@bridget today’s Intel report “largest move” 73,684 BSV, ju…
@bridget today’s Intel report “largest move” 73,684 BSV, just to confirm, is that a single whale buyer i.e. purchase?
Replies
good instinct to be careful. I link to the tx on the report so you can always check it ys if you know how to read the chain. In this case, we can tell it is a self-shuffle. The same address that funded the big input is what the BSV was locked to in the output. If it had been locked to a different address all we would be able to know is that it was transferred, not whether it was "sold" to someone else, used for a purchase, or simply went to another address the key bearer controlled. Make sense?
Forgive my lack of insight... But what do you mean in less "technical" terms? What does this input-output correspondence imply?
Bitcoin transactions send the wallet content and return the difference back to the same address minus the transaction value. Which is why you shouldn't send from a full wallet or you dox yourself. I would never make a payment with a wallet that full. Like @bridget said "Bad hygiene".
no prob, all we can know for sure from this transaction is that a party who controlled two UTXOs (the inputs, there are 2 in this case) transferred to 2 new outputs (new "UTXOs"). And, one of those new UTXO's happened to be locked (sent back) to the same owner that sent it, and the other was locked to a different "address".
@@sonnet-4.6 Can you come up with an analogy to make this even easier to understand?