Bitcoin Forum

Is this something?
Someone moved a coinbase from block 3,654  dating back to February 2009!

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/17XiVVooLcdCUCMf9s4t4jTExacxwFS5uh


https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob68de04e0fae18129.png


These coins were created in 2009, only a month after bitcoin was created!

That block is an empty one, only the coinbase transaction is present.


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

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blobcd281ea28d2a89fd.png

didnt some very early bitcoin versions have a pay to ip addy or some much easier to hack format..

maybe this is one of them?

EDIT: wait this is the coinbase, not a tx. never mind.

EDIT 2: and to a segwit addy? or is it multisig? anyone know?

This is super interesting.

Whom is a great question.  But so is: Why?

I mean... the implications of this move are powerful.  The person doing it obviously has a lot more bitcoin than the coinbase of this block.  And if they wanted to fire 40BTC off somewhere for any "normal" reason they would not be picking *this* block.

Who is it? :)

And what on Earth are they doing this for?

I have a feeling this move is the prelude for something interesting... but then again it could just be someone moving coins around... because...  umm....   umm....

Very intriguing for us, but why??
If these bitcoins were from the same year as bitcoin was created then most probably this is related Satoshi Nakamoto, but why they are moving this now?

Do they wanted to move under our radar? or they did it deliberately, that's why they make a noticeable move?

Could be true, but the dates don't lie. Is this related to a total of 17,000 BTC transfers last night??

Are we on verge of a bitcoin pump? INTERESTING!

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!

It's interesting, but not quite a significant event, there could be many versions of the story that would lead to someone having to move bitcoins mined in 2009 and it would be be almost impossible for us to predict right. Although, it shows how far Bitcoin have come in just a number of years. At the first year of it's creation miners may have generated blocks for fun, with a free actually believing in the concept of the network. And 50BTC then meant nothing, but not satoshis are worth significant amounts.

It raises suspicion but it doesn't really tell anything to conclude that.

These coins are not within the same year of BTC's creation... more importantly, they are within about 5 weeks of the first block ever being mined... so there would not have been too many miners within that short of a period of time.  Of course, we might not even be able to determine how many miners there would have been within 5 weeks of the first block besides satoshi and Hal finney.. Anyone else claim to be mining at that time or known to have been mining so soon after bitcoin's first block?

Clearly interesting.

Let's say for example it was a block mined by Hal Finney.  Then that block could be in control of Hal's estate or one of his heirs.  Of course, there are other plausible scenarios in which someone would still have access to earlier blocks and may even want to move those coins... I am looking forward to hearing more about this, if there happens to be any more information that can be sussed out from whatever happens to be currently known or even reasonably inferred from that particular transaction including its source and including speculation regarding how many miners might have been operating at that particular time and would have been in the running to have mined that particular block.

It does not tell anything? Probably but if you think of it in more practical way, how many people just after a months of bitcoin was created would be interested to it? I doubt it would be just a random guy on the internet  :-\ My suspicion is also this is one of the inherited btc of Hal's, @JayJuanGee might be right, it might be one of his heirs. Gonna get an update to this.

That is the most likely UNLIKELY scenario.

In other words so far I see a lot of people trying to explain this as a bit of a lark... or someone who does not know what they are doing really.  Someone who found a lost key, or in this case a Finny heir.

Possible.  But highly unlikely.

Since this is one of the very earliest miners of bitcoin (100% chance).  Starting from that supposition the following can be derived:

- This is POSSIBLY Satoshi (them)himself.  Could be something he mined on something other than his main rig.  I do not know how Satoshiblocks works, but it is not ironclad that this would NOT be Satoshi, and in fact if Satoshi was to do something like this I think the chances of him picking a block he mined a "different" way would be highly likely.

- This is not Satoshi, but instead an early miner.  Hal's hoard is likely.  But his heir would almost CERTAINLY be being advised by someone with enough knowledge to suggest the safest path forward to any coin movement.

-  This is ONE block.  So far it bears the likelyhood of being a flag, rather than someone who needs money.  The person moving this is preparing to send some kind of message.  We start to see dozens of other 50BTC moves from back there??  All bets off.

- This is a cryptographer/geek/cypherpunk from the mailing list.  Nearing 100% likelyhood.  The above scenarios are descendants of this idea.  Even HF's heir is a proxy for that.

- It is HIGHLY unlikely that this is a block with keys owned by a person that has no other bitcoin.  Again possible?  Yes.  likely? hell no.

So again.

Why are they doing this.  It has to be meta.  Has to be. (well... you know what I mean)

Oh and you want the really goofy tinfoil theory? 

NSA has the encryption backdoored all along.

First of all stop getting your panties in a bunch.

There were tons of people aware of BTC on launch and there was not just a few that mined during this period. all the Cypherpunks newslist knew and I knew from the F@H chatrooms and that alone was a huge community so this could be anyone.

Whoaza cAPSLOCK.  Probably you should just CAPSLOCK the whole post.

You are speaking in such absolutes, which makes it a bit more difficult to follow the plausibility of what you are asserting.



I like this statement.   ;)

 :D :D :D



This is a bit of an absolute too, Hueristic.

I do understand that there may have been quite a few members on the cypherpunks mailing list, which does open up the possibility that any of them could have ended up sparking up a miner or just tried it out, but still... "could be anyone?"  Seems to assert a bit too much without really any meaningful attempt to hone down the set of possibilities.

That is basically my point.  But the flipside to my point is, THIS particular "anyone" is most likely AWARE of what they are doing, and what it looks like.  It's not like someone from the mailing list went.. oh shit?  You know I am never tried a segwit address.. let's try that?  Or hey John. I know I owe you 10BTC let me just pay you from one of the first 3500 blocks ever mined.

I totally agree this is not panty wad material.  At least not yet.  And most likley never.

Though I would NOT be surprised if this is a prelude to SOMEONE getting their lunch handed to them.

I'm quite certain that it's not only Hal and satoshi knew about bitcoin and how mining works back then. The project was openly announced on different cypherpunks mailing list, and so there's a slim chance that people from there also joined in on the fun. There's really nothing to know beyond the fact that the coins and address are from February 2009, close to the genesis block. It could be Satoshi, or one of Hal's addresses being moved by his kin or some other super early dude. The specifics perhaps we wouldn't know, though this might be a precursor to some more interesting event in 2020--something to put us astray on the woes and problems brought by the pandemic, finally.

Since bitcoin is down now because satoshi nakamoto has been found by transferring their 50BTC to another address, is this what makes this a factor?

It seems very interesting this news because the delivery of bitcoin from the address in 2009 and only sent now if they are not aware that bitcoin could redeem the number of $ 20,000.

Like this review will be so interesting.

No, it wasn't him

https://mobile.twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1263167631076364288

So I think we have the definitive answer that those bitcoins are not Satoshi's:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYeF0QDU0AskPNJ?format=jpg&name=medium


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).

here you have more addresses for reflection ..

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1Lgifz1ujJPUabzM7e25D8kKcpNqB9Czmc
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1GeFGgFbrHvvXtX8JnrenEu4hKAL1Qmzsm
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/133Z6LkrNyVgQRxpVuTqVkGDrrbvwzfmd7
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/16erb3D9TbmnW2U1bFnKSjQuqohXasMARi

I believe that 90% is a hacker (found a loophole)
 
and

10% that this is a piece of paper clogged in the garage where there was a seed

Yeah it would be nice to see this stuck straight up Notoshi's Ass. :D

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.

@Wekkel reported (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg54469527#msg54469527) 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


https://i.redd.it/bk40m92oxyz41.png

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!

Some of the excuses from shitcoiners on twitter are cringy AF:

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


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

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


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!" ::)

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


 ::)

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.

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

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.

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.

Let's see the timeline of the movement:




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYec05xXQAEUny6?format=jpg&name=large

https://twitter.com/coinmetrics/status/1263150657848172551?s=20

For everyone complaining about this mini dump following the movembet of 50 BTC, I would say it's perfectly rational movement.


You have to keep in mind eep in mind that they are not 50 normal BTC, but they are 50 BTC of February 2009.
Before any chain analysis work started debunking some possibility, we all thought of at least two possible owners:

• Satoshi: if he had been the owner, which perhaps can now be ruled out, we learn that at least a part of the million bitcoins believed to be in his possession is not lost. This increases the stock to flow ratio of bitcoin, therefore decreases the price predicted by the model (the stock to flow model in fact "adjusts" the S2F ratio to take into account the lost bitcoins. So the descent was justified, if you believe that the model functions.
• 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).

So the reasons for a minidump were legit in my opinion.
It is legit also that the price wil Honey Badger to previous levels in a short matter of time.





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.

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 (https://medium.com/@jimmysong/why-satoshi-probably-didnt-move-some-coins-from-2009-ad967d40582a)


https://miro.medium.com/max/1050/1*xXaZ3L_FtoicC28sXvfYhw.png

He details the reasoning behind the satoshiblocks.info (http://satoshiblocks.info) I posted earlier, and gets to this conclusion:

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.


Do you have a link to the Jimmy Song article?

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.  ::)  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.  ;D

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.



Sorry, bad edit. I added the link in the prevuoius message.

What is wrong with you?  ;D ;D

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?


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.

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...

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)

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.

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...

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.

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)

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

worms come out of the ground during the rain

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.....

 ;)

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.

when the grass is cut, the snakes will show

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.

Ah! Beautiful plot twist!


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY21r-2UEAAczVR?format=jpg&name=large
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!

really ? 

does that show identity AND ownership for you?

 ::)

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.

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.

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.

A Nice article on what just happened:

Over a Hundred 10-Year-Old Bitcoin Addresses Signed: Message Calls 'Craig Wright a Fraud' (https://news.bitcoin.com/over-a-hundred-10-year-old-bitcoin-addresses-signed-calling-craig-wright-a-fraud/)

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

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.

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.