Coinbase from February 2009 has just been moved!

[fillippone]

@Wekkel reported 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

BREAKING NEWS: the address of the Bitcoin from 2009 that just moved is listed a Kleiman vs Wright court document. Craig Wright claimed to own it, but it was "locked outside of his control". AKA part of the Tulip Trust. An old miner just called Craig's bluff.

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!

[1714166017]

1714166017

[1714166017]

1714166017

[1714166017]

1714166017

[1714166017]

1714166017

[suchmoon]

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

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

@evilrobotted
Replying to @CalvinAyre and @adam3us
Just a thought... maybe it IS Craig and he doesn't want the miners to collude against him since they'd blacklist his coins if they found out it was him. So he says it wasn't him.

Not saying this theory is true. But it's possible.

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

[exstasie]

Who is it?

And what on Earth are they doing this for?

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

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

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!"

[fillippone]

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

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

@evilrobotted
Replying to @CalvinAyre and @adam3us
Just a thought... maybe it IS Craig and he doesn't want the miners to collude against him since they'd blacklist his coins if they found out it was him. So he says it wasn't him.

Not saying this theory is true. But it's possible.

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

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.

[hv_]

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

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

@evilrobotted
Replying to @CalvinAyre and @adam3us
Just a thought... maybe it IS Craig and he doesn't want the miners to collude against him since they'd blacklist his coins if they found out it was him. So he says it wasn't him.

Not saying this theory is true. But it's possible.

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

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


 

[mu_enrico]

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.

[Globb0]

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

[leyton11]

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.

[Harriti]

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!

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.

[fillippone]

Let's see the timeline of the movement:

50 BTC movement followed by whale alert followed by sell-off

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.

I think this is one of Nakatomo Satoshi's wallets.
<...>

I think it was Satoshi.
<...>

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.

[fillippone]

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

On block 631058 was mined a transaction which spent an output from February of 2009, that is a month after the Bitcoin network went live. This has caused a bit of a price swing, not to mention, a lot of speculation, about whether this is Satoshi Nakamoto moving these coins or not.
In this article, I’m going to lay out the case for why it probably wasn’t Satoshi and the bit of digital forensics we can use to figure this out.

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

It’s possible, of course, that Satoshi was running Bitcoin on multiple computers and that this is from another computer than the blue strands for blocks 3653 and 3655, but given the clear blue pattern of all the coins that haven’t been spent, it seems likely that this isn’t the same person that owns the million or so Bitcoins.

[JayJuanGee]

 we all thought of at least two possible owners:

• Satoshi:  
• Steven Craig Wright:  

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.

A nice read from Jimmy Song, explaining what we already know: probably it was not Satoshi moving his funds:

Do you have a link to the Jimmy Song article?

[Kakmakr]

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. 

[fillippone]

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

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.

Do you have a link to the Jimmy Song article?

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

[stompix]

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).

What is wrong with you?  

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?

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

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.

[JayJuanGee]

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fair enough about these alternative theories, too.

Do you have a link to the Jimmy Song article?

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

Thanks... yes.. I am going through the Jimmy Song article now...

[cengat]

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....

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)

[justdimin]

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.

[JayJuanGee]

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...

[bitdaryl]

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.