Topic: 1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM - page 31. (Read 85720 times)

According to znort's blockparser code, 1Q6nyjSQ79AAw67xAGHgXxXHRj9erLLqhD is now provably in the same wallet as 24550 other addresses.  I used that list to find whether there was any connection between these addresses and the large 1Dky... address.  There have been 86701 inputs and outputs to/from these 24k addresses, all since 18th June.  It seems the Silk Road wallet must have been reset relatively recently, or we'd see older transactions in the list.

Here's your 0.001 BTC being grouped with a few other silkroad addresses:
  https://blockchain.info/tx-index/13896290

Notice that 1AVMrqGmoJ7Jpjh7FdbHnDwK34VBxtBCcC is an input to the same transaction.  That means that both your deposit address and 1AVMrqGmoJ7Jpjh7FdbHnDwK34VBxtBCcC are in the same wallet - silk road's wallet.

Then look at this transaction:
  http://blockchain.info/tx-index/11928355

It's a big payment to the mystery large address.  1AVMrqGmoJ7Jpjh7FdbHnDwK34VBxtBCcC is one of the contributors.

The most recent two deposits into 1Dky... were also from addresses on the list of 24k silk road addresses obtained using znort's code.

I think that's pretty conclusive proof that the large address is related to Silk Road.

Hmmm lol. Did not know that the silkroad was considered an "illegal" site. It has illegal goods for sale, but accessing it is neither illegal in the US nor prosecutable due to the use of Tor. In any case, finding the URL is not difficult for anyone who wishes to do so.

So far, the coins have not reached 1DkyBEK. They have, however, been shuffled around. Presumably using silkroad's "proprietary mixing algorithm"

There is this unconfirmed transaction which might include my 0.001.

I never saw that before.  Is the forum automatically censoring the Silk Road URL?  I wonder if it's OK to link to the Silk_Road_(marketplace) Wikipedia page, or the google result page for an appropriate search.


Your payment has moved.  I'll see what I can find out from the blockchain.

Problems with that:

-Pirate would still have to buy more coins in order to pay back his "investors" after selling to his "customers", so he'd end up driving up the price with the exact same effect as if his "customers" had bought direct, except without the 3400% APR funding cost.

Seriously, when you need to do this amount of straw-grasping to explain why something isn't too good to be true... it's probably too good to be true.

First I went to http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/index.php using Tor. AFAIK that was not an illegal move. Then, I created a throwaway account. AFAIK, that was also legal. I clicked on "Account BTC0.00".
I was given "1Q6nyjSQ79AAw67xAGHgXxXHRj9erLLqhD" as a deposit address.
Here is a transaction where I sent 0.001 to that address:
https://blockchain.info/tx-index/13877907/9ea16f9687efe79759b2e7923c31d38167390bd1e98d86cdd64d2c0095288d56
If it never confirms, feel free to send more.

Anyone is free to take this public information and track the coins, or use it to replicate the experiment.

I just reread this quote. Can someone pls repeat the above experiment?? Note that simply buying on SR is not illegal per se, there are many legal items to buy there as well.

If you do so, pls provide tx ID or anything that can prove where the coins came from, when they were spent and where they go.

pirate could be a fund manager for that wallet belonging to his client and they both may have agreement on acquisition strategy which could involve dumping some funds to stay in target range. They could also employ other tactics to get interim profits, riding market up and down within month or two periods one way then another (as long as they don't end up going against strong market trends)

@ MoneyIsDebt:


Look it point two: The client would have had to lend him the 70k BTC. I think pirate took the money from his own wallet. The quote to this claim is somewhere in this forum, I was just to lazy to look for it, sry.

Could it belong to one of his clients? If he is indeed selling to someone who wants to buy off exchange (to remain anonymous f.ex.) it makes sense that said client could have as much bitcoin as pirate's liabilities.

I actually belive that he's just running a normal ponzi without any mystery million $$$ investor. But in case he's not, pirate could simply horde the lot in one wallet. When the amount is sold and the deal settled, the investor could transfer all his BTC to as many wallets in his possession he likes. Till then, they may very well sit in that single wallet.


I dont know, whether it is 10% or less, but it may very well be. Without doubt someone has at least 5% of all bitcoins in existence sitting in this very wallet. It could be a very early adoptor, some mystery investor with deep pockets or anyone who can effectively channel the available bitcoins in this small economy --> !!Pirate!! <--

From similar cases (look here), it becomes obvious that those pyramid schemes over and over work out, against all better judgement by its investors. The lastest scam on record, linked above, has even topped out all previous scams in eve online's scam ridden history. It scored above 1 trillion of ISK which is about 0,5 % of the total estimated supply. With bitcoin and real money to earn, this effect may be even bigger.

Okay, lovely, so we're looking at >210000 BTC, not counting anyone's individual accounts.

And be honest, the account used for dividends doesn't need to be more than 10% of the entire liability of the fund, because those payments are mostly coming straight back into the fund again. Now that the rates are dropping for some accounts the interest paying part could be even smaller.

If you add up all of the things on GLBSE, it's another 100K+ coins.

He might not HAVE that amount, but he might have liabilities in the region of that amount  
Let's not forget that a lot of his interest payments come right back, often bearing extra capital too.

I mean, just the pirate accounts that I can see straight off the forum:

Patrick Harnett - about BTC10000 apparently
Hashking - Still offering 6.75% in the future so presumably >BTC25000
BitcoinMax - Still offering 6.9%, top tier so >BTC25000
INAU - Still offering close to 7%, so assuming top tier then >BTC25000
OgNasty - BTC1691.44
notme - I think I went to the wrong spreadsheet or his operation's really small - BTC141
Brendio - On the 6% interest tier so somewhere in the BTC15000-25000 range
ShadowAlexey - BTC2155

Some of those top tier accounts might not actually be top tier, but for the ones that are we don't actually know how far over 25k BTC they are, so if my top-tier assumptions were right that's a minimum of BTC109000 (or about 1/80th of the entire monetary base) not counting any of the GLBSE Pirate pass-through bonds, or any BTCST accounts belonging to individuals (and logic dictates that there are a lot).

So pirate's liabilities are almost certainly well into the hundreds of thousands of BTC. I don't know if this is his address but it could well be... If he does run with everyone's cash it's not going to be pretty.

So you are suggesting that pirate might be selling BTC to investors and not sending the coins to the investors' wallets, but giving them access to his own wallet that holds the coins? That sure would be some dumb investors.

So you are suggesting that 4.8% of all bitcoins in existence are sitting idle in pirate's wallet, while he has another wallet (or several) with which he pays out dividends? With current, monthly interest rates of around 19%, he would have paid out an amount of bitcoins equivalent to what is at this address after about 4 months.
At the same time this would mean that pirate would have almost 10% of all bitcoins in existence (the bitcoins at this address and the equivalent amount needed to pay out interest over 4 months).

Sounds probable to you?

come on, you're not so stupid to put this large amount at on address! 

maybe at most 1000 BTC at once... 

Your two "facts" (lol) [which are based on my ""facts"" actually] {lets call them 'assumptions'} dont convince me either.
If his business model includes accumulating as many BTC as possible in order to sell them to some big investor for fiat, it could very well be that they are just sitting there doing nothing till forementioned investor decides to move them elsewhere.

Unfortunately, we dont know exactly how many coins he "should" have, only that is must be a huge amount. If you are alluding to the missing dividend payouts to his lenders, then lets imagine, that this is not his only wallet and that from an arbitrary number of management wallets, he could administer the payouts, market manipulation, pay rolls for subcontractors, ..

I would appreciate if you guys didn't post my address around like it's nothing 

Nope, you just don't have to pay for risks you don't take.

Does anyone have some idea of how many coins pirate "should" have?

I realise that big investors are very unlikely to want to disclose the size of their positions, but just look at the lending forum:

There are a lot of people with several thousand BTC in BTCST.
There are a lot of passthroughs with many thousands of BTC apiece in BTCST.
There are a lot of other bonds that hold undisclosed levels of Pirate exposure.

I have no concern for what happens to Pirate's immediate investors if/when he defaults. What concerns me is how much of the bitcoin economy is actually exposed to BTCST. We've had financial crises in regular currencies and personally I thought Bitcoin was supposed to help avoid all that 

If pirate is somehow putting his lenders' coins to work to make 10% per week, they wouldn't be sitting in a single address for months at a time

If pirate is running a ponzi scheme, he wouldn't have this many coins since he has to pay out interest every week without any means of generating income other than from new deposits.  He 'should' have around this many coins, but by definition ponzi schemes don't have as much as they 'should'.

These two 'facts' suggest to me that these aren't pirate's coins.