Skip to content

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

Technology
42 33 0
  • 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.

  • Maybe because I'm high, but you just made me ugly laugh on the bus. I just saw fireworks. And now I'm remembering that plan I had to go back to the early 90s, and buy stock in yahoo. But through a telephone error, I ended up buying cases of yoohoo instead. Still worth it. I got to go back in time and see a micheal jackson concert when he was still black, and a Nirvana concert back before they were heard of.

    Still though.....to be a billionaire.

    early 90s

    micheal jackson still black

    Nirvana before they were heard of

    🤔

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

    It can be, if they're fairly close in time and total just past 10k.

    Every bank has their own algorithm and they try to ride the line between catching criminals and not having too many false positives.

  • 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.

    Who says human traffickers have to be dumb?

  • 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.

    Buttcoiner

  • 113 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    S
    I admire your positivity. I do not share it though, because from what I have seen, because even if there are open weights, the one with the biggest datacenter will in the future hold the most intelligent and performance model. Very similar to how even if storage space is very cheap today, large companies are holding all the data anyway. AI will go the same way, and thus the megacorps will and in some extent already are owning not only our data, but our thoughts and the ability to modify them. I mean, sponsored prompt injection is just the first thought modifying thing, imagine Google search sponsored hits, but instead it's a hyperconvincing AI response that subtly nudges you to a certain brand or way of thinking. Absolutely terrifies me, especially with all the research Meta has done on how to manipulate people's mood and behaviour through which social media posts they are presented with
  • Pope Leo urges politicians to respond to challenges posed by AI

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 430 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    B
    I'm not sure who you're referencing to, but I'm assuming you're not referring to me, because I despise the IDF
  • I Counted All of the Yurts in Mongolia Using Machine Learning

    Technology technology
    9
    17 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    G
    I'd say, when there's a policy and its goals aren't reached, that's a policy failure. If people don't like the policy, that's an issue but it's a separate issue. It doesn't seem likely that people prefer living in tents, though. But to be fair, the government may be doing the best it can. It's ranked "Flawed Democracy" by The Economist Democracy Index. That's really good, I'd say, considering the circumstances. They are placed slightly ahead of Argentina and Hungary. OP has this to say: Due to the large number of people moving to urban locations, it has been difficult for the government to build the infrastructure needed for them. The informal settlements that grew from this difficulty are now known as ger districts. There have been many efforts to formalize and develop these areas. The Law on Allocation of Land to Mongolian Citizens for Ownership, passed in 2002, allowed for existing ger district residents to formalize the land they settled, and allowed for others to receive land from the government into the future. Along with the privatization of land, the Mongolian government has been pushing for the development of ger districts into areas with housing blocks connected to utilities. The plan for this was published in 2014 as Ulaanbaatar 2020 Master Plan and Development Approaches for 2030. Although progress has been slow (Choi and Enkhbat 7), they have been making progress in building housing blocks in ger distrcts. Residents of ger districts sell or exchange their plots to developers who then build housing blocks on them. Often this is in exchange for an apartment in the building, and often the value of the apartment is less than the land they originally had (Choi and Enkhbat 15). Based on what I’ve read about the ger districts, they have been around since at least the 1970s, and progress on developing them has been slow. When ineffective policy results in a large chunk of the populace generationally living in yurts on the outskirts of urban areas, it’s clear that there is failure. Choi, Mack Joong, and Urandulguun Enkhbat. “Distributional Effects of Ger Area Redevelopment in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.” International Journal of Urban Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 50–68. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1571433.
  • France considers requiring Musk’s X to verify users’ age

    Technology technology
    20
    1
    142 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    51 Aufrufe
    C
    TBH, age verification services exist. If it becomes law, integrating them shouldn't be more difficult than integrating a OIDC login. So everyone should be able to do it. Depending on these services, you might not even need to give a name, or, because they are separate entities, don't give your name to the platform using them. Other parts of regulation are more difficult. Like these "upload filters" that need to figure out if something shared via a service is violating any copyright before it is made available.
  • 323 Stimmen
    137 Beiträge
    132 Aufrufe
    F
    I think it would be best if that's a user setting, like dark mode. It would obviously be a popular setting to adjust. If they don't do that, there will doubtless be grease monkey and other scripts to hide it.
  • 182 Stimmen
    39 Beiträge
    75 Aufrufe
    H
    https://archive.org/details/swgrap
  • Meta Reportedly Eyeing 'Super Sensing' Tech for Smart Glasses

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    34 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    M
    I see your point but also I just genuinely don't have a mind for that shit. Even my own close friends and family, it never pops into my head to ask about that vacation they just got back from or what their kids are up to. I rely on social cues from others, mainly my wife, to sort of kick start my brain. I just started a new job. I can't remember who said they were into fishing and who didn't, and now it's anxiety inducing to try to figure out who is who. Or they ask me a friendly question and I get caught up answering and when I'm done I forget to ask it back to them (because frequently asking someone about their weekend or kids or whatever is their way of getting to share their own life with you, but my brain doesn't think that way). I get what you're saying. It could absolutely be used for performative interactions but for some of us people drift away because we aren't good at being curious about them or remembering details like that. And also, I have to sit through awkward lunches at work where no one really knows what to talk about or ask about because outside of work we are completely alien to one another. And it's fine. It wouldn't be worth the damage it does. I have left behind all personally identifiable social media for the same reason. But I do hate how social anxiety and ADHD makes friendship so fleeting.