Block 29,997: Last but not least is this last one that wasn't spent until 7/22/2010. It's transaction hash is the 8th lowest in terms of order out of 69,714 potential blocks BUT #1-7 are all previously spent is it is really the first available one.  I find that pretty amazing adding support this transaction was Satoshi and what are the chances that he just happened to have the lowest available transaction block in his wallet unless he happened to have a lot more coins in it 


The timing is noteworthy I believe. Recapping some key Satoshi events:

• 5/10/2010: the Satoshi Extra Nonce and Nonce patterns largely disappear  with block 54316 (unknown if software change impacted pattern, Satoshi just changed his MO or simply stopped)
• 5/17/2010: 600 BTC coins are transferred in two transactions where all 12 coinbases involved fit Satoshi Extra Nonce and Nonce patterns
• 7/22/2010: a final transaction with 50 BTC using coins mined from block 29,097 that 1) conform to both Satoshi Extra Nonce and block Nonce range patterns and 2) just happen to be the next unspent coinbase out of 69,714 blocks available at the time this transaction was made!
• 12/10/2010 Last post on bitcointalk 
• 4/23/2011: Satoshi emails Mike Hearn "I've moved on to other things." 

Questions, corrections, comments ?

A lot of time an energy as been devoted to Satoshi potential fortune of UNSPENT coins (granted could me more than 1 million!), but I decided to take a harder look at the coins Satoshi just MIGHT have spent to see what they can tell us.

The article's author below reproduces Sergio Demian Lerner's blockchain analysis with the intent to infer LIKELY Satoshi mined coins using two main observations/patterns: 1) Coinbase Transaction's Extra Nonce pattern and 2) the block's own Nonce range pattern. Both observations reinforce and refine his initial thesis.  Yes, neither technique is absolutely definitive so by combining the two strategies reduces, but not eliminates, the amount of false positives.  For more background the article provides a decent summary of Sergio's analysis, but it is even better to hear it directly from Sergio's own blog where he has plenty of related articles on bitcoin Chain Archaeology here: https://bitslog.com/category/uncategorized/

At the end of the article, and without much ado, the author provides a list of 19 blocks he believes were mined by Satoshi:

The Satoshi Fortune https://medium.com/@whale_alert/the-satoshi-fortune-e49cf73f9a9b
Presumably the author concludes these are Satoshi mined blocks based on blocks matching the distinct Extra Nonce pattern w/ its coinbase transaction AND having the last byte of the block's nonce fall within a specific relatively narrow range.  However even if they two 'tells' are legit there is always a possibility of a false positive by shear coincidence.

Keep in your mind this article estimates Satoshi mined over 1.1 MILLION coins, but that is not what this thread is about.

Instead I decided to take this small list of SPENT coin blocks (article feel confident they identified a total of 907 coins spent by Satoshi  ) and put them to the test building upon a keen observation made by Taras back in his 2017 thread Payment No. 1: A Closer Look at the Very First Bitcoin Transfer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2346992.0 (excellent background read!)

I analyzed the 19 spent transactions and found 4 more followed Taras' initial observation!  That is when you send bitcoins the early implementation of the bitcoin wallet simply grabbed the first coins available based on coinbase's transaction hash ORDER! (in other words NO option to specify which coins you wanted to spend it selected it for you using the transaction hash order)



Here is the breakdown order by transaction hash for each of the 5 starting with well documented first transaction EVER made between CONFIRMED Satoshi and Hal (reflecting Taras' findings) from Block 9:


Block 286: this suspected satoshi spender just happen to use the SECOND out of 423 blocks in TX hash order:

This image shows how first block with lowest transaction hash order (278) does NOT conform to either the Satoshi extra nonce pattern NOR the block's nonce pattern supporting that Satoshi spent his 'first available block' theory:


Block 688: yet again this suspected Satoshi spender just happen to have the lowest transaction hash order block available to spend out of 2,653 potential blocks:


Block 5326: and yet again this suspected Satoshi spender (matching both patterns) just happen to have the lowest transaction hash order block available to spend out of 11,307 potential blocks:


continued...

  

Regardless if Fidelity's prediction is right or wrong I think it is it the positive column in terms of being considered 'mainstream' when companies such as Fidelity are spending a considerable effort to predict bitcoin's future price.

Sure doesn't hurt my head either that they are predicting a $1M price point by 2029  

Asset Giant Fidelity Analyzes Model That Forecasts Bitcoin Rise to $1,000,000
https://dailyhodl.com/2020/08/25/asset-giant-fidelity-analyzes-model-that-forecasts-bitcoin-rise-to-1000000/

I am glad you asked about cred because I was curious myself. Nothing like a FAQ written by an avatar to inspire confidence especially with this non answer  

https://intercom.help/CredPartner/en/articles/2810556-why-should-we-trust-cred

This recent article spells out the case for why 2020 could be the year cryptocurrency goes 'mainstream'. I have included a quote that summarizes her position. However I am more interested to hear from this group what you think and why.

Also interested in hearing what other positive or negative influences going on this year not mentioned that would impact mainstreaming.

Finally, will Bitcoin lead the charge or will other cryptocurrencies provide key contributions toward mainstreaming and why?

Note: You can only vote once, you can't change your vote, and you have only 14 days to make a choice. 

Why 2020 might be the year cryptocurrency goes mainstream
https://fortune.com/2020/08/24/crypto-digital-currency-bitcoin-jpmorgan/

I did some quick checks based on the earliest blocks (0  to 119,964 contained in blk00000.dat just because I had them handy).  Comparing the time deltas based on sequential blocks from the beginning of (blockchain) time the delta ranges from -119 to  7,719 minutes, but sure enough the average is ~10 minutes!  That is surprising because the difficulty didn't change until the end of 2009, but the first dat file covers from Jan 03 2009 (Genesis block 0) to April 24 2011 (119,964) so I guess maybe it compensated later if the average was off initially?

Maybe so...I checked the metrics from blocks 1 to 38,091 (Feb 4, 2010) around the time of the first difficulty change from 1 to 2:  Min -65 mins, Max 7,719 min (FYI delta 0 to 1 was an anomaly next largest was 1509 min)  and the average was close to 15 minutes versus target 10 minutes. This means the average after that must have been less than 10 minutes for a while to compensate.

Interestingly the timestamps for follow on blocks can be earlier in time...that was a bit of surprise to me at first, but I learned I can't assume sequential blocks are in temporal order.  For example:

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/32649  -->  2010-01-02 04:49
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/32650  -->  2010-01-02 02:50

Thanks for the info and the link o_e_l_e_o.  I had to chuckle at this question:

if cypto currency isn't 'real' how can it generate capital gains?    just kidding of course, but I do think they could have come up with a better adjective here....

  Is 'receive' including buying? Why would IRS care about receive/acquiring anyway?  Isn't any tax based on sale/exchange/transfer away?

Isn't this related case going to not help CSW? 

If "Not your keys; not your coins" is enshrined in US case law, then this shouldn't be true: IF you have the keys, the coins ARE yours right? 
Yes, this is just US case law, but a good step in the right direction reflecting what we all believe to be true.

https://decrypt.co/39574/not-your-keys-not-your-coins-enshrined-in-us-case-law-says-lawyer

I doubt that will happen.  Exactly what 'experts' say this is happening?  how about pointing out some articles 

Ah thank you for the clarification.  So you recommend I extract the addresses from this PDF (16,404 total) and plot them instead since they are his 'latest and greatest' list eh?
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf

Another related article:

https://news.bitcoin.com/onchain-data-shows-449m-worth-of-bitcoin-on-eth-eclipses-offchain-competitors/

I completely agree yet there is not only a product, but also a demand for the product.  Can anyone explain the actual appeal?

  Interesting, I didn't consider the transaction aspect. Would it have any liquidity impact that could increase the demand for 'raw' BTCs?  I guess technically the demand might be offset by the wrapped bitcoin via Ethereum ecosystem but it also makes more BTC virtually available to a wider customer base which should have a net effect of increasing demand right?

https://wbtc.network/assets/wrapped-tokens-whitepaper.pdf

From the white paper the bitcoins are transferred from the merchant/customer to the 'custodian' who then mints a WBTC via a wrapped token contract.

It can also be 'burned' to unmint and release the original BTC.

OMG how funny I just posted the same article and similar questions just minutes after you did!  I tried to delete mine, but I can't   
Maybe the moderators can delete it so we can consolidate this topic under your thread. I have very similar questions, but I will add them here to build on your thread:

What are the implications of 'wrapped bitcoin' tokenization trend to BTC if this trend continues?
In particular, is it positive or negative to BTC in the short or long run?

FYI recent article on this topic:
Pretty much similar to earlier articles, but a couple of nice new quotes and well worded sound bites:
MicroStrategy Just Sent Green Light To Corporate America On Bitcoin
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherbrookins/2020/08/14/microstrategy-just-sent-green-light-to-corporate-america-on-bitcoin/
Disclosure: The article's author owns bitcoin and ethereum. 

one more for now.  I am removing the not claimed SPENT blocks layer (since not interesting to CSW since no $ left  ) and zooming down to max 3,000 Extra Nonce level to help see the claimed and unclaimed unspent patterns across the bulk of this claim:

Here is my first attempt to plot CSW claimed addresses.  The first chart is near useless because at the extra nonce for the claimed address blocks go intro the stratosphere but I am including it for context.
I think the legend is self explanatory.  The intent was to show the Extra Nonce values for ALL blocks from 0 to 76,000 broken down by color/shape:
The CSW claimed blocks are color coded as either unspent, spent or not his because the block was part of the 145 addressed used to the sign the 'Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud' message.
what was NOT claimed are shown as either shown as unspent or spent.



Setting the chart's Extra Nonce to a max of 7,000 allows more insight I think:



Any questions, comments or graph requests?