<blockquote>
<p><strong>what process do prevent Bob from not using Alice address as the sender in another transaction</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bob doesn't know Alice's private key.</p>
<hr />
<p>A transaction requires that a kind of digital signature be included with the amounts being spent (e.g. From Alice's address)  All other Bitcoin users (wallets, miners, etc) check the signature.</p>
<p>the signature is just a complex mathematical process that proves someone knows a private key without ever disclosing the private key. The private key is just a large number that is kept secret by the user (e.g. Alice).</p>
<hr />
<p>Further reading:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/102213/13866">Is it true that all the bitcoins in existence are on the blockchain (the ledge), but it just depends on who the owner (address) is?</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>Some other things worth remembering:</p>
<ul>
<li>Bitcoin has rules but no rulers.</li>
<li>Bitcoin is electronic <em>cash</em></li>
<li>There are no accounts in the Bitcoin network</li>
<li>Wallets don't contain money.</li>
<li>Addresses don't identify people, businesses or places.</li>
<li>Bitcoin isn't sent to, or from, addresses.</li>
<li>Bitcoin is never really in transit.</li>
<li>Bitcoins don't survive transactions.</li>
<li>Bitcoins don't exist as entities.</li>
<li>The blockchain is not a ledger (it's a transaction journal)</li>
<li>Miners don't have any special privileges (they exercise a role that has two special rewards).</li>
</ul>
<p>The above are intended to guide readers away from misconceptions, not as a self-evident explanation of the points made.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T21:41:34.283Z
But when you use an exchange platform like say Binance, you don't have the piece of software on your computer, does that mean technically they hold the private key of all the investors on the website, and hypothetically they could use them to force fraudulent transactions behind the curtain ?
vdegenne
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T22:08:53.083Z
@vdegenne yes they could do that. *”Not your keys, not your coins”* is a popular saying for a reason.
chytrik
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T22:20:35.963Z
@vdegenne: Yes. The inventors of Bitcoin wanted to create a currency that had no need for such trusted third parties. That was perhaps the major motivation. If you give your money to exchanges or other *custodial* businesses then, *so far as the Bitcoin network is concerned*, you control no Bitcoin -- which is the same as owning no Bitcoin.
RedGrittyBrick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T16:08:12.497Z
2021-03-10T23:03:16.760Z
2021-03-10T23:03:16.760Z
RedGrittyBrick
<p>In addition to what @redgrittybrick wrote, it is also relevant to understand that bitcoin uses what is called an ‘unspent transaction output’ (UTXO) system for keeping track of coins, not an ‘account system’.</p>
<p>So when a coin is spent, it cannot be spent again. There is no ‘from’ address in a bitcoin transaction. There are just inputs, which are consumed entirely in the transaction and thus cannot be spent again later.</p>
<p>This, along with the cryptographic signature that @redgrittybrick explained, make it so that you cannot steal funds simply by ‘replaying’ a transaction.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T21:43:19.357Z
But if you can't "replay" you can make a new one, supposing you have Alice private key, right ?
vdegenne
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T22:07:46.017Z
@vdegenne yes, anyone with the private key can spend the funds locked to the associated bitcoin address. This is why private keys are to be carefully guarded, and transactions are affixed with a cryptographic signature made by the private key, not with the private key itself.
chytrik
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T18:21:29.670Z
2021-03-10T18:21:29.670Z
chytrik
<p>Title may be confusing you, and to be honest I am also confused how things work and I am new to this crypto world so sorry in advance if I am not using the correct words.<br />
I try to explain :</p>
<p>Let say Alice wants to send cryptos to Bob.</p>
<pre><code>A sends to B
(address of A) to (address of B)
</code></pre>
<p>Because blockchains are public, and both address will be known to each one, what process do prevent Bob from not using Alice address as the sender in another transaction ?</p>
<pre><code>B pretends to be A
using A to send to B
(address of A) to (address of B) without A consent
</code></pre>
<p>The reason why I am confused right now about this question is because in Dapps you can use a wallet like Metamask to make some transactions, which means you only needs an address. So how is that secure.<br />
If someone code a program using the same logic as Metamask, what prevents him to use another person's address in Dapps and to smart contracts? (Similar to changing the <code>ip</code> field in <code>http</code> requests, which was a popular hacking technique for man in the middle before <code>https</code> was widely used).</p>
<p>Thanks in advance for helping me to understand.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T16:12:47.063Z
*"... in Dapps you can use a wallet like Metamask to ..."* That seems to be about Ethereum not Bitcoin. You can ask about Etherium in etherium.stackexchange.com. This Q&A website bitcoin.stackexchange.com, is for questions about Bitcoin specifically.
RedGrittyBrick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T21:35:55.470Z
Did you read my whole question ? I used Dapp as an example, but my question is still relevant to this Q&A. Thanks for your suggestion though.
vdegenne
<blockchain><address><security><smartcontracts><dapp>
What prevent someone to not use the receiver address of one transaction as the sender in another one?
vdegenne
# What prevent someone to not use the receiver address of one transaction as the sender in another one?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-03-10)

Title may be confusing you, and to be honest I am also confused how things work and I am new to this crypto world so sorry in advance if I am not using the correct words.  
I try to explain :

Let say Alice wants to send cryptos to Bob.

```
A sends to B
(address of A) to (address of B)

```

Because blockchains are public, and both address will be known to each one, what process do prevent Bob from not using Alice address as the sender in another transaction ?

```
B pretends to be A
using A to send to B
(address of A) to (address of B) without A consent

```

The reason why I am confused right now about this question is because in Dapps you can use a wallet like Metamask to make some transactions, which means you only needs an address. So how is that secure.  
If someone code a program using the same logic as Metamask, what prevents him to use another person's address in Dapps and to smart contracts? (Similar to changing the `ip` field in `http` requests, which was a popular hacking technique for man in the middle before `https` was widely used).

Thanks in advance for helping me to understand.

**Tags:** blockchain, address, security, smartcontracts, dapp

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: *"... in Dapps you can use a wallet like Metamask to ..."* That seems to be about Ethereum not Bitcoin. You can ask about Etherium in etherium.stackexchange.com. This Q&A website bitcoin.stackexchange.com, is for questions about Bitcoin specifically.  
> **username_0**: Did you read my whole question ? I used Dapp as an example, but my question is still relevant to this Q&A. Thanks for your suggestion though.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-03-10. Score: 1

> **what process do prevent Bob from not using Alice address as the sender in another transaction**

Bob doesn't know Alice's private key.

---

A transaction requires that a kind of digital signature be included with the amounts being spent (e.g. From Alice's address) All other Bitcoin users (wallets, miners, etc) check the signature.

the signature is just a complex mathematical process that proves someone knows a private key without ever disclosing the private key. The private key is just a large number that is kept secret by the user (e.g. Alice).

---

Further reading:

* [Is it true that all the bitcoins in existence are on the blockchain (the ledge), but it just depends on who the owner (address) is?](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/102213/13866)

---

Some other things worth remembering:

* Bitcoin has rules but no rulers.
* Bitcoin is electronic *cash*
* There are no accounts in the Bitcoin network
* Wallets don't contain money.
* Addresses don't identify people, businesses or places.
* Bitcoin isn't sent to, or from, addresses.
* Bitcoin is never really in transit.
* Bitcoins don't survive transactions.
* Bitcoins don't exist as entities.
* The blockchain is not a ledger (it's a transaction journal)
* Miners don't have any special privileges (they exercise a role that has two special rewards).

The above are intended to guide readers away from misconceptions, not as a self-evident explanation of the points made.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But when you use an exchange platform like say Binance, you don't have the piece of software on your computer, does that mean technically they hold the private key of all the investors on the website, and hypothetically they could use them to force fraudulent transactions behind the curtain ?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 yes they could do that. *”Not your keys, not your coins”* is a popular saying for a reason.  
> **username_1**: @username_0: Yes. The inventors of Bitcoin wanted to create a currency that had no need for such trusted third parties. That was perhaps the major motivation. If you give your money to exchanges or other *custodial* businesses then, *so far as the Bitcoin network is concerned*, you control no Bitcoin -- which is the same as owning no Bitcoin.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-03-10. Score: 0

In addition to what @username_1 wrote, it is also relevant to understand that bitcoin uses what is called an ‘unspent transaction output’ (UTXO) system for keeping track of coins, not an ‘account system’.

So when a coin is spent, it cannot be spent again. There is no ‘from’ address in a bitcoin transaction. There are just inputs, which are consumed entirely in the transaction and thus cannot be spent again later.

This, along with the cryptographic signature that @username_1 explained, make it so that you cannot steal funds simply by ‘replaying’ a transaction.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But if you can't "replay" you can make a new one, supposing you have Alice private key, right ?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 yes, anyone with the private key can spend the funds locked to the associated bitcoin address. This is why private keys are to be carefully guarded, and transactions are affixed with a cryptographic signature made by the private key, not with the private key itself.  

---

