8 upvotes, 9 direct replies (showing 9)
View submission: Don't invest recklessly
[deleted]
Comment by reddlvr at 30/11/2017 at 06:07 UTC
52 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Isn't this the same as stealing? Many people may want to hoard BTC for over 20 years.
Comment by BehindTheGreenDoor at 30/11/2017 at 06:06 UTC
23 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Don't see how anyone would agree to this proposal. There could be good reasons as to why bitcoins aren't moved for 20+ years (or any arbitrary number you want to use).
Comment by theymos at 30/11/2017 at 06:47 UTC
43 upvotes, 0 direct replies
No, redistribution is completely incompatible with Bitcoin. Perhaps some random person brought it up on the mailing list, but none of the main devs would ever support it, and I would fight against it totally.
Comment by mitchC1 at 30/11/2017 at 06:24 UTC
7 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Is that possible, though?
If it's possible to re-mine coins stored in private wallets to be allocated elsewhere after 20 years, why can't that be done now? I thought coins in private wallets were supposed to be untouchable without the keys.
Comment by nullc at 30/11/2017 at 12:29 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
but on the core mailing list there were debates
There were? I don't recall this. That has broken incentives-- censor transaction to get paid their value. There are theoretical arguments about how crypto breaks may make create reasons to make long unmoved coins unmovable, with notice... but even that is really fraught.
Comment by sQtWLgK at 30/11/2017 at 09:11 UTC
5 upvotes, 1 direct replies
You are probably confused about the **thought experiment** on *it is 2070 and powerful quantum computers can now crack coins for which the public key is known, what would happen?*. In that scenario, holders that still have the keys will probably move their coins to quantum-resistant outputs, but lost coins would be left vulnerable and "mined" as they get cracked.
Since that would have unexpected, undesired economical consequences, some proposed that we would need to properly delete those old outputs if there is consensus for such thing (i.e., c.2060, when we are widely confident that everyone with existing keys would have already moved to quantum-resistant or at least sha256² protected).
Comment by joesmithcq493 at 30/11/2017 at 15:10 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
How would replacing lost or unused tokens add value to bitcoin? So long as the coin is divisible, it doesn't matter. Besides, how would one determine what is lost/unused? That would be a big protocol change that I can't support.
Comment by P00r at 30/11/2017 at 08:23 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Even if someone wanted to do this they would need to break the key of each and every bitcoin, nobody control the blockchain, it is driven by fixed mathematical rules.
Last time I heard it would cost billions of dollard in cpu time to re-calculate a single bitcoin.
The whole idea doesn't make sense, how do you decide of the exact period etc...
It's not because it is written in a forum that it is possible to do it...
Unless there's a fork let's call it tempcoin...
Comment by jaumenuez at 30/11/2017 at 09:48 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Why would we need to do that for?. Unused/lost bitcoins increase the value of new bitcoins and fees, and that's a good incentive. Also we have enough satoshis for everyone.