{
  "schema": "degrees-of-satoshi-corrections-ledger-v1",
  "published": "2026-09-23",
  "count": 32,
  "claims": [
    {
      "id": "genesis-to-block-1-gap-not-six-days",
      "common_claim": "A full six days passed between the genesis block (block 0) and block 1.",
      "who_says_it": "Bitcoin Wiki",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block",
      "what_record_shows": "The two block headers are 463,160 seconds apart: five days, eight hours, thirty-nine minutes and twenty seconds (timestamps 1231006505 and 1231469665).",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://mempool.space/api/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f",
        "https://mempool.space/api/block/00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/genesis-block-coinbase-block-0/#story",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Genesis Block Coinbase (Block 0)",
      "verdict": "overstated",
      "quote": "One further detail is routinely garbled. Block 1 (00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048) is timestamped 1231469665 — 9 January 2009 at 02:54:25 UTC. The interval is 463,160 seconds: five days, eight hours, thirty-nine minutes and twenty seconds. The widely repeated \"six days\" — the Bitcoin Wiki says \"a full 6 days\" — overstates what the two headers actually record.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "genesis-block-coinbase",
        "field": "history"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#genesis-to-block-1-gap-not-six-days"
    },
    {
      "id": "genesis-coinbase-unspendable-not-by-design",
      "common_claim": "Satoshi deliberately made the genesis block reward unspendable.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "The original implementation hard-coded block 0 and never inserted its coinbase into the transaction database, so the output was never in the UTXO set. The Bitcoin Wiki says it is not known whether this was intentional or accidental.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/master/src/kernel/chainparams.cpp",
        "https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/genesis-block-coinbase-block-0/#wallet-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Genesis Block Coinbase (Block 0)",
      "verdict": "unproven",
      "quote": "Its 50 BTC output has never been spendable — not by design statement, but because the original implementation never put it in the database.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "genesis-block-coinbase",
        "field": "summary"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#genesis-coinbase-unspendable-not-by-design"
    },
    {
      "id": "genesis-restriction-is-on-output-not-address",
      "common_claim": "The genesis address 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa is unspendable, so anything sent to it is lost.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "Only the original block 0 coinbase output is unspendable. Later outputs paid to the address enter the UTXO set normally and the key carries no protocol-level restriction.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://gist.github.com/msinkec/5eaf5aa97ed0f5e8d66e7e32fd8b1a0a"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/genesis-block-coinbase-block-0/#story",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Genesis Block Coinbase (Block 0)",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "The restriction attaches to that one output, not to the address. Outputs later sent to 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa enter the UTXO set normally and carry no special constraint; the key itself has no protocol-level disability.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "genesis-block-coinbase",
        "field": "history"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#genesis-restriction-is-on-output-not-address"
    },
    {
      "id": "patoshi-satoshi-mined-one-million-btc",
      "common_claim": "Satoshi mined about one million bitcoin in 2009–2010.",
      "who_says_it": "Sergio Demian Lerner (Bitslog); Whale Alert",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://bitslog.com/2019/04/16/the-return-of-the-deniers-and-the-revenge-of-patoshi/",
      "what_record_shows": "The size of the Patoshi set has never been settled: Lerner argues for close to 1.1M coins, Whale Alert for 1,125,150 BTC, and BitMEX Research for 600,000–700,000 BTC with the warning that the evidence is far less robust than many have assumed.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.bitmex.com/blog/satoshis-1-million-bitcoin",
        "https://whale-alert.medium.com/the-satoshi-fortune-e49cf73f9a9b",
        "https://bitslog.com/2019/04/16/the-return-of-the-deniers-and-the-revenge-of-patoshi/"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/patoshi-pattern-early-mining-set-2009-2010/#story",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Patoshi-Pattern Early Mining Set (2009-2010)",
      "verdict": "unproven",
      "quote": "The size of the set has never been settled. BitMEX Research, publishing on 19 August 2018, reconstructed the ExtraNonce slopes independently and concluded the dominant 2009 miner more likely produced \"600,000 to 700,000 bitcoin\". Their caveat was pointed: \"Although there is strong evidence of a dominant miner in 2009, we think the evidence is far less robust than many have assumed.\"",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "patoshi-early-miner-set",
        "field": "history"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#patoshi-satoshi-mined-one-million-btc"
    },
    {
      "id": "patoshi-pattern-equals-satoshi",
      "common_claim": "The Patoshi blocks are Satoshi Nakamoto's blocks.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "The pattern shows a single dominant early miner; equating that miner with Satoshi is an inference, not an established fact. Lerner himself writes that the relation is based on unsigned emails and not math.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://bitslog.com/2020/08/22/the-patoshi-mining-machine/",
        "https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/patoshi-pattern-early-mining-set-2009-2010/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Patoshi-Pattern Early Mining Set (2009-2010)",
      "verdict": "unproven",
      "quote": "The identification of the Patoshi set with Satoshi Nakamoto is a contested attribution, not an established fact. Lerner himself writes that \"Because the relation is based on unsigned emails and not math, we'll never be sure,\" and in 2013 said he could not assure with 100% certainty that the pattern's blocks were Satoshi's.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "patoshi-early-miner-set",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#patoshi-pattern-equals-satoshi"
    },
    {
      "id": "patoshi-48-machines-versus-one-cpu",
      "common_claim": "The Patoshi miner ran at least 48 computers.",
      "who_says_it": "Whale Alert",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://whale-alert.medium.com/the-satoshi-fortune-e49cf73f9a9b",
      "what_record_shows": "Lerner's re-mining of the 10,025 Patoshi blocks in the first 13.2K concluded the miner was simply multi-threading in a single high-end CPU; the hardware inference is directly contradicted between sources.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://bitslog.com/2020/08/22/the-patoshi-mining-machine/"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/patoshi-pattern-early-mining-set-2009-2010/#claim-48-machines-or-one",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Patoshi-Pattern Early Mining Set (2009-2010)",
      "verdict": "unproven",
      "quote": "Whale Alert inferred \"at least 48 computers, with one machine for coordination\"; Lerner's re-mining of the 10,025 Patoshi blocks in the first 13.2K concluded \"Patoshi was simply multi-threading in a high-end CPU\". Both claims are still in print.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "patoshi-early-miner-set",
        "field": "facts[4].value"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#patoshi-48-machines-versus-one-cpu"
    },
    {
      "id": "first-transaction-dated-11-january",
      "common_claim": "The first Bitcoin transaction to Hal Finney happened on 11 January 2009.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "Block 170 is timestamped 12 January 2009 at 03:30:25 UTC, which was the evening of 11 January in California; the date depends on the time zone used.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://mempool.space/api/tx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/hal-finney-first-bitcoin-transaction/#claim-the-date-depends-on-your-timezone",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Hal Finney — Recipient of the First Bitcoin Transaction (Block 170)",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "The block timestamp is 12 January 2009 at 03:30:25 UTC, which was 11 January, 19:30 in California — which is why some accounts date it to 11 January.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "hal-finney-first-transaction",
        "field": "facts[2].value"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#first-transaction-dated-11-january"
    },
    {
      "id": "satoshi-as-sender-is-attribution-not-proof",
      "common_claim": "Satoshi Nakamoto sent the first Bitcoin transaction to Hal Finney (stated as a proven fact).",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "The on-chain facts are verifiable, but the identity of the sender rests on Finney's own account and the emails he showed Forbes, not on a cryptographic signature: a well-corroborated attribution rather than a proof.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0",
        "https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satoshi-nakamotos-neighbor-the-bitcoin-ghostwriter-who-wasnt/"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/hal-finney-first-bitcoin-transaction/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Hal Finney — Recipient of the First Bitcoin Transaction (Block 170)",
      "verdict": "unproven",
      "quote": "That the sender was Satoshi Nakamoto rests on Finney's own account and on the contemporaneous email archive he showed Forbes, not on a cryptographic signature; it is a well-corroborated attribution rather than a proof.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "hal-finney-first-transaction",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#satoshi-as-sender-is-attribution-not-proof"
    },
    {
      "id": "hornets-nest-was-not-satoshis-last-post",
      "common_claim": "Satoshi's \"kicked the hornet's nest\" post of 11 December 2010 was his last public forum message.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "The Nakamoto Institute archive shows one later post, 12 December 2010 at 18:22 UTC, a routine 0.3.19 release note about DoS limits.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/543/",
        "https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/wikileaks-published-donation-address-2011/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: WikiLeaks published donation address (2011)",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "Corrected from an earlier draft: the 11 December 'hornet's nest' post was NOT Satoshi's last public forum message. The Nakamoto Institute archive shows one later post, 12 December 2010 at 18:22 UTC, announcing the 0.3.19 build. Any page saying otherwise is wrong.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "wikileaks-donation-address-2011",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#hornets-nest-was-not-satoshis-last-post"
    },
    {
      "id": "wikileaks-4000-btc-understates-donations",
      "common_claim": "WikiLeaks received about 4,000 BTC in Bitcoin donations.",
      "who_says_it": "Bitcoin Magazine",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/wikileaks-public-donation-address-receives-th-bitcoin-1480629241",
      "what_record_shows": "The 4,000 BTC figure is the public address only; it understates total giving because WikiLeaks also let donors generate one-off addresses, and on-chain receipt totals include change returning to an address.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~smeiklejohn/files/imc13.pdf",
        "https://blockchain.info/rawaddr/1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/wikileaks-published-donation-address-2011/#story",
      "site_label": "Dossier: WikiLeaks published donation address (2011)",
      "verdict": "understated",
      "quote": "Bitcoin Magazine reported it took delivery of its 4,000th bitcoin on 12 November 2016, across more than 25,000 incoming transactions over five years. That understates total giving, because WikiLeaks also let donors generate one-off addresses.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "wikileaks-donation-address-2011",
        "field": "history"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#wikileaks-4000-btc-understates-donations"
    },
    {
      "id": "satoshidice-half-of-all-transactions-figure",
      "common_claim": "SatoshiDice accounted for half (or 60%) of all Bitcoin transactions.",
      "who_says_it": "Federal Reserve Board working paper (Badev and Chen); UCSD \"A Fistful of Bitcoins\"",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2014/files/2014104pap.pdf",
      "what_record_shows": "The figures vary by source, metric and window: the Fed paper says more than half within weeks and over 40% for most of its life; UCSD says about 60% of overall activity. Both count transactions, not economic value, and are not directly comparable.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2014/files/2014104pap.pdf",
        "https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~smeiklejohn/files/imc13.pdf"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/satoshidice-betting-addresses-1dice/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: SatoshiDice betting addresses (1dice…)",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "The 'half of all transactions' figures vary by source, metric and window: the Fed paper says more than half within weeks and over 40% for most of its life; UCSD says about 60% of overall activity. Both count transactions, not economic value, and are not directly comparable.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "satoshidice-1dice-addresses",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#satoshidice-half-of-all-transactions-figure"
    },
    {
      "id": "satoshidice-sale-dollar-value",
      "common_claim": "SatoshiDice sold for $11.5 million (or $12.4 million) in July 2013.",
      "who_says_it": "CoinDesk ($11.5m); Bitcoin Magazine ($12.4m)",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2013/07/18/bitcoin-company-acquisitions-begin-gambling-site-satoshidice-sells-for-115-million-126315-btc",
      "what_record_shows": "The 126,315 BTC sale price is agreed; only the dollar equivalent differs between the two reports, and the buyer has never been identified.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2013/07/18/bitcoin-company-acquisitions-begin-gambling-site-satoshidice-sells-for-115-million-126315-btc",
        "https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/satoshidice-sold-12-4-million"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/satoshidice-betting-addresses-1dice/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: SatoshiDice betting addresses (1dice…)",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "The 126,315 BTC sale price is agreed, but the dollar equivalent was reported as $11.5m (CoinDesk) and $12.4m (Bitcoin Magazine), and the buyer has never been identified.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "satoshidice-1dice-addresses",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#satoshidice-sale-dollar-value"
    },
    {
      "id": "whitepaper-output-count-945-946-947",
      "common_claim": "The whitepaper transaction has 945 (or 946, or 947) outputs.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "The raw transaction has 948 outputs: 945 1-of-3 bare multisig, one 1-of-1, and two pay-to-pubkey-hash (a one-satoshi tip and change); 946 outputs carry data.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://mempool.space/api/tx/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713",
        "https://blockstream.info/api/tx/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713/outspends"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/bitcoin-whitepaper-embedded-on-chain-2013/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Bitcoin whitepaper embedded on-chain (2013)",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "Secondary write-ups disagree on the output arithmetic — 945, 946 and 947 all circulate — because they count the data outputs, the one-satoshi tip and the change differently.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "bitcoin-whitepaper-onchain-2013",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#whitepaper-output-count-945-946-947"
    },
    {
      "id": "whitepaper-upload-tools-labelled-satoshi",
      "common_claim": "Satoshi Nakamoto embedded the whitepaper in the blockchain (the upload tools carried his name).",
      "who_says_it": "The uploader/downloader tools' own labels, as catalogued by Ken Shirriff",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html",
      "what_record_shows": "Shirriff judged the Satoshi label probably false; the label is not evidence of involvement by the whitepaper's author, and the author of the transaction has never been identified.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/bitcoin-whitepaper-embedded-on-chain-2013/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Bitcoin whitepaper embedded on-chain (2013)",
      "verdict": "misattributed",
      "quote": "Who created this transaction is unknown and no credible attribution exists. The uploader and downloader tools used in the same burst were labelled with Satoshi Nakamoto's name, which Shirriff assessed as probably false; that label is not evidence of involvement by the whitepaper's author, and the recurring one-satoshi payment to the genesis address is a property of those tools rather than a signed statement by anyone.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "bitcoin-whitepaper-onchain-2013",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#whitepaper-upload-tools-labelled-satoshi"
    },
    {
      "id": "el-salvador-reserve-has-no-statutory-basis",
      "common_claim": "El Salvador's Bitcoin Law created the country's bitcoin reserve.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "The 2021 law says nothing about the state accumulating bitcoin; the reserve is executive practice, not statute.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://freopp.org/whitepapers/el-salvadors-bitcoin-law-full-english-text/"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/el-salvador-national-bitcoin-office-onbtc-reserve/#story",
      "site_label": "Dossier: El Salvador — National Bitcoin Office (ONBTC) Reserve",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "Notably, the law said nothing about the state itself accumulating bitcoin. The reserve that followed was a matter of executive practice, not statute.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "el-salvador-onbtc-national-reserve",
        "field": "history"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#el-salvador-reserve-has-no-statutory-basis"
    },
    {
      "id": "el-salvador-bitcoin-law-vote-date",
      "common_claim": "El Salvador's Bitcoin Law was passed on 9 June 2021 (or 8 June 2021).",
      "who_says_it": "Wikipedia (9 June); FREOPP full-text edition (8 June)",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Law",
      "what_record_shows": "The session ran past midnight and sources split between 8 and 9 June 2021, so the site gives both.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Law",
        "https://freopp.org/whitepapers/el-salvadors-bitcoin-law-full-english-text/"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/el-salvador-national-bitcoin-office-onbtc-reserve/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: El Salvador — National Bitcoin Office (ONBTC) Reserve",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "First, the date of the Bitcoin Law vote: the session ran past midnight and sources split between 8 and 9 June 2021 (Wikipedia says 9 June, the FREOPP full-text edition says 8 June), so the timeline gives both.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "el-salvador-onbtc-national-reserve",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#el-salvador-bitcoin-law-vote-date"
    },
    {
      "id": "counterparty-burn-window-5000-blocks-3-february",
      "common_claim": "The Counterparty burn window ran for 5,000 blocks, ending on 3 February 2014.",
      "who_says_it": "Counterparty documentation",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://docs.counterparty.io/docs/basics/what-is-xcp/",
      "what_record_shows": "The constants in config.py give blocks 278,310 to 283,810, which is 5,500 blocks, with the closing block mined on 2 February 2014 at 19:58:28 UTC.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/blob/master/counterparty-core/counterpartycore/lib/config.py",
        "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/master/counterparty-core/counterpartycore/lib/messages/data/mainnet_burns.csv"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/counterparty-xcp-proof-of-burn-address/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Counterparty XCP proof-of-burn address",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "Counterparty's own documentation describes the window as \"5,000 Bitcoin blocks\" running to 3 February 2014, whereas the constants in config.py give blocks 278,310 to 283,810, which is 5,500 blocks, with the closing block mined on 2 February; the code has been preferred.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "counterparty-xcp-proof-of-burn",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#counterparty-burn-window-5000-blocks-3-february"
    },
    {
      "id": "counterparty-2140-btc-burned",
      "common_claim": "Counterparty's proof-of-burn destroyed approximately 2,140 BTC.",
      "who_says_it": "Wikipedia",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterparty_(platform)",
      "what_record_shows": "The canonical ledger shipped in the client records 2,125.63000728 BTC destroyed inside the valid window; larger counts include coins that arrived at the address outside the window and bought nothing.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/master/counterparty-core/counterpartycore/lib/messages/data/mainnet_burns.csv",
        "https://mempool.space/api/address/1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/counterparty-xcp-proof-of-burn-address/#caveats-title",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Counterparty XCP proof-of-burn address",
      "verdict": "overstated",
      "quote": "Published totals for BTC burned also vary, with Wikipedia giving approximately 2,140 BTC, because some counts include coins that arrived at the address outside the valid window; only the in-window figure is stated here.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/histories.json",
        "key": "counterparty-xcp-proof-of-burn",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#counterparty-2140-btc-burned"
    },
    {
      "id": "finney-10-btc-did-not-stay-put",
      "common_claim": "Hal Finney's 10 BTC from the first transaction have never moved.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "The address shows total_received 1004401259 sats and total_sent 1004328551 sats across 53 transactions, so nearly everything received has been spent.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://blockchain.info/rawaddr/1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/hal-finney-first-bitcoin-transaction/#evidence",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Hal Finney — Recipient of the First Bitcoin Transaction (Block 170)",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "Contrary to common belief the 10 BTC did not stay put: as of this check the address shows total_received 1004401259 sats and total_sent 1004328551 sats across 53 transactions, so nearly everything received has been spent.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/labels.json",
        "key": "hal-finney-first-transaction",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#finney-10-btc-did-not-stay-put"
    },
    {
      "id": "block-9-coinbase-address-is-not-finneys",
      "common_claim": "The address 12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S is Hal Finney's.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "That address is the block 9 coinbase, the sender's side of the transaction; it belongs to the early-mining set and should not be labelled as Finney's.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://blockchain.info/rawtx/0437cd7f8525ceed2324359c2d0ba26006d92d856a9c20fa0241106ee5a597c9",
        "https://blockchain.info/rawtx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/hal-finney-first-bitcoin-transaction/#evidence",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Hal Finney — Recipient of the First Bitcoin Transaction (Block 170)",
      "verdict": "misattributed",
      "quote": "The block-9 coinbase address is the sender's, not Finney's — it belongs to the early-mining set and should not be labelled as his.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/labels.json",
        "key": "hal-finney-first-transaction",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#block-9-coinbase-address-is-not-finneys"
    },
    {
      "id": "merkle-science-433468-btc-typo",
      "common_claim": "433,468 BTC of Bitfinex hack proceeds moved in April 2021.",
      "who_says_it": "Merkle Science blog",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://www.merklescience.com/blog/hack-track-bitfinex-hack-2016-recent-fund-movement-analysis",
      "what_record_shows": "The on-chain figure is 433.4689 BTC; the source misprinted the decimal. The companion figure of 259.74 BTC matches exactly.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://mempool.space/api/address/13jE999Hssm2GFf6Yob7zGCJtf1xnPPjHd",
        "https://mempool.space/api/address/1J2Tem6ZSHnpppVhBpSq5pAZYmfjENqoD3"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/bitfinex-hack-residual-movement-2021/#evidence",
      "site_label": "Dossier: Bitfinex Hack Residual Movement (2021)",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "The source contains a typographical error - it prints '433,468 BTC' where the on-chain figure is 433.4689 BTC, confirmed this session via mempool.space; the companion figure of 259.74 BTC matches exactly.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/labels.json",
        "key": "bitfinex-residual-unrecovered-movement",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#merkle-science-433468-btc-typo"
    },
    {
      "id": "whale-july-2025-move-was-security-upgrade",
      "common_claim": "The 4 July 2025 movement of the eight 2011 wallets was a wallet security upgrade, not a sale.",
      "who_says_it": "Arkham Intelligence, as reported by The Block",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://www.theblock.co/post/361269/bitcoin-whale-movement-arkham",
      "what_record_shows": "Later transfers went onward to trading desks and Galaxy Digital, which on 25 July 2025 announced it had sold more than 80,000 BTC for the client; the initial reading was overtaken.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/07/18/satoshi-era-bitcoin-whale-moves-final-48b-to-galaxy-digital-likely-prepping-sale",
        "https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/galaxy-executes-one-of-the-largest-notional-bitcoin-transactions-ever-302514123.html"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/wallet/2011-eight-wallet-whale-awakened-july-2025/#evidence",
      "site_label": "Dossier: 2011 Eight-Wallet Whale (awakened July 2025)",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "Arkham's initial reading of the 4 July movement as a security upgrade rather than a sale was overtaken by the later transfers.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/labels.json",
        "key": "whale-2011-eight-wallets-80k",
        "field": "caveats"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#whale-july-2025-move-was-security-upgrade"
    },
    {
      "id": "block-170-first-bitcoin-transaction-qualified",
      "common_claim": "Block 170 contains the first Bitcoin transaction.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "Block 170 is the first widely recognized person-to-person transfer; the genesis and mining (coinbase) transactions predate it.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://blockstream.info/tx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/origins-of-bitcoin/",
      "site_label": "History dossier: origins-of-bitcoin",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "The phrase ‘first Bitcoin transaction’ should be qualified: block 170 is the first widely recognized person-to-person transfer, while genesis and mining transactions predate it.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-content.mjs",
        "key": "origins-of-bitcoin",
        "field": "caveats[2]"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#block-170-first-bitcoin-transaction-qualified"
    },
    {
      "id": "supply-cap-is-exactly-21-million",
      "common_claim": "Bitcoin's maximum supply is 21 million BTC.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "Under Bitcoin Core's integer subsidy function the maximum sum of permitted subsidies is 20,999,999.9769 BTC; \"21 million\" is a rounded conventional label, and issued and spendable supply are lower still.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/128456b62d5e38abea031f97f823d5b28aef9357/src/validation.cpp#L1844-L1855",
        "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/128456b62d5e38abea031f97f823d5b28aef9357/src/test/validation_tests.cpp#L49-L67"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/bitcoin-halvings-and-supply/#exact-cap",
      "site_label": "History dossier: bitcoin-halvings-and-supply",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "Bitcoin does not allocate infinitely divisible units, though. Subsidies are integers counted in satoshis, and right shifts discard remainders once successive halvings reach odd values. Summed under the current function, the maximum is 20,999,999.9769 BTC.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-content.mjs",
        "key": "bitcoin-halvings-and-supply",
        "field": "sections[exact-cap].paragraphs[0]"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#supply-cap-is-exactly-21-million"
    },
    {
      "id": "halving-every-four-years",
      "common_claim": "A Bitcoin halving happens every four years.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "The rule is based on block height (every 210,000 blocks), not a calendar date; four years is an approximation from the ten-minute target and actual dates depend on block production.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/128456b62d5e38abea031f97f823d5b28aef9357/src/validation.cpp#L1844-L1855",
        "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/kernel/chainparams.cpp"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/bitcoin-halvings-and-supply/",
      "site_label": "History dossier: bitcoin-halvings-and-supply",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "The rule is based on block height, not a calendar date: mainnet divides height by a 210,000-block interval. The ten-minute target makes four years a useful approximation, but actual halving dates depend on how quickly blocks are produced.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-content.mjs",
        "key": "bitcoin-halvings-and-supply",
        "field": "faq[0].answer"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#halving-every-four-years"
    },
    {
      "id": "bitcoin-cash-raised-bitcoins-block-limit",
      "common_claim": "Bitcoin Cash increased Bitcoin's block size limit.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "Bitcoin Cash began a separate chain under incompatible rules on 1 August 2017; nodes enforcing Bitcoin's rules did not treat its larger blocks as valid Bitcoin blocks.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1588489/000119312519326175/d845671dex991.htm",
        "https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-07-12-potential-split"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/bitcoin-block-size-war/",
      "site_label": "History dossier: bitcoin-block-size-war",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "No. Bitcoin Cash began a separate chain under incompatible rules on 1 August 2017. Nodes enforcing Bitcoin’s existing consensus rules did not treat the new chain’s larger blocks as valid Bitcoin mainnet blocks.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-content.mjs",
        "key": "bitcoin-block-size-war",
        "field": "faq[2].answer"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#bitcoin-cash-raised-bitcoins-block-limit"
    },
    {
      "id": "mt-gox-lost-850000-btc",
      "common_claim": "Mt. Gox lost 850,000 BTC.",
      "who_says_it": "Mt. Gox's own 28 February 2014 announcement",
      "who_says_it_url": "https://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20140228-announcement_eng.pdf",
      "what_record_shows": "The 850,000 figure was a provisional company estimate; after 199,999.99 BTC was found in an old-format wallet, Mt. Gox revised the estimated disappearance to about 650,000 BTC and reported roughly 202,000 BTC held.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20140228-announcement_eng.pdf",
        "https://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20140320-btc-announce.pdf"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/mt-gox-collapse/",
      "site_label": "History dossier: mt-gox-collapse",
      "verdict": "overstated",
      "quote": "Mt. Gox initially reported almost all of approximately 850,000 BTC missing. After finding 199,999.99 BTC in an old-format wallet, it reported roughly 202,000 BTC held and revised the estimated missing amount to approximately 650,000 BTC; all were company-reported provisional figures.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-content.mjs",
        "key": "mt-gox-collapse",
        "field": "faq[0].answer"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#mt-gox-lost-850000-btc"
    },
    {
      "id": "strategy-has-never-sold-bitcoin",
      "common_claim": "MicroStrategy/Strategy has never sold any bitcoin.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "An SEC-filed 8-K reports that MacroStrategy sold 704 BTC on 22 December 2022 for approximately $11.8 million and bought 810 BTC two days later.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1050446/000119312522313098/d398241d8k.htm"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/strategy-microstrategy-bitcoin-treasury/#annual-holdings-ledger",
      "site_label": "History dossier: strategy-microstrategy-bitcoin-treasury",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "They also disprove an overly simple mythology: MacroStrategy sold 704 BTC on 22 December 2022 for approximately $11.8 million and acquired 810 BTC two days later. The annual balance still rose, but the filing record does not support saying that the company has literally never sold bitcoin.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-expansion-institutions.mjs",
        "key": "strategy-microstrategy-bitcoin-treasury",
        "field": "sections[annual-holdings-ledger].paragraphs[0]"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#strategy-has-never-sold-bitcoin"
    },
    {
      "id": "exchange-traded-bitcoin-exposure-began-2024",
      "common_claim": "Exchange-traded Bitcoin exposure (the first Bitcoin ETF) began in January 2024.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "GBTC registered its shares in 2019, the futures-based BITO began trading in October 2021, and Canadian and European products predate the U.S. spot cohort; 2024 introduced U.S. national-exchange-listed spot trust shares.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1588489/000119312519295206/d735049d1012g.htm",
        "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1174610/000168386321006052/f10028d1.htm"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/us-spot-bitcoin-etfs/#securities-bridge-before-spot",
      "site_label": "History dossier: us-spot-bitcoin-etfs",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "Earlier Canadian and European exchange-traded products also form part of global ETP history, but they should not be collapsed into the SEC decision or used to imply that exchange-traded Bitcoin exposure began in 2024.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-expansion-institutions.mjs",
        "key": "us-spot-bitcoin-etfs",
        "field": "sections[securities-bridge-before-spot].paragraphs[1]"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#exchange-traded-bitcoin-exposure-began-2024"
    },
    {
      "id": "quadriga-collapsed-because-of-lost-keys",
      "common_claim": "QuadrigaCX collapsed because its founder died holding the only keys to its cold wallets.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "The Ontario Securities Commission's investigation concluded the collapse resulted from fraud by the co-founder, including misappropriation and fictitious trading, not merely inaccessible keys; EY found the identified cold wallets had been empty since April 2018.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://www.osc.ca/quadrigacxreport/web/files/QuadrigaCX-A-Review-by-Staff-of-the-Ontario-Securities-Commission.pdf",
        "https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cryptocurrency-still-missing-quadriga-s-cold-wallets-1.5040099"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/bitcoin-exchanges-history/#custody-failures-are-not-consensus-failures",
      "site_label": "History dossier: bitcoin-exchanges-history",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "QuadrigaCX was initially narrated as a lost-key problem after its co-founder’s death. The Ontario Securities Commission’s investigation instead concluded that the collapse resulted from fraud, including misappropriation and fictitious trading.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-expansion-market.mjs",
        "key": "bitcoin-exchanges-history",
        "field": "sections[custody-failures-are-not-consensus-failures].paragraphs[1]"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#quadriga-collapsed-because-of-lost-keys"
    },
    {
      "id": "blockchain-stores-account-balances",
      "common_claim": "The Bitcoin blockchain stores account balances, and coins \"move between addresses\".",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "No protocol-level balance exists; nodes track unspent transaction outputs, wallets sum them for display, and \"movement between addresses\" is an interpretation of the transaction graph.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/128456b62d5e38abea031f97f823d5b28aef9357/src/primitives/transaction.h",
        "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/128456b62d5e38abea031f97f823d5b28aef9357/src/consensus/tx_verify.cpp"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/how-bitcoin-blockchain-works/",
      "site_label": "History dossier: how-bitcoin-blockchain-works",
      "verdict": "incorrect",
      "quote": "No protocol-level account balance is stored. Nodes maintain a set of unspent transaction outputs, each with a value and spending condition. Wallet software finds relevant UTXOs and sums them to display a familiar balance.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-expansion-market.mjs",
        "key": "how-bitcoin-blockchain-works",
        "field": "faq[0].answer"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#blockchain-stores-account-balances"
    },
    {
      "id": "blocks-every-ten-minutes",
      "common_claim": "A Bitcoin block is produced every ten minutes.",
      "who_says_it": null,
      "who_says_it_url": null,
      "what_record_shows": "Ten minutes is an average design target maintained by retargeting every 2,016 blocks, not a schedule for the next block.",
      "evidence_urls": [
        "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/128456b62d5e38abea031f97f823d5b28aef9357/src/pow.cpp",
        "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/128456b62d5e38abea031f97f823d5b28aef9357/src/kernel/chainparams.cpp"
      ],
      "site_url": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/history/how-bitcoin-blockchain-works/#header-proof-of-work-and-difficulty",
      "site_label": "History dossier: how-bitcoin-blockchain-works",
      "verdict": "imprecise",
      "quote": "Ten minutes is therefore an average design target, not a schedule for the next block.",
      "source_location": {
        "file": "web/history-research-expansion-market.mjs",
        "key": "how-bitcoin-blockchain-works",
        "field": "sections[header-proof-of-work-and-difficulty].paragraphs[1]"
      },
      "permalink": "https://degreesofsatoshi.com/what-sources-get-wrong/#blocks-every-ten-minutes"
    }
  ]
}