The Bitcoin community is riddled with questions and theories in the wake of a billion-dollar Bitcoin transaction that occurred on September 6th. The transaction consisted of 94,506 Bitcoin, which amounted to approximately $1.018 billion at the time.
Determination of the origin of the funds, and more importantly, where the funds were going, is being discussed all over social media. When this large a transaction is executed, it is usually a Bitcoin exchange moving money around. Twitter-based resource “Whale Alert” keeps track of all the biggest transactions and wallets, but this wallet was not on their radar.
The Most Likely Theory
Analysis of the transaction shows that several of the wallets were linked to Huobi. As would be expected in an industry that is centered around privacy and security, Huobi has declined to comment aside from saying that the funds were not Huobi’s own.
One of the most reasonable theories is that the funds are related to Bakkt. This institutional trading platform only recently began their trading, and it would make sense for them to fund themselves this way.
And if it turns out to not be related to Bakkt, then this is one very wealthy organization, indeed. Bitinfocharts, another crypto resource, has concluded this would be the richest Bitcoin wallet that isn’t related to a crypto organization.
One thing we are surprised by is that nobody has started screaming that it must be Satoshi yet. Pretty much every time there is a news story like this, the Satoshi theory pops up as an explanation for the origination of all those funds.
Mystery Decision Regarding Fees
To add further mystery to the transaction, the sender spent 20 times more than they needed to in fees. For some reason, they seem to have opted for a higher fee rate. By paying a fee of $700, the sender was able to secure a rate of 480 satoshis per byte.
If a sender wishes to have their transaction to be processed more quickly, they can opt to pay a higher fee, but the user doesn’t seem to have needed the funds right away. So why did they do that? It is possible they were worried about the security of their funds and wanted to make sure that no 51% attack occurred, but that doesn’t quite add up.
In a time where Bitcoin fees are notably low, this seems like a very curious move. Back in 2017, a common gripe with Bitcoin, and part of the reason that hard forks like Bitcoin Cash occurred, was over the high fees. Now there is no such issues, which reflects massive progress within the community.
Regardless, all of these theories are what make the community so interesting. And from an outsider’s perspective, the analysis should show how difficult it is to truly be anonymous in the cryptocurrency world. For some reason, regulators are still clueless enough to say that Bitcoin can be used in illicit activity when cash is the far more anonymous option. I wonder what they’ll do when they find out about truly anonymous coins like Zcash and Monero!