PROPOSAL: Move all "lost bitcoins" threads to "Alternate cryptocurrencies"

[Peter Todd]

Rational: Any attempt to "recover" lost bitcoins that involves rules like coin expiration and similar mechanisms changes the economic basis and thus results in an alternate cryptocurrency. Also, the threads are really repetitive and annoying.

[1714471319]

1714471319

[1714471319]

1714471319

[gmaxwell]

Rational: Any attempt to "recover" lost bitcoins that involves rules like coin expiration and similar mechanisms changes the economic basis and thus results in an alternate cryptocurrency. Also, the threads are really repetitive and annoying.

I agree.

There should be a list of perpetual bad ideas that keep repeating, and posting about one without at least linking to the historical threads should get you banned and your bitcoin's confiscated. .... and now to discuss a feature to allow the confiscating of bitcoins …

[bitfreak!]

I don't see how discussing lost bitcoins relates to alt coins in anyway. We are talking about changing bitcoin in some way (development and tech discussion), not create a new currency. How about you stop crying like a child and don't read threads which don't interest you. Case closed.

[justusranvier]

Rational: Any attempt to "recover" lost bitcoins that involves rules like coin expiration and similar mechanisms changes the economic basis and thus results in an alternate cryptocurrency. Also, the threads are really repetitive and annoying.

I agree.

I interpret a statement like this coming from a Staff account as an invitation to use the "Report to moderator" function on mis-categorized threads.

[Pieter Wuille]

I don't see how discussing lost bitcoins relates to alt coins in anyway. We are talking about changing bitcoin in some way (development and tech discussion), not create a new currency.

But you are creating a new currency, as you propose rules that are incompatible with Bitcoin now. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea (and perhaps if it had been a proposal from the start, I might have been in favor of it), but it is changing one of the most fundamental rules that Bitcoin is based upon (you are in absolute control of your own coins) right now. Changing that is

• Extremely hard, as it requires consensus from almost everyone in the community, some of whom would consider this proposal as theft (I don't, but only if it had been a clear rule from the start).
• Very dangerous, as it risks a block chain split between old and new nodes.
• Hardly an improvement, as it doesn't change the distribution of coins, and the rate of lost coins is expected to drop as the economy around them grows.

EDIT: that said, I think this proposal is too harsh, as it's as such an interesting thing to discuss, and a bit unreasonable to expect every newcomer to read through the history of this forum. But once told, one should understand that people do get tired of seeing the same thing being proposed over and over again.

[bitfreak!]

Changing the bitcoin protocol through consensus is not creating a new currency. Bitcoin was designed in a way which allows us to change it if we think an important change needs to be made. It's not just this static thing which which can never be changed. Changing one small aspect of something does not turn it into something entirely separate from the original thing. Discussing ways to recover lost coins is not equal to discussing an alternative currency.

And I will address your other points in my other thread on lost coins because we don't need to turn this thread into a simultaneous discussion about the same thing.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Changing the bitcoin protocol through consensus is not creating a new currency. Bitcoin was designed in a way which allows us to change it if we think an important change needs to be made. It's not just this static thing which which can never be changed. Changing one small aspect of something does not turn it into something entirely separate from the original thing. Discussing ways to recover lost coins is not equal to discussing an alternative currency.

And I will address your other points in my other thread on lost coins because we don't need to turn this thread into a simultaneous discussion about the same thing.

Of course it does.  

Say you get 60% of people to agree the protocol should be changed.  Guess what? The old protocol (the one now known and forever known as Bitcoin) still exists.  You just created an alt-coin.  You may attempt to (falsely) market this "confiscation coin" as the "real Bitcoin" but it isn't.  The real Bitcoin protocol continues to exists.  

So hard forks which are incompatible at a fundamental level ARE alt-coins.  The reality is there will never be 100% consensus (as in every single coin holder, every merchants, every user, every developer, etc).  Outside of that impossible situation the forked version isn't Bitcoin.  

The Bitcoin protocol can be extended but even extensions require significant planning, and consensus building simply because the very act of a hard fork no matter how trivial is incredibly risky.  There is a fundamental difference between extending the protocol and invalidating existing rules/addresses/balances.  A hard fork which invalidates the ownership of existing users can't be considered anything other than an alternate.  It isn't Bitcoin.  It will never be Bitcoin.  It "could" someday surpass Bitcoin but it isn't Bitcoin.

[gmaxwell]

How about you stop crying like a child and don't read threads which don't interest you. Case closed.

You're obviously a student of the How To Win Friends and Influence People book.

Seriously— everyone remotely clueful who encounters Bitcoin goes through a similar thought process where they have all these IDEAS, some of these ideas are misguided, some are reasonable but a just not part of how Bitcoin exists.  And at least some people who are working on the system are tired of the same non-starer ideas coming up over and over again— the faces change but the ineffective arguments do not. And even when we ourselves had proposed some of them in the past by the fifteenth retelling they're getting _really_ boring.

The Bitcoin system does have some ability to be extended, but this ability takes the form of being able to make some kinds of currently valid transactions not valid in the future— and can be incrementally deployed because they don't break any rules from the perspective of old nodes. Ideas like you're describing require the opposite, which means that all the software must be replaced. This too isn't completely impossible but it basically requires a complete consensus, something that seems impossible when the first reaction of many people is "What you are proposing is theft!" and "The issue you are trying to address is a non-issue".  Willy nilly changes of that sort aren't realistic, and if one were somehow forced onto people it would rightfully undermine all confidence in Bitcoin.... perhaps the next forced rule violating chain will make the maximum supply of coins 100m instead of 21m?

[bitfreak!]

You're obviously a student of the How To Win Friends and Influence People book.

Obviously I'm not trying to make friends with the OP. Or you for that matter.

some are reasonable but a just not part of how Bitcoin exists.

You mean not part of how you want bitcoin to exist.

Ideas like you're describing require the opposite, which means that all the software must be replaced.

I'm putting an argument forward for why it should be done, if you don't want to agree that's fine. But some very interesting points have been discussed in that thread, from both sides. I fail to see why we should move our discussion some where else or stop talking about it. Honestly I fail to see the entire point of this thread except that it's just a couple of grumpy folks mumbling about how you're "bored" or sick and tired of hearing about a certain thing. Simply don't read it as I said. Case closed.

[bitfreak!]

You may attempt to (falsely) market this confiscation coin as "the real Bitcoin" but it isn't.  The real Bitcoin protocol exists. 

The "real bitcoin" will be the one with the majority consensus, that's exactly how bitcoin was designed to work, the majority decision rules. The real bitcoin is the one we all agree is the real bitcoin. Of course you could stick to the "original" or "old" or "outdated" protocol but it wouldn't be the most widely accepted version, and therefore hardly the real one.

[gmaxwell]

Obviously I'm not trying to make friends with the OP. Or you for that matter.

That doesn't preclude offering people a little human decency. Being a little less abrasive can go a long way to getting people to at least entertain your ideas for a bit before trying to show you the door.

You mean not part of how you want bitcoin to exist.

The system already exists. And you're describing things that violate the rules.  Your argument isn't with me, it's with the immutable autonomously validated rules that define the system.

I'm putting an argument forward for why it should be done

It's the umpteenth time we've had the same thread, and it's all the same suggests and same arguments. The repetition— especially when it so often comes from people who are enthusiastic abrasive— makes this forum an feel unwelcome for regular technical discussions which don't involve economic grandstanding or undermining the rules of the system.

The "real bitcoin" will be the one with the majority consensus, that's exactly how bitcoin was designed to work, the majority decision rules.

Bitcoin is very explicitly not a majority system. Majority systems have questionable trustworthiness— after all, the operation of governmental fiat in democracies is a majority mediated system, and these are considered at least somewhat untrustworthy by many people inside and outside of the Bitcoin community. Majorties fail to fads and expedience all too often. Bitcoin is designed to minimize trust.  The only thing a 'majority' is used for in Bitcoin is transaction ordering (a computational majority)— and only that because the laws of the universe seem to make anything better impossible. Excluding ordering, the rules of the system are enforced by every node anonymously— without trusting _anyone_ deterministically and with perfect security (assuming no more bugs remain), and Bitcoin nodes won't permit a violation even a super-super majority seems to be violating them.

real bitcoin is the one we all agree is the real bitcoin

"All" and "Majority" are different things.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote." (Marvin Simkin, LA times 1992).

Bitcoin provides for liberty in part because it minimizes majority rule and replaces it with a unbreakable software contract. Autonomously validated cryptographic proof creates rights which can't be violated by a majority.  The contract has some wiggle room, but not enough to allow you to take coins assigned to other people. The contract could be renegotiated, but for that you need something much closer to "All" than a simple majority, and to achieve that requires something which is clearly necessary and correct to basically everyone. Doubly so if you want to both successfully change it and have it still considered trustworthy after the change.

None of the changes made to Bitcoin during its existence have been hardforking ones.

[bitfreak!]

That doesn't preclude offering people a little human decency

I only responded to the OP of this thread in that manner because I found this proposal insulting, not to mention baseless and a direct response to the thread I started. So the OP didn't deserve my decency from the get go.

And you're describing things that violate the rules.

No... I'm describing a change in the rules. In fact it's more like an addition to the rules, something which wouldn't even take effect for like 100 or 150 years from now. We'd probably all be dead by then anyway.

and Bitcoin nodes won't permit a violation even a super-super majority seems to be violating them.

I don't see why you are describing an adjustment to the rules as a violation of the rules. It wont be a freaking violation if the protocol is adjusted to accept the change. And as far as I'm aware, those new protocols wont be accepted by the network unless the majority of nodes accept those new protocols.

The contract could be renegotiated, but for that you need something much closer to "All" than a simple majority

Fine... it's not like I'm saying "this must happen" or "it must happen now". It's just a simple discussion about a certain aspect of bitcoin, which I realized will be extremely difficult to implement and have it accepted, but neither is it impossible or some type of blasphemous act as you make it out to be. Lower your guns cowboy.

[gmaxwell]

No... I'm describing a change in the rules. In fact it's more like an addition to the rules,

I don't see why you are describing an adjustment to the rules as a violation of the rules. It wont be a freaking violation if the protocol is adjusted to accept the change.

Because not all changes are equal.

A new rule that says "No transaction will be permitted which starts with AAA" is compatible with a prior rule "No  transaction will be permitted that starts with AAAAB", because the new rule is a subset of the old one. This can be added incrementally, and enforced by a super-majority of mining participants (a strict majority is unsafe because it may make the network convergence time very long).    If instead the new and old were swapped there it would be a hardfork and all nodes would have to be replaced because it would result in transactions which violate the rules embodied in the software.

[I'm cutting carefully to refrain from getting pulled into explaining specifically why your idea is bad and won't fly, as I'm sure a dozen other people are currently wasting their time doing that in your thread]

And as far as I'm aware, those new protocols wont be accepted by the network unless the majority of nodes accept those new protocols.

I suspect I may have discovered the source of your difficulties with How to Win Friends and Influence People— you're not actually reading anything are you?  ... because I just explained above that the system enforces its rules autonomously, with no reference to a majority... it doesn't matter how many nodes think that it's fine for a block to take other people's coin or summon a million extra Bitcoin in existence... Your node will never believe it. The rules a node enforces are not set by a majority, a supermajority, or whatever. The rules are hardcoded and embody the system's unbreakable software contract.  You can replace the software on your own computers but that doesn't change anything in the behavior of other people's computers.

Fine... it's not like I'm saying "this must happen" or "it must happen now". It's just a simple discussion about a certain aspect of bitcoin, which I realized will be extremely difficult to implement and have it accepted, but neither is it impossible or some type of blasphemous act as you make it out to be. Lower your guns cowboy.

It's been discussed many times before. It is very unlikely this idea will gain significant traction for all the reasons you're no doubt being told in your thread. This kind of proposal would simply be a lot more interesting in the altcoin forum simply because it wouldn't have the scythe of never-going-to-happen hanging over its neck, wouldn't have the specter of people being afraid of the contract being broken biasing the arguments, and would have a receptive audience of people looking for novel technical and economic solutions. Even in existing altcoins there should be increased receptiveness to this kind of idea, simply because they need to do something to be interesting and worthwhile compared to Bitcoin, and people have far less invested in them. (Though even there, I'm not quite sure exactly how welcome it would be simply because it is repetitive).
 
In Bitcoin I'm doubtful that anything below "this must happen" can ever be a hardforking change... and I think that highly speculative 100 year out stuff doesn't really belong in the technical forum either.

[DeathAndTaxes]

No... I'm describing a change in the rules. In fact it's more like an addition to the rules, something which wouldn't even take effect for like 100 or 150 years from now. We'd probably all be dead by then anyway.

If Bitcoin can survive and even prosper for 100 to 150 years with the current set of "rules" what would make you think it needs changing?  If the "flaw" is fatal as you indicate it will likely result in the destruction of Bitcoin long before your implemented change would take effect.  I noticed initially it was 50 years, then 50 to 100 years, then 100 to 150 years.  The longer the time horizon the more dubious the change.  Lets say over the next 150 years 0.2% of the coins on a nominal basis are irrecoverably lost.  150 years from one the money supply would be ~0.74 million BTC.  If 200K BTC were lost in the first year it would be introducing >30% annual inflation to the system.   Lets also point out that the system will have "adapted" to the slow attrition of coins (which is meaningless as "money" is simply an accounting system).  The worst possible thing 150 years from now would be to suddenly dump a fortune of new coins into a system which has long since adapted over the decades to a slowly shrinking monetary base.

There is no validity to the claim that the money supply must remain perfectly fixed at 21 million BTC.  The goal of the fixed minting schedule is to ensure that inflation and deflation can't be MANIPULATED for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many (like fiat systems do).  Satoshi could have decided to have minting go on forever at 1 BTC per block.  The small amount of inflation that would occur many many many subsidy havings from now would be negligible and wouldn't be subject to manipulaiton.

Small rate of inflation ~= perfectly fixed money supply (completely unatainable even under your proposal) ~= small rate of deflation.   Inflation and deflation aren't a problem as long as they are low and without volatility.