100 Bitcoin From 2010 Just Moved—But the Blockchain Does Not Show a Sale
•
October 9, 2026 12:37 am
•
Comments
A batch of Bitcoin mined when the network was barely a year old moved this week after sitting untouched for more than 16 years. The transfer is remarkable, but it is not proof that the owner sold.
The movement involved 100.02 BTC connected to two mining rewards from July 2010. At the time of the transfer, the coins were worth roughly $8.3 million to $8.5 million, depending on the market snapshot.
Decrypt reported that the transaction confirmed on October 7 and split the balance into two new outputs: 10 BTC and about 90.02 BTC. Both remained unspent when the transaction was reviewed, so the public record showed movement without a follow-on transfer to a known exchange.
The coins came from two July 2010 mining rewards of 50 BTC and 50.02 BTC, including fees. Bitcoin traded for only a few cents then, which explains the dramatic change in market value, but the ledger does not reveal who controls the keys.
The address had shown other activity over the years, yet these specific outputs had not moved since 2010. That distinction matters because one address can hold separate unspent outputs and move some while leaving others untouched.
We maintain a complete ledger of every single UTXO and all their historical movements (about 1.7 terabytes). This address has been somewhat active in the past, but these specific coins have not moved since 2010. We track the coins.
— Galaxy Research (@glxyresearch) October 8, 2026
Old Bitcoin transfers often trigger instant speculation about a whale preparing to dump coins. Bitcoin can also move between wallets controlled by the same person, into a new custody setup or as part of routine security housekeeping.
CoinDesk’s transaction review traced the 100.02 BTC to the two early mining rewards and reported the outputs as unspent after the move. It also made the critical distinction that “Satoshi-era” describes when the coins were mined; their age does not connect them to Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator.
A sale would require more evidence, such as a transfer into a known exchange wallet followed by market activity. None of that was established by the initial transaction.
The timing collided with a fresh debate about whether blockchains should prepare faster for attacks on today’s signature systems. That led to speculation that an early holder might be reducing cryptographic exposure, but the blockchain does not establish that motive.
Hiding your coins in a bunker won't save your blockchain. Given the risks AI poses to fundamental cryptography, I propose every chain implement a "cryptographic recovery mode": https://t.co/3qXwrQLvFu
— Haseeb Qureshi ＞|＜ (@hosseeb) October 8, 2026
Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi’s broader point is that individual wallet moves cannot substitute for a network-level recovery plan. That debate matters, but it should not be retrofitted into this transaction as a confirmed explanation.
The clean reading remains narrow: coins untouched since 2010 moved to two new destinations, and those destinations had not spent them when checked. Sale, ownership and motive all need more evidence.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.