Bitcoins Lost

[someotherguy]

 

PLEASE ANSWER THE POLL ABOVE



How many Bitcoins have been lost, likely never to be claimed or used?

[1714781854]

1714781854

[1714781854]

1714781854

[1714781854]

1714781854

[wobber]

How many Bitcoins have been lost, likely never to be claimed or used?

You mean how many people lost their wallets or deleted them?

My personal assumption is that less than 2000 coins lost back when people could generate 50 fair easily. After that, they became too precious to waste. So the lost bitcoin can be neglected even now, at approx. 5 million.

[someotherguy]

1.  I estimate 97% of the new users in the first 6 months of Bitcoin are still users that are active today.  That the remaining 3% will lose or have lost their wallets in some form or another.

2.  I estimate that .5-1.5% of current users over last 6 months will lose or have lost their wallets in some form or another.

3.  I estimate that their is a 1-236 chance that a large or series of large accounts (larger than 50,000bc) will be lost over the next 2 years.

[db]

My personal assumption is that less than 2000 coins lost back when people could generate 50 fair easily. After that, they became too precious to waste. So the lost bitcoin can be neglected even now, at approx. 5 million.

A friend of mine bought 2000 coins for about 15 $ back then, later reformatted his hard drive and now regrets it bitterly.

[uck]

At least none of the coins are lost inside sofas...

[uck]

There will also be, over time, people who die and their relatives don't know they had bitcoins or they can't get into the person's pc because it is password-protected. 

[Axel]

i think lot of people might lost their bitcoins but later on these lost its values. Moreover people are still not careful about losing bitcoins .

[ryepdx]

Does anyone else think this might be a real problem in the long run? To me this sounds like bitcoins will be on a long, long deflationary slide the minute we hit the 21 million mark. Bitcoins are sure to be lost; if there is no way to reclaim them, that long deflationary slide could bode ill for our fledgling coin.

[kiba]

Does anyone else think this might be a real problem in the long run? To me this sounds like BitCoins will be on a long, long deflationary slide the minute we hit the 21 million mark. BitCoins are sure to be lost; if there is no way to reclaim them, that long deflationary slide could bode ill for our fledgling coin.

Blah, we could run this economy on one bitcoin and it would be no problem.

[ryepdx]

This is true. The decimal nature of bitcoins would let us do that. However (and I'm not sure if this is likely at all, but it seems a possibility) if the rate of deflation proceeds at too great a clip, couldn't that end up widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor, resulting in oligarchy? My concern is simply that we could end up creating an economy where those who are new to the bitcoin system are at a pronounced disadvantage when compared to those who are not.

At present this can be written off as a "finder's fee": we are the early adopters, the risk is ours, therefore we deserve to profit. However, if bitcoins gain global acceptance, we may have to face the fact that the "newcomers" may be drawn from among the young or freshly impoverished. Perhaps it is beyond the scope of a currency's structure to favor the upwardly mobile, but I am (presently) of the opinion that it would be beneficial to have that "upward mobility" element baked into the currency of a society.

I realize I may not have made my point very clearly, but I should be going now. I was supposed to be somewhere a little while ago and got sucked in by the discussion. I'll return, hopefully soon.

[kiba]

However, if bitcoins gain global acceptance, we may have to face the fact that the "newcomers" may be drawn from among the young or freshly impoverished. Perhaps it is beyond the scope of a currency's structure to favor the upwardly mobile, but I am (presently) of the opinion that it would be beneficial to have that "upward mobility" element baked into the currency of a society.

I realize I may not have made my point very clearly, but I should be going now. I was supposed to be somewhere a little while ago and got sucked in by the discussion. I'll return, hopefully soon.

If you can save more than you spend, you're already upwardly mobile. 

[Anonymous]

This is true. The decimal nature of bitcoins would let us do that. However (and I'm not sure if this is likely at all, but it seems a possibility) if the rate of deflation proceeds at too great a clip, couldn't that end up widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor, resulting in oligarchy? My concern is simply that we could end up creating an economy where those who are new to the bitcoin system are at a pronounced disadvantage when compared to those who are not.

At present this can be written off as a "finder's fee": we are the early adopters, the risk is ours, therefore we deserve to profit. However, if bitcoins gain global acceptance, we may have to face the fact that the "newcomers" may be drawn from among the young or freshly impoverished. Perhaps it is beyond the scope of a currency's structure to favor the upwardly mobile, but I am (presently) of the opinion that it would be beneficial to have that "upward mobility" element baked into the currency of a society.

I realize I may not have made my point very clearly, but I should be going now. I was supposed to be somewhere a little while ago and got sucked in by the discussion. I'll return, hopefully soon.

The richer people are the more people they can put in jobs and the more charity they can give money too.

Bitcoin is voluntary wealth distribution.

[ryepdx]

The richer people are the more people they can put in jobs and the more charity they can give money too.

Bitcoin is voluntary wealth distribution.

True. I guess I'm just concerned about hoarding. If the people with the bitcoins are willing to spend enough to create a large middle class, then awesome. But if deflation is such that they have little incentive to spend, I can see that causing problems.

[FatherMcGruder]

The richer people are the more people they can put in jobs and the more charity they can give money too.

Meh. Not a fan of trickle down economics. It only facilitates the exploitation of the masses. That said, nothing about Bitcoin requires its pioneers to exploit others. We ought to eschew interest, profit, and rent in favor of cooperative relationships.

[kiba]

Meh. Not a fan of trickle down economics. It only facilitates the exploitation of the masses. That said, nothing about Bitcoin requires its pioneers to exploit others. We ought to eschew interest, profit, and rent in favor of cooperative relationships.

What is "exploitation"? What's wrong with profit? Have you been reading too much commie literature lately?

[barbarousrelic]

We ought to eschew interest, profit, and rent in favor of cooperative relationships.

I posit that these things are cooperative relationships.

Adam wants $500 per month more than he wants to use his basement. Bob wants to live in his basement more than he wants $500 per month. They cooperatively exchange these things to their mutual benefit.

Adam wants $6 in interest more than he wants to use his $100 this year. Bob wants that $100 now more than he wants $106 a year from now. They cooperatively exchange $100 now for $106 a year from now and they are both happier for it.

[FatherMcGruder]

What is "exploitation"? What's wrong with profit? Have you been reading too much commie literature lately?

It's the capitalist concept of profit that's the problem. If I build something with hired help, I can sell it in exchange for other goods, like bitcoins. If I were a capitalist, I would then keep as much of the bitcoins for myself and give my employees as little as possible. Compare that scenario to one where I divide the bitcoins between myself and the other workers according to the amount of work we've each contributed because we act as partners. The latter scenario exemplifies cooperation while the former exemplifies exploitation.

I posit that these things are cooperative relationships.

Adam wants $500 per month more than he wants to use his basement. Bob wants to live in his basement more than he wants $500 per month. They cooperatively exchange these things to their mutual benefit.

If Adam wishes not to exploit Bob, he should offer his basement at no greater cost than the expenses Bob would incur, like heat, water, and general maintenance. Providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough for Adam to allow Bob to live in his basement. Taking more than that is exploitation.

Adam wants $6 in interest more than he wants to use his $100 this year. Bob wants that $100 now more than he wants $106 a year from now. They cooperatively exchange $100 now for $106 a year from now and they are both happier for it.

Adam's fair interest is that which Bob intends to accomplish with the $100. Demanding any more, beyond external transaction fees, is exploitation.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

What is "exploitation"? What's wrong with profit? Have you been reading too much commie literature lately?

It's the capitalist concept of profit that's the problem. If I build something with hired help, I can sell it in exchange for other goods, like bitcoins. If I were a capitalist, I would then keep as much of the bitcoins for myself and give my employees as little as possible. Compare that scenario to one where I divide the bitcoins between myself and the other workers according to the amount of work we've each contributed because we act as partners. The latter scenario exemplifies cooperation while the former exemplifies exploitation.

I posit that these things are cooperative relationships.

Adam wants $500 per month more than he wants to use his basement. Bob wants to live in his basement more than he wants $500 per month. They cooperatively exchange these things to their mutual benefit.

If Adam wishes not to exploit Bob, he should offer his basement at no greater cost than the expenses Bob would incur, like heat, water, and general maintenance. Providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough for Adam to allow Bob to live in his basement. Taking more than that is exploitation.

Adam wants $6 in interest more than he wants to use his $100 this year. Bob wants that $100 now more than he wants $106 a year from now. They cooperatively exchange $100 now for $106 a year from now and they are both happier for it.

Adam's fair interest is that which Bob intends to accomplish with the $100. Demanding any more, beyond external transaction fees, is exploitation.

I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if both parties enter willingly, no matter how much the cost.

[kiba]

Adam's fair interest is that which Bob intends to accomplish with the $100. Demanding any more, beyond external transaction fees, is exploitation.

Nefario is paying me to develop the software for his bitcoin corporation. I know he will try to make a profit off of it. Meanwhile, I will get paid 120 BTC a week. That's an actual agreement in real life.

Is that exploitation? No. I like the arrangement in question.

This is after all, an amicable agreement between two moral agents. You, the outsider, is just an observer, who have nothing to do with the exchange. Whatever you think is exploitation is completely irrelevant to what I thought is a good deal, or what is moral.

[barbarousrelic]

If Adam wishes not to exploit Bob, he should offer his basement at no greater cost than the expenses Bob would incur, like heat, water, and general maintenance. Providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough for Adam to allow Bob to live in his basement. Taking more than that is exploitation.

I presume you mean 'no greater cost than the expenses Adam would incur' ?

If this is the case, you don't account for the expense to Adam of not having use of his basement. This is exploitative of Adam. He's losing something valuable and not getting it back from Bob.

Of course, if Adam agrees that providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough to allow him to live in the basement for free, than that's fine. If he does not think this is the case, then such an arrangement would be exploitative of Adam.

Adam's fair interest is that which Bob intends to accomplish with the $100. Demanding any more, beyond external transaction fees, is exploitation.

I'm not sure what you mean. Say Bob wants to borrow that money to pay his heating bill while he's in college, and he wants to pay it off a year later when he's got a high paying job. What would you say is fair interest?