Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Scam Accusations
Re: Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds
by
WaffleMaster
on 02/09/2018, 10:50:26 UTC
Quote from: Lauda on September 02, 2018, 10:36:23 AM
Quote from: WaffleMaster on September 02, 2018, 10:17:13 AM
Quote from: Lauda on September 02, 2018, 10:07:32 AM

If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.
True, maybe that is definitely how it works. Then why wouldn't it be much larger if these 3 transactions of the address sending 1,200 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/3d664257ca058c13eb6695237a1c8b878490b877381ad04f1084163da999e739), then 1,689.44357589 (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/954f4cfcb971ec4501f3e1667440fe0215f852039720f8af5f23a2d624e3b858), then 1,497.22395444 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666) all to itself not show up?

Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received   3,405.40731067 BTC"? I'm genuinely curious about this because if it counted sent bitcoin to itself, with those 3 huge transactions alone sent to itself, it would be over 4,000 Bitcoin easily. Am I getting something wrong lol. I must be reading this transaction shit wrong and causing undue stress. I'll give up and let the pros handle it Grin
I believe it has something to do with the situation in which all inputs and all outputs are the same address. It shouldn't count that as a metric for 'spent' nor 'received'. Someone else might know the details of this without having to look into it. However, the fact that the 'received' metric on blockchain explorers is useless should be well known.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why a multisig escrow wallet would be sending the funds to multiple different addresses and then back to itself.

3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z  ---> 3DkFekKmKXSnL1XmMfQSh2kukKzjr7X44Y
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/21e7f36e1d11fc4283792a9f46f13d1f41d4095dc2507e9335e6cf91fedb9d07

3DkFekKmKXSnL1XmMfQSh2kukKzjr7X44Y ---> 39iTdYPq899u1CVad9rKKQQPJHRVaP7MSo
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/388346e14b28d7862ef3182e5bdefd795f770c84ed27f4292280abfab1ecd9b9

39iTdYPq899u1CVad9rKKQQPJHRVaP7MSo ---> 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z (ORIGINAL ADDRESS)
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666

That's just one example out of many, and none of it appears to fluff up the "received Bitcoin" number because it was all traced back to the original wallet. Which we've already seen would have a lot more received if it indeed counted those transactions.