On December 23, 2022 large Bitcoin movements occurred from the addresses of OKX, one of the largest exchanges. The movements were anticipated by a tweet alert :
Due to wallet maintenance, we will be transferring coins and tokens between our wallet addresses over the next 24 hours. Large transfers will be seen in our wallets.
Address movements are part of an OKX transparency effort to show Proof-of-Reserves (PoR) on its website.
The Proof of Reserves is the second one, and it adds new features. Users can now view the independently the results of on the OKX website through open source tools available on the OKX GitHub profile at the following address:
OKX has published over 20,000 addresses, and it seems they plan to continue to reuse addresses so that anyone can perform a stand-alone, independent audit, plus OKX promises to run reserve tests on a monthly basis.
OKX Inflow Outflow may continue in the coming hours.
As explained in the previous post (which you can read here if you haven’t), a mysterious user named OneSignature appeared on the BitcoinTalk forum, a historic forum where there are numerous Satoshi posts, signing an address with bitcoin mined in 2009 and an outgoing transaction in 2011. The address (1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj) has block mining TX 1018. The signature is the most dated/oldest ever to appear on a bitcoin address.
The (few) certainties
Let us start with the few certainties, namely the signature and its verification.
We have noticed some unnecessary discussions about the supposed invalidity of the signature, and let’s settle that right away; the signature is authentic. We used Electrum connected to a Bitcoin full node, but you could use hundreds of other different methods; the signature is certainly authentic. After making sure that the signature is authentic, let’s take a closer look at the blockchain to understand more about it.
The analysis of blockchain
The address signed by OneSignature contained 50 Bitcoin that are aggregated to the address 1LseHYUYUXkL4Jdd4YTTXvWNqDceTdQXrt along with another 1,950 BTC, this occurs in 2011.
From signed address to aggregation
The Bitstamp inflow
Next, some transactions occur that deserve attention for analysis. Some Bitcoin are deposited at the address 17jz6XcXP2LPqS8gYmT2pkNJocUDzbpQuM traceable to a Bitstamp.net deposit address. On the same deposit address it is also possible to reconstruct most of the additional addresses owned by the same owner.
A total of 9,106 Bitcoins are deposited at the Bitstamp address, all transactions traceable to the same owner, and deposit activity occurs through December 22, 2014. Almost all of the Bitcoin are mining rewards.
From MtGox further transactions to the address 1QY4sSvRw2jS6QPn7GjYLaWwW73u8MLsb traceable to SilkRoadMarketplace, the famous Darknet marketplace for which Ross Ulbricht is now serving a life sentence.
Below is a complete representation of the flow.
We can exclude that OneSignature is Satoshi
Satoshi is a careful person, manic about privacy. The chances that OneSignature could be Satoshi in my opinion are ZERO. Satoshi would never, with such superficiality, leave such obvious traces, especially to two CEX exchanges that can easily identify his identity. It is not in his philosophy and it is not in his way of acting, always attentive to every single detail since the early days and he would never have committed such trivialities.
But we continue to explore further
Patoshi signature
If all these clues are not enough, further verification clues may come from independent researcher Sergio Demian Lerner. It has carried out an in-depth analysis on the possible blocks extracted from Satoshi, they are vulgarly called Patoshi Block.
Explained in a very simplified way, Satoshi most likely used a different mining software than the one initially distributed, so it was possible through traces left behind in block mining to reconstruct what are most likely blocks mined by Satoshi.
If we go to analyze block 1018, which is the one precisely signed by OneSignature, it does not show up among the possible Satoshi extracted blocks:
Screenshot Source : http://satoshiblocks.info/
Conclusion. Where did that signature come from and why? The possible idea of NFTs
One of the most likely explanations is that someone may have sniffed out a business opportunity: converting old BTC addresses to NFTs and then selling them. Such old types of addresses may acquire archaeological value. You may not even need to own the private key to own the NFT. You can learn more about the idea in this post. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5425241
An idea that I think is difficult to develop, but which confirms for us a doubt:
Is it a real BTC accumulation or is it a rush to withdraw the money ?
November 13, 2022 More than 58,000 Bitcoin have gone out in the past 7 days, one of the weeks with the highest number of bitcoin gone out. Outflows not seen in many months.
Bitcoin Netflow Report – 13/November/2022 09:27 UTC
The 4H rolling graph shows an exponential increase in outflows as soon as the rush to exit FTX began.
Bitcoin Netflow H4 Rolling – 13/November/2022 09:01 UTC
A great help comes to us from Onchain data in its completeness Historically, addresses over 100 and 1K Bitcoin are from large funds and Big investors.
Both have been declining for the last 30 days, and in the last week there has been no increase
Addresses greater than 100 BitcoinAddresses greater than 1k Bitcoin
In opposite, very small portfolios are in vertical increase Use your head, make your own assessments, use our free and independent data.
An alternative netflow service indicated an outflow of 52.360 Bitcoin from Binance. Is this real?
NO, it is a MEGA Fake News. Binance performed an internal movement of 30.000 BTC in cold wallet, remaining 51.841 are in a Change Address, so same owner, so still Binance
BtcInOutAlert regularly reported IN REAL TIME what was happening.TX : a98b4b1eb25166cda54abb9e90f7f2b57dae402ab6f995a27a5e3763ab625e5d
Distribution of addresses greater than 10k Bitcoin
Analysis on addresses over 10k Bitcoin
Are Institutions and Funds Accumulating Bitcoin ?
Is it true what onchain services and people are currently stating, that INSTITUTIONAL and FUNDS are accumulating Bitcoin?
This is a partial analysis, in fact we are only going to deep dive on wallet above 10k BTC (>$200m), since those are the most representative ones for possible accumulation of Funds and Institutionals
NOW we have 101 wallet with balance greater than 10k
Addresses with #BTC balances greater than 10k are 20% of the total circulating. Chart showing distribution of Exchange, Hack & Confiscated, old holders.
Considering wallet with a balance greater than #1k Bitcoin the trend is even declining, so those greater than 10k are key
As can be seen most of the wallet above 10k are now bitcoin in the hands of exchange and only a tiny fraction are Holder Fund-Institutional. Only 4% are effective accumulation of the total above 10k
As always, the answers rely in the blockchain. Each UTXO corresponds to a block, and each block corresponds to a date. Each date corresponds then to a precise value of Bitcoin.
We have removed all the Exchange and custodial addresses. We have aggregated the values in ranges of $500. This to reduce the size of the chart and give a more representative idea of the purchase ranges.
Last 6 months
The first figure evaluates the last 6 months of UTXO, so from 23/November/2021 when Bitcoin was quoted around $58,000
The result is that over 95% of those who have accumulated in the last 6 months are at a loss, at an average accumulation value of $42,293
Last year
It doesn’t fare better with last year’s UTXO datasets On 22/May/2021 Bitcoin was quoted as $38,150 Holders from the past 365 days have an average accumulation price of $44,048, higher than holders from the past 6 months
Just over 91% of the dataset is at a loss.
Last 2 years
Utxo dataset from 22/May/2020. Bitcoin was quoted at $9,170
The result is that the holders of the last two years, those who have not sold, have an average accumulation price of around $41,001
80.46% is currently at a loss (at today’s price of around $ 30,000)
The average purchasing being at 40k, means therefore that those who bought in the last two years, either sold their bags already making profit, either are holding despite current loss.
