Satoshi Nakamoto moves his 6.5 yr old bitcoins

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 7:22 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #40

pmlamotte wrote: post #21

For those not aware, the original 50 coins sent to this address were generated from the genesis block, the first block on the blockchain. However, the transaction is still unconfirmed, so until it is this could be nothing. Market has been scared downwards though.

I don't understand. Either this transaction has a valid signature or it doesn't. If it does, then AFACIT the only possible way that it could not be confirmed sooner or later is if it's a double-spend. What am I missing?

Post by lisper » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 8:29 PM UTC

murbul wrote: post #70

lisper wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you determine that is from the genesis block? Go to: https://blockchain.info/en/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5L... Scroll down to the bottom, where you will see: https://blockchain.info/tx/0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6... That is the genesis block. (Well, OK, that's the transaction contained in the genesis block. The Genesis block itself is https://blockchain.info/block-index/14850 ) > Also how do you…

The genesis block is actually block 0, you're looking at block 1. Incidentally, the genesis block reward is unspendable. It's not really known if that was intentional or a bug in the initial implementation, but the rule persists.

Post by Natanael_L » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 10:41 PM UTC

murbul wrote: post #65

lisper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely someone would have just checked the signatures on these transactions by now? (I would do it myself but I'm not familiar enough with the bitcoin transaction format.)

They're definitely invalid transactions. The public keys and signatures do not match the address they're trying to spend from. Only blockchain.info failed to detect this minor detail.

Post by Natanael_L » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 10:47 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #57

26cf805ae26f wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a consequence of the fact that the general ledger (aka the blockchain) is public information. It has to be, otherwise the system would not work; what I mean is that you cannot design a crypto currency whose ledger is not public information.

It depends on what you mean by "cryptocurrency". None of the Chaum-based Digital Cash system designs of the 80s and 90s featured a public ledger, but they weren't decentralized. The public ledger was an innovation of Bitcoin (as far as I know, even Szabo's property title system didn't propose to make the ledger actually public), and many people at the time felt that it was a bad idea, since it gave up anonymity. It s…

Post by nullc » Wed, Aug 05, 2015, 12:14 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #59

artursapek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't that those 50 Bitcoins are worth $14k, it's that he owns up to a million of them, and nobody is sure who he is or whether he still had control of those coins. This seems to prove that he does, unless blockchain.info is wrong.

> it's that he owns up to a million of them We have no evidence that that is true, however it is widely speculated and believed to be so.