What to do with lost bitcoins

[radamiel]

There is no way to. Just because they have not moved does not mean they are lost

True, Just Better We invested Only, Better to invest than not used. we can invest in ico or a lot of things you could do with the money

[MingLee]

We all know that there can be no more than 21M bitcoins. We also know that every day some bitcoins get lost forever. That means that they still exist on the blockchain, but no one can access them since the keys are lost. I don't think that this is a right thing. We should recover these coins somehow, and that issue could be addressed eventually. I suggest setting a grace period of, say, 10 years (or 50 years if 10 years is too little) after which all wallets that remain untouched during that time and not reclaimed by anyone, should be declared as public property. The transactions that credited these bitcoins to such a wallet should be cancelled (just like correcting entries are made in a real ledger), and the coins should be moved to a new wallet, for example, to finance scientific research...

In this way, we will always have 21M bitcoins after the last bitcoin is mined and can also "resurrect" lost bitcoins for the common good

I think that 10 years is a pretty good overall time period where the address would have to be confirmed at some point. 50 years would be way too long.

As for how something like this would effect the value of Bitcoin, I have no idea, but as long as the system was reliable and there was no room for error I don't think that there would be an issue with it. Freeing them up to the same reward rate as the current amount would probably be a good thing.

[ufaiz50]

We all know that there can be no more than 21M bitcoins. We also know that every day some bitcoins get lost forever. That means that they still exist on the blockchain, but no one can access them since the keys are lost. I don't think that this is a right thing. We should recover these coins somehow, and that issue could be addressed eventually. I suggest setting a grace period of, say, 10 years (or 50 years if 10 years is too little) after which all wallets that remain untouched during that time and not reclaimed by anyone, should be declared as public property. The transactions that credited these bitcoins to such a wallet should be cancelled (just like correcting entries are made in a real ledger), and the coins should be moved to a new wallet, for example, to finance scientific research...

In this way, we will always have 21M bitcoins after the last bitcoin is mined and can also "resurrect" lost bitcoins for the common good

if this could happen?. Bitcoin users are in full control of their transactions including bitcoin funds that they had, and how about people who kept their funds for 10 years or more and hope the price of bitcoin to the moon?

[The_Dark_Knight]

There is no way to differentiate lost coins from coins in a wallet doing nothing, so the best thing to do is nothing, because any measure which could be used as a way to subtract bitcoin from a wallet will open the door to chargebacks and that runs contrary to the ideals of bitcoin.

[odolvlobo]

No one is talking about stealing here. In fact, in many countries there are laws regulating how the lost things (for example, buried treasures) can be claimed as the property of those who found them.

The issue is that there is no way to know if coins are lost or not. I have coins that I have not touched in years, but they are certainly not lost. If they were confiscated, I would consider that theft.

If I remember correctly, in Denmark, if no one lives in an apartment for a year, it can be taken by anyone, and the previous right of ownership is revoked

That is theft, whether it is sanctioned by a government or not.

[vasrasus]

There is no way to. Just because they have not moved does not mean they are lost

True, Just Better We invested Only, Better to invest than not used. we can invest in ico or a lot of things you could do with the money

Right , investing in a reliable and trusted sites is more than enough than stocking it in our wallet. Those big amount of btc will help lots of trusted investment sites to improve more. Though still in stocking it in our wallet it can get bigger without doing nothing . Still helpful, We just need to monitor it not to reach that big so it will not lost.

[Tyrantt]

If I remember correctly, in Denmark, if no one lives in an apartment for a year, it can be taken by anyone, and the previous right of ownership is revoked

I think it's the same as in Italy and it's totally reasonable if you ask me, since it's a waste for an apartment to rot unused when it can be recycled and put to a good use by someone else.

[n0ne]

If I remember correctly, in Denmark, if no one lives in an apartment for a year, it can be taken by anyone, and the previous right of ownership is revoked

I think it's the same as in Italy and it's totally reasonable if you ask me, since it's a waste for an apartment to rot unused when it can be recycled and put to a good use by someone else.

That's a better idea, but before taking it under control from the first authority it need to be informed to them. Else it might create issues between the first and second authorities. Also as mentioned these were applicable in very few selected countries.

[neochiny]

Only if the owner of the 'dormant account' has publicly admitted that the keys for said account was lost/corrupted, in other words, they no longer have access to the account and all funds in it can no longer be recovered by them.

Though the problem with that is verifying that the "owner" is the real one.

[hisuka]

We cant do anything about lost bitcoins. The only thing
we can do for that is check ur history. Where did your
bitcoin was sent. Maybe it was theft or what. But, the
Best thing to do is invest your bitcoin that can gives
double the income.

[deisik]

First, there is no way to technically distinguish between lost coins and purposefully unmoved coins.
They both are the same and it is not reasonable to make people move their coins every so often in
order to prove that they still have control. If in the event, a protocol change is proposed that users
will need to transfer their coins to "safer addresses" that is done as a security measure, not just so
that the devs/miners know "we can't take them back" from them

What about adding some parameter which would basically say that the coins from this wallet shouldn't be moved under any circumstances with default being set to donating them after some period. That might work very much like organ donation, and the way voluntary consent is obtained (opt-in vs opt-out). In this case, both options can be used, i.e. in the case of an opt-out the coins of anyone who has not explicitly refused to donate them will be moved after the expiration of the timeout, or that timeout period could be set by default to infinity effectively meaning that the coins should never be moved. That would be the opt-in option, i.e. only the coins of those who have given explicit consent will be donated...

Also, instead of donating coins, they might be marked as just not yet mined

This mindset contradicts one of the reasons why Satoshi created Bitcoin in the first place.
Your money is your money and in theory, no one can take it away under any circumstances.
Comparing what regulated banks are allowed to do should not be applied to Bitcoin ever.

Shrouds have no pockets

[Sundark]

Again if 10 years is too little, what about 25 or 50 years?

Never. Is the correct answer here. Why do you care about other people's money/possesion/bitcoin? It doesn't matter what they do with their BTC.
It is not that we are losing something when others lose their coins - quite the contrary our coins are worth slightly more.
There is zero problem for bitcoin network too - bitcoin is divisible to eighth decimal places or so - there is no need to recycle lost coins.

[nara1892]

We all know that there can be no more than 21M bitcoins. We also know that every day some bitcoins get lost forever. That means that they still exist on the blockchain, but no one can access them since the keys are lost. I don't think that this is a right thing. We should recover these coins somehow, and that issue could be addressed eventually. I suggest setting a grace period of, say, 10 years (or 50 years if 10 years is too little) after which all wallets that remain untouched during that time and not reclaimed by anyone, should be declared as public property. The transactions that credited these bitcoins to such a wallet should be cancelled (just like correcting entries are made in a real ledger), and the coins should be moved to a new wallet, for example, to finance scientific research...

In this way, we will always have 21M bitcoins after the last bitcoin is mined and can also "resurrect" lost bitcoins for the common good

is that possible to take control of someone's wallet without its private key? who do you mean can send those forgotten coins?

well, it is big problem that people forget their private keys. but I think, it is not that easy to control all forgotten private keys unless it is controlled by many people or a good system. imo.

[deisik]

Again if 10 years is too little, what about 25 or 50 years?

Never. Is the correct answer here. Why do you care about other people's money/possesion/bitcoin? It doesn't matter what they do with their BTC.
It is not that we are losing something when others lose their coins - quite the contrary our coins are worth slightly more.
There is zero problem for bitcoin network too - bitcoin is divisible to eighth decimal places or so - there is no need to recycle lost coins.

I never said there are any technical issues with that

We all know that there can be no more than 21M bitcoins. We also know that every day some bitcoins get lost forever. That means that they still exist on the blockchain, but no one can access them since the keys are lost. I don't think that this is a right thing. We should recover these coins somehow, and that issue could be addressed eventually. I suggest setting a grace period of, say, 10 years (or 50 years if 10 years is too little) after which all wallets that remain untouched during that time and not reclaimed by anyone, should be declared as public property. The transactions that credited these bitcoins to such a wallet should be cancelled (just like correcting entries are made in a real ledger), and the coins should be moved to a new wallet, for example, to finance scientific research...

In this way, we will always have 21M bitcoins after the last bitcoin is mined and can also "resurrect" lost bitcoins for the common good

is that possible to take control of someone's wallet without its private key? who do you mean can send those forgotten coins?

That shouldn't be a big issue, either

And you don't need to grab someone's wallet without its private key. You just mark these transactions as invalid, and these bitcoins can be considered as not mined. That would require some updates to Bitcoin protocol, but I don't think there should be any technical problems to implement this

[AgentofCoin]

First, there is no way to technically distinguish between lost coins and purposefully unmoved coins.
They both are the same and it is not reasonable to make people move their coins every so often in
order to prove that they still have control. If in the event, a protocol change is proposed that users
will need to transfer their coins to "safer addresses" that is done as a security measure, not just so
that the devs/miners know "we can't take them back" from them

Again if 10 years is too little, what about 25 or 50 years?

Other than that, what about adding some parameter which would basically say that the coins from this wallet shouldn't be moved under any circumstances with default being set to donating them after some period. That might work very much like organ donation, and the way voluntary consent is obtained (opt-in vs opt-out). In this case, both options can be used, i.e. in the case of an opt-out the coins of anyone who has not explicitly refused to donate them will be moved after the expiration of the timeout, or that timeout period could be set by default to infinity effectively meaning that the coins should never be moved. That would be the opt-in option, i.e. only the coins of those who have given explicit consent will be donated. Instead of donating coins might be marked as unmined

If you really want to make this happen, since it seems you are interested in this idea,
then it will need to be implemented under the current protocol by using a multi-sig address
and with other parties with keys, who you will trust to only move your coins after it has been
confirmed you are dead and then they will donate them or whatever based upon your wishes.

But currently that is the only way. Otherwise there will need to be direct protocol changes that
allow address contents to be "taken back" after certain requirements are met. Personally I would
not agree with such changes to be placed directly into the protocol because such a thing would allow
possible exploits to take others coins. The issue with this proposition is, you are asking the miners to
be able to not only verify transactions and build blocks, but also the power to take away bitcoins or
in theory move other user's bitcoins. This should never be allowed, is anti-Bitcoin, is against the social
contract, is against the design of the game theory system, and just plain asking for trouble.

So I'm pretty confident this path will never occur. But you could still create a secondary layer on top
of the Bitcoin network or use a thirdparty website to facilitate your idea, without directly changing the
Bitcoin protocol.

This mindset contradicts one of the reasons why Satoshi created Bitcoin in the first place.
Your money is your money and in theory, no one can take it away under any circumstances.
Comparing what regulated banks are allowed to do should not be applied to Bitcoin ever.

Shrouds have no pockets

True, but if that is your concern, then creating a multi-sig address and setting up your Estate and Will
properly should alleviate any issues that your coins will be "lost". In theory, you could donate them away
through your Will that your estate executor is obligated to perform.


A direct protocol change to add in the ability as you are suggesting is possibility way more controversial
than the blocksize limit debate. I personally believe both sides of that debate would agree not to do this.

[deisik]

If you really want to make this happen, since it seems you are interested in this idea,
then it will need to be implemented under the current protocol by using a multi-sig address
and with other parties with keys, who you will trust to only move your coins after it has been
confirmed you are dead and then they will donate them or whatever based upon your wishes

This will be prone to all kinds of misuse and abuse. Just like it happens in real life with wills that are successfully contested in courts

Otherwise there will need to be direct protocol changes that
allow address contents to be "taken back" after certain requirements are met. Personally I would
not agree with such changes to be placed directly into the protocol because such a thing would allow
possible exploits to take others coins. The issue with this proposition is, you are asking the miners to
be able to not only verify transactions and build blocks, but also the power to take away bitcoins or
in theory move other user's bitcoins

I tend to disagree

And I think that making changes to protocol which are accepted by the consensus of miners will leave no chance to abuse this system or exploit it in any way. As I see it, the power of miners to take away bitcoins is not potentially different from their power of adding them. I mean its exposure to possible exploits, before all. In effect, claiming that it can be exploited comes down to claiming that all other parts of Bitcoin (like adding new bitcoins to circulation) can be exploited in essentially the same degree. That's why setting it on a protocol level would be the only possibility to make it work as intended

This should never be allowed, is anti-Bitcoin, is against the social contract, is against the design of the game theory system, and just plain asking for trouble

I don't see how it is anti-anything

[AgentofCoin]

If you really want to make this happen, since it seems you are interested in this idea,
then it will need to be implemented under the current protocol by using a multi-sig address
and with other parties with keys, who you will trust to only move your coins after it has been
confirmed you are dead and then they will donate them or whatever based upon your wishes

This will be prone to all kinds of misuse and abuse. Just like it happens in real life with wills that are successfully contested in courts

Otherwise there will need to be direct protocol changes that
allow address contents to be "taken back" after certain requirements are met. Personally I would
not agree with such changes to be placed directly into the protocol because such a thing would allow
possible exploits to take others coins. The issue with this proposition is, you are asking the miners to
be able to not only verify transactions and build blocks, but also the power to take away bitcoins or
in theory move other user's bitcoins

I tend to disagree

And I think that making changes to protocol which are accepted by the consensus of miners will leave no chance to abuse this system or exploit it in any way. As I see it, the power of miners to take away bitcoins is not potentially different from their power of adding them. I mean its exposure to possible exploits, before all. In effect, claiming that it can be exploited comes down to claiming that all other parts of Bitcoin (like adding new bitcoins to circulation) can be exploited in essentially the same degree

This should never be allowed, is anti-Bitcoin, is against the social contract, is against the design of the game theory system, and just plain asking for trouble

I don't see how it is anti-anything

It is much more of a complicated situation then you are describing and more than I can articulate.

Simply, to facilitate what you describe would allow a footing for regulators to control Bitcoin.
You need to understand that the only way to transfer is by the privatekey, you are advocating another way.
A way to get around the privatekey, by using a backdoor. Even if it is programmed and placed into the protocol
through consensus, it would brake Bitcoin fundamentally.

Currently, bitcoins can ONLY move by its associated privatekey signing proof of control.
Your proposal would say that after so much time, forget the privatekey, just move without it.
That is very controversial, IMO.

[davis196]

We all know that there can be no more than 21M bitcoins. We also know that every day some bitcoins get lost forever. That means that they still exist on the blockchain, but no one can access them since the keys are lost. I don't think that this is a right thing. We should recover these coins somehow, and that issue could be addressed eventually. I suggest setting a grace period of, say, 10 years (or 50 years if 10 years is too little) after which all wallets that remain untouched during that time and not reclaimed by anyone, should be declared as public property. The transactions that credited these bitcoins to such a wallet should be cancelled (just like correcting entries are made in a real ledger), and the coins should be moved to a new wallet, for example, to finance scientific research...

In this way, we will always have 21M bitcoins after the last bitcoin is mined and can also "resurrect" lost bitcoins for the common good

To avoid asking and answering the same things all over again, I add below important clarification:

First, there is no way to technically distinguish between lost coins and purposefully unmoved coins.
They both are the same and it is not reasonable to make people move their coins every so often in
order to prove that they still have control. If in the event, a protocol change is proposed that users
will need to transfer their coins to "safer addresses" that is done as a security measure, not just so
that the devs/miners know "we can't take them back" from them

What about adding some parameter which would basically say that the coins from this wallet shouldn't be moved under any circumstances with default being set to donating them after some period. That might work very much like organ donation, and the way voluntary consent is obtained (opt-in vs opt-out). In this case, both options can be used, i.e. in the case of an opt-out the coins of anyone who has not explicitly refused to donate them will be moved after the expiration of the timeout, or that timeout period could be set by default to infinity effectively meaning that the coins should never be moved. That would be the opt-in option, i.e. only the coins of those who have given explicit consent will be donated...

Also, instead of donating coins, they might be marked as just not yet mined

This mindset contradicts one of the reasons why Satoshi created Bitcoin in the first place.
Your money is your money and in theory, no one can take it away under any circumstances.
Comparing what regulated banks are allowed to do should not be applied to Bitcoin ever.

Shrouds have no pockets

So you suggest that the lost bitcoins should be declared as public property?

And what should we do with them after they become public property?

Donate them for charity?

[deisik]

It is much more of a complicated situation then you are describing and more than I can articulate.

Simply, to facilitate what you describe would allow a footing for regulators to control Bitcoin

I don't get it. On the other hand, if someone dies (without will and his keys available to his heirs), what to do with his coins which are known to belong to him?

You need to understand that the only way to transfer is by the privatekey, you are advocating another way.
A way to get around the privatekey, by using a backdoor. Even if it is programmed and placed into the protocol
through consensus, it would brake Bitcoin fundamentally.

Currently, bitcoins can ONLY move by its associated privatekey signing proof of control.
Your proposal would say that after so much time, forget the privatekey, just move without it.
That is very controversial, IMO.

Again, this can be argued

If there is a way to create money (and bitcoins are also created basically out of thin air, let's be honest here), there should be a way to destroy it. As I understand it, the process of creating new bitcoins doesn't involve private keys, which are used to access or move the money. In this way, we could as well expect that the reverse process (let's call it unmining bitcoins) should be as straightforward

[AgentofCoin]

It is much more of a complicated situation then you are describing and more than I can articulate.

Simply, to facilitate what you describe would allow a footing for regulators to control Bitcoin

I don't get it. On the other hand, if someone dies (without will and his keys available to his heirs), what to do with his coins which are known to belong to him?

If the individual doesn't prepare for their heirs to receive their coins in the event of
death, then they are lost as Satoshi intended. There is no obligation nor need to
maintain the full 21 million coins. This is not an inflationary system, but dis-inflationary.
Coins being lost forever is not an issue with this type of financial instrument.

You need to understand that the only way to transfer is by the privatekey, you are advocating another way.
A way to get around the privatekey, by using a backdoor. Even if it is programmed and placed into the protocol
through consensus, it would brake Bitcoin fundamentally.

Currently, bitcoins can ONLY move by its associated privatekey signing proof of control.
Your proposal would say that after so much time, forget the privatekey, just move without it.
That is very controversial, IMO.

Again, this can be argued

If there is a way to create money (and bitcoins are also created basically out of thin air, let's be honest here), there should be a way to destroy it. As I understand it, the process of creating new bitcoins doesn't involve private keys, which are used to access or move the money. In this way, we could as well expect that the reverse process (let's call it unmining bitcoins) should be as straightforward

You can not "unmine" the bitcoins without destroying the whole chain from when
those btc where placed within a block.
Very simply, when a miner finds a block and takes the coinbase, it is based on rules.
The rule is, you found the block, now only take 12.5 from the coin jar, if you take
more your block is invalidated. The miners follow this rule or else they lose the block
and its coinbase. When a miner takes the 12.5 coinbase, it is transferred to that miners
btc address and included in that block.

If later you wish to "unmine" certain bitcoins within a certain block,
it would cause that block and all blocks that follow to be invalidated since each block is
built based on all prior blocks being valid and their txs being valid. So if you "unmined"
some bitcoins, you are effectively saying prior work was wrong and destroy all those blocks.

The system relies on and is built upon the rule that no bitcoins can be unmined.
If it is allowed, it would destroy everything up to the point of the unmined bitcoin block.

In theory, all 21 million bitcoins currently exist and were placed by Satoshi to be taken over time.
Miners do not create new coins, they are only grabbing from the pile, and at some point, there is
nothing left to grab.