Hacker News Reader

Comment by sjsdaiuasgdia | Hacker News Reader

The mediator's report is a fun read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/a68b42f4-d5dc-4ff9-...

I especially like these power moves by Lindell and friends -

1) Encrypt one of the files as a test to see who's a bad enough dude to validate the data.

2) Pack / possibly encrypt the largest chunks of data with a tool no one's heard of. Don't provide the tool with the data or say that's what you did, but do include a vague video showing the tool in use.

This data was never meant to be analyzed by anyone taking it seriously. Purely a stunt designed to look good as long as you don't look too close.

My only real question about this is whether Lindell is fully aware of this part of the con or if he actually believes this collection of bits proves anything.

View on HN

Yes, thanks, really a fun read.

I liked the reported reasoning about file J-15 (Chinese_SourceIP_HEX.txt):

> It contains, according to Mr. Zeidman, only IP addresses and numbers ranking the addresses from high to low. He notes that it is not packet data because it has no packets and no data.

Logic is always fun. Tearing apart someones statements into base arguments they have to agree is true, then build that up to invalidate their statement is also fun. In this case it might be $5M - ~20K lawyers fee's fun!

I follow an individual on Mastodon who painstakingly decompiles things like Wii games, developing a very intimate understanding of the game's development. We've probably all seen individuals like this on the Internet.

I'm deeply amused by people like Mike who don't realize these people exist. They will scrutinize every corner of something with an electron microscope, especially if the topic is juicy or you're a big enough ass to deserve it.

Who is it? That sounds very cool

Amusingly they didn't get anywhere near that far in this case.

The mediator accepted that it was unreasonable to expect contestants to decrypt those files, so they just excluded them from consideration.

I think they know, but they also know it doesnt matter in the relatively short run. Same story with Satoshi wannabe fraud Wright demonstrating signed message on "brand new laptop straight from a shop my assistant just bought"

>signature was done using a completely new laptop computer bought at a store on that day, on the spot, delivered in manufacturer-sealed condition to Andresen.

https://mylegacykit.medium.com/the-craig-wright-may-2016-sig...

8 years of this farce.

There's something I don't understand. They're saying that two of the hex files were unreadable, due them either gibberish or being encrypted. But then they say he showed that this wasn't packet data. Was there something in the rules about these files being translatable to rtf? I don't understand how you can prove this isn't packet data if you can't even read the file.

If it's encrypted, or random, either way, it's not packet data.

Encrypted data is no more proof or evidence than deleted or withheld or never-existed data.

It might as well be an empty file with a note that says there is some data somewhere if you just knew the url to it. That would not constitute data itself, and neither does encrypted data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com