100,000+ BTC moved into segwit addresses

[UmerIdrees]

Well, there's some scenarious possible here.
First, this might be an old hodler who's trying to deposit his btc into exchangers and dump them.. or it might be a miner trying to dump hard without making peoples know about that.. he turned to be stupid somehow (lol).
Second, it might be a whale, a real whale trying to make his btc invisible and hard to track.. umm, maybe a scam scheme or a scammer or a hacker..
Finally, it might be one of the old supporters of btc, trying to make us cry, fear.. so there will be a bigger dump and this supporter will buy and make his bags even bigger.

Well you can assume 1000 possibilities of why he split bitcoins in smaller equal chunks but we all miss here is that he is one of the richest person and i hope he would not dump all these for merely 4000$ while a wait for  2 to 3 years could give him 50K per bitcoin 

[1714796897]

1714796897

[1714796897]

1714796897

[1714796897]

1714796897

[1714796897]

1714796897

[franky1]

if you actually check

the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments

but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending

[Cryptoshops]

Well I guess we will never know the reason why it was done

[1Referee]

Interesting activity I noticed in the last 6 days.

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses-2.html it concerns address rank 132 to 208.

Whoever this entity is, transferred 8000BTC to 76 different addresses totalling 608,000BTC. It's mind boggling that someone (or a group) can hold this many coins, and I very much doubt that this is an exchange. It could very well be an institution that started with accumulating way back, or perhaps the "lost" MtGox stash?

[figmentofmyass]

if you actually check

the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments

i don't have the energy to verify, but if so, it sounds like a really crappy "mixer service". there's really no way to tumble that number of coins anyway. no mixer service has that kind of liquidity. they'd just be taking in and paying out the same coins to different addresses.

but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending

it doesn't really demonstrate that since it's just one anecdotal example.

[franky1]

if you actually check

the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments

i don't have the energy to verify, but if so, it sounds like a really crappy "mixer service". there's really no way to tumble that number of coins anyway. no mixer service has that kind of liquidity. they'd just be taking in and paying out the same coins to different addresses.

yep when a mixer doesnt have reserves to mix, it just ends up being a tumbling. or as i call it a de-tainter service. just hoping the coins along.

but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending

it doesn't really demonstrate that since it's just one anecdotal example.

i was counting addresses used and yea quite alot went legacy->(loads of) bc1q ->legacy
so not one example but thousands of bc1q addresses used just for that particular stash
even if you dont count/check
66k/200=330 allotments. * 5+tumbles=over 1000 easy

[pooya87]

it could be said that whales trust segwit, or at least some whales do.

that is a very silly way of thinking in my opinion.
SegWit is either safe or not. there is no middle ground and people shouldn't look to others (specially whales who only care about making money) to decide.
not to mention that if there was any kind of vulnerability in SegWit it would have been already exploited! it has been 1.5 years already.

this in my opinion is someone who has been either waiting for forks to finish so that he can claim them (since many of them didn't support SegWit) or he upgraded his wallet to something that supports Bech32 recently and is taking advantage of the fact that fees are currently low. (never mind, the fees aren't low )

Well, im not claiming there is a hidden exploit lurking in the shadows ready to be exploited as Craig Wright claims, which I think it's just another way to try to suppress the price so he can pump his BSV scam. Im just referring to the game theoretical situation argued by some in which miners cartel up to steal segwit funds, which im skeptic about.

Bitcoin is all about skin in the game. The way I see it is huge amounts of coins moving into segwit means that there is trust to it being safe.

i didn't say it is your claim, that way of thinking is a silly way that has existed before SegWit even started and it is true but not possible! basically it is an FUD that was designed to prevent SegWit activation. it is true that miners can decide to steal SegWit outputs but in order to do that they have to fork bitcoin and be on a new/different chain which the rest of the network will never follow! and also this possibility is true about all other outputs when a fork is the first step. so it is not even SegWit related.

[franky1]

i didn't say it is your claim, that way of thinking is a silly way that has existed before SegWit even started and it is true but not possible! basically it is an FUD that was designed to prevent SegWit activation. it is true that miners can decide to steal SegWit outputs but in order to do that they have to fork bitcoin and be on a new/different chain which the rest of the network will never follow! and also this possibility is true about all other outputs when a fork is the first step. so it is not even SegWit related.

to explain. segwit would need to be deactivated and regress the rules back to 2016 rules. thus making segwit outputs become 'anyonecanspends'
which is the worry if there was a bug. where anyone sending funds from segwit addresses could be spent by mining pools when pools add them to their block in such an event.

however if you really want to know how trusted segwits addresses are.. just look at the very guy that invented and coded segwit
(pieter wuille aka sipa)
https://bitcoin.sipa.be (bottom of website on the right).. still using legacy addressess
also even on his bitcointalk profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2786
seems he is yet to trust donations on segwit addresses

[pooya87]

i didn't say it is your claim, that way of thinking is a silly way that has existed before SegWit even started and it is true but not possible! basically it is an FUD that was designed to prevent SegWit activation. it is true that miners can decide to steal SegWit outputs but in order to do that they have to fork bitcoin and be on a new/different chain which the rest of the network will never follow! and also this possibility is true about all other outputs when a fork is the first step. so it is not even SegWit related.

to explain. segwit would need to be deactivated and regress the rules back to 2016 rules. thus making segwit outputs become 'anyonecanspends'
which is the worry if there was a bug. where anyone sending funds from segwit addresses could be spent by mining pools when pools add them to their block in such an event.

the same thing could have been said about any new output that is introduced in bitcoin such as pay to scripts. and these things aren't just added overnight. it is extensively tested and reviewed by many developers.

however if you really want to know how trusted segwits addresses are.. just look at the very guy that invented and coded segwit
(pieter wuille aka sipa)
https://bitcoin.sipa.be (bottom of website on the right).. still using legacy addressess
also even on his bitcointalk profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2786
seems he is yet to trust donations on segwit addresses

you are very wrong.
if you want to know how trusted SegWit and its addresses are you need to check the code not what some dudes are doing no matter who they are.

not to mention that the reason for them not changing their "donation" address can simply be because a lot of wallets don't support SegWit addresses! or simply because nobody donates anything to that address (received 5 tx in 7 years!).

[Kakmakr]

The splitting of the coins into many addresses was a smart move on their part. You remove a lot of risk, when you split large amounts of coins into smaller chucks. Let's say there are a new fork and you want to capitalize on that fork, then you can do a small "test" transaction on one of the addresses first and if that is successful, then you can do the rest. <You are also not forced to do all the coins at once>

The sweep process from paper wallets can also be compromised and if something goes wrong, you do not lose all coins at once. <Malware can inject their bitcoin address into your clipboard and this might go unnoticed>  

I think this was a very smart move.    <Large amounts of coins are continuously stalked, like we see with this address, so this makes large amounts of coins, less noticeable.>  

[cellard]

I like these forms of speculation, because it's just that, speculation. We can see the movements, but only guess who they belong to, and what the intentions are. That's the true power of Bitcoin.

It seems that the coins have been transferred to Segwit addresses for the sole reason of enjoying lower fees, because moving coins back and forth that often is quite a costly practice. It's probably an exchange or OTC desk creating smaller blocks of coins to be sold.

What if this turns out to be Bakkt setting up their shit? Bakkt won't wait till the last moment to accumulate coins, they do it well before they actually launch, and the market is well positioned at current levels to allow further accumulation at lower levels.

No shortage of theories.  

The pristine coins that haven't been touched are well known, say pre 2012

This OP doesn't really say anything, on a bad year BITMAIN takes in this many coins

Lastly, as LEO has proved mixers don't work, there is nothing that PALANTIR(CIA) cannot track on the block-chain.

..

IMHO if this is true, and like most things here I assume its just another lie, but if its true it could be just a normal whale reducing his exposure to hacking, say I hack one address with 100k coin, its far better for them to own 100k addresses with one coin, that way they can sleep at night knowing that they'll always have 99% with no risk of losing 100%.


Hackers can & do hack bitcoin, I hit 0.01 btc accounts infrequently, but 0.05 are the most common HODLR 'moron' ownership amount, and of course 0.001 are like flies on feces

Who is LEO? I don't understand that acronym. I think I have heard LEA before (Law Enforcement Agency) but not LEO??

Anyway, can you present evidence of they being able to find coins after being mixed? I've never heard it before. In fact, as far as I know a ton of MtGox were never recovered and that was back then. Nowadays there seem to be really complex mixers that release coins at random times like helix.

[pixie85]

Moving to segwit is safer, many people decide to do it. I did it when Bitcoin fees went back down after that big rise in early 2018. I thought that if this were to happen again I'd lose so much on fees. It's better to go segwit while you can and not worry about the possibility of $100 fees ever again.