all about cryptop referances
On November 16, 2022, at Bitcoin block height 763,474, someone transferred 6,522 bitcoins worth approximately $107 million after the coins have been inactive for more than five years. While bitcoin’s value is 75% lower than a year ago, so-called dormant bitcoins have woken up amid the recent capitulation in the crypto market.
Five days ago, 3,500 bitcoins from 2011 were transferred for the first time in 11 years. In the midst of the crypto market carnage related to FTX, old coins have woken up for some reason and they have moved to unknown wallets. For example, the bitcoin address “1QBG9” moved 25 BTC at block height 762,719 from an address created on November 13, 2011.
Not too long after that, 50 bitcoin from 2010 was used on November 14, 2022, after sitting idle for over a decade. Bitcoin address “1LB8B”, which moved 50 BTC at block height 763,149 was created on May 23, 2010. All three of these sightings were bitcoins stored in addresses that remained inactive for more than a decade.
Two days after 50 bitcoins from 2010 moved, BTC originating from an address created on July 31, 2017 moved after sitting still for more than five years. Although not super old, blockchain parsers from btcparser.com caught the individual or entity spending approximately 6,522.40 BTC.
The stash is worth more than $107 million using today’s BTC rates. The bitcoin address “1LVBn” is also linked to close to 10,000 BTC that was first accrued in an address created on May 29, 2011. When the bitcoin address “1LVBn” was created on July 31, 2017, bitcoin traded for $2,875 per unit according to statmuse.com calculations.
That means the cache of 6,522 bitcoins was only worth about $18.7 million before it went dormant for more than five years. If the holding of 6,522 bitcoins were sold today, the owner would have made more than 472%.
If it was the same owner who bought approximately 9,478.77 BTC on May 29, 2011, the person could have bought bitcoins at $8.30 per unit. At that price in the spring of 2011, the person could have made approximately 1189% in profit against the US dollar over 11 years.
However, the funds do not appear to have been sent to an exchange, according to onchain data, as the 6,522 bitcoins are now located at two different addresses. Change address “1AkJq” has 6,061.83 BTC, and 460.57 BTC went to the address “bc1qt.” The net send of 6,522 bitcoins remains inactive at the time of writing.
Throughout the history of 6522 BTC spent on November 16, 2022, the transactions have never been sent in a private manner. Blockchair.com’s privacy tool gives the latest change transaction, which moved 6,061.83 BTC, a privacy rating of “0” or “critical”.
Whenever the owner of these bitcoins moved coins, matching inputs and outputs were detected, making them easily identifiable by blockchain analysis. It is worth noting that the technical term “spent” and the use of the word “change” in this article does not necessarily mean that bitcoins were sold.
In fact, they can simply be transferred to alternate addresses by the same owner. It is also worth noting that the bitcoins originating from the wallet on May 29, 2011, which is also associated with the 6,522 BTC spent on November 16, 2022, may have seen ownership change hands either on or off the blockchain.
The owner of the bitcoin address did not use the corresponding bitcoin cash (BCH) associated with the “1LVBn” bitcoin address. 6,522.40 BCH remains at the address at the time of writing, and the BCH is worth approximately 680,939 nominal US dollars.
What do you think of the 6522 bitcoin that woke up after five years and three months? Let us know what you think about this topic in the comments section below.
Image credit: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or an endorsement or recommendation of products, services or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is directly or indirectly responsible for damages or losses caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
