Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin Deflation (Read 499 times)

hero member
Activity: 994
Merit: 501
PredX - AI-Powered Prediction Market
July 01, 2023, 08:20:18 AM
#63
Wouldn't it be better if lost coins were reintroduced into the network after a fixed span of inactivity?

I suppose the first thing one would say no for, would be by virtue of bitcoin's well-known deflationary property. This said, I believe it is much more important, especially in the longest term, that bitcoin keeps its property of conservation of energy, that is, having a fixed quantity of money ever available. By losing coins, instead, and by having them unrecoverable, we have not a fixed quantity of money available, rather a decreasing one, which is why we call bitcoin deflationary.

What would happen if we would make so that coins with 131 years of inactivity would be reintroduced into the network?

I see this having some positive effects:
- decreased impact of hereditary monopoly
- incentive to let the currency flow
- canceled the future necessity to increase the number of decimals for 1 BTC (very-long term perspective: too many coins have been lost, thus the necessity to further subdivide a coin)



I strongly disapprove of long abandoned/lost Bitcoins being reintroduced to the network for whatever reason. These lost or abandoned bitcoins will make the value of Bitcoin itself strong and it will prevent significant depreciation of Bitcoin in the future.
You're right but it's only a matter of time before these lost or abandoned bitcoins are reactivated. But the key here is that you have to be patient with these things. Lost Bitcoins are better off sitting idle forever. Because circulating bitcoins will add more value. But I think the coins will be recycled in the network
jr. member
Activity: 46
Merit: 11
July 01, 2023, 05:53:27 AM
#62
OP, why are you fighting so hard for this idea that only has downsides? There is literally no upside to your idea. But there are plenty of downsides. You want a massive change in the protocol, a change that would in effect steal bitcoin from addresses after a set amount of time. There is no length of time at which this action would be considered okay to do in any monetary system. This is why nobody is agreeing with you. And your one defense of saying that people would just have to move their Bitcoin does not make this idea okay with zero upsides but plenty of downsides.

It is honestly a preposterous idea. It is simply a bad money idea. Whether you propose it for Bitcoin or any monetary system. This would be considered a horrendous flaw in any monetary system. Yet you are proposing it as though it would be some sort of an improvement to Bitcoin which already works perfectly well and has no need to introduce bad ideas where money gets stolen by the protocol.

When there is no reason to do something, and lots of reasons to not do something, it's a bad idea. That is what your idea is. Literally everyone in this thread is telling you this.

You may not see what I see, in the same way, I do not see what you do see. On my end, I've tried to explain it, backing it with reasons, so that I could make others understand the idea, and so that I myself could also understand it better. Can you please do the same, and be more specific?

When you say: "zero upsides, plenty of downsides"; can you develop this opinion, so that I can either give credit if flawless, or I can clarify some points if needed?
hero member
Activity: 2240
Merit: 848
June 30, 2023, 12:14:54 PM
#61
OP, why are you fighting so hard for this idea that only has downsides? There is literally no upside to your idea. But there are plenty of downsides. You want a massive change in the protocol, a change that would in effect steal bitcoin from addresses after a set amount of time. There is no length of time at which this action would be considered okay to do in any monetary system. This is why nobody is agreeing with you. And your one defense of saying that people would just have to move their Bitcoin does not make this idea okay with zero upsides but plenty of downsides.

It is honestly a preposterous idea. It is simply a bad money idea. Whether you propose it for Bitcoin or any monetary system. This would be considered a horrendous flaw in any monetary system. Yet you are proposing it as though it would be some sort of an improvement to Bitcoin which already works perfectly well and has no need to introduce bad ideas where money gets stolen by the protocol.

When there is no reason to do something, and lots of reasons to not do something, it's a bad idea. That is what your idea is. Literally everyone in this thread is telling you this.
legendary
Activity: 3220
Merit: 1363
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
June 30, 2023, 11:45:14 AM
#60
That's right, some BTC are already lost forever, some BTC are going to be lost in some time. This will lead to deflation. However, the other thing that affects the possibility of deflation is adoption level. If the adoption level is high, and BTC is used everywhere, then continuous money loss will bring true deflation. And if adoption level is not so high, then the overall amount of coins probably won't affect the value of BTC.

Demand for BTC is still pretty high, so prices should be able to increase exponentially in the future. The more coins lost, the better. I don't think we'll reach a point where we'll run out of Bitcoins, since there are plenty of satoshis for everyone. If you do the math, there are quadrillions of satoshis in the 21 million BTC supply cap.

If the community decides to "recover" the lost coins, then Bitcoin's value proposition would be ruined. The only way would be to increase the supply, but that would make BTC an inflationary cryptocurrency. I'd suggest you keep buying and "hodling" as this is going to be a wild ride. Just my opinion Smiley
hero member
Activity: 1680
Merit: 987
#SWGT CERTIK Audited
June 27, 2023, 02:47:46 PM
#59
Wouldn't it be better if lost coins were reintroduced into the network after a fixed span of inactivity?

I suppose the first thing one would say no for, would be by virtue of bitcoin's well-known deflationary property. This said, I believe it is much more important, especially in the longest term, that bitcoin keeps its property of conservation of energy, that is, having a fixed quantity of money ever available. By losing coins, instead, and by having them unrecoverable, we have not a fixed quantity of money available, rather a decreasing one, which is why we call bitcoin deflationary.

What would happen if we would make so that coins with 131 years of inactivity would be reintroduced into the network?

I see this having some positive effects:
- decreased impact of hereditary monopoly
- incentive to let the currency flow
- canceled the future necessity to increase the number of decimals for 1 BTC (very-long term perspective: too many coins have been lost, thus the necessity to further subdivide a coin)



That's right, some BTC are already lost forever, some BTC are going to be lost in some time. This will lead to deflation. However, the other thing that affects the possibility of deflation is adoption level. If the adoption level is high, and BTC is used everywhere, then continuous money loss will bring true deflation. And if adoption level is not so high, then the overall amount of coins probably won't affect the value of BTC.
hero member
Activity: 1092
Merit: 747
April 18, 2023, 02:07:33 PM
#58

What would happen if we would make so that coins with 131 years of inactivity would be reintroduced into the network?

The idea could be considered since mining and facilitating transactions is directly correlated with the current supply of bitcoin, so reintroducing lost crypto back to the market would spell good things for industry. Although it must be said that this only works if the supply is slowly increased, as flooding the market with lost bitcoins (if that's what you're going for) is a downright death wish. It will severely dilute bitcoin's value, and will cause multiple bank runs that could definitely end with bitcoin crashing.

Although in retrospect, with Satoshi Nakamoto gathering dust from elsewhere, who do we expect to do this for us?
I see no reason why you should be beating about the bush, because reintroducing lost Bitcoin into the network is one strictly impossible thing, as even Satoshi can not recover any coin that may have been lost. Because a very important question we should have been asking ourselves is "How can we identify lost Bitcoin?", because I'm sure many persons still have access to their Bitcoin and yet haven't spent the slightest Satoshi of it. So such a case, can you consider that as a lost coin??
hero member
Activity: 1750
Merit: 589
April 18, 2023, 12:19:44 PM
#57
Wouldn't it be better if lost coins were reintroduced into the network after a fixed span of inactivity?

I suppose the first thing one would say no for, would be by virtue of bitcoin's well-known deflationary property. This said, I believe it is much more important, especially in the longest term, that bitcoin keeps its property of conservation of energy, that is, having a fixed quantity of money ever available. By losing coins, instead, and by having them unrecoverable, we have not a fixed quantity of money available, rather a decreasing one, which is why we call bitcoin deflationary.

What would happen if we would make so that coins with 131 years of inactivity would be reintroduced into the network?

I see this having some positive effects:
- decreased impact of hereditary monopoly
- incentive to let the currency flow
- canceled the future necessity to increase the number of decimals for 1 BTC (very-long term perspective: too many coins have been lost, thus the necessity to further subdivide a coin)


The idea could be considered since mining and facilitating transactions is directly correlated with the current supply of bitcoin, so reintroducing lost crypto back to the market would spell good things for industry. Although it must be said that this only works if the supply is slowly increased, as flooding the market with lost bitcoins (if that's what you're going for) is a downright death wish. It will severely dilute bitcoin's value, and will cause multiple bank runs that could definitely end with bitcoin crashing.

Although in retrospect, with Satoshi Nakamoto gathering dust from elsewhere, who do we expect to do this for us?
jr. member
Activity: 46
Merit: 11
April 18, 2023, 10:57:14 AM
#56


This is where again the nature of Bitcoin being open source comes into play. Everyone can contribute and for a contribution to reach consensus among stakeholders, the incentives would only have to be strong enough. I am all with @stompix here because "not your keys not your crypto" should never equate to "yours keys, your crypto for only until X". As if you were renting a temporary box on the blockchain to store your wealth,

The system already includes this equation.
User ownership is relative; its duration is indefinite.
It is fundamental to clarify the definition of ownership.
There is a difference between relative ownership and absolute ownership.
The Bitcoin system is the absolute owner of its monetary energy.
There is a distinction between indefinite and infinite.
The blockchain is the temporal dimension of the Bitcoin system.
User ownership of wallets is temporary by the definition of relative ownership.



While it may seem otherwise, this equation is already present in the current system. You hold your crypto as your capability or decision to keep it perpetuates. Both of these are relative, by definition of human nature, and, by definition of relativity, subject to conditions.

We can state: a Bitcoin user holds crypto for only X, where X is indefinite. Being indefinite, X could also perpetuate infinitely. While X can be potentially infinite, it still regards a temporal limitation, X itself.

The main misunderstanding that appears to drive the conversation is upon the meaning of ownership, specifically, user ownership.

Ownership is the capacity to exercise control over something. In the Bitcoin system, user ownership is relative, as it is subject to conditions, time, and system ownership.

Users cannot bring monetary energy outside of the system. This is because of Bitcoin’s fixed supply, which is enforced by the blockchain. The blockchain’s purpose is to ensure that all valid transactions happen within the Bitcoin system and that the law of conservation of energy is respected. Users cannot transact coins outside of the system. All valid transactions must happen within the blockchain.

The blockchain prevents monetary energy to escape or join the system. It prevents users to transact coins outside of it and prevents double spending, thus any introduction of monetary energy without proof of work and beyond the fixed supply. What is of the Bitcoin system remains in it. What is not of the Bitcoin system does not remain.

Users are just using the monetary energy in this system. The enforcement of the constant and original supply and the law of conservation of energy makes Bitcoin a closed system. Since the Bitcoin system enforces ultimate control, it represents the absolute owner of its coins. In this sense, the monetary energy is centralized within the system. If the system is a neutral entity, we can define the system as decentralized. In other words, the system is the central authority, but it becomes decentralized as this authority is neutral towards all system participants and system rules. More specifically, the central authority is the machine, the tribunal, and even more specifically, it is the code itself, the constitution; however, if the code is not perfectly neutral, the system is not fully decentralized because it is not perfectly balanced. Much like artificial intelligence cannot be neutral until the training database is absolute and all-comprehensive. The code must respond to the law of conservation of energy and all other laws that consent perfect equilibrium and neutrality.

An absolute owner has ultimate, unconditioned, and limitless control over something.

Users are users, and their ownership is relative. They join the Bitcoin system and have freedom over its monetary energy, provided that this freedom is perpetually within the limits of the closed system. If users try to enforce relative ownership outside the Bitcoin system, the blockchain prevents it by exercising system ownership.

Relative ownership is limited control over something. User ownership in the Bitcoin system seems among the best forms of relative ownership, as it can perpetuate infinitely and gives the most transactional freedom. Such is thanks to the blockchain being unlimited in the number of blocks, thus infinitely explorable. Yet, monetary energy is still circumscribed within the blockchain and can only circulate inside it. We can visualize this considering the difference between indefinite and infinite, which we can call relative infinity (delimited) and absolute infinity (endless).

Even if it may seem that Bitcoin users are ultimate owners of some quantity of monetary energy, they are just relative owners. They are, in fact, users. They agree to use a system and its features but are not absolute owners. It means they are owners of a quantity of bitcoin for only X, where X is indefinite.

The possibility to hold monetary energy indefinitely does not make a user the absolute owner. Such an owner has independent and unconditioned control. The user ownership is dependent and conditioned on many factors, one of these being the possibility of losing access to the wallet; most importantly, dependent on the fact that if users want to use Bitcoin, they must do it within its closed system. The Bitcoin system does not allow monetary energy to escape the system because of the law of conservation of energy, which the constant supply pursues, while the blockchain enforces.

There is only one absolute owner in the Bitcoin system: the system itself. The system is the blockchain. The blockchain is the ultimate owner of monetary energy in the system. In other words, a user can hold bitcoins indefinitely, but the ultimate destiny of his coins is inside the blockchain. This destiny is the limit of this relative infinity that is the blockchain. Such is why user ownership is relative and temporary, and system ownership is absolute.

There is a substantial difference between being able to explore time indefinitely and existing outside of time, therefore being absolute. Coins can explore the temporal dimension of the Bitcoin system indefinitely, as the blockchain length is unlimited, but do not escape it. The temporal dimension of the Bitcoin system is the blockchain.

There is a similarity between the blockchain and time. In this sense, the Bitcoin system is a closed system similar to and within the original one, the Universe, and thus subject to its laws. It is fundamental that Bitcoin respects the universal laws that define the behaviors of energy in balanced systems, especially material energy, to which money is similar.

We can refer to the blockchain as an unlimited ledger of transactions/movements of monetary energy, of which sum is constant. We can also define the blockchain as a relative infinity system, that is, a system that is infinitely extendable but provided with a boundary. There is so the possibility to store infinite transactions within the blockchain [as long as there is effort (computational power)], which makes it unlimited inwardly; the boundary is the fixed supply of monetary energy, or constant sum, which entails that none can escape nor enter the system.

In this sense, the Bitcoin system already provides your equation by definition of relative ownership. By the same definition, it is also possible to address the phrase: “renting a temporary box on the blockchain to store your wealth”. The ownership of a wallet is relative because it is still subject to conditions and time. The wallet itself is not temporary, but the ownership of the user upon this wallet is. A user is therefore renting, or more suitably saying, owning a wallet indefinitely by definition of relative ownership, that is, until conditions like losing access to it or giving it up.

All valid bitcoin transactions are stored in the blockchain. Transactions outside of the blockchain are to be considered invalid. On-chain transactions are valid because the blockchain is responsible for the constant supply of monetary energy. The blockchain verifies and preserves the law of conservation of energy. The blockchain is the absolute owner of bitcoin energy.

Legend of parallelisms:
Coins = monetary energy, matter; transactions = movements; blocks = points in time; blockchain = time; wallets = points in space; set of possible wallets = space? ( finite number - maximum extent);
active wallets = bodies (points in space containing matter); set of active wallets = population;

As general definitions, we can state:

In the material system, an observer takes relative possession of a point in space and a quantity of matter to perform movements at points in time.
In the bitcoin system, a user takes relative possession of a wallet and a quantity of bitcoin to perform transactions at blocks in the blockchain.

This design seems in harmony with the universal laws on closed systems, except for one thing: the recycling of energy to preserve system balance. The Bitcoin system appears to require a form of recycling for inaccessible/lost monetary energy. There is a disorder regarding active wallets, which should represent wallets containing energy and in use (control) by relative owners. Currently, the network considers inaccessible and lost wallets permanently active (under the ownership of previous users) even though coins can never return to the system. Such a body of monetary energy would be without a user in control and have no chance of being recycled.





Quote
but this would fundamentally violate the third component of the bundle of rights broadly defining what property rights are about:


1. the right to use the good
2. the right to earn income from the good
3. the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation)

The monetary energy of the Bitcoin system is subdivided into neutral fungible units. Human-based rights are irrelevant before the universal laws of perfectly balanced closed systems. This right, whereas it involves “destroying permanently”, refers to forms of energy. This right does not refer to energy itself, which is neutral and can’t be destroyed, just transformed. Coins in the Bitcoin system represent neutral monetary energy.

Ownership cessation doesn’t necessarily refer to destroying coins permanently; rather permanently losing access and control. Abandoning and destroying would take on the same meaning.

While one can still “destroy" the monetary energy under his relative ownership, which in Bitcoin would mean losing coins, the system should not sacrifice neutral energy for human rights if these can’t be defined properly, completely, and without partiality and bias. If we could establish unbiased human rights, they would likely include the right to an economy based on a neutral and balanced monetary system. This right would be more important than any right based on an unreasonable attachment to money.





Quote
That is just against THE core principle Bitcoin is based on. Bitcoin is about the inviolable right of permanent ownership. If Bitcoin comes to a point where its economic viability is at risk, people would follow their preferences, maximizing their utility. This means if Bitcoin is "bad" or becoming "bad" because it is a system where energy is permanently lost [is] and therefore destined to collapse, people will just withdraw their money from it. It is their free will to either stay in or leave the system.

Bitcoin is indeed about the inviolable right of permanent ownership, but by the system, and the constant supply of monetary energy represents this permanent ownership. The core of Bitcoin involves a closed system where the first law of thermodynamics is pursued and perfectly respected. Moreover, if such an inviolable right of permanent ownership would regard user ownership, a user should be unable to perform ownership cessation.
Permanent user ownership is impossible by the previously stated definition of relative ownership. It is essential to recognize that permanent loss of access or control to monetary energy means loss of ownership. To consider oneself still the owner of a quantity that has been permanently lost, and so, upon which the user has no control anymore, is a sign of biased perspectives.

In addition, we should not consider people leaving Bitcoin as a solution, especially if we are so passionately mentioning Bitcoin's core principles. We agree that Bitcoin is more secure as more people join the network. Furthermore, we can also agree, that we should first try to solve and clarify any possible issue in Bitcoin to the best of our abilities instead of considering ways to escape as soon as the situation becomes uncomfortable. Satoshi started the fire of the idea; our purpose as a network is to make it live and possibly refine it. We should not expect Satoshi to be a supreme being that has given us something perfect and irrefutable.





Quote
It seems your theory is based on the presupposition that there is only one cryptocurrency or only one way to store wealth in general.

The purpose of Bitcoin is to be the global reserve currency and the most representative store of wealth. Bitcoin is a currency and commodity. It is idealized as an underlying representative of value and a primary medium for monetary transactions. As for now, other cryptocurrencies are securities.

More specifically, bitcoin should represent absolute wealth preservation, given that its monetary energy never decays in absolute value ( 1 BTC = 1/21M of total energy, always). This would make bitcoin the general store of wealth and the primary digital commodity.





Quote
I am just wondering whether your idea of "permanently lost energy" is technically correct. It might be philosophically correct, but the energy consumed to have mined now dormant coins is still contained by the network. If it leads to increased scarcity, the energy consumed to have mined now dormant coins leads to potentially higher prices, potentially higher competition for transaction costs (if there is no block reward anymore), leads to more energy required to mine transaction cost rewards for a lower number of coins remaining in circulation. Hence, the energy consumed to have mined now dormant coins has a direct influence on the energy required to mine for transaction cost rewards.

Your observation is correct. It seems that the energy consumed for lost coins would return into the system per indirect means, as it would be transformed as an appreciation of the circulating bitcoins. It is unclear whether the conservation per indirect means is valid when focusing on monetary equilibrium. Intuitively, we should exclude the indirect here and focus on respecting the law directly.

Regarding permanently lost energy, please note that this refers to the monetary energy in the system. Thus we are referring to lost coins. This idea considers the similarity between money and energy. Such is the underlying similarity upon which the whole recycling idea stands. It also considers the universality of the law of conservation of energy. This law states that no energy is lost in a closed system that is perfectly balanced and self-sustainable. A permanent loss of coins in Bitcoin would make the system vulnerable to imbalance and eventually collapse. In a system with constant supply, imbalances would be any appreciation of coins due to factors outside of population change (because, in supply/demand, the supply is constant; with Bitcoin as the global reserve currency, price changes should only be due to population change).  It is also obvious that if coins can be lost permanently, supply is not constant but decreasing over time. It is not primarily necessary to know how this system will collapse: we must first recognize that the system is not satisfying the law.





Quote
Scarcity in its broadest sense has a value, and hence, an energy preserving function. If another network incorporates your 131 years activity verification requirement and people deem that a better solution for their needs, they will remove their wealth from the Bitcoin network and shift it into the network they deem to be the right one based on their preferences , usually following utility maximization.

The beauty about Bitcoin's protocol has always been its open source nature. People are free to tweak the code and propose it to the public. We have true competition between cryptocurrencies, other currencies and conventional options to store wealth, but we have also competition among cryptocurrencies.

In terms of Bitcoin I am 100% with @stompix as there is no other cryptocurrency, or any other form for wealth preservation and protection, as Bitcoin. Bitcoin is as valuable as it is today because the rule

"3. the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation)"

has never been put seriously into question let alone ever been effectively violated. If you own they keys, and you are the sole owner of the keys and have sole authority over them, it is your crypto. The moment this rule would be altered through a hard fork, you would realize that the fork without your proposed rule won't drop in value while the fork with your idea would come out as much less valuable at best.

There appear to be some inconsistencies in your argument. If Bitcoin is about the permanent ownership of the user, how can it also give the right to cease ownership? It is crucial to clarify that ownership is the capacity to have potency and control over something. As one loses this capacity, like when losing access irreversibly, ownership is also lost. Furthermore, we should also clarify and remind that user ownership is and always will be relative.





Quote
I want to clearly say that I like this type of discussion. I know these questions have been brought up, but sometimes discussions still take different angles from the ones before. I think these discussions are one reason why we are all here.


The opportunity to have a say about the functioning of Bitcoin and propose new ideas comes from the open-source nature, as you have said. It is good to discuss Bitcoin in a way that respects ideas and people. The consensus of the majority is there to help biased beings reach the least amount of bias possible. This is another great part of Satoshi's idea.

Collectivity is the closest thing to neutrality if the individuals are biased. Therefore, the collective consensus is the safest and rightest decision among non-neutral individuals. Such is because the larger the number of components in the collectivity, the more the subdivisions of this single entity/set, and the closer the result to the neutral mean, thus the point of balance.

It is unnecessary to attack people who express themselves. No threat, no reason to worry: let people share their ideas; the collectivity is there to reach a consensus. In this light, never shut the spark of an individual. People should express themselves, fuel their fire, and share it with others. No one has the right to suppress the fire of others with presumption and superiority. Furthermore, the beginner often sees things that a master in complexity has missed along the way and would never get unless he makes himself a beginner again; for example, the capacity to rely on pure intuition. We should embrace praising creativity and possibly assist people to higher levels of knowledge with fraternity and goodwill.
legendary
Activity: 3220
Merit: 1363
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
March 12, 2023, 09:25:40 AM
#55
Wouldn't it be better if lost coins were reintroduced into the network after a fixed span of inactivity?

I suppose the first thing one would say no for, would be by virtue of bitcoin's well-known deflationary property. This said, I believe it is much more important, especially in the longest term, that bitcoin keeps its property of conservation of energy, that is, having a fixed quantity of money ever available. By losing coins, instead, and by having them unrecoverable, we have not a fixed quantity of money available, rather a decreasing one, which is why we call bitcoin deflationary.

What would happen if we would make so that coins with 131 years of inactivity would be reintroduced into the network?

I see this having some positive effects:
- decreased impact of hereditary monopoly
- incentive to let the currency flow
- canceled the future necessity to increase the number of decimals for 1 BTC (very-long term perspective: too many coins have been lost, thus the necessity to further subdivide a coin)

That would be a very bad idea, especially when some people depend on Bitcoin as a retirement fund. They just buy and store BTC without touching it for years. Would you imagine the network claiming back the "lost" coins from a "retirement wallet"? It would be a complete disaster! Folks at the Bitcoin SV camp proposed it, and it turned out to be a huge failure. Even Satoshi said that lost coins are a "donation" to the community.

The more coins lost, the scarcer BTC will get. You may think the supply of 21 million coins is not enough for people worldwide, but the fact is that BTC is divisible to 8 units. So there are essentially "quadrillions" of satoshis on the BTC blockchain. I'd leave Bitcoin as is instead of trying to add new features that will "break it" in the long run. Who knows how far will it go? Just my opinion Smiley
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 625
Pizza Maker 2023 | Bitcoinbeer.events
March 10, 2023, 01:05:49 PM
#54
I think it's quite alright that whatever was mined, was mined already and from here on out, it is not really going to be mined all that much and I am fine with it. Why would we want to have miners hand in all of this constantly, why would we want to keep them happy at all times. Either they are happy with the transaction fee that they are getting as a reward, or they are not and they can stop.

People think that we need them for safety but we have been above that safety level for many years, nearly a decade nowadays, we could have half of the miners stop today, and we would be fine. In fact this happens during bear runs all the time, half of the miners that activated during bull run, stops during bear run, and nothing happens.

Mmh yes is true that Bitcoin mining plays a crucial role in network security and transaction processing.  However, as you mentioned, the reward system of mining ensures that miners have an incentive to continue mining as long as it is profitable to do so.  Furthermore, the Bitcoin network has reached a level of security such that it can continue to operate even if some miners were to leave the network.

 Even though miners play an important role in the Bitcoin ecosystem, their constant happiness shouldn't be the only focus.  Ultimately, Bitcoin's goal is to provide a decentralized and secure financial system, and the network should be able to function regardless of the level of mining activity.
hero member
Activity: 2702
Merit: 716
Nothing lasts forever
March 10, 2023, 09:20:06 AM
#53
Wouldn't it be better if lost coins were reintroduced into the network after a fixed span of inactivity?

I suppose the first thing one would say no for, would be by virtue of bitcoin's well-known deflationary property. This said, I believe it is much more important, especially in the longest term, that bitcoin keeps its property of conservation of energy, that is, having a fixed quantity of money ever available. By losing coins, instead, and by having them unrecoverable, we have not a fixed quantity of money available, rather a decreasing one, which is why we call bitcoin deflationary.

What would happen if we would make so that coins with 131 years of inactivity would be reintroduced into the network?

I see this having some positive effects:
- decreased impact of hereditary monopoly
- incentive to let the currency flow
- canceled the future necessity to increase the number of decimals for 1 BTC (very-long term perspective: too many coins have been lost, thus the necessity to further subdivide a coin)



But how would you know if the coins are lost or not. Even if you consider 131 years of inactivity it's still not 100% provable that the coins are lost.

Suppose that I have hold on to my coins for 50 years and then I put it in my will as inheritance and it keeps going on like that without anyone utilizing those coins.
How would we know that its lost.

Also, suppose that I lost my keys to my coins but I have it written somewhere in a metal plate but couldn't find it now.
Somehow magically 150 years later one of my family members find it then he should be able to access those coins.
But they would have been gone because of your 131 years inactivity.

Bitcoin is perfect in the way it is currently. Any modification will disrupt its true value.
hero member
Activity: 2730
Merit: 585
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
March 10, 2023, 09:10:19 AM
#52
I think it's quite alright that whatever was mined, was mined already and from here on out, it is not really going to be mined all that much and I am fine with it. Why would we want to have miners hand in all of this constantly, why would we want to keep them happy at all times. Either they are happy with the transaction fee that they are getting as a reward, or they are not and they can stop.

People think that we need them for safety but we have been above that safety level for many years, nearly a decade nowadays, we could have half of the miners stop today, and we would be fine. In fact this happens during bear runs all the time, half of the miners that activated during bull run, stops during bear run, and nothing happens.
legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1117
March 09, 2023, 03:09:49 PM
#51
It's definitely something that everyone who understands what bitcoin is about would be against. The gone ones are gone, that what makes bitcoin such a great thing and I do not think that it will change anytime soon neither.

People need to realize and accept this fact if they really want to have a difference in the world of bitcoin. Gone ones are basically the limitation, we used to be 21 million max, but as we all know some of that is gone now, and can't say exactly how much, we all know we have less than 21 million, and some of that won't be mined for a while, so all in all we have very little amount of bitcoin available in the long run. That's good.
sr. member
Activity: 1097
Merit: 310
Seabet.io | Crypto-Casino
March 08, 2023, 10:20:45 PM
#50
Determining when a coin is truly "lost" is not a straightforward process. It's possible for a user to simply forget about their Bitcoin wallet for a period of time, or to lose access to it due to technical issues or other factors. It can be difficult to differentiate between these scenarios and cases where coins are truly lost forever.
If a wallet private kye is lost then there is no such sorrow. I have faced such problem several times. But I have lost a lot of money like this and now I do not make such a mistake. I have learned a lot by making such mistakes several times. I now have all wallets.  I leave the kye very carefully.
hero member
Activity: 1890
Merit: 824
Defend Bitcoin and its PoW: bitcoincleanup.com
March 08, 2023, 04:41:15 PM
#49

Whatever, but if I understand you correctly, that still doesn't the situation for the great grandson right? He finds the chest with 100 million USD worth of gold after 110 years and it is not his anymore? Whether someone + their successors arbitrarily decide to keep it for more than 109 years or whether is lost doesn't matter? I mean what if I just don't want to sell but keep it as part of my diversified portfolio? What happens then after 109 years?

Bitcoin can also be noted in mBTC and satoshi. I am confident that whatever gets lost over the decades to come, there will always be enough satoshis so serve Bitcoin's purposes.

It is not that I don't get the problem you are describing, but it is a very delicate topic as it goes straight to the core fundamentals of Bitcoin which as of now essentially are the value proposition.

A wallet can "verify" its activity with a single transaction. One can preserve his coins just by verifying once every 131 years through a simple transaction with the given wallet. This will state to the protocol that the wallet is still "alive". If the wallet doesn't make transactions after a period of 131 years, the wallet will be stated as dead by the protocol, and the coins recycled into the network.

There is no threat to holding coins, nor to keep diversified portfolios, or threats to legitimate inheritance.


But is there any other asset class apart from things like copy rights or patents where you have to refresh ownership or verify that you are still alive and an active owner of a certain asset in order to not be expropriated? It is still quite a special situation that you are describing here. I get the idea why you say it could be important to recycle coins into the network, but why would Bitcoin be treated as a non-durable asset class? Everything else is. If I own a gold bar I won't ever have to go anywhere and prove continued ownership nor do I have to signal or verify anything ever. A piece of art also doesn't become worthless just because it has been lying around in your basement for 200 years.
member
Activity: 938
Merit: 13
Tontogether | Save Smart & Win Big
March 08, 2023, 12:55:42 PM
#48
Determining when a coin is truly "lost" is not a straightforward process. It's possible for a user to simply forget about their Bitcoin wallet for a period of time, or to lose access to it due to technical issues or other factors. It can be difficult to differentiate between these scenarios and cases where coins are truly lost forever.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1037
March 08, 2023, 08:38:23 AM
#47
I don't really understand how this theory is considered as deflation. If people have lost their coins, that increases the scarcity factor of Bitcoin. Reintroducing the coins into the ecosystem after X time would only put them back into circulation when they otherwise may not have been, which decreases scarcity. In either case, it isn't really a matter of inflation/deflation as the total supply is unaffected, only the circulating supply (which, is always 100% as we never know which coins are truly lost or actually held).

I believe it would also be unfair to those who have tucked their wallets away, maybe even passing them on to their next generations. Holders should be rewarded...not open their wallet one day to find that their coins are gone because they held for too long.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1288
March 08, 2023, 07:05:11 AM
#46
Wouldn't it be better if lost coins were reintroduced into the network after a fixed span of inactivity?
If this happens, the ownership of the bitcoin is not for individuals, but for the network, and therefore the currency is centralized, meaning that there is a third party that can, whenever he wants, move the currencies without the desire of the owner, and here comes a question, as long as the currencies are distributed again if they are not used, then what is preventing the return of the money that Is it proven that fraudsters used it? Or the money generated from the drug trade and arms sales?

Why are we afraid of lost bitcoins when one bitcoin (BTC) equals 100,000,000 SAT?
legendary
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1166
March 08, 2023, 02:03:01 AM
#45

as has been said before here Bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis to keep functioning properly.

In the case bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis, that's even better. Recycling would refer specifically to preserving the original fixed supply and comply with the law of conservation of energy.


Quote
@HandcraftedBreads, you should also take into consideration that the incentive for the vast majority of those who have a say about protocol changes is essentially zero regarding your proposal. Unless the economic viability of the protocol is so badly threatened that the wealth contained by the network is seriously at risk, you won't ever convince the majority of voting power to vote in favor of that protocol change. A fork is a possibility and you could decide to shift your wealth from Bitcoin to the new fork operating on your newly proposed rules. Speaking of which, this is what you could actually do. Introduce the new rule into the protocol, get a fork going and see how people react to it. Wink

If an idea is good, it doesn't need to convince, but to present itself at the right moment. This idea isn't directed to create a different path; there is no interest in gains, apart from the good of the system and the network.

A system where energy is permanently lost is destined to collapse. A recycling system that is completely neutral and autonomous could significantly contribute to ensuring the self-sustainability of Bitcoin over potentially infinite time.

This is where again the nature of Bitcoin being open source comes into play. Everyone can contribute and for a contribution to reach consensus among stakeholders, the incentives would only have to be strong enough. I am all with @stompix here because "not your keys not your crypto" should never equate to "yours keys, your crypto for only until X". As if you were renting a temporary box on the blockchain to store your wealth, but this would fundamentally violate the third component of the bundle of rights broadly defining what property rights are about:


1. the right to use the good
2. the right to earn income from the good
3. the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation)


That is just against THE core principle Bitcoin is based on. Bitcoin is about the inviolable right of permanent ownership. If Bitcoin comes to a point where its economic viability is at risk, people would follow their preferences, maximizing their utility. This means if Bitcoin is "bad" or becoming "bad" because it is a system where energy is permanently lost [is] and therefore destined to collapse, people will just withdraw their money from it. It is their free will to either stay in or leave the system.

It seems your theory is based on the presupposition that there is only one cryptocurrency or only one way to store wealth in general.

I am just wondering whether your idea of "permanently lost energy" is technically correct. It might be philosophically correct, but the energy consumed to have mined now dormant coins is still contained by the network. If it leads to increased scarcity, the energy consumed to have mined now dormant coins leads to potentially higher prices, potentially higher competition for transaction costs (if there is no block reward anymore), leads to more energy required to mine transaction cost rewards for a lower number of coins remaining in circulation. Hence, the energy consumed to have mined now dormant coins has a direct influence on the energy required to mine for transaction cost rewards.

Scarcity in its broadest sense has a value, and hence, an energy preserving function. If another network incorporates your 131 years activity verification requirement and people deem that a better solution for their needs, they will remove their wealth from the Bitcoin network and shift it into the network they deem to be the right one based on their preferences , usually following utility maximization.

The beauty about Bitcoin's protocol has always been its open source nature. People are free to tweak the code and propose it to the public. We have true competition between cryptocurrencies, other currencies and conventional options to store wealth, but we have also competition among cryptocurrencies.

In terms of Bitcoin I am 100% with @stompix as there is no other cryptocurrency, or any other form for wealth preservation and protection, as Bitcoin. Bitcoin is as valuable as it is today because the rule

"3. the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation)"

has never been put seriously into question let alone ever been effectively violated. If you own they keys, and you are the sole owner of the keys and have sole authority over them, it is your crypto. The moment this rule would be altered through a hard fork, you would realize that the fork without your proposed rule won't drop in value while the fork with your idea would come out as much less valuable at best.

I want to clearly say that I like this type of discussion. I know these questions have been brought up, but sometimes discussions still take different angles from the ones before. I think these discussions are one reason why we are all here.
jr. member
Activity: 46
Merit: 11
March 07, 2023, 02:52:14 PM
#44

as has been said before here Bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis to keep functioning properly.

In the case bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis, that's even better. Recycling would refer specifically to preserving the original fixed supply and comply with the law of conservation of energy.


Quote
@HandcraftedBreads, you should also take into consideration that the incentive for the vast majority of those who have a say about protocol changes is essentially zero regarding your proposal. Unless the economic viability of the protocol is so badly threatened that the wealth contained by the network is seriously at risk, you won't ever convince the majority of voting power to vote in favor of that protocol change. A fork is a possibility and you could decide to shift your wealth from Bitcoin to the new fork operating on your newly proposed rules. Speaking of which, this is what you could actually do. Introduce the new rule into the protocol, get a fork going and see how people react to it. Wink

If an idea is good, it doesn't need to convince, but to present itself at the right moment. This idea isn't directed to create a different path; there is no interest in gains, apart from the good of the system and the network.

A system where energy is permanently lost is destined to collapse. A recycling system that is completely neutral and autonomous could significantly contribute to ensuring the self-sustainability of Bitcoin over potentially infinite time.
Pages:
Jump to: