Topic: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks - page 3. (Read 5934 times)

I presented a technical argument. Regardless of the actions of Craig, that technical argument remains.

A technical argument by definition is not a fact. It is a technical position that stands to be debated. So if you are unwilling to respond technically to my technical points, then obviously you have nothing technical to say.

Here are some positions I made which you and no one else has refuted:

1. Craig said he signed a hash of some Sartre document but did not disclose which portion of the text. No one has written a script to prove that no portion or combination of portions of that Sartre text will not hash to the value that was signed. Thus I stated until someone has proven that it is impossible for Craig to later show that some portion of the Sartre text will hash to the sign hash value, then you can't claim with certainty that he can't do that. At the bare minimum, those who were checking Craig's proof, should have at least run a simple script to try every contiguous portion (no permutations) of the Sartre text (which is a tractable computation).

2. I have stated that no one seems to know why Bitcoin employs double hashing, and I have stated a theory that double hashing may weaken the collision resistance of the SHA256. I gave my logic for why that may be the case. I also note that SHA256 is documented to be reasonably close to being broken with 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds already broken. Thus I presented the theory that perhaps the double-hashing might push the vulnerability over the edge of breakage of 64 rounds. I didn't present that as a likely theory. I presented it as a point of discussion. If you have no way to refute this technical possibility because you don't know a damn thing about cryptographic hash function construction then that means you are not expert enough to comment about the quality of my theory. Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds? I ask you a specific question and I expect a specific answer.

I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem. Only a technical reply from you is relevant. Of course you can't make one.

Also how do you know that Craig didn't withdraw his plan because I just explained how he may of accomplished the feat he claimed he can do? I mean if someone could even explain the rational justification for the double-hashing, then we wouldn't be wondering as much.

If what was presented to GA is all BS then there is no basis for even making such an assumption.  The thread likely got deleted because of your repeated insults leveled against other posters there, why you never got a notification could be because it was a whole thread that was deleted rather then a single post.  I'm not sure if a notification is sent out if a whole thread is deleted, never had one deleted myself.

This certainly makes GA (chief bitcoin scientist?) look pretty gullible.  Not sure who that Jon guy is and how he backed CWs claim.

It might still be technically valid even if Craig isn't availing of such a vulnerability. And I am not yet sure if Craig has quit. He would place himself in greater legal burden by not following through.

Asking to have a technical discussion with a question mark and asking readers to please wait for the replies from other experts, hardly constitutes FUD. Please re-read the quote where I specifically stated those caveats from the very start (of course Gmaxwell deleted the thread but we still have my quote of the OP).

Remember Monero (not smooth) ignored for a year or more my points about combinatorial unmasking and IP address correlation. Finally now they admit it.

I guess there goes your Bitcoin is broken fud theory.

Not?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yupa6/philosophy_jon_matonis_extending_transaction_fee/

But they both are key members (control?) the Bitcoin Foundation?

What were their positions on Blockstream's SegWit?

Matonis is against block chain soft forks that are in SegWit:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/jon-matonis-believes-block-size-debate-precursor-block-reward-debate/

http://bitcoinist.net/bitcoin-industry-leaders-block-size/

It almost looks like he is deliberately making a clown of himself.

Is Matonis a large blocker like Gavin?

We don't know yet for sure who Craig is working for.

This obviously was not done without a purpose.

You don't take these huge risk (e.g. of being sued, etc) without a sufficient reason.

LOL, back to work

It appears that the entire fiasco was crafted to destroy Matonis and Andresen.

He has apparently taken the fall in order to hand more power to those who are not Matonis and Andresen.

But the saga may not be fully played out yet...

Craig is such a fag.

You got your answer, satoshi my ass... lol

http://www.drcraigwright.net/

Since when is the desire to have freedom-of-speech and open discussion equated with paranoia?  Can you look yourself in the mirror and say that allegation with a straight face 

Yes it is much more likely he is a fraud. But one has to wonder why he has gone this far, if he can't follow through.

My theory was only to discuss a theory, but the Bitcoin maximalists can't tolerate freedom-of-speech. So this might tell you where Blockstream will lead Bitcoin. Their SegWit is arguably a scam where they will not have soft fork versioning control over Bitcoin after adding SegWit, as has been explained by Professor Stolfi for example.

The soft fork versioning is a Trojan Horse. Smooth and I challenged Gmaxwell on that point some weeks ago in the Bitcoin Technical Dicussion thread, and last time I checked he had never replied.

It is all politics.


Afaik, nobody can justify it. Apparently only Satoshi knows why.

I am now offering a theory as to why. And speculation could be perhaps some people already knew this and were covering it up perhaps, but that isn't necessary to make my theory worth discussing.


Afair it has been questioned and brushed aside as, "only satoshi knows".


Transaction signing is not related to mining hash algorithm.


As far as I know, I am the first to present the potential for decreased collision resistance. I googled and didn't find anything.


I don't know if ETH uses a double hash on signing.

Also there is another detail which I am not sure about, which I was hoping to ask in that other thread that got deleted. I want to know if Bitcoin is signing a double hash of the transaction, or if the double-hash is only on the public key? That makes a big difference. If only the latter, then perhaps my theory is incorrect. As I wrote in the OP of the thread that got deleted, I didn't spend a lot of time checking all the details and hoped to receive peer review from other experts. but the thread was deleted.


The most likely outcomes are:

1. Craig is a fraud and this issue dies.
2. I misunderstood some detail about where the double-hashing is in Bitcoin's transaction system, thus my theory is invalid.

However, there is also a chance my theory is correct. In that case, I don't know if altcoins without the vulnerability would benefit or suffer.

I just wanted to have a discussion. The Bitcoin maximalists turned it into a war. Bastards.

I would call you again a paranoid sociopath, but then you would again complain to the mods to delete my post...

You've nailed down the holy grail of cryptocurrency investing. Thank you.

I understand it is only speculation at this point, and perhaps the other explanation you mentioned is more likely.

Is there any other reason there is double hashing? I mean are there known benefits and thus reasons it was employed? It was simply a mystery addition that nobody could justify its existance?

If there are no high level tech people here that can explain exactly why it is there then it does seem strange? why was it not questioned before and perhaps removed?

So specifically LTC/Doge would be effected too? the algo does not matter ie scrypt is just as vulnerable as sha256 because this same double hashing is present?

Are there any other high level programmers here who have looked at the double hashing and have any ideas about it? negative or positive?

Hopefully this is not the case and even if it were it is fixable before someone and their super computer or large hash farm can cause any issues.

What about ETH is that vulnerable.

I mean hopefully even worst case there would be a rush to other non vulnerable cryptos and not everyone bailing on the entire cryto scene.

This is why it is always good to have a few different currencies. Some which share practically no similaries so if a whole is found it one then capital can flow to another.