This is all fine and dandy, until someone comes out of a 2 year coma to find all their cash has evaporated...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is all fine and dandy, until someone comes out of a 2 year coma to find all their cash has evaporated...
Once again. That is an optional addition that is not necessary for the rest of the proposal to work. The time frames could also be adjusted, if the community even cares to implement that additional change in the first place.
Furthermore, a properly set up account would not allow the account to be destroyed by hitting the blockchain-enforced global inactivity limit. They would set it up so that their beneficiaries could inherit the account and funds instead. Those trusted beneficiaries could then hold on to the account and funds, if the owner was really in a coma, until either the original owner got out of the coma (and they transfer the account and funds back to them), or the original owner dies, in which case the beneficiaries get to spend the funds since they would then legally own it.
I think regardless of what people do, they will always be in the danger of something happening.
Unfortunatly we dont want to believe in it until that happens to us. Now people might be smiling all about it, but when something happens, and you have X dollars in your account, but all your loved once can do is just "congratulate" you on that fact, is useless.
The odds of being dead are lot higher than coma after two years.
Being in a coma for two years may be unlikely but being out of touch with one particular online platform/blockchain for an extended period is not necessarily unlikely. We're all here using it actively right now, but not everyone with a stake is doing that now or will necessarily be doing so in the future.
I have an alternative design idea. Let the trusted agent (originally chosen by the user) initiate a transfer based on death report, and if the user doesn't sign a refutation within 1 year, then the inheritance transfer becomes final. The trusted agent is kept up-to-date by the user on contact details (which can be recorded on the blockchain encrypted and signed by both parties), so it can be settled in a court-of-law if the trust agent violated its obligation to attempt to notify the user which can be a means of restitution if there is an errant inheritance transfer. Note the transfer agent who transfers an inheritance to parties which can't be identified and questioned by the court, is likely going to be found liable by the court.
I wonder if the inactivity limits should be a function of the total balances for that user. Thoughts?
My suggestion I made in earlier conversation with arhag is to replace a hard inactivity timer for reclaiming with a small inactivity fee, and the account is reclaimed only when funds are depleted. Thus losses from not paying attention would be gradual and, in the short term, small rather than potentially catastrophic.