Key Notes
- Three addresses spent 828.14 BTC from 2013 deposits in two main transactions on October 17–18.
- The transactions were about 24½ hours apart and do not establish three separate owners or a Bitcoin sale.
- The supplied reports provide no demonstration of a quantum attack, and the main destinations use standard SegWit outputs.
Three long-dormant Bitcoin addresses spent approximately 828.14 BTC on October 17–18, drawing attention to old holdings and renewed speculation about quantum attacks. The transaction records confirm that coins received in 2013 moved; they do not establish that a quantum computer recovered anyone’s private keys.
The activity appears in two reports: Onchain Lens flagged two addresses holding about 416.69 BTC, while Galaxy Research identified a separate 411.45 BTC spend. CoinScreamer checked the underlying transaction inputs, outputs and original funding dates against public blockchain data.
Two transactions spent coins from three addresses
The first transaction was confirmed in block 971,894, whose recorded timestamp is 17:52:40 UTC on October 17. It combined approximately 167.84029246 BTC from the address beginning 1ECHiG with 248.8539 BTC from the address beginning 12txLh.
The original deposits spent from the first address date to August, September and October 2013. The second address’s 248.8539 BTC arrived in November 2013. These funding records place both sets of coins in 2013, rather than establishing a 2013–2014 split.
Onchain Lens summarized the movement as transfers to the same address. The transaction itself has 16 outputs, including a small return to one source address and multiple native SegWit destinations. The two source addresses therefore participated in one main transaction; the record does not establish two independent owners or a single receiving address.
Galaxy’s separate transaction spent two outputs totaling 411.45 BTC from the address beginning 13Coop. Both deposits were received on September 11, 2013. It was confirmed in block 972,036, timestamped 18:23:34 UTC on October 18, sending approximately 411.44999663 BTC to one destination after fees.
The two main transactions were about 24 hours and 31 minutes apart. Describing all three addresses as waking within a strict 24-hour window would therefore be inaccurate. Their funding dates also do not establish any connection to Satoshi Nakamoto.
Galaxy labeled the recipient’s attribution unknown. A blockchain spend is not, on its own, evidence that Bitcoin was sold, that cash profit was realized or that the original owner lost control.
The quantum theory rests on an ambiguity, not a demonstrated attack
Bankless co-founder David Hoffman addressed that ambiguity in an October 8 comment, responding to a different dormant-wallet report. His point was that an owner moving old coins for security reasons and an attacker spending them after recovering a key could produce similar-looking transactions.
That older observation is not a new forensic finding about the October 17–18 transfers. None of the supplied reports or transaction records demonstrates private-key recovery by a quantum computer, identifies such a machine or establishes the sender’s reason for moving the coins.
The distinction matters because the longer-term risk is real. Galaxy’s March research explains how a sufficiently powerful, fault-tolerant quantum computer could undermine elliptic-curve signatures when the relevant public key is available. That theoretical capability is separate from proving it was used in a particular spend.
A newer address is not automatically quantum-resistant
All three source addresses used pay-to-public-key-hash outputs. Bitcoin’s developer guide explains that this design holds a hash of the public key and reveals the full key when the output is spent. An address’s age alone therefore does not tell an observer whether its public key was exposed before the transfer.
The main destinations in these transactions use ordinary native SegWit pay-to-public-key-hash outputs. Under BIP 141, these still require a public key and an elliptic-curve signature when spent. Moving into that format does not demonstrate migration to a post-quantum signature scheme.
CoinScreamer’s earlier Glassnode coverage explains why exposed keys and wallet age are different measures. Our migration report also examines the operational risks of hurried transfers. The verified development here is movement of long-held coins; ownership, motive and any alleged cryptographic breakthrough remain unproven.
Disclaimer: CoinScreamer is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and market insights on digital assets and related technologies. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the digital asset, blockchain, and technology sectors. These relationships do not influence CoinScreamer’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2025 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
