From the Monero Backdoor Wallet

Going to quickly break down how retarded this is.

1. Checksums are taken from every 32-bit word that is produced. There are 32 bits of entropy encoded per 3 mnemonic words. 128/32 = 4. Four sets of 32-bit words = 12 mnemonic words, each set of 3 words gets a checksum = 4. Thus, 132 bits (128+4) of entropy for 12 words - just like BIP39 tells us.

Literally, the 128-bits of entropy is supposed to be converted to binary, you take the first 4 raw bits of that binary, hash it using SHA256 (convert it back from hex), then append it.

Then you divide the 132-bit output by 11 (to get 12 words; nice and neat).

edit: ^^^ had that '11' and '12' mixed up.

This idiot for the Monero wallet said that there are 11 bits of checksum in every word, what is he talking about???

And there are 14 words, total. So that means you would get 154-bits total (like he wrote). But that makes no fucking sense.

Checksums are generally supposed to be one bit per word.

Don't believe me? Here are multiple sources that say that a checksum should be one bit per word:

1. http://www.cs.newpaltz.edu/~easwaran/CCN/CheckSumming.html

2. https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~pxk/352/notes/content/07r-review-slides-6pp.pdf

3. https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/KoopmanCRCWebinar9May2012.pdf

4. https://www.scs.stanford.edu/nyu/04sp/notes/l13.pdf

Do I need to cite any more universities?

How to Generate Collisions With Monero and Steal Funds

Let's go back to the asinine wallet construction that Riccardo Spagni said that I was "scamming" everyone into believing (I haven't gotten paid, but if there is some money out there with my name on it, then by all means, please let me know).

The Monero wallet uses PBKDF2-HMAC-256 instead of PBKDF-HMAC-512 (what Bitcoin uses). That means that the block size for the algorithm is half the 512 construction (256 bits).

So the Monero one is 128-bits.

His input is 154 bits. I just provided a picture proving that. Right?

Here's an entire write-up with several pieces of code and explanations that break down exactly why this creates collisions.

They literally create dozens of collisions on the spot. Very easily.

Because only a complete moron would fail to account for this in constructing any type of key generation scheme.

source = https://mathiasbynens.be/notes/pbkdf2-hmac

That's not the problem ^^ I'm about to blow your fucking mind.

Read this

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36917/hmac-bitcoin-seed-for-bip32

HMAC doesn't just hash data. It takes a "key" as well. The key is input into the function before hashing the data.

The key for Bitcoin = "Bitcoin seed" <—- literally, those words alone.

HMAC has a weird function where if you

Took a while for me to find their specific code but here it is = https://github.com/tevador/monero-seed/blob/master/src/pbkdf2.c

They specifically forego Argon2, to implement this PBKDF2.

Backdoor found. If you use Monero past a certain point then you failed 1st three times.

Bring it to Spagni and he'll deny it and dance around all of this information that's being presented in here.

Downgrading Argon2 For PBKDF2

I'll give anyone following this channel $10,000+ to find one source on the internet that says that this is a good idea .

Edit: Game over and this doesn't really need to be addressed anymore. This is it for the Monero project in the eyes of this channel because they wish to backdoor all of their users. Anyone using Monero is not safe with idiots like Spagni anywhere near the project (he publicly says that he isn't, but he definitely still is). One has to question whether they're working with the gov't at a certain point because that could be another great use for giving you all weaker keys.

Monero = NSA Coin

Michael Saylor is an Idiot (Confirmed)

A few weeks ago, we looked at just how stupid MIchael Saylor really is and there were some people that got really offended about that.

They let me and everyone else know that Saylor was a savant and a genius that made an exquisite investment in Bitcoin and that even going as far as to debt finance $500M-$1B just to buy more Bitcoin a roaring ATH was the best decision that anyone in mankind could have made.

Let's see whether those people were correct or not (drumroll)

MicroStrategy down >50% since February 9th.

Lost >$6B in market capitalization over that span.

It would be false to say that Bitcoin has been down by that much. It seems like investors are not super enthused about MicroStrategy making a desperate visionary pivot to Bitcoin.

MicroStrategy's stock has only appreciated by +800% since 1998.

To put that in perspective for everyone, that's only slightly better than investing in the Nasdaq index itself over that time period (+681%).

Amazon has gained 80,000% over that same time frame.

Please explain to me again why Saylor is a genius. I'll wait.

Riot Blockchain is a much smaller company than MicroStrategy. They also pivoted to blockchain and invested their company's resources.

But they were smart enough to mine.

They almost beat MicroStrategy's gains for all of 2020 in just the first month of 2021.

Saylor is a genius at figuring out how to consistently lose with a royal flush

Digital Currency Group Portfolio

The companies on Digital Currency Group's portfolio investments never ceases to surprise ; take a look here: https://dcg.co/portfolio/

Someone get in contact with Deltec Leaks and tell them Librehash is more than happy to pick apart each and every single piece of their document leak & publish thorough, comprehensive articles that leave no stone unturned. This is our specialty.

Corrected My Understanding of Grayscale Significantly

https://librehash.org/grayscale-bitcoins-black-box-part-one/

This article once more covers the fundamental concepts behind Grayscale's operation so that we all can be on the same page here as we move forward, because there are quite a few 'truths' in this space that provide elevate the 'bear argument', considerably.

This Channel Was Wrong About One Critical Characteristic of Grayscale

Grayscale's BItcoin Trust didn't get popular in spite of its premium, but rather because of it.

That's because they were primarily receiving Bitcoin in exchange for shares in the Trust.

"Why Would Someone Give Grayscale Bitcoin in Exchange For Shares in a Trust With Value Backed by Bitcoin?"

At the outset, this proposition sounds really fucking dumb.

The concept of GBTC has been marketed to us as a vehicle for investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin without having to go through a "sketchy" exchange and/or having the technical know-how to send/receive it.

But when GBTC was trading at a premium, giving them bitcoins actually made more sense.

Some Key Facts

- Grayscale's Trust is setup so that X amount = 1 share, so 2x = 2 shares, 3x = 3 shares etc. ; in this scenario, let's just pretend that 'X' = 1 bitcoin

- Since 1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin, it doesn't matter what the premium/discount on these shares are relative to the NAV (average exchange price) is going for when you exchange your bitcoins for shares.

- So let's say 1 share = 1 bitcoin, then if you invest 5 bitcoins, you'll get 5 shares. It doesn't matter what the premium is at. You'll still always be able to get 5 shares for 5 bitcoins.

The only 'catch' here is that these shares that are being distributed to you (you're the imaginary investor with 5 bitcoins here) cannot be traded on an open market for 6 months (Rule 144A).

BUT ... let's say you wait it out. Since GBTC's share price is anchored to a NAV, the price of the shares benefit directly from bullish price action.

Premium is Free Money Almost

Let's say there's a 30% premium on GBTC shares.

You're the same investor from before. You take your 5 bitcoins and get 5 shares back.

Those 5 shares you own are now valued at 30%+ more than the underlying average exchange price of Bitcoin. If Grayscale's premium is still there in 6 months, then you can sell those 5 shares on a market like OTCQX and realize profit (potentially) from price appreciation + an additional +20-30% based on the premium rate at that point.

Jennifer Cotten Was Represented by Crypto Capital Co.

As her attorneys, in specific. That entity that she went with originally.

Edit: ^^ Woops! (hit the enter key a bit early)
—-

This is in relation to this specific request that was made by Miller Thompson to the RCMP to "exhume" the body of Gerry Cotten.

They would only be asking that because they believe that foulplay occurred.

Based on all of the research I performed + information aggregated, I definitely agree with them.

Allow this channel a second to touch on that Jennifer Robertson claim that was made above*.

It seems random, but nobody else has really shelled out this connection, so figures that it should be excised here, then published on the blog (and elsewhere), so that its at least online for anyone else that finds themselves digging down the same rabbit hole...

You know what? Let's go ahead and dig into her right now. Buckle your seatbelts kids.