Is this Satoshi? Did he sign that message?

[LoyceV]

most bankers will still ask for screenshots of transactions from your email or exchange in those dates, not signing. I say this from exchange requests asking to show where it came from.

I'd tell them screenshots can be faked, and prove nothing. Instead, I'd send them a signed message, printed on paper for their inconvenience.

LoyceV, you are an experienced bitcointalk member. What was the oldest signature you've seen?

My oldest transaction is from 7.5 years ago. And I'm not going to dig up old backups of Android Bitcoin Wallet (Schildbach) to find the exact transaction.

[casinotester0001]

most bankers will still ask for screenshots of transactions from your email or exchange in those dates, not signing. I say this from exchange requests asking to show where it came from.

I'd tell them screenshots can be faked, and prove nothing. Instead, I'd send them a signed message, printed on paper for their inconvenience.

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?  

[yhiaali3]

Why would anyone want to buy a bitcoin address?

If I have the private key, I can empty the account before giving it to someone.  If I don't, I cannot do anything with it but look at its transaction history.
Edit:  And send coins there.

Someone may want to convert old BTC addresses into NFT and sell them for large amounts later, this idea may achieve great profits after 10 years have passed, as these old addresses become of archaeological value as they are old Bitcoin addresses.
In this case, it does not matter whether you own the private key or not, because this address will not be used to send or receive bitcoins, but only as an NFT.

[casinotester0001]

Someone may want to convert old BTC addresses into NFT and sell them for large amounts later, this idea may achieve great profits after 10 years have passed, as these old addresses become of archaeological value as they are old Bitcoin addresses.
In this case, it does not matter whether you own the private key or not, because this address will not be used to send or receive bitcoins, but only as an NFT.

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

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

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-----

signature chain  

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
HwvtQmiREYIyZeI9uohqr82d9eiwtcBgbhG5+VR7+ouEDOTgd6EYvcgNQVELLVJnQbYhN6SSv1xPtQ8SmIa10+U=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[casinotester0001]

Someone may want to convert old BTC addresses into NFT and sell them for large amounts later, this idea may achieve great profits after 10 years have passed, as these old addresses become of archaeological value as they are old Bitcoin addresses.
In this case, it does not matter whether you own the private key or not, because this address will not be used to send or receive bitcoins, but only as an NFT.

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. 

[Flexystar]

I am not sure why there is much urge about finding Satoshi at all? He literally invented the whole blockchain thingie so that he can live in peace without any disturbance from the worlds centralised banking system. He might be thinking right now "What I have done?" sitting in the park and watching hundreds of news in the new paper about people claiming they are satoshi and about the news where there is hunt for Mr. Satoshi.

Oh man, poor he!! By creating such discussion we are actually disrupting the whole meaning of privacy for Satoshi.

FYI, who knows he might be still active and reading the threads anonymously / as guest just to keep safe distance. Lolz.

[casinotester0001]

I am not sure why there is much urge about finding Satoshi at all?

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.

[franky1]

in the original topic.. it was casinotester that started that other topic.

his game is he likes to BUY old addresses(used private keys).

general opinion is he wanted people to publish so that he can seek them out to buy those private keys from them..

so now he is trying to be subtle about converting them into some NFT thing. which basically means he then wants to sell those privkeys to someone else..

in short he is a private key broker

..
here is the problem selling a private key is the same as giving more people access to the private key.

NFT dont work that way

the (hash) of an NFT is transfered to different peoples key. so that no one has access to the private keys thus there is no spread of key holders.

..
what casino wants to do however. is sell you a private key.. knowing he gets to keep the key to sell it again to someone else so that more people all use the key and no one really owns the it out-right because too many people have access to sign with it

as for the other usernam "one signature" i believe that its an alt account of casino tester. and he bought a private key previously and is just showing off a signature to spark social drama/gossip for free advertising in the hope others would have also signed and published so he can sales call on those people

[casinotester0001]

~

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  

Someone may want to convert old BTC addresses into NFT and sell them for large amounts later, this idea may achieve great profits after 10 years have passed, as these old addresses become of archaeological value as they are old Bitcoin addresses.
In this case, it does not matter whether you own the private key or not, because this address will not be used to send or receive bitcoins, but only as an NFT.

I'm not.

[franky1]

~

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.

but the new owner. does not own the original address AS YOU CLEARLY SAY

so here is a thing that you should learn. "not your key not your asset"

because you cannot ensure only the new owner has the key to the original item. means that buyer does not own the original item

you are not inventing a NFT system of owning the original item and transfering ownership of that item.. .. you not even inventing an autograph system where people own autograph's of celebrity /historic item..
the autographs are not the original. nor signed by the original signer

its like if someone owns an elvis autograph including the pen that signed it.. pretending it proves they are elvis.
but they are not selling that autograph or selling elvis's pen

they are letting the buyer write his own signatures that are not even any longer saying "elvis" in the scribbles

plus there is no way to limit who and how many you sell a autograph YOU created

thus VALUELESS

what you are creating is a "chain love letter" system

elvis wrote in 1969 "i love casinos" signed ELVIS
casinos wrote in 2022 "i love onesigcasinos" signed casons

the signature or ability to sign onesig now has.. has no value. as it has nothing controlling/ownership of anything elvis

[casinotester0001]

thus VALUELESS

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

[franky1]

the quote in that topic post says about turn THAT ADDRESS into an NFT and SELL IT

meaning you selling the privkey to the 2009 address..

but you dont want to. and if you could you cant do that.. so game over its not an NFT system
thinking someones  random address created in 2022 thats mentioned in some love letter chain thats leads back to some celebrity autograph has value.. has no value

[casinotester0001]

~

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.

[franky1]

~

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.

wrong
because "onesignature" for example signed that

1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
now belongs to
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa

and then
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
signed that it now belongs to
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
.. in your mind.. right?

however..

NOTHING stops the owner of the original
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
from signing to someone else

also the value of getting your address signed by
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
has not the same value as seeing your address signed by
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj

..
like i said before
imagine elvis is: 1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj

and signed "i love stacey" 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
and stacy signed "i love jeff 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

jeffs autograph is not as important as a real signature from elvis to you

no one wants jeff. and jeff has not signature from elvis himself

..
now here is one other thing.
altough this scenario is suggesting that in 2022 elvis signed a the first chain letter to stacey. we all know elvis is dead. so the autograph to stay has less value because we dont know if it was actually elvis signing it or someone just using his pen..

and again.. you are not even selling elvisis pen(privkey) you are just letting jeff sell a chain letter of love to someone.

[casinotester0001]

~

franky1, you didn't read the 'how it works'   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5425241.0

to transfer the ownership there must be a 'transfer signature' + a 'transfer transaction'

the only transfer within that project that is valid without a 'transfer transaction' is

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

that is our 'block 0' by definition (like Bitcoin block 0, we have an input hash by definition)

the next transfer 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
HwvtQmiREYIyZeI9uohqr82d9eiwtcBgbhG5+VR7+ouEDOTgd6EYvcgNQVELLVJnQbYhN6SSv1xPtQ8SmIa10+U=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

isn't valid too, because there is no 'transfer transaction' from 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

but if 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa sends coins to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7 then 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7 will become the new owner of this 'signature chain'
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj to
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa to
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

and if 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa creates thereafter (transaction is on the blockchain) nobody will accept it
so only 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7 can transfer this 'signature chain'

[franky1]

YOU ARE NOT TRANSFERING OWNERSHIP

your signature chain is not transfering ownership.
(we both agree on that..(its not transfering the original privkey))

its transfering signed love letters

the owner of 1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj can still outside your  signature chain.. do many things. like spend value with someone else and create other chains or do lots of things.

(imagining the real elvis was still alive or the person that signed the original elvis autograph)
jeff has no control over elvis to stop elvis from signing to other people outside your chain letter game

thus your chain letter game has no UNIQUE value

thus its a moot point to pretend jeffs signing in jeffs name to some other girl that he loves her. has nothing to do with owning elvises estate. cause your love letter game is not about selling off elvises estate

jeffs new girlfriend is not earning anything from jeff. she doesnt get elvises estate in a future divorce nor gets to own elvises property while in a relationship with jeff

all she has is a love letter from someone that got a love letter from some who got a autograph from someone that owns the estate of elvis

which for jeffs GF has no value in the love letter

[franky1]

i did read your explanations but i am happily not stuck in your narrow field box of your signature chain. i can see the big picture

so lets word this another way.
years ago people tried to envision a reputation system

they start a chain. where a reputible user has 1000coins to represent 100% reputation.
they sell/give that reputation to someone else declaring they 100% trust this second user.
the second user sells/gives that 1000 coin to someone, saying that they trust the 3rd users

where its MEANT to represent that trusting 3rd user is as good as trusting the first reputable user

however
the 3rd person has no control or relationship with first user..
so its fake rep already. the first user doesnt even know third user
so thats already broken the value proposition of worth of those 1000coins. as the 1000coins do not represent first users rep status anymore

also nothing stops first user putting another 1000coins into his address and setting up another chain system
which then dilutes the first chain down to half as much trust of whatever small modicum of trust that first 1000 now represents

third user of chain 1 cant stop first user from diluting that trust (ccant stop more coin going into another chain)

thus it destroys what the first chain systems purpose meant to achieve and makes it as a whole system valueless as it is not unique/enforced/true trust ownership transfer system

..
also
your system is not a ownership transfer system. nor a trust system.. it a chain letter system.. thus no underlying value to begin with

[odolvlobo]

Note that Bitcoin itself is based on the this concept. When you transfer bitcoins you are simply extending a signature chain.

However, the system proposed here has a problem shared with NFTs -- the system transfers only an abstract notion of ownership. It doesn't have the ability to transfer full ownership, by which I mean all of the capabilities, rights, and responsibilities commonly inferred by that term.

Specifically this:

The transfer does not include the private key for the address, so how can it be claimed that ownership of the address has been transferred? Furthermore, even if the private key is also transmitted, then ownership is only shared and not transferred because the previous owner still has the private key.

[franky1]

Note that Bitcoin itself is based on the this concept. When you transfer bitcoins you are simply extending a signature chain.

However, the system proposed here has a problem shared with NFTs -- the system transfers only an abstract notion of ownership. It doesn't have the ability to transfer full ownership, by which I mean all of the capabilities, rights, and responsibilities commonly inferred by that term.

bitcoin transfers ownership of the coin by moving the coin.. whereby previous owner cannot then control the coin. which gives that COIN its value due to the security that the coin cant be removed or duplicated

bitcoin is not about owning the previous address. bitcoin has its own unique values

bitcoins coin value is not about its taint coming from a famous person.
yes there are values(sentiments) that the taint proves its creation, but also which cant be messed with by that creator.

where the premium of selling comes from the other utilities/features of bitcoin and where even when there might be a cheaper way to acquire coin outside the market(mining) even mining has a bottom cost which supports its value thus when people pay a premium ontop of value for convenience of getting it quick on an exchange instead of mining. that price has purpose and sentiment supporting it and underlying cost supporting it

however
this scheme casino is trying to promote is owning something that proves chain of custody (provenance) of a elvis autograph.. without the end signaturee actually owning a elvis autograph

jeffs girlfriend only gets a letter signed by jeff.. thus no correlation of value transfer of elvis's autograph

[casinotester0001]

-- the system transfers only an abstract notion of ownership. It doesn't have the ability to transfer full ownership, by which I mean all of the capabilities, rights, and responsibilities commonly inferred by that term.

Exactly, you got it. The new owner will never know the private key of the previous owner, but the previous owner proved by signing the massege + transferring Bitcoin to the new owner that they are willing to transfer the 'ownership' to the new owner.

It is something new, but it works