Why does Bitcoin not have a heartbeat?

[Istaria]

Sorry, that probably sounded like another doom and gloom "Bitcoin is dead" thread In fact it's a different question.

Bitcoins are mined. Bitcoins are stored. And, inevitably, some bitcoins are lost.

What happens to dead bitcoins?

As far as I can figure (see rank of "newbie" in post), these dead bitcoins are gone....forever.

So why has a "heartbeat" not been implemented? Or part of the design?

If you can't pulse your Bitcoins every...year?....then they should be returned to the pool?

Stupid idea?

Ist

[1714112412]

1714112412

[1714112412]

1714112412

[EcuaMobi]

Sorry, that probably sounded like another doom and gloom "Bitcoin is dead" thread In fact it's a different question.

Bitcoins are mined. Bitcoins are stored. And, inevitably, some bitcoins are lost.

What happens to dead bitcoins?

As far as I can figure (see rank of "newbie" in post), these dead bitcoins are gone....forever.

So why has a "heartbeat" not been implemented? Or part of the design?

If you can't pulse your Bitcoins every...year?....then they should be returned to the pool?

Stupid idea?

Ist

First you need to define "pool"? What exactly are you suggesting should happen with these bitcoins? There's no centralized authority or repository at all.
In any case people can just store their bitcoin offline for a long period of time, it wouldn't make sense to force them to move their coins.
Currently what happens with these bitcoins is that their wealth is distributed among other bitcoin holders because the fewer coins are circulating the more each one is worth, so it seems like a good solution for me.

[AverageGlabella]

depends what you mean by dead if they were stored on a hard drive which was lost and cant be retrieved they are lost forever

[Istaria]

Sorry, that probably sounded like another doom and gloom "Bitcoin is dead" thread In fact it's a different question.

Bitcoins are mined. Bitcoins are stored. And, inevitably, some bitcoins are lost.

What happens to dead bitcoins?

As far as I can figure (see rank of "newbie" in post), these dead bitcoins are gone....forever.

So why has a "heartbeat" not been implemented? Or part of the design?

If you can't pulse your Bitcoins every...year?....then they should be returned to the pool?

Stupid idea?

Ist

First you need to define "pool"? What exactly are you suggesting should happen with these bitcoins? There's no centralized authority or repository at all.
In any case people can just store their bitcoin offline for a long period of time, it wouldn't make sense to force them to move their coins.
Currently what happens with these bitcoins is that their wealth is distributed among other bitcoin holders because the fewer coins are circulating the more each one is worth, so it seems like a good solution for me.

It seems my terminology is failing me

Right, so by "pool" I mean they should go back into the blockchain to be re-mined.

Storing bitcoins offline for a long period of time should not be affected by this as long as people are willing to move them once per....year, was the example I used.

And the whole thing about the less circulating.....is that truly what you want? This is my big problem with the holders of large numbers of bitcoin. You want jam on both sides of your bread. You want them to be mass adopted, but you also advise people not to spend them....eh what?

If I am speaking from ignorance please correct me - I am here to learn!

[bri912678]

I'm happy with the system as it is. As increasing numbers of bitcoins are lost the remaining ones become more valuable.

There is an alt coin (I think freicoin) whose coins slowly rot in your wallet if you do not regularly use them. Your balance slowly decreases if you have not moved them after a specified duration. I'm happier with bitcoin's system because if you were unable to access them over a long period of time your total balance would still remain.

If you were a freicoin holder in a coma for years when you came around your balance might have disappeared, but with bitcoin it would still be safe. The early adopters who mined bitcoin when it was worthless, then forgot about them made a fortune when they heard how valuable they had become. Early freicoin adopters who had forgotten about them would not be so lucky.

[EcuaMobi]

It seems my terminology is failing me

Right, so by "pool" I mean they should go back into the blockchain to be re-mined.

This would be the same as destroying the coins. This can't be done, the bitcoin protocol doesn't support this. I guess losing the private keys is as close as it can get.

Storing bitcoins offline for a long period of time should not be affected by this as long as people are willing to move them once per....year, was the example I used.

A lot of coins are stored for several years. Losing the coins just because you decided not to spend them, or got an accident and couldn't spend them, or something else would be an extreme punishment!
I don't think this would be reasonable.

but you also advise people not to spend them....eh what?

What? Who said that?

[Hazir]

Sorry, that probably sounded like another doom and gloom "Bitcoin is dead" thread In fact it's a different question.

Bitcoins are mined. Bitcoins are stored. And, inevitably, some bitcoins are lost.

What happens to dead bitcoins?

As far as I can figure (see rank of "newbie" in post), these dead bitcoins are gone....forever.

So why has a "heartbeat" not been implemented? Or part of the design?

If you can't pulse your Bitcoins every...year?....then they should be returned to the pool?

Stupid idea?

Ist

No, lost bitcoins should not be returning. what is lost is lost. You want to know the ultimate truth about "lost bitcons":

"Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone."

If you can guess who said that without googling it, then you are a wiseman.

[Buck Naked]

When someone lose his coins it just makes the rest of the coins more valuable, you should thank people who loses their coins.

[cr1776]

This has been discussed many times.

1. What gives anyone the right to take coins that aren't their's merely because they haven't "moved?  Who decides the time? If it is implemented, it will be easy to write software to move them every so often. So what is the point?

2. It is a hard fork, but If you want to try, fork Bitcoin (block chain and code) and convince miners and users to switch. You'll find most people want the freedom to save if they want and not have their savings stolen by people who want to control how they use their coins. But you are welcome to try.  It would be a good demonstration to give people the choice. 


:-)

[Istaria]

This has been discussed many times.

1. What gives anyone the right to take coins that aren't their's merely because they haven't "moved?  Who decides the time? If it is implemented, it will be easy to write software to move them every so often. So what is the point?

2. It is a hard fork, but If you want to try, fork Bitcoin (block chain and code) and convince miners and users to switch. You'll find most people want the freedom to save if they want and not have their savings stolen by people who want to control how they use their coins. But you are welcome to try.  It would be a good demonstration to give people the choice. 


:-)

1. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's theft. BUT alive users should be able to move their coins. And if it's implemented at the time of inception, they will be aware of this. It stops a portion of a finite resource becoming unusable. THAT's the point.

2. I have no idea what a hard fork is. If you have a point by bringing up a technical point, then please explain it.

[zcxvbs]

He is talking about the Bitcoins that had been lost, for private key lost or the owner dies, he defined these Bitcoin "dead" and can't be transferred anymore, dead Bitcoin will lay in the last address they had been forever.
And year after year, the dead Bitcoin will keep increasing and eventually become a great number.

[Hazir]

He is talking about the Bitcoins that had been lost, for private key lost or the owner dies, he defined these Bitcoin "dead" and can't be transferred anymore, dead Bitcoin will lay in the last address they had been forever.
And year after year, the dead Bitcoin will keep increasing and eventually become a great number.

Which eventually is a good thing. Because then every 'alive' bitcoin  would be worth more and more over time. There is nothing to worry about. This is the law of bitcoin.

[AgentofCoin]

This has been discussed many times.

1. What gives anyone the right to take coins that aren't their's merely because they haven't "moved?  Who decides the time? If it is implemented, it will be easy to write software to move them every so often. So what is the point?

2. It is a hard fork, but If you want to try, fork Bitcoin (block chain and code) and convince miners and users to switch. You'll find most people want the freedom to save if they want and not have their savings stolen by people who want to control how they use their coins. But you are welcome to try.  It would be a good demonstration to give people the choice. 


:-)

1. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's theft. BUT alive users should be able to move their coins. And if it's implemented at the time of inception, they will be aware of this. It stops a portion of a finite resource becoming unusable. THAT's the point.

2. I have no idea what a hard fork is. If you have a point by bringing up a technical point, then please explain it.

Hello again,
1. bitcoin is divisible, currently up to eight decimal places. There should be no problem with amount of bitcoins remaining in the bitcoin economy.
     For example, 1btc today could be equivalent to 0.001btc tomorrow. The total number of coins is not important. Whats important is active coins.

2. Hard fork is when there is a major change to the Bitcoin Coding (Protocol) and thus its splits into two blockchains. The new chain and the old chain.
     Old chains usually die off immediately. Some altcoins are hardforks of the Bitcoin Protocol.

Bitcoiners are generally resistant to the idea of "lost" coins returning to be "re-mined", because it goes against the original spirit and intention of Bitcoin.
     

[Istaria]

This has been discussed many times.

1. What gives anyone the right to take coins that aren't their's merely because they haven't "moved?  Who decides the time? If it is implemented, it will be easy to write software to move them every so often. So what is the point?

2. It is a hard fork, but If you want to try, fork Bitcoin (block chain and code) and convince miners and users to switch. You'll find most people want the freedom to save if they want and not have their savings stolen by people who want to control how they use their coins. But you are welcome to try.  It would be a good demonstration to give people the choice. 


:-)

1. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's theft. BUT alive users should be able to move their coins. And if it's implemented at the time of inception, they will be aware of this. It stops a portion of a finite resource becoming unusable. THAT's the point.

2. I have no idea what a hard fork is. If you have a point by bringing up a technical point, then please explain it.

Hello again,
1. bitcoin is divisible, currently up to eight decimal places. There should be no problem with amount of bitcoins remaining in the bitcoin economy.
     For example, 1btc today could be equivalent to 0.001btc tomorrow. The total number of coins is not important. Whats important is active coins.

2. Hard fork is when there is a major change to the Bitcoin Coding (Protocol) and thus its splits into two blockchains. The new chain and the old chain.
     Old chains usually die off immediately. Some altcoins are hardforks of the Bitcoin Protocol.

Bitcoiners are generally resistant to the idea of "lost" coins returning to be "re-mined", because it goes against the original spirit and intention of Bitcoin.
     

Is the "old spirit" correct? Because it seems to me there are some improvements could be made. I ofc am clueless, but I am on the other hand a latecomer, journalist, and consumer.

[ebliever]

There is no way to distinguish from blockchain analysis, etc., which coins are dead (permanently lost due to lost password or private key) and those whose owners are simply sitting on them. So a proposal to empty out accounts and "recycle" bitcoins simply because they haven't moved in a long time is a perfectly awful idea. I would expect that, if it lasts that long, someday you will have untouched wallets passing down as an inheritance from generation to generation. It's conceivable you could have a wallet go a hundred years without being touched, but with the private keys still under someone's control. As others have said, truly lost bitcoins just reduce the money supply of bitcoin, increasing the remaining value, while divisibility is not an issue  because we can go beyond 8 decimal places with a software  update should there ever be a concensus to do so.

[AgentofCoin]

This has been discussed many times.

1. What gives anyone the right to take coins that aren't their's merely because they haven't "moved?  Who decides the time? If it is implemented, it will be easy to write software to move them every so often. So what is the point?

2. It is a hard fork, but If you want to try, fork Bitcoin (block chain and code) and convince miners and users to switch. You'll find most people want the freedom to save if they want and not have their savings stolen by people who want to control how they use their coins. But you are welcome to try.  It would be a good demonstration to give people the choice. 


:-)

1. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's theft. BUT alive users should be able to move their coins. And if it's implemented at the time of inception, they will be aware of this. It stops a portion of a finite resource becoming unusable. THAT's the point.

2. I have no idea what a hard fork is. If you have a point by bringing up a technical point, then please explain it.

Hello again,
1. bitcoin is divisible, currently up to eight decimal places. There should be no problem with amount of bitcoins remaining in the bitcoin economy.
     For example, 1btc today could be equivalent to 0.001btc tomorrow. The total number of coins is not important. Whats important is active coins.

2. Hard fork is when there is a major change to the Bitcoin Coding (Protocol) and thus its splits into two blockchains. The new chain and the old chain.
     Old chains usually die off immediately. Some altcoins are hardforks of the Bitcoin Protocol.

Bitcoiners are generally resistant to the idea of "lost" coins returning to be "re-mined", because it goes against the original spirit and intention of Bitcoin.
     

Is the "old spirit" correct? Because it seems to me there are some improvements could be made. I ofc am clueless, but I am on the other hand a latecomer, journalist, and consumer.

Yes, it is correct. Some improvements can and will be made, but not the type that fundamentally change the original intention of Bitcoin.
The "old spirit" is what Bitcoin/bitcoin is. If we diverge from that, then Bitcoin/bitcoin is a failed experiment, because people want regulated credit systems and no personal responsibility.
In time, you will understand that it is basically the reversal of the current world financial system, which to some is comforting and positive.

[waaat?]

Are the communists out again?

[Kprawn]

The whole idea with having the private key, is to make it virtually impossible for someone to access your stored coins. If they implement a "pulse" function like this, it could make it easier for people to hack your coins.

All the coins are still there on the blockchain, but you or anyone else cannot access it, without the private and public key paring. 

The divisibility of Bitcoin cancel out any problems "lost" coins might have caused, so it's a non-issue. 

[odolvlobo]

As far as I can figure (see rank of "newbie" in post), these dead bitcoins are gone....forever.

Nobody is hurt by lost bitcoins. It is not a problem. You are suggesting making bitcoin more complicated in order to solve a non-problem.

Let's review:

Pro: none
Con: more complicated

[Buffer Overflow]

Heartbeat.
Reminds me of the heartbleed bug.