z

[Raoul Duke]

Good luck trying to sell 100k coins, there's not enough liquidity in the system to handle it.

It is actually much easier to do than many may think. If you want to sell 100k BTC privately and off market PM me. I'll put you in touch with a buyer.

Will that buyer pay market price?
If the answer is no, don't even bother

[hyphymikey]

http://blockchain.info/fb/12hi

I believe this address would be high on the list if it wasn't "cleared out".  I believe this one belongs to Satoshi because the oldest transaction was 3 days into bitcoin's existence. It seems a lot of mining rewards from the very early days were sent here. I tried to follow the money, but bitcoin did its job and led me nowhere.

[pretendo]

What is the largest wallet that can be linked to an owner with confidence?

[Impaler]

http://blockchain.info/fb/12hi

I believe this address would be high on the list if it wasn't "cleared out".  I believe this one belongs to Satoshi because the oldest transaction was 3 days into bitcoin's existence. It seems a lot of mining rewards from the very early days were sent here. I tried to follow the money, but bitcoin did its job and led me nowhere.

Znort, how about running the closure and 'taint' tools on this address, that would at-least give a broad-brush generalization of if these coins were scattered to the wind or stayed consolidated, I suspect it would be the former as people were much loser with BTC back then when it was really worth nothing.

[crazy_rabbit]

I can't BEAR to look from envy.  

[Zaih]

Some of these people must be cheering right about now.

And some are cursing themselves for losing their private keys.

Haha, didn't think of that. That's so true. Imagine how many BTC's have been 'lost' due to this.

[Impaler]

looks like we have picked up the scent  

znort, as you stated the closure won't include addressees that don't engage in joint sending transactions.  But if someone performs single address to single address transfers these escape the closure.  Perhaps very conservative approach of inducing addresses that receive all their funds from already closured addresses AND when that amount represents a significant portion (say >50%) of all the coins in the closure we can be very confident that this is really an address owned by the closure owner.  This might catch slightly more addresses then the closure and taint methods as we would continue to see mining income to the wider closure which would improve the taint analysis.

Also another possible tool idea, I call it coin-transaction-age, simply a count of now many times an individual coin has been transacted.  It should then be possible to create a mean-transaction-age of someones coins and tell roughly how circulated their coins are.  A newly mined 50 value coin would have 1 transaction (the one that mined it) and the first time its transferred it becomes a 2 transaction coin and so on and so on.  If coins merge just take the weighted average.  So your earlier statistic about these 'abandoned' coins would evolve into a full-spectrum of the whole coin base from 1 transactions to thousands, I suspect we would see a power-curve with a small number of coins performing huge numbers of transactions.

Now what gets interesting is do to a mean-transaction-age for a wallets balance, this would effectively tell us how close an address is to mining (giving a low count), or if they are very far (in a transaction sense) from mining activity and engaging with older more used coins (like a merchant for example).  Could provide an interesting angle by which to analyze addresses.

[alexkravets]

That's about 2028 transactions, involving about 5000 addresses. I computed
the balance for all of these, and ... the outcome is very interesting  

Do you care to share the interesting part ?

[Dabs]

But as long as a new address is used, you don't know who that belongs to, you can't be sure, you can't prove anything. It could be a payment or other legitimate transaction.

And the minute the original owner decides to use a proper mixing service, the output address on the other side of the mixer can't be linked at all. (no taint.)

[com911]

Hey guys, have you noticed, than coins from oldest and richest wallets (from 1st post) began to move coins just before the crash...
Just look attentively at their transactions...

[rpietila]

Quite many saw the crash coming, and/or sold the second day at $150-$200.

Not me. I was too busy making money and today also buying a lot. 

[Atruk]

Quite many saw the crash coming, and/or sold the second day at $150-$200.

Not me. I was too busy making money and today also buying a lot. 

Sold at $245 and had plenty of time to buy back in at $78. Took some time for this short move to be realized, but thankfully the ;;goxlag made it easy to throw that buy order in the book after someone bit on my sell. Took less than two days for this to be realized... I though it might have taken two or three weeks for this move to complete.

[hyphymikey]

Boy look at this transaction, 69K going into 1 address.  It comes from the merging and emptying out of 2 addresses which themselves have been receiving coins in 2.5K installments regularly since May 2012.  It dose not look like mining though, as I don't see generated coins, rather it looks like a lot of small transactions so I don't think this is a miner.

http://blockchain.info/address/1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx?sort=1

This is also a good example of the kind of transaction that would be missed by normal closure, but because they are being cleaned out and put into a completely new address we can be confident this is all still under one persons control (or someone got hacked).

That's a silkroad wallet. One of the addresses that dumps into it mentions a silkroad mixer.

[zakoliverz]

Bookmarked. Later come back.

[zebedee]

Thanks znort.  Minimum still coming down. Possibly some big holders did some of the recent selling.

[rpietila]

Thanks znort.  Minimum still coming down. Possibly some big holders did some of the recent selling.

As a relative big holder myself, I prefer not to show up on the list. I am sure the large early holders have net decreased their position during March-April, but for the most part, the minimum coming down just means that they break their paperwallets to much smaller ones, so as to retain better pseudonymity.

Whereas BTC10,000 was a chump change for many back in early 2011, now it is a formidable chunk of wealth that people are watching closely. Breaking it up to BTC500 increments with a mixing service would be my choice if I had the problem of having too large a paper wallet.

[Dabs]

Thus my inquiry into how many are holding how much earlier in this thread, I think.

The most "hideable" amounts seem to be in the under 1000 coins range. So break up your wallet into several consisting of almost random amounts between 1 to 999 and no one is going to pay much attention to them.

[hyh]

Is there a way to

• Show time of last-in and last-out, instead of just last-seen?
• List the Sink address, namely addresses with only transactions in but no transactions out?
  (Or maybe more precisely, addresses whose out/in ≤ 1%?)

(I briefly hacked your code, but haven't figure out how to do this.)


Also, how many addresses just mined a block and has stay quiet since then? I just counted, there are more than 20,000 addresses with a balance of exactly 50 BTC, but I'm not sure how many of them are mined.

[Elwar]

I like to check periodically for how many coins are required to be in the top 410.

It used to be 1-2k would be enough. Now 3k is the low end.

I guess that is party a factor of more bitcoins in the system? Or would it be watching in real time the effect of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer?

[hyh]

Have you tried the "parser pristine" command ?

Oh, I didn't. Just tried, so it prints "height, time, tx_number", is it right?

Took me 992 seconds for my 3 yr old computer to get this.

(Did you say it only takes 30s on your computer? You got a super one or I did something wrong?)