Ask LoyceV, maybe he can help 

No, this 'NFT' is a bit different but it works. Again, read the 'how it works' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5425241.0
The idea behind that is a 'signature transfer chain' that can only work if the private key holder/owner of the initial address signs a 'transfer message'.
Thereafter the initial owner can't sign a valid transfer message (we won't accept it as valid) as the 'transfer transaction' to the new owner will indicate the transfer of ownership.
So there will be exactly one owner at a given time who owns it and can transfer it.

please check the project 'how it works'
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5425241.0
updated it
it works

Thanks.

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

No, the holder/owner of the private key will not sell their private key or give it to someone else.

The ownership transfer will work through a 'transfer signature' that will be signed by the holder/owner of the address.
The message in the signature will contain the address of the new owner, but the new owner won't have the private key of the old owner's address.

Started a new thread
old Bitcoin addresses as 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5425241.0

franky1, give it time. Then you will know that it is a 'good' project.

btw, you did forget that I'm also user yhiaali3 who suggested to make NFTs out of it  


I'm not.

--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

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:

---

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

OpenSea: 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 ---

It's not about finding Satoshi. The question came up as the (OP) mentioned signature has been created with a very old key that has been used in January 2009. Now there is a new theory that they are testing an 'NFT' like ownership transfer of old (empty) Bitcoin addresses.

Maybe they are testing a new 'NFT' within the Bitcoin blockchain where old (empty) Bitcoin addresses are the 'NFTs'.

Can you generate a legacy Bitcoin address (starting with 1..) and post it here? I want to try this 'NFT' idea with old Bitcoin addresses. 

Is possible too, and they're creating a new market.

Is that the ownership transfer of such signatures? (signature chain)

But don't do this with the private key/signature of the OP mentioned address.

These in Januray 2009 mined coins were transferred in 2011 (txid 567a9a7f9191db644a09985fad113dd6ee770eac69454317430e694305be9c56) with several other very early mined coins. So whoever created that transaction, has the private keys of other very early addresses too. And some addresses you can find here:



source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satoshi-nakamotos-neighbor-the-bitcoin-ghostwriter-who-wasnt/


Who can explain?  

Yes, could be. But in this case we have a very old address, maybe the oldest. LoyceV, you are an experienced bitcointalk member. What was the oldest signature you've seen?

For example to claim other coins.

But in our case here, it has nothing to do with claims. This pivate key that has been used to sign that massage is one of the oldest, maybe the oldest that exist.

I am not sure.


Maybe true and nobody else can sign with a key of an older address. This would be true if they own all older keys.

This address is included in the transaction input of txid 567a9a7f9191db644a09985fad113dd6ee770eac69454317430e694305be9c56

and some of these too.


 

source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satoshi-nakamotos-neighbor-the-bitcoin-ghostwriter-who-wasnt/

my 2030 machine is saying:

wrong

Maybe this is possible too:

If the hashrate comes down so extremely the 'mining part of the world' would try to get any mining machine as the profitability would go up even for non-profitable miners. They would buy/ship all miners to these places. Even GPU/FPGA mining would become profitable again (for a short time). So my expectation is that the hashrate would rise again but we wouldn't reach the former hashrates. I can't imagine an average blocktime more than 30 minutes for a long period. The mining rentability would correct it.

That means somebody still has the private key and can sign messages. The post above proves that too. But it is amazing that it is a January-2009 address/key. If someone can post a signature with an old key (block 1 - 2000) that's great. I don't think that the address/key was sold/bought because there's no reason for these first miners to do it.