bitunix

Likely Lost Supply

النطاق
  • 1M1M
  • 3M3M
  • 6M6M
  • 1Y1Y
  • ALLALL
المقياس
  • خطيخطي
  • لوغاريتميلوغاريتمي
الأحدث
1.46M
2026-11-02 · 1,455,559.324 · BTC
تغيّر 1D
+0.00%
السابق 1.46M
تغيّر 7D
+0.00%
السابق 1.46M
تغيّر 30D
+0.00%
السابق 1.46M
المئين 4Y
4%
السجل الكامل 6%
أعلى مستوى على الإطلاق
2.89M
2010-06-30 · -49.70%
نطاق 1Y
1.46M – 1.46M
منذ 2009-01-03
جارٍ تحميل البيانات…

حول هذا المقياس

ما الذي يقيسه

Likely Lost Supply is the total BTC classified as probably lost by the underlying supply model. It is an estimate in BTC rather than proof of inaccessible private keys; the supplied metadata does not document the model's eligibility rules.

كيفية قراءته

A higher value assigns more supply to the probably lost category, while a decline removes coins from that estimate. The series peaked near 2.89 million BTC in June 2010 and stood near 1.46 million on October 17, 2026. Its ability to fall is a reminder that this is a revisable classification rather than a cumulative count of confirmed losses.

An unmoved coin may still be spendable, and the blockchain cannot reveal whether a private key has been lost. Do not infer a fixed dormancy cutoff from the metric name or equate it with all coins inactive for several years. Understand the model rules before using the estimate to adjust supply.

التكرار
يومي (UTC 00:00)
الأصل
BTC
الفئة
المعروض
النوع
قيمة واحدة
الوحدة
BTC
البيانات منذ
2009-01-03
أحدث البيانات
2026-11-02
نقاط البيانات
6,513

الأسئلة الشائعة

Can the blockchain prove how many bitcoins are lost?

It can show that coins remain unspent, but that alone cannot prove their keys are unavailable. This is a model estimate, not a count of all provably unspendable coins.

Why can Likely Lost Supply decrease?

Previously classified coins may move, or a model classification may change. The series declined from about 1.55 million BTC at the 2012 halving to about 1.46 million at the 2024 halving, so it is not a permanently increasing tally.

Is Likely Lost Supply the same as supply unmoved for five years?

No such equivalence is documented for this series. A five-year dormancy measure uses an explicit age threshold, whereas this estimate's eligibility rules are not provided in the available metadata.