how easy it is to fake buying bitcoin?

[Reatim]

when microstrategy bought bitcoin back when the world was not as welcoming as it is now to bitcoin, a lot of people who did not want to directly buy bitcoin went to invest in microstrategy instead and now i think bitcoin has also become a way for companies to attract more investors into their company

but how easy would it be to fake buying bitcoin? answer is very hard. the blockchain is public and you would need to be really smart to pull this off and show some evidence to investors. if you are proven to be only faking buying bitcoin to attract investors, you can be sued.

i wondered if there are some companies right now lying about the real amount of bitcoins they have.... are they all telling the truth or just wants the attention and credit without actually spending money?

[_act_]

i wondered if there are some companies right now lying about the real amount of bitcoins they have.... are they all telling the truth or just wants the attention and credit without actually spending money?

They are proving it using the onchain data and that will make it hard to fake. Everyone can see the transactions and the amount of coins the company has on the blockchain.

Only what I think is wash trading and that can also be easily know. A good company as an investor will not want to prefer wash trading for a good asset like bitcoin.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

but how easy would it be to fake buying bitcoin? answer is very hard. the blockchain is public and you would need to be really smart to pull this off and show some evidence to investors. if you are proven to be only faking buying bitcoin to attract investors, you can be sued.

Do you know Strategy did not publicly announce their Bitcoin addresses.

Arkham Intelligence did their on chain analysis and found something but their findings can be not completely accurate.
https://intel.arkm.com/explorer/entity/microstrategy

Other Bitcoin Spot ETFs or institutional investors can announce their Bitcoin addresses or not, as there are no existing rules on it.

[Odusko]

Is really hard for any company to lie to us about their Bitcoin buying since most companies have reputation to protect and knows what the reaction of the public will be if they make such public blunders knowing fully well that everything concerning Bitcoin is made public on the blockchain, most time the company makes features the display real time Bitcoin Ballance of the company holdings, so the possibility of lies about fake Bitcoin buying is not there because there have no hidden portfolio in Bitcoin portfolio as long as their public liability companies.

[CryptoYar]

Yes companies increasingly use Bitcoin holdings to attract investors much like MicroStrategy did. While public nature of Bitcoin blockchain makes it very hard for company to fake owning much of Bitcoin without facing legal trouble especially if they need to show proof it is fair to wonder if all companies are being fully truthful or if some are just seeking attention.
Investors need to be careful and do their research as some companies might only hint at buying Bitcoin or have indirect exposure other than holding large amounts directly to gain interest without major investment.

[Despairo]

Private companies are hard to track because they're not required to upload their financial report to public.

Public companies need to be careful, if they announce if they bought Bitcoin, I'm sure there's always someone will take a look into their financial report and busted them. I think there's not yet any company had this issue right? sooner or later we will see.

[dumpsterhawk]

It is easy as it has always been for any digital asset. Bitcoin's features have nothing to do with this. If you want to fake buying it, you can do it. I think you are a bit mistaken here. What Bitcoin's features enable you to do is to provide mathematically sound proof that you have some Bitcoin but only if you want to provide it. If you don't want to provide such proof, you can claim you have bought any amount of Bitcoin. It is even possible that exchanges are trading fake Bitcoin right this very moment. Such services are closed boxes and you can't really know what is happening inside of them.

Private companies are hard to track because they're not required to upload their financial report to public.

Public companies need to be careful, if they announce if they bought Bitcoin, I'm sure there's always someone will take a look into their financial report and busted them. I think there's not yet any company had this issue right? sooner or later we will see.

The law is the only thing that protects against fake buying from malicious actors.

[snipie]

There is no entity in the world whether it was a single person or a group/company that will show everyone what they buy and how much they have. They could possibly allow some funds to be seen publicly to confirm what they possess and attract investors to join them, otherwise they will no need to do so.
There is no law about Bitcoin possessions nor about the secret banking system and the funds there. It is normal and must be normal since no need to show everything unless there is doubt about fake and exaggerated attitudes that could cause harm to investors or trick them, in this case punishments should be imposed.

[Smartprofit]

but how easy would it be to fake buying bitcoin? answer is very hard. the blockchain is public and you would need to be really smart to pull this off and show some evidence to investors. if you are proven to be only faking buying bitcoin to attract investors, you can be sued.

Do you know Strategy did not publicly announce their Bitcoin addresses.

Arkham Intelligence did their on chain analysis and found something but their findings can be not completely accurate.
https://intel.arkm.com/explorer/entity/microstrategy

Other Bitcoin Spot ETFs or institutional investors can announce their Bitcoin addresses or not, as there are no existing rules on it.

Personally, I was very surprised to learn that large companies such as Microstrategy or Bitcoin spot funds Bitcoin ETFs do not publicly disclose information about the Bitcoin addresses under their direct control.🤷

Don't get me wrong! I myself am an ardent supporter of the principles of anonymity and privacy in the Bitcoin network. I am categorically against the KYC procedure - I do not want a plate with the owner's last name, first name and postal address hanging above each Bitcoin address in the Bitcoin blockchain. However, it should be noted that the business of Michael Saylor's company and the business of Bitcoin spot ETF funds is very specific. Strictly speaking, it consists precisely in the fact that they publicly own Bitcoins and issue derivatives for their clients based on the fact of owning the first cryptocurrency. I do not quite understand how it is possible in such a situation not to disclose the very fact of owning Bitcoins?! Shouldn't such a business be absolutely transparent? In such a situation, in my opinion, excuses with references to security measures look extremely unconvincing.  Security is a necessary thing, but in my opinion, such a business requires publicity and openness🦧

By the way, I am interested in one very interesting question, indirectly related to the topic under discussion. Is Michael Saylor's activity connected with the plans of the American government to create a reserve of bitcoins? After all, such a reserve, theoretically, should include a very large number of coins (1 million pieces or more). How can you buy such a number of coins at market value? After all, this will lead to an immediate increase in prices? However, many things can become clearer if we assume that there is some kind of secret agreement between Michael Saylor and the American elite. Perhaps this is why Microstrategy's bitcoin business is not open and transparent.🙇

[nakamura12]

Private companies are hard to track because they're not required to upload their financial report to public.

Public companies need to be careful, if they announce if they bought Bitcoin, I'm sure there's always someone will take a look into their financial report and busted them. I think there's not yet any company had this issue right? sooner or later we will see.

That is if it's about announcing to public but it's different if it's for their potential investors so I would say about the question in OP that it isn't easy to fake buying bitcoin because the potential investors can ask to let them check the wallet address that the company have and they can track it. If the potential investors will only invest if they know the company have bitcoin in their wallet then the company may have no choice to let the potential investors check the wallet address or it will take time to find someone who will invest in their company without knowing if they really bought bitcoin or not.

[Zaguru12]

Personally, I was very surprised to learn that large companies such as Microstrategy or Bitcoin spot funds Bitcoin ETFs do not publicly disclose information about the Bitcoin addresses under their direct control.🤷

Don't get me wrong! I myself am an ardent supporter of the principles of anonymity and privacy in the Bitcoin network. I am categorically against the KYC procedure - I do not want a plate with the owner's last name, first name and postal address hanging above each Bitcoin address in the Bitcoin blockchain. However, it should be noted that the business of Michael Saylor's company and the business of Bitcoin spot ETF funds is very specific. Strictly speaking, it consists precisely in the fact that they publicly own Bitcoins and issue derivatives for their clients based on the fact of owning the first cryptocurrency. I do not quite understand how it is possible in such a situation not to disclose the very fact of owning Bitcoins?! Shouldn't such a business be absolutely transparent? In such a situation, in my opinion, excuses with references to security measures look extremely unconvincing.  Security is a necessary thing, but in my opinion, such a business requires publicity and openness🦧

Personally I think I agree with you about public disclosure of bitcoin holdings most especially from an institution which is supposedly the holding bitcoin for customers, I think we have been asking of the same thing in the past from centralized exchanges where many think they don’t hold the coins they hold and some of them actually do reveal there addresses and some usually do a yearly access of their wallet by revealing the address. I have always questioned the authenticity of those bitcoin that this institutions usually say they buy, most especially for the fact that the Volume do not sometimes reflects this buys. Most often I usually think that this information might be revealed to the investors of the institutions only but even if it is that does that makes it transparent, public reveal is still the best to even lure in more investors too.

By the way, I am interested in one very interesting question, indirectly related to the topic under discussion. Is Michael Saylor's activity connected with the plans of the American government to create a reserve of bitcoins? After all, such a reserve, theoretically, should include a very large number of coins (1 million pieces or more). How can you buy such a number of coins at market value? After all, this will lead to an immediate increase in prices? However, many things can become clearer if we assume that there is some kind of secret agreement between Michael Saylor and the American elite. Perhaps this is why Microstrategy's bitcoin business is not open and transparent.🙇

I don’t know maybe there is an hidden agreement between Microstrategy and the US government, but very inv one million bitcoin at a go is definitely not going to be easy in my opinion not that they wouldn’t have such money to spend. Personally I think if the US bitcoin reserve comes sound and they are going to buy from scratch then I think they will most definitely be doing a DCA for that. The DCA can be an aggressive one that it could even be daily buys.

About the impact on bitcoin price I think it will definitely affect the price and pumps it up. Bitcoin price is affected by sentimental analysis, the news of bitcoin been a US reserve asset itself is going to create FOMO then the public announcement of them buying will most definitely create demands which will definitely affects the market and increases the price

[Mrbluntzy]

For a company to be trusted, especially if they are targeting a large number of investors in the world, for them to be successful and trusted by the audience they want, they will have to register the company, get some license of operation as a financial or an investment company, during the process of registration and licensing the company will definitely show the proofs of the service they are offering and they can never fake having Bitcoin because they will definitely show their proof and as you said, Bitcoin can be tracked on the blockchain.
 It is not easy to fake having Bitcoin except it's a company that doesn't really need investors but they are just investing on their own and making announcement of how many Bitcoin they have.

[BitGoba]

.. are they all telling the truth or just wants the attention and credit without actually spending money?

Publicly listed companies in the United States, such as those traded on NASDAQ or the NYSE, are legally required to submit regular, accurate, and transparent financial reports. Intentionally falsifying or concealing information in these reports is considered a criminal offense and can lead to serious legal consequences, including hefty fines and prison sentences for those responsible.

For that reason, there's no need to doubt whether these companies actually hold Bitcoin or not. Just a few days ago, one of the companies that holds Bitcoin on its balance sheet, Block Inc., was added to the S&P 500 index. MicroStrategy is also expected to join the S&P 500 soon

They are buying Bitcoin to protect themselves from inflation, because if they hold large amounts of fiat money, inflation quickly causes it to lose value. They need some harder and more stable form of money, like Bitcoin, which appreciates over time.

Or they take out loans and buy Bitcoin, because the rise in Bitcoin's value is expected to outpace interest rates on those loans.

[cryptoaddictchie]

i wondered if there are some companies right now lying about the real amount of bitcoins they have.... are they all telling the truth or just wants the attention and credit without actually spending money?

Well some news on some media platform, typically announced some buy up program or news that certain company boughy btc something like that, usually its gonna be good if this transaction plotted in news have links on blockchain, but since their company Im guessing its bought via etf or a broker, with certain documents.

[d5000]

Public companies need to be careful, if they announce if they bought Bitcoin, I'm sure there's always someone will take a look into their financial report and busted them.

In general I agree, but there were examples of public companies with enourmous "criminal energies" out there which went on to fake a lot of activity. German public company Wirecard, for example, allegedly maintained an intransparent conglomerate of fake companies for more than 10 years until they were discovered (now they're insolvent and some of the executives were jailed). Now imagine such an intransparent network of sub-companies, one of them could be buying Bitcoin but using other funds than those that are claimed to be used. 10 years is a lot in the Bitcoin world, they could do a lot of damage.

Technically, if the company has trust in another person, it's as easy as to publish a "buy order" (and a withdrawal transaction) which was made by that other person. Or you could sell the coins fast (without every publishing your sales) and re-buy them, while labelling the buys as "accumulative".

What I want to say with that is that the transparent blockchain structure normally doesn't prevent fraudulent practices of "Bitcoin companies", because the blockchain activity can be separated from their traditional financial activity, and it's the "traditional" branch where the fraud would occur, e.g. by it not being clear where the money originates, and who's the real "owner" of the Bitcoins.

There may be some cryptographic techniques to prevent that, but that would require "totally transparent companies", and our economic system doesn't provide the incentives for that.

[yhiaali3]

Yesterday, an International Monetary Fund report emerged accusing El Salvador of lying about its purchase of Bitcoin, sparking controversy over whether El Salvador had purchased Bitcoin with a loan, as it claimed. The IMF report also claims that:

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a report on Tuesday about its ongoing loan agreement with El Salvador, claiming that the Central American country has not bought any new Bitcoin since signing the agreement in December 2024.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/el-salvador-hasn-t-bought-bitcoin-deal-imf

This is a very recent example of how anyone, even a government agency, can lie about purchasing Bitcoin.

[melinoe]

^ But from where said transfers were made, then?

Interesting..

[aylabadia05]

i wondered if there are some companies right now lying about the real amount of bitcoins they have.... are they all telling the truth or just wants the attention and credit without actually spending money?

Large companies that hold significant amounts of Bitcoin won't share their Bitcoin addresses for security reasons.
I might also provide false information when someone asks me how much Bitcoin I own. When I receive feedback from the questioner, they might ask if I can see it. That means the questioner has invaded my privacy, and that's a violation of my privacy.

In the concept of securing Bitcoin, there's a recommendation to not share Bitcoin addresses publicly or to keep them out of the public eye. This isn't a lie, but it's part of the strategy.

[coolcoinz]

In fact it's really easy to lie about owning bitcoin. First of all, you can get bitcoin OTC, but also you can get it OTC through an exchange of private keys. This means that the coins don't even have to move for the transaction to take place. Then, as others have said you don't have to make the address public. A company can own multiple bitcoin addresses and can also buy ETFs and say they have bitcoin exposure, because they do. To Wall Street people owning paper bitcoin, or paper gold, equals owning the real thing.

[Ever-young]

Is really hard for any company to lie to us about their Bitcoin buying since most companies have reputation to protect and knows what the reaction of the public will be if they make such public blunders knowing fully well that everything concerning Bitcoin is made public on the blockchain, most time the company makes features the display real time Bitcoin Ballance of the company holdings, so the possibility of lies about fake Bitcoin buying is not there because there have no hidden portfolio in Bitcoin portfolio as long as their public liability companies.

That's right. Companies are pretty much compelled to be honest and transparent with their Bitcoin buys/portfolio because their reputation is actually on the line. If they're caught faking or lying about their portfolio, they'll eventually get caught and that'll definitely hurt their credibility. The Blockchain is very transparent, making very easily for people to verify their actual Bitcoin holdings, making it impossible for them to hide or lie about it. Plus, the transparency helps to build more trust between the company and their investors too.