Craig Wright? - signed Bitcoin message

[mynonce]

...  you'll have to describe this better.

... Please tell us how you can determine their private keys.

I wanted to ask the same question, you were faster

[1714243855]

1714243855

[1714243855]

1714243855

[1714243855]

1714243855

[1714243855]

1714243855

[1714243855]

1714243855

[mynonce]

it is difficult to explain, but I'll try
...
and if you know new K as integer you can recalulate back to the first k used in first pubkey

Is that what you mean
https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1540.pdf
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ssTlSSIJQE

but in our case we don't have all signatures.

[mynonce]

no , in this way is enought perform Gauss - Jordan Reduction, lattice LLL and BKZ will not work

If in our case, there were signatures for all addresses, I would think that someone solved it the way you explain it and has the private keys. But we have no outputs. Now I understand your possibility argument with outputs.

[BlackHatCoiner]

For whoever didn't understand interiawp's post, I'll try to simplify it.

These s, r and z are values that can be derived from an ECDSA signature. As I've said recently;

The signature is consisted of [r, s] and z is the hash of the message we want to sign. The s is created if you combine the message hash (z) and the private key (d).

They say that if we have this kind of connection between 3 public keys AND a signed message from EACH public key, it'd be entirely possible to calculate their private keys. Same applies for my example. If I we had a signed message from all 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa, 1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W and 1J2jrkkXrHp3To3VFDo6QVQKhWQt3L7nDG we could work out all's private keys.

The problem is that we only have one's private key.

[mynonce]

...
These s, r and z are values that can be derived from an ECDSA signature. As I've said recently;

The signature is consisted of [r, s] and z is the hash of the message we want to sign. The s is created if you combine the message hash (z) and the private key (d).

...

Does it depend on different/same r?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Does it depend on different/same r?

I haven't confirmed their equation(s), but it seems it doesn't matter what the r values will be.

[mynonce]

Does it depend on different/same r?

I haven't confirmed their equation(s), but it seems it doesn't matter what the r values will be.

I found https://billatnapier.medium.com/ecdsa-revealing-the-private-key-from-four-signed-message-two-keys-and-shared-nonces-secp256k1-5758f1258b1d
and there we have two different r values and four signatures.

[naakamoto_rising]

Code:

-----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-----

[casinotester0001]

Signature:
Signed message:
CWright?
Bitcoin address:
17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L
Signature:
G/3yr8ouR8jhC+Bv5K+q/vGHuwX/hp9Kx7pQ6Coxt3a/Wmd2yif6e2nf8Srnx/dpR1rIFUpV8qf+rW6B+ktKjTk=

Code:

-----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?

Code:

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  

[BlackHatCoiner]

Now, we have 2 signatures

So?

[casinotester0001]

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?

Code:

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

[BlackHatCoiner]

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

No. Simplified equation again: (Bold parts are private keys that are owned by them, or can be calculated by them)

1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF's public key + 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5's public key + 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG's public key + 1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw's public key + 1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT's public key + 1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm's public key + 1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq's public key = 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L's public key

==> 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF's public key + 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5's public key + 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG's public key + 1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw's public key + 1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT's public key + 1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm's public key = 17mZRodKy5ufNqJVsyKg1bEt81AnRkkh9L's public key - 1t7MqxnqwmwooDjKnvV9AFkiktqUvvxkq's public key

==> 1C7X4UWpSa4GteWHaRBm49fMCC2SNvJQF's public key + 1W7PDetXCcAbXnN6YQyWmAdz65WZecJs5's public key + 1r7VRs5hwFNaqWSMdAGZVoQ7uQhsesRqG's public key + 1i7JYfJiXf5ARAysJaRaECLLcnrx1Gcuw's public key + 1g7nBFZkyET8TPXBoxzBYA83XPJzwDCVT's public key + 1h7djfQ2MjojsRJQdvn6jNuJZZB9oFYLm's public key = 1LSpmoBBWydsTjanZK9Lk1j43PnSPhRRmL's public key*

They can only prove they own all the addresses listed in OP (or just those with the 50 BTC), if they sign a message from every address except 1. They might as well own 1r, 1i, 1g and 1h; if they don't provide a proof from either 1C or 1W, they don't own anything.

But, let's say they did. Yes. Let's take this hypothetical scenario wherein these fat, loser, no-life scumbags with no ethics did provide a signed message from these old 1C & 1W addresses, for the sake of Craig's majesty. So what? Does that provide a proof of anything other than they own some bitcoin?


*

Code:

(1cdced0646879da917d4d9eba9669329c8feb29425d5b192f722a00eebc0d216, a4969ce2061614087ba4a631618f322cbda3dddaf79205db95bba4d24939701e) - (876ca85b08d1adb23639410084ea4953cfda40c676f8e10be5dd08eefee50655, 27ff2580ee182aa46f1bde2fa3a3c80bde963e7fba24a1e60f4d81d1cf9a03ea) = (da2ab1d2001405f6777c44a2f42abdd454957db48a418acaf97ae7aa01666b59, c1c6badb50fae1358cc593581d645f1fe15f202dc9a1a6840d491e86fd43dccb)

[casinotester0001]

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)

[casinotester0001]

Now, we have 2 signatures

So?

Here in that thread the same:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367558.msg60813049#msg60813049

Code:

-----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.

[pooya87]

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.

Creating a random address then signing a message from it doesn't mean anything at all. People are doing it every single day (200k transactions per day are doing that). Maybe you should try reading that topic and understand the explanations given by others on how starer tried fooling those who don't understand how bitcoin works.

[casinotester0001]

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.

Creating a random address then signing a message from it doesn't mean anything at all.

Read the website that was used as the message of that signature 

Code:

-----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-----