Topic: URGENT: please peer review a possible back door in Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 2295 times)

The plot thickens. 

Makes everyone who says he was a fraud look like a total imbecile for not checking whether the website is really the official word of Craig Wright.

In the thread of mine that Gregory Maxwell deleted, I made the point that those accusing Craig of fraud, hadn't done their homework. Lol. 

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.

Dang, well that ended quickly. I was just starting to take an interest in this whole "some part of the Sartre text might possibly result in same hash" discussion.

---

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...

I don't have a webcam.

Hey, I'm man enough to take a few insults, but now you've gone too far. I am not a disingenuous fucker. My sex life has always been genuine. Are you just jealous?

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 denied writing the text without the context. Where is the lie? Are you pulling my words out of my context again! Disingenuous fuckers you all are.


Yeah you don't understand. Probably because you don't want to understand. Enjoy.

Nothing was 'rephrased'. It was a screenshot from something that you wrote, even though you claim that you didn't.

"Laura" can't link to things that have been trashed. Technically, I can, but you are unable to see them directly.

---

---

You're producing so much spam in addition to breaking several rules along the way.

Regardless of whether the context is provided, trying to deny you wrote the text is a lie. Granted the meaning changes somewhat when context is provided, however it doesn't change the fact.

I don't understand what this thread's point is. Are you complaining that the staff deleted your post, or just trying to spread your 'facts' around the forum further to cause unnecessary panic?

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.

Yeah, definitely did not say that in your thread:

Yes you did. Either that or you decided to take credit for someone else saying it. Maybe you should go to a doctor and ask for an Alzheimer's screening, considering you've already forgotten something you wrote today.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm terrified.

Who are you quoting? I never wrote that text.

Liars and spin masters rephrase the wording to present someone's argument out-of-context (and delete entire threads where the caveats where disclaimed by myself which you are failing to mention).


Dude they know they can't ban me. I have too much political clout here. You should be careful with your words.

If they do ban me, it will only only make me stronger, because so many people will see the forum as a farce.

Besides my posting here on this forum is irrelevant to my work. I donate my time and effort as a public service.

---

---

You should be thankful that you are not banned (yet) due to the amount of spam that you've posted in the recent days.

---

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.

---

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.