Bitcoins destroyed if unused, to keep bitcoin supply known?

[cr1776]

...
So I am going to suggest my own change/fork to Bitcoin:  automatic mixing of all coins in every block by protocol design change.  Then lists will not happen because lists will not work.

It's a good idea.  Our only hope, really, IMHO.  It would have to happen fairly soon though since the nature of the userbase is changing, and that rate of change could jump sharply.

For a variety of reasons, I'm actually not especially hopeful that this will happen, or happen quickly enough.  I'd planned to convert about half of my stash to some other asset at this juncture (based on my own profit level more than date) but the timings of my sales are associated with my level of pessimism regarding the evolutionary trajectory of Bitcoin.

The activities and methods of the Bitcoin Foundation have contributed significantly to my pessimism.

I agree.  Dark Wallet, coinjoin, zerocoin (perhaps), mixing services and other similar proposals will help.  The question though will become will any one be widely available before people start trying to blacklist in earnest.

[BADecker]

The only problem is the active supply in use. Imagine that there was only one bitcoin actively traded, because all the rest of them were hoarded or lost. That one bitcoin would have long since been split into its basic satoshis, each of which would be worth a fortune. Perhaps some form of scripting would be applied to the clients that would make satoshi kids and grand-kids (dividing the satoshi), just so that there would be enough of that single bitcoin to go around the world.

Then, watch the bubble burst when 90% of the rest of the bitcoins come into action in one day. Never happen.

There is no problem with lost or hoarded bitcoins.

[odolvlobo]

That's the point. Forcing them to move them would produce proof that the coins are active. And I would argue that to make supply and demand work (correctly) you need to know the supply.

I disagree.

1. Supply and demand works all by itself without intervention. In fact, intervention only creates problems. Just look at the dollar.

2. Knowing the number of spendable coins does not actually tell you enough about the supply. The "supply" is not a single value -- it is a curve, and knowing a single number doesn't tell you much about the curve.

3. We don't have a way to determine demand. Even if we did know the number of spendable coins, there is nothing we could do with that number.

[cp1]

You're just trying to increase your own value by decreasing others.  Why are you so selfish?

[Sonny]

It's a great idea, we should also break into people's houses and banks and burn any money / throw away gold, paintings, heirlooms, etc that they haven't used for awhile.

Good analogy. Please post it again when someone bring this topic up next time.

[Sonny]

This issue has probably been discussed before ...

Yes.  Many, many, many, many, times.
...

Once coin blacklisting and address-2-identity correlation systems are ready to go I'd expect the issue to be re-visited.

I'll wager that a lot of people who were against the idea (forced spending) will suddenly realize that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Particularly those with ties to the Bitcoin Foundation.

Thanks for a sensible reply.

Since the issue as mentioned has been discussed several times before it's probably better to end it here and revisit in a few years.

This issue has been discussed many times in the past.
But, I am sure, it will be brought up again and again

[Squeaker]

That's the point. Forcing them to move them would produce proof that the coins are active. And I would argue that to make supply and demand work (correctly) you need to know the supply.

All you need to know for the 'supply' side of things, is to check the market depth on the exchanges. That is your 'supply'.

Supply isn't all of the coin that exists, it is all of the coin that people have put up to sell.

Exchange rate also isn't determined by how many coin are in existence.

=squeak=

[balanghai]

So how much is your BTC there?

[Squeaker]

So how much is your BTC there?

At the moment? around $780/coin, since that is where it is trading at, at the exchange I use.

=squeak=

[Lauda]

You're just trying to increase your own value by decreasing others.  Why are you so selfish?

This.
I moved my coins less than 10 times in a 12 month period. I have a lot of valuables in my house sitting there doing nothing, come destroy them too?

[bloss]

And remember, eventually ALL bitcoins will be lost!

I don't understand this comment.

[Lauda]

And remember, eventually ALL bitcoins will be lost!

I don't understand this comment.

Eventually maybe in a thousand years. What he means is bitcoins get locked in certain scenarios. Here is an example or two:
1) Someone mistakenly sends his bitcoins to an unused address.
2) You forget your wallet password.
3) You lose your wallet.dat file.

and the list goes on..

[zeraTunerse]

And remember, eventually ALL bitcoins will be lost!

I don't understand this comment.

I doubt all Bitcoins can be lost, because I dont believe Bitcoins can be here hundred years. Technology is going forward and Bitcoin is just start for decentralized cryptocurrency. For the same reason I dont believe microsoft OS will be here hundred years from now

[tvbcof]

And remember, eventually ALL bitcoins will be lost!

I don't understand this comment.

Eventually maybe in a thousand years. What he means is bitcoins get locked in certain scenarios. Here is an example or two:
1) Someone mistakenly sends his bitcoins to an unused address.
2) You forget your wallet password.
3) You lose your wallet.dat file.

and the list goes on..

The curve will approach a value well off of the 'ALL' line, and approach it in an asymptotic manner.

The eco-system will weed out people who should not be screwing with BTC through a process of 'survival of the fittest'.  I'm cool with that.  It was part of what appealed to me when I entered into it.

The more focus put on trying to hand-hold those who are not up to the task of owning BTC, the less is available for hardening the solution against attack.  Not only that but there is a correlation between the caliber of people who will throw their BTC out with an unwanted HDD and those who will throw them away using some on-line dice game or send them to TradeFortress.  That is, in fact, probably the biggest incentive to try to suck fools into the ecosystem in the first place.

[obeygiant]

Take a look at Freicoin ( http://freico.in/ ). Inactive coins are slowly flushed out. As are all others, which is probably not what you want, but it you might think it is a good idea after reading the Freicoin material.

A neat pair of advantages of Freicoin is that since all coins "rot" at the same rate, mining is always relevant even with the currency having a fixed supply cap, and also the blockchain can be pruned (i.e. it doesn't have to "grow forever" for most "full node" clients).

[Gabi]

My opinion: NO

in case it is not clear: NO

[Squeaker]

What good is having a currency with its own time bomb attached to it?

=squeak=

[benjamindees]

I should point out that this idea, destroying old Bitcoins and creating new ones through mining, rewards and subsidizes those who are most able to sow destruction and maintain centralized control, ie. exactly our current banking system.

[ljudotina]

There may be an issue with not knowing the total bitcoin supply that is currently available due to lost keys and from other factors. Would a solution to this issue be to destroy, or rather make coins that hasn't moved in a certain time period locked from further usage?

So basicly, what your sayin is that i can't invest into Bitcoin and keep it for my old age as retirement? You would just destroy it?!

[crocko]

It is only January yet we already have a candidate for the stupidest thread award of 2014...

+1