Is this idea to counter lost bitcoins possible?

[Rudd-O]

I just thought of something.

Bitcoin is really only the first step in protecting oneself from theft.  We can already see how this is too disturbing for statists not to react, sabotage or otherwise defame.

But there will come a day when someone invents a personal protection shield that prevents you from getting shot, stabbed, beaten or caged.

That'll be the day when statists will literally lose their shit.

inb4 personal shields needing to be proven that they aren't 'lost' by turning themselves off randomly, allowing them to be 'reclaimed'

Even better, they should ideally turn themselves off by remote control when a "government official" flips a switch.

Don't you see that, if we don't embed this capability in the protection shields, you won't be able to be made to voluntarily contribute your fair share?  Won't you think of the poor children!!?!?

[SimonL]

What I mean is that Bitcoin, as it stands now, is in heavy favour of those that possess Bitcoins. What you are essentially saying by "feeing up" "lost" coins, is you want to swing it the other way BACK towards those that don't have Bitcoins yet, you want to ease some supposed deflationary spiral that will work against those that don't hold Bitcoins.

Oh here we go again with the profit argument. Yeah lets just ignore this idea of stabilizing the money supply just because you ELITE BITCOIN HOLDERS with a crap load of coins can make a profit from it.

And your logic is completely flawed anyway, because people not holding coins are hardly going to give a shit about something which will happen 100 years from now. I do in fact hold bitcoins, and quite a few of them, so this move would not be in my best interest.

What I know is this, right now, my Bitcoins are MINE, not the networks, not Satoshi's or the developer's, not some government's, not the UN's, MINE.

No one is saying they aren't yours. You can easily keep them if you take the effort every 100 years to show the network that those coins are still active. I mean what is so blasphemous about this if it can help stabilize the money supply. Oh the horror...

It's not profit, it's financial principals. You just want a system that redistributes value, so that it benefits the economy, regardless of where the value comes from you think the system needs intervention in order to remain stable. Just like existing systems use credit to encourage economic growth, stealing the value from those that already use the currency. You're wanting to implement EXACTLY the same type of value redistribution system that exists in the financial world into the Bitcoin world. I am in the process of walking away from the old ways of managing money and here you are trying to create a revolving door so we all walk straight back into the good'ol days of moving value from those that hold coins to those that could help "stimulate the economy".

Don't like it? implement you're own, oh yeah that's right, you can't because you're here, using Bitcoin, with us. So much for your stance on how finance SHOULD be done in you're opinion, you're a hypocrite and incapable of even following through on your opinions. What's more you believe more strongly in sabotaging what Bitcoin is to further your own deluded notions of how free money works, rather than having the courage to step ahead of the pack, and pioneer a better monetary system in your own space and time.

[Rudd-O]

Hey, bitthief!

Here's the door: http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-s-superiority-to-bitcoin-t35.html

Don't let it hit your wallet on your way out!  :-)

[drakahn]

U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins declared:

Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country. We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.

[tinfoilhat]I wonder... [/tinfoilhat]

[Rudd-O]

U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins, on the subject of personal protection devices, declared:

Attempts to undermine the legitimate authority of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the peaceful stability of this country. We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.

I only changed 2 words.

It's like they wrote this as a perfect boilerplate, a fillable form that can be used to excuse practically any form of violence, transgression, suppression, aggression against any people who threatens their power.  This is the perfect example of generic doublespeak.

Wow.

[bitfreak!]

It's not profit, it's financial principals. You just want a system that redistributes value, so that it benefits the economy, regardless of where the value comes from you think the system needs intervention in order to remain stable. Just like existing systems use credit to encourage economic growth, stealing the value from those that already use the currency. You're wanting to implement EXACTLY the same type of value redistribution system that exists in the financial world into the Bitcoin world. I am in the process of walking away from the old ways of managing money and here you are trying to create a revolving door so we all walk straight back into the good'ol days of moving value from those that hold coins to those that could help "stimulate the economy".

Thank you for at least trying to present an economic analysis and not insults. However what you said here is completely illogical.

Lets try another comparison with gold.

Some times gold is lost. Some times gold is found. Apart from the gold being mined, the supply remains relatively stable, gold doesn't appear from thin air and it doesn't disappear into thin air. So far this is exactly like bitcoin, but it's missing one thing; the ability to find lost money.

The ability to bring lost bitcoins back into the system does not equate to anything you just described above. Now please examine what you just said once again.

It has nothing to do with value redistribution, and everything to do with recovering lost coins in order to maintain a stable money supply, which is aligned with the Austrian theory more than a system which can allow coins to disappear into thin air.

The only time it would be anything like you describe, is if we didn't give any chance for people to prove ownership of coins, and just redistributed them willy nilly regardless of if they seemed lost or not.

[Rudd-O]

This is what it looks like, when you demand that people prove that they own what is theirs:

http://cherylkicksass.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-safe-deposit-boxes-arent-safe-in.html

(Note how the above is exactly what bitthief wants.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/family-loses-lawsuit-gold-coins-belongs-to-uncle-sam_n_1862151.html

"Oops, sorry, those are ours.  You bought them, but they're ours because we say so.  Fuck you.  Haha."

[bitfreak!]

As long as you continue to present sensationalist out of proportion arguments I am not going to respond to you.

When you begin making rational and sensible arguments which have some grounding in reality I will pay attention.

You're not convincing anyone.

[SimonL]

It's not profit, it's financial principals. You just want a system that redistributes value, so that it benefits the economy, regardless of where the value comes from you think the system needs intervention in order to remain stable. Just like existing systems use credit to encourage economic growth, stealing the value from those that already use the currency. You're wanting to implement EXACTLY the same type of value redistribution system that exists in the financial world into the Bitcoin world. I am in the process of walking away from the old ways of managing money and here you are trying to create a revolving door so we all walk straight back into the good'ol days of moving value from those that hold coins to those that could help "stimulate the economy".

Thank you for at least trying to present an economic analysis and not insults. However what you said here is completely illogical.

Lets try another comparison with gold.

Some times gold is lost. Some times gold is found. Apart from the gold being mined, the supply remains relatively stable, gold doesn't appear from thin air and it doesn't disappear into thin air. So far this is exactly like bitcoin, but it's missing one thing; the ability to find lost money.

The ability to bring lost bitcoins back into the system does not equate to anything you just described above. Now please examine what you just said once again.

It has nothing to do with value redistribution, and everything to do with recovering lost coins in order to maintain a stable money supply, which is aligned with the Austrian theory more than a system which can allow coins to disappear into thin air.

The only time it would be anything like you describe, is if we didn't give any chance for people to prove ownership of coins, and just redistributed them willy nilly regardless of if they seemed lost or not.

I didn't read the entire thread since you're original reply, but it seems most of the people have done the talking for me. Because of that I'll keep it brief. Gold is a bad example since governments have tried to do EXACTLY what you are proposing to do to Bitcoin, seize wealth from those that have it sitting doing nothing so it can stimulate economic growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 .

It has everything to do with value distribution. You believe Bitcoin is headed for infinite deflation because no new coins will enter the system at some point. Minting new coins will only be given to miners so essentially new players are incentivised to enter the system down the track to get more free money, to the detriment of the people that already hold and use Bitcoins. You're doomsday prediction will not materialise, we have immense precision, something that can't be fundamentally done with gold in any case. Even with that said, the fact of the matter is, new money WILL enter the system in the form of those that have been longtime holders of coins. Their diligence in keeping those coins safe and their redistribution into the community will be rewarded in the form of a likely generous increase in value.

Your approach is, like I said previously, a deluded, ill-though-out solution to a non-existent problem.

My advice to you is this, stop drywashing your hands over a "problem" of hyperinflated importance in your own mind, crack open a cold beer/soda/poison of choice and revel in the fact that Bitcoin will be just fine.

[DannyHamilton]

. . . It has . . . everything to do with recovering lost coins in order to maintain a stable money supply, which is aligned with the Austrian theory more than a system which can allow coins to disappear into thin air . . .

I'm not convinced that Austrian theory demands the ability to recover lost currency, nor have I seen/heard anything that convinces me that it is a problem for the currency supply to shrink over time.

If it is a FACT that a shrinking money supply will eventually be a problem, then this WILL destroy bitcoin eventually.  However bitcoin is founded on and maintained under the presumption that a shrinking money supply is not a problem so long as the supply can be adequately divided into smaller pieces.  This is the great experiment.  Anyone who does not want to participate in this experiment will switch to an alternate currency that either has mechanisms in place to maintain a consistent money supply, or to increase the money supply over time.

To change this fact about bitcoin is to change what bitcoin is and represents.  Personally, until I see a convincing argument otherwise, I continue to believe that a shrinking money supply is not a problem with a sufficiently divisible currency and am looking forward to see how the experiment plays out.

Seeing as this is the premise that bitcoin is built on, you'll find that many bitcoin users will feel quite strongly that you not change things in the middle of their experiment.

[DoomDumas]

I know this topic has been discussed in depth before, but I can't be bothered rehashing any old thread or read through some long threads to find an answer to my question. First of all, many of you will think that lost bitcoins don't matter, and I partially agree; the divisibility of bitcoin makes it nearly impossible to have a number of bitcoins in circulation which is too small. But on the other hand it does pose a real threat to the stability and feasibility of bitcoin in the very long term. I mean we will eventually reach a point where there's just a ridiculously small amount of BTC in circulation and I think it's better to avoid that scenario if possible, if only to help alleviate the concerns of people who think this is a real problem.

The solution is quite simple, if an address holding bitcoins remains inactive for maybe 50 or 100 years or maybe even more, then the bitcoin becomes minable again, or some how put back into circulation. If you don't want to lose your bitcoins then simply transfer them before this time period elapses, that seems completely fair to me. I'm aware that this idea has been suggested before, but I never read enough to be sure about how feasible this idea is and what problems may prevent it from happening. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this system. It will ensure that all bitcoins eventually go back into circulation and that seems very healthy to me, rather than a constant decline in the number of bitcoins.

Keep in mind I know very little about the complex inner workings and technical details of bitcoin so keep your answers relatively simple.

There is no need for it.  Tx fees will cover for mining, or BTC could be used as Satoshi and there you Go !

[bitfreak!]

Gold is a bad example since governments have tried to do EXACTLY what you are proposing to do to Bitcoin, seize wealth from those that have it sitting doing nothing so it can stimulate economic growth

That is no where near "exactly" what I am proposing. That's forceful extraction of wealth against ones will. My system has a very simple way to avoid one having their coins taken, and the coins are re-mined through complex calculations like they are now, not just redistributed. In reality one can easily leave coins sitting unused for as long as they want, assuming they continue to re-activate the coins each time it's necessary. So once again your analysis is entirely flawed.

[drakahn]

Gold is a bad example since governments have tried to do EXACTLY what you are proposing to do to Bitcoin, seize wealth from those that have it sitting doing nothing so it can stimulate economic growth

That is no where near "exactly" what I am proposing. That's forceful extraction of wealth against ones will. My system has a very simple way to avoid one having their coins taken, and the coins are re-mined through complex calculations like they are now, not just redistributed. In reality one can easily leave coins sitting unused for as long as they want, assuming they continue to re-activate the coins each time it's necessary. So once again your analysis is entirely flawed.

This thread should have ended before it started, and even in the worst case scenario, should have ended when freicoin was mentioned... And yet you still won't take "LEAVE MY MONEY ALONE" as an answer...

[bitfreak!]

If it is a FACT that a shrinking money supply will eventually be a problem, then this WILL destroy bitcoin eventually.

I never said it would certainly destroy bitcoin, I said it's not economically healthy, any more than infinite inflation is economically healthy. Sure, you could theoretically have infinite inflation, the Government certainly seems to think so, and the value of the currency will simply continue to adjust according to the amount in circulation. But there are still problems with any system which inflates infinitely or deflates infinitely, especially over the very long term. My basic argument is based on the premise that a stable money supply is superior to anything which inflates or deflates infinitely. I'm not saying it's needed to avert some coming doomsday, but it is superior.

[bitfreak!]

Gold is a bad example since governments have tried to do EXACTLY what you are proposing to do to Bitcoin, seize wealth from those that have it sitting doing nothing so it can stimulate economic growth

That is no where near "exactly" what I am proposing. That's forceful extraction of wealth against ones will. My system has a very simple way to avoid one having their coins taken, and the coins are re-mined through complex calculations like they are now, not just redistributed. In reality one can easily leave coins sitting unused for as long as they want, assuming they continue to re-activate the coins each time it's necessary. So once again your analysis is entirely flawed.

This thread should have ended before it started, and even in the worst case scenario, should have ended when freicoin was mentioned... And yet you still won't take "LEAVE MY MONEY ALONE" as an answer...

Honestly if you don't want to hear this then don't read this thread or participate in it. No one is forcing you to. I see no reason why we should stop this discussion just because you want us to stop. It'll be over when it's over, and no sooner.

[drakahn]

Gold is a bad example since governments have tried to do EXACTLY what you are proposing to do to Bitcoin, seize wealth from those that have it sitting doing nothing so it can stimulate economic growth

That is no where near "exactly" what I am proposing. That's forceful extraction of wealth against ones will. My system has a very simple way to avoid one having their coins taken, and the coins are re-mined through complex calculations like they are now, not just redistributed. In reality one can easily leave coins sitting unused for as long as they want, assuming they continue to re-activate the coins each time it's necessary. So once again your analysis is entirely flawed.

This thread should have ended before it started, and even in the worst case scenario, should have ended when freicoin was mentioned... And yet you still won't take "LEAVE MY MONEY ALONE" as an answer...

Honestly if you don't want to hear this then don't read this thread or participate in it. No one is forcing you to. I see no reason why we should stop this discussion just because you want us to stop. It'll be over when it's over, and no sooner.

It is in my interest to argue against an idea that could make my bitcoins worthless

[DannyHamilton]

. . . I said it's not economically healthy . . . My basic argument is based on the premise that a stable money supply is superior . . .

This is clearly what you are stating.  I just haven't heard anything that convinces me it is true.

I'm saying that a deflating currency is economically healthy.  My basic argument is based on the premise that a deflating money supply is superior.

[bitfreak!]

It is in my interest to argue against an idea that could make my bitcoins worthless

Arguing against something is different to demanding we stop talking about it. And maintaining a stable money supply does not equate to making your bitcoins worthless.

I'm saying that a deflating currency is economically healthy.  My basic argument is based on the premise that a deflating money supply is superior.

So let me ask you this. Would you prefer if gold could just vanish into thin air? Price deflation is going to happen whether or not the money supply decreases. As I stated on the other thread, lost coins are going to play a very small role in price deflation compared to growth of the bitcoin economy. This is why the price of gold and silver increases regardless of the fact that gold and silver don't vanish into thin air, and why Austrian economists prefer them over currencies which can be infinitely inflated; because these limited resources are great at holding value and even increasing in value despite the fact that the supply isn't actually getting smaller.

Here's one reason I can think of why infinite deflation is not healthy, and I'm sure there are many more potential problems. Consider an example where at some point far in the future enough coins have been lost that we only have 100 left in active use. Now imagine a day where someone digs up an old private key out of a dusty old box in the attic of their new house, and that key gives them access to an address which holds 100 bitcoins, or even more. Imagine what that would do to the economy if that person now owned more wealth than the entire economy combined. This is just one simple reason why it's inherently unhealthy.

[DannyHamilton]

So let me ask you this. Would you prefer if gold could just vanish into thin air?

Yes, and while it is extremely unlikely, it is possible. I suspect many bitcoin users would agree that they would prefer that, otherwise why choose to use a currency that was designed to do exactly that?

. . . This is why the price of gold and silver increases regardless of the fact that gold and silver don't vanish into thin air, and why Austrian economists prefer them over currencies which can be infinitely inflated; because these limited resources are great at holding value despite the fact that the supply isn't actually getting smaller . . .

And how do Austrian economists feel about currencies that can be infinitely deflated?

Here's one reason I can think of why infinite deflation is not healthy, and I'm sure there are many more. Consider an example where at some point far in the future enough coins have been lost that we only have 100 left in active use. Now imagine a day where someone digs up an old private key out of a dusty old box in the attic of their new house, and that key gives them access to an address which hold 100 bitcoins, or even more. Imagine what that would do to the economy if that person now owned more wealth than the entire economy combined. This is why it's inherently unhealthy.

I don't see anything inherently unhealthy about this scenario.  Note that you are contradicting yourself a bit here.  Either the 100 BTC associated with that dusty address were not "lost", since they were recoverable in which case they should have been considered part of the currency supply, or they were lost and then were "re-mined" by the person who dusted off the private keys, which is an ability you are saying is "superior".

Imagine a scenario where gold has been lost into the deepest part of the ocean over time until there is only 100 kilograms of gold left in active use in the world.  Now imagine someone opens an old dusty trunk in the attic and finds 100 kg of gold.  Same thing.

[justusranvier]

Note that you are contradicting yourself a bit here.

At this point do you really think that the contradictions, appeals to authority, and other assorted logical fallacies are unintentional?