6
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: old Bitcoin addresses as 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain - 'signature chain'
|
on: February 16, 2023, 10:51:31 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
10
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: old Bitcoin addresses as 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain - 'signature chain'
|
on: February 11, 2023, 06:20:56 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
11
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: old Bitcoin addresses as 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain - 'signature chain'
|
on: February 11, 2023, 01:57:24 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
18
|
Other / Archival / Re: Who Know this Privatekey 1B5USZh6fc2hvw2yW9YaVF75sJLcLQ4wCt
|
on: December 28, 2022, 02:58:55 AM
|
Read the article: "this approach does not undermine the system security but highlights the importance of using fair random sources during the private key selection." These guys didn't create their addresses with random sources. The article is about that issue and not about Bitcoin's security.
|
|
|
20
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Craig Wright might be Satoshi Nakamoto
|
on: December 25, 2022, 09:51:48 PM
|
The address has never spent any Bitcoin, and its public key should not be known to anyone, but the following is included in the PDF file: 0496b538e853519c726a2c91e61ec11600ae1390813a627c66fb8be7947be63c52da7589379515d 4e0a604f8141781e62294721166bf621e73a82cbf2342c858ee This public key is, in fact, 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX's public key. The same is true for all of the other addresses in the file that I checked. It is impossible to guess the public key for a Bitcoin address that has never spent Bitcoin.
If you read the blockchain for block 1 (that includes the address above) you will get the transaction 0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098 raw data: 01000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fffff fff0704ffff001d0104ffffffff0100f2052a0100000043410496b538e853519c726a2c91e61ec1 1600ae1390813a627c66fb8be7947be63c52da7589379515d4e0a604f8141781e62294721166bf6 21e73a82cbf2342c858eeac00000000 This raw data contains the public key in plain text. So the public keys for the early addresses are known. Because they were "pay-to-pubkey" addresses instead of the later introduced "pay-to-pubkeyhash" addresses.
|
|
|
|