Now, we have 2 signatures So? Here in that thread the same: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.msg60813049#msg60813049-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
https://news.bitcoin.com/online-sleuths-believe-satoshi-nakamotos-bitcoin-stash-is-a-blockchain-treasure-hunt-meant-to-be-found/
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1s1wZLBTjFZJi8DrN1kogV9ZxRZxwvKQJ
HMoLqUcrjx22an/MrY4uy2z9Nowz4Ag9x3kzsbqz+FaNDSgkH+boXhWUyEkhq4bX8c24Ju+RHwWGltWKopRcg9k=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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. |
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
Now, we have 2 signatures So? 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? 2nd chars of the addresses: CWright
1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF
1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5
1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG
1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw
1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT
1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm
1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq 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 |
|
|
|
Signature:
Signed message:
CWright?
Bitcoin address:
17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L
Signature:
G/3yr8ouR8jhC+Bv5K+q/vGHuwX/hp9Kx7pQ6Coxt3a/Wmd2yif6e2nf8Srnx/dpR1rIFUpV8qf+rW6B+ktKjTk=
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
https://news.bitcoin.com/online-sleuths-believe-satoshi-nakamotos-bitcoin-stash-is-a-blockchain-treasure-hunt-meant-to-be-found/
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq
HPzH/JMXVLvl3deEABqpKvwapl5+Wfh06dZURyoQ7fSjIONloxPdgQs0gVyC4jhGLzKunsLbDA6LM7mQlNLUMDA=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Also, what is this suppose to mean? 2nd chars of the addresses: CWright
1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF
1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5
1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG
1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw
1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT
1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm
1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq This means the creator can't sign from any of the addresses.
Someone was able to  Now, we have 2 signatures |
|
|
|
Ever hear of subtraction? It goes something like this:
500 - 170 = 330
Maybe fair and better?: alterra57: (170/670) * 500 = 127 ABC: (500/670) * 500 = 373 |
|
|
|
... then it should be returned to it's rightful owners.
When we find out that Deonnn got the 500 bucks from let's say user ABC. How much should alterra57 send ABC  |
|
|
|
I don't have $500, only 100 UST and $100 futures check your IP and IP of Deonnn  |
|
|
|
Return $500 immediately!
16xypjnxlrew = Deonnn |
|
|
|
......
amazing Now let's find out that alterra57 = Deonnn. Just kiddin' |
|
|
|
Satoshi Nakamoto is reading your Post, ...
Maybe Satoshi Nakamoto himself created this thread to make the world know: You can say whatever you want about Bitcoin ... Bitcoin won't fail, never. Bitcoin will flip the monetary world as we know it ... just wait and watch ... or contribute ... your choice, you're free. - just thoughts - |
|
|
|
...
exactly. I think that Satoshi thought about it and made the same decission like you described it here. Let them move  |
|
|
|
.. most of we'd need to make Bitcoin "quantum-resistant" is to extend Bitcoin Script with mechanisms to ...
What will we make with early mined coins that haven't been moved since ~2010, eg. Satoshi's coins? |
|
|
|
It is nearly impossible because it would be the same as guessing a 256-bit number (which is technically not impossible).
Year 2022: Satoshi's early mined coins are (nearly) impossible to guess Year 2122: ? |
|
|
|
On Github https://github.com/kpurens/CudaBrainSecp, you say: In the example diagram an extra calculation Sha256 Transform is done before Secp256k1. This calculation makes it (nearly) impossible to guess the previous or the next private key. Why (nearly)? |
|
|
|
It shows 40 characters: 5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMnutGnPHtjVob You are right. It does. I apologize. If you want to work with that characters, check them again, they don't match the characters shown in the picture https://github.com/phrutis/wif500. |
|
|
|
@NotATether is helping @soferox Update:
The OP has since identified two of the unknown WIF characters at the end. We managed to get Bitcrack running on his two GTX 1070's searching for the remaining 8 characters at a combined speed of 400Mkeys/s, over Discord. The estimated runtime is 16 days. Hopefully, it turns up with his lost WIF.
And then he answers, after I had said, that they are searching it there https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5404406.0, where is a link to the challenge https://github.com/phrutis/wif500 and there you can see the damaged paper: Suppose you do find the coins (which actually belong to @soferox) - how will you return them to him?
I thought that he would know it. No, you were the first who said that two problems are connected, while they are not:
Are you sure that they are not? @soferox Can you give us an answer? |
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with original question (at least not based on what I know). OP claims he is still searching for his WIF, as he wrongly decoded some characters, and work continues. Nothing new is known.
It is true WIF500 is a very similar problem (similar combination of known characters and missing ones).
Find the WIF challenge https://github.com/phrutis/wif500Suppose you do find the coins (which actually belong to @soferox) - how will you return them to him?
Some others think it too |
|
|
|
Looks like i'm not being clear enough. What i mean is whether there's any WIF which generate Bitcoin address where the balance (of generated Bitcoin address) is higher than 0 satoshi.
Interesting remark. It is possible to launch search without given target address, then program will output every WIF which fulfills criteria (produces the correct WIF having initial parameters). I think they do not use that approach. It would give many results, but as usually when we are in crypto world, chances it produces address with balance are almost 0. Interesting remark #2 and then check the valid WIF's bitcoin address against this list: List of all Bitcoin addresses ever used https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5265993.0 |
|
|
|
Looks like i'm not being clear enough. What i mean is whether there's any WIF which generate Bitcoin address where the balance (of generated Bitcoin address) is higher than 0 satoshi.
The program is looking for exactly 1 address (in this challenge case for 1PfNh5fRcE9JKDmicD2Rh3pexGwce1LqyU) and if the calculated WIF leads to this BTC address then it stops and shows the WIF. And this BTC address balance is > 0 ( https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1PfNh5fRcE9JKDmicD2Rh3pexGwce1LqyU). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
