Topic: Hoaxtoshi aka Craig Wright busted - collection of quality research posts - page 2. (Read 5449 times)

I do not remember making any such insult. Please quote them and don't allege something you can't demonstrate, for that is a very slimy tactic.


Even when threads are moved to the Trashcan, we get a link showing they have been. Gmaxwell has some sort of super powers as a mod. I have no idea what kind of incestuous relationship is going on between theymos and Gmaxwell, but it doesn't really matter since Bitcoin is basically destroyed now with 70% of the mining controlled by China, soon to be 98+%, and with Blockstream implementing their SegWit soft fork Trojan Horse so as Matonis admits can end up increasing the 21 million coins limit.

The entire ecosystem is headed for a clusterfuck.


Not at all. If the drcraigwright.com is a farce, then nothing has been shown to be untrue about what Wright allegedly proved in private.

This is a masterful chess game being played.

And it is making everyone look like a fool, including those who said Craig was confirmed to be a fraud.

And including yourself for alleging that I speak FUD.

Those who have disingenuous intentions and attitudes eventually get what they deserve and that will include yourself.

The plot thickens. 

Finally someone with a brain stem.

But he may be playing a different genre of con.

BCX pretended he would attack Monero, ostensibly because he shorted it. Craig is up to something.

Or it's not him. Domain creation date for http://drcraigwright.net/  is 02/15/2016

Well, he's either Satoshi, in which case that would make little sense; or he's a con man, in which case it would still make little sense.

Weird HTML page..

just has..

and no other tags.

..

More Importantly - what a dickhead. He is still not denying he is Satoshi. Just some BS about being a little crybaby girl.

And YES - '..their honour and credibility has been irreparably tainted by your actions..'

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.

look --> http://www.drcraigwright.net/

---

No idea if Anonymint is right or wrong but ENOUGH OF THIS BASTARDOCRACY!.

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...

LoL what a dork.

Why would any person with self respect would try such scam? I guess having a PhD don't do any good nowadays. Loser.

What a weird design increasing vulnerability of users' BTCs.

Bitcoin core was using a random k,  therefore the signature from the blockchain is using one. It's not going to match one produced by a deterministic hash of the message.

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.

Those who don't have a cryptographically secure random number generator might use SHA384(signedMessage) for that. In this case you'll be getting the same signature again and again and again...

PS: BTW, why people use random number generators for that? It's harder to generate a truly random number than to calculate hash(signedMessage).

PS2: Disregard "PS", more likely it's because some of these people might use a random number generator with NSA backdoor. This reminds me something... Yes, found it - http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/01/nsa-official-support-of-backdoored-dual_ec_drbg-was-regrettable/

It is irrelevant to my theory. I explained that to you 3 times already in the thread that Gregory Maxwell vaporized.

Well you said - may be not in these exact terms because I don't have the thread either -

"afaics, you sign the same message - you get the same signature."

Besides, if you have a great refutal, why not repeat it here? Sounds like exactly what CW is doing - so maybe - you are Satoshi.

Edit to reply to your edit: LOL - That code is the description pulled from the Wikipedia.

I refuted you 3 times in the thread that Gmaxwell deleted. So you can ask him to restore the thread so everyone can check if my refutations were correct.

I have not been able to read any other posts that might have been in that deleted thread, because it is deleted.

If you want to provide a link to any new refutations from others, I will be happy to respond to them directly. I am not going to have a conversation with someone who I don't even know who I am responding to. Provide a link.

Edit: the above pseudo-code does not refute my theory. 

I did not write that text with bolded phrase and without the context of the caveats that I provided at the deleted thread which was quoted out-of-context and missing the link to the context, as explained already dufus:


Is that the best you retards can do?

P.S. the context at the deleted thread which LauraM didn't even link to, contained bolded and red caveats similar to my reexplanation as follows (which I was forced to repeat after your leader gmaxwell vaporized an entire thread):


You continue following gmaxwell. He will lead you to failure.

---

---