I traced that new Satoshi post back to a wallet that has made 83,000+ transactions TODAY

I thought it was a hack, too. It still might be, but the account that funded it has made 83,000 transactions today. That seems significant. I wrote up a post on Medium, but Im just dumping it here to avoid link spam. I could be misunderstanding something and end up looking dumb, but I'll take that risk.

The Satoshis Nakamo account, which made the original Bitcoin announcement, posted again on Friday talking about NFTs and linking to OpenSea. It was dismissed as a hack by everyone, including myself,

Well, the address that funded the account currently selling those NFTs has made 83,000 Ethereum transactions since December 27th, 18:45:48. Not even a full day.

(Additional info since the first post, the transacting wallet has received a total 147,462.65 ETH, or $602,744,208.13 in its life. Wish Etherscan had those numbers. That wallet's current balance is 239 ETH.)

This has been discovered and posted about on Bitcoin Talk and Reddit, but it's been dismissed as a hacked account. I did too, but I followed the accounts back to one making rapid transactions. I draw no conclusions, but this seems important.

It starts here, the post that launched Bitcoin. The account was used again, and everyone, including myself, assumed it was a hack.

http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?commentId=2003008%3AComment%3A169634

That link takes you to this listing:

https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/97688571117757237101471153596397975393718267124320450797737993862480318693377

Which then goes to the account:

https://opensea.io/0xd7f9c5986b234b893b1215a08d1e1ae7cd6d3947

The wallet is:

0xd7f9c5986b234b893b1215a08d1e1ae7cd6d3947

https://etherscan.io/address/0xd7f9c5986b234b893b1215a08d1e1ae7cd6d3947

Only five transactions, one is funding it.

The wallet that funded it is:

0xE81d6FCE840AB873C7bccb6c2Ab15E4b6dAF92c7

The current balance on that wallet is:

239 ETH, or $978,871.27

https://etherscan.io/address/0xe81d6fce840ab873c7bccb6c2ab15e4b6daf92c7

Which has had 83,385 transactions, today.

I thought this was a hack, but after finding those transactions, maybe it's a master plan.EDIT: Updated post with the approximate wallet balance making the rapid transactions.

​

Every item following this line is new information added after making the initial post.

If you look at the transacting wallet in Blockchain.com's block explorer, it shows that there has been 164.28 ETH in fees alone.

Oh, and it has received a total of 147,462 ETH over its entire lifespan. What.

https://www.blockchain.com/eth/address/0xe81d6fce840ab873c7bccb6c2ab15e4b6daf92c7

Someone mentions the transacting address in a post about getting scammed. The screenshots are in Russian, but this is vital information to consider.

https://antropocosmist.medium.com/how-i-lost-my-savings-due-to-gullibility-63460dcf7ba8

(OwenMichael312). A Vice story stating Satoshi's email was hacked at some point, definitely relevant if credible:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/jp5dk8/the-satoshi-nakamoto-email-hacker-says-hes-negotiating-with-the-bitcoin-founder

I've never used PegaScan and can't vouch for it, but it's added more details. The PegaScan results indicate the wallet has been around for 2 years and and gives us a list of 'most transacted wallets' to explore.

https://www.accesspegasus.com/eth/0xe81d6fce840ab873c7bccb6c2ab15e4b6daf92c7?fname=0xe81d6fce840ab873c7bccb6c2ab15e4b6daf92c7

One of the most transacted wallets looks like it was holding 200 ETH and has transferred to the wallet I've been calling the 'transacting account.'

0xc0479996ab456be52b83d9b950097d5cc9b6ddd0

Transactions don't show up in Pegasus, so let's go back to Block explorer:

https://etherscan.io/address/0xc0479996ab456be52b83d9b950097d5cc9b6ddd0

At this point, I'm not sure what else I have to add. Someone with further knowledge and expertise about blockchain tech and smart contracts needs to take it from here.

I need to take a break and comments are piling up, please message me with relevant information that needs to be added.

(Update posted ~ 10 PM UTC, important)

I was trying to break away and get actual work done, but that 0xc in the last wallet was bugging me. The 'c' isn't usually there. I googled it and found a post using that exact notation asking about coding up a smart contract. The title of the post itself is intriguing, "Contract address for a contract that was deployed by another contract in ethereum."

https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/110829/contract-address-for-a-contract-that-was-deployed-by-another-contract-in-ethereu

The complete question:

"I am trying to figure out if this pattern for an ethereum smart contract would be possible or are there limitations in solidity or the evm which would prevent this.

Contract A is deployed on the blockchain with address 0xA, within contract A's code there is a function such that if ethereum is received above a threshold it will create another contract (say Contract Child, say at 0xB). So the contract has to respond to the event where an address sends it ether. Within Contract Child's code there are certain functions that do the following:

Allow it to accept ether (from other third parties, say address 0xC) and return that ether at a future date automatically.

For this pattern, I was curious to know if

Will each instance of Contract Child have its own address, accesible to the outside addresses. I know that a contract creating an instance of another contract would be an internal txn, but does this Contract Child have it's own address I can send txns to? Or do I have to access the original contract's internal storage to find those contracts. If yes, are there any special ways to access given it is not a contract with a blockchain address?

If there are addresses where each instance of Contract child is created, I assume I can log them into an array of addresses an access them as such. Would this be correct?

I assume the last part, the Contract receiving transactions, specifically ether transfers and then sending them back to the address which sent them would not cause any difficulty in solidity or the EVM.

I am fairly new to smart contract development so apologies if I am stating something a bit off."

That seems pretty specific. Why would someone "fairly new to smart contract development" need that usage?

The answer, by the way, is that a 0xc wallet would lock the ethereum for a certain amount of time before it could be used. The direct answer:

"It is possible to have a smart contract deploy other contracts as you describe here and each deployment will consist on a new contract (and contract address) on the blockchain. You would be able to send transactions directly to this "child" contract without going through the deployer contract.

For your second question, yes, the command used to deploy new contracts will return an address (the address of deployed contract) which you can be stored in a variable in your deployer contract.

For your last question, it is possible to have these type of contracts where users can send any amount of ETH, have the coins locked for a period of time, then be withdraw-able after this time. Do note that smart contract are not self-executing so it is not possible to schedule contract code to run at a certain point of time in the future. Contracts need to be called via transactions to have their logic executed in a given block."

Okay. So who asked the question 2 months ago and then checked by 16 days ago? And why is that question their only post? The profile of the question asker, named 'the royal dude':

https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/users/82751/the-royal-dude

They link to other profiles that don't contain any additional information, but should be mentioned:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/300421/the-royal-dude

https://stackoverflow.com/users/story/17045025

It appears that someone setup a smart contract that's somewhat obscured from obvious view, but who knows how anonymous that is. The person asking about 0xC, which they specifically mention, had this intent. That wallet at the end of this trail starts with 0xC.

Sorry for putting 'the royal dude' on blast, but that question just become extremely important.

A linguistic expert should also analyze the question, too. I've read a huge amount of writing from Satoshi and I'm also a writer myself. The writer is clear, concise, and polite, which matches the tone in other writings. I believe every known word Satoshi wrote is documented below for comparison:

https://nakamotoinstitute.org/

(Update 11:15 UTC, important)

I hope my clients understand I'm not going to get much done today. I explored the username but that led nowhere concrete to add.

So back to the block explorer, I started with the suspicious 0xC address:

0xC0479996Ab456Be52b83d9b950097d5CC9b6Ddd0

https://etherscan.io/address/0xc0479996ab456be52b83d9b950097d5cc9b6ddd0

The first transaction on that address, which I'm assuming is the creation of the child wallet, is from block 13621626:

https://etherscan.io/block/13621626

If you scroll down to "click to see more," we can see bonus info not immediately available, such as the parent hash:

https://etherscan.io/block/0xffdefa548bc49ac6122c615d6ec0d55b6976ec8a2ee9ed9f2d32a57f1935acaf

This is ultimately where I tap out, I'm only going to update significant information from someone else.

I'm not saying anything about this being Satoshi or not. This began at the Satoshi post, that's it. Whatever all this is, it's information about the hacker of the original Satoshi account, or information about something way more interesting.

Update: I'm not sure the info below is relevant, but I'll leave it.

Okay, so who mined it?

0x433022C4066558E7a32D850F02d2da5cA782174D

https://etherscan.io/address/0x433022c4066558e7a32d850f02d2da5ca782174d

Ah, finally, a normal-looking wallet. It had a substantially higher balance when I first saw this, at present it has 70**.**13 Ether.

We get more info from Blockchain's explorer:

https://www.blockchain.com/eth/address/0x433022C4066558E7a32D850F02d2da5cA782174D

Final Balance: 3682.87 ETHTotal Sent: 15372.94 ETHTotal Received: 139.65 ETHTotal Fees: 6.782677757

That ETH converts to $14,877,762.09 if you're wondering.

It's possible etherscan is simply counting pending transactions, while Blockchain isn't.

It's possible that the wallet belongs to a mining pool, it's identified as https://k1pool.com/ so that's pretty damning. It could be entirely unrelated, but it's worth reporting for others to examine. Considering that it was what spawned the 0xC wallet, it seems important.

--

One more update, I know crypto likes a human touch, so my name is Jazelle Garzeski. I write for a news site that covers play-to-earn gaming. I was assigned our 'year in review' article and I wanted to find an early example of someone saying Bitcoin has no utility/value. That's what started this entire thing. You can go Google my name and find my stuff. I'm not associated with any of these wallets, and my everyday usage ETH wallet is 0x67cFf0c81516659627079fa07d61c066c5Ae2f60, which shows a normal transaction history for someone in crypto for a bit. The purpose of this entire paragraph is just to shed some light on who posted this information. I am a public-facing professional writer, I'm not some random person trying to hype everyone up.