Some sort of lost bitcoin recycling protocol could be implemented in the future to alleviate all of that. Something along the lines of requiring bitcoins to either be transferred at least once over some very extended amount of time (say 2 years), or the bitcoins will be flagged as lost and re-mined. In terms of usability, the client could simply tell the user the time remaining for the oldest bitcoin in their wallet to expire, informing them that they need to make a simple transfer of their coins by then to retain ownership of them.
Surely the client can just detect when an address may expire and transfer it to a new address automatically since the client doesn't even show what addresses contain what portion of the balance.
Yeah, I definitely don't have a philosophical problem with that idea. The trick is that it wouldn't work for encrypted wallets, because by definition, the client couldn't have it automatically send the coins out if he doesn't know the password. Furthermore, any automated transfer every so often might theoretically be a security hole that could be exploited.
The real problem is when users don't use their wallet for a long period of time and then one day open it expecting their bitcoins to still have value. I'm not sure you can demand that users use the client to maintain their wallet value.
Yeah, I agree with that sentiment, but I don't think that that expectation is necessarily a fundamental principle that can't be breached. The use of bitcoin is a choice, and its foundational principles are going to be based on what the majority will download as their client. I don't think it would be unreasonable proposition to the people who want to be a part of the system to agree to a protocol that simply maintains the currency's count in circulation. If someone loses their wallet.dat, or someone sends their bitcoins to a bad address, this wouldn't hurt them, as they've already lost their coins, but it would solve the problem that they are lost to everyone else forever. The only argument I can think of against it might be for someone who forgot their wallet password, and wanted it to stay within their right to brute force their password over a longer period of time than the transfer deadline (the example was two years). I'm not sure whether or not it would break these physical bitcoin concepts that are out there.
man, not that btc recycling again, you seem to have serious issues grasping a decentralized store of value economy.
After being born, educated and lived almost a whole life in a system like we have today, we try to desperately to put concepts and existent ideas into every new system that already works by it's rules only to avoid having to learn from scratch.
Educate yourself a little more
I'm just bringing it up as a consideration -- I'm not set on it or anything. I think you're making an unnecessary judgement on my grasp on the concept of decentralized stores of value, instead of simply making your point.
After being born, educated and lived almost a whole life in a system like we have today, we try to desperately to put concepts and existent ideas into every new system that already works by it's rules only to avoid having to learn from scratch.
Educate yourself a little more
Come on, do you really think I'm doing this? I'm very persuaded by anarcho-capitalist perspectives, which of course isn't anywhere near the majority perspective I've grown up around, so I don't think I'm very motivated to do what you're suggesting. Anyway, coming up with a reasonable way to maintain bitcoin's count in circulation could be argued as being contrary to any system any of us have grown up with, because, in contrast, our current governments do nothing of the sort.
