For this statement to make sense, the reader would need to assume that I think I'm the only one who didn't know this. Since I stated I didn't know this in my actual post, and since I assume you read it, I honestly wonder what motivated you to post this. If you're trying to take me down a peg, it makes no sense since I stated I didn't know. If you're trying to remind me that I didn't know and others did, well, the article that I literally commented on wouldn't exist if that was false. So again, why did you say this?
I think you're overcomplicating things. This is not some personal attack, nor it "only makes sense" if the reader assumes that "that [you] think [you're] the only one who didn't know this".
I'll break my intent down to excruciating detail:
Your comment can be understood as a strong claim that you one can't make a forgery by adjusting for such detections (as the grantparent suggested), because there would be "10 other techniques we don't know about", and to support this you give the case of you not knowing about this technique as an example.
In short, I read it as "Since this existed and I didn't know about it, who knows how many other such techniques are in use that people don't know about. One can't make a forgery then, because he'd run afoul of one he doesn't know about".
Well, my point was that it's not like those techniques are some "industry secret" that nobody outside a select group can know about. They're still publicly available information (like this was). They're just unknown to most who didn't have reason to give this space much thought or researched it (like most nonetheless common practices in any field which laymen won't typically know about, but can always find out).
So, to sum this up, I read your claim to the parent as "you'll always miss some techniques, as you can't know them all, like I didn't know about this one", and my claim is "nah, you can pretty much find what all techniques in use are".
