Topic: Is this Satoshi? Did he sign that message? (Read 1257 times)

Bitcoin is under attack. The worst attack in its entire history. I'm trying to bring consciusness around Full-RBF disadvantages. So why I'm here is a more pertinent question.

Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0
Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0.1
If you're running these, uninstall immediately!

Where is he?🤔 is you he?🤣

yes! Satoshi is back! Fear not, just Another whale. World's first and biggest hodler.

What problem does Full-RBF solves, if we already had optional RBF?

#NoFullRBF

Do not download V24

If you're running V24, uninstall immediately.

The simplest answer is that if Satoshi was back, and he signed messages on bitcointalk and shared it, I am sure that the whole world would be talking about it and that would be the way you will hear about it. You are not going to see a topic started about it, you are going to see news articles written about it and twitter going crazy about it, you wouldn't ask if it is him or not, you would see proof all around the world.

Those tells me that it's not, there is a way to do this, and that person did it, that is how you know it's a fake. I do not even have the talent to confirm or not based on signed message, and even with lack of that skill, I just used common sense to realize it's not.

lets address the RBF thing

if RBF becomes easy to achieve. then the trust of zero confirm on the bitcoin networks zero-confirm relay stage becomes obsolete in trusting as paid. unless:
you use non-taproot multisig.
  pre-consenting to tx signing,
  meaning they cant send something after. without signed consent
  (disclaimer avoid being part of a taproot multisig)
  (avoid alt, sub, sidenetwork without a consensus feature when signing)
or
if value is negligible
   and you do not care to lose value should they change, take a chance.
or
   you have to wait for atleast a few confirms to then trust you got paid..

its all a salepitch game for a altnetwork fangirl team
remove a feature or security from bitcoin to make another network look more appealing. even if the altnetwork they promote still is broke in many ways

There's a reason why they released Full-RBF in a market low.

There's a reason why Onesignature signed that message afterwards.

Onesignature is not self promoting, Full-RBF is an attack.

This is so frustrating. Open your eyes!

usernames{casinotester0001, OneSignature, cryptoGPU, illusivereserve}
are all one guy using alt accounts,  self promoting using alt accounts
and then making several topics of the same pre-emptive advert for a ICO/new network scheme.. and then sending the links to crap coin media outlets to promote him further.

he should stop and find a better use of his time. this is getting ridiculous now
im starting to smell the same games as bitcoinmoses

1MDAvctRaTDE5b6GgZy6tB8jXtJFR1UQjJ

A lovely present!

Special.

Being off-topic is not a concern when there's an important message to be delivered:


I'm trying to bring your attention upon this very delicate topic:

Full-RBF was deliberately included on Core V24.0 without reaching consensus.

It opens a door to centralization under Blockstream: Bitcoin is not Lightning. Lighting is a L2 solution for scalability of micropayments. Bitcoin L1 is the settlement layer.

Full-RBF solves NO problem: RBF already existed, there was no reason for Full-RBF to be deployed.

Full-RBF enables ANY transaction to be double spendable, any honest transaction could be replaced by a malicious higher fee one. This could result in censorship, seizure of funds by an state actor or theft.

#NoFullRBF

Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0

If your are running V24.0 Uninstall immediately! 

Security must not be compromised in favor of UX, Scalability, or any other reason unrelated to Bitcoin's value itself.

It is also possible that these ~6 mining machines are the group Satoshi.

saves repeating myself over several topics made by the same guy

TL:Dr;  .. not satoshi but one of the 6 other people mining that day that were not satoshi

In other words, you are completely off-topic.  I had speculated that maybe there might be some attempt at a connection with the topic of this thread, but you have none.

I'm trying to bring your attention upon this very delicate topic:

Full-RBF was deliberately included on Core V24.0 without reaching consensus.

It opens a door to centralization under Blockstream: Bitcoin is not Lightning. Lighting is a L2 solution for scalability of micropayments. Bitcoin L1 is the settlement layer.

Full-RBF solves NO problem: RBF already existed, there was no reason for Full-RBF to be deployed.

Full-RBF enables ANY transaction to be double spendable, any honest transaction could be replaced by a malicious higher fee one. This could result in censorship, seizure of funds by an state actor or theft.

#NoFullRBF

Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0

If your are runing V24.0 Uninstall immediately!  

this whole subject of this topic is not actually about "satoshi". as earlier concluded

the other topic, which this topic mentions was a sneaky preview teaser to a intro of an ICO campaign advert. pretending that the ICO was selling the rights to the 2009 address. but as seen in the 3 topics now of the same topic creator.. its a flawed design token which solves no purpose has no function and doesnt actually change ownership rights or control of the 2009 address.

its a silly "chain letter" game thats descendants dont get anything of the january 2009 address and only get a autograph from a parent that taints back to the january address but isnt the january address at the child level
EG
stacey is not getting anything from dave.. stacey only has a "name" association with jeff. what stacey gets to "sell" is the quote from jeff.. and thats it.

dave keeps control of the dave key. and dave can make other chains which the void value in the first chain letter game

I am not sure regarding the point that you are making here. 

Are you trying to get an answer from a specific person? 

Do you consider that someone who presented a signed message from January 2009 potentially has a better answer to a substantive current event question, merely because s/he has potentially been in bitcoin longer, if that were to be given weight by the presentation of such signature?

Are you trying to subtly suggest that such person who signed a January 2009 message might be satoshi or close to satoshi..? which also seems a wee bit ridiculous as Greg had already pointed out... or perhaps you are spreading misinformation by making insinuations and seeming appeals to authority?

1. Let the author answer that question.

2. That could be the reason why the author didn't signed as you proposed on #1.

3. I'm not saying 0-conf or any other type of transaction on the mempool are to be trusted as confirmed transactions. No one thinks they should. (Yes, Full-RBF is a threat)

4. Agree.

It doesn't matter if it is disabled by default ir not. (I think it is)

The point of this message here, is precisely for you and others to care.

1. Then why isn't that point clearly stated inside the signed message?
2. Should we just blindly follow instructions from an address for which we don't even know the owner? My guess is that most people here are able to make their own mind.
3. Zero-conf transactions are not secure. Confirmed ones are. It's that simple, and has always been. People not taking this into consideration do it at their own risk. (Although FullRBF indeed makes the risk bigger for unconfirmed txs, the previous statement remains true. I can understand that you don't agree with this, but this is not the place for debating it, and you didn't give any substancial argument.)
4. If you need fast and secure payments for small amounts, there's Lightning.
Also, isn't FullRBF disabled by default (opt-in) in Core 0.24? I'm not sure about that one, though.

I'm not necessarily defending FullRBF, I don't really mind. Just showing your lack of discernment.

Anyway, that's off-topic since there's no clear link between the FullRBF controversy and the signed message.

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.

No, this 'NFT' is a bit different but it works. Again, read the 'how it works' https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/old-bitcoin-addresses-as-nft-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-signature-chain-5425241
The idea behind that is a 'signature transfer chain' that can only work if the private key holder/owner of the initial address signs a 'transfer message'.
Thereafter the initial owner can't sign a valid transfer message (we won't accept it as valid) as the 'transfer transaction' to the new owner will indicate the transfer of ownership.
So there will be exactly one owner at a given time who owns it and can transfer it.

the quote in that topic post says about turn THAT ADDRESS into an NFT and SELL IT

meaning you selling the privkey to the 2009 address..

but you dont want to. and if you could you cant do that.. so game over its not an NFT system
thinking someones  random address created in 2022 thats mentioned in some love letter chain thats leads back to some celebrity autograph has value.. has no value

please check the project 'how it works'
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/old-bitcoin-addresses-as-nft-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-signature-chain-5425241
updated it
it works

but the new owner. does not own the original address AS YOU CLEARLY SAY

so here is a thing that you should learn. "not your key not your asset"

because you cannot ensure only the new owner has the key to the original item. means that buyer does not own the original item

you are not inventing a NFT system of owning the original item and transfering ownership of that item.. .. you not even inventing an autograph system where people own autograph's of celebrity /historic item..
the autographs are not the original. nor signed by the original signer

its like if someone owns an elvis autograph including the pen that signed it.. pretending it proves they are elvis.
but they are not selling that autograph or selling elvis's pen

they are letting the buyer write his own signatures that are not even any longer saying "elvis" in the scribbles

plus there is no way to limit who and how many you sell a autograph YOU created

thus VALUELESS

what you are creating is a "chain love letter" system

elvis wrote in 1969 "i love casinos" signed ELVIS
casinos wrote in 2022 "i love onesigcasinos" signed casons

the signature or ability to sign onesig now has.. has no value. as it has nothing controlling/ownership of anything elvis

No, the holder/owner of the private key will not sell their private key or give it to someone else.

The ownership transfer will work through a 'transfer signature' that will be signed by the holder/owner of the address.
The message in the signature will contain the address of the new owner, but the new owner won't have the private key of the old owner's address.

Started a new thread
old Bitcoin addresses as 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/old-bitcoin-addresses-as-nft-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-signature-chain-5425241

franky1, give it time. Then you will know that it is a 'good' project.

btw, you did forget that I'm also user yhiaali3 who suggested to make NFTs out of it  


I'm not.

in the original topic.. it was casinotester that started that other topic.

his game is he likes to BUY old addresses(used private keys).

general opinion is he wanted people to publish so that he can seek them out to buy those private keys from them..

so now he is trying to be subtle about converting them into some NFT thing. which basically means he then wants to sell those privkeys to someone else..

in short he is a private key broker

..
here is the problem selling a private key is the same as giving more people access to the private key.

NFT dont work that way

the (hash) of an NFT is transfered to different peoples key. so that no one has access to the private keys thus there is no spread of key holders.

..
what casino wants to do however. is sell you a private key.. knowing he gets to keep the key to sell it again to someone else so that more people all use the key and no one really owns the it out-right because too many people have access to sign with it

as for the other usernam "one signature" i believe that its an alt account of casino tester. and he bought a private key previously and is just showing off a signature to spark social drama/gossip for free advertising in the hope others would have also signed and published so he can sales call on those people

It's not about finding Satoshi. The question came up as the (OP) mentioned signature has been created with a very old key that has been used in January 2009. Now there is a new theory that they are testing an 'NFT' like ownership transfer of old (empty) Bitcoin addresses.

I am not sure why there is much urge about finding Satoshi at all? He literally invented the whole blockchain thingie so that he can live in peace without any disturbance from the worlds centralised banking system. He might be thinking right now "What I have done?" sitting in the park and watching hundreds of news in the new paper about people claiming they are satoshi and about the news where there is hunt for Mr. Satoshi.

Oh man, poor he!! By creating such discussion we are actually disrupting the whole meaning of privacy for Satoshi.

FYI, who knows he might be still active and reading the threads anonymously / as guest just to keep safe distance. Lolz.

Can you generate a legacy Bitcoin address (starting with 1..) and post it here? I want to try this 'NFT' idea with old Bitcoin addresses. 

Is possible too, and they're creating a new market.

Is that the ownership transfer of such signatures? (signature chain)

Someone may want to convert old BTC addresses into NFT and sell them for large amounts later, this idea may achieve great profits after 10 years have passed, as these old addresses become of archaeological value as they are old Bitcoin addresses.
In this case, it does not matter whether you own the private key or not, because this address will not be used to send or receive bitcoins, but only as an NFT.

But don't do this with the private key/signature of the OP mentioned address.

These in Januray 2009 mined coins were transferred in 2011 (txid 567a9a7f9191db644a09985fad113dd6ee770eac69454317430e694305be9c56) with several other very early mined coins. So whoever created that transaction, has the private keys of other very early addresses too. And some addresses you can find here:



source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satoshi-nakamotos-neighbor-the-bitcoin-ghostwriter-who-wasnt/


Who can explain?  

I'd tell them screenshots can be faked, and prove nothing. Instead, I'd send them a signed message, printed on paper for their inconvenience.

My oldest transaction is from 7.5 years ago. And I'm not going to dig up old backups of Android Bitcoin Wallet (Schildbach) to find the exact transaction.

Yes, could be. But in this case we have a very old address, maybe the oldest. LoyceV, you are an experienced bitcointalk member. What was the oldest signature you've seen?

Looks like I am one of those who fell for the clickbait 

That part about taxes is not very logical to me[/quote]

This finally makes sense to me as I was wondering why anyone would want to buy a wallet they can't use other than to sign messages or stupidly keep funds the original owner can access.

I don't know if proving it came from capital gains will require this kind of proof though, most bankers will still ask for screenshots of transactions from your email or exchange in those dates, not signing. I say this from exchange requests asking to show where it came from.

It's not perfect, but I don't have a better explanation either.

"Well, this is how the story went: I sold it for Monero back in 2014, and recently bought Bitcoin again. That guy who bought the address on Bitcointalk isn't me, I'm the one who sold it. After all, that's not illegal, right?".....
If this story works? Who knows. But it sounds better than: "Well, you're right, I'm a hardened criminal who belongs in jail".....

For example to claim other coins.

But in our case here, it has nothing to do with claims. This pivate key that has been used to sign that massage is one of the oldest, maybe the oldest that exist.

Why would anyone want to buy a bitcoin address?

If I have the private key, I can empty the account before giving it to someone.  If I don't, I cannot do anything with it but look at its transaction history.
Edit:  And send coins there.

I am not sure.


Maybe true and nobody else can sign with a key of an older address. This would be true if they own all older keys.

Yes, I didn't get that too. But read this thread: Who has/had the oldest mined Bitcoin? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/who-hashad-the-oldest-mined-bitcoin-5421158 ... it's getting interesting 

I noticed. I don't know what the significance is, though.

It doesn't prove much except that OneSignature was able to obtain (or create) two signed messages, and that the signer of the first message was aware of the address used to sign the second.

It would not be unreasonable to assume that OneSignature mined block 1018 (as well as many others) unless something important is at stake, but that does not make them Satoshi.

Guys did seriously no one notice that the guy you're talking about went and signed yet another message within this thread?

That part about taxes is not very logical to me, unless the tax office is very inexperienced and naive to believe such a story. If I sign a message from a BTC address that is, say, from 2012 and show it as proof to my tax office, if someone there is intelligent, they will look for a history of transactions that will connect the sold BTC with that address - or they will ask me to transfer part of the funds to that address. That would not be very smart, because those who sell such old private keys surely try to sell the same key more than once, which can put the owners in very unpleasant situations.

Maybe it's just to show here that nobody will answer and sell a very old address/key.

5 years ago someone wanted to buy old addresses/keys (older than 2015) and got offers but none from 2009-2010:

Not all early miners are rich by now, so if you hold some old (and by now useless) private keys, an offer could be attractive.
For the buyers, I always assume it has to do with taxes. "Proving" you owned Bitcoins a long time ago, and your current riches really came from capital gains and not crime. Or just bragging rights, but it seems like cheating if you bought the empty address.

That's not an old address. Are you using this thread for advertising? If so, you should post in Digital Goods.

Many people.  But most early bitcoiners aren't out shouting from the roofs and courting inviting kidnappers or frivolous legal attacks.  Most people with access to very old keys aren't blowing that access on silly Bitcoin talk bragging threads.  Just thinking anything very earlier in Bitcoin is related to Satoshi is a profound failure of both imagination and research.

Maybe they were not interested anymore and wanted to get few bucks by selling it? And you would already know that some degens here do buy worthless nfts for millions of dollars so one of them must have also bought the old address for their own fun, so they can troll others they are the brother/friend of satoshi lol..
Signature verified! Your wallet got 0.1 BTC final balance,  Are you selling your keys too? (just joking ,lmao)

Message:
who sells for 1,000 $ their old empty address (block 1 - 2000)?
validity: 29/Nov/2022 - 01/Dec/2022 0000 UTC

Address:
1FxoVMjdp6ey3wzU7E9ddrFjYhLwZm3QWk

Signature:
IJ6Mypx8nYHOl1CLFKCiLGjANS3L1PuJaVVkS0ydxSh0a+K2pK7RsDockbbeyNlWWdly6SzIOXXKbrBjbRVuvyA=

That means somebody still has the private key and can sign messages. The post above proves that too. But it is amazing that it is a January-2009 address/key. If someone can post a signature with an old key (block 1 - 2000) that's great. I don't think that the address/key was sold/bought because there's no reason for these first miners to do it.

signature chain 

Yes, there are threads selling old addresses, especially 2013-2014 addresses.
People buying old Bitcoin wallet addresses https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/people-buying-old-bitcoin-wallet-addresses-2893269
Wanting To Buy Old Bitcoin Addresses https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wanting-to-buy-old-bitcoin-addresses-5-per-address-2433836
Looking to buy old and empty Bitcoin wallet address'es https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/looking-to-buy-old-and-empty-bitcoin-wallet-addresses-5168025
Selling old bitcoin wallet https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/selling-old-bitcoin-wallet-5123987
Buying old BTC, LTC and DOGE wallets! https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wtb-buying-old-btc-ltc-and-doge-wallets-automated-site-freebitcoinscom-1177746

But no 2009-2010 addresses found.

And this address is not old, it is veryveryold. How many people mined 2 weeks after Bitcoin was released? I expected that Satoshi had the most mined blocks, so it would be very likely that it is Satoshi. Do you think that this miner sold his address now, 13 years later? And I don't think that Satoshi would sell addresses.

That message signing protocol wasn't invented back then so it couldn't have been signed then.

Many old keys have been sold or leaked, particularly once they've become worthless.  There have been numerous threads on BCT offering to buy old keys.  That address was swept in 2011, somewhat after signmessage was created.

I wouldn't make a substantial bet on the author of the signmessage being the miner of the block.

Invoking "satoshi" is just clickbait, shame on you.

In this thread "Who has/had the oldest mined Bitcoin?" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/who-hashad-the-oldest-mined-bitcoin-5421158 someone posted that signature:


As signatures don't have timestamps, it is possible that this signature was created back then. I searched the net the whole day, couldn't find an answer. I know someone posted here on bitcointalk years ago, that he mined block ~2000-3000 and that was the oldest mined block mentioned here.

The signature above was created with an older key (address was used in January 2009). Could it be Satoshi? Did he sign that message?