Connect with us

Bitcoin

historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?

I am continuing to explore the early bitcoin blockchain using blk00000.dat covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24 time period.

Published

on

The following content was written by DougM on July 05, 2020, 08:37:25 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


Please excuse another newbie question…I did search first, but I didn’t find a close enough thread to satisfy my curiosity.
In 2018 this article calculated a much larger number but it wasn’t as conservative and it used later transactions https://www.leaprate.com/cryptocurrency/bitcoin/lost-bitcoins-satoshi-coins/

I am continuing to explore the early bitcoin blockchain using blk00000.dat covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24 time period.

Out of the ~6M bitcoins mined in these early days, I calculate ~1.716M bitcoins sent to 34,327 output addresses remain untouched today (~28.6%!). 
By ‘untouched’ I mean that the address’ total received matches the final balance meaning that the address was used once for mining then completely dormant for the last decade.   

Questions: Are these generally considered ‘lost’?
Is it reasonable to assume most were mined by ‘satoshi’? I know ‘satoshi’ might suddenly become active and dump his 1M+ any day…  Wink
I assume there would be similar dormant accounts if I looked after 2011-04-24, but I figured those dormant accounts during these early days are more likely to remain dormant i.e. lost.

here is my simplistic methodology in a nutshell:

  • 1) extracted 119,965 coinbase transactions from blk00000.dat each mining 50 bitcoins using a single output address (only 73 had multiple so I ignored them for these calculations) using pyblockchain’s BlockchainFileReader
  • 2) looked up current balances for each of the 34,327 output addresses using chain.api.btc.com
  • 3) summed up bitcoins for any of these output address where the total_received matched the final balance (i.e., none were ever sent)

Thanks again for your insight!

The following content was written by gmaxwell on July 06, 2020, 01:25:07 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


Some are certainly lost, but there is no particular reason to think that all or even most of them are lost.

Wallets try to minimize change, generally, and a big 50 BTC output is going to result in a lot of change unless you’re moving nearly 50 BTC… so some of these coins could even be in actively used wallets and still sit unmoved.

Recently someone posted a signmessage from 145 of the keys that would have been in your list.

Quote
Is it reasonable to assume most were mined by ‘satoshi’?
I don’t agree that it is, many were clearly not.  Bitcoin was public from the first mined block and we do know that quite a few other named people participated from pretty much the beginning.

The following content was written by TheArchaeologist on July 06, 2020, 08:15:48 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


Code:
address                           |total_incoming    |total_outgoing|
———————————-|——————|————–|
12tkqA9xSoowkzoERHMWNKsTey55YEBqkv| 28150.05015902001|           0.0|
1HLvaTs3zR3oev9ya7Pzp3GB9Gqfg6XYJT| 9260.000364999998|           0.0|
198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5qkfy4g3Hi|     8000.00033346|           0.0|
1PTYXwamXXgQoAhDbmUf98rY2Pg1pYXhin|3233.1703100000004|           0.0|
1HjdiADVHew97yM8z4Vqs4iPwMyQHkkuhj|2200.0002100000006|           0.0|
There are even a few addresses from that period with a lot more than 50BTC incoming and nothing ever spent.

Code:
sum(total_incoming)|
——————-|
 1398416.2312229003|
When summing all balances from addresses funded in blocks below a height of 52200 and no outgoing transactions whatsoever I get a number quite a bit lower than your 1.7 million, about 1,398,416 BTC untouched.

There is no way of telling how much of these coins were mined by Satoshi and/or which coins have their associated private keys lost forever.

The following content was written by DougM on July 06, 2020, 11:28:15 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


First, thanks for reoply and for double checking my counts with what you have!

There are even a few addresses from that period with a lot more than 50BTC incoming and nothing ever spent.

Good point!  However, I was targeting only coinbase transactions with a single output address then zero activity to be ultra conservative with my estimates.  During these early days (i.e., within blk00000.dat) I found some output address that had two coinbase transactions, but only a tiny percent and almost all were ultimately ‘spent’.  Therefore, I was specifically hunting for the ’50 mined coins going to a single account never to be heard from again’ scenario that appeared to be fairly. My theory is these would be the most likely addresses where the private keys are lost forever.

When summing all balances from addresses funded in blocks below a height of 52200 and no outgoing transactions whatsoever I get a number quite a bit lower than your 1.7 million, about 1,398,416 BTC untouched.

Now that is very interesting.  My poor man’s approach, (since I don’t have the entire blockchain downloaded) involved checking the current balance for the 119,965 coinbase transactions I found in blk0000.dat using chain.api.btc.com. Maybe the balances I got via their API for these early addresses wasn’t accurate?  I get a sum of ~171,601,616,424,739 sats or ~1,716,016 bit coins (1:100000000 right?)

below a height of 52200
Sorry, I am still learning about heights….would that covers all of the coinbase transactions from blk0000.dat from 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24 time period that I was targeting? Another check is to compare how many coinbase transactions in your calculations….is it around 200,000 too? If so, I am leaning toward fault balances with the API unless you can think of something else that might explain our 400,000+ delta?  Is it easy to determine how much of your 1.4 total includes accounts with total received > ~51 to see how much larger our delta is?

Thanks again for sharing your insights! Cool

The following content was written by pooya87 on July 07, 2020, 03:58:20 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


below a height of 52200
Sorry, I am still learning about heights….would that covers all of the coinbase transactions from blk0000.dat from 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24 time period that I was targeting? Another check is to compare how many coinbase transactions in your calculations….is it around 200,000 too? If so, I am leaning toward fault balances with the API unless you can think of something else that might explain our 400,000+ delta?  Is it easy to determine how much of your 1.4 total includes accounts with total received > ~51 to see how much larger our delta is?

each block is in a chain (hence the blockchain name) so each has a number associated with them starting from 0 (genesis block) to 1 (first block) and so on. each block itself has a header that contains a timestamp, all you have to do is check that variable to know the approximate time that block was mined (approximate because the miner’s clock might not have been accurate or they may not have updated the time field correctly).

considering this part:
I am continuing to explore the early bitcoin blockchain using blk00000.dat covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24 time period.
When summing all balances from addresses funded in blocks below a height of 52200

block #52200 was mined on 2010-04-20 23:35 according to blockchair which means the difference between your totals might have been because @TheArchaeologist is not counting 67,803 blocks (until block height 120003).
although that height is based on timestamps. if you are using the blk00000.dat file you might want to check what the last block inside that file is to get the more accurate number.

The following content was written by TheArchaeologist on July 07, 2020, 06:32:11 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


To be honest, I missed an entire year :S My block height of 52,200 was based on april 2010 instead of 2011.

When checking the raw file blk0000.dat I saw the last block in there was with height 119977. So I ran the numbers again:

Code:
sum(total_incoming)|
——————-|
 1763310.7677514425|
These are all coins mined/deposited up till April 2011 (block 119977) which are untouched until today. This number ismore consistent with your 1.7M estimate. Please note that my own database hasn’t synced fully yet so if coins have been spent recently they might still be in this number. In short: it’s an educated estimate not an exact given Smiley

The following content was written by DougM on July 07, 2020, 10:57:37 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


each block is in a chain (hence the blockchain name) so each has a number associated with them starting from 0 (genesis block) to 1 (first block) and so on. each block itself has a header that contains a timestamp, all you have to do is check that variable to know the approximate time that block was mined (approximate because the miner’s clock might not have been accurate or they may not have updated the time field correctly).
Nice!  so simple when you put it that way.  Unfortunately I don’t think I included the block number in my DB, but I can reprocess blk00000 easily enough to add it.  Thanks you.

Also, thanks to TheArchaeologist for figuring out our delta problem.  So, given my initial assumptions (single output coinbase transactions) and limited scope (blk00000) the 1.7M appears to be a decent estimate.  But as you pointed out there are some larger accounts that have long been dormant that are worth considering too. 

Amazing how much bitcoin knowledge/expertise is represented here. Thank you all for sharing it with the newbies  Roll Eyes

The following content was written by DougM on July 09, 2020, 02:39:04 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


Quote
Is it reasonable to assume most were mined by ‘satoshi’?
I don’t agree that it is, many were clearly not.  Bitcoin was public from the first mined block and we do know that quite a few other named people participated from pretty much the beginning.
This recent article references some interesting data mining analysis that concluded Satoshi mined as many as 1.1 M bitcoins during the first 7 months.  I guess 1.1 M isn’t most of 1.7 but still a lot of them  Grin
1.1 M is estimated to be ~10 B $ today   Cool Cool Cool

https://decrypt.co/34810/how-many-bitcoin-does-its-inventor-satoshi-nakamoto-still-own

The following content was written by pooya87 on July 09, 2020, 03:39:58 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


This recent article references

this is not new, the news site has just dug up an ancient guesswork and published it as news. Lerner’s work is flawed and like others it is still a guesswork. the “pattern” itself is also very controversial.

The following content was written by DougM on July 15, 2020, 12:23:06 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


This recent article references

this is not new, the news site has just dug up an ancient guesswork and published it as news. Lerner’s work is flawed and like others it is still a guesswork. the “pattern” itself is also very controversial.
I read more articles on Lerner’s research.  Personally, I  found his research, further refined following feedback from several early thread discussions, is very impressive and believable.

That said, I am self-admitted amateur who was NOT here when this all started so I would love if someone could help me understand in a nutshell why the latest version of Lerner’s ‘Patoshi’ pattern is so flawed to the degree that it is largely not accurate, i.e., not the work of ‘Satoshi’ and/or not the volume attributed to one miner at least?   

IMHO, these observations all contribute to his conclusion which makes it hard for me to believe it is anything else, but Satoshi’s own work: 1) the line and angle patterns of the ExtraNonce, 2) the fact that ‘Patoshi’ attributed block ‘lines’ start in the beginning and just happens to end when Satoshi is exiting, 3) virtually all of these blocks fall into the collection of possibility ‘lost’ coins (i.e. untouched), and 4) his newer computer clock observation (further supporting his ‘one miner’ theory)

I would love to hear any counter arguments.  For reference, here is the latest version of his research I believe which even addresses some of the constructive feedback (i.e., counter arguments) provided early on:
https://bitslog.com/2019/04/16/the-return-of-the-deniers-and-the-revenge-of-patoshi/
https://bitslog.com/2020/06/22/a-new-mystery-in-patoshi-timestamps/  (a more recent ‘Potoshi’ timestamp pattern detailed)

BTW regardless of who actually mined the blocks or not his http://satoshiblocks.info/ is a neat tool to visualize these early blocks  Roll Eyes

Thanks in advance!

The following content was written by pooya87 on July 15, 2020, 06:51:21 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


well the best hole i can poke into this theory is going to be based on hashrate. there is a very low chance that only a single CPU could have generate that much hashrate to mine all those blocks, there must have been more than 1 individual and separate CPUs mining at the same time to increase the luck of finding blocks at that rate. there were no pool mining and the bitcoin client at that time didn’t have the commands required for it either (hence the separate CPUs).

to mine blocks during in early days for example about 20 MHS was needed, if my calculations are correct. taking the data from this page which is based on highly optimized and specialized software to mine bitcoin on CPU that didn’t exist in 2009 the only single CPU that could generate that much hashrate is Phenom II X6 which was released in 2010 (2 years after this period).
the best CPU i could find in 2008 can generate around 5-6 MHS which means at least 4 of them were needed to compute that many hashes.

even without hashrate argument i could group different blocks together in a way that it seems like 3 miners were mining.
it is a bit exaggerated but assume 3 miners Miner A, Miner B and Miner C start mining near the same time, the result could look like this. for instance Miner B after finding block 86 starts an unlucky streak where he fails to find the next block and has to increment his extraNonce until he gets lucky again in the competition and finds block 91


here is another problem.
we know for a fact that Satoshi was mining bitcoin and most definitely had a high hashrate.
we also know for a fact that the code he was running would have never acted like below picture (ie. bitcoin version 0.1) as it can be seen from the source. i also say that it is impossible for a developer to have a separate and different code running for himself alone without releasing it as a part of his project (ie. bitcoin version 0.1).
the only logical conclusion is that someone else was mining bitcoin with a self written code that had this difference (not incrementing extraNonce when another block was found)


so the only part of this whole thing that i can accept is that blocks like this last picture (359 and 362) are mined by the same code which is most probably run on the same CPU but the subsequent blocks have less chance. basically i say if the gap between the extraNonces are small there is a higher chance of it being mined by the same code/CPU but as the gap grows the chance decreases since another miner could have caught up. and something like this is not unlikely:
miner 1: 498, 509, 524, 526, …
miner 2: 503, 513, 522, 533, …

The following content was written by DougM on July 16, 2020, 01:17:33 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


well the best hole i can poke into this theory is going to be based on hashrate. there is a very low chance that only a single CPU could have generate that much hashrate to mine all those blocks, there must have been more than 1 individual and separate CPUs mining at the same time to increase the luck of finding blocks at that rate. there were no pool mining and the bitcoin client at that time didn't have the commands required for it either (hence the separate CPUs)….
Awesome pooya87,  thanks for taking the time to outline the hashrate counter-argument!  Cool

I still have a lot to learn…please bare with me. I have never mined bitcoins especially back in time period covered by the 'potashi' lines so I greatly value this forum's collective expertise/knowledge on what i would take for Satoshi to pull this off.   I have been trying to read up on the hashrate. Here is some tidbits that I found interesting:

During these early days proof-of-work difficulty was at the minimum (first increase was until 12/30/2009).  

minimum 00000000ffff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
30/12/2009 00000000d86a0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11/01/2010 00000000c4280000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
25/01/2010 00000000be710000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
04/02/2010 000000008cc30000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
….
According to Satoshi “The minimum difficulty is 32 zero bits, so even if only one person was running a node, the difficulty doesn't get any easier than that. ”  

Cryptography Mailing List Bitcoin v0.1 released 2009-01-08 19:27:40 UTC – –
“You can get coins by getting someone to send you some, or turn on Options->Generate Coins to run a node and generate blocks. I made the proof-of-work difficulty ridiculously easy to start with, so for a little while in the beginning a typical PC will be able to generate coins in just a few hours. “

I think we all agree that Satoshi is an utterly brilliant visionary and likely very protective of his bitcoin brainchild. Parents can do some crazy things for their children  Wink

Follow Questions with that in mind:

Wouldn't Satoshi want/need consistent mining going on during the early days to validate transactions until bitcoin gained enough momentum to move on its own? I was curious about:

If broadcasts turn out to be slower in practice than expected, the target time between blocks may have to be increased to avoid wasting resources. We want blocks to usually propagate in much less time than it takes to generate them, otherwise nodes would spend too much time working on obsolete blocks. – Satoshi Nakamoto

“Conversely, if blocks were being mined slower than every 10 minutes, the target will adjust upwards to make is easier to get below the target for the next period of blocks.”
isn't this an incentive for Satoshi to mine regularly to ensure blocks get processed in time since difficulty was already at the minimum until the end of 2019?

In 2008 he was aware fully aware of '51% attack threat' and envision early that impact GPU would have on mining. In 2009 he developed and added multi-processor support for coin generation into 0.2 which would require extensive development/test.  Given who we know he is, isn't it possible Satoshi built some kind of mult-node mining farm or even a supped up multiple CPU processor computer system that mined coins at a rate much greater than the typical hobbyist bitcoin miner during these early days?  

Here is Satoshi emails/posts that I found most relevant:

Satoshi developed bitcoin's multi-processor support for mining:

Bitcoin 0.2 released!2009-12-16 2
Satoshi Nakamoto
– Multi-processor support for coin generation (which would have required development and testing)

Well aware of the impact GPU and dedicated hardware would have on mining:

Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com> Sun, Apr 12, 2009
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
“Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For
now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video
card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are
shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that”

2009-12-12 17:52:44 UTC

“The average total coins generated across the network per day stays the same. Faster
machines just get a larger share than slower machines. If everyone bought faster
machines, they wouldn't get more coins than before.
We should have a gentleman's agreement to postpone the GPU arms race as long as we
can for the good of the network. It's much easer to get new users up to speed if they don't
have to worry about GPU drivers and compatibility. It's nice how anyone with just a
CPU can compete fairly equally right now.”


51% Attack threat awareness as early as 2008:

Cryptography Mailing List Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper 2008-11-03 16:23:49 UTC – –
>> As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power on the network,
>> they can generate the longest chain and outpace any attackers.
>
>But they don't. Bad guys routinely control zombie farms of 100,000
>machines or more. People I know who run a blacklist of spam sending
>zombies tell me they often see a million new zombies a day.
>
>This is the same reason that hashcash can't work on today's Internet
>– the good guys have vastly less computational firepower than the bad
>guys.
Thanks for bringing up that point.
I didn't really make that statement as strong as I could have. The requirement is that the
good guys collectively have more CPU power than any single attacker.
There would be many smaller zombie farms that are not big enough to overpower the
network, and they could still make money by generating bitcoins. The smaller farms are
then the “honest nodes”. (I need a better term than “honest”) The more smaller farms
resort to generating bitcoins, the higher the bar gets to overpower the network, making
larger farms also too small to overpower it so that they may as well generate bitcoins too.
According to the “long tail” theory, the small, medium and merely large farms put
together should add up to a lot more than the biggest zombie farm.
Even if a bad guy does overpower the network, it's not like he's instantly rich. All he can
accomplish is to take back money he himself spent, like bouncing a check. To exploit it,
he would have to buy something from a merchant, wait till it ships, then overpower the
network and try to take his money back. I don't think he could make as much money
trying to pull a carding scheme like that as he could by generating bitcoins. With a
zombie farm that big, he could generate more bitcoins than everyone else combined.




The following content was written by pooya87 on July 16, 2020, 03:30:58 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


Wouldn’t Satoshi want/need consistent mining going on during the early days to validate transactions until bitcoin gained enough momentum to move on its own? I was curious about:

If broadcasts turn out to be slower in practice than expected, the target time between blocks may have to be increased to avoid wasting resources. We want blocks to usually propagate in much less time than it takes to generate them, otherwise nodes would spend too much time working on obsolete blocks. – Satoshi Nakamoto

“Conversely, if blocks were being mined slower than every 10 minutes, the target will adjust upwards to make is easier to get below the target for the next period of blocks.”
isn’t this an incentive for Satoshi to mine regularly to ensure blocks get processed in time since difficulty was already at the minimum until the end of 2019?

that is what i think, and also i have seen others come to the same conclusion too, that Satoshi was running miners (plural) to ensure blockchain keeps growing since in early days you couldn’t rely on someone who was just interested to see how bitcoin works to come use it for an hour and then stay instead of going away. that is why we say he was using multiple computers to mine bitcoin.

Quote
In 2008 he was aware fully aware of ‘51% attack threat’ and envision early that impact GPU would have on mining. In 2009 he developed and added multi-processor support for coin generation into 0.2 which would require extensive development/test.  Given who we know he is, isn’t it possible Satoshi built some kind of mult-node mining farm or even a supped up multiple CPU processor computer system that mined coins at a rate much greater than the typical hobbyist bitcoin miner during these early days? 
in my opinion it is highly unlikely that Satoshi did any secretive work like this. he might have had the idea of pooling the work (similar idea that led to creation of the first mining pool in late 2010) but to have already implemented a working one is unlikely.
as for a faster CPU miner, i say it is impossible. because he would have just published it as a part of the bitcoin client’s code.

Quote
51% Attack threat awareness as early as 2018:
Cryptography Mailing List Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper 2008-11-03 16:23:49 UTC – –
i think you mean 2008. and the risk of 51% attack and also collective attack where attackers join CPU power is actually hinted in the bitcoin paper which is released 3 days before this Email. “The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.” it is also explained a bit more in “11. Calculations”.

The following content was written by DougM on July 16, 2020, 01:26:45 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


that is what i think, and also i have seen others come to the same conclusion too, that Satoshi was running miners (plural) to ensure blockchain keeps growing since in early days you couldn't rely on someone who was just interested to see how bitcoin works to come use it for an hour and then stay instead of going away. that is why we say he was using multiple computers to mine bitcoin.

in my opinion it is highly unlikely that Satoshi did any secretive work like this. he might have had the idea of pooling the work (similar idea that led to creation of the first mining pool in late 2010) but to have already implemented a working one is unlikely.
as for a faster CPU miner, i say it is impossible. because he would have just published it as a part of the bitcoin client's code.
First, thanks for catching the date typo..I edited it Embarrassed  Second, thanks for your insight/thoughts on this topic (I welcome any others thoughts!)

I was just trying to brainstorm on the plausibility that a single 'entity' i.e., Satoshi did these early mining that have gone untouched even given your hashrate concern.  Being not a miner, or someone with your technical breath in this area, nor someone back at that time frame, I can't contribute on a technical basis, but I still can't come up with a alternative explanation to explain the patterns evident in the blockchain.   Your multiple miner theory is interesting, but I still have questions to better understand how that would explain what happened.

To clarify, in your opinion, do you agree that Satoshi likely ran multiple miners to ensure his fledgling bitcoin network took root?  
If he hadn't do something like this than blocks wouldn't have been validated for hours or even days which would have turned off early adopters.
For the sake of argument, let's say Satoshi WAS running multiple miners to keep his early network going….would that address your hashrate concern or do you still have reservations?


Here is a technical follow on question due to my complete ignorance about how the initial bitcoin mining actually works:
*If* Satoshi was running multiple computers, how does the 'ExtraNonce' incrementing work so that across multiple physical miners it would increment in the manner exhibited here?
http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=72
Conversely if these were just a random bunch of early adapters that downloaded Bitcoin v0.1.0 on January 9, 2009 acting independently how would the ExtraNonce increment in such a uniform pattern?

I have been reviewing early blocks mined by known individuals to see how they fit or not fit the 'Patoshi' pattern, but i need to get a better understanding on how the ExtraNonce gets assigned/incremented early on to know if mapping their blocks to that chart is relevant or not.  Based on my amateur review of the the V0.1.0 code it seems like all the 'nodes' running by a given BitcoinMiner instance would share the a common ExtraNonce value that would get incremented each time a block was found. You postulated that multiple distinct miners were contributing to the 'Potoshi' pattern but the bnExtraNonce variable is local and would be distinct for each instance of BitcoinMiner, right?  

bool BitcoinMiner()
{
    printf(“BitcoinMiner started\n”);
    SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_PRIORITY_LOWEST);

    CKey key;
    key.MakeNewKey();
    CBigNum bnExtraNonce = 0;
    while (fGenerateBitcoins)
    {
        Sleep(50);
        CheckForShutdown(3);
        while (vNodes.empty())
        {
            Sleep(1000);
            CheckForShutdown(3);
        }

       // Create coinbase tx
        //
        CTransaction txNew;
        txNew.vin.resize(1);
        txNew.vin[0].prevout.SetNull();
        txNew.vin[0].scriptSig << nBits << ++bnExtraNonce;
        txNew.vout.resize(1);
        txNew.vout[0].scriptPubKey << key.GetPubKey() << OP_CHECKSIG;


I suspect that during his development of bitcoin he created a multiple node mining testing 'cluster' (I am using that term loosely but  you know what I mean) to simulate how bitcoin mining would work with many miners BEFORE it went live. IMHO I suspect he ran this same thing on production to ensure blocks got confirmed on a regular basis out of necessity.  [I am still in the camp that 'Satoshi' is a single individual versus a 'group'….of course he got a *lot* of help from his peers to make it a reality.]

Given he knew he had a technical advantage with it (but it was necessary to get bitcoin started), is it possible he purposely simply 'burned' many of the early coins since I believe his objective was to ensure the success of bitcoin and not necessarily to get rich?

If so this would help explain why ~1M early coins were never spent AND they happen to fit the observed 'Patoshi' pattern (http://satoshiblocks.info/), right?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

The following content was written by DougM on July 16, 2020, 11:33:14 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


To help try to support/debunk the “patoshi” lines as THE Satoshi, I attempted to gather the few 'known' early non-Satoshi blocks and see what they can tell us.  Hal Finney (RIP  Cry) and theymos were kind enough to share screen shots of their earliest transactions in past threads.  I transcribed them all, resolved each funding block, and mapped them using satoshiblocks.info (see below).  

Sources:

Hal's early Mined blocks/accounts –> https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKjGZOoR.png&t=615&c=47KeLAG24YRF9w
(sorry just a newbie so I can't include actual screen shots  Embarrassed)
appearing in Taras's wonderful 'Payment No. 1: A Closer Look at the Very First Bitcoin Transfer' thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2346992.0
This thread also IDs block #9 attribution to Satoshi and identifies the likely reason block #9 was used to 'gift' bitcoins from Satoshi to Hal.

Do I get to be Satoshi too? I was off by only a few days… https://i.imgur.com/w57rtbs.png
I know first-hand that there were several different people who mined before January 2010. It's kind of funny that history I've lived through is being questioned…
Thankfully ALL of theymos mined blocks fall outside of the patoshi lines.
All except for Hal's (in)famous first mined block #78 also fall outside of the Patoshi lines.
Others have speculated about the block 78 anomaly…I will try to recap the highlights and add a potentially new theory for consideration.

   Miner         Mined Block      View Mined Block via satoshiblocks      Account   
   theymos      40212      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=40212      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1GvpZ7hwrMqVKbGLfs7gZiSh642mRfKsae   
   theymos      40207      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=40207      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/19ePheuntFU6FGsd1Mc2gRJBP1NhLobTFw   
   theymos      40143      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=40143      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1GNekSjZMMyWfcQCijXexXNFfmGdrbbAhD   
   theymos      40132      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=40132      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1GQ8ALq2x3DszEBPhA5ky1MMj2HRoe7DMD   
   theymos      40086      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=40086      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1QBHnS6wDfMbw1LXu8CDw6uEQTi7F19AAc   
   theymos      40072      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=40072      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1DAVBCzbbm9dBTQgJ8xkdGoLUSP7yn6Pt1   
   theymos      40048      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=40048      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1Ar9TkY4Rt8x1bBDs7rHuHYo4ypS88JxjY   
   theymos      39964      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39964      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1PWL3D4BcTAhnf73vc9B9vyYFgKpNzGpLn   
   theymos      39960      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39960      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1PNEjPmmWZTVML1uB3FmFvbzpzTwv7RCcA   
   theymos      39957      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39957      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/17GyhbDFi7RQMPfxR3h1VnPa6vFiVHVhK1   
   theymos      39930      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39930      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/112pJXp3VvjS9ECMKFQtHSgbxi79wchDzK   
   theymos      39692      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39692      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1FcEwmLSRNZ57PTeZYianPM6pWy5eRZGFJ   
   theymos      39523      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39523      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1MQj9gL5xR1wRRSMXkHS1x1oThtaqZnFQ   
   theymos      39385      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39385      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/142bpcSfcbYTwsoNf1MUCbeBaijpJQUs1J   
   theymos      39318      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39318      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1HxQavcwsYnLbntANzj1V1yC5ckxZiRELg   
   theymos      39183      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39183      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1Cu42YDpoZRdmfipnSKVJokSF7h7QKgKfF   
   theymos      39168      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39168      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/19qLedpeHpK3oncugU3BdzVKbJNEfR7Jot   
   theymos      39111      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39111      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1DNvckqZmnfSWkKz4AEHncNtHCqaQv4P8Y   
   theymos      39014      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39014      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1N5TKZ82GqZ9e1jwokEvF5wt726Er9DhXM   
   theymos      39002      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=39002      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1GB4NvJsHo32QC9bmj8a7a5bR9JeK6Tijd   
   theymos      38965      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=38965      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/13f3nyvfo3pm3E6EucUJi2EHKrFrGLeJQW   
   theymos      38954      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=38954      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/19QSH7vr8ysD495ztPXnPsdaoXUizbKZve   
   theymos      38937      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=38937      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1BKAXj2WR56zNXRLZeVzG4xQBnqkCAW34v   
   theymos      38901      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=38901      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1EHBjax1YoCBiVTq1XusVQtGZXcBtC67u4   
   theymos      38785      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=38785      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/195zWsxn9cVESmSkpB3fv5pRYN5hNkanqa   
   theymos      38757      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=38757      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1N5FJKJg9TJr36vccWNPcjgh9NbX19J7Zp   
   theymos      38754      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=38754      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/19BFPLqRvevYcgkRzCCRo5HW14CcZMYXmL   
Hal Finney   707      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=707      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1HZKjpAYdaiXvCV3b6mXExrhPd3djzDWM   
Hal Finney   685      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=685      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1ADTuxdhYePCW9PEvkCKnib6jmbg6mKXdz   
Hal Finney   651      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=651      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/14nELEgJL95NU3BKi5D734ysFuVUCEjLWg   
Hal Finney   567      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=567      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/18bN2GBzfRwnV6dmr7MiuDoxn39uqvjwPs   
Hal Finney   528      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=528      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12oRSUW6UVYNCUk8yyrFvbpbJw7uia31sA   
Hal Finney   490      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=490      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/15ALyVo8ZuoTikHMYRq6p8nGr17gxQApXf   
Hal Finney   419      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=419      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/19CkFSEiHB5UVah3fvZD17qk48m82TfAp8   
Hal Finney   413      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=413      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/15ATbhqgqxkGen8ZLsb2BEbQzw3ymdzbQ9   
Hal Finney   372      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=372      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1PQjPXAtSZfUiiQeD4nafQ7HKx7J1kYQ4J   
Hal Finney   361      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=361      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12wej8tANWruTQFEhWFJtTkjNLt76pE268   
Hal Finney   235      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=235      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1PmhUgoVLtTgdcvfi1cwwSTvPvFC67bCQs   
Hal Finney   78      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=78      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1AiBYt8XbsdyPAELFpcSwRpu45eb2bArMf   
   Satoshi       9      http://satoshiblocks.info/?bn=9      https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S

If anyone else knows of any more early attributed blocks , please send them my way to add to the list.   Thanks!

The following content was written by pooya87 on July 17, 2020, 04:42:05 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


To clarify, in your opinion, do you agree that Satoshi likely ran multiple miners to ensure his fledgling bitcoin network took root? 
If he hadn’t do something like this than blocks wouldn’t have been validated for hours or even days which would have turned off early adopters.
For the sake of argument, let’s say Satoshi WAS running multiple miners to keep his early network going….would that address your hashrate concern or do you still have reservations?

yes i say Satoshi used more than one CPU to mine bitcoin (multiple miners) to ensure blockchain grew in reasonable amount of time or maybe even to have the benefit of hiding his identity more. but i disagree with any theory saying they were connected and were “pooling their work”.

Quote
You postulated that multiple distinct miners were contributing to the ‘Potoshi’ pattern but the bnExtraNonce variable is local and would be distinct for each instance of BitcoinMiner, right? 
it is but also it is affected by other miners finding a new block among other things.
if Miner B starts at 1 and miner A finds a block then Miner B increments its extraNonce to 2, then miner A finds another block and Miner B goes to extraNonce=3.
also if it runs out of nonce to increment and when a new transaction has entered its memory pool.

Quote
Given he knew he had a technical advantage with it (but it was necessary to get bitcoin started), is it possible he purposely simply ‘burned’ many of the early coins since I believe his objective was to ensure the success of bitcoin and not necessarily to get rich?

If so this would help explain why ~1M early coins were never spent AND they happen to fit the observed ‘Patoshi’ pattern (http://satoshiblocks.info/), right?
well recently a bunch of early-day miners signed messages (against a scammer claiming he owned those coins and were Satoshi) that means there are others who own many of those early “unmoved” coins. so i wouldn’t count on those coins being “burnt”. even if they were mined by Satoshi there is no reason why some day he couldn’t come back and use those coins.

Quote
All except for Hal’s (in)famous first mined block #78 also fall outside of the Patoshi lines.
Others have speculated about the block 78 anomaly…I will try to recap the highlights and add a potentially new theory for consideration.
this fits perfectly with what i drew above in my pictures since block 78 has an extraNonce that is exactly 1 step above the previous.

The following content was written by TheArchaeologist on July 17, 2020, 11:16:20 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


If anyone else knows of any more early attributed blocks , please send them my way to add to the list.   Thanks!

Code:
0009 Satoshi
0078 Hal
0235 Hal
0268 Vaga*
0309 Druid
0320 Druid
0329 Druid
0357 Druid
0360 Bbz*
0361 Hal
0372 Hal
0394 Druid
0407 Druid
0413 Hal
0417 Vaga*
0419 Hal
0431 Vaga*
0433 Druid
0439 Druid
0442 Vaga*
0450 Vaga*
0461 Druid
0463 PUR3*
0465 Druid
0473 Druid
0490 Hal
0493 Druid
0501 Zzz*
0506 Zzz*
0509 Druid
0512 PUR3*
0521 Druid
0528 Hal
0541 Druid
0562 Druid
0563 PUR3*
0567 Hal
0575 PUR3*
0591 Druid
0596 Cxak*
0598 PUR3*
0607 Druid
0614 PUR3*
0624 Druid
0651 Hal
0658 PUR3*
0666 Druid
0685 Hal
0687 PUR3*
0699 PUR3*
0702 PUR3*
0707 Hal
0720 Hal
0726 PUR3*
0728 Hal
0730 Druid
0739 Cxak*
0748 Zqcym*
0757 Druid
0767 Druid
0772 Cxak*
0773 Druid
0777 Hal
0786 Druid
0803 Hal
0809 Druid
0813 PUR3*
0814 Druid
0819 Hal
0821 Esewdm*
0824 Druid
0828 Druid
0842 Hal
0850 Kwgdyop*
0869 Hal
0885 Zqcym*
0905 PUR3*
0913 PUR3*
0923 Kwgdyop*
0927 Esewdm*
0935 Druid
0940 Druid
0945 Druid
0949 Druid
0955 Narwhal*
0956 PUR3*
0958 Hal
0959 Druid
0964 Narwhal*
0966 Hal
0979 Narwhal*
0984 Kwgdyop*
0986 Esewdm*
0992 Druid
0994 Narwhal*
0996 Narwhal*
0998 Kwgdyop*
0999 Druid

* Note: Made up pseudonyms
Values are taken form https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507458.40 topic.

The following content was written by DougM on July 17, 2020, 11:29:16 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


If anyone else knows of any more early attributed blocks , please send them my way to add to the list.   Thanks!

Values are taken form https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507458.40 topic.
TheArchaeologist, you rock…thanks you for digging some more up. 
Edit: *sigh*   Embarrassed yet another great thread from 2014 that I hadn’t stumbled on before exploring a very similar line of inquiry. 
I will try to absorb it too and build (where I can) rather than repeat/rehash past discussions. Thank you all for your patience and indulgence.

The following content was written by Kakmakr on July 17, 2020, 02:58:43 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)




I am continuing to explore the early bitcoin blockchain using blk00000.dat covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24 time period.

~~


  • 1) extracted 119,965 coinbase transactions from blk00000.dat each mining 50 bitcoins using a single output address (only 73 had multiple so I ignored them for these calculations) using pyblockchain’s BlockchainFileReader


Ok, stupid question… You are saying you are looking at 119,965 Coinbase transactions (covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24) but Coinbase was only established in July 2011.  Huh

Coinbase has it’s own internal database, so I reckon you are not looking at that, but rather data provided by them from the Bitcoin BTC Blockchain for that period?

Can you post a link to your source data please?

The following content was written by DougM on July 17, 2020, 03:31:17 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)




I am continuing to explore the early bitcoin blockchain using blk00000.dat covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24 time period.

~~


  • 1) extracted 119,965 coinbase transactions from blk00000.dat each mining 50 bitcoins using a single output address (only 73 had multiple so I ignored them for these calculations) using pyblockchain's BlockchainFileReader


Ok, stupid question… You are saying you are looking at 119,965 Coinbase transactions (covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24) but Coinbase was only established in July 2011.  Huh

Coinbase has it's own internal database, so I reckon you are not looking at that, but rather data provided by them from the Bitcoin BTC Blockchain for that period?

Can you post a link to your source data please?
  Thanks for taking the time to read the thread! 

Do you mean Coinbase the company founded in June 2012?  If so I was confused about the same thing.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Coinbase_(business)

Coinbase, the company, was named after a bitcoin coinbase transaction:

Quote
Coinbase
The coinbase is the content of the 'input' of a generation transaction. While regular transactions use the 'inputs' section to refer to their parent transaction outputs, a generation transaction has no parent, and creates new coins from nothing.
The coinbase can contain any arbitrary data. The genesis block famously contains the dated title of a newspaper article in The Times:
The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
From

Here is the genesis coinbase block transaction for example: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b

I got my data from extracting these coinbase transactions out of a copy of the first bitcoin blockchain data file (blk00000.dat)

The following content was written by PrimeNumber7 on July 17, 2020, 04:10:33 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


well the best hole i can poke into this theory is going to be based on hashrate. there is a very low chance that only a single CPU could have generate that much hashrate to mine all those blocks, there must have been more than 1 individual and separate CPUs mining at the same time to increase the luck of finding blocks at that rate. there were no pool mining and the bitcoin client at that time didn’t have the commands required for it either (hence the separate CPUs).
There is no reason why a single person wouldn’t be able to use two (or more) computers to mine on. Similarly, there is no reason why someone wouldn’t have been able to spin up a bunch of AWS VPSs to mine on.

I would also not assume that GPUs were not used in bitcoin’s early days. The cost to execute a double spend attack in early 2009 would have been very low, and if someone who discovered bitcoin was screwing around successfully executed some variant of a 51% attack, bitcoin would have been quickly derailed. Figuring out how to mine via GPUs while suggesting others to use CPUs would be a cost efficient way to guard against this from happening. The above is why I believe satoshi was behind a lot of bitcoins early blocks and mining.

The following content was written by pooya87 on July 18, 2020, 05:14:27 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


I would also not assume that GPUs were not used in bitcoin’s early days. The cost to execute a double spend attack in early 2009 would have been very low, and if someone who discovered bitcoin was screwing around successfully executed some variant of a 51% attack, bitcoin would have been quickly derailed. Figuring out how to mine via GPUs while suggesting others to use CPUs would be a cost efficient way to guard against this from happening. The above is why I believe satoshi was behind a lot of bitcoins early blocks and mining.

while it is not impossible you are simplifying the process a lot. creating a GPU miner for bitcoin was not as easy as you would think. it takes a lot of time to write the code correctly and in a way that it actually becomes faster. it was not like today where you can just jump to some server and find dozens of libraries that help you do it easily. and you have to look at the bigger picture, Satoshi created bitcoin which has dozens of more important parts to be concerned about than writing a GPU miner. not to mention that if you look at how long it took for the first GPU miner to be created you can see how hard it actually was.

The following content was written by PrimeNumber7 on July 18, 2020, 05:26:45 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


I would also not assume that GPUs were not used in bitcoin’s early days. The cost to execute a double spend attack in early 2009 would have been very low, and if someone who discovered bitcoin was screwing around successfully executed some variant of a 51% attack, bitcoin would have been quickly derailed. Figuring out how to mine via GPUs while suggesting others to use CPUs would be a cost efficient way to guard against this from happening. The above is why I believe satoshi was behind a lot of bitcoins early blocks and mining.

while it is not impossible you are simplifying the process a lot. creating a GPU miner for bitcoin was not as easy as you would think. it takes a lot of time to write the code correctly and in a way that it actually becomes faster. it was not like today where you can just jump to some server and find dozens of libraries that help you do it easily. and you have to look at the bigger picture, Satoshi created bitcoin which has dozens of more important parts to be concerned about than writing a GPU miner. not to mention that if you look at how long it took for the first GPU miner to be created you can see how hard it actually was.
My assumption is satoshi was using GPU(s) to mine in bitcoin’s early days. Keep in mind that he has ~unlimited time to create code to create a GPU minder as he controlled the timing of when the first bitcoin client was released.

The following content was written by Kakmakr on July 18, 2020, 10:24:34 AM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)




I am continuing to explore the early bitcoin blockchain using blk00000.dat covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24 time period.

~~


  • 1) extracted 119,965 coinbase transactions from blk00000.dat each mining 50 bitcoins using a single output address (only 73 had multiple so I ignored them for these calculations) using pyblockchain's BlockchainFileReader


Ok, stupid question… You are saying you are looking at 119,965 Coinbase transactions (covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24) but Coinbase was only established in July 2011.  Huh

Coinbase has it's own internal database, so I reckon you are not looking at that, but rather data provided by them from the Bitcoin BTC Blockchain for that period?

Can you post a link to your source data please?
  Thanks for taking the time to read the thread! 

Do you mean Coinbase the company founded in June 2012?  If so I was confused about the same thing.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Coinbase_(business)

Coinbase, the company, was named after a bitcoin coinbase transaction:

Quote
Coinbase
The coinbase is the content of the 'input' of a generation transaction. While regular transactions use the 'inputs' section to refer to their parent transaction outputs, a generation transaction has no parent, and creates new coins from nothing.
The coinbase can contain any arbitrary data. The genesis block famously contains the dated title of a newspaper article in The Times:
The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
From

Here is the genesis coinbase block transaction for example: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b

I got my data from extracting these coinbase transactions out of a copy of the first bitcoin blockchain data file (blk00000.dat)



Well, it shows you… we are never too old to learn something new.  Grin  Thank you for clearing this up… and yea, I was referring to the company, called Coinbase.  Grin

Also thank you for the source data, it gives me something new to explore and something new to learn. Just a side note, I have several coin on Paper wallets …that are stored for many years now… so that does not mean that they are lost, because there are no movement. (I did not even extract the forked coins from these wallets, because I do not want to risk it)

The following content was written by DougM on July 18, 2020, 12:58:46 PM in the thread historical blk00000 coinbase analysis: is ~1.7 M bitcoins likely lost?. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)


Also thank you for the source data, it gives me something new to explore and something new to learn. Just a side note, I have several coin on Paper wallets …that are stored for many years now… so that does not mean that they are lost, because there are no movement. (I did not even extract the forked coins from these wallets, because I do not want to risk it)
Congrats on being an early miner!  Cool When did you first start mine? If do you recall the blocks you mined if pre 50,000 (i.e., before May 2010)?
Unless you are running a bitcoin node and have them already, you will have to download the blk*.dat files to analyze.  Since I was interested in exploring the earliest I focused on blk0000.dat.  While likely you can obtain these files from a number of sources, I successfully downloaded the first 5 files from here:
https://github.com/garethjns/PyBC/tree/master/pybit/Blocks
 It all depends on what you want to ‘explore’. My objective was to learn Python using large data sets so I decided to explore bitcoin’s blockchain.
There are a number of blockchain parsers available. Since I am learning python (using free opensource IDE Spyder) I tried a few python parsers especially those that exposed enough of the details so I could get my hands dirty.  I then loaded a subset of the extracted data in SQLLite (free opensource) database for analysis. Good luck with your exploration!

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Legal

Korbit charged for excessive customer data collection

Korbit, a well-known cryptocurrency exchange, has been charged and fined over “collecting excessive personal data” from at least one of its customers.

Published

on

Korbit, a well-known South Korean Cryptocurrency exchange, has been charged and fined over “collecting excessive personal data” from at least one of its customers. 

Korbit is a South Korean company that is heavily vested in the cryptocurrency market. The brand is owned and operated by Korbit Inc, a company located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea. The brand commenced operations in 2014 after securing huge financing from several venture capitalists.

Korbit performs the following cryptocurrency-related services:

  • Cryptocurrency trading for the local South Korean market.
  • Fiat to cryptocurrency exchange services using the South Korean Won (KRW) as the fiat currency of choice.

South Korea has a large cryptocurrency trading market, largely populated by local players and companies who moved there when the Chinese ban on cryptocurrency trading came into effect. By providing the local and regional market the opportunity to use the local currency to purchase cryptocurrency tokens or secure cryptocurrencies for trading purposes, Korbit fulfills a large need.

So Korbit is a very well-known exchange, and they get fined for a matter like that has been a matter of talk between crypto experts.

A Small But Significant Fine

According to Yonhap, a news agency, “ They have been charged USD 4000 for this by a government watchdog for ordering a customer who had attempted to activate a dormant account on its platform to upload a photograph of their national ID card.”

The court took the case before the Personal Information Protection Committee. Then they met in a plenary session to rule on the case. The crypto exchange Korbit argued that it needed proof of a photo ID to prevent financial crimes such as voice phishing scams, adding that account users could begin trading immediately after activating dormant accounts.

But the committee overruled their argument and decided in favor of the user in question, claiming that none of Korbit’s other “big four” crypto exchange rivals (Upbit, Bithumb, and Coinone) required photo ID submission activate such accounts.

The committee ruled that mobile phone verification would have been sufficient in this instance. The exchange was guilty of violating the “principles of minimum personal information collection” specified in the Personal Information Protection Act, which was passed last year.

The decision made was absolutely correct because there was no point for them to ask for full ID verification. Mobile verification was acceptable, and the demand for photo ID verification was completely useless.

Korbit Jumps Into NFT Craze

In the meantime, Korbit has also started selling these days popular non-fungible tokens (NFTs) for a hit South Korea drama series. Per EDaily, Korbit struck a partnership deal with the production company Studio Dragon, the creator of the drama Vincenzo, a mafia-themed series starring Song Joong-ki that aired on the cable network tvN earlier this year.

The deal will see the company sell 100 limited edition official pieces of art based on the show on a first-come-first-served basis on July 21.

Korbit stated that it plans to create more NFT items for “other popular dramas” produced by Studio Dragon.

The company also said and showcased one of the items it plans to sell – an NFT featuring an iconic lighter used by the main and titular character in the drama, also distributed by the streaming giant Netflix.

Continue Reading

Bitcoin

Bitcoin Core 22.0 To Add Hardware Wallet Support

Bitcoin Core will start to support connection with Hardware Wallets with HWI library. New options for hardware wallets will be added to the settings.

Published

on

The latest version of Bitcoin Core v22.0 will add support for hardware wallets. It will start to support connection with Hardware Wallets with HWI Python library. The overall interface of the wallet will change in the latest version and new options for hardware wallets will be added to the settings and then we will be able to create a new wallet with our connected devices.

It is pretty good news and bitcoin users are looking forward to giving this wallet a go as soon as it releases.

Bitcoin Core can be launched with -signer=<cmd> where <cmd> is an external tool that can sign transactions and perform other functions. For example, it can be used to communicate with a hardware wallet.

Among other changes, Bech32m (witness v1) addresses are now supported for most RPC calls. Adjustments were made to the RPC calls for banning, network, and peer information. It no longer supports MacOS versions older than 10.14 “Mojave”.

22.0 Release Notes Draft

Below is a copy of the relevant section of the release notes that mentions the signing feature.


GUI Changes

External signers such as hardware wallets can now be used. These require an external tool such as HWI to be installed and configured under Options -> Wallet. When creating a new wallet a new option “External signer” will appear in the dialog. If the device is detected, its name is suggested as the wallet name. The watch-only keys are then automatically imported. Receive addresses can be verified on the device. The send dialog will automatically use the connected device. This feature is experimental and the UI may freeze for a few seconds when performing these actions.

Example of Usage

Although this tool is hosted under the Bitcoin Core GitHub organization and maintained by Bitcoin Core developers, it should be used with caution. It is considered experimental and has far less review than Bitcoin Core itself. Be particularly careful when running tools such as these on a computer with private keys on it.

When using a hardware wallet, consult the manufacturer’s website for (alternative) software they recommend. As long as their software conforms to the standard below, it should be able to work with Bitcoin Core.


What does the HWI library do?

The primary use of HWI is to discover hardware wallets that are connected via USB ports. It uses the udev project, which means that Windows is not supported. It only works for macOS and Linux. Fortunately, HWI and hardware wallet support are optional in Bitcoin Core. It will continue to function normally if HWI is not installed.

HWI is a command-line program that reads commands from the terminal and sends them to the device. The device behaves as if a human is entering physical input to it and executes the commands the same way it would be done manually. It also has a Python API, which makes it easier to add an HTTP API in the future if desired by the project maintainers.

Supported Devices

The following hardware wallets are compatible with most commands of HWI:

  • Ledger Nano X
  • Ledger Nano S
  • Trezor Model T
  • Trezor One
  • BitBox01
  • BitBox02
  • KeepKey
  • Coldcard

HWI has a support policy that states that hardware wallets must use as much open-source firmware as possible. Closed-source parts are acceptable if they are required by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Closed-source firmware is tolerated if the vendor provides active support for it, but the hardware wallet support will be dropped if the vendor stops maintaining HWI support for their hardware wallet. Also, if the hardware wallet stops receiving security updates, HWI support for it will be dropped if security vulnerabilities are found.

Continue Reading

Mining

Meet The Large Companies Investing In Antminers

Why are these companies only buying large quantities of Bitmain Antminer hardware, and how do they receive them?

Published

on

Along with Gryphon and Hut 8 Mining Corp, many other companies invest in bitcoin miners. There’s a reason why Bitmain Antminers are some of the most popular in the world. All of these invest in Bitmain mining hardware only. Gryphon is a minor mining operation compared to some of the more prominent players, but they all have a role to play. We will discuss TeraWulf first.

TeraWulf

TeraWulf is a new mining company based in the United States purchasing 30,000 miners from Bitmain with plans to have greater than 3 Exahashes (EH/s) of Bitcoin Mining power, which is some serious power that would put it in the top 10 mining pools in terms of hash rate. 

TeraWulf is soon to have a Nasdaq Listing; it agreed to merge with Ikonics, an imaging tech company whose stock is traded on Nasdaq. The newly merged company will trade under “WULF”.

TeraWulf is an example of a medium-sized operation, who has also placed its trust in Bitmain to provide mining hardware.

TeraWulf has a long-term goal to mine Bitcoin with more than 90% Zero-Carbon energy. It has around 50 megawatts of electricity capacity, with long-term plans to increase this to 800 Megawatts by 2025. This would enable a hashrate of more than 23 EH/s. It is ambitious, as it would be in the top 5 of hashrate.

TeraWulf’s low-carbon commitment is a sign of the times with concerns about the carbon footprint of the Bitcoin blockchain. Players the size of TeraWulf can make a difference in the carbon footprint of Bitcoin and help set trends.

Core Scientific

Core Scientific is a mining company in North America. It has recently completed a buy of 112,800 ASIC mining rigs from Bitmain. Core Scientific provides hosting services for miners alongside its operations bought S19 Pro, S19j, and S19j Pro miners intending to double its fleet of miners. Core Scientific can also repair Bitmain mining machines that are under warranty, thus offering Bitmain Warranty services in North America.

Core Scientific intends to use half of the machines it has ordered for its mining operations. They will use the other half to fulfill contracts with existing mining clients.

The large 112,800 shipment and future ones of similar magnitude will help Core Scientific more than double its share of Bitcoin’s hashrate. Core scientific currently has approximately 5% of the current Bitcoin Hashrate. They intend to increase this to 12$, according to their CEO Kevin Turner.

Turner’s forecast aligns with the growing presence of North America in the Bitcoin mining sphere. 

Along with Core scientific, Gryphon, and TeraWulf, other mining companies are looking to expand their operations, such as Marathon, Riot, and Blockcap.

Kevin does not expect the trend of big players investing in the mining space to stop soon, and new prominent players are continuing to enter the game. 

Kevin stated that larger numbers of publicly traded companies, large family companies, and hedge funds are looking for trustworthy mining operations in North America. Kevin believes that the United States is interested in being a leader in digital assets, despite other countries being early adopters before the United States was.

Marathon Patient Group

Marathon is another significant player in the Bitcoin mining industry, based in Las Vegas. They mined no fewer than 196 Bitcoins in 2021, worth over $11 million at current prices. Marathon has planned to expand its mining operation to have no fewer than 100,000 miners online by 2022. Marathon’s hold more than 5,000 Bitcoin. Marathon received an order in Q1 of 2021 for 1,300 Bitmain S19 Pro mining rigs.

Marathon will have ongoing shipments from Bitmain throughout 2021, with a plan to have over 100,000 online by January 2022. Marathon’s total network hashrate is estimated at 10.3 Exahashes per second by then, putting them in the top 10. The company used stock offerings and other financings to invest in the latest Bitmain hardware.

Marathon has planned its high-speed expansion to keep up with other big names in the mining industry. The new machines coming online in 2021 after heavy demand has caused the Bitcoin difficulty to skyrocket due to the flood of hashrate. Bitcoin difficulty is the algorithm that keeps the supply of bitcoins and the Blockchain’s growth constant despite the varying market conditions.

The CEO of Compass Mining, Whit Gibbs, commented on Marathon’s “mammoth” ASIC order. He mentioned he feels that this trend of increasing hashrate and difficulty shows no signs of slowing in 2021 and that it should track with Bitcoin’s price.

Continue Reading

Trending