Topic: Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman? - page 2. (Read 16530 times)

This is not just a tax scam, but it looks definitely like a PSYOP. Why core developers are not discussing this issue (edit: in public)?

Andrew Kleiman of Global Trust occupying an office in the same building as his brother Dave once did, never mentioned the passing of David Kleiman, his brother: https://www.facebook.com/AndyLKleinman

Andrew's partner, Edward T. Holt, Jr, passed away on March 8, 2016: http://www.lehmanreen.com/obits/printpdf.php?oid=670753&cs=f38bfa76293844dc0fa1aa66d9be8fd9&ap=1

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Global-Trust-Asset-Management/162840640406265



227 Accounts.
U$120M in total assets.
1 Review by its founder: Andrew Kleiman
Maybe Global Trust will eventually get around to letting its account holders that one of its principals has passed away.

Click to the word "Quote" read more:

I've been making myself the same question lately. All those news on the media, and no one of them had the decency to talk about Dave Kleiman which could have been a really important person behind this, to the point that I think all of Craig has was given/stolen from Kleiman.
This is better than any movie i've ever seen, let's see how things develop.

What about this connection to 'sathoshi'  and demorgan. https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/the-name-satoshi-comes-from-satoshi-david-character-from-the-house-of-morgan-t7619.html

http://financial-advisors.credio.com/l/56219/Andrew-Kleinman



Now that's a trust!

Do you wonder where Andrew Kleiman has his office?




What are the odds... Ah, fuck it! I'll just cut to the chase and answer the [incomplete] rhetorical question - 100%.

First the setup: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/au/2560


http://web.archive.org/web/20031203213625/http://www.securitybreachresponse.com/nm/contact/contact.asp



Here was Global Trust's original address (perhaps not relevant): http://web.archive.org/web/20120302225123/http://www.gbltrust.com/contact



https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.aspx?domain=gbltrust.com&prog_id=GoDaddy&k=N91EefNRsSsSiZpPh%20TIvsLLyIvLQ5R5bTRTCdfi%2ftL2pD1XJ0LsRSg2eCcrDFT3


http://seclists.org/basics/2003/Sep/970


http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cavp/documents/skipjack/skipval.html

Within 30 minutes or so of the story breaking:


Looks like a good call to me.

Yeah i read something the other day about this, its interesting i must look it up again.

Yes, it seems like there are multiple recipients of the award specific to each command. Prior to 2002 the Best Warrior competition didn't exist, so it isn't clear if there was an overall Soldier of the Year. I certainly haven't found any reference to one.

Thats your good right, to believe what you like.
In my estimation, I am at least not lying much more than the average.
But its hard to quantify, I cannot proof anything.


Why that?
Because you will pass me an ass-kick in the supermarket? No, thanks, I dont like.
Or because you will go to tell everywhere, that I am a liar and not proving it too not? I dont like too not.
Its the what you seem to be intentioned to do with your menaceing attitude.

Its not an obligation, to post here revealing public any personal data.

Do you know, what a stalker is?
Its because of the stalkers, what have nothing to do than to run the whole day after the people to pester their existance. Its an illness.

And thats a reason, why it is better to keep the identity in the unknown. Other good reasons exist too. Ever heard something about an agency named NSA? And an individual named Edward Snowden? Ever thought about all the others, what make the same? Do you like to get radiated by Google in every wrinkle of the asshole? Thats why some mean its clevermore, not to walk around with the trousers down.


Why do you mean you have to command around at all and to bark at me as an imperator?
Do you confuse yourself with Hulk, the Shrek of the little girls, or what?


As for my name, I confess, its a ly. But its a poetical ly as all the poets do always forcely. Are you accusing Shakespeare too of being a liar, because the story of Hamlet isnt true? Its another poetical ly.
No poetry without poetical ly. Not even a novel without poetical ly. Its an artist-name, not a ly. I could explain it to you in every detail, inspite of the artist-rule, of never explaining the own artworks.

But I cannot. Because I can upload my avatar only getting a full member. And I need the avatar to explain the name, there is a figurative explication. Its a riddle, if you can crack it, you are a real crack. But I warn you: Its difficult more than the riddle of Rumpelstiltskin of Grimms, and the cryptographic competiency is useless. Its difficult as much, that I suppose, it is impossible to guess. But thats what Rumpelstiltskin said too. And I will not get furious as Rumpelstiltskin and stamp with the foot as much that the earth is getting divided, if you find out. I will give you the first and only hint: the artist-name is an artwork, the avatar is an artwork, but the explication is not. Its the blank, sober, bonedry, boring truth. Then, you will be forced to admit, that I am not a liar. At least not always.


I dont understand, that.
What do you mean?
And why do you write some letters capitalized?
And should i relate this statement somehow to me?


Oh..
Good morning, how are you?

Ah..
I see you are awake some time.
Excellent mood, as usual?


BTW:
Dont bark at me, then I will not make a cabaret. I certainly will not produce with you virtually, what is getting called in the real life the yelling-around. If you bark, you make me scream of laughter.
LOL
Like that, thats as with the dog of Pawlow. Its a reaction, what is stronger than me. At least, the sarcasm, what then follows forcely too, is actually acid quasi-zero. I hope, you understand some humour, its not funny else, I know, sorry for that. At the beginning, I wasnt offending you, I only was stateing, that you are off-topic. And I was saying it polite..
Well I see, you are active. Looks out important, but looks out off-topic again. I will not repeat my opinion about, you know it. And not even if I would, I could talk with you about this materia reasonable. I miss some concepts, of what you will talk. I wish you anyway a constructive and fruitful day and hope you find the people, what can talk with you in a way, what ends not in the yelling around.

Well its late..
.. its me, what is going now to bed.

Good night.

PS:
One last question: Your artist name of TPTB_need_war has an aggressive denotation, is it program, the aggressive comportment? But be aware, saying yes, I will push the ignore button, we will thereafter never nomore be able to exchange our jokes.

He also talks about Tulips and how their price rose.  What if that a metaphor for Bitcoin price rising? Maybe some kind of signal to everyone? Maybe his supercomputer can manipulate the markets...I don't see why not!

What does CSW say right here? https://youtu.be/LdvQTwjVmrE?t=2140

To make it clear in case it wasn't enough, I won't be replying to Foxpop again.

FYI truce, I will cease & desist:

Thank you so much. Now that you're gone perhaps we can get back on topic and talk about Kleiman.


Looks like there is one in each command and one overall winner.

https://www.army.mil/article/156980/

I asked you to not do what you just did above:

---

The point is that with a supercomputer together with a new cryptoanalysis break, the two together might be required to accomplish the attack. I want you to know that if China's pools see nearly all the mining shares, then they are viewing about 2⁶⁸ of SHA-256 hashing power per annum which may or may not be fulcrum. Don't presume you know all the theoretical attacks that are possible.


You've made at least two mathematically illiterate errors in that quoted text:

1. Testing that double-hashing fulfills some criteria you have prechosen, says nothing about security against cryptoanalysis which your criteria has not considered.
2. Securing a password by iterated hashing (because it requires the dictionary attacker to perform the iteration cost on each dictionary trial) says nothing about the increased vulnerability of collision cryptanalysis. You are conflating two separate issues of security. 

I am done speaking to these amateurs. Waste of my time.

I'll interpret your reply as an ostensibly intentional veiled admission that you could not answer the question. So I will proceed to explain the sort of theoretical analysis that I was interested in discussing in the thread that the "forum-Hitler" Gmaxwell nuked.

---

Tangentially note the disclaimer that I wrote in the OP of the thread which was nuked:


I had written in that nuked and vaporized thread a post (my last or nearly last post in that nuked thread) which explained that at the moment I wrote that quoted OP, I had been mislead by sloppy writing on the news sites (and also the linked sites of the protagonists) into thinking that the hash of the Sartre text was already confirmed. For example, I provided this quote:


Being at is was by that time late in the evening for my timezone and I had been awake roughly 18 hours already, and I was skimming in an attempt to make some quick feedback on this potentially important event, so I could return to my work asap. In the nuked thread, I quickly realized that the Sartre text hadn't been verified to match the hash, so I actually stopped posting in the nuked thread for a few hours. Then when I came back to thread, it didn't exist so I could no longer follow up or read what had been elucidated. Thus note my original focus was on how the hell could Craig have achieved that match, so he must have broken the hash. I had recalled that I had theoretically doubts about the double hashing which I had never bothered to discuss with anyone. It had been 2+ years since I did that research on cryptographic hash functions, so I had to decide if I was going to go dig back into that research or not. I figured I'd sleep on it and then be able to think with a clearer, rested mind about the implications of the revelation (to me) that the hash had not been verified to match the text because the portion of the text had not been sufficiently specified (again the "undisclosed" term didn't make sense to me in quick skimming because I had read on the blog that the Sartre text was referred to).

But instead of being able to sleep on it and then decide whether to let it go or dig back into my past research, my thread was nuked and I was under attack. Remember I don't back down from anyone when I think I am justified. When I think I am wrong, I mea culpa.

---

So now back to the subject matter of whether double hashing could theoretically lead to any weakening of the second preimage and/or collision security of the SHA-256 cryptographic hash function.

Afaik, there is no research on this question. If anyone is aware of any, please kindly inform me.

First I will note the Merkle–Damgård construction (which SHA-256 employs) is subject to numerous generic attacks and even though afaik none of these are currently known to be a practical threat against a single hash of SHA-256, we can perhaps look to those generic attacks for potential clues as to what a double-hashing might enable which a single-hash application perhaps might not.

Note in the pseudo-code for SHA-256 that what distinguishes a double-hashing from doubling rounds (i.e. "Compression function main loop:") or repeating the input text in double the block chunks (i.e. "Process the message in successive 512-bit chunks:"), is that the h0 - h8 compression function state which is normally orthogonal to the input block chunks instead gets transmitted as input to a block chunk in the second hash application (i.e. "Produce the final hash value (big-endian):") after being added to the output of the compression function (i.e. "Add the compressed chunk to the current hash value:"). And the h0 - h8 compression function state is reset to a constant (i.e. "Initialize hash values:").

The reason I think this might be theoretically significant is because we should note that the way cryptographic hash functions are typically broken is by applying differential cryptanalysis. Differential cryptanalysis is attempting to find some occurrence of (even higher order) differences between inputs that occurs with more frequent probability than a perfectly uniform distribution. In essence, differential cryptanalysis is leveraging some recurrent structure of the confusion and diffusion and avalanche effect of the algorithm.

Not only does the double-hashing introduce a constant  h0 - h8 midstream thus introducing a known recurrent structure into the middle of the unified algorithm of a double-hashing, but it shifts the normally orthogonal compression function state to the input that it is designed supposed to be orthogonal to. On top of that, the additions of the h0 - h8 state at the midpoint, can possibly mean the starting state of the midpoint is known to have a higher probability of zeros in the least significant bits (LSBs). This last sentence observation comes from some research I did when I created a much higher bandwidth design variant of Berstein's ChaCha by fully exploiting AVX2 SIMD, that was for a specific purpose of creating a faster memory hard proof-of-work function. In that research, I had noted the following quote of an excerpt in my unfinished, rough draft, unpublished white paper written in late 2013 or early 2014 (and kindly note that the following might have errors because it was not reviewed for publishing and was merely notes for myself on my research understanding at that time 2+ years ago):


So now put those aforementioned insights about potential recurrent structure at the midpoint of the double-hashing, together with the reality that a Boomerang attack is a differential cryptoanalysis that employs a midpoint in a cipher to form new attacks that weren't plausible on the full cipher. Bingo!

I'll refrain from providing my further insights on specifics beyond this initial sharing. Why? Because I've been treated like shit by Gmaxwell and you all here grant him too much Hitler-esque control over the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum where these sort of discussions are supposed to occur, so I will take my toys else where. Enjoy your echo chamber.

Do I have an attack against Bitcoin's double-hashing? I leave that for you to ponder.

I hope you conspiracy buffs have enough aluminum foil in stock because I'm sad to say this is about to become a tad (maybe more) weirder.

Go here: http://delivereddata.com/



Fair enough, given that...

https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.aspx?domain=delivereddata.com&prog_id=GoDaddy


David Kleiman and Carter V. Conrad were partners along with Patrick Paige.

Here's more on Conrad: http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Carter-Conrad/1484242250



But the address I highlighted above is not the address I wish to bring attention to in this post. The following address is.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080509034542/http://www.delivereddata.com/contact_us.htm



301 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401, USA

Who else is at that address?

http://www.totaldigitalsecurity.com/



Who founded Total Digital Security?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradforddeflin



The Bitcoin connection?

http://www.totaldigitalsecurity.com/blog/cryptolocker-virus-is-back-ransomware-and-the-evolution-of-extortion



https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Awww.totaldigitalsecurity.com%20bitcoin&oq=site%3Awww.totaldigitalsecurity.com%20bitcoin&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS549US549&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.6938j0j4



TDS was formed on 3/13/13 (~1 month prior to David Kleiman's death [near his owl pillow]): http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=OfficerRegisteredAgentName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DEFLINKENDALLH%20P130000237433&aggregateId=domp-p13000023743-0504a4cf-5af6-4bb1-b793-d8e783049f35&searchTerm=Deflin%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Kendall%20%20%20%20%20%20%20H&listNameOrder=DEFLINKENDALLH%20P130000237433

---

I was ready to post, but just found the following, not sure how it may or may not fit in: https://dietrolldie.com/2013/05/20/malibu-media-claims-fabrication-of-evidence-and-seeks-sanctions-212-cv-02078-pa/#comment-14107

Hey guys - those documents say Wheeler is the Solder of the Year for Army Missile Command. Not for the whole Army. So was there a top award for the overall Army? Or maybe different branches of the Army each had their own Soldier of the Year? Those are details a journalist could easily get screwed up. So don't stop digging.

http://www.garrison.redstone.army.mil/uploads/Redstone%20Rocket%201986_10_29_.pdf



I'm checking '86, '88 and '89 in case there's an honest mistake. If no Kleiman is found, then I won't be updating.

Ha ha, nicely found. Think we can lay that one to rest now.

https://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/gpc&CISOPTR=1553