satoshi addresses

[Amph]

It is assumed that these "Satoshi mined bitcoins" will never move, due to the potential to destroy the experiment/goal.

Not if he does it in a smart way. Little by little.

There is no way to move unspent generation outputs from 2009 without being noticed.

but he was with other, so it's not about coins that are moved, it's about what of those, unspent, belongs to him and what not

if many of those have an uncertain owner, he can move them later, without someone pointing at him..

[1714537789]

1714537789

[1714537789]

1714537789

[1714537789]

1714537789

[1714537789]

1714537789

[1714537789]

1714537789

[ranochigo]

Who watches his addresses??? How will we know when if/when any are moved?

It's easy to know when they are moved, just look it up on blockchain.info or whatever blockchain browser of your choice. What's "funny" is, it seems the early addresses may be prone to quantum attacks (not post 2012 addresses) so even if some day the coins move, we will not know if someone made a successful quantum attack on satoshi's keys, or is satoshi him/her/itself moving coins.

AFAIK, Quantum computing compromises the ECDSA part of Bitcoin. Public keys are sent only when a transaction is initiated. Hence, a transaction is needed from that address to compromise the private key if Quantum computing becomes a reality. I believe satoshi has barely moved most of his early coins (except the one to Hal Finney). There isn't a definite way to tell if anyone else was mining alongside satoshi.

[DannyHamilton]

AFAIK, Quantum computing compromises the ECDSA part of Bitcoin.

There are known quantum weaknesses for the discrete logarithm problem due to Shor's algorithm, so ECDSA is known to become weaker under a sufficient quantum attack.

There may be weaknesses discovered in SHA256 and RIPEMD160, but at the moment there are no known significant weaknesses.

Public keys are sent only when a transaction is initiated. Hence, a transaction is needed from that address to compromise the private key if Quantum computing becomes a reality.

In the earliest transactions, the outputs were pay-to-pubkey and not pay-to-pubkey-hash.  The standardization on pay-to-pubkey-hash occurred later. Therefore if someone could break sufficiently break ECDSA, then those very early transactions and block rewards would be available for them to steal, since the pubkey is stored in the blockchain in those transactions.

More modern transactions (using addresses) would still be safe (as long as addresses aren't re-used).

[DieJohnny]

It is assumed that these "Satoshi mined bitcoins" will never move, due to the potential to destroy the experiment/goal.

Not if he does it in a smart way. Little by little.

There is no way to move unspent generation outputs from 2009 without being noticed.

Is there a public block explorer that has advanced search capabilities like, show me unspent mined blocks before Jan 1 2010?

Thanks in advance!

[ausbit]

So then the first blocks would never move, since they can't be redeemed. But then how do people arrive at the conclusion that Satoshi would have access to any of the early bitcoins?  Maybe he just created it and never mined at all.

We need not to think to much about it and if some one knows his address also then he or she should not reveal it.I think he is somewhere active and watching,how the world is getting benefits of his invention of Bitcoins.

[thirdchance57]

News sites do keep an eye on his alleged Bitcoin addresses. If they spot an output, then these sites will make a large article about it, with a click bait title such as "Satoshi is active again!!" while they have no proof that it is actually Satoshi who is using that address.

It is amazing that these sites have the time and someone is actually paying someone else to watch these addresses.  They question is who cares what he does and why.  Chances are that the addresses that they are watching are all bogus and belong to someone else.  If I was Satoshi, I would have had all my BTC in over 250 addresses, all keeping small amounts and none of them keeping the same accounts.  Again, just my opinion.