The private key should be split into at least two parts.  In you example, 1/2 of the key on each metal plate, and of course stored in separate locations.

It would be cool to see a version of that chart multiplied by 10/average-block-interval.  If blocks were coming at a rate of one per 10 minutes, the current block size would be about 60% bigger, or about 200KB.

OP, I a sending you a pm with the method I use.  I still need to finished editing it before I publish it.  If you can follow it, it is airtight.

I would think so as well.  Maybe not provable, but highly unlikely that a private key exits.  I would think one could use a similar process to how vanity addresses are generated, except you wouldn't be starting with a private key.

1ThisAddressIsUnspendable46HsteKudy could be the address.  The "1ThisAddressIsUnspendable" part would be chosen first and the "46HsteKudy" would be a combination that makes the address a valid bitcoin address.  It should take, on average, about 4 billion attempts before a suitable ending would be found.

Or you could say we are adding about 1'000 CPUs per second.  That is the statistic I am going to use to try to blow peoples minds.

What do you think we are all hear doing?  We have created a currency - Bitcoin - that is devaluing other currencies, and almost every person on these forums hopes that will happen. This is a free market of ideas.  Are we stealing from holders of U.S. Dollars and every other fiat currency?  That would seem to be conclusion your logic leads to.  Nobody is going to want dollars anymore if our grandest bitcoin dreams come true.  Someone is going to left holding the bag.  So whatever you are accusing me of doing to you, you are most certainly doing the same thing to many others.

So again, do you think someone who is trying to design a better currency than ones currently in existence is a thief?  It almost sounds from the tone of your comment that you think you have a right to hold value in bitcoin.  I think you have a right to run whatever kind of software code you, including bitcoin, and a right to hold bitcoins, but the value is conferred by others, by their own free will.  Although perhaps you believe people should be forced into using bitcoin?  I would see that as a greater injustice than our current system.

Furthermore, I knew I should have titled my post 'lost coin uncertainty', and if you had read my idea carefully, you have seen that is exactly what I am describing.  Old is the sense of 'not moved for a long time', not old in the sense of 'when were they mined'.
As for the dates - I just made some up to illustrate my point.  Any timeframe the community could agree on would be fine.  The first date I picked, Jan 2011, had to do with how much the value has increased since then and hence the likely hood that a massive value of coins has been forgotten.  But that first date could be today, or next year.

I agree with this.  But if people have a tendency to imagine threats long before they are real (as we are doing here), and let such knowledge influence their behavior ahead of time.  As time goes on, this problem that we are discussing now will only grow in severity.  It's clear from reading this thread that most of the current participants in the bitcoin community vehemently against this concept.  But I can guarantee you this will change, as new bitcoiners start asking questions about the money supply.  Lost coins aside, I think we all know there is a chance that people will move to a new currency that has less early adopter advantage.  In fact, I perceive that to be the single biggest risk to the value of my bitcoin holdings.  The network effect and the security of the miners is what keeps people in BTC.  Most newcomers certainly don't like the idea that some early folks have tens of thousands of coins that they got "for free".  Of course they weren't free, and they took a risk, saw the future, etc., I am not disputing that, but psychology is just as important as truth in a money system. 

If anything, this proposal seeks to alleviate those concerns of potential newcomers by demonstrating that there is not nearly as much money in the hands of the early adopters as they might fear, and it attempts to do so without depriving anyone of any coins that they control.

Honestly, if I had once had 50,000 coins, and I lost control of 45,000, I would be quite happy to see this idea implemented.  By proving that those 45,000 coins were in fact gone, I would increase the value of my remaining 5,000 coins be more than if people were just left guessing about the 45,000.

Only when coins were *sent* from an address would that prove it was alive.  If significant amounts of coins were still being added to an address, that would suggest it was alive, and perhaps such variables could be included in the model.

John's idea is something I've had in mind as well.  The 10x increase is nothing though, we are already at 140,000x valuation increase from the penny days.

If you are using the current version of bitcoin, you can keep using it.  It wouldn't matter if 99% of people decided to use a different version, no one could or would steal your coins, no matter what changes the different version contained.

Now, if you are complaining because 99% of people decide they don't want your coins, and hence, they become almost worthless, well I'm *not* going to let that bother me.

Stealing is one thing, and it is foul; accusing people of stealing (or wanting to steal) just for valuing an asset differently than you might is another, and, also foul.

*edited because I forgot the word *not*

Do you all realize this idea would need a hard fork to implement?  Do realize that participation on a new fork is voluntary?  Do you therefore understand that no one can or will steal your bitcoins?  If you don't like a new fork (call it an alt-coin if you will), don't participate.

I am traveling from the USA and will be in Helsinki this coming weekend.  It would be great to meet some bitcoiners when I am there.  I've never been to Finland before, so I don't know where a good meeting place would be, but hopefully a local will read this and suggest a good location.  Maybe Localbitcoin founders will come?

Bitcoin's rule have changed and will change again.  The only question is, what kind of client do YOU run?  Yep, it doesn't even take a majority, it just takes two computers to fork.  Even considering mainstream bitcoin and the supermajority of users, there have been and will be hard forks.

I don't know why you think this would be a change to 'suit those in power'.  Do you think I am in power?  But a rule change to suit the majority or super majority or bitcoin users?  Of course!  This is open software.

And, where did you see that I was interested in targeting early adopters?  The dates I gave were hypothetical.  My only target is coins that have been lost forever.  How can you steal something that belongs to no one?


Several of you have asked this, or suggested that it is not my business. My answer is that the size of the money supply is everyones business.  There have been many threads on these forums that have touted bitcoins ability to survive deflation by pointing out that even just one coin would be sufficient to run the world economy thanks to the magic of moving the decimal place to the right.  Lets say in the future this is the case, that between the years 2140 and 2150, only one bitcoin in total is in active circulation.  It seems that the other 20,999,999 BTC have been lost.  Then all of a sudden, Satoshi's addresses become active, showing that the usable monetary base is 1,000,000x larger than people thought.


I think that people will always need to stay on the ball and keep up with the world if they want to preserve there wealth.  This includes knowing about laws, finance, wars, culture, technology, etc.  What if the cryptography gets broken?  Of course we can agree to add new encryption to bitcoin so that it remains usable, but what about the previously lost coins?  Will they just be open to plunder and reintroduced into the supply?  Or will the community make a decision to block all of the coins that have not migrated to the new crypto by a certain date?


I am very sympathetic to idea that this may do more harm than good at the moment.  And yes, it could still be done at any point in the future.  Bitcoin can die either because it is not managed at all, or because it is managed poorly.  Some people think Bitcoin should never be managed and just left alone.  I can certainly see the appeal in this.  Good for those folks that they can keep running bitcoind 8.5 forever and it will never change.

The rest of the community will adopt sensible innovations and management as they see fit.  Bitcoin is powerful not because it will never change, but because the ability to make changes rest in the hands of its users.

I wonder why he thinks things will never be priced in bitcoins.  If he was around in the late 1700's, he probably wouldn't have thought things would ever be priced in dollars either.  Maybe his reasoning is this "if it's not true already, it will never be so!"

In a sense this would force peoples hand to prove they were in control of their coins.  It would be an inconvenience, for myself included, but consider the 'newcomers' will 99.9% of the population.  If we make a reasonable concession to remove a large source of uncertainty about the bitcoin supply, it could actually benefit us early adopters more in the long run.

People could still have long term savings, but if those savings were older than month/day/year of the communities choosing, they would have to demonstrate they had control of that address.

I agree with you the more coins are lost, the higher bitcoin's value will be.  But currently there is no mechanism for knowing if coins have truly been lost or not unless they have been sent to the genesis block.  And I am not proposing a recurring process, but rather a one-time event that the community would agree to.  Of course it could happen again if in the future, if at any point the community reached consensus that it would be a good idea.

I think it could be helpful to remove some of the uncertainty around old coins, to see if they are truly lost or not.  This is an issue that is will never go away, and in fact will only grow more troubling as bitcoin grows in value.  My proposal is to pick a comfortably far off future date (maybe 1 year) and say that any coins on addresses that have been stagnant since some long-ago date (how about Jan. 1st, 2011?) would be removed from the money supply.

If you had coins on an old address, all you would need to do to protect your wealth would be to transfer them to a new address, or just send a single satoshi, before the future cut-off date.  This would be a one-time event that would require a hard fork and therefore a consensus of the community.

Every market thrives on information.  I would argue that large uncertainty about the amount of lost coins is hurting bitcoin adoption, especially its use as a store of value.  I think this proposal would help bitcoin adoption by providing a count of the number of controllable coins, and it would do so in a manner that would not unfairly penalize anyone. 

The 'safest' think one can do with their assets is to be diversified amongst as many different asset classes as is possible.  And the more diverse the asset classes, the better.  Crypto-currencies, as an entirely new asset class, should be part of every diversified portfolio.  The riskiest thing an investor could do is ignore future technologies and movements.  Investing is about the future.

Almost every article I read that touches on 'should I invest in bitcoin' comes to the same conclusion: bitcoin is just too risky for the average person to put money into.  That conclusion is just such a load of bullshit, and it comes from the people who purport to offer sound advice.  If it is risky, just put in a smaller percentage of your wealth.  How can any investment be 'dangerous' if you only invest 0.5% of your assets?  Many people invest in a larger percentage of their money into scratch tickets.

Here is my email exchange with Dwolla:

Hi,
I've found Dwolla to be an excellent and convenient system. I have primarily used it to get money to bitcoin exchanges. I am quite disheartened to hear that you will no longer be doing any business with bitcoin related companies. I strongly encourage you to change your position and continue to facilitate the movement of money over the internet.

I would at the least appreciate an explanation that doesn't leave everyone wondering what Dwolla's real motivation is. Why this change now?

Thanks, Me
*********************************************
*********************************************
Dwolla Support:

Thank you for your email and feedback, we value you as a Dwolla member in our network. The explanation we received states:
As Dwolla gears up for its next stage of growth and offerings, it’s essential that company resources remain focused on the deadlines, products, partnerships and users that will help grow the company, and that regulators have a firm understanding of our technology and its potential inside existing U.S. financial systems.

I hope you found this information helpful, and please let us know if you have any additional questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
Dwolla Support

I think this is going to hurt CampBX much more than it will Dwolla, and it for Bitcoin it is only a matter of wounded pride.  Now the only way to get money to them is by using postal mail via money orders or personal checks.  No wire transfers, no ACH.

I probably should cancel my Dwolla account out of protest, but I also may keep it for my own self interest, just in case Dwolla changes their mind.

My average revenue-generating Dwolla transaction was probably $1,500 - $2,000, so I can see the $0.25 fee not being worth it to them.  And forget about any interest, most of my transactions passed into and out of Dwolla within minutes.

I think Bitcoin will survive this affront to its dignity, but my arbitrage system is about to suffer a serious blow.

Update:  My couchsurfing host works for a well know computer security company.  I asked him if he knew about Bitcoin.  He said 'yes', but then he had lots of technical questions.  After a two hour explanation, he decided to buy some BTC, for which I happily accepted RUB.

Sill searching for a local establishment that accepts bitcoin, ideally for some food.

Thanks rusBruin.  Any idea where that cafe is?
I'm mostly here to do the latter.