Topic: Release of GLBSE's Documents - page 2. (Read 4298 times)
Thank to you, now I have evidence that you are the anonymous user or that you also received the same documents.
Don't mean to be offensive but this seems to be the consensus at this point.
Really?
Well, one more reason to me not release the documents.
You can be sure that you are not going to receive the documents from me.
Hahaha classic kindergarten stuff. AugustoCroppo, the forum clown.
You need professional help man.
Don't mean to be offensive but this seems to be the consensus at this point.
Really?
Well, one more reason to me not release the documents.
You can be sure that you are not going to receive the documents from me.
you're just an attention-whoring liar
Don't mean to be offensive but this seems to be the consensus at this point.
One of the most stupid threads I've read lately...
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.
Chega atrasado para a discussão e reclama que não há nada para discutir?
Se o assunto não lhe agrada, ignore o debate.
Este é um assunto delicado e sua resposta está fora do tópico em pauta.
PT: Desculpa, mas como posso chegar atrasado para algo que nao existe?
EN: Sorry, how can I be late for something which doesn't exist?
PT: Pode escrever em ingles para que os outros entendam, eu nao tenho problema algum com isso, mas vc talvez tenha.
EN: You can write in English so everybody else can understand, I have no problems with that but maybe you have.
PT: Assunto delicado, o caralho... Se nao posta os documentos, nao passa de um mentiroso que gosta de atencao. Os documentos nao existem. Prova que estou errado. A bola ta do seu lado.
EN: Delicate subject my ass... If you don't release the documents you're just an attention-whoring liar. The documents don't exist. Prove me wrong. The ball is on your court.
One of the most stupid threads I've read lately...
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.
Chega atrasado para a discussão e reclama que não há nada para discutir?
Se o assunto não lhe agrada, ignore o debate.
Este é um assunto delicado e sua resposta está fora do tópico em pauta.
One of the most stupid threads I've read lately...
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.
Some people are going to review them objectively and some aren't - there's really nothing you can do to control that.
Keep in mind that you can expect biased users to be more vocal, so there is a bias that makes you think biased users are more effective than they really are.
Also, I haven't seen much reaction about the data being released, mostly questions about its authenticity, which is a pretty obvious question.
I think you probably need to make a decision soon on whether or not to release the documents. Some people are going to review them objectively and some aren't - there's really nothing you can do to control that.
Sorry but what you are saying didn't make any sense to me. You don't need to release hashes if you release the documents. Am I missing something? Hashes provide means to check authenticity without releasing the documents. I'm flabbergasted by your arguments, I really don't know how I can explain this better.
What I mean is that I will not release the documents for users which have already demonstrated bias to examine the compacted archive. I am glad that you are not demanding 'hashes' to trust that I did not changed the documents. I offer my apologies for my imprecise answer.
Also, please release these files ASAP. There is no reason to not release them, and assuming they are authentic, they will be very helpful in developing a better way to do business, if not in helping GLBSE victims. If they are not authentic, well, you won't get an answer to that by creating drama here.
Of course there are reasons to not release the documents. One of the reasons is the insistence that the documents are not authentic because I did not provide some 'hashes' in the written declaration.
Sorry but what you are saying didn't make any sense to me. You don't need to release hashes if you release the documents. Am I missing something? Hashes provide means to check authenticity without releasing the documents. I'm flabbergasted by your arguments, I really don't know how I can explain this better.
I can understand chat logs not matching (timestamps and whatnot, regardless of format), since they are likely created by the person you claim to have sent you these. However since reports and images are likely distributed as is, your argument has zero merit. Okay some files won't match by their nature. So?
What really matter is the content of the documents, not the 'hashes'.
Also, please release these files ASAP. There is no reason to not release them, and assuming they are authentic, they will be very helpful in developing a better way to do business, if not in helping GLBSE victims. If they are not authentic, well, you won't get an answer to that by creating drama here.
Of course there are reasons to not release the documents. One of the reasons is the insistence that the documents are not authentic because I did not provide some 'hashes' in the written declaration.
File modification time is simply a data field in the compressed archive, trivial to change.
Getting the compressed and uncompress archive sizes to match is only marginally more difficult.
The compressed archive likely includes per-file hashes or CRCs already... that is the data highly difficult to duplicate (i.e. the part you did not post).
Getting the compressed and uncompress archive sizes to match is only marginally more difficult.
The compressed archive likely includes per-file hashes or CRCs already... that is the data highly difficult to duplicate (i.e. the part you did not post).
I asked you to demonstrate how that is done, not to explain how that is done. If you do not present an demonstration of how that is done, I will assume you are just trying to discredit me because I did not provide you with some 'hashes'.
Quote
Irrelevant. OpenPGP data is typically already public... it needs to be, to independently verify signatures.
Irrelevant is your opinion.
That minutes were originally recorded in a text file because the meeting happened in an IRC channel. The original file is TXT format, not PDF format. Two different formats with the same content generates different 'hashes'.
So your insistence for the documents 'hashes' is completely cluless.
So your insistence for the documents 'hashes' is completely cluless.
I can understand chat logs not matching (timestamps and whatnot, regardless of format), since they are likely created by the person you claim to have sent you these. However since reports and images are likely distributed as is, your argument has zero merit. Okay some files won't match by their nature. So?
Also, please release these files ASAP. There is no reason to not release them, and assuming they are authentic, they will be very helpful in developing a better way to do business, if not in helping GLBSE victims. If they are not authentic, well, you won't get an answer to that by creating drama here.
He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.
Right... But how that demonstrated that I could change the documents after I received it?
Is it safe to assume...
- You've read the files.
- One of the shareholders of GLBSE/BitcoinGlobal sent them.
Yes, I made a careful examination of all files. I also obtained OpenPGP certificates and extra documents from the Internet in accordance with references present in the documents.
I strongly suspect the documents were sent to me by a GLBSE shareholder, but I have no evidence to prove that.
Thanks, bud. I suggest keeping the files away from... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fii7MWPQGr8
No, that is not the case at all. And it is sad that anyone in a crypto community would make this false claim.
All right. Could you demonstrate that?
File modification time is simply a data field in the compressed archive, trivial to change.
Getting the compressed and uncompress archive sizes to match is only marginally more difficult.
The compressed archive likely includes per-file hashes or CRCs already... that is the data highly difficult to duplicate (i.e. the part you did not post).
Quote
The documents contains references to OpenPGP certificates of the GLBSE shareholders. That is impossible to forge.
Irrelevant. OpenPGP data is typically already public... it needs to be, to independently verify signatures.
He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.
Right... But how that demonstrated that I could change the documents after I received it?
Is it safe to assume...
- You've read the files.
- One of the shareholders of GLBSE/BitcoinGlobal sent them.
Yes, I made a careful examination of all files. I also obtained OpenPGP certificates and extra documents from the Internet in accordance with references present in the documents.
I strongly suspect the documents were sent to me by a GLBSE shareholder, but I have no evidence to prove that.
He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.
Right... But how that demonstrated that I could change the documents after I received it?
Is it safe to assume...
- You've read the files.
- One of the shareholders of GLBSE/BitcoinGlobal sent them.
He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.
Right... But how that demonstrated that I could change the documents after I received it?
Jump to: