Topic: does the block chain go back to the very first BTC ? (Read 167 times)
You never know if the first BTC ever was sold, traded or given away. Hal Finney received the first BTC transaction in 2009. Based on the transation history of the blockchain you could go back to see the Hal Finney transaction but whether that was the first BTC or not, is not known
You might also hear the term used as a “public ledger.” The blockchain shows every single record of bitcoin transactions in order, dating back to the very first one. The entire blockchain can be downloaded and openly reviewed by anyone, or you can use a block explorer to review the blockchain online.
The block chain does not contain records of sales of bitcoins. It only contains records of transfers and creation.
The first transfer of bitcoins was this one from Satoshi to Hal Finney: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16
The first transfer of bitcoins was this one from Satoshi to Hal Finney: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16
You can find out the first ever transaction, sending and receiving address but to find out the man behind the tx (sender and receiver), they must have used centralize services with bitcoin from their known addresses. Otherwise, it’s very unlikely to happen.
To find out the tx from the beginning, check with block number.
To find out the tx from the beginning, check with block number.
Just curious ! could a person trace the block chain back to the first BTC ever sold ?
Ofcourse it can be done. Since the data is technically stored forever. Quote
One of the first supporters, adopters, contributors to bitcoin and receiver of the first bitcoin transaction was programmer Hal Finney. Finney downloaded the bitcoin software the day it was released, and received 10 bitcoins from Nakamoto in the world's first bitcoin transaction on 12 January 2009 (bloc 170).
Taken from google.
But then again Mr. Satoshi was the first recipient of the bitcoins through mining. But I do think you will still need the transaction ID for all of this and one of the sender or the recipient should have made it public idk for sure though. I was trying to check the last post of Mr. Satoshi to see if he did write the transaction ID but I found something interesting :
Quote
It's not safe to use listtransactions this way.
I know I've been criticized for being reluctant about listtransactions. Let me explain my reluctance.
Transactions are dynamic. Past transactions can become unconfirmed, go away and come back, become invalid and disappear, or be replaced by a different double-spend. Their date can change, their order can change.
Programmers are naturally inclined to want to use listtransactions like this: feed me the new transactions since I last asked, and I'll keep my own tally or static record of them. This will seem to work in all regular use, but if you use the amounts for anything, it is highly exploitable:
1) How do you know if a past transaction becomes invalid and disappears?
2) When there's a block-chain reorg, it would be easy to double-count transactions when they get confirmed again.
3) A transaction can be replaced by a double-spend with a different txid. You would count both spends.
The model where you assume you only need to see new transactions because you've already seen previous transactions is not true. Old transactions can change at any time.
Any time you take an action based on payment amounts received, you always need to go back to bitcoin and ask for a current balance total (or use move or sendfrom), and be ready for the possibility that it can go down.
Now that we have the Accounts feature making it easier to do it the right way, we're better prepared to have listtransactions.
I know I've been criticized for being reluctant about listtransactions. Let me explain my reluctance.
Transactions are dynamic. Past transactions can become unconfirmed, go away and come back, become invalid and disappear, or be replaced by a different double-spend. Their date can change, their order can change.
Programmers are naturally inclined to want to use listtransactions like this: feed me the new transactions since I last asked, and I'll keep my own tally or static record of them. This will seem to work in all regular use, but if you use the amounts for anything, it is highly exploitable:
1) How do you know if a past transaction becomes invalid and disappears?
2) When there's a block-chain reorg, it would be easy to double-count transactions when they get confirmed again.
3) A transaction can be replaced by a double-spend with a different txid. You would count both spends.
The model where you assume you only need to see new transactions because you've already seen previous transactions is not true. Old transactions can change at any time.
Any time you take an action based on payment amounts received, you always need to go back to bitcoin and ask for a current balance total (or use move or sendfrom), and be ready for the possibility that it can go down.
Now that we have the Accounts feature making it easier to do it the right way, we're better prepared to have listtransactions.
Now this is actually what was written by him back in the day and the problem of double spending was already known but then again the market manipulation by the media which happened few days before which coincided with the fall in the price of bitcoins could have just been a manipulative trick.
Since double spending was already discussed by Mr. Satoshi I wasn't really aware of this though. But then again I hope the price gets stable again.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-price-double-spend-flaw-critical-report-suggests-2021-1
Now this was all a FUD since it didn't really happen but was just publicized wrongly.
Again editing:
So the block number is : 170 and you can track it indeed.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000d1145790a8694403d4063f323d499e655c83426834d4ce2f8dd4a2ee
Viola!
All coins originate from coinbase rewards which are created with every new block. if you'd try tracing back the inputs of any given coin, you'd likely see that it leads to hundreds if not thousands of coinbase rewards. But this doesn't mean that every coin is connected to the first mined bitcoin or the first sold bitcoin or any other coin.
It shouldn't be hard to write a program that traces back a coin back to all the coinbase coins, you'd just need to have a full node to access the whole blockchain quickly.
It shouldn't be hard to write a program that traces back a coin back to all the coinbase coins, you'd just need to have a full node to access the whole blockchain quickly.
At that time, Bitcoin was pretty pseudonymous and there weren't any centralized exchanges. This means that the transactions looks similar to one another and wouldn't provide any clues to which transactions were involved in any exchange. Even now, if you do a P2P exchange, there is no way to tell that the transaction was used in an exchange. It skips the middleman and avoids being mixed to known exchange/services address.
In my opinion this is very difficult to search or track first btc seller.If we look,we won't know who sold Bitcoin in the first place.But I think at first everyone did a huge bitcoin transaction.Because the price of Bitcoin was much lower then the number of transactions was also higher.
We can view all the Bitcoin transaction that have been made since the start, but we don't necessarily know which one was the first bitcoin that was "sold"; all we know that there was some bitcoin that's been sent.
Just curious ! could a person trace the block chain back to the first BTC ever sold ?
Jump to: