1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM

[molecular]

Don't worry, all of the balance graphs end at 0.

I checked one and it didn't. So maybe some of them do. It's a bug in the graph anyhow.

[1713576385]

1713576385

[molecular]

So... is anyone else attempting to crack the private key?

Lol

HAHA, sure. Maybe if we pool together a million worth of new ASICS and spend the next thousand years on it, we may have a 1% chance at it. ;p  *not actual odds. There are people that know the math on it, and I am NOT one of them*

assuming such an "ASIC" costs $1 and does 1 GAddressCalcCompare/s:

2^256 / (1E6*1E9*60*60*24*365*1000) = 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000367%

better mine

[thezerg]

Lol, how does THIS affect your trading strategy?

How do you plot just one act like this?

[Spekulatius]

? ? ? what u mean?

[Vandroiy]

It seems blockchain.info is disagreeing with itself. On one page, it shows a final balance >400k, on the other it shows "final balance 0".

I'll stick to blockexplorer for now. I prefer to get no graphs to getting wrong graphs. (If the graph is not wrong, the info page from the same page is -- it's not reasonable either way.)

[BTCurious]

How do you plot just one act like this?

Click the little icon after the "final balance" on that account's page.

[Spekulatius]

This address just received 10k BTC (1 confirmation so far). Looks to me like it continues its normal growth.

[zhalox]

Personally, I think the address could be the Mountain of Gox's (mostly) offline wallet.  Long-term BTC holders are probably either sending funds to Gox for cash-out time, or possibly funding their Gox accounts in an attempt to keep making those large ask walls to hold the price down for more accumulation or for some other reason perhaps...

If this is fact Mt. Gox's large offline wallet, and so many BTC holders are depositing Bitcoins into Mt. Gox, then we could see a big selloff soon if things turn south for whatever reason

[Spekulatius]

I dont actually see, how this address is likely related to any of MtGox`s wallets.

1. MtGox has stated some week ago that they do not commit such blatant negligence to leave any large amount (like this) in one account only, but maintain many accounts in many offline places all around. They have not proven this statement though, afaik.
2. The fund size and time interval of existence seems believable as well as the rate of growth in order to be one of pirate's wallets.
3. On the 17th of July, a withdrawal of 70k BTC from this wallet coincides closely to pirate's claims on IRC to play the market (for the first time). 70k BTC were sold that day and again on the following days alternating with buy orders of similar size.
4. The website: www.1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM.com , though with its owner(s) still unknown does not make the impression to be linked to mtgox.
(5. Doesnt mtgox reject tainted coins? If that was true the amount of taint in the wallet dequalifies it to be linked to mtgox:
https://blockchain.info/taint/1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM ) <-- pls correct me here

[Vandroiy]

I dont actually see, how this address is likely related to any of MtGox`s wallets.

1. MtGox has stated some week ago that they do not commit such blatant negligence to leave any large amount (like this) in one account only, but maintain many accounts in many offline places all around. They have not proven this statement though, afaik.
2. The fund size and time interval of existence seems believable as well as the rate of growth in order to be one of pirate's wallets.
3. On the 17th of July, a withdrawal of 70k BTC from this wallet coincides closely to pirate's claims on IRC to play the market (for the first time). 70k BTC were sold that day and again on the following days alternating with buy orders of similar size.
4. The website: www.1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM.com , though with its owner(s) still unknown does not make the impression to be linked to mtgox.
(5. Doesnt mtgox reject tainted coins? If that was true the amount of taint in the wallet dequalifies it to be linked to mtgox:
https://blockchain.info/taint/1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM ) <-- pls correct me here

• 1: I once saw them pay me a 500 BTC withdrawal with a 400k wallet. Admittedly that was last year, but it happened. If they say they no longer do that, I believe them though.
• 2: Huh? How so?
• 3: As I already said, the withdrawal happened after the dump.
• 4: The domain was registered 23 Jun 2012, anyone could have done that.

On a side note, if that address should belong to Pirate, I'm going to lose faith in Bitcoiners. But that makes no sense at all, it would serve no purpose. So if it's not Gox cold storage, then it's probably some investor who wants to be certain about getting his share of Bitcoins.

[sadpandatech]

(5. Doesnt mtgox reject tainted coins? If that was true the amount of taint in the wallet dequalifies it to be linked to mtgox:
https://blockchain.info/taint/1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM ) <-- pls correct me here

Wrong kind of taint.

[Spekulatius]

I dont actually see, how this address is likely related to any of MtGox`s wallets.

1. MtGox has stated some week ago that they do not commit such blatant negligence to leave any large amount (like this) in one account only, but maintain many accounts in many offline places all around. They have not proven this statement though, afaik.
2. The fund size and time interval of existence seems believable as well as the rate of growth in order to be one of pirate's wallets.
3. On the 17th of July, a withdrawal of 70k BTC from this wallet coincides closely to pirate's claims on IRC to play the market (for the first time). 70k BTC were sold that day and again on the following days alternating with buy orders of similar size.
4. The website: www.1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM.com , though with its owner(s) still unknown does not make the impression to be linked to mtgox.
(5. Doesnt mtgox reject tainted coins? If that was true the amount of taint in the wallet dequalifies it to be linked to mtgox:
https://blockchain.info/taint/1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM ) <-- pls correct me here

• 1: I once saw them pay me a 500 BTC withdrawal with a 400k wallet. Admittedly that was last year, but it happened. If they say they no longer do that, I believe them though.
• 2: Huh? How so?
• 3: As I already said, the withdrawal happened after the dump.
• 4: The domain was registered 23 Jun 2012, anyone could have done that.

On a side note, if that address should belong to Pirate, I'm going to lose faith in Bitcoiners. But that makes no sense at all, it would serve no purpose. So if it's not Gox cold storage, then it's probably some investor who wants to be certain about getting his share of Bitcoins.

2: This address was first charged some time in late January 2012. BS&T was set up in early November 2011 afaik (check here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0). It is therefore in the correct time frame in order to belong to pirate's BS&T operation.

@ all: Isnt there some bitcoin forensic crack that could just run some analysis on this address? Like analysing where the bitcons come from or whether this appears more like an active operations account, that does pay out lenders too or is it simply a savings account? From the chain of addresses served before all the bitcoins finally land here, it seems to me that there must be some "address no. 0", that pays out all landers before the residual balance of operating profits is dumped onto this address. Or is it mere money laundering?

[Serge]

2: This address was first charged some time in late January 2012. BS&T was set up in early November 2011 afaik (check here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0). It is therefore in the correct time frame in order to belong to pirate's BS&T operation.

or to one of his clients

[nrd525]

>> Would 80K BTC be sufficient to depress the price to 1.8 USD / BTC on July 17?

>>>No.  IIRC, at the time it would have taken around 200k BTCs to drop the price below $2.00.


Don't you mean drop the price by 1.8 USD? 

A very different thing than dropping the price to 1.8 USD =)

[finkleshnorts]

Isnt there some bitcoin forensic crack

he goes by the name of znort and he only comes out at night

[dooglus]

2: This address was first charged some time in late January 2012. BS&T was set up in early November 2011 afaik (check here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0). It is therefore in the correct time frame in order to belong to pirate's BS&T operation.

If pirate is somehow putting his lenders' coins to work to make 10% per week, they wouldn't be sitting in a single address for months at a time

If pirate is running a ponzi scheme, he wouldn't have this many coins since he has to pay out interest every week without any means of generating income other than from new deposits.  He 'should' have around this many coins, but by definition ponzi schemes don't have as much as they 'should'.

These two 'facts' suggest to me that these aren't pirate's coins.

[Shadow383]

2: This address was first charged some time in late January 2012. BS&T was set up in early November 2011 afaik (check here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0). It is therefore in the correct time frame in order to belong to pirate's BS&T operation.

If pirate is somehow putting his lenders' coins to work to make 10% per week, they wouldn't be sitting in a single address for months at a time

If pirate is running a ponzi scheme, he wouldn't have this many coins since he has to pay out interest every week without any means of generating income other than from new deposits.  He 'should' have around this many coins, but by definition ponzi schemes don't have as much as they 'should'.

These two 'facts' suggest to me that these aren't pirate's coins.

Does anyone have some idea of how many coins pirate "should" have?

I realise that big investors are very unlikely to want to disclose the size of their positions, but just look at the lending forum:

There are a lot of people with several thousand BTC in BTCST.
There are a lot of passthroughs with many thousands of BTC apiece in BTCST.
There are a lot of other bonds that hold undisclosed levels of Pirate exposure.

I have no concern for what happens to Pirate's immediate investors if/when he defaults. What concerns me is how much of the bitcoin economy is actually exposed to BTCST. We've had financial crises in regular currencies and personally I thought Bitcoin was supposed to help avoid all that 

[FreeMoney]

I have no concern for what happens to Pirate's immediate investors if/when he defaults. What concerns me is how much of the bitcoin economy is actually exposed to BTCST. We've had financial crises in regular currencies and personally I thought Bitcoin was supposed to help avoid all that 

Nope, you just don't have to pay for risks you don't take.

[Raoul Duke]

I would appreciate if you guys didn't post my address around like it's nothing 

[Spekulatius]

2: This address was first charged some time in late January 2012. BS&T was set up in early November 2011 afaik (check here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0). It is therefore in the correct time frame in order to belong to pirate's BS&T operation.

If pirate is somehow putting his lenders' coins to work to make 10% per week, they wouldn't be sitting in a single address for months at a time

If pirate is running a ponzi scheme, he wouldn't have this many coins since he has to pay out interest every week without any means of generating income other than from new deposits.  He 'should' have around this many coins, but by definition ponzi schemes don't have as much as they 'should'.

These two 'facts' suggest to me that these aren't pirate's coins.

Your two "facts" (lol) [which are based on my ""facts"" actually] {lets call them 'assumptions'} dont convince me either.

If pirate is somehow putting his lenders' coins to work to make 10% per week, they wouldn't be sitting in a single address for months at a time

If his business model includes accumulating as many BTC as possible in order to sell them to some big investor for fiat, it could very well be that they are just sitting there doing nothing till forementioned investor decides to move them elsewhere.

If pirate is running a ponzi scheme, he wouldn't have this many coins since he has to pay out interest every week without any means of generating income other than from new deposits.  He 'should' have around this many coins, but by definition ponzi schemes don't have as much as they 'should'.

Unfortunately, we dont know exactly how many coins he "should" have, only that is must be a huge amount. If you are alluding to the missing dividend payouts to his lenders, then lets imagine, that this is not his only wallet and that from an arbitrary number of management wallets, he could administer the payouts, market manipulation, pay rolls for subcontractors, ..