On 20 May, reports indicated that Satoshi Nakamoto may have been reactivated to move 50 Bitcoins (BTC) that were first mined in February 2009. In a subsequent investigation, it was discovered that these were not just any Bitcoins. They are Bitcoins that Dr. Craig Wright himself has claimed.
The operations in question
The transaction in question transferred 50 BTCs to two addresses with a division of 40/10 (this division is reminiscent of the famous first transfer from Bitcoin, which sent 10 BTCs from Satoshi to the computer scientist Hal Finney). The currencies in today’s transaction were originally mined on 9 February 2009, and have been dormant for 11 years.
Adam Back thinks the recent Bitcoin move was not Satoshi
While 40 BTCs remain unspent, it appears that all 10 BTCs ended up in a mixer, according to Chainalysis:
„We are still investigating, but it seems that 40 first live transactions, advanced the measure, issuing the first bond, signed a petition, as reported earlier this month, wrote an open letter, began to custody, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, published multiple tweets, steven mnuchin said last week went to a traditional address and remain unspent and 10 BTC seem to have gone to a mixer. I’ll keep you posted if we find out much more than that.“
Bitcoin transactions in question. Source: OXT Explorer.
Chainalysis then updated his findings:
„It appears that some of the money ended up in Coinbase.“
Craig Wright threatened to collapse the price of Bitcoin… but what happened?
Wright v. Satoshi
This story gets more interesting. The address where the 50 newly mined BTCs had been hibernating until today, 17XiVVooLcdCUCMf9s4t4jTExacxwFS5uh, was listed in a court document in the case Kleinman vs.
A court document that includes 17XiVVooLcdCUCMf9s4t4jTExacxwFS5uh as belonging to Dr. Wright.
We contacted Dr. Wright’s attorney, Andres Rivero, to ask him if his client was the one moving the coins. He responded by saying:
„No comment. We’ll be in touch if we’re going to say anything.“
It is not clear from the response whether the lawyer had nothing to say because his client was not involved in the transaction, or because it was not yet time to speak.
If it turns out that Dr. Wright did not, in fact, move these Bitcoins, then one could conclude that they never belonged to him. And if these don’t belong to him, then it’s possible that the other addresses on the list don’t belong to Dr. Wright either. However, that would be highly unlikely, given Dr. Wright’s history of honesty in court.
Fortunately, the Kleiman v. Wright case, which could potentially end speculation, is scheduled to go to trial on July 6.
The penalties sought for Craig Wright’s „false“ BTC addresses and his story of a messenger
We sent a follow-up email to Dr. Wright’s attorney and Dr. Wright, but have not received a response in time for publication.