Title: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: iamonlinenow on October 29, 2021, 04:08:08 PM C Wright - signed message - Bitcoin
https://pastebin.com/mNcAPrRv Code: Pubkeys and Bitcoin addresses 2 early mined blocks (2009): 1st Bitcoin address in the list 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF Bitcoin block 6629 (03/07/2009) 2nd Bitcoin address in the list 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5 Bitcoin block 18111 (26/06/2009) 3rd - 7th addresses: no transactions found The sum of these 7 addresses (ECC) : Pubkey: 041cdced0646879da917d4d9eba9669329c8feb29425d5b192f722a00eebc0d216a4969ce206161 4087ba4a631618f322cbda3dddaf79205db95bba4d24939701e Address: 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L Signature: Signed message: CWright? Bitcoin address: 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L Signature: G/3yr8ouR8jhC+Bv5K+q/vGHuwX/hp9Kx7pQ6Coxt3a/Wmd2yif6e2nf8Srnx/dpR1rIFUpV8qf+rW6B+ktKjTk= Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on October 29, 2021, 04:20:24 PM What's the signed message? I can only see a signature and seven public keys.
Also, what is this suppose to mean? Code: 2nd chars of the addresses: CWright Okay, so you've generated seven addresses whose public keys once summed in secp256k1 give you a public key whose address has bitcoins. So what? I can do this too and form a fancy saying using dozen of addresses whose public keys once summed in secp256k1 will give you satoshi's public key. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: bL4nkcode on October 29, 2021, 04:27:15 PM C Wright - signed message - Bitcoin At least learn first how signed message works, and how it can be verified using tools (signature verifier). Provide wallet address, message (signed message) with date, and the signature. What you show is just wallet address and random characters (public keys) you're calling signature or what?.https://pastebin.com/mNcAPrRv [...] 2 early mined blocks (2009): 1st Bitcoin address in the list 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF Bitcoin block 6629 (03/07/2009) 2nd Bitcoin address in the list 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5 Bitcoin block 18111 (26/06/2009) Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: iamonlinenow on October 29, 2021, 08:19:33 PM ... So what? I can do this too and form a fancy saying using dozen of addresses whose public keys once summed in secp256k1 will give you satoshi's public key. The result is the ECC sum of 7 pubkeys from which 2 are early (2009) addresses. And the result has been signed. How can one add addresses and sign with the sum/result? I would be grateful if you explained it here with examples.At least learn first how signed message works, and how it can be verified using tools (signature verifier). Provide wallet address, message (signed message) with date, and the signature. What you show is just wallet address and random characters (public keys) you're calling signature or what?. (Edited the 1st post. The signature was in the code box.)I checked the signature, it is working. (https://www.verifybitcoinmessage.com/) Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on October 29, 2021, 11:48:38 PM Okay, so you've generated seven addresses whose public keys once summed in secp256k1 give you a public key whose address has bitcoins. So what? I can do this too and form a fancy saying using dozen of addresses whose public keys once summed in secp256k1 will give you satoshi's public key. Can you sign a message with that public key?In the OP example there is a valid signature. That means someone has (or had) the private key for the public key. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: odolvlobo on October 30, 2021, 03:04:07 AM It's a trick, similar to the one in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.0
I don't know how it is done, but the fact that the second characters of the addresses are "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" means nothing. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: Bitcoin_Arena on October 30, 2021, 06:48:45 AM Just goes to show how far the BSV shills can go to try and spread the lies. If Craig had the private Keys to the Bitcoin addresses, Why wouldn't he sign directly from about 5 of them. It doesn't one to have knowledge of Rocket science to do so.
As pointed out by odolvlobo, someone already signed a message with pubkeys of the early BTC address using the same procedure Don't just religiously believe anything you see on the internet. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: pooya87 on October 30, 2021, 07:00:28 AM It's a trick, similar to the one in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.0 Rather simple.I don't know how it is done, but the fact that the second characters of the addresses are "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" means nothing. You start in reverse meaning instead of adding random public keys to the starting pubkey, you find the final key and then start working your way backwards by subtracting the pub key (of the private key you already have) from the starting public key (which you don't have the private key of). A simple example would be like this: The first public key is a pubkey from blockchain that we do NOT own its private key. Lets use the one posted by OP (called pub1): Code: 04d285c703648887f226137be3f3868a95ca562f70fa1654f19d530d134cbc00edf6f5827b367d9b358b4ea00f32486b19e630603f5f8708d068c2ba759dec9665 It can be converted to the following address: 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF Then we create a random private key. I used SHA256 hash of my username (SHA256("pooya87)) to show that it doesn't mean anything and it is truly random. Code: 5KivUXF2GxYN4aY9ebpY9Yif4J7VJ3QXyPUB7ozA2HtRcNyTjwa Call this privX and pubX Now decide what dumb letter you want in your second address. Lets say it is "W" similar to OP. I will use 3 keys in total to keep the computational cost to minimum since I don't want to waste my time but the idea is the same, you keep going backwards (t > h > g > i > r > W > C) you can add more to say "CW is a scammer and BSV is a shitcoin" :) The letter we want are: 1. C (from origninal pubkey posted above). 2. W (what we want to get in the mid pubkey). Call this pub2 3. Random letter that doesn't matter. Code: LOOP: If you repeat the above loop 24 times you end up with the following mid public key: Code: 04456541df8a1bd19f0ae85da3c73baa3812a537a8fa7b02f22d853828bb3053e4bad7b79fdfaf1f8136f2b052a89f55f0af5c248d5ea9c4d9d1094dc58b26299f 1WMrgrfEpJ9HWkWU4azaj4iLSCq3gnyQ1 And you have the private key to the modified privX that is the original + 24 which you can use to sign a dumb message! Code: PrivateKey((SHA256("pooya87)) + 24) = 5KivUXF2GxYN4aY9ebpY9Yif4J7VJ3QXyPUB7ozA2HtRf9dm6bK Code: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Wanting to acquire more intermediary pubkeys will add more computational complexity but the principle is the same. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: DapanasFruit on October 30, 2021, 08:28:42 AM Just goes to show how far the BSV shills can go to try and spread the lies. If Craig had the private Keys to the Bitcoin addresses, Why wouldn't he sign directly from about 5 of them. It doesn't one to have knowledge of Rocket science to do so. As pointed out by odolvlobo, someone already signed a message with pubkeys of the early BTC address using the same procedure. Don't just religiously believe anything you see on the internet. You ae right. Now, if Craig Wright is the rightful owner of that wallet where a great value of Bitcoin can be found, the best thing to do is to use the private keys and move that Bitcoin thereon to another wallet and maybe even sell some millions to a centralized exchange like Binance and then have everything documented via video. Unfortunately, Craig Wright has proven himself time and time again to be not right but wrong. I don't understand why there remains to be people who are following him and taking his words and actions to be worthy like a crypto leader. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on October 30, 2021, 08:52:44 AM Can you sign a message with that public key? And the result has been signed. How can one add addresses and sign with the sum/result? I would be grateful if you explained it here with examples. Sorry, let me rephrase my sayings; I can generate bunch of addresses whose public keys once summed with satoshi's public key will give you an address whose private key will be known by me. Using pooya's way: Take Satoshi's public key: Code: x: 678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e03909a67962e0ea1f61deb6 And a random private key: Code: 10caf0ec1511da37effb3e4e8de7d217a039e4315a444694af1afccd1073e5a4 Increase the random key by 1 and get: Code: 10caf0ec1511da37effb3e4e8de7d217a039e4315a444694af1afccd1073e5a5 Public key equal with: Code: x: baef4f70d27372f96f5ae699720080fa17a353448af8a67cb49ac7742f31604b If I substract this one with Satoshi's public key I'll get: Code: x: bd0b9e81abc8ed978bc0873b9b5d44e00e889983c60bb722354793df732cb849 Simplified equation: Code: Our known public key - 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa's public key = 1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W's public key Thus, our known public key will be the addition of those two. But, I know the private key of my known public key, it's: Code: 10caf0ec1511da37effb3e4e8de7d217a039e4315a444694af1afccd1073e5a5 Or in WIF: Code: 5HwgXfRgFjZayTa3Umv8mNFnWBAbjhcDfVyEjc6RKH6vB5kESnr With address: 1J2jrkkXrHp3To3VFDo6QVQKhWQt3L7nDG Code: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on October 30, 2021, 10:49:18 AM Rather simple. You start in reverse meaning instead of adding random public keys to the starting pubkey, you find the final key and then start working your way backwards by subtracting the pub key (of the private key you already have) from the starting public key (which you don't have the private key of). If I substract this one with Satoshi's public key I'll get: Code: x: bd0b9e81abc8ed978bc0873b9b5d44e00e889983c60bb722354793df732cb849 Thank you, I've calculated it with other examples and it works. But that means, that we still don't have the private key for (1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W) what we publish in the list. So we can say, that if you can sign with (1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W) then you have the private key of Satoshi's key. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on October 30, 2021, 01:03:54 PM So we can say, that if you can sign with (1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W) then you have the private key of Satoshi's key. Yeah. If you knew the private key of - 1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W - you'd be one step far from calculating this sought after Satoshi's address. It's simple elliptic curve maths.If k1G + k2G = k3G then (k1 + k2)G = k3G → k1 + k2 = k3. Beautiful, isn't it? Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: DaveF on October 30, 2021, 01:08:14 PM But with all the math being discussed here nobody has come out and said it in this post Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi
Anyone who thinks he is will get scammed and loose money. With enough time you can come up with a lot of bizarre combinations to give some oddball proof that has no real meaning about addresses & keys. Now I hand it back to others to continue to discuss the math. -Dave Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: dkbit98 on October 30, 2021, 02:34:28 PM It looks like that Craig Wright Faketoshi shillers are getting ready for Kleiman Case trial that should start soon (November 1st I think), and I saw they organized some prayer groups for him, because it's a cult with him as their messiah :D
Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: Lucius on October 30, 2021, 03:19:34 PM But with all the math being discussed here nobody has come out and said it in this post Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi I think we shattered that misconception a long time ago, so obviously, no one on the forum sees the need to emphasize this further - he is a pathological liar who uses all legal loopholes to try to prove what will never work. With enough time you can come up with a lot of bizarre combinations to give some oddball proof that has no real meaning about addresses & keys. That is true, but we have already proved that Faketoshi is not capable of signing any of the addresses he claims to be his - but on the other hand someone else can do it - what more proof does anyone need? Code: "Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud. He doesn't have the keys used to sign this message. Source (https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/gq8ao1/more_than_100_addresses_with_unmoved_bitcoin/) Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: superbotolo on October 30, 2021, 03:25:27 PM That is true, but we have already proved that Faketoshi is not capable of signing any of the addresses he claims to be his - but on the other hand someone else can do it - what more proof does anyone need? Oh wow, I missed this. Was this sent from one of the BTC addresses allegedly owned by Satoshi, or by some other address that CW said was his? Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: iamonlinenow on October 30, 2021, 04:27:52 PM So we can say, that if you can sign with (1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W) then you have the private key of Satoshi's key. Yeah. If you knew the private key of - 1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W - you'd be one step far from calculating this sought after Satoshi's address. It's simple elliptic curve maths.If k1G + k2G = k3G then (k1 + k2)G = k3G → k1 + k2 = k3. Beautiful, isn't it? ... the idea is the same, you keep going backwards (t > h > g > i > r > W > C)... That means the creator can't sign with the 'r' key, similar to the 1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W case. The creator starts with the signature address 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L then calculates the pubkeys for (t > h > g > i > r > W > C) but for 'r' = 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG the creator doesn't have the private key but can show the public key and the address. To prove the ownership of satoshi"s private key we would need 2 signatures: 1. for 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L (it is posted) 2. for 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG (not posted) To the creator: Post a signature for 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on October 30, 2021, 05:08:09 PM To the creator: To whom your speak to? Aren't you the one who brought this or just read it somewhere?That means the creator can't sign with the 'r' key, similar to the 1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W case. This means the creator can't sign from any of the addresses. Only from the one whose public key is equal with the sum of the addresses' public keys. Just think this reasonably; if a malicious guy wanted to prove Craig Wright is Satoshi, why not just give you a signed message from the - 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF - which supposedly a Satoshi's address?It'll lure more victims to believe that without writing some bullshit about the second letter of seven addresses. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: o_e_l_e_o on October 30, 2021, 07:24:19 PM Oh wow, I missed this. Was this sent from one of the BTC addresses allegedly owned by Satoshi, or by some other address that CW said was his? The known identity thief CSW submitted a list of addresses to court of coins and addresses he claimed were his but he could not currently access. Then the true owner of a bunch of those addresses signed this message calling him a lying piece of shit.Just think this reasonably; if a malicious guy wanted to prove Craig Wright is Satoshi, why not just give you a signed message from the - 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF - which supposedly a Satoshi's address? I'm not exactly a big fan of Ethereum, but Vitalik said this once about the known liar CSW:Quote In general, signal theory says if you have a good way of proving something and a noisy way of proving something and you choose the noisy way chances are it's because you couldn't do the good way in the first place. The good way is to sign a message from 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa, the receiving address for the coinbase transaction of the genesis block. The noisy way is whatever this absolute nonsense is, along with every other fake signature or fake proof the known fraud CSW has provided in the past. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on October 30, 2021, 09:11:53 PM That means the creator can't sign with the 'r' key, similar to the 1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W case. This means the creator can't sign from any of the addresses. Only from the one whose public key is equal with the sum of the addresses' public keys.If the creator is Satoshi than he can sign with 2 keys. One key is the 'relative' key and the other one the 'absolute' key. Let me explain it with 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa (Satoshi's receiving address for the coinbase transaction of the genesis block). We assume that the private key for that address is kSat=10000. Satoshi creates a 'relative' key with krel=100, so the 'absolute' key would have the private key kabs=10100. He publishes the 2 public keys ('relative' and 'absolute') with signatures and we can check that they are valid and that he is the owner of 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa. In our case (OP) we only have the 'relative' key signature. The second one ('absolute' key signature) is missing. The good way is to sign a message from 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa why not just give you a signed message from the - 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF - which supposedly a Satoshi's address? Maybe for security reasons. Let's say he wants to communicate with us and wants to sign the messages. For each signature he would need the private key kSat. With the above example he could prove it only once and then use the private key kabs for all signatures. If hacked, he could create a new kabsnew. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: Slow death on October 30, 2021, 09:34:09 PM and once again we have to talk about faketoshi, doesn't this guy rest? whenever the price goes up a lot, this guy comes up with something
C Wright - signed message - Bitcoin every year I hear the same thing coming from faketoshi. because he just doesn't spend the bitcoins that everyone will believe him, the price is now too high, he can buy a lot with those bitcoins ;D Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: o_e_l_e_o on October 30, 2021, 09:51:20 PM Maybe for security reasons. Let's say he wants to communicate with us and wants to sign the messages. For each signature he would need the private key kSat. With the above example he could prove it only once and then use the private key kabs for all signatures. If hacked, he could create a new kabsnew. Or, far more simply, he could sign a message from 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa which says "I'm Satoshi, and here is my new PGP key", and then sign all future communication with said PGP key. No need whatsoever to mess around with adding and subtracting public keys, which is exactly the kind of nonsense known fraud CSW would do to try to distract from the fact that he cannot sign a message using the genesis address. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: EdenHazard on October 30, 2021, 11:06:23 PM should we feel amazed and say wow? i think everyone agree that the real bitcoin founder or whoever its called satoshi nakamoto or something are the one who never want to show off and remain invisibly anonymous. even if the real satoshi show in public with fully credential we might ignore it ... as it would break the essential of bitcoin philosophy , anonymity .
lets moving on from all of these craight wright drama , he loved to get an attention. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: odolvlobo on October 31, 2021, 01:01:33 AM It's a trick, similar to the one in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.0 Rather simple.I don't know how it is done, but the fact that the second characters of the addresses are "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" means nothing. You start in reverse meaning instead of adding random public keys to the starting pubkey, you find the final key and then start working your way backwards by subtracting the pub key (of the private key you already have) from the starting public key (which you don't have the private key of). Oh duh. That is pretty simple. You only sign with the summed private key, so that is the only one you actually need to know. The rest of the addresses are done by finding any public keys that add up to the summed public key (after subtracting the satoshi keys) and have the appropriate second letters in the address. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on October 31, 2021, 01:26:57 AM If I substract this one with Satoshi's public key I'll get: Code: x: bd0b9e81abc8ed978bc0873b9b5d44e00e889983c60bb722354793df732cb849 Thank you, I've calculated it with other examples and it works. But that means, that we still don't have the private key for (1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W) what we publish in the list. So we can say, that if you can sign with (1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W) then you have the private key of Satoshi's key. This example I could calculate too: "sum": we have private key -> signed message "Satoshi's key": we don't have private key "subtracted key": we don't have private key; we calculated that key with the public keys of "Satoshi's key" and "sum" but... It's a trick, similar to the one in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.0 Rather simple.I don't know how it is done, but the fact that the second characters of the addresses are "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" means nothing. You start in reverse meaning instead of adding random public keys to the starting pubkey, you find the final key and then start working your way backwards by subtracting the pub key (of the private key you already have) from the starting public key (which you don't have the private key of). Oh duh. That is pretty simple. You only sign with the summed private key, so that is the only one you actually need to know. The rest of the addresses are done by finding any public keys that add up to the summed public key (after subtracting the satoshi keys) and have the appropriate second letters in the address. here I have a question: From which addresses do we have the private keys if we calculate it that way? In the example we have "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" and the "sum". "sum": we have private key -> signed message "C": we don't have private key "W": we don't have private key "r": we don't have private key "i": we don't have private key "g": we don't have private key "h": we don't have private key "t": we don't have private key Who can answer? [solved] [edited] pooya87 had answered I will use 3 keys in total to keep the computational cost to minimum since I don't want to waste my time but the idea is the same, you keep going backwards (t > h > g > i > r > W > C) We calculate the public keys for "t", "h", "g", "i"... but "sum" we can calculate with the private key and modify it, so we can sign the message.Code: LOOP: Amazing pooya87! Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on October 31, 2021, 07:36:23 AM At the end of the day, you should never trust a person who:
1. Uses these cunning methods of proving his identity other than a straight-forward way. 2. Denies to provide a valid signature from Satoshi's address, but rather convinces others to state that he did sign a message. 3. Changes his blog's post to show that he was working on bitcoin in 2007-08, but web.archive.org says otherwise. 4. Says he is Satoshi. I mean seriously, don't ever trust a person who says he's Satoshi. This person is long gone and this project is the only thing left by them. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: Lucius on October 31, 2021, 11:59:10 AM and once again we have to talk about faketoshi, doesn't this guy rest? whenever the price goes up a lot, this guy comes up with something I have written many times that Faketoshi will calm down only when he ends his miserable life - and until then he will do what he has been doing so far, spread lies and deceptions. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people who believe that he really is Satoshi, and even some of the closest associates of the real Satoshi Nakamoto like the famous Gavin Andresen (https://gizmodo.com/gavin-andresen-i-was-not-hacked-and-i-believe-craig-w-1774226431) who has been helping Faketoshi in his crazy intentions for years. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: galambo on October 31, 2021, 12:21:07 PM Already so much has been said about signing of message. We all know that Craig Wright is Faketoshi, he has done such things many times in the past just to gain attention. We shouldn't give him so much attention since this is what he wants.
Now, if Craig Wright is the rightful owner of that wallet where a great value of Bitcoin can be found, the best thing to do is to use the private keys and move that Bitcoin thereon to another wallet and maybe even sell some millions to a centralized exchange like Binance and then have everything documented via video. Cant agree more, that's the simple thing he can do to prove that he is the owner of wallet under the custody of Satoshi. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: iamonlinenow on October 31, 2021, 01:18:21 PM To the creator: To whom your speak to? Aren't you the one who brought this or just read it somewhere?. source: https://pastebin.com/mNcAPrRv Posted the link in the first post. 2 early mined blocks (2009): 1st Bitcoin address in the list 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF Bitcoin block 6629 (03/07/2009) 2nd Bitcoin address in the list 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5 Bitcoin block 18111 (26/06/2009) This list https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf contains these two addresses I am interested in the early days of Bitcoin and am finding such things sometimes. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: funwithbitcoin on November 01, 2021, 11:27:25 PM Just sent 10 USD each to the creator's addresses (except the first two Satoshi's addresses):
1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG 1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw 1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT 1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm 1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq To the creator: Post a signature for 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG Why a signature? Take the coins, they're yours. Let me close that "creative burn address generation" thread post with Satoshi's post: Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: DooMAD on November 02, 2021, 01:22:32 AM Cheap parlour tricks from desperate con-men. Truly pathetic. Since it's pastebin, can we know for sure that this is Wright? Or perhaps just one of their demented supporters thinking they were being clever, but effectively further undermining their own figurehead like an idiot.
Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: suzanne5223 on November 02, 2021, 04:02:47 PM Wonders will never cease.
After they lose the battle of hyping their coin which was considered to be officially dead (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4985868.msg58193552#msg58193552) cause people show no interest in it, the next thing is to also fake signed Bitcoin message? It's funny how Craig Wright and his group of bandits (that what I presume them to be) always behave foolishly not knowing they have already lost this battle long ago Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: DooMAD on November 02, 2021, 04:56:57 PM Wonders will never cease. After they lose the battle of hyping their coin which was considered to be officially dead (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4985868.msg58193552#msg58193552) cause people show no interest in it, the next thing is to also fake signed Bitcoin message? It's funny how Craig Wright and his group of bandits (that what I presume them to be) always behave foolishly not knowing they have already lost this battle long ago Makes sense. Some of the scammers aren't ready for the charade to end. They can't come to terms with the fact that they aren't fooling anyone. Please forgive us if you can They're only sorry that they failed. Not sorry at all that they were a bunch of lying scum. Why would anyone forgive that? Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: NotATether on November 02, 2021, 06:16:56 PM Can you sign a message with that public key? In the OP example there is a valid signature. That means someone has (or had) the private key for the public key. You cannot sign messages unless you have the private key (which you do not have in your example). Makes sense. Some of the scammers aren't ready for the charade to end. They can't come to terms with the fact that they aren't fooling anyone. I mean, just look at Ayre. I'm semi-regularly bashing him on twitter for wasting his time trolling bitcoin core devs when he's got a billion dollars to play golf, go to galas, get drunk! Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: Kakmakr on November 02, 2021, 06:28:37 PM I think the proof for me is not that he can sign an early address, but that he is trying so hard to be Satoshi Nakamoto. ;) Now, we all know Satoshi Nakamoto was clever enough to leave, after Gavin had a meeting with the 3l3tter agency... and we never heard from him again. Why would he suddenly want to reveal his true identity, if the same people will go after him again?
CW is a wannabe and his motives are as clear as glass.... "fame & fortune" ... and this is absolutely the opposite of what Satoshi wanted. (He stayed anonymous and he has not touched a single coins of the almost 1 Million coins he supposedly owns. ;) Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on November 02, 2021, 07:01:47 PM Can you sign a message with that public key? In the OP example there is a valid signature. That means someone has (or had) the private key for the public key. You cannot sign messages unless you have the private key (which you do not have in your example). In the OP example there is a valid signature, as I said. That meant, that the creator has the private key. And we wondered how that is possible. pooya87 solved it: Rather simple. You start in reverse meaning instead of adding random public keys to the starting pubkey, you find the final key and then start working your way backwards by subtracting the pub key (of the private key you already have) from the starting public key (which you don't have the private key of). ... I will use 3 keys in total to keep the computational cost to minimum since I don't want to waste my time but the idea is the same ... 1. C (from origninal pubkey posted above). 2. W (what we want to get in the mid pubkey). Call this pub2 3. Random letter that doesn't matter. Code: LOOP: In short: The creator has only the private key for the signature address 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L. All other Bitcoin addresses are calculated with public keys and the creator doesn't have the private keys. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on November 02, 2021, 07:43:23 PM 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG 1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw 1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT 1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm 1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq if they are connected , and if and only iff there are in not less than one output on each address, you can recalculate all privatekeys belongs to them. They are connected: The public key sum (ECC calculation) of these addresses leads to the address 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L. And the creator pinned a valid signature to this address. But pooya87 showed (see my previous post), that it is possible without knowing the private keys of that list. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: DarkDays on November 02, 2021, 07:51:24 PM It's a trick, similar to the one in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.0 I agree. It is not legit and the fact that the addresses has 'C Wright' in it doesn't mean anything just as stated above. I don't know how it is done, but the fact that the second characters of the addresses are "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" means nothing. If the guy was really the father of Bitcoin, trust me there wouldn't be the need for years and years to prove so but somehow he still has no definite proof of this. The guy is full of himself, he's a falsifier. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: odolvlobo on November 02, 2021, 07:53:31 PM if they are connected , and if and only iff there are in not less than one output on each address, you can recalculate all privatekeys belongs to them. yes, but I'm talking that there are possibilities take the first privatekey from the first addres, but only then if from rest address are minimal one output:) What do the number of outputs have to do with it? Don't leave us in suspense. Please tell us how you can determine their private keys. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on November 02, 2021, 07:56:02 PM if they are connected , and if and only iff there are in not less than one output on each address, you can recalculate all privatekeys belongs to them. Assuming you mean that the public keys have this connection and we do know these public keys, then no. If you know that k1G + k2G = k3G and you know k3, it doesn't mean you also know k1 and k2. Only if you knew another k you could work out every private key.yes, but I'm talking that there are possibilities take the first privatekey from the first addres, but only then if from rest address are minimal one output:) This doesn't make a lot of sense and since we're discussing on a topic with proper formulation of every sentence, you'll have to describe this better.Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on November 02, 2021, 07:57:27 PM ... you'll have to describe this better. ... Please tell us how you can determine their private keys. I wanted to ask the same question, you were faster :) Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on November 02, 2021, 08:27:05 PM it is difficult to explain, but I'll try ... and if you know new K as integer you can recalulate back to the first k used in first pubkey Is that what you mean https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1540.pdf and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ssTlSSIJQE but in our case we don't have all signatures. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on November 02, 2021, 08:38:42 PM no , in this way is enought perform Gauss - Jordan Reduction, lattice LLL and BKZ will not work If in our case, there were signatures for all addresses, I would think that someone solved it the way you explain it and has the private keys. But we have no outputs. Now I understand your possibility argument with outputs. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on November 02, 2021, 08:39:30 PM For whoever didn't understand interiawp's post, I'll try to simplify it.
These s, r and z are values that can be derived from an ECDSA signature. As I've said recently; The signature is consisted of [r, s] and z is the hash of the message we want to sign. The s is created if you combine the message hash (z) and the private key (d). They say that if we have this kind of connection between 3 public keys AND a signed message from EACH public key, it'd be entirely possible to calculate their private keys. Same applies for my example. If I we had a signed message from all 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa, 1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W and 1J2jrkkXrHp3To3VFDo6QVQKhWQt3L7nDG we could work out all's private keys. The problem is that we only have one's private key. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on November 02, 2021, 08:46:23 PM ... These s, r and z are values that can be derived from an ECDSA signature. As I've said recently; The signature is consisted of [r, s] and z is the hash of the message we want to sign. The s is created if you combine the message hash (z) and the private key (d). ...Does it depend on different/same r? Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on November 02, 2021, 08:51:29 PM Does it depend on different/same r? I haven't confirmed their equation(s), but it seems it doesn't matter what the r values will be. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: mynonce on November 02, 2021, 09:02:05 PM Does it depend on different/same r? I haven't confirmed their equation(s), but it seems it doesn't matter what the r values will be. I found https://billatnapier.medium.com/ecdsa-revealing-the-private-key-from-four-signed-message-two-keys-and-shared-nonces-secp256k1-5758f1258b1d and there we have two different r values and four signatures. Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: naakamoto_rising on August 23, 2022, 12:49:49 PM Code: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: casinotester0001 on August 23, 2022, 07:27:45 PM Signature: Signed message: CWright? Bitcoin address: 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L Signature: G/3yr8ouR8jhC+Bv5K+q/vGHuwX/hp9Kx7pQ6Coxt3a/Wmd2yif6e2nf8Srnx/dpR1rIFUpV8qf+rW6B+ktKjTk= Code: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Also, what is this suppose to mean? Code: 2nd chars of the addresses: CWright This means the creator can't sign from any of the addresses. Someone was able to ???Now, we have 2 signatures ??? Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on August 23, 2022, 07:32:25 PM Now, we have 2 signatures So?Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: casinotester0001 on August 23, 2022, 08:33:42 PM Assume they can calculate the private keys for the last 5 addresses in the list and post signatures, even then they couldn't calculate the first 2 addresses.
Also, what is this suppose to mean? But then ... we can be sure that whoever created that list, has the private keys of the first 2 addresses too = has all private keysCode: 2nd chars of the addresses: CWright Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: BlackHatCoiner on August 23, 2022, 09:39:47 PM But then ... we can be sure that whoever created that list, has the private keys of the first 2 addresses too = has all private keys No. Simplified equation again: (Bold parts are private keys that are owned by them, or can be calculated by them)1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF's public key + 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5's public key + 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG's public key + 1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw's public key + 1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT's public key + 1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm's public key + 1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq's public key = 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L's public key ==> 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF's public key + 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5's public key + 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG's public key + 1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw's public key + 1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT's public key + 1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm's public key = 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L's public key - 1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq's public key ==> 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF's public key + 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5's public key + 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG's public key + 1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw's public key + 1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT's public key + 1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm's public key = 1LSpmoBBWydsTjanZK9Lk1j43PnSPhRRmL's public key* They can only prove they own all the addresses listed in OP (or just those with the 50 BTC), if they sign a message from every address except 1. They might as well own 1r, 1i, 1g and 1h; if they don't provide a proof from either 1C or 1W, they don't own anything. But, let's say they did. Yes. Let's take this hypothetical scenario wherein these fat, loser, no-life scumbags with no ethics did provide a signed message from these old 1C & 1W addresses, for the sake of Craig's majesty. So what? Does that provide a proof of anything other than they own some bitcoin? * Code: (1cdced0646879da917d4d9eba9669329c8feb29425d5b192f722a00eebc0d216, a4969ce2061614087ba4a631618f322cbda3dddaf79205db95bba4d24939701e) - (876ca85b08d1adb23639410084ea4953cfda40c676f8e10be5dd08eefee50655, 27ff2580ee182aa46f1bde2fa3a3c80bde963e7fba24a1e60f4d81d1cf9a03ea) = (da2ab1d2001405f6777c44a2f42abdd454957db48a418acaf97ae7aa01666b59, c1c6badb50fae1358cc593581d645f1fe15f202dc9a1a6840d491e86fd43dccb) Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: casinotester0001 on August 23, 2022, 09:58:01 PM Yes, they could have the private keys of 1C & 1W addresses too and that would prove nothing more than they (who created the list) own some "ancient" bitcoin, you are right.
But would be cool whoever owns them as they are very old and from the Patoshi pattern. 2 early mined blocks (2009): 1st Bitcoin address in the list 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF Bitcoin block 6629 (03/07/2009) 2nd Bitcoin address in the list 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5 Bitcoin block 18111 (26/06/2009) Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: casinotester0001 on August 24, 2022, 06:38:45 PM Here in that thread the same:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.msg60813049#msg60813049 Code: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: pooya87 on August 25, 2022, 05:08:47 AM But here if they can post signatures, then they will be able to calculate Satoshi's block #0 address' private key 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa and that means that the creator of the OP list has Satoshi's private key. Creating a random address then signing a message from it doesn't mean anything at all. People are doing it every single day (200k transactions per day are doing that). Maybe you should try reading that topic and understand the explanations given by others on how starer tried fooling those who don't understand how bitcoin works.Title: Re: Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message Post by: casinotester0001 on August 25, 2022, 10:41:40 AM But here if they can post signatures, then they will be able to calculate Satoshi's block #0 address' private key 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa and that means that the creator of the OP list has Satoshi's private key. Creating a random address then signing a message from it doesn't mean anything at all.Code: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- |