Selbsternannter Bitcoin-Erfinder Craig Wright vorerst aus ...

Cryptography news and discussions

Cryptography is the art of creating mathematical assurances for who can do what with data, including but not limited to encryption of messages such that only the key-holder can read it. Cryptography lives at an intersection of math and computer science. This subreddit covers the theory and practice of modern and *strong* cryptography, and it is a technical subreddit focused on the algorithms and implementations of cryptography.
[link]

rEvolution Reddit

We are an activist hivemind based on the principles of **equality, freedom and democracy**. Fighting for the [free flow of information](https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE), we will operate as a free and open subreddit.
[link]

Big Dick Bruce Schneier on why Bitcoin isn't trustless

submitted by SJWcucksoyboy to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

New Attack Against Electrum Bitcoin Wallets - Schneier on Security

New Attack Against Electrum Bitcoin Wallets - Schneier on Security submitted by nothingberg to TruthLeaks [link] [comments]

Schneier on Security: Insecurities in the Linux /dev/random - Does this effect every bitcoin wallet on linux?

Schneier on Security: Insecurities in the Linux /dev/random - Does this effect every bitcoin wallet on linux? submitted by redditNwork to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Regulating Bitcoin - Schneier on Security

Regulating Bitcoin - Schneier on Security submitted by 911bodysnatchers322 to TruthLeaks [link] [comments]

@_cryptome_: Schneier: Ross Anderson has a really interesting paper on tracing stolen bitcoin. https://t.co/mdEY3ixIXr https://t.co/lW56ZLQ8TL Brad Templeton wrote about this years ago: https://t.co/qfpGktZ97l

submitted by SpecialAgentRando to cryptome [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: @_cryptome_: Schneier: Ross Anderson has a really interesting paper on tracing stolen bitcoin. https://t.co/mdEY3ixIXr https://t.co/lW56ZLQ8TL Brad Templeton wrote about this years ago: https://t.co/q /r/cryptome

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: @_cryptome_: Schneier: Ross Anderson has a really interesting paper on tracing stolen bitcoin. https://t.co/mdEY3ixIXr https://t.co/lW56ZLQ8TL Brad Templeton wrote about this years ago: https://t.co/q /cryptome submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Schneier on Security: Analysis of How Bitcoin Is Actually Used

Schneier on Security: Analysis of How Bitcoin Is Actually Used submitted by rakista to technology [link] [comments]

Worth a read: Schneier on Security: Bitcoin Explanation - good comments on blog too.

Worth a read: Schneier on Security: Bitcoin Explanation - good comments on blog too. submitted by dwalkercouk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Guardian's Ball, Schneier & Greenwald expose extent of NSA & GCHQ's attacks on Tor anonymity network (so popular with Bitcoin users)

The Guardian's Ball, Schneier & Greenwald expose extent of NSA & GCHQ's attacks on Tor anonymity network (so popular with Bitcoin users) submitted by coinsult to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Treasure Hunt! We put the key to $2000 worth of BTC on the Siacoin network

I've been thinking about this idea for a while. Some people think storing data on the Siacoin network is not secure, so let's put it to the test!
The Sia Network uses Reed Solomon Erasure Coding to split up the data and store it across multiple hosts. All Sia data is encrypted by default using Threefish, a modern symmetric cipher designed by Bruce Schneier. No practical attack on this cipher has ever been demonstrated. If you can steal my data from the Sia network, you can break Threefish encryption.

The Bounty

Here’s the Bitcoin wallet: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qta34d4r20t0a02f74yg6n0x9naddxqx2qh3q6e
It’s simple. I have uploaded the private key for this Bitcoin to the Sia network. To make things even easier, I am announcing the hosts that I am storing this data with: https://gist.github.com/nitronick600/6cd8bf005d75d404b0fa1e2e578cedbe
The tweet: https://twitter.com/LuxorTechTeam/status/1197628939914498048?s=20 The medium: https://medium.com/@LuxorTechTeam/the-siacoin-bitcoin-bounty-b8b2dcf4d4f6
submitted by luxordevs to siacoin [link] [comments]

Part 6. (Last part) I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. Failing shortcuts in an attempt to accomplish Quantum Resistance

The previous parts will give you usefull basic blockchain knowledge and insights on quantum resistance vs blockchain that are not explained in this part.
Part 1, what makes blockchain reliable?
Part 2, The mathematical concepts Hashing and Public key cryptography.
Part 3, Quantum resistant blockchain vs Quantum computing.
Part 4A, The advantages of quantum resistance from genesis block, A
Part 4B, The advantages of quantum resistance from genesis block, A
Part 5, Why BTC is vulnerable for quantum attacks sooner than you would think.

Failing shortcuts in an attempt to accomplish Quantum Resistance
Content:
Hashing public keys
“Instant” transactions
FIFO
Standardized fees
Multicast
Timestamped transactions
Change my mind: If a project doesn't use a Quantum Resistant signature scheme, it is not 100% Quantum Resistant.
Here are some of the claims regarding Quantum Resistance without the use of a quantum resistant signature scheme that I have come across so far. For every claim, I give arguments to substantiate why these claims are incorrect.
“We only have public keys in hashed form published. Even quantum computers can't reverse the Hash, so no one can use those public keys to derive the private key. That's why we are quantum resistant.” This is incorrect.
This example has been explained in the previous article. To summarize: Hashed public keys can be used as an address for deposits. Deposits do not need signature authentication. Alternatively, withdrawals do need signature authentication. To authenticate a signature, the public key will always need to be made public in full, original form. As a necessary requirement, the full public key would be needed to spend coins. Therefore the public key will be included in the transaction.
The most famous blockchain to use hashed public keys is Bitcoin. Transactions can be hijacked during the period a user sends a transaction from his or her device to the blockchain and the moment a transaction is confirmed. For example: during Bitcoins 10 minute blockchain, the full public keys can be obtained to find private keys and forge transactions. Page 8, point 3 Hashing public keys does have advantages: they are smaller than the original public keys. So it does save space on the blockchain. It doesn't give you Quantum Resistance however. That is a misconception.
“Besides having only hashed public keys on the blockchain, we also have instant transactions. So there is no time to hijack a transaction and to obtain the public key fast enough to forge a transaction. That's why we are quantum resistant.” This is incorrect and impossible.
There is no such thing as instant transactions. A zero second blocktime for example is a claim that can’t be made. Period. Furthermore, transactions are collected in pools before they are added to a block that is going to be processed. The time it takes for miners to add them to a new block before processing that block depends on the amount of transactions a blockchain needs to process at a certain moment. When a blockchain operates within its maximum capacity (the maximum amount of transactions that a blockchain can process per second), the adding of transactions from the pool will go quite swiftly, but still not instantaneously.
However, when there is high transaction density, transactions can be stuck in the pool for a while. During this period the transactions are published and the full public keys can be obtained. Just as with the previous hijacking example, a transaction can be forged in that period of time. It can be done when the blockchain functions normally, and whenever the maximum capacity is exceeded, the window of opportunity grows for hackers.
Besides the risk that rush hours would bring by extending the time to work with the public key and forge transactions, there are network based attacks that could serve the same purpose: slow the confirmation time and create a bigger window to forge transactions. These types are attacks where the attacker targets the network instead of the sender of the transaction: Performing a DDoS attack or BGP routing attack or NSA Quantum Insert attack on a peer-to-peer network would be hard. But when provided with an opportunity to earn billions, hackers would find a way.
For example: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/researchers-explore-eclipse-attacks-ethereum-blockchain/
For BTC: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/263.pdf
An eclipse attack is a network-level attack on a blockchain, where an attacker essentially takes control of the peer-to-peer network, obscuring a node’s view of the blockchain.
That is exactly the recipe for what you would need to create extra time to find public keys and derive private keys from them. Then you could sign transactions of your own and confirm them before the originals do.
This specific example seems to be fixed now, but it most definitely shows there is a risk of other variations to be created. Keep in mind, before this variation of attack was known, the common opinion was that it was impossible. With little incentive to create such an attack, it might take a while until another one is developed. But when the possession of full public keys equals the possibility to forge transactions, all of a sudden billions are at stake.
“Besides only using hashed public keys as addresses, we use the First In First Out (FIFO) mechanism. This solves the forged transaction issue, as they will not be confirmed before the original transactions. That's why we are quantum resistant.” This is incorrect.
There is another period where the public key is openly available: the moment where a transaction is sent from the users device to the nodes on the blockchain network. The sent transaction can be delayed or totally blocked from arriving to the blockchain network. While this happens the attacker can obtain the public key. This is a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack. A MITM is an attack where the attacker secretly relays and possibly alters the communication between two parties who believe they are directly communicating with each other. No transaction is 100% safe from a MITM attack. This type of attack isn’t commonly known amongst average usergroups due to the fact communication is done either encrypted or by the use of private- public key cryptography. Therefore, at this point of time MITM attacks are not an issue, because the information in transactions is useless for hackers. To emphasize the point made: a MITM attack can be done at this point of time to your transactions. But the information obtained by a hacker is useless because he can not break the cryptography. The encryption and private- public key cryptography is safe at this point of time. ECDSA and RSA can not be broken yet. But in the era of quantum computers the problem is clear: an attacker can obtain the public key and create enough time to forge a transaction which will be sent to the blockchain and arrive there first without the network having any way of knowing the transaction is forged. By doing this before the transaction reaches the blockchain, FIFO will be useless. The original transaction will be delayed or blocked from reaching the blockchain. The forged transaction will be admitted to the network first. And First In First Out will actually help the forged transaction to be confirmed before the original.
“Besides having only hashed public keys, we use small standardized fees. Forged transactions will not be able to use higher fees to get prioritized and confirmed before the original transactions, thus when the forged transaction will try to confirm the address is already empty. This is why we are quantum resistant.” This is incorrect.
The same arguments apply as with the FIFO system. The attack can be done before the original transaction reaches the network. Thus the forged transaction will still be handled first no matter the fee hight.
“Besides the above, we use multicast so all nodes receive the transaction at the same time. That's why we are quantum resistant.” This is incorrect.
Multicast is useless against a MITM attack when the attacker is close enough to the source.
“Besides the above, we number all our transactions and authenticate nodes so the user always knows who he's talking to. That's why we are quantum resistant.” This is incorrect.
Besides the fact that you’re working towards a centralized system if only verified people can become nodes. And besides the fact that also verified nodes can go bad and work with hackers. (Which would be useless if quantum resistant signature schemes would be implemented because a node or a hacker would have no use for quantum resistant public keys and signatures.) There are various ways of impersonating either side of a communication channel. IP-spoofing, ARP-spoofing, DSN-spoofing etc. All a hacker needs is time and position. Time can be created in several ways as explained above. All the information in the transaction an original user sends is valid. When a transaction is hijacked and the communication between the user and the rest of the network is blocked, a hacker can copy that information to his own transaction while using a forged signature. The only real effective defense against MITM attacks can be done on router or server-side by a strong encryption between the client and the server (Which in this case would be quantum resistant encryption, but then again you could just as well use a quantum resistant signature scheme.), or you use server authentication but then you would need that to be quantum resistant too. There is no serious protection against MITM attacks when the encryption of the data and the authentication of a server can be broken by quantum computers.
Only quantum resistant signature schemes will secure blockchain to quantum hacks. Every blockchain will need their users to communicate their public key to the blockchain to authenticate signatures and make transactions. There will always be ways to obtain those keys while being communicated and to stretch the period where these keys can be used to forge transactions. Once you have, you can move funds to your own address, a bitcoin mixer, Monero, or some other privacy coin.
Conclusion
There is only one way to currently achieve Quantum Resistance: by making sure the public key can be made public without any risks, as is done now in the pre-quantum period and as Satoshi has designed blockchain. Thus by the use of quantum resistant signature schemes. The rest is all a patchwork of risk mitigation and delaying strategies; they make it slightly harder to obtain a public key and forge a transaction but not impossible.
Addition
And then there is quite often this strategy of postponing quantum resistant signature schemes
“Instead of ECDSA with 256 bit keys we will just use 384 bit keys. And after that 521 bit keys, and then RSA 4096 keys, so we will ride it out for a while. No worries we don’t need to think about quantum resistant signature schemes for a long time.” This is highly inefficient, and creates more problems than it solves.
Besides the fact that this doesn’t make a project quantum resistant, it is nothing but postponing the switch to quantum resistant signatures, it is not a solution. Going from 256 bit keys to 384 bit keys would mean a quantum computer with ~ 3484 qubits instead of ~ 2330 qubits could break the signature scheme. That is not even double and postpones the problem either half a year or one year, depending which estimate you take. (Doubling of qubits every year, or every two years). It does however have the same problems as a real solution and is just as much work. (Changing the code, upgrading the blockchain, finding consensus amongst the nodes, upgrading all supporting systems, hoping the exchanges all go along with the new upgrade and migrate their coins, heaving all users migrate their coins.) And then quite soon after that, they'll have to go at it again. What they will do next? Go for 512 bit curves? Same issues. It's just patchworks and just as much hassle, but then over and over again for every “upgrade” from 384 to 521 etc.
And every upgrade the signatures get bigger, and closer to the quantum resistant signature sizes and thus the advantage you have over blockchains with quantum resistant signature schemes gets smaller. While the quantum resistant blockchains are just steady going and their users aren’t bothered with all the hassle. At the same time the users of the blockchain that is constantly upgrading to a bigger key size, keep on needing to migrate their coins to the new and upgraded addresses to stay safe.
submitted by QRCollector to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Reasons to believe Julian Assange is in CIA custody and WikiLeaks under duress.

UPDATE (11/01/2017 - UK Date Format): Julian Assange is alive and still in the Embassy. He confirms WikiLeaks has not been compromised. Julian took questions from the Reddit AmA but answered them via live, current and interactive video. He did this very intentionally, and by so doing, was true to his word. Watch a recording of the live event here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC2EjKYMCeg
On the 26th of September 2016 Secretary of State John Kerry (self admitted Skull and Bones member) visited Colombia. WikiLeaks reported that inside sources had confirmed that John Kerry also met with Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa in Ecuador to personally ask Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing documents about Clinton. This was initially fervently denied in the press only later to be confirmed by the Ecuadorian embassy who admitted cutting off Julian’s internet due to pressure from the US. Ecuador wanted to appear impartial.
For over four years, the Ecuadorian embassy has been under surveillance and Julian's human rights violated as he has been unlawfully detained termed "illegal arbitrary detention" by a recent UN ruling. During that time, it has been possible for intelligence agencies to gather critical information and build a detailed profile and plan to circumvent Julian's dead man's switch.
Both John Kerry and US intelligence agencies know perfectly well that cutting off Julian's internet would have no impact on the release of the leaked emails that are damaging to Hillary's campaign. It has been very clear for a long time that many US officials wanted Julian Assange dead, Hillary Clinton even has remarked, "can't we just drone the guy".
The cutting off of Julian's internet access was not for the purpose of preventing the leaks of the Podesta and Hillary emails. Unless intelligence agencies are truly inept, they know that media organisations already have the entire leaked email database and a schedule for release, they also know WikiLeaks staff would continue to leak regardless of Julian's ability to communicate.
Removing Assange would not be enough, they would need to circumvent his dead man's switch and then tarnish WikiLeaks reputation. Removing Assange's internet could have the effect of causing Assange to take steps that can be followed to prevent the automatic triggering of his DMS.
From the day Julian's internet was cut off, a series of peculiar and uncharacteristic events started to take place. The same day that Julian's internet was cut off, CBS reported that Pamela Anderson visited Assange and had "Tortured" him with a vegan sandwich. A few days before on the 14th, John Podesta tweeted "I bet the lobster risotto is better than the food at the Ecuadorian Embassy". Then on October the 16th the SHA-256 prerelease keys were issued on WikiLeaks twitter feed, although these events are odd and seemingly inconsequential, combined with John Kerry being in the UK from the 16th to the 17th sparked concern among the community for Julian's safety.
Assange supporters started to gather at the embassy to keep Assange safe and witness any foul play, some of these witnesses have claimed that a very swift police armed raid took place that lasted only 5 minutes while the crowd was kept under control and prevented from approaching, there have also been reports that they were prevented from taking photographs and that their phones were confiscated. A live periscope feed was also cut off. There have also been some reports of the presence of a mobile jamming van.
If Assange has been seized, any recognition by mainstream media would be detrimental to Hillary's campaign. A covert operation with media blackout would be the only effective way of seizing him at this time. On October the 18th Fox News said that Julian Assange would be "arrested soon, maybe in a matter of hours.". The was video was then promptly removed and articles relating to it have disappeared. However, one reddit user was able to find an alternative source and now the video can be found again on YouTube.
Although Julian's primary DMS (the release of insurance file encryption keys) did not activate, on October the 18th one of Julian's contingencies did activate, a script was activated that made https://file.wikileaks.org/file publicly visible and set all the file date and time stamps to 01/01/1984 (Orwell reference). This file repository contains many documents that had not been released prior.
Staffers Kristinn Hrafnsson and Sarah Harrison, have gone silent while the Ecuadorian embassy is refusing to provide any updates on Assange’s fate. There is a recorded call made to the embassy by a journalist where the receptionist refused to confirm that Julian was at the embassy, she also refused to confirm that Julian was even alive. Julian has not made an appearance at the window of the embassy since being cut off.
WikiLeaks suggested in a tweet that its supporters were responsible for the DDOS attacks on the 21st. Neither Assange or WikiLeaks would ever insinuate such a thing. WikiLeaks deceptively tweeted a video of Michael Moore that was actually recorded in June. The video was posted on the 24th of October giving the impression that Michael Moore had been speaking with Assange in the embassy. Why would WikiLeaks do this when they know they are already under suspicion?
WikiLeaks have been using their Twitter account to give the appearance of his safety while providing no concrete evidence of his safety. They issued a poll asking what proof would satisfy the public that Julian was safe. WikiLeaks have yet to follow up on the conclusive result of a video or window appearance.
Julian Assange is known for his attention to detail and his consistently good spelling and grammar. Currently the twitter feed has very poor spelling, there are numerous uncharacteristic spelling errors, for example, an accomplished cryptographer knows how to correctly spell algorithm and so do WikiLeaks staff.
On the 21st of October, there was a massive widespread DDOS attack that disrupted US and EU internet. Also on the 21st of October London City Airport was evacuated. The next day (the 22nd), Gavin MacFayden is reported dead. WikiLeaks made a further blunder by stating his death as the 23rd.
There has been a number of high level WikiLeaks deaths recently too. John Jones QC - WikiLeaks U.N. lawyer died on April 16th 2016. Michael Ratner - WikiLeaks chief counsel died on May 11th 2016. Seth Rich - Employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was fatally shot on July 10th 2016 and Gavin MacFadyen - WikiLeaks director died October 22nd 2016.
If WikiLeaks has been compromised, it is already preparing the scene for future discrepancy to seriously tarnish WikiLeaks reputation. Nothing WikiLeaks has shared since the 15th of October 2016 should be trusted until Julian has been fully verified as alive.
My speculative fears are that Julian has been seized and removed from the Embassy. His internet being cut not being related to the release of the emails, but rather as a component of a plan of 4 years in the making to as secretly as possible remove Assange from the embassy, circumvent his DMS and hijack WikiLeaks with the key team members silenced or under duress.
My fears would be confirmed by no future public (mass witnessing and recorded/televised) appearance of Julian Assange discussing recent topics. His death by whatever means after the US presidential election would be extremely suspect. Until proof of life, assume the following compromised:
SHA-256 verification Keys posted after the 15th. WikiLeaks submission process and/or platform. WikiLeaks twitter feed. Any WikiLeaks leaks after the 15th October 2016.
EDIT: (01/11/2016 - 17:18GMT) URL and spelling corrections.
EDIT: Update 16/12/2016
Why demanding proof that WikiLeaks is not compromised is necessary:
https://www.facebook.com/events/309760466089922/ (PoL Event @ Ecuadorian Embassy London 17th December 2016) – If you live in the UK please come and let’s get REAL PoL. Please circulate.
1) Still no PGP (GPG) signed short message from WikiLeaks. 2) RiseUp’s warning canary may be dead (RiseUp is believed to host WL Twitter email account) 3) Julian’s internet hasn’t been restored as promised 4) The pre-commitment file hashes released in October do not match the released insurance files 5) Julian’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson was denied access during case questioning. No one actually saw Julian through the whole process.
Additional points:
-UK disregard for international law -Capabilities of combined intelligence agencies -WikiLeaks down on October 17th -Mass censorship -WikiLeaks reposting old stuff -See timelines below
Various timelines, some with minor errors: https://www.reddit.com/WikileaksTimeline/wiki/index https://www.reddit.com/WhereIsAssange/comments/5dmr57/timeline_of_events_regarding_julian_assange_and/ https://regated.com/2016/11/julian-assange-missing/
[Still no PGP (GPG) signed short message from WikiLeaks] Watch this https://youtu.be/GSIDS_lvRv4 video for a simple and good explanation of public/private key cryptography. Here https://riseup.net/en/canary is an example of how a legitimate cryptographically capable organisation uses PGP to sign a message and prove authenticity. WikiLeaks has this setup too. Why do they not use it and prove they are not compromised?
WikiLeaks could easily do this. They have their private key. The public has WikiLeaks public key. Even if Julian isn’t in possession of the key, WL most certainly is, no excuse for WL not to prove themselves. This has been heavily requested of WikiLeaks. I’d like to hear from the individuals who claim that their requests were removed (please leave comments). Of all the red flags, not posting a PGP signed message is by far the most damming. If we are to believe that the person in the audio recording at the FCM 2016 is Julian Assange, then what he says about the keys is missing the point. If he himself is not in possession of the key, then WikiLeaks will be. If WikiLeaks use the key to prove themselves, then we know they are not compromised. By extension, we will also be assured that Julian is safe as an uncompromised WikiLeaks would be in a position to confirm his safety and be believed. This audio file includes everything that he says regarding PGP keys: http://picosong.com/UyVw/ (I am not convinced this is Julian).
[RiseUp’s warning canary may be dead (RiseUp is believed to host WL Twitter email account)] RiseUp is an activist ISP providing secure services to activists. Its mission is to support liberatory social change via fighting social control and mass surveillance through distribution of secure tools (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riseup). RiseUp use a warrant canary as a means to protect their users in case RiseUp are ever issued with a NSL or gag order etc (https://riseup.net/en/canary). This is renewed quarterly, assuming no warrant has been issued. However, this is now considerably overdue so the assumption is that the canary is dead, and just like the canaries used in coal mines, everyone should get the hell out of there when it dies. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/29/something-happened-to-activist-email-provider-riseup-but-it-hasnt-been-compromised/. I would be grateful if someone could provide a source for the WikiLeaks twitter email account being hosted by RiseUp.
[Julian’s internet hasn’t been restored as promised] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865 On the 26th of September 2016 Secretary of State John Kerry visited Colombia. WikiLeaks reported that inside sources had confirmed that John Kerry also met with Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa in Ecuador to personally ask Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing documents about Clinton. This was initially fervently denied in the press only later to be confirmed by the Ecuadorian Embassy who admitted cutting off Julian’s internet due to pressure from the US. Ecuador wanted to appear impartial.
Both John Kerry and US intelligence agencies knew perfectly well that cutting off Julian's internet would have no impact on the release of the leaked emails that were damaging to Hillary's campaign. The cutting off of Julian's internet access was not for the purpose of preventing the leaks of the Podesta and Hillary emails. Unless intelligence agencies are truly inept, they knew that media organisations already have the entire leaked email database and a schedule for release, they also knew WikiLeaks staff would continue to leak regardless of Julian's ability to communicate.
Now it is long after the election and Ecuador have still not restored Julian’s internet. Ecuador have no grounds to continue to restrict Julian’s internet. It does nothing apart from increase tensions and raise suspicion. Ecuador have always been supportive of Julian. However, after John Kerry applied pressure on Ecuador, that whole dynamic changed. Ecuador cut Julian's Internet. He then essentially threatened Ecuador, the UK and John Kerry by submitting those pre-commitment file hashes on Twitter. Since then we have only seen hostility towards Julian from all three parties. Ecuador didn't restore his internet and didn't let his lawyer interview him and no one actually saw him. The U.K. Denied him access to Gavin's funeral and denied him access to medical treatment. The UK also continually disregard the UN. The dynamic now is totally different. He has no political friends. It seems that both the UK and Ecuador are now working against Julian and Wikileaks. An environment where a collaborated siege would be feasible.
Finally, many have speculated about mobile signals being blocked at the Embassy. I can confirm that there is 4G signal right outside the Embassy door. I was there, with my phone, and tested it. There is no reason to think Julian cannot use a MiFi device (or similar) connected to a cellular network.
[The pre-commitment file hashes released in October do not match the released insurance files] Here are the October tweets with the file hashes:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787777344740163584 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781046519693316 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781519951720449
These 3 pre-commitment Twitter posts are SHA-256 file hashes. SHA-256 file hashes are 64 characters long. They are not encryption keys for insurance files. They simply are a mathematical formula for verifying that later released files are genuine and have not been altered.
These hashes were released because Julian felt threatened and in increased danger. They specifically targeted the UK FCO, Ecuador and John Kerry. All of whom are key players in his current predicament. On November 7th, WikiLeaks released 3 new insurance files. These files names match the names given in the pre-commitment hash tweets:
2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_EC.aes256 2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_UK.aes256 2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_US.aes256
EC = Ecuador, UK = UK FCO, US = John Kerry. Soon after these files were released, the 3 files hashes were compared to the 3 hashes posted on the 16th of October. They did not match. When this was brought to WikiLeaks attention, WikiLeaks released the following statement in a tweet: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/798997378552299521
“NOTE: When we release pre-commitment hashes they are for decrypted files (obviously). Mr. Assange appreciates the concern.”
This firstly proved that the hashes and the insurance files were related (a fact that was already clear). Secondly, it was a lie, as it implied historical use of pre-commitment hashes in this manner. Thirdly, the (obviously) comment was also a deception and an insult to supporters. It was not obvious to anyone, not even to our crypto guys in /cryptography/, on the contrary, they thought it highly suspicious. Additionally, what they suggest would be absolutely pointless. Pointless as a threat, as the UK, Ecuador and John Kerry would have no practical way of identifying the documents to confirm the threat. There's absolutely no scenario where an uncompromised WikiLeaks would either post bad file hashes or altered insurance files.
[Julian’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson was denied access during case questioning] This is highly unusual and very suspicious. Also, Jennifer Robinson was not in the room with Assange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYR0Pw9LfUQ&feature=youtu.be&t=9m55s and neither was the chief prosecutor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37972528 “Swedish chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren will not speak to Mr Assange directly”.
[UK disregard for international law] The UK threat is very real. Back in August 2012 the UK was poised to break international law citing the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 as a basis for entering the Embassy and arresting Assange (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623). It all became very public, very quickly and fortunately never happened (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/ecuado9488996/Ecuadors-president-raiding-embassy-to-snatch-Julian-Assange-suicidal.html). I expressed my concern at the time that the UK shouldn’t have even been contemplating such action, let alone threatening it in writing to Ecuador. More recently, the UK disregarded the UN ruling that Julian Assange was being arbitrarily detained (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation). The UK appealed, and then finally lost their appeal in November (https://www.rt.com/news/368746-un-ruling-free-assange/). Julian has also been refused to leave the Embassy with a police escort for medical treatment as well as denied to attend Gavin MacFadyen’s funeral. The UK’s behaviour is appalling and clearly has no respect for international law. The reported raid on the Embassy during the latter part of October seems more plausible when taken in the context of past behavior.
This is the Britain I now live in: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-act-snoopers-charter-browsing-history-what-does-it-mean-a7436251.html. I never used to be ashamed to be British.
[Combined capabilities of intelligence agencies] We know much about the combined powers of the intelligence agencies. We know what they are capable of, thanks to the leaks of Edward Snowden. The combined powers of the NSA, CIA and the UK’s GCHQ are capable of pulling off such a massive takeover of Wikileaks. We know the NSA works with other US intelligence agencies, we know that the NSA works with GCHQ.
We know about Tempora, we know about JTRIG, we know about PRISM, we know about HAVOK. We know that websites can be altered on the fly, we know that real-time voice profiling is trivial for these agencies. We know that censorship is happening.
https://usnewsghost.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/new-july-14-edward-snowden-nsa-leaks-gchq-attacks-and-censors-internet-nsa-leaks-recent/ http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gchqs-favourite-memes-and-sexual-slang-reveals-a-shared-culture-with-trolls-and-hackers-9608065.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
The NSA has a remit to be 10 years ahead of the curve. We have commercial products that can be purchased off the shelf today that can easily manipulate audio and video. Just imagine what the NSA and the military are capable of.
Real time facial manipulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk Signs of editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9t_TEE1aw. Both Julian Assange and John Pilger are not filmed together at any time during the interview. There is also no establishing shot. It is also claimed that Assange’s audio is spliced and edited. No recent events mentioned by Assange, only Pilger. Unfortunately, this interview is not sufficient proof of life.
What the NSA can’t do, is that they cannot break PGP encryption. This has been expressed by Glenn Greenwald who was one of the journalists that Edward Snowden leaked to. He commented that he knows how secure PGP is because the NSA keep moaning about not being able to crack it in their documents he is reading. This is another reason why a signed PGP message can be the only true proof that WL isn’t compromised. Mathematics cannot lie, people can and do. A compromised WL can’t sign a message without the private key. Edward Snowden revealed that in 2013 the NSA were capable of 3 trillion password attempts per second. As it is now almost 2017, that number will likely be multiple times higher (anywhere between 9 to 15 trillion attempts per second would be my guess based on Moore’s law).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://www.schneier.com/gchq-catalog/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters
[WikiLeaks down on October 17th] The alleged raid on the Embassy supposedly took place on the 17th just after 1am GMT. On Monday the 17th of October 2016 WikiLeaks website was reported down (http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/wikileaks.org.html expand the comments) https://postimg.org/image/6t68fe4kj/. The internet was alive with reports of mass censorship around this time. This all coincides with when the alleged WikiLeaks takeover occurred. It also coincides with John Kerry being in the UK.
[Christine Assange audio only radio interview] Julian's family had their identities changed quite a few years ago after receiving death threats. It is odd that his mother has now revealed herself to a news agency. If you do a YouTube search for Christine Assange (her original name), you'll find all the videos are older than 3 years. She's in hiding, not openly talking on radio shows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange scroll down to the personal life section).
[WikiLeaks bitcoin account was emptied on the 18th of November] Interestingly it was after the bitcoin account was emptied that the encoded message in the blockchain was left. Why would WikiLeaks go to all that trouble when they could just sign a message with their PGP key? Is it because bitcoin accounts can be cracked and the PGP keys can’t?
[Mass censorship] Facebook is censoring this event (https://www.facebook.com/events/309760466089922/). It has been advertised for weeks now any only a handful of people are attending. Recently Wikileaks was live on FB. 50% of the viewers (roughly 2.5k) were commenting #PoL, #Whereisassange, RIP etc. The live event was only a prerecorded video being played in loop. Once it concluded, the whole Live event along with all the comments including the comments asking for PoL and PGP signed message were deleted. It was as if it never took place. When Julian’s DMS had supposedly been activated, I saw posts in threads being deleted within minutes. Supposedly with encryption keys, but it all happened too fast for anyone to collate. I took PDF printouts of the pages and then later noticed that posts and entire links were taken down. I have PDF's of pages that now no longer exist. I've been following this since mid-October and seen the censorship first hand. I know many people here on reddit witnessed the same (please comment with your experiences).
[WikiLeaks reposting old stuff] There are many examples of this already mentioned in the timelines. One for example is the Palantir Technologies report. Palantir Technologies prepared a report on how to destroy WikiLeaks that was leaked in 2011. The proposal was submitted to Bank of America through its outside law firm, Hunton & Williams. Palantir later apologised for their involvement. But WikiLeaks has recently regurgitated it as if it was new. There are many examples of this. I have watched as WikiLeaks have increasingly destroyed their credibility.
submitted by neonnexus to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Quantum Computing and the Cryptography in Crypto

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/09/quantum_computi_2.html
This article is a great intro to one of the big worries about the future of crypto. It talks about how cryptography works at a very basic level, the specific advancements of QC, and how it could effect certain types of crypto. A few examples of encryption types and their usage in cryptocurrency:
Hashing Function - Hashing is most commonly known for its use in secure password storage and authentication. In crypto this would be the one way hash function which miners are using to secure the chain. Bitcoin's SHA256 is the most famous example
Symmetric Encryption - Data encrypted with a password and decrypted with that same password. An example of this is the encryption of your wallet file
Asymmetric Encryption (Public/Private Key Crypto) - Data signed with a private key can be verified with a public key, data encrypted with a public key can only be read with a private key. This is highly simplified of course, but I highly recommend reading more on the wikipedia page as a next step. Some common uses of pub key crypto is in PGP or GPG as well as networking where it enables two parties to establish secure communications over an untrusted network (HTTPS utilizes this).
submitted by CryptoMaximalist to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

A Look at DCG & Bitfury's Incestuous Ties With the U.S. Government

Peter Todd Tweet in 2014: https://archive.is/vKZ9C
[email protected] I gotta say, looks really bad legally how Austin Hill's been negotiating deals w/ pools/etc. to get control of hashing power.
Board of Digital Currency Group
Glenn Hutchins
Advisory Board
Larry Summers
DCG of course is an investor in both Blockstream and BTCC.
DCG's money comes from:
DCG also owns Coindesk.
BTCC and Bitfury are the only two large mining pools who are outspoken in their support of Bitcoin Core.
The Bitfury Group Leadership to Present at Clinton Global Initiative (https://archive.is/MWKee)
Full Video (Begins at 32:00)
“The Bitfury Group is proud to be the world’s leading full service Blockchain technology company, we are deeply honored to represent this innovation to an audience of extremely dedicated game-changers, and we look forward to highlighting our company’s groundbreaking ‘Blockchain for global good’ work at such an important event, said Smith. “From the White House to the Blockchain, I know this technology has the power to deliver inclusion and opportunity to millions, if not billions, of people around the world and I am so grateful to work for a company focused on such a principled vision.”
Bitfury Lightning Implementation
  • In partnership with a French firm called ACINQ (http://acinq.co)
  • ACINQ is a subsidiary of the larger ACINQ Financial Services
  • CoinTelegraph: Bitfury Lightning Network Successfully Tested With French Bitcoin Company
  • TEAM: https://archive.is/Q5CNU
  • ACINQ’s US Headquarters is in Vienna, Virginia, a small town of only 16,000. Why would a global financial firm choose to locate here? -- Feeder community into Washington, D.C. Has an orange line metro stop. -- Located in Fairfax County, VA. -- The US Federal Government is the #2 largest employer -- Booz Allen Hamilton (NSA front company) is #6 largest employer -- In fact, most of the top employers in Fairfax County are either US Federal Gov’t or companies that provide services to Federal Government -- The county is home to the headquarters of intelligence agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and National Reconnaissance Office, as well as the National Counterterrorism Center and Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Chairman: Avinash Vashistha
CEO: Chaman Baid
CSO: Nandan Setlur
  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/nandansetlur https://archive.is/wp3L0
  • From 1986-1993 he worked for Information Management Consultants (imc) Ltd as a Technical Consultant with various federal government agencies. McLean, Virginia
  • 1993-2000 Technical Consultant for Freddie Mac, in McLean Virginia
  • From 2000-2007, President of InterPro Global in Maryland
  • From 2011-2012, Director of VibbleTV in Columbia, Maryland
  • From 2008-Present has been Executive Director at ACINQ and Managing Partner at Vine Management, both in Vienna, Virginia.
BitFury Enhances Its Advisory Board by Adding Former CFTC Chairman Dr. James Newsome and Renowned Global Thought Leader and President of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy Hernando de Soto (Businesswire)
Bitfury Board of Directors
Robert R Dykes
The other board members include two Bitfury founders, and an investor.
Bitfury Advisory Board
James Newsome
  • Ex-chairman of CFTC
  • Dr. Newsome was nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate to be at first a Commissioner and later a Chairman of CFTC. As Chairman, Newsome guided the regulation of the nation’s futures markets. Additionally, Newsome led the CFTC’s regulatory implementation of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA). He also served as one of four members of the President’s Working Group for Financial Markets, along with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve and the SEC. In 2004, Newsome assumed the role of President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) where he managed daily operations of the largest physical derivatives exchange in the world. Dr. Newsome is presently a founding partner of Delta Strategy Group, a full-service government affairs firm based in Washington, DC.
Hernando de Soto
  • Hernando de Soto heads the Institute for Liberty and Democracy, named by The Economist one of the two most important think tanks in the world. In the last 30 years, he and his colleagues at the ILD have been involved in designing and implementing legal reform programs to empower the poor in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and former Soviet nations by granting them access to the same property and business rights that the majority of people in developed countries have through the institutions and tools needed to exercise those rights and freedoms. Mr. de Soto also co-chaired with former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, and currently serves as honorary co-chair on various boards and organizations, including the World Justice Project. He is the author of “The Other Path: the Economic Answer to Terrorism”, and his seminal work “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.”
  • Frequent attendee at Davos World Economic Forum
  • Frequent Speaker @ Clinton Global Initiative http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ytfrs https://archive.is/MWKee
  • Criticisms: -- In his 'Planet of Slums'[104] Mike Davis argues that de Soto, who Davis calls 'the global guru of neo-liberal populism', is essentially promoting what the statist left in South America and India has always promoted—individual land titling. Davis argues that titling is the incorporation into the formal economy of cities, which benefits more wealthy squatters but is disastrous for poorer squatters, and especially tenants who simply cannot afford incorporation into the fully commodified formal economy. -- An article by Madeleine Bunting for The Guardian (UK) claimed that de Soto's suggestions would in some circumstances cause more harm than benefit, and referred to The Mystery of Capital as "an elaborate smokescreen" used to obscure the issue of the power of the globalized elite. She cited de Soto's employment history as evidence of his bias in favor of the powerful. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/sep/11/imf.comment http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2005/01/the_de_soto_delusion.html
Tomicah Tilleman
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomicah_Tillemann
  • Dr. Tomicah Tillemann is Director of the Bretton Woods II initiative. The initiative brings together a variety of long-term investors, with the goal of committing 1% of their assets to social impact investment and using investments as leverage to encourage global good governance. Tillemann served at the U.S. State Department in 2010 as the Senior Advisor on Civil Society and Emerging Democracies to Secretary Hillary Clinton and Secretary John Kerry. Tillemann came to the State Department as a speechwriter to Secretary Clinton in March 2009. Earlier, he worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he was the principal policy advisor on Europe and Eurasia to Committee Chairmen, Senators Joe Biden and John Kerry. He also facilitated the work of the Senate's Subcommittee on European Affairs, then chaired by Senator Barack Obama. Tillemann received his B.A. magna cum laude from Yale University. He holds a Ph.D. with distinction from the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (SAIS) where he also served as a graduate level instructor in American foreign policy. http://live.worldbank.org/node/8468 https://archive.is/raDHA
  • Secretary Clinton appointed Tomicah Tillemann, Ph.D. as the State Department’s Senior Advisor for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies in October 2010. He continues his service under Secretary Kerry.
  • Mr. Tillemann and his team operate like venture capitalists, identifying ideas that can strengthen new democracies and civil society, and then bring together the talent, technology and resources needed to translate promising concepts into successful diplomacy. He and his team have developed over 20 major initiatives on behalf of the President and Secretary of State.
  • Mr. Tillemann came to the State Department as a speechwriter to Secretary Clinton in March 2009 and collaborated with her on over 200 speeches. Earlier, he worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he was the principal policy advisor on Europe and Eurasia to Committee Chairmen, Senators Joe Biden and John Kerry. He also facilitated the work of the Senate's Subcommittee on European Affairs, then chaired by Senator Barack Obama. Mr. Tillemann’s other professional experience includes work with the White House Office of Media Affairs and five U.S. Senate and Congressional campaigns. He was a reporter with Reuters New Media and hosted a commercial radio program in Denver, Colorado. http://m.state.gov/md160354.htm https://www.newamerica.org/our-people/tomicah-tillemann/ https://archive.is/u2yF0
  • Director of “Bretton Woods II” initiative at New America Foundation Bretton Woods was an international summit that led to the creation of the IMF and the IBRD, one of five members of The World Bank
Jamie Smith
Jason Weinstein
Paul Brody (no longer appears on site, and his LinkedIn has no mention of Bitfury, but he is mentioned in a Press Release
  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/pbrody
  • Ernst & Young since 2015 as “Americas Strategy Leader”, “Global Innovation Leader”, and “Solution Leader”
  • Prior to E&Y, he was an executive at IBM since 2002
New America Foundation
Muskoka Group
[note: this is worthy of much more research]
  • https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-29/blockchain-s-backers-embark-on-campaign-to-improve-its-image
  • Don Tapscott, co-author of the book “Blockchain Revolution,” hosted the meeting with his son and co-author Alex Tapscott at his family’s summer compound in Lake of Bays, Ontario. The group included some of blockchain’s biggest backers, including people with ties to IBM and JPMorgan. They considered ways to improve the governance and oversight of the technology behind the digital currency bitcoin as a way to fuel the industry’s growth. They included Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation; Brian Behlendorf, executive director of the Hyperledger Project, a blockchain supporter group that includes International Business Machines Corp., Airbus Group SE and JPMorgan Chase & Co.; and Ana Lopes, board member of the World Wide Web Foundation. Participants with blockchain industry ties include former deputy White House press secretary Jamie Smith, now chief global communications officer of BitFury Group Ltd., and Joseph Lubin, founder of startup Consensus Systems.
Blockchain Delegation Attends Democratic National Convention https://archive.is/k16Nu
Attendees:
Jamie Smith — The Bitfury Group & Blockchain Trust Accelerator Tomicah Tillemann— New America Foundation & Blockchain Trust Accelerator Alex Tapscott— co-author: Blockchain Revolution Brian Forde — MIT, Digital Currency Initiative
Brian Forde
  • Was the founding director of the MIT Digital Currency Initiative -Left his 4 year post as White House Senior Advisor for Mobile and Data Innovation to go directly to the MIT DCI
  • Brian Forde has spent more than a decade at the nexus of technology, entrepreneurship, and public policy. He is currently the Director of Digital Currency at the MIT Media Lab where he leads efforts to mainstream digital currencies like Bitcoin through research, and incubation of high-impact applications of the emerging technology. Most recently he was the Senior Advisor for Mobile and Data Innovation at the White House where he spearheaded efforts to leverage emerging technologies to address the President’s most critical national priorities. Prior to his work at the White House, Brian founded one of the largest phone companies in Nicaragua after serving as a business and technology volunteer in the Peace Corps. In recognition of his work, Brian was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum and one of the ten most influential people in bitcoin and blockchain. https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianforde https://archive.is/WjEGU
Alex Tapscott
World Economic Forum
  • Strategic Partners: https://www.weforum.org/about/strategic-partners
  • Includes Accenture (See Avinash Vashistha), Allianz, Deloitte (Scaling Bitcoin platinum sponsor, Blockstream Partner), Citigroup, Bain & Company (parent of Bain Capital, DCG investor), Dalian Wanda Group (working on blockchain technology), Ernst & Young (see Paul Brody), HSBC (Li-Ka Shing, Blockstream investor, used to be Deputy Chairman of HSBC), IBM, KPMG International, Mastercard (DCG Investor), PwC (Blockstream partner, also sponsor of Scaling Bitcoin)
  • Future of Financial Services Report [PDF] The word “blockchain” is mentioned once in this document, on page 23 (http://i.imgur.com/1SxyneJ.png): We have identified three major challenge areas related to innovation in financial services that will require multi-stakeholder collaboration to be addressed effectively. We are launching a project stream related to each area, with the goal of enabling tangible impact.... Decentralised systems, such as the blockchain protocol, threaten to disintermediate almost every process in financial services
  • The Steering Group who authored the report is a who’s who of the global financial elite. (Pages 4 & 5) http://i.imgur.com/fmYc1bO.png http://i.imgur.com/331FaX6.png
Bitfury Washington DC Office
Washington DC Office 600 Pennsylvania Avenue Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20003
http://bitfury.com/contacts https://archive.is/ugvII
Bitfury Chosen for Ernst & Young Blockchain Startup Challenge
Deloitte Unveils Plan to Build Blockchain-Based Digital Bank http://www.consultancy.uk/news/12237/deloitte-unveils-plan-to-build-blockchain-based-digital-bank https://archive.is/UJ8Q5
submitted by 5zh8FoCiZ to btc [link] [comments]

Why the NSA revelations make me worried about the safety of Bitcoin

This has probably been discussed before, but I don't see how Bitcoin can be a safe method of storing wealth, given our current situation where the NSA observes EVERYTHING. Not just that, the NSA has installed backdoors in nearly all of our hardware. Both Intel and AMD processors likely have hardware backdoors for the NSA.
Back in 2010, the NSA broke a variety of cryptographic standards. In addition, we know that the NSA has lobbied organizations to implement weak cryptographic standards. Furthermore, we know that the NSA has pushed for flawed random number generators. Weak random number generators have previously led to the theft of large numbers of Bitcoin on mobile devices.
Bitcoin completely relies on the integrity of the SHA-256 algorithm, which was developed by the SAME NSA that intentionally pushes flawed cryptographic standards. Bruce Schneier no longer trusts the NSA's elliptic curve cryptography standard, as he believes they may have intentionally chosen a weak elliptic curve that the NSA can use. The numbers used are supposed to be random to make it unlikely that anyone could exploit a weak curve, but the NSA provided different numbers, that are non-random.
Vitalik Buterin argues that we can expect Bitcoin not to use a weak curve, as the numbers used in Bitcoin are fairly simple to calculate, whereas arbitrary numbers would create the possibility of Satoshi using an intentionally weak curve.
However, it seems to me that we can argue the exact opposite as well. For p, Bitcoin uses 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007908834671663, which is arrived at by calculating 2256 – 232 – 977 and seems fairly arbitrary to me as well.
Perhaps the main cause of my worries is the fact that the NSA in 1996 created a document outlining how to make a digital currency based on cryptography. Thus we know that the NSA has been studying the possibility of cryptocurrencies for a long period. Considering how the NSA manages to keep control over cryptography by releasing weak standards itself, is it possible that the NSA attempts to do the same with cryptocurrency?
Finally, I'm very worried about who this anonymous hacker who calls himself Satoshi Nakamoto might be. The Bitcoin source code contained different incomplete ideas that were never implemented, such as a decentralized marketplace (this is from memory, can't find the link). It all seems very ambitious to be the product of a single individual.
What is most worrying about Satoshi Nakamoto however is what is found in the blockchain. There's a non-random distribution of nonces in the early blockchain. What this means is that Satoshi Nakamoto was mining Bitcoin with a mining rig that was completely different from what everyone else was using back then.
It seems that he used 58 different computers, all with a different ID and all programmed to use different nonces to avoid checking the same possible solution multiple times, and at some point some of the computers broke down and were not put back up. This is not a genius amateur, but rather, someone with access to a lot of equipment. What makes all of this worse, is the fact that most of these blocks appear never to have moved. In other words, whatever entity mined these blocks probably still has control over them and doesn't seem to be motivated by personal gain. Rather, their control over about 1 million Bitcoin seems to have created a kind of "deathswitch", that allows them to crash the market at will.
Finally, Nakamoto's behavior is strange. As noted by others, his timezone seems to indicate he lived on the West Coast, yet his language uses British spelling. Furthermore, he took up to two weeks to respond to comments, indicating that anything he said seemed to require approval from higher ups, or agreement among multiple persons.
In conclusion, there is nothing here that indicates to me that we are dealing with a project designed by a regular Joe. Instead, we seem to be sitting on a ticking time bomb, a ten billion dollar experiment that could be deflated at will and cause economic chaos in the process.
submitted by accountt1234 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Posts everyone interested in cryptocurrency should read

Edit: WIP

Posts

Here are some great posts/articles everyone should read before speculating in cryptocurrency.
Post Date
50 Crypto Trading & Investing Lessons Learned Over The Past 5 Years January 2018
'Be Your Own Bank', A Cautionary Tale December 2017
I lost ~40k USD today. Reminder to keep coins off exchanges if you are not trading. February 2018
How the Bitcoin protocol actually works December 2013
Blockchain and Trust February 2019
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System October 2008

Common Advice

Disclaimer Not my advice. Don't sue me.

Not your keys, not your Bitcoin.

This applies to all cryptocurrencies. The ownership of cryptocurrencies can only be determined using cryptography (hence "crypto" in the name). To be able to spend/receive and otherwise control units of a cryptocurrency you must have the corresponding private key. If you are using a cryptocurrency exchange to store your cryptocurrency you do not control the private key(s) corresponding to your coins, the exchange does. To control your private keys you must withdraw your coins to a local wallet stored on your phone/PC. It is highly recommended that you don't use a Windows computer to store your private keys (because Windows is very prone to malware). There are numerous examples of prominent exchanges stealing/losing their customers coins because the exchange had the private key(s) rather than the customer. The most well known such occurrence was Mt. Gox.
Being 'your own bank' (controlling your private keys) also means you are responsible for the safety of your coins. Use a deterministic wallet and write down your seed (on paper, not electronically) so that you do not lose your coins if your wallet is lost/corrupted. Encrypt your wallet so malware cannot easily 'scrape' your private keys. Be careful updating your wallets. Wallet updates are a known and actively exploited attack vector. Wallet updates may also contain bugs.

Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Cryptocurrency prices are extremely volatile and losses of 90% are common. The software is under continual development and so may contain bugs. If you chose to speculate, assume you will lose all of your money and so only speculate money you do not need to pay bills or debts.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

If the price has behaved some way in the past, it does not guarantee it will perform that way again in the future. This is especially true on short timescales.

Don't HODL

A misspelling of the word 'hold'. A meme telling people not to sell. Do not base your financial decisions on memes. Have a rigorous plan of when you will sell and execute it without emotion/hesitation.

This time isn't different.

Past performance does not guarantee future results but past performance is the best indicator of long-term prices. Familiarize yourself with the graphs of the past, learn about how the price is cyclic and then only speculate once you are as familiar with the price history as someone who bought in 2013.
submitted by 4vWte1ovZK1i to u/4vWte1ovZK1i [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Core uses RAND_bytes from OpenSSL to generate keys, but RAND_bytes relies on /dev/urandom, which "isn't very random" according to the *maintainer of /dev/random on Linux*! Can someone explain why this is not a problem?!

This is what I'm grappling with:
  1. Bitcoin Core uses RAND_bytes from OpenSSL to generate new bitcoin addresses. Source: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/24722/what-kind-of-random-numbers-source-does-getnewaddress-in-bitcoin-core-api-bitco/24751#24751
  2. On Linux, RAND_bytes relies first on /dev/urandom to create the random data (only if /dev/urandom is not found does it use /dev/random). Source: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/47598/why-openssl-cant-use-dev-random-directly/47882#47882
  3. According to the maintainer for Linux's /dev/random, /dev/urandom doesn't produce very random results. Source: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/insecurities_in.html (search for "they end up with keys that aren't very random").
Why is this not a problem?
Can we really trust Bitcoin Core address generation mechanism?
submitted by 69520d0f929aeac8 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why demanding proof that WikiLeaks is not compromised is necessary

UPDATE (11/01/2017 - UK Date Format): Julian Assange is alive and still in the Embassy. He confirms WikiLeaks has not been compromised. Julian took questions from the Reddit AmA but answered them via live, current and interactive video. He did this very intentionally, and by so doing, was true to his word. Watch a recording of the live event here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC2EjKYMCeg
Why demanding proof that WikiLeaks is not compromised is necessary: https://www.facebook.com/events/309760466089922/ (PoL Event @ Ecuadorian Embassy London 17th December 2016) – If you live in the UK please come and let’s get REAL PoL. Please circulate.
1) Still no PGP (GPG) signed short message from WikiLeaks.
2) RiseUp’s warning canary may be dead (RiseUp is believed to host WL Twitter email account)
3) Julian’s internet hasn’t been restored as promised
4) The pre-commitment file hashes released in October do not match the released insurance files
5) Julian’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson was denied access during case questioning. No one actually saw Julian through the whole process.
Additional points: - UK disregard for international law
Various timelines, some with minor errors:
https://www.reddit.com/WikileaksTimeline/wiki/index
https://www.reddit.com/WhereIsAssange/comments/5dmr57/timeline_of_events_regarding_julian_assange_and/
https://regated.com/2016/11/julian-assange-missing/
[Still no PGP (GPG) signed short message from WikiLeaks]
Watch this https://youtu.be/GSIDS_lvRv4 video for a simple and good explanation of public/private key cryptography. Here https://riseup.net/en/canary is an example of how a legitimate cryptographically capable organisation uses PGP to sign a message and prove authenticity. WikiLeaks has this setup too. Why do they not use it and prove they are not compromised?
WikiLeaks could easily do this. They have their private key. The public has WikiLeaks public key. Even if Julian isn’t in possession of the key, WL most certainly is, no excuse for WL not to prove themselves. This has been heavily requested of WikiLeaks. I’d like to hear from the individuals who claim that their requests were removed (please leave comments). Of all the red flags, not posting a PGP signed message is by far the most damming.
If we are to believe that the person in the audio recording at the FCM 2016 is Julian Assange, then what he says about the keys is missing the point. If he himself is not in possession of the key, then WikiLeaks will be. If WikiLeaks use the key to prove themselves, then we know they are not compromised. By extension, we will also be assured that Julian is safe as an uncompromised WikiLeaks would be in a position to confirm his safety and be believed. This audio file includes everything that he says regarding PGP keys: http://picosong.com/UyVw/ (I am not convinced this is Julian).
[RiseUp’s warning canary may be dead (RiseUp is believed to host WL Twitter email account)]
RiseUp is an activist ISP providing secure services to activists. Its mission is to support liberatory social change via fighting social control and mass surveillance through distribution of secure tools (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riseup).
RiseUp use a warrant canary as a means to protect their users in case RiseUp are ever issued with a NSL or gag order etc (https://riseup.net/en/canary). This is renewed quarterly, assuming no warrant has been issued. However, this is now considerably overdue so the assumption is that the canary is dead, and just like the canaries used in coal mines, everyone should get the hell out of there when it dies. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/29/something-happened-to-activist-email-provider-riseup-but-it-hasnt-been-compromised/. I would be grateful if someone could provide a source for the WikiLeaks twitter email account being hosted by RiseUp.
[Julian’s internet hasn’t been restored as promised]
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865
On the 26th of September 2016 Secretary of State John Kerry visited Colombia. WikiLeaks reported that inside sources had confirmed that John Kerry also met with Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa in Ecuador to personally ask Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing documents about Clinton. This was initially fervently denied in the press only later to be confirmed by the Ecuadorian Embassy who admitted cutting off Julian’s internet due to pressure from the US. Ecuador wanted to appear impartial.
Both John Kerry and US intelligence agencies knew perfectly well that cutting off Julian's internet would have no impact on the release of the leaked emails that were damaging to Hillary's campaign.
The cutting off of Julian's internet access was not for the purpose of preventing the leaks of the Podesta and Hillary emails. Unless intelligence agencies are truly inept, they knew that media organisations already have the entire leaked email database and a schedule for release, they also knew WikiLeaks staff would continue to leak regardless of Julian's ability to communicate.
Now it is long after the election and Ecuador have still not restored Julian’s internet. Ecuador have no grounds to continue to restrict Julian’s internet. It does nothing apart from increase tensions and raise suspicion.
Ecuador have always been supportive of Julian. However, after John Kerry applied pressure on Ecuador, that whole dynamic changed. Ecuador cut Julian's Internet. He then essentially threatened Ecuador, the UK and John Kerry by submitting those pre-commitment file hashes on Twitter. Since then we have only seen hostility towards Julian from all three parties. Ecuador didn't restore his internet and didn't let his lawyer interview him and no one actually saw him. The U.K. Denied him access to Gavin's funeral and denied him access to medical treatment. The UK also continually disregard the UN. The dynamic now is totally different. He has no political friends. It seems that both the UK and Ecuador are now working against Julian and Wikileaks. An environment where a collaborated siege would be feasible.
Finally, many have speculated about mobile signals being blocked at the Embassy. I can confirm that there is 4G signal right outside the Embassy door. I was there, with my phone, and tested it. There is no reason to think Julian cannot use a MiFi device (or similar) connected to a cellular network.
[The pre-commitment file hashes released in October do not match the released insurance files]
Here are the October tweets with the file hashes:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787777344740163584 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781046519693316 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781519951720449
These 3 pre-commitment Twitter posts are SHA-256 file hashes. SHA-256 file hashes are 64 characters long. They are not encryption keys for insurance files. They simply are a mathematical formula for verifying that later released files are genuine and have not been altered.
These hashes were released because Julian felt threatened and in increased danger. They specifically targeted the UK FCO, Ecuador and John Kerry. All of whom are key players in his current predicament.
On November 7th, WikiLeaks released 3 new insurance files. These files names match the names given in the pre-commitment hash tweets:
2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_EC.aes256
2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_UK.aes256
2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_US.aes256
EC = Ecuador, UK = UK FCO, US = John Kerry. Soon after these files were released, the 3 files hashes were compared to the 3 hashes posted on the 16th of October. They did not match. When this was brought to WikiLeaks attention, WikiLeaks released the following statement in a tweet:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/798997378552299521
“NOTE: When we release pre-commitment hashes they are for decrypted files (obviously). Mr. Assange appreciates the concern.”
This firstly proved that the hashes and the insurance files were related (a fact that was already clear). Secondly, it was a lie, as it implied historical use of pre-commitment hashes in this manner. Thirdly, the (obviously) comment was also a deception and an insult to supporters. It was not obvious to anyone, not even to our crypto guys in /cryptography/, on the contrary, they thought it highly suspicious.
Additionally, what they suggest would be absolutely pointless. Pointless as a threat, as the UK, Ecuador and John Kerry would have no practical way of identifying the documents to confirm the threat.
There's absolutely no scenario where an uncompromised WikiLeaks would either post bad file hashes or altered insurance files.
[Julian’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson was denied access during case questioning]
This is highly unusual and very suspicious. Also, Jennifer Robinson was not in the room with Assange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYR0Pw9LfUQ&feature=youtu.be&t=9m55s and neither was the chief prosecutor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37972528 “Swedish chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren will not speak to Mr Assange directly”.
[UK disregard for international law]
The UK threat is very real. Back in August 2012 the UK was poised to break international law citing the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 as a basis for entering the Embassy and arresting Assange (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623). It all became very public, very quickly and fortunately never happened (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/ecuado9488996/Ecuadors-president-raiding-embassy-to-snatch-Julian-Assange-suicidal.html). I expressed my concern at the time that the UK shouldn’t have even been contemplating such action, let alone threatening it in writing to Ecuador.
More recently, the UK disregarded the UN ruling that Julian Assange was being arbitrarily detained (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation). The UK appealed, and then finally lost their appeal in November (https://www.rt.com/news/368746-un-ruling-free-assange/). Julian has also been refused to leave the Embassy with a police escort for medical treatment as well as denied to attend Gavin MacFadyen’s funeral. The UK’s behaviour is appalling and clearly has no respect for international law. The reported raid on the Embassy during the latter part of October seems more plausible when taken in the context of past behavior.
This is the Britain I now live in: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-act-snoopers-charter-browsing-history-what-does-it-mean-a7436251.html. I never used to be ashamed to be British.
[Combined capabilities of intelligence agencies]
We know much about the combined powers of the intelligence agencies. We know what they are capable of, thanks to the leaks of Edward Snowden. The combined powers of the NSA, CIA and the UK’s GCHQ are capable of pulling off such a massive takeover of Wikileaks. We know the NSA works with other US intelligence agencies, we know that the NSA works with GCHQ.
We know about Tempora, we know about JTRIG, we know about PRISM, we know about HAVOK. We know that websites can be altered on the fly, we know that real-time voice profiling is trivial for these agencies. We know that censorship is happening.
https://usnewsghost.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/new-july-14-edward-snowden-nsa-leaks-gchq-attacks-and-censors-internet-nsa-leaks-recent/ http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gchqs-favourite-memes-and-sexual-slang-reveals-a-shared-culture-with-trolls-and-hackers-9608065.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
The NSA has a remit to be 10 years ahead of the curve. We have commercial products that can be purchased off the shelf today that can easily manipulate audio and video. Just imagine what the NSA and the military are capable of.
Real time facial manipulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk Signs of editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9t_TEE1aw. Both Julian Assange and John Pilger are not filmed together at any time during the interview. There is also no establishing shot. It is also claimed that Assange’s audio is spliced and edited. No recent events mentioned by Assange, only Pilger. Unfortunately, this interview is not sufficient proof of life.
What the NSA can’t do, is that they cannot break PGP encryption. This has been expressed by Glenn Greenwald who was one of the journalists that Edward Snowden leaked to. He commented that he knows how secure PGP is because the NSA keep moaning about not being able to crack it in their documents he is reading. This is another reason why a signed PGP message can be the only true proof that WL isn’t compromised. Mathematics cannot lie, people can and do. A compromised WL can’t sign a message without the private key.
Edward Snowden revealed that in 2013 the NSA were capable of 3 trillion password attempts per second. As it is now almost 2017, that number will likely be multiple times higher (anywhere between 9 to 15 trillion attempts per second would be my guess based on Moore’s law).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://www.schneier.com/gchq-catalog/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters
[WikiLeaks down on October 17th]
The alleged raid on the Embassy supposedly took place on the 17th just after 1am GMT. On Monday the 17th of October 2016 WikiLeaks website was reported down (http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/wikileaks.org.html expand the comments) https://postimg.org/image/6t68fe4kj/. The internet was alive with reports of mass censorship around this time. This all coincides with when the alleged WikiLeaks takeover occurred. It also coincides with John Kerry being in the UK.
[Christine Assange audio only radio interview]
Julian's family had their identities changed quite a few years ago after receiving death threats. It is odd that his mother has now revealed herself to a news agency. If you do a YouTube search for Christine Assange (her original name), you'll find all the videos are older than 3 years. She's in hiding, not openly talking on radio shows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange scroll down to the personal life section).
[WikiLeaks bitcoin account was emptied on the 18th of November] Interestingly it was after the bitcoin account was emptied that the encoded message in the blockchain was left. Why would WikiLeaks go to all that trouble when they could just sign a message with their PGP key? Is it because bitcoin accounts can be cracked and the PGP keys can’t?
[Mass censorship]
Facebook is censoring this event (https://www.facebook.com/events/309760466089922/). It has been advertised for weeks now any only a handful of people are attending. Recently Wikileaks was live on FB. 50% of the viewers (roughly 2.5k) were commenting #PoL, #Whereisassange, RIP etc. The live event was only a prerecorded video being played in loop. Once it concluded, the whole Live event along with all the comments including the comments asking for PoL and PGP signed message were deleted. It was as if it never took place.
When Julian’s DMS had supposedly been activated, I saw posts in threads being deleted within minutes. Supposedly with encryption keys, but it all happened too fast for anyone to collate. I took PDF printouts of the pages and then later noticed that posts and entire links were taken down. I have PDF's of pages that now no longer exist. I've been following this since mid-October and seen the censorship first hand. I know many people here on reddit witnessed the same (please comment with your experiences).
[WikiLeaks reposting old stuff]
There are many examples of this already mentioned in the timelines. One for example is the Palantir Technologies report. Palantir Technologies prepared a report on how to destroy WikiLeaks that was leaked in 2011. The proposal was submitted to Bank of America through its outside law firm, Hunton & Williams. Palantir later apologised for their involvement. But WikiLeaks has recently regurgitated it as if it was new. There are many examples of this. I have watched as WikiLeaks have increasingly destroyed their credibility.
submitted by neonnexus to WhereIsAssange [link] [comments]

How DPR might spend his millions from inside of prison

I spent some time thinking about how DPR might spend his millions from behind bars. Here's what I came up with. Can you do better?
Imagine that DPR is in prison and he's got 80 million dollars worth of BTC in a brainwallet. For example, all stored with the passphrase "correct horse battery staple" (c.h.b.s for short). The Feds want that money and they're definitely not going to let him send it to anyone so they're not letting him use a computer, especially not one connected to the internet.
If he had access to a computer, he could write a transaction from behind bars and pass it on a piece of paper to someone on the outside. But he doesn't. And if he did, that computer would have a keylogger.
His next alternative is to write c.h.b.s on a piece of paper and pass that to someone. But he'd then be trusting all his 80 million to one person. That's not safe, either.
Assuming some planning, maybe he divided up his money into tens of thousands of bitcoin addresses, each one with, say, 20BTC. Now he can give out private keys as needed, written down, and spend money in increments of 20BTC.
The problem with that is that he has to memorize thousands of passphrases. One option, he could use:
but someone would catch on to the pattern and take all his money.
In prison he might have books. Instead of numbers, he could use the first letter of words in a line from a book, like Romeo and Juliet. Like this:
Harder to crack but it's just obfuscation. If someone figures out the book, he's screwed.
Ideally, he would have a hash function that could be computed with innocent things that you'd find in a prison: a deck of cards, a book, maybe a calculator. Bruce Schneier invented a cryptographic algorithm that uses a deck of cards. If you had a good hash function that you could do mechanically, you could use those outputs at http://brainwallet.org:
A deck of cards is surprisingly strong. The order of a random deck of cards is about 200bits of entropy, even more than a 160bit bitcoin hash, so a deck of cards could be useful.
That's as far as I got. Any better ideas? How do you store 10,000 brainwallets in your brain without using a computer? Or make transactions without a computer?
submitted by eyal0 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Civil War (the bright sides)

It will be interesting to see how the next couple of months play out. Whatever happens, there are a couple of positive sides to the situation.
For one, we will see if it is possible to change the rules of the Bitcoin network even against considerable resistance.
The Japanese Constitution has never been amended. But it is very clear what is necessary to amend it. Article 96 of the Constitution states the requirements.
The Bitcoin network has never been challenged by an internal faction in the way it is now. In contrast to the Japanese Constitution, it is not very clear what is needed to push through the block size extension the Bitcoin Unlimited camp wants.
So if they succeed in their attempt, we will have a reference case what is needed to change the protocol against substantial resistance. If they fail, we will have a reference case as well, showing that the failed level of support was not enough.
This civil war will also be an interesting case to study when preparing for war with outside attackers. There has been speculation about "51%-attacks" before. But as far as I know, no one has ever actually pulled off a 51%-attack against the Bitcoin network.
In the course of this civil war, that may change. I hear that Peter Rizun, one of the supporters of Bitcoin Unlimited, is advocating for using hash power to shut down the original Bitcoin chain after a fork, mining empty blocks on that chain.
If that happens, that would be an excellent test case. A highly motivated, well-funded adversary trying to shut down the Bitcoin blockchain has not happened yet in real life.
If such an attack happens, and the Bitcoin blockchain survives it one way or another, that would be real-life proof of its resiliency.
Since all of the value of the Bitcoin blockchain comes from this resiliency against attack and the trust created, surviving such a test would be proof of its value. An eight year track record of unbroken service is valuable, but extending it defeating serious attacks shows even more value.
All cryptography has value only as far as people actually try to break it and fail (Schneier's law). It follows that attacks on the Bitcoin network like the one Rizun wants to happen are a good thing.
We also may get a short-term increase in block space (if the Bitcoin Unlimited faction wins the civil war).
Again, interesting times for the Bitcoin network.
submitted by Karl-Friedrich_Lenz to btc [link] [comments]

Cryptographic reviews of bitcoin?

I'm searching for informed bitcoin reviews, infact I haven't the knowledge to complitely understand and value its security, the only cryptographer that I read that write on this is Bruce Schneier, that wrote this:
"I'm often asked what I think about bitcoins. I haven't analyzed the security, but what I have seen looks good. The real issues are economic and political, and I don't have the expertise to have an opinion on that."
source
experienced people reviews of bitcoin
1 - Bruce Schneier
2 - Dan Kaminsky
submitted by pietrod21 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Quantum Conspiracy

This is not reality changing quantum computing meta-science / Mandela Effect / parallel universes bull.
The following is at least trying to be factual
I some information for you of which you may not be aware, as well as speculation related to such events.
Here is the gist...
TIMELINE
May 11th: WannaCry ransomware was released into the public.
May 15th: A small flurry of news articles on websites about quantum computation not effecting RSA encryption showed up.
June 13th: IOTA is added to the bitfinex exchange.
June 14th: Quantum market value passes 5 billion. Through D-Wave and IBM-Q
June 25th: The Petya ransomware released.
June 27th: A second test revision of the Petya ransomware released as NotPetya.
July 3rd or 4th: We will see. (This is only speculation.)
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
The WannaCry ransomware is a private sector project disguised as a ransomware. The Petya ransomware is a revision of this project with some fixes re-released for testing. NotPeta was released shortly after, so that it was not as noticeable over the current threat.
IOTA is a cryptocurrency that you should probably put some money into, it will be important later. It is not generated via mining. It is does not have a blockchain. It is quantum computationally proof by design. It is currently worth more than 1 billion USD, becoming the 8th largest traded cryptocurrency in 14 days.
The major project is a programming project with the following goals.
@ This might be an attempt by combined forces to create a viral remote administration tool.
@ The active function of this secret tool would be primarily benign malicious. With goal to install this on as many internet of things devices, cellphones, and computers as possible in order to steal an unnoticeable amount of CPU and GPU resources (1%), from computers that stay idle for more than 6 hours. Effectively a world wide zombie botnet.
@ Here is the list of currently involved entities: TPTB, Google, D-Wave Systems, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, CERN, Cisco, CERT, a counter-collective group of approximately 2,200 people with backgrounds in information security, cryptography, mathematics, and quantum physics.
REVELATIONS
This is very important so listen.
@ I feel this is to use this computing power, piping it into the Google network in order to mask the internet traffic as legitimate.
@ These computing resources are being used to assist Google Deepmind in order to finish a computation project that when successful will result in artificially generated design for a cold operating quantum computer, possibly through carbon computation.
@ IOTA may have known about this project in advance. Developing a quantum proof cryptocurrency in order to capitalize from the downfall of other cryptomarkets. IOTA also is working in a very short timescale, implementing smart contracts to automate transactions over internet of things devices, presumably to prevent them from becoming idle.
@ After the project is complete, I assume TPTB will be able to effectively break nearly all encryption, and then all hell will break lose.
CAVEATS
@ I am not saying you should not drop all your bitcoin, because the timescale for this will be a few years. However, just keep in mind I feel this coming. If it is, there is nothing we can do.
submitted by SoaringMoon to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Vote Pueschel Schneier for ECUA, District 3! The Mark of the Beast - YouTube OPTICALARTdotCOM - YouTube The Blockchain Could Disrupt Everything: Goldman Sachs ... [172] Bruce Schneier talks data-mining, surveillance & embedded computing systems

Bitcoin-Einheiten sind durch die Verwendung starker Verschlüsselungsverfahren fälschungssicher. Jeder Geldbetrag kann nur einmal ausgegeben werden, weil jegliche Übermittlung von Geld unwiderruflich im Bitcoin-Netzwerk, also auf den Systemen aller Nutzer der Bitcoin-Software gespeichert wird. Das Bitcoin-Netzwerk verbindet eine relativ schnelle Bestätigung von Transaktionen innerhalb von ... Der Bitcoin-Roboter, der immer gewinnt und unser Gespräch mit dem "Support" Bei den meisten Plattformen mussten wir vorerst kein Geld überweisen. Man kann dem Bitcoin-Roboter vorerst in aller Ruhe bei der Arbeit zusehen. Dass man im Demo-Modus Verlust macht, ist ausgeschlossen. So sieht das Ganze im Backend von "Bitcoin Code" aus: Das ähnliches Bild offenbart sich bei "Centobot". Sobald man ... Bitcoin can be thought of as money insofar as it represents both a store of vale and a medium of exchange. But it is highly doubtful that it will ever be accepted as a currency. This is because a currency is more than just money, currency is a representation of a political and even cultural value. Both the Central African Franc and the Dollar are money but they have not achieved the same ... The Bitcoin Supply Visualized. ⬛ = 1000 BTC; If BCH succeeds in pushing out ABC as a minority fork. It would represent the first time in cryptocurrency history that a lead implementation has been successfully "fired". Proving for the first time; the ability of PoW governance to resist capture by a rogue development team. HODL it; Really nice interview with the always awesome Josh Ellithorpe ... «Schneider-Ammann will eine Crypto Nation Switzerland», so stand es als Headline in der «Südostschweiz» vor ziemlich genau zehn Monaten. Anlass dazu gab die internationale «Crypto Conference» im Fünf-Sterne-Hotel «Suvretta House» in St. Moritz. Die Schweiz biete laut Johann Schneider-Ammann, so der damals aktuelle Zeitungsbericht von vor Ort, «die besten Rahmenbedingungen für die ...

[index] [8925] [44822] [1245] [19462] [30172] [1179] [5351] [34798] [15397] [43362]

Vote Pueschel Schneier for ECUA, District 3!

On Wednesday, Twitter’s share price soared after the company’s second quarter earnings beat expectations and its outlook on full year revenue proved better than expected. With a count of 271 ... Real Vision™ is where you can gain an understanding of the complex world of finance, business and the global economy with real in-depth analysis from real ex... The Blockchain – the technology that underpins Bitcoin transactions – has applications far beyond just digital currency. Jim Schneider, a research analyst in... We are moving into spiritually dark times and the end is near, but many are unprepared. "We have never been closer to the end than today," says Pastor Greg. ... Vote Pueschel Schneier for ECUA, District 3! Edwin Howard. Loading... Unsubscribe from Edwin Howard? ... Banking on Bitcoin YouTube Movies. 2017 · Documentary; 1:23:41. Becoming God to Change ...

#