Bitcoin Forum

Hi, i am new here, soo if someone already post something similar, please redirect me, thanks!

I was thinking ... what should happen to the coins that have not suffered a transaction for a long time, especially the accounts lost or refuted by the users? Maybe you should consider making a new mining of these coins with each halving or given time frame, is that possible? The central bank's usually replace the coins from time to time, because usually some are destroyed over time ... maybe there will be some similar mechanism for bitcoin. There exist`s?

Thanks ;)

No. This is a bad idea. Many people keep their Bitcoin in long term cold storage. There is no way to differentiate between those who are keeping Bitcoin in long term cold storage and those who have lost their Bitcoin. Furthermore, this would mean that coins would be confiscated and there would have to be some sort of central authority determining such recycling time which goes against Bitcoin.

I understand the cold storage, but If any currency wants to go into circulation it should take this fact into account, since they may lose part of the coins indefinitely.

Thanks achow101.

Bitcoin is already in circulation, so it looks like this is something we don't need to be conserned about.


It is taken into account.  It's called the law of supply and demand.  If bitcoins are permanently "lost", then there will be less bitcoins available to spend. This will increase the value of the remaining bitcoins since they are more rare (in shorter supply).  We can just keep splitting up the bitcoins that aren't lost into smaller pieces so that less bitcoins can buy more stuff.


They will.  They have.  And that's okay.  The bitcoin system is designed to be able to work just fine with less bitcoins.

This comes up every so often, but who says how long is too long?  

Perhaps Hal Finney will be unfrozen one hundred years in the future (see https://www.wired.com/2014/08/hal-finney/ and http://www.alcor.org/blog/hal-finney-becomes-alcors-128th-patient/ ) and he'll want to unfreeze some coins that he has in a brain wallet to pay to help acclimate himself to a world he didn't know.  Or to pay for food.  Or his care.  Or his descendants.

What gives anyone the right to decided that X number of years is "too long to save"? Why would anyone think it is okay to steal from someone else who has saved their coins whether they are Hal or someone else?  Stealing is wrong and using the "central banks" do it argument is a good reason not to do it given the problems they have caused over the last 100 years.

Something like this just penalizes people who save and makes people move their coins, subjecting them to risk.

Doing this would create an alt-coin because there are many people who are opposed to things like this.

Exactly. No one has the right to make that decision. Or if we want to get philosophical... everyone has the right to make that decision. :P

Theres a lot bitcoins lost specially those mined by miners, but if demand is getting higher its value becomes higher also and those miners sells their mined btc. When users over spend their btc thats the time we can say bitcoin a lost coins but if they hold it and do alt coin tradings their coins will be circulated online for all purposes that may gain good profit.

Their is a old thread in regards to the OP question but still the answer is no one can differentiate the dead accounts , lost accounts and long term accounts, as some of the users have saved the bitcoins in wallet for very long term, who are not in need of bitcoins to sell they just wanted to save it like peoples do in goal for long long very long term, when they are expecting the price of bitcoin going above 10000 price.

So this idea is fail and nothing can be done to the lost accounts bitcoins.