Coinbase from February 2009 has just been moved!

[JayJuanGee]

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)

[hv_]

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

[Globb0]

worms come out of the ground during the rain

[hv_]

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.....

 

[exstasie]

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.

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.

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.

Maybe that's exactly what is happening, an OTC deal. The coins never entered an exchange.

[Keiser Soze]

worms come out of the ground during the rain

when the grass is cut, the snakes will show

[fillippone]

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.

Maybe that's exactly what is happening, an OTC deal. The coins never entered an exchange.

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.

[fillippone]

Ah! Beautiful plot twist!

Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust.

I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/gq8ao1/more_than_100_addresses_with_unmoved_bitcoin/

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!

[hv_]

schnupp -

Aart from that, it is nice to know that someone managed to get hold of their private kews for so much time!

really ? 

does that show identity AND ownership for you?

 

[fillippone]

schnupp -

Aart from that, it is nice to know that someone managed to get hold of their private kews 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.

[vapourminer]

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.

[fillippone]

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:

The Tulip Trust List he filed can be found in Exhibit 7 here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf



The addresses calling Craig a liar and a fraud in https://paste.debian.net/plain/1148565 can be found in the above Tulip Trust List.

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.

[fillippone]

A Nice article on what just happened:

Over a Hundred 10-Year-Old Bitcoin Addresses Signed: Message Calls 'Craig Wright a Fraud'

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

What we know so far is that the anonymous message posted to the Debian pastezone was signed by private keys and the coinbase transactions correspond with addresses created in 2009 and 2010. A number of the 144 addresses dumped on Monday were provided by Wright and his legal team on May 21. The message tied to the addresses calls Wright a “fraud” and each address provides a corresponding signature. The pastezone news also follows the recently spent Bitcoin Block 3,654, which was created one month after the network launched.

[exstasie]

Maybe that's exactly what is happening, an OTC deal. The coins never entered an exchange.

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.

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.

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.

It looks to me like he is still holding the 40 BTC, and sent the 10 BTC through a mixer. Just an opinion.

[bitgolden]

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.