Bitcoins destroyed if unused, to keep bitcoin supply known?

[bitopia]

This issue has probably been discussed before but I've been thinking about it for the last few weeks so I'll give it a go anyway.

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?

Since there are no way to tell the difference between coins that are locked due to lost keys and coins that hasn't moved for a time period, there are uncertainty to the total bitcoin supply that currently exists. This could be a potential problem if big amounts of coins are put back into circulation after being stale for a longer period.

Take for example the Satoshi addresses, which, afaik, are assumed to contain some 500 000 to one million coins. We will never be able to tell if these are taken out of circulation or just kept for usage further down the road, unless they start to move. This creates a big uncertainty and could potentially cause major effects if they start to be used after ten years or more. The same can of course be said about any of the top 100 addresses or any addresses with "stale" coins. If they where to be remained untouched for say 50 or 100 years and then suddenly start to move, the perceived available bitcoin supply would suddenly grow, potentially causing instability within the system.

Would a solution be to build into the protocol that coins that haven't moved for a given period, for example 20 years, become locked and thereby taken out of circulation? This would make it much easier to estimate the current coin supply and thereby making it easier to valuate a single bitcoin. This would also force entities to reveal their plan for addresses with large balances, point in case are the Satoshi addresses just mentioned.

Is this a problem or should we just always assume that there are (will be) 21 million coins available, disregarding how long coins have been sitting on a specific address?

[cp1]

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.

[BurtW]

This issue has probably been discussed before ...

Yes.  Many, many, many, many, times.

The forums do have a search function.

[BlockChainLottery]

Doesn't seem to be a good idea to lock unused Bitcoins. If someone is just saving it for some reason, they can lose them. And it doesn't solve the addresses with large amounts of Bitcoin. They can just move them every one or ten years to another address.
To determine the price of one BTC you don't have to know the total supply. It's always a matter of supply and demand.

[RodeoX]

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.

lol. That is the problem with this solution; which has been discussed here for years now. It is simply not possible to determine which coins are lost. You would be awful pissed if you opened your retirement wallet and found it empty because someone thought you weren't using bitcoin enough. Besides, we don't need them. Even if only one bitcoin was left we could use smaller units.  

[bitopia]

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.

I suppose your analogy is suitable if there is one entity in the world that has been known to disappear with ten percent of the worlds collected wealth, never to be heard of again.

[BTC-TK]

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

[BurtW]

The idea of locking/stealing "dead" BTC will never happen so it is not really worth discussing, again.

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

No, because this very same idea has already been brought up and shot down several times this year!

[jongameson]

cops took my 2800 btc?  unknnown who knoes?

[bitopia]

Doesn't seem to be a good idea to lock unused Bitcoins. If someone is just saving it for some reason, they can lose them. And it doesn't solve the addresses with large amounts of Bitcoin. They can just move them every one or ten years to another address.
To determine the price of one BTC you don't have to know the total supply. It's always a matter of supply and demand.

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.

But I guess taking the chance in losing at least ten percent (at least, probably a lot more due to the uncertainty) of the total value of the rest of the coins when the Satoshi coins move are the preferred sentiment on this forum.

[BurtW]

But I guess taking the chance in losing at least ten percent (at least, probably a lot more due to the uncertainty) of the total value of the rest of the coins when the Satoshi coins move are the preferred sentiment on this forum.

It is not just a sentiment.  The change you are proposing is not possible.  The Bitcoin protocol is designed to prevent these types of changes.  Since it is not possible to change Bitcoin in this way it is not really worth discussing.

Now, you could design a new coin, an alternate (alt) coin, that does exactly what you suggest - but it would not be Bitcoin.

[bitopia]

But I guess taking the chance in losing at least ten percent (at least, probably a lot more due to the uncertainty) of the total value of the rest of the coins when the Satoshi coins move are the preferred sentiment on this forum.

It is not just a sentiment.  The change you are proposing is not possible.  The Bitcoin protocol is designed to prevent these types of changes.  Since it is not possible to change Bitcoin in this way it is not really worth discussing.

Now, you could design a new coin, an alternate (alt) coin, that does exactly what you suggest - but it would not be Bitcoin.

Ok, thanks for the reply.

[BurtW]

Maybe now you can understand why us cranky old timers get so tired of threads that start "Bitcoin is cool but it need to be changed to do _____", because one to the best things about the design of Bitcoin is that it is impossible to change it to suit the desires of the day.

[RodeoX]

Doesn't seem to be a good idea to lock unused Bitcoins. If someone is just saving it for some reason, they can lose them. And it doesn't solve the addresses with large amounts of Bitcoin. They can just move them every one or ten years to another address.
To determine the price of one BTC you don't have to know the total supply. It's always a matter of supply and demand.

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.

But I guess taking the chance in losing at least ten percent (at least, probably a lot more due to the uncertainty) of the total value of the rest of the coins when the Satoshi coins move are the preferred sentiment on this forum.

I don't think your question is a dumb one. But it has been thought out before. The thing to consider is that it does not address a problem. There is no need to know the supply for the system to work. Kinda like gold. No one knows how much gold there is or how much has been lost. And we don't need to know. Bitcoin is a system that works best without central control.

[cr1776]

Turns out removing the newbie restrictions WAS a good idea after all.
</sarcasm>

It gave people time to learn how to search and read a lot about bitcoin so they'd see a lot of topics have been discussed and then they can join in them if they wish.  ;-)  Preventing 1000s of duplicate threads.

[cp1]

Let's combine this thread with all the what happens when all the coins have been mined threads.  They can suggest that unused coins be paid as mining rewards.

[ican2089]

I don't think it will be OK

[tvbcof]

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.

[BTCisthefuture]

Simply not possible to know if coins are lost or being stored without removing all levels of anonomity and intruding on peoples personal lives to find out. Even then , good luck tracking down or getting a response from every single bitcoin user on weither or not they lost coins or are just holding onto them.

[Siegfried]

No, it is not a problem. The millions of bitcoins that are lost or in long-term storage support high prices. If someone who is sitting on a massive hoard wants to cash out a significant number of coins five years from now, he will most likely buy a skycraper, a company, or a private island, not dump on an exchange. At that time the majority of transactions will probably be conducted in bitcoin without converting to fiat.