Bitcoin Forum

I like the idea of only having 21 million bitcoins.
Bitcoins get lost all the time, lost private keys.
In time we will have fewer and fewer bitcoins, currently it is thought 3-4 million bitcoins are already lost. This makes me sad.

I propose a redistribution method:
>If an address did not have any activity in let's say the last 100 years the address is considered lost and the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block.

To prevent losing your bitcoins you make sure to transfer them to a new address every 100 years (I am not aware of any other method of "proving" you still have access to an address).

P.S. This would be a change in the consensus mechanism, I know  :-[
P.S.S. I am aware of Satoshi's view on this "lost coins are a donation to everyone". Yes, but 4 million is a lot, do we want Bitcoin to still be used 1000 years from now? If this trend continues most if not all bitcoins would have been lost by then.

This is an interesting topic that I sparked up back then once just for discussion purposes — safe to say a lot of people didn't like it lol.


It definitely wouldn't be like that. Sure, the supply still shrinks and shrinks slowly, but as time goes bitcoin goes up in value as well. People will be incentivized to not lose them; not like back then when bitcoin was merely a few cents so people didn't care much about their private key backups.

I also love the idea but then again with the current set-up of Bitcoin this is actually an impossibility. So maybe we can propose like creating a new cryptocurrency or a token corresponding to the number of BTC presumed to have been lost already...but then maybe the next question is how it is going to be distributed and who will be the recipients. Maybe all active members of this forum can be entitled to get some - anyway this is just my humble opinion. Otherwise we have to accept the fact that what was lost is already history and can never be recovered anymore.

Why though? It is not like people must spend 1 BTC to make one transaction. I would not be surprised if 100 sat is worth $100 or something in the future if Bitcoin continues to be valuable. While it can happen, I doubt the BTC price will continue to increase that 10 sat or so is no longer affordable for small payments/transactions. Even if it does happen, we'll probably see many layer-2 solutions or something similar at that point in time.

That's basically creating an altcoin IMO.

This Is coercing holders to so some activity for their address to be considered alive. This will be an approaching big bear market season at every 100 years to come. What fud can be spread during that time will be quite damaging to investors but also an opportunity.

Can they leave Satoshis stash alone? Problem is that they are not identified as his.

The lost coins are already redistributed in the sense that thanks to this, due to scarcity, the bitcoins of the other holders are worth more.


You're right, far fewer bitcoins are lost today than in the beginning, when people mined them on their laptops, at a time when they were worth pennies and they didn't know if they would still be around in a few years, nor did they have options for spending them as they do now. Today there are many more security measures, more knowledge, and people consider them much more valuable than they did then.

They will always continue to be lost, but in percentage terms much less.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin by itself. It does not lose anything by itself.

What or who lost? The people who owned bitcoin lost private keys and lost their bitcoins. You must correct the sentence.

It is only estimation which is estimated by inactive UTXOs. Estimations are always not exact numbers for what's actually going on and the exact number of lost bitcoins.
You can use this UTXO chart and make your estimations. Not all inactive UTXOs are from lost bitcoins.

• https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/hodl-waves/

You should feel more happy about that because those coins lost for good.  :D

I don’t think there will be a consensus for a hard fork to add this feature. Seems the only people to benefit would be miners pretty much. No Bitcoin holder would want this since it increases the supply and will lower price.

I think one of the Bitcoin forks had a feature to do this. Might of been BSV where it allows the unspent coins to be in circulation again. Had a bad negative response from the community and most likely BTC won’t have a positive response either for this to happen.

Actually losing bitcoins is an event with decreasing number of occurrence. In early days price was low and people were less careful so there were more cases of losing keys. As time went up and bitcoin gained more value people also became more careful hence the number of cases where people lose their keys diminished significantly.
So you can't say it gets "lost all the time".

Wrong. Nobody knows how many bitcoins were actually lost. This is just an estimation you posted.

There are two problems with this:
1. Not having any activity is not the same as being lost. For example there are people who have coins from 2009 that they haven't touched but they still own the private key.
2. You can't really talk about what people should do in 100 years from now!

It's a good idea just as mk4 had said earlier for only discussion matter but no one would want this kind of implementation accepted, if this is acceptable then i don't think there's more need to hodl our bitcoin for long anymore since there must be an activity experience with using a particular wallet over time, this could mean no difference from using the commercial banks which are prone to domancy of account over long time inactivities.

Every 100years? Many people won't make it that long, there is nothing that can prevent losing some Bitcoin because many people are not ready to share their private keys with others, when death comes unexpectedly,  no one will know that they have some Bitcoin somewhere safe, now the Bitcoin will be lost forever.

I will also like to correct you that a Bitcoin wallet that's inactive for years is none of your business, it does not meant the owner is dead, some people want to keep their Bitcoin for a very long period, and furthermore inactivity doesn't mean the Bitcoin is lost or something.

I think that this topic has been discussed some time ago. You can search that thread to find the answer. But I personally do not agree with the redistribution of lost coins, because logically do you want your hard-earned assets to be redistributed to others just because you died or for whatever reason? especially with the redistribution of these coins will reduce the value of Bitcoin itself, because it will disrupt the economy of Bitcoin. So it's best to just leave the coins there and not need to be discussed further.

What a great suggestion, but not really, I always thought lost coins was also already thought out in the scheme of supple design.

So instead of a figure that's estimated in lost coins, we'll just constantly revive dormant coins? Apart from the very poor distribution method of next block riches (what's wrong with a democratised resupply?)... Suppose I want to leave an inheritance for 3 or 4 generations after me (I won't have genetic descendants but that's okay, let's call them spiritual descendants), or deliberately want to burn coins, should all my effort be removed after an arbitrary century? Or a nation's 100-year development plan. Do they really have to move coins out just to avoid that?

I think that is a horrendous idea. Without a clear definition of the coin that is being lost and a proven method of counting lost coins, coin recirculation would be prone to a bigger problem.

Besides, for the sake of keeping the roughly 21 million bitcoins intact, I think that is a lame reason that has no urgency. There are intended coins burned by OP_RETURN. So that won't happen. If we truly want to address the legitimate users who forgot, missing, corrupt private keys, or has any other genuine cause. That might be the sensible motive. But still, it is a tricky one dues to the nature of how bitcoin essentially works.

Signed messages. Take a look at Digital Signatures (https://learnmeabitcoin.com/beginners/digital_signatures) for further information.

I think this is part of the design of Satoshi, same as bitcoin transaction is irreversible, so why change it?


Yeah and in addition to that, he also says that:


So that's it, everyone will be richer if someone lost his access to his BTC. So no need to put it back and be mined again.

There will be absolute chaos in around 86 years.

Assuming early coins are truly lost, then even with a very conservative estimate of the bitcoin price being $100,000 in 86 years, each block will be able to claim 50 BTC in unmoved coins from the first several dozen thousand blocks. With blocks currently netting around $200,000 in total block reward, a reward of $5 million per block will be more than enough for every miner on the network to constantly attempt to reorg the chain many blocks deep for their own benefit. The same thing would happen every time a large enough cache of coins became eligible to be reclaimed.

Those characters who came to the conclusion a few years ago that 3-4 million BTC was lost using the methodology "not moved x years = lost" should apologize publicly for creating such confusion that obviously has nothing to do with reality.

In addition to what Satoshi mined, and those few characters who lost a few thousand BTC on thrown/locked hard drives, and those who deliberately burn some BTC, I think that maybe less than 10% of max supply is currently lost.

However, as I read in some posts before, in the future it will be possible to "save" some of these coins, and then we will really know if they were really lost or just stored safely.

The 100 years can be changed to 200, 500 years, the time does not really matter.
I was thinking for the coins to be "free" to mine as a simple and elegant method of putting the bitcoins back into circulation; but if that's unfair to the bitcoin holders we can find another redistribution method.

True, lost coins are like a wallet or jewelry lost in the ocean. But, fiat can always print more and gold can be mined or found in set ocean. Bitcoins on the other hand, can be thoroughly lost forever.
Again, this is an approximation, but 4 million lost coins out of 21 million. That's like 20% of the total gold/fiat supply just vanishing forever.
But yes, this is not really the biggest problem for Bitcoin right now and a consensus change against Satoshi's view will never happen anyway.

This is same to not your keys not your coins logic. Lost Bitcoin or not, We shouldn’t decide on other coins fate if we don’t have rivate key. We can consider it as a treasure waiting to be discovered because not all lost coin is due to lost of private keys. Some of them is just owner died without transferring ownership to his/her heir.

Redistribution coins like this will lost the purpose of power holding or something since we are redistributing coins that is not moving without any verification that it’s really lost and unrecoverable. Best scenario here is a family passing Bitcoin from one genration to other generation.

Who will be alive after 100 years, if we assume that you are currently 7 years old, then most likely she will not be able to know much at that age. This is the problem of future generations, not ours.
one bitcoin can be divided into smaller categories, so we practically have more than 21 million pieces.
we have about ~ 2.1e+15 Sat
If your proposal does not get consensus, which it assumes, you can do a hard fork, where you can modify whatever you want in the code.

Although you have approached it in a nice way but I don't think it will be helpful because you are considering 100 years of inactivity and we have that much time left approximately for the total coins to be mined so it won't help much.Then if people can't handle their coins other should benefit from it in Satoshi words like making the other coins more valuable due to scarcity.The process will continue and need whole concesnus to make any changes in the code.There are many dormant addresses which haven't moved any coins but still have access to their wallets so this also don't work for them.The rest we are uncertain about future and what changes btc can see in upcoming time.

Nobody knows for sure how much BTC was lost. Some were 'burned', yes, and maybe some were accidentally sent to wrong addresses. But many coins which are presumed lost actually just haven't been moved for some time (5+ years), but it's possible that the owners still have access to them.
The 100-year-plan doesn't really matter to any of us because we won't live long enough to see it. At the same time, the amount of BTC is capped at 21 million, and changing that would require significant changes in the code, I think, which will probably be met with resistance.
There's really no need for that anyway, considering that there's a satoshi denomination that can be used in case BTC gets so widely adopted that people would only normally own small fractions of it.

OP, didn't I see this exact topic a couple months back. Did you just repost a thread you (or someone else) had already created earlier this year?

Anyway, this is a terrible idea, as I said in the original thread earlier this year.

There is no problem with gradually having fewer Bitcoin, especially since these days there are likely very few bitcoin being lost as it mostly happened in the early days due to people not caring to back up their keys since it wasn't worth much money anyway, and also just lack of established best practices in storing keys.

And there is no reason someone should have to move their Bitcoin if they don't want to. Like what would even be the point of this? Say a family is storing generational wealth in Bitcoin, in various wallets, and they slowly spend it over generations, and they have no reason to touch some of these wallets for generations, then suddenly their bitcoin is redistributed after 100 years?! There is literally no upside to this idea, only a potential downside, so I don't see why you would even come up with this idea.

Not to mention the fact that it would require a protocol change, for this idea that has a down side with no upside.


Yes I was going to say this. The idea that like 4 million bitcoin are lost is clearly not true. From what I've always seen the calculation involves, as you say Lucius, assuming any bitcoin that hasn't moved in something like 10+ years is lost. But this is obviously not the case, as every few weeks someone moves some Bitcoin from 2010/2011/2012. Heck, Tim Draper bought something like 27000 bitcoin back in 2014 from the US Govt, and presumably hasn't moved it since, so according to this standard calculation all his bitcoin will be "lost" in a couple years lol. The number of lost bitcoin can of course never be known, but it is likely not much above 2 million. I think 10% of all bitcoin that will ever be created, being already lost, is probably a good estimate. We've got roughly 1 million from Satoshi that is presumably lost, and probably 1+ million from everyone else.

Mate, this is too hash proposal.
Bitcoin represents liberty and everyone is at liberty to use or never use their bitcoin.
Secondly, the scarcity model of the bitcoin makes it value more. I can say the value of the bitcoin you hold today will only appreciate if some is lost for ever and majority are holding.
Even if this is to work, how will manage to redistribute bitcoin not on the blockchain? The ones stored in CEXs for instance.

This speculation of 4 million lost BTC actually came from the fact that someone calculated it based on a time period of only 4 years if I remember correctly - and I also found a topic from that time (2017), although the source (article) does not exist.

Around 4 Million Bitcoins lost forever!! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2466779.0)


I'm pretty sure that Tim "spent" his BTC very quickly, because if I remember correctly, I read somewhere that he used those BTC for some kind of investment, although I can't remember exactly what it was about. Of course, this whole methodology of calculating lost BTC is full of holes and makes no sense, people realized that already 6-7 years ago.

I think your idea is a lot more simpler if implemented than it looks. Certainly, it would make more sense to redistribute the lost wealth, but hope those who have control and power to regulate such ideal is intact, because, lost coins may be syphoned for personal projects and even if you had not mentioned it, am sure the coins would have been dumped into the mining pool after having not been claimed got over a hundred years and counting.

Such kinda loss would have been anticipated because if I care of about my wallet coins, someone else may be too caught up in a regular job to care as much as I do. The stress of work could even make some forget the seed phrases of their wallets or other login addresses, most especially if the said person I not as reliant on crypto and as aware as we are.

Well, for starters, this problem has not yet arisen, because bitcoi is still mining. It's a little early to sound the alarm that btc won't be enough for everyone.

The next point is that addresses, wallets and private keys are conditionally lost. That is, in the future it may turn out that someone will be able to get access to these wallets (a quantum computer or new technologies). This will lead to confusion.

The addition of new coins for mining will devalue (at least partially) the bitcoins in circulation. This is somewhat similar to promotions, when a new portion is released in addition to the existing one.

In my opinion, there is no need to touch what has already been formed and change the rules at the last moment.

The only way to lose your BTC should remain as if you lose your keys or your seed phrase, not if you do not move it for a certain number of years, a censorship resistant and permissionless network cannot work with that kind of restriction or rule. There's no way to know if BTC's in an address is lost, so we should leave it at that, if people lose their keys the funds should remain lost, but if they are holding it for the long term, let them move it anytime they want.

The only way to 'prove' you have access to an address in the network is if you have the keys to sign tx from the address, and you should use the keys to prove ownership only when you decide to.

Bitcoin has 14 years, and if 4M coins already are lost that's close to 20% of the network. I can't imagine how many coins will be lost in 100 years... But what I can say, is, if you bring all those coins back to the market the Bitcion price would have a massive dump while the miners get rich. So, I don't think 100 years is a good period of time, I would say 25 or 50 years, would be better to do it.

And thinking about the technical side and the implementation, we have some options, we can do the coins move to a burning address or we can implement an expiration time to the transaction, and when the timer hit zero then block those coins and re-add them to the miners block reward.

Hmm, You are really kind haha bro demand and supply if the demand is more and supply is short falling it will directly increase its valuation. I could be feeling bad for the BTC (Lost Bitcoins) if we were able to transfer only 1 BTC at a time. We all know the the strong Granularity of Bitcoin so nothing to worry.


Hmm, Decent ideology but who is gonna live 100 years are you are gonna live that much time in this minor world.


Paper currency was the past digital is present and Bitcoin is the future but a time will come when Bitcoin is gonna be Present and Future will be X.

This should not make you sad because it means that the coins you hold become more valuable. The fewer coins on the market, the more valuable they are.


Who says 4 million coins are lost? Who can even say for sure?


Do you really care what will happen in 1000 years? Will humanity exist in 1000 years?


I still don't see where the problem is? Would it really be a problem if 1 BTC was worth, say, a million dollars? Or more. After all, each bitcoin can be divided into 100,000,000 satoshis. So, if a bitcoin becomes too valuable, there's no need for anyone to handle or transact with the entire bitcoin unit.

This is a perfectly reasonable idea, because there are fewer and fewer bitcoins. But it is possible that in a hundred years bitcoin will become only a collectible coin, and by that time many other fast coins will appear. But we will remember Bitcoin, it will forever be digital gold.

So how can your idea come to life?
If Bitcoins have not been involved in transactions for 100 years, then we will no longer get them from lost wallets, maybe only through some fork. But these will not be the real original bitcoins.
Therefore, the technical side of this case is hardly feasible, although the decision is definitely reasonable and fair.

I don’t think lost (idle) coins should be redistributed, no. Once you start doing that, the floodgates to all types of BS open. Bitcoin has a hard cap of 21,000,000 which is one of the features making it so unique. Who decides when coins get redistributed, what if coins not moved for the suggested 100 years are a family heirloom, that’s only 2 or 3 generations of HODLING & you want to take their coins away? It’s a terrible idea & hopefully it never gets seriously considered. one bitcoin is divisible to many decimal places, we do not need to destroy bitcoin by redistributing coins or lifting the 21,000,000 supply EVER.

With all the stuff that are happening around the world it will be a miracle if our nephews will be able to live a normal life and you're worrying about bitcoin being used or not in 1,000 years? For all what we know bitcoin may be obsolete in 10 years, who knows, everything is possible. I believe in bitcoin but you are definitely worrying too much. It wasn't a problem for Satoshi, why should it be for you?

To be honest, the idea seems quite absurd to me. You're suggesting changing a rule that goes against the very essence of true decentralization, which is what made Bitcoin famous in the first place. I strongly believe that anyone who truly grasps the Bitcoin ecosystem would disagree with the original poster. It's well-known that lost Bitcoins are like gifts to all Bitcoin holders, as they are permanently removed from circulation. I highly encourage you to delve deeper into understanding Bitcoin before considering such an idea. There are numerous aspects and intricacies that need to be comprehended before entertaining such thoughts.

It would really be just removing the integrity and total decentralization of Bitcoin if this one has been applied or been happen. Despite on having that lost 3-4M coins in the overall circulation doesnt
mean that it would really be making a huge toll. We could just simply make out some adjustments and thinking that there's only 17-18M overall supply as of this moment or on the time that all bitcoins would be mind and what the heck on talking about 100 years? Do people would be minding out their possessions to be transferred on a particular year when our lifespan couldnt be able to reach out those years?  :D

Also, come to mind that supply wont really be that scarce, despite of having that huge demand then we do know that each coin would really be able to be fractioned out, which means
it could be distributed with satoshis and this is why i dont really see this to be a problem or not really that necessary. Redistribution? it would really be just stirring up the overall
trust and  confidence specially on those solid Bitcoin enthusiast and supporters.

High likely, he will change his approach once he understood the true nature of bitcoin.
Those lost coins are lost forever, there's no option of reviving them or transferring it to another address.
And that will also contribute to the increasing price of bitcoin in the market as it is lesser than what it should be.
With how many coins left in circulation because of such instances of losing, forgetting keys and all, every satoshi will matter to every holder.

I would say to not touch people's property whether they are lost or not.  I think the feature of Bitcoin at this moment is ok and there is no need to change it and put the "lost" Bitcoin back into circulation.  I really don't think there is a need for that.  

I do not know why people are so concerned about the lost Bitcoin and propose different methods and ideas to make these idle coins back to circulation when they really don't have anything to do with these coins.

The difficulty with this is that whilst what you propose is altruistic, there are people out there who will wait and pounce on any recycled Bitcoins.

Whether it be 100 years or seconds, some people are greedy and entitled and think that they should have all the nice 'shiny shiny'.

Also, who will be in charge of redistributing?  Are we going to put these Bitcoins through washers and mixers?  Won't they have lost significant value anyway?

Consider this as well:

Dodgy Dave on the Dark Web offers me a Wallet with (supposedly) 1.2 BTC and asks me for 0.12 BTC - Dodgy Dave explains that the Bitcoins have lost their value and he is therefore re-selling them at a marked-down price.

Now, Dodgy Dave could be in possession of 1.2 BTC or indeed zero Bitcoins and just be bluffing - in case of the latter he's now 0.12 BTC richer.

Look at the Wallet.dat thread - loads of Wallets on there, but how many of them really do have any BTC in them?  

Call me a sceptic, but a Wallet with 5000 BTC inside it can be mine if I crack the password... okay, BigJohn and Hashcat are real enough but is the amount of BTC stated real?  It's a 50/50 chance.

The TLDR basically is whilst your actions and thinking may be honest, there are loads of chancers out there who are anything but and they will wish to take as much 'shiny shiny' as they can.  These people care nothing for wealth or Crypto redistribution, they only look out for number one.

This sounds like bitcoins going unlimited, "renewing" bitcoins that are considered "obsolete" by being forcibly taken, don't you think?
We don't know the minds of people/bitcoin geeks/OGs even when they know they won't live long, especially if they don't have a choice of plan to pass down their bitcoins. I'm reminded of several unsolved privkeys puzzle challenges in digital images. Just assuming that the puzzle is indeed set to be more easily solved by the next few generations where the technology at that time might be more capable.

I don't think it's necessary. Bitcoin is perfectly divisible: you can buy satoshis, or even smaller units can be introduced if needed. Lost coins contribute to the value of the remaining ones. Bitcoin ownership shouldn't be questioned. What if the person is dead but his family finds his/her laptop years later and the coins have already been "freed"? Will that be fair?

Good idea, but I think it won't work. We can join hands to increase the price of bitcoin when it is really scarce, can not be mined more, then the price of bitcoin will be at a high level. Everyone should manage their bitcoin wallet keys well

This 100 years time frame pretty much makes your proposal useless. ;D
Nobody knows what will happen after 100 years. Wouldn't Bitcoin become totally obsolete and disappear after 100 years? Do you think that currencies will exist after 100 years? What if the heirs of the BTC owner don't know, that he had lost Bitcoins?
I guess that by "the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block" you mean that those lost Bitcoins will be burned(just like some shitcoins/shittokens back in the day) and new Bitcoins will be mined. You can't mine a Bitcoin, that has already been mined. ;D
Anyway, there's no need for such redistribution method.

In my optinion any redistribution scheme is a terrible idea. You were given a finite deflating amount of coins, trustless and decentralized. It's your responsibility to safely store your wallets / private keys. If you can't do that, you loose your coins. Simple as that. And others coins gain a little bit more value as the amount of active circulating coins decreases.

Why should anybody care how long UTXOs stay dormant and for what reasons. It's not your business. Bitcoin is a proposal and an offer different from traditional fiat and so far it's pretty well working within its technical bounds. My understanding is that you can't and shouldn't force UTXO holders to move their coins for whatever reason. It's not your business.

Debatable are schemes where coins are actively burned (proof of burn is worst) or sent to addresses which to utmost certainty don't have a matching private key known to mankind (still worse, too). IIRC things like CounterParty or similar burned a 4-figure amount of bitcoins.
While I don't find burning coins particularly charming, it's again not my business.

Or, as in the case of a certain guy from Newport in South Wales UK, you throw out an old computer with over a MILLION bitcoins in it...

What if I told you the decentralized, trustless aspect of Bitcoin doesnt necessarily negate the necessity for a collective responsibility?

Its true. Bitcoin, in its essence, encourages independence and self-regulation. However, imagine the potential for a more robust, resilient network if we cared more for each other. I'm not suggesting we distribute lost coins or even force the movement of dormant UTXOs, rather, can we not strive to create a safer space for everyone?

Burning coins, on the other hand, is a complex issue. It’s like sending a spacecraft into a black hole. Its gone, contributing nothing to the economy. Could this be a valid criticism? Yet, as you stated, its not really our business, is it?

At its core, the beauty of Bitcoin is its adaptability, pushing the boundaries of traditional financial systems. Let's hold on to that

Not the most accurate comparison because when you burn bitcoins you are actually decreasing the supply by effectively removing a part of the limited circulating supply. Obviously that is a contribution to the rest of bitcoin users as their bitcoins become a little more scarce and valuable.
In comparison there is no limit on the number of spacecrafts you can build. Destroying one means you can still build another. But you can never re-print those coins that were burnt.

to introduce code that can take coins without utxo key signing. even at 100year policy. can easily if implemented then change that mining policy to then be 50 years or 10 years or 10 days..

you might aswell kill bitcoin if you want to introduce any method to taking coins without utxo key signing permission

part of security is the inability to move coins without utxo key signing. lets not mess with that at all

Good because it's actually a bad idea. What would the purpose of POW and holding our own keys if there was a "legal" form of taking someone else's property away from them? Who decides which UTXOs are "lost"?

I believe the same kind of topic was also suggested by an individual called Craig Wright in one of his talks. No I didn't listen to his talk, I read it in the news or a blog, I don't remember. Haha.

Fun fact: BSV has already implemented this! It allows CSW and his buddies to freeze or seize any coins from any wallet at any time for any reason! Super fun! https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/

The fact that BSV has just recently hit an all time low against bitcoin of 0.1% of the bitcoin price should tell you all you need to know about what people think of this kind of "feature". ;)

Lost bitcoins due to lost private keys or the like can be likened to the lost gold of ancient civilizations. Large quantities of gold are always found buried in some ancient archaeological sites around the world.

So by comparison I can say that maybe one day in the future 100 years or so people will find some lost bitcoin wallets which will be worth millions of dollars at that time.

The lost gold that is found belongs to the state, but the lost bitcoin will belong to whom? I anticipate that there will be disagreement in the Bitcoin community with the answer to this question.

This topic was pulled up many times on this forum. I still don't think we can do anything to bring lost Bitcoins back and we probably shouldn't. Bitcoin will always be usable, regardless of those millions missing - they are even helping the price being higher by making the supply smaller. I don't know if you have taken into consideration that there are Bitcoin halvings which makes it harder to mine Bitcoin and as a byproduct, the price goes higher and the market cap is harder to be filled.

Anyway, you should not worry about Bitcoin coming to an end or something similar, it is very far away from today (maybe it wont ever even happen) and just enjoy it being regulated as it is right now. We shouldn't try to fix anything that isn't broken, it's the nature of Bitcoin and it is to be leaved how it is.

Super fun indeed! 8)

That's probably why we should be cynical of people who keep repeating this topic again and again. It's nothing personal against OP and I'm not accusing OP, but Craig Wright and his group of Flat-Earthers are always playing 4D chess, like asking something innocently in Reddit or Twitter from one account, then have their sockpuppets steer the discussion wherever they want and deceive absolute newbies.

Continuous cryptocurrency loss is something that really goes on, there are already lots of lost accounts, so it is possible that at some time nearly all BTC will be lost. The thing that matters in case of significant BTC loss is adoption level: if it happens at the time of wide BTC usage, it will bring "deflation", but if it happens at the current (or lower) level of adoption, then BTC will lose its value...

I think WE in modern societty have a very big problem with time itself, for us 100 years its like an  eternity, because in this era we experience so much changes in a very short ammount of time.

But in realty what its 100 years for a coin? or for gold? or fo hummanity in general? NOTHING.

So first 100 years its very ammount of time, second changing that you are changing a lot more things beyond our capacitie of seeing like a lot of people said in this thread before me.
Its a common question we all have because we know its a lot of BTC forgotten, but it is what it is, took that leverage in your favour.

When you heard some talking about 21 million BTC and for that ammount we have scarcity, you think you are a little more wise and you know in fact they are less, so being less the few we have worth more.

I don't think it's a good idea to assume they are lost. We should instead assume they are not lost no matter how long they stay unmoved. This is part of what keeps the Bitcoin system trustworthy.   Could even affect the potential use of Bitcoin for inheritance transfer via timelock. Imagine locking your coins for your grandchildren which you set to automatically unlock when they become adults, only for the coins to be stolen in the name of block reward.
There is already a more moral way the network can benefit from lost coins... Everyone else's coin increase in price due to reduced supply of coins that can be spent.

I would tend to agree with this statement because in the early days many miners would have simply lost their Bitcoin as they would not have had access to the facilities for spending them as we do now but do we have statistical evidence pointing towards the number of lost Bitcoins?

What you said is correct. To change the basic fundamentals Bitcoin was based on will be detrimental to the core principles it was founded upon.

What I would like to ask is if the OP really is a newbie or if he is a newly created account by an established member. If I had to choose I would go with the notion this is not his only account and the OP was looking for merits (but received none as of yet).

Just don't touch other people's Bitcoin regardless of the length of time it is being idle.  Anyone don't have the right to move someone's coins, it can be considered as theft since wedon't have permission to move them.  Not because we have the authority to modify the code, it is ok for us to do whatever we want and move others people Bitcoin because they are sitting on the address for so long?  That is immoral, IMO.

The action of touching other peoples Bitcoin is pointing to centralization so I don't think it is really wise to do that since Bitcoin as we all know is a decentralized blockchain,