Lost, Forgotten Bitcoin. How many are there?

[GxSTxV]

What technological development? I get it that it is not possible for us to know the exact number of lost BTC's, as their might be long term investors that have not spent any of their sats and people may think the funds are lost. However, if you have lost your keys, there is no way to recover them, even with any development in technology.

Apologies for not explaining it well, what I meant by technological development is about either the hardware damage or losing cold wallet passwords, knowing that some people could recover their wallets they have lost inside damaged hardwares or when someone forget the password of his cold wallet. Some people still have these wallets in hands while they can’t access them so probably in the future with technology development some sort of programs or way may appear to help them regaining access.

[bayu7adi]

As long as there is still a lot of undetected activity, we cannot be sure of the exact number of Bitcoins that are truly inaccessible. The numbers are still very random, this is because the evidence is not yet strong. If you only use evidence that the relevant wallet has not detected any transactions for a long time, it is still not a guarantee because it is possible that whales' movements always come as a surprise.

One of the most important things is that the total supply of BTC will decrease over time and demand tends to remain constant until it increases. This causes a constant increase in prices over a long period of time. For some phenomena such as corrections or perhaps a pump-dump in a short time, it is just a decoration that is present to facilitate day traders who are interested in Bitcoin.

[Stompix]

I meant in general all the BTC that for one reason or another are currently not available to those who once had them, be it lost or forgotten keys. Maybe I misunderstood, but there were often discussions on BTT about the fact that with the advent of quantum computers, such coins might still be "saved".
I actually wouldn't want that to ever happen, because as you say, it would do more harm than good.

The thing is that if we reach a stage of technology where lost coins can be recovered there is nothing stopping perfectly legit barely moved coins from being also "recovered", there will be no difference for a piece of code between old coins and new coins, it's either impossible to move a single satoshi or all of them are under threat. And at that point you can pretty much guess the value of one coin, right?

As for quantum computers..meh, first we need to see one functional, then we need a working algorithm for it, then we need to not fork Bitcoin with new improved quantum resistant signatures like Lamport.
Also, with a quantum computer unspent coins will be the safest, the weak link is the exposed public key.

[philipma1957]

A simple fork would let you learn make an abandoned address rule come into effect in 2059.

any address 50 years old that has not had coins removed forfeits the coins which go back into recirculation as rewards.

This is an excellent proposal, I don't know how technically feasible it is, but it is definitely worth considering.

Well I am older I would be 102 years old in 2059 and likely not give a flying fuck. But I suspect this is going to happen down the road.

[Lucius]

~snip~
As for quantum computers..meh, first we need to see one functional, then we need a working algorithm for it, then we need to not fork Bitcoin with new improved quantum resistant signatures like Lamport.
Also, with a quantum computer unspent coins will be the safest, the weak link is the exposed public key.

There was a good article about how "strong" today's quantum computers are compared to what they should be in order to be a threat to Bitcoin at all, so about 2 years ago we were able to read the following:

Researchers at the University of Sussex estimated in February that a quantum computer with 1.9 billion qubits could essentially crack the encryption safeguarding Bitcoin within a mere 10 minutes. Just 13 million qubits could do the job in about a day. Fortunately, the ability to deploy quantum computers with so many qubits still seems many years away. IBM unveiled its 127-qubit processor just last year, while a unit sporting 1,000 qubits is set to be completed by the end of 2023.

The article says that something like that won't happen for at least another 10-20 years, but considering how today's technology is progressing, nothing can surprise me.

[EthereumDev_]

Well I am older I would be 102 years old in 2059 and likely not give a flying fuck. But I suspect this is going to happen down the road.

All possibilities in cryptocurrency can happen because as technology grows, something new will be created. When the wallet you have is very old, we still won't get anything special, just like when you held Bitcoin in 2010 and sold it. In this year, the wallet is still a wallet whose only value is our assets.

[Freemind]

All possibilities in cryptocurrency can happen because as technology grows, something new will be created. When the wallet you have is very old, we still won't get anything special, just like when you held Bitcoin in 2010 and sold it. In this year, the wallet is still a wallet whose only value is our assets.

When there is a technology capable of breaking the security and encryption of Bitcoin, there will be a technology capable of protecting it. Technology works in both directions. I don't think we should worry about anything that some articles say, published precisely with the sole intention of clickbait. As for "recovering" Bitcoins, I think I once said that no one can know if Bitcoins that haven't been moved for ten years (for example) are really lost or if their owner doesn't want to move them, that's just another form of stealing.

[Stompix]

~

There was a good article about how "strong" today's quantum computers are compared to what they should be in order to be a threat to Bitcoin at all, so about 2 years ago we were able to read the following:

Researchers at the University of Sussex estimated in February that a quantum computer with 1.9 billion qubits could essentially crack the encryption safeguarding Bitcoin within a mere 10 minutes. Just 13 million qubits could do the job in about a day. Fortunately, the ability to deploy quantum computers with so many qubits still seems many years away. IBM unveiled its 127-qubit processor just last year, while a unit sporting 1,000 qubits is set to be completed by the end of 2023.

The article says that something like that won't happen for at least another 10-20 years, but considering how today's technology is progressing, nothing can surprise me.

Three is an important thing here about that cracking, it's about cracking the private key associated with a public known key!
Those numbers in the article are for that kind of breaking, which can't work again an address with unspent coins, the difference between them is insane:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin

On traditional computers, it takes on the order of 2¹²⁸ basic operations to get the Bitcoin private key associated with a Bitcoin public key, it is known for sure that it would take a sufficiently large quantum computer on the order of only 128³ basic quantum operations to be able to break a Bitcoin key.

So for public keys is goes 2¹²⁸  to 128³, it does start to sound doable.

For a direct private keys attack, so this is lost coins like Satoshi's :

For example, finding some data which hashes to a specific SHA-256 hash requires 2²⁵⁶ basic operations on a traditional computer, but 2¹²⁸ basic quantum operations.

although it does cut an enormous number by a huge margin, if we speak about that time in human life terms, no difference!

You want to feel safe, don't re-use your address!

[TopT3ns]

When there is a technology capable of breaking the security and encryption of Bitcoin, there will be a technology capable of protecting it. Technology works in both directions. I don't think we should worry about anything that some articles say, published precisely with the sole intention of clickbait. As for "recovering" Bitcoins, I think I once said that no one can know if Bitcoins that haven't been moved for ten years (for example) are really lost or if their owner doesn't want to move them, that's just another form of stealing.

It's true, those who create articles just want to lure visitors to increase their website traffic. Bitcoin is still a technology that cannot be hacked easily, there are still many who are trying to try it but no one has succeeded. So I believe Bitcoin will be the security of the future.

[alltalk]

All possibilities in cryptocurrency can happen because as technology grows, something new will be created. When the wallet you have is very old, we still won't get anything special, just like when you held Bitcoin in 2010 and sold it. In this year, the wallet is still a wallet whose only value is our assets.

As time goes by, technology may develop and some changes may happen. This is something unavoidable, we must adapt with the development. Sure, the old wallets aren't special if there are no valuable coins in the wallets. Well, I've some old wallets with Bitcoin, but I filled the wallets not very early as you. I'm a bit surprised you have bought Bitcoin and filled your wallets in 2010. You become one of the early investors if you have started holding Bitcoin in 2010.

[Freemind]

It's true, those who create articles just want to lure visitors to increase their website traffic. Bitcoin is still a technology that cannot be hacked easily, there are still many who are trying to try it but no one has succeeded. So I believe Bitcoin will be the security of the future.

The security of Bitcoin is something that has never worried me. As I said, if someday there was a technology capable of decrypting the algorithm, that same technology would be able to protect it. Everyone who has tried has failed, As we know, the security of Bitcoin depends on several factors, and vulnerabilities can always arise somewhere in the system, especially when new additions are implemented in the protocol, although as we already know the most common attacks are on exchanges or individual users, but not to the algorithm itself.

Does anyone believe that if SHA-256 could be hacked, the NSA (for example) wouldn't have done it already?. And before anyone asks, no, AI can't hack SHA-256 either. Let's use common sense.

[SmartGold01]

If I am not mistakenly I think have came across post like that either here or other forum where a total number of bitcoin address with their holdings were Sum up, okay.. How do we consider a lost bitcoin; To me any bitcoin that is stored inside a wallet for about 4 years to 15 years or above can be considered lost bitcoin because the wallet is dead and hence no transaction has been carried out for these numbers of years is considered lost. Maybe whenever I comes across that post again I will come here to edit and update my post.

[Freemind]

If I am not mistakenly I think have came across post like that either here or other forum where a total number of bitcoin address with their holdings were Sum up, okay.. How do we consider a lost bitcoin; To me any bitcoin that is stored inside a wallet for about 4 years to 15 years or above can be considered lost bitcoin because the wallet is dead and hence no transaction has been carried out for these numbers of years is considered lost. Maybe whenever I comes across that post again I will come here to edit and update my post.

Could you tell me what your reasoning is for choosing a time range of 4 to 15 years?. Is it for any specific reason or is it random?. I have wallets (not Bitcoin) with funds for 10 years and I have not moved a single coin/token, not because its value is 0, but because I have decided so, although I must also say that the value in $ is small. I think no one can define (unless the owner of that wallet says so publicly and can prove ownership) when funds in a wallet are lost or not.

I still think no one can define something like that just by looking at when the last outgoing transaction was, if there was one. I think trying to interpret something like that is a waste of time, and depending on who (I'm not saying it's you) it's just an excuse to try to extract the funds if possible.

[philipma1957]

It's true, those who create articles just want to lure visitors to increase their website traffic. Bitcoin is still a technology that cannot be hacked easily, there are still many who are trying to try it but no one has succeeded. So I believe Bitcoin will be the security of the future.

The security of Bitcoin is something that has never worried me. As I said, if someday there was a technology capable of decrypting the algorithm, that same technology would be able to protect it. Everyone who has tried has failed, As we know, the security of Bitcoin depends on several factors, and vulnerabilities can always arise somewhere in the system, especially when new additions are implemented in the protocol, although as we already know the most common attacks are on exchanges or individual users, but not to the algorithm itself.

Does anyone believe that if SHA-256 could be hacked, the NSA (for example) wouldn't have done it already?. And before anyone asks, no, AI can't hack SHA-256 either. Let's use common sense.

down the road a new harder to crack blockchain wallet may be needed.

this is why I feel the old frozen wallets may be transferred out of their stale easier to crack wallets.

[dkbit98]

For bitcoin wallets it can all get down to human mistakes, when they have weak seed word combination, passwords and passphrases.

Does anyone believe that if SHA-256 could be hacked, the NSA (for example) wouldn't have done it already?. And before anyone asks, no, AI can't hack SHA-256 either. Let's use common sense.

Not today, but just look back in history.
All encryptions get cracked at some point even the best ones, but nsa already have backdoor access for many encryptions, so they don't even need to crack them at all
Exception is one encryption used for bitcoin, that makes you wonder if Satoshi had any connection with this agency when he made code for bitcoin.