Who has/had the oldest mined Bitcoin?

[casinotester0001]

How did you end up with the address anyway (I've checked blockchair, and you're right; I just don't understand the point of this conversion).

Check that project:

old Bitcoin addresses as 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain - a signature chain
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5425241.0

It will help to understand more. Would be glad to hear your comments there 

[1714103834]

1714103834

[1714103834]

1714103834

[1714103834]

1714103834

[1714103834]

1714103834

[1714103834]

1714103834

[1714103834]

1714103834

[WhyFhy]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/mysterious-bitcoin-miner-shows-off-oldest-signature-dated-jan-2009

Why ?
Food for thought that article has 8000 views but this topic has almost 400.

[oryhp]

This is the oldest signature    (please post if you have a signature with an older address)

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
HCsBcgB+Wcm8kOGMH8IpNeg0H4gjCrlqwDf/GlSXphZGBYxm0QkKEPhh9DTJRp2IDNUhVr0FhP9qCqo2W0recNM=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

What's the meaning of the message? "1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa" is just an address with ~2mBTC. Could you sign another message? Preferably this one: "Today is December 4th, 2022, and I sign for topic #5421158". Also, money sent to "1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj" were paid in public key (block 1,018), so I'd expect a public key instead of an address. How did you end up with the address anyway (I've checked blockchair, and you're right; I just don't understand the point of this conversion).

Rather than signing dates, they should sign a hash of the block header that was mined 10 minutes ago. This proves it was impossible for a message to be signed by creating plenty of msgs or whatever. It's exciting seeing an early Bitcoin signature, thanks for the entertainment OneSignature.

[ir.hn]

This is the oldest signature    (please post if you have a signature with an older address)

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
HCsBcgB+Wcm8kOGMH8IpNeg0H4gjCrlqwDf/GlSXphZGBYxm0QkKEPhh9DTJRp2IDNUhVr0FhP9qCqo2W0recNM=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

What's the meaning of the message? "1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa" is just an address with ~2mBTC. Could you sign another message? Preferably this one: "Today is December 4th, 2022, and I sign for topic #5421158". Also, money sent to "1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj" were paid in public key (block 1,018), so I'd expect a public key instead of an address. How did you end up with the address anyway (I've checked blockchair, and you're right; I just don't understand the point of this conversion).

Rather than signing dates, they should sign a hash of the block header that was mined 10 minutes ago. This proves it was impossible for a message to be signed by creating plenty of msgs or whatever. It's exciting seeing an early Bitcoin signature, thanks for the entertainment OneSignature.

Ya signing an address means nothing for timestamping.  This address, while unused, could have been created at any time.  Basically we have no idea if OneSignature actually can sign or if this is just a re-used signature from years ago.  Also the OP is probably OneSignature, and this whole topic is just to show off that he found what he believes to be the oldest signature.

If the message that the signature signed does not include a recent blockhash, then it is worthless.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Rather than signing dates, they should sign a hash of the block header that was mined 10 minutes ago.

That's indeed smarter than a date, but note that I asked to provide the topic ID too.

This address, while unused, could have been created at any time.

The money were sent to a public key, but that doesn't make the address unused, because they were sent to a public key that returns this address. The hash of that public key (which received 50 BTC in 2009) returns this address, so he can't have faked it.

However, that doesn't prove he mined the coins. It only proves possession of a private key. A miner could start selling old private keys, and therefore share his ownership with others.

[casinotester0001]

Rather than signing dates, they should sign a hash of the block header that was mined 10 minutes ago.

That's indeed smarter than a date, but note that I asked to provide the topic ID too.

Yes, it would prove more eg. that the signature was created recently.

But if we use a Bitcoin address as the signature message, so we can build a 'signature chain' where the new owner can sign it and transfer it to the next owner.

Created a 'signature chain' transfer in the thread  old Bitcoin addresses as 'NFT' on the Bitcoin blockchain - a signature chain
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5425241.msg61393177#msg61393177

[franky1]

'transfer it"

your not transfering ownership of the genesis address..

your just playing a chain later game of naming the person you want to show love for

you are getting no ownership control or access of the genesis address. so you are not changing/transferring ownership of it

if you want to play a game of 'name someone you love/trust to have been named by you'.. create a reputation system

EG if onesig was to sign to 5 people .. that means he trusts 5 people. where if one of those people gains signatures naming them from lots of people. that means lots of people trust that user.

which is a value creation system.

however
elvis loves onesig
onesig loves emily
emily loves jeff
jeff loves stacey.
means that stacey does not get elvises estate in her will, she doesnt even get to be elvises next o f kin. nor even gets the pen elvis autographed to onesig with..
she just gets to try to con someone else into buying a love letter from stacey to staceys victim. under the pretend that the victim is getting to own elvises pen used to autograph

though stacey has no ownership of any of that to give to the victim in real life outside the "chain"

your system is not creating real value or utility.

..
look i understand the premiss. it was like them games some forum members done years ago, where they established a set of bitcoin to represent a kitten or diamond and they seen how far it would grow via transferring it at a X rate of premium per trade.

but your system does not actually transfer the real control of the genesis item you pretend users several taints forward are promised to receive.

you are just getting people to sell their love of a next victim by signing you love them. and they sell their love forward to whomever buys their love by naming them

[casinotester0001]

~

“While many people *could* have mined Bitcoin that early, the overwhelming evidence suggests that barely anybody did,” Cobra added. “Bitcoin was obscure, irrelevant, and seen as a dumb idea, ..."
- the owner of bitcoin.org, the pseudonymous character known as “Cobra” explaining the early days of Bitcoin

source: https://news.bitcoin.com/an-unknown-individual-signed-a-message-associated-with-btc-block-1018-reward-was-minted-16-days-after-satoshi-launched-bitcoin/

[franky1]

but bitcoin is not just creating a coin thats passed to a decendant ..

bitcoin has other functions.
it actually also has an underlying COST.(mining cost)

check hal finneys post about price discovery.

One reason price might follow difficulty is that mining should not be too profitable (because nothing should be too profitable, the world doesn't leave free money lying around). Therefore the price of Bitcoins can't rise too much above the cost of mining (counting equipment depreciation among the costs of course). The cost of mining is proportional to the difficulty (approximately). Therefore we might expect to see price proportional to difficulty.

users in 2010 gave it a price because of cost them $0.07 to mine 1 btc. and those that didnt want to burn their cpu/gpu for an hour or so per coin would instead just buy it instantly to save time and stress, and usually pay a premium for instant access to coin without the stress/burn cost.

it had a underlying value(mining cost)..and above that meket speculated premium(price)

functionally: bitcoin has utility. too
you can do things with bitcoin. which you cant with your signature chain

your 'pass a love letter' has no underlying value cost apart from a conversation starter at parties where people can make a clam that they own something and show proof of some provenance.. yet reality is they have no ownership of the original item you say it does

because the descendants dont get the private key (the underlying asset you pretend they get to own)

your not selling ownership. at best case.. your selling province proofs. without the starter item actually moving ownership. thus its not real provenance

[casinotester0001]

it actually also has an underlying COST.(mining cost)

'signature chains' have a cost too. You have to pay the transaction cost.

functionally: it has utility. too
you can do things with bitcoin. which you cant with your signature chain

What can we do with NFTs? Or what can you do with the hash of CryptoPunks?

because the descendants dont get the private key (the underlying asset you pretend they get to own)

If the new owner of the 'signature chain' got the private key it would not work. Then we would have a sharing system.


The most important thing is that it works. As of today it has no value for some people. Because the old empty addresses have no coins in them. It was an idea and we want to test it. I would be glad to be the owner of a 2009 or 2010 address 'signature chain'. If you think that it has no value then you can DM me such a signature (of course if you own some) and when you don't use them. All other users can DM me too 

[franky1]

This is the oldest signature    (please post if you have a signature with an older address)

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfjHCsBcgB
+Wcm8kOGMH8IpNeg0H4gjCrlqwDf
/GlSXphZGBYxm0QkKEPhh9DTJRp2IDNUhVr0FhP9qCqo2W0recNM=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

What's the meaning of the message? "1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa" is just an address with ~2mBTC. Could you sign another message? Preferably this one: "Today is December 4th, 2022, and I sign for topic #5421158". Also, money sent to "1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj" were paid in public key (block 1,018), so I'd expect a public key instead of an address. How did you end up with the address anyway (I've checked blockchair, and you're right; I just don't understand the point of this conversion).

Rather than signing dates, they should sign a hash of the block header that was mined 10 minutes ago. This proves it was impossible for a message to be signed by creating plenty of msgs or whatever. It's exciting seeing an early Bitcoin signature, thanks for the entertainment OneSignature.

this can be "fooled" too

if just adding a date..
the true owner of the 2009 address can at any time..
create a new chain. and put an epoch time in a sig of 1291513567 (dec 2009) and then just hash a block with low difficulty and reference that hash in a next signature message where by they pretend to have transferred it every 6 months for 13 years they can easily reference a previous hash of 26 taints previous hashes and pretend each are done 6 months apart by just adding 15778463 to the epoch time each time they sign.. even though reality is they done 26 signatures in one day

and boom. this new chain has a better provenance than this topics sigchain is pretending to have provenance of

thus making the sigchain proposed no longer valid

it would be better to use a blockchasn of a network outside of the sigchain block. such as current bitcoin blockheight hash

but that too can be faked by just putting in a blockhash of late 2009 as the start of a new chain to make it appear that the new chain is the original by having a older bitcoin hash included

..
trying to turn taint(provenance) into value.. is not a real thing

taint(chain of provenance)  back to original creator, is not ownership of original creator
.. but that still doesnt fix the big picture flaw of his concept.  
the current signature message has nothing to do with the first message anymore.. thus retains no value the more descendants of taint there are

[casinotester0001]

this can be "fooled" too

if just adding a date..
the true owner of the 2009 address can at any time..
create a new chain. and put an epoch time in a sig of 1291513567 (dec 2009) and then just hash a block with low difficulty and reference that hash in a next signature message where by they pretend to have transferred it every 6 months for 13 years they can easily reference a previous hash of 26 taints previous hashes and pretend each are done 6 months apart by just adding 15778463 to the epoch time each time they sign.. even though reality is they done 26 signatures in one day

and boom. this new chain has a better provenance than this topics sigchain is pretending to have provenance of

thus making the sigchain proposed no longer valid

Then he would have a 'signature chain' fork like a Bitcoin fork. Our rules wouldn't accept their transactions.

And that example above is the initial signature and doesn't need a transaction as mentioned in the 'how it works' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5425241.msg61386368#msg61386368

Here is a regular 'signature chain':

created a 'signature chain' transfer:

1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo is the starting address (first time used in 2022, it is not an old address, just to show that it works)

The owner/holder of 1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo transfers the 'signature chain' to 1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP:

1) signs a message (message is the Bitcoin address of the new owner)

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo
H5U5G/qQy2pk5Es6LCFrfzKuA5vFnpq7oBT4/V91jhGRafWg9Bq8A6Au+tPYNE/kdAm07JkcL82QTJ6QlSPr86Y=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

2) transfers Bitcoin from 1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo to 1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP (to the new owner)

txid 167af01dd191b0e2d47f7255a9f440789a0ae7cba92a644f69d2b39e1f120eaf
Block 765905
04/Dec/2022 9:25 PM UTC
output: only 1 legacy address = valid

Now 1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP is the owner of this 'signature chain' and tranfers it to 1B2a3bau6T5jHRgzWo4pzRj93fkPNaPZHj:

1) signs a message (message is the Bitcoin address of the new owner)

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1B2a3bau6T5jHRgzWo4pzRj93fkPNaPZHj
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP
H22/CTmYHFL5SPorqchj44pya7QRVYekvBxiqVslfMJechxQ1hE0tYpRjCxB/77A3tohMuhC1Pafa44wDgqlrWY=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

2) transfers Bitcoin from 1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP to 1B2a3bau6T5jHRgzWo4pzRj93fkPNaPZHj (to the new owner)

txid 12bbc865f8b5259cd0c40a5da954e488e555f746a59d001f225b94ebde73a8c9
Block 765907
04/Dec/2022 9:55 PM UTC
output: only 1 legacy address = valid

Now 1B2a3bau6T5jHRgzWo4pzRj93fkPNaPZHj is the owner of this 'signature chain'

1NCLNyKPGjx2GwdRSPB5xqfy58WtGtgNgo
1M4wDv1tGEt2yPL6FrkM6o19jxV6mdopnP
1B2a3bau6T5jHRgzWo4pzRj93fkPNaPZHj

and can transfer it.


It works  

You can't break it. It works.

[oryhp]

Rather than signing dates, they should sign a hash of the block header that was mined 10 minutes ago. This proves it was impossible for a message to be signed by creating plenty of msgs or whatever. It's exciting seeing an early Bitcoin signature, thanks for the entertainment OneSignature.

this can be "fooled" too

My comment was referring to a single singature, not a chain of signatures. I'll comment a bit on the chain of signatures though. You can always encode a new transfer sequence as a linear chain of onchain outputs i.e. a sequence of single input, single output transactions is the simplest form. People could "define" (I put it in quotes because it's a social construct) the coinbase address to own the block PoW.
This PoW could in theory be agreed on to be transfered with a chain of signatures defines as a chain of outputs. This should work as a concept. The PoW obviously isn't in the address at the head of the chain, but it was never in any of the historical addresses. It's there because of our agreement and the fact that nobody could've tampered with the transfers.

[S_Speche]

Hello world!

#DontuseBitcoinCoreV24.0

[franky1]

again

casino.. your talking about your silly customers inside your silly network who wont accept a fork.

here is the thing though

its not about a customer several taints/descendants/love letters down forking..
its the 2009 address(2009 elvis) private key(2009 elvis pen) owner who still has the private key of the 2009 address that can make new chains after they got paid and your customers(i know you own the address and have a couple forum alt accounts)

by making a new elivis autograph for a new network that looks like it predates your first concept chain.... simply makes the first concept chain obsolete. completely

because no one inside your first concept chain actually gets control of the elvis address private key to prevent the elvis pen from creating new chains.

thats why no one would trust the elvis address because they cant stop the elvis pen signer from making more autographs for other chains thus making the first concept chain worthless

in short im saying because i know YOU are casino and onesig. who has the private key.. nothing is stopping YOU from signing a new chain into existence once you got paid.. and make it appear that 2nd concept predates you first concept chain. thus there is no value. they do not take ownership of the 2009 address to stop you. thus no value.

i was trying to be subtle but i think i was too subtle by calling you(casino+onsig) elvis and onesig

..
anyway outside your first concept chain knowing you can rip off your descendants by just creating a new autograph once you got paid. you outside first concept chain can then make another chain..
it wont be a fork that a descendant done.. because they never get the private key of 2009 address

it would be you creating a new chain from elvis(2009 address) by creating a sig to a new group of descendants that you add in a hash/epoch that predates first concept chain. thus making second concept chain the new prime chain and the first concept chain becomes defunct.


anyways putting all that crap aside..
inside the chain(s) you create. they also have no value because great grandchild that is 3 signatures down from elvis address.. is not holding or owning anything elvis address related. all they hold is a message from their parent

that message is not of any value. it has nothing to do with the 2009 address.
its just a emily loves jeff message.. a couple generations after
onesig loves emily and
elvis loves onesig

but apart from a love letter parent loves child chain.. the chain does nothing else.

[shahzadafzal]

About two years ago more than a hundred early day miners signed a message from their corresponding addresses calling Craig Wright (aka faketoshi) a liar and a scammer. You can find the addresses and their signatures in this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250960.0

Yes, that was exactly what I did too. Checked some addresses in the list, but the oldest I found was from December 2009. The signature in the example above is from January 2009. Years ago there was someone here on bitcointalk who mined block ~2000 and that was the oldest what was known.

Now this signature from January 2009    Maybe someone knows more?

That's true all those addresses which singed that message related to Craig Wright were from December 2009. However this particular address probably created on 19 January 2009 and remember Satoshi mined genesis block on Jan Jan 03, 2009 but the 1st block was mined on Jan 09, 2009, that means this particular address was created just 10 days after bitcoin was launched publicly.

[illusivereverse]

This is the oldest signature    (please post if you have a signature with an older address)

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
HCsBcgB+Wcm8kOGMH8IpNeg0H4gjCrlqwDf/GlSXphZGBYxm0QkKEPhh9DTJRp2IDNUhVr0FhP9qCqo2W0recNM=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

A lovely present!

Special.

[illusivereverse]

This is the oldest signature    (please post if you have a signature with an older address)

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
HCsBcgB+Wcm8kOGMH8IpNeg0H4gjCrlqwDf/GlSXphZGBYxm0QkKEPhh9DTJRp2IDNUhVr0FhP9qCqo2W0recNM=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

A lovely present!

Special.

1MDAvctRaTDE5b6GgZy6tB8jXtJFR1UQjJ

[franky1]

usernames{casinotester0001, OneSignature, cryptoGPU, illusivereserve}
are all one guy using alt accounts,
self promoting using alt accounts
and then making several topics of the same pre-emptive advert for a ICO/new network scheme.. and then sending the links to crap coin media outlets to promote him further.

[CryptoGPU]

A good analysis on this:

https://btcinoutalert.net/onesignature-is-not-satoshi/

As explained in the previous post, a mysterious user named OneSignature appeared on the BitcoinTalk forum, a historic forum where there are numerous Satoshi posts, signing an address with bitcoin mined in 2009 and an outgoing transaction in 2011. The address (1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj) has block mining TX 1018. The signature is the most dated/oldest ever to appear on a bitcoin address.

The (few) certainties
Let us start with the few certainties, namely the signature and its verification.

We have noticed some unnecessary discussions about the supposed invalidity of the signature, and let’s settle that right away; the signature is authentic. We used Electrum connected to a Bitcoin full node, but you could use hundreds of other different methods; the signature is certainly authentic. After making sure that the signature is authentic, let’s take a closer look at the blockchain to understand more about it.

[read on the link above]