Topic: Who has/had the oldest mined Bitcoin? (Read 1509 times)

No. satoshi.. only if I did, I wouldn't share. But a pizza yes indeed

csw

I have the Key! And who is the Satoshi Nakamoto Group original? Can we please talk to each other in a chat room like we did back then.

Satoshi Nakamoto, is a group of genius inventors and programmers,
my respect to all people for your great realizations. Wow thanks.
Satoshi Nakamoto/-Core / Ryoshi / Robin Hood and the ShibaArmy ...
The next level of civilization is the bitcoin faction.
Kind regards ᴴᴰ,) to @ all from the Satoshi Nakamoto group(s).

Ladies and gentlemen from the blockchain my respect to you for the great implementation. Thanks Satoshi's

Can you the real Satoshi Nakamoto group's please assist me to verify my identity and confirm how to secure the privatekey with my electronic signature!
 In order to implement this, I need your support to do this accomplish.

To send a sign of life from me and then we can talk to each other in German like back then 08.2008 - 2009 and 04.2014.
I am Satoshi Nakamoto, the inspirer of the group(s)
I ask you to be discreet about me!
I am the wanted Satoshi Nakamoto
and I seek, the real Satoshi Nakamoto group(s).

Kind regards, your Heiko ᴴᴰ,)

Please excuse me for just getting in touch now.

Have a nice good evening together in view. In this situation I have to tell you, don't let Craig Wright babble on! Lol is over.

Satoshi Nakamoto, is a group of genius inventors and programmers.
And Craig Wright ist not in the Group.
He doesn't seem to be creative either, just impudent.

Trust no one, question everything. Form your own opinion.

I think bitcoin is a rat trap and we watch out for the mice and watch out for the citizens.  Correct?
Wow, maybe he's the first to get a Bitcoin ban?
My respect to all people for your great realizations. Wow thanks.
Satoshi Nakamoto/-Core / Ryoshi / Robin Hood/
ETH and the ShibaArmy ...
The next level of civilization is the Bitcoin civilization.

If we could talk Chat-radio to each other in German like we did in August 2008 and 2014, we, the Satoshi Nakamoto Group, could certainly discuss constructive solutions! Please give me instructions on how to secure my signature with my key. Thanks

Kind regards ᴴᴰ,) to @ all from the Satoshi Nakamoto group(s)

Satoshi Nakamoto ᴴᴰ,)
SHA256SUMS (NR. 1 from 13) (and I have electrum)Signatue!
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=z+kN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Satoshi Nakamoto, is a group of genius inventors and programmers,
my respect to all people for your great realizations. Wow thanks.
Satoshi Nakamoto/-Core / Ryoshi / Robin Hood/
ETH and the ShibaArmy ...

If we could talk to each other in German like we did in the years 08.2008 and 2014, we, the Satoshi Nakamoto Group, would certainly be able to discuss solutions constructively!  Gives me instructions on how to secure my signature with my key.  Thanks you [HD Solarplexus = this account here and...]

The next level of civilization is the Bitcoin civilization.
Kind regards ᴴᴰ,) to @ all from the Satoshi Nakamoto group(s)

(Where is the self-regulation actually, or are you waiting for the government to regulate us)?

Yes from that above screenshot of Hal Finney's Bitcoin wallet client, below two addresses are included this transaction 567a9a7f9191db644a09985fad113dd6ee770eac69454317430e694305be9c56. Including (1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj ) the one that OneSignature signed message with.

1HZKjpAYdaiXvCV3b6mXExrhPd3djzDWM  <======
1ADTudhYePCW9PEvkCKnib6jmbg6mKXdz
14nELEgJL95NU3BKiSD734ysFuVUCEjLWg
18bN2GBzfRwnV6dmr7MiuDoxn39uqujwPs
12oRSUWGUVYNCUk8yyrFvbpbJw7uia31sA
15ALyVo8ZuoTikHMYRq6p8nGr17gxQApXf   <======
19CkFSEiHBSUVah3fvZD17qk48m82TfAp8
15ATbhagqxkGen8ZLsb2 BEbQzw3ymdzbQ9
1PQjPXArSZfUiQeD4nafQ7HKx7J1kYQ4J
12wej8tANWruTQFEhWFjtTkjNLt76pE268
1PmhUgoVLtTgdcvfilcwwSTVPFC67bCQs
1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3
1AiBYt8XbsdyPAELFpcSwRpu45eb2bArMf

Although it doesn't prove anything, it's worth pointing out since Hal's family had full access to his wallet and it's quite possible someone from Hal's family who got access to private keys might have signed the message just for fun. You know these boomers and Gen Z... kids these days you know!

Anyone think there was some sort of Fork that cut Hal's last wallet from finding connections? Didn't some BIP do that? I wonder why we do that.

A good analysis on this:

https://btcinoutalert.net/onesignature-is-not-satoshi/

As explained in the previous post, a mysterious user named OneSignature appeared on the BitcoinTalk forum, a historic forum where there are numerous Satoshi posts, signing an address with bitcoin mined in 2009 and an outgoing transaction in 2011. The address (1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj) has block mining TX 1018. The signature is the most dated/oldest ever to appear on a bitcoin address.

The (few) certainties
Let us start with the few certainties, namely the signature and its verification.

We have noticed some unnecessary discussions about the supposed invalidity of the signature, and let’s settle that right away; the signature is authentic. We used Electrum connected to a Bitcoin full node, but you could use hundreds of other different methods; the signature is certainly authentic. After making sure that the signature is authentic, let’s take a closer look at the blockchain to understand more about it.

[read on the link above]

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.

1MDAvctRaTDE5b6GgZy6tB8jXtJFR1UQjJ

A lovely present!

Special.

That's true all those addresses which singed that message related to Craig Wright were from December 2009. However this particular address probably created on 19 January 2009 and remember Satoshi mined genesis block on Jan Jan 03, 2009 but the 1st block was mined on Jan 09, 2009, that means this particular address was created just 10 days after bitcoin was launched publicly.

again

casino.. your talking about your silly customers inside your silly network who wont accept a fork.

here is the thing though

its not about a customer several taints/descendants/love letters down forking..
its the 2009 address(2009 elvis) private key(2009 elvis pen) owner who still has the private key of the 2009 address that can make new chains after they got paid and your customers(i know you own the address and have a couple forum alt accounts)

by making a new elivis autograph for a new network that looks like it predates your first concept chain.... simply makes the first concept chain obsolete. completely

because no one inside your first concept chain actually gets control of the elvis address private key to prevent the elvis pen from creating new chains.

thats why no one would trust the elvis address because they cant stop the elvis pen signer from making more autographs for other chains thus making the first concept chain worthless

in short im saying because i know YOU are casino and onesig. who has the private key.. nothing is stopping YOU from signing a new chain into existence once you got paid.. and make it appear that 2nd concept predates you first concept chain. thus there is no value. they do not take ownership of the 2009 address to stop you. thus no value.

i was trying to be subtle but i think i was too subtle by calling you(casino+onsig) elvis and onesig

..
anyway outside your first concept chain knowing you can rip off your descendants by just creating a new autograph once you got paid. you outside first concept chain can then make another chain..
it wont be a fork that a descendant done.. because they never get the private key of 2009 address

it would be you creating a new chain from elvis(2009 address) by creating a sig to a new group of descendants that you add in a hash/epoch that predates first concept chain. thus making second concept chain the new prime chain and the first concept chain becomes defunct.


anyways putting all that crap aside..
inside the chain(s) you create. they also have no value because great grandchild that is 3 signatures down from elvis address.. is not holding or owning anything elvis address related. all they hold is a message from their parent

that message is not of any value. it has nothing to do with the 2009 address.
its just a emily loves jeff message.. a couple generations after
onesig loves emily and
elvis loves onesig

but apart from a love letter parent loves child chain.. the chain does nothing else.

Hello world!

#DontuseBitcoinCoreV24.0

My comment was referring to a single singature, not a chain of signatures. I'll comment a bit on the chain of signatures though. You can always encode a new transfer sequence as a linear chain of onchain outputs i.e. a sequence of single input, single output transactions is the simplest form. People could "define" (I put it in quotes because it's a social construct) the coinbase address to own the block PoW.
This PoW could in theory be agreed on to be transfered with a chain of signatures defines as a chain of outputs. This should work as a concept. The PoW obviously isn't in the address at the head of the chain, but it was never in any of the historical addresses. It's there because of our agreement and the fact that nobody could've tampered with the transfers.

Then he would have a 'signature chain' fork like a Bitcoin fork. Our rules wouldn't accept their transactions.

And that example above is the initial signature and doesn't need a transaction as mentioned in the 'how it works' https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61386368

Here is a regular 'signature chain':

You can't break it. It works.

this can be "fooled" too

if just adding a date..
the true owner of the 2009 address can at any time..
create a new chain. and put an epoch time in a sig of 1291513567 (dec 2009) and then just hash a block with low difficulty and reference that hash in a next signature message where by they pretend to have transferred it every 6 months for 13 years they can easily reference a previous hash of 26 taints previous hashes and pretend each are done 6 months apart by just adding 15778463 to the epoch time each time they sign.. even though reality is they done 26 signatures in one day

and boom. this new chain has a better provenance than this topics sigchain is pretending to have provenance of

thus making the sigchain proposed no longer valid

it would be better to use a blockchasn of a network outside of the sigchain block. such as current bitcoin blockheight hash

but that too can be faked by just putting in a blockhash of late 2009 as the start of a new chain to make it appear that the new chain is the original by having a older bitcoin hash included

..
trying to turn taint(provenance) into value.. is not a real thing

taint(chain of provenance)  back to original creator, is not ownership of original creator
.. but that still doesnt fix the big picture flaw of his concept.  
the current signature message has nothing to do with the first message anymore.. thus retains no value the more descendants of taint there are

'signature chains' have a cost too. You have to pay the transaction cost.

What can we do with NFTs? Or what can you do with the hash of CryptoPunks?

If the new owner of the 'signature chain' got the private key it would not work. Then we would have a sharing system.


The most important thing is that it works. As of today it has no value for some people. Because the old empty addresses have no coins in them. It was an idea and we want to test it. I would be glad to be the owner of a 2009 or 2010 address 'signature chain'. If you think that it has no value then you can DM me such a signature (of course if you own some) and when you don't use them. All other users can DM me too 

but bitcoin is not just creating a coin thats passed to a decendant ..

bitcoin has other functions.
it actually also has an underlying COST.(mining cost)

check hal finneys post about price discovery.

users in 2010 gave it a price because of cost them $0.07 to mine 1 btc. and those that didnt want to burn their cpu/gpu for an hour or so per coin would instead just buy it instantly to save time and stress, and usually pay a premium for instant access to coin without the stress/burn cost.

it had a underlying value(mining cost)..and above that meket speculated premium(price)

functionally: bitcoin has utility. too
you can do things with bitcoin. which you cant with your signature chain

your 'pass a love letter' has no underlying value cost apart from a conversation starter at parties where people can make a clam that they own something and show proof of some provenance.. yet reality is they have no ownership of the original item you say it does

because the descendants dont get the private key (the underlying asset you pretend they get to own)

your not selling ownership. at best case.. your selling province proofs. without the starter item actually moving ownership. thus its not real provenance