For months, our news desk has been tracking a mysterious whale in 2010. This miner not only mined thousands of bitcoins in one day, but also spent more than 8,000 in the past ten months Bitcoin. This week, Russian blockchain researcher Issak Shvarts published a report on the ten-year-old block reward. He claimed to have shown “sufficient evidence” that Bitcoin is now owned by Coinbase and after the transfer Also distributed.
2010 mystery spree spending case
For some time now, our news station at news.Bitcoin.com has been monitoring a strange Bitcoin (BTC) whale that has been spending coins mined in 2010. These bitcoins were mined ten years ago and have not been moved since the block reward. be found. However, throughout 2020 to 2021, news.Bitcoin.com tracked a total of 7,000 BTC, and it mysteriously moved ten years later. Our team collaborated with researchers at Btcparser.com, and we also discussed the topic with Russian blockchain researchers and Issak Shvarts, author of the Telegram channel “gfoundinshit”.
Shvarts also used the parser Btcparser.com and the blockchain browser oxt.me. Researchers believe that he has provided 100% evidence that the old Bitcoin is now owned by Coinbase and even distributed to customers of the San Francisco Exchange. Shvarts also tracked a total of 8,000 BTC, which is worth more than $250 million at today’s exchange rate.
“I have previously suggested that these bitcoins belong to Coinbase,” Shvarts detailed in his latest report. “Now, I am sure of this,” he added.
His research shows that one wallet combines 20 wallets, each with 50 BTC. Then spread 1,000 BTC wallets in each address, 10 BTC per address, Shvarts called them “pockets for withdrawals.” He added that some of the bitcoins sent into the pocket were “withdrawn”, and Shvarts insisted that “obviously for some VIP users.”
Shvarts compared the address extracted from Coinbase with one of 10 BTC addresses derived from the original 1,000 BTC address. Shvarts pointed out that the clustering mechanism clearly shows that “these wallets belong to the Coinbase exchange.”
The researchers added:
As you can see, the clustering method of the oxt.me resource indicates that it belongs to Coinbase. Well, to give an analogy: “If it walks like a duck, quacks a duck and looks like a duck”, I can now confidently say that all these 2010 bitcoins belong to the Coinbase exchange.
Whitening gray ecosystem
After explaining that this entity may involve many possible theories, Shvarts asked a question: “How many more? [whale miners from the early days] Waiting on the wings? “Shvarts also detailed that these coins are “original bitcoins” and “as far as AML is concerned, this is very clear.”
“It’s strange that Coinbase just “injects” them into the market and uses them for retail withdrawals,” Shvarts’ research emphasized. “By doing this, it can make the entire gray Bitcoin ecosystem slightly “white”. Shvarts added: “Is this a cunning plan or is it just to avoid not using “grey” coins to accuse the exchange. I don’t know. “
The only proven fact Shvarts said is that these coins have been discovered and transferred to Coinbase-owned addresses starting in 2020 and early 2021. Then, simply send 1,000 batches of Bitcoin to the “exchange withdrawal system”. The on-chain researcher believes that “another whale after 2010” is also moving coins, but slightly smaller than the 8,000 giant whales.
“because of certain reasons, [the smaller whale] Shvarts concluded: “Compared with the coin movement described in this report, the time to move coins is slightly delayed.”
Do you think this report claims to send 8,000 bitcoins to Coinbase from 2010 and then sell them on the open market. What is your opinion? Let us know your thoughts on this topic in the comments section below.
Picture Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, oxt.me
Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer, nor is it a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or company. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. The company or the author is not directly or indirectly responsible for any damage or loss caused or allegedly caused by the use or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article or related thereto.