Check your premises.
If the rest of the world assumes that there are 1000 Bitcoins out there, and I assume that there are 21 million, Prices would be lower than my expectations. I would be able to buy even more than I expected with the bitcoins I had.
...I don't see a problem with that.
Topic: Can bitcoins be lost? - page 2. (Read 3030 times)
Not if they assume there are always 21 million in circulation. 
Let's say it's the far future and you have a lot of Bitcoins and you're one of the ones who assumes that. However, it appears that most others don't assume that. As a result, the price is really high as compared to your assumptions. Logically, what would you do? The point is, you can't impose your assumptions on the market. You can assume all you want, but that doesn't change the dynamics of the market, which will be different in the future.
Not if they assume there are always 21 million in circulation.
Remember, saved coins and 'lost' coins are functionally identical. And there's always the chance of that collision...
Remember, saved coins and 'lost' coins are functionally identical. And there's always the chance of that collision...
Yes, That's the way the world works. We can't know the specifics of the future with any certainty.
No, no, no. That's not what I mean by uncertainty in the future. What I mean is that the current state of Bitcoins in the present has a certain amount of uncertainty associated with it based on the dynamics of its supply. To individuals in the far future, which will be their present, they will view Bitcoins with a much greater degree of uncertainty than we do, again due to Bitcoins built in rules. the numerical boundaries on the possibilities are more undefined the further into the future you go.
Yes, That's the way the world works. We can't know the specifics of the future with any certainty.
We can't even tell for sure if it's going to rain on a specific day. And yet, people still go out in public without constantly wearing raincoats.
Perhaps it would be best to assume that there are always 21,000,000 in circulation, for just this reason.
Sure, and you can even assume that others are assuming that you are assuming that. Bottom line, the numerical boundaries on the possibilities are more undefined the further into the future you go. And with larger numerical boundaries on the possibilities, one's assumptions just aren't as good. The difference is, You see a problem with that.
Yeah, I do. I'd rather a system that, when it appears that 1,000 Bitcoins are in circulation, we know that the balance is lost. More certain valuations, and less fear in general, and as a result, the holders of those 1,000 Bitcoins continue to choose to hold them, as opposed to cashing them out.Perhaps it would be best to assume that there are always 21,000,000 in circulation, for just this reason.
The difference is, You see a problem with that.
Yeah, I do. I'd rather a system that, when it appears that 1,000 Bitcoins are in circulation, we know that the balance is lost. More certain valuations, and less fear in general, and as a result, the holders of those 1,000 Bitcoins continue to choose to hold them, as opposed to cashing them out. It would be similar to someone finding a 2000 year old pottery and someone willing to pay $1m for it due to its presumed rarity. However, if a year later some finds a site with thousands more of those same pottery, the presumed value would drop significantly, even though the amount produced hasn't changed at all, only the ones in circulation.
My point exactly.The difference is, You see a problem with that. (btw, a smart millionaire would trickle them out, rather than dump)
It would be similar to someone finding a 2000 year old pottery and someone willing to pay $1m for it due to its presumed rarity. However, if a year later some finds a site with thousands more of those same pottery, the presumed value would drop significantly, even though the amount produced hasn't changed at all, only the ones in circulation.
My point exactly. In the far future, when for many years, it appears that only 1,000 Bitcoins are in circulation, the rest presumed lost, could someone dump a million Bitcoins on the market?
In this scenario, the presumed lost coins weren't really lost at all; they were saved. It does show that whoever saved those million Bitcoins have gained tremendously from saving. However, when they start to dump those coins onto the market, it would appear to be inflationary as the prices of everything goes up to reflect the amount in circulation.
It would be similar to someone finding a 2000 year old pottery and someone willing to pay $1m for it due to its presumed rarity. However, if a year later some finds a site with thousands more of those same pottery, the presumed value would drop significantly, even though the amount produced hasn't changed at all, only the ones in circulation.
The Bitcoin currency was designed to be deflationary. Most other fiat currencies are inflationary. What that means is with Bitcoins, the longer you save, the more valuable it would become, so long as the currency succeeds and people trust it. With most other currencies that aren't backed by anything but trust, they can print as much money out of thin air as they want, so long as trust is maintained. However, saving money with these inflationary currencies means you'll lose money the longer you save. Right now many worldwide fiats are becoming more fragile and trust is gradually being lost as countries try to print more money to bail out the rich people, allowing them to maintain their wealth with the newly printed money while everyone else gets devalued money in return. The disparity between rich and not rich has widened at a greatly accelerated rate since the economic collapse.
jollyjim,Could someone dump 6 billion Bitcoins on the market right now? You and I both know the answer to that.
In the far future, when for many years, it appears that only 1,000 Bitcoins are in circulation, the rest presumed lost, could someone dump a million Bitcoins on the market?
The Bitcoin currency was designed to be deflationary. Most other fiat currencies are inflationary. What that means is with Bitcoins, the longer you save, the more valuable it would become, so long as the currency succeeds and people trust it. With most other currencies that aren't backed by anything but trust, they can print as much money out of thin air as they want, so long as trust is maintained. However, saving money with these inflationary currencies means you'll lose money the longer you save. Right now many worldwide fiats are becoming more fragile and trust is gradually being lost as countries try to print more money to bail out the rich people, allowing them to maintain their wealth with the newly printed money while everyone else gets devalued money in return. The disparity between rich and not rich has widened at a greatly accelerated rate since the economic collapse.
This problem is being analyzed in depth in another thread right now. There seems to be some contention among the users here as to the ultimate ramifications of this. I contend that increasing uncertainty will creep into the Bitcoin market as result of Bitcoin loss over time, ultimately rendering the entire system to be not as robust as it could've been. This may take some significant portion of eternity, but I think it's an indisputable fact.
Please read the thread, and contribute, if you will. Pay attention to the discussion further into the thread about ratios and increasing uncertainty. And please, don't bring up the fact that Bitcoins are nearly infinitely divisible. That's not relevant to the discussion. Here's the thread: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=20799.0
Please read the thread, and contribute, if you will. Pay attention to the discussion further into the thread about ratios and increasing uncertainty. And please, don't bring up the fact that Bitcoins are nearly infinitely divisible. That's not relevant to the discussion. Here's the thread: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=20799.0
This is why I recommend http://bitprotection.info 
always good to back up your wallet.
always good to back up your wallet. 
Hi everyone. I have been thinking about BTC a lot lately and I've spotted an interesting problem.
Suppose, we have a not too bright newbie, who has started mining for bitcoin in a pool, had got something about 1-2 BTC and did not back up his wallet.
Suppose, we have a not too bright newbie, who has started mining for bitcoin in a pool, had got something about 1-2 BTC and did not back up his wallet.
With a pool like bitcoins.lc, the coins stay in your user account until you press withdraw. If you lose your wallet, you can't send coins you had in there any more, effectively losing all your money, but the coins you've been mining in the pool are still there.
Solution: after you create a new wallet and bitcoin has gotten all the blocks in the block chain, shut down bitcoin, and make a copy of your wallet.dat. Encrypt it (easy: 7-zip it with a long password) and put it on removable storage. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_wallet
The practical answer is that yes, the bitcoins are lost.
But they're not, not really. There is the miniscule chance that some time before the heat death of the universe, a collision would be generated, and someone makes the same private key. This would result in those bitcoins popping up in their wallet. Think of it as the digital equivalent of finding a $5.00 bill in your pocket when pulling your jacket out of summer storage, except that in the meantime, it's turned into a $100.
But they're not, not really. There is the miniscule chance that some time before the heat death of the universe, a collision would be generated, and someone makes the same private key. This would result in those bitcoins popping up in their wallet. Think of it as the digital equivalent of finding a $5.00 bill in your pocket when pulling your jacket out of summer storage, except that in the meantime, it's turned into a $100.
That happened to me once. Plus, what is that story about fishes and loaves?
think i better back up my wallet.dat before this happens. Whats the drill just like whack it on a truecrypt drive?
Truecrypt + Dropbox (or other cloud duplication service) is the best bet.
edit: Oh! and back up after every send. recv is not necessary, but couldn't hurt.
think i better back up my wallet.dat before this happens. Whats the drill just like whack it on a truecrypt drive?
Ok, so I guess, bitcoin has a limited lifespan even in the best-case scenario. After the 21 mil will be generated, it will be only a matter of time, before bitcoins will become too rare to be practical. It could take decades, but it's inevitable.
It's inevitable, but it won't take decades, it will take millennia.First, as bitcoins become more valuable, people will transact and hold smaller quantities of them. So the average loss will be of many fewer bitcoins.
Second, as bitcoins become more valuable, people will take more care in guarding them. It's quite probable that future computer technologies will make these kinds of losses nearly impossible. Hard drives are already being replaced by more reliable storage means, and as costs go down, redundancy and history will be routine.
Third, bitcoins are very divisible. Even if a bitcoin is worth a million dollars, people can still exchange one hundred millionth of a bitcoin. And extending the protocol to support even smaller fractions would be possible if it actually became necessary.
There are proposals for bitcoin-like schemes where lost coins can be recovered by miners. However, with the present scheme and hash chain, it is not going to happen.
Jump to: