The crypto world was recently set on fire after it was revealed that Bitcoin mined in 2009 had recently been moved. There has been speculation that it might be Craig Wright. The reason for this is that the BTC came from an address listed in court documents belonging to a trust controlled by Wright.

The Movement of Bitcoin from 2009

twitter user going by the name Roy revealed the movement of the Bitcoin mined in 2009. He published two links detailing the movement of Bitcoin from block 3654. In total, 50 BTC that was mined in February 2009 was sent from the original address to a new address for the first time. In another tweet, Roy said that the BTC came from an address listed in court documents by Craig Wright.

Could it be Satoshi Nakamoto?

It is worth noting that while Bitcoin was released on January 3, 2009, some people had access to the BTC files before that. Some have speculated that one of them might have been behind the recent movement.

According to a tweet by Nic Carter, the CEO of Coin Metric, while the movement of BTC mined in 2009 was rare, it had happened before.  Carter also tweeted that while it was impossible to prove that Satoshi did not mine the block, there was research, which pointed to him mining a set of blocks with unique characteristics.

Carter was tweeting in reference to research published by Sergio Demián Lerner, the chief scientist of RSK Labs. In the data, Lerner revealed a set of 22,000 blocks that he described as the Patoshi pattern. The blocks are believed to have been mined by one miner or a set of 5 CPUs. Other experts have speculated that even after the 22,000 blocks, Satoshi might have mined other blocks using other miners.

Adam Black, the Blockstream CEO also added to the skepticism. He tweeted that if Satoshi Nakamoto wanted to move some BTC around, he would not use BTC mined in the early days. To stay anonymous, he would probably use BTC that was recently mined.

More Legal Trouble for Wright

Some people in the crypto community had speculated that Craig Wright was behind the movement of the 50 BTC. If so, it would provide solid proof that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, something he has continuously failed to do to this day.

However, Craig Wright is said to have denied the BTC came from him. Calvin Ayre, the billionaire backer of Bitcoin SV, made the revelation on twitter. If the claim by Calvin Ayre is true, it means that Wright perjured himself in court. It could have serious legal implications for him.

Craig Wright is currently embroiled in a legal tussle with the family of Dave Kleiman. In the lawsuit, the Kleiman estate is claiming ownership of half of the around one million BTC mined in the early days of Bitcoin.

The lawsuit is mainly based on various public statements made by Craig Wright, in which he claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. However, he has yet to provide solid evidence to this date. If Wright were to admit that he is not the creator of BTC, it is likely his court battle with the Kleiman estate would end. The latest movement of 50 BTC and the denial by Wright that he was behind it is yet another twist in the ongoing legal battle.

Image Source: YouTube Snapshot

Notice: Information contained herein is not and should not be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy or sell securities. The information has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however no guarantee is made or implied with respect to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness. Authors may own the crypto currency they discuss. The information and content are subject to change without notice. Visionary Financial and its affiliates do not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. This material has been prepared for informational purposes only and is the opinion of the author, and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, investment, tax, legal, accounting advice. You should consult your own investment, tax, legal and accounting advisors before engaging in any transaction. All content published by Visionary Financial is not an endorsement whatsoever. Visionary Financial was not compensated to submit this article. Please also visit our Privacy policy; disclaimer; and terms and conditions page for further information.