Fortress Renews Offer to Buy Mt Gox Claims ... - Bitcoin News

Introducing The Cryptocurrency Informer

Hey all,
We are trying something new. Full disclosure, I work for BitcoinTaxes, and I am the host of the new podcast I am here to talk about.
News happens in the world of cryptocurrency at a rapid pace. Every day something new and innovative is announced, that expands on existing technologies. The Cryptocurrency Informer is a weekly update series highlighting notable events happening in the crypto and crypto-adjacent spaces. Each episode provides a brief summary of these events, and an accompanying blog post provides sources for each story, so our listeners can dig deep on the things they want to know more about.
In the first episode of The Cryptocurrency Informer, we discuss the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on tax deadlines and federally backed cryptocurrencies. Binance has released it’s new “Binance Card”, and Mt.Gox creditors may be getting closer to a payout.
Podcast Links:
Podcast Page
Direct Episode Link
Info Links:

IRS Moves Tax Deadline To July 15th

Notice 2020-18 – Relief for Taxpayers Affected by Ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic
Filing and Payment Deadlines Questions and Answers

“Digital Dollar” and “Digital Dollar Wallet” Mentioned In Stimulus

Stimulus Draft
Forbes – Central Bank Currency on Ethereum
Technology Review – FedAccounts

Chinese Central Bank Digital Currency

Global Times Report

Binance Releases The Binance Card (Beta)

Binance Blog
Binance Card Registration Page

Mt. Gox Draft Rehabilitation Plan Released

*Creditor Portal Login (View Documents)
Coindesk Report
* Please use your best judgement when providing login information. The Creditor Portal Login link was provided via update on Mt. Gox's page. A PDF of this annoncement can be found here.
---
Hopefully you guys enjoy this kind of content. We'll still be releasing normal episodes of The BitcoinTaxes Podcast soon, but this will be an additional series that we release now as well.
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to bitcointaxes [link] [comments]

Technical: A Brief History of Payment Channels: from Satoshi to Lightning Network

Who cares about political tweets from some random country's president when payment channels are a much more interesting and are actually capable of carrying value?
So let's have a short history of various payment channel techs!

Generation 0: Satoshi's Broken nSequence Channels

Because Satoshi's Vision included payment channels, except his implementation sucked so hard we had to go fix it and added RBF as a by-product.
Originally, the plan for nSequence was that mempools would replace any transaction spending certain inputs with another transaction spending the same inputs, but only if the nSequence field of the replacement was larger.
Since 0xFFFFFFFF was the highest value that nSequence could get, this would mark a transaction as "final" and not replaceable on the mempool anymore.
In fact, this "nSequence channel" I will describe is the reason why we have this weird rule about nLockTime and nSequence. nLockTime actually only works if nSequence is not 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. final. If nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF then nLockTime is ignored, because this if the "final" version of the transaction.
So what you'd do would be something like this:
  1. You go to a bar and promise the bartender to pay by the time the bar closes. Because this is the Bitcoin universe, time is measured in blockheight, so the closing time of the bar is indicated as some future blockheight.
  2. For your first drink, you'd make a transaction paying to the bartender for that drink, paying from some coins you have. The transaction has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, and a starting nSequence of 0. You hand over the transaction and the bartender hands you your drink.
  3. For your succeeding drink, you'd remake the same transaction, adding the payment for that drink to the transaction output that goes to the bartender (so that output keeps getting larger, by the amount of payment), and having an nSequence that is one higher than the previous one.
  4. Eventually you have to stop drinking. It comes down to one of two possibilities:
    • You drink until the bar closes. Since it is now the nLockTime indicated in the transaction, the bartender is able to broadcast the latest transaction and tells the bouncers to kick you out of the bar.
    • You wisely consider the state of your liver. So you re-sign the last transaction with a "final" nSequence of 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. the maximum possible value it can have. This allows the bartender to get his or her funds immediately (nLockTime is ignored if nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF), so he or she tells the bouncers to let you out of the bar.
Now that of course is a payment channel. Individual payments (purchases of alcohol, so I guess buying coffee is not in scope for payment channels). Closing is done by creating a "final" transaction that is the sum of the individual payments. Sure there's no routing and channels are unidirectional and channels have a maximum lifetime but give Satoshi a break, he was also busy inventing Bitcoin at the time.
Now if you noticed I called this kind of payment channel "broken". This is because the mempool rules are not consensus rules, and cannot be validated (nothing about the mempool can be validated onchain: I sigh every time somebody proposes "let's make block size dependent on mempool size", mempool state cannot be validated by onchain data). Fullnodes can't see all of the transactions you signed, and then validate that the final one with the maximum nSequence is the one that actually is used onchain. So you can do the below:
  1. Become friends with Jihan Wu, because he owns >51% of the mining hashrate (he totally reorged Bitcoin to reverse the Binance hack right?).
  2. Slip Jihan Wu some of the more interesting drinks you're ordering as an incentive to cooperate with you. So say you end up ordering 100 drinks, you split it with Jihan Wu and give him 50 of the drinks.
  3. When the bar closes, Jihan Wu quickly calls his mining rig and tells them to mine the version of your transaction with nSequence 0. You know, that first one where you pay for only one drink.
  4. Because fullnodes cannot validate nSequence, they'll accept even the nSequence=0 version and confirm it, immutably adding you paying for a single alcoholic drink to the blockchain.
  5. The bartender, pissed at being cheated, takes out a shotgun from under the bar and shoots at you and Jihan Wu.
  6. Jihan Wu uses his mystical chi powers (actually the combined exhaust from all of his mining rigs) to slow down the shotgun pellets, making them hit you as softly as petals drifting in the wind.
  7. The bartender mutters some words, clothes ripping apart as he or she (hard to believe it could be a she but hey) turns into a bear, ready to maul you for cheating him or her of the payment for all the 100 drinks you ordered from him or her.
  8. Steely-eyed, you stand in front of the bartender-turned-bear, daring him to touch you. You've watched Revenant, you know Leonardo di Caprio could survive a bear mauling, and if some posh actor can survive that, you know you can too. You make a pose. "Drunken troll logic attack!"
  9. I think I got sidetracked here.
Lessons learned?

Spilman Channels

Incentive-compatible time-limited unidirectional channel; or, Satoshi's Vision, Fixed (if transaction malleability hadn't been a problem, that is).
Now, we know the bartender will turn into a bear and maul you if you try to cheat the payment channel, and now that we've revealed you're good friends with Jihan Wu, the bartender will no longer accept a payment channel scheme that lets one you cooperate with a miner to cheat the bartender.
Fortunately, Jeremy Spilman proposed a better way that would not let you cheat the bartender.
First, you and the bartender perform this ritual:
  1. You get some funds and create a transaction that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig between you and the bartender. You don't broadcast this yet: you just sign it and get its txid.
  2. You create another transaction that spends the above transaction. This transaction (the "backoff") has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, plus one block. You sign it and give this backoff transaction (but not the above transaction) to the bartender.
  3. The bartender signs the backoff and gives it back to you. It is now valid since it's spending a 2-of-2 of you and the bartender, and both of you have signed the backoff transaction.
  4. Now you broadcast the first transaction onchain. You and the bartender wait for it to be deeply confirmed, then you can start ordering.
The above is probably vaguely familiar to LN users. It's the funding process of payment channels! The first transaction, the one that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig, is the funding transaction that backs the payment channel funds.
So now you start ordering in this way:
  1. For your first drink, you create a transaction spending the funding transaction output and sending the price of the drink to the bartender, with the rest returning to you.
  2. You sign the transaction and pass it to the bartender, who serves your first drink.
  3. For your succeeding drinks, you recreate the same transaction, adding the price of the new drink to the sum that goes to the bartender and reducing the money returned to you. You sign the transaction and give it to the bartender, who serves you your next drink.
  4. At the end:
    • If the bar closing time is reached, the bartender signs the latest transaction, completing the needed 2-of-2 signatures and broadcasting this to the Bitcoin network. Since the backoff transaction is the closing time + 1, it can't get used at closing time.
    • If you decide you want to leave early because your liver is crying, you just tell the bartender to go ahead and close the channel (which the bartender can do at any time by just signing and broadcasting the latest transaction: the bartender won't do that because he or she is hoping you'll stay and drink more).
    • If you ended up just hanging around the bar and never ordering, then at closing time + 1 you broadcast the backoff transaction and get your funds back in full.
Now, even if you pass 50 drinks to Jihan Wu, you can't give him the first transaction (the one which pays for only one drink) and ask him to mine it: it's spending a 2-of-2 and the copy you have only contains your own signature. You need the bartender's signature to make it valid, but he or she sure as hell isn't going to cooperate in something that would lose him or her money, so a signature from the bartender validating old state where he or she gets paid less isn't going to happen.
So, problem solved, right? Right? Okay, let's try it. So you get your funds, put them in a funding tx, get the backoff tx, confirm the funding tx...
Once the funding transaction confirms deeply, the bartender laughs uproariously. He or she summons the bouncers, who surround you menacingly.
"I'm refusing service to you," the bartender says.
"Fine," you say. "I was leaving anyway;" You smirk. "I'll get back my money with the backoff transaction, and posting about your poor service on reddit so you get negative karma, so there!"
"Not so fast," the bartender says. His or her voice chills your bones. It looks like your exploitation of the Satoshi nSequence payment channel is still fresh in his or her mind. "Look at the txid of the funding transaction that got confirmed."
"What about it?" you ask nonchalantly, as you flip open your desktop computer and open a reputable blockchain explorer.
What you see shocks you.
"What the --- the txid is different! You--- you changed my signature?? But how? I put the only copy of my private key in a sealed envelope in a cast-iron box inside a safe buried in the Gobi desert protected by a clan of nomads who have dedicated their lives and their childrens' lives to keeping my private key safe in perpetuity!"
"Didn't you know?" the bartender asks. "The components of the signature are just very large numbers. The sign of one of the signature components can be changed, from positive to negative, or negative to positive, and the signature will remain valid. Anyone can do that, even if they don't know the private key. But because Bitcoin includes the signatures in the transaction when it's generating the txid, this little change also changes the txid." He or she chuckles. "They say they'll fix it by separating the signatures from the transaction body. They're saying that these kinds of signature malleability won't affect transaction ids anymore after they do this, but I bet I can get my good friend Jihan Wu to delay this 'SepSig' plan for a good while yet. Friendly guy, this Jihan Wu, it turns out all I had to do was slip him 51 drinks and he was willing to mine a tx with the signature signs flipped." His or her grin widens. "I'm afraid your backoff transaction won't work anymore, since it spends a txid that is not existent and will never be confirmed. So here's the deal. You pay me 99% of the funds in the funding transaction, in exchange for me signing the transaction that spends with the txid that you see onchain. Refuse, and you lose 100% of the funds and every other HODLer, including me, benefits from the reduction in coin supply. Accept, and you get to keep 1%. I lose nothing if you refuse, so I won't care if you do, but consider the difference of getting zilch vs. getting 1% of your funds." His or her eyes glow. "GENUFLECT RIGHT NOW."
Lesson learned?

CLTV-protected Spilman Channels

Using CLTV for the backoff branch.
This variation is simply Spilman channels, but with the backoff transaction replaced with a backoff branch in the SCRIPT you pay to. It only became possible after OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV) was enabled in 2015.
Now as we saw in the Spilman Channels discussion, transaction malleability means that any pre-signed offchain transaction can easily be invalidated by flipping the sign of the signature of the funding transaction while the funding transaction is not yet confirmed.
This can be avoided by simply putting any special requirements into an explicit branch of the Bitcoin SCRIPT. Now, the backoff branch is supposed to create a maximum lifetime for the payment channel, and prior to the introduction of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY this could only be done by having a pre-signed nLockTime transaction.
With CLTV, however, we can now make the branches explicit in the SCRIPT that the funding transaction pays to.
Instead of paying to a 2-of-2 in order to set up the funding transaction, you pay to a SCRIPT which is basically "2-of-2, OR this singlesig after a specified lock time".
With this, there is no backoff transaction that is pre-signed and which refers to a specific txid. Instead, you can create the backoff transaction later, using whatever txid the funding transaction ends up being confirmed under. Since the funding transaction is immutable once confirmed, it is no longer possible to change the txid afterwards.

Todd Micropayment Networks

The old hub-spoke model (that isn't how LN today actually works).
One of the more direct predecessors of the Lightning Network was the hub-spoke model discussed by Peter Todd. In this model, instead of payers directly having channels to payees, payers and payees connect to a central hub server. This allows any payer to pay any payee, using the same channel for every payee on the hub. Similarly, this allows any payee to receive from any payer, using the same channel.
Remember from the above Spilman example? When you open a channel to the bartender, you have to wait around for the funding tx to confirm. This will take an hour at best. Now consider that you have to make channels for everyone you want to pay to. That's not very scalable.
So the Todd hub-spoke model has a central "clearing house" that transport money from payers to payees. The "Moonbeam" project takes this model. Of course, this reveals to the hub who the payer and payee are, and thus the hub can potentially censor transactions. Generally, though, it was considered that a hub would more efficiently censor by just not maintaining a channel with the payer or payee that it wants to censor (since the money it owned in the channel would just be locked uselessly if the hub won't process payments to/from the censored user).
In any case, the ability of the central hub to monitor payments means that it can surveill the payer and payee, and then sell this private transactional data to third parties. This loss of privacy would be intolerable today.
Peter Todd also proposed that there might be multiple hubs that could transport funds to each other on behalf of their users, providing somewhat better privacy.
Another point of note is that at the time such networks were proposed, only unidirectional (Spilman) channels were available. Thus, while one could be a payer, or payee, you would have to use separate channels for your income versus for your spending. Worse, if you wanted to transfer money from your income channel to your spending channel, you had to close both and reshuffle the money between them, both onchain activities.

Poon-Dryja Lightning Network

Bidirectional two-participant channels.
The Poon-Dryja channel mechanism has two important properties:
Both the original Satoshi and the two Spilman variants are unidirectional: there is a payer and a payee, and if the payee wants to do a refund, or wants to pay for a different service or product the payer is providing, then they can't use the same unidirectional channel.
The Poon-Dryjam mechanism allows channels, however, to be bidirectional instead: you are not a payer or a payee on the channel, you can receive or send at any time as long as both you and the channel counterparty are online.
Further, unlike either of the Spilman variants, there is no time limit for the lifetime of a channel. Instead, you can keep the channel open for as long as you want.
Both properties, together, form a very powerful scaling property that I believe most people have not appreciated. With unidirectional channels, as mentioned before, if you both earn and spend over the same network of payment channels, you would have separate channels for earning and spending. You would then need to perform onchain operations to "reverse" the directions of your channels periodically. Secondly, since Spilman channels have a fixed lifetime, even if you never used either channel, you would have to periodically "refresh" it by closing it and reopening.
With bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels, you may instead open some channels when you first begin managing your own money, then close them only after your lawyers have executed your last will and testament on how the money in your channels get divided up to your heirs: that's just two onchain transactions in your entire lifetime. That is the potentially very powerful scaling property that bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels allow.
I won't discuss the transaction structure needed for Poon-Dryja bidirectional channels --- it's complicated and you can easily get explanations with cute graphics elsewhere.
There is a weakness of Poon-Dryja that people tend to gloss over (because it was fixed very well by RustyReddit):
Another thing I want to emphasize is that while the Lightning Network paper and many of the earlier presentations developed from the old Peter Todd hub-and-spoke model, the modern Lightning Network takes the logical conclusion of removing a strict separation between "hubs" and "spokes". Any node on the Lightning Network can very well work as a hub for any other node. Thus, while you might operate as "mostly a payer", "mostly a forwarding node", "mostly a payee", you still end up being at least partially a forwarding node ("hub") on the network, at least part of the time. This greatly reduces the problems of privacy inherent in having only a few hub nodes: forwarding nodes cannot get significantly useful data from the payments passing through them, because the distance between the payer and the payee can be so large that it would be likely that the ultimate payer and the ultimate payee could be anyone on the Lightning Network.
Lessons learned?

Future

After LN, there's also the Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels (DMC). This post is long enough as-is, LOL. But for now, it uses a novel "decrementing nSequence channel", using the new relative-timelock semantics of nSequence (not the broken one originally by Satoshi). It actually uses multiple such "decrementing nSequence" constructs, terminating in a pair of Spilman channels, one in both directions (thus "duplex"). Maybe I'll discuss it some other time.
The realization that channel constructions could actually hold more channel constructions inside them (the way the Decker-Wattenhofer puts a pair of Spilman channels inside a series of "decrementing nSequence channels") lead to the further thought behind Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer channel factories. Basically, you could host multiple two-participant channel constructs inside a larger multiparticipant "channel" construct (i.e. host multiple channels inside a factory).
Further, we have the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun or "eltoo" construction. I'd argue that this is "nSequence done right". I'll write more about this later, because this post is long enough.
Lessons learned?
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

$1B Bitcoins On The Move: Owner Transfers ~$100M to Bitfinex And Binance In 10 Days

$1B Bitcoins On The Move: Owner Transfers ~$100M to Bitfinex And Binance In 10 Days
This is the third post of a series of articles dedicated to investigate $1B worth of bitcoins (111,114 BTC/BCH/... BXX) that were dormant since 2014 and started moving actively. The BTC coins were originally located at this address (1933phfhK3ZgFQNLGSDXvqCn32k2buXY8a).
The origin of the bitcoins is discussed here.
A deep-dive into the wallet activity was discussed here.
Today, I will focus on the transfer to major exchanges wallets that could indicate that the owner is selling his coins or exchanging it with alts or mixing it to cover his back.
I built a graph in order to deep dive into the transactions originated from the 111,114-BTC wallet and to follow it. This is the resulting graph were red indicates transactions <1 day, yellow <1 month, blue <1 year, green else.
https://preview.redd.it/nk3iov045vj11.png?width=1677&format=png&auto=webp&s=176d5b5bda930abf870dbea7edd1ba5b654158be

I found that at least 15,593 BTC originated from the 111,114-BTC wallet have been moved to Bitfinex and Binance wallets. This represents 14% of the original funds and more than $110M.

Bitfinex wallet

https://preview.redd.it/m8fryy8s5vj11.png?width=2038&format=png&auto=webp&s=117806763f7fc79909ee0358755e43c6de652749

11,114 BTC have been transferred to Bitfinex wallet 1Kr6QSydW9bFQG1mXiPNNu6WpJGmUa9i1g and the majority of these coins have been transferred in the last 7 days (August 24th - September 2nd).
Here is the list of the transactions:
https://preview.redd.it/8e9l0lqf0vj11.png?width=471&format=png&auto=webp&s=c63fa6ce9479efd4f27ce8f8cd456de19712fc9e

Binance wallet

https://preview.redd.it/i1v5lv3j9vj11.png?width=2025&format=png&auto=webp&s=bc6c893b684d2c97206565219ff4d5ce8eb721a2

4,421 BTC have been transferred to Binance wallet 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s and the majority of these coins have been transferred in the last 10 days (August 21st - September 2nd).
Here is the list of the transactions:
https://preview.redd.it/2cs6ufabavj11.png?width=453&format=png&auto=webp&s=5cdcb45cbe44f3f61251317036c6738aa0f3a9cd
Bitmex wallet(s)

I tracked Bitmex as well but "only" found 210 BTC transferred in with the following 6 major transactions:
https://preview.redd.it/2oondki1ovj11.png?width=432&format=png&auto=webp&s=9ae358b80e747b62d6940ef9022df2734ed001f0

Also, I have found 350 BTC transferred from Bitmex wallets though, maybe after being "washed out":
https://preview.redd.it/sx2g36jnovj11.png?width=546&format=png&auto=webp&s=26f0ac6c64e6aa9aedb7f76c90fb8ebea1beefcc

Update 1
If anyone finds if the owner of this address is an exchange : 3PtJRj5xKUKJ21TshP5u2G6dQMPNz2yUSc, I would be interested, thanks.

Update 2
Here is a full resolution version of the graph requested by u/rush717:
https://preview.redd.it/xwvn0l9yxxj11.png?width=2705&format=png&auto=webp&s=cc01b3bfc8aed64af4323a485e35ce459f498327


Update 3
MtGox vs SilkRoad origin and September 6th BTC price impact is now discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9dvaj1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_mtgox_vs_silkroad_origin/

--
Surprisingly BTC price was pumping since those funds were starting to be transferred to Bitfinex and Binance wallets (see Binance transactions' list, August 11th)
How do you think this will impact the market?
Do you want me to continue this investigation? If yes let me know what you would want me to focus on.
submitted by sick_silk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Near $1B are currently on the move from a Silkroad related wallet

Near $1B are currently on the move from a Silkroad related wallet
It seems that the owner of a huge #SilkRoad related wallet is moving funds actively since 3 days, dividing it in chunks of 100 coins by subwallets.
The original wallet owned 111,114.62 $BTC / $BCH , which is currently valuated ~ $844M (without taking in account other #Bitcoin forks).
Last movements on these subwallets are 4 years and 5 months old (March 9th, 2014).
The chunks have been divided over time to 60,000 coins then to 30,000 / 20,000 / 10,000 / 5,000 / 500 and now 100 coins.
#Bitcoin: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/address/1KyJr2L6CN5XhDfv9Sb5q3kjKwFCrRxTLy/transactions
#BitcoinCash: https://www.blocktrail.com/BCC/address/1KyJr2L6CN5XhDfv9Sb5q3kjKwFCrRxTLy/transactions
Does the owner intend selling it on the market soon?

Update 1
For those who asked, the original wallet (1933phfhK3ZgFQNLGSDXvqCn32k2buXY8a) seems to be related to a SilkRoad address per this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310600.0.
So it's most probably a wallet owned linked to DPR / SilkRoad. Note that this address is still active with 5 transactions executed in 2018 and 13 in 2017, with really small amount of BTC received/sent.
However, I ran some checks and it does not seem to be linked to the DPR seized coins wallet (1FfmbHfnpaZjKFvyi1okTjJJusN455paPH, there's only a 0.001 BTC link between the 2 addresses), so either the FBI did not sold them yet (last auction was in November 2015) or someone else (linked or not to SilkRoad) has access to it .
Finally, if it's not a SilkRoad related wallet the other options are, by descending probability order:
a) a MtGox cold wallet that has been seized or is still owned by MtGox: in fact the wallet funds moved in March 2014 right after MtGox filed for bankruptcy one month earlier in February 2014; these movements dates are really similar to the 200,000 lost coins "found" by Karpeles which moved March 7th, 2014 (1dda0f8827518ce4d1d824bf7600f75ec7e199774a090a947c58a65ab63552e3), just 2 days before the movements on the wallet we are talking about here.
b) a whale wallet since the major part of the 111,111 coins are coming from a very old deposit of 37,421 coins processed on June 21st, 2011 making this an early adopter's wallet (70d46f768b73e50440e41977eb13ab25826137a8d34486958c7d55c5931c6081)
...
z) CSW's wallet ... https://www.scribd.com/document/372445546/Bitcoin-Lawsuit, credits mishax1

Update 2
This amount of $1B in bitcoins that MtGox is going to return to customers looks pretty familiar, it could match the 111,114-coin wallets we are investigating here: https://btcmanager.com/mt-gox-preparing-return-1b-stolen-bitcoin-affected-users/.
But the methodology of transfer does not match in my opinion, it looks that the owner tries to hide the movements by mixing the coins.

Update 3
Investigating the $1B Bitcoins on the move from a SilkRoad related wallet: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/9bwsaf/investigating_the_1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_from_a/

Update 4
$1B Bitcoins On The Move: Owner Transfers ~$100M to Bitfinex And Binance In 10 Days
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/9ceb5v/1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_owner_transfers_100m_to/

Update 5
MtGox vs SilkRoad origin and September 6th BTC price impact is now discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9dvaj1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_mtgox_vs_silkroad_origin/

submitted by sick_silk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Investigating the $1B Bitcoins on the move from a SilkRoad related wallet

Investigating the $1B Bitcoins on the move from a SilkRoad related wallet
2 days ago, I reported that a SilkRoad related wallet containing about $1B worth of Bitcoins (111,114 $BTC and the same amount of $BCH and of other Bitcoin forks) was on the move after 4 years and 5 months of inactivity : https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/9bfnff/near_1b_are_currently_on_the_move_from_a_silkroad/

Today, I will dig a little bit more into this wallet activity.

Below you will find a graph representation of the transactions sent over time from the original 111,114-BTC wallet to the most recent wallets which have received some of the coins. Each branch represent a sequence of transactions sent through several wallets.

Red nodes indicate the most recent transactions (< 1 month), blue nodes indicate quite recent ones (<1 year) and green nodes are the older ones ( > 1 year).

https://preview.redd.it/jjhfpb4udhj11.png?width=2233&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a369b73dfbe4601e05608f1aae36aff24a4d52e

  • Picture 2: original coins are currently transferred on Binance wallet, in fact it is a major end-point/aggregate of transactions originated from the 111,114-BTC wallet (1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s).
https://preview.redd.it/7novcf2wdhj11.png?width=2222&format=png&auto=webp&s=d0c429674a70bf2baf32c4ecc9c4475a1d43ad7e

https://preview.redd.it/9ungmsexdhj11.png?width=1620&format=png&auto=webp&s=079fcf54605e88debe0cac297e492785b7cc73ed

  • Picture 4: funds are currently actively mixed, you can see a chain of red nodes with no other purpose than transferring n time the coins and splitting/mixing it a bit (3Ah15skNb8R1teRWs6h2Q2vRywkLJWUhhb).​
https://preview.redd.it/9lzr31n0ehj11.png?width=2227&format=png&auto=webp&s=ade9fcf046e86a595e47f8c196df3abcb28866d3

So it's now obvious that the wallet's owner :
  1. is very actively splitting his original 111,114 BTC this past month (a lot of transactions are very recent, see the amount of red nodes on the graph);
  2. some of this funds are currently being sold on Binance (picture 2 and 3);
  3. is very actively in the process of mixing, hiding and making difficult to track his coins (picture 4).
Is the owner going to sell all his coins? How do you think this can impact the market?

Update 1
Following the request of u/btc-reddit, below you will find the graph that marks with red dots the wallets which have been active in the past 24h. At least 88 BTC have been transferred in the last 24h to Binance wallet: 18afibtW5NLMqMwCZD6yt1qhkmEbrfa3QF , 1M2stLGnZGi9XhB2sqTwFfcSfxZhzYKHs6 , 15jFKpCBfHN599TopLPQYdv2aNCRZSUw2r , 1F1EWmLJtYUA1yvDGRBQ6Z6Zjp33ci9EZX , 1M2stLGnZGi9XhB2sqTwFfcSfxZhzYKHs6 ...
https://preview.redd.it/v4yql8ftvhj11.png?width=1630&format=png&auto=webp&s=73d3b35f04854dc66accc3485680404d3e76cbc3

​Furthermore, more than 2,980 BTC have been transferred to Binance wallet in August 2018, certainly to be sold or exchanged with other currencies, which represents 3% of the original wallet.
That's more than $20M worth of bitcoin at current price, it definitely can have impacted the overall price this month.
Most of it was sold after August 12th, which corresponds to the start of an increase in Bitcoin price interestingly:
https://preview.redd.it/lg3ckep3zjj11.png?width=456&format=png&auto=webp&s=e7ba5ec10628ca7b6872beae249ee047f1cee408

Update 2
​This address is also heavily involved in this graph: 1NyfNYAXZ76VNdvxUUVxdbhWFQGa7QDjTn. It saw 73,673 BTC go through it (only 350 BTC originated from the wallet we are studying here though), in a little bit more than a year.
https://preview.redd.it/sbkx1etviij11.png?width=2041&format=png&auto=webp&s=05d81143196dce1c33dd2d6ea6695900ddd8d0d9

Update 3
This address 3D83uPnvodCLpwedooiRrLjdQ9pcFVZF32 is part of the graph and is multiplexing a lot of coins, about 175 BTC in small chunks < 1 BTC.​

Update 4
This is a more refined and complete version of the graph (the yellow nodes indicate transactions activity < 1 month). I let you find where is Binance wallet located ;-)
Obvious, isn't it!
https://preview.redd.it/y9e8tdlodkj11.png?width=2277&format=png&auto=webp&s=386fc91353b6c67d9ce8d6970c6c4bc1b7416a1a

Update 5
$110M worth of Bitcoins ​transferred Bitfinex and Binance: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/9ceb5v/1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_owner_transfers_100m_to/

Update 6
$1B bitcoins on the move: MtGox vs SilkRoad origin and BTC crash discussed
MtGox vs SilkRoad origin and September 6th BTC price impact is now discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9dvaj1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_mtgox_vs_silkroad_origin/
submitted by sick_silk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Crypto Month in Review - June 2018

Previous reviews: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May
Crypto moves way too fast for me to keep up, so I aggregate each day's biggest headline and publish the list at the end of the month. Below is my list for June. My main news source was reddit. My main holdings are ETH and NANO, but I try to make these lists as unbiased as possible.
Market cap movement throughout June - a slight downward trend. Mostly sideways, with some sharp downward dips it has yet to recover from.
6/1 - Huobi, the 3rd largest exchange in the world, launches a cryptocurrency ETF that tracks the top 10 cryptos. 6/2 - EOS’ year-long ICO comes to an end, raising a record $4 billion total, over twice as much as Telegram’s next most valuable ICO. 6/3 - ZenCash undergoes two consecutive 51% attacks, with the attacks taking nearly 20,000 ZEN. 6/4 - Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak says that he buys into the idea of Bitcoin becoming the single international currency. 6/5 - The Indonesian government clears cryptocurrency to be traded on futures exchanges as a commodity. 6/6 - Internal job postings reveal that Fidelity Investments is building a cryptocurrency exchange. 6/7 - MasterCard files a patent for a system that would securely verify credit card purchases using data stored on a blockchain. 6/8 - After a lengthy investigation, Korea National Tax Services fines Bithumb $30 million in unpaid taxes but finds no evidence of illegal activity. 6/9 - Columbian banks close all the accounts of South American crypto exchange Buda following legal issues with the platform. 6/10 - The EOS main net launches, but struggles to get 15% of its tokens staked, which is required for the main net to allow transactions 6/11 - Subscription-based crypto-mining company Argo Blockchain is approved to be the first blockchain related company listed on the London Stock Exchange. 6/12 - Iota and Volkswagen demonstrate a proof-of-concept for secure, over the air data exchange between autonomous vehicles at the Cebit 2018 conference. 6/13 - A study by the University of Texas at Austin concludes that the price of Bitcoin was inflated by Tether in December 2017 and January 2018. 6/14 - In both a written statement and a speech to the Yahoo All Markets: Crypto summit, SEC executive William Hinman declares that Bitcoin and Ether are not securities due to their decentralization. He also states that other ICO cryptocurrencies may be considered securities, and that it is possible for tokens to lose their security status over time. 6/15 - A fatal bug is found in the Icon smart contract that allows any unprivileged account to enable and disable ICX transfers for all accounts. 6/16 - Less than 48 hours after going live, the EOS mainnet pauses transactions to identify and fix a serious issue. 6/17 - The Brave browser commences a rollout of its ads trial program, allowing users to get paid in BAT to watch ads. 6/18 - Payment services company Square is granted a BitLicense by New York, allowing state residents to buy and sell Bitcoin through its Cash app. 6/19 - $30 million of assets are stolen from Bithumb in the second such attack against the Korean exchange in 12 months. The exchange pledges to replenish the funds themselves and ensures no losses in users’ accounts. 6/20 - A partial audit of Tether by DC law firm Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP concludes that Tether has enough money to fully back every USDT in circulation. 6/21 - Nano releases mobile wallets to Android and iOS, but users immediately discover that the seed generation technique on the Android wallet is insecure. A hotfix is pushed several hours later. 6/22 - The Tokyo District Court halts the sale of any Bitcoin held by MtGox until February 2019. 6/23 - Four blockchain entrepreneurs are awarded Thiel Fellowship grants: Vest co-founder Axel Ericsson, Polkadot co-founder Robert Habermeier, MyCrypto CTO Daniel Ternyak and Mechanism Labs co-founder Aparna Krishnan. 6/24 - Chinese authorities arrest a man for allegedly stealing power to fuel a secret crypto-mining operation. 6/25 - Top venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz raises $300 million for its first dedicated cryptocurrency fund. It plans to put the money in early stage tokens, as well as later stage networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum, and hold the investments for 10 years. 6/26 - Facebook reverses its ban on cryptocurrency ads while maintaining its ban on ICO promotions. 6/27 - Malta, the current location of Binance headquarters, passes three cryptocurrency and blockchain related bills in an effort to draw more business to the “blockchain island”. 6/28 - Dan Larimer proposes an EOS “Constitution 2.0 “ through Block.one after 27 EOS accounts were frozen by EOS’ Core Arbitration Forum. 6/29 - A joint report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Swiss Crypto Valley Association shows that the ICO volume for 2018 has already doubled that of 2017. 6/30 - BitMEX CEO Arthur Hayes predicts the Bitcoin price to reach $50,000 by the end of 2018.
submitted by m1kec1av to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Latest Bitcoin news in Tamil - Binance rumor - Market Update - CryptoTamil Bitcoin & Binance News with Cointelegraph Bitcoin Reaches New 2019 High! Binance DEX, Ethereum Staking, Top Crypto News Daily Update (3/9/2018)  Mt. Gox and Binance spark fears in crypto markets News : Binance Blockchain ,Mt Gox Dump, OkCoin China Govt ... #314 Bitcoin Flash Crash, Binance Hack & Mt Gox News, Coinbase Indexfonds & TrueUSD Crypto News - 11.03 Binance Monero Bittrex Bitcoin Wabi Mt. Gox TUSD

According to reports, the New York-based private equity firm Fortress is offering Mt Gox creditor claims at $778 per coin. The offer is 13.5% lower than what Fortress offered in July and Mt Gox ... Home » Crypto News » The Mt.Gox 150,000 Bitcoin Return Deadline: Here is What You Need to Know. The Mt.Gox 150,000 Bitcoin Return Deadline: Here is What You Need to Know Author: George Georgiev Last Updated Oct 5, 2020 @ 08:44. The final deadline for submitting a rehabilitation plan for reimbursing Mt. Gox creditors falls on October 15th. Here’s what you need to know. October 15th is ... Welcome to our Mt Gox news page. Here you'll find some of our featured Mt. Gox exchange's content pieces as well as all our latest Mt. Gox Bitcoin posts. Reddit Burner Account User Attempts to Unveil Binance Coin $ 28.34 6.69%. Polkadot $ 4.00 8.71%. Litecoin $ 53.67 4.56%. Bitcoin SV $ 162.97 3.57%. Alle Kurse . Mt.Gox-Update: Die Zweifel häufen sich . Startseite; Aktuelle Artikel im Überblick; Krypto; Bitcoin; Mt.Gox-Update: Die Zweifel häufen sich . von Phillip Horch. Am 13. September 2018 26. Mai 2019 · Lesezeit: 4 Minuten. Phillip Horch. Phillip Horch ist Chef vom Dienst von BTC ... Bitcoin's volatile history in pictures The fall of MtGox. The world's biggest bitcoin exchange, MtGox, filed for bankruptcy in February 2014 after losing almost 750,000 of its customers bitcoins ... Its CEO Alex Althausen told news.Bitcoin.com that exchanges that replicate the status quo are setting themselves up to fail, saying: “The market doesn’t need another dozen Binance or Coinbase ... A years-old $75 million lawsuit against Mt Gox by US company CoinLab is delaying payouts to creditors, the Japanese bankruptcy trustee revealed today. Cryptocurrency exchange Binance has returned to full trading capacity following a hack that saw over $40 million in BTC funds disappear overnight.. Binance Is Back, Baby. The exchange is now one ... Bitcoin-SV-Gründer Craig Wright warnte kürzlich, jeder solle seine Krypto-Assets so schnell wie möglich von Binance entfernen, da sich ein weiteres „Mt. Gox“-Szenario zusammenbraue. Nun hat der Binance-CEO darauf reagiert. Binance hatte einen arbeitsreichen Monat und musste sich gegen Kritiker und Verschwörungstheorien über interne Probleme wehren. NewsBTC is a cryptocurrency news service that covers bitcoin news today, technical analysis & forecasts for bitcoin price and other altcoins.Here at NewsBTC, we are dedicated to enlightening everyone about bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. We cover BTC news related to bitcoin exchanges, bitcoin mining and price forecasts for various cryptocurrencies.

[index] [1202] [19504] [6396] [1362] [12515] [5878] [11886] [16128] [15654] [1004]

Latest Bitcoin news in Tamil - Binance rumor - Market Update - CryptoTamil

Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or banks; managing transactions and the issuing of bitcoins is carried out collecti... Bitcoin reaches a new high for 2019, will $6000 be the next stop? Mike Novogratz thinks BTC won't see new lows. Mattie will also talk about Binance DEX launching ahead of schedule, Vitalik Buterin ... Close. This video is unavailable. In this video i have explained about the recent rumors around Binance closure and the reason for coinexchange closure. Also, i updated the current situation ... Molly from Cointelegraph and I discuss some of the latest news in Bitcoin and crypto, including Binance and Coinbase. Subscribe to Cointelegraph: https://goo.gl/JhmfdU Free Cryptocurrency Course ... What do you think about current markets? Are you optimistic? Feel free to leave a comment below! Thank you all so much for watching the video. If you enjoyed the video, please consider dropping a ... Willkommen zur Bitcoin-Informant Show Nr. 314. Heute geht's um folgende Themen: Bitcoin Flash Crash, Binance Hack & Mt.Gox News, Coinbase Indexfonds & Bittrex listet TrueUSD als Gegenstück zum ...

#