all seemed to start from memorydealers recent presentation in China, this new 10 times previous normal volumes is probably the second wave of awareness & opportunity interest spreading out from that, exponentially hopefully
Has anyone run the analysis to figure out if BTC moving through this market participant has an average level of taint? I mean, another thing which happened fairly recently is that a decent size haul was made at the expense of Bitcoinica after all.
The implication being that... someone stole a bunch of coins and then bought more coins on a chinese exchange?
Well, umm, ya. Most market theories assume due to the definition of a 'transaction', there is a buyer for every seller, and a seller for every buyer. FWIW. I'm not up-to-speed on the Libertarian economic theories so they may differ. Not sure.
Also, an utterly swell way to avoid potential taint problem is to mix things up in an exchange where there are a lot of honest actors. Or at least that is what I would be my line of thinking were I a thief. I happened to be quite active on Tradehill when there was a pretty strong suspicion that the former 'allinvain' coin was tossing around. I expect that my cold-store wallets are somewhat more warm with these. People who took BTC straight from Tradehill to Mt. Gox at around the time I was a heavy buyer got harassed until they explained to Mark the situation. The cool thing was that whoever was unloading the coin was willing to do so at a noticeable loss...which also rung a bell when I read this thread about the BTCChina goings on.
this theory makes no sense whatsoever.
1. your own theory assumes that the ultimate goal of the thief is to "sell" btc's.
2. "mixing" them with untainted coins is nonsensical.
3. first, odds are the hacker is not Chinese thus he would have to get a hold of CNY to do the buying. that's hard and involves exchange fees. even if he was Chinese it still makes no sense to buy up nontainted coins since it essentially triples the work.
4. second, btcchina is less liquid than gox so the large rapid buying that has been done is highly inefficient in obtaining a good buy price and would only serve to erode his eventual selling profits.
5. this theory also assumes that the hacker is wealthy enough to buy the almost 11,000 extra btc's that have gone off for mixing purposes only. that is also highly unlikely.
6. now he has to sell an even bigger load of btc's to cash out
7. it would be better and easier to break them up into alot of smaller chunks and move them out several addresses down the line before selling them slowly at exchanges around the world which is what i understand he has already done.
8. Mark is the only one i am aware of who has held up supposed "tainted" coins only one address away from the Bitcoinica stolen addresses. and even these he has let thru eventually. thus, if anything, the hacker should've "sold" those coins on btcchina or a different exchange driving down
the price just like they did at Tradehill.
9. therefore, the simplest explanation is the one that usually wins out; that of the Memory Dealers presentation stimulating the buying spree from pent up demand from existing btc holders who already had CNY at btcchina.