Supply by Protocol Type

What is it?

This stacked chart shows how every circulating BTC is locked in a specific script type. Each script type corresponds to a Bitcoin technology generation: • **P2PK (Pay-to-Public-Key)** - the original script used by Satoshi Nakamoto. The public key is directly exposed in the transaction. Approximately 1.72M BTC remain in this format, mainly mining rewards from 2009-2010. These coins are vulnerable to a future quantum computer attack (since the public key is exposed, a quantum attacker could derive the private key). • **P2PKH (Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash)** - the 'Legacy' format introduced very early, using a hash of the public key (addresses starting with 1). Safer than P2PK because the public key is only revealed when spending. • **P2MS (Pay-to-Multisig)** - bare multisig directly in the script. Nearly obsolete (<100 BTC), replaced by P2SH. • **P2SH (Pay-to-Script-Hash)** - introduced in 2012 (BIP 16), enables complex scripts behind a hash. Enabled multisig addresses (starting with 3) and later wrapped SegWit (P2SH-P2WPKH). • **P2WPKH (Pay-to-Witness-Public-Key-Hash)** - native SegWit v0 (BIP 141, activated August 2017). bc1q... addresses, reduced fees, better security against transaction malleability. • **P2WSH (Pay-to-Witness-Script-Hash)** - native SegWit v0 for complex scripts (advanced multisig, Lightning channels). • **P2TR (Pay-to-Taproot)** - SegWit v1 (BIP 341, activated November 2021). bc1p... addresses, the most advanced protocol: Schnorr signatures, MAST (Merkelized Abstract Syntax Trees), better privacy and flexibility.

How to read

The stacked chart shows the absolute BTC distribution of each script type over time. The thickest layers represent script types holding the most BTC. The evolution of relative thicknesses reveals technology migration waves: 1. **P2PK/P2PKH Era (2009-2012)**: nearly all supply is in these original formats 2. **P2SH Era (2012-2017)**: gradual rise of P2SH with multisig adoption 3. **SegWit Era (2017-2021)**: massive migration to P2WPKH, P2SH starts plateauing 4. **Taproot Era (2021+)**: gradual emergence of P2TR, still a minority The sum of all layers at each date gives the total circulating supply (a residual gap of ~2,600 BTC comes from non-standard scripts and OP_RETURN).

Key zones

• **P2WPKH dominant (>40% of supply)** - native SegWit became the de facto standard since ~2022, reflecting migration by major exchanges (Coinbase, Binance) and modern wallets. • **P2PKH in structural decline** - still ~23% of supply, but steadily declining since 2017. Every BTC moving from a Legacy address to SegWit reduces this layer. • **P2PK stable at ~1.72M BTC** - these coins have not moved since the earliest years. The stability of this layer confirms it is mainly Satoshi-era coins that are lost or intentionally held. • **P2TR in slow growth** - ~1% of supply by end of 2025. Taproot adoption is slower than SegWit because gains are less immediately tangible for the average user (privacy > fees).

What to observe

Watch for **migration accelerations**: when a major exchange announces SegWit or Taproot support, the corresponding layer thickens rapidly. Key historical transitions: • SegWit activation (August 2017) → P2WPKH went from 0 to dominant in 5 years • Taproot activation (November 2021) → P2TR grows slowly but steadily • GBTC/ETF conversions → massive movements from P2SH to P2WPKH/P2WSH The **P2PK layer is a proxy for potentially lost supply** - if it starts to decrease significantly, it would mean Satoshi-era coins are moving, which would be a major historical event. For the **quantum security** angle: P2PK (exposed public key) + already-spent P2PKH (revealed public key) = vulnerable supply. Unspent P2PKH + P2SH + SegWit + Taproot = protected supply (only the hash is public).

Historical context

Bitcoin protocol transitions follow a predictable pattern: proposal (BIP) → activation (soft fork) → slow adoption → accelerated adoption by exchanges → dominance. P2SH took ~5 years to become significant. SegWit (P2WPKH) took ~5 years to become dominant. Taproot (P2TR) follows a similar but slower curve. The ~1.72M BTC in P2PK (of which ~1.1M attributed to Satoshi) have never moved since 2010+. Their constant immobility is one of the most closely watched on-chain indicators by the community - any movement would make global headlines. The SegWit migration was accelerated by economic pressure (high fees 2017-2018) and 'SegWit shaming' of lazy exchanges. Taproot lacks this pressure because fee savings are marginal for simple transactions.

Expert notes

This chart is one of the few that offers a structural view of the Bitcoin network's technological state. It measures neither sentiment nor value, but the underlying infrastructure. For advanced analysis: • **Cross-reference with HODL Waves**: old coins (>5y) are disproportionately in P2PKH/P2PK, while young coins (<1y) are mostly in P2WPKH/P2TR. • **SegWit Ratio** = (P2WPKH + P2WSH + P2TR) / Total: a network modernisation indicator. >50% reached in 2023. • **Vulnerable Ratio** = (P2PK65 + P2PK33) / Total: ~8.6% of supply with exposed public key. This ratio can only decrease (coins migrate to modern scripts or remain lost). The data comes directly from Bitcoin blockchain UTXO-set analysis - each point represents the actual state of unspent UTXOs at that date, not an estimate or model. **Quantum Risk Toggle** - Enable the 'Quantum' button in the toolbar to highlight the vulnerable P2PK bands (red). The tooltip then shows a ⚠ Vulnerable / ✓ Safe tag for each band, along with the total quantum-vulnerable BTC. **The 3 levels of Bitcoin quantum risk**: • **Level 1 - Always vulnerable (~1.72M BTC)**: P2PK UTXOs expose the public key directly in the script. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could derive the private key without any user action. This is what the Quantum Risk toggle highlights on this chart. • **Level 2 - Vulnerable through address reuse (~5.2M BTC)**: P2PKH, P2SH, or P2WPKH addresses become vulnerable when they have already been used to spend coins. During a spend, the full public key is inscribed in the transaction's scriptSig. If funds are subsequently received at the same address (reuse), those BTC are exposed. This level is not visible on this chart because it requires cross-referencing transaction inputs/outputs, which our current data source does not provide. • **Level 3 - P2TR (Taproot)**: bc1p... addresses encode the public key (x-only, 32 bytes) directly in the address itself. In theory, these coins are vulnerable without ever being spent. However, the crypto community debates this risk as Schnorr + Taproot could be more easily migrated to a post-quantum scheme via soft fork. **Total estimate** (source: Project Eleven, 2026): ~6.9M BTC (~35% of supply) have an exposed public key in some form. Our Quantum Risk toggle covers Level 1 (P2PK), which is the most certain and critical (~1.72M BTC, of which ~1.1M attributed to Satoshi).

Common mistakes to avoid

**Mistake #1**: Confusing transaction count with supply. The fact that Taproot represents a growing % of transactions does not mean it holds a growing % of supply - the same BTC can be spent and re-locked in a new script type. **Mistake #2**: Concluding that the ~1.72M P2PK BTC are all 'lost.' Some probably are (estimates vary between 1-1.7M), but the absence of movement is not proof of loss - a holder with a secured cold key has no reason to move their coins. **Mistake #3**: Overestimating the quantum risk in the short term. Quantum computers capable of breaking 256-bit ECDSA are still estimated at 10-20+ years away. The P2PK layer is not 'in imminent danger.' However, it is a long-term structural risk that the network will need to address. **Mistake #4**: Interpreting the slow Taproot adoption as a 'failure.' Adoption is driven by wallets and exchanges, not by users directly. Every wallet update that enables Taproot by default automatically increases adoption without user action.

Programmatic access

REST API

curl -sS \
  'https://api.trinityinsights.io/api/v1/onchain/supply-by-protocol-type/history?days=90' \
  -H 'X-API-Key: $TRINITY_API_KEY'

MCP server

{
  "tool": "get_chart_value",
  "metric_id": "supply-by-protocol-type",
  "timeframe": "1y"
}

Required tier: pro. See the pricing grid for the tier list and the MCP documentation for multi-client configuration.

Related metrics

• hodl-waves
• utxo-age-distribution
• supply-last-active
• sth-lth-supply

Institutional disclaimer

Trinity Insights is an educational and analytical tool. The metric above does not constitute investment advice. Trinity Insights is not a Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) registered under MiCA Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. See the full disclaimer.