A tripcode is a hash. Hash algorithms are made so that the result cannot be reverse engineered to figure out what the input was. A salt is a fixed random garbage that gets added to the input to make reverse engineering even harder (if it was possible at all). As long as the input and the salt are the same the result will always be the same. When you change the salt you're changing the input, the result will not be the same.
So if they "whitelisted" his tripcode, then they must have added another stage to the system where it will check the passwords entered by users with the old salt added for his result first, then if not a match do the hash again with the new salt. Either that or they have his plaintext password and now have the site check every user's entered password against that before proceeding with the hash which would be a really stupid idea.
The fact that they call this "whitelisting a tripcode" seems off to me. Instead of this whitelisting business what Q should have done was post what his new tripcode will be with the new salt before they changed the salt used by the site. Or better yet create a GPG key pair, post the public key before they changed the salt, and sign every post from now on.
Since he didn't do that, and since tripcodes are sus to me now, he'll have to include another future proof, such as a phrase he would ask Trump to use, along with his new public key in a post that will have many witnesses (witnesses to ensure the post wasn't created by the board admins after the proof occurs) in order to gain my trust as an example.
Agreed the whole "whitelisting" tripcodes sounds fishy, and I wonder why there is no explanation of what or how that was done. However, if I was developing something like that then I would:
Have the whitelist of trip codes
Have the salt and list of previous salts
Hash the password with salt, and previous salts
See if any of those resulted in a hash that is whitelisted
If so use that one. Otherwise use the one with the newest salt.
Doing a hash is not exactly computationally expensive, you can generate thousands a second on old hardware so I would not see an issue doing this with every tripcode ever posted.
Edit: also entirely possible to check a tripcode when it comes in and if it has a certain match to provide a different hard coded tripcode in place . This may be feasible depending on access to the code base and how it is architected.
I'm with you - I have wondered all along how someone was supposed to rig the salting to generate the same hash for a different password.
As for the whitelisting - the only way I could think of doing it is to fix the salt for a specific account and hardwire it into the hashing code itself. Not impossible, but certainly not a simple task either.
Personally I'm waiting for a trip coded drop with a zero delta before I'm 100% convinced.
SPOT ON. Especially coming from Watkins who has access to the 8kun code which he can do ANYTHING with to make it look like a legit Q post. Other than the real proof, which is doing a delta with Trump or something else that a fake Q couldn't predict.
I know I'm going to get downvoted for this but dammit, people need to stop saying that those who are scrutinizing this situation as "dooming". It pisses me off because Q went to great lengths to emphasize the importance of critical thinking. There are some legitimate flags here that need to be addressed and libeling the people that are thinking critically as "dooming" pisses me the hell off.
Stop accusing these people of dooming and start effing thinking.
They're not dooming. They're trying to protect you and every other red-blooded American by vetting these new Q drops.
I'm not saying that this is not the real Q. But there are some technical elements that need to be evaluated before the critical thinkers can accept these new posts as legitimate.
There's a small vocal contingent of weak-minded people here who fled from the_donald after the 2020 steal, and all they're looking for is a safe space to share copium. They always seep out like roaches anytime their delicate sensibilities are threatened by anyone who displays an ounce of critical thinking. And instead of skimming past discourse they find intellectually uncomfortable, they actively try to censor it.
They are collectivists in mind, body, and soul. When they call you a doomer for asking questions it's the exact same weak-minded group think that leftists project when they call you conspiracy theorists for raising those same questions.
People need to learn to distinguish between the various components of any text/message.
First, there is the informational aspect. The information may be true, false, or a mix.
Second, there is a motivational aspect. This is the intent behind the output of the information. That motivational aspect can be varied, driven by certain emotional inclinations and directions, or by purpose.
Without distinguishing between these two components of any text/message, people will regularly fall into the trap of confusing the real nature of the text/message and misinterpreting it.
The informational aspect is the external form of the text/message, the 'body' or flesh, if you will accept the analogy. Usually, is clear and up front, but not always, as in the case with cryptic messages, or obscure or ambiguous content.
The motivational aspect is the internal character of the text/message, the 'mind' or spirit of the text/message. By nature, it is less visible than the outer form (the informational aspect), and less easy to pinpoint. That's why people can much more easily confuse or misread this aspect of the text/message.
In regards to your comment, the informational aspect can be confirmation or affirmation of the core premise e.g. "this is a legit Q post" or can question that premise, or deny that premise, etc. None of these informational contents are inherently good or bad, or uplifting or dooming, etc.
What defines whether it's dooming, or optimistic, or constructive, or destructive, unifying, or dividing, etc., is the motivational aspect.
Thus, people can talk about why this ISN'T a Q drop, for example, but for constructive purposes (i.e. trying to get to the truth of the matter, by discussing) or for destructive purposes (i.e. venting and amplifying a negative emotional charge in order to experience some sense of personal relief, OR, i.e. to sow doubt, distrust, in order to increase division and conflict.
In other words, it's not what is being said that is the problem, but WHY it is being said. And this is one aspect that too many people ignore, or make subjectively defined but unrecognized evaluations of, based on their biases, or internal emotional state, or their conceptual framework of 'how things are'. It's the opposite of being objective.
That said, it's FINE to use subjective reasoning or evaluations, as long as one recognizes that this is what they are: e.g. This is my sense of things: as opposed to: this is how things are.
Anyway, as I stated at the start, people need to learn to distinguish between WHAT is being said from WHY it is being said. Without that, you'll get all sorts of pushback on perfectly legitimate expressions of thought and even concern, as well as overlooked shilling and board undermining.
At the risk of sounding like Hitlery, at this point it does not matter whether Q comes back or not, we are already activated and nothing can stop what is coming. We just need to keep marching on as digital soldiers, waking up people and actively combating false narratives in every corner of the internet!
Everyone makes a mistake. Flipping burgers- drop some food, delivering fuel - drop 800 gallons of gas in a septic system at 4:00 (not me, but a friend). What is important is they owned up to it and fixed it.
I am a complete novice when it comes to the tech. But Jim Watkins said something in his video last weekend that doesn’t line up with some of what he says here.
Paraphrasing, he said maybe the people who own the Q board have been quiet because TOR has not been working for a while. They might not want to post without TOR because their identities could be discovered.
As I said in a different post on a different thread here:
What did Q tell us about news events? To wait how long until news could be verified? 24-48 hrs, iirc.
All these emotional reactions and outbursts any time Q posts need to stop. This violated the Socratic Method and betrays what we're trying to do here. Logic MUST prevail. Emotional reactions betray logical thinking and reasoning.
A delta necessarily requires proximity to the actual POTUS and also at such a time where they are either in a large crowd or otherwise not in a setting where they could be caught.
I'd say that Q couldn't just call Trump and say "Yo homeboy, I need you to get ready to post" because that would be caught and instantly implicate Trump in a time where they are trying to get him for literally anything.
We need a proof to re-instill trust, but it may also come with consequences that aren't outright free.
So, little retard, you think that Trump isn't being watched or spied on at every opportunity and can just interact with members of the Q team through..what?
Telepathy?
Or maybe you're all in on Looking Glass?
Words don't exist for how ludicrously stupid you seem to be.
Say they do have to be in proximity, they don't have to do the delta at that exact moment, they can say "do it at this time". They don't need to be in a large crowd.
The TL;DR: is that right now, the authenticity of Jim is called into question, and Q's trip code somehow didn't change when everyone else's changed.
TOR is also working, apparently, when it wasn't before and led to a unique situation convenient to a time with Q's first posts where others are using it.
Someone else did an attempt to imitate Q with a verification that isn't necessarily an acceptable delta (time zone fuckery made it hard to accurately check in the moment, especially since Truth Social not exactly easy to check without an account)
Q at this time referenced a past event and said to remember it like it hadn't happened yet (this Cassidy Hutchinson bullshit)
NewfakeorrealQ with the questionable delta called out Watkins, which rang a little weird on its own
But the discrepancies with NFORQ doesn't remove the suspicions from the original trip code with all of the circumstances around it, and a lot of us are taking a step back and waiting to see how this continues to develop.
It doesn't seem like Q would allow their trip to be falsely used and mislead people / damage or demoralize the movement by devaluing it with trolling etc., so there will probably be some new verification at some point.
Then the deletion and banning of the B post are the additional verification that makes it highly probable, to the point of certainty, that these posts are valid by the person or persons that post with the Q trip.
The "B post" was a fraud post created by people who had access to the inner workings of 8kun. Why would anyone believe that removal of that particular bit of evidence constitutes "probable, to the point of certainty" proof of real Q?
That is the last post that any rational person should point to as proof of anything Q related, except for the fact that a Q post can be, and has been forged! And, personally I want to see that "B post" returned to the board as a permanent record of that fact.
The "B post" was our first warning that something fucky was going on. And now, several month later, we coincidently get this as "very probable, to the point of certainty* proof of Q? We need to expect, demand better proof.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, same on me."
Most of the normies I know that watched the HBO special about Q tend to think that Q is either Jim or Ron. After they see this, I think they're going to be convinced of that.
As for me, all of the techno stuff is so far over my head it's not even funny.
Note: this is relatively old, I think. Watkins said as much on a video message posted more than 24 hours ago.
Just wanna mention this, because the email pertains to the issue of why (presumed) Q's posts with the tripcode were NOT with a different tripcode when all other trips on the boards were changed.
It is not in relation to the recently emerged frucas of someone (else?) posting as Q but without the tripcode, alleging that the tripcode Q was fake, that Watkins had hijacked it and was larping as Q, etc.
That's an entirely different set of affairs that is subsequent to the matter that Watkins addresses here.
Timing alone has Q written all over it..and if it werent our side wouldn't be so chill and relaxed.
40,000 ft view needed.
We are fully bootcamps so Q or not we dont need to prove it. Just keep doing what we do best.
Watch dig research red pill.
If someone bad breached...theyll get outted as fast as baby fist
I dunno but I gotta say, people like me can be easily manipulated by peppering me with phrases like salt rotation, TOR, IP addresses, trippity tryptophan tripcodes, etc. That's not to say that I read Jim's email and immediately popped over to twitter to announce that JFK Jr. is alive and well and running as VP with Trump. But still.
Once again...
A tripcode is a hash. Hash algorithms are made so that the result cannot be reverse engineered to figure out what the input was. A salt is a fixed random garbage that gets added to the input to make reverse engineering even harder (if it was possible at all). As long as the input and the salt are the same the result will always be the same. When you change the salt you're changing the input, the result will not be the same.
So if they "whitelisted" his tripcode, then they must have added another stage to the system where it will check the passwords entered by users with the old salt added for his result first, then if not a match do the hash again with the new salt. Either that or they have his plaintext password and now have the site check every user's entered password against that before proceeding with the hash which would be a really stupid idea.
The fact that they call this "whitelisting a tripcode" seems off to me. Instead of this whitelisting business what Q should have done was post what his new tripcode will be with the new salt before they changed the salt used by the site. Or better yet create a GPG key pair, post the public key before they changed the salt, and sign every post from now on.
Since he didn't do that, and since tripcodes are sus to me now, he'll have to include another future proof, such as a phrase he would ask Trump to use, along with his new public key in a post that will have many witnesses (witnesses to ensure the post wasn't created by the board admins after the proof occurs) in order to gain my trust as an example.
Agreed the whole "whitelisting" tripcodes sounds fishy, and I wonder why there is no explanation of what or how that was done. However, if I was developing something like that then I would:
My brain hurts and I want hash browns now…
But here to say thank God we have people like you guys on our side too!
#MAGA
Nice and salty hash browns
This is how I see it as well.
Edit: also entirely possible to check a tripcode when it comes in and if it has a certain match to provide a different hard coded tripcode in place . This may be feasible depending on access to the code base and how it is architected.
I'm with you - I have wondered all along how someone was supposed to rig the salting to generate the same hash for a different password.
As for the whitelisting - the only way I could think of doing it is to fix the salt for a specific account and hardwire it into the hashing code itself. Not impossible, but certainly not a simple task either.
Personally I'm waiting for a trip coded drop with a zero delta before I'm 100% convinced.
This is pretty much exactly what I said. It must be the same 4 accounts downvoting lol.
So, anyone questioning these events is a "naysayer" or a "concernfag" or a "professional shill".
If Q said to question everything, to use discernment, to use logic, this response is not in keeping with Q.
SPOT ON. Especially coming from Watkins who has access to the 8kun code which he can do ANYTHING with to make it look like a legit Q post. Other than the real proof, which is doing a delta with Trump or something else that a fake Q couldn't predict.
I know I'm going to get downvoted for this but dammit, people need to stop saying that those who are scrutinizing this situation as "dooming". It pisses me off because Q went to great lengths to emphasize the importance of critical thinking. There are some legitimate flags here that need to be addressed and libeling the people that are thinking critically as "dooming" pisses me the hell off.
Stop accusing these people of dooming and start effing thinking.
They're not dooming. They're trying to protect you and every other red-blooded American by vetting these new Q drops.
I'm not saying that this is not the real Q. But there are some technical elements that need to be evaluated before the critical thinkers can accept these new posts as legitimate.
There's a small vocal contingent of weak-minded people here who fled from the_donald after the 2020 steal, and all they're looking for is a safe space to share copium. They always seep out like roaches anytime their delicate sensibilities are threatened by anyone who displays an ounce of critical thinking. And instead of skimming past discourse they find intellectually uncomfortable, they actively try to censor it.
They are collectivists in mind, body, and soul. When they call you a doomer for asking questions it's the exact same weak-minded group think that leftists project when they call you conspiracy theorists for raising those same questions.
Case in point and exhibit A
cucks only feel safe in their bubbles
sorry cuck must suck to suck
what a snowflake
People need to learn to distinguish between the various components of any text/message.
First, there is the informational aspect. The information may be true, false, or a mix.
Second, there is a motivational aspect. This is the intent behind the output of the information. That motivational aspect can be varied, driven by certain emotional inclinations and directions, or by purpose.
Without distinguishing between these two components of any text/message, people will regularly fall into the trap of confusing the real nature of the text/message and misinterpreting it.
The informational aspect is the external form of the text/message, the 'body' or flesh, if you will accept the analogy. Usually, is clear and up front, but not always, as in the case with cryptic messages, or obscure or ambiguous content.
The motivational aspect is the internal character of the text/message, the 'mind' or spirit of the text/message. By nature, it is less visible than the outer form (the informational aspect), and less easy to pinpoint. That's why people can much more easily confuse or misread this aspect of the text/message.
In regards to your comment, the informational aspect can be confirmation or affirmation of the core premise e.g. "this is a legit Q post" or can question that premise, or deny that premise, etc. None of these informational contents are inherently good or bad, or uplifting or dooming, etc.
What defines whether it's dooming, or optimistic, or constructive, or destructive, unifying, or dividing, etc., is the motivational aspect.
Thus, people can talk about why this ISN'T a Q drop, for example, but for constructive purposes (i.e. trying to get to the truth of the matter, by discussing) or for destructive purposes (i.e. venting and amplifying a negative emotional charge in order to experience some sense of personal relief, OR, i.e. to sow doubt, distrust, in order to increase division and conflict.
In other words, it's not what is being said that is the problem, but WHY it is being said. And this is one aspect that too many people ignore, or make subjectively defined but unrecognized evaluations of, based on their biases, or internal emotional state, or their conceptual framework of 'how things are'. It's the opposite of being objective.
That said, it's FINE to use subjective reasoning or evaluations, as long as one recognizes that this is what they are: e.g. This is my sense of things: as opposed to: this is how things are.
Anyway, as I stated at the start, people need to learn to distinguish between WHAT is being said from WHY it is being said. Without that, you'll get all sorts of pushback on perfectly legitimate expressions of thought and even concern, as well as overlooked shilling and board undermining.
And that's all I have to write about that.
At the risk of sounding like Hitlery, at this point it does not matter whether Q comes back or not, we are already activated and nothing can stop what is coming. We just need to keep marching on as digital soldiers, waking up people and actively combating false narratives in every corner of the internet!
We can't type "concernfags" anymore? Dadgumit.
Quit being a oldtimeycursefag
Now look here you fresh whipper snapper, that type of lip will git you's a good belt whoopin, I tell hugh whut
Concrenfags? more like "Verify via a delta or something else that a fake Q couldn't predict" - that's critical thinking
Handshake gonna handshake.
Oh lighten up, Karen
Karen calls the manager. This handshake just joined 1 day ago. Critical thinking is not a trait of a Karen.
Your critical thinking skills are lacking everywhere it seems.
Er...
"Some of the naysayers and concernf—- questions I have considered."
Kinda think it's funny that Jim doesn't want to write it out. Especially considering his audience.
But I guess handshakes gonna handshake. Pfft.
Sticky this
No one knew when Q would reappear. He has a life to live that is not in front of a keyboard.
Nah. You’re a fool.
"They". Not a he.
He meant Watkins, not Q.
BTW 'he' has been an accepted pronoun (kekekeq) for Q since the beginning also
Sorry. That was a auto reaction from time.
That is An automatic knee jerk reaction.
Are you kidding me? He? Folks, we are all well beyond Q being one individual. It's a group of less then10, 3 civilians with the rest military.
Meant Watkins
The way that reads is that RealCleanUpPhilly was saying Watkins has a life to live that is not in front of a keyboard
"He" is just a convenient figure of speech. Much easier than, "a group of less then10, 3 civilians with the rest military".
Everyone makes a mistake. Flipping burgers- drop some food, delivering fuel - drop 800 gallons of gas in a septic system at 4:00 (not me, but a friend). What is important is they owned up to it and fixed it.
I am a complete novice when it comes to the tech. But Jim Watkins said something in his video last weekend that doesn’t line up with some of what he says here.
Paraphrasing, he said maybe the people who own the Q board have been quiet because TOR has not been working for a while. They might not want to post without TOR because their identities could be discovered.
For som
Sounds like the problem's been rectified.
As I said in a different post on a different thread here:
What did Q tell us about news events? To wait how long until news could be verified? 24-48 hrs, iirc.
All these emotional reactions and outbursts any time Q posts need to stop. This violated the Socratic Method and betrays what we're trying to do here. Logic MUST prevail. Emotional reactions betray logical thinking and reasoning.
Boom! Sucka!
TY, great comment.
Logic will prevail!
Yup, thanks for not thinking with your feelings. Time will tell.
Garbage.
"Did you change the salt to make a new trip code match the Q trip code?"
Doesn't matter, if you have access to the code you can make anything look like a legit Q post.
The only thing that proves legitimacy is Trump Q delta or something else that is impossible for a fake Q to predict.
End of story.
You mean Jim Watkins but yes great post and thank you.
Q knows there is confusion.
If Q doesn't address it meaningfully then people will (rightly) remain skeptical.
A one-minute delta is FREE. It literally costs nothing to Q in terms of time or effort to clear everyone's skepticism.
A delta necessarily requires proximity to the actual POTUS and also at such a time where they are either in a large crowd or otherwise not in a setting where they could be caught.
I'd say that Q couldn't just call Trump and say "Yo homeboy, I need you to get ready to post" because that would be caught and instantly implicate Trump in a time where they are trying to get him for literally anything.
We need a proof to re-instill trust, but it may also come with consequences that aren't outright free.
I Thought that was a reasonable theory.
So, little retard, you think that Trump isn't being watched or spied on at every opportunity and can just interact with members of the Q team through..what?
Telepathy?
Or maybe you're all in on Looking Glass?
Words don't exist for how ludicrously stupid you seem to be.
Imagine thinking Q calls up Trump on the phone to do a delta.
Imagine not understanding the requirements of proximity in order to actually perform that.
Telepathy is not a thing. There has to be some form of communication in order for Q and Trump to perform that.
How do you communicate without being caught over airwaves?
Drumroll please for the dumbass:
They have to be in direct proximity to each other, which can only be done where there is plausible deniability or everyone around him is in on it.
If Trump is on the golf course with a ton of media stalking him, how do you propose this is possible in the open without voiding opsec?
Such an idiot.
Say they do have to be in proximity, they don't have to do the delta at that exact moment, they can say "do it at this time". They don't need to be in a large crowd.
They still have to be able to communicate that time to each other, which they can't simply do over the phone or through texts.
Stealing this :)
The TL;DR: is that right now, the authenticity of Jim is called into question, and Q's trip code somehow didn't change when everyone else's changed.
TOR is also working, apparently, when it wasn't before and led to a unique situation convenient to a time with Q's first posts where others are using it.
Someone else did an attempt to imitate Q with a verification that isn't necessarily an acceptable delta (time zone fuckery made it hard to accurately check in the moment, especially since Truth Social not exactly easy to check without an account)
Q at this time referenced a past event and said to remember it like it hadn't happened yet (this Cassidy Hutchinson bullshit)
NewfakeorrealQ with the questionable delta called out Watkins, which rang a little weird on its own
But the discrepancies with NFORQ doesn't remove the suspicions from the original trip code with all of the circumstances around it, and a lot of us are taking a step back and waiting to see how this continues to develop.
It doesn't seem like Q would allow their trip to be falsely used and mislead people / damage or demoralize the movement by devaluing it with trolling etc., so there will probably be some new verification at some point.
The "B post" was a fraud post created by people who had access to the inner workings of 8kun. Why would anyone believe that removal of that particular bit of evidence constitutes "probable, to the point of certainty" proof of real Q?
That is the last post that any rational person should point to as proof of anything Q related, except for the fact that a Q post can be, and has been forged! And, personally I want to see that "B post" returned to the board as a permanent record of that fact.
The "B post" was our first warning that something fucky was going on. And now, several month later, we coincidently get this as "very probable, to the point of certainty* proof of Q? We need to expect, demand better proof.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, same on me."
First you would have to take into account the history surrounding the move from 4chan to 8 kun.
Then place the B post on that timeline.
Then consider what changes have been made, and their impact.
Now you are set to consider the vlaue of removing a b-post.
Unless their lives are at stake Q team trusted them to operate & run the platform l have zero tech skin in the game so I will leave it there..
Most of the normies I know that watched the HBO special about Q tend to think that Q is either Jim or Ron. After they see this, I think they're going to be convinced of that.
As for me, all of the techno stuff is so far over my head it's not even funny.
Explanations for why a certain post is made by Q or not Q/fake Q subverts the methodology of Q posts.
This is fake ass bullshit.
Makes clear that it would take an unfathomable amount of planning and time to pull this off
Only idiots who watched the HBO Q doc think the Watkins’ are Q.
I watched it but don’t think they are Q 😂
I watched it too. The ones that believe the doc are the idiots. Lol. I should have been more clear.
Note: this is relatively old, I think. Watkins said as much on a video message posted more than 24 hours ago.
Just wanna mention this, because the email pertains to the issue of why (presumed) Q's posts with the tripcode were NOT with a different tripcode when all other trips on the boards were changed.
It is not in relation to the recently emerged frucas of someone (else?) posting as Q but without the tripcode, alleging that the tripcode Q was fake, that Watkins had hijacked it and was larping as Q, etc.
That's an entirely different set of affairs that is subsequent to the matter that Watkins addresses here.
in case you missed it.
Here is a video of Jim Watkins talking about the B post last year, for reference.
https://prayingmedic.com/2021/05/30/jim-watkins-update-on-yesterdays-b-post/
Amusing that when his authenticity is called into question, everyone are "professional shills" for not believing him.
Timing alone has Q written all over it..and if it werent our side wouldn't be so chill and relaxed. 40,000 ft view needed. We are fully bootcamps so Q or not we dont need to prove it. Just keep doing what we do best. Watch dig research red pill. If someone bad breached...theyll get outted as fast as baby fist
I dunno but I gotta say, people like me can be easily manipulated by peppering me with phrases like salt rotation, TOR, IP addresses, trippity tryptophan tripcodes, etc. That's not to say that I read Jim's email and immediately popped over to twitter to announce that JFK Jr. is alive and well and running as VP with Trump. But still.
He IS?!?! OMFG I knew it
;)
A solid new proof would be a plus…