Pages:
Author

Topic: Can bitcoins be lost out of existence? (Read 1148 times)

legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
April 07, 2013, 10:29:03 PM
#29
You're right that changing from 8dp to something else would require a fork.  However if memory serves this has already been done at least once, with clients maintaining backwards compatability until a majority of nodes are running the new version, at which point clients automatically move up to the new version of the protocol.

Correct.  As I said, it can be done, but it isn't "simple".  It requires more than just a "majority", you need to get as close to a 100% adoption of the new software as possible.  Any number of users at all on the old software would cause a fork.  Changing the software is a possible solution, but not the only possible solution.
hero member
Activity: 499
Merit: 500
April 07, 2013, 10:24:56 PM
#28
they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know
In the current version of the software, yes.  However this is something that can be changed if the need ever arises (such as BTC1 = US$1M for example).

While not impossible, this wouldn't necessarily be an easy change.

There are significant considerations about the largest value an integer variable can hold in the program.  More importantly, it would change the way the blockchain represents the values and would therefore create a forked blockchain unless you could get EVERYONE to switch to the new programming and all of them to do it at the same time.

There are other possible solutions. A couple of examples are an alternate cryptocurrency for small amounts, a new cryptocurrency that is backed by bitcoin, or a cryptocurrency that is designed to smoothly replace bitcoin.  Other solutions may also present themselves in the future (necessity is the mother of invention).  Seeing as possible solutions exist, and even better solutions could be discovered, I just don't see a reason to be concerned right now about the possibility that 1 Bitcoin could be worth more than $100,000,000 someday.

Ignoring this, which nails it IMO
Seeing as possible solutions exist, and even better solutions could be discovered, I just don't see a reason to be concerned right now about the possibility that 1 Bitcoin could be worth more than $100,000,000 someday.

You're right that changing from 8dp to something else would require a fork.  However if memory serves this has already been done at least once, with clients maintaining backwards compatability until a majority of nodes are running the new version, at which point clients automatically move up to the new version of the protocol.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
April 07, 2013, 09:18:15 PM
#27
they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know
In the current version of the software, yes.  However this is something that can be changed if the need ever arises (such as BTC1 = US$1M for example).

While not impossible, this wouldn't necessarily be an easy change.

There are significant considerations about the largest value an integer variable can hold in the program.  More importantly, it would change the way the blockchain represents the values and would therefore create a forked blockchain unless you could get EVERYONE to switch to the new programming and all of them to do it at the same time.

There are other possible solutions. A couple of examples are an alternate cryptocurrency for small amounts, a new cryptocurrency that is backed by bitcoin, or a cryptocurrency that is designed to smoothly replace bitcoin.  Other solutions may also present themselves in the future (necessity is the mother of invention).  Seeing as possible solutions exist, and even better solutions could be discovered, I just don't see a reason to be concerned right now about the possibility that 1 Bitcoin could be worth more than $100,000,000 someday.
hero member
Activity: 499
Merit: 500
April 07, 2013, 07:37:04 PM
#26
they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know

In the current version of the software, yes.  However this is something that can be changed if the need ever arises (such as BTC1 = US$1M for example).
newbie
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
April 07, 2013, 07:34:35 PM
#25
i could imaginage one day someone figures out how to make a new coin that is "backed" by bitcoins

so if there were only 100,000 coins left in existance they could be turned into billions of "
newcoins"
What good would that be? By definition there is never a shortage of units with Bitcoin, no matter if there are only 21 million or only 100,000 or only 3 in existence. They're infinitely divisible.

Obviously, for practical reasons, people would not be dealing with 0.0000065 BTC but with "6.5 nanoCoins" or some similar convenient unit.

they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know
newbie
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
April 07, 2013, 07:17:16 PM
#24
I feel bad for all those people who formatted their hard drive, losing their wallet.  I originally installed the client in the middle of summer, and turned it off since it was already hot.  Just wish I had left it running longer!   Sad
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1011
April 07, 2013, 06:25:22 PM
#23
i could imaginage one day someone figures out how to make a new coin that is "backed" by bitcoins

so if there were only 100,000 coins left in existance they could be turned into billions of "
newcoins"
What good would that be? By definition there is never a shortage of units with Bitcoin, no matter if there are only 21 million or only 100,000 or only 3 in existence. They're infinitely divisible.

Obviously, for practical reasons, people would not be dealing with 0.0000065 BTC but with "6.5 nanoCoins" or some similar convenient unit.
newbie
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
April 07, 2013, 06:20:13 PM
#22
i could imaginage one day someone figures out how to make a new coin that is "backed" by bitcoins

so if there were only 100,000 coins left in existance they could be turned into billions of "
newcoins"

I don't think it's a problem though
newbie
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
April 07, 2013, 03:31:40 PM
#21
If that were to happen, the code would change to expand the limit, and everybody would upgrade.
But only if the whole network agreed...
Not the whole network, only the major part of it. There are many "new" and only a few "old" miner. Maybe the new one want a greater piece of the cake? Why shouldn't they outvote the early adopters?
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
April 06, 2013, 01:28:56 PM
#20
i don't know if they can be intentionally destroyed
Yes, they can.

why would anyone do that Smiley

Well they might do it accidentally if they are mining and have a bug in their program, but as to why they would do it "intentionally": some people do dumb things.
newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
April 06, 2013, 12:43:42 PM
#19
A lost wallet in a crashed computer can definitely be a problem, if no keys are avalible. Also, i don't know if they can be intentionally destroyed - i don't think so. Not considering why would anyone do that Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
April 06, 2013, 12:21:42 PM
#18
Is there a possibility to see how many bitcoins have been truly "lost"?

I can't think of a way, but maybe there is.

Depends on what you mean by "truly lost".

There is no difference between bitcoins that have been intentionally unspent and bitcoins that are unspent because the private key is lost. So in that case, no there is no way to know.

There is another method of "losing" bitcoins that can be seen in the blockchain.

If a miner is running buggy software and therefore doesn't take the full subsidy+fees the difference between what they could have taken and what they actually took is permanently "lost".  It vanishes from the blockchain forever as of that block.  This can be seen/identified in the block where it happens.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
April 06, 2013, 12:18:27 PM
#17
Very good point - I did not realize it only "approached" 21 million. Makes more sense...

Do you know what the actual coin-limiting algorithm is?

50 BTC (stored internally as an integer value of 5000000000) per block for 210,000 blocks, then perform a binary right shift on the subsidy value to get 25 BTC (2500000000) per block for the next 210,000 blocks, then binary right-shift again to get a subsidy of 12.5 BTC (1250000000).  Continue every 210,000 blocks until the reward has been 0.00000001 BTC (1) per block for 210,000 blocks.  The next right-shift results in a reward of 0 from then on.

Are you looking for the actual C source code?
member
Activity: 183
Merit: 10
April 06, 2013, 12:14:49 PM
#16
Is there a possibility to see how many bitcoins have been truly "lost"?

I can't think of a way, but maybe there is.
full member
Activity: 172
Merit: 100
April 06, 2013, 12:10:49 PM
#15
Just nitpicking about symantics: bitcoins don't exist in the first place, there's only a list of transactions between addresses. This history of transactions is never lost. But sure, coins can become unavailable (effectively "lost") if people lose their private keys.

Imagining a hypothetical scenario in the future, where all 21 bitcoins have been generated,
This is never gonna happen. It will come arbitrarily close, but the actual 21 million will never be reached.

Way, way before year 2140 (or thereabout) when the block reward halves down to less than 1 satoshi, the smallest subdivision of 1 BTC will be reduced to less than the 1/100,000,000th that current clients support (probably to unlimited pricision, by simply allowing floating point BTC values of arbitrary length).

So no matter how many coins are destroyed, new fractions are always being mined, even in hundreds or thousands of years from now.

Very good point - I did not realize it only "approached" 21 million. Makes more sense...

Do you know what the actual coin-limiting algorithm is?
full member
Activity: 172
Merit: 100
April 06, 2013, 12:05:29 PM
#14
It is highly unlikely that ALL bitcoins would ever be lost, as when approaching that point the value of the remaining coins will increase exponentially - and thus be looked after with greater and greater care. If there were only one bitcoin left its value would be in the billions or trillions of dollars, and people would be doing business with satoshis. Additionally the bitcoin software could allow division beyond the current 8 decimal places.
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
... it only gets better...
April 06, 2013, 11:50:46 AM
#13
Sure, you can lose your Bitcoins out of existence, just remove your wallet.dat. It is highly doubtful that all the users would suddenly do the same though. So the answer to your question is no.
sr. member
Activity: 288
Merit: 251
April 06, 2013, 11:47:05 AM
#12
has someone done a detailed exponential forecast model including mining and how many btc are lost each day predicting the supply of bitcoins for the next x years?
There's no way to tell if bitcoins are actually lost or not.

Unless you can see an address is obviously fake. I mean valid, but generated as an address only, without having the corresponding private key. Such as 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE - that's 0.41196588 BTC stuck in a black hole for the length of time Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
April 06, 2013, 11:27:57 AM
#11
has someone done a detailed exponential forecast model including mining and how many btc are lost each day predicting the supply of bitcoins for the next x years?
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
April 06, 2013, 10:51:47 AM
#10
As bitcoins are lost, the remaining bitcoins become more valuable.

As such the average person has less of them and therefore can't lose as many.

This cycle continues.

So while 3 years ago someone might have lost 10,000 bitcoins, it is far less likely to happen now.

Today someone might lose 100 bitcoins, but if the exchange rate continues to increase like it has,, in another 4 years is will be unlikley for someone to lose much more than 1 bitcoin.

If a lot of those are lost and the value increases even more, individual losses greater than 0.01 bitcoin will become unlikely.

If enough such loss continues, it is possible that we could get to the point where 0.00000001 BTC is to large a value to be used for small purchases.  At that time (how many hundreds of years from now is that likely to be?  Do we really care how they choose to deal with such an issue 5 centuries from now?), they could modify the protocol to allow more than 8 decimal places, or a variety of other solutions that have been suggested.
Pages:
Jump to: