Topic: Lost coins redistribution (Read 378 times)

Just don't touch other people's Bitcoin regardless of the length of time it is being idle.  Anyone don't have the right to move someone's coins, it can be considered as theft since wedon't have permission to move them.  Not because we have the authority to modify the code, it is ok for us to do whatever we want and move others people Bitcoin because they are sitting on the address for so long?  That is immoral, IMO.

The action of touching other peoples Bitcoin is pointing to centralization so I don't think it is really wise to do that since Bitcoin as we all know is a decentralized blockchain,

I would tend to agree with this statement because in the early days many miners would have simply lost their Bitcoin as they would not have had access to the facilities for spending them as we do now but do we have statistical evidence pointing towards the number of lost Bitcoins?

What you said is correct. To change the basic fundamentals Bitcoin was based on will be detrimental to the core principles it was founded upon.

What I would like to ask is if the OP really is a newbie or if he is a newly created account by an established member. If I had to choose I would go with the notion this is not his only account and the OP was looking for merits (but received none as of yet).

I don't think it's a good idea to assume they are lost. We should instead assume they are not lost no matter how long they stay unmoved. This is part of what keeps the Bitcoin system trustworthy.   Could even affect the potential use of Bitcoin for inheritance transfer via timelock. Imagine locking your coins for your grandchildren which you set to automatically unlock when they become adults, only for the coins to be stolen in the name of block reward.
There is already a more moral way the network can benefit from lost coins... Everyone else's coin increase in price due to reduced supply of coins that can be spent.

I think WE in modern societty have a very big problem with time itself, for us 100 years its like an  eternity, because in this era we experience so much changes in a very short ammount of time.

But in realty what its 100 years for a coin? or for gold? or fo hummanity in general? NOTHING.

So first 100 years its very ammount of time, second changing that you are changing a lot more things beyond our capacitie of seeing like a lot of people said in this thread before me.
Its a common question we all have because we know its a lot of BTC forgotten, but it is what it is, took that leverage in your favour.

When you heard some talking about 21 million BTC and for that ammount we have scarcity, you think you are a little more wise and you know in fact they are less, so being less the few we have worth more.

Continuous cryptocurrency loss is something that really goes on, there are already lots of lost accounts, so it is possible that at some time nearly all BTC will be lost. The thing that matters in case of significant BTC loss is adoption level: if it happens at the time of wide BTC usage, it will bring "deflation", but if it happens at the current (or lower) level of adoption, then BTC will lose its value...

Super fun indeed!

That's probably why we should be cynical of people who keep repeating this topic again and again. It's nothing personal against OP and I'm not accusing OP, but Craig Wright and his group of Flat-Earthers are always playing 4D chess, like asking something innocently in Reddit or Twitter from one account, then have their sockpuppets steer the discussion wherever they want and deceive absolute newbies.

This topic was pulled up many times on this forum. I still don't think we can do anything to bring lost Bitcoins back and we probably shouldn't. Bitcoin will always be usable, regardless of those millions missing - they are even helping the price being higher by making the supply smaller. I don't know if you have taken into consideration that there are Bitcoin halvings which makes it harder to mine Bitcoin and as a byproduct, the price goes higher and the market cap is harder to be filled.

Anyway, you should not worry about Bitcoin coming to an end or something similar, it is very far away from today (maybe it wont ever even happen) and just enjoy it being regulated as it is right now. We shouldn't try to fix anything that isn't broken, it's the nature of Bitcoin and it is to be leaved how it is.

Lost bitcoins due to lost private keys or the like can be likened to the lost gold of ancient civilizations. Large quantities of gold are always found buried in some ancient archaeological sites around the world.

So by comparison I can say that maybe one day in the future 100 years or so people will find some lost bitcoin wallets which will be worth millions of dollars at that time.

The lost gold that is found belongs to the state, but the lost bitcoin will belong to whom? I anticipate that there will be disagreement in the Bitcoin community with the answer to this question.

Fun fact: BSV has already implemented this! It allows CSW and his buddies to freeze or seize any coins from any wallet at any time for any reason! Super fun! https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/

The fact that BSV has just recently hit an all time low against bitcoin of 0.1% of the bitcoin price should tell you all you need to know about what people think of this kind of "feature".

Good because it's actually a bad idea. What would the purpose of POW and holding our own keys if there was a "legal" form of taking someone else's property away from them? Who decides which UTXOs are "lost"?

I believe the same kind of topic was also suggested by an individual called Craig Wright in one of his talks. No I didn't listen to his talk, I read it in the news or a blog, I don't remember. Haha.

to introduce code that can take coins without utxo key signing. even at 100year policy. can easily if implemented then change that mining policy to then be 50 years or 10 years or 10 days..

you might aswell kill bitcoin if you want to introduce any method to taking coins without utxo key signing permission

part of security is the inability to move coins without utxo key signing. lets not mess with that at all

Not the most accurate comparison because when you burn bitcoins you are actually decreasing the supply by effectively removing a part of the limited circulating supply. Obviously that is a contribution to the rest of bitcoin users as their bitcoins become a little more scarce and valuable.
In comparison there is no limit on the number of spacecrafts you can build. Destroying one means you can still build another. But you can never re-print those coins that were burnt.

What if I told you the decentralized, trustless aspect of Bitcoin doesnt necessarily negate the necessity for a collective responsibility?

Its true. Bitcoin, in its essence, encourages independence and self-regulation. However, imagine the potential for a more robust, resilient network if we cared more for each other. I'm not suggesting we distribute lost coins or even force the movement of dormant UTXOs, rather, can we not strive to create a safer space for everyone?

Burning coins, on the other hand, is a complex issue. It’s like sending a spacecraft into a black hole. Its gone, contributing nothing to the economy. Could this be a valid criticism? Yet, as you stated, its not really our business, is it?

At its core, the beauty of Bitcoin is its adaptability, pushing the boundaries of traditional financial systems. Let's hold on to that

Or, as in the case of a certain guy from Newport in South Wales UK, you throw out an old computer with over a MILLION bitcoins in it...

In my optinion any redistribution scheme is a terrible idea. You were given a finite deflating amount of coins, trustless and decentralized. It's your responsibility to safely store your wallets / private keys. If you can't do that, you loose your coins. Simple as that. And others coins gain a little bit more value as the amount of active circulating coins decreases.

Why should anybody care how long UTXOs stay dormant and for what reasons. It's not your business. Bitcoin is a proposal and an offer different from traditional fiat and so far it's pretty well working within its technical bounds. My understanding is that you can't and shouldn't force UTXO holders to move their coins for whatever reason. It's not your business.

Debatable are schemes where coins are actively burned (proof of burn is worst) or sent to addresses which to utmost certainty don't have a matching private key known to mankind (still worse, too). IIRC things like CounterParty or similar burned a 4-figure amount of bitcoins.
While I don't find burning coins particularly charming, it's again not my business.

This 100 years time frame pretty much makes your proposal useless.
Nobody knows what will happen after 100 years. Wouldn't Bitcoin become totally obsolete and disappear after 100 years? Do you think that currencies will exist after 100 years? What if the heirs of the BTC owner don't know, that he had lost Bitcoins?
I guess that by "the bitcoins are free to be mined in the next block" you mean that those lost Bitcoins will be burned(just like some shitcoins/shittokens back in the day) and new Bitcoins will be mined. You can't mine a Bitcoin, that has already been mined.
Anyway, there's no need for such redistribution method.

Good idea, but I think it won't work. We can join hands to increase the price of bitcoin when it is really scarce, can not be mined more, then the price of bitcoin will be at a high level. Everyone should manage their bitcoin wallet keys well

I don't think it's necessary. Bitcoin is perfectly divisible: you can buy satoshis, or even smaller units can be introduced if needed. Lost coins contribute to the value of the remaining ones. Bitcoin ownership shouldn't be questioned. What if the person is dead but his family finds his/her laptop years later and the coins have already been "freed"? Will that be fair?

This sounds like bitcoins going unlimited, "renewing" bitcoins that are considered "obsolete" by being forcibly taken, don't you think?
We don't know the minds of people/bitcoin geeks/OGs even when they know they won't live long, especially if they don't have a choice of plan to pass down their bitcoins. I'm reminded of several unsolved privkeys puzzle challenges in digital images. Just assuming that the puzzle is indeed set to be more easily solved by the next few generations where the technology at that time might be more capable.

The difficulty with this is that whilst what you propose is altruistic, there are people out there who will wait and pounce on any recycled Bitcoins.

Whether it be 100 years or seconds, some people are greedy and entitled and think that they should have all the nice 'shiny shiny'.

Also, who will be in charge of redistributing?  Are we going to put these Bitcoins through washers and mixers?  Won't they have lost significant value anyway?

Consider this as well:

Dodgy Dave on the Dark Web offers me a Wallet with (supposedly) 1.2 BTC and asks me for 0.12 BTC - Dodgy Dave explains that the Bitcoins have lost their value and he is therefore re-selling them at a marked-down price.

Now, Dodgy Dave could be in possession of 1.2 BTC or indeed zero Bitcoins and just be bluffing - in case of the latter he's now 0.12 BTC richer.

Look at the Wallet.dat thread - loads of Wallets on there, but how many of them really do have any BTC in them?  

Call me a sceptic, but a Wallet with 5000 BTC inside it can be mine if I crack the password... okay, BigJohn and Hashcat are real enough but is the amount of BTC stated real?  It's a 50/50 chance.

The TLDR basically is whilst your actions and thinking may be honest, there are loads of chancers out there who are anything but and they will wish to take as much 'shiny shiny' as they can.  These people care nothing for wealth or Crypto redistribution, they only look out for number one.