything but relatively small numbers and it does use brute force. It is just better than trial division - but only clueless idiots use trial division for primality testing. From what I can see in the PyPrimes code, Croft spirals (or Adoni spirals or whatever) is just a variant of the formula I've given above, only it sieves out the multiples of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 29, instead of just 2 and 3 as the formula above does. It might be marginally faster than Eratosthenes's sieve for small numbers but is utterly useless for sufficiently large primes.
The author obviously is too clueless to understand the much more complex algorithms like Miller-Rabin, or NFS.
That said, how exactly the NIST elliptic curves are picked is a concern and I personally don't trust Elliptic Curve Encryption - but that's only because I don't have a sufficiently good understanding of it (while I do understand and prefer RSA encryption). But nobody forces you to use the NIST curves. You can easily pick different ones and still use EC-based cryptography.
And, of course, all this has nothing to do with Bitcoin or with the cryptographic hash functions in general.
...as per opening statement?
I'm not a mathematician, I'm a geologist. Just posted this simply as topical subject matter, that's what these forums are for, right?
Been a supporter of Blockchain technology for almost 2 years, and fortunately may have more BTC than most. With that, there are also many other investors that visit these forums. Personally I do fear at times for the security of private keys and just wanted to know if there was any mathematical premise for PNC, as to decryption?
Apologies, as it appears to have summoned emotive negativity for some of you folk.
I'm just after an explanation that confirms that this is impossible and why.
Dude you're talking to NSA shills here, you know that right.
haha
NSA created bitcoin and it is back doored
ECC is backed doored by using seed keys created on the same prime spiral that was exposed in 1995 by Dr. Sol Adoni
So listen to the NSA bots here, they give you bogus info, the seeds are corrupt as the Snowden docs revealed
CORRUPT KEYS destroyed ECC
Bitcoin uses ECC
Any ECC can be back doored due to understanding how the seed keys lie on the same spiral, so that relationship is what they use to create bad seed keys
DUH
This is conspiracy theory bullshit written by somebody with no clue in mathematics, number theory, primality testing, cryptography and so on.
Yes, the prime numbers distribution is not random and Ulam spirals are real but they are nothing more than a curious pattern with no practical applications. There is no magic formula that will yield simultaneously a) only primes, b) all primes and c) different primes every time without some kind of brute force testing.
There are many polynomials that yield primes more often than usual - but they yield composites too and the primes they yield are not unique. One of the best known ones was invented by Euler: k ^ 2 + k + 17; it yields 16 different primes as k takes values from 0 to 15 inclusive. An even better one is 36 * k ^ 2 - 810 * k + 2763; it yields 45 different primes when k takes values from 0 to 44 inclusive. The existence of such polynomials is the reason why primes form "patterns" when put in a grid on a plane - because in analytical geometry, lines and curves on the plane are expressed with polynomials.
If you relax the requirement to get only primes, it is trivial to come up with a polynomial that would yield all possible primes. For instance 6 * k +/- 1 yields every prime greater than 3.
The sieve of Eratosthenes is a rather inefficient algorithm for primality testing and prime number generation; it is useless for anything but relatively small numbers and it does use brute force. It is just better than trial division - but only clueless idiots use trial division for primality testing. From what I can see in the PyPrimes code, Croft spirals (or Adoni spirals or whatever) is just a variant of the formula I've given above, only it sieves out the multiples of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 29, instead of just 2 and 3 as the formula above does. It might be marginally faster than Eratosthenes's sieve for small numbers but is utterly useless for sufficiently large primes.
The author obviously is too clueless to understand the much more complex algorithms like Miller-Rabin, or NFS.
That said, how exactly the NIST elliptic curves are picked is a concern and I personally don't trust Elliptic Curve Encryption - but that's only because I don't have a sufficiently good understanding of it (while I do understand and prefer RSA encryption). But nobody forces you to use the NIST curves. You can easily pick different ones and still use EC-based cryptography.
And, of course, all this has nothing to do with Bitcoin or with the cryptographic hash functions in general.
Yes, the prime numbers distribution is not random and Ulam spirals are real but they are nothing more than a curious pattern with no practical applications. There is no magic formula that will yield simultaneously a) only primes, b) all primes and c) different primes every time without some kind of brute force testing.
There are many polynomials that yield primes more often than usual - but they yield composites too and the primes they yield are not unique. One of the best known ones was invented by Euler: k ^ 2 + k + 17; it yields 16 different primes as k takes values from 0 to 15 inclusive. An even better one is 36 * k ^ 2 - 810 * k + 2763; it yields 45 different primes when k takes values from 0 to 44 inclusive. The existence of such polynomials is the reason why primes form "patterns" when put in a grid on a plane - because in analytical geometry, lines and curves on the plane are expressed with polynomials.
If you relax the requirement to get only primes, it is trivial to come up with a polynomial that would yield all possible primes. For instance 6 * k +/- 1 yields every prime greater than 3.
The sieve of Eratosthenes is a rather inefficient algorithm for primality testing and prime number generation; it is useless for anything but relatively small numbers and it does use brute force. It is just better than trial division - but only clueless idiots use trial division for primality testing. From what I can see in the PyPrimes code, Croft spirals (or Adoni spirals or whatever) is just a variant of the formula I've given above, only it sieves out the multiples of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 29, instead of just 2 and 3 as the formula above does. It might be marginally faster than Eratosthenes's sieve for small numbers but is utterly useless for sufficiently large primes.
The author obviously is too clueless to understand the much more complex algorithms like Miller-Rabin, or NFS.
That said, how exactly the NIST elliptic curves are picked is a concern and I personally don't trust Elliptic Curve Encryption - but that's only because I don't have a sufficiently good understanding of it (while I do understand and prefer RSA encryption). But nobody forces you to use the NIST curves. You can easily pick different ones and still use EC-based cryptography.
And, of course, all this has nothing to do with Bitcoin or with the cryptographic hash functions in general.
You're clueless
Python Primes tested all the prime algorithm the fastest was 30 Mod Prime Algorithm or Prime Spirals all the modern stuff did terrible, the only thing even close to prime spirals was the ancient greek sieve, wheels and other algo's did 100 primes a second and ancient sieve 20k and the adoni spirals 30K
So 50% improvement on finding primes.
Now the big thing is that the 8 prime channels or spirals are what the NSA creates bad seed keys with, it's the fact the seeds are on the same spiral that allow them to be back doored.
Now shut up about stuff you are clueless on
hey you got some btc, let's play one on one in my casino
www.1Player.com
I'm not Sol Adoni and I own a casino and I will destroy you one on one if you dare to enter my casino
LOL
This is the quite the casino you have. I cilcked around and I was amazed
at the lack of any gaming functionality. (you seem to have failed to even install
an SSL certificate)
Amazing Sol! I mean, um, 247casino... who is not Sol and is a completely
different person and has an amazing casino.
wow!
I'm not Sol Adoni and the casino I own with some partners has SSL you lying scum
https://1player.com
See liar
YOU LIE
It has the top poker room for bitcoin in the world, huge games that morons can't play in
My criticism wasn't aimed at you personally but at the information you posted. Sorry if you were offended. My opinion of it still stands - it's conspiracy theory bullshit by someone without a clue. Ignore it.
This is conspiracy theory bullshit written by somebody with no clue in mathematics, number theory, primality testing, cryptography and so on.
Yes, the prime numbers distribution is not random and Ulam spirals are real but they are nothing more than a curious pattern with no practical applications. There is no magic formula that will yield simultaneously a) only primes, b) all primes and c) different primes every time without some kind of brute force testing.
There are many polynomials that yield primes more often than usual - but they yield composites too and the primes they yield are not unique. One of the best known ones was invented by Euler: k ^ 2 + k + 17; it yields 16 different primes as k takes values from 0 to 15 inclusive. An even better one is 36 * k ^ 2 - 810 * k + 2763; it yields 45 different primes when k takes values from 0 to 44 inclusive. The existence of such polynomials is the reason why primes form "patterns" when put in a grid on a plane - because in analytical geometry, lines and curves on the plane are expressed with polynomials.
If you relax the requirement to get only primes, it is trivial to come up with a polynomial that would yield all possible primes. For instance 6 * k +/- 1 yields every prime greater than 3.
The sieve of Eratosthenes is a rather inefficient algorithm for primality testing and prime number generation; it is useless for anything but relatively small numbers and it does use brute force. It is just better than trial division - but only clueless idiots use trial division for primality testing. From what I can see in the PyPrimes code, Croft spirals (or Adoni spirals or whatever) is just a variant of the formula I've given above, only it sieves out the multiples of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 29, instead of just 2 and 3 as the formula above does. It might be marginally faster than Eratosthenes's sieve for small numbers but is utterly useless for sufficiently large primes.
The author obviously is too clueless to understand the much more complex algorithms like Miller-Rabin, or NFS.
That said, how exactly the NIST elliptic curves are picked is a concern and I personally don't trust Elliptic Curve Encryption - but that's only because I don't have a sufficiently good understanding of it (while I do understand and prefer RSA encryption). But nobody forces you to use the NIST curves. You can easily pick different ones and still use EC-based cryptography.
And, of course, all this has nothing to do with Bitcoin or with the cryptographic hash functions in general.
Yes, the prime numbers distribution is not random and Ulam spirals are real but they are nothing more than a curious pattern with no practical applications. There is no magic formula that will yield simultaneously a) only primes, b) all primes and c) different primes every time without some kind of brute force testing.
There are many polynomials that yield primes more often than usual - but they yield composites too and the primes they yield are not unique. One of the best known ones was invented by Euler: k ^ 2 + k + 17; it yields 16 different primes as k takes values from 0 to 15 inclusive. An even better one is 36 * k ^ 2 - 810 * k + 2763; it yields 45 different primes when k takes values from 0 to 44 inclusive. The existence of such polynomials is the reason why primes form "patterns" when put in a grid on a plane - because in analytical geometry, lines and curves on the plane are expressed with polynomials.
If you relax the requirement to get only primes, it is trivial to come up with a polynomial that would yield all possible primes. For instance 6 * k +/- 1 yields every prime greater than 3.
The sieve of Eratosthenes is a rather inefficient algorithm for primality testing and prime number generation; it is useless for anything but relatively small numbers and it does use brute force. It is just better than trial division - but only clueless idiots use trial division for primality testing. From what I can see in the PyPrimes code, Croft spirals (or Adoni spirals or whatever) is just a variant of the formula I've given above, only it sieves out the multiples of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 29, instead of just 2 and 3 as the formula above does. It might be marginally faster than Eratosthenes's sieve for small numbers but is utterly useless for sufficiently large primes.
The author obviously is too clueless to understand the much more complex algorithms like Miller-Rabin, or NFS.
That said, how exactly the NIST elliptic curves are picked is a concern and I personally don't trust Elliptic Curve Encryption - but that's only because I don't have a sufficiently good understanding of it (while I do understand and prefer RSA encryption). But nobody forces you to use the NIST curves. You can easily pick different ones and still use EC-based cryptography.
And, of course, all this has nothing to do with Bitcoin or with the cryptographic hash functions in general.
...as per opening statement?
I'm not a mathematician, I'm a geologist. Just posted this simply as topical subject matter, that's what these forums are for, right?
Been a supporter of Blockchain technology for almost 2 years, and fortunately may have more BTC than most. With that, there are also many other investors that visit these forums. Personally I do fear at times for the security of private keys and just wanted to know if there was any mathematical premise for PNC, as to decryption?
Apologies, as it appears to have summoned emotive negativity for some of you folk.
I'm just after an explanation that confirms that this is impossible and why.
This is conspiracy theory bullshit written by somebody with no clue in mathematics, number theory, primality testing, cryptography and so on.
Yes, the prime numbers distribution is not random and Ulam spirals are real but they are nothing more than a curious pattern with no practical applications. There is no magic formula that will yield simultaneously a) only primes, b) all primes and c) different primes every time without some kind of brute force testing.
There are many polynomials that yield primes more often than usual - but they yield composites too and the primes they yield are not unique. One of the best known ones was invented by Euler: k ^ 2 + k + 17; it yields 16 different primes as k takes values from 0 to 15 inclusive. An even better one is 36 * k ^ 2 - 810 * k + 2763; it yields 45 different primes when k takes values from 0 to 44 inclusive. The existence of such polynomials is the reason why primes form "patterns" when put in a grid on a plane - because in analytical geometry, lines and curves on the plane are expressed with polynomials.
If you relax the requirement to get only primes, it is trivial to come up with a polynomial that would yield all possible primes. For instance 6 * k +/- 1 yields every prime greater than 3.
The sieve of Eratosthenes is a rather inefficient algorithm for primality testing and prime number generation; it is useless for anything but relatively small numbers and it does use brute force. It is just better than trial division - but only clueless idiots use trial division for primality testing. From what I can see in the PyPrimes code, Croft spirals (or Adoni spirals or whatever) is just a variant of the formula I've given above, only it sieves out the multiples of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 29, instead of just 2 and 3 as the formula above does. It might be marginally faster than Eratosthenes's sieve for small numbers but is utterly useless for sufficiently large primes.
The author obviously is too clueless to understand the much more complex algorithms like Miller-Rabin, or NFS.
That said, how exactly the NIST elliptic curves are picked is a concern and I personally don't trust Elliptic Curve Encryption - but that's only because I don't have a sufficiently good understanding of it (while I do understand and prefer RSA encryption). But nobody forces you to use the NIST curves. You can easily pick different ones and still use EC-based cryptography.
And, of course, all this has nothing to do with Bitcoin or with the cryptographic hash functions in general.
Yes, the prime numbers distribution is not random and Ulam spirals are real but they are nothing more than a curious pattern with no practical applications. There is no magic formula that will yield simultaneously a) only primes, b) all primes and c) different primes every time without some kind of brute force testing.
There are many polynomials that yield primes more often than usual - but they yield composites too and the primes they yield are not unique. One of the best known ones was invented by Euler: k ^ 2 + k + 17; it yields 16 different primes as k takes values from 0 to 15 inclusive. An even better one is 36 * k ^ 2 - 810 * k + 2763; it yields 45 different primes when k takes values from 0 to 44 inclusive. The existence of such polynomials is the reason why primes form "patterns" when put in a grid on a plane - because in analytical geometry, lines and curves on the plane are expressed with polynomials.
If you relax the requirement to get only primes, it is trivial to come up with a polynomial that would yield all possible primes. For instance 6 * k +/- 1 yields every prime greater than 3.
The sieve of Eratosthenes is a rather inefficient algorithm for primality testing and prime number generation; it is useless for anything but relatively small numbers and it does use brute force. It is just better than trial division - but only clueless idiots use trial division for primality testing. From what I can see in the PyPrimes code, Croft spirals (or Adoni spirals or whatever) is just a variant of the formula I've given above, only it sieves out the multiples of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 29, instead of just 2 and 3 as the formula above does. It might be marginally faster than Eratosthenes's sieve for small numbers but is utterly useless for sufficiently large primes.
The author obviously is too clueless to understand the much more complex algorithms like Miller-Rabin, or NFS.
That said, how exactly the NIST elliptic curves are picked is a concern and I personally don't trust Elliptic Curve Encryption - but that's only because I don't have a sufficiently good understanding of it (while I do understand and prefer RSA encryption). But nobody forces you to use the NIST curves. You can easily pick different ones and still use EC-based cryptography.
And, of course, all this has nothing to do with Bitcoin or with the cryptographic hash functions in general.
not adoni, but with .001 in that big fat btc wallet of yours you can't buy his book
haha
damn, this site how so many broke wallets it's AMAZING
Spreading FUD about Bitcoin to market your book again Adoni?
(File this under dishonest, sleazeball business tactics.)
wrong guy, I own a BITCOIN CASINO
haha
idiot
Nope, its you.
Same shitty domain name styles in your sig as Adoni was
spamming, all starting with 1.
dude you're on drugs
you mean this guy right
www.SolAdoni.com
www.Adoni.co
www.PrimeAlgorithm.com
www.HologramUniverse.org
www.Atlantias.com
www.ciaproject.org/bitcoin
www.bitcoinalgorithm.com
www.primespirals.org
www.helixq.org
www.universitius.com
www.paideias.com
www.aithre.com
www.omneius.com
www.occultius.com
www.ancientmystery.org
www.lostancientcivilizations.com
www.adonipublishing.com
Yeah sure, he has a lot of 1 domains
Now look in the mirror and say MORON
MORON
MORON
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees right through this Sol Adoni guy. He creates and spreads so much FUD it's amazing.
How many bitcointalk user id's does he have?? SO MANY.
How many websites does he have? A ton.
He even makes youtube videos and cites his own websites as sources. Lmao.
I guess money will make some people do anything!
It appears Sol Adoni's technique is to flood and saturate the net with his information and try to create credibility by the sheer quantity of false information he puts out. It's too bad it's all linked back to him!
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
hey you got some btc, let's play one on one in my casino
www.1Player.com
I'm not Sol Adoni and I own a casino and I will destroy you one on one if you dare to enter my casino
LOL
This is the quite the casino you have. I cilcked around and I was amazed
at the lack of any gaming functionality. (you seem to have failed to even install
an SSL certificate)
Amazing Sol! I mean, um, 247casino... who is not Sol and is a completely
different person and has an amazing casino.
wow!
I'm not Sol Adoni and I own a casino and I will destroy you one on one if you dare to enter my casino
LOL
LOL
LOL is right.
Hey Sol - in what fields have you been awarded doctorates, and from which esteemed institutions are these certifications?
IMO it's paranoid enough, that even should quite serious flaws be found, it'll only bring down the time required for every computer ever to crack a private key down to a million years.
Right-on Flash! To be honest, when I heard about this conspiracy theory I did get a little paranoid, and posted mainly due to paranoia on my part.
Purely just interested in the mathematical premise and the safety of our private keys. I see that Satoshi, whoever he/she/they is/are clearly considered this based on the decisions made when implementing.
But I'm pretty convinced that no prime-based Primer exists that de-crypts our private to public keys.
IMO it's paranoid enough, that even should quite serious flaws be found, it'll only bring down the time required for every computer ever to crack a private key down to a million years.
this whole topic is yet another adoni puppet theory based on the fact that cryptography was invent by NSA.
whats next that bitcoin must be a microsoft invention because it was originally programmed in C++ (microsoft patent)
or that bitcoin must be a scam created by hard drive manufacturers as it needs 20gb of storage..
and before you say it, based on a possible future brain fart you may have that i am from Oxford.. no.. i am not from oxford. i say this as you may presume that me using words and characters found and documented in the book "oxford dictionary" must make me part of the oxford elite, as that is the mindset that you are projecting onto this forum
whats next that bitcoin must be a microsoft invention because it was originally programmed in C++ (microsoft patent)
or that bitcoin must be a scam created by hard drive manufacturers as it needs 20gb of storage..
and before you say it, based on a possible future brain fart you may have that i am from Oxford.. no.. i am not from oxford. i say this as you may presume that me using words and characters found and documented in the book "oxford dictionary" must make me part of the oxford elite, as that is the mindset that you are projecting onto this forum
Fellas, chill the fk out pls
Was just interested in the 8 Prime Spiral application with respect to SHA-based cryptography.
Franky's probably right and it's just a coincidence the similarities in "How to make a Mint" NSA research paper as a prelude to Satoshis' White paper. (But wrong about me being 247Casino)
I read both papers again, and in awe of "Satoshi" - his blockchain system and use of secp256k1/ECDSA parameters;
"secp256k1 was almost never used before Bitcoin became popular, but it is now gaining in popularity due to its several nice properties. Most commonly-used curves have a random structure, but secp256k1 was constructed in a special non-random way which allows for especially efficient computation. As a result, it is often more than 30% faster than other curves if the implementation is sufficiently optimized. Also, unlike the popular NIST curves, secp256k1's constants were selected in a predictable way, which significantly reduces the possibility that the curve's creator inserted any sort of backdoor into the curve."
Until I see a quantitative method that works through how 30MOD" can extrapolate our Private keys through seed generation, I'm cool still bulk buying BTC.
247casino and the OP are the same person., now who votes to get this crap topic deleted as its all bull crap anyway
You're on drugs
haha
too funny
face it franky, SOL ADONI gets a lot of press and someone read his stuff on btc and came here, so what, now go cry like a little girl
hey you got some btc, let's play one on one in my casino
www.1Player.com
I'm not Sol Adoni and I own a casino and I will destroy you one on one if you dare to enter my casino
LOL
247casino and the OP are the same person., now who votes to get this crap topic deleted as its all bull crap anyway
what a moron... claims he's not Adoni when I called him out
on those domains by posting a bunch of domains that
don't start with a 1 (that he also owns). How would he
know what domains Adoni owns if he's not him....
also the checkout page on his main site goes to 1ebooks.
DERP!
on those domains by posting a bunch of domains that
don't start with a 1 (that he also owns). How would he
know what domains Adoni owns if he's not him....
also the checkout page on his main site goes to 1ebooks.
DERP!
Here's a little clue twit, I'm in SFL, Adoni is in SFL, I've know him for years, many in SFL calls our group the domain cowboys. haha
Now I run a CASINO, and he has nothing to do with it.
So me, lots of people I know, we all know who he is.
You can go to his site and copy and past that list ass wipe, but I will admit I know the great SOL ADONI, and he's the only guy I know that has more dough than me that I know personally.
He whips my ass in golf and I whip his ass in poker, unless he pulls one of those impossible draws on the river that only he can get.
I swear he has a pact with lucifer himself the way he hits the river over and over.
But you can bluff him after a flop, if he doesn't get what he wants or thinks he has a chance, he'll muck most flops with a little pressure.
Great golfer and good poker player he is.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT SOL ADONI
It's NOT ME
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
what a moron... claims he's not Adoni when I called him out
on those domains by posting a bunch of domains that
don't start with a 1 (that he also owns). How would he
know what domains Adoni owns if he's not him....
also the checkout page on his main site goes to 1ebooks.
DERP!
on those domains by posting a bunch of domains that
don't start with a 1 (that he also owns). How would he
know what domains Adoni owns if he's not him....
also the checkout page on his main site goes to 1ebooks.
DERP!
Hehe , that was smart.
this whole topic is yet another adoni puppet theory based on the fact that cryptography was invent by NSA.
whats next that bitcoin must be a microsoft invention because it was originally programmed in C++ (microsoft patent)
or that bitcoin must be a scam created by hard drive manufacturers as it needs 20gb of storage..
and before you say it, based on a possible future brain fart you may have that i am from Oxford.. no.. i am not from oxford. i say this as you may presume that me using words and characters found and documented in the book "oxford dictionary" must make me part of the oxford elite, as that is the mindset that you are projecting onto this forum
whats next that bitcoin must be a microsoft invention because it was originally programmed in C++ (microsoft patent)
or that bitcoin must be a scam created by hard drive manufacturers as it needs 20gb of storage..
and before you say it, based on a possible future brain fart you may have that i am from Oxford.. no.. i am not from oxford. i say this as you may presume that me using words and characters found and documented in the book "oxford dictionary" must make me part of the oxford elite, as that is the mindset that you are projecting onto this forum
and has got my attention due to the fact the controlling majority share of unit tokens is unaccounted for.
False premise.
Sure it is.
Jump to: