The same poem has been inscribed 26 times on the Bitcoin blockchain, a phenomenon that has intrigued researchers at Galaxy Research. With no proof of the sender’s identity or intent, several explanations are being considered: artificially inflated activity, a misconfigured computer test, or the involvement of an artificial intelligence agent. The timing of the posts could help determine whether they are automated, though it would not, on its own, reveal which mechanism is being used.
The repetition of the same text in Bitcoin’s data has caught the attention of Galaxy Research. The poem can be viewed on the blockchain, including in block 971,914. Since inscriptions are stored there permanently, none of its copies can be erased once added to the chain.
Researchers have not, however, identified the person behind the posts or established their purpose. In the absence of conclusive evidence, they have put forward several hypotheses. These range from manipulating the number of deposits displayed by a platform to using a wallet entrusted to autonomous software.
Deposits that could be artificially inflated
One possible explanation is an operation intended to artificially increase the volume of deposits displayed by a platform. Repeated financial movements between different accounts could create the impression of greater activity than there really is, especially if the back-and-forth transfers cost very little.
In this scenario, the poem’s repetition could be linked to a staging strategy or to transactions generated as part of these movements. However, the available information does not make it possible to confirm that the platform in question exists or that the inscriptions were created for this purpose. This is a hypothesis put forward by the researchers, not a proven explanation.
A computer test run on the live network
Another possibility is that a developer left an automated test running. A script designed to carry out tests may have continued generating transactions after being launched, writing to the Bitcoin mainnet rather than a test environment.
Such an error could explain the repetition without assuming a particular intention behind each post. A program set to perform operations at regular intervals can repeat the same action several times. But here too, the researchers have no evidence establishing that a test script was actually behind the poem.
The possibility of a wallet entrusted to an artificial intelligence
The possibility Galaxy Research describes as the most unusual is that of an autonomous AI agent with a Bitcoin wallet. Someone may have given this agent the ability to make transactions and asked it to do so without specifying sufficiently clear limits.
Tools capable of moving funds on command already exist. At the end of May, Coinbase launched its Agentic Wallet, which allows an agent to make transfers or payments from its owner’s account based on a written instruction. The existence of this type of feature makes the scenario technologically plausible, but does not prove that such an agent was used in this case.
Asked by Paperjam about responsibility in the event of an error, a Coinbase spokesperson said that customers were “responsible for what they ask their agents to do.” This warning underscores the importance of the instructions and settings assigned to this software. If an agent is misconfigured or allowed to improvise, it could repeat an operation many times without its owner noticing immediately.
Automation is possible, but has not yet been attributed
The text’s repetition may raise suspicions of automation, but it does not make it possible to distinguish a conventional script from an artificial intelligence system. Both can produce repeated actions, and the inscriptions visible on the blockchain are not, by themselves, enough to identify the software or person that triggered them.
Researchers have nevertheless suggested a simple way to test the idea of an automated process: observe when a new copy appears and compare the fees associated with previous ones. According to their calculations, if the sender maintained the same pace, the 27th copy should be published about 14 hours after the 26th, with fees 222 satoshis lower.
The timing of inscriptions as a clue
A post appearing at the predicted time would strengthen the automation hypothesis. It would not, however, establish whether the mechanism is a simple program, a forgotten test, or an AI agent. A one-off observation can indicate regularity, but it does not necessarily reveal the origin or intent of the activity.
Fees are also worth monitoring, since they are part of the researchers’ predictions. The repeated text, the pace of the inscriptions, and changes in costs could provide additional clues. They would still be clues, however, rather than direct proof of the sender’s identity or of how the system being used works.
The poem itself remains accessible to anyone who consults the blockchain data. Its copies are now part of a ledger designed to preserve transactions over time, which means they will remain visible even if the presumed author does not come forward. The next inscription, if it appears at the calculated pace, could therefore clarify how regular the operation is, without resolving the different hypotheses put forward by Galaxy Research.
