What to do with lost bitcoins

[yayayo]

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:

You seem to be a crazy socialist with dictatorial ambitions. Your intent is to steal property from individuals to redistribute it for the "common good". The "common good" is a term often used in socialist dictatorships to justify random acts of expropriation and despotism.

There is no rationale besides socialist greed to justify redistribution of unmoved coins. Such acts stand against the whole concept of Bitcoin as a decentralized non-political currency. Doing so would destroy Bitcoin's entire value proposition by making it subject to political influence and I would abandon Bitcoin immediately.

Besides that the rationale behind your whole idea is nonsensical waste to begin with: All unmoved coins automatically contribute to the buying power of all holders, because these Bitcoin are not spent. Therefore there are fewer Bitcoin available in the market, leading to an increase in the buying power of every single moving unit.

ya.ya.yo!

[Mastsetad]

What can I do with my lost bitcoins? Nothing, because it disappear quickly so I will start a new one then I wouldn't do the same as my past. I learned from my past so I will be more careful with my new bitcoins. I will do double time to earn more bitcoins then I will use it         in good not for gambling.

Someone would obviously not be able to do anything with his lost bitcoins, so they have to be careful before losing them that they don't lose them anywhere because once they are lost then they can only try earning more but cannot get the lost ones.

[abel1337]

What can I do with my lost bitcoins? Nothing, because it disappear quickly so I will start a new one then I wouldn't do the same as my past. I learned from my past so I will be more careful with my new bitcoins. I will do double time to earn more bitcoins then I will use it         in good not for gambling.

Someone would obviously not be able to do anything with his lost bitcoins, so they have to be careful before losing them that they don't lose them anywhere because once they are lost then they can only try earning more but cannot get the lost ones.

Thats right you need to be careful in using your bitcoins because if you loose your bitcoin it aint go back to you It will disappear on an edge.
if you send it to wrong address and if someone notices that your bitcoin is sent wrong , It can go back into your wallet if you sent it to a good person

[deisik]

You seem to be a crazy socialist with dictatorial ambitions. Your intent is to steal property from individuals to redistribute it for the "common good". The "common good" is a term often used in socialist dictatorships to justify random acts of expropriation and despotism.

There is no rationale besides socialist greed to justify redistribution of unmoved coins. Such acts stand against the whole concept of Bitcoin as a decentralized non-political currency. Doing so would destroy Bitcoin's entire value proposition by making it subject to political influence and I would abandon Bitcoin immediately

If you had read the thread (or just the clarification added to the OP), you would have known that I talk about the wallets (or certain transactions related to such a wallet) whose owners intentionally and willingly chose to close their wallets after a certain amount of time with coins being either moved or rendered unmined. The reason why people might want to do that, I explained in the thread...

But you seem not to care much about details which make your considerations totally inappropriate

All unmoved coins automatically contribute to the buying power of all holders, because these Bitcoin are not spent. Therefore there are fewer Bitcoin available in the market, leading to an increase in the buying power of every single moving unit

I'm curious if you even remotely understand that what you say in the quoted text is the perfect example of the "socialist greed" that you have been attacking just a few sentences above?

[yayayo]

You seem to be a crazy socialist with dictatorial ambitions. Your intent is to steal property from individuals to redistribute it for the "common good". The "common good" is a term often used in socialist dictatorships to justify random acts of expropriation and despotism.

There is no rationale besides socialist greed to justify redistribution of unmoved coins. Such acts stand against the whole concept of Bitcoin as a decentralized non-political currency. Doing so would destroy Bitcoin's entire value proposition by making it subject to political influence and I would abandon Bitcoin immediately

If you had read the thread (or just the clarification added to the OP), you would have known that I talk about the wallets (or certain transactions related to such a wallet) whose owners intentionally and willingly chose to close their wallets after a certain amount of time with coins being either moved or rendered unmined. The reason why people might want to do that, I explained in the thread...

But you seem not to care much about details which make your considerations totally inappropriate

All unmoved coins automatically contribute to the buying power of all holders, because these Bitcoin are not spent. Therefore there are fewer Bitcoin available in the market, leading to an increase in the buying power of every single moving unit

I'm curious if you even remotely understand that what you say in the quoted text is the perfect example of the "socialist greed" that you have been attacking just a few sentences above?

Sadly, arguing with you seems to be a waste of time, because you write a lot without providing a single argument that refutes my assessment of your plan.

It doesn't matter at all whether coin holders intentionally destroy their private keys or not. There is no mandate to redistribute coins, that are no longer accessible. If a certain holder wanted to redistribute his wealth, he/she could have done so by initiating a transaction. Not doing so can only be interpreted as not wanting to and therefore rules out distribution of funds for the "common good".

My simple description of the effect of unmoved coins does not contain any psychological intent. It's just a natural law. It invalidates the whole need of a procedure for the purposes that you've outlined.

ya.ya.yo!

[deisik]

You seem to be a crazy socialist with dictatorial ambitions. Your intent is to steal property from individuals to redistribute it for the "common good". The "common good" is a term often used in socialist dictatorships to justify random acts of expropriation and despotism.

There is no rationale besides socialist greed to justify redistribution of unmoved coins. Such acts stand against the whole concept of Bitcoin as a decentralized non-political currency. Doing so would destroy Bitcoin's entire value proposition by making it subject to political influence and I would abandon Bitcoin immediately

If you had read the thread (or just the clarification added to the OP), you would have known that I talk about the wallets (or certain transactions related to such a wallet) whose owners intentionally and willingly chose to close their wallets after a certain amount of time with coins being either moved or rendered unmined. The reason why people might want to do that, I explained in the thread...

But you seem not to care much about details which make your considerations totally inappropriate

All unmoved coins automatically contribute to the buying power of all holders, because these Bitcoin are not spent. Therefore there are fewer Bitcoin available in the market, leading to an increase in the buying power of every single moving unit

I'm curious if you even remotely understand that what you say in the quoted text is the perfect example of the "socialist greed" that you have been attacking just a few sentences above?

Sadly, arguing with you seems to be a waste of time, because you write a lot without providing a single argument that refutes my assessment of your plan

How can I provide an argument if you obviously didn't even read the OP up to the end to get an understanding what my point comes down to? I guess I cannot possibly object to something which I didn't even claim. Just in case, the question is not about whether wallet owners want to destroy their private keys altogether. Is this the "assessment" you are talking about? If it is, you'd better read at least the opening post again (and still better the whole thread). I never mentioned anything which could be interpreted as "coin holders intentionally destroying their private keys"...

It would be nice if you chose to reveal where you got this idea from

[aardvark15]

Any attempt to remine lost coins would be a breakdown of the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin. There is no way to know which addresses have lost coins in them because the owner could simply be saving them. That owner has the right to save them for hundreds of years (passing them down to family). We just have to accept that there are some lost coins that can't be recovered. If you think an address has lost coins in it the only way to get them is to keep trying to guess the private key.

[justdimin]

No. It's just like dormant accounts with bank that remain unaccessed for a long and the bank freezes the accounts. That doesn't give the bank the liability to use that frozen money as it will always be the account holders funds that remain in the account even if he has no heir to claim it. The method you are suggesting to get back all those coins is termed as an illegal method and if those people have lost access or their private keys, they should find a method to get them back and if it's lost, it's gone. Who knows in future there may be a way the owners may be able to get access to those accounts? Nothing is impossible.

And yes how would we know if a particular address is lost or the owner uses it as a cold storage address, like some people have a habit of storing and holding bitcoins. And if we take their coins, later they claim they had access to it, won't it be too messy and too awkward ?

[yayayo]

You seem to be a crazy socialist with dictatorial ambitions. Your intent is to steal property from individuals to redistribute it for the "common good". The "common good" is a term often used in socialist dictatorships to justify random acts of expropriation and despotism.

There is no rationale besides socialist greed to justify redistribution of unmoved coins. Such acts stand against the whole concept of Bitcoin as a decentralized non-political currency. Doing so would destroy Bitcoin's entire value proposition by making it subject to political influence and I would abandon Bitcoin immediately

If you had read the thread (or just the clarification added to the OP), you would have known that I talk about the wallets (or certain transactions related to such a wallet) whose owners intentionally and willingly chose to close their wallets after a certain amount of time with coins being either moved or rendered unmined. The reason why people might want to do that, I explained in the thread...

But you seem not to care much about details which make your considerations totally inappropriate

All unmoved coins automatically contribute to the buying power of all holders, because these Bitcoin are not spent. Therefore there are fewer Bitcoin available in the market, leading to an increase in the buying power of every single moving unit

I'm curious if you even remotely understand that what you say in the quoted text is the perfect example of the "socialist greed" that you have been attacking just a few sentences above?

Sadly, arguing with you seems to be a waste of time, because you write a lot without providing a single argument that refutes my assessment of your plan

How can I provide an argument if you obviously didn't even read the OP up to the end to get an understanding what my point comes down to? I guess I cannot possibly object to something which I didn't even claim. Just in case, the question is not about whether wallet owners want to destroy their private keys altogether. Is this the "assessment" you are talking about? If it is, you'd better read at least the opening post again (and still better the whole thread). I never mentioned anything which could be interpreted as "coin holders intentionally destroying their private keys"...

It would be nice if you chose to reveal where you got this idea from

You (intentionally?) missed to quote my full response. So here is the relevant part again:

It doesn't matter at all whether coin holders intentionally destroy their private keys or not. There is no mandate to redistribute coins, that are no longer accessible. If a certain holder wanted to redistribute his wealth, he/she could have done so by initiating a transaction. Not doing so can only be interpreted as not wanting to and therefore rules out distribution of funds for the "common good".

My simple description of the effect of unmoved coins does not contain any psychological intent. It's just a natural law. It invalidates the whole need of a procedure for the purposes that you've outlined.

I've read the OP very well. And I understand what your point comes down to. But obviously you didn't read nor understood my response.

There is no - and I repeat - no (zero) justification to redistribute coins that are allegedly unused/abandoned/inaccessible for whatever reason. The only possible motive to do something like this is socialist greed, which is at the same time unfounded, because the buying power of each Bitcoin automatically increases anyway by the simple logic I've outlined.

I will not engage in further discussion, because it is fruitless.

ya.ya.yo!

[deisik]

I've read the OP very well. And I understand what your point comes down to. But obviously you didn't read nor understood my response.

There is no - and I repeat - no (zero) justification to redistribute coins that are allegedly unused/abandoned/inaccessible for whatever reason. The only possible motive to do something like this is socialist greed, which is at the same time unfounded, because the buying power of each Bitcoin automatically increases anyway by the simple logic I've outlined

I don't really know what you actually read, but I made a clarification on my opening post (in the OP itself) and even marked it as important. I still think that you somehow missed that part since it does specifically address the issue which you are coming up with (or against) here, i.e. "coins that are allegedly unused/abandoned/inaccessible"...

Here is the clarification, if you don't mind reading it

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

As you can see, in the case of the opt-in option, coins won't be moved unless explicitly ordered to be moved

[jbreher]

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 ...
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

dear god. Not this again.

To avoid asking and answering the same things all over again...

...one might search for one of the dozens of previous discussions on this exact same topic. Or I could save you the trouble by stating the short conclusion reached time after time after time: No.

[DannyHamilton]

dear god. Not this again.

Yep.

Within 8 minutes of the thread being created, I suggested locking the topic. Then, I reported it to the moderators suggesting that they remove (or at least lock) the topic.

Unfortunately, it seems that this forum is now more interested in nonsense traffic than actually being a useful source of information.

[deisik]

dear god. Not this again.

Yep.

Within 8 minutes of the thread being created, I suggested locking the topic. Then, I reported it to the moderators suggesting that they remove (or at least lock) the topic.

Unfortunately, it seems that this forum is now more interested in nonsense traffic than actually being a useful source of information.

If you don't have anything to say on the topic in a constructive way, I think it is better not to say anything at all

You yourself made two useless posts in this thread that actually generated nothing else but "nonsense traffic", and instead of just walking away (as I suggested, but you have obviously still been sticking around), you chose to pull moderators here wasting their time, which might have been otherwise spent on fighting with real spam (and you could do that too, by the way). If you don't agree with something and consider it as nonsense, think that other people may not share your views altogether. You don't need to reply to this post and start a flame war (you may even delete your both posts here, I don't mind, but I don't care either, just in case)

...one might search for one of the dozens of previous discussions on this exact same topic. Or I could save you the trouble by stating the short conclusion reached time after time after time: No.

Show me just one link where there was a discussion of what I suggest here (but read at least the OP first and read it full)

[brian_23452]

if at any given time i lost my bitcoin all i have to do is to be more care full next time so that i do not repeat that same mistake again because time is money and money is time,in fat i just have to be careful at all time cause getting money or getting one bitcoin is not easy to come by

[Wandering Soul~]

Yes it will be great to circulate the coins but how can we do that if bitcoin is decentralized and no one controls it but the owner of the particular wallet only .  So let's just avoid losing it instead like what they say prevention is better than the cure  . We should always keep a number of back ups of our private keys, One is for personal use and the other is for others to view in case something happens to you like you should put it in your last will or something

[Soros Shorts]

Show me just one link where there was a discussion of what I suggest here (but read at least the OP first and read it full)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131101.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332080.msg3571254#msg3571254

A lot of relevant discussion was also in this 2011 thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20799.0

To OP, as someone who has stored some bitcoins in a cold wallet in a safety deposit box I don't appreciate this suggestion.

[warwar]

What can I do with my lost bitcoins? Nothing, because it disappear quickly so I will start a new one then I wouldn't do the same as my past. I learned from my past so I will be more careful with my new bitcoins. I will do double time to earn more bitcoins then I will use it         in good not for gambling.

Someone would obviously not be able to do anything with his lost bitcoins, so they have to be careful before losing them that they don't lose them anywhere because once they are lost then they can only try earning more but cannot get the lost ones.

Thats right you need to be careful in using your bitcoins because if you loose your bitcoin it aint go back to you It will disappear on an edge.
if you send it to wrong address and if someone notices that your bitcoin is sent wrong , It can go back into your wallet if you sent it to a good person

I do agree if you send you bitcoin into wrong wallet and then that person generous then he/she could send it back to you but the problem is that if there is still person like that one? As my self im very careful in sending big amount of bitcoins because i know 1 mistakes makes me cry. So be careful on sending

[deisik]

Show me just one link where there was a discussion of what I suggest here (but read at least the OP first and read it full)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332080.msg3571254#msg3571254

A lot of relevant discussion was also in this 2011 thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20799.0

I looked at the thread, and it is not what I suggest here

To OP, as someone who has stored some bitcoins in a cold wallet in a safety deposit box I don't appreciate this suggestion.

People seem to read only the thread title

They don't even care to read the opening post anymore, just the opening post, at the very least. While right there I made it perfectly clear that I don't just suggest that all bitcoins sitting idly for a predetermined period of time should be blindly repatriated. This is only one option (likely not a very good one), but it allowed to think about a few other ideas toward which I now tend and which had been later added to the opening post as well, so that people wouldn't be furiously and thoughtlessly attacking me all over again. But they still are, wtf

[Soros Shorts]

Show me just one link where there was a discussion of what I suggest here (but read at least the OP first and read it full)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332080.msg3571254#msg3571254

A lot of relevant discussion was also in this 2011 thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20799.0

I looked at the thread and it is not what I suggest here

To OP, as someone who has stored some bitcoins in a cold wallet in a safety deposit box I don't appreciate this suggestion.

People seem to read only the title thread

They don't even care to read the opening post anymore, just the opening post, at least. Since right there I made it perfectly clear that I don't just suggest that all bitcoins sitting idly for a predetermined period of time should be blindly repatriated. This is only one option, though now I tend toward the two other options which I later added to the opening post as well

Well you should stress that this would be optional. I did read that part, but since it wasn't given emphasis and clearly explained how it would work with the existing protocol you can't blame people for ignoring it.

[Capradina]

Show me just one link where there was a discussion of what I suggest here (but read at least the OP first and read it full)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332080.msg3571254#msg3571254

A lot of relevant discussion was also in this 2011 thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20799.0

I looked at the thread and it is not what I suggest here

To OP, as someone who has stored some bitcoins in a cold wallet in a safety deposit box I don't appreciate this suggestion.

People seem to read only the title thread

They don't even care to read the opening post anymore, just the opening post, at least. Since right there I made it perfectly clear that I don't just suggest that all bitcoins sitting idly for a predetermined period of time should be blindly repatriated. This is only one option, though now I tend toward the two other options which I later added to the opening post as well

Well you should stress that this would be optional. I did read that part, but since it wasn't given emphasis and clearly explained how it would work with the existing protocol you can't blame people for ignoring it.

Everyone should do something in accordance with a protocol that has been specified and if it cannot be done properly or not do or implement the Protocol properly then what we do is going to be a bad thing. Everyone indeed will essentially be a good thing if they can control themselves and they can do something extraordinary things. So do something good and never ever wrong in thinking of something a bad thing