Overwriting Hard Drive Data: The Great Wiping Controversy (2008) [pdf]

> Arthur von Pelt, another obsessed anti Craig personality

Being angry about an obvious fraud who lobs obviously baseless $6 billion dollar lawsuits against retirees who were once volunteer Bitcoin developers isn't obsession, it's humanity.

> Things like the double hash for instance, funnily enough after Craig explained the double hash it was subsequently altered in the BTC wiki.

Actual history: Some random person wrote on the BitcoinWiki on some obscure page that sha256(sha256(x)) might be used in bitcoin to improve security against collisions a few years later this claim was noticed and removed with a link to a 2011 post on Bitcointalk that pointed out that any collision on H(x) is also a collision on H(H(x)). The text on the wiki was just incorrect, the author was likely confusing collision and preimage security or at least really unclear in their writing-- that's just one of the risks of public wikis.

Wright started running around repeating this point someone else made on BCT in 2011, pretending to have come up with it himself, and suggesting that knowing about this thing (which obvious and common understanding long before Bitcoin existed) was somehow evidence of him being Bitcoin's creator. Craig didn't "explain" anything that wasn't already explained in detail within the Bitcoin community before Craig ever heard of Bitcoin, and known outside of the Bitcoin community long before Bitcoin existed.

Going back to 2011 people have given many explanations as to why the use of sha256(sha256()) in Bitcoin had potential advantages, in some corner cases.

Wright hasn't added a single thing to that discussion, and some of his attempts to do so have just been flat out incorrect. For example, for a while he was claiming that it was done that way so that parties could give miners transactions to mine without disclosing the transaction to them (a really bad idea), but that works just as well if sha256() is used.

Is this how you got in trouble with wiki Greg?

By altering realities..... forcing your vision of the world through peoples throats?

Regarding Arthur, the guy needs no encouragement, he needs help. Incredibly unhealthy obsession with Craig, so don’t go telling him he is helping humanity lol....

Regarding double hash, it is being used by miners today Greg within BSV... and it works.

Interestingly again it is YOU that seems to think that it is a BAD idea, just like you think everything is a bad idea that isn’t lining up with your vision.

We know your modus of operandi, we also know how far you are willing to go to protect your ideals....

It is why you are to this day fighting Craig....

> Regarding double hash, it is being used by miners today Greg within BSV... and it works.

What do you mean "used by miners" of course it's used by miners it's part of the Bitcoin protocol.

> Interestingly again it is YOU that seems to think that it is a BAD idea, just like you think everything is a bad idea that isn’t lining up with your vision.

It doesn't have anything to do with "vision". If a miner spends energy constructing a block with transactions in it they've never seen then the can't be sure the transaction is valid and that it doesn't conflict with some other transaction they're attempting to include. And if the person who does know the transaction doesn't provide it immediately when the block is found, the block will end up stale and abandoned (and every millisecond of delay increases the odds of that). This is objectively pretty risky, but hey-- if you want to do something risky, that's on you.

But, regardless of it being a bad idea or not, it's in no way aided by using sha256(sha256()), you can do that foolish thing just as well if Bitcoin had happened to use sha256(): Just hand the miner the hash of the transaction. So Wright's "explanation" was just another purely fabricated bit of technobabble nonsense.

His lies actually work better when they make little sense because then he can deflect discussion to a debate over literal nonsense rather than face that what he's said is simply wrong an outright fabricated falsehood.

> forcing your vision of the world through peoples throats

I haven't forced anyone to do anything. Quite the opposite. By contrast, scammer Wright has sued me for _6 billion dollars_ so it is I that am forced to debunk his bullshit. Though it's increasingly looking likely to me that he's going to lose his case through simply failing to respond.

> so don’t go telling him he is helping humanity lol....

Maybe consider working on your reading skills. Arthur von Pelt is a kind person who has put in a fair amount of effort helping to protect his fellow man from a fraud. His care for others is an example of benevolence and compassion. In fact, he probably is helping humanity-- he's certainly been an aid to myself. But that isn't what I said.