4 ms·

Yeah, living in reality is just too boring atm better dream up some shitty conspiracy to manipulate the crypto market. Hilarious.

akoboldfrying 3y ago
So what's your theory?
- andrewinardeer 3y ago
  Had the incorrect wallet in their device's memory, pasted and hit send without triple checking. Rookie error.
  - ur-whale 3y ago
    > Rookie error. You're obviously working under the assumption that the sender is someone for whom one more or one less MUSD makes any kind of difference to his everyday life.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    I think even the richest people on earth will take the time to double-check a million-dollar transaction. For someone to have done this accidentally and not bothered to double-check, it seems to me they would need to have fat-fingered both the address and the amount. This person is typing with hams.
    - jorvi 3y ago
      For people with say 10 billion dollars, losing a million is losing 1 / 10 000 of their wealth. It’s as if you have 10 000 dollars in savings and lose 1 dollar in the couch cushions. Plus that wealth is generating more wealth. Logically, a multi-billionaire wouldn’t care.
      - epolanski 3y ago
        That's nonsense, not only the "it's like 10/15$ for me and you" argument quite weak, because ordinary people tend to pay attention to the addresses they send money to (regardless of amount), but people don't get rich nor stay rich by not caring about their spending either.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
      This guy swapped over $600k and didn't check the slippage and lost over $200k on it https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/refund-dydx-user-funds-lost-from-high-price-impact-out-of-protorev-profits/1088 https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/refund-dydx-user-funds-lost-fro...
  - quintushoratius 3y ago
    Doubtful. Almost any other wallet seems possible, but Satoshi's wallet isn't one that you would randomly have copied moments before making a million dollar transaction.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    bitcoin wallets would not be different by just a single character.
  - latchkey 3y ago
    With binance, you have to double check the withdraw address, especially for something large like this. I'm surprised their own processes didn't flag it.
    - baking 3y ago
      It was not directly from Binance. It went into an intermediate wallet first.
hnlmorg 3y ago
What the OP is describing is basically just a pump-and-dump scheme. Which is particularly common in the crypto world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump
- werediver 3y ago
  If the receiving wallet is truly dead, the "dump" part of the scheme is impossible, which makes the scheme non-profitable.
  - b4ke 3y ago
    Profit is the motivation of human endeavor…. Maybe we aren’t alone, it is as it will. Now my wife’s musings about crypto dog yesterday are far more meaningful.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    Well, I'm speculating that the $1M is just a (massively expensive) gambit to get the public interested in bitcoin again and lead to a "pump". The "dump" would then involve the even larger amounts that the person in question would have to be holding (for this scheme to even remotely make sense).
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    The OPs point was this the "pump" part (ie get people talking about Bitcoin again). If their theory is true (and I'm not saying I believe it is), then the dump part wouldn't be transferring to another wallet, it would be selling their remaining Bitcoin. If this is a pump and dump scheme (and that's a big "if") then they would need an order of magnitude more than 27BTC (ie the amount they sent to this wallet) for this to work.
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      Potentially even better than selling their remaining bitcoins is buying options right before doing this pump.
  - 3y ago

akoboldfrying 3y ago

So what's your theory?

andrewinardeer 3y ago
Had the incorrect wallet in their device's memory, pasted and hit send without triple checking. Rookie error.
- ur-whale 3y ago
  > Rookie error. You're obviously working under the assumption that the sender is someone for whom one more or one less MUSD makes any kind of difference to his everyday life.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  I think even the richest people on earth will take the time to double-check a million-dollar transaction. For someone to have done this accidentally and not bothered to double-check, it seems to me they would need to have fat-fingered both the address and the amount. This person is typing with hams.
  - jorvi 3y ago
    For people with say 10 billion dollars, losing a million is losing 1 / 10 000 of their wealth. It’s as if you have 10 000 dollars in savings and lose 1 dollar in the couch cushions. Plus that wealth is generating more wealth. Logically, a multi-billionaire wouldn’t care.
    - epolanski 3y ago
      That's nonsense, not only the "it's like 10/15$ for me and you" argument quite weak, because ordinary people tend to pay attention to the addresses they send money to (regardless of amount), but people don't get rich nor stay rich by not caring about their spending either.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
    This guy swapped over $600k and didn't check the slippage and lost over $200k on it https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/refund-dydx-user-funds-lost-from-high-price-impact-out-of-protorev-profits/1088 https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/refund-dydx-user-funds-lost-fro...
- quintushoratius 3y ago
  Doubtful. Almost any other wallet seems possible, but Satoshi's wallet isn't one that you would randomly have copied moments before making a million dollar transaction.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  bitcoin wallets would not be different by just a single character.
- latchkey 3y ago
  With binance, you have to double check the withdraw address, especially for something large like this. I'm surprised their own processes didn't flag it.
  - baking 3y ago
    It was not directly from Binance. It went into an intermediate wallet first.

hnlmorg 3y ago

What the OP is describing is basically just a pump-and-dump scheme. Which is particularly common in the crypto world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

werediver 3y ago
If the receiving wallet is truly dead, the "dump" part of the scheme is impossible, which makes the scheme non-profitable.
- b4ke 3y ago
  Profit is the motivation of human endeavor…. Maybe we aren’t alone, it is as it will. Now my wife’s musings about crypto dog yesterday are far more meaningful.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  Well, I'm speculating that the $1M is just a (massively expensive) gambit to get the public interested in bitcoin again and lead to a "pump". The "dump" would then involve the even larger amounts that the person in question would have to be holding (for this scheme to even remotely make sense).
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  The OPs point was this the "pump" part (ie get people talking about Bitcoin again). If their theory is true (and I'm not saying I believe it is), then the dump part wouldn't be transferring to another wallet, it would be selling their remaining Bitcoin. If this is a pump and dump scheme (and that's a big "if") then they would need an order of magnitude more than 27BTC (ie the amount they sent to this wallet) for this to work.
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    Potentially even better than selling their remaining bitcoins is buying options right before doing this pump.
- 3y ago