Pages:
Author

Topic: Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman? - page 4. (Read 16530 times)

vip
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1145
May 05, 2016, 01:51:21 PM

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...

Pink Floyd nailed it (including Richard Wright on keyboards): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxCUyy_aVzA
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
May 05, 2016, 01:31:40 PM
Again the same source Gizmodo:
Quote
Ira Kleiman declined to speak on the record about whether he is in possession of his brother?s hard drives. Described by acquaintances as guarded and private, Ira Kleiman also refused to meet with a reporter in person or speak over the phone, opting instead to send dozens of cagey and cryptic emails and SMS messages in an exchange that lasted several days. He claimed that after his brother?s death, Wright contacted him and told him that he and Dave Kleiman were involved in creating Bitcoin, and also alleged to possess documents provided to him by several sources that might corroborate the information provided to Gizmodo by Wright?s apparent hacker. However, Kleiman declined to provide any concrete information about those documents or their sources, and would not answer when asked if he believed that Wright had been telling him the truth.

Its what I worry about: Ira Kleiman.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
May 05, 2016, 01:21:39 PM
Back to the thema:
Gizmodo published already long ago: http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692

I think this could be plausible if Kleiman is Satoshi.

Yeah
donator
Activity: 4760
Merit: 4323
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
May 05, 2016, 01:09:02 PM
One theory that is being floated on Reddit runs like this:

Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.

So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.

Thoughts pro and con?

I think this could be plausible if Kleiman is Satoshi.  Perhaps Kleiman reached out to Wright knowing that Wright was rich and might have an interest in buying a large amount of BTC as well as the Satoshi identity.  Possibly Kleiman was trying to cash out before he died and by saying the BTC was Wright's that would be repaid upon a later date, he was avoiding taxes and living the rest of his days in whatever regulatory nightmare would have come with claiming ownership himself.  The 2020 date could even be accurate, as I could see Satoshi wanting to sell to a believer who would hold the BTC until it was stable and not to someone who would dump at a profit and kill the idea.  Maybe Kleiman died before everything could be finalized, which would explain why he died poor.  That would also explain how Wright became the only one who knew the identity of Satoshi, and why he is trying to set up a case to prove he is the owner of the BTC (which it appears he is not, but maybe would have been if Kleiman had more time).
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
May 05, 2016, 01:02:59 PM
You need to up the dosage on your meds, Pablo.

 LOL

What do you mean? Einstein is a god? Grin
newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
May 05, 2016, 12:53:22 PM
We were reading here many times in the past days of the falseness of the superelevation of Satoshi in the sphere at the limit to the divine.

Of course, humans are no gods.

Albert Einstein wasnt a god too not..

.. but we should talk of Satoshi Nakamoto maybe as of the Einstein of the banking.

...

Edit: typo

You need to up the dosage on your meds, Pablo.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
May 05, 2016, 12:10:29 PM
We were reading here many times in the past days of the falseness of the superelevation of Satoshi in the sphere at the limit to the divine.

Of course, humans are no gods.

Albert Einstein wasnt a god too not..

.. but we should talk of Satoshi Nakamoto maybe as of the Einstein of the banking.

The invention of the blockchain, block chain, as Satoshi used to write is not to underestimate. Some talk of the invention of the century. Some, what are not fools.

I will not talk now about that, as it is off-topic too.

Just to say, if it is Dave, then Dave is a big hero. And not a falseplayer as this false doctor, of whom we should stop to babble.

As well as we should stop to babble about Jean-Paul Sartre's irrelevant Nobel-refuse speech. Its always one of the red herrings of the false player.

Edit: typo
sr. member
Activity: 360
Merit: 250
Token
May 05, 2016, 11:57:19 AM

Why do you not want readers to read the truth.

That'd be nice but everything you've posted in this thread has been incoherent drivel. You come off as a crackhead.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
May 05, 2016, 11:51:48 AM
Is it a problem, when THIS statement isnt coming from Dave?

Everyone was interested in stopping this silly boulevard-show over Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto.
hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
May 05, 2016, 11:44:10 AM
HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

..

One thing..

IF Satoshi is Kleiman.. When was that post made by Satoshi about him not being Dorian Nakamoto.. ?

Wasn't that AFTER 2013.. ?


Is this really relevant?

Is this statement of Satoshi verified?

Edit: I suppose, after stopping to post here, no statement of Satoshi is verifyable nomore. Its anyway very difficult to verify an anonymous source, especially in the latest statement, because of the hackability of every channel.

It means that that statement couldn't have been made by Kleiman.
hero member
Activity: 1395
Merit: 505
May 05, 2016, 11:38:32 AM
We do have fairly convincing evidence that the signature Wright posted is not a signature of any subset of the Sartre document.

Specifically, it matches an early public signature from Satoshi lifted from a Bitcoin transaction. The chance against any portion of the Sartre document generating an identical signature are astronomical. Hence, it's pretty clearly an attempt at fraud or at the very least intentional misdirection.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
May 05, 2016, 11:35:44 AM
Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman? Angry

Say something then about him.

Perhaps you didn't realize that I was the one who before this thread started, pointed out that we should be talking about him.  Roll Eyes Do I need to provide a link as proof?

P.S. see you registered a sock puppet account today so you can do your hatchet attack anonymously.

I am an innocent Noob, and not a sock puppet. Grin

I WAS saying something about him just before:


Dave Kleiman is dead, his identity of having been Satoshi Nakamoto is always doubted. And if..

..then his brother, what was inheriting the suspicious USB-drive with the wallets worth half a billion dollar is absolutely inconscient about his property and in big danger, as there exist gamblers as this unspeakable false doctor Craig Wright what are interested in nothing than these bucks really. Some kill for a handful dollars, as our wild Gleb was remembering very sage.



I see, you are completely upset, maybe your exitement is entirely appropriate, because you seem to be seriously worried. I cannot judge, you know, the angry man's terms are hardly accessible. And to be honest, I am not interested, because..



..me too, I am worried, but because of something else what seems to be importantmore to me and what is on-topic.


Its something what belongs exactly here and nowhere else. And your thema is off-topic and makes this important thread unreadable. I m sorry, but thats a fact.



Its as talking of the boxing in the football-match.  Angry



Why dont you ask the moderation to adapt the title of the thread to your thema?
The footballers are excellent boxing sportlers certainly too.
legendary
Activity: 4551
Merit: 3445
Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023
May 05, 2016, 11:24:41 AM
If you believe that, you are dumber than I thought.
Yes, I do believe I explained it.
If you feed the script a plain ASCII text file, you'll just claim he might have used UTF16. Or a PDF file, which can altered in infinitely many ways without affecting the text content. Or a JPEG of a photograph of a printout of the document. Or something else entirely.
Perhaps you're illiterate?

Please don't waste my time with your inane inability to understand rudimentary concepts.
Rudimentary concepts such as the fact that the binary representation of the document in question hasn't even been identified? And that there are infinitely many possible representations? I agree, if you don't understand such concepts, there is no point in wasting time discussing anything with you.

I will proceed to explain once you confirm that do not understand why Merkle–Damgård construction is relevant? Either explain or admit you don't know. So I can proceed to teach you something. You are wasting my scarce time with your stalling/deception tactics and trolling.
No, you're the one wasting my time. I don't have to explain anything. You do. And you're not. I can only assume by your lack of explanation that you can't produce one.

Next time you will realize not to fuck with me, because I know a lot more than you assume.
I assume you know nothing, so knowing more than that isn't much of an accomplishment. But please go ahead and demonstrate your accomplishment. We're all waiting.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
May 05, 2016, 11:23:12 AM
HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

..

One thing..

IF Satoshi is Kleiman.. When was that post made by Satoshi about him not being Dorian Nakamoto.. ?

Wasn't that AFTER 2013.. ?


Is this really relevant?

Is this statement of Satoshi verified?

Edit: I suppose, after stopping to post here, no statement of Satoshi is verifyable nomore. Its anyway very difficult to verify an anonymous source, especially in the latest statement, because of the hackability of every channel.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 05, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

Yeah it is tiring to deal with trolls who are too ignorant to realize they are.


Why do you not want readers to read the truth.
sr. member
Activity: 360
Merit: 250
Token
hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
May 05, 2016, 11:13:04 AM
HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

..

One thing..

IF Satoshi is Kleiman.. When was that post made by Satoshi about him not being Dorian Nakamoto.. ?

Wasn't that AFTER 2013.. ?
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 05, 2016, 11:09:35 AM
You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash.

No, you couldn't, and I explained why.

If you believe that, you are dumber than I thought.

Perhaps you aren't even a programmer?

Of course one can write a script to hash all continuous portions of the Sartre document and check against the hash and then show that he could not possibly be correct with any contiguous portion of the Sartre document that was claim to have been signed for.

Please don't waste my time with your inane inability to understand rudimentary concepts.  Even Yarkol already explained it.

I want you to prove you understand how cryptographic hash functions are constructed and prove you have knowledge about how collision attacks are often constructed. Because these are things I had researched in the past.

Why should I? I'm not the one making outlandish claims about the subject. You are, and I doubt (based on the fact that your posts are nonsense) that you have actually researched it in any capacity.

I will proceed to explain once you confirm that do not understand why Merkle–Damgård construction is relevant? Either explain or admit you don't know. So I can proceed to teach you something. You are wasting my scarce time with your stalling/deception tactics and trolling.

Next time you will realize not to fuck with me, because I know a lot more than you assume.
legendary
Activity: 4551
Merit: 3445
Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023
May 05, 2016, 10:49:49 AM
You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash.
No, you couldn't, and I explained why.

'backsplaining.
I've never heard of that word in this context. What does it mean?

So tell me the reason? Obviously I didn't ask the question to only receive a "yes".
Actually, it's not obvious at all why you asked the question, hence my glib answer. Your nonsense isn't worth my time.

I want you to prove you understand how cryptographic hash functions are constructed and prove you have knowledge about how collision attacks are often constructed. Because these are things I had researched in the past.
Why should I? I'm not the one making outlandish claims about the subject. You are, and I doubt (based on the fact that your posts are nonsense) that you have actually researched it in any capacity.

That is the sort of reply which the linked article explains you would make. So you've confirmed it. Thanks.
You're welcome. Grin
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 05, 2016, 10:40:03 AM
Jezee guys he is just asking us to look at the code. It's not a bad idea to peek at the publicly available source code from time to time. Fortunately this is an open source project and that allows us to be certain that nothing malicious is in the code. I'll go through it tonight and see for myself. A "backdoor" is not hide-able in the source.

Specifically I am not alleging something is maliciously hiding in the source code.

I am asking if the double hashing could possibly be itself a cryptographic hole that enables someone to preimage via collisions an existing signature so as to prove they signed a message from that key.

Apparently the double hash is also on the public key as well as on the hash that is signed? If true, this means that someone might be able to preimage a collision on the hash(hash(public key)) and thus spend other people's coins as well.
Pages:
Jump to: