Topic: Lost coins redistribution - page 2. (Read 378 times)

I would say to not touch people's property whether they are lost or not.  I think the feature of Bitcoin at this moment is ok and there is no need to change it and put the "lost" Bitcoin back into circulation.  I really don't think there is a need for that.  

I do not know why people are so concerned about the lost Bitcoin and propose different methods and ideas to make these idle coins back to circulation when they really don't have anything to do with these coins.

High likely, he will change his approach once he understood the true nature of bitcoin.
Those lost coins are lost forever, there's no option of reviving them or transferring it to another address.
And that will also contribute to the increasing price of bitcoin in the market as it is lesser than what it should be.
With how many coins left in circulation because of such instances of losing, forgetting keys and all, every satoshi will matter to every holder.

It would really be just removing the integrity and total decentralization of Bitcoin if this one has been applied or been happen. Despite on having that lost 3-4M coins in the overall circulation doesnt
mean that it would really be making a huge toll. We could just simply make out some adjustments and thinking that there's only 17-18M overall supply as of this moment or on the time that all bitcoins would be mind and what the heck on talking about 100 years? Do people would be minding out their possessions to be transferred on a particular year when our lifespan couldnt be able to reach out those years? 

Also, come to mind that supply wont really be that scarce, despite of having that huge demand then we do know that each coin would really be able to be fractioned out, which means
it could be distributed with satoshis and this is why i dont really see this to be a problem or not really that necessary. Redistribution? it would really be just stirring up the overall
trust and  confidence specially on those solid Bitcoin enthusiast and supporters.

To be honest, the idea seems quite absurd to me. You're suggesting changing a rule that goes against the very essence of true decentralization, which is what made Bitcoin famous in the first place. I strongly believe that anyone who truly grasps the Bitcoin ecosystem would disagree with the original poster. It's well-known that lost Bitcoins are like gifts to all Bitcoin holders, as they are permanently removed from circulation. I highly encourage you to delve deeper into understanding Bitcoin before considering such an idea. There are numerous aspects and intricacies that need to be comprehended before entertaining such thoughts.

With all the stuff that are happening around the world it will be a miracle if our nephews will be able to live a normal life and you're worrying about bitcoin being used or not in 1,000 years? For all what we know bitcoin may be obsolete in 10 years, who knows, everything is possible. I believe in bitcoin but you are definitely worrying too much. It wasn't a problem for Satoshi, why should it be for you?

I don’t think lost (idle) coins should be redistributed, no. Once you start doing that, the floodgates to all types of BS open. Bitcoin has a hard cap of 21,000,000 which is one of the features making it so unique. Who decides when coins get redistributed, what if coins not moved for the suggested 100 years are a family heirloom, that’s only 2 or 3 generations of HODLING & you want to take their coins away? It’s a terrible idea & hopefully it never gets seriously considered. one bitcoin is divisible to many decimal places, we do not need to destroy bitcoin by redistributing coins or lifting the 21,000,000 supply EVER.

This is a perfectly reasonable idea, because there are fewer and fewer bitcoins. But it is possible that in a hundred years bitcoin will become only a collectible coin, and by that time many other fast coins will appear. But we will remember Bitcoin, it will forever be digital gold.

So how can your idea come to life?
If Bitcoins have not been involved in transactions for 100 years, then we will no longer get them from lost wallets, maybe only through some fork. But these will not be the real original bitcoins.
Therefore, the technical side of this case is hardly feasible, although the decision is definitely reasonable and fair.

This should not make you sad because it means that the coins you hold become more valuable. The fewer coins on the market, the more valuable they are.


Who says 4 million coins are lost? Who can even say for sure?


Do you really care what will happen in 1000 years? Will humanity exist in 1000 years?


I still don't see where the problem is? Would it really be a problem if 1 BTC was worth, say, a million dollars? Or more. After all, each bitcoin can be divided into 100,000,000 satoshis. So, if a bitcoin becomes too valuable, there's no need for anyone to handle or transact with the entire bitcoin unit.

Hmm, You are really kind haha bro demand and supply if the demand is more and supply is short falling it will directly increase its valuation. I could be feeling bad for the BTC (Lost Bitcoins) if we were able to transfer only 1 BTC at a time. We all know the the strong Granularity of Bitcoin so nothing to worry.


Hmm, Decent ideology but who is gonna live 100 years are you are gonna live that much time in this minor world.


Paper currency was the past digital is present and Bitcoin is the future but a time will come when Bitcoin is gonna be Present and Future will be X.

Bitcoin has 14 years, and if 4M coins already are lost that's close to 20% of the network. I can't imagine how many coins will be lost in 100 years... But what I can say, is, if you bring all those coins back to the market the Bitcion price would have a massive dump while the miners get rich. So, I don't think 100 years is a good period of time, I would say 25 or 50 years, would be better to do it.

And thinking about the technical side and the implementation, we have some options, we can do the coins move to a burning address or we can implement an expiration time to the transaction, and when the timer hit zero then block those coins and re-add them to the miners block reward.

The only way to lose your BTC should remain as if you lose your keys or your seed phrase, not if you do not move it for a certain number of years, a censorship resistant and permissionless network cannot work with that kind of restriction or rule. There's no way to know if BTC's in an address is lost, so we should leave it at that, if people lose their keys the funds should remain lost, but if they are holding it for the long term, let them move it anytime they want.

The only way to 'prove' you have access to an address in the network is if you have the keys to sign tx from the address, and you should use the keys to prove ownership only when you decide to.

Well, for starters, this problem has not yet arisen, because bitcoi is still mining. It's a little early to sound the alarm that btc won't be enough for everyone.

The next point is that addresses, wallets and private keys are conditionally lost. That is, in the future it may turn out that someone will be able to get access to these wallets (a quantum computer or new technologies). This will lead to confusion.

The addition of new coins for mining will devalue (at least partially) the bitcoins in circulation. This is somewhat similar to promotions, when a new portion is released in addition to the existing one.

In my opinion, there is no need to touch what has already been formed and change the rules at the last moment.

I think your idea is a lot more simpler if implemented than it looks. Certainly, it would make more sense to redistribute the lost wealth, but hope those who have control and power to regulate such ideal is intact, because, lost coins may be syphoned for personal projects and even if you had not mentioned it, am sure the coins would have been dumped into the mining pool after having not been claimed got over a hundred years and counting.

Such kinda loss would have been anticipated because if I care of about my wallet coins, someone else may be too caught up in a regular job to care as much as I do. The stress of work could even make some forget the seed phrases of their wallets or other login addresses, most especially if the said person I not as reliant on crypto and as aware as we are.

This speculation of 4 million lost BTC actually came from the fact that someone calculated it based on a time period of only 4 years if I remember correctly - and I also found a topic from that time (2017), although the source (article) does not exist.

Around 4 Million Bitcoins lost forever!!


I'm pretty sure that Tim "spent" his BTC very quickly, because if I remember correctly, I read somewhere that he used those BTC for some kind of investment, although I can't remember exactly what it was about. Of course, this whole methodology of calculating lost BTC is full of holes and makes no sense, people realized that already 6-7 years ago.

Mate, this is too hash proposal.
Bitcoin represents liberty and everyone is at liberty to use or never use their bitcoin.
Secondly, the scarcity model of the bitcoin makes it value more. I can say the value of the bitcoin you hold today will only appreciate if some is lost for ever and majority are holding.
Even if this is to work, how will manage to redistribute bitcoin not on the blockchain? The ones stored in CEXs for instance.

OP, didn't I see this exact topic a couple months back. Did you just repost a thread you (or someone else) had already created earlier this year?

Anyway, this is a terrible idea, as I said in the original thread earlier this year.

There is no problem with gradually having fewer Bitcoin, especially since these days there are likely very few bitcoin being lost as it mostly happened in the early days due to people not caring to back up their keys since it wasn't worth much money anyway, and also just lack of established best practices in storing keys.

And there is no reason someone should have to move their Bitcoin if they don't want to. Like what would even be the point of this? Say a family is storing generational wealth in Bitcoin, in various wallets, and they slowly spend it over generations, and they have no reason to touch some of these wallets for generations, then suddenly their bitcoin is redistributed after 100 years?! There is literally no upside to this idea, only a potential downside, so I don't see why you would even come up with this idea.

Not to mention the fact that it would require a protocol change, for this idea that has a down side with no upside.


Yes I was going to say this. The idea that like 4 million bitcoin are lost is clearly not true. From what I've always seen the calculation involves, as you say Lucius, assuming any bitcoin that hasn't moved in something like 10+ years is lost. But this is obviously not the case, as every few weeks someone moves some Bitcoin from 2010/2011/2012. Heck, Tim Draper bought something like 27000 bitcoin back in 2014 from the US Govt, and presumably hasn't moved it since, so according to this standard calculation all his bitcoin will be "lost" in a couple years lol. The number of lost bitcoin can of course never be known, but it is likely not much above 2 million. I think 10% of all bitcoin that will ever be created, being already lost, is probably a good estimate. We've got roughly 1 million from Satoshi that is presumably lost, and probably 1+ million from everyone else.

Nobody knows for sure how much BTC was lost. Some were 'burned', yes, and maybe some were accidentally sent to wrong addresses. But many coins which are presumed lost actually just haven't been moved for some time (5+ years), but it's possible that the owners still have access to them.
The 100-year-plan doesn't really matter to any of us because we won't live long enough to see it. At the same time, the amount of BTC is capped at 21 million, and changing that would require significant changes in the code, I think, which will probably be met with resistance.
There's really no need for that anyway, considering that there's a satoshi denomination that can be used in case BTC gets so widely adopted that people would only normally own small fractions of it.

Although you have approached it in a nice way but I don't think it will be helpful because you are considering 100 years of inactivity and we have that much time left approximately for the total coins to be mined so it won't help much.Then if people can't handle their coins other should benefit from it in Satoshi words like making the other coins more valuable due to scarcity.The process will continue and need whole concesnus to make any changes in the code.There are many dormant addresses which haven't moved any coins but still have access to their wallets so this also don't work for them.The rest we are uncertain about future and what changes btc can see in upcoming time.

Who will be alive after 100 years, if we assume that you are currently 7 years old, then most likely she will not be able to know much at that age. This is the problem of future generations, not ours.
one bitcoin can be divided into smaller categories, so we practically have more than 21 million pieces.
we have about ~ 2.1e+15 Sat
If your proposal does not get consensus, which it assumes, you can do a hard fork, where you can modify whatever you want in the code.

This is same to not your keys not your coins logic. Lost Bitcoin or not, We shouldn’t decide on other coins fate if we don’t have rivate key. We can consider it as a treasure waiting to be discovered because not all lost coin is due to lost of private keys. Some of them is just owner died without transferring ownership to his/her heir.

Redistribution coins like this will lost the purpose of power holding or something since we are redistributing coins that is not moving without any verification that it’s really lost and unrecoverable. Best scenario here is a family passing Bitcoin from one genration to other generation.