Topic: Lost Bitcoins (Read 311 times)

I'm not sure that's true. There are numerous centralized services that do not require any personal data from the user. For example, crypto mixers, instant exchanges (swaps), and even some crypto casinos. But that's not the point. The point is that there is no method or procedure that can guarantee tracing every Bitcoin address or transaction back to the email address or IP address of the owner, contrary to what was apparently claimed by the OP.

Everything is much simpler in cryptocurrency than in the real world. If you have a private key, then you will control your coins, if you do not have a private key, then no insurance company will help you. Although some blockchains provide for the possibility of returning coins in circulation that have not been used for a long time, but this does not apply to bitcoin.

I think you misunderstand the criticism you get here. The reason is because you don't realize how drastically your idea affects the core principles of the Bitcoin system. You think you understand enough about blockchain and bitcoin transactions to give these ideas, but trust me, you are very far from the truth.

What I'm trying to say is that you might think your idea would work, but the more you read and learn about Bitcoin network, the more you'll realize how flawed your approach is. The criticism you get comes from making broad assumptions and thinking you know enough about something to make a radical change to it. Please don't take anything I've said here personally. I'm sure that you're smart and do have some bright ideas about Bitcoin and about blockchain technology in general. But if you really want to understand these ideas, then you should seek out the opinion of other experts who are more knowledgeable about both cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.

Now Bitcoin is decentralised who will likely do the returning of those Bitcoin sent to nonexistent addresses? Remember no one two Bitcoin owner has the same private key, no one has control of a wallet where the key is lost. If a coin is sent to a nonexistent wallet address with no private key to aid in sending out the UXTO then that coin remain lost forever

All centralized services want minimum email address and almost all centralized exchanges have some sort of KYC and have a link between your coins in their service and the information you give them.

Bitcoin addresses (transactions) cannot be traced back to an email address or an IP address. Even if you use a centralized service like an exchange, it is still impossible to link a bitcoin address with any other information unless you voluntarily leave such information on that service. Even I, with my modest knowledge of bitcoin and blockchain technology, know that much.


Giving such power to a centralized entity with all its hierarchy is the complete opposite of what Bitcoin represents.

This would be a precedent and Bitcoin would end up being as centralized as Fiat is, if not more.  By allowing authorities to mess up with Bitcoin, I can only imagine how many types of exploits there would be for it.  For one, false documents and bribe.  Corruption is real and we do not want that among Bitcoin too, do we.

I think the system should be let as it is.  Lost Bitcoins are lost and that is it.  I get some are frustrated about their lost coins, even myself, but by entering the Bitcoin ecosystem we have all basically agreed to this.  You are on your own.  This is Bitcoin.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

This is a total non-starter that would violate the core tenants of Bitcoin such as decentralization and trustlessness.  We don't need to introduce another 3rd party and another opportunity for scam exploitation.

I wouldn't say none because there are a lot of centralized altcoins out there that give a lot of control to the owners of the chain.
For example we saw how Ethereum foundation rolled back lots of blocks to take their money back.
Stable coins also have such options that lets the centralized authority to freeze your account and possibly even take your money.
Ripple is one of the altcoins that has been known to be able to take anybody's money, for example some years ago they kicked out one of the developers and took his XRP since they fully control the Ripple chain.

Well said.


No matter how is he elaborating it; code that would somehow allow reverting a confirmed transaction will never go through the consensus, you know that. Because no matter what one party is telling, getting other party's money without his consent is stealing. And we all know that if a party doesn't answer or doesn't prove anything, that doesn't necessarily means he doesn't exist.
Of course, you know this and wanted to be nice with OP, I know, I still feel that this needed to be said. Not for you, for OP.

Being able to see all the transactions doesn't mean that the developers can spend them, it's still bound to the reasons that I've previously mentioned.

I'd suggest this resource for you to know more about Bitcoin: https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/
Since you already got the gist, you can go straight to the technical articles.

There are no addresses in the blockchain, coins are locked with scripts which are just derived in your wallet as addresses for the sake of convenience;
in fact, most of the old "lost coins" are locked with P2PK scripts that shouldn't even be derived into addresses (but some blockexplorers link them to addresses anyways which is incorrect)

Okay, but it needs further elaboration and FYI, not every reply that opposes your idea is negative or trolling: it's a healthy part of the discussion.
All you need to do is to reply a counter argument that supports your idea, not much about the importance.

(it's good that you posted this here in B&H board since you wouldn't like the responses that you'll get in the Development board)

Regards,

This is why you get a surety bond. You need to know how that works. If the transaction( the address) can not be traced back to an email address, an ip address or anything else that can connect it to the person making the claim then clearly the insurance company would not issue that person a surety bond. By the way, a company can be created to do all this, it doesn't have to be an existing insrance co.

Any and all bitcoins that have been lost are still associated with an address. If I am correct the errant transaction can still be found on the blockchain as all transactions are stored forever. All transaction ever made can still be seen! New information is constantly being added to the blockchain. New information can be added pertaining to addresses that sent btc to nowhere and was lost. People put information in blocks that have nothing to do with value being transfered. The Genesis block contains a message about a news article. Think tank, bouncing around an idea. I'm just saying...  

It's still need an insurance company right? Which person or group are want to build an insurance company for lost Bitcoin issue? and how they make sure the person isn't a liar? I can act like a victim is I have an address worth of million, but I lost my private key. How do I prove myself? there's no way except sign a message and of course I need the private key.

If you think those people who disagree with you are trolls, then you should grow your skin thicker and explain how the way your idea should be implemented. It would be better if you're also open a topic or discussion on more technical places [1] [2]

This is what Satoshi say about lost Bitcoin.

---

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin
[2] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/

I may not know as much about bitcoin as many of the people here and I'm fine with that. I do feel as though I'm just as eager as anyone alive to see bitcoin change the world of finance. I've been reading books on the topic such as the one I'm currently reading (The Age of Cryptocurrency) and taking in as much information as I possibly can. I expressed a thought and wanted to hear some intelligent feed back. Didn't expect to hear from trolls but I guess I expected too much. The responses I received (some of them) cause me to believe that the responders don't understand the btc blockchain as much as they think they do and or they didn't understand what I suggested. In any event I definitely want to give anyone who I may be of assistance to the opportunity to show gratitude. I live to help others. I am a giver and I just want to help others if I can.

---

A level headed thinker, great. Thanks for your patience. Believe it or not I actually do have some understanding of how btc and the blockchain work which is how that idea can to my mind. Unfortunately I haven't had the luxury as of yet to speak with people who are well versed on the matter. I was not suggesting that a transaction be reversed. I didn't suggest that someone should dispute a transaction. I wonder if anybody who read the post actually gave it any real thought because if they did it seems as though their responses would have been different, clearer as to why what I suggested is so far from being reasonable. Again, I want to thank you for being rational with your response. And I do hope to hear from someone who understands what I purposed and who can be clear as to why it can't be done. Peace.

---

  Access to bitcoins? Thank you for your response. Thank you for being kind. It is possible that I was not able to clearly convey the idea that I shared. They way I understand it is that when information (any worded message) is made into a hash (a string of numbers and letters) that information can be included in a block. The message can be what I suggested in my post. Nothing would be reversed, nothing would be altered. The message would simply allow what was dormant to become active again. This may not be what developers decide to do but it would be good for the life of btc and the blockchain.

---

No, I do have a level of understanding on how btc works and how a hash is created. Am I new to all this? Yes I am. Do I think that you gave what I said enough thought before you responded? I do not. No worries, it often takes years for good ideas to be taken seriously. Sort of how it took years for btc to be taken seriously. Satoshis first post was not taken seriously. Peace

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

No worries, this is your first post and seems you aren't much aware of how Bitcoin works. So it's preferable to spend more time here reading about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. This kind of post from a newbie is normal. Cryptocurrency is irreversible due to decentralized behavior. It's not fiat like PayPal you can dispute, then it won't call decentralized ever.

@OP,  like @nc50lc clearly pointed,  you can not compare a centralized system to a decentralized system, they are two different world apart from each other,  and you can't bring in centralized way of doing things into a decentralized system and expect it to work, it clearly won't work as long as the rule of decentralization is upheld continually.

Unfortunately,  this can not work,  my above quick and simple explanation of centralized and decentralized system should tell already you this and why,  bitcoin developers,  chain analysis,  not even satoshi himself have access to lost Bitcoins,  so the only way currently known by which lost Bitcoins can be recovered is to find the private keys that control the block and the bitcoins in question.

None of the existing blockchain provides the level of access as mentioned in OP to the devs at the protocol level. Yes, some chains are relatively easier to target for 51% attack but it doesn't mean they provide intentional mechanism for devs to transfer user's funds without authentication. In fact, if we go more technical, almost every blockchain uses the same way of encrypting users' funds like Bitcoin does (ignoring State vs UTXO difference) through SLIP-44 which is based on BIP-44. You will find over 1000 blockchains having the derivation paths based on SLIP-44 in the link I mentioned.

There are some crap custodial-based tokens which are being built on the top of other blockchains and could be locked by the issuer and all but let's not confused those tokens with the blockchain protocol. They are just an implementation over the blockchain via smart contracts and smart contracts can have custom rules but it doesn't mean the whole chain is equally vulnerable.

---

After reading the OP, I am thinking that the simplification of Bitcoin's working into address and balance is doing more harm than good. People are completely misunderstanding the way Bitcoin works. Maybe, it's a high time that we should drop the use of the terms like 'sending funds to the address' and start using something like 'locking value in the script'.

Sorry, but such claim only shows that you have 0 understanding on how bitcoin works.
And no, this is not how Bitcoin works and no matter what the devs do, no matter how much would they want to have this done, this cannot be implemented (or, more exactly, even if implemented, will never go live)

You probably shouldn't expect any elaboration from this guy since he just inserted his CashApp address at the end of his post - obviously he wants a commission in return for this information.