[SOLD] 2 Casascius Coins for less than $4

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: sublime5447 on October 25, 2014, 09:58:05 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 06:25:29 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on October 25, 2014, 05:32:46 PM

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?

The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 05:46:38 PM

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?

The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?

"How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't." If I can send from the wallet I am the owner. Am I missing something? if you can send from the wallet you are the owner of that wallet. I mean shit Huh

There is no way to prove a transaction came from a given wallet.
Also, wallets may have many users, not just a single owner.

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 06:25:29 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on October 25, 2014, 05:32:46 PM

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?

The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 05:46:38 PM

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?

The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?

"How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't." If I can send from the wallet I am the owner. Am I missing something? if you can send from the wallet you are the owner of that wallet. I mean shit Huh

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 06:25:29 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on October 25, 2014, 05:32:46 PM

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?

The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 05:46:38 PM

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?

The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?

Luke-Jr's moron hacker continues... we all know Luke is way too fucking intelligent to make a false analogy that equates to people "shouldn't need to know what..." an engine, an air compressor, a navigational computer, or DNA "...is".

We get it dude, in your world, people "shouldn't need to know" anything about anything and be willfully ignorant instead. Now take your own medicine and enjoy being on my ignore list.

johnniewalker

legendary

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 06:25:29 PM

Quote from: sublime5447 on October 25, 2014, 05:32:46 PM

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?

The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 05:46:38 PM

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?

The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?

users of cows? Huh

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: sublime5447 on October 25, 2014, 05:32:46 PM

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?

The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 05:46:38 PM

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?

The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 05:14:33 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 04:56:54 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 04:53:59 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 04:32:47 PM

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?

The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug.

tl;dr You don't know the first thing about Bitcoin, but want to pretend you do and encourage others to do things unsafe.

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?

sublime5447

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 05:14:33 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 04:56:54 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 04:53:59 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 04:32:47 PM

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?

The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug.

tl;dr You don't know the first thing about Bitcoin, but want to pretend you do and encourage others to do things unsafe.

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 04:56:54 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 04:53:59 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 04:32:47 PM

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?

The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug.

tl;dr You don't know the first thing about Bitcoin, but want to pretend you do and encourage others to do things unsafe.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 04:53:59 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 04:32:47 PM

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?

The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: TheButterZone on October 25, 2014, 04:32:47 PM

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?

The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 03:51:29 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on October 25, 2014, 06:11:53 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 03:29:53 AM

By the way, I'm the person who wrote the sign message functionality you're talking about...

lol, it's hard to argue with that, but perhaps instead of being a dick, you might take a minute to educate people -- in particular, why they can't assume that someone signing with the address in an output referenced by the input was the sender.

Because that output has nothing to do with the transaction you sent me.
If it doesn't coincidentally happen to be an address I own, I cannot sign a message with it.
On the other hand, someone else can sign a message with it.

For example, you can't sign it if you sent the bitcoins from Coinbase or an exchange account, or through a mixer -- but someone else can.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: odolvlobo on October 25, 2014, 06:11:53 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 03:29:53 AM

By the way, I'm the person who wrote the sign message functionality you're talking about...

lol, it's hard to argue with that, but perhaps instead of being a dick, you might take a minute to educate people -- in particular, why they can't assume that someone signing with the address in an output referenced by the input was the sender.

Because that output has nothing to do with the transaction you sent me.
If it doesn't coincidentally happen to be an address I own, I cannot sign a message with it.
On the other hand, someone else can sign a message with it.

Quote from: qwk on October 25, 2014, 06:17:43 AM

Seriously though, if I send 1 BTC from my wallet to your address, and then I send you a message
"I sent 1 BTC from my address 1aaa to your address 1bbb, here's the link to transaction txccc"
and I sign that message with address 1aaa,
how in the world does that not prove that I actually sent you that 1 BTC?

You didn't send 1 BTC from your address 1aaa to my address 1bbb. You sent 1 BTC to my address 1bbb - there is no "from address" at all.

cxboyminer

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 500

This thread has done its job. Everyone can kindly stfu *cough... luke-jr...cough*

qwk

donator

Activity: 3542

Merit: 3413

Shitcoin Minimalist

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 03:29:53 AM

By the way, I'm the person who wrote the sign message functionality you're talking about...

Seriously though, if I send 1 BTC from my wallet to your address, and then I send you a message
"I sent 1 BTC from my address 1aaa to your address 1bbb, here's the link to transaction txccc"
and I sign that message with address 1aaa,
how in the world does that not prove that I actually sent you that 1 BTC?

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 03:29:53 AM

By the way, I'm the person who wrote the sign message functionality you're talking about...

lol, it's hard to argue with that, but perhaps instead of being a dick, you might take a minute to educate people -- in particular, why they can't assume that someone signing with the address in an output referenced by the input was the sender.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

By the way, I'm the person who wrote the sign message functionality you're talking about...

johnniewalker

legendary

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

SOLD!

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: miffman on October 25, 2014, 03:15:37 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 03:08:04 AM

Quote from: miffman on October 25, 2014, 03:02:56 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on October 25, 2014, 02:49:44 AM

Quote from: miffman on October 25, 2014, 02:44:02 AM

Dude, calm down lol. The person who sent the coins sends him a signed message with the address and that's it. Problem solved.

There are only signed messages proving you are the receiver, nothing for proving you're the sender.

I can send coins to you and sign a message with my address.

Your address has nothing to do with you sending me coins...

Are we talking about the same type of address here? Grin

lol. You will see my address in your transactions. Then I'll sign a message. I proved that I own the address's private key.

The only address on the transaction would be my address.
(And maybe a change address for the wallet controlling the funds, but that doesn't identify a sender either.)

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

So funny how Luke-jr wants to make this out to be a big deal when really he should have done this with Butterfly Labs. We all know how that turned out. lol Roll Eyes

Topic: [SOLD] 2 Casascius Coins for less than $4 (Read 2057 times)