Craig Wright's proof isn't valid because he uses bash background instead of &&
1–3 of 3 posts
Re: Craig Wright's proof isn't valid because he uses bash background instead of &&
#2The use of & instead of && here means that openssl start running at the same time as the base64 decode command. This means that openssl could start reading from an old version of the signature file before base64 starts writing to the new one.
Re: Craig Wright's proof isn't valid because he uses bash background instead of &&
#3The use of & instead of && here means that openssl start running at the same time as the base64 decode command. This means that openssl could start reading from an old version of the signature file before base64 starts writing to the new one.
The shell '>' redirect will truncate the file first of all, for example:
echo "foo" > message.txt ; ( sleep 3 ; echo "bar" ) > message.txt & echo "message: '$( cat message.txt )'"
Interestingly, that means that the 'openssl' command might have been working with an empty signature.
Of course, he might have just aliased 'openssl' as 'echo "Verified OK"' ...