Lost bitcoins - a bigger flaw than originally thought?

[beeblebrox]

It seems that the point he was making is that if it is known by all users that any coins that aren't spent/moved within some official timeframe (say 2 years) will automatically be swept (or have a significant fee), then any rational actor will devise a coin storage plan that includes moving the coins on a regular basis (within 2 years).  Since any rational actor will move their coins regularly to avoid the penalty, any that are not moved can be considered lost.

So everyone will have coin storage plans that will automatically (we know people's memories can't be trusted) move the coins.

Here's the keyword: Automatically. The coins get moved automatically. So there's nothing there to sweep because -again- all the coins get moved automatically. There's no reason to sweep because there's nothing to sweep.

So the logical course of action is: Keep systems simple. Dont' sweep.

If you moved the coins autmatically then guess what---  you'd be paying a FEE.....  The whole point of having the sweep in the first place.  Why are the people so thick here..

[Blazr]

There was a thread on here a while ago, I hope somebody can find it because my Google-fu has failed me, where somebody tried to estimate the amount of lost coins.

He used the blockchain to make a list of addresses where the coins had not moved in 3 years, the entire thread was full of people posting in saying that they're address was on the list and the coins were not gone but were in cold storage.

Its too late to start changing the rules now, if something like this was in the protocol from the start it would be OK, but its not OK to introduce it now as there are plenty of people out there who have stacks of BTC in cold storage but don't actually use them and are saving them for 10-20 years down the line where they may be worth much more, how are they going to know that their BTC is going to expire if they don't dig up their garden and move the BTC on the paper wallet every 2 years.

[greyhawk]

It seems that the point he was making is that if it is known by all users that any coins that aren't spent/moved within some official timeframe (say 2 years) will automatically be swept (or have a significant fee), then any rational actor will devise a coin storage plan that includes moving the coins on a regular basis (within 2 years).  Since any rational actor will move their coins regularly to avoid the penalty, any that are not moved can be considered lost.

So everyone will have coin storage plans that will automatically (we know people's memories can't be trusted) move the coins.

Here's the keyword: Automatically. The coins get moved automatically. So there's nothing there to sweep because -again- all the coins get moved automatically. There's no reason to sweep because there's nothing to sweep.

So the logical course of action is: Keep systems simple. Dont' sweep.

If you moved the coins autmatically then guess what---  you'd be paying a FEE.....  The whole point of having the sweep in the first place.  Why are the people so thick here..

So you want property taxes? That'll go over well here.

[Blazr]

Ok, I made the mistake that I'm taking with normal people, not bitcoiners.  I'll try to give a little analogy just incase people here don't understand what Danny has just said.  If you see a mouse in your kitchen and you pick up your cat and rub its nose in the mouse's face and the mouse doesn't run away, then chances are that the mouse is dead.

You obviously haven't seen this then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_UYBcnmJ4

[proudhon]

Ok, If you allow the miners to sweep up the untouched coins then the ones that remain untouched are most likely lost (yes, before you mention it: I know that a very small percent of the time it maybe that they're not lost its just that the owner can't make any transaction-- say if the owner is imprisoned or in a coma, etc-- but this would be rare. To them I'd say it's just tough luck)

Wait, what?  Again, the issue is that you want to take coins from addresses that haven't had activity at all or for a very long time.  The question can be rephrased as, "How do you know that untouched coins are lost, and can thus be taken without depriving anyone of their digital property?".  Your answer is, "Take (sweep) the untouched coins...".  But if the question is about how we can know when we're justified in taking them, the answer can't just be, "well, take them!".  Do you see how you've failed to answer the question?

It seems that the point he was making is that if it is known by all users that any coins that aren't spent/moved within some official timeframe (say 2 years) will automatically be swept (or have a significant fee), then any rational actor will devise a coin storage plan that includes moving the coins on a regular basis (within 2 years).  Since any rational actor will move their coins regularly to avoid the penalty, any that are not moved can be considered lost.

Ok, so I will make a comment.  

Yes, this is exactly what I meant.  I'm glad there's atleast there is someone here who has 1/2 a brain, stick around Heaven knows that bitcoin needs you.

Ok, I made the mistake that I'm taking with normal people, not bitcoiners.  I'll try to give a little analogy just incase people here don't understand what Danny has just said.  If you see a mouse in your kitchen and you pick up your cat and rub its nose in the mouse's face and the mouse doesn't run away, then chances are that the mouse is dead.  Do you get it now?   In, general you can assume that people take actions try to avoid an obvious loss-- unless of course that person is a bitcoiner, because bitcoiners will flap there hands about and say that there is no loss coming it a government trick or or that neither sashotshi nor anyof the other bitcoin gods have told me there is a loss coming so I don't believe there is or .....

That might have been what you wanted to say, but it's not what you said.  Again, I see the motivation for imposing this kind of system, and my main criticism right now is that you can make your case without trying tackle the issue of whether coins are "lost" or not.  Essentially, you want to impose an additional fee - one for storage.

[nwbitcoin]

Ok, If you allow the miners to sweep up the untouched coins then the ones that remain untouched are most likely lost (yes, before you mention it: I know that a very small percent of the time it maybe that they're not lost its just that the owner can't make any transaction-- say if the owner is imprisoned or in a coma, etc-- but this would be rare. To them I'd say it's just tough luck)

Wait, what?  Again, the issue is that you want to take coins from addresses that haven't had activity at all or for a very long time.  The question can be rephrased as, "How do you know that untouched coins are lost, and can thus be taken without depriving anyone of their digital property?".  Your answer is, "Take (sweep) the untouched coins...".  But if the question is about how we can know when we're justified in taking them, the answer can't just be, "well, take them!".  Do you see how you've failed to answer the question?

It seems that the point he was making is that if it is known by all users that any coins that aren't spent/moved within some official timeframe (say 2 years) will automatically be swept (or have a significant fee), then any rational actor will devise a coin storage plan that includes moving the coins on a regular basis (within 2 years).  Since any rational actor will move their coins regularly to avoid the penalty, any that are not moved can be considered lost.

Ok, so I will make a comment.  

Yes, this is exactly what I meant.  I'm glad there's atleast there is someone here who has 1/2 a brain, stick around Heaven knows that bitcoin needs you.

Ok, I made the mistake that I'm taking with normal people, not bitcoiners.  I'll try to give a little analogy just incase people here don't understand what Danny has just said.  If you see a mouse in your kitchen and you pick up your cat and rub its nose in the mouse's face and the mouse doesn't run away, then chances are that the mouse is dead.  Do you get it now?   In, general you can assume that people take actions try to avoid an obvious loss-- unless of course that person is a bitcoiner, because bitcoiners will flap there hands about and say that there is no loss coming or that it is unfair that there is a loss coming or that neither sashotshi nor anyof the other bitcoin gods have told me there is a loss coming so I don't believe there is.

You just lost me any confidence I had in bitcoin.

If I have to jingle my money every few years or lose it, I am going to eventually lose it - because that is what happens to every other deal I have had in the past. Insurance deals where you get your money back if you claim within a timeframe, vouchers that have time limits on them just before I decide to use them - they all suck and bitcoin will join the club if it goes down this route.

In theory its a perfectly good idea, but in the real world that the rest of us live in, it fails big time.  

While I like the idea of the splitting the coin even further down, it does negate the limited bitcoin advantage.

I'm starting to think that the only part of bitcoin that is going to go mainstream is the core idea of the chainblock and elements of the mining.  If there is a way to invest in that, its time to start speculating!

[beeblebrox]

PLEASE NOTE : I'm not replying to any more questions relating to sweeping dead coins and my reasoning for it.

PLEASE-- get back on topic.  I'm sorry to the original poster for mentioning fees and diverting your topic.

bye,bye that's the last from me on this thread.

[franky1]

more hysterical postings about lost coins.

i truly feel this is more attempts at some 'robin hood' type of people tryng to create fud to then use as justification to steal other peoples long term investment.

the 2% loss per year is of small denominations of FIAT.

trust me people owning bars of gold or expensive artwork typically don't just lose it.

don't worry about other peoples coins just look after your own.

[Walter Rothbard]

Having used the search facility a bit, all the discussion on lost coins seems to be focused on its only a bit, and it will make the rest more valuable so its not an issue.  However, I think there is a problem with this thinking.

http://mises.org/money.asp

[Walter Rothbard]

At some point you could always change the client/protocol to allow 1 Satoshi to be broken up, e.g. into a trillion pieces.

You could also use one or more altcoins to make change.

[Walter Rothbard]

I have a feeling nobody is seeing the scale involved here.

It's not that you haven't explained it right.  It's that there's a lot of thinking on this aspect of money, in general, that you aren't aware of.

Please take a look at this book:
http://mises.org/money.asp

[blockbet.net]

It's tough to really lose your bitcoins. Even if your hard drive dies (and there is no backup), you have a pretty decent chance of recovering your wallet file, assuming that there are enough bitcoins to go through the trouble. If you somehow forget your password, it might be worth it to put years of brute force cracking into it if you think that might solve it. If a person dies, his family might try to recover the bitcoins from his hard drive if they know that they are there.

[DeathAndTaxes]

There is a far simpler reason why confiscating coins not used "soon enough" will never happen.  Users would have to agree to the theft.  That isn't going to happen.  Getting any breaking change to the protocol is tough.  Even non controversial changes take a lot of time, effort, testing, and lobbying.  Getting something like a "you use or your lose" policy implemented is essentially impossible.

This idea comes up like clockwork at least once a month but the end result is it doesn't matter how "good" this idea is it will never happen.

From a ethical standpoint changing the rules AFTER people have invested in bitcoin is simply dishonest.  It is a bait and switch.

If you feel so strongly that this is the deathblow to bitcoin the fork the project implement remining rules into the protocol and launch "eternalcoin" or whatever you want to call it.  If Bitcoin is truly flawed then in time the market will dump bitcoin in favor of eternalcoin.  Personally I have no problems with a coin which does this from the begining (or implements demurage like freicoin) but to change the rules after the fact is just plain theft.  Period.

[beckspace]

Personally I'd suggest a schedule where you can leave them untouched for a year or two, but then after that the miners can periodically take a percentage of the original amount so that it takes say 5-10years before they disappear completely.

Nelson Mandela was released from prison after 18 years.

How long would be enough? There is no answer, really.

And there is no need. Bitcoins are divisible.

[Fuzzy]

We only need 1 Satoshi to keep Bitcoin going, we can always add more decimal places and use new units, such as pricing things in μBTC.

Lost coins are not an issue at all.

+1

That's really all you need.

The 21,000,000 limit only serves the distribution model that gives higher rewards for earlier adopters. It's completely arbitrary in the face of infinite divisibility.

And again, any "involuntary loss" of coins will never be accepted by the network.

[Elwar]

We will reach the point where a small nation could potentially have an annual GDP of 10-100 BTC.

21 million will be plenty. Half of that will be plenty.

[Roger_Murdock]

"Lost bitcoins - an even more complete non-issue than concluded in the previous 21 million threads on this topic?"

[solomon]

It's a digital currency. The "limit" is a concept. You can nudge the decimal point along indefinitely.

If we only have 1 BTC left. That BTC represents the current ~ 21 mill 'limit', and can be divided infinitely.

[whitenight639]

2) The second reason is an argument from a sense of equity.  It's to do with the question of who should pay to maintain network security.  Take me for example, almost 2yrs ago now I bought approx. 2500 coin as an investment and have left it sit on the network accumulating dust.  I've never made any transactions since so haven't paid any fees to the miners-- however it is the miners that are protecting my coin.  Isn't it fairer if I was forced to contribute a bit to the cost of protecting my investment?  If miner's were allowed to collect dead coin then I'd be forced either to pay the miners by the fee incurred in making a transaction from one of my addresses to to another in order to revive my coin, or pay them direct by dead-coin loss.

You already paid the "storage" fee when you either mined them or the sender of them paid the transaction fee, those coins are recorded in the blockchain and as we are dealing with digital numbers there really isnt and "storage" costs, your record of 2500 bitcoins is somewhere nearer the begining of the blockchain, it has already been bought and paid for, if your feeling guilty for having so many then maybe run some mining rigs with your proceeds that do not take preference of higher fee paying transactions, or invest in an ethical bitcoin start-up. The fact is because you were an early adopter you benifited so you have helped me and us later adopters to be able to use bitcoin now, it is adopters now that have to download and sycronise the growing blockchain containing your transaction but this not an issue, its a part of the process.

So what I'm trying to say is that if the whole blockchain from every computer were to be halted and put in cold storage on a HDD or flash drive somewhere there really wouldnt be any fee for your wealth, the real world cost in electricity and data costs are due to the continuing use and transactions in Bitcoin, so the people using these processes are paying for it, its not immoral.

[FreeMoney]

If you feel so strongly that this is the deathblow to bitcoin the fork the project implement remining rules into the protocol and launch "eternalcoin" or whatever you want to call it.  If Bitcoin is truly flawed then in time the market will dump bitcoin in favor of eternalcoin.  Personally I have no problems with a coin which does this from the begining (or implements demurage like freicoin) but to change the rules after the fact is just plain theft.  Period.

For real. I think I'm going to use GMAA (go make an altcoin) as the new GTFO.