Topic: Coinbase from February 2009 has just been moved! (Read 775 times)

Didn't we already knew that Craig was never satoshi at all and he was a liar. I mean there was never a doubt in my mind that he isn't satoshi. The simplest thing that he could do is sign a message from satoshi's wallet and we would all believe him. A very very very simple thing that he could do to prove all world that he is satoshi but he is not doing it, do you really think all the reasons he says is true? Not a chance. He is not doing it, simply because he is not him at all. Of course he lies about every single thing that happens.

However interestingly there are people who believe in him and thinks he is satoshi, those are the same people who vote for the party that hurts them, supports the ideas that ruins them and scammed by people they defend because there will always be those kinds of people.

Sure, I'm aware that exchanges broker OTC transactions. My point was the coins weren't seen entering an exchange hot wallet, at least in an obvious way. In an OTC deal, I believe they usually wouldn't, although I am too small of a fish to actually know from experience.


It looks to me like he is still holding the 40 BTC, and sent the 10 BTC through a mixer. Just an opinion.

A Nice article on what just happened:

Over a Hundred 10-Year-Old Bitcoin Addresses Signed: Message Calls 'Craig Wright a Fraud'

Nice to see that the article writer underlines the ties with the block 3,654 coinbase:

You ask, fillippone provides:

Source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/gq8ao1/more_than_100_addresses_with_unmoved_bitcoin/

Have fun!
I have to say thee are almost all adrrese are coinbases as far as I know. Good for you if you mined some in 2011.

ok im sure this is easy enough for me to find on my own (if i were smart enough which is debatable) but where is a list of the csw tulip list that i can import into a spreadsheet to compare against my own addys (my wallet.dat is the original from 2011 and is still in use today). not that any go back past 2011  but it might be entertaining to see if any belong to me.

if any are mine i assure you the message i will sign will be epic.

I only meant to say that someone managed to still be in possession of their keys dating back back to 2009.
The facts that bitcoin was worthless, and that managing private keys was a real pain, lead to a massive loss of ownership for a lot of bitcoin.
It is nice to discover someone was both smart and lucky enough to still have those keys more than ten years later.

really ? 

does that show identity AND ownership for you?

 

Ah! Beautiful plot twist!



https://twitter.com/Zectro1/status/1264867307546800130?s=20


So, I think this is not completely unrelated to the coinbase moving. Someone is chasing CSW statements proving him wrong.
I like the way they did it.  Even if the coinbase movement is not related, he took the right moment.
The ball is now definitely in the CSW court now.

Apart from that, it is nice to know that someone managed to get hold of their private keys for so much time!

Little specification.
OTC deal means the exchange happens outside regular trading books where we can see orders with executable quantities and prices. It means only that the buyer and the seller pre-agreeded a quantity and price to transact at without anyone else knowing it. But, OTC can happen, and usually happens at traditional exchanges. Every major exchange has an OTC desk dealing with this particular activity.
The benefit to trade OTC at an exchange is of course obvious in case taking care of all the legal, fiscal and regulatory paperwork, that might be needed to one, or both, of the counterparts.

The fact that as you suggest this exchange happened OTC outside an exchange, lead us to two hypothesis:

• The transaction IS the payment. Splitting the 50 coins means the 10 BTC change is the payment to free the 50 BTC. Not to be ignored the different "behaviour" of the 10 BTC (moved back and forth between various Segwit addresses, even touching dangerous accounts like Coinbase), and the 40, dormant at a legacy address.
• The transaction was paid outside the traditional exchange circuit, with obvious implication in terms of AML/KYC regulation. This basically excludes the possibility for a lot of "professional" investors to be involved, but also given the involved amount of money, also a lot of private ones.

when the grass is cut, the snakes will show

The coin movement may have catalyzed a drop, but that supply was already on the books with sellers ready to go. In my opinion, the real reason for the drop (as always) was technical. Supply entered because of the inability to break $10K. In other words, holders were looking for any reason or excuse to sell. Then falling prices created a negative feedback loop.


Maybe that's exactly what is happening, an OTC deal. The coins never entered an exchange.

These grounds are very deep and dark. But reading all that into the light now seems to be the only way to get ppl see it. Pure move of coins just don't.....

 

worms come out of the ground during the rain

The latest list doesn't contain that very block anymore, but plaintiffs just wanted that emergency sealed...

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/kleiman-v-wright/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Yeah, diptwat craigwright and some of his swooning cronies have been trying to buy access to those kinds of wallets for a decent amount of time, and probably they would be willing to pay 10x or more of the face value just to get their greedy disingenuine scammy little mits on such a wallet, along with a NDA (non-disclosure agreement)

Wouldn't a wallet like this sell for a premium intact rather than just the BTC value? I for one would collect early virgin coins/wallets if I could afford it.

you sound like you are living in a fantasy.

There are all kinds of uncertainties that exist in life.. including the uncertainties about whether satoshi's coins will ever move.  They probably won't, but sure, they could.  

Would be quite a strange turn of events if satoshi were to come back and say "bitcoin sucks" blah blah blah..  sounds like a fantasy that some ill-informed bitcoincoin naysayer, no coiner, altcoin pumpener would come up with.

Sure, anything is possible, but not a great way to plan your life around outrageous scenarios when there are way the hell more plausible scenarios...

We were talking about this with couple of friends on telegram and I have always supported all those coins to be gone. Unfortunately it is only just one time thing and hasn't happened again, but know that even if one day satoshi comes back and sells all of his coins and says "bitcoin sucks, this wasn't what I intended" and gets rid of millions of bitcoins, that is not a bad thing, that is actually a good thing. You know why? Because the price will fall like crazy, probably go to 1000 dollars or even lower, which means you can buy cheaper, however after that there is no more satoshi, there is no more early birds, there is no more risks of anyone selling bunch of it all at once, so the future of bitcoin will be a lot clearer and a lot more stronger if that were to happen.

A lot of interesting question this one started indeed.
I've seen assumptions that owner of these just wanted to buy a nice house so he probably believe that was post-halving peak.
I personally hope that whoever it is he just sent these old dusty bitcoins to some charity reasons (because original owner of these has a bunch of btc left for sure)

Even though I responded strongly to your post, I was not responding strongly to you because I already understand that you tend to be a decently reasonable person, even if I might not agree with you on everything, you tend to attempt to be mostly fair...

I was largely responding with outrage at the idea...   I do think that it probably would have been better to put a note next to your suggestion, if you really did not believe it, but whatever, that might be stylistic, and maybe you wanted to cause some outrageous response from someone like me asserting that it is pure bullshit.

Another thing is that I hate to give any credibility to any scammers or shitcoins in terms of how I personally phrase things, so maybe there is some stylistic differences in the way that some of us express some of our ideas.


You are not going to find disagreement from me on this point, and sometimes also the market might have been ready for some kind of correction, since it was teetering on the doors of $10k for several days (maybe even over a week) without really being able to break above $10k... so yeah, there may have been a predisposition to having a correction, whether the moveage of the 2/2009 coins exacerbated a preexisting condition or not... but yeah, sometimes any event or news, whether real or not can cause BTC price movement that goes further and faster than it likely would have gone without such event or news.



Fair enough about these alternative theories, too.


Thanks... yes.. I am going through the Jimmy Song article now...