Topic: A proposed solution to adjust for lost Bitcoins: wallet 'heartbeats' - page 10. (Read 12206 times)
June 21, 2011, 05:51:38 PM
It might be more viable if we allow refreshes without the private key. Worst case, someone malicious refreshes lost coins...
June 21, 2011, 05:26:08 PM
Why would you want to add trouble to make some people lose coins? What is the upside of this?
Because the system is incomplete and deficient without it. As for trouble, it's not clear to me what trouble is being made. Furthermore, it's actually a favor to savers to insure that their wallets actually function. 
June 21, 2011, 05:25:16 PM
Why would you want to add trouble to make some people lose coins? What is the upside of this?
I don't think the goal is to "add trouble" or to "make some people lose coins", I think you might have misunderstood the aims here.
With a finite amount of Bitcoins available and a slow erosion of that number through loss the upside is longevity of the Bitcoin idea.
June 21, 2011, 05:22:23 PM
Why would you want to add trouble to make some people lose coins? What is the upside of this?
Shorter transaction chain, money for miners would come also from hoarders (for heartbeat transactions), practical knowledge what coins have been lost and less deflation over time (if not refreshed coins would go back as mineable coins).
Quote
So you think holding coins and doing nothing is bad, but holding coins and paying yourself once a year suddenly makes you worthy to keep coins?
No, I think it would be nice if hoarders would have to pay a little transaction fee once per year (for example) to those who keep the whole system running and ready ALSO FOR THEM.
June 21, 2011, 05:20:49 PM
I posted similar idea before, except with shorter time but coin sitters hated it. I still think it's a good idea.
Forget to connect once per 7 years???!
It's very easy, Bitcoins with transaction older than 7 years can't be spent. So heartbeat transaction would be basically transaction back to the same address done automatically by the client for coins that are for example more then one year old. If it got older, the numbre of coins would be simply mineable again.
It would also help keep transaction chain reasonably short.
What about people who just want to have a savings wallet? I have one hidden away that I don't want to bring online for ~30 years.
Don't you think it's a bit unfair if you just sit on coins for 30 years without a single transaction while OTHERS provide security for the network 24/7, also for you? If heartbeat would need need a transaction fee to be accepted, that would mean the miners would be paid also by those who just hoard money for years.It would be stupid to have coins lost because you forgot to connect to the network.
Forget to connect once per 7 years???!
Additionally, there's not really a good way to have a decentralized way to do this.
It's very easy, Bitcoins with transaction older than 7 years can't be spent. So heartbeat transaction would be basically transaction back to the same address done automatically by the client for coins that are for example more then one year old. If it got older, the numbre of coins would be simply mineable again.
It would also help keep transaction chain reasonably short.
So you think holding coins and doing nothing is bad, but holding coins and paying yourself once a year suddenly makes you worthy to keep coins?
June 21, 2011, 05:19:21 PM
As we all know, the true number of Bitcoins in circulation will always be some unknown number less than the total number of Bitcoins mined. This is not ideal. Wallets can be lost, deleted, or the underlying media on which they are stored on can be damaged beyond recovery.
Are Bitcoins in it for the long haul? Or are they just a five year experiment?
I'm proposing a solution: wallet 'heartbeats'. I'm not sure if it is technically compatible with the existing software infrastructure, but I think it might be. If we define a heartbeat as connecting to the network, then perhaps wallets should give a heartbeat at least every seven years in order to remain valid. Any coins in a wallet that has not connected to the network for seven years become invalid and are made available to be remined, by some method that allows for their easy mining. Because I don't fully understand the mechanics behind the software, I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, I believe the idea has merit.
Are Bitcoins in it for the long haul? Or are they just a five year experiment?
I'm proposing a solution: wallet 'heartbeats'. I'm not sure if it is technically compatible with the existing software infrastructure, but I think it might be. If we define a heartbeat as connecting to the network, then perhaps wallets should give a heartbeat at least every seven years in order to remain valid. Any coins in a wallet that has not connected to the network for seven years become invalid and are made available to be remined, by some method that allows for their easy mining. Because I don't fully understand the mechanics behind the software, I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, I believe the idea has merit.
Why would you want to add trouble to make some people lose coins? What is the upside of this?
June 21, 2011, 05:17:22 PM
I posted similar idea before, except with shorter time but coin sitters hated it. I still think it's a good idea.
I don't think it will ever happen with Bitcoins, but it might be a good idea for a new, better cryptocurrency.
Forget to connect once per 7 years???!
It's very easy, Bitcoins with transaction older than 7 years can't be spent. So heartbeat transaction would be basically transaction back to the same address done automatically by the client for coins that are for example more then one year old. If it got older, the numbre of coins would be simply mineable again.
It would also help keep transaction chain reasonably short.
I don't think it will ever happen with Bitcoins, but it might be a good idea for a new, better cryptocurrency.
What about people who just want to have a savings wallet? I have one hidden away that I don't want to bring online for ~30 years.
Don't you think it's a bit unfair if you just sit on coins for 30 years without a single transaction while OTHERS provide security for the network 24/7, also for you? If heartbeat would need a transaction fee to be accepted, that would mean the miners would be paid also by those who just hoard money for years.It would be stupid to have coins lost because you forgot to connect to the network.
Forget to connect once per 7 years???!
Additionally, there's not really a good way to have a decentralized way to do this.
It's very easy, Bitcoins with transaction older than 7 years can't be spent. So heartbeat transaction would be basically transaction back to the same address done automatically by the client for coins that are for example more then one year old. If it got older, the numbre of coins would be simply mineable again.
It would also help keep transaction chain reasonably short.
June 21, 2011, 05:13:08 PM
You can't connect your savings wallet to the network once every seven years?
Clearly, your coins are worthless if you never connect to the network. For you, though, 30 years is appropriate. However, good luck in finding hardware that will support the USB flashdrive (or where ever it is stored) in 30 years. Seven years is realistic, and not a burden to you.
In the banking industry, accounts with no activity are closed after seven years. Is this really that unreasonable? It insures that bitcoins won't slowly disappear. Also, given your long term outlook (30 years), then it stands to reason that you believe Bitcoins are going to survive. If so, then let's really look into the future. With the slow but inevitable attrition of Bitcoin circulation, assuming lost Bitcoins are never recovered, what then becomes of knowledge regarding the entire system? That knowledge slowly evaporates, given the complete inability to know whether Bitcoins are lost or simply out of circulation.
Clearly, your coins are worthless if you never connect to the network. For you, though, 30 years is appropriate. However, good luck in finding hardware that will support the USB flashdrive (or where ever it is stored) in 30 years. Seven years is realistic, and not a burden to you.
In the banking industry, accounts with no activity are closed after seven years. Is this really that unreasonable? It insures that bitcoins won't slowly disappear. Also, given your long term outlook (30 years), then it stands to reason that you believe Bitcoins are going to survive. If so, then let's really look into the future. With the slow but inevitable attrition of Bitcoin circulation, assuming lost Bitcoins are never recovered, what then becomes of knowledge regarding the entire system? That knowledge slowly evaporates, given the complete inability to know whether Bitcoins are lost or simply out of circulation.
June 21, 2011, 05:05:36 PM
What about people who just want to have a savings wallet? I have one hidden away that I don't want to bring online for ~30 years.
It would be stupid to have coins lost because you forgot to connect to the network.
Additionally, there's not really a good way to have a decentralized way to do this.
Tl;dr this has been debated and most people think it's a terrible idea. If you want to make a version of bitcoin that does this go ahead. I have my doubts about its success.
It would be stupid to have coins lost because you forgot to connect to the network.
Additionally, there's not really a good way to have a decentralized way to do this.
Tl;dr this has been debated and most people think it's a terrible idea. If you want to make a version of bitcoin that does this go ahead. I have my doubts about its success.
June 21, 2011, 04:48:46 PM
As we all know, the true number of Bitcoins in circulation will always be some unknown number less than the total number of Bitcoins mined. This is not ideal. Wallets can be lost, deleted, or the underlying media on which they are stored on can be damaged beyond recovery.
Are Bitcoins in it for the long haul? Or are they just a five year experiment?
I'm proposing a solution: wallet 'heartbeats'. I'm not sure if it is technically compatible with the existing software infrastructure, but I think it might be. If we define a heartbeat as connecting to the network, then perhaps wallets should give a heartbeat at least every seven years in order to remain valid. Any coins in a wallet that has not connected to the network for seven years become invalid and are made available to be remined, by some method that allows for their easy mining. Because I don't fully understand the mechanics behind the software, I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, I believe the idea has merit.
Are Bitcoins in it for the long haul? Or are they just a five year experiment?
I'm proposing a solution: wallet 'heartbeats'. I'm not sure if it is technically compatible with the existing software infrastructure, but I think it might be. If we define a heartbeat as connecting to the network, then perhaps wallets should give a heartbeat at least every seven years in order to remain valid. Any coins in a wallet that has not connected to the network for seven years become invalid and are made available to be remined, by some method that allows for their easy mining. Because I don't fully understand the mechanics behind the software, I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, I believe the idea has merit.
Jump to: