I think bitcoin can continue drive progress more years even it has no legal acceptance.
Topic: 100,000+ BTC moved into segwit addresses (Read 545 times)
Moving to segwit is safer, many people decide to do it. I did it when Bitcoin fees went back down after that big rise in early 2018. I thought that if this were to happen again I'd lose so much on fees. It's better to go segwit while you can and not worry about the possibility of $100 fees ever again.
I like these forms of speculation, because it's just that, speculation. We can see the movements, but only guess who they belong to, and what the intentions are. That's the true power of Bitcoin.
It seems that the coins have been transferred to Segwit addresses for the sole reason of enjoying lower fees, because moving coins back and forth that often is quite a costly practice. It's probably an exchange or OTC desk creating smaller blocks of coins to be sold.
What if this turns out to be Bakkt setting up their shit? Bakkt won't wait till the last moment to accumulate coins, they do it well before they actually launch, and the market is well positioned at current levels to allow further accumulation at lower levels.
No shortage of theories.
It seems that the coins have been transferred to Segwit addresses for the sole reason of enjoying lower fees, because moving coins back and forth that often is quite a costly practice. It's probably an exchange or OTC desk creating smaller blocks of coins to be sold.
What if this turns out to be Bakkt setting up their shit? Bakkt won't wait till the last moment to accumulate coins, they do it well before they actually launch, and the market is well positioned at current levels to allow further accumulation at lower levels.
No shortage of theories.
The pristine coins that haven't been touched are well known, say pre 2012
This OP doesn't really say anything, on a bad year BITMAIN takes in this many coins
Lastly, as LEO has proved mixers don't work, there is nothing that PALANTIR(CIA) cannot track on the block-chain.
..
IMHO if this is true, and like most things here I assume its just another lie, but if its true it could be just a normal whale reducing his exposure to hacking, say I hack one address with 100k coin, its far better for them to own 100k addresses with one coin, that way they can sleep at night knowing that they'll always have 99% with no risk of losing 100%.
Hackers can & do hack bitcoin, I hit 0.01 btc accounts infrequently, but 0.05 are the most common HODLR 'moron' ownership amount, and of course 0.001 are like flies on feces
Who is LEO? I don't understand that acronym. I think I have heard LEA before (Law Enforcement Agency) but not LEO??
Anyway, can you present evidence of they being able to find coins after being mixed? I've never heard it before. In fact, as far as I know a ton of MtGox were never recovered and that was back then. Nowadays there seem to be really complex mixers that release coins at random times like helix.
The splitting of the coins into many addresses was a smart move on their part. You remove a lot of risk, when you split large amounts of coins into smaller chucks. Let's say there are a new fork and you want to capitalize on that fork, then you can do a small "test" transaction on one of the addresses first and if that is successful, then you can do the rest.
The sweep process from paper wallets can also be compromised and if something goes wrong, you do not lose all coins at once. 
I think this was a very smart move.
The sweep process from paper wallets can also be compromised and if something goes wrong, you do not lose all coins at once.
I think this was a very smart move.
i didn't say it is your claim, that way of thinking is a silly way that has existed before SegWit even started and it is true but not possible! basically it is an FUD that was designed to prevent SegWit activation. it is true that miners can decide to steal SegWit outputs but in order to do that they have to fork bitcoin and be on a new/different chain which the rest of the network will never follow! and also this possibility is true about all other outputs when a fork is the first step. so it is not even SegWit related.
to explain. segwit would need to be deactivated and regress the rules back to 2016 rules. thus making segwit outputs become 'anyonecanspends'
which is the worry if there was a bug. where anyone sending funds from segwit addresses could be spent by mining pools when pools add them to their block in such an event.
the same thing could have been said about any new output that is introduced in bitcoin such as pay to scripts. and these things aren't just added overnight. it is extensively tested and reviewed by many developers.
Quote
however if you really want to know how trusted segwits addresses are.. just look at the very guy that invented and coded segwit
(pieter wuille aka sipa)
https://bitcoin.sipa.be (bottom of website on the right).. still using legacy addressess
also even on his bitcointalk profile: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/pieter-wuille-2786
seems he is yet to trust donations on segwit addresses
(pieter wuille aka sipa)
https://bitcoin.sipa.be (bottom of website on the right).. still using legacy addressess
also even on his bitcointalk profile: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/pieter-wuille-2786
seems he is yet to trust donations on segwit addresses
you are very wrong.
if you want to know how trusted SegWit and its addresses are you need to check the code not what some dudes are doing no matter who they are.
not to mention that the reason for them not changing their "donation" address can simply be because a lot of wallets don't support SegWit addresses! or simply because nobody donates anything to that address (received 5 tx in 7 years!).
i didn't say it is your claim, that way of thinking is a silly way that has existed before SegWit even started and it is true but not possible! basically it is an FUD that was designed to prevent SegWit activation. it is true that miners can decide to steal SegWit outputs but in order to do that they have to fork bitcoin and be on a new/different chain which the rest of the network will never follow! and also this possibility is true about all other outputs when a fork is the first step. so it is not even SegWit related.
to explain. segwit would need to be deactivated and regress the rules back to 2016 rules. thus making segwit outputs become 'anyonecanspends'
which is the worry if there was a bug. where anyone sending funds from segwit addresses could be spent by mining pools when pools add them to their block in such an event.
however if you really want to know how trusted segwits addresses are.. just look at the very guy that invented and coded segwit
(pieter wuille aka sipa)
https://bitcoin.sipa.be (bottom of website on the right).. still using legacy addressess
also even on his bitcointalk profile: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/pieter-wuille-2786
seems he is yet to trust donations on segwit addresses
it could be said that whales trust segwit, or at least some whales do.
that is a very silly way of thinking in my opinion.
SegWit is either safe or not. there is no middle ground and people shouldn't look to others (specially whales who only care about making money) to decide.
not to mention that if there was any kind of vulnerability in SegWit it would have been already exploited! it has been 1.5 years already.
this in my opinion is someone who has been either waiting for forks to finish so that he can claim them (since many of them didn't support SegWit) or he upgraded his wallet to something that supports Bech32 recently
)Well, im not claiming there is a hidden exploit lurking in the shadows ready to be exploited as Craig Wright claims, which I think it's just another way to try to suppress the price so he can pump his BSV scam. Im just referring to the game theoretical situation argued by some in which miners cartel up to steal segwit funds, which im skeptic about.
Bitcoin is all about skin in the game. The way I see it is huge amounts of coins moving into segwit means that there is trust to it being safe.
i didn't say it is your claim, that way of thinking is a silly way that has existed before SegWit even started and it is true but not possible! basically it is an FUD that was designed to prevent SegWit activation. it is true that miners can decide to steal SegWit outputs but in order to do that they have to fork bitcoin and be on a new/different chain which the rest of the network will never follow! and also this possibility is true about all other outputs when a fork is the first step. so it is not even SegWit related.
if you actually check
the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments
the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments
i don't have the energy to verify, but if so, it sounds like a really crappy "mixer service". there's really no way to tumble that number of coins anyway. no mixer service has that kind of liquidity. they'd just be taking in and paying out the same coins to different addresses.
yep when a mixer doesnt have reserves to mix, it just ends up being a tumbling. or as i call it a de-tainter service. just hoping the coins along.
but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending
it doesn't really demonstrate that since it's just one anecdotal example.
so not one example but thousands of bc1q addresses used just for that particular stash
even if you dont count/check
66k/200=330 allotments. * 5+tumbles=over 1000 easy
if you actually check
the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments
the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments
i don't have the energy to verify, but if so, it sounds like a really crappy "mixer service". there's really no way to tumble that number of coins anyway. no mixer service has that kind of liquidity. they'd just be taking in and paying out the same coins to different addresses.
but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending
it doesn't really demonstrate that since it's just one anecdotal example.
Interesting activity I noticed in the last 6 days.
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses-2.html it concerns address rank 132 to 208.
Whoever this entity is, transferred 8000BTC to 76 different addresses totalling 608,000BTC. It's mind boggling that someone (or a group) can hold this many coins, and I very much doubt that this is an exchange. It could very well be an institution that started with accumulating way back, or perhaps the "lost" MtGox stash?
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses-2.html it concerns address rank 132 to 208.
Whoever this entity is, transferred 8000BTC to 76 different addresses totalling 608,000BTC. It's mind boggling that someone (or a group) can hold this many coins, and I very much doubt that this is an exchange. It could very well be an institution that started with accumulating way back, or perhaps the "lost" MtGox stash?
Well I guess we will never know the reason why it was done 
if you actually check
the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments
but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending
the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments
but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending
Well, there's some scenarious possible here.
First, this might be an old hodler who's trying to deposit his btc into exchangers and dump them.. or it might be a miner trying to dump hard without making peoples know about that.. he turned to be stupid somehow (lol).
Second, it might be a whale, a real whale trying to make his btc invisible and hard to track.. umm, maybe a scam scheme or a scammer or a hacker..
Finally, it might be one of the old supporters of btc, trying to make us cry, fear.. so there will be a bigger dump and this supporter will buy and make his bags even bigger.
First, this might be an old hodler who's trying to deposit his btc into exchangers and dump them.. or it might be a miner trying to dump hard without making peoples know about that.. he turned to be stupid somehow (lol).
Second, it might be a whale, a real whale trying to make his btc invisible and hard to track.. umm, maybe a scam scheme or a scammer or a hacker..
Finally, it might be one of the old supporters of btc, trying to make us cry, fear.. so there will be a bigger dump and this supporter will buy and make his bags even bigger.
Well you can assume 1000 possibilities of why he split bitcoins in smaller equal chunks but we all miss here is that he is one of the richest person and i hope he would not dump all these for merely 4000$ while a wait for 2 to 3 years could give him 50K per bitcoin
It could be in preparation for the taxation season. By splitting them up into hideable wallets it is easier to convert them into privacy coins. Good luck to the taxman on finding owners of monero wallets
it could be said that whales trust segwit, or at least some whales do.
that is a very silly way of thinking in my opinion.
SegWit is either safe or not. there is no middle ground and people shouldn't look to others (specially whales who only care about making money) to decide.
not to mention that if there was any kind of vulnerability in SegWit it would have been already exploited! it has been 1.5 years already.
this in my opinion is someone who has been either waiting for forks to finish so that he can claim them (since many of them didn't support SegWit) or he upgraded his wallet to something that supports Bech32 recently
)Well, im not claiming there is a hidden exploit lurking in the shadows ready to be exploited as Craig Wright claims, which I think it's just another way to try to suppress the price so he can pump his BSV scam. Im just referring to the game theoretical situation argued by some in which miners cartel up to steal segwit funds, which im skeptic about.
Bitcoin is all about skin in the game. The way I see it is huge amounts of coins moving into segwit means that there is trust to it being safe.
~
I seem having no idea, but that may relate to a next dipper dump yet
I seem having no idea, but that may relate to a next dipper dump yet
historically movement of large funds has never been the reason for a price drop. because whales like this one never sell on exchanges to crash the market. instead they sell away the market using peer to peer methods. and even if they do sell on exchanges they will do it in a way not to affect the market that much such as selling slowly specially since you can not trust exchanges with large amounts of money nor can you withdraw such amounts.
A very interesting set of transactions happened just a couple of days ago. Someone has moved chunks of 25,000 coins into bech32 addresses. What's really weird is that he has moved it into an huge list of different addresses:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e4aaf711863d194cd8bdc04733e71b6a3296b788b5e7cd345dce17afde426841
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e8184cb85c93c073b83505856a88a87a2041480cb7410cc3cadaf59a9f8a417b
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/a024efae4a970da9353a0e2a20381f4c567654f7052b86b5db6e69216a33ab77
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/fc24c43f5f9593ba12bc35a43b46c8ce51732e03e669c9e3ae099aed4d3024fb
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ad11701c33aecf82c092a7182909ce16b63d4574f1569459e27e97d22cd5e29b
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/257b4a8848541996857043e6d2f6319edddf5abde2776f4b49bb9e773cc4414c
He wants to increase his privacy by splitting them into different addresses? Anyhow, it could be said that whales trust segwit, or at least some whales do.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e4aaf711863d194cd8bdc04733e71b6a3296b788b5e7cd345dce17afde426841
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e8184cb85c93c073b83505856a88a87a2041480cb7410cc3cadaf59a9f8a417b
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/a024efae4a970da9353a0e2a20381f4c567654f7052b86b5db6e69216a33ab77
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/fc24c43f5f9593ba12bc35a43b46c8ce51732e03e669c9e3ae099aed4d3024fb
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ad11701c33aecf82c092a7182909ce16b63d4574f1569459e27e97d22cd5e29b
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/257b4a8848541996857043e6d2f6319edddf5abde2776f4b49bb9e773cc4414c
He wants to increase his privacy by splitting them into different addresses? Anyhow, it could be said that whales trust segwit, or at least some whales do.
A while ago I used to transfer my funds to paper wallets and I felt safer splitting them into many, many different addresses. After a while, I decided to split them into unequally valued paper wallets so I had a bunch of 0.01BTC papers, a bunch of 0.05BTC papers etc.. his funds might have been sent to cold/paper wallets, or who knows. Might be another rich holder securing his funds. Upon looking up the addresses I couldn't find any other results except the transactions you've also linked here.
I seem having no idea, but that may relate to a next dipper dump yet
new movements of large wallets, every day there are new movements
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e3a93adbb793c61003e38d80d2c046387db98a287867aa3dde825bb89576bd4e
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/167c5a7c91c908f3159bab679664d8abc06c63bcc0d277a326b609ae360cfb55
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/732ef6ab57e5a300fcccfd274e28c393bd5dacc936be39beeec8b35ae2845012
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/5b875ff3584800f8e4ea61ccdea5388fa2f1268bf667b70b54c71a05939c19aa
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e3a93adbb793c61003e38d80d2c046387db98a287867aa3dde825bb89576bd4e
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/167c5a7c91c908f3159bab679664d8abc06c63bcc0d277a326b609ae360cfb55
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/732ef6ab57e5a300fcccfd274e28c393bd5dacc936be39beeec8b35ae2845012
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/5b875ff3584800f8e4ea61ccdea5388fa2f1268bf667b70b54c71a05939c19aa
has anyone considered the possibility of this being a new attempt at spam attacking the network?
last time I saw someone create this many new transaction outputs they were trying to start a large scale spam attack which lasted for months. maybe this time they are trying to do it using SegWit transactions. it could work nearly the same way since spam attack is basically filling blocks with junk transactions.
last time I saw someone create this many new transaction outputs they were trying to start a large scale spam attack which lasted for months. maybe this time they are trying to do it using SegWit transactions. it could work nearly the same way since spam attack is basically filling blocks with junk transactions.
A very interesting set of transactions happened just a couple of days ago. Someone has moved chunks of 25,000 coins into bech32 addresses. What's really weird is that he has moved it into an huge list of different addresses:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e4aaf711863d194cd8bdc04733e71b6a3296b788b5e7cd345dce17afde426841
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e8184cb85c93c073b83505856a88a87a2041480cb7410cc3cadaf59a9f8a417b
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/a024efae4a970da9353a0e2a20381f4c567654f7052b86b5db6e69216a33ab77
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/fc24c43f5f9593ba12bc35a43b46c8ce51732e03e669c9e3ae099aed4d3024fb
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ad11701c33aecf82c092a7182909ce16b63d4574f1569459e27e97d22cd5e29b
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/257b4a8848541996857043e6d2f6319edddf5abde2776f4b49bb9e773cc4414c
He wants to increase his privacy by splitting them into different addresses? Anyhow, it could be said that whales trust segwit, or at least some whales do.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e4aaf711863d194cd8bdc04733e71b6a3296b788b5e7cd345dce17afde426841
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e8184cb85c93c073b83505856a88a87a2041480cb7410cc3cadaf59a9f8a417b
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/a024efae4a970da9353a0e2a20381f4c567654f7052b86b5db6e69216a33ab77
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/fc24c43f5f9593ba12bc35a43b46c8ce51732e03e669c9e3ae099aed4d3024fb
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ad11701c33aecf82c092a7182909ce16b63d4574f1569459e27e97d22cd5e29b
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/257b4a8848541996857043e6d2f6319edddf5abde2776f4b49bb9e773cc4414c
He wants to increase his privacy by splitting them into different addresses? Anyhow, it could be said that whales trust segwit, or at least some whales do.
A while ago I used to transfer my funds to paper wallets and I felt safer splitting them into many, many different addresses. After a while, I decided to split them into unequally valued paper wallets so I had a bunch of 0.01BTC papers, a bunch of 0.05BTC papers etc.. his funds might have been sent to cold/paper wallets, or who knows. Might be another rich holder securing his funds. Upon looking up the addresses I couldn't find any other results except the transactions you've also linked here.
But if he wanted privacy, he would use a mixer, and he wouldn't definitely split them into exact 254 BTC amounts. Now everyone knows he owns all these coins, he just split them into a bunch of different addresses. He needs to do a couple more passes into different amounts. Perhaps he is going to mix all of these bech32 254 BTC addresses using a mixer, since it's impossible to mix 25,000 BTC at once, it's too much, so he may dividing into smaller batches. Wow that must be such an headache to sort all these addresses out. Rich people problems I guess
Or perhaps he does not want privacy by using a mixer. Sometimes mixing your Bitcoins through tumblers will mix them with the coins of illegal drug merchants, hackers, and other coins from the darknet. His wallet's "privacy" might encounter a worse situation than if he didn't use a mixer.
Jump to: