Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message

[Slow death]

and once again we have to talk about faketoshi, doesn't this guy rest? whenever the price goes up a lot, this guy comes up with something

C Wright - signed message - Bitcoin

every year I hear the same thing coming from faketoshi. because he just doesn't spend the bitcoins that everyone will believe him, the price is now too high, he can buy a lot with those bitcoins 

[o_e_l_e_o]

Maybe for security reasons. Let's say he wants to communicate with us and wants to sign the messages. For each signature he would need the private key k_Sat. With the above example he could prove it only once and then use the private key k_abs for all signatures. If hacked, he could create a new k_absnew.

Or, far more simply, he could sign a message from 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa which says "I'm Satoshi, and here is my new PGP key", and then sign all future communication with said PGP key. No need whatsoever to mess around with adding and subtracting public keys, which is exactly the kind of nonsense known fraud CSW would do to try to distract from the fact that he cannot sign a message using the genesis address.

[EdenHazard]

should we feel amazed and say wow? i think everyone agree that the real bitcoin founder or whoever its called satoshi nakamoto or something are the one who never want to show off and remain invisibly anonymous. even if the real satoshi show in public with fully credential we might ignore it ... as it would break the essential of bitcoin philosophy , anonymity .

lets moving on from all of these craight wright drama , he loved to get an attention.

[odolvlobo]

It's a trick, similar to the one in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.0
I don't know how it is done, but the fact that the second characters of the addresses are "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" means nothing.

Rather simple.
You start in reverse meaning instead of adding random public keys to the starting pubkey, you find the final key and then start working your way backwards by subtracting the pub key (of the private key you already have) from the starting public key (which you don't have the private key of).

Oh duh. That is pretty simple.

You only sign with the summed private key, so that is the only one you actually need to know.

The rest of the addresses are done by finding any public keys that add up to the summed public key (after subtracting the satoshi keys) and have the appropriate second letters in the address.

[mynonce]

If I substract this one with Satoshi's public key I'll get:

Code:

x: bd0b9e81abc8ed978bc0873b9b5d44e00e889983c60bb722354793df732cb849
y: 1ddce6233aea09569c65b37c2cf6e1dc6d8fb721de29c4abc1053c94c2801b28

(1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W)

Thank you, I've calculated it with other examples and it works.

But that means, that we still don't have the private key for (1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W) what we publish in the list. So we can say, that if you can sign with (1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W) then you have the private key of Satoshi's key.

This example I could calculate too:
"sum": we have private key -> signed message
"Satoshi's key": we don't have private key
"subtracted key": we don't have private key; we calculated that key with the public keys of "Satoshi's key" and "sum"


but...

It's a trick, similar to the one in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.0
I don't know how it is done, but the fact that the second characters of the addresses are "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" means nothing.

Rather simple.
You start in reverse meaning instead of adding random public keys to the starting pubkey, you find the final key and then start working your way backwards by subtracting the pub key (of the private key you already have) from the starting public key (which you don't have the private key of).

Oh duh. That is pretty simple.

You only sign with the summed private key, so that is the only one you actually need to know.

The rest of the addresses are done by finding any public keys that add up to the summed public key (after subtracting the satoshi keys) and have the appropriate second letters in the address.

here I have a question: From which addresses do we have the private keys if we calculate it that way?

In the example we have "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" and the "sum".

"sum": we have private key -> signed message
"C": we don't have private key
"W": we don't have private key
"r": we don't have private key
"i": we don't have private key
"g": we don't have private key
"h": we don't have private key
"t": we don't have private key

Who can answer? [solved]

[edited]
pooya87 had answered

I will use 3 keys in total to keep the computational cost to minimum since I don't want to waste my time but the idea is the same, you keep going backwards (t > h > g > i > r > W > C)

Code:

LOOP:
  Compute pub2 = pubX - pub1
  Compute address of pub2 and check if it starts with W
    return if true
    change privX to privX+1
END;

We calculate the public keys for "t", "h", "g", "i"... but "sum" we can calculate with the private key and modify it, so we can sign the message.

Amazing pooya87!

[BlackHatCoiner]

At the end of the day, you should never trust a person who:

1. Uses these cunning methods of proving his identity other than a straight-forward way.
2. Denies to provide a valid signature from Satoshi's address, but rather convinces others to state that he did sign a message.
3. Changes his blog's post to show that he was working on bitcoin in 2007-08, but web.archive.org says otherwise.
4. Says he is Satoshi.

I mean seriously, don't ever trust a person who says he's Satoshi. This person is long gone and this project is the only thing left by them.

[Lucius]

and once again we have to talk about faketoshi, doesn't this guy rest? whenever the price goes up a lot, this guy comes up with something

I have written many times that Faketoshi will calm down only when he ends his miserable life - and until then he will do what he has been doing so far, spread lies and deceptions. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people who believe that he really is Satoshi, and even some of the closest associates of the real Satoshi Nakamoto like the famous Gavin Andresen who has been helping Faketoshi in his crazy intentions for years.

[galambo]

Already so much has been said about signing of message. We all know that Craig Wright is Faketoshi, he has done such things many times in the past just to gain attention. We shouldn't give him so much attention since this is what he wants.

Now, if Craig Wright is the rightful owner of that wallet where a great value of Bitcoin can be found, the best thing to do is to use the private keys and move that Bitcoin thereon to another wallet and maybe even sell some millions to a centralized exchange like Binance and then have everything documented via video.

Cant agree more, that's the simple thing he can do to prove that he is the owner of wallet under the custody of Satoshi.

[iamonlinenow]

To the creator:

To whom your speak to? Aren't you the one who brought this or just read it somewhere?.

source: https://pastebin.com/mNcAPrRv
Posted the link in the first post.


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)

This list https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf contains these two addresses


I am interested in the early days of Bitcoin and am finding such things sometimes.

[funwithbitcoin]

Just sent 10 USD each to the creator's addresses (except the first two Satoshi's addresses):

1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF
1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5
1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG
1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw
1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT
1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm
1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq

To the creator:
Post a signature for 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG

Why a signature? Take the coins, they're yours.


Let me close that "creative burn address generation" thread post with Satoshi's post:

Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more.  Think of it as a donation to everyone.

[DooMAD]

Cheap parlour tricks from desperate con-men.  Truly pathetic.  Since it's pastebin, can we know for sure that this is Wright?  Or perhaps just one of their demented supporters thinking they were being clever, but effectively further undermining their own figurehead like an idiot.

[suzanne5223]

Wonders will never cease.
After they lose the battle of hyping their coin which was considered to be officially dead cause people show no interest in it, the next thing is to also fake signed Bitcoin message?
 It's funny how Craig Wright and his group of bandits (that what I presume them to be) always behave foolishly not knowing they have already lost this battle long ago

[DooMAD]

Wonders will never cease.
After they lose the battle of hyping their coin which was considered to be officially dead cause people show no interest in it, the next thing is to also fake signed Bitcoin message?
 It's funny how Craig Wright and his group of bandits (that what I presume them to be) always behave foolishly not knowing they have already lost this battle long ago

Makes sense.  Some of the scammers aren't ready for the charade to end.  They can't come to terms with the fact that they aren't fooling anyone.

Please forgive us if you can

They're only sorry that they failed.  Not sorry at all that they were a bunch of lying scum.  Why would anyone forgive that?

[NotATether]

Can you sign a message with that public key?

In the OP example there is a valid signature. That means someone has (or had) the private key for the public key.

You cannot sign messages unless you have the private key (which you do not have in your example).

Makes sense.  Some of the scammers aren't ready for the charade to end.  They can't come to terms with the fact that they aren't fooling anyone.

I mean, just look at Ayre. I'm semi-regularly bashing him on twitter for wasting his time trolling bitcoin core devs when he's got a billion dollars to play golf, go to galas, get drunk!

[Kakmakr]

I think the proof for me is not that he can sign an early address, but that he is trying so hard to be Satoshi Nakamoto.    Now, we all know Satoshi Nakamoto was clever enough to leave, after Gavin had a meeting with the 3l3tter agency... and we never heard from him again. Why would he suddenly want to reveal his true identity, if the same people will go after him again?

CW is a wannabe and his motives are as clear as glass.... "fame & fortune" ... and this is absolutely the opposite of what Satoshi wanted. (He stayed anonymous and he has not touched a single coins of the almost 1 Million coins he supposedly owns. 

[mynonce]

Can you sign a message with that public key?

In the OP example there is a valid signature. That means someone has (or had) the private key for the public key.

You cannot sign messages unless you have the private key (which you do not have in your example).

In the OP example there is a valid signature, as I said. That meant, that the creator has the private key. And we wondered how that is possible.

pooya87 solved it:

Rather simple.
You start in reverse meaning instead of adding random public keys to the starting pubkey, you find the final key and then start working your way backwards by subtracting the pub key (of the private key you already have) from the starting public key (which you don't have the private key of).

...

I will use 3 keys in total to keep the computational cost to minimum since I don't want to waste my time but the idea is the same

...

1. C (from origninal pubkey posted above).
2. W (what we want to get in the mid pubkey). Call this pub2
3. Random letter that doesn't matter.

Code:

LOOP:
  Compute pub2 = pubX - pub1
  Compute address of pub2 and check if it starts with W
    return if true
    change privX to privX+1
END;

In short:

The creator has only the private key for the signature address 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L.
All other Bitcoin addresses are calculated with public keys and the creator doesn't have the private keys.

[mynonce]

1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF
1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5
1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG
1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw
1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT
1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm
1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq

if they are connected , and if and only iff there are in not less than one output on each address, you can recalculate all privatekeys belongs to them.

They are connected:
The public key sum (ECC calculation) of these addresses leads to the address 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L.
And the creator pinned a valid signature to this address.
But pooya87 showed (see my previous post), that it is possible without knowing the private keys of that list.

[DarkDays]

It's a trick, similar to the one in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.0

I don't know how it is done, but the fact that the second characters of the addresses are "C", "W", "r", "i", "g", "h", "t" means nothing.

I agree. It is not legit and the fact that the addresses has 'C Wright' in it doesn't mean anything just as stated above.

If the guy was really the father of Bitcoin, trust me there wouldn't be the need for years and years to prove so but somehow he still has no definite proof of this. The guy is full of himself, he's a falsifier.

[odolvlobo]

if they are connected , and if and only iff there are in not less than one output on each address, you can recalculate all privatekeys belongs to them.

yes, but I'm talking that there are possibilities take the first privatekey from the first addres, but only then if from rest address are minimal one output:)

What do the number of outputs have to do with it?

Don't leave us in suspense. Please tell us how you can determine their private keys.

[BlackHatCoiner]

if they are connected , and if and only iff there are in not less than one output on each address, you can recalculate all privatekeys belongs to them.

Assuming you mean that the public keys have this connection and we do know these public keys, then no. If you know that k₁G + k₂G = k₃G and you know k₃, it doesn't mean you also know k₁ and k₂. Only if you knew another k you could work out every private key.

yes, but I'm talking that there are possibilities take the first privatekey from the first addres, but only then if from rest address are minimal one output:)

This doesn't make a lot of sense and since we're discussing on a topic with proper formulation of every sentence, you'll have to describe this better.