Why? I originally theorized he was laundering for a cartel. SR is much less hazardous. And far less hazardous to my bitcoins.
SR does its own laundering with its coin-tumbler.
The one evidence I've seen that 1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM belonged to SR was the
claim by Arkanos that his SR deposit went there "immediately".
I'll present a 2nd piece of evidence. I made a deposit to SR on June 9 2012. I just checked blockchain.info and it went to 1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM after 129 hops (I'm not sure on the date it arrived because the blockchain.info taint tool doesn't show dates).
Actually I made two deposits to SR that day, to two separate addresses. The 2nd one went to 1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM after 510 hops.
Does this mean that 1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM was controlled by SR? No. If the address was controlled by MtGox, all it confirms is that SR or its users, also use MtGox. There would have to more experiments to support that it belongs to SR. I'm having trouble thinking of an experiment which would shine some light (such as identifying a suspected SR closure). Heck, SR could be hosting its wallet on MtGox and using the MtGox API (probably not, but just for an extreme example). In that case, SR would not have its own closure and be entirely inside the MtGox closure.
I'm very skeptical that 1DkyBEK belongs to SR. Nobody other than Satoshi (who owns the first 1 million coins if I'm not mistaken) has been known to control that many coins, and already MtGox proved they control 424k last July. 500k is a heck of a lot coins, considering that there's only 10m in existence. In all likelihood 1DkyBEK is an MtGox address, until there's stronger evidence to the contrary.
- addr 12oiay6fiaFhHU2sPeCad18Myr5nHJzgGa (last line) has a closure size of
about 200K addresses ... and taints the fat address like crazy (86%) . Very much
looks like some sort of feeble attempt at laundering.
That large closure is MtGox. My MtGox deposit address is in the same closure.
Looks like those taint numbers are about in proportion to general market penetration. MtGox taints it the most, deepbit second, and pirate's closure taints more than znort's closure.
I'm a little confused about how znort's tool is calculating this taint. The numbers are "taint from" so are these numbers "receiving taint"? i.e., 1DkyBEK received 0.5% of its coins from [addresses closed around] 1ZnortsoStC1zSTXbW6CUtkvqew8czMMG?