Skip to content

Sleeping beauty bitcoin wallets wake up after 14 years to the tune of $2 billion

Technology
44 35 1
  • Two wallets. 10k BTC each. These wallets were created back when BTC was 78¢. When you spend $10k the IRS might ask questions. If you are "structuring" correctly you avoid spending $9,999 and $1 within a short time span or even in the same reporting period. 10k BTC back then was something you could buy that looked like it wasn't $10k but was really close. Spend it twice in two different wallets and if there are enough other transactions no one will notice.

    Anytime you see a transaction or set of transactions that add up to or are just shy of 10k USD, BTC or pretty much anything, there should be a little bell that dings in your head and causes you to think "this person is clearly thinking about US tax reporting laws and trying to dodge them."

    Who had all that money back in 2011 that decided that now was the time to tap those wallets that are worth a billion each? Obviously someone that hasn't needed the money until now. Someone that is planning on spending up to 2 billion. But not right away because if you try to sell 20k BTC in a hurry it will draw attention and potentially destabilize the currency. But you could sell it all off over the next year or longer without flooding the market.

    Who wants to spend up to $2 billion in the next year? What could you buy with that kind of money? Elon musk spent ~$250 million getting Trump elected. That's just an eighth of $2B. You could buy a lot of super PAC power with $2B. You could bankroll the primarying of every Republican that voted for OBBB. Weird that these wallets were dusted off so close to Elon saying he would primary anyone that voted for OBBB, and he has a strong affinity for crypto, and he had enough money in 2011 to buy that much BCT on a whim, and that he wouldn't have had to touch it to pay other bills as BTC went from 78¢ to more than $100,000 over the last 14 years.

    I wonder who these wallets belong to and what they will be used for?

    This is what conspiracy thinking looks like. It's me. I'm the one conspiracy thinking.

    Ross Ulbricht

  • Its possible some country or corporation has built a secret quantum computer with enough qbits to run Shor's Algorithm. But if its a secret, we wouldn't know about it.

    Eventually all the "lost" wallets will bet cracked by quantum computers.

    At that point though the whole concept of bitcoins will be moot. If quantum computers can crack lost wallets they can also crack active wallets, and at that point there's no reason to buy bitcoin at all, which will tank the value of bitcoin making it mostly not worthwhile to crack wallets.

    So if we get to that point, there will be one proof-of-concept wallet crack, and instantly after that bitcoin will cease to exist in any relevant fashion.

  • At that point though the whole concept of bitcoins will be moot. If quantum computers can crack lost wallets they can also crack active wallets, and at that point there's no reason to buy bitcoin at all, which will tank the value of bitcoin making it mostly not worthwhile to crack wallets.

    So if we get to that point, there will be one proof-of-concept wallet crack, and instantly after that bitcoin will cease to exist in any relevant fashion.

    There's a window between the proof of concept success and Bitcoin being worthless where the attacker could attack any wallet and collect/sell while people figure out what is happening. The only question at that point is do you attack and sell aggressively to beat the clock, or do you slowly and carefully attack to try and stay under the radar? If one person has the ability to break crypto, then it follows that other people working towards it only have to align the same pieces before the window shuts.

    Crypto is and always has been a scam.

  • Its possible some country or corporation has built a secret quantum computer with enough qbits to run Shor's Algorithm. But if its a secret, we wouldn't know about it.

    Eventually all the "lost" wallets will bet cracked by quantum computers.

    I hear this a lot but I don’t put any confidence behind it. This argument suggests that one day we’ll be able to brute force into lost wallets when we can break the encryption. Who knows how far in the future that will be.

    But if I recall correctly, Bitcoin’s protocol is consensus driven. If there is an imminent threat of quantum computing, the developers could just improve the code base to resist it. Or fork the protocol to one that is resistant (Bitcoin 2). Then it’s up to 51% of the Bitcoin node operators to adopt the protocol. As soon as 51% of them upgrades, you immediately stop the threat.

    I think the only reason Bitcoin is around is for two reasons: speculation, or the persons that actually believe it’s decentralised hard money free from control. I’d like to believe that there are a ton of people out there that run the BTC nodes to keep it decentralised. If there is an update that will resist quantum computing, I’m sure they’ll be eager to immediately upgrade their nodes and secure the network and those wallets. At least that’s how I believe it works, it’s been years since I first began researching it.

    As an aside,
    Bitcoin isn’t for me because I hate the environment impact. I hope one day it will become green, because it’s never going to go away. But I don’t blame the people that believe in it. In a world where the rich own everything and control the rules, these people are trying to opt out I guess - use a form of money that can’t be easily controlled or censored. Granted it’s all based on speculation, and whenever we run out of Bitcoin is probably when the system will become useless. Spending is discouraged when you run out of coins, so I don’t know how the Bitcoiners defend that argument. So definitely not for me.

    Edit, on mobile so fixed some typos and clarified the 51% attack.

  • Two wallets. 10k BTC each. These wallets were created back when BTC was 78¢. When you spend $10k the IRS might ask questions. If you are "structuring" correctly you avoid spending $9,999 and $1 within a short time span or even in the same reporting period. 10k BTC back then was something you could buy that looked like it wasn't $10k but was really close. Spend it twice in two different wallets and if there are enough other transactions no one will notice.

    Anytime you see a transaction or set of transactions that add up to or are just shy of 10k USD, BTC or pretty much anything, there should be a little bell that dings in your head and causes you to think "this person is clearly thinking about US tax reporting laws and trying to dodge them."

    Who had all that money back in 2011 that decided that now was the time to tap those wallets that are worth a billion each? Obviously someone that hasn't needed the money until now. Someone that is planning on spending up to 2 billion. But not right away because if you try to sell 20k BTC in a hurry it will draw attention and potentially destabilize the currency. But you could sell it all off over the next year or longer without flooding the market.

    Who wants to spend up to $2 billion in the next year? What could you buy with that kind of money? Elon musk spent ~$250 million getting Trump elected. That's just an eighth of $2B. You could buy a lot of super PAC power with $2B. You could bankroll the primarying of every Republican that voted for OBBB. Weird that these wallets were dusted off so close to Elon saying he would primary anyone that voted for OBBB, and he has a strong affinity for crypto, and he had enough money in 2011 to buy that much BCT on a whim, and that he wouldn't have had to touch it to pay other bills as BTC went from 78¢ to more than $100,000 over the last 14 years.

    I wonder who these wallets belong to and what they will be used for?

    This is what conspiracy thinking looks like. It's me. I'm the one conspiracy thinking.

    Btw, banks will flag multiple transactions of $9,999 even if the reporting threshold is $10k USD. Structuring to avoid the $10k reporting requirement is well known and no guarantee of remaining under the radar.

  • I hear this a lot but I don’t put any confidence behind it. This argument suggests that one day we’ll be able to brute force into lost wallets when we can break the encryption. Who knows how far in the future that will be.

    But if I recall correctly, Bitcoin’s protocol is consensus driven. If there is an imminent threat of quantum computing, the developers could just improve the code base to resist it. Or fork the protocol to one that is resistant (Bitcoin 2). Then it’s up to 51% of the Bitcoin node operators to adopt the protocol. As soon as 51% of them upgrades, you immediately stop the threat.

    I think the only reason Bitcoin is around is for two reasons: speculation, or the persons that actually believe it’s decentralised hard money free from control. I’d like to believe that there are a ton of people out there that run the BTC nodes to keep it decentralised. If there is an update that will resist quantum computing, I’m sure they’ll be eager to immediately upgrade their nodes and secure the network and those wallets. At least that’s how I believe it works, it’s been years since I first began researching it.

    As an aside,
    Bitcoin isn’t for me because I hate the environment impact. I hope one day it will become green, because it’s never going to go away. But I don’t blame the people that believe in it. In a world where the rich own everything and control the rules, these people are trying to opt out I guess - use a form of money that can’t be easily controlled or censored. Granted it’s all based on speculation, and whenever we run out of Bitcoin is probably when the system will become useless. Spending is discouraged when you run out of coins, so I don’t know how the Bitcoiners defend that argument. So definitely not for me.

    Edit, on mobile so fixed some typos and clarified the 51% attack.

    This is correct for a given transaction, but there's no consensus needed to open a Bitcoin wallet. That is usually just a private key in an encrypted envelope.

  • This sounds fishy.

    What if somebody found out the private key for those accounts? Like, brute forced them?

    Is it even technologically possible?

    Bitcoin private keys are 256 bit long. That means, there are 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 (1.15*10^77) possible private keys.

    Say you are using a bitcoin miner that's roughly 4x as fast as the curretly fastest one at 1PH/s (1*10^15), they you'll need roughly 1*10^62 seconds or 3*10^54 years.

    Lets say you got a million of these miners, then you are down to 3*10^48 years, or 2*10^38 times as long as the universe has existed.

    I was going to calculate how much electricity this would consume and how expensive it would be, but the answer to that is plainly "too much to imagine".

  • There's a window between the proof of concept success and Bitcoin being worthless where the attacker could attack any wallet and collect/sell while people figure out what is happening. The only question at that point is do you attack and sell aggressively to beat the clock, or do you slowly and carefully attack to try and stay under the radar? If one person has the ability to break crypto, then it follows that other people working towards it only have to align the same pieces before the window shuts.

    Crypto is and always has been a scam.

    Considering that you'd need a paradigm-breaking revolutionary and incredibly expensive device to do so, I'd find it hard to believe that you could stay under the radar with it.

    What I'd expect to happen is that some big corporation and/or university manages to build a quantum computer capable of breaking 256bit encryption, and quite instantly after the announcement bitcoin will tank into nothingness or will change the algorithm to something quantum-computer safe. Well before some shady actor will get their hands on a quantum computer to crack wallets.

  • Bitcoin private keys are 256 bit long. That means, there are 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 (1.15*10^77) possible private keys.

    Say you are using a bitcoin miner that's roughly 4x as fast as the curretly fastest one at 1PH/s (1*10^15), they you'll need roughly 1*10^62 seconds or 3*10^54 years.

    Lets say you got a million of these miners, then you are down to 3*10^48 years, or 2*10^38 times as long as the universe has existed.

    I was going to calculate how much electricity this would consume and how expensive it would be, but the answer to that is plainly "too much to imagine".

    • brainwallet has entered the chat
  • Btw, banks will flag multiple transactions of $9,999 even if the reporting threshold is $10k USD. Structuring to avoid the $10k reporting requirement is well known and no guarantee of remaining under the radar.

    Not even that close. They'll flag any recurring fairly large transactions under 10k.

  • I hear this a lot but I don’t put any confidence behind it. This argument suggests that one day we’ll be able to brute force into lost wallets when we can break the encryption. Who knows how far in the future that will be.

    But if I recall correctly, Bitcoin’s protocol is consensus driven. If there is an imminent threat of quantum computing, the developers could just improve the code base to resist it. Or fork the protocol to one that is resistant (Bitcoin 2). Then it’s up to 51% of the Bitcoin node operators to adopt the protocol. As soon as 51% of them upgrades, you immediately stop the threat.

    I think the only reason Bitcoin is around is for two reasons: speculation, or the persons that actually believe it’s decentralised hard money free from control. I’d like to believe that there are a ton of people out there that run the BTC nodes to keep it decentralised. If there is an update that will resist quantum computing, I’m sure they’ll be eager to immediately upgrade their nodes and secure the network and those wallets. At least that’s how I believe it works, it’s been years since I first began researching it.

    As an aside,
    Bitcoin isn’t for me because I hate the environment impact. I hope one day it will become green, because it’s never going to go away. But I don’t blame the people that believe in it. In a world where the rich own everything and control the rules, these people are trying to opt out I guess - use a form of money that can’t be easily controlled or censored. Granted it’s all based on speculation, and whenever we run out of Bitcoin is probably when the system will become useless. Spending is discouraged when you run out of coins, so I don’t know how the Bitcoiners defend that argument. So definitely not for me.

    Edit, on mobile so fixed some typos and clarified the 51% attack.

    This argument suggests that one day we’ll be able to brute force into lost wallets when we can break the encryption. Who knows how far in the future that will be.

    Nobody knows if a quantum computer is actually possible to build, but in theory, if a quantum computer is built, RSA would be exponentially easier to crack.

  • This sounds fishy.

    What if somebody found out the private key for those accounts? Like, brute forced them?

    Is it even technologically possible?

    Yes, it's possible, but more like "brute forcing the password of a wallet software and get the keys that way".

  • Somebody found their missing hard drive

    That guy who want to search a landfill probably.

  • Bitcoin private keys are 256 bit long. That means, there are 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 (1.15*10^77) possible private keys.

    Say you are using a bitcoin miner that's roughly 4x as fast as the curretly fastest one at 1PH/s (1*10^15), they you'll need roughly 1*10^62 seconds or 3*10^54 years.

    Lets say you got a million of these miners, then you are down to 3*10^48 years, or 2*10^38 times as long as the universe has existed.

    I was going to calculate how much electricity this would consume and how expensive it would be, but the answer to that is plainly "too much to imagine".

    I was going to calculate how much electricity this would consume and how expensive it would be, but the answer to that is plainly “too much to imagine”.

    Purely hypothetically speaking, but, what if someone had their own private Dyson Sphere generating electricity? (Asking for a friend.)

  • Not even that close. They'll flag any recurring fairly large transactions under 10k.

    I'm unfamiliar as I've never had such. What counts as re-occuring? Is two payments always considered re-occuring?

  • Bitcoin private keys are 256 bit long. That means, there are 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 (1.15*10^77) possible private keys.

    Say you are using a bitcoin miner that's roughly 4x as fast as the curretly fastest one at 1PH/s (1*10^15), they you'll need roughly 1*10^62 seconds or 3*10^54 years.

    Lets say you got a million of these miners, then you are down to 3*10^48 years, or 2*10^38 times as long as the universe has existed.

    I was going to calculate how much electricity this would consume and how expensive it would be, but the answer to that is plainly "too much to imagine".

    Yeah, my password was Hunter2
    Username: Username

  • I was going to calculate how much electricity this would consume and how expensive it would be, but the answer to that is plainly “too much to imagine”.

    Purely hypothetically speaking, but, what if someone had their own private Dyson Sphere generating electricity? (Asking for a friend.)

    The power consumption would be 5*10^62 Wh.

    The sun outputs 3.9*10^26 W. If you captured all that energy with 100% efficiency, you would need 1.3*10^36 hours or roughly 1*10^22 times the age of the universe to collect enough energy.

    That's incidentally roughly the estimated number of stars in the universe.

    So if you put a dyson sphere around every star in the universe, right after the big bang (ignoring that stars didn't form instantly after the big bang) and you ran them until today, then you'd have just about enough energy to crack one wallet with current tech.

  • This is correct for a given transaction, but there's no consensus needed to open a Bitcoin wallet. That is usually just a private key in an encrypted envelope.

    Got it, thanks for that distinction. It’s been years since I last looked into this stuff. Makes sense for a dormant wallet.

    If a wallet is not dormant in this scenario, then active users could just migrate their wallet to another wallet and then they’ll be good to go.

  • If he made the Silk Road mostly to kickstart BTC, after buying a pile of BTC, and then waited till now to sell it - then he's kinda smart.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Sizable inactive accounts that wake up after years of dormancy draw investor attention because of the potential market impact if those coins are sold.

    It would make me very happy if they liquidated and destroyed the market overnight.

  • 131 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    S
    theoretically software support This. And it's not only due to drivers and much more due to them not having insourced software development and their outsourced developers not using Fairphones as their daily drivers.
  • 16 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    dabster291@lemmy.zipD
    Why does the title use a korean letter as a divider?
  • Meta publishes V-Jepa 2 – an AI world model

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    9 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    K
    Yay more hype. Just what we needed more of, it's hype, at last
  • 15 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    S
    Why call it AI? Is it learning and said-modifying? If not then is it not just regular programming but "AI" sounds better for investors?
  • 110 Stimmen
    84 Beiträge
    112 Aufrufe
    T
    It's not new technology you numpty. It's not news. It's not a scientific paper. Wireless energy transfer isn't "bullshit", it's been an understood aspect of physics for a long time. Since you seem unable to grasp the concept, I'll put it in bold and italics: This is a video of a guy doing a DIY project where he wanted to make his setup as wireless as possible. In the video he also goes over his thoughts and design considerations, and explains how the tech works for people who don't already know. It is not new technology. It is not pseudoscience. It is a guy showing off his bespoke PC setup. It does not need an article or a blog post. He can post about it in any form he wants. Personally, I think showcasing this kind of thing in a video is much better than a wall of text. I want to see the process, the finished product, the tools used and how he used them.
  • 104 Stimmen
    168 Beiträge
    70 Aufrufe
    smartmanapps@programming.devS
    At least that’s not how I’ve been taught in school If you had a bad teacher that doesn't mean everyone else had a bad teacher. You’re not teaching kids how to prove the quadratic formula, do you? We teach them how to do proofs, including several specific ones. No, you teach them how to use it instead. We teach them how to use everything, and how to do proofs as well. Your whole argument is just one big strawman. Again, with the order of operations Happens to be the topic of the post. It’s not a thing Yes it is! I’ve given you two examples that don’t follow any So you could not do the brackets first and still get the right answer? Nope! 2×2×(2-2)/2=0 2×2×2-2/2=7 That’s kinda random, but sure? Not random at all, given you were talking about students understanding how Maths works. 2+3×4 then it’s not an order of operation that plays the role here Yes it is! If I have 1 2-litre bottle of milk, and 4 3-litre bottles of milk, there's only 1 correct answer for how many litres of milk of have, and it ain't 20! Even elementary school kids know how to work it out just by counting up. They all derive from each other No they don't. The proof of order of operations has got nothing to do with any of the properties you mentioned. For example, commutation is used to prove identity And neither is used to prove the order of operations. 2 operators, no order followed Again with a cherry-picked example that only includes operators of the same precedence. You have no property that would allow for (2+3)×4 to be equal 2+3×4 And yet we have a proof of why 14 is the only correct answer to 2+3x4, why you have to do the multiplication first. Is that not correct? Of course it is. So what? It literally has subtraction and distribution No it didn't. It had Brackets (with subtraction inside) and Multiplication and Division. I thought you taught math, no? Yep, and I just pointed out that what you just said is wrong. 2-2(1+2) has Subtraction and Distribution. 2-2 is 2 being, hear me out, subtracted from 2 Which was done first because you had it inside Brackets, therefore not done in the Subtraction step in order of operations, but the Brackets step. Also, can you explain how is that cherry-picking? You already know - you know which operations to pick to make it look like there's no such thing as order of operations. If I tell you to look up at the sky at midnight and say "look - there's no such thing as the sun", that doesn't mean there's no such thing as the sun.
  • Sunsetting the Ghostery Private Browser

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    33 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    P
    Sunsetting Dawn? Of course
  • Microsoft's AI Secretly Copying All Your Private Messages

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    S
    Forgive me for not explaining better. Here are the terms potentially needing explanation. Provisioning in this case is initial system setup, the kind of stuff you would do manually after a fresh install, but usually implies a regimented and repeatable process. Virtual Machine (VM) snapshots are like a save state in a game, and are often used to reset a virtual machine to a particular known-working condition. Preboot Execution Environment (PXE, aka ‘network boot’) is a network adapter feature that lets you boot a physical machine from a hosted network image rather than the usual installation on locally attached storage. It’s probably tucked away in your BIOS settings, but many computers have the feature since it’s a common requirement in commercial deployments. As with the VM snapshot described above, a PXE image is typically a known-working state that resets on each boot. Non-virtualized means not using hardware virtualization, and I meant specifically not running inside a virtual machine. Local-only means without a network or just not booting from a network-hosted image. Telemetry refers to data collecting functionality. Most software has it. Windows has a lot. Telemetry isn’t necessarily bad since it can, for example, help reveal and resolve bugs and usability problems, but it is easily (and has often been) abused by data-hungry corporations like MS, so disabling it is an advisable precaution. MS = Microsoft OSS = Open Source Software Group policies are administrative settings in Windows that control standards (for stuff like security, power management, licensing, file system and settings access, etc.) for user groups on a machine or network. Most users stick with the defaults but you can edit these yourself for a greater degree of control. Docker lets you run software inside “containers” to isolate them from the rest of the environment, exposing and/or virtualizing just the resources they need to run, and Compose is a related tool for defining one or more of these containers, how they interact, etc. To my knowledge there is no one-to-one equivalent for Windows. Obviously, many of these concepts relate to IT work, as are the use-cases I had in mind, but the software is simple enough for the average user if you just pick one of the premade playbooks. (The Atlas playbook is popular among gamers, for example.) Edit: added explanations for docker and telemetry