From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:04:15 -0700 Received: from mail-qt1-f188.google.com ([209.85.160.188]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ubnl1-0008B0-5b for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:04:15 -0700 Received: by mail-qt1-f188.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4ab76d22670sf36467471cf.1 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:04:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1752617049; x=1753221849; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to:x-original-sender :mime-version:subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pFTRsQ7nxxYDxK6sdrQHPM20Yx99rWWlIvgUOTx/smM=; b=DuQJk96LAVfw1bLrTfOglXabqJLg3OK+uRXislNIwRLOMvHoPMmTKHpXNr1x85DlDn c5OuTJMX5n1kDKdwiky61yu+PALUhDnft5nbe4LIvzcvozFjc2+jIWNOF0t2+3AB82QO p2JFlCVZNG8LWbEKr6AXXOPTWxuDhq2ElhZwhiA8t58adJT9VFfODTjgBjFppG2HyhLr 6OmxhzS6N8sGFQLCcSoZz1LLcoxqy6vXiXdmTCyLXtTNJQPJxHJ0/wFpa0/z13Vh1xi9 aGoquDqoXqpfLpYHxD8OkM1eIONIirhmXKBOok3CunbBpPnK+uvNbVDPN5u61Fnr4zm6 JHMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1752617049; x=1753221849; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to:x-original-sender :mime-version:subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date :x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=pFTRsQ7nxxYDxK6sdrQHPM20Yx99rWWlIvgUOTx/smM=; b=WF8bKqQQ/yryT6T13iij9SWFnMfvpRVL0Dwk9DGqJTD28UPxHm3GH6EQbvRAlxop14 3cSJ8u6qs++INajm3DAq/93YvUonPYMqShsJdctyKMNxKbrQqZnP2cuQGg/bCfWrck4c n6KHNJDWfLjCV8287TI17nCPKtY5P+G9XQR1Op+O8StYpCz9G20CP1pI0IOnF5+YF9aq 9Bfa3G9ZtY+L35voE43j52REbsG5whr7Il811BOiPWX9Kj2EtsYBGuq5Pu2as3ZpS4DN NPn5dCi4UL9oIWvN7PNbcxNP4NyLcdZRKSr8TsOgLAm/Z/c4DL0VYJvNp0YfFhgsbAQA fMLA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVWAZrgJwk1tikkcdkHtGrQZsLQXrGnYO4uZTq0hcesBnSNfKBrvlcdmOZk7yLPgXd05FZgO/6fyjxV@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwtW07TGSXhUMumI/tleLnpG9CgHDgNE5WRkRyDNJhbk3cKUgnM Wyc9cu+Tnwm3me0RZ4CWlmsI5T7gEg9yHKiTjOg8R9zKWhZLr8lv/09+ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEofW+jLThpUv06TUPk7HEQzeKVVyKlRwUeVXjdAHl8mvxev0y8cNz+Oz8SKOPjQlSqTtf3HQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5942:0:b0:4ab:6c75:620 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4ab93c518a5mr6900211cf.1.1752617048373; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:04:08 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h=AZMbMZege+ouVK+wu/Mivxyy16trB9xl23g973tSyQu2glBzaQ== Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1481:b0:4ab:93c8:8533 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4ab93c88b64ls1943641cf.0.-pod-prod-05-us; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:04:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:838f:b0:7ce:c471:2b8e with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7e343350a5dmr83528785a.10.1752617044677; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:04:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:690c:4283:b0:710:f35d:a3b2 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-71834a6c9cbms7b3; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:58:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:fc7:b0:6f7:ae31:fdf with SMTP id 00721157ae682-71836c61e7bmr6152947b3.12.1752616720763; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:58:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "'Donald Dienst' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <344a8917-5cb2-44c7-adbd-04ff091ad947n@googlegroups.com> References: <344a8917-5cb2-44c7-adbd-04ff091ad947n@googlegroups.com> Subject: [bitcoindev] Re: [BIP Proposal] Proof-of-Activity Reclamation (PoAR) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_151656_438805802.1752616720501" X-Original-Sender: dddienst@pm.me X-Original-From: Donald Dienst Reply-To: Donald Dienst Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) ------=_Part_151656_438805802.1752616720501 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_151657_251416359.1752616720501" ------=_Part_151657_251416359.1752616720501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Boris, Thank you for taking the time to raise these thoughtful objections. They=20 highlight important edge cases, particularly around long-term inheritance= =20 planning and time-locked contracts, that deserve further discussion. The intent of this proposal is not to seize anyone=E2=80=99s Bitcoin but to= create=20 a rules-based mechanism for reintroducing truly abandoned coins=E2=80=94tho= se=20 locked away forever due to lost keys=E2=80=94back into the economy. If a pr= ivate=20 key is irrecoverably lost, the associated Bitcoin is effectively removed=20 from circulation and, arguably, no longer owned. In such cases, the=20 so-called "security tax" affects no active participant. That said, your concerns are valid. One potential refinement would be to=20 extend the inactivity window significantly=E2=80=94perhaps even to 100 year= s=E2=80=94to=20 better accommodate multi-generational ownership and time-locked smart=20 contracts. The core idea is that a sufficiently long timeframe, paired with= =20 clear expectations and wallet alerts, can strike a balance between=20 preserving ownership rights and sustaining economic viability. It's also possible that this proposal=E2=80=94or one like it=E2=80=94may on= ly be=20 realistically implemented as part of a broader hard fork in the distant=20 future, potentially bundled with other critical changes such as=20 post-quantum security upgrades. I hope that when that moment comes, a=20 mechanism for reclaiming permanently lost coins is part of that discussion. To those who object on purely ideological grounds, I would offer this=20 reflection: if something can happen, it will happen=E2=80=94and it will con= tinue to=20 happen. People will keep losing keys. And one day, someone will lose the=20 private key to the very last satoshi. Long before that point, Bitcoin may= =20 become functionally unusable=E2=80=94not because of inflation like fiat cur= rencies,=20 but due to irreversible deflation and economic ossification. In that light, maintaining the myth that permanently lost coins should=20 remain sacrosanct is not ideological purity=E2=80=94it=E2=80=99s advocating= for a slow=20 march toward irrelevance. To preserve Bitcoin=E2=80=99s utility as both a s= tore of=20 value and a medium of exchange, we must confront this eventuality with=20 reasoned, transparent, and opt-in solutions. Sincerely, *Donald D. Dienst* On Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 3:42:15=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4 Boris Nagaev wrote: > Hi Donald, > > Thanks for sharing your proposal! > > There are several additional objections worth considering: > > 1. It would require a hard fork. Older nodes would reject blocks with= =20 > a higher-than-expected miner reward. By contrast, SegWit and Taproot w= ere=20 > implemented as soft forks. > 2. It breaks long-term inheritance schemes. Imagine a newborn=20 > inheriting 1000 BTC from a wealthy relative. The relative sets a 30-ye= ar=20 > timelock to ensure the funds are not misused during childhood. This=20 > proposal would interfere with that intention and potentially strip the= heir=20 > of their rightful inheritance. > 3. It penalizes long-term planning and low time preference. Users who= =20 > intentionally lock up funds for decades (whether for inheritance, secu= rity,=20 > or economic reasons) would be disproportionately impacted. > 4. It changes who pays for network security. Miners are expected to be= =20 > compensated in the long term by transaction fees paid by active transa= ction=20 > senders. This proposal would instead take value from long-term holders= who=20 > aren't participating in the transaction flow, effectively taxing them= =20 > without consent. > > > Best regards, > Boris > > On Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 3:26:35=E2=80=AFPM UTC-3 Donald Dienst wrote= : > > Dear Bitcoin developers, > > I would like to propose a new BIP titled "Proof-of-Activity Reclamation= =20 > (PoAR)," which aims to address the long-term economic effects of lost and= =20 > abandoned UTXOs. > > This proposal introduces a fully automated and rule-based mechanism to=20 > gradually recycle coins that have been provably inactive for over 20 year= s.=20 > These coins are returned to the undistributed pool and slowly reintroduce= d=20 > via future block rewards=E2=80=94extending miner incentives while respect= ing the 21=20 > million BTC cap. > > You can view the full proposal here: > https://gist.github.com/Brandchatz/56c39d289db9e56190c13922850815b8 > > I welcome your thoughts, suggestions, and critiques. > > Best regards, =20 > Donald Dienst =20 > dddi...@protonmail.com > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= b1bdc366-bc27-44dd-b1c6-83776cb9d55fn%40googlegroups.com. ------=_Part_151657_251416359.1752616720501 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Boris,

Thank you for taking the time to raise these thoughtful objections. They= highlight important edge cases, particularly around long-term inheritance = planning and time-locked contracts, that deserve further discussion.

The intent of this proposal is not to seize anyone=E2=80=99s Bitcoin but= to create a rules-based mechanism for reintroducing truly abandoned coins= =E2=80=94those locked away forever due to lost keys=E2=80=94back into the e= conomy. If a private key is irrecoverably lost, the associated Bitcoin is e= ffectively removed from circulation and, arguably, no longer owned. In such= cases, the so-called "security tax" affects no active participant.

That said, your concerns are valid. One potential refinement would be to= extend the inactivity window significantly=E2=80=94perhaps even to 100 yea= rs=E2=80=94to better accommodate multi-generational ownership and time-lock= ed smart contracts. The core idea is that a sufficiently long timeframe, pa= ired with clear expectations and wallet alerts, can strike a balance betwee= n preserving ownership rights and sustaining economic viability.

It's also possible that this proposal=E2=80=94or one like it=E2=80=94may= only be realistically implemented as part of a broader hard fork in the di= stant future, potentially bundled with other critical changes such as post-= quantum security upgrades. I hope that when that moment comes, a mechanism = for reclaiming permanently lost coins is part of that discussion.

To those who object on purely ideological grounds, I would offer this re= flection: if something can happen, it will happen=E2=80=94and it will conti= nue to happen. People will keep losing keys. And one day, someone will lose= the private key to the very last satoshi. Long before that point, Bitcoin = may become functionally unusable=E2=80=94not because of inflation like fiat= currencies, but due to irreversible deflation and economic ossification.

In that light, maintaining the myth that permanently lost coins should r= emain sacrosanct is not ideological purity=E2=80=94it=E2=80=99s advocating = for a slow march toward irrelevance. To preserve Bitcoin=E2=80=99s utility = as both a store of value and a medium of exchange, we must confront this ev= entuality with reasoned, transparent, and opt-in solutions.

Sincerely,
Donald D. Dienst



On Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 3:42:15=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4 Boris Nagaev wrote= :
Hi Donald,<= br>
Thanks for sharing your proposal!

There are several additiona= l objections worth considering:
  1. It would require a hard fork. Ol= der nodes would reject blocks with a higher-than-expected miner reward. By = contrast, SegWit and Taproot were implemented as soft forks.
  2. It bre= aks long-term inheritance schemes. Imagine a newborn inheriting 1000 BTC fr= om a wealthy relative. The relative sets a 30-year timelock to ensure the f= unds are not misused during childhood. This proposal would interfere with t= hat intention and potentially strip the heir of their rightful inheritance.=
  3. It penalizes long-term planning and low time preference. Users who= intentionally lock up funds for decades (whether for inheritance, security= , or economic reasons) would be disproportionately impacted.
  4. It cha= nges who pays for network security.=C2=A0Miners are expected to be compensa= ted in the long term by transaction fees paid by active transaction senders= .=C2=A0This proposal would instead take value from long-term holders who ar= en't participating in the transaction flow, effectively taxing them wit= hout consent.

Best regards,
Boris

=
On Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 3:26:35=E2=80=AFPM UTC-= 3 Donald Dienst wrote:
Dear Bitcoin de= velopers,

I would like to propose a new BIP titled "Proof-of-Ac= tivity Reclamation (PoAR)," which aims to address the long-term econom= ic effects of lost and abandoned UTXOs.

This proposal introduces a f= ully automated and rule-based mechanism to gradually recycle coins that hav= e been provably inactive for over 20 years. These coins are returned to the= undistributed pool and slowly reintroduced via future block rewards=E2=80= =94extending miner incentives while respecting the 21 million BTC cap.
<= br>You can view the full proposal here:
https://gist.github.com/Brandchatz/56c39d289db9e56190c13922850815b8=

I welcome your thoughts, suggestions, and critiques.

Best re= gards, =C2=A0
Donald Dienst =C2=A0
dddi...@proton= mail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind= ev/b1bdc366-bc27-44dd-b1c6-83776cb9d55fn%40googlegroups.com.
------=_Part_151657_251416359.1752616720501-- ------=_Part_151656_438805802.1752616720501--