Regenerating lost bitcoins

[SONG GEET]

Thus if we are to see Bitcoin or any digital currency overtaking the financial system, it is definite that bitcoins that are unused or unaccessible for a given amount of years should enter into the pool of distributing to the miners as a bonus incentive of the standard rate they are currently given.

To overtake financial system there is no need of this. Why to increase supply by bringing lost bitcoin into the supply chain. This doesn't make any sense, bitcoin price depends upon simple demand and supply ratio. So finite and limited supply is the key factor for growth of bitcoin and its price.

Don't know what makes you think like this.  

[jonald_fyookball]

As for hater comments, I feel pity cause even if frozen amounts are not moved they will likely lose most value anyway by staying on the wrong side of a hardfork.

Not really.  Conservative investors will keep both coins and only ditch the minority coin when its very clear and not worth that much.

[johnwest]

No thanks, your idea only can be realized if bitcoin is centralized or the foundation is changed and i think many people wouldn't want that, furthermore your idea to determine which bitcoin is lost have flaws and i don't understand about central control but it will be centrally controlled by the world
Even the idea of increase max. bitcoin mined or change PoW to PoS with less than 1% inflation sound better than your idea.

I too think that it is a dumb idea and the OP may not have any Bitcoin stored for his future. I have stored Bitcoins and some altcoins stored for the future which am not gonna use or transact it. So whether it is lost bitcoins..?

[The One]

Again, I believe people are missing out on the big picture here.

I am not mentioning only to destroy the old, I am just suggesting create enough new ones so that the transaction flow stays solvent.
Basic economics of the quantity theory of money: Money supply x Velocity of transactions = Price level x Amount of goods/services transacted
If more and more people store bitcoins and avoid purchases then the result will be less and less transactions and less incentives for miners making the currency vulnerable from new miners for an attack whom have a better plan on dealing with the situation.
Hardforks seem to be unavoidable so I just hope for you to choose the best side of the situation based on your knowledge.
I do predict in the next halving of rewards will have a significant change in who stays to mine to overtake the network.

As for central control, yes central control is inevitable but I don't see it as a bad thing cause it will be centrally controlled by the world and not some specific nation. If it isn't then I don't see how practical it is to store something intangible opposed to metals or other tangible items because right now bitcoin is simply functioning as a shock absorber so gold prices dont fly too high.

Oh dear

[Kprawn]

i have coins that havnt been touched since 2012.

if the OP thinks its ok to destroy my coins(for instance of a 5 year limit) and allow a pool to generate a coinbase that includes an amount of my coins because of lets say a 5 year threshold.

then lets first ask anyone that thinks its a good idea.. to first delete their own private keys and see how they feel when they suddenly cant have their coins.

He is not saying that "idle" coins needs to be regenerated, but rather asking how this could be overcome if there are too little coins left to

distribute to the remaining users of this currency. This is where most new users of this technology are missing the whole point... they cannot

see how "lost" coins can actually be beneficial and that Bitcoin can be adapted to create smaller units. { 0.0000000001 for instance }

[Syke]

As for hater comments, I feel pity cause even if frozen amounts are not moved they will likely lose most value anyway by staying on the wrong side of a hardfork.

That's not how hardforks works.

And stop trying to steal my bitcoins. I own them and you have no right to take them away for any reason.

[BitcoinPanther]

Deflationary features is what makes Bitcoin beautiful.  Please do not remove this feature in Bitcoin.  Once lost, let it be lost forever.  Besides it is not to me or someone else  anyway.  This kind of feature is not broken and  does not need to be fixed.

He is not saying that "idle" coins needs to be regenerated, but rather asking how this could be overcome if there are too little coins left to

distribute to the remaining users of this currency. This is where most new users of this technology are missing the whole point... they cannot

see how "lost" coins can actually be beneficial and that Bitcoin can be adapted to create smaller units. { 0.0000000001 for instance }

The problem with this was been discussed in the earlier post.  To determine which is just idle and which is is really lost.  Seems we will be having problem with that.

[jak3]

i am a programmer but not as deep as satoshi was , anyway yes your theory is right it is kind of possible scenario that the coins which are there left for more like 100years will be then automatically distributed so they can be reused but unfortunately bitcoin does not has that future because we already has the documentation for how bitcoin works and there is no where stated this kind of stuff and this can make the whole network vulnerable too

[Carlsen]

I don't think it's such a bad feature that coins can get lost.
Lost coins decrease the supply and give so the available coins more value.
If the lost coins would somehow show up again, that could disturbe the price developement.

[Emoclaw]

As for hater comments, I feel pity cause even if frozen amounts are not moved they will likely lose most value anyway by staying on the wrong side of a hardfork.

Frozen amounts simply can't 'stay on the wrong side of a hardfork'. They are permanently stored on the blockchain and should a hard fork occur, it will be one of that same blockchain.

[Monnt]

I don’t think that this idea is even possible with Bitcoin. With banks and a regular Fiat currency it is possible because you are doing with physical assets and real paper cash. With bitcoin you are dealing with a virtual world where Bitcoins are lost forever. I don’t think one could retrieve someone’s bitcoin that hasn’t been used. This could be bad in the wrong hands too because you would not know if someone would claim you hadn’t used your account recently enough.

[butch_15342]

Wow, didnt realize such a large opposition but i believe you haven't understood my idea. Nevertheless I do hope that you all prove me wrong for the sake of bitcoin which i also am part of.

Considering the hard fork, I understand it will be multiplied twice for each part, but those who dont believe in a stable non-deflationary side will sell most likely that part and later on realize that they chose to bid on the wrong side. If they decide to keep both sides then that is good for each one who does this.

Furthermore to remention the quantity theory of money, someone mentioned if Price x purchases remains constant then yes velocity can increase by a decreased money supply. But realistically in a deflationary condition price will not stay constant and the more people see the deflation the more they keep onto the coins to see prices go further down and by keeping the coins transactions will also decrease, so it is inevitable a down spiral of both money supply and velocity of transactions, my prediction is not soon but at some point in time if unchanged will.

So back to my suggestion is that to create new bitcoins is not to create inflation but to keep a steady rate of 0% inflation. If this is not conducted then we will have a hyperdeflation at some point which means that essentially people lose interest in something that is not useful for transactions and economic activity anymore and will look for other mediums of exchange. Cause in the end money is suppose to be a medium of exchange. If you want to store value you should look for something tangible.