Bitcoin Forum

---

'signature chain' - a new type of 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain

OpenSea: https://opensea.io/collection/signature-chain (https://opensea.io/collection/signature-chain)
The items include the private key of the Bitcoin address for the given 'signature chain' as unlockable content that can only be unlocked and revealed by the new owner of this item.

Don't use these addresses for your private/own transactions. These are just for 'signature chain' transactions. You don't need to transfer the 'signature chain' immediately after purchase. You should understand how it works before transferring it. But if you believe in that project, you can get it now.

Rarity: 'signature chains' that start with early used addresses but also early created 'siganture chains' in that project. We are very early (13/Feb/2023).
 

---

How this started:

Recently there was a post with signatures, that used a key of a very old (January 2009) Bitcoin address.


The discussion was "is it Satoshi or not, who is it" and so on.

Then the user yhiaali3 mentioned that it could be used to create an NFT.


And we want to test a new type of 'NFT' here with that project:

--- old Bitcoin addresses as 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain - a signature chain ---

how it works - will be updated


'signature chain' rules


Only legacy addresses that start with '1' and had at least one incoming transaction that is on the Bitcoin blockchain can become a 'signature chain.'

Some addresses don't have outgoing transactions, these are valid too.

Addresses can be compressed or uncompressed.

There is no upper limit for the number of incoming or outgoing transactions.

The private key holder of such an address can start a 'signature chain.'

The starting address is the ID (or the name) of that 'siganture chain.'

The blocktime of the first incoming transaction of a given address indicates the 'siganture chain age.'

The ownership transfer happens through 'transfer signatures' + 'transfer transactions.'

'Transfer signatures' are message signatures, where the message is the Bitcoin address of the new owner.

Anything else than the address of the new owner in the message would make the transfer signature invalid.

A transfer signature is only valid if there is a transfer transaction.

A transfer transaction is a transaction from the address of the old owner to the address of the new owner and the value is not important (can be dust).

The transfer transaction can contain more than one input (from the old owner) but it is only valid if it has exactly 1 output (to the new owner).

The new owner is now the sole owner of the 'signature chain' and can transfer this to a new address who will become the next owner.

Only unused/empty legacy addresses starting with '1' can receive 'signature chains.'

It is important to store the signature history of the 'signature chain' as the new owner needs it to verify the ownership.

If a 'signature chain' was transferred to an address, any outgoing Bitcoin transaction from that address thereafter would indicate the transfer of the 'signature chain'. So it is recommended to have a separate Bitcoin address for 'signature chain' transactions.

A Bitcoin address can hold only 1 'signature chain.' (if an address holds one 'singature chain' and receives another one, then the new one is not valid and the sending address will remain the owner)

Any address that received Bitcoin from a legacy address after the initial block (see below) can't receive a 'signature chain' if there is only 1 transaction output as the received Bitcoin could be a 'siganture chain' transfer that will be revealed later by the owner. Therefore it is recommended to use a new legacy address to receive a 'signature chain.'

The first 'siganture chain' of the project (1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj transfers the 'signature ownership' to 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa) doesn't need a transaction (by definition it is the initial signature like Bitcoin block 0). All other 'transfer signatures' need 'transfer transactions' to be valid.

Invalid 'signature transactions' can be on the blockchain. But they will be treated as not happened.

Valid after block 765779 (03/Dec/2022 11:04 PM UTC) txid 16bb6761cc8d7d393d25a88ec589361c1f0461a9c138ecc2333b0736efe488de = initial transfer (example below)



Example:

we have a signature that 1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj transfers the 'signature ownership' to 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa

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

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

the 'signature chain'

1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

has the ID 1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj (= first/initial address in the chain)
and only 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7 (= last address in the chain) can transfer that 'signature chain'

It is to mention that this example is a special example as the first signature in that project doesn't need a transaction (by definition of that project it is the initial signature like Bitcoin block 0). All other 'transfer signatures' need 'transfer transactions' to be valid.
But it works even without a 'transfer transaction' of the 'transfer signature' for the first project transfer.


Example 2:

--reserved for signatures and for further notices--




block 1,018  -  19/Jan/2009 10:41 AM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj - #1


block 128,482  -  04/Jun/2011 03:54 AM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1H3TAVNZFZfiLUp9o9E93oTVY9WgYZ5knX - #2


block 765,894  -  04/Dec/2022 07:19 PM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo - #3


block 766,041  -  05/Dec/2022 08:12 PM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1234n5z7EmsNaibnybrRi3YbBEPBgCAMbC - #4


block 766,050  -  05/Dec/2022 10:22 PM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV - #5


block 766,072  -  06/Dec/2022 12:46 AM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1PiN2bq1xLXt8Jb4XnJRwWfVEmTfcGM8iV - #6


block 767,374  -  14/Dec/2022 10:58 AM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1Not1fWnZwiKJe4GKa9GujV2PXypYuxXkZ - #7


block 776,230  -  12/Feb/2023 09:04 PM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1DUdEjKdyFdpw9K4w23bPGLmCyK3BnuBYC - #8



block 776,230  -  12/Feb/2023 09:04 PM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1By1a6KCFNneEf3MawrYdNcWMzwVZMPVz5 - #9



block 776,230  -  12/Feb/2023 09:04 PM UTC  -  'signature chain' ID: 1DjccyvVCfYY6U18fM84XFcF9uyqkrAdJm - #10

Interesting. I am following the development. Let's see how it works.

Thanks.

Updated 'how it works'. Would be glad to hear your comments  :)

The transfer does not include the private key for the address, so how can it be claimed that ownership of the address has been transferred? Furthermore, even if the private key is also transmitted, then ownership is only shared and not transferred because the previous owner still has the private key.

In this 'NFT' project we call it 'ownership'. At the beginning, only the owner of the initial address is the 'owner'. If they sign a message where the message is the Bitcoin address of the new owner and send from the their Bitcoin address coins to the new owner's address (the message in the signature) then the holder/owner of the private key of this address is the new owner.

This works only if the initial owner signs a message and sends BTC to the new address. Then the 'ownership' isn't shared as another signature of the previous owner to another address + transaction to this address wouldn't be accepted by the participants as the rules are: the first transaction on the blockchain from an address is valid. All transactions thereafter don't count, are valueless. (We will have an initial block number, whereafter this will be valid.)

I know, it is a bit difficult to understand/explain because we don't have examples on the blockchain but they're on their way. To explain blockchain was difficult too, but once understood and saw it working, people got it.

I think I understand completely.

My question is what does "ownership" in this system mean? What is the significance of "ownership" beyond simply controlling the address in the last signed message in the chain? How does it relate to the real world? How does it relate to the common definition of the word "ownership"?

Yes, you got it  :)

'ownership' = to be the owner of the 'signature chain' that started with a certain address
And if this certain address is for example 12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S (Satoshi's first transfer address) or the 'pizza address' it could have a value to be the owner of the signature chain. We have to test it.

Old empty addresses will get a new chance. I think they're valuable  :)

I am glad that I inspired you with this idea. Working on it will not be easy and it will be difficult to understand at first, but it seems to me a really promising idea and your project can succeed.
Your discussion of the topic there shed a lot of light on the idea and I think it is starting to become more and more clear, you need to make one NFT at the beginning to try the results and see the advantages and disadvantages.
good luck

Yes, thanks, that you mentioned that someone could try to make an NFT out of it. We don't have a classical NFT here, but this 'signature chain' works and could become something  :) who knows? Mabe we have something like 'cryptopunks' in the making. At the beginning people didn't understand blockchain & NFT too.

Yes, right, I think I understood your basic idea, this is not a classical NFT, it will be a new type of NFT that differs from the previous one, based on the “signature chain” and not just the old address. Perhaps this new style will be popular with Bitcoin fans in the future.
I read the discussions between you and franky1 it was really helpful to clarify the idea, you can make use of these discussions and objections to develop the idea later, if you succeed in that maybe this is the start of a new and unique type of NFT.
good luck

Isn't the signature itself basically an NFT? Or can we get super meta with bitcoin signature NFTs on the bitcoin chain?

created a 'signature chain' transfer:

1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo is the starting address (first time used in 2022, it is not an old address, just to show that it works)

The owner/holder of 1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo transfers the 'signature chain' to 1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP:

1) signs a message (message is the Bitcoin address of the new owner)


2) transfers Bitcoin from 1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo to 1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP (to the new owner)

txid 167af01dd191b0e2d47f7255a9f440789a0ae7cba92a644f69d2b39e1f120eaf
Block 765905
04/Dec/2022 9:25 PM UTC
output: only 1 legacy address = valid

Now 1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP is the owner of this 'signature chain' and tranfers it to 1B2a3bau6T5jHRgzWo4pzRj93fkPNaPZHj:

1) signs a message (message is the Bitcoin address of the new owner)


2) transfers Bitcoin from 1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP to 1B2a3bau6T5jHRgzWo4pzRj93fkPNaPZHj (to the new owner)

txid 12bbc865f8b5259cd0c40a5da954e488e555f746a59d001f225b94ebde73a8c9
Block 765907
04/Dec/2022 9:55 PM UTC
output: only 1 legacy address = valid

Now 1B2a3bau6T5jHRgzWo4pzRj93fkPNaPZHj is the owner of this 'signature chain'

1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo
1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP
1B2a3bau6T5jHRgzWo4pzRj93fkPNaPZHj

and can transfer it.


It works  :)

Actually yes, the signature itself is basically an NFT, anything unique is actually an NFT.
The initial idea was to convert the old Bitcoin addresses into NFT, but the problem is that Private Key is owned by the old owner and the new owner, so to solve this problem (OP) developed the idea to make an NFT from the signature chain.

yhiaali3, testing 'signature chain' .. it works  :)

I have address 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV prepared for a 'signature chain'. If you like, post an empty legacy address (starting with 1..) and I would transfer it to you. Then you are one of the first 'signature chain' owners  :)  Of course only if you like.

Thank you, of course I would like to try it, I will be happy to be the first to try this new NFT.
Actually I have an empty legacy address (starting with 1..) but it's not very old, it was created in 2020.
 try it to see how it works:

Cool! It would be better to use a new empty address. Because from 143NrfsANkM5B2Y3pWeCHNxGQS8kBFceDw if you make outgoing transactions and if the output is 1 legacy address, so it would mean that you send/transfer your 'signature chain' to this address. You don't need an old address to receive 'signature chains'.

EDIT:
Ok, I see you don't use it anymore for transactions. Sent the 'signature chain' to 143NrfsANkM5B2Y3pWeCHNxGQS8kBFceDw.

Well here's a new blank address that I just created:


You can use either of these two addresses no problem

I was faster  :)

You have your 'signature chain' on 143NrfsANkM5B2Y3pWeCHNxGQS8kBFceDw. Keep the private key, the journey begins .. good luck.

Yes, you were twice as fast as me. I didn't notice the editing. ;)
Anyway, thank you, I hope the experiment will be successful. Good luck

It worked. (It should work because Bitcoin works  :))

The transfer to 143NrfsANkM5B2Y3pWeCHNxGQS8kBFceDw is stored on the blockchain, but the 'signature chain' protocol doesn't accept it because the target address was a used address. So the owner 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV was still the owner of the 'signature chain'.

I sent it to the other unused/empty address 14ivWoBRgpfMbyiWqyjuDFnch6sGpsxKTV and now the protocol accepts it.

You have your 'signature chain' on 14ivWoBRgpfMbyiWqyjuDFnch6sGpsxKTV.

txid 387087dddda71c8d48ee1a7ec08652507a32a9a2a2d574884f633065575675c2
block 766,199

signature:

This signature is proof that 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV gives you the right to transfer this 'signature chain' for the Bitcoin address 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV to someone else. 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV is a newly created address to test 'siganture chain' but it could be for example a very old address and the private key holder/owner of that address could transfer the rights to someone else through signing such a message where the address of the new owner is the message and transferring Bitcoin (value is not important/can be dust) to the address of the new owner.

Only you can transfer this 'signature chain' for 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV with the private key of 14ivWoBRgpfMbyiWqyjuDFnch6sGpsxKTV. It is important that you store that signature above. Because there is no 'signature chain' explorer at the moment where you could see that. This signature is like the NFT picture that is not stored on the blockchain.

We are doing all procedures manually at the moment. And it is good as people can understand how it works. At some point it should work automatically through a wallet/explorer.

Now we have to see how the community will accept it. But I have a feeling that it is CryptoPunks in the making.  :)

Royse777, we're testing it and if you want to own a 'siganture chain' so post an unused/empty legacy address (starting with 1..) and I will send one to you  :)


odolvlobo, you too, if you like.

Great, thank you.


but here is my question: Will the market accept this NFT? I mean, will it have real value? Are there any buyers interested in owning this "signature chain"?

We don't know, it's the community's decission. There was an idea 'signature chain' and our task is to build 'signature chain' and explain how it works. The good thing is that it works. I remember when NFTs came out, most people said that they're valueless as the picture is not stored on the blockchain (instead a hash). You could mint CryptoPunks for free and they had no value.

It is very important to understand how it works. For example user franky1 thinks that the creator of a 'signature chain' for a certain address can create lots of 'signature chains' for a certain Bitcoin address (in his example, Bitcoin address = names like dave, jimmy, ...)
Yes, the initial address holder/owner of a 'signature chain' will keep control of their private key (that was the intention of 'signatue chain') but they can't make other chains for "dave" (= a certain Bitcoin address). They can make a new 'signature transaction' and it will be stored on the blockchain, but the 'signtature chain' protocol will not accept it as valid. So there will be one 'signature chain' for one given Bitcoin address.

yhiaali3, you experienced it yesterday as I sent a 'signature chain' to a used address that you gave. The transaction is stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, but the 'signature chain' protocol doesn't accept it. After sending it to an unused/empty address, it worked. Now you have one 'signature chain' from the holder/owner of the address 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV and the owner could send it to another user, it would be stored on the blockchain but it wouldn't be valid in the 'signature chain' protocol. So you are the sole owner of the 'signature chain' that started with this address 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV. Nobody can create another one that is valid.

And if now old Bitcoin address owners like that idea and create a 'signature chain' for their old address, it could become an interesting new type of 'NFT'. Some will say that it has no value, but I think that it has value because the owner intentionally starts that 'signature chain' and I would like to own a chain that started with an 2009 or 2010 address or for example from that address that sold 2 pizzas for 10,000 Bitcoin. It will be unique, that means one 'signature chain' for one Bitcoin address.

lets call dave the genesis block(0) of a chain /network involving jeff.. where jeff is block(1)

nothing stops dave from mentioning claire
where claire becomes part of a new network with a dave(0)->claire(1)

where claire can then sign a message to mike(2)
and so on

yes the jeff network wont like claire(1) and reject claire from JEFFS  network chain.. but..
dave is still making a new CHAIN and new network with claire away from jeffs network

and jeff cant stop dave making a new chain. jeff can only stop claire from being seen in jeffs network

GET IT YET
jeff owns nothing to stop dave.
JEFF OWNS NOTHING. thus its not a NFT. its just a love letter chain of taint... where dave can love many people and have many grand kids with many partners .. its not ownership rights nor a system of an enforced monogamist relationship of grandparents parents kids

dave can make claires chain the main chain by doing stuff like putting in a 2010 date. which jeffs network does not

thus the WORLD outside of jeffs chain network will think jeffs chain was not a real network but instead a testnet. thus boom jeffs chain has no value


oh and one last thing. the 2009 address is not a satoshi address. there were in total 7 people mining in that same day as the 2009 was first seen in bitcoin. and that 2009 address was not a satoshi address but one of the other 6 people mining that day.

I know why you didn't understand it. As we said that it is a new sort of 'NFT', it doesn't work like the regular one. There is a 'signature chain' protocol (rules) and one main point in these rules is that one address can generate only one 'signature chain'. Yes, someone who generated one 'signature chain' (in your case dave->jeff) can generate another 'signature chain' (in your case dave->claire) that will be stored on the Bitcoin blockchain. But, another rule says that only the first seen 'signature chain' on the Bitcoin blockchain is the valid one. Very simple rules. But it works. Dave could generate thousands of 'signature chains' after the first one that are stored on the Bitcoin blockchain. But only one 'signature chain' is valid, namely the first one (in your case dave->jeff).



Yes, that's it. You can't stop someone who has generated a 'signature chain' to generate another 'signature chain'. But, it is all stored on the Bitcoin blockchain. And only the first seen on the Bitcoin blockchain is the valid one that will be accepted by the participants of this new sort of 'NFT' -> the 'signature chain'. If someone wanted to give you a 'signature chain', so the Bitcoin blockchain will be checked whether it is a valid one. So simple. It works.

There will be lots of void 'signature chains' on the Bitcoin blockchain, but who would want them. You can check easily if they are valid or not.

I created a void 'signature chain' to explain it:

Yesterday I transferred a 'siganture chain' from address 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV to 14ivWoBRgpfMbyiWqyjuDFnch6sGpsxKTV (user yhiaali3)

We can check the Bitcoin blockchain for address 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV if it is valid or not. We will see that 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV made a valid 'signature transaction' on block 766,199, so the new owner for this 'signature chain' is 14ivWoBRgpfMbyiWqyjuDFnch6sGpsxKTV (user yhiaali3).

Today I generated a new 'signature chain' from address 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV to 1J777xxcpV3kNwdgkU7ckVM4RrSHvYjcrc that is stored on block 766,348. But anyone can check on the Bitcoin blockchian that there is a 'signature chain' for 1MAP7AKiN5Ddce82VE8eFheFfyQ8iffvmV that was done earlier. So, that new 'signature chain' is void. It is there, but we can say exactly what is valid and what is not. Now the new owner of the void 'signature chain' can transfer that void 'signature chain' to someone else. Nothing stops them to do that as you said it. But the new owner would get a void 'signature chain'. Who would pay for it? We can check this. So simple. It works.


Anyone can download Beeple's "Everydays - The First 5000 Days" and make an NFT out of it. Who would buy it? Only the one produced by Beeple's address is valid, that is the NFT rule. And in our case it is the first seen 'signature chain' on the Bitcoin blockchain that is valid.

What if Beeple produced the same "Everydays - The First 5000 Days" NFT and said that this new one is the original / valid NFT? The community wouldn't accept it. This is how it works and this is how 'signature chain' works.  :)

Seems very interesting! Would be great to be part of this experiment ;D

Here is my empty address:

Hi lasvegas83

Cool that you like that project.

Generated your 'signature chain' with the address 1PiN2bq1xLXt8Jb4XnJRwWfVEmTfcGM8iV

signature:

txid 05d18a44deb06882d83ef999fb5a07ed8e6c6fde6f966fce508dbc2a61043c8d
08/Dec/2022 10:39 PM UTC

Your 'signature chain' started with the address 1PiN2bq1xLXt8Jb4XnJRwWfVEmTfcGM8iV that I generated 2 days ago and you (1CLoAKmgiMrE3nnwvqZNydcsVDVCoLTKzd) are the owner now. Yes, 1PiN2bq1xLXt8Jb4XnJRwWfVEmTfcGM8iV isn't an old address but your 'signature chain' is one of the earliest in that project. 1PiN2bq1xLXt8Jb4XnJRwWfVEmTfcGM8iV could create other 'signature chains' on the Bitcoin blockchain, but these would be void. We can prove that because your address 1CLoAKmgiMrE3nnwvqZNydcsVDVCoLTKzd was the first seen on the blockchain and there can be only one 'signature chain' for one address. That is how it works. You can transfer it whenever you want.

Enjoy the project  :)

casinotester0001

albert0bsd provided a 2011 Bitcoin address 1H3TAVNZFZfiLUp9o9E93oTVY9WgYZ5knX to take part in the 'signature chain' project.

first seen transaction was on block 128,482  04/Jun/2011 03:54 AM UTC

signature:

Old address. Good luck!

Yes that was my first bitcoin address  ;D

It is a pity that i don't stake more bitcoin. Anyway lets to check the development of this project.

Interesting project

@NotATether

You like the project? If you want to own a 'siganture chain' so post an unused/empty legacy address (starting with 1..) and I will send one to you  :)
The 'signature chains' I'm creating are not with old addresses but they are the first in that project.

What if we don’t want to connect a chain of addresses? That seems somewhat counter to most Bitcoiner ideas. Is there still any reason to start a chain if we only had 1 address we wanted in the chain? What would be the value of that over just having the ability to sign a message with said address? Is there a value proposition to why or how these older addresses will be valuable? The one I use has been in use for more than a decade, but I’m not sure how that makes it’s signature chain worth anything.

This project is open and free, so you don't have to connect a chain of addresses. Join if you like.


No, you don't reveal anything except the signature and a transaction from your address to the new owner's address. For example here:


The owner of address 1H3TAVNZFZfiLUp9o9E93oTVY9WgYZ5knX started a 'signature chain' and sent it to 1Pex1JK5w9VTGwohc3pqjfU72AmTgdi3r5. Can we know who they are? No.

Even addresses from the Patoshi pattern (believed to be Satoshi) could create 'signature chains' and nobody would know who they are if they wished to.
The only thing what 'signature chain' reveals is that someone has the private key of the starting address and that they are participating in that project.


The private key owner of the starting address will remain the sole owner of the key after creating a 'signature chain.' You don't share your private key. So you have the ability to sign a message anytime. 'Signature chain' doesn't change/limit your ability thereafter.


This project is like Bitcoin in 2009. We don't know how the community will accept it. But it is worth trying it as it works technically. When NFT started people said that it is worthless because the hash of a picture is stored on the blockchain instead of the picture file. I would like to own a 'signature chain' that started with block 0 (=Satoshi's address, that would be the most valuable imo) even after 'hopping' from address to address with signatures.

With that new type of NFT these early addresses will become an 'artwork' for coming generations. And this all on the Bitcoin blockchain without an altcoin or altnetwork.

DM me if you like to have a 'signature chain.'


@NotATether: your 'signature chain' is being generated. Will post it then.

following. Confused, but still intrigued :)

Not sure if you're aware but markm on these forums created Devcoin and managed to make the genesis block for Satoshi's coins.

https://block.d.evco.in/tx/e61339a40aa4e90e983fe0d64cf09eed5fa1e6eac227b6761f06ac7af1929baf#inputs

Maybe a reason we merge mine, have ability to use keys on BTC and DVC alike.

Just interesting is all.

Same here what's the point ownership when the new owner can have access to the private keys that control the wallet address, I know a lot of development is possible with NFT.

But then as a newbie in Bitcoin technicalities, I will rather watch from afar and I will continue to learn when I gain a good knowledge of how the block transaction works.

Then I will try it out to see how it works if the new owner of the wallet address will have control of the wallet or not, or the 2nd owner will only be able to sign a message and carry out transactions in the wallet since only the first transaction of Bitcoin wallet is count valid.

'ownership': the owner of the 'signature chain'

The new owner of the 'signature chain' can only transfer the 'signature chain' but has no access to the address of the previous owner.

your 'signature chain' has been generated  :)

txid: f1637b0a514e0921ff89bc59f0da59c905c0d0022e03322a7bedec890a7b860b

'signature chain' ID: 1Not1fWnZwiKJe4GKa9GujV2PXypYuxXkZ

signature:

Now you are the owner and can transfer it to someone else with the private key of 1J2QARtbXjsF7UjPYywVbaxavvD5qaCHaf whenever you want.

@franky1

you can have the 'signature chain' with the ID: 1FRANKY1grywXZSJfMfhVoNxa5skP98cGM if you like, post an unused empty legacy address  :)

same  :)

to better understand how it works - my bitcoin address: 1FgEoVLZFGytudv3qHnY79cCTiQn7aP43b

your 'signature chain':

txid: 7590b3c36ca4c02e2db38eadaf6e21869d2fe611382d1fa2ecdf9b46c68e0a1b

'signature chain' ID: 1nonce1BTpmENWB8Yf9sTq9wBUvVgFz1G

signature:

Now you are the owner of that 'signature chain' and can transfer it to someone else with the private key of 1FgEoVLZFGytudv3qHnY79cCTiQn7aP43b.

Satoshi discussed this 'signature chain' ...


... and the result was ...


Satoshi says "The challenge is, how do you prove that no other spends exist?" That means it could work if they found a way to prove it. It could only work with a blockchain. They didn't have a blockchain, they had to create it through running Bitcoin.

But we can use this blockchain for our 'signature transactions' and solve Satoshi's problem.

That's the reason why 'signature chain' works.

Do you mean that the "signature chain" can prevent double spending?
Can a "signature chain" prevent a 51% attack? I doubt it?

To create a "signature chain" you must start with a transaction that carries the "first signature" on the network and this transaction needs to be confirmed by the miners, in the event that someone had 51% of the network hash, what prevents him from repeating this transaction and performing the "double spending", Since he will be the owner of the "first signature" and can repeat the signature?

Isn't it possible for this person to create the same signature on the same transaction before this is discovered?

'Signature chain' without blockchain can't. Satoshi and the others (above post) found that out.

But in our 'signature chain' project we have the 'transfer signatures' plus 'transfer transactions' that are timestamped on the blockchain. So we can know which signature was first, so it works. Satoshi didn't have a blockchain to do this, he had to create one what we use.

Bitcoin NFTs Explode in Popularity as BitMEX Research Shows 13,000 Ordinals
Interest has skyrocketed following the first Ordinals transaction on Dec. 14
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/02/08/bitcoin-nfts-explode-in-popularity-as-bitmex-research-shows-13000-ordinals/ (https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/02/08/bitcoin-nfts-explode-in-popularity-as-bitmex-research-shows-13000-ordinals/)

This is very interesting and I'm following the development. People are looking for new ways of NFT techniques.

OP, hope that your Bitcoin NFT project will be discovered too.
Please continue it. I understood it now and it is an amazing project. Maybe you have to do more PR work  :)

If you are interested in commercializing these for sale, I recommend looking into Emblem Vault. Its a way to lock assets in a Bitcoin wallet and then turn it into an Ethereum token (the thinking is it makes it easier to sell on major NFT marketplaces). You can also attach a signature chain as text which can only be unencrypted by the token's new owner.

https://emblem-vault.medium.com/how-to-sell-counterparty-bitcoin-nfts-on-opensea-684871c3ae40

https://emblem.finance/

https://opensea.io/collection/emblem-vault

You could also use Counterparty to effectively achieve the same thing if you want to remain 100% on Bitcoin.

Is this thread your blockchain? Where should I timestamp  my signature chain? This looks more like an altcoin than NFT.

It is an NFT because:

A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique digital identifier that cannot be copied, substituted, or subdivided, that is recorded in a blockchain, and that is used to certify authenticity and ownership.[1] The ownership of an NFT is recorded in the blockchain and can be transferred by the owner, allowing NFTs to be sold and traded. NFTs can be created by anybody, and require few or no coding skills to create.[2] NFTs typically contain references to digital files such as photos, videos, and audio. (source: Wikipedia - Non-fungible token)

In our case the NFT refers to the previous Bitcoin address.

It is not an altcoin because NFTs are uniquely identifiable assets, they differ from cryptocoins, which are fungible.

But you should consider that 'signature chain' is a new type of NFT. Read the second post to understand how it works.

You missed the first part of my post, how do I send the signed message to another address? Where can I find a buyer? Is this just the concept or can we do it right now? What wallet should we use, where to announce our NFT etc.

Everything testing manually at the moment and it is working. There is no marketplace or explorer so this thread is the only place where one can inform about 'signature chains.' But user nutildah recommends to look at emblem-vault on OpenSea. I was already checking it because of ordinal 'NFTs' on the Bitcoin blockchain and it seems to be the perfect opportunity to exchange 'signature chains.'


I will test emblem-vault a bit and post the results here.

Yes, check the Bitcoin NFTs on the Ethereum network/blockchain, they are skyrocketing. On OpenSea the Bitcoin Punks have high volume trades. I would recommend to list there items of your project. Bitcoin NFTs are coming.

Now some items on OpenSea: https://opensea.io/collection/signature-chain (https://opensea.io/collection/signature-chain)

The items include the private key of the Bitcoin address for the given 'signature chain' as unlockable content that can only be unlocked and revealed by the new owner of this item.

We are very early.  :)

I think you should warn the users about the risk behind getting this address and private keys, since there are more people who have a copy of those private keys, then the users who buy this will risk their money if they decide to send coins to those addresses.

If the goal is only to use those addresses to sign messages, then there is not a big deal, but people must know how these addresses are a high risk for the funds.

These addresses were unused which received a specific 'signature chain', they contain some sats to transfer the 'signature chain' to the buyers own address. The items exist only 1/1, so nobody else can buy it after purchase. Only one buyer will have the private keys. I have the private keys too, but it is the same situation like coin-mixer. The mixer has the private keys of the new addresses too.

Yes, I will edit the 1st post that the new owners shouldn't use these addresses for their own transactions.

This signature has been inscribed on the Bitcoin blockchain:


https://twitter.com/LeonidasNFT/status/1666900463856279574

1. Format is incorrect. The address isn't part of the signature.

2. Anybody can sign a message from this address:


3. Never trust Leonidas. He'll say anything for the sake of engagement and has absolutely no principles.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyKDQWpagAACtZ-?format=png&name=small

They're saying that the first Inscription on the blockchain is the valuable one. All following Inscriptions/Signatures have less or no value. And the participants accept this. Eg. there are Bitcoin Punks and the same Punks as second Inscription (i2 Punks).

The keys were leaked after that article https://news.bitcoin.com/an-unknown-individual-signed-a-message-associated-with-btc-block-1018-reward-was-minted-16-days-after-satoshi-launched-bitcoin/ (https://news.bitcoin.com/an-unknown-individual-signed-a-message-associated-with-btc-block-1018-reward-was-minted-16-days-after-satoshi-launched-bitcoin/)



This thread "old Bitcoin addresses as 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain" started 2 weeks before Casey Rodarmor inscribed his first picture on the Bitcoin blockchain. We should ask him if he knows this thread.