List of all Bitcoin addresses with a balance

[Evilish]

I've just doubled my allowed bandwidth (paid by Bitcoin Lightning Network) to 2 TB/month. However, the webhost hasn't processed the payment yet. If it processes it on time, you guys can continue downloading tomorrow. If not, it will reach it's 1 TB bandwidth limit tomorrow and get be suspended until the end of the month.

To be continued ........

Update: upgrade completed! I'm curious though: I'd love to know what this data is being used for. There must be more than a thousand downloads per month now.

Wow, more than a thousand downloads per month. That's bound to eat up a lot of bandwidth seeing as each download must be ~1 GB.

My guess would be some of those are people utilizing your list to locate their full addresses using first bits. I collect physical Bitcoin collectibles and currently use smartbit.com.au to find full addresses associated with physical coins using the provided first bits.

I feel it would be really neat to do that using shell and not having to go through a third party. But for my use case I would probably need to download the file only once and use the same copy over and over seeing as most older collectibles should already be under your latest list.

Thanks for your work on this. Count on one more download and an additional 1 GB increase in bandwidth in the next few days because I am going to download a copy and spin up a small script for my own use soon.

[1713913584]

1713913584

[1713913584]

1713913584

[1713913584]

1713913584

[1713913584]

1713913584

[1713913584]

1713913584

[1713913584]

1713913584

[DougM]

I've counted some dust addresses:
573,966 addresses hold 546 satoshi.
168,663 addresses hold 547 satoshi.
74,835 addresses hold 548 satoshi.
2212 addresses hold 549 satoshi.
12,745 addresses hold 550 satoshi.
1,301 addresses hold 500 satoshi.
310,361 addresses hold 1000 satoshi.
6,010 addresses hold 9 satoshi.
4,209 addresses hold 1001 satoshi.

2,821,479 addresses hold 1000 sat or less. Total value: 1,403,085,278 satoshi (~14 BTC).

fascinating...so your theory is these are small amount accounts are a result of dust attacks? Could some be 'left over change' during a transaction that is lost/forgotten about?  Thanks for sharing!

[LoyceV]

so your theory is these are small amount accounts are a result of dust attacks? Could some be 'left over change' during a transaction that is lost/forgotten about?

Dust attacks typically use the minimum amount (546 sat), so that's quite likely. From this data, I can't count the addresses that hold a dust input and also a larger amount.

Feel free to check a few:

Code:

1EM72MRxX5teiLDZDkp6vpB7Fs4gVcsBWF      546
197uWhobsZ4boSR8LjZTCpKkHuCQL15y4N      546
1DcjMsvCj1AATH6kQubsikK3pUeyFhSngp      546
1P2o8eACQFFDHHq4zZHSwPaTr347raGNNM      546
1ECYdDEmzRKm53i7H4PhCEar2SdtTemfgC      546
1J9xAa2fFabDZmPmapiczcRoeeSqtXLSC9      546
12wj7j4RSduvEt6TqoKTgH6W92Zdh1MUmL      546
1F1qvANdwZkSFosjxVY9VHD7phnZyhnXhH      546
1FN4QEPDT6K2QT6SNETmgPJdL4Qajx5x2K      546
1JzAdzFR89jT8rTCi8LzV6kj57NeXaBXd1      546
1Mik1tJvn6aunTgSbN2UzitzdZBoxeqV5E      546
3LGrNL6toFoeJb9DGYRKvvaheyVg9jCJq6      546
19gXeh5v5T2UTLJrPPWok424EuyTAtr3vK      546
3Pimkc1JiSiMVvMF4fATmWW1Z76TzVQQex      546
1EB6PXMKDE8fkN9DZPPuzH1qoN6nzuqjN6      546
1DVzTh1zA8azcjWvcHnwKvKc8ACYhSLRwd      546
3BSK1KX3WzdXcQDSoXL39g3X7HH1CKsUqy      546
17c6ii1kBTBDhEhB5DVjY5DLFe9pyYtf4y      546
1AKSbLMPjwErAsijTPUrNF87XfjMzEF7Jt      546
1C7tsDp4SGGsWzySycobW5SKZNDtGdzYd6      546
3BPMryLEyp6eCSgdbayrSroF1abU52H5Ti      546
3JbUHH3ZdfjMar6PDEFVxZVJcL4g3wxFZ1      546
1Km9HaKxEntE8NPaBp1ataTMVKeaMiZe4x      546
3Be4gfZBe2zfWNAR3zjqXpr2aCSwgJ9CkH      546
18kgQniviHyMxTEmhojASfvB39cuwayv19      546
1Nzzx5jFFv8NWoNSAMVxKK5EuVEnr91x2r      546
13CHpohNridm8L6VMSsZ4NqvVdbwqdsCwN      546
1N99f4eC6TbzF7iHCDzMhhaC2HW9qZGc1R      546
18ESDDtFFqFSbHfpe1VfNWg7A2Ym17QCFr      546
14aPgqsQAxrHktVDe4yHwHdmzNAb5pFiBB      546
39ZjTnjbFbXBHmPPm3SxHw8eBV34ggDzL7      546
19AhE5cFabYu1k7EZf1rCNMWz2nmZ4agx1      546
16owPsPAATsEz8mMC2SJEZkcnRC5n9Djb9      546

I only checked the last one, and it's an Omli Layer transaction. Great, this crap spams the blockchain too

As for dust attacks: I'm now kinda curious how much was paid in fees (and how much data got added to the blockchain) because of people who included the dust in their transactions. It's a lot of data so I can't quickly get a number for this.

If wallets could start ignoring dust inputs by default, that would be great!

[DougM]

so your theory is these are small amount accounts are a result of dust attacks? Could some be 'left over change' during a transaction that is lost/forgotten about?

Dust attacks typically use the minimum amount (546 sat), so that's quite likely. From this data, I can't count the addresses that hold a dust input and also a larger amount.
..
I only checked the last one, and it's an Omli Layer transaction. Great, this crap spams the blockchain too

As for dust attacks: I'm now kinda curious how much was paid in fees (and how much data got added to the blockchain) because of people who included the dust in their transactions. It's a lot of data so I can't quickly get a number for this.

If wallets could start ignoring dust inputs by default, that would be great!

completely agree!

2,821,479 addresses hold 1000 sat or less. Total value: 1,403,085,278 satoshi (~14 BTC).

So do you think the dust attackers got their money worth?  based on your calculations for < 1000 addresses amounts to 14 BTC or  ~679K at present value for just the dust.  What exactly is their motive to justify this large outlay?  I suspect this represents a number of different 'dust attackers' over time so maybe hard to generalize, but I am curious what people think.

[willi9974]

i know (read) the list is from blockchair, but

what is the list
what is the point of the list
why blockchair created this list

Best regards,
Willi

[LoyceV]

what is the list

Read.

what is the point of the list

Up to the user.

why blockchair created this list

Ask them!

Due to growing daily file sizes, I've reduced the number of daily snapshots by 1:

Data retention and updates
I'll provide daily updates. I keep the latest 3 daily snapshots, and the latest 5 monthly snapshots. One a day (or once a month) I delete the oldest files.

The server ran out of disk space during the last download. Now it should be good for a while again.

[BrewMaster]

Nodes shouldn't validate transactions to invalid addresses..

nodes don't relay non-standard transactions already but they must never not-validate any non-standard transaction (when they are confirmed) because that would break the backward compatibility of bitcoin and we no longer would be able to have soft forks.
SegWit addresses are non-standard by old client standards and yet they are valid.

however, this is a double edge sword. we can't prevent people from experimenting. that means they can pay to witness addresses with a version higher than what it is defined. it has been happening from early days too. for example the block 170060 contains  P2SH transaction while P2SH soft fork had never happened by then. now every full node treats this particular block as an "exception".

[LoyceV]

You guys have burned through roughly 1400 GB last month. Just a FYI: 2000 GB per month is the limit for my current hosting.

[Sanka555]

You guys have burned through roughly 1400 GB last month. Just a FYI: 2000 GB per month is the limit for my current hosting.

Maybe you just need to publish  the script ***.bat for windows for example, or on JAVA code (the best variant). which will simply take the Bitcoin Core wallet and make of it

blockchair_bitcoin_addresses_and_balance_*****.txt


I would be very grateful to you for that

[LoyceV]

Maybe you just need to publish  the script ***.bat for windows for example, or on JAVA code (the best variant). which will simply take the Bitcoin Core wallet and make of it

This data comes from Blockchair.com, I'm not sure what you're asking.

[Sanka555]

Maybe you just need to publish  the script ***.bat for windows for example, or on JAVA code (the best variant). which will simply take the Bitcoin Core wallet and make of it

This data comes from Blockchair.com, I'm not sure what you're asking.

I thought you create a base by decrypting files from Core wallet)

[LoyceV]

I thought you create a base by decrypting files from Core wallet)

Nope. See:

Credits
Blockchair Database Dumps has a staggering amount of data, easily accessible (at 10 kB/s) with daily updates. All data presented in this topic comes from Blockchair.

[supika]

Hi,

It's possible to add a column with the date of last spending tx?
Would be nice to identify the dormant addresses.
Thanks!

[LoyceV]

It's possible to add a column with the date of last spending tx?
Would be nice to identify the dormant addresses.

Someone asked a similar question by PM a couple weeks ago. This was my response:

I like the idea, and I could probably get it from this data:

The data
See blockdata.loyce.club
blockdata.loyce.club/inputs/ (386 GB)
blockdata.loyce.club/outputs/ (121 GB)
blockdata.loyce.club/transactions/ (44 GB)

But it's a bit more work than I currently want to do for this, especially because "inputs" doesn't show input addresses, so it takes some additional steps.
If you do get the data out of this, please post it on Bitcointalk

I could offer this as a (paid) service if you really want it, in that case make me an offer.

Out of curiosity: why do you need dormant addressess? If you're trying to brute-force private keys, does it really matter if they're long-term hodlers (or forgotten)?

[supika]

Out of curiosity: why do you need dormant addressess? If you're trying to brute-force private keys, does it really matter if they're long-term hodlers (or forgotten)?

Thanks for your answer. It was a curiosity of how many addresses are untouched for more than 10 years.
From my point of view brute forcing of sha256 encrypted private keys is a waste of time.

[willi9974]

maybe another idea than bruteforce.
Generating billions of new BTC addresses and checking for one generated would be included in the list --> illegal gambling

[LoyceV]

This is new:

Since a few days, it looks like someone is downloading the latest version multiple times per hour, while I only update it once a day. I don't like having to look at logfiles, but it seems to be coming from different IP-addresses.
If someone made a mistake in a cronjob: please set it to download once a day! If this doesn't stop I'll have to ban some IPs

Update: From the past few days, I've identified 101 different IP addresses that downloaded the same file in the same way 169 times. The IPs I checked are owned by Microsoft. Maybe a proxy server or VPN? Either way, I'll DROP their connections now. I expect to add more IPs to the list later. I don't like the way someone burns through 50 GB bandwidth per day.

Although unlikely: If I added your IP by mistake: please PM me.
If you don't want me to know which forum account belongs to which IP: setup a throw away email to contact me:

Code:

LoyceVswitzerland@protonmail.com

As expected: 2 new downloads with 2 new IP addresses. I'll now try to DROP their connection within a few seconds, so their download won't complete. I'm still curious who's doing this, and why. It's especially annoying that it's a new IP-address all the time, now I risk banning real users. But at the rate this is going, my 2 TB bandwidth won't make it to the end of the month.

I'd love to have a more professional way to handle this

[Sogolev]

Greetings to the audience!

I ask experienced users to tell me what tools I can use to collect a file containing all the bitcoin addresses that have ever had a positive balance.

Maybe there is ready-made software that can do this.

Thank you in advance

[LoyceV]

I ask experienced users to tell me what tools I can use to collect a file containing all the bitcoin addresses that have ever had a positive balance.

Maybe there is ready-made software that can do this.

See my other topic: List of all Bitcoin addresses ever used.
However: I've been struggling to find an affordable host that can handle the data processing, so I haven't updated it in months. And since a few days, my temporary server is offline (and hasn't responded yet).
I don't really want to spin up a paid-by-the-hour VPS just for this.

[bitmover]

I have been monitoring the total number of funded addresses here , with the data provided by LoyceV here

Segwit adoption keeps growing, look at this chart:


https://bitcoindata.science/bitcoin-funded-addresses.html

Since Sep 2020, the total number of Bech32 addresses had more than 100% increase!
There were 1,552,770 total funded addresses (5%), and now we have 4,046,320 (10,8%).

The number of P2SH addresses had a small increase as well, from 19,4% to 22%.

And the total number of Legacy addresses is basically the same, 23 to 25 millions addresses.


We can conclude that most of the new created addresses are Bech32 and P2Sh addresses, while the total number of Legacy grows at a much slower rate

Just added this text to the website:

Since September 2020, the total number of addresses has changed from 31,115,394 to 37,551,189 (20.68%)

Legacy addresses change: 7.43%
P2SH addresses change: 36.25%
Bech32 addresses change: 161.17%