Topic: One day, there won't be any bitcoins anywhere (Read 3470 times)

That was my thought. It won't be an "authority" that does this, it will be unscrupulous individuals who discover or gain access to the algorithms and use them to scan the blockchain for old enough addresses that still have coins, access those coins and transfer them to newer secure addresses in their own control.
Some will be "lost" coins, and some will belong to hoarders. As the problem accelerates, most hoarders who are aware of their bitcoin fortune will move their coins to more secure wallets. The paranoid increase their security with some regularity, and higher BTC value tends to increase paranoia.

When the time comes hoarders will move their coins to other addresses with improved key schemes.

Read the comments, and think. Also, do the math. How many satoshis are there?

But there is a hard limit to the amount on the planet. More bitcoins are being "found" every day, as well. Just because we haven't reached the gold limit doesn't invalidate the analogy.

Because the "problem" was recognized, and solved, years ago. There's no need to enact that solution yet, because it's too far into the future. When the time comes, the solution will be enacted. As previously stated, that time is far off.

Bitcoin's replacement with appear in the next few years that will supersede it in every way, but wont take hold until at least a few years thereafter. Once it does bitcoin will become a collectors item.

So how does whatever authority that does this know what is lost and what belongs to an old hoarder?

Gold and btc are fundamentally different for the purpose of your comparison. Your analogy doesn't make any sense. New gold is found every day. I don't know what else to say.

btc2 being a simple code fork away is a good solution, but why wait all the way until a single satoshi is too big of a unit? Why don't we just recognize the problem now?

Not all, only old ones, encoded with old signature schemes.

Then we'll have enough knowledge and computing power to spend other people's money

you will die before that, so why care?

The issue I see is that the same people often say two things in almost the same breath:

1. there is a finite supply and that is good because value increases as supply drops
2. it can be infinitely divided to retain usability

But no-one seems to notice that either it's finite or it's not, it cannot be in both states. Further, if the intent is speculation, then (1) is good. If the intent is currency then (2) is good. So which is it?

For the sake of the discussion, I will take neither side. I will point out that if we want a stable currency, we have built in a lifespan that will render the currency useless, as we cannot make more of it. If we want speculation we have built in a ceiling as we can infinitely divide the speculative property.

Because that's exactly what you're doing. "Oh noes! all the bitcoins will eventually be lost!" Yes, and all the gold coins would eventually be ground down to dust.

Neither one is an issue, because if ever the bitcoin supply become such that one satoshi is too much for the average transaction, Bitcoin2 will be a simple code fork away. That is, if it hadn't already been created to deal with this (impending) problem.

Disagree. When we get to the point of total supply being less than 1 BTC, we will have enough knowledge and computing power to recover private keys of "lost" coins.

This entropy thing, is it something electrical? If my coffee maker stops running, that will suck.

My computer has 4 terabytes of memory (or gigabytes) I used to have 64 kilobytes (1984).

I'm not sure my point exactly, but I coped with the 'power of 10' change somehow, with the help of God and my family.

Edit - I've embarrassed myself - power of 2 - doh!

Why do you assume I would holler that you can't make new gold coins out of dust? There's no bitcoin "dust" anyway.

Furthermore, new gold is constantly being mined, adding to the gold supply. One day, there forever won't be anymore bitcoins mined. The gold analogy is useless.

You said a "new" coin will be made. I'm assuming you mean a new cryptocoin type, since you can't add to the btc supply by recycling existing bitcoin "dust". I was talking about bitcoin specifically, and a new coin type would be a solution. You are making all my points for me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but btc production will end about 2040, not 2140.

If you have to increase the subdivision of the currency at a constant rate just to keep up with a deflation, why not just use a currency where you don't have to do that? Why make it needlessly difficult? I said it was farcical to do this because simply treating a mere symptom with a method that creates more problems is farcical. It's a boondoggle. Maybe i think currency has a different purpose than everybody else.

Shouldn't the buying power of a unit of any currency remain constant over time? Isn't that the whole purpose of money? If it doesn't do that it becomes a pain in the ass for the participants in an economy. I can see that buying power would and probably should change up or down due to external factors such as innovation or war or natural disaster, but those are external factors.

I have no idea what the halflife of the supply is. It could be 10 years or a 1000. That's not really the point. The fact there is a halflife with no possibility of creating more should sound an alarm. It's math. The population is growing which exacerbates the deflation.

Im not calling for bitcoin to change, because I know the hard cap is one of its foundational features and is extremely attractive to many people in this day and age of arbitrary fiat money creation bailout hell, but if you're in a burning house, you don't need to escape it by stripping naked and jumping into the arctic ocean. We need a 72 degree (farenheit) room. I'm just throwing the red flag for the long term. It will be addressed in new crypto coin types like some of you have said. Seems like a pretty obvious problem that should be addressed.

Also to say that we'll all be dead anyway by the time it becomes a problem is a non-argument. You're basically conceding there is a design flaw, but kicking the can down the road, only guessing that it will take long enough that something else will be a bigger problem, and you are just as likely correct as not. But it shouldn't be like who cares about getting anything anywhere right, the earth is going to fall into the sun one of these days. With the oil analogy, you're saying there is no need at all to find any alternate, sustainable energy sources.

How long until coin loss is felt is anyone's guess. It's a steady, gradual thing on average for sure. It's a slow process now because bitcoin's share in the global economy is a piece of mist in a waterfall, but that process will accelerate as the mainstream adopts the currency.

Your "problem" is a nonissue. Let's compare it to a gold coin. Over time, through wear, circulated gold coins are reduced in size. This also results in gold dust being produced in the bottom of the coin purse. You would, no doubt, be screaming that eventually, all the coins would be reduced to dust and there would be no way to trade any more. This is true, except for one simple fact: If you put this dust into a crucible, and heat it up, you can make a new coin.

And that's just what will happen, we will make a new coin, probably long before all the bitcoins are lost. And long after we're all dead, by the way. Bitcoin generation will continue until 2140.

Yes.  Bitcoin's not going to last forever, but it can become something else which can keep living.  The reason the human race lasted for longer than 100 years is because we can keep making improved copies of ourselves   Except in this case, it's intentional technological advancement, as opposed to the random, passive process of evolution.

Won't Bitcoin be forked into somthing like QBitcoin with a new crypto that is too hard for the top of the line hardware to crack before it reaches the market?