A proposed solution to adjust for lost Bitcoins: wallet 'heartbeats'

[BitterTea]

I'm not going to play guessing games regarding the future of Bitcoin. It is however a fact that as the value of something increases, the effort that goes into protecting that thing increases.

Actually, as has been stated, for the value to increase, it will require wider adoption. Wider adoption means the value is spread among more users. And the key point here is: when you have 1 million users who possess a digital file that contains 100x where x is valued at y, or 100 million users who possess a digital file that contains 1x where x is valued at 100y, you still have the same total value per user, and thus, rationally, each user applies the same measures to safeguard it, regardless of the value of a single unit.

Honestly, is that your argument? That the increased value of Bitcoins will result in an overall increased effort to safeguard it?

Distribution of bitcoins is not homogeneous. That is your first invalid assumption. Some people will have a lot of coins and will in all likelyhood be willing to spend some of it to create additional security infrastructure for Bitcoin. I can't imagine any security infrastructure good only for those with lots of bitcoins, or any benefit to them for keeping it to themselves. Especially since greater security could lead to greater adoption and a higher price.

Yes, that is my argument. What is your aversion to creating a fork with your changes?

[1715157804]

1715157804

[bji]

The code is open source, quit complaining and start coding.

I'm not complaining.  But this is exactly the kind of demeaning comment I was talking about.  Do you always have to end every post with an insult to someone?

[bji]

Why are you so adamant that this be incorporated into Bitcoin, rather than a block chain of your own design?

There are people who like to improve the game rather than just run away and play their own game.

It's pretty obvious that few people (if any) other than you and bji want this "feature".

Then I respectfully invite you to not participate in this thread anymore.  Seriously, it's not doing any good.  And for the record, while I agree with ascent's assessment of the problem, I also believe that it is not likely to be an issue for a long, long time and am personally in no hurry to see any solution applied at the moment.

[BitterTea]

I'm not complaining.  But this is exactly the kind of demeaning comment I was talking about.  Do you always have to end every post with an insult to someone?

Seriously? All you've been doing is complaining about people shitting on this idea. Some ideas deserve to be shit upon. If you can't handle that, it's not my fault.

There are people who like to improve the game rather than just run away and play their own game.

Look at the responses in the thread. Very few people want this "feature". Thus, it is not an improvement from the perspective of the current user base. The only rational thing to do, if you (not you, ascent) continue to insist that this is valid fix for an actual problem, is to implement it yourself and show people that it works.

Then I respectfully invite you to not participate in this thread anymore.  Seriously, it's not doing any good.  And for the record, while I agree with ascent's assessment of the problem, I also believe that it is not likely to be an issue for a long, long time and am personally in no hurry to see any solution applied at the moment.

Yeah, I'm done. I can only say so many times in so many ways that I really don't think you will find support for this idea, and if you really want it done, do it yourself. Too bad I can't hide this thread from my "unread replies" page.

[BeeCee1]

What you are proposing is tantamount to changing the terms of a bearer certificate after it is issued.

You seem to think that you are using a currency system with a contract that states the rules are fixed and will never change.

You should re-read the rules of bitcoin because you have missed a big one.  The rules are set by a majority of the miners (with the consent of the majority of people sending/receiving transactions).  If the majority of users vote to change the rules (by using software that implements new rules) then the rules are changed.  You know (or should know) this and implicitly agreed to it (by using bitcoins), it is part of the system and has been from day one.  Your bearer certificate example is simply not relevant.

[bitplane]

Joining the party late here, but has anyone compiled meaningful statistics on how old the oldest coins are? If, at some point in the future, it turns out that a very small fraction of coins have either been lost or have never been used for X years, then it may be in the interest of the majority of users to adopt this new strategy.

IMO it's worth talking about this now, but we won't know whether it will be beneficial for the majority of the network until at least X years have actually passed, so it's not worth considering such ideas until we have the raw data.

Arguing whether it feels like a good idea or not without actually crunching the numbers is a flawed way of looking at things. Let's see some research folks.

[amincd]

It'd be nice if bitcoin supply was fixed at 21 million rather than deflated over time.

The major down-side to this is how it would affect things like Casascius coins. People would need to redeem their coins at least every 7 years, which takes away from their usefulness as a savings vehicle.

Maybe an option could be given to lengthen the period of time that a particular set of bitcoins doesn't require a heartbeat, to for example, 30 years, by paying an extra high transaction fee. That would be a sufficient amount of time for Casascius coins to be useful. Paying to have your coins re-minted once very 25 years I don't think is overly costly and probably necessary any way as the hologram and the material that the private key is printed on could start degrading after a couple of decades.

Any way, there's next to no chance of a change this big being made, if only due to the programming complexity of doing it right, never mind community disagreement, but FWIW, I think it'd be good for bitcoin.

[Pieter Wuille]

What you are proposing is tantamount to changing the terms of a bearer certificate after it is issued.

You seem to think that you are using a currency system with a contract that states the rules are fixed and will never change.

You should re-read the rules of bitcoin because you have missed a big one.  The rules are set by a majority of the miners (with the consent of the majority of people sending/receiving transactions).  If the majority of users vote to change the rules (by using software that implements new rules) then the rules are changed.  You know (or should know) this and implicitly agreed to it (by using bitcoins), it is part of the system and has been from day one.  Your bearer certificate example is simply not relevant.

This is certainly not true. Miners do not have absolute authority over bitcoin's rules. In fact, they exist only for one reason, and that is the only thing they can decide: they ordering of transactions. They decide over bitcoin's history in the global ledger, but can only accept otherwise valid transactions into it. They have the power to postpone transactions, possibly indefinitely, but cannot change the rules that make a transaction or a block valid.

There are some rules that are fixed. Obviously, they could be changed if 100% of users and miners alike agreed to, and every single one would upgrade. But that doesn't surprise anyone, I hope. Among the things that cannot be changed is the maximum allowed miner subsidy (which is current 50 BTC per block, and halves every 210000 blocks), or the structure of transactions.

[DeepBit]

Lost bitcoins don't need any solutions.

[Killdozer]

+1 for just not letting the block reward run out.
Besides the problem of lost coins it also solves a big risk of most miners quitting when the reward dies out (nobody really knows that transaction fees will be enough) and the network is going to be vulnerable to attacks.
What are we really loosing? The block reward will not introduce that much inflation, because the absolute value of bitcoin produced will be less and less when compared to the total amount of bitcoins out there, and a tiny inflation is much better than limited amount of coins ever causing deflation (because of wider and wider bitcoin adoption, which is inevitable), because that only stimulates hoarding!

This is certainly not true. Miners do not have absolute authority over bitcoin's rules.

No, BeeCee1 is right. The miners do decide. Even if everyone else would screw them and start a new currency, who would mine? Miners are the only ones that will ultimately make the choice.

There are some rules that are fixed. Obviously, they could be changed if 100% of users and miners alike agreed to, and every single one would upgrade.

Well just a visible majority of *miners* is needed. If things would require 100% of everyone to agree, nothing would ever get done and nothing would ever get changed )). When the majority changes, the rest will have to upgrade or stay behind with a worthless chain, even if they would change a rule that you call "fixed". (I mean it is only fixed because the majority likes it right now. There are no contracts or any guarantees of any kind.)

[guruvan]

Lost bitcoins don't need any solutions.

+10
No more so than lost gold.

The block reward design seems correct to me. I certainly wouldn't want to change that before the first decrease happens, and we see the ultimate result. My suspicion is that after it happens, we'd all like to keep the block reward decreasing as planned. Supply & Demand will rule the day, and scarcity will likely provide more value than continuing the subsidy rate.

[Dusty]

I have not read every post of the thread, I apologize if I repeat some already discussed idea.

After laughing hard at the proposal I startes thinking that such an idea (i.e.: reclaim unused coins after some time, let's say 20 years) could have one interesting upside:
assuming that it's a miner that claims the unused (or lost) coins that could help address (or ease) the issue of mining when the base coins reward approaches zero.

So the miners would get all the fees of the transactions plus all the coins of "expired" transactions: that kind of reward (when existing) would reward the miner without inflating the money supply.

Another benefit could be reducing blockchain bloat allowing deeper pruning, but I'm unsure on that point.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

A mighty wizard we need to put a powerfull anti-resurrection spell a on this forums.

I mean all the ancient magical topics get revived over and over and over again by young, foolish necromancers. We can't have this kind of power roaming freely the middle-earth. It may awaken the dead from their graves !

[DeathAndTaxes]

A mighty wizard we need to put a powerfull anti-resurrection spell a on this forums.

I mean all the ancient magical topics get revived over and over and over again by young, foolish necromancers. We can't have this kind of power roaming freely the middle-earth. It may awaken the dead from their graves !

Just integrate Bitcoins (the solution to everything).  Topics older than 30 days become locked.  A bot puts a final locking post on the thread w/ a revive Bitcoin address.  The cost to revive is (days since last post - 30)^2  / 100 BTC.    The spell cost will keep younger wizards out of trouble (unless they have deep wallets).

[smickles]

Lost bitcoins don't need any solutions.

I came here to say something similar to this, yet after reading the posts about people wanting the block reward to never end… now I'm a bit scared.

Should I one day find that the block reward has been extended or continued indefinitely, I would sell any and all coins under my control and dissolve or exit any Bitcoin related business which I am involved in.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

A mighty wizard we need to put a powerfull anti-resurrection spell a on this forums.

I mean all the ancient magical topics get revived over and over and over again by young, foolish necromancers. We can't have this kind of power roaming freely the middle-earth. It may awaken the dead from their graves !

Just integrate Bitcoins (the solution to everything).  Topics older than 30 days become locked.  A bot puts a final locking post on the thread w/ a revive Bitcoin address.  The cost to revive is (days since lost post - 30)^2  / 100 BTC. 

This actually a totally awesome idea.
+10

[Deafboy]

I'm not sure if something like this should be implemented but if, I sugest time until coins expire should be average lenght of human live

[amincd]

A decreasing bitcoin supply lends to price instability, because there will be a greater oscillation between the market thinking the supply is too deflationary to promote a large bitcoin economy, and the market thinking bitcoin value will skyrocket due to growing usage and decreasing supply.

It also creates more uncertainty as a larger percentage of the bitcoin supply goes off-line, with a possibility, but not a certainty, that a large amount will come back into use suddenly when someone discovers an old wallet.

Re-issuing lost coins improves bitcoin's security at a time when block rewards will be much lower, and it will do so without inflating the bitcoin supply. With lost coins, either present bitcoin holders can be rewarded with deflation, or people who mine bitcoins can be rewarded for contributing to network security with bitcoins.

The latter can actually increase the value of bitcoin more then rewarding bitcoin holders with deflation, for the three reasons mentioned.

Should I one day find that the block reward has been extended or continued indefinitely, I would sell any and all coins under my control and dissolve or exit any Bitcoin related business which I am involved in.

I would too, but this is a far cry from calling for block rewards to be continued indefinitely. With this, there would never be more than 21 million bitcoins, and any one that keeps track of theirs would never suffer inflation.

Any way, rest assured, there's zero chance of this being implemented. There are a lot of potential problems with this proposal too that haven't been explored since no one is taking it seriously enough to really try to find holes in it.

[kjj]

A decreasing bitcoin supply lends to price instability, because there will be a greater oscillation between the market thinking the supply is too deflationary to promote a large bitcoin economy, and the market thinking bitcoin value will skyrocket due to growing usage and decreasing supply.

It also creates more uncertainty as a larger percentage of the bitcoin supply goes off-line, with a possibility, but not a certainty, that a large amount come back into use suddenly when someone discovers an old wallet.

Re-issuing lost coins improves bitcoin's security at a time when block rewards will be much lower, and it will do so without inflating the bitcoin supply. With lost coins, either present bitcoin holders can be rewarded with deflation, or people who mine bitcoins can be rewarded for contributing to network security with bitcoins.

The latter can actually increase the value of bitcoin more then rewarding bitcoin holders with deflation, for the three reasons mentioned.

Oh God, not this post again.  Can you people please try to understand that saying something doesn't make it true?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

A decreasing bitcoin supply lends to price instability, because there will be a greater oscillation between the market thinking the supply is too deflationary to promote a large bitcoin economy, and the market thinking bitcoin value will skyrocket due to growing usage and decreasing supply.

It also creates more uncertainty as a larger percentage of the bitcoin supply goes off-line, with a possibility, but not a certainty, that a large amount come back into use suddenly when someone discovers an old wallet.

Re-issuing lost coins improves bitcoin's security at a time when block rewards will be much lower, and it will do so without inflating the bitcoin supply. With lost coins, either present bitcoin holders can be rewarded with deflation, or people who mine bitcoins can be rewarded for contributing to network security with bitcoins.

The latter can actually increase the value of bitcoin more then rewarding bitcoin holders with deflation, for the three reasons mentioned.

Oh God, not this post again.  Can you people please try to understand that saying something doesn't make it true?

Shouldn't his post be moved to the topic "deflation and bitcoin - the last words on this forum" ?
We can't have the same discussion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, can we ?