Topic: Why so little talk of Dave Kleiman? - page 6. (Read 16530 times)

While there are facts I don't like, I can accept them and I've never suffered a heart attack as a result. Though it's irrelevant since you've never said anything that even remotely resembles a fact.

The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts.

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.

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).

What I stated in that thread is that this is all presuming that Craig will be able to tell us which portion of the Sartre text hashes the hash output that was signed as proof on his blog. If Craig doesn't ever do that, then he is a fraud. But if he does it, then it means there is some cryptographic breakage in Bitcoin. And I am identifying the double hash as the greatest potential weakness.

1. The more I think about it, the more I realize that if it is true, then it means who ever can do this, could potentially spend other people's coins. So maybe this is how Craig will spend coins from an early block of Bitcoin (although he might have mined then also depending how early the block is he moves coins from). And the only fix I think would be to have everyone respend their coins with a fixed block chain and fixed wallets. And for lost or inactive coins, they would remain vulnerable. You may or may not need a super computer depending on the cryptographic breakage. I am not sure if an ASIC miner would help or if having access to a miner in China with 30% of Bitcoin's hashrate would help or be necessary. I can't really speculate on the exact metrics of any cryptographic breakage since this would have I assume required a lot of research on his part.

2. Yes it would apply to clones which copies the double hashing.

I repeat this is conjecture that hinges on two speculations:

a) That Craig can present the portion of the Sartre text which hashes correctly.

b) That the cryptographic breakage that allowed #a, is a break in the SHA256 presumably due to the double hashing.

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.

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.

Well let them be the last one out the door. Much better they can trample each other on the way out.  

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.

Oh.. I see.. thanks.

How can 'big boys' like Gavin and Matonis have fallen for this.. !? That shows very poor skills..   ( ..too poor if you ask me.. )

No when a thread is moved they don't receive a PM, but there is no "Moved: ....." thread message remaining the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum. And I also checked Off-topic and it hasn't been moved there afaics. Also normally the link doesn't stop functioning even when it is moved. Clearly Gmaxwell is trying to hide it.

Gmaxwell might try to claim he banned me from that sub-forum, yet he had mentioned in our last communications that I am not banned from that forum. And also smooth and I recently posted in the thread in that sub-forum on one of the SegWit threads and afaik my post hadn't been deleted the last time I looked. He didn't just delete my posts in the thread but also posts from several other forum members who posted in that thread. The entire thread has been vaporized afaics. I presume Gmaxwell is formulating his plan now how to try to make me look like a fool. We know what happened the last time he tried to do that, I embarrassed him technically.

What I stated in that thread is that this is all presuming that Craig will be able to tell us which portion of the Sartre text hashes the hash output that was signed as proof on his blog. If Craig doesn't ever do that, then he is a fraud. But if he does it, then it means there is some cryptographic breakage in Bitcoin. And I am identifying the double hash as the greatest potential weakness.

1. The more I think about it, the more I realize that if it is true, then it means who ever can do this, could potentially spend other people's coins. So maybe this is how Craig will spend coins from an early block of Bitcoin (although he might have mined then also depending how early the block is he moves coins from). And the only fix I think would be to have everyone respend their coins with a fixed block chain and fixed wallets. And for lost or inactive coins, they would remain vulnerable. You may or may not need a super computer depending on the cryptographic breakage. I am not sure if an ASIC miner would help or if having access to a miner in China with 30% of Bitcoin's hashrate would help or be necessary. I can't really speculate on the exact metrics of any cryptographic breakage since this would have I assume required a lot of research on his part.

2. Yes it would apply to clones which copies the double hashing.

I repeat this is conjecture that hinges on two speculations:

a) That Craig can present the portion of the Sartre text which hashes correctly.

b) That the cryptographic breakage that allowed #a, is a break in the SHA256 presumably due to the double hashing.

The tweets of this account might be worth reading.

You don't know that he didn't. He hasn't yet revealed which portion of the Sartre text he claims hashes to the same hash. That was what I explained and discussed in the thread I created which Gmaxwell has apparently sent to the ether.

CIYAM I would never work with you as programmer because you aren't very smart.

Surely you should understand that the permutation of portions of the Sartre text covers a combinatorial explosion of possible preimages. Craig didn't specify which portion he signed. We can presume that might be forthcoming. He is playing a game with idiots like you.

I have stated (in the thread that Gmaxwell apparently deleted entirely, that if CW does not reveal the Sartre text that hashes correctly, then he is a fraud.

But if he does, then there is something broken in Bitcoin's cryptography. That is why I think Gmaxwell deleted my thread. He apparently doesn't want the truth to be known.

Idiot is factual in this context, as evident by your inability to refute my refutation.

You didn't rebut my point that a portion of the Sartre text (and especially if permutation combinations of portions) is a combinatorial explosion of possible preimages and thus your entire claim was erroneous.

Now please stop making incorrect statements.

---

I rebutted that article in the thread that Gmaxwell deleted and is hiding from the readers.

I basically pointed out that until CW reveals which portion of the Sartre text he claims to have signed, we can't conclude anything.

The entire point of the thread I created is that the double hashing that Satoshi put in Bitcoin (and nobody knows why) can make the collision resistance twice as bad. SHA256 is already broken for 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds. So thus doubling the hash may have been enough to break it given also that Craig apparently had access to a supercomputer.

Dude I am more expert about cryptographic hashes than you are. I designed my own already. I have done a lot of research in that area in 2013.

Refute the facts in the prior post.


Now explain to the readers Mr. Know-It-All what happens when the hash is doubled.

Wholly shit! I am contemplating the possibility that Craig has revealed that who ever created Bitcoin put a backdoor in it!

As I already explained, the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities.

But note this small detail:


Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context.

A cryptographic hash function has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value.

Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2²⁵⁶ times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack).

So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked.

It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256.

If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash.

I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.

http://mpb.floridaweekly.com/news/2013-05-16/Community/Father_friends_mourn_a_sons_life_cut_short.html#.VyrwnoQrLrd


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644005-DAVID-KLEIMAN-13-0467.html


Amazing how an assumed improper diet causes a man to shrink two inches and gain thirty pounds.


................


http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2014%5C0331%5C58356362.tif&documentNumber=L11000019904



Note the Northlake Boulevard address. I'm surprised that Paige hasn't come out and call foul.

Computer Forensics LLC’s Principals

Click on each Computer Forensics Experts name to download a full CV

Carter Conrad – Carter brings more than 25 years of experience in information security and risk management. He has been qualified as an Expert Witness in Florida Circuit & Criminal Court, Federal Bankruptcy and Federal Criminal Court. He has many relevant industry certifications including the CCE, CISSP, Q/SA, Security+, and as a Langevin Learning Systems Technical Trainer. Carter is veteran trainer and has taught more than 25 classes across the United States, including Applied Computer Forensics, A+ & Security+ Bootcamps, and CISSP Prep Classes, assisting organizations to become DoD Directive 8570 compliant. Carter has vast experience in fraud mitigation and detection, with extensive training in compliance legislation, including: USA PATRIOT Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. He has dealt with both Public and Private Sector clients providing solutions in both logical and physical security domains.

Patrick Paige – Patrick brings more than 25 years of law enforcement investigation experience, including more than 10 year as a computer crimes detective. He has performed computer forensic examinations for the FBI, U.S. Customs, FDLE, Secret Service, ATF, and was a member of the South Florida ICAC taskforce for 10 years. In 2009 he was assigned to supervise the law enforcement operations for the Palm Beach County Sexual Predator Enforcement (SPE) at the located in Boca Raton FL. Patrick has extensive knowledge of undercover online investigations including online enticement and Peer-to-Peer networks. He has been involved with hundreds of cases and has testified in State,Federal, Appellate, and Military courts as a computer expert including testifying as an expert in the functionality of Encase® at a murder trial. Patrick has many forensic certifications including EnCE, and SCERS, additionally he is an EnCase® certified instructor and has taught many forensic analysts around the country. Patrick has earned many awards including Detective of the Month, U.S. Customs Service Unit Commendation Citation Award for computer forensic work, and has twice earned the Outstanding Law Enforcement Officer of the Year citation awarded by the United States Justice Department.

some fact
He was 46 and had made the most of his short life.
http://mpb.floridaweekly.com/news/2013-05-16/Community/Father_friends_mourn_a_sons_life_cut_short.html#.VyrUYRIeVbo

A friend found him dead in his house. The cause of death is unknown.
http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/obituary-former-pbso-deputy-dies-in-his-home/nXcqR/

Ah I see that I am spot on with where Craig is headed with this. Kudos to myself:

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/05/purported-bitcoin-creator-loses-an-ally-but-says-hell-show-more-proof/

Ostensibly Craig wants to prove that no one can prove they are Satoshi beyond any doubt, while also making it impossible to attack his claims that he was "the man behind the persona of Satoshi" in some form. That is a nebulous statement, as it could even mean he was mining Bitcoin early and thus being one of the testers "behind" the project in some sense. Remember afaik he has never claimed to be the Satoshi who coded Bitcoin. You will never find that direct quote. Rather he has claimed some relationship with Dave Kleiman and that being some important relationship involved in the inception of Bitcoin (perhaps just mining?).

Also if it turns out that he does reveal some Sartre text which hashes correctly, then this may implicate the double-hash which then implicates Satoshi, because no one can find any reason for why Satoshi chose double hashing. And I think double hashing is less secure as I explained in the OP. Surely Satoshi knew this also.

Yes, you were the first to discover that CSW discovered a "backdoor" in Bitcoin.
Your understanding of the technical details here is greatest over all others.  

I empathize as I know jealously is an affliction of the incapable.

Enjoy your life.

As much as you enjoy quoting yourself.
I'm as much a troll as you are an investigator.

This is how Craig Steven Wright con everybody into believing that he and David Kleiman were partners.

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=WKINFODEFENSERESEARCH%20L110000199040&aggregateId=flal-l11000019904-dce79b55-176a-4442-93a7-3c8896316aa2&searchTerm=w%26k%20info&listNameOrder=WKINFODEFENSERESEARCH%20L110000199040



02/16/2011 -- Florida Limited Liability was most likely created by David Kleiman himself. The following two images depicts the contents of the PDF: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2011%5C0216%5C90321539.tif&documentNumber=L11000019904





That's the extent of the W&K INFO DEFENSE RESEARCH LLC corporation under David's control, he letting the entity lapse.

Now that it's lapsed, anybody can pick it up and reinstate it, which is exactly what somebody did.

03/28/2014 -- REINSTATEMENT: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2014%5C0331%5C58356362.tif&documentNumber=L11000019904



The address in the red box is where David Kleiman lived and was found dead close to a year prior to the reinstatement of the org. The green box contains the new address of the biz. And the purple box contains the address associated with David Kleiman long before the advent of Bitcoin. Dave's signature is not on the doc because he was dead when the biz was reinstated. Ms Uyen T Nguyen is the person who signed the electronic filing.

You trolls can eat your words now.

The three things that I asked for are nowhere to be found in the link you provided. There is only your own speculation.

So just to establish the facts - you DON'T have one or more of the following: the public key, the message Wright signed, the signature. Your claims that Wright cracked SHA256 are baseless.

....

Yes, you were the first to discover that CSW discovered a "backdoor" in Bitcoin.
Your understanding of the technical details here is greatest over all others.