94k Bitcoin (1B USD) transferred from unknown wallet to unknown wallet
twitter.com
twitter.com
https://blockstream.info/tx/4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb58e7c7...
There are numerous inputs and a single pay-to-script-hash (P2SH) output.
The relatively high fee is due in part to the large number of inputs. ~400 satoshis/byte is high by today's standard but not too unreasonable as early as 2017.
We can't tell anything about the identity of the owner(s) of the new coin from the block chain alone.
Making a transaction this large is a security risk. It effectively establishes a billion dollar bounty for any party who can rewrite enough blocks to erase it. Now that the value resides in a single coin, any subsequent transaction faces the same risk. Plunking this much value into a single coin seems like an odd strategy at best. Not to mention the destruction of privacy in combining all those inputs into a single transaction with a single output.
I can think of one reason you might want to do this. A consortium/trust has formed in which individuals pay into a common pool of money. That money is then protected with a multi signature script (consistent with the P2SH type). Given a threshold of signatures, the money can be spent, subject to other constraints. These will remain unknown until the first payment is made. At that point we'll know the number and identity of all the eligible keys and the threshold needed to make payment.
If so, this transaction can be thought of as a kind of digital charter for the consortium in that it defines how the money can be spent going forward.
Edit: to be clear, the "bounty" I'm talking about can't be directly claimed just by mining some blocks. Instead, it would have to be claimed as part of a double spend of either the transaction in question or as subsequent transaction of the now-enormous output. Most likely, there would be collusion of some kind between a miner and the owner of the keys. I'm not saying this will happen, but the bigger the transaction, the greater the risk.
I don't really agree with that statement. Yes, someone could mount a 51% attack to rewrite that block. However, it would be pretty straightforward to see what was happening (and which nodes were the malicious actors). If that did happen, the possible outcomes would be:
1. The value of bitcoin would fall to basically 0. The reason bitcoin has any value at all really has to do with trust - belief that the protocol is secure and can't be broken. In this case, an easily detectable spending "override" would cause faith in the protocol to evaporate.
2. Note I don't believe #1 would happen. The response would be all the other miners who do have a vested interest in bitcoins success would put all their resources in ensuring the original block was maintained.
I.e. the options aren't between one address getting the billion+ dollars or another address getting a billion+ dollars. The options are one address getting a billion+ dollars or everyone's bitcoin going to 0.
Edit: Another likely possible outcome is you could get what happened to Ethereum when the DAO was hacked: a fork to Ethereum vs. Ethereum Classic. But it's still important to note Ethereum Classic is worth a teeny fraction of what Ethereum is.
1. "51% attack" is not a thing as in "one has to have 51% of hashpower to perform it". it's just that with 51% of hashpower it becomes relatively cheap to perform such attack. one can throw enough money at the problem and get lucky to perform large reorg with just 10% of hashpower. the lower the number - the more lucky attacker has to get.
2. "rewriting a block" or "billion dollar bounty" as the GP put it are just conveying wrong ideas. there is zero chance for that $1B to get stolen even if attacker gets 100% of hashrate. all they can do is revert the transaction so that money goes back to original owners by generating a fork in the chain that doesn't include said transaction.
even that is not enough because competing miners (assuming attacker doesn't really have all 100% of hashpower) will still eventually include the transaction because it pays lucrative fees.
the trick here is that in Bitcoin parties agree to finalize the deal only after certain number of confirmations (blocks created after the one that includes the transaction). general rule is to wait for 6 confirmations.
if there indeed was some $1B deal where 94k BTC changed hands i wouldn't be surprised if their agreed upon number of confirmations was ~500 blocks (half the value of transaction in question in miner rewards), which is roughly 3 days wait.
ultimately though i'm pretty sure this was some kind of cold-storage consolidation so no BTC actually changed hands.
Yes indeed. There are a number of very interesting game-theoretic feedback loops built into bitcoin that enhance security. This is one of them.
That seems a little out there.
(1) There is something like 1 person who uses bitcoin to move billions of dollars around. The small-time users (<$1,000,000 per transaction) wouldn't have any reason to lose trust in the system. If some company loses $1 bil in dollars, I really don't care; I don't live in a world where it affects me personally. Nobody is ever going to put serious resources into stealing from me because I'm just not that important.
(2) If they re-write the block, that doesn't mean that they've gotten away with it. Most countries have a legal system that would sit up and take notice if someone signs up for a billion dollar transaction, takes the goods and welches on paying.
To do what exactly?
Nobody can redirect the transaction to themselves and the best they can do is erase it. 51% attacking the network will cost you a lot, and you won't actually win anything in your attack.
Even if the owner of the coins is the attacker, you can only win by double-spending the transaction by reversing a payment to someone else. Of course if we're talking about such a large transaction you should wait for more confirmations, making the double-spend attack so much more difficult to pull off.
Anything you would get in return, like a bank transfer or parts of a city, would have a much longer settlement time. Being afraid of your Bitcoin transaction being reversed should be the least of your worries.
... accomplishing exactly nothing as all that would do would be returning the money to original spenders. Really, the amount of misinformation floating here is unexpected.
> Now that the value resides in a single coin, any subsequent transaction faces the same risk.
Non sequitur. A rollback of such a block would, by significance be somewhere between "mildly annoying" and "introducing suspicion that future transactions could also be rolled back." In any case, coins would end up where they are supposed to, and no theft can be done. There would be increased risk of double spends, but worried parties could always invest in more (legit) hashpower.
> A consortium/trust has formed in which individuals pay into a common pool of money.
Speculation, but reasonable. It makes business sense.
> That money is then protected with a multi signature script (consistent with the P2SH type). Given a threshold of signatures, the money can be spent, subject to other constraints. These will remain unknown until the first payment is made. At that point we'll know the number and identity of all the eligible keys and the threshold needed to make payment.
Speculation, but too wild. Basically wishful thinking.
> Edit: to be clear, the "bounty" I'm talking about can't be directly claimed just by mining some blocks. Instead, it would have to be claimed as part of a double spend of either the transaction in question or as subsequent transaction of the now-enormous output. Most likely, there would be collusion of some kind between a miner and the owner of the keys. I'm not saying this will happen, but the bigger the transaction, the greater the risk.
Again, wild speculation. So the theory is that someone collected $1B in BTC just to pull off a massive double spend stunt? At that level, it's likely that rubber hose cryptanalysis would resolve the issue quite efficiently.
The value of the address is denoted in 'coins'
The holder of that 'address' is the owner of the coins.
Multiple 'addresses' controlled by the same owner would exist in a 'wallet'
I wonder if they finally swept all those inactive accounts out.
I started using it back in the $50 days, so some thousands of bitcoin may have been a lot less of a deal when they got deposited
Your second point makes even less sense. A bug bounty on what exactly? Why would anyone attempt to erase this transaction when it can be resubmitted?
This is incorrect. It creates a billion dollar bounty only for the sender if they want to commit fraud by effectively reversing the transaction and trying to double-spend the coins by sending them elsewhere.
Anyone with 94k BTC would probably be harming themselves by simply driving the value of BTC to almost 0 by performing such an attack. It would be extremely obvious to everyone once this transaction was reversed due to a chain reorg.
BTC-e was the longest running bitcoin exchange and the single most reliable. I had more money than I'd like to admit stolen from me. Their statement was only people who participate in tax evasion use btc-e.
BTC-e was a cover to help criminals steal from Bitcoin exchanges and safely dilute the funds.
It sucks that you lost your money, but it was wrapped up with billions of dollars of dirty money, and it's probably tough for investigators to distinguish the two.
Some quote about bitcoin enthusiasts rediscovering the reason for regulations in the financial markets one loss at a time.
What I seem to remember is that they plastered their logo on a website and the servers just launched another frontend under a different url
I saw that they imposed fines
I didn't see that they actually seized any
> The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.
> As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them from being linked to a common owner. Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner.
Recently there are newer cryptocurrencies like Monero and ZCash that focus specifically on anonymity/privacy.
Unfortunately, Bitcoin (BTC) is not anonymous, as you pointed out. It never was; and with tax laws requiring copious transaction information, it is particularly easily traceable.
That's the idea behind Monero & Co., which tries to mix things up a bit (literally). The anonymity is still not perfect, especially against state-level actors.
If you want an anonymous currency check out something like Zcash or monero. They use some fancier crypto to obscure transaction inputs and outputs, which gets you a bit farther towards being anonymous.
The entire history of every transaction between every wallet is visible. This means if someone knows your wallet ID (i.e. you bought something from them and shipped it) they know exactly how much bitcoin you have in that wallet.
Some people try to be anonymous on it, but as some of the drug dealers on Wall Street Market found out, that's pretty hard to do. Law enforcement was able to track down some of them by tracing their bitcoin transactions.
It's not anonymous anymore. Transactions are being tracked to the ip addresses they originated from. This tracking has been going on since 2014[0]
From the article:
>But there is no top-down coordination of the Bitcoin network, and its flow is far from perfect. The Koshys noticed that sometimes a computer sent out information about only one transaction, meaning that the person at that IP address was the owner of that Bitcoin address. And sometimes a surge of transactions came from a single IP address—probably when the user was upgrading his or her Bitcoin client software. Those transactions held the key to a whole backlog of their Bitcoin addresses. Like unraveling a ball of string, once the Koshys isolated some of the addresses, others followed. >
>Ultimately, they were able to map IP addresses to more than 1000 Bitcoin addresses; they published their findings in the proceedings of an obscure cryptography conference. ....
[0] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-h...
Today Monero or maybe ZCash is leading the privacy department and they do offer the anonymity you're after (with some weaknesses of course).
Monero, and to a lesser extent, Zcash are coins that were designed to be anonymous (Although Zcash has opt-in privacy, whereas Monero is default)
Having a public transaction record makes it possible, even easy to identify and track behaviors of anyone.
Everyone you give money to knows exactly where all of that money has been and presumably who you are.
You can make it more anonymous by doing some things, but then it's just ordinary money laundering, but honestly, more difficult.
it's when you connect the transaction to some bank (like, when you transfer from the wallet on your computer to Coinbase where they have your tax ID number, then withdraw to your real-world bank) that it can be so easily traced.
but if you just keep some btc in a wallet and do business out of that it's effectively cash. even if you bought bitcoins on Coinbase then transferred to your local wallet, once it leaves Coinbase the wallet ID itself doesn't have anything tying it to the laptop in your friend's basement in Brazil. from there who knows where it goes, I just bought pizza with it officer idk what the guy who sold me the pizza spent it on
a transaction ledger itself isn't inherently identifiable. otherwise we would know who just transferred $1B+ in this article and not have a bunch of comments wondering who it is lol
Now, there true anonymous cryptocurrency but bitcoin isn’t one of them.
How could you possibly know?
Just gotta say, its pretty amazing we live in a world where 1 billion dollars can get transferred pseudo-anonymously in a reasonable time frame, only costing the transfer party $600. As a really stupid, non-real-world comparison, Western Union has a transfer limit of $2500 per transaction, and a $20 fee per transaction. If you were to initiate a $1,000,000,000 transfer it would take something like 400,000 transactions costing you something like $8 million dollars in fees.
There's a lot of dollars moving around in the global financial system quickly and affordably, Bitcoin advocates just don't seem to know about it for some reason.
Bitcoin advocates know very well that centralized systems are faster and more efficient, that’s just the trade off of actually owning your assets. Right now you own nothing but some promise in some database controlled by bunch of potentially corrupt individuals governed by potentially repressive institutions.
Many people cannot access bank accounts that allow this sort of transfer and thats why Western Union etc exist, they charge a % of the value being transferred as well as a flat fee.
As a really stupid, non-real-world comparison As a really stupid, non-real-world comparisonWith that in mind you seem to be conflating a FOREX transfer with a bank-to-bank transfer which you can use a $30 (or as cheap as free) wire to more the whole billion instantly.
Actually, this isn't true. That's the lowest-cost way of converting the bitcoins to actual things. But if you don't want to interact with an exchange, you have enough BTC that you can easily find someone who will just take your payment in BTC and take on the job of going through the exchange themselves.
[1] ie. anything at that rate or greater would confirm in the next block, so there's no difference in paying more
As a really stupid, non-real-world comparisonI'm quite sure the banking system could do the same, no problem. These are not technical limitations, they are regulatory. It's controversial enough whether any human actually needs a billion dollars, let alone the freedom to move/spend it however they want with zero oversight. But that's just me.
Wouldn't a normal bank wire of the same amount cost less than that, say $25?
Not only that, is that you would have the Eye of Sauron quickly looking at you for moving such quantities especially if it were a private individual or some smaller group that isn't all registered with the powers that be.
There's simply no comparison.
It then becomes valuable for the original owner to secretly mine a chain, attempting a 51% attack. They could run the attack secretly for up to 40 days and still make a profit.
So you'd really need to wait 40 days before you can be sure this transfer is safe.
But it gets scarier, if at the end of the 40 days a longer chain is submitted, all transaction since this one would be reverted too.
So when giant transfers happen, all transactions are vulnerable to long term 51% attacks. So all transactions sent now on Bitcoin aren't secure until this 40 day window has passed.
Of course, I don't think that's the case here, it was probably someone moving his own coins around, not a payment to anyone.
There isn't enough computing power available to 51% attack a chain that comes close to justify the $1 billion dollar "bounty" on this transaction.
The miners who control the bitcoin network are already centralized on a handful of organizations in China. If they colluded on this attack they would take over >51% of the network because, hey, they already own and operate most of that computing power you're eluding to.
Edit: There is also no evidence that the price would plummet from this, and given the history of theft, scams, forks, etc. involving bitcoin that do not drastically affect the price, I don't think it would either.
When I saw the initial math, they said 40 days. But that doesn't include the fact that as you buy hash power, it's price would go up. But to secretly mine for a week before reorganizing the chain would be very possible with this amount of money.
I wonder if you could put in a checkpoint system. And if that could even be decentralized.
The cost profile of a repeated 51% attack in [Ethereum 2.0's Proof of Stake]
is as if “your ASIC farm burned down” with each additional round.” ~Vlad Zamfir
For all the fud that is doing the rounds about Ethereum...
of the hundreds of applications I receive from blockchain
startups to join @techstars, 95% are building on Ethereum.
There hasn’t been any significant shift to other chains in
what I’m seeing on a daily basis. [1]
If you read this far and aren't familiar with the latest progress of Ethereum, consider trying out 4.95% interest rate on your money with Ethereum's Compound Finance https://app.compound.finance/asset/cUSDC . Here's a good article discussing the security implications of doing this with your money https://medium.com/@ameensol/what-you-should-know-before-put...
[1] https://twitter.com/yossihasson/status/1169571179650322433
Depends on how able the injured party is to retaliate. In ordinary life, bouncing a check often results in actual or threatened legal action. Disputes between criminal organizations are sometimes settled extrajudicially. So I would not expect the sender to attempt a double-spend if the recipient has the capacity to respond either legally or illegally.
Step 1, Consolidate 94,000 BTC into one single address the entire crypto world is now watching.
Step 2, Send 1,000 BTC from bogeyman bitcoin wallet to exchange crypto wallet.
Step 3, Freak the shit out of the market. Promptly sell the entire lot in one single market sell order.
Meanwhile you've got another 50,000 BTC or whatever sitting on contracts leveraged with 100x margin in a short position across multiple accounts... essentially netting you 100,000 BTC profit if you can manage to tank the price just 2% on the 3 funds that Bitmex follows to create their index price... and you totally would selling 1,000 BTC at once from a well known superwallet.
Rinse and repeat... Eventually, I imagine you wouldn't even need to sell the coins on the exchange... just moving them there would be enough... (which would probably be illegal at least in the USA, see below)
And when the market gets wise... and everybody else starts shorting the price when you move your coins... you BUY 1,000 BTC in a single market order... stop hunting everyone's "sure things" (with mostly tight stops) and probably making you 500% return on a 5% move the opposite way... placed on longs of course.
(I am working on an algo bot, I think about this kind of stuff all day long!)
I had better start saving!
Side question... would this be legal? Moving the coins to exchange, signalling that you were going to sell based on precedent, and then not selling would be illegal by the nature of equities laws on fake bid or ask walls to move the price... like some trader at goldman was just arrested over for doing the same in the gold markets.
But just selling a lot of coin while you have another lot of coin in short positions would be perfectly legal, right?
In your example, somebody interested in keeping the price at or above a certain level and that has a couple of million to waste on that could potentially place a 900btc buy wall as soon as you managed to market sell the first 100 of your 1000 and so you'd sell the rest into the wall and not move the price as much as you'd wish. And market psychology is a strange thing that could actually even make the price move in the other direction as thousands of traders would see the huge buy wall and assume the price could only go up and therefore buy more to go long which would increase the price even more.
If that or similar happens then your "shorting at X while dumping at Y" strategy won't be as successful as you would expect and you might just end up dumping your 1000 btc at mostly the same price. 1000 btc is a lot of money for most people but not that much on a daily bitcoin trading day. Even the 1 billion dollars in bitcoin isn't really capable of damaging the market all that much as most alarmist articles made it seem once this transaction got noticed imho. Remember that there are/will be about 21 million bitcoins.
I'd say its safe to assume that whatever "big idea" one has to manipulate trading or financial markets has already been thought of, implemented, tried and failed or succeeded to some varying degrees, especially on deregulated crypto markets.
What you described would work if the goal was to obtain more bitcoin. If you want more dollars this strategy carries to much risk and this is distinctly a long bitcoin strategy.
Now add some hedging in the futures market and now we’re talking
So 50,000 BTC at 100x leverage would create contracts valued at 50,000 * 100 = 5,000,000 BTC
5M BTC * $10,000/BTC = $50,000,000,000
Yea LOL, Bitmex is liquid... but not $50B liquid hah.
I can rest easy now!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country...
I used to work on the repo desk of a primary dealer. One role of the repo desk is that it finances the banks position. We might hold $50 billion of bonds, but $40 billion of that is borrowed with the bonds as collateral.
One day because someone had keyed in a start of day position wrong -- off by a billion dollars -- 20 minutes before the FedWire closed for the day, I got to watch 2 traders get on the phones and borrow a billion dollars in 20 minutes, without letting our counterparties know that we were kind of desperate.
Had they failed, the bank would have had to go the the Fed, discount window and borrow $1 billion overnight at the discount rate (which would have been substantially more than we were paying in the repo market.) Additionally, it likely would have triggered process audits and incident reports which would have been far worse than the interest.
> because someone had keyed in a start of day position wrong
I know basically nothing about this area, but I'm curious why what appears to be a mistake in data entry needs to be fixed by actually borrowing additional money, as opposed to issuing a correction. If you have the amount of money you're supposed to have, why is it so dire that you published a typo?
"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." (The Rich Boy, 1926)
All of the information normal people--like you and me--use to price transactions like this is completely irrelevant. Rich people have access to many services and price structures that are completely different than normal people. Any guess about what it costs to make a transaction like this via normal channels is likely completely wrong (other than "free", assuming they are doing business with the bank in question).
No idea about the billionaires, but I can shift £5k from a current account to another current account with another bank for the princely sum of £0.00
If you're rich, you're an marked target for every Tom, Dick and Harry out there looking for a quasi-free ride (not even counting the outright criminals).
For example, wire transfers in the US are fixed price regardless of the amount, ACH transfers are practically free, mortgage rates cannot go lower than treasury notes, etc. Or maybe I am misinterpreting who you consider as "normal people".
"Fitzgerald: The rich are different from you and me.
Hemingway: Yes, they have more money."
> If you look at BCH and BSV you will see the coins also moved - this looks like someone moved to do a split of forks. The good news (if that is the case) is that this likely will mean sale of BCH and BSV, not BTC!
https://twitter.com/shanepicker/status/1170517377441849351
If that's the case, it implies that someone is looking to liquidate the value of their BCH/BSV they got for free in the forks, and need to move the BTC too since otherwise the transaction would be valid in all 3 chains.
Care to elaborate? I don't understand how the three chains can have any affliction after they forked.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/9895f1e94d0df7fd04e1289f34...
I usually test with 0.00001
[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address
[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_version_1...
Transaction with addresses: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb...
It's actually a good question. Very few actors in the Bitcoin space actually know what the "global order book" looks like and how much liquidity there actually is in that market.
Interestingly, transfer feeds were around 700 USD.
Anyone know a way to see the origin date of a particular coin easily?
Nope. None of the early block rewards have moved in forever, and that's fairly easy to verify.
My main problem with Bitcoin, etc. is: it is just too complicated. I mean, I did study CS and do have some knowledge about math and cryptography and I followed Bitcoin from the beginning with curiosity - and I still only have a vague understanding of it all. Now sure, I could invest some days and really study it and things would probably look different. But if it is hard for me, how hard is it for the common person?!
I believe the base of a new money-system should be simple, for (allmost) everyone to understand. Because yes, the current mainstream fiat money banking system ... is not simple at all, either. But if it is so complicated, only some people can understand it, than there is way too much room for fraud ...
7,000 words but might help you with the current state of things and why its confusing
Sharing as a comment here since it maybe doesn't make sense as a submission on its own, and since there's likely a number of people in the comments of this story who would enjoy it
Also, if someone wanted to turn this into fiat currency over a short but not instant period of time (such as 1 month for example), could they get close to 1,018,147,922 USD or even over 30 days would that diminish the price too much?
(I am thinking for example if an institutional investor early on bought 94,504 bitcoins and "just realized" they have it or something, but only really cared about dollars or their fund is over and they have to pay out the cash or whatever. For whatever reason, if they want cash now.)
Thanks for any expert opinions.
https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/11699297386071244...
I am not an expert and this is a very rough estimate, but this data[0] shows 7-day rolling USD trading volume on major exchanges. It's pretty volatile but fluctuates from $300m to $110m daily.
I would guess that this is liquid enough to be able to pull out $1b+ over 30 days, perhaps drawing some attention. This is also only for USD. Would love to hear an expert's thoughts as well.
[0]: https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/trade-volume?timespan=6...
[0] I know I'm oversimplifying here, there have been ups and downs in price, etc
I speculate that in the future, Bitcoin might become valued so highly, that people don't even bother using it in favor of other coins, and as people don't use it, no one then accepts it, then it loses value, and by then people are accustomed to using other coins, and Bitcoin dies. Who knows, I probably won't live long enough to see it.
Furthermore, Bitcoin mining is run by pools. Only the pools have to be hacked for a 51% attack to occur.
I haven’t read all 500 comments in this thread, but they all largely seem to be the same.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/09/13/us/sackler-family-purdu...
Could someone explain to me about 51% attacks and if bitcoin is vulnerable to one?
Hypothetically, a government decides to put forward enough resources to perform a 51% attack on bitcoin. Is that possible? If not, why? And is this something to actually worry about, or could something be done to combat it?
Basically the security assumption in Bitcoin is that at least 50% of miners are honest and work for a profit. A 51% attacker can recreate the latest blocks and remove all transactions from them, effectively the ability to reverse payments.
Hypothetically the government can gain 51% hashrate. For example China could take control of all miners there (currently more than 50%) and use them to attack the chain.
This type of attack can be detected. An extreme type of defense is to change the proof-of-work algorithm, making all existing miners worthless. This has been done several times in Monero for example.
[0]: https://whycryptocurrencies.com/how_do_cryptocurrencies_work...
There's two ways to do this either tactically to reverse your own transactions or randomly to essentially screw over everyone and sow FUD in the reliability of BTC transactions.
One good note is as far as I know the Lightning network shouldn't really be vulnerable to this (except maybe for channel opening?) because either party can submit the most recent transaction and have it reflect on the BTC chain.
The problem there is that then people lose faith in the network, and don't honor transactions, and it collapses in value.
https://forum.bitcoingold.org/t/anatomy-of-a-double-spend-51...
Edit: a word
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoins-are-th...
Source: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb...
2019: 94k Bitcoin transferred - "whooooooooa"
We don't start threads every time Brinks truck passes by with someone else's money
He himself, under oath, has admitted that he does not have access to those keys.
Went under the radar on HN like 3 days ago
(of course a lot of those BTC are lost forever due to forgotten keys, hard drive crashes, thrown out hard drives, etc, so who knows what the actual amount of accessible BTC is).
[1]: https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoins-are-th...
A few hours ago several #xcoin txs were made consolidating 94.505 #BTC in now the 5th largest address 37XuVSEpWW4trkfmvWzegTHQt7BdktSKUs, they have been accumulated since 2016
Is associated with @BAKKT due to its launch today (deposits and withdrawals) 🧐
Probably just Elon letting his GF fiddle with his Trezor.
someone just gave someone else a billion dollars tax free.
that is a major problem.
Edit: also, that assumes that, even if this is an exchange between owners, neither party has/will report it to the relevant tax authorities.
But none yet here. Is HN finally warming up to bitcoin, 10 years after it was invented?
How would you rather track its value?
On my phone I’m not going to research it :)
You don't have to be happy about being unable to do like a single click. I agree the headline was confusingly written but happily stating that you're not going to put any effort in whatsoever... I think that's why you are/were being downvoted, not for the question.
Everyone can watch them move. If you spend 1$ from that wallet to buy even a mars bar, your identity will be known to others. How CLEAN and clear is that?
If your wallet is actually owned by a bank then chances are your actual purchases will be obfuscated. Banks will only settle transactions with other trusted establishments "in bulk" to speed things up and reduce fees.
Don't drink the overenthusiastic cryptofanatic kool-aid, banks are going nowhere. Those who say that cryptocurrencies can replace them either don't understand banks or they don't understand cryptocurrency. Probably both.
I don't understand why "account transaction visibility" is the thing that will negate the need for government-backed currency?
Power is money is truer than money is power.
If anything, it seems to me like dollars are used in two ways. One, to 'make change', to balance out a transaction. Two, as a salve to ease stress about expectations of quid pro quo. Or maybe that's just two ways to say the same thing.
Money balances the books of a somewhat cynical gift economy.