z

[MPOE-PR]

Of course, but most likely lost bitcoins are lost so without movement since let's say <2 years is a good estimation no?

Sounds like a very poor estimation, because by that count all money spent on 30 year Ts is "lost" 15 times over.

[1714947724]

1714947724

[1714947724]

1714947724

[1714947724]

1714947724

[StarenseN]

Of course, but most likely lost bitcoins are lost so without movement since let's say <2 years is a good estimation no?

Sounds like a very poor estimation, because by that count all money spent on 30 year Ts is "lost" 15 times over.

by <2 years I meant not used since 01/2011 so next year it will be 3 years and so on...

[gweedo]

Of course, but most likely lost bitcoins are lost so without movement since let's say <2 years is a good estimation no?

Sounds like a very poor estimation, because by that count all money spent on 30 year Ts is "lost" 15 times over.

by <2 years I meant not used since 01/2011 so next year it will be 3 years and so on...

But so many people just leave bitcoins sitting in there addresses for awhile, so this stupid, it is like buying a stock and just holding, if you hold for 40yrs then sell, it is the same thing doesn't mean you lost it.

[StarenseN]

Of course, but most likely lost bitcoins are lost so without movement since let's say <2 years is a good estimation no?

Sounds like a very poor estimation, because by that count all money spent on 30 year Ts is "lost" 15 times over.

by <2 years I meant not used since 01/2011 so next year it will be 3 years and so on...

But so many people just leave bitcoins sitting in there addresses for awhile, so this stupid, it is like buying a stock and just holding, if you hold for 40yrs then sell, it is the same thing doesn't mean you lost it.

Please; we know that ! It's all about odd estimation.

[gweedo]

Of course, but most likely lost bitcoins are lost so without movement since let's say <2 years is a good estimation no?

Sounds like a very poor estimation, because by that count all money spent on 30 year Ts is "lost" 15 times over.

by <2 years I meant not used since 01/2011 so next year it will be 3 years and so on...

But so many people just leave bitcoins sitting in there addresses for awhile, so this stupid, it is like buying a stock and just holding, if you hold for 40yrs then sell, it is the same thing doesn't mean you lost it.

Please; we know that ! It's all about odd estimation.

But you can't estimation at all... that is like saying let me estimate all the cars that are drivable, and if they are parked in the same place for more than year they are not drivable. It doesn't make sense.

[Gladamas]

Well, instead of trolling, can anyone come up with a better estimation method than what StarenseN proposed?

[StarenseN]

Of course, but most likely lost bitcoins are lost so without movement since let's say <2 years is a good estimation no?

Sounds like a very poor estimation, because by that count all money spent on 30 year Ts is "lost" 15 times over.

by <2 years I meant not used since 01/2011 so next year it will be 3 years and so on...

But so many people just leave bitcoins sitting in there addresses for awhile, so this stupid, it is like buying a stock and just holding, if you hold for 40yrs then sell, it is the same thing doesn't mean you lost it.

Please; we know that ! It's all about odd estimation.

But you can't estimation at all... that is like saying let me estimate all the cars that are drivable, and if they are parked in the same place for more than year they are not drivable. It doesn't make sense.

First of all, I never said that ALL cars parked <1y are not drivable
Secondly, not drivable car are not on the road, for sure, they are parked somewhere.
It's all about estimation and odds/probability.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

It's all about estimation and odds/probability.

Estimations and statistics are useless if your underlying model is flawed...
Truth is you can't tell which coins are lost or used as savings account, you can't even estimate it correctly.

[SouthernComfort]

Wow the first address all ones, very strange.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Wow the first address all ones, very strange.

The guy is showing off, knowing people will look at it, wouldn't be surprised if he had more in other addresses.
Can't blame him 

[siesatsu]

If only if only..

[Spaceman_Spiff]

If only if only..

.... I had 100k coins too?

[gweedo]

Well, instead of trolling, can anyone come up with a better estimation method than what StarenseN proposed?

It is impossible so it isn't trolling when your proving that something is impossible.

[Raoul Duke]

Scammers interested on the richest addresses...
Color me shocked...

[constitution]

If only if only..

[Loaded]

I see 6.

[Fuzzy]

It's interesting to see all the exact X00.00 addresses that haven't moved since 2010. Round numbers like that suggest they've been put there for storage.

[cbeast]

Why stop at 410? Wouldn't the highest 420 be more interesting?

[Rassah]

I might have missed the answer to this, but what's the point of this? It's highly inacurate and doesn't actually tell us anything other than that some people have a few pennies associated with the only address they decided to use to ask for donations.

[Fuzzy]

I would say that most of the lost coins are the ones that were mined when Bitcoins were still seen as funny money, before they were $1 each.

Using this data that was at the beginning of 2011.

So see what total you get if you only count addresses that have had no incoming/outgoing transactions since 2010.

Now that I think about it, anyone can deposit lint into an account to make it look active, but only the owner with full access could make a withdraw.

So I'd personally consider any address without any withdraws since before 2011 as being lost. Once Bitcoins hit dollar parity, I'd think anyone looking to store them would move them into a new and more secure wallet.

And yes, this is all hearsay/speculation/estimation/not 101% accurate