0

This is strange for me that there exist over 30 000 of p2pk with addresses mainly with very high balance and these funds weren't moved yet. There are Linux tools to scan blockchain for them and note in one text/csv file.

If we have p2pk public keys and addresses for them (I have list of over 30k of them) why we can't just hash the public key and move the balance from all the addresses with p2pkh?

Or even simpler one: move these funds with only public key?

What is missing here, private key?

3 Answers 3

1

It takes a digital signature produced with the corresponding private key on a message committing to the spending transaction to move the funds. Since you only have the public key, you will find it challenging to produce such a signature.

4
  • Even with SIGHASH_SINGLE?
    – pbies
    Commented Aug 9, 2023 at 10:03
  • 1
    You can’t spend a UTXO without fulfilling the spending conditions defined in its output script. The transaction commitment created for SIGHASH_SINGLE still commits to all inputs, by the way, but even with SIGHASH_SINGLE+SIGHASH_ANYONE_CAN_PAY the input would need its own signature.
    – Murch
    Commented Aug 9, 2023 at 11:27
  • Isn't it that way, that spending p2pk with SIGHASH_SINGLE is possible for second somebody's else output by only public key which has been already used?
    – pbies
    Commented Aug 10, 2023 at 15:26
  • 1
    No, you cannot spend a UTXO without fulfilling the output script of that UTXO. And P2PK requires a signature made using the corresponding private key. I have no idea where you are getting this from. This would be completely unsafe and basically would mean that anyone can spend pretty much any funds.
    – Murch
    Commented Aug 10, 2023 at 15:31
1

The foundation of bitcoin, the thing that makes it possible, the reason people trust it with their money is that

You cannot spend money without knowing the private key.

1

The security design of Bitcoin ensures that only the private key owner can move the funds. This is a fundamental aspect of Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. Without the private key, the funds remain secure and under the control of their rightful owners.

1
  • I don’t understand why you would consider it “seemingly logical” that someone could spend coins using only public information.
    – Murch
    Commented Aug 9, 2023 at 9:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.