94k Bitcoin (1B USD) transferred from unknown wallet to unknown wallet
I&#x27;d take issue on two points. First, &quot;wallets&#x27; don&#x27;t exist in the Bitcoin protocol. Second, the tool being used is not sophisticated enough to list the inputs and outputs, giving the false impression that something unusual is &quot;unknown.&quot; Try this link to get details:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blockstream.info&#x2F;tx&#x2F;4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb58e7c7b2422b2d7529afc675208ce2ce09ed7d" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blockstream.info&#x2F;tx&#x2F;4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb58e7c7...</a><p>There are numerous inputs and a single pay-to-script-hash (P2SH) output.<p>The relatively high fee is due in part to the large number of inputs. ~400 satoshis&#x2F;byte is high by today&#x27;s standard but not too unreasonable as early as 2017.<p>We can&#x27;t tell anything about the identity of the owner(s) of the new coin from the block chain alone.<p>Making a transaction this large is a security risk. It effectively establishes a billion dollar bounty for any party who can rewrite enough blocks to erase it. Now that the value resides in a single coin, any subsequent transaction faces the same risk. Plunking this much value into a single coin seems like an odd strategy at best. Not to mention the destruction of privacy in combining all those inputs into a single transaction with a single output.<p>I can think of one reason you might want to do this. A consortium&#x2F;trust has formed in which individuals pay into a common pool of money. That money is then protected with a multi signature script (consistent with the P2SH type). Given a threshold of signatures, the money can be spent, subject to other constraints. These will remain unknown until the first payment is made. At that point we&#x27;ll know the number and identity of all the eligible keys and the threshold needed to make payment.<p>If so, this transaction can be thought of as a kind of digital charter for the consortium in that it defines how the money can be spent going forward.<p>Edit: to be clear, the &quot;bounty&quot; I&#x27;m talking about can&#x27;t be directly claimed just by mining some blocks. Instead, it would have to be claimed as part of a double spend of either the transaction in question or as subsequent transaction of the now-enormous output. Most likely, there would be collusion of some kind between a miner and the owner of the keys. I&#x27;m not saying this will happen, but the bigger the transaction, the greater the risk.