Suggestion: Redistributing Lost Funds by Erosion

[xhomerx10]

 Your "proof of possession" concept is (also) on a collision course with the "proof of burn" concept.  By design, the burned coins cannot be moved - ever.

[franky1]

ok in 3 years time from today. if you have not changed your mortgage deed into your spouses name.. the bank gets the house.. even if its fully paid for and in your name

.....

it makes you poorer and banks richer.
its not redistributing wealth to the needy..
trickle down economics does not work

so.. let you practice wat you preach today.. before trying to suggest its wat the community should be forced to do

.....


so moving coins from hoarders to mining pools wont make a blinding bit of difference to the market transparency. its just giving mining pools a free 0.1% bonus while making savers 0.1% poorer

It starts to look like you're just intentionally misunderstanding me. I said multiple time that you would send to yourself. You are in no way forced to send coins to addresses of different wallets. I myself don't mind doing that at all, otherwise I wouldn't have proposed this in the first place.

Banks? Trickle down economic? Redistributing to the needy?
What are you talking about? Who is saying any of this?

nope im seeing the bigger broader picture. and this idea is not new, and has been laughed at, tried, tested and failed and laughed at again and again many times (see my p.s at the end for a hint)

i have all my funds in cold storage.
my private keys are locked away to avoid me getting tempted to spend.

my PUBLIC key is my identity. i can paste that into a explorer and check the value without needing to touch my private key. i do not want to change my identity just to keep some mining pool from robbing me fast or slow.

my analogies of banks(pools) where your hope that banks(pools) will trickle the funds out to the community is obsurd. taking coins from 1 person does not guarantee the community are better off.. it guarantees the bank(pool) is better off and the community is worse off

in FIAT and bitcoin trickle down economics does not work.

it just ends up as a banker(pool) bonus

P.S your idea is not new, and your desires are not new.
research: freicoin demurrage

[SlegSonOfSleg]

Your "proof of possession" concept is (also) on a collision course with the "proof of burn" concept.  By design, the burned coins cannot be moved - ever.

I agree, though this is trivial to solve. Simply exempt that one address from this rule. So there will be 21m minus whatever is burnt. Still has the advantages I listed.

nope im seeing the bigger broader picture. and this idea is not new, and has been laughed at, tried, tested and failed and laughed at again and again many times (see my p.s at the end for a hint)

Equating this idea with what you’re referring to (some altcoin implementing demurrage) only makes some sense if you think one transaction once every few years is expensive, which it isn’t, especially when you don’t care for quick confirmation. So if you do move your funds, you incur virtually no penalty (yes you do need to pay regular transaction fees though, I don’t think there’s a way to get around that - maybe they could be lowered by replacing regular transactions with some kind of signaling that is lighter in size, though that would probably complicate implimination). Once again, you're trying to say I'm suggesting people should lose funds over time, which completely misses the point. The whole point is to make it as easy as possible to not lose any money, while still being able to reusing lost funds (although at a significant delay unfortunately).

Also, has bitcoin not been laughed at time and time again? Don't argue through intimidation please.

my PUBLIC key is my identity. i can paste that into a explorer and check the value without needing to touch my private key. i do not want to change my identity just to keep some mining pool from robbing me fast or slow.

You’re still making the same mistake. You know your public key has multiple different addresses, right? You are NOT forced to change your public key, private key, wallet, identity, number of children (that was kind of funny though), anything except the address at which the funds reside - you just send your funds from the address with the funds to another (fresh) address you own in the same wallet.

my private keys are locked away to avoid me getting tempted to spend.

Well, OK, something to consider. I don't think personal temptations should enter the equation, but I guess this is a subjective matter.

my analogies of banks(pools) where your hope that banks(pools) will trickle the funds out to the community is obsurd.

What is mining? What are fees? You’re objecting to what Bitcoin already is. I’m not hoping they will trickle down anything. They obviously have to buy stuff with the bitcoins they mine (electricity, equipment, paychecks). Again, this is just what mining already is.

[stompix]

nice effort. but this is basically forcing people to move their coins. maybe i like to buy 1 bitcoin and hold it for my retirement and i don't care what happens during that time. my retirement is not for (lets say) 30 years. with this you are forcing me to move my coins against my will every couple of years.
and that creates a large number of on-chain transactions that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

i haven't really checked this but i believe UnitedBitcoin (UB) is already doing something similar to this. you may want to see for yourself what the differences are: https://www.ub.com/

Yeah, it's an old idea that went nowhere till now.
Of course the clogging of the chain could be solved by pruning but this "solution" might hurt innocent people.
One case I can think of it is inheritance, both when happening normally or when there is a legal dispute.
You wait for those 1000 BTC and when you finally get the prvkey , they are gone.

Although this May sound horrible, it's quite legally correct. I run a banking group in London, and this is what the regulations call for. When someone is not actively using his personal or real property, it can be subject to adverse possession, where 3rd parties can simply legally take possession of the property after being in possession for quite a length of tim.

It might just be my impression, or I've understand it wrong from the first time....but wasn't bitcoin supposed to get rid of the traditional way banks banks deal with their customers?  /s

A central value in bitcoin is that we don't tell each other what to do with each others money.

One line, summing it all perfectly.
This!!! I'm my own bank, I have my coins, those are mine, nobody else should try to touch, spend, divide, decay, move ....whatever them.

The whole point is to make it as easy as possible to not lose any money, while still being able to reusing lost funds (although at a significant delay unfortunately).

I've probably missed the part in which this "solution" does this.

[SlegSonOfSleg]

Yeah, it's an old idea that went nowhere till now.

I've tried to look it up when I was thinking about this and nothing came up. Mind sharing a link to a place that discusses it (as a soft-fork for Bitcoin)?

The whole point is to make it as easy as possible to not lose any money, while still being able to reusing lost funds (although at a significant delay unfortunately).

I've probably missed the part in which this "solution" does this.

The while word there is important. This isn't trying to solve a problem of people losing their funds, but something different. Unfortunately, in this proposal adds a possibility of losing funds. The point is that erosion is very slow and starts only after a long time, so it should be trivial to avoid any loss whatsoever, and losing very little if mistakes happen (this is assuming you have access to you own prvkey at least once in a while, which now I understand is not valid in all cases).

I'm my own bank, I have my coins, those are mine, nobody else should try to touch, spend, divide, decay, move ....whatever them.

I don't consider this telling people what to do with their money, since sending money between addresses in the same wallet is just a technicality. Everyone is still keeping their own money. Consider this: when you spend money from an address, Bitcoin protocol forces you to spend all the money from that address (keeping change by adding another output). Seems similar to me, in the sense that technically you're forced to do something particular with your money, but not really, since it's just details of the protocal that don't affect you (again, similar assuming you can access your prvkeys)

----

To summarize, seems to me at least some of you agree that the upsides of this proposal are worthwhile, but the trade-off (needing to move funds between different addresses in your wallet once in a while) is unacceptable, no matter what delay is chosen before erosion begins, or how slowly it occurs. I did not consider the scenario of people with cold wallets without access to prvkeys for very long durations, which is indeed a problem. I would never put myself in such a situation anyway, but others are free to do so. Otherwise, it's just a matter that people feel this requirement encroaches on their freedom of using their coins. I don't feel this way, but I can't quite argue with that either.

[Red-Apple]

you know what you are doing, you are creating a problem then trying to solve that problem that didn't exist otherwise. that is the problem!

Yeah, it's an old idea that went nowhere till now.

I've tried to look it up when I was thinking about this and nothing came up. Mind sharing a link to a place that discusses it (as a soft-fork for Bitcoin)?

this is indeed an old subject but interestingly enough i couldn't find much either except the famous hot argument about Satoshi's coins which is directly related to this. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.0

[stompix]

I'm my own bank, I have my coins, those are mine, nobody else should try to touch, spend, divide, decay, move ....whatever them.

I don't consider this telling people what to do with their money, since sending money between addresses in the same wallet is just a technicality. Everyone is still keeping their own money. Consider this: when you spend money from an address, Bitcoin protocol forces you to spend all the money from that address (keeping change by adding another output). Seems similar to me, in the sense that technically you're forced to do something particular with your money, but not really, since it's just details of the protocal that don't affect you (again, similar assuming you can access your prvkeys)

When you spend money from an address is something you want to do, nobody is forcing you to do that.
What you plan on doing, is forcing me to take action in order to not lose (a part of) my coins.

Small but crucial difference.

The while word there is important. This isn't trying to solve a problem of people losing their funds, but something different. Unfortunately, in this proposal adds a possibility of losing funds. The point is that erosion is very slow and starts only after a long time, so it should be trivial to avoid any loss whatsoever, and losing very little if mistakes happen (this is assuming you have access to you own prvkey at least once in a while, which now I understand is not valid in all cases).

If this erosion is slow and starts after a long time, you might have to think what impact will it have.
Because if we talk 0.1% BTC will die (along with the humanrace) before it will have any effect.
And if you change the percentages...a small mistake will become a big one.

[ChickenDuck]

This is a very bad idea. People has the right to HODL until they want to use it. No one can force other people to use their asset.

I have a suggestion, and I'd like the community's thoughts.

It is well known that many bitcoins are no longer accessible due to loss of private keys, but no one knows how much. While estimates exist, they rely on imprecise methods. Most famously, there is still a large amount of bitcoin in Satoshi's wallet, and it is unclear whether they will ever be spent. This phenomenon causes undesirable uncertainty in the market, undercuts the slogan "there will eventually be ~21 million bitcoins", and in a sense causes deflation.

I thought of a way to increase transparency as to how many bitcoins are actually in circulation, and also increase miners' rewards, through a process that somewhat resembles erosion (hence the name). Seems to me it can be implemented as a soft-fork, though I haven't worked out the details to verify this (I'd like to hear what the community thinks about this idea before delving in more deeply, if ever).

Onto the idea itself. I'll make up some parameters as an example. Basically, from the moment an address receives funds, a countdown begins. Whatever funds are left in the address after 3 year will start eroding, meaning that every week from then on another 0.1% of the amount in that address may be taken by the miner (technically each block will contain a list of addresses with the funds that were taken).

If you have funds sitting in an address and you don't want them to erode, all you have to do is spend them to yourself once every 3 years. Hot wallets can automate this, and cold wallets can warn you to do this manually. Even if you forget, assuming you at least check once in a while that your funds are in place, you would see the erosion that began, and take action before much damage took place.

Although I don't think it's technically possible to include these eroded funds in the coinbase transaction itself (as that would make it a hard-fork), they could be implemented to act as if they were, i.e. they must mature 100 blocks before being spendable.

So to reiterate, we gain (a) transparency as to how many bitcoins are in circulation, since users are incentivized to prove that they still possess their private key every once in a while, and (b) miners will be able to access lost funds, returning them into circulation and increasing the security of the network.

I go into a bit more detail here to those interested: https://gist.github.com/yotamDvir/e7ff52a34460f3c9a6bf3051b0e51414.

[Tictocgroup]

Although this May sound horrible, it's quite legally correct. I run a banking group in London, and this is what the regulations call for. When someone is not actively using his personal or real property, it can be subject to adverse possession, where 3rd parties can simply legally take possession of the property after being in possession for quite a length of tim.

You can Google the doctrine of adverse possession yourselves for more information. Banks probably have some kind of adverse possession type clause for their inactive, dormant accounts.
(...)

Oh I will definitely read more on the subject. At least in my country (terminology differs but I think it is legally the same) what you are describing takes 25 years to take effect. 25 years is not 3.

I have read on Swiss banks actively using founds deposited by holocaust victims during WWII, so banks do that too.

It's horrible to use funds from holocaust victims. They should have just sent it to a charity??
In America adverse possession is usually varied by state law, with some states only requiring 7 years of continued unopposed possession

[Pan Troglodytes]

Although this May sound horrible, it's quite legally correct. I run a banking group in London, and this is what the regulations call for. When someone is not actively using his personal or real property, it can be subject to adverse possession, where 3rd parties can simply legally take possession of the property after being in possession for quite a length of tim.

You can Google the doctrine of adverse possession yourselves for more information. Banks probably have some kind of adverse possession type clause for their inactive, dormant accounts.
(...)

Oh I will definitely read more on the subject. At least in my country (terminology differs but I think it is legally the same) what you are describing takes 25 years to take effect. 25 years is not 3.

I have read on Swiss banks actively using founds deposited by holocaust victims during WWII, so banks do that too.

It's horrible to use funds from holocaust victims. They should have just sent it to a charity??
In America adverse possession is usually varied by state law, with some states only requiring 7 years of continued unopposed possession

banksters? to charity? are you kidding me? I have never in my life heard of such a thing as a greedy bankster helping a charity out...

[Tictocgroup]

Although this May sound horrible, it's quite legally correct. I run a banking group in London, and this is what the regulations call for. When someone is not actively using his personal or real property, it can be subject to adverse possession, where 3rd parties can simply legally take possession of the property after being in possession for quite a length of tim.

You can Google the doctrine of adverse possession yourselves for more information. Banks probably have some kind of adverse possession type clause for their inactive, dormant accounts.
(...)

Oh I will definitely read more on the subject. At least in my country (terminology differs but I think it is legally the same) what you are describing takes 25 years to take effect. 25 years is not 3.

I have read on Swiss banks actively using founds deposited by holocaust victims during WWII, so banks do that too.

It's horrible to use funds from holocaust victims. They should have just sent it to a charity??
In America adverse possession is usually varied by state law, with some states only requiring 7 years of continued unopposed possession

banksters? to charity? are you kidding me? I have never in my life heard of such a thing as a greedy bankster helping a charity out...

This is different man.,, those are the victims of the most disturbing thing in Europe... how could they sleep at all knowing they pocketed the money of the victims of the holocaust where they suffered unimaginable things..

[stompix]

banksters? to charity? are you kidding me? I have never in my life heard of such a thing as a greedy bankster helping a charity out...

http://www.raportcsr.ingbank.pl/en/landscape/community/ing-for-children-foundation/
20 million euros in one year....

I could give you a lot more examples from my country, unfortunately they are not in English.
Paribas helped plating 25 000 trees right next to my city two years ago.

Stop with the "all banks bankers lawyers governments are evil".
Labeling people like that isn't putting you in a better light eitther.