This is a segment from the 0xResearch newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.
For years, Bitcoin enthusiasts have clung to the narrative that some of its 21 million supply is irretrievably “lost,” forever locked in wallets with forgotten keys. These “lost” coins have been viewed as a permanent reduction in the circulating supply, making bitcoin even scarcer than its fixed cap implies. But what if that scarcity isn’t as definitive as we think?
The rise of quantum computing and breakthroughs in cryptographic techniques have sparked speculation that no bitcoin is truly “lost.” As computational power evolves, the security underpinning bitcoin’s oldest key pairs — generated using what may soon be outdated cryptography — could be compromised.
This isn’t an immediate concern, as Bitcoin developers are well-equipped to implement protocol upgrades that shield active wallets. However, wallets abandoned long ago — like Satoshi Nakamoto’s — and whose owners are unlikely to migrate them to new encryption schemes, could become targets.
Imagine quantum computing so advanced that “key miners” can derive private keys from public ones, effectively “cracking” these forgotten wallets. This would bring dormant bitcoin back into circulation — not through the intent of the original owners, but rather new actors exploiting advances on the periphery of technology.
Far from being FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), this idea reframes Bitcoin’s evolution. The network’s adaptability ensures it remains robust in a quantum future, but it also challenges the idea that its circulating supply will permanently exclude lost coins. As Nic Carter has noted, Bitcoin’s security model doubles as a $400 billion “bug bounty” driving quantum advancements.
The treasure hunting of old wallets might one day become a competitive market, reshaping the narrative of bitcoin’s scarcity. In this future, “lost” bitcoin doesn’t stay lost — it merely waits for someone to unlock it, keeping the promise of 21 million circulating coins intact.
Whether that promise itself can be kept in the future is also an open question, but that’s a topic for another day.
