Post
Topic
Board Speculation
Re: 1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM
by
theonewhowaskazu
on 16/10/2013, 04:39:35 UTC
Right, just click through, following the biggest transactions. It was only about 10-20 hops iirc.

I quit after 60 hops. Maybe I took a wrong turn at the beginning though.

Seriously, more than a few hops pretty much means nothing. At least not until you run it through some taint analysis, or do fancy networking graphs.

Ente

Likewise.  I'd love to see the actual click through the led from point (a) to point (b).

Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310600

Just FYI, if he decided to go and spend those Bitcoins on something, its very likely that he would have sent them all to one address & its similarly likely that they would remain unspent for extended periods of time. So, DPR likely does have something to do with the address, but saying its his address seems like a bit of a stretch.

Why would he send large quantities of bitcoins to someone elses address? Heck he did not even keep his close family members/friends in the loop. I think DPR trusted no one but himself. But he made his share of stupid mistakes.


What if he just wanted to, you know, buy something? Or just sell the coins for fiat? What do you think, he just let all the money sit there?

Honestly, I don't get what you are trying to prove here. I was reacting to this:

Quote
but saying its his address seems like a bit of a stretch.

I was just saying that, from my analysis, the two addresses should belong to the same person.

Quote
What if he just wanted to, you know, buy something? Or just sell the coins for fiat? What do you think, he just let all the money sit there?

I don't care what he does with those coins (I don't think he has that choice anymore). I just was trying to make a connect between two addresses and see if they belonged to the same person. Doing this mostly for fun/learning. Not trying to prove anything.


I'm not trying to prove anything either. Look, I'm just saying that those coins could easily have been spent by DPR and given to the owner of said address rather than the entire address actually being owned by DPR. Thats all I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to prove anything, just pointing that out. There has been no real reason I've seen so far this  thread to suggest otherwise. It just seems like sort of a random leap to assume it must be DPR's address.