@SquirrelJulietGarden That is a very cool site.  I was not aware of that site.  I have been watching it for a bit.

@nymphav The problem is that other transaction with an even higher priority appear to be "pushing you out"

I agree this is pretty pathetic.  You paid $32.47 to transfer $271.05 - a huge percentage - and that is not enough to get you to the front of the queue!

Now sitting at Priority: 545/161773

Even paying over thirty dollars you may never get in a block due to other people paying even more.

Bitcoin is not for small transfers at this time.

You might find this interesting:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=694401.msg56375694#msg56375694

They will mine for the fees, which will take the place of the subsidy.

Establishment talking points:

Bitcoin is "used for illegal activities"
Bitcoin is "not green"
Bitcoin is "risky"
Bitcoin is "volatile"
Bitcoin is "a bubble"

etc. etc.

They will be spouting these and others more and more as they see people moving away from their currencies as a store of value and embracing something else.

Bitcoin is not a threat to the utility of fiat currencies.  We need them for day to day transactions.

Bitcoin is a threat to their control of the economy through their manipulation of their currencies.

We do not want the price of BTC to go to $10,000,000 in this era.  Possibly some day in a later era when the subsidy is much lower, but not now.

Here is why:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=694401.msg56375694#msg56375694


Now, of course, Bitcoin would never actually consume that much power since mining equipment would not be able to be produced fast enough and the price of electricity would go up to compensate.  But it would be catastrophic if the price were to actually go up that much in a short period of time.

Ha ha.  Noob.

It is Bitcoin, not Bit coin.  Noob.  You know nothing.  Stick around and READ.  Maybe in a few months you might be able to contribute something of value.

Correct.  What we want is steady growth in price through the various eras such that the total energy consumption is kept to a reasonable level where "reasonable" is TBD.

What you are asking for would also require us to estimate:

• Exactly what will be considered "reasonable" 0.5%? 1%? 1.5%?
• The growth of power production over the eras.
• The growth in fees as the subsidy is removed.
• The growth or reduction (fusion may come on line in our lifetime) in the price of energy over time.

Seems pretty daunting to me.  Maybe someone will take a stab at it.

Having had to deal with this personally due to my run in with homeland "security" and having to hire three law firms:  one for the criminal charges, one for the civil (asset forfeiture) charges, and one for the tax charges, I can address this concern.

Of all the various governmental agencies that I had to deal with, the IRS is the only agency that has a very clear, concise and published directive of how they view and treat Bitcoin.  The IRS looked at Bitcoin and said "nothing new here" Bitcoin is property and will be taxed as such.  On the other hand the "justice" department says welllll... it is money, property, or a security depending on which view is of greatest benefit to us for the specific case we are prosecuting.

Bitcoin == Property to the IRS so they and you can simply substitute any other property for Bitcoin and see how they will treat and tax any transaction.

So if I have a piece of property (gold, diamonds, land, art, a rental property, Bitcoin, etc.) and I use it for collateral in a loan, let's take using land as collateral to get a loan as an example, this is not a taxable event.

If you sell your Bitcoin at a profit you owe short or long term capital gains.  If you sell your Bitcoin at a loss you have short or long term capital losses.

If you use it as collateral to get a loan you have not sold it.

Obviously IANAL

@bytcoin

Your question has been answered.  Please very carefully read over these two posts:


@bytcoin, let me try to paraphrase these answers for you:

If my formula to find k (and then find the private key) OR the formula in the other thread that finds the private key directly OR any of the other correct formulas in this thread or any other thread do not work to find the private key then the signature is not a valid signature.

Do you understand now? 

Your question boils down to this:  If I create a totally invalid signature why do these formulas not work?

The answer is right there in your question:  The reason it does not work is that you started with an invalid signature.

I hope this help.

BurtW

Your example makes perfect sense to me.

Assume someone had a 25 BTC coin, currently worth over 1 million, and they expect it to go higher.

They can get a 500K+ loan, buy a house, plane or whatever and still participate in the expected run up in BTC value.

I now understand the use case.

Could be very useful for some coin holders.

Assumptions made in my previous post:

The coin is legit
The lender holds the coin
The lender has no need or desire to cash out during the term of the loan

This is the data that works:


This is the data that does not work:


p, h1, r1, s1 and r2 are identical in both data sets.  This means you used the same private/public key pair and the same starting value for k in both cases.

However the values of h2 and s2 are different between the two cases.

What exactly did you change between the working and the not working case?  Just the message?  For sure you started with the same k value.

Since both cases use k for the first value and you are claiming that the second k value in both cases is k + 1 then it looks like maybe all you did was change the message?

Bitcoin Network Power Consumption Estimate

First, note that Bitcoin mining efficiency does not matter when estimating the trend of the power consumption of the entire Bitcoin network.

The power consumption of the entire network depends on five things:
 
x = the exchange rate [USD/BTC]
e = the era [0..32]
f = the average fees per hour [BTC/hour]
c = the average cost of energy [USD/kWh]
r = the average percentage of income miners spend on energy [unit less ratio]

From the era we can calculate the average hourly BTC subsidy rate:
s = 6(50/2^e) [BTC/hour]

And the average amount of BTC all the miners in the world make per hour:
b = s + f [BTC/hour]

From this we can calculate the amount of USD per hour all the miners in the world make:
u = bx [USD/hour]

Given the worldwide average percentage of income miners spend on energy the amount spent worldwide on energy is:
ur [USD/hour]

And finally, the worldwide power consumption is given by:
P = ur/c [kW]
   = bxr/c [kW]
   = (s + f)xr/c [kW]
   = (6(50/2^e) + f)xr/c [kW]

Notice that mining efficiency does not enter into this equation and does not matter.

You do not need to know or estimate the average overall efficiency of the mining network unless you want to calculate the difficulty and/or hash rate.

Let’s put in some numbers:

x = $50,000; the exchange rate [USD/BTC]
e = 3; the era [0..32]
f = 5; the average fees per hour [BTC/hour]
c = $0.03; the average cost of energy [USD/kWh]
r = 0.8; the average percentage of income miners spend on energy [unit less ratio]

P = (6(50/2^e) + f)xr/c [kW]
   = (6(50/2³) + 5) 50000 ( 0.8 ) / 0.03 = 56,666,666 [kW] = 57 Gigawatts

World power production/consumption is about 15,000 Gigawatts.

Bitcoin mining will trend toward 57/15,000 = 0.38 % of world power production given these values.

This scales by BTC price so:

BTC at $500,000 means power consumption would trend to 3.8% of worldwide power.

BTC at $5,000,000 means power consumption would trend to 38% of worldwide power.

Assuming an older coin, I do not know why as a lender you would not loan the entire face value.

If you get an older coin, loaded by Mike himself, and lend 1 BTC for it, the worst case scenario is:

They never make any payments and default on the loan.  In this case you get:

1 BTC
1 BCH
1 BCL
1 BTG
1 BCD
etc, etc.

Of course the only one worth anything, besides the BTC is the BCH but that is currently over $1,000

+ the collectible value, whatever that might be.

Assuming you open the coin and collect the BTC and all the forks, or sell it for the combined value, you make a profit on a completely defaulted loan.

Better case:  the borrower makes some of the payments then defaults.  The lender gets the coin plus all the payments made.

There is basically no risk to the lender if they lend full BTC value on a pre-fork coin.

The lender is totally protected if the entire transaction is in BTC.  Although I am not sure that is what you are talking about.

Did you do all the operations mod n where n is the bit length of the group order?

I really think this should work, unless I made a mistake in my math.  Did you double check all my algebra?

I believe I wasted my time since there is a perfectly good solution/proof that shows how easy it is to get the private key if you know the relationship between the two k values in your other thread here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5316741.msg56347059#msg56347059

Please check my work but I think that if you know k is being incremented then you can simply calculate the private key.

All of the variables and terminology in this post are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signature_Algorithm

Given two different messages with two different signatures we have:

First message and signature (m, r, s)
Second message and signature (m', r', s')

From each message we can derive the z value (hash of the message) so:

First message and signature (m, r, s, z)
Second message and signature (m', r', s', z')

Therefore:  ks = z + rd_A and k's' = z' + r'd_A

Therefore:  (sk - z)/r = (s'k' - z')/r'

But in this case k' = k + 1 so:

(sk - z)/r = (s'(k + 1) - z')/r'

So all you have to do is solve for k.  All the other values:  s, z, r, s', z', and r' are all known.

(sk - z)/r = (s'(k + 1) - z')/r'

rr'[(sk - z)/r] = rr'[(s'(k + 1) - z')/r']

r'(sk - z) = r(s'(k + 1) - z')

r'sk - r'z = rs'(k + 1) - rz'

r'sk - r'z = rs'k + rs' - rz'

r'sk - rs'k = r'z + rs' - rz'

k(r's - rs') = r'z + rs' - rz'

k = (r'z + rs' - rz') / (r's - rs') all mod operations, of course.

Once you know k you can simply calculate the private key, d_A


Also note that any scheme where k' = k + n is vulnerable, n does not have to be just one.

Does anyone know if there is a web site that shows the face value of a 2011 pre-fork Casascius Coin?

What I am looking for is a web site or calculator that I can enter, for example, 1 BTC coin and get back the current value of the BTC + BCH + ... to get the total value of all forks.

As you can probably guess my daughter lost interest in this project and she moved on to other things:  competitive rock climbing, learning to fly an airplane, collecting vinyl records (!), learning to play the bass guitar in her own rock and roll band, etc.  Oh to be 13 again...