These are bitcoin eater addresses (essentially receive only addresses), you can create addresses like these if you bruteforce the checksum bytes however you dont have the private key for them. I think the more famous one is 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm assuming someone is critiquing the scammer as foolish for using bitcoin instead of Monero because it is more difficult to cash out, as bitcoin is less anonymous than Monero?
Agreed. They are basically telling the scammer(s) to use a more anonymous & untraceable crypto next time, as everyone will be following the coins in that BTC wallet now, which makes it much more difficult to "launder".
I guess the choice of BTC but the scammer(s) was based on its much bigger popularity relative to Monero (many people have a few satoshis somewhere, but not many have some monero lying around)
> Can anyone explain what happened in this block of transactions to me?
These transactions were sent from a vanity address(es) [1], and in this case they're used to spam the recipient with implied messages, specifically about their poorly viewed scam--take it as a 'l33t' way of sending a message, hence the amount on the last tx. Another notable one was the EnjoySochi, as in the Olympics, transactions that spammed the network for a while 6 years ago [2].
Fascinating. I've seen political organizations using a zcash address for collecting donations, is that technically any better? I'm aware that creating bit tumblers for laundering currencies in cycles is largely out of practice now, has there been any recently development towards traceless transactions? How does is traceability compatible or incompatible with the process of verifying transactions via chaining blocks?
Basically, the chaff transactions go to/from wallets actually owned by people. If you analyze enough of the chaff transactions, especially when the XMR that made them up is respent, you can deanonmyize users.
This is why people recommend you do not reuse wallets often but that still does not solve the problem.
Zcash I think is secure, or is per most analyses I've read.
Basically, the chaff transactions go to/from wallets actually owned by people. If you analyze enough of the chaff transactions, especially when the XMR that made them up is respent, you can deanonmyize users.
This is why people recommend you do not reuse wallets often but that still does not solve the problem.
Zcash I think is secure, or is per most analyses I've read.
1TransactionoutputsAsTexta13AtQyk 0.00000667 BTC
1YouTakeRiskWhenUseBitcoin11cGozM 0.00000668 BTC
1forYourTwitterGame111111112XNLpa 0.00000669 BTC
1BitcoinisTraceabLe1111111ZvyqNWW 0.00000670 BTC
1WhyNotMonero777777777777a14A99D8 0.00000671 BTC
bc1qxy2kgdygjrsqtzq2n0yrf2493p83kkfjhx0wlh 0.00001337 BTC
Can anyone explain what happened in this block of transactions to me?