Is this idea to counter lost bitcoins possible?

[Photon939]

You've got a lot more stamina then I had on this subject when I proposed the identical idea several months ago.

People here don't want to hear it.

Regardless of their reasons (rational or irrational) I was merely looking at it from a code elegance standpoint. So many subsets of Bitcoin self-regulate  and work beautifully without developer intervention - with the exception of lost coins. I too think it would be better if the system were completely self-regulating but there are some technical problems that shoot some holes in the proposition (like sending coins to an address to mark it active could be abused by people sending a few satoshis to all old adresses and preventing them from expiring)

After receiving several nasty replies similar to those I've read in this thread, I dropped the subject.

[bitfreak!]

You've got a lot more stamina then I had on this subject when I proposed the identical idea several months ago.

lol, that's good to know. I must have thick skin.

Regardless of their reasons (rational or irrational) I was merely looking at it from a code elegance standpoint. So many subsets of Bitcoin self-regulate  and work beautifully without developer intervention - with the exception of lost coins.

Yes I agree, the self-regulation that coin re-mining would result in is also another great advantage. But mostly I think it's an economic principle which needs to be addressed. As I mentioned on the last page, a system where lost coins can be reintroduced into the system is in fact closer to gold and more aligned with the Austrian mind set.

I too think it would be better if the system were completely self-regulating but there are some technical problems that shoot some holes in the proposition (like sending coins to an address to mark it active could be abused by people sending a few satoshis to all old adresses and preventing them from expiring)

Well as I already mentioned a few pages ago, this problem could easily be remedied by having it so that removing some coins from an address would be the only way to prevent it from expiring and prove active ownership.

[TalkingAntColony]

bitfreak,

You replied that an economy running on 1 BTC is not "healthy or sound in the long term." Why? How is that any different from an economy running on 21 million BTC?

[MoonShadow]

Bitcoin is based upon Austrian Economic Theory, and there is no more 'sound' basis for a currency.  If you want to start a perpetually inflating version, go right ahead, but it's already been done several times, and every time it has faded away in mere months.  Bitcoin was designed to mimic gold, and it does this very well.

Clearly you haven't understood much of what I've said in this thread. I'm not talking about anything related to infinite inflation. Let me repost some things I've said in this thread and the other thread about a design contract so that you can see what I'm describing is CLOSER to gold and MORE aligned with the Austrian mind set.

Well, I took your sarcasm as an argument, and you ignored my prior point that re-introduction of lost coin sets was unnecessary.  As with gold lost to the sea, future advancements in crypto and hardware will once again make those lost coin sets accessible as salvage.  Bitcoin already has the code set up so that crypto algos are modular, and new ones can be introduced without harming the function of the running system.  This is expected, and was expected by Satoshi.  No cryptologist expects any algo to remain secure indefinately.

[bitfreak!]

There's a difference between making sure coins are recoverable, and hoping they will be recoverable due to weakening protection. That does not ensure that lost coins will be the main target and it does not ensure that all lost coins will in fact be recovered. They are completely different things.

[Photon939]

Requiring the removal of coins to "refresh" a wallet makes the use of paper and offline wallets far more annoying though. It's easy to send 0.1 BTC to a cold storage wallet to keep it fresh vs bringing the privkeys online to spend, so I do agree with some of the others' sentiment on this issue.

Maybe a viable solution would be that to "refresh" an address, you would need to send funds to it from the address that originally registered the offline address in the blockchain. This is still far from ideal though.

[edd]

The problem I've always had with this proposal is that it doesn't specifically target "lost" coins. It targets unmoved coins. Period.

Why should I (or my heirs) have to choose between moving coins or forfeiting them? Is this really the only way to combat this? It seems very inelegant to me.

[Photon939]

The problem I've always had with this proposal is that it doesn't specifically target "lost" coins. It targets unmoved coins. Period.

Why should I (or my heirs) have to choose between moving coins or forfeiting them? Is this really the only way to combat this? It seems very inelegant to me.

Therin lies the problem. How do you detect the difference between unmoved and lost coins?

[MoonShadow]

There's a difference between making sure coins are recoverable, and hoping they will be recoverable due to weakening protection. That does not ensure that lost coins will be the main target and it does not ensure that all lost coins will in fact be recovered. They are completely different things.

There is no need to be certain, either.  Lost coins do not pose a threat, even if they are never recovered.  However, introducing a method that permits the re-introduction of lost coins does potentially introduce a flaw; that may or may not be exploited to counterfit or steal bitcoins via the blockchain itself.  The very possibility that this could happen is reason enough to not pursue this path, since the problem that you are trying to fix certainly won't be a problem within the next 100 years, and may not be a problem at all.  Bitcoin is not broken.  It's an elegant and highly interconnected system.  No one is going to consider tampering with it because you and a few others see the potential for a systemic problem decades in the future.  You are not the first to bring this up.  Hell, even I brought up demurage some years ago, but there is no way to fix these minor issues without possibly introducing much bigger problems.  Even if lost coins are never recovered, an unlikley scenario in the long term, the market will adjust.  It's simply not a critical issue.

[MoonShadow]

The problem I've always had with this proposal is that it doesn't specifically target "lost" coins. It targets unmoved coins. Period.

Why should I (or my heirs) have to choose between moving coins or forfeiting them? Is this really the only way to combat this? It seems very inelegant to me.

Therin lies the problem. How do you detect the difference between unmoved and lost coins?

You can't.  And in a future wherein Bitcoin is hugely successful, and forms the 'backing' for more local currencies or other cryptocurrencies, it can be expected that there will be entire sets of bitcoins that don't move for decades or longer in exactly the same way that the gold in major reserve vaults have changed ownership without changing their physical location for decades.

[bitfreak!]

Why should I (or my heirs) have to choose between moving coins or forfeiting them? Is this really the only way to combat this? It seems very inelegant to me.

It's not quite as elegant as people might like it to be, but it's the only realistic and workable solution I can see to ensure lost coins are eventually recovered which has a remote chance of ever being adopted.

[MoonShadow]

Why should I (or my heirs) have to choose between moving coins or forfeiting them? Is this really the only way to combat this? It seems very inelegant to me.

It's not quite as elegant as people might like to be, but it's the only realistic and workable solution I can see to ensure lost coins are eventually recovered which has a remote chance of ever being adopted.

It doesn't have a remote chance of ever being adopted, either.

[Rudd-O]

Have you noticed, guys, how the assertion "Lost coins will cause an unhealthy economy" just keeps being repeated like a mantra, but absolutely no rational justification has been proposed to substantiate it by the idiots repeating that mantra?

Surely you have.

Have you detected how no answer is provided to the question "So how do you detect the difference between lost coins and parked coins?"  The statist doesn't answer -- he merely says "just steal what isn't yours, but don't worry, we'll make this theft 'fair'."

Their next "argument" will be as follows: the people who want to bake organized theft into Bitcoin (to steal people's coins, obviously) will accuse of "greed" people holding Bitcoins who don't want the protocol to change.

[bitfreak!]

Have you noticed, guys, how the assertion "Lost coins will cause an unhealthy economy" just keeps being repeated like a mantra, but absolutely no rational justification has been proposed to substantiate it by the idiots repeating that mantra?

I have presented plenty of rational justification for why infinite deflation is not healthy, you obviously just refuse to see it or comprehend it. Just like the inflation freaks refuse to acknowledge the problems with infinite inflation, you refuse to acknowledge the problems with infinite deflation. You are obviously taking this much too personally and letting your emotions drive your responses instead of actually considering what it being said here in a rational way you just go on about how we're trying to steal your coins.

Have you detected how no answer is provided to the question "So how do you detect the difference between lost coins and parked coins?"  The statist doesn't answer -- he merely says "just steal what isn't yours, but don't worry, we'll make this theft 'fair'."

I have answered extensively that the solution is to give an indication that the address is still active. This is one method to detect if the coins are lost, admittedly not a fool proof method, because some people may forget to reactivate their addresses every hundred years or something, but it clearly is the most fair solution anyone could offer and it in no way equates to stealing your coins, such an argument is sensationalist at best.

[edd]

Why should I (or my heirs) have to choose between moving coins or forfeiting them? Is this really the only way to combat this? It seems very inelegant to me.

It's not quite as elegant as people might like it to be, but it's the only realistic and workable solution I can see to ensure lost coins are eventually recovered which has a remote chance of ever being adopted.

Personally, its inelegance is what dissuades me from considering it a "realistic and workable solution."

It's as if my doctor said, "The only way to be certain you won't break your arm is to amputate it."

[drakahn]

Have you noticed, guys, how the assertion "Lost coins will cause an unhealthy economy" just keeps being repeated like a mantra, but absolutely no rational justification has been proposed to substantiate it by the idiots repeating that mantra?

I have presented plenty of rational justification for why infinite deflation is not healthy, you obviously just refuse to see it or comprehend it. Just like the inflation freaks refuse to acknowledge the problems with infinite deflation you refuse to acknowledge the problems with infinite deflation. You are obviously taking this much too personally and letting your emotions drive your responses instead of actually considering what it being said here in a rational way you just go on about how we're trying to steal your coins.

Have you detected how no answer is provided to the question "So how do you detect the difference between lost coins and parked coins?"  The statist doesn't answer -- he merely says "just steal what isn't yours, but don't worry, we'll make this theft 'fair'."

I have answered extensively that the solution is to give an indication that the address is still active. This is one method to detect if the coins are lost, admittdly not a fool proof method, because some people may forget to reactivate their addresses ever hundred years or something, but it clearly is the most fair solution anyone could offer and it in no way equates to stealing your coins, such an argument is sensationalist at best.

Okay, So say i have a 1000BTC gold bar that has a hidden privkey - why do i have to destroy it in order to save those coins? .... they are on that privkey to be safe in the first place, why does it matter that my gold bar and Bitcoin privkey have been stored in a safe for generations? how is it okay to 'reclaim' my coins?

So again, The answer to this overasked question is, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN WITH BITCOIN! Go make your own altcoin that has coin stealing included, If it really is better then people will use it

[bitfreak!]

how is it okay to 'reclaim' my coins?

It's obviously not ok to reclaim your coins, and all you have to do to prevent that is to prove the address is still active. Problem solved, your coins remain yours and the wont get re-mined for at least another 100 or more years. It's as simple as that. It's a small price to pay to secure a long term stable money supply which doesn't have the property of infinite deflation imo.

But I'm getting very tired of debating this topic as clearly you folks don't give a damn about the long term stability of the money supply, and you're no better than the folks who can't understand the damage caused by infinite inflation, you think infinite deflation is some how more reasonable. No, no it isn't. True Austrian economics is based on a finite stable money supply, not a dwindling one.

[Rudd-O]

People have tried to reason with you, and people have listened to you, and people have asked you to substantiate what you have to say.  And all you keep doing is repeating the same irrational scaremongering, never engaging people rationally, never substantiating your propositions.

I am tired of your shit.

The bottom line is: if you're so sure that Bitcoin will be a catastrophe "because infinite deflation", don't fucking use it.

And really, you need to let go of your self-importance.  We don't need to change Bitcoin just to assuage your fears.  We do not exist solely to serve you.  Bitcoin wasn't invented for you.  Bitcoin shouldn't change to be what you want it to be.

Bitcoin is the way it is.  Period.  You can either choose to partake in it as it is (in which case, good for you), found your own community (doing all the necessary work), or don't participate at all (in which case nobody will punish you).  There's three perfectly fucking good choices right there for you.  I'll tell you what's not an okay choice: it's not okay to pester, fearmonger, or terrorize us with lies, just so you can get your Ideal Bitcoin imposed on the rest of us.

You need to understand that.

And if you're not going to understand that, you are not a reasonable man.  If that's the case, GTFO already dude, nobody wants to hear your shit anymore.

[drakahn]

how is it okay to 'reclaim' my coins?

It's obviously not ok to reclaim your coins, and all you have to do to prevent that is to prove the address is still active. Problem solved, your coins remain yours and the wont get re-mined for at least another 100 or more years. It's as simple as that. It's a small price to pay to secure a long term stable money supply which doesn't have the property of infinite deflation imo.

But I'm getting very tired of debating this topic as clearly you folks don't give a damn about the long term stability of the money supply, and you're no better than the folks who can't understand the damage caused by infinite inflation, you think infinite deflation is some how more reasonable. No, no it isn't. True Austrian economics is based on a finite stable money supply, not a dwindling one.

I can't prove the address is active, I'm dead and the private key is sealed in a gold bar in a safe (perhaps in a bank), Sure whoever I left it to could break it open, but why should they have to? They are the owner of the gold bar now, why does its usefulness as a way to store bitcoins offline have to be made useless?

[bitfreak!]

After really thinking about this some more, and reading through that other thread about a bitcoin design contract, I've reached a conclusion on this. It seems to me that due to the ever-weakening cryptographic protection, there will eventually come a point where people are going to have to transfer their coins over into another address unless they want them to be stolen. This will also mean that all lost coins will eventually get stolen or recovered in some way. This will probably ensure that eventually lost coins will go back into circulation. Although it's not as absolute or repetitive as what I would like, it is probably going to happen at least once. Now this is where coin deletion comes in, some people are saying we should just delete those old coins to make them undependable if they aren't transferred to a new address within a certain time; this really illustrates just how fanatical these people are about infinite deflation.

However I can see the problem with letting all those coins come back into circulation so quickly, it will happen MUCH quicker than the system I propose here, which would have them re-mined at a rate close to the rate they are lost. The market would be flooded with lost bitcoins relatively quickly in a situation where the cryptography weakens to a point where coins become stealable, unless it only weakens to a point where it's still quite hard to steal them and they get reclaimed very slowly, but it's still likely to be much quicker than the system I propose here. However, simply deleting those coins to avert such a problem is absolutely absurd, and that would be much closer to the premise of actually stealing coins from people, since presumably they will have very little time to act before the coins are deleted.

Someone in that other threads puts it very nicely:

If and when ecdsa is cracked, everybody will hear about it.  And even if they don't-- making coins unspendable is WORSE than having them be stolen.  If they are unspendable, the legitimate account holder can never spend them.  If they are steal-able by cracked ecdsa, they may get stolen, but the account holder MAY ALSO SPEND THEM HIMSELF.  So in one scenario, the legit holder can NEVER spend them, and in the other, he MIGHT be able to.  MIGHT is clearly preferable to NEVER unless everybody universally agrees that spiting a thief is worth a lot of money.