Lost coins redistribution

[serveria.com]

I like the idea of only having 21 million bitcoins.
Bitcoins get lost all the time, lost private keys.
In time we will have fewer and fewer bitcoins, currently it is thought 3-4 million bitcoins are already lost. This makes me sad.

I propose a redistribution method:
>If an address did not have any activity in let's say the last 100 years the address is considered lost and the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block.

To prevent losing your bitcoins you make sure to transfer them to a new address every 100 years (I am not aware of any other method of "proving" you still have access to an address).

P.S. This would be a change in the consensus mechanism, I know 
P.S.S. I am aware of Satoshi's view on this "lost coins are a donation to everyone". Yes, but 4 million is a lot, do we want Bitcoin to still be used 1000 years from now? If this trend continues most if not all bitcoins would have been lost by then.

I don't think it's necessary. Bitcoin is perfectly divisible: you can buy satoshis, or even smaller units can be introduced if needed. Lost coins contribute to the value of the remaining ones. Bitcoin ownership shouldn't be questioned. What if the person is dead but his family finds his/her laptop years later and the coins have already been "freed"? Will that be fair?

[1714495300]

1714495300

[1714495300]

1714495300

[1714495300]

1714495300

[1714495300]

1714495300

[1714495300]

1714495300

[Minhxx]

Good idea, but I think it won't work. We can join hands to increase the price of bitcoin when it is really scarce, can not be mined more, then the price of bitcoin will be at a high level. Everyone should manage their bitcoin wallet keys well

[davis196]

propose a redistribution method:
>If an address did not have any activity in let's say the last 100 years the address is considered lost and the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block.

To prevent losing your bitcoins you make sure to transfer them to a new address every 100 years (I am not aware of any other method of "proving" you still have access to an address).

This 100 years time frame pretty much makes your proposal useless.
Nobody knows what will happen after 100 years. Wouldn't Bitcoin become totally obsolete and disappear after 100 years? Do you think that currencies will exist after 100 years? What if the heirs of the BTC owner don't know, that he had lost Bitcoins?
I guess that by "the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block" you mean that those lost Bitcoins will be burned(just like some shitcoins/shittokens back in the day) and new Bitcoins will be mined. You can't mine a Bitcoin, that has already been mined.
Anyway, there's no need for such redistribution method.

[Cricktor]

In my optinion any redistribution scheme is a terrible idea. You were given a finite deflating amount of coins, trustless and decentralized. It's your responsibility to safely store your wallets / private keys. If you can't do that, you loose your coins. Simple as that. And others coins gain a little bit more value as the amount of active circulating coins decreases.

Why should anybody care how long UTXOs stay dormant and for what reasons. It's not your business. Bitcoin is a proposal and an offer different from traditional fiat and so far it's pretty well working within its technical bounds. My understanding is that you can't and shouldn't force UTXO holders to move their coins for whatever reason. It's not your business.

Debatable are schemes where coins are actively burned (proof of burn is worst) or sent to addresses which to utmost certainty don't have a matching private key known to mankind (still worse, too). IIRC things like CounterParty or similar burned a 4-figure amount of bitcoins.
While I don't find burning coins particularly charming, it's again not my business.

[GH2022]

I like the idea of only having 21 million bitcoins.
Bitcoins get lost all the time, lost private keys.
In time we will have fewer and fewer bitcoins, currently it is thought 3-4 million bitcoins are already lost. This makes me sad.

I propose a redistribution method:
>If an address did not have any activity in let's say the last 100 years the address is considered lost and the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block.

To prevent losing your bitcoins you make sure to transfer them to a new address every 100 years (I am not aware of any other method of "proving" you still have access to an address).

P.S. This would be a change in the consensus mechanism, I know 
P.S.S. I am aware of Satoshi's view on this "lost coins are a donation to everyone". Yes, but 4 million is a lot, do we want Bitcoin to still be used 1000 years from now? If this trend continues most if not all bitcoins would have been lost by then.

I don't think it's necessary. Bitcoin is perfectly divisible: you can buy satoshis, or even smaller units can be introduced if needed. Lost coins contribute to the value of the remaining ones. Bitcoin ownership shouldn't be questioned. What if the person is dead but his family finds his/her laptop years later and the coins have already been "freed"? Will that be fair?

Or, as in the case of a certain guy from Newport in South Wales UK, you throw out an old computer with over a MILLION bitcoins in it...

[Blitzboy]

In my optinion any redistribution scheme is a terrible idea. You were given a finite deflating amount of coins, trustless and decentralized. It's your responsibility to safely store your wallets / private keys. If you can't do that, you loose your coins. Simple as that. And others coins gain a little bit more value as the amount of active circulating coins decreases.

Why should anybody care how long UTXOs stay dormant and for what reasons. It's not your business. Bitcoin is a proposal and an offer different from traditional fiat and so far it's pretty well working within its technical bounds. My understanding is that you can't and shouldn't force UTXO holders to move their coins for whatever reason. It's not your business.

Debatable are schemes where coins are actively burned (proof of burn is worst) or sent to addresses which to utmost certainty don't have a matching private key known to mankind (still worse, too). IIRC things like CounterParty or similar burned a 4-figure amount of bitcoins.
While I don't find burning coins particularly charming, it's again not my business.

What if I told you the decentralized, trustless aspect of Bitcoin doesnt necessarily negate the necessity for a collective responsibility?

Its true. Bitcoin, in its essence, encourages independence and self-regulation. However, imagine the potential for a more robust, resilient network if we cared more for each other. I'm not suggesting we distribute lost coins or even force the movement of dormant UTXOs, rather, can we not strive to create a safer space for everyone?

Burning coins, on the other hand, is a complex issue. It’s like sending a spacecraft into a black hole. Its gone, contributing nothing to the economy. Could this be a valid criticism? Yet, as you stated, its not really our business, is it?

At its core, the beauty of Bitcoin is its adaptability, pushing the boundaries of traditional financial systems. Let's hold on to that

[pooya87]

Burning coins, on the other hand, is a complex issue. It’s like sending a spacecraft into a black hole. Its gone, contributing nothing to the economy.

Not the most accurate comparison because when you burn bitcoins you are actually decreasing the supply by effectively removing a part of the limited circulating supply. Obviously that is a contribution to the rest of bitcoin users as their bitcoins become a little more scarce and valuable.
In comparison there is no limit on the number of spacecrafts you can build. Destroying one means you can still build another. But you can never re-print those coins that were burnt.

[franky1]

to introduce code that can take coins without utxo key signing. even at 100year policy. can easily if implemented then change that mining policy to then be 50 years or 10 years or 10 days..

you might aswell kill bitcoin if you want to introduce any method to taking coins without utxo key signing permission

part of security is the inability to move coins without utxo key signing. lets not mess with that at all

[Wind_FURY]

This is an interesting topic that I sparked up back then once just for discussion purposes — safe to say a lot of people didn't like it lol.

If this trend continues most if not all bitcoins would have been lost by then.

It definitely wouldn't be like that. Sure, the supply still shrinks and shrinks slowly, but as time goes bitcoin goes up in value as well. People will be incentivized to not lose them; not like back then when bitcoin was merely a few cents so people didn't care much about their private key backups.

Good because it's actually a bad idea. What would the purpose of POW and holding our own keys if there was a "legal" form of taking someone else's property away from them? Who decides which UTXOs are "lost"?

I believe the same kind of topic was also suggested by an individual called Craig Wright in one of his talks. No I didn't listen to his talk, I read it in the news or a blog, I don't remember. Haha.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I believe the same kind of topic was also suggested by an individual called Craig Wright in one of his talks.

Fun fact: BSV has already implemented this! It allows CSW and his buddies to freeze or seize any coins from any wallet at any time for any reason! Super fun! https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/

The fact that BSV has just recently hit an all time low against bitcoin of 0.1% of the bitcoin price should tell you all you need to know about what people think of this kind of "feature".

[yhiaali3]

Lost bitcoins due to lost private keys or the like can be likened to the lost gold of ancient civilizations. Large quantities of gold are always found buried in some ancient archaeological sites around the world.

So by comparison I can say that maybe one day in the future 100 years or so people will find some lost bitcoin wallets which will be worth millions of dollars at that time.

The lost gold that is found belongs to the state, but the lost bitcoin will belong to whom? I anticipate that there will be disagreement in the Bitcoin community with the answer to this question.

[PeRo]

This topic was pulled up many times on this forum. I still don't think we can do anything to bring lost Bitcoins back and we probably shouldn't. Bitcoin will always be usable, regardless of those millions missing - they are even helping the price being higher by making the supply smaller. I don't know if you have taken into consideration that there are Bitcoin halvings which makes it harder to mine Bitcoin and as a byproduct, the price goes higher and the market cap is harder to be filled.

Anyway, you should not worry about Bitcoin coming to an end or something similar, it is very far away from today (maybe it wont ever even happen) and just enjoy it being regulated as it is right now. We shouldn't try to fix anything that isn't broken, it's the nature of Bitcoin and it is to be leaved how it is.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe the same kind of topic was also suggested by an individual called Craig Wright in one of his talks.

Fun fact: BSV has already implemented this! It allows CSW and his buddies to freeze or seize any coins from any wallet at any time for any reason! Super fun! https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/

The fact that BSV has just recent hit an all time low against bitcoin of 0.1% of the bitcoin price should tell you all you need to know about what people think of this kind of "feature".

Super fun indeed!

That's probably why we should be cynical of people who keep repeating this topic again and again. It's nothing personal against OP and I'm not accusing OP, but Craig Wright and his group of Flat-Earthers are always playing 4D chess, like asking something innocently in Reddit or Twitter from one account, then have their sockpuppets steer the discussion wherever they want and deceive absolute newbies.

[BVeyron]

I like the idea of only having 21 million bitcoins.
Bitcoins get lost all the time, lost private keys.
In time we will have fewer and fewer bitcoins, currently it is thought 3-4 million bitcoins are already lost. This makes me sad.

I propose a redistribution method:
>If an address did not have any activity in let's say the last 100 years the address is considered lost and the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block.

To prevent losing your bitcoins you make sure to transfer them to a new address every 100 years (I am not aware of any other method of "proving" you still have access to an address).

P.S. This would be a change in the consensus mechanism, I know 
P.S.S. I am aware of Satoshi's view on this "lost coins are a donation to everyone". Yes, but 4 million is a lot, do we want Bitcoin to still be used 1000 years from now? If this trend continues most if not all bitcoins would have been lost by then.

Continuous cryptocurrency loss is something that really goes on, there are already lots of lost accounts, so it is possible that at some time nearly all BTC will be lost. The thing that matters in case of significant BTC loss is adoption level: if it happens at the time of wide BTC usage, it will bring "deflation", but if it happens at the current (or lower) level of adoption, then BTC will lose its value...

[Volgastallion]

I like the idea of only having 21 million bitcoins.
Bitcoins get lost all the time, lost private keys.
In time we will have fewer and fewer bitcoins, currently it is thought 3-4 million bitcoins are already lost. This makes me sad.

I propose a redistribution method:
>If an address did not have any activity in let's say the last 100 years the address is considered lost and the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block.

To prevent losing your bitcoins you make sure to transfer them to a new address every 100 years (I am not aware of any other method of "proving" you still have access to an address).

P.S. This would be a change in the consensus mechanism, I know 
P.S.S. I am aware of Satoshi's view on this "lost coins are a donation to everyone". Yes, but 4 million is a lot, do we want Bitcoin to still be used 1000 years from now? If this trend continues most if not all bitcoins would have been lost by then.

I think WE in modern societty have a very big problem with time itself, for us 100 years its like an  eternity, because in this era we experience so much changes in a very short ammount of time.

But in realty what its 100 years for a coin? or for gold? or fo hummanity in general? NOTHING.

So first 100 years its very ammount of time, second changing that you are changing a lot more things beyond our capacitie of seeing like a lot of people said in this thread before me.
Its a common question we all have because we know its a lot of BTC forgotten, but it is what it is, took that leverage in your favour.

When you heard some talking about 21 million BTC and for that ammount we have scarcity, you think you are a little more wise and you know in fact they are less, so being less the few we have worth more.

[Ucy]

I don't think it's a good idea to assume they are lost. We should instead assume they are not lost no matter how long they stay unmoved. This is part of what keeps the Bitcoin system trustworthy.   Could even affect the potential use of Bitcoin for inheritance transfer via timelock. Imagine locking your coins for your grandchildren which you set to automatically unlock when they become adults, only for the coins to be stolen in the name of block reward.
There is already a more moral way the network can benefit from lost coins... Everyone else's coin increase in price due to reduced supply of coins that can be spent.

[JollyGood]

You're right, far fewer bitcoins are lost today than in the beginning, when people mined them on their laptops, at a time when they were worth pennies and they didn't know if they would still be around in a few years, nor did they have options for spending them as they do now. Today there are many more security measures, more knowledge, and people consider them much more valuable than they did then.

They will always continue to be lost, but in percentage terms much less.

I would tend to agree with this statement because in the early days many miners would have simply lost their Bitcoin as they would not have had access to the facilities for spending them as we do now but do we have statistical evidence pointing towards the number of lost Bitcoins?

to introduce code that can take coins without utxo key signing. even at 100year policy. can easily if implemented then change that mining policy to then be 50 years or 10 years or 10 days..

you might aswell kill bitcoin if you want to introduce any method to taking coins without utxo key signing permission

part of security is the inability to move coins without utxo key signing. lets not mess with that at all

What you said is correct. To change the basic fundamentals Bitcoin was based on will be detrimental to the core principles it was founded upon.

What I would like to ask is if the OP really is a newbie or if he is a newly created account by an established member. If I had to choose I would go with the notion this is not his only account and the OP was looking for merits (but received none as of yet).

[serjent05]

I like the idea of only having 21 million bitcoins.
Bitcoins get lost all the time, lost private keys.
In time we will have fewer and fewer bitcoins, currently it is thought 3-4 million bitcoins are already lost. This makes me sad.

I propose a redistribution method:
>If an address did not have any activity in let's say the last 100 years the address is considered lost and the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block.

To prevent losing your bitcoins you make sure to transfer them to a new address every 100 years (I am not aware of any other method of "proving" you still have access to an address).

P.S. This would be a change in the consensus mechanism, I know 
P.S.S. I am aware of Satoshi's view on this "lost coins are a donation to everyone". Yes, but 4 million is a lot, do we want Bitcoin to still be used 1000 years from now? If this trend continues most if not all bitcoins would have been lost by then.

I think WE in modern societty have a very big problem with time itself, for us 100 years its like an  eternity, because in this era we experience so much changes in a very short ammount of time.

But in realty what its 100 years for a coin? or for gold? or fo hummanity in general? NOTHING.

So first 100 years its very ammount of time, second changing that you are changing a lot more things beyond our capacitie of seeing like a lot of people said in this thread before me.
Its a common question we all have because we know its a lot of BTC forgotten, but it is what it is, took that leverage in your favour.

When you heard some talking about 21 million BTC and for that ammount we have scarcity, you think you are a little more wise and you know in fact they are less, so being less the few we have worth more.

Just don't touch other people's Bitcoin regardless of the length of time it is being idle.  Anyone don't have the right to move someone's coins, it can be considered as theft since wedon't have permission to move them.  Not because we have the authority to modify the code, it is ok for us to do whatever we want and move others people Bitcoin because they are sitting on the address for so long?  That is immoral, IMO.

The action of touching other peoples Bitcoin is pointing to centralization so I don't think it is really wise to do that since Bitcoin as we all know is a decentralized blockchain,