Lost bitcoins - a bigger flaw than originally thought?

[luv2drnkbr]

(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)

So you'd say tough luck to them but to people irresponsible enough to lose their coins, zomg we need to reclaim them!  GTFO GMAA and don't touch my emergency savings account.  If only 1 bitcoin is left, you know what will happen, everybody will agree to add more decimal places, so nobody loses any value, but amounts small enough to be used can be used.  THAT's how loss of coins gets solved.  Ain't nobody gonna ever agree to add into the protocol a way for them to lose their own coins without their consent.  Fuck.. that... shit.

[1714667118]

1714667118

[1714667118]

1714667118

[DoomDumas]

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

Simple and real !  no need to care about lost coin !

Next Topic ...

[hardcore-fs]

Of course no one is thinking the obvious......

After 100 years the private keys for the old wallets will be broken anyway, just due to enhancements in crypto technology.
So ultimately the coins will re-enter the system.

[DannyHamilton]

Of course no one is thinking the obvious......

After 100 years the private keys for the old wallets will be broken anyway, just due to enhancements in crypto technology.
So ultimately the coins will re-enter the system.

No way to know that.  It is certainly a possibility, but it is just as possible that ECDSA, SHA-256, and RIPEMD-160 will remain completely secure for far more than 100 years.

[jubalix]

It is said that people can't think exponentially, but they also can't think asymptotically.

In 2013, John Doe I. may lose his 400 USD or 10 BTC wallet.
In 2014, John Doe II. may lose his 400 USD or 1 BTC wallet.
In 2015, John Doe III. may lose his 400 USD or 0.1 BTC wallet.

yep cannot into 1/x = y

[kingcrimson]

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.

the problem with that is... if someone then discovers 1 bitcoin somewhere, they'd become the richest person in the world.

[Mike Christ]

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.

the problem with that is... if someone then discovers 1 bitcoin somewhere, they'd become the richest person in the world.

There would be an Indiana Jones of Bitcoin

[beeblebrox]

(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)

So you'd say tough luck to them but to people irresponsible enough to lose their coins, zomg we need to reclaim them!  GTFO GMAA and don't touch my emergency savings account.  If only 1 bitcoin is left, you know what will happen, everybody will agree to add more decimal places, so nobody loses any value, but amounts small enough to be used can be used.  THAT's how loss of coins gets solved.  Ain't nobody gonna ever agree to add into the protocol a way for them to lose their own coins without their consent.  Fuck.. that... shit.

If you actually read and understood what I've written on this thread then you would know that I DON'T consider lost coins an issue.  In fact I even demonstrated this by calculating for you the number of coins remaining after 170 years of loss at 2%-- there's plenty left at this stage.  What you've quoted above I wrote in response to something else, not lost coins!

In response to what you've written: It would be very difficult to add more decimal places to the coins in the bitcoin network itself cause this requires a hard fork.  However to allow trading in sub-satoshi unit is trivial to do in other ways.  For example, a bitcoin bank could just staring minting electronic tokens or even real physical tokens (coins/notes) which they claim are backed by bitcoin-- eg: they print 1000 X milli-satoshi tokens every real bitcoin they have.  For course, they could even print 2000 x milli-satoshi tokens for every bitcoin they have and hope that not every one tries the redeem them at once (ie: they recreate fractional banking). 

(I'm expecting you people here to start trashing me at this point-- but the argument still stands and it is impossible to stop a such development if bitcoin heads in that direction. 
By-the-way: I not saying that you should do this or that it will happen, just that it can happen-- but I'm not hopeful that you'll understand the difference.  I've witnessed enough on these forum-boards to realise that it doesn't matter what you say, when people here read something that they don't like or can't comprehend, as a knee-jerk reaction they assume that you support it and must therefore by the part of some-great conspiracy to destroy bitcoin.)

[nwbitcoin]

Just a quick question of forum etiquette - if someone is writing total nonsense, is the tradition to let them get on with it, or do you point it out?

[Mjbmonetarymetals]

Could someone crunch the numbers  how many satoshi's each would every person on earth be able to have?

[greyhawk]

Could someone crunch the numbers  how many satoshi's each would every person on earth be able to have?

Before or after the war?

[DannyHamilton]

Could someone crunch the numbers  how many satoshi's each would every person on earth be able to have?

If we assume that all lost coins are eventually somehow recovered, all future coins have been mined, the population doesn't increase above the current level, and all coins are shared equally, that is some pretty simple and straight forward math (if you don't like those assumptions, what numbers would you prefer?).

Total Bitcoins:20999999.97690000 = 2,099,999,997,690,000 Satoshis
Total current world population = 7,070,409,764

2,099,999,997,690,000 divided by 7,070,409,764 = 297,012 Satoshi per person.

[nwbitcoin]

Could someone crunch the numbers  how many satoshi's each would every person on earth be able to have?

If we assume that all lost coins are eventually somehow recovered, all future coins have been mined, the population doesn't increase above the current level, and all coins are shared equally, that is some pretty simple and straight forward math (if you don't like those assumptions, what numbers would you prefer?).

Total Bitcoins:20999999.97690000 = 2,099,999,997,690,000 Satoshis
Total current world population = 7,070,409,764

2,099,999,997,690,000 divided by 7,070,409,764 = 297,012 Satoshi per person.

Nice figures, but it does highlight that many of the claims that keep the bitcoin potential alive are just theory.

For instance, I have about 4 wallets all ready to store my bitcoins in, but two of them have less than .05 btc in them.  I might forget the details of the wallet within the next few years, and not feel too guilty about it, because currently, its not worth more to me than the coins down the back of the sofa.

Most of the people on this forum are the sort of people who don't do things like that, and don't understand why someone would do something so irrational.  However, the majority of people are very irrational and this is why I brought up the question in the first place.

What would happen if there wasn't a limit on the number of coins created?

My gut feeling is that anyone reading this with more than a handful of bitcoins is going to get very angry as they see their potential pension pot disappear in a cloud of zeros and ones!

Any feedback?

[beeblebrox]

.......
What would happen if there wasn't a limit on the number of coins created?

My gut feeling is that anyone reading this with more than a handful of bitcoins is going to get very angry as they see their potential pension pot disappear in a cloud of zeros and ones!

Any feedback?

A constant coin creation rate can be expected to eventually reach an equilibrium of sorts with the rate of coin loss and thus a ready steady total amount of active (not-lost) coin.  I'm guessing you've already had an inkling along these lines.  (One can reasonably expect this to be the case as long as the mining rate wasn't ridiculously high causing hyperinflation and completely destroying bitcoin)

As for people getting angry for even mentioning, yep, I'd bet on it.

[beeblebrox]

.......
What would happen if there wasn't a limit on the number of coins created?

My gut feeling is that anyone reading this with more than a handful of bitcoins is going to get very angry as they see their potential pension pot disappear in a cloud of zeros and ones!

Any feedback?

A constant coin creation rate can be expected to eventually reach an equilibrium of sorts with the rate of coin loss and thus a ready steady total amount of active (not-lost) coin.  I'm guessing you've already had an inkling along these lines.  (One can reasonably expect this to be the case as long as the mining rate wasn't ridiculously high causing hyperinflation and completely destroying bitcoin)

This is assuming that bitcoin has reached saturation peneration of the population and that the popularity of bitcoin remains constant.  Also other factors such as population growth would effect it, but that's on larger time scales (years->decade) so quater to quater it would be quite steady.

[Mjbmonetarymetals]

Thanks for the calc.   At 297,012 Satoshi per person - what could I buy with 1 satoshi ?

[zebedee]

Yes, we are all doomed. Stick with fiat so you are safe.

Lol

[zebedee]

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)

Gee, how nice of you.  I'm sure the dude's spouse and heirs would be thrilled at the double whammy.

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.

The reason why I feel miners should be allowed to collect dead coin is two fold:
1) I believe the transaction fee model is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that you can trade bitcoin off-chain.  I've just been arguing this on a another thread-- no-one else seems to believe me though.  (This flaw will take a few decades from now to reveal itself and I'll be a very old man by then so in reality I don't really care about it.)

Even if you believe this (and I don't) then if you have a lot of "stash" and you're worried about network security - the obvious non-violent non-coercive non-stealing solution is to spend a bit of coin in a transaction to help fund miners.  Every day if need be.

And if you're not worried, then why should you pay for security you don't need?

You're imagining an issue where there isn't one.  This kind of answers your point below too.

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.

If you don't contribute to your own coin protection and lose it owing to lack of network security, who do you have to blame?  No-one but yourself.

There is no problem to see here.

[blablahblah]

.......
What would happen if there wasn't a limit on the number of coins created?

My gut feeling is that anyone reading this with more than a handful of bitcoins is going to get very angry as they see their potential pension pot disappear in a cloud of zeros and ones!

Any feedback?

A constant coin creation rate can be expected to eventually reach an equilibrium of sorts with the rate of coin loss and thus a ready steady total amount of active (not-lost) coin.  I'm guessing you've already had an inkling along these lines.  (One can reasonably expect this to be the case as long as the mining rate wasn't ridiculously high causing hyperinflation and completely destroying bitcoin)

As for people getting angry for even mentioning, yep, I'd bet on it.

Lol. If it's so important to compensate for estimated coin loss, why don't you make an alt-chain that implements it your way? Even if your alt-coin struggles at first, people will eventually start to feel the pain from all that unwanted deflation and they will come flocking to your idea.

[zebedee]

Could someone crunch the numbers  how many satoshi's each would every person on earth be able to have?

If we assume that all lost coins are eventually somehow recovered, all future coins have been mined, the population doesn't increase above the current level, and all coins are shared equally, that is some pretty simple and straight forward math (if you don't like those assumptions, what numbers would you prefer?).

Total Bitcoins:20999999.97690000 = 2,099,999,997,690,000 Satoshis
Total current world population = 7,070,409,764

2,099,999,997,690,000 divided by 7,070,409,764 = 297,012 Satoshi per person.

I think 20999999.97690000 includes the generation 50 in block 0 that aren't spendable (and there isn't consensus on whether to make them so; do it I say) so actually it's 50 less.  But I could be wrong.