Topic: Is this Satoshi? Did he sign that message? - page 2. (Read 1255 times)

This message was signed to call your attention.


Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0

If you're already running this version, please uninstall.

FULL-RBF Is an attack to Bitcoin's security, it makes every transaction double spendable.

I think OneSignature didn't claimed that he/she singed the message, it says "This is the oldest signature" and yeah may be it is the oldest signature.

How about signing a message with current date?

Edit:
My bad he added the latest bitcoin address 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa in the message, which proves message is singed recently. No need to add dates.

---

Craig Wright... you never know... people are fools.

Ah you again.  The guilty always comes back to watch the crime scene they created.

"Signature chain" isn't a thing.  It just means you can't sign a recent blockhash so you do not own any old addresses, you are just reposting old signatures you saw somewhere.

firstly in NFT. the hash is a rpresentation of the product. its an ID. and that hash stays the same and is passed on. meaning the ID is passed on

your signatures are using different ID's all the time. meaning the person 1,2,3,4,5 signature taint descendants. is not getting OWNERSHIP of an id because the message has nothing to do with source/genesis id.

plus the provenance can be broken easily

also. from a value prospective. what stacey gets is of no value.

also apart from trying to pretend you are selling a genesis of sigchain to descendants(which is not actually happening) your not even able to prevent the genesis creator from creating more genesis's
thus breaking any value of the whole network
..

however if you had some kind of reputation system. where each persons reputation could be quantified and given a value then that could reciprocate down to give other people some rep value.

but your system does none of that. it solves no purpose or has no function and gives no true ownership. thus it has no value within the signature messages. nor as a whole system value.

in short you are trying to create a altcoin with no function or value promise... so try to think of a whole different idea completely

Yes, with this 'signature chain' you don't hand over the initial private key. And this is maybe something that will support that project.

As NFT started, people told that NFTs are worthless, because you don't transfer the file with the ownership (instead only a hash). But we've seen the hype after it was introduced. So in the case of 'signature chain', I don't know what will happen 

Many people dont even understand bitcoin, how would they trust a signed message. This is something very bitcoin specific and is not possible with a normal bank account or anything else. I think we need 20 more years for stuff like this.

I actually suggested this method once, but there were 2 problems. Firstly, the customer support didn't understand what this was lol and that made it all useless. Secondly, I admit I didn't know how to sign a message from my other non BTC wallets. MetaMask for Ethereum didn't have this option, not to mention dogecoin and others I kept on multicrypto wallets (yes I know I'm dumb with shitcoins).

again you are not handing over ownership becasue the receiver doesnt have the key to sign using the base address you pretend that they get to own


separately

im not talking about for instance jeff signing to stacey and jeff also signs to audrey for jeff to "fork" the network several 'blocks' down your chain

im talking about elvis(genesis owner) who signed to onesignature and to franky+2012 timestamp.. so that there are 2 different genesis's(block 0's)

where by the franks first block becomes the prime chain because the onesignature first block seems to be newer by not having a 2012 presumed linkage of provenance from elvis
..
but the problems still remain. there is no value in buying or trading an autograph that is not even elvises handwritten name to one of his fans
(im subtly hinting a fix for you(include date in signed message to help ensure if there was duplicates signed messages from same sender. only earliest date stays on chain*) while also pointing out a flaw of the big picture)

*technically not a fix. but just stepping a flaw out of a flaw of flaws(one less snowball roll of an avalanche of snowballs)
..
as for the big picture of will your network as a whole be of value to other people. does it have any utility.. thus will the 'blocks' /proof' be of value.. to people that are not you..


again you love letter chain is not elvis signing new love letters to give value to that love letter to a new holder.. its where you are having
elvis generate(genesis) a love letter to onesig.
and its then one sig that writes a love letter to emily
and its emily that writes a love letter to jeff
and its jeff that writes a love letter to stacey

the value of someone seeing a love letter between:
onesig to emily. has less/no value than the one between elvis and onesig
emily to jeff. has even less/no value than between onesig to emily
jeff to stacey. has even less/no value than between emily to jeff.
jeff and stacey.. is not as valuable as a love letter from elvis to stacey..

stacey does not have and will not get a love letter from elvis. so stacey has nothing of good value to sell on


i know what your chain is trying to do. i read it and understand your premiss of design.. but you have to look at the value from the prospective of other users looking at what your chain actualy gives them.

so one last time

imagine your own family
imagine your grandmother got elvises autograph in 1960's

in the 1980's your grandma signed a birthday card to your mother
in 2000 your mother signed a birthday card to you.
and in 2020 you signed a birthday card to your daughter

the story is that your daughter owns some linkage to your granda, (daughters great grandma) meeting elvis .. but its a story. your daughters birthday card is not a elvis autograph.

yes you can pull out the draw all the autographs so show a chain..
but what your daughter holds/owns is not elvises autograph. its YOUR auto graph that has les value, if any

do you really think that your future grand daughter would buy her moms birthday card. of just inherit it and stick it in the draw with the other cards and just look at for interests sake

think about what your daughter is getting an does what she get have any elvis value. or just daddy love value

What you're doing here is creating a fork of our 'signature chain'. It's like a Bitcoin fork. Our 'signature chain' won't accept your signatures + transactions.

For example here:



we have a signature that 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa transfers the 'signature ownership' to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

then we have a Bitcoin transfer from 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
txid 16bb6761cc8d7d393d25a88ec589361c1f0461a9c138ecc2333b0736efe488de

only 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7 can transfer that 'signature chain'
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

How can the initial owner transfer it or create another signature (to a different address) that is valid?

but your signature chain. is not moving coin. its moving address notifications

which have no value/utility outside your chain

also. nothing stops them making many signatures at genesis creator level. thus if there was some modicum of value in signature chain 1.. guess what. that gets diluted instantly

especially if i started a signature chain that has a 2012 timestamp included thus i steal provenance from your 2022 chain making your 2022 useless

Yes, the initial owner can sign a message (to a different address) + send Bitcoin to this address
The blockchain will 'store' it.
But we will see that there is a previous message + transaction to a different address and wouldn't accept it in our 'signature chain'.
A 'signature chain explorer' would know this 'agreements'.

its not.. because previous owner is not PREVENTED from signing to someone else (duplicating ownership) via a different chain

thus if original creator/signer created another signature chain it immediately dilutes the value of the first chain

you are not seeing the limit and lack of limitation of your scheme

play your scheme out in scenarios.. not just "best use practice" but also in ways of abuser

do the white and blackhat strategy. play the hero and villain. actually bash your scheme out a bit and really test if for its vulnerabilities.

hint: the signature message of onesigner doing

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfjHCsBcgB
+Wcm8kOGMH8IpNeg0H4gjCrlqwDf
/GlSXphZGBYxm0QkKEPhh9DTJRp2IDNUhVr0FhP9qCqo2W0recNM=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

does not have a timestamp in the message

meaning last month he could have done that signatire to 1E9Yw...
but same day also signed 1franky address, BUT included a timestanp to sign it to me in the now presumed 2012
meaning

yes he published that in 2022 its presumed 1E9Yw.. now has provenance of 1NChf.. but a singed message with a 2012 holds more weight than one without a date in the message

my signed message i hold dated 2012, then can debunk "onesignatures" provenance. because mine is signed with a 2012 date. meaning the 2022 is the false provenance. making your whole network not the best network of provenance from the original address of 2009

Exactly, you got it. The new owner will never know the private key of the previous owner, but the previous owner proved by signing the massege + transferring Bitcoin to the new owner that they are willing to transfer the 'ownership' to the new owner.

It is something new, but it works 

bitcoin transfers ownership of the coin by moving the coin.. whereby previous owner cannot then control the coin. which gives that COIN its value due to the security that the coin cant be removed or duplicated

bitcoin is not about owning the previous address. bitcoin has its own unique values

bitcoins coin value is not about its taint coming from a famous person.
yes there are values(sentiments) that the taint proves its creation, but also which cant be messed with by that creator.

where the premium of selling comes from the other utilities/features of bitcoin and where even when there might be a cheaper way to acquire coin outside the market(mining) even mining has a bottom cost which supports its value thus when people pay a premium ontop of value for convenience of getting it quick on an exchange instead of mining. that price has purpose and sentiment supporting it and underlying cost supporting it

however
this scheme casino is trying to promote is owning something that proves chain of custody (provenance) of a elvis autograph.. without the end signaturee actually owning a elvis autograph

jeffs girlfriend only gets a letter signed by jeff.. thus no correlation of value transfer of elvis's autograph

Note that Bitcoin itself is based on the this concept. When you transfer bitcoins you are simply extending a signature chain.

However, the system proposed here has a problem shared with NFTs -- the system transfers only an abstract notion of ownership. It doesn't have the ability to transfer full ownership, by which I mean all of the capabilities, rights, and responsibilities commonly inferred by that term.

Specifically this:

i did read your explanations but i am happily not stuck in your narrow field box of your signature chain. i can see the big picture

so lets word this another way.
years ago people tried to envision a reputation system

they start a chain. where a reputible user has 1000coins to represent 100% reputation.
they sell/give that reputation to someone else declaring they 100% trust this second user.
the second user sells/gives that 1000 coin to someone, saying that they trust the 3rd users

where its MEANT to represent that trusting 3rd user is as good as trusting the first reputable user

however
the 3rd person has no control or relationship with first user..
so its fake rep already. the first user doesnt even know third user
so thats already broken the value proposition of worth of those 1000coins. as the 1000coins do not represent first users rep status anymore

also nothing stops first user putting another 1000coins into his address and setting up another chain system
which then dilutes the first chain down to half as much trust of whatever small modicum of trust that first 1000 now represents

third user of chain 1 cant stop first user from diluting that trust (ccant stop more coin going into another chain)

thus it destroys what the first chain systems purpose meant to achieve and makes it as a whole system valueless as it is not unique/enforced/true trust ownership transfer system

..
also
your system is not a ownership transfer system. nor a trust system.. it a chain letter system.. thus no underlying value to begin with

YOU ARE NOT TRANSFERING OWNERSHIP

your signature chain is not transfering ownership.
(we both agree on that..(its not transfering the original privkey))

its transfering signed love letters

the owner of 1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj can still outside your  signature chain.. do many things. like spend value with someone else and create other chains or do lots of things.

(imagining the real elvis was still alive or the person that signed the original elvis autograph)
jeff has no control over elvis to stop elvis from signing to other people outside your chain letter game

thus your chain letter game has no UNIQUE value

thus its a moot point to pretend jeffs signing in jeffs name to some other girl that he loves her. has nothing to do with owning elvises estate. cause your love letter game is not about selling off elvises estate

jeffs new girlfriend is not earning anything from jeff. she doesnt get elvises estate in a future divorce nor gets to own elvises property while in a relationship with jeff

all she has is a love letter from someone that got a love letter from some who got a autograph from someone that owns the estate of elvis

which for jeffs GF has no value in the love letter

franky1, you didn't read the 'how it works'   https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/old-bitcoin-addresses-as-nft-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-signature-chain-5425241

to transfer the ownership there must be a 'transfer signature' + a 'transfer transaction'

the only transfer within that project that is valid without a 'transfer transaction' is


that is our 'block 0' by definition (like Bitcoin block 0, we have an input hash by definition)

the next transfer 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7


isn't valid too, because there is no 'transfer transaction' from 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

but if 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa sends coins to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7 then 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7 will become the new owner of this 'signature chain'
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj to
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa to
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

and if 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa creates thereafter (transaction is on the blockchain) nobody will accept it
so only 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7 can transfer this 'signature chain'

wrong
because "onesignature" for example signed that

1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
now belongs to
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa

and then
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
signed that it now belongs to
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
.. in your mind.. right?

however..

NOTHING stops the owner of the original
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
from signing to someone else

also the value of getting your address signed by
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
has not the same value as seeing your address signed by
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj

..
like i said before
imagine elvis is: 1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj

and signed "i love stacey" 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
and stacy signed "i love jeff 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

jeffs autograph is not as important as a real signature from elvis to you

no one wants jeff. and jeff has not signature from elvis himself

..
now here is one other thing.
altough this scenario is suggesting that in 2022 elvis signed a the first chain letter to stacey. we all know elvis is dead. so the autograph to stay has less value because we dont know if it was actually elvis signing it or someone just using his pen..

and again.. you are not even selling elvisis pen(privkey) you are just letting jeff sell a chain letter of love to someone.