Will the ACTIVE supply of Bitcoin eventually fall and is there a way to stop it?

[Electra01]

I suspect that when our generation of Bitcoin holders dies, a lot of us will not have left information for our heirs to access our wallets. If so, then most of the Bitcoin supply will eventually become inactive as most wallets containing Bitcoin will belong to people who are deceased. As mining will eventually finish as well, there will be no way to generate new bitcoins. The TOTAL supply and market cap will look the same on paper but, in reality, the ACTIVE supply and market cap will be a lot less due to these inactive wallets. Eventually, as the active supply falls, the price should rise but it will not reflect the total supply just the active supply.

After all Bitcoins are generated, do you agree that the ACTIVE supply will eventually fall and is there a way to stop it?

In the long run, if 50% of Bitcoin’s total supply becomes inactive will people still want to use it?

Is there a way to measure active supply?

Can crypto-currencies be programmed to automatically burn all coins in wallets that have been inactive for more than 100 years?

[1714755034]

1714755034

[1714755034]

1714755034

[1714755034]

1714755034

[1714755034]

1714755034

[1714755034]

1714755034

[Kprawn]

We have progressed to far for this to happen... people still collect vintage cars and old coins, which has not been in circulation for many

years. Bitcoins can be passed on to other people through generations, so we are not worried that this will not be continued.... long after

we are gone. The Bitcoin protocol generate bitcoins, even if only one person is mining. 

[romero121]

Active supply in the bitcoin truly gets affected, but in accordance to the number of bitcoin generated the price variation happens. Because though a big portion gets hold in wallets without use for a long time too, it gets counted to the mined coins. Based upon this ratio the supply gets changed. This won't make users stop thinking of bitcoin.

[DannyHamilton]

I suspect that when our generation of Bitcoin holders dies, a lot of us will not have left information for our heirs to access our wallets.

Why not?  It's not like you can take it with you.

If so, then most of the Bitcoin supply will eventually become inactive as most wallets containing Bitcoin will belong to people who are deceased.

Unlikely, but theoretically not impossible.

As mining will eventually finish as well, there will be no way to generate new bitcoins. The TOTAL supply and market cap will look the same on paper but, in reality, the ACTIVE supply and market cap will be a lot less due to these inactive wallets. Eventually, as the active supply falls, the price should rise but it will not reflect the total supply just the active supply.

Correct.  This is called "deflation" and is why bitcoin is considered to be a deflationary currency in the long run.  It was intentionally designed this way, and anyone that chooses to use it is voluntarily choosing to participate in a deflationary currency whether they realize it or not.

After all Bitcoins are generated, do you agree that the ACTIVE supply will eventually fall

Slowly.  Yes.  This is intended behavior and is how bitcoin was intentionally designed to work.

and is there a way to stop it?

Not without a hard fork and agreement from the vast majority of all participants (miners, nodes, merchants, users, exchanges, speculators, etc).  Getting that sort of agreement on changing the very nature of bitcoin, a nature that most of them desire in the first place, is effectively impossible.  It isn't going to happen.  Why would you want to stop it anyhow?  This is one of the great features of bitcoin.

In the long run, if 50% of Bitcoin’s total supply becomes inactive will people still want to use it?

Absolutely!  Why wouldn't you?  You get to have the exact same number of satoshis, but they are worth twice as much money.  Isn't this a good thing?

Is there a way to measure active supply?

Not precisely.  You could look at "bitcoin days destroyed" or "total bitcoins that haven't moved recently", but that wouldn't distinguish between bitcoins that are inactive due to being "permanently lost" and bitcoins that are inactive due to being "stored for later use".

Can crypto-currencies be programmed to automatically burn all coins in wallets that have been inactive for more than 100 years?

They can, but I wouldn't use one like that.  It won't happen with bitcoin.

[marcoman22]

I suspect that when our generation of Bitcoin holders dies, a lot of us will not have left information for our heirs to access our wallets. If so, then most of the Bitcoin supply will eventually become inactive as most wallets containing Bitcoin will belong to people who are deceased. As mining will eventually finish as well, there will be no way to generate new bitcoins. The TOTAL supply and market cap will look the same on paper but, in reality, the ACTIVE supply and market cap will be a lot less due to these inactive wallets. Eventually, as the active supply falls, the price should rise but it will not reflect the total supply just the active supply.

After all Bitcoins are generated, do you agree that the ACTIVE supply will eventually fall and is there a way to stop it?

In the long run, if 50% of Bitcoin’s total supply becomes inactive will people still want to use it?

Is there a way to measure active supply?

Can crypto-currencies be programmed to automatically burn all coins in wallets that have been inactive for more than 100 years?

It is matter of concern. But we can handle over our wallet password and all related details to our future generations as we do in our physical properties.But if we fail to do so, then the number of active coins in circulation would eventually decrease. This will create a difference in demand and supply and bitcoin price would increase more.

[European Central Bank]

how many of the total supply right now is dormant and has been for a long time? way, way over 50% i'd guess. average daily turnover of total supply changing hands is a fraction  of that. there'd have to be a truly massive loss of coins for it to have a noticeable effect.

[BrewMaster]

how many of the total supply right now is dormant and has been for a long time? way, way over 50% i'd guess. average daily turnover of total supply changing hands is a fraction  of that. there'd have to be a truly massive loss of coins for it to have a noticeable effect.

i don't know what turnover means in this context but the total amount of bitcoin that is changing hands so to speak is about 2 million bitcoins on average every day. and that is 12% of total supply.

i say this from here: https://blockchain.info/charts/output-volume

The total value of all transaction outputs per day (includes coins returned to the sender as change).

it is not 100% accurate because it includes change but it is still pretty high.

[European Central Bank]

i don't know what turnover means in this context but the total amount of bitcoin that is changing hands so to speak is about 2 million bitcoins on average every day. and that is 12% of total supply.

surely that's one coin passing through multiple hands? buyer to bitpay, bitpay to otc buyer or exchange, then the eventual buyer withdrawing to elsewhere or spending it again.

[Cryptonite310]

This is an interesting thought. Since mining will stop in about 200 years or so, this seems possible that if we start to lose bitcoins that the supply would actually go down. If the supply goes too much down, even by half, yeah what's the point of using a currency with 27 million coins (or how ever many will be created) when only about half is even possible to be in circulation.
Half of the final number won't be able to sustain an economy, and if so it'd be pretty stupid to run it on a coin where half the coins are missing...

By that time, I don't think people will even be using BitCoin. I think people would be using some other crypto that better works as a currency and less as a mining commodity.

[artows21]

When the current generation will die, that will be in a long time, considering we are mainly quite young. At that time, those people will have told to their family that they have bitcoins. Also, even if that does not happen, that is beneficial to us, because we will have a greater price per bitcoin !

[jacaf01]

What I think will happened with time, is that there will be a calculation on annual loss rate of Bitcoin in circulation and this figure would be included in the Bitcoin code and would be allowed to be mined annually, just like the way new fiat currencies are printed to replace the lost or damaged ones.

[severaldetails]

Even with 50% of all coins lost, there is still plenty left.
I don't think that bitcoin will ever play a big role in the world as a currency, so a loss of 50% will not be harmful in that perspective.
I think it's more something for enthusiasts and technic interested people. And collectors, one day.
A decrease of available coins will only increase the peoples interest for bitcoins.

[Scorpion]

It simply doesn't matter in this scenario. Even .00000001 BTC will hold value, maybe more because it is more scarce.

[xvids]

I don't really know but I think even if other bitcoin would be stock and wouldn't circulate,
we should not worry about it I think it would only make the bitcoin price more higher.

[Senor.Bla]

I have the tendency to agree with you on the smaller  active supply with time, but i do not care to much about it. Mostly because i will be long dead and also because there will be 1000 other obstacles to take to even get there. Mankind has always replaced money, so why not replace Bitcoin if necessary.

[susila_bai]

What OP wants is what all common bitcoin users are wanting, first is security if you are using bitcoin in a wallet keep details written some where where you think it is very secure because when you die your other family members should be able to access or you can give the knowledge about bitcoin and its uses and then share the wallet details with them so that tommorrow it shoud not be problem.

about the dead accounts or non active wallet address which are holding bitcoins that can be done nothing.

[jeraldskie11]

We know that it has a small percentage that the bitcoins will fall or stop.  Bitcoin is high on demand, many people using bitcoin now and because of that, their project is more profitable so there is no reason to stop their project.  They have a financial for maintaining and updating bitcoin to still functioning. And if one of the developers died, it is easy to replace it cause we are in the new generation.

[boybugs18]

I dont think the supply will fall as many people now are discovering Bitcoin because of its features and it may be stupid thing to just store all your bitcoin for how many years and not writing any details about it so that your family members can recover or use it when you need it the most . It will just drop if those billionaires will use their money to buy bitcoin and will just store it.

[Electra01]

I suspect that when our generation of Bitcoin holders dies, a lot of us will not have left information for our heirs to access our wallets.

Why not?  It's not like you can take it with you.

You may not share your wallet information with your heir if:

-You die in an unexpected accident such as a car crash and did not share your wallet information or write a will because you thought you were going to live longer and that there would be time for it later.
-You hold a low amount of BTC and believe that bothering to share your wallet information would be a waste of time for such an insignificant amount.
-You don’t care what happens after you die.
-You don’t have anyone you want to leave your belongings to.

and is there a way to stop it?

Not without a hard fork and agreement from the vast majority of all participants (miners, nodes, merchants, users, exchanges, speculators, etc).  Getting that sort of agreement on changing the very nature of bitcoin, a nature that most of them desire in the first place, is effectively impossible.  It isn't going to happen.  Why would you want to stop it anyhow?  This is one of the great features of bitcoin.

In the long run, if 50% of Bitcoin’s total supply becomes inactive will people still want to use it?

Absolutely!  Why wouldn't you?  You get to have the exact same number of satoshis, but they are worth twice as much money.  Isn't this a good thing?

It is a good thing if you look at it in terms of price. If you hold Bitcoins then it is fantastic because what you hold gains value. However, looking at it from another angle, the market cap becomes misleading as more inactive coins exist. I think that Bitcoins that can never again be in circulation should not be used in the calculation market cap. It would be like measuring today’s Plutonium market cap and also including the amount that has been lost to radioactive decay. I guess though, that inactive Bitcoins (and other cryptocurrencies) would be more of a problem for ranking sites like coinmarketcap than the actual holders. I personally can’t think of any direct negative effect inactive coins would have on the actual holders.

[greentea]

Although bitcoin continues to be mined, in the grand scheme of things it is a deflationary coin.

With a 21 million hard cap, every time coins get burned or lost or locked out, it decreases the overall supply.

IT's more useful as a store of value like gold, than for day-to-day and micro transactions.

[xJuturna]

Although bitcoin continues to be mined, in the grand scheme of things it is a deflationary coin.

With a 21 million hard cap, every time coins get burned or lost or locked out, it decreases the overall supply.

IT's more useful as a store of value like gold, than for day-to-day and micro transactions.

exactly you hit the nail on the head.


To add to this as the overall supply decreases then, in theory, the value should increase especially as more 3rd parties accept bitcoin.

I'd like to think there will be people writing in their bitcoin wallet and key information in their wills to pass down to their children and I'm sure that can and will happen. The amount of coins will decrease to some extent because not everyone is willing to do this, but with a 21 million coin cap? There will always be a fair amount of them left.

[DannyHamilton]

I think that Bitcoins that can never again be in circulation should not be used in the calculation market cap. It would be like measuring today’s Plutonium market cap and also including the amount that has been lost to radioactive decay. I guess though, that inactive Bitcoins (and other cryptocurrencies) would be more of a problem for ranking sites like coinmarketcap than the actual holders.

Market Capitalization is a term that really doesn't apply to commodities such as bitcoin (or gold, or plutonium, or corn).  When was the last time that you saw a serious financial report on gold that referred to gold's "Market Cap" or the "Market Cap" of corn?  People that don't understand the term like to use it to compare bitcoin to a stock, but it isn't a realistic comparison and doesn't have any useful meaning behind it.

[Electra01]

I think that Bitcoins that can never again be in circulation should not be used in the calculation market cap. It would be like measuring today’s Plutonium market cap and also including the amount that has been lost to radioactive decay. I guess though, that inactive Bitcoins (and other cryptocurrencies) would be more of a problem for ranking sites like coinmarketcap than the actual holders.

Market Capitalization is a term that really doesn't apply to commodities such as bitcoin (or gold, or plutonium, or corn).  When was the last time that you saw a serious financial report on gold that referred to gold's "Market Cap" or the "Market Cap" of corn?  People that don't understand the term like to use it to compare bitcoin to a stock, but it isn't a realistic comparison and doesn't have any useful meaning behind it.

Regrettably, I had checked the definition of market capitalization before posting the previous post and then, forgetting to change it, posted it anyway. Yes, it is wrong to apply it to commodities like plutonium. So to rephrase my previous post:

I think that Bitcoins that can never again be in circulation should not be used in the calculation of its total value. It would be like measuring Plutonium’s current total value and also including the amount that has been lost to radioactive decay. I guess though, that inactive Bitcoins (and other cryptocurrencies) would be more of a problem for ranking sites like coinmarketcap than the actual holders.

[beerlover]

Even with 50% of all coins lost, there is still plenty left.
I don't think that bitcoin will ever play a big role in the world as a currency, so a loss of 50% will not be harmful in that perspective.
I think it's more something for enthusiasts and technic interested people. And collectors, one day.
A decrease of available coins will only increase the peoples interest for bitcoins.

I agree with on saying that the bitcoin won’t play a big role in the currency world, and the more bitcoin decreases in quantity the more people will get interested in it because if it gets lower the price gets higher and that is good for us, and in my opinion in the future there maybe a new technology that will allow us to have more bitcoin.

[miningdude]

Even with 50% of all coins lost, there is still plenty left.
I don't think that bitcoin will ever play a big role in the world as a currency, so a loss of 50% will not be harmful in that perspective.
I think it's more something for enthusiasts and technic interested people. And collectors, one day.
A decrease of available coins will only increase the peoples interest for bitcoins.

I agree with on saying that the bitcoin won’t play a big role in the currency world, and the more bitcoin decreases in quantity the more people will get interested in it because if it gets lower the price gets higher and that is good for us, and in my opinion in the future there maybe a new technology that will allow us to have more bitcoin.

lol bitcoins won't fall this year all those troll are sucks.