Bitcoin Forum

Maybe Satoshi could set a huge scheme of rewarding everyone that changes all their coins to a different address between New Years Eve and Bitcoin anniversary (31-Dec and 03-Jan).
All coins that were moved to different addresses on that days (01 and 02 of January) would get the reward.
The formula would be (coins_moved/total_coins_moved_by_everyone [%]) *times* BUDGET.
He could just tell the world. I will spend ten thousand coins every year on this date, for us all to have a better idea about the aliveness of coins out there. OR... We could crowdfund these 10,000 coins...
Who doesn't want to know or have a better idea of how many coins are "alive"?

And he would want to do this because...? Why doesn't he give all his money to charity, or buy a country and start an army?

That must have been a slaughter...

This was in Switzerland and not the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  :'(

Swiss to vote on $2,800 monthly income for all adults:

http://news.msn.com/world/swiss-to-vote-on-dollar2800-monthly-income-for-all-adults

RT report on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xi4g9lfodY

Nice idea though, right ?  :-\


Remember: without 'Satoshi' there is no gold and no truck either.

As far as we know, Satoshi might be dead

Hell he could have died from a heart attack or hit by a car without anyone knowing who he really was lol

From what we know, he still had some contact with Gavin up to mid 2011, when he said he moved on to other things. Not sure how well people have been watching obituaries but I would expect a 35 to 40 year old expert cryptographer dieing, to be some news in the crypto world.

There would be absolutely no way to inform each and every bitcoin holder of this scheme. Inevitably, someone who is not covering every aspect of bitcoin news but still has investments that they have access to will end up being left out.
Also, why? No other currency has the need to see how alive they are. People leave money in banks all the time.

1) If this was done every year during that turning date it would be known by everyone in a few years time.
2) Knowing the cap market of currencies is important to calculate the value of the wealth of the nations. Without having a good idea of the coins that are alive you don't have a good estimation of the market cap of bitcoin...

Anyone can do this and we only need to believe that someone will do it to have some motivation to move our coins in between that turning dates! So do it, for the sake of it. Who knows, someone, the FBI for instance may be willing to sponsor this practice. This year it may still not be noticed. But in a few years time, this may become worth your efforts. If you have just one address it is easy, for you. In the meantime in the future it may become easier for someone to pay Everyone that did renew their coins in specific days to show they are alive.

If some 100k BTC are moved during the mentioned period and bitcoiners (collectively and also individually) decide to reward every new address during that period using the formula I say with, say, 10k BTC, during 2014, you still get rewarded with 1000% (10x) of your moved coins. Does that motivate you a bit?

No.

I'm now *completely* convinced I'm incapable of having an original idea that hasn't already been posted on the forums.  I arrived at a similar idea trying to deal with the issue of lost coins and blockchain pruning.  Presumably if they're valuable enough, people hopefully won't lose them as much, but, stuff happens.  I am assuming a future where bitcoin is mainstream and widely used and distributed.  An unknown trickle of coins will vanish into the bitbucket over time, forever unavailable *and* forever occupying space in the blockchain and UTXO.  This will be cruft that must be carried forward 10, 20, 50 years?  Here's my thoughts, assuming this idea hasn't been advanced in some thread I haven't managed to read.

What if a form of BTC expiration were built into the protocol?  Say unspent coins have a lifetime of 8 years, or, more specifically, 420000 blocks (twice the mining reward change cycle).  If not moved during that time, their value expires and goes to the miner of the next block.  This would have several effects:
1) putting truly dead coins back into circulation, so that all of the 21M coins will be available into the indefinite future.
2) guaranteeing the maximum blockchain length will be 420k blocks.  Apart from archival history, it would be impossible to have a spendable transaction older than that.
3) In the event tx fees can't fully support mining efforts as the block rewards shrink, it will be an equitable additional source of miner income.

There's plenty of time to get the word out (better sooner than later, before bitcoin really takes off).  There's plenty of time to sort out implementation details.  While I hate to make an analogy with the traditional banking system, it's similar to unclaimed account laws where idle accounts eventually go to the state.  Of course the biggest issue is that it changes the terms on all existing bitcoin owners in an unexpected manner.  It would suck for the guy who in 2010 put some BTC in some time capsule that won't be opened until after 2020.  It would be problematic for physical bitcoin like Casascius.  The alternative is that in 2060, we'll have a multi-terabyte blockchain that would need to be fully rescanned to prove the output from block 1 is spendable...

what if you make your own coin with such protocol changes.. and see if your own coin takes off.. call it byte coin with the moto something like "its like bitcoin, but 8 years in length". (EG bit x8=byte)

no one want to hear their bitcoins would evaporate within 8 years. by having bitcoins protocol that can delete TX's that are 8 years old and then increase the standard block reward to cover the amount deleted would just make it so bitcoins can be reprinted.. which would ruin bitcoin

so how about make your own coin and see if it catches on, not change bitcoins protocol

scenario
oh and by the way, that $20k FIAT your grandma has put away safely under her matress for the last decade. its now gone.. tell her its been burnt, she cant have it back, but now someone else is $20k richer just by being the lucky worker at the US mint that day the certain printing batch came out that had an extra $20k in it. tell her you allowed FIAT law to change so that if she didnt spend it in 8 years she would lose it, and its all your fault.

or better yet. tell her theres a new currency coming out that has a 8 year lifespan, she can put her money under the matress into. see if she would buy into it or stick with the old unchanged rules that means what is her's is hers for life

as for worrying about blockchain sizes..

in 1999 a 4gigabyte hard drive was considered big. a decade later a terrabyte hard drive was considered big. 5 years after that 2terrabyte hard drves can be bought for under $100.

now then at 1mb block. if every block was filled to the top. that would be 52gb a year growth of the blockchain*. so far in 4 years we have not even gone that far. and lets say in 10 years it did manage to contain 100% full blocks that is only half a terrabyte.

im sure in the next 10 years the price of terrabyte hard drives and internet speeds would make the potential blockchain length a non-issue. so again bitcoin protocol changes are irrational and would cause more damage then help.

*6mb per hour x24 = 144mb per day x 365 = 52.56GB per year

No

I don't believe the reprinting aspect in itself would ruin bitcoin.  It would be equivalent to the holder of the expiring bitcoin suddenly waking up after 8 years and spending it.  There would never be more than 21M bitcoin.


Point taken, though I'm under no illusions that this protocol change, even if desirable, would be enough of a market differentiator that the new coin would eclipse bitcoin's adoption, in which case it wouldn't be needed in the new coin's protocol in the first place.


I already pointed out as a drawback this type of scenario in my initial post.  You needn't reiterate it.


I'm less worried about blockchain size than the unspent transaction output database and rescan effort to verify the unspent status of a coin.

500 GB is a lot, and although I can see solid state drives growing in size, I don't see the data storage needs of the average computer user growing all that much.

Our effort would be better spent finding ways to establish more trusted large servers that can host the blockchain, so that more consumers can use SPV clients.

10 years ago i complained that a game was 1GB and was filling up 25% of my hard drive (i had 4GB hdd at the time)
now Call of Duty Ghosts is 30GB, and no one is complaining.

give it 10 years and no one will complain about blockchain sizes as we will all have internet of 100mb/s + and harddrives of atleast 10TB where as the blockchain would only be half a TB

/raises hand

I can't see a benefit to this scheme.