#比特币重复使用地址持有433万枚BTC
The public keys of 4.33 million BTC are exposed on-chain—don't misread this as Bitcoin about to be stolen!
Data from Glassnode indicates that the public keys of approximately 4.33 million BTC are exposed due to address reuse, accounting for about 21.5% of the circulating supply. Including some legacy addresses and Taproot-related structures, the total amount of BTC with visible public keys is approximately 6.26 million. <Cite refs={["turn765044search0","turn765044search6"]}/>
The key point here is that a visible public key does not mean the private key has been compromised, much less that the funds can be stolen directly.
However, address reuse does reduce transaction privacy, making it easier to link different transactions. As the market pays increasing attention to Bitcoin's long-term security, address management and wallet security deserve renewed attention too.
As far as the market is concerned, these figures cannot be treated as a bearish signal on their own, nor do they mean that 4.33 million BTC are about to be sold. What really matters is whether large-scale fund movements occur and how the market assesses long-term cryptographic security risks.
In my view, short-term trading should still focus on fund flows and price structure, while long-term holders should prioritize wallet security and privacy protection.
Which do you think is more concerning: the on-chain privacy issue or the long-term security challenges Bitcoin may face?
The public keys of 4.33 million BTC are exposed on-chain—don't misread this as Bitcoin about to be stolen!
Data from Glassnode indicates that the public keys of approximately 4.33 million BTC are exposed due to address reuse, accounting for about 21.5% of the circulating supply. Including some legacy addresses and Taproot-related structures, the total amount of BTC with visible public keys is approximately 6.26 million. <Cite refs={["turn765044search0","turn765044search6"]}/>
The key point here is that a visible public key does not mean the private key has been compromised, much less that the funds can be stolen directly.
However, address reuse does reduce transaction privacy, making it easier to link different transactions. As the market pays increasing attention to Bitcoin's long-term security, address management and wallet security deserve renewed attention too.
As far as the market is concerned, these figures cannot be treated as a bearish signal on their own, nor do they mean that 4.33 million BTC are about to be sold. What really matters is whether large-scale fund movements occur and how the market assesses long-term cryptographic security risks.
In my view, short-term trading should still focus on fund flows and price structure, while long-term holders should prioritize wallet security and privacy protection.
Which do you think is more concerning: the on-chain privacy issue or the long-term security challenges Bitcoin may face?