Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

[Ricardo Filipe via bitcoin-dev]

You can do it on 2nd layer solutions such as the lightning network,
with their own format.
On the base layer you cannot do it without a hard fork, or it would
undermine the invariants of bitcoin.

2017-12-12 8:24 GMT+00:00 Teweldemedhin Aberra <tewelde...@gmail.com>:
> How?
>
>
>
> From: Ricardo Filipe
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:44 AM
> To: Teweldemedhin Aberra; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch
>
>
>
> yes
>
>
>
> 2017-12-12 1:10 GMT+00:00 Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-dev
>
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>
>> The only solution other than Dead Man's Switch to avoid gradual loss
>
>> Bitcoins in transaction is increasing the divisibiliy of Bitcoins. Then
>
>> Bitcoin values will need integer of more than 64 bits. Could that be done
>
>> with soft fork?
>
>>
>
>> On Dec 11, 2017 9:42 PM, <bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>> You can implement this already, but only for ~1 year expirations.
>
>>>
>
>>> IF  ELSE <1 year> CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY ENDIF
>
>>>
>
>>> Perhaps it would make sense to propose a flag extending the range of
>
>>> relative
>
>>> lock-times so you can do several years?
>
>>>
>
>>> Luke
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> On Monday 11 December 2017 5:30:37 PM Teweldemedhin Aberra via
>>> bitcoin-dev
>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> > It is estimated that about 4 million of the about 16.4 Bitcoins ever
>
>>> > mined
>
>>> > are lost forever because no one knows the private keys of some Bitcoin
>
>>> > addresses. This effectively mean there are actually only 14.4 million
>
>>> > Bitcoins in circulation even though 16.4 million are mined. There is no
>
>>> > way
>
>>> > of eliminating the human errors that cause these losses of Bitcoin from
>
>>> > circulation, while the number of Bitcoin that will ever be mined is
>
>>> > capped
>
>>> > at 21 million. This means the total number of Bitcoins that are in
>
>>> > circulation will eventually become zero, bringing the network to an
>>> > end.
>
>>> >
>
>>> > The solution this BIP proposes is to implementing a dead man's switch
>>> > to
>
>>> > Bitcoin addresses. The dead man's switch causes the Bitcoins assigned
>>> > to
>
>>> > dormant addresses to automatically expire. A Bitcoin address is deemed
>
>>> > dormant if it is not used in transactions for some fixed length of
>>> > time,
>
>>> > say ten years.
>
>>> >
>
>>> > The calculation of the miner's reward should take into account the
>
>>> > Bitcoins
>
>>> > that has expired. This means there is a possibility that miner's reward
>
>>> > can
>
>>> > increase if sufficient number of Bitcoins expire.
>
>>> >
>
>>> > Ref:
>
>>> >
>
>>> > http://fortune.com/2017/11/25/lost-bitcoins/
>
>>> >
>
>>> >
>
>>> >
>
>>> >
>>> > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campa
>
>>> > ign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon> Virus-free.
>
>>> > www.avast.com
>
>>> >
>
>>> >
>>> > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campa
>
>>> > ign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
>
>>> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ___
>
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>>
>
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

[Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-dev]

Hi,
The only solution other than Dead Man's Switch to avoid gradual loss
Bitcoins in transaction is increasing the divisibiliy of Bitcoins. Then
Bitcoin values will need integer of more than 64 bits. Could that be done
with soft fork?

On Dec 11, 2017 9:42 PM, 
wrote:

> You can implement this already, but only for ~1 year expirations.
>
> IF  ELSE <1 year> CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY ENDIF
>
> Perhaps it would make sense to propose a flag extending the range of
> relative
> lock-times so you can do several years?
>
> Luke
>
>
> On Monday 11 December 2017 5:30:37 PM Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > It is estimated that about 4 million of the about 16.4 Bitcoins ever
> mined
> > are lost forever because no one knows the private keys of some Bitcoin
> > addresses. This effectively mean there are actually only 14.4 million
> > Bitcoins in circulation even though 16.4 million are mined. There is no
> way
> > of eliminating the human errors that cause these losses of Bitcoin from
> > circulation, while the number of Bitcoin that will ever be mined is
> capped
> > at 21 million. This means the total number of Bitcoins that are in
> > circulation will eventually become zero, bringing the network to an end.
> >
> > The solution this BIP proposes is to implementing a dead man's switch to
> > Bitcoin addresses. The dead man's switch causes the Bitcoins assigned to
> > dormant addresses to automatically expire. A Bitcoin address is deemed
> > dormant if it is not used in transactions for some fixed length of time,
> > say ten years.
> >
> > The calculation of the miner's reward should take into account the
> Bitcoins
> > that has expired. This means there is a possibility that miner's reward
> can
> > increase if sufficient number of Bitcoins expire.
> >
> > Ref:
> >
> > http://fortune.com/2017/11/25/lost-bitcoins/
> >
> >
> >  source=link_campa
> > ign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon> Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com
> >  source=link_campa
> > ign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

[Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev]

You can implement this already, but only for ~1 year expirations.

IF  ELSE <1 year> CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY ENDIF

Perhaps it would make sense to propose a flag extending the range of relative 
lock-times so you can do several years?

Luke


On Monday 11 December 2017 5:30:37 PM Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-dev 
wrote:
> It is estimated that about 4 million of the about 16.4 Bitcoins ever mined
> are lost forever because no one knows the private keys of some Bitcoin
> addresses. This effectively mean there are actually only 14.4 million
> Bitcoins in circulation even though 16.4 million are mined. There is no way
> of eliminating the human errors that cause these losses of Bitcoin from
> circulation, while the number of Bitcoin that will ever be mined is capped
> at 21 million. This means the total number of Bitcoins that are in
> circulation will eventually become zero, bringing the network to an end.
> 
> The solution this BIP proposes is to implementing a dead man's switch to
> Bitcoin addresses. The dead man's switch causes the Bitcoins assigned to
> dormant addresses to automatically expire. A Bitcoin address is deemed
> dormant if it is not used in transactions for some fixed length of time,
> say ten years.
> 
> The calculation of the miner's reward should take into account the Bitcoins
> that has expired. This means there is a possibility that miner's reward can
> increase if sufficient number of Bitcoins expire.
> 
> Ref:
> 
> http://fortune.com/2017/11/25/lost-bitcoins/
> 
> 
>  ign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>  ign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

[Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev]

Hi,
1. If there are 16.4 million mined and 4 million are lost, that results in
12.4 million in circulation vs 14.4 million.
2. Satoshi addressed this as have numerous other people (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198.msg1647#msg1647 ) - lost coins
decrease supply, increasing value of the remaining coins.
3. This assumes this is a problem.  Bitcoin is divisible, 100 million,
potentially more if necessary. (
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Help:FAQ#How_divisible_are_bitcoins.3F)
4. Why is it okay to steal bitcoins from people who's bitcoins have been
"dormant" for a fixed period, 10 years in your example?
5. What happens to bitcoins that, say, Hal Finney still had (if any) and he
put in cold storage while he is in ultimate cold storage (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scientist)#Death) ?
Ditto for someone, say, in a coma for 11 years, in jail for 11 years or any
other similar event?  Or a 20 year old sets aside coins for retirement.
The following year, the system is changed, and when he looks again after
not paying attention for a decade or two, they are gone.
6. This encourages censorship by miners for people attempting to move coins.
7. This has been discussed many times before and everyone is welcome to
fork bitcoin code and the block chain and convince people to follow this
chain and code.  Then you can see if you can get many people to agree that
this is a good idea.








On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> It is estimated that about 4 million of the about 16.4 Bitcoins ever mined
> are lost forever because no one knows the private keys of some Bitcoin
> addresses. This effectively mean there are actually only 14.4 million
> Bitcoins in circulation even though 16.4 million are mined. There is no way
> of eliminating the human errors that cause these losses of Bitcoin from
> circulation, while the number of Bitcoin that will ever be mined is capped
> at 21 million. This means the total number of Bitcoins that are in
> circulation will eventually become zero, bringing the network to an end.
>
> The solution this BIP proposes is to implementing a dead man's switch to
> Bitcoin addresses. The dead man's switch causes the Bitcoins assigned to
> dormant addresses to automatically expire. A Bitcoin address is deemed
> dormant if it is not used in transactions for some fixed length of time,
> say ten years.
>
> The calculation of the miner's reward should take into account the
> Bitcoins that has expired. This means there is a possibility that miner's
> reward can increase if sufficient number of Bitcoins expire.
>
> Ref:
>
> http://fortune.com/2017/11/25/lost-bitcoins/
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_2495265241835744459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

[Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev]

On Dec 11, 2017 10:23, "Nick Pudar via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

This topic has come up several times in recent years. While it is well
intentioned, it can have devastating outcomes for people that want to save
long term. If such a system were implemented, it would force people to move
funds around in order to not get nullified. In that process, it introduces
multiple opportunities for errors. Cold storage should be able to stay
cold. I personally would be apprehensive about implementing this kind of a
system.


Furthermore, if it rewards miners with funds that are expired, it creates
terrible incentives. Miners in their best interest could choose to censor
transactions that move funds close to their expiration time, to increase
their own future rewards.

Cheers,

-- 
Pieter
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

[Radoslaw Biernacki via bitcoin-dev]

Aside from that such change would require a hard fork it also violates one
of basic rules of bitcoin, which has long term consequences for miners and
for whole Bitcoin economy. In short, after altering the supply limit it
would not be "bitcoin" anymore.

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> It is estimated that about 4 million of the about 16.4 Bitcoins ever mined
> are lost forever because no one knows the private keys of some Bitcoin
> addresses. This effectively mean there are actually only 14.4 million
> Bitcoins in circulation even though 16.4 million are mined. There is no way
> of eliminating the human errors that cause these losses of Bitcoin from
> circulation, while the number of Bitcoin that will ever be mined is capped
> at 21 million. This means the total number of Bitcoins that are in
> circulation will eventually become zero, bringing the network to an end.
>
> The solution this BIP proposes is to implementing a dead man's switch to
> Bitcoin addresses. The dead man's switch causes the Bitcoins assigned to
> dormant addresses to automatically expire. A Bitcoin address is deemed
> dormant if it is not used in transactions for some fixed length of time,
> say ten years.
>
> The calculation of the miner's reward should take into account the
> Bitcoins that has expired. This means there is a possibility that miner's
> reward can increase if sufficient number of Bitcoins expire.
>
> Ref:
>
> http://fortune.com/2017/11/25/lost-bitcoins/
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-612306741899295358_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

[Nick Pudar via bitcoin-dev]

This topic has come up several times in recent years. While it is well 
intentioned, it can have devastating outcomes for people that want to save long 
term. If such a system were implemented, it would force people to move funds 
around in order to not get nullified. In that process, it introduces multiple 
opportunities for errors. Cold storage should be able to stay cold. I 
personally would be apprehensive about implementing this kind of a system.

...via Android



From: Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Monday, December 11, 1:04 PM
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org


It is estimated that about 4 million of the about 16.4 Bitcoins ever mined are 
lost forever because no one knows the private keys of some Bitcoin addresses. 
This effectively mean there are actually only 14.4 million Bitcoins in 
circulation even though 16.4 million are mined. There is no way of eliminating 
the human errors that cause these losses of Bitcoin from circulation, while the 
number of Bitcoin that will ever be mined is capped at 21 million. This means 
the total number of Bitcoins that are in circulation will eventually become 
zero, bringing the network to an end.
The solution this BIP proposes is to implementing a dead man's switch to 
Bitcoin addresses. The dead man's switch causes the Bitcoins assigned to 
dormant addresses to automatically expire. A Bitcoin address is deemed dormant 
if it is not used in transactions for some fixed length of time, say ten years.
The calculation of the miner's reward should take into account the Bitcoins 
that has expired. This means there is a possibility that miner's reward can 
increase if sufficient number of Bitcoins expire.

Ref:
http://fortune.com/2017/11/25/lost-bitcoins/


Virus-free.

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
www.avast.com




___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

[Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev]

With all due respect, this isn't a BIP. It's idle speculation regarding
what one person considers to be a problem and others may not. Please
read https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki and
try again. Among other things:

- Convince us this is a real issue, and that your data is accurate.
Who's to say which coins are truly lost? Maybe the people controlling
the keys are just laying low, wish to use their coins in 2112, etc.
- Propose formulas for how the miners will take everything into account,
and explain why they're acceptable.
- Write code that implements your ideas.

Good luck!

-- 
---
Douglas Roark
Cryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art.
https://onename.com/droark
joro...@vt.edu
PGP key ID: 26623924



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

[Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-dev]

It is estimated that about 4 million of the about 16.4 Bitcoins ever mined
are lost forever because no one knows the private keys of some Bitcoin
addresses. This effectively mean there are actually only 14.4 million
Bitcoins in circulation even though 16.4 million are mined. There is no way
of eliminating the human errors that cause these losses of Bitcoin from
circulation, while the number of Bitcoin that will ever be mined is capped
at 21 million. This means the total number of Bitcoins that are in
circulation will eventually become zero, bringing the network to an end.

The solution this BIP proposes is to implementing a dead man's switch to
Bitcoin addresses. The dead man's switch causes the Bitcoins assigned to
dormant addresses to automatically expire. A Bitcoin address is deemed
dormant if it is not used in transactions for some fixed length of time,
say ten years.

The calculation of the miner's reward should take into account the Bitcoins
that has expired. This means there is a possibility that miner's reward can
increase if sufficient number of Bitcoins expire.

Ref:

http://fortune.com/2017/11/25/lost-bitcoins/



Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev