This caught my attention:
these pages try to associate bitcoin addresses that are traded between them. The information they provide is not precise. Transactions between those addresses does not indicate that those addresses are the same wallet.
they claim that these addresses are generated from the same wallet.
The way to prove that it is produced from the same private key is to run SHA256 in reverse. this is not possible.
lauda and her followers prefer to assume that they are the same wallet.
To the contrary. When properly applied, blockchain heuristics are frighteningly precise. With the relatively simple-looking transactions shown in this thread, the only ways that the heuristics
generally will give a false positive in connecting addresses are
if evidence is misinterpreted as to an unusual exchange wallet, or if people are taking sophisticated active measures to confuse the heuristics
(something that I know because I am studying how best to do this). Obviously, neither of those is the case here.
mhanbostanci admits that the accounts are somehow related to him. In my technical opinion, the blockchain evidence is very strong—and the blockchain evidence contradicts mhanbostanci’s story. When the evidence is considered in its totality, it clearly demonstrates that the accounts are (or at pertinent times, have been) controlled by the same individual.
But worst of all is mhanbostanci’s attempt to blow smoke with technical jargon, whereas he is not even sufficiently knowledgeable to make up convincing nonsense. At the portion that I have highlighted, I almost suspect that mhanbostanci read and misinterpreted
my recent post on this subject. Of course, two different addresses for the same script type cannot be produced from the same Bitcoin private key (!); and inverting SHA256 is irrelevant to inverting HMAC-SHA512
and somehow separating the tweak from the EC public key exposed on the blockchain (the latter part of which I did not mention in that other post, because it seemed irrelevant in the context).
When he gets to the point of claiming that blockchain evidence is unreliable because you can’t invert SHA256, mhanbostanci is clearly just making stuff up as he goes along.
Yes. Case in point: mhanbostanci.
The lie is the biggest sin.
Yes. Case in point: mhanbostanci.
Re self-mod: Nothing that I have ever seen from Lauda gives even the slightest hint that she would unfairly prevent an accused individual from speaking in his own defence in a thread against him. Whereas if this thread were not self-moderated, I expect that it would be already on page 3 with mostly troll gibberish and garbage insults.
Despite my general reluctance to post in self-moderated threads where I do not know OP’s policy or whether my post may be
unexpected deleted, the case for self-mod here should be quite clear to anybody who has followed all the time-wasting idiot-drama on other threads.
The accused members are free to post fully and whenever they want to. Self-mod is not for me to take away the power of the accused to defend themselves, but to protect myself from the usual trolls.
The big problem here:
Reminder, all three accounts are apparently in DT2.
. Buddy, i think you should give it a break.
), troll and Bump are not DT anyway so only mhanbostanci left.
Türkiye'de olup fabrika çıkış fiyatından miner alabilen yoktur.
