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

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Voting no at all.

Seriously people, stop trying to mess with people savings. We want bitcoin because it give us sovereignty on money, and you propose to happily remove that exact thing? No.

+∞

The moment someone starts to mess with my savings, I'm leaving this boat - and so will do many big players (Assuming of course that chain split wouldn't occur first).

I seriously invite all those who want change the rules to make their own currency. I actually think there is a need for another inflata-coin in parallel to normal Bitcoin. But chainging the rules of this environment is absolutely out of the question.

[1715459064]

1715459064

[1715459064]

1715459064

[1715459064]

1715459064

[1715459064]

1715459064

[DeepBit]

Voting no at all.

Seriously people, stop trying to mess with people savings. We want bitcoin because it give us sovereignty on money, and you propose to happily remove that exact thing? No.

The moment someone starts to mess with my savings, I'm leaving this boat - and so will do many big players (Assuming of course that chain split wouldn't occur first).

Don't worry, they don't have any chance to win :)

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Voting no at all.

Seriously people, stop trying to mess with people savings. We want bitcoin because it give us sovereignty on money, and you propose to happily remove that exact thing? No.

The moment someone starts to mess with my savings, I'm leaving this boat - and so will do many big players (Assuming of course that chain split wouldn't occur first).

Don't worry, they don't have any chance to win

I am pretty sure they don't.

However I am also assuming that CIA/FBI/Political Establishments/Whatever already have agents on the forum (after all they openly admitted their interests in Bitcoin) who will (probably) use every occasion to spread FUD, misinformation & propaganda.

You never know who are you talking to or how many of them is already here. So it is important to stop inflationist lies sooner than later.

[Therilith]

Voting no at all.

Seriously people, stop trying to mess with people savings. We want bitcoin because it give us sovereignty on money, and you propose to happily remove that exact thing? No.

So you'd rather have absolute control of worthless money than slightly less than absolute control of valuable and useful money?
I'm not saying that this problem is inevitable or, if it occurs, fatal, but your post is just such a laughable oversimplification...
Besides, you would still be just as sovereign as you are with regards to any other kind of property.

I seriously invite all those who want change the rules to make their own currency.

(In case that was directed, in part, at the proposed solutions to the uncertainty/massive overnight inflation problem:)
Do you seriously think that a fork that introduces short term (mostly emotional) discomfort to solve a potential long term problem would have any chance of catching on?
Believe me, I'd love to live in a world where that was the case, but I don't. And neither do you.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I seriously invite all those who want change the rules to make their own currency.

(In case that was directed, in part, at the proposed solutions to the uncertainty/massive overnight inflation problem:)
Do you seriously think that a fork that introduces short term (mostly emotional) discomfort to solve a potential long term problem would have any chance of catching on?

Yes, I seriously believe that when you make something good, and it is free and open source, people will come and support you.
That is the way Free Software works, it always has been this way since the dawn of GPL and Linux. This time is not different.

So just make a better currency, advertise it, publish a whitepaper like Satoshi did, and repeat the success of Bitcoin. If your conception is worth it, people will follow. It is that simple.

But perhaps the problem is, that the conception is not worth it, and this is why stealing other people's money through "wallet heartbeats" or some inflationary bullshit will fail.

[RodeoX]

...The moment someone starts to mess with my savings, I'm leaving this boat - and so will do many big players...

Yep. I would sell my BTC that day and move on to real estate, art, and my angel investing efforts.

[Therilith]

I seriously invite all those who want change the rules to make their own currency.

(In case that was directed, in part, at the proposed solutions to the uncertainty/massive overnight inflation problem:)
Do you seriously think that a fork that introduces short term (mostly emotional) discomfort to solve a potential long term problem would have any chance of catching on?

Yes, I seriously believe that when you make something good, and it is free and open source, people will come and support you.
That is the way Free Software works, it always has been this way since the dawn of GPL and Linux. This time is not different.

So just make a better currency, advertise it, publish a whitepaper like Satoshi did, and repeat the success of Bitcoin. If your conception is worth it, people will follow. It is that simple.

But perhaps the problem is, that the conception is not worth it, and this is why stealing other people's money through "wallet heartbeats" or some inflationary bullshit will fail.

You seem to have missed something important: A great many people are myopic gits. If you want to create a stable system with a large user base, it has to be myopic git-proof.

I suppose gmaxwells idea (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20799.msg267555#msg267555) would actually be a better solution. If you leave a pile of money lying around in a crowded mall completely unguarded where anyone can see and take it, you can't reasonable expect it to still be there when you get back.

Oh, and some obligatory sarcasm:
You want P2SH? Create a new currency and convince people to reprogram their apps, transfer their money and start over from scratch trying to promote it to the public.

...The moment someone starts to mess with my savings, I'm leaving this boat - and so will do many big players...

Yep. I would sell my BTC that day and move on to real estate, art, and my angel investing efforts.

How dare people try to keep everybody's money from becoming worthless!
Seriously, if you don't think there's a problem, explain why. If you have a better solution, explain it.
So far the only argument you've come up with is "Nu-uh!"

[Gavin Andresen]

Don't worry, they don't have any chance to win

+1

Personally, I consider the coin creation function (50 BTC every 10 minutes, halving every 4 years) and rules for whether or not you can spend the coins you have (if, and only if, you can satisfy the scriptPubKey by creating an ECDSA signature then you can spend them) sacrosanct. Them's the rules of Bitcoin, change them and it ain't Bitcoin any more.

Extending Bitcoin to new and wonderful types of transactions is fine, and, actually, I believe Therilith could build most of what he wants on top of Bitcoin using pre-signed fee-only non-final transactions with a lockTime 10 years in the future.

Convincing people to agree to do that would be another thing all together...

[DeepBit]

Extending Bitcoin to new and wonderful types of transactions is fine, and, actually, I believe Therilith could build most of what he wants on top of Bitcoin

I don't think you are interested in wonderful types of transactions, may be even the opposite.
Now the rules are more strict and inputs are being checked for being standard too :(

We had the chance to enable more opcodes inside P2SH, but it didn't happened...

[Gavin Andresen]

Extending Bitcoin to new and wonderful types of transactions is fine, and, actually, I believe Therilith could build most of what he wants on top of Bitcoin

I don't think you are interested in wonderful types of transactions, may be even the opposite.
Now the rules are more strict and inputs are being checked for being standard too

We had the chance to enable more opcodes inside P2SH, but it didn't happened...

Write up a proposal, start experimenting on testnet, recruit people to think really hard about how whether or not what you're proposing could be abused to compromise security or could make a denial-of-service attack easier...

I'm against changes that might make Bitcoin a tiny bit better, but if you've got a well-thought-out proposal for how to make Bitcoin much better in some way then I'll help you argue for it.

[gmaxwell]

Don't worry, they don't have any chance to win

+1
Personally, I consider the coin creation function (50 BTC every 10 minutes, halving every 4 years) and rules for whether or not you can spend the coins you have (if, and only if, you can satisfy the scriptPubKey by creating an ECDSA signature then you can spend them) sacrosanct. Them's the rules of Bitcoin, change them and it ain't Bitcoin any more.

I agree too—

Though I would point out here that at some point in the future we may find that we need to upgrade cryptosystems for security reasons... and that if we don't _eventually_ deny the spending of coins sent to the old insecure system then we could well find that enormous deposits of zombie coins suddenly appear due to cracking and that their rapid unexpected introduction into the economy is very much not what anyone signed up for and could be disruptive.   So it would make sense to sunset insecure transactions.

Someone arguing for regular long-horizon sun-setting, instead of just a one time event, might have a lot more success arguing it at that time.  In particular, it would be much less bad if you know _in advance_ that you will have to heart beat your coins once a decade, then it would be to find out later that cryptosystem breaks mean you'll have to do it.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Though I would point out here that at some point in the future we may find that we need to upgrade cryptosystems for security reasons... and that if we don't _eventually_ deny the spending of coins sent to the old insecure system then we could well find that enormous deposits of zombie coins suddenly appear due to cracking and that their rapid unexpected introduction into the economy is very much not what anyone signed up for and could be disruptive.   So it would make sense to sunset insecure transactions.

I see yuur point, but you are not entirely on topic.

The topic author is not suggesting to "sunset" coins for security reasons, but for some bullshit semi-inflational reasons, which is plainly wrong and destroys the sancrosanct rules of Bitcoin as Gavin said.

Once the cryptography behind Bitcoin gets broken, I am sure that majority will agree that something needs to be done about old, insecure coins. In that case, i suppose it would be possible to re-hash the old coins somehow with new algorithm by sending them to a upgraded address using upgraded client.

But that is a matter for completely different discussion.

[DeathAndTaxes]

The topic author is not suggesting to "sunset" coins for security reasons, but for some bullshit semi-inflational reasons, which is plainly wrong and destroys the sancrosanct rules of Bitcoin as Gavin said.

Once the cryptography behind Bitcoin gets broken, I am sure that majority will agree that something needs to be done about old, insecure coins. In that case, i suppose it would be possible to re-hash the old coins somehow with new algorithm by sending them to a upgraded address using upgraded client.

This.  When (or more likely) if ECC is compromised the most likely scenario (based on prior crypto attacks) it likely will be a partial compromise.  That is private keys must be brute forced but can be done so millions or maybe even billions of times faster.  That means that the day 0 threat to Bitcoin will be minimal.  The network will operate for a while with "legacy" addresses and new "strong" addresses.

In time though those legacy addresses will represent a risk.  A method to sunset that risk may need to be devised.  Even then it will be controversial and require some thought.  To change the protocol today in such a fundamental manner is just asinine. 

[Brunic]

Value is relative and adapt itself to its market. If the market is 21 millions unit, the value will adjust accordingly. If the market is 8.7 millions unit like today, the value will adapt itself.

Even if in 10 years from now, there's 10 millions Bitcoin available(because the rest is lost), the market will only adjust itself to the current supply. Bitcoin will worth more to compensate for the lack of Bitcoins. It's a hard cap market, where the supply is limited. Whether the cap is 21 millions, 5 millions or 150 millions, it is still a hard cap that will never be breached.

This wallet heartbeat plays around two important values of Bitcoin:
-The supply limit
-Individual control

Supply limit for $CAN is a soft cap. You have a limit that can be modified.
Supply limit for Bitcoin is a hard cap. You have a limit, you're stuck with it.

Individual control for $CAN is shared. You can use it as you wish, but it's still the property of the Bank of Canada.
Individual control for Bitcoin is completely individual. You control it so much that you can print your own money, and you can delete your own money.

A wallet heartbeat will maximize the supply under the limit, but will never change the fact that you have a maximum, whatever the value is.
However, the wallet hearbeat will forever change the individual control of Bitcoin from "individual" to "shared".

I'm sure the intentions are good, but you're playing with the fundamentals values of Bitcoin. Changing one of these values means that it's not Bitcoin anymore. Making a new currency with that solution could be interesting, because it could offer a new set of values on the market. But you can't implement this into Bitcoin without denaturing Bitcoin itself.

[kjj]

This.  When (or more likely) if ECC is compromised the most likely scenario (based on prior crypto attacks) it likely will be a partial compromise.  That is private keys must be brute forced but can be done so millions or maybe even billions of times faster.  That means that the day 0 threat to Bitcoin will be minimal.  The network will operate for a while with "legacy" addresses and new "strong" addresses.

In time though those legacy addresses will represent a risk.  A method to sunset that risk may need to be devised.  Even then it will be controversial and require some thought.  To change the protocol today in such a fundamental manner is just asinine. 

A weakness, unlike a clean break, would automatically provide the sunset.  No action needed.

[allten]

This thread has been interesting and has been much food for thought.
I hope all the opposition doesn't drive away the owner of the OP from Bitcoin.
Ideas being discussed even though they may have a low probability taking root is healthy and shouldn't be feared.
The idea that changing Bitcoin will kill Bitcoin is a fallacy. Here's why, it takes a pretty significant majority (specifically miners) to
accept a change like this. I would have to say that miners care more about bitcoin than anyone else. If they believe in an idea enough to
help implement it then there's no way it would kill bitcoin because it already has the backing and support of those who make it work.

Here's my thoughts on the proposal:
    Bitcoin is too knew to seriously consider implementing a fix for a supposed problem that manifests itself over a very long period of time.
The fact that it is working now is a miracle. Until events transpire that causes all bitcoin user to reflect over something specific, gaining a majority will be extremely difficult unless you have a lot of clout.
I say be patient and who knows how the culture here will change in a decade.

Personally, I believe an idea similar to yours will be seriously considered as the block reward is pushed extremely low.
The success of changing from bitcoin rewards to transaction fees is still theoretical. I'm not saying it will not work, but it is theoretical and has been the topic of much discussion.
If it does not work as some envision it then solutions will be seriously sought after. These potentially lost bitcoins may be the source to drive the economic engine of bitcoin for another 100 years after the reward is gone without exceeding the hard coded limit of approximately 21 million bitcoins.

So, be patient. the time for your idea may come.

[cunicula]

I would put this in much stronger terms. The theory unambiguously indicates that changing from block reward to txn fees will fail under the current design unless mining becomes monopolized. A solution to this problem will need to be adopted eventually. There is a reasonable debate about what the right fix is and whether it is worth worrying about right now or not. The side that says txn fees will work as they stand is not supported by a theoretical argument.

Personally, I believe an idea similar to yours will be seriously considered as the block reward is pushed extremely low.
The success of changing from bitcoin rewards to transaction fees is still theoretical. I'm not saying it will not work, but it is theoretical and has been the topic of much discussion.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I would put this in much stronger terms. The theory unambiguously indicates that changing from block reward to txn fees will fail under the current design unless mining becomes monopolized.

We will return to this topic in 30 years, when it will be possible to verify these claims.

For now, stick to the matter at hand. And the matter is, we don't need any fix for a problem that neither does exist yet or it is certain it will ever exist.

[DeathAndTaxes]

A weakness, unlike a clean break, would automatically provide the sunset.  No action needed.

Among non-lost coins I agree however "lost" coins will never be automatically sunset or moved by the owner to strong addresses because they are lost.  

Even then I am not saying action IS REQUIRED just that it MAY be required and certainly should be analyzed at that point.


The market will always adjust to the equilibrium price however such adjustments can be disruptive if there are large increases in supply or demand.  Those disruptions themselves can be damaging to the currency.

The other risk is that eventually "treasure hunting" becomes a more profitable venture that protecting the network.  Obviously that is in no-ones best interest.  Once again not saying it WILL happen but imagine a situation where ECC is significantly compromised.  As Bitcoin increases in value, the cost to brute force one private key falls (both due to deeper crypto flaws and Moore's law) the BTC per "GH/s equivelent" will rise.  If it is ever higher than block reward then it becomes more profitable to treasure hunt then protect the network.  Miners likely will do that leading to a tragedy of the commons scenario.  They may even form large hunting pools to reduce variance.

Still discussing it now is premature.  We don't know if ECC will be compromised.  We don't know how long such a compromise will take, we don't know how many coins will remain in compromised addresses.  If may never become "economical" to hunt for lost coins.  Even if it becomes economical the rate that lost coins are found may not be disruptive.  I am just saying that if ECC is compromised there MAY be a need for sunsetting compromised addresses.

If we did need to sunset "legacy" addresses I would advocate for permanent coin destruction rather than confiscating.  It removes the moral hazard.

The issue with the thread is it seems to things which are unnecessary are being advocated:
a) sunset addresses even if no compromise occurs
b) confiscate the wealth

Even if you agree that massive market disruptions are damaging neither are needed.  If the coins are spent after long inactivity and addresses algorithm isn't compromised then the coins were never lost.  It would be no different than Satoshi today dumping 1M+ coins on MtGox.  While not the smartest decision nobody has a right to say he "can't" and we need to confiscate the coins to make sure he doesn't.    If ECC algorithm isn't weakened there is no risk of large amounts of truly lost coins being "found".

On confiscation of wealth that is just asinine.  If the risk is not knowing if coins are truly lost then simply make them permanently lost with no profit to anyone.  The network doesn't need to have exactly 12.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 M BTC in circulation.   Giving the wealth to someone else creates a moral hazard.  Just destroy the coins instead.

[Therilith]

Extending Bitcoin to new and wonderful types of transactions is fine, and, actually, I believe Therilith could build most of what he wants on top of Bitcoin using pre-signed fee-only non-final transactions with a lockTime 10 years in the future.

What I want is a solution to the problem discussed in this thread. I'm not sure how what you're suggesting would accomplish that.
My defense of a sunset limit has been based on two things: It not being nearly as horrible and evil as some people seem to think and it being a potential solution to the problem. If the problem did not exist (which I still believe it does), or if someone could offer up a better solution, I would not support the implementation of said limit.

Value is relative and adapt itself to its market.

You say "market readjustment", I say "significant and harmful economic disruption". Both would be accurate.

For now, stick to the matter at hand. And the matter is, we don't need any fix for a problem that neither does exist yet or it is certain it will ever exist.

"Don't try to solve the problem until it actually starts causing trouble".
Meh, I guess it'll be easier to convince people when they're actually staring death in the face, so to speak.

If the coins are spent after long inactivity and addresses algorithm isn't compromised then the coins were never lost.

It makes absolutely no difference whether they were lost or not. The problem remains the same.