A required dead man's switch would be a non-anonymous currency.
I'm guessing OP is pro-anonymity?
I believe that 40 years or so a call to free lost coins will begin.
Any address that has not had a withdrawal in 40 years will be listed as an abandoned account and have 1 year or 2 years to do a withdrawal. It will will then forfeit and go back to the fund of coins left to mine.
There are several reasons why you shouldn't do this.
What would be the point, anyways?
1) You can't reinstate lost coins without introducing crazy entropy into the system. So, what happens when larger versus smaller accounts get 'released'? You'd cause big changes in the market due to that variability. This is undesirable for a currency.
2) This would be unfair to the miners just before or after major peaks of those releases. At least with something constant or predictable, you get some level of fairness.
3) Even if in 40 years people might be dead, many people here will be in their golden years and need that savings.
4) Depending on what the lead time is on this, you may be forcing people to spend their coin 'early'. It could cause them to spend it in non-optimal circumstances that force reveal the originators/inheritors and cause safety concerns.
5) Any currency that can't last that long without retaining a reasonable portion of its value, isn't worth it.
6) Who decides? Instead of inflation and governments forcing the loss of your savings, you would have a loose group of individuals decide that fate?
7) If those coins are dead, it doesn't matter. If those coins are really in the care of someone, then it's hurting the owners. They were fairly mined.
8] If you 'negate' the coin, then you lose that history.
9] You might wreak havoc on the system if there is the possibility that large values of coin come back to life that were otherwise dormant. Can you imagine?
10] You would get people who game the system. Do you think people would game a system for 40 years? If a crypto took off like people here think, then yes, gaming would happen, especially with some non-constant variable like this.
You can increase the mining reward if you think the current system is unfair, remove the limit on the number of bitcoin that can be mined, or institute another cryptocurrency.
But negating the value from addresses that fairly mined them before?
Both play with the economics of the system.
I don't anyone claiming it to be selfish has any real weight behind it...
Even families can turn against each other, so I wouldn't listen to anyone saying you're being selfish.
Money is inherently selfish. I doubt there is anyone that has given their main home carefree to a group of homeless individuals to live on the street themselves. There are people starving some place in the world, and yet
you choose to
eat? How selfish! Neither pure selflessness nor selfishness can solve the world's problems - some mix is good.
Even if you had bunch of gold plates hidden in undisclosed secret location and you never tell anyone about that, it is lost for your family forever when you die.
There's a religion about this..
It's a fun thought experiment. What should
we do to leave behind something to help our great great descendants? Maybe we can leave a buried nuclear reactor with stone carved instructions on how to derive energy from it and see the history as we thought of it projected on radiation hardened electronics? And somewhere near, leave seeds and genomes of all catalogued species? Would they be stone men and women rebuilding a civilization and have to figure it out, or would they be some super advanced civilization who thought it was cute but used it for their archaeology classes?