Bitcoin Wallets Untouched for 10 Years Move $40 Million

cryptonews.ruОпубліковано о 2026-08-29Востаннє оновлено о 2026-08-29

Анотація

According to Galaxy Research, six Bitcoin wallets inactive since 2011-2014 moved a total of 553.59 BTC (worth ~$40 million) between August 16-26. One hadn't been used in over 15 years. While such moves often spark fears of early holders selling, Galaxy notes that the movement of dormant coins (inactive for ≥1 year) hit its lowest level since Q3 2022 in Q2 of this year, following two years of high activity dubbed the "great distribution." Most transfers don't necessarily indicate sales, as blockchain data typically doesn't reveal if coins were sold, moved to new wallets, or reorganized. Five of the six wallets sent BTC to addresses not linked to known exchanges, while one sent 40 BTC to German platform Boerse Stuttgart Digital. Two wallets are tagged in a New York lawsuit involving a plaintiff seeking control over supposedly abandoned BTC on 39,069 inactive addresses. The article also mentions recent Bitcoin movements prompted by a Coldcard hardware wallet vulnerability and addresses the theoretical long-term risk of quantum computing to wallets with exposed public keys, though Galaxy's Alex Thorn notes large investors aren't currently citing quantum concerns as a reason to sell.

According to data gathered by Galaxy Research, six wallets last used between 2011 and 2014 moved a total of 553.59 $BTC worth approximately $40 million between August 16 and 26. One of the wallets had not been used for over 15 years.

Such incidents often raise concerns that early Bitcoin holders are finally deciding to sell.

However, according to Alex Thorn, Head of Firmwide Research at Galaxy Digital, the amount of dormant bitcoin moving on-chain fell to its lowest level since Q3 2022 in Q2 of this year. Galaxy considers a coin inactive if it has remained at the same address for at least one year.

The slowdown followed two exceptionally busy years. Old bitcoin moved in 2024 and 2025 at levels only rivaled by the 2017 bull market, when early holders sitting on huge profits began spending or moving their coins. Galaxy characterized this period as the "great distribution" and stated that dormant bitcoin movement in 2026 is expected to be half of last year's.

However, movement does not necessarily mean selling. Bitcoin's public blockchain shows coins leaving one address and arriving at another but typically cannot indicate whether the owner sold, changed wallets, moved to a custodian, or simply reorganized their assets.

Five of the six decade-old wallets this month sent their bitcoins to addresses not associated with known exchanges. The sixth wallet transferred 40 $BTC to Boerse Stuttgart Digital, a German company providing cryptocurrency custody and trading services.

Two of the six wallets are tagged as being involved in a New York lawsuit where a plaintiff under the pseudonym Noah Dow is seeking control of bitcoins held across 39,069 inactive addresses under state unclaimed property laws.

The plaintiffs have sent small amounts of bitcoin to these addresses along with legal notices on-chain, claiming the coins could be considered abandoned if no one proves ownership.

In June, it was reported that one address named in the case moved 35.55 $BTC after remaining untouched since March 2011, marking one of the first visible responses from a wallet targeted by the lawsuit.

After a bug was discovered in some Coldcard hardware wallets in late July, around 210,000 $BTC left wallets classified by Glassnode as belonging to long-term holders within a week. The vulnerability made it easier for attackers to guess poorly generated wallet keys, prompting some users to move bitcoins to newly created wallets or regulated custody, even if their own coins were not directly exposed.

Bitcoin wallets whose public keys have already been disclosed are among those that could eventually become vulnerable if quantum computers become powerful enough to break the mathematical methods protecting modern digital signatures. In April, it was reported that approximately 6.9 million $BTC could fall into this category under such a scenario.

This makes the quantum risk an increasingly tempting explanation whenever very old bitcoin starts moving, a view that Thorn rejects.

"We work with many large investors, and none of them have mentioned quantum computing as a reason to sell," he wrote in July, adding that he has heard some institutional investors cite quantum concerns as a reason not to buy bitcoin.

end-content

Пов'язані питання

QAccording to Galaxy Research, what was significant about six Bitcoin wallets recently?

ASix wallets that had been inactive since between 2011 and 2014 transferred a total of 553.59 BTC, worth about $40 million, between August 16 and 26. One of the wallets hadn't been used in over 15 years.

QWhat is one reason, mentioned in the article, that movement of old Bitcoin does not necessarily indicate a sale?

AThe public Bitcoin blockchain shows coins moving from one address to another but typically cannot reveal if the owner sold, changed wallets, moved to a custodian, or simply reorganized their assets.

QWhat legal case is mentioned in connection with two of the six wallets that moved?

ATwo of the six wallets are tagged as being connected to a New York lawsuit where a plaintiff under the pseudonym Noah Dow is seeking control over Bitcoin held on 39,069 inactive addresses under state abandoned property laws.

QWhat event in late July led to a significant movement of Bitcoin from wallets classified as belonging to long-term holders?

AA vulnerability was discovered in some Coldcard hardware wallets, which made it easier for attackers to guess poorly generated wallet keys. This prompted users to move around 210,000 BTC from such wallets to newly created ones or regulated custody, even if their own coins weren't directly exposed.

QHow does Alex Thorn of Galaxy Digital dismiss quantum computing as a likely reason for the movement of very old Bitcoin?

AThorn stated that while working with many large investors, none have mentioned quantum computing as a reason to sell. He added that he has heard some institutional investors cite quantum concerns as a reason *not to buy* Bitcoin, but not as a reason for current holders to move or sell.

Пов'язані матеріали

How Can Bitcoin Resist Quantum Computers? A Comparative Analysis of Three Lattice-Based Signature Schemes

This report from Blockstream Research analyzes three lattice-based signature schemes as quantum-resistant candidates for Bitcoin, focusing on Dilithium, Falcon, and the now-withdrawn Hawk. Core evaluation criteria include on-chain costs (combined size of public key and signature), implementation complexity, deployment risks, and potential for integration with Bitcoin's existing infrastructure like BIP-32 hierarchical deterministic wallets. Key Findings: * **Dilithium** is praised for its design simplicity, using only integer operations, making secure implementation easier. However, it has the largest size (5,261 bytes for security level 3). * **Falcon** offers the most compact signatures and the fastest verification. Its main drawback—platform-dependent floating-point operations in signing—can be mitigated with a slower, deterministic integer-based implementation. The report recommends **Falcon-1024** (security level 5) for its safety margin. * **Hawk**, which aimed for a better balance, was withdrawn after a cryptographic attack revealed a structural flaw that halved its estimated security. The report concludes that Falcon-1024 is the most suitable lattice-based choice for Bitcoin, pending the finalization of its NIST FN-DSA standard. In the short term, it still recommends hash-based signatures (like SPHINCS+) as a lower-risk transitional solution, with future hybrid deployments as a possibility.

marsbit24 хв тому

How Can Bitcoin Resist Quantum Computers? A Comparative Analysis of Three Lattice-Based Signature Schemes

marsbit24 хв тому

Ripple (XRP) Company Announces Plans for Major Future Update

Ripple (XRP) has announced a four-phase plan to prepare the XRP Ledger (XRPL) for future security threats posed by quantum computers. The company's senior director of engineering stated the goal is to build necessary infrastructure before quantum computers become a direct threat, aiming to minimize impact on existing systems, user assets, and network operations. The plan begins with identifying potential quantum vulnerabilities within XRPL, followed by testing quantum-resistant cryptographic methods. The next phase involves parallel testing of existing security mechanisms and new quantum-resistant solutions to ensure reliability and prevent disruption for users and applications. The final phase would involve transitioning the XRPL to more comprehensive, quantum-resistant security standards if the technology matures. Ripple is also developing contingency plans for a faster-than-expected advancement of quantum computing, which could accelerate the transition timeline. A current XRPL feature allowing users to change the keys controlling their accounts without altering the accounts themselves is seen as a potential advantage in any future migration. However, Ripple cannot unilaterally change transaction validation rules or network-wide cryptographic standards; such updates require coordination and approval from independent validators via XRPL's governance process. While quantum computers are not yet capable of breaking the cryptography used by major blockchains like Bitcoin or XRPL, developers across the industry are already evaluating transition scenarios to quantum-resistant algorithms due to the long-term risks they pose to public-key cryptography.

cryptonews.ru1 год тому

Ripple (XRP) Company Announces Plans for Major Future Update

cryptonews.ru1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片