MtGox.com

Bitcoin International

For discussion of Bitcoin usage in the rest of the world.
[link]

Slashdot's take on MtGox -http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/02/25/1343235/mt-gox-gone-apparent-theft-shakes-bitcoin-world

Mt. Gox Gone? Apparent Theft Shakes Bitcoin World
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/02/25/1343235/mt-gox-gone-apparent-theft-shakes-bitcoin-world
submitted by deadmul3 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Canaries In The Coal Mine? The Customer Experience At BlockFi, Celsius, Crypto.Com And Nexo Compared

Looking for another way to find out which crypto lender I can trust, I started reading through complaints on Reddit.
The assumption is that customer complaints are like the canary in the coalmine... When something is wrong in a big way, complaints are obvious warning signs. Like people complaining about Quadriga or Mt. Gox before disaster "suddenly" happened.
The problem is that every company has non-trivial complaints... Every company. So I started checking to see if the complaints get fixed. Here are the categories
Over the next few(ish) weeks, I'll write separate posts about the first 5. I'm not going to post about UX or fiat bridges because I think these problems
As for the companies reviewed? Cred gets left out because having the option to withdraw crypto at any time is a minimal requirement. Other players get left out because they
BlockFi gets included because, while its Reddit activity is weak, it does get a lot of mentions in the news - good and bad.
submitted by thegoldlust to Crypto_com [link] [comments]

Canaries In The Coal Mine? The Customer Experience At BlockFi, Celsius, Crypto.Com And Nexo Compared

Looking for another way to find out which crypto lender I can trust, I started reading through complaints on Reddit.
The assumption is that customer complaints are like the canary in the coalmine... When something is wrong in a big way, complaints are obvious warning signs. Like people complaining about Quadriga or Mt. Gox before disaster "suddenly" happened.
The problem is that every company has non-trivial complaints... Every company. So I started checking to see if the complaints get fixed. Here are the categories


Over the next few(ish) weeks, I'll write separate posts about the first 5. I'm not going to post about UX or fiat bridges because I think these problems


As for the companies reviewed? Cred gets left out because having the option to withdraw crypto at any time is a minimal requirement. Other players get left out because they


BlockFi gets included because, while its Reddit activity is weak, it does get a lot of mentions in the news - good and bad.
submitted by thegoldlust to CelsiusNetwork [link] [comments]

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]

ETX officially announced to change the algorithm, here is a straightforward analysis about the influence

ETX officially announced to change the algorithm, here is a straightforward analysis about the influence
More dispersed computing power, which means that the coins will be further dispersed, and the value will be less controlled and influenced by a few people who controlled many coins. From the above examples of Monero and Monero Classic , we can see that changing the algorithm is a great positive signal for ordinary community users
According to the latest announcement on the official website of Ethereumx·NET (ETX), "Notice about the upcoming change of ETX algorithm and the opening of the testnet '', ETX will change the algorithm within the next 1-2 months. The reason is that the current large computing power miners pose a threat to ETX's long-term ecological planning in the future, because the large computing power mining has caused a very high concentration of chips. This can be seen through the blockchain browser. The future It may take time to balance the number of head coin holders and slowly digest with price space and time.

https://preview.redd.it/xtfbx9wbe6b51.png?width=624&format=png&auto=webp&s=386ccbcb51a658db2db07609152406df1c0927e3
Just like Bitcoin, there were only a few people digging with a computer at the beginning. Later, as the market slowly became aware, and then derived the ASIC algorithm mining machine, as the price increased, some head currency holders slowly reduced their holdings, and slowly reduced the threat they posed to Bitcoin. But even so, there are still an unsolved 200,000 bitcoins in MtGox. Some people even predict that when MtGox closes the case, it will be the crash day of Bitcoin.
It’s impossible for a new currency to go the way which Bitcoin had passed. The market competition environment today is completely different. There are endless new currencies appearing every day, so at the appropriate time to avoid the risk of expanding and taking the lead is necessary. This may be the reason why the ETX development team decided to change the algorithm.
There are many currencies that have changed the algorithm, and most of the results are relatively good. For example, Monero (XMR), Monero should be the most successful currency to resist the ASIC algorithm. In the process of fighting with ASIC repeatedly, without exception, the mining machine manufacturers were expelled from the door, ensuring many communities. But Monroe Classic has retained the ASIC-friendly algorithm because it has not changed the algorithm, and almost no one is interested today. We can get a glimpse of their straightforward price performance in the chart below.

  1. Monero with repeated algorithm changes

XMR's price with frequent algorithm changes, data source Coinmarketcap

  1. Asic algorithm-friendly (unchanged algorithm) Monero Classic

XMC’s price with no algorithm changes, data source Coinmarketcap
More decentralized computing power means that the coins are further dispersed, and the value can be less controlled and influenced by a few people. From the examples of Monroe and Monroe Classic above, we can see that changing the algorithm is a great positive signal to the ordinary community users. And the announcement on the official website mentioned that the testnet will be launched before the end of this month, and anyone who’s interested can go to have a look.
ETX developers take precautionary measures ahead of time, which is a manifestation of responsibility for all community users.
Refer to
Ethereumx·NET " Notice about the upcoming change of ETX algorithm and the opening of the testnet "
Coinmarketcap
Monero: GetMonero
*There are risks in the market, this article is not intended as investment advice
submitted by BitRay2077 to u/BitRay2077 [link] [comments]

Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor

Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor submitted by Donutmuncher to Bitcoin [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]

Oxford Project Examines Crypto Custodians' Insolvency Risks

Oxford Project Examines Crypto Custodians' Insolvency Risks

The Research States That Crypto Custodians Are Not Entirely Disintermediated And Hold Legal Risks
Since its start in 2008, the crypto sector drew the attention of almost everyone in the financial industry – from crypto enthusiasts to legislators. In the context of research on digital assets, conducted as a collaboration between Leiden Law School and Oxford University, Prof. Dr. Matthias Haentjens, Dr. Tycho de Graaf & Ilya Kokorin LLM published a 42-page document. The research paper examines the possible risks behind crypto customers’ involvement with crypto custodians.
The researchers noted that in recent years several crypto exchanges shut down operations, including Cryptopia (New Zealand), BitGrail (Italy), and QuadrigaCX (Canada). The team at Leiden Law School also analyzed the legal standpoint behind crypto custodians’ insolvency, like the ownership of Bitcoin, as well as the mechanisms behind transferring ownership, if such exists.
Prof. Dr. Matthias Haentjens and his colleagues found out that a large portion of all Bitcoin in circulation is held by crypto custodians, which means the cryptosystem is not entirely disintermediated. Despite offering free-of-charge entry, crypto exchanges often store Bitcoin in a pool, rather than a segregated address. The pooling creates difficulties in tracing the exact path of a given Bitcoin, as well as not clarifying whether the funds are used by someone else. However, the team proposes the prohibition or limitation of such Bitcoin re-usage by eliminating the use of pooled Bitcoin addresses and use of segregated addresses.
From a legal standpoint, there is no big difference in the way a crypto custodian stores Bitcoin, whether in pooled or in segregated addresses. Segregated crypto addresses mean the crypto custodian allocates unique wallet addresses and private keys for each user.
The lawyers considered that from a property law perspective, Bitcoin ownership can be qualified either absolute or contract-related. The absolute ownership is often referred to as a physical Bitcoin carrier. However, the team proposes the prohibition or limitation of such Bitcoin re-usage.
The researchers concluded that it’s hard from a legal point of view for users to put claims for revendication in case of crypto custodian insolvency. However, in the cases of MtGox and BitGrail, such claims were referred to as pari passu with other unsecured claims, as the courts ruled that Bitcoin can’t bear signs of ownership.
submitted by Crypto_Browser to CryptoBrowser_EN [link] [comments]

Greece Extradites Alleged Launderer of $4B in BTC Alexander Vinnik to France

Greece Extradites Alleged Launderer of $4B in BTC Alexander Vinnik to France

https://preview.redd.it/q6atl1s9zsc41.png?width=740&format=png&auto=webp&s=c3e1c7d91e92fe16d0f3b6f1de2461554ef90e0d
Greece’s Council of State ruled for the extradition to France of former operator of now-shuttered crypto exchange BTC-e and Russian national Alexander Vinnik.
English-language local news outlet Greek Reporter reported on the court’s decision on Jan. 23. Yesterday, Russian news agency TASS reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov protested:
“The decision to extradite him to France is inadmissible as long as no explanations have been provided why he is not extradited to Russia. His family has been broken up, his right to life and health violated. Greece is obliged to hold prisoners in conditions that do not allow torture and bullying.”

Vinnik’s alleged crimes

As Cointelegraph reported in late-July 2017, Vinnik was arrested during a vacation in Greece by local police and accused of heading a group that laundered $4 billion in Bitcoin (BTC) over the course of six years.
Vinnik is believed to have a direct relationship with the infamous hack of cryptocurrency exchange Mt. Gox. The Bitcoin obtained through the heist was reportedly not only laundered by BTC-e but also were on Vinnik's wallet. The total amount is 300,000 BTC. The MtGox trustee also contacted the United States Department of Justice in search of information about Alexander Vinnik, the alleged former operator of BTC-e in early October 2019.
Earlier this week, his lawyers for Alexander Vinnik filed a complaint alleging violation of their defendant’s rights.
The litigation over where Vinnik should be extradited to has involved many countries and soon became a major diplomatic ordeal. Russia has both filed several requests with Greek judicial authorities and asked for help from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in an attempt to bring him under its jurisdiction.
Vinnik was first indicted by the U.S. in July 2017. The Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece later ruled for his extradition to Russia in September 2018. In July 2018, however, a Greek court ruled to extradite him to France. Now, this is where Vinnik appears to be headed.
submitted by Au218 to u/Au218 [link] [comments]

I'm Mark Karpelès, ex-CEO of bankrupt MtGox. Ask me anything.

Dear community,
Many of you know or remember me, especially recently since the MtGox bankruptcy has been allegedly linked with Bitcoin price drops in December 2017 to February 2018. Since taking over the most active Bitcoin exchange in 2011, I ran MtGox until filing for civil rehabilitation on February 28th 2014 (which became bankruptcy less than 2 months later) because a large amount of Bitcoins went missing. Since then, four years have passed, and MtGox is still in bankruptcy today. I’ve been arrested, released under bail after a little less than one year, and am now trying to assist MtGox getting into civil rehabilitation.
I did my best trying to grow the ecosystem by running the biggest exchange at the time. It had big problems but still managed to hang in there. For a while. A quite long while, even, while the rest of the ecosystem caught up. At the end of the day, the methods I chose to try to get MtGox out of its trouble ended up being insufficient, insufficiently executed, or plain wrong.
I know I didn't handle the last, stressful days of the outdrawn and painful Gox collapse very well. I can only be humble about that in hindsight. Once again, I’m sorry.
Japanese bankruptcy law has a particularly nasty outcome here, and I want to address this up front. As creditors claims were registered, those claims were registered in the valuation of Japanese Yen on the bankruptcy date. That's the only way Japanese bankruptcy law can work (most bankruptcy laws around the world operate this way for that matter). This means that the claims can be paid back in full, and there will still be over 160,000 bitcoin and bitcoin cash in assets in the Gox estate. The way bankruptcy law works is that if there are any assets remaining after the creditors have been paid in full, then those assets are distributed to shareholders as part of the liquidation.
That's the only way any bankruptcy law can reasonably work. And yet, in this case, it produces an egregiously distasteful outcome in that the shareholders of MtGox would walk away with the value of over 160,000 bitcoin as a result of what happened.
I don't want this. I don't want this billion dollars. From day one I never expected to receive anything from this bankruptcy. The fact that today this is a possibility is an aberration and I believe it is my responsibility to make sure it doesn’t happen. One of the ways to do this would be civil rehabilitation, and as it seems most creditors agree with this, I am doing my best to help make it happen. I do not want to become instantly rich. I do not ask for forgiveness. I just want to see this end as soon as possible with everyone receiving their share of what they had on MtGox so everyone, myself included, can get some closure.
I’m an engineer at heart. I want to build things. I like seeing what I build being useful, and people being happy using what I build. My drive, from day one, has been to push the limits of what is technically possible, and this is the main reason I liked and have been involved with Bitcoin in the first place. When I took over MtGox, I never imagined things would end this way and I am forever sorry for everything that’s taken place and all the effect it had on everyone involved.
Hopefully, I can make what I’ve learned in this experience useful to the community as a whole, so there can at least be something positive in the end.
Ask me anything you like.
EDIT: With this coming to all there have been an overwhelming number of messages, questions etc. I will continue responding for a little while but probably won't be able to respond to new questions (it is starting to be late here and I've been spending the last few hours typing). Thank you very much to everyone.
submitted by MagicalTux to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

G maxwell explains the bitcoin movement could very well be gox preparing a hot wallet for withdrawals...

FWIW, the gox transaction API (https://data.mtgox.com/api/0/bitcoin_tx.php) is now returning TXID: 442ef31f93f339398ba79f0aa4bc0222baf81a9ba4dd5bd5bea465332dacdabb which is a spend using coins sent earlier to the same address as the gigantic transaction. Unless the MTGox API has started lying I'd consider this positive confirmation that the earlier 200k BTC transaction was an MTGox transaction. People have been asking on IRC why some of it is being broken up. I could only speculate— but thats what you need to do to prepare a hotwallet to support a high volume of transactions (so you have many coins to spend so you don't get stuck waiting for your change to confirm while avoiding spending unconfirmed change, which MTGox has always done). Edit: Sturles pointed out to me that the splitting behavior is consistent with the splitLargeOutputs function in the leaked gox source code, suggesting that portion of the coins was dropped into the MTGox online wallet and the system is now automatically breaking it up.
submitted by Aristartle to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

MtGox Subpoena'ed by US - Wall Street Journal / Marketwatch

MtGox Subpoena'ed by US - Wall Street Journal / Marketwatch submitted by Kerrai to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Monetary Sovereignty War-cry: Proof of Keys - [Jan/3➞₿🔑∎]

TO All Soldiers for Monetary Sovereignty:
Every January 3rd the Bitcoin community participates in a Proof of Keys celebration by demanding and taking possession of all bitcoins and other cryptocurrency held by trusted third parties on their behalf. You can do this by withdrawing all Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency to wallets where you hold the private keys and perform network consensus for validation.
On 9 Dec 2018 Trace Mayer introduced the annual Proof of Keys celebration.
This cultural tradition enables you, the individual, to prove your monetary sovereignty and strengthen the Bitcoin network by using a full-node for an economically substantive transaction(s). Together, on this day, all of us get to celebrate our monetary independence from trusted third parties (which are security holes!). And we strengthen the decentralization of the Bitcoin network in the process!

This is a way for you to invest in yourself. There are a lot of people who want to keep you weak, dependent and enervated when it comes to your monetary sovereignty. You must take the personal responsibility and summon the desire to take action to declare your monetary independence and prove to yourself that you, and no-one else, hold the private keys to your own money.

There has been much discussion on Reddit, Twitter and Youtube for those who need help with how to do this safely and securely. And those who were trained this year can become teachers next year. Even though we may be ensconced in our cold storage; we must never forget the new user and leave them behind and stranded on the battlefield of control over their money.

Some helpful interviews about Proof of Keys include Crypt0 News, Crypto Cast Network, Let's Talk Bitcoin - With Andreas Antonopolous and What Bitcoin Did. Some helpful discussion includes storing bitcoins , Bitcoin's Security Model and Bitcoin Miners and Invalid Blocks.

Perhaps most important is how this tradition helps educate, teach and train new users of Bitcoin. The effect on yourself is much more important than that on third parties or the Bitcoin network.

Hopefully, everything will go smoothly and there will be no losses of funds, no shady behaviors or delays by exchanges or other third-parties and no significant Bitcoin network congestion. But even if there is, those are very minor costs to pay in the battle for monetary sovereignty.

And if you already keep your bitcoins safely in cold storage and still want to join the community and participate then consider skipping a meal and instead buying $20+ worth of bitcoins and moving them into cold storage. Take more scarce territory on the Bitcoin blockchain!

After all, having Proof of Keys is much better than 'Proof of Roger', MtGox, Silk Road), Bitfinex, Bitstamp, or some other possibly untrustworthy third party!

There have even been some articles about third parties halting withdrawals in preparation like HitBTC.
This video of Roger Ver was recorded on July 14, 2013 at the MTGOX headquarters. MtGox declared bankruptcy Feb 2014 announcing 850,000 bitcoins belonging to customers were missing.
In conclusion, this magic Internet money thing is about a lot more than just making money. The battle over our monetary sovereignty is now a personal fight by each of us. We have rallied around the banner of Bitcoin because (1) it is the soundest and hardest money that is strictly limited in amount that the world has ever known and (2) it is a censorship-resistant decentralized network. But to maintain those properties requires eternal vigilance and protection by those who yearn for those protections.

Thus, this battle over monetary sovereignty has only two possible outcomes: either (1) control of their own lives by the people themselves the world over or (2) control of the people and their lives by political and economic elitists.

So, fellow soldiers on the battlefield of monetary sovereignty, every January Third join me in a Proof of Keys!

Sincerely,
Trace Mayer

submitted by bitcoinknowledge to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Lesson - History of Bitcoin crashes

Bitcoin has spectacularly 'died' several times
📉 - 94% June-November 2011 from $32 to $2 because of MtGox hack
📉 - 36% June 2012 from $7 to $4 Linod hack
📉 - 79% April 2013 from $266 to $54. MTGox stopped trading
📉 - 87% from $1166 to $170 November 2013 to January 2015
📉 - 49% Feb 2014 MTGox tanks
📉 - 40% September 2017 from $5000 to $2972 China ban
📉 - 55% January 2018 Bitcoin ban FUD. from $19000 to 8500
I've held through all the crashes. Who's laughing now? Not the panic sellers.
Market is all about moving money from impatient to the patient. You see crash, I see opportunity.
You - OMG Bitcoin is crashing, I gotta sell!
Me - OMG Bitcoin is criminally undervalued, I gotta buy!
N.B. Word to the wise for new investors. What I've learned over 7 years is that whenever it crashes spectacularly, the bounce is twice as impactful and record-setting. I can't predict the bottom but I can assure you that it WILL hit 19k and go further beyond, as hard as it may be for a lot of folks to believe right at this moment if you haven't been through it before.
When Bitcoin was at ATH little over a month ago, people were saying, 'it's too pricey now, I can't buy'.
Well, here's your chance at almost 60% discount!
With growing main net adoption of LN, Bitcoin underlying value is greater than it was when it was valued 19k.
submitted by xcryptogurux 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]

BTC price after the 2011' max vs. 2013' max (6 months)

BTC price after the 2011' max vs. 2013' max (6 months) submitted by Neweeee to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - March 2018

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the fifteenth monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
And a lot has happened. It's easy to forget with so much focus on the price. Take a moment and scroll through the list below. You'll find an incredibly eventful month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in March 2018
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I'm Mark Karpelès, ex-CEO of bankrupt MtGox. Ask me anything.

Dear community,
Many of you know or remember me, especially recently since the MtGox bankruptcy has been allegedly linked with Bitcoin price drops in December 2017 to February 2018. Since taking over the most active Bitcoin exchange in 2011, I ran MtGox until filing for civil rehabilitation on February 28th 2014 (which became bankruptcy less than 2 months later) because a large amount of Bitcoins went missing. Since then, four years have passed, and MtGox is still in bankruptcy today. I’ve been arrested, released under bail after a little less than one year, and am now trying to assist MtGox getting into civil rehabilitation.
I did my best trying to grow the ecosystem by running the biggest exchange at the time. It had big problems but still managed to hang in there. For a while. A quite long while, even, while the rest of the ecosystem caught up. At the end of the day, the methods I chose to try to get MtGox out of its trouble ended up being insufficient, insufficiently executed, or plain wrong.
I know I didn't handle the last, stressful days of the outdrawn and painful Gox collapse very well. I can only be humble about that in hindsight. Once again, I’m sorry.
Japanese bankruptcy law has a particularly nasty outcome here, and I want to address this up front. As creditors claims were registered, those claims were registered in the valuation of Japanese Yen on the bankruptcy date. That's the only way Japanese bankruptcy law can work (most bankruptcy laws around the world operate this way for that matter). This means that the claims can be paid back in full, and there will still be over 160,000 bitcoin and bitcoin cash in assets in the Gox estate. The way bankruptcy law works is that if there are any assets remaining after the creditors have been paid in full, then those assets are distributed to shareholders as part of the liquidation.
That's the only way any bankruptcy law can reasonably work. And yet, in this case, it produces an egregiously distasteful outcome in that the shareholders of MtGox would walk away with the value of over 160,000 bitcoin as a result of what happened.
I don't want this. I don't want this billion dollars. From day one I never expected to receive anything from this bankruptcy. The fact that today this is a possibility is an aberration and I believe it is my responsibility to make sure it doesn’t happen. One of the ways to do this would be civil rehabilitation, and as it seems most creditors agree with this, I am doing my best to help make it happen. I do not want to become instantly rich. I do not ask for forgiveness. I just want to see this end as soon as possible with everyone receiving their share of what they had on MtGox so everyone, myself included, can get some closure.
I’m an engineer at heart. I want to build things. I like seeing what I build being useful, and people being happy using what I build. My drive, from day one, has been to push the limits of what is technically possible, and this is the main reason I liked and have been involved with Bitcoin in the first place. When I took over MtGox, I never imagined things would end this way and I am forever sorry for everything that’s taken place and all the effect it had on everyone involved.
Hopefully, I can make what I’ve learned in this experience useful to the community as a whole, so there can at least be something positive in the end.
Ask me anything you like.
EDIT: With this coming to all there have been an overwhelming number of messages, questions etc. I will continue responding for a little while but probably won't be able to respond to new questions (it is starting to be late here and I've been spending the last few hours typing). Thank you very much to everyone.
submitted by MagicalTux to btc [link] [comments]

Some words for my friends

Hello friends,
MtGox is gone. So let's prepare ourselves.
On Tuesday, and for the rest of the week, all hell will break lose in the media. It will be blamed on MtGox, it will be blamed on Bitcoin, it will be blamed on the "bug," and it will, more than anything, be blamed on the "lack of regulation." Pundits and "experts" of all types will weigh in on the calamity. It will be world news in a matter of hours.
Get ready, because it will be an ugly week.
For all of you who lost money, my heart goes out to you. Some people lost a little, some lost a fortune. It will make people sick, and depressed, and full of grief. Personally, I had over 550 BTC in Gox. I will never get any of that back. If misery loves company, then we'll be enjoying a grand feast today.
I should have known better, of course. I take responsibility for leaving those funds with an entity that had proven incompetence repeatedly. I chose to ignore even my own warnings, for nothing more than the sake of convenience.
Gox is still at fault, to be sure, but I have learned the lesson. I hope it is not such an expensive lesson for others. And for all you observers, please take a moment to consider it as well.
Be mindful, however, that the wrong lessons are not learned, for that would be the true tragedy, indeed.
Let me suggest that the lesson is not that Bitcoin is broken. Bitcoin is fine.
Similarly, the lesson is not that security is impossible. Those who know what they are doing, can achieve it and help others to do so.
The lesson is not that nobody can be trusted. There are countless good men and women in this community who are worthy of trust, and some of the very best people I've ever met.
And finally, the lesson is not that we ought to seek out "regulation" to save us from the evils and incompetence of man. For the regulators are men too, and wield the very same evil and incompetence, only enshrined in an authority from which it can wreck amplified and far more insidious destruction. Let us not retreat from our rising platform only to cower back underneath the deranged machinations of Leviathan.
The proper lesson, if I may suggest, is this: We are building a new financial order, and those of us building it, investing in it, and growing it, will pay the price of bringing it to the world. This is the harsh truth. We are building the channels, the bridges, and the towers of tomorrow's finance, and we put ourselves at risk in doing so.
We are at risk from accidents. We are at risk from fraud, from corruption, and from evil. We are at risk from journalists seeking headlines and from politicians seeking power and glory. We are at risk from the very market we are trying to build - a market which cares not about our portfolio, our ambitions, or our delicate sympathies.
For all these risks, devastation will befall us repeatedly. Some of us will be discouraged. Some will be ridiculed and insulted. Some will be tricked, or swindled. Some of us will be crushed or caged. We will be set upon by all manner of antagonists, repeatedly, for a long time.
So why do we do it? Why do we build these towers that fall down upon us? Why do we toil and strain and risk our precious time, which is the only real wealth we possess?
Because the world needs what we're building. It needs it desperately. If that matters to you, as it does to me, then hold to that thought. You will see through the smoke, and your wounds will heal.
So shake it off, brothers, for this won't be the last calamity endured before the win.
Tonight, my heart is with you all.
Tomorrow, my head is down. My eyes are open. And I am building.
Toward peace and freedom,
-Erik Voorhees
submitted by evoorhees to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Craig S. Wright FACTS

I’ve seen several people claim that Craig S. Wright (Chief Scientist of nChain) has been unfairly smeared and libeled lately. Let’s stick to the facts:
[1] - This link may be relevant.
[2] - Why would Satoshi do this?
[3] - Sounds like Satoshi, huh?
[4] - I urge you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s whitepaper
Now, before the deluge of comments about how ”it doesn’t matter WHO he is, only that WHAT he says aligns with Satoshi’s vision”, I’d like to say:
Is it of absolutely no relevance at all if someone is a huge fraud and liar? If it’s not, then I hope you’ve never accused anyone of lying or being a member of ‘The Dragon’s Den’ or a troll or of spreading FUD. I hope you’ve never pre-judged someone’s comments because of their name or reputation. I hope you’ve only ever considered technical arguments.
That said, I am not even directly arguing against anything he’s currently saying (other than random clear lies). I’ve never said anything about Blockstream, positive or negative. I’ve never expressed an opinion about what the ideal block size should be right now. My account is over 6 years old and I post in many different subs. Compare that with these (very popular!) users who frequently call me a troll or member of the ‘dragon’s den’ (with zero facts or evidence):
submitted by Contrarian__ to btc [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]

[Megathread] BTC-E Exchange

This is still in speculative phase I think reaching levels of confirmation, and given that this is news and happenings related to a major BTC exchange and there's an increasing number of posts about it, this thread will be a consolidation.
Aaaaaaand apparently this is now about MtGox as well.
Consolidated posts:
submitted by deb0rk to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

GREAT NEWS! Mt. GOX To DUMP 150,000 BITCOIN. Market CRASH ... MtGox Bitcoins to BTC e Bitcoins in 50 seconds MtGox Bitcoins To BTC Bitcoins - YouTube Bitcoin News and the MtGox Hack on BBC News MTGOX devolverá 150mil BITCOIN a sus acreedores - Bit2Me ...

Potenzieller Katalysator für einen Rückgang von Bitcoin. Der Investor gab an, dass Mt. Gox eine der größten Bitcoin-Börsen seiner Zeit war. Die Börse wickelte 70 % der weltweiten Bitcoin-Transaktionen ab und meldete 840.000 BTC in gestohlenen Geldern. Ob die alten Benutzer ihre Bitcoin tatsächlich zurückbekommen werden, wird am 15. A years-old $75 million lawsuit against Mt Gox by US company CoinLab is delaying payouts to creditors, the Japanese bankruptcy trustee revealed today. Exchange News Class-Action Suit Against Mark Karpeles Is Moving Forward The fiasco of Mt. Gox occurred roughly five years ago in February of 2014, but that doesn’t mean its memory doesn’t live on. MTGOXのデータベースに記録されたアカウントの残高を照会する方はこちら Please click here to inquire the wallet balance of your account recorded in the MTGOX database. 債権者集会(民事再生手続)配付資料を閲覧する方はこちら Please click here to view the documents distributed at creditors’ meetings (civil rehabilitation proceedings). Nachdem die ehemalige japanische Bitcoin-Börse Mt.Gox 2014 einem angeblichen Hack zum Opfer gefallen ist (Details stehen hier), hat sie kürzlich begonnen, ihren verprellten Kunden ein Online-Entschädigungssystem bereitzustellen. Nachdem dieses zunächst nur für Einzelnutzer galt, hat sie dieses nun auf Firmenkunden ausgeweitet. So verkündete Mt.Gox auf ihrer Website: „Wir freuen uns ...

[index] [25342] [29422] [15261] [2935] [51051] [16645] [38726] [1198] [23836] [50769]

GREAT NEWS! Mt. GOX To DUMP 150,000 BITCOIN. Market CRASH ...

TechCashHouse - Best Bitcoin, Stock News 1,954 views 8:24 Gold will be explosive, unlike anything we’ve seen says Canada’s billionaire Frank Giustra - Duration: 20:47. Mt. GOX To DUMP 150,000 BITCOIN. October 15th will be the decision day. Will this lead to a Market CRASH or BIG OPPORTUNITY? ALSO, 50% of Americans Retire i... De lo que se decida sobre los bitcoin en MtGox antes del 15 de octubre afectara o no el precio de bitcoin. Alternativa en DeFi OKEX: https://www.okex.com/joi... 💸 15 de octubre: La fecha límite para que MtGox retorne 150 mil BTC a sus acreedores - MtGox era un exchange japonés que fue hackeado en 2014 y perdió 850 mi... Cryptocurrency News - Mt. Gox Bitcoin Hack! Craig Wright has been in legal battles for a very long time now. Craig Wright also claims to be Satoshi and the creator of Bitcoin. In a recent ...

#