If you want to hold a large amount of bitcoin securely, it makes sense to investigate how the wealthiest bitcoin holders handle this task. While wealth doesn’t cause infallibility, these entities have the most to lose from making a mistake. They should be highly motivated to put substantial thought and research into the security of their bitcoin.
Identifying the wealthiest bitcoin holders can be difficult, and asking them to reveal the full details of their security is unlikely to be successful. However, the bitcoin blockchain provides us with some valuable information. The transaction history and balances of all bitcoin addresses is publicly-available knowledge.
What information can we gather?
If an entity (person or group) owns a lot of bitcoin, it’s possible that they keep their bitcoin spread across many different addresses, each with a smaller-sized balance. Those addresses wouldn’t necessarily stand out from the crowd. In some cases, it’s impossible to associate different addresses with the same wallet or owner. In other cases, association between addresses requires blockchain analysis, often relying on advanced techniques and assumptions which are not guaranteed to provide accurate information.
Although it’s challenging to definitively identify the wealthiest entities in terms of bitcoin, and precisely how much bitcoin they own, it’s trivial to identify the wealthiest bitcoin addresses. There are a few websites that track these addresses in real time. The nature of these addresses can provide a lot of clues about how the bitcoin is secured.
For example, if you are familiar with address types, you’ll know that any address that begins with a “1” is a P2PKH address, and therefore must be a singlesig arrangement. Similarly, any address that begins with “bc1q” and has a length of 42 characters is a P2WPKH address, and must also be a singlesig address. Bitcoin held by one of these address types isn’t utilizing multisig protection. Using SSS or MPC would be the only way to achieve institutional-grade security, as discussed in our article covering thresholds.
Meanwhile, any address that begins with a “3” is a P2SH address. Any address that begins with “bc1q” and has a length of 62 characters is a P2WSH address. These address types have the possibility of utilizing multisig. However, only after bitcoin has been spent out of these addresses will the custody structure be revealed. Some P2SH addresses are actually singlesig, a structure that was temporarily popular while SegWit was being initially adopted. Therefore, if one of these address types has never been spent out of, the custody structure is unknown.
Ready to upgrade your Bitcoin security? Visit here to get an annual Bitcoin Magazine subscription ($79 value) when you sign up for an Unchined multisig vault.
Looking at the data
Let’s take a look at the 81 addresses which each hold more than 10,000 bitcoin, as of January 30, 2024. Altogether, these addresses hold more than 2.5 million bitcoin.
Bitcoin Balance
Address
Custody Structure
248,597
34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVPFHoCNxv4Twseo
Singlesig
204,010
bc1qgdjqv0av3q56jvd82tkdjpy7gdp9ut8tlqmgrpmv24sq90ecnvqqjwvw97
3-of-5 Multisig
127,136
bc1ql49ydapnjafl5t2cp9zqpjwe6pdgmxy98859v2
Singlesig
115,177
39884E3j6KZj82FK4vcCrkUvWYL5MQaS3v
Unknown
94,643
bc1qazcm763858nkj2dj986etajv6wquslv8uxwczt
Singlesig
94,505
37XuVSEpWW4trkfmvWzegTHQt7BdktSKUs
Singlesig
79,957*
1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF
Singlesig**
73,393
3M219KR5vEneNb47ewrPfWyb5jQ2DjxRP6
Singlesig
69,370
bc1qa5wkgaew2dkv56kfvj49j0av5nml45x9ek9hz6
Singlesig
68,200
3LYJfcfHPXYJreMsASk2jkn69LWEYKzexb
Singlesig
66,465
bc1qjasf9z3h7w3jspkhtgatgpyvvzgpa2wwd2lr0eh5tx44reyn2k7sfc27a4
3-of-5 Multisig
59,300
bc1qd4ysezhmypwty5dnw7c8nqy5h5nxg0xqsvaefd0qn5kq32vwnwqqgv4rzr
3-of-5 Multisig
53,880
1LdRcdxfbSnmCYYNdeYpUnztiYzVfBEQeC
Singlesig**
51,830
1AC4fMwgY8j9onSbXEWeH6Zan8QGMSdmtA
Singlesig
44,000
1LruNZjwamWJXThX2Y8C2d47QqhAkkc5os
Singlesig
43,602
1Ay8vMC7R1UbyCCZRVULMV7iQpHSAbguJP
Singlesig
41,334
3LCGsSmfr24demGvriN4e3ft8wEcDuHFqh
2-of-2 Multisig
37,932
bc1qs5vdqkusz4v7qac8ynx0vt9jrekwuupx2fl5udp9jql3sr03z3gsr2mf0f
3-of-6 Multisig
37,927
3LQUu4v9z6KNch71j7kbj8GPeAGUo1FW6a
Unknown
36,000
bc1q7ydrtdn8z62xhslqyqtyt38mm4e2c4h3mxjkug
Singlesig
32,321
12XqeqZRVkBDgmPLVY4ZC6Y4ruUUEug8Fx
Singlesig
32,019
3MgEAFWu1HKSnZ5ZsC8qf61ZW18xrP5pgd
2-of-3 Multisig
31,643
bc1qx9t2l3pyny2spqpqlye8svce70nppwtaxwdrp4
Singlesig
31,379
bc1qjh0akslml59uuczddqu0y4p3vj64hg5mc94c40
Singlesig
31,275
3FHNBLobJnbCTFTVakh5TXmEneyf5PT61B
Unknown
31,000*
12ib7dApVFvg82TXKycWBNpN8kFyiAN1dr
Singlesig**
30,175
bc1qf2yvj48mzkj7uf8lc2a9sa7w983qe256l5c8fs
Singlesig
28,151*
12tkqA9xSoowkzoERHMWNKsTey55YEBqkv
Singlesig**
26,140
1aXzEKiDJKzkPxTZy9zGc3y1nCDwDPub2
Singlesig**
24,606
19N9sDbJ7MDQcPFSjPNqjNDzyRNbNsQ6Zv
Singlesig
24,495
17MWdxfjPYP2PYhdy885QtihfbW181r1rn
Singlesig
24,067
38UmuUqPCrFmQo4khkomQwZ4VbY2nZMJ67
2-of-6 Multisig
23,969
19D5J8c59P2bAkWKvxSYw8scD3KUNWoZ1C
Singlesig
23,922
3G98jSULfhrES1J9HKfZdDjXx1sTNvHkhN
3-of-8 Multisig
23,789
1m5SViB9XNwsusvnnUqpfL9Q1E5EZxPHs
Singlesig
22,514
15cHRgVrGKz7qp2JL2N5mkB2MCFGLcnHxv
Singlesig
22,221
bc1qr4dl5wa7kl8yu792dceg9z5knl2gkn220lk7a9
Singlesig
20,544
bc1qm34lsc65zpw79lxes69zkqmk6ee3ewf0j77s3h
Singlesig
20,008
17rm2dvb439dZqyMe2d4D6AQJSgg6yeNRn
Singlesig
19,852
39gUvGynQ7Re3i15G3J2gp9DEB9LnLFPMN
Singlesig
19,679
3EMVdMehEq5SFipQ5UfbsfMsH223sSz9A9
4-of-8 Multisig
19,414*
1PeizMg76Cf96nUQrYg8xuoZWLQozU5zGW
Singlesig**
18,500
bc1qkz55x35wlnrkrn5n0nq4wwsme9vszrwavu5qf4
Singlesig
18,320
bc1qlhpkdeaaa345c4dw90hmvm3nn2r32f9jdj2v2p
Singlesig
17,969
bc1qtrxc0use4hlm7fl0j6t37z7qlwl5eppj8lywz6
Singlesig
17,945
bc1qhk0ghcywv0mlmcmz408sdaxudxuk9tvng9xx8g
Singlesig
17,928
bc1qcdqj2smprre85c78d942wx5tauw5n7uw92r7wr
Singlesig
16,858
bc1q5vwscmf85w2vlq0qvr33dgpvu5rlrd42cqw6qn
Singlesig
16,610
3FupZp77ySr7jwoLYEJ9mwzJpvoNBXsBnE
2-of-3 Multisig
16,453
bc1qx2x5cqhymfcnjtg902ky6u5t5htmt7fvqztdsm028hkrvxcl4t2sjtpd9l
2-of-2 Multisig
16,348
34HpHYiyQwg69gFmCq2BGHjF1DZnZnBeBP
Unknown
16,307
1BAuq7Vho2CEkVkUxbfU26LhwQjbCmWQkD
Singlesig
16,227
1N4WQbt63gnThPwHFZ1w9adEnE1xB8ctXk
Singlesig
16,231
bc1qchctnvmdva5z9vrpxkkxck64v7nmzdtyxsrq64
Singlesig
16,224
1932eKraQ3Ad9MeNBHb14WFQbNrLaKeEpT
Singlesig
15,900
32TiohXoCmHr87xVm3E9A3sLiWBJjYn1gf
4-of-6 Multisig
15,746
3JZq4atUahhuA9rLhXLMhhTo133J9rF97j
Singlesig
15,392
1GR9qNz7zgtaW5HwwVpEJWMnGWhsbsieCG
Singlesig
15,251
1KDWnWQNSGZZ8QHcKPgzz3DGRkmgVv9HhJ
Singlesig
14,676
bc1qvhxafz8dqk8c25jsx669yd6qrxhl5dx72dyryp
Singlesig
14,599
35pgGeez3ou6ofrpjt8T7bvC9t6RrUK4p6
2-of-3 Multisig
14,000
1BZaYtmXka1y3Byi2yvXCDG92Tjz7ecwYj
Singlesig
13,805
3NpXph8WN1U9hwXjg1bRtzTff1tPR2Gpw4
Unknown
13,003
bc1q4vxn43l44h30nkluqfxd9eckf45vr2awz38lwa
Singlesig
12,891
1KVpuCfhftkzJ67ZUegaMuaYey7qni7pPj
Singlesig
12,858
1CiAnTJn6eHTU89PeihdMhT7KcQZxVZ4fy
Singlesig
12,840
3BMEXqGpG4FxBA1KWhRFufXfSTRgzfDBhJ
3-of-4 Multisig
12,803
3HfD4pvF43jdu9dzVMEr1b8AnDHooRGc5t
3-of-9 Multisig
12,795
1DNUjpHPNKMoKYBHxJz2Sh1uQQdJkGsXj5
Singlesig
12,267
1PJiGp2yDLvUgqeBsuZVCBADArNsk6XEiw
Singlesig
11,985
1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM
Singlesig
11,673
3A9qNS69dngSU2ak8BwZKEExeVnL2RqpYJ
Unknown
11,400
1Cr7EjvS8C7gfarREHCvFhd9gT3r46pfLb
Singlesig
11,115
bc1qgrvchamnmmaancn3vwea6elnvexpylzh30rhjz
Singlesig
10,840
bc1qk7fy6qumtdkjy765ujxqxe0my55ake0zefa2dmt6sjx2sr098d8qf26ufn
3-of-5 Multisig
10,771*
1F34duy2eeMz5mSrvFepVzy7Y1rBsnAyWC
Singlesig**
10,500
bc1qhd0r5kh3u9mhac7de58qd2rdfx4kkv84kpx302
Singlesig
10,486
bc1q93njc4we4s088a2nz6c9e6vthc5h4ake53rxmd
Singlesig
10,217
1Q8QR5k32hexiMQnRgkJ6fmmjn5fMWhdv9
Singlesig
10,009*
1f1miYFQWTzdLiCBxtHHnNiW7WAWPUccr
Singlesig**
10,002
bc1qsxdxm0exqdsmnl9ejrz250xqxrxpxkgf5nhhtq
Singlesig
*Likely lost
**Not using MPC
Out of these 81 addresses, at least six of them are holding bitcoin that is likely to be lost (179,302 BTC). These six addresses were created by their owners in 2010 or 2011, when bitcoin had a much smaller value and was not taken as seriously as it is today. Five of the six have never been spent from, and the other one made its last withdrawal in July of 2010.
The remaining 75 addresses use a variety of custody structures. Let’s break it down:
Address Type
Addresses (%)
Total Bitcoin Balance (%)
Singlesig
53 (70.7%)
1,745,905 (67.6%)
Multisig
16 (21.3%)
608,773 (23.6%)
Unknown
6 (8.0%)
226,205 (8.8%)
As explained in our article discussing institutional-grade threshold security, it’s likely that the 53 singlesig addresses are using either SSS or MPC. Two of the addresses, however, are unlikely to be using MPC, because they were created before 2018, when the first-ever MPC threshold protocols for ECDSA were invented. It’s possible that these addresses are using SSS instead.
The 16 addresses that we know are using multisig have all been spent out of, and in doing so they have revealed their specific quorum structure. There is a wide assortment of quorums:
4 instances of 3-of-53 instances of 2-of-32 instances of 2-of-21 instance of 3-of-91 instance of 4-of-81 instance of 3-of-81 instance of 4-of-61 instance of 3-of-61 instance of 2-of-61 instance of 3-of-4
The 2-of-2 quorums stand out as the only quorums in the list which don’t offer inherent protection from single points of failure. While a distributed 2-of-2 multisig can protect against theft, it requires other methods to protect against loss (such as each key using distributed SSS or MPC shares). You can read more about how different quorums protect from theft and loss to varying degrees, in our broader multisig article.
Visit https://unchained.bitcoinmagazine.com/ to learn more about collaborative custody and access exclusive discounts on Unchained financial services.
Conclusions
After looking at the data, at least one thing is clear. Among the owners of the wealthiest bitcoin addresses—some of whom include the biggest cryptocurrency exchanges and even the U.S. Department of Justice—there is no consensus on the best method to secure bitcoin.
Some of these entities use multisig addresses, with typical quorums like 2-of-3 and 3-of-5, but there are several unusual quorums as well. Many entities use singlesig addresses, which could be utilizing SSS or MPC. The details surrounding SSS or MPC threshold quorums are never publicly recorded on the blockchain, limiting the extent of this investigation. It’s possible that some of these singlesig addresses are not employing any threshold security at all, which would mean that certain stashes of bitcoin currently worth more than $400M are notably under-secured.
As we covered in a recent article, multisig always has a higher security ceiling than singlesig. When a singlesig address is used (as is the case with at least 70% of the addresses holding more than 10,000 BTC) there is a missed opportunity for additional security. While singlesig does provide some benefits for spending convenience and transaction fees, one might expect these benefits to be less important than security, for an entity holding bitcoin worth millions or billions of dollars.
The truth behind why singlesig addresses are so commonly found at the top levels is unclear. It may amount to a lack of education, or a historical lack of products and services leveraging the combination of SSS and MPC alongside multisig. Luckily, Unchained has pioneered a simple path to access these combinations, unlocking the highest levels of security obtainable. For private wealth and enterprise clients, we offer a vault product built with a foundation of multisig, and keys that can be spread amongst institutional key agents. Each of these key agents can deploy their own threshold security using SSS or MPC. Book a free consultation!
Originally published on Unchained.com.
Unchained Capital is the official US Collaborative Custody partner of Bitcoin Magazine and an integral sponsor of related content published through Bitcoin Magazine. For more information on services offered, custody products, and the relationship between Unchained and Bitcoin Magazine, please visit our website.
Source link
