Is it possible that in the future all Bitcoin will be lost?
2200 sats \ 20 comments \ @piotr 2 Jun 2023 bitcoin
People lose access to their Bitcoin continously: they forgot their seed, they send to and invalid address...
On a long enough timeframe, this might become a problem, because there will always be less and less Bitcoin in circulation, which could be good for the value of BTC, but it could also mean that we might reach a point where Bitcoin becomes unusable beacuse of the very low supply.
Are my concerns valid? If yes, what solution could there be?
write
preview
related posts
753 sats \ 6 replies \ @ok 2 Jun 2023
The absolute number of bitcoin in supply isn't important for its usability as money. The idea that value of each unit increases as supply is lost is equivalent to the maintaining of equilibrium. The only concern I am aware of is divisibility of units. If supply gets low enough, there would need to be an extension to the software to allow divisibility into units smaller than sats.
reply
19 sats \ 5 replies \ @piotr OP 2 Jun 2023
Is it possible to divide it indefinitely into smaller and smaller units?
reply
21 sats \ 4 replies \ @jeff 2 Jun 2023
possible
Yes
But it requires work/development. I think the community would easily handle the upgrade.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @piotr OP 3 Jun 2023
In that case, could we have virtually infinite supply?
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jeff 3 Jun 2023
No.
If you have a pizza, and you keep cutting it into more slices, you don't have infinite supply of pizza.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @piotr OP 3 Jun 2023
A pizza is a static physical object that, if divided too much, becomes so small that it loses its "function" and can't be shared among people.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, can grow in value and, if divided, the smaller units can still be as useful as the bigger ones. We could reach a point where we Bitcoin keeps growing in value and we keep dividing, creating a virtual infinite supply. I say virtual because the max number of BTC will always be the same, but the division of it creates valuable units that retain their original function.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jeff 4 Jun 2023
Sounds like you've thought this through. I'm sticking with my answer. Good luck to you.
reply
39 sats \ 1 reply \ @03dc51cd88 2 Jun 2023 freebie
1 btc = 100000000 sats 1 sat = 100000000 milisats 1milisats=...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @senf 2 Jun 2023
1 sat is 1000 millisats.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 3 Jun 2023
We will learn to be very careful. There will be elaborate rites and rituals involving the handling of private keys. We can't even imagine the lengths people will go to keep them safe.
reply
19 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 2 Jun 2023
Regarding maintaining of equilibrium... Keeping equilibrium between active on-chain users and passive stakeholders, in so-called post-subsidy era, by delaying halving if there is 4 years long network difficulty regression - probably also wouldn't allow the Bitcoin network to go with annual emission below the annual amount of lost coins, thanks to the free market's beauty, still. Yet another problem would be fixed this (conservative) way.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @alexmickey1994 3 Jun 2023 freebie
I believe that as long as mining exists, bitcoins will never cease to exist. It is no less true that many have been lost by mistake in the addresses of the wallets and others. But remember something friend bitcoin came to revolutionize the market and is still in its infancy of development.
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiracDelta 2 Jun 2023
No, it is not valid, and I will explain it perfectly: you are thinking that on an INFINITE time scale, even if custody techniques improve, eventually you could lose it all. However, the losses are not additive, but percentage-wise -- it's like a shitcoin down 99%, it won't go up, it will just fall 99% again. So you can lose bitcoin forever, and since it is about the distribution, and it is held across a large number of independent actors, you never actually approach zero in the way you are imagining.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Monotone 2 Jun 2023
It's a very likely scenario. People don't care about security at all. It's easier for them to entrust the storage to a third party. Time will deal with such people.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Jun 2023
Will always be some retarded people... Is their problem not mine. I know how to NOT lose my bitcoins.
If yes, what solution could there be?
There's no solution for human stupidity. Ah maybe there's one... Bitcoin is a natural selection. Those that are not capable to use it, save it, keep it etc, will just... die in their stupidity. Only the brave and knowledgeable will remain.
reply
3 sats \ 1 reply \ @piotr OP 2 Jun 2023
Fair enough.
Considering this, is it possible that in the future we might see two different societies or economies? One that regularly uses Bitcoin and one that is under the control of a central entity.
reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Jun 2023
Not for long time. Those that resist to use Bitcoin, will live in a tyrannical system, that slowly will corrode and disappear. Freedom will always prevail.
Are you ready? Are you ready to say NO to any CBDC? If not, be prepared.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 3 Jun 2023
You should read the blog post Peter Todd wrote about tail emissions.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ssaurel 3 Jun 2023
Satoshi Nakamoto had already answered this question in the early days of Bitcoin: "Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone."
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @piotr OP 3 Jun 2023
Yes, but on a long enough timeframe this could become a problem, because theoretically speaking, we could lose all the Bitcoin in circulation with no way to retrieve them
reply