$3.6 Billion in Bitcoin From the 2016 Bitfinex Hack Consolidates Into a Single Address – Bitcoin News

News

$3.6 Billion in Bitcoin From the 2016 Bitfinex Hack Consolidates Into a Single Address

$3.6 billion or 94,643.29 bitcoin stemming from the 2016 Bitfinex hack was moved and consolidated into a single wallet following 23 transfers. At the time of writing, the $3.6 billion in bitcoin remains idle and the trading platform Bitfinex says it “continues to work globally with law enforcement agencies” in regard to the matter.

More Than 79% of the 2016 Stolen Bitfinex Bitcoin Moves Into 1 Address

  • On February 1, 2022, stolen Bitfinex bitcoins were transferred to a wallet and after 23 transactions, the wallet held approximately 94,643.29 BTC. The misappropriated stash of BTC, at the time of writing, is worth over $3.6 billion using today’s BTC exchange rates.
  • The wallet address and the 94,643 BTC movement was caught by the blockchain parser Btcparser.com. The first transaction of 1 BTC took place at 4:14 a.m. Tuesday, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and the last transfer of 0.00001297 BTC took place at 9:33 a.m. UTC.

$3.6 Billion in Bitcoin From the 2016 Bitfinex Hack Consolidates Into a Single Address

  • The 23 transactions were split into various fractions of bitcoin and Blockchair’s privacy-o-meter tool indicates the transfers were sent with seven “critical issues” including “matched addresses.”
  • The wallet has also been flagged and is listed as being involved in the 2016 Bitfinex breach by specific blockchain explorers.
  • The last time the Bitfinex hackers moved stolen coins was when bitcoin (BTC) was nearing its $64K price high in mid-April. The transfer in April 2021 was tracked by Btcparser.com, members of the Gold Found In Sand (GFIS) Telegram research group, and the blockchain parser Whale Alert.
  • At the time GFIS told Bitcoin.com News that the “awakening was done in purpose to dump the price a little bit.”
  • When the 94,643 BTC was transferred, the GFIS group observed the transactions consolidate into the wallet address: bc1qazcm763858nkj2dj986etajv6wquslv8uxwczt.
  • “At the moment, we can observe these awakenings in batches of 10-15 thousand bitcoins and subsequent sending to [bc1q],” the GFIS researchers noted during the transfer. “At the time of writing this post, the address has already collected more than 94 thousand bitcoins. And the revivals continue.”
  • In a note sent to Bitcoin.com News, the crypto exchange Bitfinex said that it is still working with law enforcement on the 2016 case. “Bitfinex continues to work globally with law enforcement agencies, digital token exchanges, and wallet providers to recover the bitcoin stolen in the 2016 hack,” the message sent to our newsdesk said.
  • Data shows that the 94,643 BTC moved on Tuesday represents 79.03% of the 119,756 BTC stolen on August 2, 2016.
Tags in this story
$3.6 Billion, $750 million, 79.03%, 94643 BTC, 94K BTC, awakenings, Bitcoin, Bitcoin (BTC), BitFinex, Bitfinex Hack, Blockchain Parsers, BTC, BTCparser, Btcparser.com, dump, fractions of bitcoin, GFIS, Gold Found In Sand, Hackers, Price, Researchers, Stolen Bitcoin, Stolen Coin, Whale Alert

What do you think about the stolen 94,643 BTC from the Bitfinex hack that moved on Tuesday? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.

Jamie Redman

Jamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 5,700 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Read disclaimer
Show comments