Can someone explain how he signed the 'Satre' quote WITHOUT having to break SHA256 (finding a collision) ?
It's pretty important, as if he did do that, Bitcoin is broken.
He never used the hash of any Sartre quote (that was just misdirection) - the double hash that he used was simply that used in Satoshi's tx along with the signature that was used in the tx.
(basically he just copied and pasted from the blockchain then put together an elaborate pretense that he had somehow managed to sign something else using a private key known to belong to Satoshi)
Even the silly BBC report has been corrected once they finally worked out that they had been tricked.
Oh.. I see.. thanks.
How can 'big boys' like Gavin and Matonis have fallen for this.. !? That shows very poor skills..
( ..too poor if you ask me.. )
No one has presented a script which hashes all portions of the Sartre text to verify whether it does or does not hash to the correct value.
Until someone does that, they can't be sure that Craig won't reveal the Sartre text which does hash to the correct value, thus proving that he broke the cryptography. Since the SHA-256 was already broken to 46 - 52 rounds of the 64 rounds (for a single hash), then doubling the hash as Bitcoin does could potentially break it for all 64 rounds, because ostensibly collision resistance gets worse when doubling a hash (as I had explained in detail upthread). No one knows why Satoshi designed Bitcoin with a double hash. I am positing it might be a back door.
CIYAM is misleading you. Follow an idiot if you want to be one.
I'm sorry for my lack of technical understanding, but if there were a back door in btc.
1. Could this be fixed easily before it could be used in a way to hurt btc? i.e do you need a super computer to utilize this back door?
2. would this same issue be there in all alts that were essentially cloned from btc code or does using a different algo or POS help to nullify this backdoor?
I am not sure if you thread was deleted since you didn't receive a PM about it. Does one receive a personal message when a thread is moved?
No when a thread is moved they don't receive a PM, but there is no "Moved: ....." thread message remaining the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum. And I also checked Off-topic and it hasn't been moved there afaics. Also normally the link doesn't stop functioning even when it is moved. Clearly Gmaxwell is trying to hide it.
Gmaxwell might try to claim he banned me from that sub-forum, yet he had mentioned in our last communications that I am not banned from that forum. And also smooth and I recently posted in the thread in that sub-forum on one of the SegWit threads and afaik my post hadn't been deleted the last time I looked. He didn't just delete my posts in the thread but also posts from several other forum members who posted in that thread. The entire thread has been vaporized afaics. I presume Gmaxwell is formulating his plan now how to try to make me look like a fool. We know what happened the last time he tried to do that,
I embarrassed him technically.
What I stated in that thread is
that this is all presuming that Craig will be able to tell us which portion of the Sartre text hashes the hash output that was signed as proof on his blog. If Craig doesn't ever do that, then he is a fraud. But if he does it, then it means there is some cryptographic breakage in Bitcoin. And I am identifying the double hash as the greatest potential weakness.
1. The more I think about it, the more I realize that if it is true, then it means who ever can do this, could potentially spend other people's coins. So maybe this is how Craig will spend coins from an early block of Bitcoin (although he might have mined then also depending how early the block is he moves coins from). And the only fix I think would be to have everyone respend their coins with a fixed block chain and fixed wallets. And for lost or inactive coins, they would remain vulnerable. You may or may not need a super computer depending on the cryptographic breakage. I am not sure if an ASIC miner would help or if having access to a
miner in China with 30% of Bitcoin's hashrate would help or be necessary. I can't really speculate on the exact metrics of any cryptographic breakage since this would have I assume required a lot of research on his part.
2. Yes it would apply to clones which copies the double hashing.
I repeat this is conjecture that hinges on two speculations:a) That Craig can present the portion of the Sartre text which hashes correctly.
b) That the cryptographic breakage that allowed #a, is a break in the SHA256 presumably due to the double hashing.
Okay now we are starting to get some evidence that there might be a coordinated attack to hide the facts I have presented (note the following thread move to Meta is not the thread that Gmaxwell deleted):
Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.
The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts.
