I found a paper wallet on a beach ... seriously

[NeuroticFish]

I am just curious, and I can see that some other members are as well, what is your reasoning against posting the bitcoin address here? The string that begins with either "1", "3" or "bc1". Bitcoin addresses are public information. You can find all of them on any block explorer.

I'd assume that he wants to keep it private so in case he is cashing in those coins he is not doxxing himself.
The alternative would be that all of this is just a nice story.

[1714663323]

1714663323

[1714663323]

1714663323

[1714663323]

1714663323

[1714663323]

1714663323

[1714663323]

1714663323

[hZti]

I am just curious, and I can see that some other members are as well, what is your reasoning against posting the bitcoin address here? The string that begins with either "1", "3" or "bc1". Bitcoin addresses are public information. You can find all of them on any block explorer.

I'd assume that he wants to keep it private so in case he is cashing in those coins he is not doxxing himself.
The alternative would be that all of this is just a nice story.

Then he should send them to a mixer. It is not that hard and would make this way more interesting. If he doesn't want to doxx himself he should post here in the first place 

[NeuroticFish]

Then he should send them to a mixer. It is not that hard and would make this way more interesting. If he doesn't want to doxx himself he should post here in the first place 

I don't expect newbies trust mixers. There are still stories that only "bad boys" are mixing, remember? Also I expect some start getting afraid that the exchanges won't accept mixed coins.
One has to learn a little more to understand the value of mixers, so I would not rush it, nor have unrealistic expectations.

[BlackHatCoiner]

except to slip it inside the back cover of my favourite book 'Shantaram' by Gregory David Roberts.

How much for the book, I love it! 

The alternative would be that all of this is just a nice story.

He, the Internet stranger, swore you it's true, NeuroticFish. How can you be such a prick... 

Seriously, OP. Which part of "The original owner can't detect it if you don't publish the address" do you disagree with? Unless there isn't such wallet and you're just making fun of us, which can't have happened since you swore.

[Cricktor]

After much consideration, I have decided to do precisely nothing at all with the paper wallet, except to slip it inside the back cover of my favourite book 'Shantaram' by Gregory David Roberts.  There it will stay. I hope the original owner has the ability to remove their coins.

While I enjoyed the diverse discussion in this thread and your decission is up to you what you do, it's a disappointing outcome in my opinion.

Suppose the original owner still has a copy of the private key and thus is still able to move his coins. If he moved them for whatever reason when you check the next time, then fine, story and any moral issues are gone. But what if he doesn't see the urge to move the coins? As you don't publish the public address of the paperwallet, you make no effort to let the owner get aware of his loss. How does that make any later decission of yours to proceed in any way with the paperwallet more justifyable?

If the original owner doesn't have any details to prove his ownership unambigously, then it's almost a lost case for the owner, as I then don't see a way to distinguish pretenders from the original owner. The real owner could tell you the exact amount on the paperwallet and it would be good if the amount uses all 8 digits past the decimal separator. Pretenders could try to guess it based on what you disclosed about the amount (I guess more hits on 0.6BTC, but your 0.6104...ish, might actually reduce possible unspent transaction outputs considerably if 0.6104xxxx are correct). How do you want to separate pretenders from the real owner then?

I get ~120 unspent transaction outputs in the range of [0.61040000, 0.61049999] with the following filtered search request:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/outputs?s=time(desc)&q=value(61040000..61049999),is_spent(false)#f=transaction_hash,index,time,value,value_usd,recipient,spending_transaction_hash,spending_time,spending_value_usd,is_spendable,is_spent

It's even less hits as I was lazy and didn't exclude too recent transactions...

How much for the book, I love it! 

Nice try! 

[BlackHatCoiner]

Previously I had suggested to spend the output with an OP_RETURN message. Ethically speaking, that's neither a good option, because some owner's relatives might have access to that money with a signed transaction wherein he has granted them inheritance. Spending the output would invalidate that transaction which is supposed to be broadcasted in the future.

I get ~120 unspent transaction outputs in the range of [0.61040000, 0.61049999] with the following filtered search request:

There might be 120 unspent transaction outputs with value equal to some of that range, but I haven't read he's said it's consisted of just one output. The owner can have funded bunch of times, with a total value of ~0.6104 BTC.

[Pmalek]

Seriously, OP. Which part of "The original owner can't detect it if you don't publish the address" do you disagree with? Unless there isn't such wallet and you're just making fun of us, which can't have happened since you swore.

But it wasn't a pinky swear so the consequences aren't that drastic.
If it's all made up, it will be interesting to follow what this forum account does from this moment on. Depending on future activity or the lack of it, we will see if we were tricked by OP or not.  

[o_e_l_e_o]

I'd assume that he wants to keep it private so in case he is cashing in those coins he is not doxxing himself.

Yeah, I also assume this is the reason. Which is a shame really, given all the better options given in this thread for trying to alert the true owner to the situation.

But what if he doesn't see the urge to move the coins? As you don't publish the public address of the paperwallet, you make no effort to let the owner get aware of his loss. How does that make any later decission of yours to proceed in any way with the paperwallet more justifyable?

Exactly this. It is entirely possible that this was a back up which the true owner had hidden off site, and is not going to check on for months or even years. He is perhaps entirely unaware it has been lost (which is why the better options I mentioned above were recommended). I have coins which haven't moved in years and I don't plan on moving in years. If they've not moved in 10/20/50 years, does that make them any less mine (or my heir's), or does that make stealing them any less immoral? Of course not.

Previously I had suggested to spend the output with an OP_RETURN message. Ethically speaking, that's neither a good option, because some owner's relatives might have access to that money with a signed transaction wherein he has granted them inheritance. Spending the output would invalidate that transaction which is supposed to be broadcasted in the future.

So make a transaction from somewhere else, paying dust to the paper wallet and including an OP_RETURN output. Or top up the paper wallet with dust then spend that dust making an OP_RETURN output. Anyone looking up the address will notice something going on without invalidating the original output.

[Pmalek]

I have coins which haven't moved in years and I don't plan on moving in years. If they've not moved in 10/20/50 years, does that make them any less mine (or my heir's), or does that make stealing them any less immoral? Of course not.

That's exactly what I said previously as a reply when someone suggested they would hold on to the paper wallet for a year and if the original owner doesn't move the coins, then they would consider them as lost and take them. But we can't put such flags on bitcoin UTXOs just because a similar law exists for some other assets or physical objects. For example, items from the Lost & Found at some airports are stored for 6 months, after that they get auctioned off. We shouldn't use the same logic with bitcoin. For all you know, I might have been incapacitated to check on my coins in that one year period you decided to give me.

[Cricktor]

So make a transaction from somewhere else, paying dust to the paper wallet and including an OP_RETURN output. Or top up the paper wallet with dust then spend that dust making an OP_RETURN output. Anyone looking up the address will notice something going on without invalidating the original output.

THIS is an excellent approach! But as OP wasn't involved with Bitcoin before, unfortunately unlikely to happen. Transfering a little dust to the paperwallet's address together with a commentary OP_RETURN should cost less than ~1000sat (I'm too lazy to figure out the cheapest amount). Optional removal of dust (very signaling move for the real owner if (s)he cares to look!) would need to be done by the finder himself (don't trust others with the private key!).

[o_e_l_e_o]

For example, items from the Lost & Found at some airports are stored for 6 months, after that they get auctioned off.

Bitcoin should not be treated as a physical asset. With a physical asset, if someone else possesses it then you do not. If you lose cash, a credit card, your wallet, your phone, or any other physical asset, then it is obvious to you that that thing has been lost as it is no longer in your possession. Losing a private key is not the same, since it is entirely possible for two people to both possess the same private key at the same time. A better analogy in this case (ignoring the whole self-custody aspect) would be like someone having a key to your safe, or access to your bank account. If I look at the contents of your safe, and then 5 years later see the same contents in that safe, do I get to take them for myself since you haven't used them in 5 years? If I have access to your savings account with $10k in it, and 5 years later is still has $10k in it (plus interest), is it morally fine for me to clear out your account since you haven't used that money in 5 years? Of course not. Bitcoin is no different.

Coins not moving does not equal coins lost. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

[m2017]

For example, items from the Lost & Found at some airports are stored for 6 months, after that they get auctioned off.

Bitcoin should not be treated as a physical asset. With a physical asset, if someone else possesses it then you do not. If you lose cash, a credit card, your wallet, your phone, or any other physical asset, then it is obvious to you that that thing has been lost as it is no longer in your possession. Losing a private key is not the same, since it is entirely possible for two people to both possess the same private key at the same time. A better analogy in this case (ignoring the whole self-custody aspect) would be like someone having a key to your safe, or access to your bank account. If I look at the contents of your safe, and then 5 years later see the same contents in that safe, do I get to take them for myself since you haven't used them in 5 years? If I have access to your savings account with $10k in it, and 5 years later is still has $10k in it (plus interest), is it morally fine for me to clear out your account since you haven't used that money in 5 years? Of course not. Bitcoin is no different.

Coins not moving does not equal coins lost. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Your explanations and an example with an analogy allowed me to look at this case, when OP found paper wallet on the beach from a completely different angle.

~snip
I think it would be more ethical to wait a while and not touch these bitcoin, giving the owner a chance to return them.

Before that, it seemed to me that needed to wait a while, and after that OP could assign btc using the found paper wallet. After reading your post, I am now firmly convinced that in no case should you touch these coins if the finder has at least the rudiments of morality and morality. I think it applies to this case as well as any other.

I also think OP can try to let the owner know that his seed phrase has been compromised. For example, send a small amount to another address and return it back with a signed message with information so that the owner moves btc to another address. It is not a fact that the owner will immediately detect this if he rarely checks his wallet and it may turn out that he has no other access due to the lost paper wallet, but it's worth a try. 

[Pmalek]

Bitcoin should not be treated as a physical asset. With a physical asset, if someone else possesses it then you do not. If you lose cash, a credit card, your wallet, your phone, or any other physical asset, then it is obvious to you that that thing has been lost as it is no longer in your possession. Losing a private key is not the same, since it is entirely possible for two people to both possess the same private key at the same time.

We agree on all points in this particular case, however the thing with this particular private key found on the beach by the OP is that it is a physical object represented in a paper wallet form. Whoever the original owner is or who their successors are, they have lost a physical object that used to be in their possession somewhere and somehow. Hopefully, that's not their only backup, they will discover sooner or later that it's missing and move the coins elsewhere. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

For example, send a small amount to another address and return it back with a signed message with information so that the owner moves btc to another address. It is not a fact that the owner will immediately detect this if he rarely checks his wallet and it may turn out that he has no other access due to the lost paper wallet, but it's worth a try.

As explained above, a better solution would be to make a transaction sending a tiny amount of coins to the paper wallet address, and including an OP_RETURN output with some information on how to contact OP, perhaps with a link to this thread. This prevents any issues in the rare but possible case that the true owner has a signed transaction involving the original output stored somewhere.

Whoever the original owner is or who their successors are, they have lost a physical object that used to be in their possession somewhere and somehow. Hopefully, that's not their only backup, they will discover sooner or later that it's missing and move the coins elsewhere.

Yeah, that's a good point. I also have a number of back ups stored off site, as everyone should. These backs ups are obviously highly secured and incredibly unlikely to end up on a beach somewhere (not to mention that no single back up is enough to compromise any of my wallets), but at the same time, I obviously don't check on these back ups every day. It is possible, however unlikely, that I would lose one of my back ups and not realize for a period of weeks. There is no telling how diligent or otherwise the true owner of these coins might be, and it could very well be months or even years before they realize that their paper wallet is lost.

[LoyceV]

Yeah, that's a good point. I also have a number of back ups stored off site, as everyone should. These backs ups are obviously highly secured and incredibly unlikely to end up on a beach somewhere (not to mention that no single back up is enough to compromise any of my wallets), but at the same time, I obviously don't check on these back ups every day. It is possible, however unlikely, that I would lose one of my back ups and not realize for a period of weeks. There is no telling how diligent or otherwise the true owner of these coins might be, and it could very well be months or even years before they realize that their paper wallet is lost.

Just a thought: you could add a "canary": a very simple unencrypted paper wallet with private key QR-code and instructions how to claim it. If someone finds it, you lose the small amount, but you'll know your backup is compromised without driving into the desert to check and digging a hole at N34 59 20, W106 36 52 each time.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Just a thought: you could add a "canary": a very simple unencrypted paper wallet with private key QR-code and instructions how to claim it. If someone finds it, you lose the small amount, but you'll know your backup is compromised without driving into the desert to check and digging a hole at N34 59 20, W106 36 52 each time.

Joke's on you, that's where I store my barrels full of millions of dollars, not my bitcoin back ups! Wait...

That's not a bad idea, actually. However, I am more than happy that all of my off site back up locations are incredibly secure and are highly unlikely to be found by anyone either accidentally or deliberately looking for them. If any of the back ups were to be compromised, it would far more likely be due to a massive natural disaster, in which case the canary wallet would not help (although I would probably be aware of the fact via news reports or other media). And in the case of someone deliberately looking for my back ups, they would know not to spend the canary and attract attention to themselves, since as I said after finding one back up they would still need to search for others to be able to steal anything from me.

[LoyceV]

Joke's on you, that's where I store my barrels full of millions of dollars, not my bitcoin back ups! Wait...

That brings me on another thought (I'm on a roll today): those barrels with money are only meant to distract thiefs from digging further, where they'd find my private keys

I am more than happy that all of my off site back up locations are incredibly secure and are highly unlikely to be found by anyone either accidentally or deliberately looking for them.

Yeah, I feel pretty secure with my setup too, so there's no "canary" involved either.

[Pmalek]

Just a thought: you could add a "canary": a very simple unencrypted paper wallet with private key QR-code and instructions how to claim it. If someone finds it, you lose the small amount, but you'll know your backup is compromised without driving into the desert to check and digging a hole at N34 59 20, W106 36 52 each time.

And you can connect the address to a bot on Telegram, for example, that would notify you as soon as there is movement on said address. Since the amount is an insignificant one, you don't have to worry about your privacy. The Telegram account can be connected to a phone number not used for anything else or only for unimportant stuff non identity-revealing activities.   

[o_e_l_e_o]

And you can connect the address to a bot on Telegram, for example, that would notify you as soon as there is movement on said address.

Or just create a new wallet on Core and import all your canary addresses in to it. Since your node is running 24/7 anyway, then it will immediately know about any movement. From there you can set up a local notification system to send an alert to your phone or something similar if you want for times you are away from your computer. Or set up a watch only wallet on your phone (assuming your phone is probably with you 24/7) pointed at your own full node.

I'd much rather use a self-hosted set up than rely on a third party, especially an insecure one which does not use end to end encryption by default like Telegram.

[dkbit98]

I am not sure if this is directly connected with case of OP finding paper wallet or if this was posted before, but there is very similar situation happening in Melbourne, Australia.
This appears to be scam attempt with QR code with a key to access the account with alleged 0.62 BTC which can be withdrawn.
Printed address starting with 1LMy3... has total deposits of only 0.15 BTC if you look in blockchain explorer, and coins are flagged as fraudulent or scams.
This was posted on Bitcoin reddit channel, it's called “Printkey Wallet” and this is how it looks like:


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/wuf2ke/scam_found_these_littered_around_my_suburb_in/

Very similar amount and country like in case with OP.