To clarify my question: Is there a way to maintain ownership of a private key even when you intend to reveal it to someone else?
One point I’d like to clarify, though, is that in the protocol I’m working on, private key collisions are expected to be a regular occurrence. I understand this might seem unconventional.
Working on a limited private key range?
I can't see how a coin with this kind of protocol would work in real-world application.
To mitigate this, I’m considering an alternative approach: instead of relying solely on signatures, what if ownership was demonstrated by allocating a minimal amount of Bitcoin (e.g., 1 satoshi) to the address derived from the private key? This would tie the private key to an on-chain transaction, with the balance of the associated address acting as proof of ownership. The protocol could then verify ownership by checking whether the address has a balance of 1 at the time of the claim or reservation.
Would this method be effective in preventing collisions or conflicts?
The main issue here is this:
private key collisions are expected to be a regular occurrence
Since collision is a regular basis on your protocol, someone may already have a list of private keys waiting for someone to reserve it.
Whether your client generated a specific private key now doesn't mean that it's generated at that specific time
because a number (
private key) is already available ever since numbers are invented.
I feel like this is for something else and not a for a coin, that's why it's confusing when comparing it to Bitcoin.
Please elaborate the goal to prevent an "
XY-problem" and so we can give you alternatives that may actually work.