Safecoin composting/recycling

[jlpell]

@neo

Oh and who is going to tick boxes on their 1000 coins. That is 1000 ticks they have to do, what if they have 50,000 or more. Even if its move them then they have to move all of them. Remember that each coin is its own entity so anything implemented to be done has to be done on each coin individually.

All this decomposing. expiring of coins really only look at it from the point of view of truly lost coins. But once you look at it from saved coins, coins being kept safe etc the idea becomes STUPID and in my opinion criminal since its stealing valid coins.

What I was trying to describe in the “Network Theft Protection” subsection was that all of the keep-alive signals could be automatically handled as long as a particular account is connected to the network. The health of the safecoins would then always stay nearly at health_max and never die. Based on a disadvantaged decomposition rate, there should be no possibility for a connected account to ever lose ownership of a safecoin and no user input would be required, other than staying connected or connecting to the network periodically at easy intervals (even just once every 7 years or so) so that their wallet could set all the coins to health_max.

@neo
You pointed out some good reasons why people might log out and stay disconnected for an extended period of time. I need to think about these cases a bit more…

To all the other haters out there…
This post came out of a question asked by someone else on another thread. I took the bait and tried to think about a solution. The idea is to try and find a way to recycle the coins that are “lost-forever” because somebody has lost their passphrase and will never return to the network. Its about recycling and efficient use of resources not thievery. So you didn’t like an idea for transferring the coin to the composter when the health of a safecoin deteriorates to zero. That’s fine. I thought that feature might doubly incentivise contributions to the network and thus improve performance, and fix the lost coin problem at the same time.

@Team_2E16

I’ll second that. I’ve worked hard to invest in this project, and I certainly wouldn’t want any of my coins, which I will own (yes, I paid my money for those coins, and they are my property), to be seized because I forgot to log in or went on holiday at some point. Or my wife to lose out on our investment because, as @neo says, a will resolution takes too long to finalise.

Granted there is a problem with addressing long term offline savers, which I kind of assumed could just be addressed by exchanging a safecoin with something on a blockchain, potentially an internal blockchain within the SAFE network automatically.

The assumption is that we need to know the “age” of the coin in order to determine the degree to which it has been abandoned/lost. Maybe others have better ideas. Please be specific like @neo with your objections so that this could be a productive process. Some say that losing coins forever is no big deal, just look at how bitcoin handles it via deflation. I guess my point of view is that if 20 to 30% of the safecoins are lost, then aren’t you losing out on 20 to 30% of potential performance gains? What if there is a way around it, why settle? Safecoin is supposed to be like fuel right? More fuel more power.

P.S.

@neo

The originator also needs to know how their ideas affect people

I figure if things get out of hand you can always lock the thread, or delete it when the rioting starts…

[neo]

@jlpell

subsection was that all of the keep-alive signals could be automatically handled as long as a particular account is connected to the network

And how do you plan to do that? Make the person log in or what.

An account is defined by a set of data objects stored on the network, so is always there with persistent data - you know “NOT composting data”. So how do you define “account connected to the network”, since I thought they were always “connected” because the account is just data objects.

Thus all coins are always owned by an account and since all accounts are “active” at all times then the CANNOT be lost coins. Thus we can forget this topic can we.

@jlpell

You pointed out some good reasons why people might log out and stay disconnected for an extended period of time. I need to think about these cases a bit more…

There are nearly as many cases where coins could be “saved” as there are people in New York. So even if my few examples are not enough then just think for a few moments.

@jlpell

What I was trying to describe in the “Network Theft Protection” subsection was that all of the keep-alive signals could be automatically handled as long as a particular account is connected to the network. The health of the safecoins would then always stay nearly at health_max and never die.

You are still looking at it from trying to prove a negative. You are trying to find ways to say the coins are not lost. THIS IS WRONG the way you should be looking at it is to discover a way to say the coin is actually lost.

While you look at it from proving the coins are not lost, there will be situations that don’t fit the pattern you devise no matter how crafty you are. And just one case of mistaken lost coins is thief and criminal. Are you willing to risk your “proving the negative” skills on being called a criminal instigator?

Your idea is the same as the following

Lets say the network is like the government (yea I know its not actually like that but your idea makes it like that.

Official: “Sir we need to check your money in case any of it is lost.”
USER: “Here is my money linked to my name” User gets every coin out for inspection
Official: Checking each coin. “Looks OK and I’ll stamp each and every coin with healthy”
USER: Relieved “Oh thank you for letting me keep these coins”
Official: “Now make sure you keep your account connected”
USER: Puzzled Look “How do I do that?”
Official: “Read the government documents that don’t exist”
USER: Scared “Okay ???”
USER: does not access his account for a period of time (pick one of 1000+++ reasons)
Official: Visits USERs account again. “Hello hello hello?”
Official: skims up all the coins he can find that he assumes the USER lost.

[neo]

@jlpell

that if 20 to 30% of the safecoins are lost, then aren’t you losing out on 20 to 30% of potential performance gains?

Why would you? This does not make sense.

When the network starts there is 3+ billion coins not existing and only 400+ million existing. Even if 350 million where lost (or hoarded) there is no performance difference to if all 400 million were not considered lost.

So your statement is just pulled out of ones behind really.

[Team_2E16]

@jlpell

Based on a disadvantaged decomposition rate, there should be no possibility for a connected account to ever lose ownership of a safecoin and no user input would be required, other than staying connected.

So let’s say I have $50,000 worth of Safecoin in my account. I keep my account secret. I’m single, and trust no other person with my login details. I drive to the store and somebody hits my car, resulting in a 10-year coma. When I wake up, my house has been packed up, my computer obviously disconnected from the network, my phone has long since become obsolete. And my coins? Gone. Expired. And possibly worth millions by then.

Imagine if your bank conducted business with you that way. You snooze? You lose.

(Assuming we change the network to require logins to make this possible, as per @neo 's comment above. Which would probably break anonymity.)

@neo

An account is defined by a set of data objects stored on the network, so is always there with persistent data

@jlpell

Please be specific like @neo with your objections so that this could be a productive process.

I was. I laid out my specific concerns about potentially losing my coins if I don’t pay enough attention. The detail of that is above, in all of the other user’s comments, and @neo 's replies. No need to repeat it, but thought I’d add my voice to the mix, with my agreement.

I do see that it would be better to be able to recycle lost coins, but the only way you could ethically accomplish that would be if you could identify the truly lost coins and only the truly lost coins. Mistakes would, imo, ruin the entire network, for the aforementioned reasons. And I don’t see the lost coins issue as important enough to radically redesign the network, because the relative value will simply adjust, as will the farming rate, and so on to the farming reward.

@neo One question: I’ve been a little out of the loop lately: Is it the plan to have safecoin divisible? If so, lost coins will have exactly zero effect on the network, as computers gain the ability to have more and more digits in number representation. Would be a simple update to the network to allow safecoins to be more and more divisible, as we move from 64-bit to 128-bit and beyond. Lost coins will be meaningless.

[jlpell]

@Team_2E16

Imagine if your bank conducted business with you that way. You snooze? You lose.

Yes, that would be a bad bank. But sometimes banks send letters to people saying that you have not had any activity on your account for X number of years so we are closing it.

What Happens to Inactive Bank Accounts | MyBankTracker

But I thought the analogy/metaphor was safecoin=cash, blockchain=bank. So let’s use cash as an analogy for the moment. In the real world, what happens to the buying power of your cash if you fail to invest it in something more durable? It rots due to inflation. However cash is often preferable to other things due to it’s liquidity, it is a good currency but not a great money.

@Team_2E16

I was. I laid out my specific concerns about potentially losing my coins if I don’t pay enough attention.

Yes, you were. A few others were just annoyed/displeased. I can tell @neo is getting more annoyed by the day too… although he’s been a real good sport with the critique/dialogue.

@Team_2E16

but the only way you could ethically accomplish that would be if you could identify the truly lost coins and only the truly lost coins.

Yes both you and @neo have stressed the need for proof positive that the coin is lost/abandoned. I get it. In the real world of tangible things, property is usually considered abandoned if it is not claimed for a certain amount of time, 90 days, 6 months, a year etc.
And so that’s why I cooked up a means of using composters to determine the “age” or “health” of a coin. Another example in is that while you may register your house property deed in order to get the legal right to own it, the local government will seize it back if you fail to pay your property taxes and resell it to someone else… not that I am demanding that for the network… but these are some real world analogies.

@Team_2E16

One question: I’ve been a little out of the loop lately: Is it the plan to have safecoin divisible? If so, lost coins will have exactly zero effect on the network, as computers gain the ability to have more and more digits in number representation. Would be a simple update to the network to allow safecoins to be more and more divisible, as we move from 64-bit to 128-bit and beyond. Lost coins will be meaningless.

I thought so too at first. @neo has mentioned that increasing address bit depth is not an option, and the network is restricted to 2^32 coins. These seems like a low number since it only allows for about 1 coin for about 2 humans in the limit, hence the need for divisibility. Bitcoin yields about 262500 satoshis per human in the limit. I don’t know enough of the details but, (correct me here) it seems like accumulation from farming is NOT going to increase the supply like blockchain does, so I would think those 2^32 coins are going to get eaten up pretty fast… which is why the need for composting came to mind… but I guess @neo seems to think it is a non-issue.

If it turns out to be a problem for safenet, does this mean it “forks”? How do you fork a safenet? I figured that if there is some way to solve the lost coin problem from the start then there would be enough of a corrective measure in place to make sure that doesn’t happen and predicting the future is rarely an easy task. Yet it seems no one really cares about “the lost coin” problem to the same extent as the classical “double spend problem” since they are happy to conform to the idea that deflation is a good thing…

[jlpell]

@neo

1. Identify the lost coins without requiring the user to do anything to save their coins.

Ok, that is a hard one to prove 100% as you’ve mentioned, but I’ll meditate on it some more…

@neo

2. Any method of identifying lost coins should allow identification of who lost them.

The lost coin in question states who the current owner’s public id is… Solved?

@neo

3. Determine how coins can be returned to their rightful owner

Non-issue. If the coin is abandoned due to the user error and loss of private key due to their own negligence, it’s not the network’s fault. No blockchain user has the expectation that they can recover their balance if they lose their private key. Since this is the case, what is the point of step 2 in this process?

@neo

consider a method to recover the coins (delete them for rewards availability)

That would be the easy part, wouldn’t it?

All good food for thought. If there is a particular set of documents that I should read up on in order to come to the same conclusion as you that this is a futile discussion from a technical standpoint, please send the links my way.

[neo]

@jlpell

Yes, that would be a bad bank. But sometimes banks send letters to people saying that you have not had any activity on your account for X number of years so we are closing it.

Still that sidestepped the issue and you attacked the bank example. The prime point was not addressed. You will have stolen that person’s coins. No way to get out of that. Please address the issue and not the person’s inadequate real world analogy.

@jlpell

But I thought the analogy/metaphor was safecoin=cash, blockchain=bank

And you are well and truly wrong.

We are trying to build a network that fixes the theft by providers and others and provide a network that secures data and any wealth. So there is no current analogy using real world cash or banks that covers theft by the network.

[neo]

@jlpell

The lost coin in question states who the current owner’s public id is… Solved?

Nope beause you are going to take the coin anyhow. So not solved is it.

@jlpell

Ok, that is a hard one to prove 100% as you’ve mentioned,

Damn right and I see no solution at the moment and the design does not incorporate it either. I’ve yet to see authorities check my real life coins to see if I lost them or not. They don’t go around reclaiming coins I have not used for 40 Years. Well not yet anyhow and I doubt an official will turn up at my door to see what coins I’ve lost. And if you missed the impossibility of such an action then I guess you missed the impossibility of proving this negative

@jlpell

Non-issue

For you maybe, but if your proving the negative has any flaws in it (and I bet it’ll have thousands or millions of flaws), then you can return those coins and not STEAL them in a criminal act. But your response indicates that you’d rather steal them

@jlpell

That would be the easy part, wouldn’t it?

Obviously. But as far as I can see an impossible place to get. But you on the other hand have no issues with stealing coins off people because they did not fit your pattern of proving the negative.

[jlpell]

@neo

We are trying to build a network that fixes the theft by providers and others and provide a network that secures data and any wealth. So there is no current analogy using real world cash or banks that covers theft by the network.

And I applaud those who have worked hard to build it to this point. I would tend to disagree with you there can be any real expectation that even a system like SAFE will provide what you are describing without some kind of preventative maintenance from the users and the community at large. At the bare minimum, any given user needs to maintain their personal electronic devices and internet connection. They also need to make sure malware on their devices (windows) like a sophisticated keylogger doesn’t leak information that would allow adversaries to steal their safecoin. The community relies on the maintenance of hardware to keep the backbone servers running, fiber optic cables need to be added or protected, and careful planning is required to mitigate economic, political, and natural disasters. Its great to have automated tools to help the individual, but some minimal level of work will always be required until people decide to hand everything over to the AI superbrain and stop thinking.

@neo

In this case the idea needs to correctly identify what it intends to fix. Making people jump through hoops is not a suitable method of identifying lost coins.

Dealing with Deflation and it’s effect on network performance without resorting to Inflation. This is what the “composter” concept would try and fix. For some reason I’m the only one that sees it as an issue, so if no one else cares, then we might as well end the discussion there. @whiteoutmashups was the one who instigated this thread, blame him for it.

@neo

Its like trying to prove a negative People have to prove the coins are not lost. Mr official arrives at the door. “Sir we need to check your money in case any of it is lost.” If you are not home that day then bye bye since the official just takes the money they find. This is what is being proposed.

Yes, you’re right. If the 100% mathematical proof that a coin is forever abandoned is as impossible as you say, then “proving a negative” via some fuzzy logic is the only other option. So let’s continue your analogy since I haven’t had enough time to consider the 100% proof positive case yet:

If the homeowner has a security guard, then your plunderer is scared away. The security guard requires some compensation, but not a lot of effort or care on the part of the home owner on vacation and negligible compared to the value of his favorite solid gold toilet seat. The payments to cover security guard wages have been setup automatically so the homeowner doesn’t worry about checking the calendar. He might get a text message or phone call from the security guard if they see the robber lurking but he wouldn’t need to act on it since the security guard is watching out for his best interest. If the home-owner dies due to a freak hang-glider accident, the heirs/estate would need to keep paying the security guard, which could also be setup for automatic disbursement, until they decide to move into the house and keep the robber at bay on their own. If there are no heirs, and no one pays the heat bill in the winter, the pipes bust and water damage ruins the floors, mold grows, after a certain amount of time the city confiscates the entire property due to failure to pay taxes, and condemns it. Then the city offers the property to a developer so that they can build a new school to educate underprivileged children about the virtues of using the SAFE network and open source software instead of the oldnet, and so on…

The real world requires effort on the part of an individual to maintain what they or their ancestors have earned. Any user input to the system within a browser or client or farmer node that helps ensure long term stability of the coin supply would be negligible compared to all the other nonsense humans put up with day to day. Connecting via the authenticator at least once every 5 to 7 years to look at a wallet balance seems like a pretty minimal requirement to keep one’s safecoins healthy. Just my opinion.

[neo]

@jlpell

At the bare minimum, any given user needs to maintain their personal electronic devices and internet connection. They also need to make sure malware on their devices (windows) like a sophisticated keylogger doesn’t leak information that would allow adversaries to steal their safecoin. The community relies on the maintenance of hardware to keep the backbone servers running, fiber optic cables need to be added or protected, and careful planning is required to mitigate economic, political, and natural disasters. Its great to have automated tools to help the individual, but some minimal level of work will always be required until people decide to hand everything over to the AI superbrain and stop thinking.

???

Sidestepping again the issue being addressed. I was for one talking of analogies using flawed procedural systems that work by theft from the people and they cannot really be used as justification for things that stop SaFE from being the secure network.

@jlpell

Dealing with Deflation and it’s effect on network performance without resorting to Inflation.

Really sidestepping the issue where you feel 10% lost coins equates to 10% loss of performance. Where that is obviously flawed thinking as shown by my ultra simple example of even 90% loss in the first years. And later on it slowly gets a tad worse. But nothing to stop the network working as intended. And your thoughts excluded the increase in fiat value of the coin when its scarcer due to losses.

@jlpell

Yes, you’re right. If the 100% mathematical proof that a coin is forever abandoned is as impossible as you say, then “proving a negative” via some fuzzy logic is the only other option.

No no no no no no no no no no no bl**dy way mate. Stealing coins is NEVER an option and I don’t think you get that. Stealing even one coin for SAFE the ultimate last word in secure data (including safecoins) is not an option that can be intentionally implemented.

Its 100% proof its a lost coin (& cannot be returned to owner) or nothing. No stealing allowed. Never ever ever allowed. Get it never

Get your idea in the right order. First prove the coin is 100% loast AND not by having to prove the negative but a positive proof its lost.

If you or anyone ever gets implemented a method that has the user having to follow some (negative proof) pattern or action then safecoin has lost the plot and the network will suffer for it.

@jlpell

If the homeowner has a security guard, then your plunderer is scared away.

Irrelevant analogy. SAFE gives us security without the need for security guards around our coins or data. So your whole analogy thing is flawed and will always give a flawed result.

@jlpell

The real world requires effort on the part of an individual to maintain what they or their ancestors have earned.

Bl**dy hell mate SAFE is designed to provide the long term security where one does not have to maintain their data for it to be persistent data. Have a think about what persistent data actually means. The old paradigm of losses of data is done away with. This is the purpose of SAFE to get rid of the flawed mentality where every piece of data has to decay.

[jlpell]

Ok, ok. I’ll spend my time thinking about a proof positive for abandoned coins…
Sorry this discussion struck such a nerve.

As a side note, I just found a comment you posted in another thread that seemed a little pertinent to this discussion:

@neo

If the attacker tries to send the coin on before it has cleared (ie trying to spam the coin) then there is a chance for that coin to be lost as David points out (somewhere). The potential for losing the coin only happens when one tries to spam or attack the network by “double spending quickly”

Now if the attacker has 1 million coins being spent at 3 seconds put transfer, then maximum transaction rate by the attacker is 333,333 transactions per second across a world wide network. Now for a small network (early on) this would result in transfers taking even longer reducing the effects of the attack.

So it would appear from your description that the network does “steal” coins as one way to protect against double spending… Is not “fuzzy” composting just protection from the opposite end of the attack spectrum? Regardless, I get your point about the positive proof being the preferred / “SAFE compliant” way to implement a composting anti-deflation mechanism.

Anyhow, no need for us to keep hashing this out if it’s just going to annoy people. I might post again if there are any brainstorms on a proof-positive approach that you might find interesting. Cheers!

[neo]

@jlpell

So it would appear from your description that the network does “steal” coins as one way to protect against double spending… Is not “fuzzy” composting just protection from the opposite end of the attack spectrum? Regardless, I get your point about the positive proof being the preferred / “SAFE compliant” way to implement a composting anti-deflation mechanism.

No that is a loss from malicious attack of the safecoin transfer. Also now with datachains this might be outdated also.

If it did ever occur it would be classed as protection from an attacker. In this case the attacker is trying to multiple spend the coin super fast and is not a user saving coin, but an attacker trying to multiply his coin.

Really a different thing altogether. Its not his coin after the first spend so he has not lost it either and trying to send it to multiple people there is no clear receiver either. So noone lost the coin and in this case it is a truly lost coin and if you prove it then that is one positive case.

[jlpell]

@neo

If it did ever occur it would be classed as protection from an attacker.

But what about protection from an attacker that “burns” coins such that they will never be able to circulate? One also needs to consider special interests that would try to suppress adoption of the safe network, rather than profit from it. Again, this topic came out of the divisibility thread. Divisibility also plays a role in the solution to this problem. However, the block chain approach of going to milibtc, microbtc, nanobtc, … satoshi only works for so long. The SAFE network’s internal economic model will operate much better if prices stay long term stable. I’m referring to price stability in terms of SafeCoin, not BTC, Alts, or others.

[happybeing]

@jlpell

For some reason I’m the only one that sees it as an issue, so if no one else cares, then we might as well end the discussion there.

Don’t assume that. I’ve also had concerns about with coins being lost over time so have been watching /skimming the discussion and am finding it interesting. I think there are some difficult technical problems, but they may be soluble.

You seem to be coming up against objections in principle from @neo. @neo, you seem to be throwing up road blocks that are hard to answer, but not necessarily blockers if we wanted to achieve this. Rather than asking @jlpell to show that’s possible before we know that, we could go into whether it not this is desirable.

Evenso there would be a difficulty in implementing a feature that was not part of the initial preposition which people bought into, but we can still talk about it and I think that’s valuable. I’ve enjoyed watching the discussion so far and found points on both sides helpful.

Perhaps focusing on what happens in the two cases, and just assuming the technical issues are soluble for now, would help to decide if it is a good idea in principle or not.

@jlpell IMO you are correct to point out that if we don’t look after things, including money, it does leak away and get lost in various ways so in principle I think you are arguing for the status quo and @neo is arguing for something new. I’m not sure @neo agrees with that?

I think that this is worth looking at because unlike the real world, SafeCoin that is lost is lost forever - and no way to make more. That’s unlike any real world money or object. We’ve accepted that with bitcoin because it’s highly divisible as @jlpell pointed out.

The only way the SAFE network has to address this is atm is also through divisibility. So the question would then be, is that adequate? Or should we also think about this further?

I have not been convinced by anything in this thread that divisibility of SafeCoin is adequate in this respect. I don’t know if it is or not. It’s very hard to judge, which may be why it’s not really been discussed but I think if you object to composting you have to be convinced that there is no problem without it, don’t you think? Food for thought!

[neo]

@happybeing

You seem to be coming up against objections in principle from @neo. @neo, you seem to be throwing up road blocks that are hard to answer, but not necessarily blockers if we wanted to achieve this

It not that I am against recovering truly lost coins.

I am against the stealing of the coins because of the wrong approach to it.

When someone suggests that we use a method of proving the negative to determine what is lost, then I and others here are dead against that because it ends up stealing more coins than would ever be truly lost. Its easy to justify that since few are going to even know they have to jump through hoops and so many coins will be “stolen” that way.

So to solve this I pointed out that the problem has to be approached by identifying the truly lost coins without the user being profiled or jumping though hoops or a pattern of usage being applied. These amount to the “proving the negative” problem that means there is no method that can successfully do that without there being so many saved coins being identified as lost, simply because pattern/hoops/etc cannot tell the difference.

While anyone approaches the problem by changing the purpose and direction of the SAFE network and requiring users prove something in order to maintain their coins then I will put up all the road blocks that are needed.

The one area, if it ever occurs after datachains is the coins lost from an attackers attempt to foil the system is one area that a proposal could be put forward to identify these and recover them since we can investigate it using a positive identifying of the coin since it is known how the coin is lost.

• first it has to be determined if this will ever occur now with datachains
• second a method of identifying them has to be put forward
• third how to implement it.

Of course I have not seen any tangible reasoning put forth that recovery of coins lost by people who never return to the SAFE network is even needed. I did put forth a ultra simple reasoning that is both sound and showed that a new network can have over 90% of the coins lost and still work as intended without loss of productivity. The only issue is that as you go above about 95% the storing of data maybe slower than if 10% or more of the coin is not lost.

So I think for a productive discussion the initial premise of it even being needed has to be established. Just citing what would happen if x% is lost is not a reasonable justification because anyone can pull such figures and claim they mean this or that. So while I have shown that it requires a massive amount of lost coin to be lost in the early stages of the network and perhaps valid for a decade if the original reasoning of safecoin are usable. There needs to be a strong and convincing argument put forth for the reverse to be true.

But while anyone supports stealing by an imprecise system like “proving te negative” then I will attack and point out all the faults and the person had better not ignore and sidestep issues. If they do that then it shows their argument is swiss cheese.

It is a difficult argument from the start and cannot be supported simply because people think lost coins might be a problem someday because they think a lost coin is a problem.

---

And as you suggested divisibility (which will come) does reduce the requirement for recovering truly lost coins. The trick now is to justify any need of recovering lost coins.

I believe the discussion will be best served by discussing this fundamental point before creating such a potentially divisive plan. The point of it even being required and why.

[happybeing]

Thanks for clarifying and summarising your position @neo. I really appreciate that, having not read every word above, but followed the thread.

If you have adequately demonstrated that there’s no problem if 90% of coins are lost, you’ve answered my point, though I’m not saying you have. I haven’t read that part I think. So I leave that open as a question for @jlpell who has followed this closely.

@neo

The trick now is to justify any need of recovering lost coins.

I agree this is the area of most interest to me atm, but for now I leave both sides of this question open.

[neo]

@happybeing

that there’s no problem if 90% of coins are lost

This was using the starting point of 400+ million coins and considering the effects if only 40 million were not lost.

• farming rewards are unaffected, the lost coins simply look like unused coins
• 40 million is plenty to kickstart the storing of data for many months.
• the analysis of the network only saw 50% of coins existing after 10+ years
• even if 50% of those were lost this would simply mean that rewarding is less by around 20% since spending is still at same rate as if none lost. And that is after a decade. Yes the time frame is not accurate but gives a sense of time. And its unimaginable that lost coins would be anywhere near 50% of existing coins. That is way and above any estimates. Also as the % lost decreases the effect decreases at a faster rate (look at the 400/40 example)
• coins are worth more in fiat since they are scarcer than if none lost. So actual fiat value of rewards is same as if coins not lost. (approximately obviously and using experience of other coins and scarcity)

[tjf]

@jlpell

So it would appear from your description that the network does “steal” coins as one way to protect against double spending

No, its the double-spending thief who is trying to steal value from the network in your example.

@jlpell

Anyhow, no need for us to keep hashing this out if it’s just going to annoy people.

Great, and thank you!

[neo]

@tjf, I sometimes wonder if people get so concerned about lost coins because they feel that people holding coins for a long time is somehow upsetting the system causing problems to the economics of the {place name here} project or blockchain. They feel people should not hoard coin and spread the distribution across a wider field.

Not saying this is the case here, but often see this argument about lost coin in {place name here} project/blockchain eventually causing the coin to fail because eventually there will be none left. Its more not understanding what the real effect is and jumping to wrong conclusions.

[Blindsite2k]

@tjf

If this were in fact a reality (i.e., that property which I earned could be taken/stolen from me), and I was aware of it, I would never have anything more to do with this project and would immediately dispose of my tokens and this community of thieves.

Who exactly are you accusing of being a thief? Theft requires someone to actually take something from you. If something decomposes it’s not actually being taken, it simply has an expiration date. If you were theoretically the only farmer on the network (technically impossible but let’s run with it for the sake of the example) and you farmed some coin which then expired it would just be that much easier to farm it AGAIN. So where is your net loss? Expiring coin just increases the ease of aquiring new safecoin.

That’s why I say if you know something is going to expire it’s not stolen from you because you KNOW it’s going to decay. And it’s not decaying and then going to some other user’s wallet but rather being destroyed so the network can adjust and issue new coin via the farming rate. So there is no theft. Theft would be if your coin went from your wallet to some other user’s wallet. Theft is not the decay of an object over time. If a tree decays, or a loaf of bread turns to mold, or if a lump of clay dries out, nothing has been stolen because nature has no ego, just as the SAFE network has no ego. Theft requires ego. Theft requires your coins to GO to SOMEONE.

@tjf

This topic does a great disservice to the entire project and the mere subject line appearing at the top of the list makes me sick every time I see it. When some folks eventually learn that this idea was being seriously entertained (since the dialogue continues and will remain on the internet into perputuity), it could do significant damage to the project in the longer term when the words are eventually taken out of context.

Why because we discussed ideas you do not agree with? Believe me we’ve discussed plenty of more radical ideas here on the SAFE forums. But if you’re afraid of things getting out of context feel free to add a link to the original topic. In fact I believe the OP did quote the original topic a few times.

@neo

To address the issue of lost coins

Identify the lost coins without requiring the user to do anything to save their coins.

Until you do the first step then do not even consider how they are deleted/recovered.

Any method of identifying lost coins should allow identification of who lost them.

and then and only then

Determine how coins can be returned to their rightful owner

and then only if they can not be returned should

consider a method to recover the coins (delete them for rewards availability)

Until you can do these steps then talk of jumping through hoops is inappropriate for a network that is supposed to be the LAST WORD ON SECURITY AND PRESERVED DATA

I don’t consider safecoin data anymore than I consider coins equivilant to food and water. Safecoin is a means to preserving data not the end of being preserved in and of itself. Though while you put the emphasis on who owns the coins I’d put the emphasis on the survival of the network. Which is why I suggested safecoin decomposition in the first place because it doesn’t compromise anonymity and it does solve the problem of missing coins.

I would ask how the network would know if a user is alive or not? Your whole argument assumes that the rightful owner has access to a safe account somewhere. Just as there is no way of knowing what data is owned by whom. The network can’t know if you’re alive or not outside of the network. Nor can it know if you can remember your password or not and have lost access to your account with your safecoins in them. God forbid that might happen.

So I’d propose that preservation of data is important but NOT at the expense of the preservation of the network because the network can’t preserve data if it’s not functional. It’s kind of like the human sex drive. You want to reproduce but a direct threat to your life will kind of kill the mood. SAFE wants to preserve data but it wants to maintain itself too. And having safecoin just disappear into the void never to return doesn’t help the network. Remember there is a finite amount of safecoin that will ever be issued. If people just keep losing it the price will go up and up and up. Eventually the network will run out. It might take a long time but it very well might happen. So any safecoin issued NEEDS to either stay in circulation or return to the network. It can’t just disappear into the void somewhere never to be seen again. Or did no one stop to think about this when they considered what it would cost to have DATA that would be stored on the network forever and a truly anonymous internet?