Rather than signing dates, they should sign a hash of the block header that was mined 10 minutes ago. This proves it was impossible for a message to be signed by creating plenty of msgs or whatever. It's exciting seeing an early Bitcoin signature, thanks for the entertainment OneSignature.

That's indeed smarter than a date, but note that I asked to provide the topic ID too.

The money were sent to a public key, but that doesn't make the address unused, because they were sent to a public key that returns this address. The hash of that public key (which received 50 BTC in 2009) returns this address, so he can't have faked it.

However, that doesn't prove he mined the coins. It only proves possession of a private key. A miner could start selling old private keys, and therefore share his ownership with others.

'transfer it"

your not transfering ownership of the genesis address..

your just playing a chain later game of naming the person you want to show love for

you are getting no ownership control or access of the genesis address. so you are not changing/transferring ownership of it

if you want to play a game of 'name someone you love/trust to have been named by you'.. create a reputation system

EG if onesig was to sign to 5 people .. that means he trusts 5 people. where if one of those people gains signatures naming them from lots of people. that means lots of people trust that user.

which is a value creation system.

however
elvis loves onesig
onesig loves emily
emily loves jeff
jeff loves stacey.
means that stacey does not get elvises estate in her will, she doesnt even get to be elvises next o f kin. nor even gets the pen elvis autographed to onesig with..
she just gets to try to con someone else into buying a love letter from stacey to staceys victim. under the pretend that the victim is getting to own elvises pen used to autograph

though stacey has no ownership of any of that to give to the victim in real life outside the "chain"

your system is not creating real value or utility.

..
look i understand the premiss. it was like them games some forum members done years ago, where they established a set of bitcoin to represent a kitten or diamond and they seen how far it would grow via transferring it at a X rate of premium per trade.

but your system does not actually transfer the real control of the genesis item you pretend users several taints forward are promised to receive.

you are just getting people to sell their love of a next victim by signing you love them. and they sell their love forward to whomever buys their love by naming them

but bitcoin is not just creating a coin thats passed to a decendant ..

bitcoin has other functions.
it actually also has an underlying COST.(mining cost)

check hal finneys post about price discovery.

users in 2010 gave it a price because of cost them $0.07 to mine 1 btc. and those that didnt want to burn their cpu/gpu for an hour or so per coin would instead just buy it instantly to save time and stress, and usually pay a premium for instant access to coin without the stress/burn cost.

it had a underlying value(mining cost)..and above that meket speculated premium(price)

functionally: bitcoin has utility. too
you can do things with bitcoin. which you cant with your signature chain

your 'pass a love letter' has no underlying value cost apart from a conversation starter at parties where people can make a clam that they own something and show proof of some provenance.. yet reality is they have no ownership of the original item you say it does

because the descendants dont get the private key (the underlying asset you pretend they get to own)

your not selling ownership. at best case.. your selling province proofs. without the starter item actually moving ownership. thus its not real provenance

this can be "fooled" too

if just adding a date..
the true owner of the 2009 address can at any time..
create a new chain. and put an epoch time in a sig of 1291513567 (dec 2009) and then just hash a block with low difficulty and reference that hash in a next signature message where by they pretend to have transferred it every 6 months for 13 years they can easily reference a previous hash of 26 taints previous hashes and pretend each are done 6 months apart by just adding 15778463 to the epoch time each time they sign.. even though reality is they done 26 signatures in one day

and boom. this new chain has a better provenance than this topics sigchain is pretending to have provenance of

thus making the sigchain proposed no longer valid

it would be better to use a blockchasn of a network outside of the sigchain block. such as current bitcoin blockheight hash

but that too can be faked by just putting in a blockhash of late 2009 as the start of a new chain to make it appear that the new chain is the original by having a older bitcoin hash included

..
trying to turn taint(provenance) into value.. is not a real thing

taint(chain of provenance)  back to original creator, is not ownership of original creator
.. but that still doesnt fix the big picture flaw of his concept.  
the current signature message has nothing to do with the first message anymore.. thus retains no value the more descendants of taint there are

My comment was referring to a single singature, not a chain of signatures. I'll comment a bit on the chain of signatures though. You can always encode a new transfer sequence as a linear chain of onchain outputs i.e. a sequence of single input, single output transactions is the simplest form. People could "define" (I put it in quotes because it's a social construct) the coinbase address to own the block PoW.
This PoW could in theory be agreed on to be transfered with a chain of signatures defines as a chain of outputs. This should work as a concept. The PoW obviously isn't in the address at the head of the chain, but it was never in any of the historical addresses. It's there because of our agreement and the fact that nobody could've tampered with the transfers.

again

casino.. your talking about your silly customers inside your silly network who wont accept a fork.

here is the thing though

its not about a customer several taints/descendants/love letters down forking..
its the 2009 address(2009 elvis) private key(2009 elvis pen) owner who still has the private key of the 2009 address that can make new chains after they got paid and your customers(i know you own the address and have a couple forum alt accounts)

by making a new elivis autograph for a new network that looks like it predates your first concept chain.... simply makes the first concept chain obsolete. completely

because no one inside your first concept chain actually gets control of the elvis address private key to prevent the elvis pen from creating new chains.

thats why no one would trust the elvis address because they cant stop the elvis pen signer from making more autographs for other chains thus making the first concept chain worthless

in short im saying because i know YOU are casino and onesig. who has the private key.. nothing is stopping YOU from signing a new chain into existence once you got paid.. and make it appear that 2nd concept predates you first concept chain. thus there is no value. they do not take ownership of the 2009 address to stop you. thus no value.

i was trying to be subtle but i think i was too subtle by calling you(casino+onsig) elvis and onesig

..
anyway outside your first concept chain knowing you can rip off your descendants by just creating a new autograph once you got paid. you outside first concept chain can then make another chain..
it wont be a fork that a descendant done.. because they never get the private key of 2009 address

it would be you creating a new chain from elvis(2009 address) by creating a sig to a new group of descendants that you add in a hash/epoch that predates first concept chain. thus making second concept chain the new prime chain and the first concept chain becomes defunct.


anyways putting all that crap aside..
inside the chain(s) you create. they also have no value because great grandchild that is 3 signatures down from elvis address.. is not holding or owning anything elvis address related. all they hold is a message from their parent

that message is not of any value. it has nothing to do with the 2009 address.
its just a emily loves jeff message.. a couple generations after
onesig loves emily and
elvis loves onesig

but apart from a love letter parent loves child chain.. the chain does nothing else.

A lovely present!

Special.

usernames{casinotester0001, OneSignature, cryptoGPU, illusivereserve}
are all one guy using alt accounts,
self promoting using alt accounts
and then making several topics of the same pre-emptive advert for a ICO/new network scheme.. and then sending the links to crap coin media outlets to promote him further.