141–150 of 151 posts
I'm honestly not sure there could be a more unreliable source for this
Do you rate SBF as a source more or less credible than Shkreli?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2) Yes. Anyone with the private key could sign a message. And for clarity, such things are not date-stamped in a secure way, so there's no way to know when it was signed. Certainly if the message included a hash of the last Bitcoin block that'd be a very strong date-stamp.
I would consider that a strong date-stamp too, but it doesn't do what we would need here. It can only set an earliest possible date for the message. It does not bound it on the other end. It's like using today's newspaper to prove when a photo was taken. If the front page of Dec 13 2022's New York Times is in the photo (and the photo is authentic) then the photograph must have been taken on or after Dec 13 2022. But…
Another possible way would be crafting the message in a way that requires a low-entropy system, like a living human person, a sophisticated computer, or an immense power source. But, this would only be useful on extreme time scales, or within limited space.
Hal Finney passed away in 2014. But the address has been active since: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwx... I see four possibilities: * An absurdly elaborate conspiracy. (This is always a possibility.) * Ghosts can do cryptography. * ECDSA is cracked. * Someone else has a copy Finney's key. Occam's razor: spectral signatures!
I am not sure I understand, how could this be a conspiracy?
(1) who has Hal’s key
(2) where did Martin “find” this message to be able to decrypt it
There’s obviously some sort of agenda here involving multiple people, it’s just not clear at the moment what this particular agenda is.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG... See for yourself. We are not uncertain & our source is very reliable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless I'm grossly mistaken, it seems Shkreli doesn't understand the basics of cryptography because he's using incorrect terminology here. The signature isn't encrypted at all, it's just a piece of data (a hash, if you will) that was generated using the private key associated with the wallet in question. In order to generate the signature, you need to have a message to sign, and a private key. All Shkreli has shown i…
A public key signature works by encrypting the hash with the private key, to verify you decrypt the hash with the pubic key and check it against your own hash of the payload. Edit: No argument with your second point, just pointing out the mechanism does involve the signature being an encrypted form of a plaintext hash/message digest.
To my knowledge, this is not how ECDSA works. ECDSA is "just" a signature algorithm, e.g. provides integrity and cannot encrypt or decrypt anything - in EC-land you would use a technique like ECDH to arrive at a symmetric key that you then use to do encryption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A public key signature works by encrypting the hash with the private key, to verify you decrypt the hash with the pubic key and check it against your own hash of the payload. Edit: No argument with your second point, just pointing out the mechanism does involve the signature being an encrypted form of a plaintext hash/message digest.
This is indeed how RSA works, and is seen as a weakness of RSA, among other things it can lead to accidental oracles if you use the same key to both sign and decrypt things. To my knowledge, this is not how ECDSA works. ECDSA is "just" a signature algorithm, e.g. provides integrity and cannot encrypt or decrypt anything - in EC-land you would use a technique like ECDH to arrive at a symmetric key that you then use to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The book exists. It's named "The Mastermind". It's wild, really wild!
Also, the author of that book brought up the link to Satoshi. It's in his interest for the idea to be out there. Nobody would be looking up this book today, otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interesting thing is that satoshi was using a gmx.com address, emphasis on the .com. Those were only available to paying customers of GMX.de.
So GMX might know who Satoshi is but... GDPR?
IIRC, the gmx.com address was registered again later by someone else.