Tbones marketplace wexford pa real estate
40 comments
Monero duar khule kendall
An article in the New York Times, " Hackers Came, but the French Were Prepared " by Adam Nossiter, David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth, states that e-mails in the Macron leaks have been proven to be fakes, citing experts who claim there were discrepancies with Bitcoin transactions that appeared in linked e-mails. These 'experts' are dead wrong. I'm going to show you why they're wrong and tell you how to find the evidence yourself so you can verify my claims.
I'm also going to provide a little glimpse into what happened when I notified the writers regarding these errors. It began when one of my co-workers asked me if I'd seen that someone proved the Macron e-mails were fake by analyzing Bitcoin transactions. My interest was piqued. I found the New York Times article and quickly skipped to the part about Bitcoin:.
Other leaked documents appear to have been forged, or faked. But Henk Van Ess, a member of the investigations team at Bellingcat, a British investigations organization, and others discovered that the transaction numbers in the receipt were not in the public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions.
I always double check these kinds of claims. Sure enough, Ars Technica had an article that repeated this claim. Multiple documents were proven to be forgeries, including one which appeared to be an invoice for a Bitcoin payment for mephedrone "bath salts" to be sent to the French National Assembly. The Bitcoin wallet and blockchain transaction data was easily determined to be fake.
I was already familiar with these "bath salt" e-mails because rebelskum had written about them here on steemit and had downloaded the torrent of the e-mails a few days earlier after WikiLeaks tweeted it. If you want to download the e-mails, the magnet URLs are archived here. Don't know what magnet URLs are? Here's the magnet url for the torrent I'm referring to:.
The torrent includes a folder with e-mail files. The assertion that "transaction numbers in the receipt were not in the public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions" was a little unclear to me so I decided to check the e-mails and see if I could figure out what Mr.
Van Ess was talking about. Henk is technically correct in noting that there are no Bitcoin transaction IDs TXIDs in the receipt however it's unclear to me why one would expect "Bitcoin transaction numbers" in the receipt.
For the people who have never paid with bitcoin, here's the way buckled. They send you a Bitcoin address and instructions on how to pay. I will call this address the 'payment address'. You send Bitcoin to the payment address from an address you control. They confirm that you sent the Bitcoin. They send you a tracking number once they've mailed the drugs.
There are actually a few more e-mail updates as well basically the same as e-mail , notifying buyer of updates in shipping status but this is the gist of it. If these words are too jargony for you, read up on how Bitcoin works here. Van Ess' statement that, "transaction numbers in the receipt were not in the public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions": Van Ess is referring to. There are no Bitcoin transaction numbers in those e-mails. Nor, to my knowledge, any of the other buckled. The beauty of blockchains is that anybody in the world can confirm that the amount of Bitcoin in the receipt was sent.
Because the leaked e-mails contain the payment address, I was able to check the history of transactions to the payment address. Sure enough, an amount of Bitcoin equal to exactly the amount requested by buckled. Below are screenshots of the e-mails containing 3 Bitcoin payment addresses There were 4 orders, 3 paid with Bitcoin, one apparently paid with Mastercard e-mail And links to the transactions so you can verify yourself that the transactions are in the blockchain.
I'm linking to blockchain. E-mail Bitcoin Transaction. Having convinced myself the article was wrong, I decided to notify the journalists who wrote the NYT article via e-mail:. As a citizen journalist and bitcoin enthusiast, I noticed a major error. The bitcoin transactions are in the public ledger blockchain.
I really don't understand how he could have made this mistake but here is the proof: I think you really ought to correct your article as Henk's analysis is provably wrong.
We'll look into this. Can you tell me who you are and how you came to this analysis? This irked me because I'd just provided her with all the proof that anybody who understands Bitcoin would have needed to prove their article was wrong, or at least needed more than "a look". Who I am shouldn't have anything to do with it In one analysis of the leaked messages, the Bitcoin block chain were too high, and could not be found. Another reading of the Bitcoin number, formatted a different way, shows a Bitcoin number that does exist but shows no corresponding transactions.
Van Ess clarified as much in his interview, but unfortunately his quote was condensed Mto only elaborate on the first explanation. But in other words, the transactions may exist but not the block. We can prove that they used a dollar bill. We can prove that people pay with dollars. But we can't prove that this specific bill was used for this specific transaction.
That said, if you do find block numbers and transactions in the same message, Henk Van Ess said he would love to compare his files with yours, since he did his utmost to get the oldest version of the Macron leaks and is not aware of any document where the block and transaction ID are mentioned together.
His email is [redacted]. Van Ess also tweeted what looks like a screenshot of the above e-mail. Apparently this tweet proves he's not "an idiot". If you're familiar with Bitcoin, you'll realize that a lot of that message didn't make sense. It uses some Bitcoin jargon but out of context in a weird way. First, "the block number is not in the same leaked message" and the rest of the "block number" stuff really had me scratching my head. There are no block numbers in the buckled.
And the bitcoin addresses are absolutely in valid blocks. Otherwise they wouldn't be searchable on the blockchain and I wouldn't have been able to link to the confirmed transactions above. At this point, I'm wondering if I'm the one who's high on bath salts. I mean, it's 3 prominent journalists and 1 expert against me, they seem very confident and I can hardly understand what they're writing. Here's the part that ties it all together.
It took me a long time to figure out what was going on here. This is a screenshot from some sort of wallet for non-Bitcoin people, wallets are files that store the secret password that proves you control a Bitcoin address or another cryptocurrency address. This screenshot is not a standard Bitcoin wallet, that much is for sure. BitShares is an alternative cryptocurrency also called altcoins. BitShares and Bitcoin definitely aren't the same thing and I don't think any Bitcoiner would ever mix the two up.
Van Ess is tweeting about BitShares and trying to say that a Bitcoin transaction is invalid or something? I still didn't know where this mysterious screenshot came from.
And he didn't want to tell me. The answer is it came from a different part of the Macron leaks. Specifically from Pierre Person's files. The file in Mr. Van Ess' screenshot has the filepath: This file has almost nothing to do with Bitcoin. Nothing to do with the drug e-mails. And at first glance doesn't appear to be fake.
It could be, I haven't checked thoroughly. If it is fake, it's not for the reasons Mr. So there you have it, New York Times quotes someone who is blatantly wrong.
He references things in e-mails that aren't there. Doesn't understand that the transactions are real and in the blockchain. Mixes up BitShares and Bitcoin. The list goes on NYT is claiming that specific Macron e-mails are fake without showing any evidence, citing a guy who's evidence is completely wrong. And when someone sends them clear evidence that they're wrong, they barely even acknowledge it, and clearly didn't understand it, then give a completely incoherent explanation to defend their statements.
I believe this shows that the NYT writers do not sufficiently understand Bitcoin. If they are unable to evaluate claims as ridiculous as the ones made by Mr. Van Ess, I believe they should refrain from writing about Bitcoin-related topics. I think they're probably fake because I don't think anybody could possibly be stupid enough to order bath salts to the French National Assembly using their Gmail address and Mastercard. I haven't seen any irrefutable evidence one way or the other.
If they are fake, it's a very elaborate fabrication with a LOT of attention paid to detail.