mempool

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

01:34

@chytrik I found the equation and white paper explained by a founder. Interesting, to say the least. Also, Chow has been a GREAT help. All Chow's previous notes have been helping all along and now he replied to my question (Big Help 🆘).

chytrik

02:51

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx no, it seems you misunderstand how the cryptography works. If you are given a public key, you cannot calculate the private key from it. If that were not true, then bitcoin would be broken (as would be pretty much all encryption that the internet depends on)

On the other hand, if you are given a private key, you can find the corresponding public key using elliptic curve math. But if you try to work backwards (go from public key -> private key), it is computationally not feasible, due to what is called the 'discrete logarithm problem'

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx re: needing to mine a block yourself: In simplified terms, if you created a transaction that was locked with a redeem script that said 'solve this equation to spend these coins: 2 + 2 = ___', then all you would need to do is create a transaction that includes the answer to that equation (4) in the scriptsig. The number '4' would thus be the key to unlock the coins.

So if you published a transaction spending the coins, in the time before the transaction is confirmed, anyone else who sees the transaction will see that the number '4' is all this is needed to spend those coins. So those users could just create their own transactions, which include the number '4' as the unlock, but pay the coins to an address they control instead.

So the only way you could claim those coins without risking theft would be to create the transaction, not publish it, but instead try to mine a new block that includes your transaction. That way, once the transaction is public knowledge, it will already be confirmed, and you will not be at risk of someone sniping the funds.

BUT obviously that isn't how bitcoin outputs are normally locked, or else it would be a formidable task to spend coins.

So to overcome that issue, the unlocking script will include a 'zero knowledge proof' (a cryptographic signature of some sort, generally).

Rather than needing 'the number 4' explicitly, the transaction just requires some sort of proof that you know the 'the number 4', and the cryptography allows us to prove that we know the number, without revealing what the number is! So you attach this proof (signature) to the transaction, and now everyone can verify that you are the rightful owner of those coins, but still nobody else will know the secret number, and thus they will be unable to steal the coins for themselves

chytrik

03:27

Here is an analogy:
Lets pretend there is an orphan boy, searching for his mother. The boy does not remember his mother, but he does *exactly* remember what the cake she used to bake would taste like. Now, that orphan boy has just won the lottery, and so mothers from far and wide line up, each with their home-made cake in hand, hoping that a taste of it will convince the boy that he is their son (and thus, they will share in his fortune).

The boy's actual mother is in the lineup, and she has the winning cake in hand, but she isn't worried that someone else in line will see the cake and copy it. How could they? The cake is made by carefully mixing ingredients in precise quantities and according to a certain method, baked at a certain temperature for a certain time, and finished with home-made icing that again has it's own recipe.

Only the boy's true mother could show up with this cake, which is in fact just a zero-knowledge proof that this woman knows the recipe which will create said cake! So the boy will be able to tell which cake is his mother's, despite the boy having no knowledge of the ingredients and method (aka the private key) which was required to create the cake (aka the signature). In this story, the boy can be thought of as the protocol rules, which are the judge of whether or not a transaction is valid.

2

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

04:06

@chytrik Yes, but the ingredients are well known, isn't it? coindesk.com/math-behind-bitcoin

Or at least, how to obtain the ingredients... "This operation – going from private to public key – is computationally easy in comparison to trying to work backwards to deduce the private key from the public key, which while theoretically possible is computationally infeasible due to the large parameters used in actual elliptic cryptography."

All the math is published and all you need to do is the math. Granted, you need to find "k" and that hidden, but still obtainable thru the math.

And what do you mean, "mine the block without publishing it"? I can mine it myself? How? What is the process? I was going to publish it and didn't want to, thought I had to post it.

...back to the math.

It works like this...

"public key = private key * base point"

chytrik

The best method for obtaining a private key for a specific public key, is just guess-and-check. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to do.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

You have to know the base point. And the base point and mathematical equation to find the key it public information. Also, the script to the program contains the equation in operation to verify. If the program cannot verify with the check equation, then it would work at all.

I posted the above from one of the founder's words, "theoretically possible"

chytrik

yes, the base point and the math to find the public key are public knowledge, but due to the discrete logarithm problem, you cannot find the private key

theoretically possible does not equal practically possible.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

I disagree.

For example, bitcoin already does it because they use the equation to check and verify.

The link I gave you, above, is to the math and internal links to white papers.

chytrik

So then consider: why doesn't someone just steal every coin that is locked to an address with an exposed public key?

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

04:22

Like the LBC server project?

chytrik

There are a huge number of coins locked to such addresses, worth a veritable fortune. This is a massive incentive for someone to attempt to calculate the private keys that will unlock those UTXOs

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

They are doing different.. Not the way I would find it, but they are doing it, trying.

chytrik

the LBC project is brute forcing keys, not performing a pointed search. Do you understand the difference?

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

It's easier to do the math and use the spread that it gives you for your address.

Yes, like I said, "They are doing different"

I would not do it that way. I'd simple work the math.

Thats my plan to get my address back.

Do work the math.

To say, that its lost forever, is an absolute waste.

chytrik

I think you underestimate the fundamental difficulty of 'doing the math'. If it were practically possible to 'do the math', then everyone would do it

But besides all that, how did you lose access to your funds? Did you lose/delete a wallet file?

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

04:26

No, because everyone gives up, unlike Edison or Einstien. They were a genius because they never gave up.

I became sick...and then my unit crashed.

It's been a few years.

I kept all the hard drives.

Never had time to deal with it, afterward.

Technically, I have time now, a little. So, I want to create a game plan to start working toward my objectives to reach my goal.

It's so simple to lose everything, especially now. For example, say its all on your device and someone obtains your device. It could all be gone in a minute. Cryptocurrency is fatally flawed in this area. Transactions cannot be recalled because they do not allow it, but it is possible.

chytrik

Ah, well, I'm sorry to say that if you somehow lost your wallet (ie lost the private keys), then your coins will not be retrievable. I don't blame you for trying everything you can to recover them, but understand that you're trying to break a cryptographic system that has been under constant attack by academics and hackers, for longer than bitcoin has been around. This sort of public key cryptography is decades old, and still considered secure.

If you do manage to break the math and recover your private keys, then you would also be able to claim any other coins you desired. You'll become the richest person on earth, perhaps

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

As long as this issue hangs over the industry, it will never become a secure currency. To say, you lose everything, is not a reliable financial system.

chytrik

Less reliable is a system where anyone can claim things which are not theirs

With absolute sovereignty comes absolute responsibility

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Also, I am quite aware of the cryptographic system because my father, who died recently, raised me on military bases and he was spook (cryptologist) in the Navy.

I was raised around crypto, and all my life, surrounded by cryptologist.

...some of the best, decades-old technology, quite familiar with it. Not so secure when you have a cipher key.

The only problem is, the math is chaos math.

chytrik

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx there are ways to create wallets/addresses which do not suffer from this sort of single point of failure. For example, multisig constructions allow us to create situations of distributed trust, which is novel

But I do otherwise agree that the absolute responsibility of key management is a very difficult user experience issue, there is much room for improvement.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

04:41

There has to be fail-safe. They have the fail-safe but the industry doesn't want anyone to know because. To say, its lost, is an irresponsible system. I read that someone lost $120m recently. I bought a bunch of coins when they were nothing.

chytrik

Having a fail-safe is a massive security hole. What happens if that fail-safe falls into the wrong hands?

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

To say, the system holds no liability, is also irresponsible.

Ask the big banks, they deal with it every day and are doing fine.

chytrik

Yes sure, but that is a different situation. A closed, permissioned system. If their 'failsafe key' is stolen and abused, they could just decide to roll back to a previous system state, mint a new failsafe key, and go on without issue

In an open, permissionless system there is no such admin to make that choice. There is no admin to propose a point to roll back to.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Agreed, but as it stands right now, its a no man's land. No laws, no regulation, no rules, and the risk of losing an financial life.

chytrik

There are advantages and disadvantages to each system, but they are fundamentally categorically different things, with different engineering considerations

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

04:45

...and if there's no admin, then what...what cannot you roll back a transaction? Thats is nonsense if some steals your account, its all-digital, and can be traced.

...the beauty if the system, it is tracable.

The traceability should allow the admin to lock an account down and retrieve it.

chytrik

Yes, but there is no admin in bitcoin, so its a non-starter to consider how we might 'have an admin roll back the transaction'

if there were an admin, bitcoin would cease to be interesting, or at least, it would become much, much less interesting

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Why?

I believe more people would feel safe, secure.

chytrik

Only those people that have never been done wrong by an admin would feel that way. Or those that haven't been restricted in the ways they want to engage with the system

If there were an admin, they would represent an existential risk to the network. What if they made a decision which was to the detriment of some users? What if they changed the rules? What if the government the admin lives under, decided to impose upon the admin's decisions?

If the admin resided in the USA, perhaps the USA gov would require the admin to make gambling with BTC illegal. Yet the users of BTC are worldwide, and most of the world has no laws against online gambling. So why should someone that is not in the US be subject to those laws?

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Good questions. What's wrong with USD? It's stable. So is gold. They have regulations. And for someone not in the US, they not subject to US law. Only the casino is subject to those laws. And, many casinos do business offshore.

chytrik

This lack of admin is a feature, not a bug. Bitcoin is not without rules or laws, it is just self-defining in this respect: the source code defines the rules, and the user's which run the code opt in to an implicit agreement to follow those rules.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

04:55

Yes, we all agree to lose everything upon failure or a crashed, unrecoverable system, or other similar events that may cause the same, right? Thats what we agree to?

If you cannot trust the system, then, where does it go from here?

chytrik

I don't mean to be rude, I honestly do sympathize with your losses, but it is the individual's responsibility to secure their funds, yes. Over the years there have been many methods developed for creating more reliable backups.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

If we cannot have a system source code that may handle these simple issues (I believe it is already possible within the source code) then where does crypto go from here?

I do understand it my responsibility to secure funds, however, life happens and extraordinary circumstances and events exist. The source code and its operators have no leniency policy. It will, eventually, fail without a correction.

chytrik

I think that while such protections cannot exist at the base layer of btc, they will come to exist at higher levels, where many users will engage with the system.

This is actually quite similar to USD in a way. What recourse is there if you have $100 in your wallet, and someone pickpockets you?

USD is still useful, despite there being no method of 'rolling things back' to recover your $100 bill

Some people get robbed, or just lose their wallets. On the other hand, some people engage with higher-level systems (banks, insurance companies, etc), that will reimburse them in case of such a loss.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Yes, but the wallet is not a bank account, is it? A credit card 💳 is secured on charges over $50.00, isn't it. A simple loss of a wallet is like comparing apples and oranges. Also, Quantum computers are coming, it will render crypto useless.

chytrik

I think that similarly, in the future many bitcoin users will not interact with the protocol at a nitty-gritty level, but instead choose to engage with higher-level systems built on top of btc

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:03

Exactly, bitcoin doesn't reimburse anything.

chytrik

Yes, but the example is only meant to be illustrative, consider the wider implication, not the exact situation. Swap out '$100 bill' with '$1 million worth of gold buried in the back yard', if you'd like

You can choose to buy that gold and bury it in your yard (taking full responsibility for ownership), or you can buy the gold through a broker that has a highly secure and insured vault

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Maybe so, the higher-level system will have to buy out btc, first. In order for that to happen, the bubble will have to burst and the market will collapse, then, the higher-level system will come in and but it on its floor.

^buy

...buy it on its floor.

chytrik

The existence of higher-level systems being built on top of btc does not depend on the market cycle. For example, coinbase is a sort of proto- 'bitcoin-bank'. They hold coins for customers, allow inter-customer transfers, etc.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

It will happen. All balloon markets burst. This market will burst, sooner or later. When it does, the regulators will come in, strong.

Thats a banking system.

chytrik

I don't think coinbase is a good system by any means, but it serves as example nonetheless. I think that multisig will allow for some much more secure custodial architectures in the future

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:07

You are talking about a banking system.

chytrik

Yes, a banking / financial system is and will be built on bitcoin

bitcoin is a monetary system

Like usd is a monetary system, which then has systems of banking, finance, insurance built on top of it

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

A banking system ensures stability, losses recoverability, management, trust, integrity,

The banking system could manage your keys.

chytrik

Yes, precisely

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

They can trace transactions, hold transactions accountable, recover transactions, reverse them.

chytrik

That isn't something most diehard bitcoiners like to imagine, but I think it is a likely future

However, even if such a system develops on top of bitcoin, it remains imperative that users maintain the option of engaging with the network in a sovereign fashion.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:12

Diehard always die in the end because they make no room improvements and growth.

The more, the better.

Growth is always welcome.

chytrik

I don't necessarily agree. If there are properties of a system which must be preserved in order for the system to maintain its value, then those properties are worth being a 'diehard' for

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

The one's that make room for growth will prevail.

I agree with that... The properties,

Except, the failures in the properties.

chytrik

And this is where bitcoin comes to shine! The network is defined from the bottom-up, according to the code that the individual users collectively run. So any 'growth' (ie change to the network rules) can only take place if a large majority of users opt in to accept the change

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

...and I believe you agree with some adjustments for added security, a banking system.

chytrik

Err, yes, higher level systems dont depend on this bottom-up dynamic necessarily

but changes to the base layer (BTC protocol) do

But certainly there can be growth via the building of a banking system on top of bitcoin

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:18

Let's be honest, if adjustments aren't made, the system will not ever be accepted as legitimate currency. For example, you have to pay an anonymous transaction fee whether you're coming or going.

Imagine this...

Adding billions of users to lower the transaction fees making it more stable.

The system wouldn't lose anything, only gain.

It's like buying a Ferrari or Chevy.... Chevy makes all that money because its affordable and their sales are broad, Internationally.

Ferrari is limited, not many have one.

Therefore, the cost of luxury increases the price, but still, not many have one. Just like bitcoin, its a luxury at this point, nobody needs it or has to have it.

chytrik

I don't agree with that. I have recently used bitcoin in a couple ways that the traditional financial system does not allow for

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Until its used and available to everyone, easily accessible, will it be affordable. And with that, comes a system that can trusted, including recovery.

chytrik

It is not simply a luxury to own, it provides utility

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Thats the benefit of bitcoin, to be used that way. I don't see that changing as an international currency.

chytrik

The market is obviously not predictable, but if the network of users increases, so too will utility

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:27

I do not believe I should have to pay a transaction fee to simply exchange money from one to the other.

At banks, this fee does not exist. At bitcoin, its too high. At most international airports, you change money at the current exchange rate.

With cards, this is automatically done country to country.

chytrik

Thats not true. Banks charge fees, otherwise they would not be able to pay employees! Some account types do hide these fees away though. Again, a bitcoin bank could do the exact same thing

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

With bitcoin, you pay a transaction fee well above the 3% average that a business has to pay for you buying services from them.

As a consumers, I don't pay fees, the business pays those fees.

As a consumer in bitcoin, the consumer pays everything.

chytrik

There are transaction fees on the base layer yes, but there are ways for users to amortize or forgo those fees. For example, if you hold a BTC balance on the lightning network, you can send transactions with ~0 fees (maybe a couple satoshis per payment)

Again though, if you are unhappy with that, you could become a customer of a bitcoin bank that offer no-fee transactions at a higher layer

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

And if it was 500m dollars, what is that few?

chytrik

Bitcoin transaction fees are NOT determined by the value being transacted. That is false. They are determined according to the vbyte size of the transaction

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:32

The block of memory is huge.

On memory, I understand

The larger the memory, the larger the fee

chytrik

If you have a 1-input/2-output transaction that is spending $500 million worth of bitcoin, you could send it for less than a few cents

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

How?

Thats not what I have seen.

chytrik

You would just need to set the fee-rate to 1 satoshi per vbyte when creating the transaction

that is generally the minimum value for a feerate that the network's nodes will relay

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

And when you but bitcoin?

I paid an outstanding fee for a simple $80.00 and then a transaction fee.

By the time you get a coin, it all goes ro fees to get it.

The tax is too high.

chytrik

Oh, you're talking about the service fee that a business that sells bitcoin charges. Thats different

Every currency exchange will charge a fee of some sort, that is their business model

Same for the traditional currency exchanges at an airport. They might just profit off a spread of a couple percent, but the fee is there

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:39

Yes, but there is not a few for that from my bank.

chytrik

And so why do you think your bank could not also offer such an exchange service for btc?

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

at this time, they will not do that because the currency, is technically, not acceptable.

Technically, its all a gamble.

It's not trustworthy.

chytrik

Just for interest's sake, here is a transaction that spent a UTXO worth 101,857 BTC (~$928 million USD), and paid ~$0.48 USD in fees

blockstream.info/tx/…

Right, I'd agree, it is a gamble, a new tech that may or may not become more deeply integrated into society. Its becoming more difficult to ignore though, I think. With every passing year we see more and more infrastructure being built around and on top of btc

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Wow, the is not the fee I figured. I think I figured a fee of .000156

On, just over 80k BTC

They saved a dollar more than what I figured on approximately 200m less.

I cannot believe they were charged $0.48?

Also, what about the time it takes for a transaction? How does that work on a card?

chytrik

The transaction fee is decided by the user, it is not really 'charged'. Again though, this is a bitcoin network fee, not a currency conversion fee

Actually, on the topic of bitcoin banks and the like, there have been rumours of paypal and venmo starting to offer bitcoin services to their users: coindesk.com/paypal-venmo-to-roll-out-crypto-buying-and-selling

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:49

Yes, I understand. The currency exchange fee is anonymous.

chytrik

That transaction is not necessarily a currency exchange. Without any other info, I'd guess it is an internal transfer at a bitcoin exchange, moving funds from a cold wallet to a hot wallet, or something like that.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Also, many other places are offering bitcoin now.

chytrik

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx if a user is using a bitcoin bank, the payments they make can occur at a higher level (ie, there is no base layer BTC transaction directly related to their payment). So the amount of time to complete a transaction would just depend on the system that the bitcoin bank builds

There is no reason to assume it couldn't be just as fast/easy as using a normal credit card

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

I agree.

But what happens if PayPal loses its private key?

Hahaha,

chytrik

Well, that would be very bad.

Similarly, what would happen if paypal had its servers wiped out by some freak accident?

I would imagine the answer is 'they have backups!'

The same goes for the private keys

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:55

Okay, what happens if Paypal gets hacked?

chytrik

I think that is indeed a better question, there is a long history of bitcoin exchanges getting hacked, and losing funds

I mentioned it briefly above, but multi-sig constructions provide some benefit there.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

That would be a big loss without any recoverability.

chytrik

Instead of paypal holding the keys to the coins, a multisig system where there are a number of trust-worthy businesses that each hold 1/X number of keys could exist

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Yes, if that way path forward, a banking system.

chytrik

So now instead of hacking paypal to steal the funds, you would need to hack a large number of institutions

And also perform this hacking without being noticed, so that the key holders cannot move funds to a new address before you get enough keys to complete the theft

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

05:58

And they would be insured, right?

chytrik

I think in the future it is possible we'll see BTC balances insured

insurance industries are conservative I think, there is a certain amount of history that they will want to see, a certain level of 'industry best practices' to be developed, etc, before they are willing to engage with businesses to offer insurance policies

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

And what about all the "so-called" lost forever scenario of now? What happens to those funds?

chytrik

Quite literally, nothing. If the keys to some coins are lost, the funds will remain unmoved, likely forever

But even today, there are methods for creating more robust backups

or more secure wallet constructions

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

I believe they're accessible through the source code. What happens if someone claims it?

They don't get in trouble. It's like winning the lottery, isn't it?

Quantum computers are coming. It will happen.

chytrik

It would literally be like winning a lottery with almost impossible odds

You would have a better chance of winning you local mega-lottery several times in a row, than you would finding the private key for a specific address

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

06:04

So, if the $928m was hacked, the person who receives it, keeps it?

chytrik

On the topic of security, this is a proposed network upgrade that will enable more secure storage: utxos.org/uses/vaults

I haven't read too deep into that proposal, but I believe it is relevant to the topic

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Interesting article. But what about this...

op_dup op_hash160 ##### op_equalverify op_checksig

Any suggestions?

chytrik

This looks like the scriptpubkey for a P2PKH address?

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

😁

chytrik

#### would be replaced by the pubkey hash, and then as scriptsig you'd provide a cryptographic signature, followed by the pubkey

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

06:17

Except, if the equal verify if an op_dup, its signed and ignores the checksig

Right?

Thats what the book said.

Basically

I would have to signrawtranssction with hex, scriptpubkey and the redeem script to match (op_dup).

Define "cryptographic signature". Do you mean private key?

So, I have to hash my public key?

chytrik

a private key is used to create a cryptographic signature. It serves as proof to everyone that you have the private key, without having to tell everyone what the privkey is

This website has a nice animation of the stack operations involved: learnmeabitcoin.com/guide/p2pkh

about 1/3 of the way down the page, it runs through the stack operations on a P2PKH bitcoin locking script

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Yes, I read that site the other day. It's a good site. I like it.

So, you mean, a hash of the private key (compressed key) is the signature?

chytrik

06:37

No, a private key is not hashed to perform any of these operations, and it is public keys that can be presented in compressed/uncompressed form

This question has some info about the construction of a signature: bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/38351/ecdsa-v-r-s-what-is-v

The private key is used to create an ECDSA signature. That signature, along with the corresponding pubkey, will together create the redeemscript for a P2PKH transaction of the form you mentioned above

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

So, I don't need my private key?

See, after reading that post. It seems to follow my analysis that I can recover my losses.

...its all in the math.

Okay, to be clear, "form that you mentioned" is what I said about "has of private key (compressed key)" is the ECDSA signature and that is not needed to perform my transaction, right?

....because that is how I am reading everything, everywhere, like you said, "no private key is hashed to perform these operations".

Thats what I need help with to signrawtransaction.

I guess, then, I would mine it myself instead of making it public. Which, I would have to learn how to do all over again.

@chytrik

chytrik

06:59

No, forget what I wrote about mining your own transaction, it isn't applicable in this case. That was more of a 'fun fact', now it is clear that you situation is different

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Different?

chytrik

To unlock those coins, you need to provide a scriptsig, which has two parts:
- a cryptographic (ECDSA) signature
- the pubkey for the address the coins are locked to

The cryptographic signature is created using the private key

You **need** the private key to create the signature.
Other nodes on the network will then verify that the signature is valid, they do this using the public key

Once those pieces are assembled, you would publish the transaction. You don't need to worry that anyone will see the transaction and try to steal the coins, because the signature is only valid in relation to the exact transaction you crafted. Someone cannot re-use the signature on their own transaction. There is no risk of coins being stolen in this way

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

So, I create a signature with the private key, that's why the transaction is considered partially signed, I have to finish it. I have one part and need the other.

And the ECDSA is generated from the private key that will equal "both" the address and private key?

I see what needs to be done (just read it).

chytrik

07:52

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx your transaction is normal, what I was describing before would be a really weird and generally insecure way to build an output. There are examples of transactions like that though.

chytrik

10:18

it was the sorts of questions you were asking that made me think perhaps it was something different, less normal.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

15:16

@chytrik

It has limited my text

I cannot post my reply?

Said my message was too long?

Is there a way to fix that?

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

15:37

They limit chat?

My gosh, what had the world come to?

Murch

15:54

No, public keys do not hash to private keys. That would mean that private keys are derivable by anyone that knows the public key. However, for the cryptographic system to work, public keys must be allowed to be public information and private keys must be secret information, so if pubkeys hashed to privkeys that would be broken.
The relationship of public keys and private keys is that of the discrete logarithm problem. They are two points on an elliptic curve defined over a finite field. The relationship is such that it is trivial to derive the public key from the private key and infeasible …

Murch

16:06

@chytrik BitGo already has insurances on accounts: bitgo.com/resources/digital-asset-insurance

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx It sounds like you are trying to spend from a multisig address. You will need multiple signatures from a sufficient quorum of the involved keys. I.e. on a 2-of-3 address, you will need two signatures by two of the three private keys corresponding to the public keys the funds are locked to.

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx Yes, there is a character limit for messages in chat. You can post it as multiple messages.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

16:24

@chytrik Of course its a normal transaction or it wouldn't work. The question is, "How to get to the normal from the chaos?"

@Murch Why is "op_dup op_hash160 ##### op_equalverify op_checksig" a multi-sig? And its nice to see you join the chat.

Murch

It's not.

But you were talking about a partially signed transaction

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Yes, because I read when its partially completed, it will still return false the same way mine has.

Murch

Well yeah, only a fully signed transaction would be valid.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

The two seem, somewhat, related in error code.

Exactly.

Murch

Well… you mean in that both of them are invalid transactions? That's a pretty low bar. ;)

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

16:28

Nice to see you joined the chat.

The two also seem related through chapter 6-7 of master bitcoin

Mastering Bitcoin.

UTXO

I need coffee, Starbucks. Be back shortly.

Murch

If I understand correctly from above, you know which address belonged to you, but you no longer have access to the private key.

Since addresses are public information that would put you into the same boat as any other participant in the network for your chances at spending the coins.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

17:00

@Murch Yes, and I don't entirely agree with the protocol.

@Murch Also, I don't believe its impossible, especially in my case, because the math, logarithm, and algorithms say otherwise.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

17:38

@Murch @chytrik This is why....

"OP_CHECKSIG is script opcode used to verify that the signature for a tx input is valid. OP_CHECKSIG expects two values to be on the stack. These are, in order of stack depth, the public key and the signature of the script. These two values are normally obtained by running the scriptSig script of the transaction input we are attempting to validate. The scriptSig script is deleted after it is run, but the stack is left as is. Then, the scriptPubKey script from the previous transaction output that is now being spent is run, generally concluding in an OP_CHECKSIG.

en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIG

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

21:24

@chytrik @Murch Now, this is good news! "An Israeli Blockchain Startup Claims They’ve Invented an ‘Undo’ Button for Bitcoin Transactions" cointelegraph.com/news/…

"Kirobo, a two-year-old Israeli blockchain startup,
announced on Tuesday that it has found a way
to tackle problems related to human error in
cryptocurrency transactions.

In a recent survey by the Fio Foundation, 55% of
respondents reported experiencing stressfu
human errors when sending cryptocurrency, and
18% reported loss offunds due to such errors.
As such, Kirobo has invented "Retrievable
Transfer," a way for senders to cancel a
transaction that is sent to the wrong address.
Kirobo provides a unique code to the sender

A good start

chytrik

22:04

→ 5 messages moved to Trash

Murch

22:52

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx I do not see this getting broad adoption

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx I'm afraid that you may have an insufficient understanding of the problem you are attempting to solve then.

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx Right, but "create a ScriptSig signature" requires the private key, even if it can be validated using the public key.

chytrik

@ImLostPleaseHelpThx ah, this is sort of in line with what I was describing: a higher level system that offers some usability 'improvements' (scare quotes, because not everyone will have the same idea of what an 'improvement' is in this regard)

Murch

23:30

> public key = private key × base point

In a Galois field over an elliptic curve.
To get the private key, you'd have to solve the `public key / base point`. This requires solving the discrete logarithm.

Discrete logarithm

In the mathematics of the real numbers, the logarithm logb a is a number x such that bx = a, for given numbers a and b. Analogously, in any group G, powers bk can be defined for all integers k, and the discrete logarithm logb a is an integer k such that bk = a. In number theory, the more commonly used term is index: we can write x = indr a (mod m) (read the index of a to the base r modulo m) for rx ≡ a (mod m) if r is a primitive root of m and gcd(a,m) = 1. Discrete logarithms are quickly computable in a few special cases. However, no efficient method is known for computing them in general. Several...

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

@Murch Exactly. And, "Discrete logarithm is quickly comfortable in a few special cases". I believe, from what I researched, mine is that special case because half of the information is already there (Op_Dup Op_Hash160 #### " Eqaulverify").

Murch

No, that information is not secret

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Exactly.

So you have part of the solution on the curve, right?

Murch

No, I think I wasn't clear. The information you already have is public knowledge. If you could spend the coins from this, anyone could spend the coins of any other user.

We could all pack up and go home.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Right, I wasn't clear.

I understand.

Murch

23:39

Do you mean to say that you have a signed transaction already?

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

I mean, part of the equation (solution), a point on the curve is present. The rest can be found.

Murch

If that part is the public key, no it cannot.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

No, I have created the transaction, and signed part of it. I need to complete it.

Murch

The script you presented is that of a single-sig input. If you have already signed it, what did you sign?

Because once you have signed a single-sig input once, you are done.

ImLostPleaseHelpThx

Okay. I'll post the language from the book and site I am reading. Then, provide me your understanding because I am reading it somewhat differently.

I have not signed the redeem script, yet.

Murch

23:43

Okay

Transcript for