Topic: Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman? - page 5. (Read 16530 times)

You could at a minimum disprove that any contiguous portion of the document can't match the hash. You all haven't done that, thus you are derelict. You all shouldn't go spouting off "Craig a fraud" without even attempting to verify some basic things such as whether drcraigwright.com is his website and whether any portion of the text could match the hash that was signed.


'backsplaining.


See above. REKTED.


Which is technically incorrect, but I will come back to that point to REKT you after we finish this.


So tell me the reason? Obviously I didn't ask the question to only receive a "yes". Anyone can say "yes". 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. You've had enough delay to google it by now, so surely you can cheat and tell me?


That is the sort of reply which the linked article explains you would make. So you've confirmed it. Thanks.

For someone with time to kill...
The Sartre text is here
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/

You'd need to copy and paste into a notepad and maybe
increment whitespace at the end til you hit the right hash.

But maybe the real message is in the (con)text

He didn't disclose anything else about the document, which is why it's impossible to disprove any claim about it.

I never claimed that it was, nor do I even care. Why would I if it doesn't contain any evidence for any claims that have been made?

Non sequitur.

I didn't care to answer it since it is irrelevant. I have explained the most likely reason why double SHA256 was used, which is what you asked.

Alright, fine. The answer is yes. I do understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds. It would be pretty meaningless if it was.

It says more about yours than mine.

It's mighty humble of you to finally admit that you don't have any proof of your claims. I'm sure you'll let us know when you find that Sartre text.

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.   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.

Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman?

If we are basing it on the drcraigwright.com website "proof", then the Sartre document is the one claimed to have been hashed, but he didn't disclose what portion of that document.

Nice try. Fail.

My point is the you Bitcoin zealots didn't do your homework. Haha. You also didn't even validate if that was his official website. You guys are derelict, as well as censoring free speech and technical discussion. No wonder you will end up in failure mindlessly following Blockstream's SegWit soft forking Trojan Horse.


I asked you a specific question, "Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds?". I see you are unable to answer it?

After we confirm that you can't answer it, then I will REKT the rest of your technically incorrect response above.


Try reading the linked article to learn more about your character.

Btw, why are you so defensive of a coin that is 70% controlled by China's miners and allegedly soon to be 98.5% controlled. Can you even look in the mirror and not laugh at yourself.

Such a script would prove nothing, since you know nothing about the input Craig allegedly used. 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. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that such a hash collision exists, not on anyone else to prove that it doesn't.

Because double hashing is routinely employed to avoid preimage and length extension attacks, whether such protection is needed or not. Multiple iterations do not make it more vulnerable (again, if you believe it does, it's up to you to produce evidence of such a vulnerability), so there's no downside except for a slight reduction in performance.

No, it isn't. It would a problem if I did like you, since anyone who does must be a poor judge of character.

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. 

Ahm..



I will not say, that you are wrong, but arent you wrong here?




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.

 

Isnt it better to think about this closer here, and about other things somewhere else?

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.

---

That would be great, Ignore works pretty well too.

go back down under CSW!! and never come back!! you fucking lying bastard!!

 TPTB_need_war stop posting.

WOW.

The May 2 blog post has disappeared as well. Either Craig Wright's site got hacked, or his scam came unglued, or this is part of the scam somehow. (*grabs more popcorn*)

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...

Who the hell is Dave Kleiman? Another Satoshi Nakamoto wannabe?

No thanks, we already have enough number of Satoshi rip-off's. Time is money my friend and people don't wanna talk over bullshit.

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.

How can I? One can only make a technical argument against disputed facts, and as I said, nothing you've ever said resembles a fact, disputed or otherwise. There is no technical argument to be made against the ravings of a deranged lunatic.