This address was mentioned in November in Washington Post article about 194,993 BTC transaction: [Sarah Meiklejohn: ] "About half of the transactions sending b

This address was mentioned in November in Washington Post article about 194,993 BTC transaction: [Sarah Meiklejohn: ] "About half of the transactions sending bitcoins to this 12sENw address between August 29 and November 14 were from addresses we had associated with Bitstamp. This could be true for a lot of reasons (a heavyweight user withdrawing their bitcoins, for example), but there were a few other weird things I saw that made me think otherwise. For example, a lot of the bitcoins that flowed out of the 12sENw address went to one of two other addresses: 1Drt3c8 and (especially recently) 1HBa5. The former of these addresses we have tagged as Bitstamp, and the latter is often within one hop of a known Bitstamp address (e.g., it has also sent a lot of bitcoins to 1Drt3c8). So, while a lot of things could explain many bitcoins being received from Bitstamp, it seems like fewer of them could be explained by many bitcoins flowing from Bitstamp and then back to Bitstamp in a small span of time which is what leads me to think this is an internal shuffling of some kind. Of course, I could also be completely wrong! For example, I should definitely mention that, for the direct transaction of interest, I don't have any of the input addresses tagged (i.e., they might or might not belong to Bitstamp), so that my inferences are really just going on the past behavior of this small handful of addresses." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/23/heres-who-probably-did-that-massive-150000000-bitcoin-transaction/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/23... So this address was tagged as "Bitstamp" in her database.