Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 05:31:33 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [SOLD] 2 Casascius Coins for less than $4  (Read 1971 times)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
October 25, 2014, 08:29:53 AM
 #21

By the way, I'm the person who wrote the sign message functionality you're talking about...

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513575093
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513575093

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513575093
Reply with quote  #2

1513575093
Report to moderator
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974



View Profile
October 25, 2014, 11:11:53 AM
 #22


lol, it's hard to argue with that, but perhaps instead of being a dick, you might take a minute to educate people -- in particular, why they can't assume that someone signing with the address in an output referenced by the input was the sender.

Buy bitcoins with cash from somebody near you: LocalBitcoins
Join an anti-signature campaign: DannyHamilton's ignore list
qwk
Donator
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1624


Bitcoin Foundation Member


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2014, 11:17:43 AM
 #23

Seriously though, if I send 1 BTC from my wallet to your address, and then I send you a message
"I sent 1 BTC from my address 1aaa to your address 1bbb, here's the link to transaction txccc"
and I sign that message with address 1aaa,
how in the world does that not prove that I actually sent you that 1 BTC?

Yeah, well... I'm gonna go build my own blockchain, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the blockchain!
cxboyminer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588

faucetbag.com - Up to 10000 Satoshis per 15 mins


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2014, 03:02:18 PM
 #24

This thread has done its job. Everyone can kindly stfu *cough... luke-jr...cough*

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
October 25, 2014, 08:51:29 PM
 #25


lol, it's hard to argue with that, but perhaps instead of being a dick, you might take a minute to educate people -- in particular, why they can't assume that someone signing with the address in an output referenced by the input was the sender.
Because that output has nothing to do with the transaction you sent me.
If it doesn't coincidentally happen to be an address I own, I cannot sign a message with it.
On the other hand, someone else can sign a message with it.

Seriously though, if I send 1 BTC from my wallet to your address, and then I send you a message
"I sent 1 BTC from my address 1aaa to your address 1bbb, here's the link to transaction txccc"
and I sign that message with address 1aaa,
how in the world does that not prove that I actually sent you that 1 BTC?
You didn't send 1 BTC from your address 1aaa to  my address 1bbb. You sent 1 BTC to my address 1bbb - there is no "from address" at all.

odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974



View Profile
October 25, 2014, 09:04:59 PM
 #26



lol, it's hard to argue with that, but perhaps instead of being a dick, you might take a minute to educate people -- in particular, why they can't assume that someone signing with the address in an output referenced by the input was the sender.
Because that output has nothing to do with the transaction you sent me.
If it doesn't coincidentally happen to be an address I own, I cannot sign a message with it.
On the other hand, someone else can sign a message with it.

For example, you can't sign it if you sent the bitcoins from Coinbase or an exchange account, or through a mixer -- but someone else can.

Buy bitcoins with cash from somebody near you: LocalBitcoins
Join an anti-signature campaign: DannyHamilton's ignore list
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2014, 09:32:47 PM
 #27

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
October 25, 2014, 09:53:59 PM
 #28

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?
The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2014, 09:56:54 PM
 #29

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?
The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
October 25, 2014, 10:14:33 PM
 #30

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?
The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug.
tl;dr You don't know the first thing about Bitcoin, but want to pretend you do and encourage others to do things unsafe.

sublime5447
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
October 25, 2014, 10:32:46 PM
 #31

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?
The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug.
tl;dr You don't know the first thing about Bitcoin, but want to pretend you do and encourage others to do things unsafe.

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?

COBINHOOD – ZERO TRADING FEE CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE 
slack
Telegram
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2014, 10:46:38 PM
 #32

Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?
The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs).

tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug.
tl;dr You don't know the first thing about Bitcoin, but want to pretend you do and encourage others to do things unsafe.

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
October 25, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
 #33

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?
The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?
The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?

johnniewalker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 12:31:10 AM
 #34

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?
The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?
The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?
users of cows?   Huh Grin
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2014, 12:32:49 AM
 #35

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?
The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?
The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?

Luke-Jr's moron hacker continues... we all know Luke is way too fucking intelligent to make a false analogy that equates to people "shouldn't need to know what..." an engine, an air compressor, a navigational computer, or DNA "...is".

We get it dude, in your world, people "shouldn't need to know" anything about anything and be willfully ignorant instead. Now take your own medicine and enjoy being on my ignore list.

sublime5447
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 02:58:05 AM
 #36

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?
The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?
The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?

"How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't."   If I can send from the wallet I am the owner. Am I missing something? if you can send from the wallet you are the owner of that wallet. I mean shit  Huh

COBINHOOD – ZERO TRADING FEE CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE 
slack
Telegram
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 03:01:51 AM
 #37

You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin?
The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it.
How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't.
People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets.

Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?
The users of cars don't know how engines work.
The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work.
The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work.
The users of cows don't know how their DNA works.
Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works?

"How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't."   If I can send from the wallet I am the owner. Am I missing something? if you can send from the wallet you are the owner of that wallet. I mean shit  Huh
There is no way to prove a transaction came from a given wallet.
Also, wallets may have many users, not just a single owner.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!