 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Thanks for your answers. Maybe you know about Ordinals/Inscriptions on the Bitcoin blockchain and its transaction structure to create an Inscription. The initiator Casey introduced Inscriptions so, that you need TWO transactions to create 1 Inscription. 1. commit transaction 2. reveal transaction He explains it so: "Since taproot script spends can only be made from existing taproot outputs, inscriptions are made using a two-phase commit/reveal procedure. First, in the commit transaction, a taproot output committing to a script containing the inscription content is created. Second, in the reveal transaction, the output created by the commit transaction is spent, revealing the inscription content on-chain." Wouldn't it be possible to have ONE transaction to create an Inscription? |
|
|
|
.
Ok, that means the transaction could have 2 inputs and 2 outputs and one output is a CPFP unconfirmed UTXO that will be spent by input 2 (back to sender's wallet), so it would work? |
|
|
|
But if what you mean is having the second input and the first in one transaction then I don’t think it will work because this is like spending from an un initiated transaction.
You can redress your question we’ll go get the right answer
Yes, one transaction. Without the inputs, there will not be anything like the outputs.
I asked, because it is possible to spend the output of a transaction with another transaction on the same block, although the output isn't on the blockchain, both transactions will go through in one block. |
|
|
|
|
Can one create such a transaction that is valid:
Transaction with 2 inputs and 1 output.
First input uses an UTXO that comes from an earlier block and is unspent and valid.
Second input spends the output of this transaction.
Curious if this is possible.
Thanks for your answers.
|
|
|
|
No matters, no pattern.
Exactly there is no pattern. Anyone can found some matches with some characters and the those aren't related to target address in any way. Here is the proof from the creator of the puzzle: This puzzle is very strange. If it's for measuring the world's brute forcing capacity, 161-256 are just a waste (RIPEMD160 entropy is filled by 160, and by all of P2PKH Bitcoin). The puzzle creator could improve the puzzle's utility without bringing in any extra funds from outside - just spend 161-256 across to the unsolved portion 51-160, and roughly treble the puzzle's content density. If on the other hand there's a pattern to find... well... that's awfully open-ended... can we have a hint or two?  I am the creator. You are quite right, 161-256 are silly. I honestly just did not think of this. What is especially embarrassing, is this did not occur to me once, in two years. By way of excuse, I was not really thinking much about the puzzle at all. I will make up for two years of stupidity. I will spend from 161-256 to the unsolved parts, as you suggest. In addition, I intend to add further funds. My aim is to boost the density by a factor of 10, from 0.001*length(key) to 0.01*length(key). Probably in the next few weeks. At any rate, when I next have an extended period of quiet and calm, to construct the new transaction carefully. A few words about the puzzle. There is no pattern. It is just consecutive keys from a deterministic wallet (masked with leading 000...0001 to set difficulty). It is simply a crude measuring instrument, of the cracking strength of the community.Finally, I wish to express appreciation of the efforts of all developers of new cracking tools and technology. The "large bitcoin collider" is especially innovative and interesting! |
|
|
|
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] |
|
|
|
Yes, this chart shows us how many machines mined these early days. Satoshi's 'Patoshi machine' mined 7/24 to let the network up (blue points) with a special software where the extraNonce increased after a block was found, therefore this different slope of the blue line. These mined blocks he did not transfer. And as you say correctly we can see that ~6 PCs mined at that time with the regular downloadable Bitcoin software. But that does not mean that Satoshi didn't mine with one (or more) other PCs running the regular software too. My opinion is that Satoshi mined with other PC(s) along with the Patoshi machine. And these Bitcoin he transferred and used. looking at the casino guy (that is onesig) casino guy has been BUYING old used wallets/addresses for a while
To be honest, would you sell the private keys of an early address (like this one) if you mined back then? Yes, 2012 - 2013 private keys were sold to let the buyer claim other coins, but I haven't seen a 2009 key being sold. casino(onesig) is not satoshi.
I think that too that casinotester is not Satoshi. .. not satoshi but one of the 6 other people mining that day that were not satoshi
It is also possible that these ~6 mining machines are the group Satoshi. |
|
|
|
Yes, this chart shows us how many machines mined these early days. Satoshi's 'Patoshi machine' mined 7/24 to let the network up (blue points) with a special software where the extraNonce increased after a block was found, therefore this different slope of the blue line. These mined blocks he did not transfer. And as you say correctly we can see that ~6 PCs mined at that time with the regular downloadable Bitcoin software. But that does not mean that Satoshi didn't mine with one (or more) other PCs running the regular software too. My opinion is that Satoshi mined with other PC(s) along with the Patoshi machine. And these Bitcoin he transferred and used. looking at the casino guy (that is onesig) casino guy has been BUYING old used wallets/addresses for a while
To be honest, would you sell the private keys of an early address (like this one) if you mined back then? Yes, 2012 - 2013 private keys were sold to let the buyer claim other coins, but I haven't seen a 2009 key being sold. casino(onesig) is not satoshi.
I think that too that casinotester is not Satoshi. |
|
|
|
I don't want to sell anything. On the other thread they're discussing the project. If you want to discuss the project, please do it there. Here you can tell what you know about this January 2009 signature and not about the project. |
|
|
|
|
-------- reserved --------
|
|
|
|
Examples: - maybe character #32 is upper case "P" and not lower case "p" - does the ethereum account on the first page of the diary have anything to do with the 500 BTC wallet? - does the second bitcoin account on the right page of the diary have anything to do with the 500 BTC wallet? - is this better quality diary photo ( https://ibb.co/z8VrV0n) fake? If not, who has the complete photo? |
|
|
|
This thread was created to support the challenge of phrutis https://github.com/phrutis/wif500Some challenge participants have good ideas, how we could improve it. Here you can post these and we can discuss it. Good luck! -------- will be edited -------- new developments you can read here -------- |
|
|
|
|
