Quote from: mynonce on November 25, 2021, 07:50:20 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on November 25, 2021, 12:48:27 PM

Quote from: garlonicon on November 25, 2021, 05:46:40 AM

They are even less secure, because instead of just "knowing public key", you also know a lot of correct signatures, where d-value is the same. That means you have a lot of "d=(s/r)k-(z/r)" equations, so a lot of "d=number*k-number2" expressions.

So?

ECDSA: Revealing the private key, from four signed messages, two keys and shared nonces (SECP256k1)
https://billatnapier.medium.com/ecdsa-revealing-the-private-key-from-four-signed-message-two-keys-and-shared-nonces-secp256k1-5758f1258b1d

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ssTlSSIJQE

True, but it requires user to use vulnerable software. Reusing k value (also called nonce) is well-known problem, so it's unlikely you could someone private key that way.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 27, 2021, 12:51:50 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on November 27, 2021, 12:44:31 PM

The decision also won't be unilateral, whatever the decision may be. It will be a fork that like any other fork requires support from the majority.

I meant unilateral in respect to the owner of the coins. The majority shouldn't get to decide what to do with the coins belonging to someone else, even if we think those coins have been lost or abandoned.

Unfortunately people have different opinion on this matter. For example, few people think it's better to freeze vulnerable UTXO rather than letting thief stole it and potentially manipulate Bitcoin price.