Is this Satoshi? Did he sign that message?

[franky1]

its not.. because previous owner is not PREVENTED from signing to someone else (duplicating ownership) via a different chain

thus if original creator/signer created another signature chain it immediately dilutes the value of the first chain

you are not seeing the limit and lack of limitation of your scheme

play your scheme out in scenarios.. not just "best use practice" but also in ways of abuser

do the white and blackhat strategy. play the hero and villain. actually bash your scheme out a bit and really test if for its vulnerabilities.

hint: the signature message of onesigner doing

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

does not have a timestamp in the message

meaning last month he could have done that signatire to 1E9Yw...
but same day also signed 1franky address, BUT included a timestanp to sign it to me in the now presumed 2012
meaning

yes he published that in 2022 its presumed 1E9Yw.. now has provenance of 1NChf.. but a singed message with a 2012 holds more weight than one without a date in the message

my signed message i hold dated 2012, then can debunk "onesignatures" provenance. because mine is signed with a 2012 date. meaning the 2022 is the false provenance. making your whole network not the best network of provenance from the original address of 2009

[casinotester0001]

thus if original creator/signer created another signature chain it immediately dilutes the value of the first chain

Yes, the initial owner can sign a message (to a different address) + send Bitcoin to this address
The blockchain will 'store' it.
But we will see that there is a previous message + transaction to a different address and wouldn't accept it in our 'signature chain'.
A 'signature chain explorer' would know this 'agreements'.

[franky1]

but your signature chain. is not moving coin. its moving address notifications

which have no value/utility outside your chain

also. nothing stops them making many signatures at genesis creator level. thus if there was some modicum of value in signature chain 1.. guess what. that gets diluted instantly

especially if i started a signature chain that has a 2012 timestamp included thus i steal provenance from your 2022 chain making your 2022 useless

[casinotester0001]

but your signature chain. is not moving coin. its moving address notifications
which have no value/utility outside your chain
also. nothing stops them making many signatures at genesis creator level. thus if there was some modicum of value in signature chain 1.. guess what. that gets diluted instantly
especially if i started a signature chain that has a 2012 timestamp included thus i steal provenance from your 2022 chain making your 2022 useless

What you're doing here is creating a fork of our 'signature chain'. It's like a Bitcoin fork. Our 'signature chain' won't accept your signatures + transactions.

For example here:

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

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

we have a signature that 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa transfers the 'signature ownership' to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

then we have a Bitcoin transfer from 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa to 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
txid 16bb6761cc8d7d393d25a88ec589361c1f0461a9c138ecc2333b0736efe488de

only 1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7 can transfer that 'signature chain'
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7

How can the initial owner transfer it or create another signature (to a different address) that is valid?

[franky1]

again you are not handing over ownership becasue the receiver doesnt have the key to sign using the base address you pretend that they get to own


separately

im not talking about for instance jeff signing to stacey and jeff also signs to audrey for jeff to "fork" the network several 'blocks' down your chain

im talking about elvis(genesis owner) who signed to onesignature and to franky+2012 timestamp.. so that there are 2 different genesis's(block 0's)

where by the franks first block becomes the prime chain because the onesignature first block seems to be newer by not having a 2012 presumed linkage of provenance from elvis
..
but the problems still remain. there is no value in buying or trading an autograph that is not even elvises handwritten name to one of his fans
(im subtly hinting a fix for you(include date in signed message to help ensure if there was duplicates signed messages from same sender. only earliest date stays on chain*) while also pointing out a flaw of the big picture)

*technically not a fix. but just stepping a flaw out of a flaw of flaws(one less snowball roll of an avalanche of snowballs)
..
as for the big picture of will your network as a whole be of value to other people. does it have any utility.. thus will the 'blocks' /proof' be of value.. to people that are not you..


again you love letter chain is not elvis signing new love letters to give value to that love letter to a new holder.. its where you are having
elvis generate(genesis) a love letter to onesig.
and its then one sig that writes a love letter to emily
and its emily that writes a love letter to jeff
and its jeff that writes a love letter to stacey

the value of someone seeing a love letter between:
onesig to emily. has less/no value than the one between elvis and onesig
emily to jeff. has even less/no value than between onesig to emily
jeff to stacey. has even less/no value than between emily to jeff.
jeff and stacey.. is not as valuable as a love letter from elvis to stacey..

stacey does not have and will not get a love letter from elvis. so stacey has nothing of good value to sell on


i know what your chain is trying to do. i read it and understand your premiss of design.. but you have to look at the value from the prospective of other users looking at what your chain actualy gives them.

so one last time

imagine your own family
imagine your grandmother got elvises autograph in 1960's

in the 1980's your grandma signed a birthday card to your mother
in 2000 your mother signed a birthday card to you.
and in 2020 you signed a birthday card to your daughter

the story is that your daughter owns some linkage to your granda, (daughters great grandma) meeting elvis .. but its a story. your daughters birthday card is not a elvis autograph.

yes you can pull out the draw all the autographs so show a chain..
but what your daughter holds/owns is not elvises autograph. its YOUR auto graph that has les value, if any

do you really think that your future grand daughter would buy her moms birthday card. of just inherit it and stick it in the draw with the other cards and just look at for interests sake

think about what your daughter is getting an does what she get have any elvis value. or just daddy love value

[slaman29]

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.

I actually suggested this method once, but there were 2 problems. Firstly, the customer support didn't understand what this was lol and that made it all useless. Secondly, I admit I didn't know how to sign a message from my other non BTC wallets. MetaMask for Ethereum didn't have this option, not to mention dogecoin and others I kept on multicrypto wallets (yes I know I'm dumb with shitcoins).

[hZti]

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.

I actually suggested this method once, but there were 2 problems. Firstly, the customer support didn't understand what this was lol and that made it all useless. Secondly, I admit I didn't know how to sign a message from my other non BTC wallets. MetaMask for Ethereum didn't have this option, not to mention dogecoin and others I kept on multicrypto wallets (yes I know I'm dumb with shitcoins).

Many people dont even understand bitcoin, how would they trust a signed message. This is something very bitcoin specific and is not possible with a normal bank account or anything else. I think we need 20 more years for stuff like this.

[casinotester0001]

again you are not handing over ownership becasue the receiver doesnt have the key to sign using the base address you pretend that they get to own

Yes, with this 'signature chain' you don't hand over the initial private key. And this is maybe something that will support that project.

As NFT started, people told that NFTs are worthless, because you don't transfer the file with the ownership (instead only a hash). But we've seen the hype after it was introduced. So in the case of 'signature chain', I don't know what will happen 

[franky1]

firstly in NFT. the hash is a rpresentation of the product. its an ID. and that hash stays the same and is passed on. meaning the ID is passed on

your signatures are using different ID's all the time. meaning the person 1,2,3,4,5 signature taint descendants. is not getting OWNERSHIP of an id because the message has nothing to do with source/genesis id.

plus the provenance can be broken easily

also. from a value prospective. what stacey gets is of no value.

also apart from trying to pretend you are selling a genesis of sigchain to descendants(which is not actually happening) your not even able to prevent the genesis creator from creating more genesis's
thus breaking any value of the whole network
..

however if you had some kind of reputation system. where each persons reputation could be quantified and given a value then that could reciprocate down to give other people some rep value.

but your system does none of that. it solves no purpose or has no function and gives no true ownership. thus it has no value within the signature messages. nor as a whole system value.

in short you are trying to create a altcoin with no function or value promise... so try to think of a whole different idea completely

[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-----

signature chain 

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

"Signature chain" isn't a thing.  It just means you can't sign a recent blockhash so you do not own any old addresses, you are just reposting old signatures you saw somewhere.

[ir.hn]

It's not perfect, but I don't have a better explanation either.

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?

Ah you again.  The guilty always comes back to watch the crime scene they created.

[shahzadafzal]

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-----

I think OneSignature didn't claimed that he/she singed the message, it says "This is the oldest signature" and yeah may be it is the oldest signature.

How about signing a message with current date?

Edit:
My bad he added the latest bitcoin address 1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa in the message, which proves message is singed recently. No need to add dates.

And this address is not old, it is veryveryold. How many people mined 2 weeks after Bitcoin was released? I expected that Satoshi had the most mined blocks, so it would be very likely that it is Satoshi. Do you think that this miner sold his address now, 13 years later? And I don't think that Satoshi would sell addresses.

Many people.  But most early bitcoiners aren't out shouting from the roofs and courting inviting kidnappers or frivolous legal attacks.  Most people with access to very old keys aren't blowing that access on silly Bitcoin talk bragging threads.  Just thinking anything very earlier in Bitcoin is related to Satoshi is a profound failure of both imagination and research.

Craig Wright... you never know... people are fools.

[S_Speche]

This message was signed to call your attention.


Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0

If you're already running this version, please uninstall.

FULL-RBF Is an attack to Bitcoin's security, it makes every transaction double spendable.

[F2b]

FULL-RBF Is an attack to Bitcoin's security, it makes every transaction double spendable.

1. Then why isn't that point clearly stated inside the signed message?
2. Should we just blindly follow instructions from an address for which we don't even know the owner? My guess is that most people here are able to make their own mind.
3. Zero-conf transactions are not secure. Confirmed ones are. It's that simple, and has always been. People not taking this into consideration do it at their own risk. (Although FullRBF indeed makes the risk bigger for unconfirmed txs, the previous statement remains true. I can understand that you don't agree with this, but this is not the place for debating it, and you didn't give any substancial argument.)
4. If you need fast and secure payments for small amounts, there's Lightning.
Also, isn't FullRBF disabled by default (opt-in) in Core 0.24? I'm not sure about that one, though.

I'm not necessarily defending FullRBF, I don't really mind. Just showing your lack of discernment.

Anyway, that's off-topic since there's no clear link between the FullRBF controversy and the signed message.

[S_Speche]

FULL-RBF Is an attack to Bitcoin's security, it makes every transaction double spendable.

1. Then why isn't that point clearly stated inside the signed message?
2. Should we just blindly follow instructions from an address for which we don't even know the owner? My guess is that most people here are able to make their own mind.
3. Zero-conf transactions are not secure. Confirmed ones are. It's that simple, and has always been. People not taking this into consideration do it at their own risk. (Although FullRBF indeed makes the risk bigger for unconfirmed txs, the previous statement remains true. I can understand that you don't agree with this, but this is not the place for debating it, and you didn't give any substancial argument.)
4. If you need fast and secure payments for small amounts, there's Lightning.
Also, isn't FullRBF disabled by default (opt-in) in Core 0.24? I'm not sure about that one, though.

I'm not necessarily defending FullRBF, I don't really mind. Just showing your lack of discernment.

Anyway, that's off-topic since there's no clear link between the FullRBF controversy and the signed message.

1. Let the author answer that question.

2. That could be the reason why the author didn't signed as you proposed on #1.

3. I'm not saying 0-conf or any other type of transaction on the mempool are to be trusted as confirmed transactions. No one thinks they should. (Yes, Full-RBF is a threat)

4. Agree.

It doesn't matter if it is disabled by default ir not. (I think it is)

The point of this message here, is precisely for you and others to care.

[JayJuanGee]

1. Let the author answer that question.

I am not sure regarding the point that you are making here. 

Are you trying to get an answer from a specific person? 

Do you consider that someone who presented a signed message from January 2009 potentially has a better answer to a substantive current event question, merely because s/he has potentially been in bitcoin longer, if that were to be given weight by the presentation of such signature?

Are you trying to subtly suggest that such person who signed a January 2009 message might be satoshi or close to satoshi..? which also seems a wee bit ridiculous as Greg had already pointed out... or perhaps you are spreading misinformation by making insinuations and seeming appeals to authority?

[franky1]

this whole subject of this topic is not actually about "satoshi". as earlier concluded

the other topic, which this topic mentions was a sneaky preview teaser to a intro of an ICO campaign advert. pretending that the ICO was selling the rights to the 2009 address. but as seen in the 3 topics now of the same topic creator.. its a flawed design token which solves no purpose has no function and doesnt actually change ownership rights or control of the 2009 address.

its a silly "chain letter" game thats descendants dont get anything of the january 2009 address and only get a autograph from a parent that taints back to the january address but isnt the january address at the child level
EG

Jimmy

emily

jeff

stacey

stacey is not getting anything from dave.. stacey only has a "name" association with jeff. what stacey gets to "sell" is the quote from jeff.. and thats it.

dave keeps control of the dave key. and dave can make other chains which the void value in the first chain letter game

[S_Speche]

1. Let the author answer that question.

I am not sure regarding the point that you are making here.  

Are you trying to get an answer from a specific person?  

Do you consider that someone who presented a signed message from January 2009 potentially has a better answer to a substantive current event question, merely because s/he has potentially been in bitcoin longer, if that were to be given weight by the presentation of such signature?

Are you trying to subtly suggest that such person who signed a January 2009 message might be satoshi or close to satoshi..? which also seems a wee bit ridiculous as Greg had already pointed out... or perhaps you are spreading misinformation by making insinuations and seeming appeals to authority?

I'm trying to bring your attention upon this very delicate topic:

Full-RBF was deliberately included on Core V24.0 without reaching consensus.

It opens a door to centralization under Blockstream: Bitcoin is not Lightning. Lighting is a L2 solution for scalability of micropayments. Bitcoin L1 is the settlement layer.

Full-RBF solves NO problem: RBF already existed, there was no reason for Full-RBF to be deployed.

Full-RBF enables ANY transaction to be double spendable, any honest transaction could be replaced by a malicious higher fee one. This could result in censorship, seizure of funds by an state actor or theft.

#NoFullRBF

Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0

If your are runing V24.0 Uninstall immediately!  

[CryptoGPU]

Chico Crypto checked it and found other clues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6USltJKuk4
Satoshi Nakamoto Returns & Is ALIVE


@franky1: please don't say that I'm Chico Crypto  

[JayJuanGee]

1. Let the author answer that question.

I am not sure regarding the point that you are making here.  

Are you trying to get an answer from a specific person?  

Do you consider that someone who presented a signed message from January 2009 potentially has a better answer to a substantive current event question, merely because s/he has potentially been in bitcoin longer, if that were to be given weight by the presentation of such signature?

Are you trying to subtly suggest that such person who signed a January 2009 message might be satoshi or close to satoshi..? which also seems a wee bit ridiculous as Greg had already pointed out... or perhaps you are spreading misinformation by making insinuations and seeming appeals to authority?

I'm trying to bring your attention upon this very delicate topic:

Full-RBF was deliberately included on Core V24.0 without reaching consensus.

It opens a door to centralization under Blockstream: Bitcoin is not Lightning. Lighting is a L2 solution for scalability of micropayments. Bitcoin L1 is the settlement layer.

Full-RBF solves NO problem: RBF already existed, there was no reason for Full-RBF to be deployed.

Full-RBF enables ANY transaction to be double spendable, any honest transaction could be replaced by a malicious higher fee one. This could result in censorship, seizure of funds by an state actor or theft.

#NoFullRBF

Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0

If your are runing V24.0 Uninstall immediately!  

In other words, you are completely off-topic.  I had speculated that maybe there might be some attempt at a connection with the topic of this thread, but you have none.