Recycle lost coins

[jtimon]

I do, because for those ~17 years the owner of those coins would have received a benefit from the levied fee had he chosen to spend them.

I'm sorry I don't understand. There's no owner to receive any benefit. The coins are lost. You have to be more clear.
Do you mean when the owner doesn't lose them? I understand that part. I mean in the specific context of lost wallets.

[1713561516]

1713561516

[1713561516]

1713561516

[1713561516]

1713561516

[maaku]

How do you differentiate coins in lost wallets from coins that just haven't been spent yet by their anonymous owners?

Answer: you can't.

[jtimon]

How do you differentiate coins in lost wallets from coins that just haven't been spent yet by their anonymous owners?

Answer: you can't.

I know. That's why (for this lost wallet case) charging the demurrage when a transaction happens or after 17 years instead of charging it each block cannot be an advantage.

[DrSammyD]

How do you differentiate coins in lost wallets from coins that just haven't been spent yet by their anonymous owners?

Answer: you can't.

I know. That's why (for this lost wallet case) charging the demurrage when a transaction happens or after 17 years instead of charging it each block cannot be an advantage.

I think we just want them to prove they have the coins. In order to avoid the demurrage charge, they must show control of the coins by moving them. I don't think that's unreasonable to require every 20 years to avoid that charge.

[jtimon]

What maaku and I are proposing is charging the demurrage in every case (being the wallet lost or not). The difference is that I wwant to charge it automatically each block (the implementation is easy) instead of every 17 years or when the owner moves the coins.

[cbeast]

I'm starting to like the idea of demurrage for bitcoin. Demurrage could help bitcoin circulate with its use-it-or-lose-it design and address the extra deflation caused by accidental bitcoin burning. The bitcoin network is very expensive to run and should not be used for long term savings, it should be used to drive economies. There are other investments that can be used for long term savings. On another note: physical bills can be created that are counterfeit-proof (if you trust the creator) and can have an expiration date-stamp applied.

[Gabi]

It fits the model of gold better. Gold doesn't get lost with no chance of being found again.

Why did Satoshi cap gold at 21 million? Was it arbitrary?

Yes I know the argument, any amount of a money is sufficient.

One benefit is it will keep the bounty on mining high, making it so that people will continue to drive the difficulty level high, making the block chain more secure. It does that without inflating.

Ahahah, this is so false! What about gold in ship that sank? What about the gold used in technological things? Good luck recover gold in billions of hardware around the world, and so on...

[BitLex]

I think we just want them to prove they have the coins.

isn't bitcoin about freedom?
who are you to tell me, what i have to/can/cannot do with my money? why do i have to prove anything to you?

this is ridiculous.

if you want demurrage, create a new fork, so i can choose not to use it.

[DrSammyD]

I think we just want them to prove they have the coins.

isn't bitcoin about freedom?
who are you to tell me, what i have to/can/cannot do with my money? why do i have to prove anything to you?

this is ridiculous.

if you want demurrage, create a new fork, so i can choose not to use it.

Because you are using other people's resources for your benefit, Bitcoin can tell you what to do in order to keep your bitcoins. I'm not a fan of demurrage for its own sake. Only for the long run purpose of recovering lost coins to keep the supply stable and memory costs lower. I want them to be able to avoid the charge. It's only moving the coins from one address to another. And it's only once every 20 years. The but hell, why not once every 100 years. It won't affect you in your lifetime and it will keep bitcoins stable in the long term.

I would rather bitcoin be changed, and that's why we discuss this stuff. We may lose the argument, but if we win, you'll still have the option of creating your own fork without it.

As to gold being lost in a sunken ship
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18736741/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/deep-sea-booty-million-coins-found/

Hardware..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_recycling

[BitLex]

but if we win, you'll still have the option of creating your own fork without it.

no, you are the ones who want to change things.
if bitcoin is changed the way you want it to, i have no choice, you force me to accept your rules, even if i don't want to.
that's the whole point.

in bitcoin there is no way to tell, if coins are lost or not <period>
if you want a way to tell if/how many/which coins are lost, you have to create a fork.

if i buy a BitBill (or some similar "offline-bitcoins") today, you want them to become worthless in 20/100/1000 years and i can't think of any reason to do that.
you want me to send my coins from address A to address B every 20something years and again i dont get it, what difference does it make? none

it's my money, i can do whatever i want with it.
if i wanna keep it offline for the next 50years and give it to my grandchildren, that's up to me,
if i wanna destroy it, i can and there's nothing you could do about it.

everythings fine as it is, if you want to change it, create a fork, don't force others to play your rules.

[jtimon]

if you want a way to tell if/how many/which coins are lost, you have to create a fork.

No. My proposal of demurrage "for its own sake" is going to be in another fork because most bitcoin holders and miners won't accept it.
But if people want to change things, the rules are hard to change, not written on stone. The change that he proposes would only force you to move your coins from time to time. I don't see how that can "hurt you" much.

Changes in bitcoin are possible and happen. For example, if we want to have more divisibility, we have to change the protocol.
To allow more complex transactions, the protocol is going to be changed soon. You can try to convince us not to change it, but I don't think that you're going to be the majority.

If you don't like demurrage to restore lost coins and save storage space (and reward miners for longer and therefore have better security) you can try to change our minds. With arguments, not just saying "you can't do it because it goes against my freedom".
You're free to sell your bitcoins if you don't like the change. A change in the protocol doesn't happen overnight. I'm still waiting for namecoin to have merged mining, for example.

[BitLex]

Changes in bitcoin are possible and happen. For example, if we want to have more divisibility, we have to change the protocol.
To allow more complex transactions, the protocol is going to be changed soon.

those kind of changes don't do any harm to my money,
yours would.

and i gave you a few examples how it can hurt me.
if i'm a non-techie person and want to "hoard" my coins offline, using BitBills for example, you want me to destroy them after X years (and import the BTCs to an online wallet), just to not lose my coins.
i bought those BitBills for a reason, i paid for those coins, it's up to me what todo with them.
no protocol-changes ever should change that, or at least should be on their own fork (maybe i would use that fork too, by choice, not forced to).

[DrSammyD]

if i buy a BitBill (or some similar "offline-bitcoins") today, you want them to become worthless in 20/100/1000 years and i can't think of any reason to do that.
you want me to send my coins from address A to address B every 20something years and again i dont get it, what difference does it make? none

My original proposal was to allow recovery of coins from a lost coin pool if you did indeed retain the key, which would protect things like BitBills.

The only problem this might run into is if the lost pool doesn't contain enough coins to cover your recovery claim, in which case you'd have to wait for more coins to enter the lost pool. But they would eventually be made whole.

[cbeast]

Changes in bitcoin are possible and happen. For example, if we want to have more divisibility, we have to change the protocol.
To allow more complex transactions, the protocol is going to be changed soon.

those kind of changes don't do any harm to my money,
yours would.

and i gave you a few examples how it can hurt me.
if i'm a non-techie person and want to "hoard" my coins offline, using BitBills for example, you want me to destroy them after X years (and import the BTCs to an online wallet), just to not lose my coins.
i bought those BitBills for a reason, i paid for those coins, it's up to me what todo with them.
no protocol-changes ever should change that, or at least should be on their own fork (maybe i would use that fork too, by choice, not forced to).

This is a misunderstanding of a social experiment. If the greater good deems it necessary to tear down your house to build a Walmart, then that is the price of living in a social experiment of laws. There are many investment vehicles for long term storage of value that you may use that will not cost me electricity, such as stock, gold and real estate, but then you will bear the cost of maintaining them. Bear in mind, that any changes to bitcoin will require very good reasons, and that is one reason why we have a forum.

[DrSammyD]

Changes in bitcoin are possible and happen. For example, if we want to have more divisibility, we have to change the protocol.
To allow more complex transactions, the protocol is going to be changed soon.

those kind of changes don't do any harm to my money,
yours would.

and i gave you a few examples how it can hurt me.
if i'm a non-techie person and want to "hoard" my coins offline, using BitBills for example, you want me to destroy them after X years (and import the BTCs to an online wallet), just to not lose my coins.
i bought those BitBills for a reason, i paid for those coins, it's up to me what todo with them.
no protocol-changes ever should change that, or at least should be on their own fork (maybe i would use that fork too, by choice, not forced to).

I've got it.

Instead of having to move them, you could just send the address some coins. All you'd have to do is send the minimum transaction to the address to keep it active, which would push back the demurrage date another 20 years. I think that would be good enough to demonstrate control of the wallet. and you wouldn't destroy the bitbills.

[jtimon]

I've got it.

Instead of having to move them, you could just send the address some coins. All you'd have to do is send the minimum transaction to the address to keep it active, which would push back the demurrage date another 20 years. I think that would be good enough to demonstrate control of the wallet. and you wouldn't destroy the bitbills.

That would work too, but without saving space, people have still to maintain the chain from that ancient block where the address first appeared in an output.

[DrSammyD]

I've got it.

Instead of having to move them, you could just send the address some coins. All you'd have to do is send the minimum transaction to the address to keep it active, which would push back the demurrage date another 20 years. I think that would be good enough to demonstrate control of the wallet. and you wouldn't destroy the bitbills.

That would work too, but without saving space, people have still to maintain the chain from that ancient block where the address first appeared in an output.

I suppose you're right, but one step at a time. this would be the most amenable option for now.