Topic: Is BitWise getting wise with Bitcoiners? (Read 97 times)

there most likely was a a RBF then a CPFP to push it in..
thats why they got updated. in your log

i have not bothered to check the transactions nor fees. nor care to..
but it just seems like the most sensible answer

it probably might be just your node.. and how it just logs things
EG your node watching ALL the blockchain, all transactions... but triggered at 14:03 by the
bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw
efa697ee815ee0d2b4840c436836efd5c94fc550d0da55a9513ecfef2562e68f

at 14:03.. your node then seen where funds came from to THEN at 14:03 add in previous txid to wallet. but logged the time they were first relayed. not live.. but after the fact

meaning your logs only caused data entry at 14:03 but wrote about times it previously received

Here's the log output of my node which seems to show it knew the address was associated to the wallet:

2024-02-20T13:27:05Z [default wallet] AddToWallet 808400b94672ec7231371432706cda38f2356e9b5435917d287349d223578d26  new

2024-02-20T13:56:21Z [default wallet] AddToWallet 808400b94672ec7231371432706cda38f2356e9b5435917d287349d223578d26  update

2024-02-20T14:00:20Z [default wallet] AddToWallet 1ae01f4f3d68a08658fbf03149ed20dab83e8a775d6e412e23ded991e4de85ac  new

2024-02-20T14:01:14Z [default wallet] AddToWallet 1ae01f4f3d68a08658fbf03149ed20dab83e8a775d6e412e23ded991e4de85ac  update

2024-02-20T14:03:13Z [default wallet] AddToWallet efa697ee815ee0d2b4840c436836efd5c94fc550d0da55a9513ecfef2562e68f  new

That would make sense to me but my thoughts are that if it was in fact as you described, then why would my node's log show the above transactions added to the nodes watch only list at the specific times rather than wait to add them ntil post transmission to the bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw address? 

each basket is about 1500btc to then trigger the ETF to then create a basket of shares to then sell shares on the ETF
previous day bc1qgrjjf3.. only had (1114) so needed ~386 to get to a rounded 1500. so receiving 403 from bc1qh9xvgs to more than hit the threshold(+17btc)

id say your node didnt pick up bc1qh9xvgs... magically  but picked up that bc1qh9xvgs sent the 403 it received to bc1qgrjjf3
so your node was jsut displaying the orgins that 403 ended up in known bc1qgrjjf3 came from bc1qh9xvgs

Update: As of 13:27 UTC today my node now shows an inbound transaction of 403.46540998 BTC received to address bc1qh9xvgsqh648q7kyq2d0uu90e7tv6ph46rjjy3n

I am however a bit confused.  How exactly did my node associate the new address to the watch only list in my node as the last command I entered was only the following and so it did not include the new address that shows this inbound transaction.

importmulti '[
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qsshluxkwzf3ksnm5gh8wpzt453x75f2gn6dlqw" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qjjwhdve94cvg3d69shjrczn7wgqc8esujm72w8" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qxyzs02t7gdd9n203ucy03m0yw5zzllyn2k49hm" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qznvrh6eq0k88hwu9g44hk4mw5kemap3pmmljza" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1q0gepug33c0tp6hf7l2f23ve9m0a0t7sv5ylwdx" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1q9nzr8tzsx8pyk25ufps22p6un4k2y3ymh9lmze" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qgfqd5dyj6l9s2djwjjhg87tjjtzlshw5egkfct" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qdeurgks0dfqdeetvelhykuh90753swsy8k9kaz" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qzq39c6k0k3mxtqyuz342u774csrtljk4xhjvql" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qadu6va2re2slfxf7wxxrj30aknj954h7w6zh0g" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1q46dggcuwgftce2uywx23fp4jq6xqda4xa8tuwh" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qxaqt6jynlh2z4c5ajhdwyr5qa3yqykytwvuml0" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qfa5x969js5lxn2vetql8ajerjcrn43hja56ex9" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1q4x6el3tkests79gvf2vkz2revw47r2n5s50uku" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""

}]' '{"rescan":false}'

Clearly somehow the node understood that this new address is associated to this group of addresses in the watch only list but I don't understand how it was able to do so.  Furthermore I see that the following transactions occurred in the following order which further confuses me but perhaps makes sense to others here:


Status: 28 confirmations
Date: 2/20/2024 13:27
From: unknown
To: bc1qh9xvgsqh648q7kyq2d0uu90e7tv6ph46rjjy3n (watch-only)
Credit: 403.46540998 BTC
Net amount: +403.46540998 BTC
Transaction ID: 808400b94672ec7231371432706cda38f2356e9b5435917d287349d223578d26
Transaction total size: 1113 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 548 bytes
Output index: 0


Status: 27 confirmations
Date: 2/20/2024 14:00
From: unknown
To: bc1qh9xvgsqh648q7kyq2d0uu90e7tv6ph46rjjy3n (watch-only)
Credit: 0.00006048 BTC
Net amount: +0.00006048 BTC
Transaction ID: 1ae01f4f3d68a08658fbf03149ed20dab83e8a775d6e412e23ded991e4de85ac
Transaction total size: 246 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 165 bytes
Output index: 0

Status: 25 confirmations
Date: 2/20/2024 14:03
From: watch-only
To: bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw (watch-only)
Debit: -403.46540998 BTC
Credit: 403.46540998 BTC
Total debit: -403.46540998 BTC
Total credit: 403.46540998 BTC
Transaction fee: -0.00006048 BTC
Net amount: -0.00006048 BTC
Transaction ID: efa697ee815ee0d2b4840c436836efd5c94fc550d0da55a9513ecfef2562e68f
Transaction total size: 340 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 178 bytes
Output index: 0

The last transaction seems to be an address that their site has already posted to previously ( bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw ) and it seems like that's where the current 403.46540998 BTC are located and as such my node's watch list currently matches the total amount of BTC that BitWise shows on their site (https://bitbetf.com/) however as I said I'm confused how my wallet knew to associate the transaction today to address bc1qh9xvgsqh648q7kyq2d0uu90e7tv6ph46rjjy3n  when it was never imported into the node as watch only address.

Any input here would be much appreciated.

https://platform.arkhamintelligence.com/explorer/address/bc1q5l8jpddr77qmrtkr7a7ex3psu0rdj056rmhsjy

a few notable movements
1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM/ (18,886) ->bc1q9nzr8tzsx8pyk25ufps22p6un4k2y3ymh9lmze(1500)
                                                                                   bc1qh9xvgsqh648q7kyq2d0uu90e7tv6ph46rjjy3n (17385)
(following the taint path of the 17k forward over many hops)
bc1q5l8jpddr77qmrtkr7a7ex3psu0rdj056rmhsjy(2.144k)-> bc1qjjwhdve94cvg3d69shjrczn7wgqc8esujm72w8 (1500)
                                                                                      bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw (1114)


it appears that bitwise is moving funds from its published reserve address(1CKV) where alot of coins were accumulated in coinbase prime custody of one legacy address. and shuffling them around WITHIN coinbase prime custodian to settle down into smaller manageable basket amounts of different segwit addresses within custody of ~1500btc baskets

Ok so has anyone else noticed that within just a few days after they moved their Bitcoin from their Coinbase custodied P2PK address ( 1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM ) to their current SegWit address lists that are posted to https://bitbetf.com/ that there's already a discrepancy?  I guess Wall St is going to try to Wall St even if we know they're fibbing.  I mean as per my node currently the addresses they've posted (as of 17 Feb 1700 UTC) are as follows:

bc1qsshluxkwzf3ksnm5gh8wpzt453x75f2gn6dlqw
bc1qjjwhdve94cvg3d69shjrczn7wgqc8esujm72w8
bc1qxyzs02t7gdd9n203ucy03m0yw5zzllyn2k49hm
bc1qznvrh6eq0k88hwu9g44hk4mw5kemap3pmmljza
bc1q0gepug33c0tp6hf7l2f23ve9m0a0t7sv5ylwdx
bc1q9nzr8tzsx8pyk25ufps22p6un4k2y3ymh9lmze
bc1qgfqd5dyj6l9s2djwjjhg87tjjtzlshw5egkfct
bc1qdeurgks0dfqdeetvelhykuh90753swsy8k9kaz
bc1qzq39c6k0k3mxtqyuz342u774csrtljk4xhjvql
bc1qadu6va2re2slfxf7wxxrj30aknj954h7w6zh0g
bc1q46dggcuwgftce2uywx23fp4jq6xqda4xa8tuwh
bc1qxaqt6jynlh2z4c5ajhdwyr5qa3yqykytwvuml0
bc1qfa5x969js5lxn2vetql8ajerjcrn43hja56ex9
bc1q4x6el3tkests79gvf2vkz2revw47r2n5s50uku
bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw

Total value shown on my node as of this post is a value of 22,114.33078249 Bitcoins vs. their site bitbetf.com that shows they have 22,517.79 which is a difference of 403.45914782 Bitcoin.  This is a substantial difference!  If you look at it in USD then the amount of difference is $20,576,416.54 at $51,000 per Bitcoin or rather 740,292.0143486239 shares of the ETF assuming the amount of BTC per BitWise ETF is in fact set to .000545 BTC per share as indicated on the bitbetf.com site.  Either way I think it's important to watch these folks as closely as we can and to report any discrepancies ASAP for community awareness and vetting.

From my standpoint it's more likely that they either somehow posted the wrong total, or forgot to add the new address however that seems unlikely as it seems pretty clear that they're stacking 1500 Bitcoin in each address and the last one (bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw)  currently has 1114.33071307  BTC.  Any thoughts?