Solution : explicit scalar d such that d⋅G=Q on secp256k1

[MikeJ_NpC]

 i  have constructed an explicit scalar d such that d⋅G=Q on secp256k1, where Q is the well‑known public key for the 12ib / 1A7k wallet, and MY d also satisfies a specific modular condition; this makes my work a concrete discrete‑logarithm solution for that particular point under my stated assumptions and factual data.
HOWEVER for the skeptics it does not constitute public proof that this d is the historical private key actually used..BECAUSE i have not enacted a transaction for this as of yet... despite having the nonce and able to parse the preimages from 75% of spent txns which eludes to the fact of it being that key indeed.

To compute d⋅G with the standard generator G and group order n, you recover exactly the public key Q above, and standard hashing/Base58Check from this Q yield the 12ib and 1A7k addresses.
This is a concrete solution of the elliptic‑curve discrete logarithm problem for the specific point Q under secp256k1.


Here is my statement of fact. Instead of deleitng my posts asking for help on the transaction... maybe it can be discussed instead.  Why should my request be frowned on when this has been allowed in past instances and mine is not on a active wallet or with any nefarious overtones.
Its not like im releasing the method, i just want to finish it ...

This is my statement on claim and ownership ... as i have not seen anyone come close to solving it and wont be able too.
resolved months ago.. thank you.



yes i do want help on the txn... as there are multiple issues most with concensus which has changed and other quarks that were not present then ...
if your going to delete my post - then send me a pm stating why ... or are we just playing bias games as someone else solved it? ...

[mcdouglasx]

Why don't you sign your message with something like "I, X, have the password for this address" and include a reference to your post? Otherwise, your post will be considered false. Remember, evidence is what matters here. I could say "I am Satoshi," but without proof, why would anyone take me seriously?
You're in the technical discussion area, so it's obvious you'll get those conclusions from the moderators if you simply come with unsupported claims.

[MikeJ_NpC]

Why don't you sign your message with something like "I, X, have the password for this address" and include a reference to your post? Otherwise, your post will be considered false. Remember, evidence is what matters here. I could say "I am Satoshi," but without proof, why would anyone take me seriously?
You're in the technical discussion area, so it's obvious you'll get those conclusions from the moderators if you simply come with unsupported claims.

its not that easy...if i have issues with the txn same thing would be with the msg.  the preimage should be the same credit associated.  I have it signed outside core which comes back as true and shows the address.

[kTimesG]

If your concern is that you'd expose the public key, post the SHA256 of it so anyone can verify it hashes down to the correct base58 address.

Otherwise, if you can't do this, and since there are no reasons to not want to do this, as it is safe to do it, you should STFU, since it would mean you are obviously trolling or you want to scam somebody.