Pages:
Author

Topic: Coinbase from February 2009 has just been moved! - page 2. (Read 763 times)

legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 6403
Blackjack.fun
Steven Craig Wright: if he really is Satoshi Nakamoto, surely he would have something stupid to damage bitcoin and favor his BSV shitcoin. A risk. Judging from what I read around, this is an "hypothesis", given that that address is precisely among those he claims to control (once again: this address in his list has nothing to do this address  actually being in his control).

What is wrong with you?  Grin Grin

If that scumbag had been in any form of control over one of the addresses he listed there he would have made those transactions years ago, do you think CSW is a guy who can resist getting his hands on billions (if he plays the markets right) and can wait for years for what...drama effect?
The chance of a truck running him over while he waits and waits and waits?

Can someone have just got out of prison or something? That would be a reason to have had to wait.

It could be that, it could be somebody finally recovering his damaged data, could be somebody that has come across an old drive or has found the key in some hacked cloud account, a guy doing gardening and coming across a metal or paper wallet buried in some garden, or even a guy buying an old book and seeing 12 words underlined on the first page
And it could be somebody that has been around us for years and has hundreds of blocks and decided to stir some shit up for fun, and that has 10 more old addresses from the first months of mining.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 16328
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

Indeed it was a nonsense.
What i wanted to point out is that for an hypotesis to generate a market reaction it doesn't need to have sense.
If enough actors believe it to be true, you can actually profit from it.
You can profit in the short term by nonense spread in the market.

A I said, my best guess initially was Hal's daughter moving some coins, but actually I do prefer the one where a miner found his key and used this movement to put Faketoshi once again in the hot seat.


Do you have a link to the Jimmy Song article?

Sorry, bad edit. I added the link in the prevuoius message.
legendary
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1965
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Just do not tell CW about this, because he will claim it is him. Also... why would this person use a regulated exchange? The early bitcoiners is doing everything in their power to hide their real identity.. because most of them were linked to some very controversial movements.

So if this was one of the early bitcoiners, he or she will be exposed now.  Roll Eyes  I think someone discovered an old wallet and they just liquidated it as quickly as possible. (This person is also not the original miner or owner of these coins)

                           It will be interesting to see how this is going to play out.... get the popcorn, the show is starting.  Grin
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
 we all thought of at least two possible owners:

  • Satoshi:  
  • Steven Craig Wright:  

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

No reasonable person thought of craig wright as any kind of snowball's chance in hell possibility.

The soonest that that attention seeking narcissistic could have possibly mined any coins would have been around 2013... but probably not much before 2015.

So, the only two names batted out for that were Satoshi and hal finney... but only those two names were produced because no one has really come out and admitted to being a miner in that time frame or been outed as having had directed some of their computing power towards mining even though such software had been made available for others to try their luck at running such bitcoin mining software which may not have been very difficult for many of those computer nerds who may have been participating in those mailing lists in that time frame... but diptwat craig wright has not been proposed by anyone as any serious name.

A nice read from Jimmy Song, explaining what we already know: probably it was not Satoshi moving his funds:

Do you have a link to the Jimmy Song article?
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 16328
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
A nice read from Jimmy Song, explaining what we already know: probably it was not Satoshi moving his funds:

Why Satoshi (probably) didn’t move some coins from 2009

Quote
On block 631058 was mined a transaction which spent an output from February of 2009, that is a month after the Bitcoin network went live. This has caused a bit of a price swing, not to mention, a lot of speculation, about whether this is Satoshi Nakamoto moving these coins or not.
In this article, I’m going to lay out the case for why it probably wasn’t Satoshi and the bit of digital forensics we can use to figure this out.



He details the reasoning behind the satoshiblocks.info I posted earlier, and gets to this conclusion:
Quote
It’s possible, of course, that Satoshi was running Bitcoin on multiple computers and that this is from another computer than the blue strands for blocks 3653 and 3655, but given the clear blue pattern of all the coins that haven’t been spent, it seems likely that this isn’t the same person that owns the million or so Bitcoins.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 16328
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Let's see the timeline of the movement:


I think this is one of Nakatomo Satoshi's wallets.
<...>

I think it was Satoshi.
<...>

If you read the above messages, there is nothing that can prove you are wrong, but all the possible heuristic techniques point in the opposite direction.

sr. member
Activity: 756
Merit: 256
HEX: Longer pays better
I'm just curious why the hell they need to move BTC mined on just after one month of BTC created while they could do it back in 2017 ATH. Can it be someone just got to recover their wallet? Interesting!
I think this is one of Nakatomo Satoshi's wallets. he will have many wallets and maybe he sold some of his bitcoins for $ 20k already. Now he leaves some to create shocking news that drives the market and drives the market to what he wants. This move of BTC is also one of his plans.
sr. member
Activity: 560
Merit: 250
I think it was Satoshi. He is still alive and waiting for a good time to return to the market. 50 BTC can be a wallet to test the effectiveness of mining in the beginning. I know that he has more money than that and he put it in many different wallets, it's just that he hasn't awakened yet. There will be some interesting events coming up and the market will fluctuate unpredictably. Ideally, we should not trade margin at this time.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 2053
Free spirit
Can someone have just got out of prison or something? That would be a reason to have had to wait.



copper member
Activity: 2324
Merit: 2142
Slots Enthusiast & Expert
Could you move this kind of discussion to Bitcoin Discussion? Let's keep the CSW speculation there.
Except you want to relate this issue to the inflation, the bank is evil, the government is corrupt, and all that crap.
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
Some of the excuses from shitcoiners on twitter are cringy AF:

https://mobile.twitter.com/evilrobotted/status/1263207621491908609

Quote
@evilrobotted
Replying to @CalvinAyre and @adam3us
Just a thought... maybe it IS Craig and he doesn't want the miners to collude against him since they'd blacklist his coins if they found out it was him. So he says it wasn't him.

Not saying this theory is true. But it's possible.

What's preventing the evil miners from blacklisting the whole tulip fucking trust then?

I guess there is no need of a confirmed transaction to proof ownership. Just broadcasting a valid transaction of a single satoshi in the mempool would suffice to proof ownership of private keys.
Just remembers that miners don't validate the transaction, a transaction is validated by network node who check it and broadcast if respects the protocol rules.
Miners only include transaction in blocks (of course miners validate the transaction themselves, like any other nodes just to avoid putting an invalid transaction in their block thus invalidating the whole block).

Even without any transaction CGW could sign a message with that address to proof ownership.

In addition to that, there is a fee high enough to break any cartel.

So, yes, facepalm for shitcoiners.



True, for shitcoin / shitLN and shit exchanges or shit business there is no kyc check needed, not even for such high amounts


 Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 16328
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Some of the excuses from shitcoiners on twitter are cringy AF:

https://mobile.twitter.com/evilrobotted/status/1263207621491908609

Quote
@evilrobotted
Replying to @CalvinAyre and @adam3us
Just a thought... maybe it IS Craig and he doesn't want the miners to collude against him since they'd blacklist his coins if they found out it was him. So he says it wasn't him.

Not saying this theory is true. But it's possible.

What's preventing the evil miners from blacklisting the whole tulip fucking trust then?

I guess there is no need of a confirmed transaction to proof ownership. Just broadcasting a valid transaction of a single satoshi in the mempool would suffice to proof ownership of private keys.
Just remembers that miners don't validate the transaction, a transaction is validated by network node who check it and broadcast if respects the protocol rules.
Miners only include transaction in blocks (of course miners validate the transaction themselves, like any other nodes just to avoid putting an invalid transaction in their block thus invalidating the whole block).

Even without any transaction CGW could sign a message with that address to proof ownership.

In addition to that, there is a fee high enough to break any cartel.

So, yes, facepalm for shitcoiners.

legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
Who is it? Smiley

And what on Earth are they doing this for?

Why does anybody tap their years old savings? Maybe they just needed to dump a few coins.

According to http://satoshiblocks.info/ this blocks is not from Satoshi original stash!

I am skeptical of Jameson Lopp's conclusions about which blocks were Satoshi's, and I always have been. Nobody (except BTC bears) wants Satoshi's coins to ever move. I believe the analysis is partly built around that bias.

It was funny watching all these BTC bulls frantically yelling on Crypto Twitter today about how there's no way it could be Satoshi. "Nobody sell! It's not really Satoshi! My longs! My longs!" Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Some of the excuses from shitcoiners on twitter are cringy AF:

https://mobile.twitter.com/evilrobotted/status/1263207621491908609

Quote
@evilrobotted
Replying to @CalvinAyre and @adam3us
Just a thought... maybe it IS Craig and he doesn't want the miners to collude against him since they'd blacklist his coins if they found out it was him. So he says it wasn't him.

Not saying this theory is true. But it's possible.

What's preventing the evil miners from blacklisting the whole tulip fucking trust then?
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 16328
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
@Wekkel reported this thread on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/gnhrj9/breaking_news_the_address_of_the_bitcoin_from/fr9rxb3?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Quote
BREAKING NEWS: the address of the Bitcoin from 2009 that just moved is listed a Kleiman vs Wright court document. Craig Wright claimed to own it, but it was "locked outside of his control". AKA part of the Tulip Trust. An old miner just called Craig's bluff.



Wow, I liked to think the owner of the coinbase was the daughter of Hal Finley, spending some of his dad’s money, but this story is way better: putting CSW into the corner ending up his years long bluff is epic!

legendary
Activity: 4354
Merit: 3614
what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?
In addition to that, we notice that the coinbase was split toward two addresses 80%-20%.
The biggest past was sent to a legacy address, while the 20% was sent to a Segwit address (and then some dust from there to Coinbase).
This could mean someone lost the password to an old wallet and the recovery firm took a cut of the 20% (not that uncommon Percentage).

this is what makes the most sense to me. which means its wrong of course.

edit: BTW no password built into on core (QT?) wallet back then. but an encrypted hard drive or file maybe, so about the same thing.
legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
Though I would NOT be surprised if this is a prelude to SOMEONE getting their lunch handed to them.

Yeah it would be nice to see this stuck straight up Notoshi's Ass. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 16328
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
So I think we have the definitive answer that those bitcoins are not Satoshi's:

Quote
So a small bit of this transaction went to
@coinbase
 and
@CoinPaymentsNET




Can you imagine Satoshi sending Bitcoin to the most anti-bitcoin entity in the ecosystem?

In addition to that, we notice that the coinbase was split toward two addresses 80%-20%.
The biggest past was sent to a legacy address, while the 20% was sent to a Segwit address (and then some dust from there to Coinbase).
This could mean someone lost the password to an old wallet and the recovery firm took a cut of the 20% (not that uncommon Percentage).
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
Pages:
Jump to: