http://willyreport.wordpress.com/So basically, each time, (1) an account was created, (2) the account spent some very exact amount of USD to market-buy coins ($2,500,000 was most common), (3) a new account was created very shortly after. Repeat. In total, a staggering ~$112 million was spent to buy close to 270,000 BTC – the bulk of which was bought in November. So if you were wondering how Bitcoin suddenly appreciated in value by a factor of 10 within the span of one month, well, this is why. Not Chinese investors, not the Silkroad bust – these events may have contributed, but they certainly were not the main reason. But more on that later.
lol
Not my words just a copy paste but...
"Just a quick note... I've built quite a few systems, and at times I build the administrating function into the customer function.
It's hard to explain and hard to give an example... but imagine I build an exchange and incur fees in bitcoin, say 1%. The way I'd run my company finances is to build an admin account and with every bitcoin transaction, 1% goes to that account. This account is then set up on the exchange to sell at batch periods a certain amount of the bitcoin that I want to have in dollars to pay for company expenses.
Instead of taking my bitcoin to bitstamp and selling it there, or putting my bitcoin in a 'IkmoIkmo' account and selling it through there (of which 1% would recurringly go back to the account), I'd build it into the system using a customer account with some high ID and privileges like having 0 fees.
Now I'm not saying there's no inside job or that it isn't fishy. What I am saying is that I've been programming for a decade and I can easily see how a solo-engineer iterating on a flawed trading engine would use crappy and fishy accounts like these to do things that are otherwise completely normal and legal like having a company account sell bitcoin fees, or batching transactions of actual user-activity under one account-ID, or working with other exchanges to share liquidity and e.g. letting BTC-E sell coin to the Mt.Gox orderbook under a certain id for 0 fees, in exchange for the same service at BTC-E, thereby sharing the load and creating a redundant system (which is nice), etc etc.
In other words, it's weird, it's fishy, it's Mt. Gox, but it's not proof of some kind of fraudulent trading in and of itself. It can mean a whole lot of things and I'm happy to see more information come out."