{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1zkygapfrmhrw5yyhj6typl9kjphtfgy8ksjhkf9hslywagpu9qrsnahwkp","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1zkygapfrmhrw5yyhj6typl9kjphtfgy8ksjhkf9hslywagpu9qrsnahwkp","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-08-22\n📝 Original message:Ok, I see your point. I was just thinking about the number of bitcoins tied\nup in wallets in which people lost the keys, but I suppose this isn't so\nmuch of a problem if it's well known that the bitcoins are all tied up. It\nwould be impossible to distinguish between bitcoins people have lost access\nto, and bitcoins that people have just left in the same wallet for a long\ntime.\n\nOn Tue, 22 Aug 2017, 3:45 pm Chris Riley \u003ccriley at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion.  The idea that we\n\u003e can change the rules and steal coins at a later date because they are\n\u003e \"stale\" or someone is \"hoarding\" is antithetical to one of the points of\n\u003e bitcoin in that you can no longer control your own money (\"be your own\n\u003e bank\") because someone can at a later date take your coins for some reason\n\u003e that is outside your control and solely based on some rationalization by a\n\u003e third party.  Once the rule is established that there are valid reasons why\n\u003e someone should not have control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons\n\u003e will then be determined to be valid?\n\u003e\n\u003e I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (he was cryo-preserved at Alcor if\n\u003e you aren't aware) after 100 or 200 years expecting his coins to be there\n\u003e only to find out that his coins were deemed \"stale\" so were \"reclaimed\" (in\n\u003e the current doublespeak - e.g. stolen or confiscated).  Or perhaps he\n\u003e locked some for his children and they are found to be \"stale\" before they\n\u003e are available.  He said in March 2013, \"I think they're safe enough\" stored\n\u003e in a paper wallet.  Perhaps any remaining coins are no longer \"safe enough.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e Again, this seems (a) more about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better in\n\u003e bitcoin-discuss at best vs bitcoin-dev. I've seen it discussed many times\n\u003e since 2010 and still do not agree with the rational that embracing allowing\n\u003e someone to steal someone else's coins for any reason is a useful change to\n\u003e bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 630000 or\n\u003e\u003e 840000 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and\n\u003e\u003e neat with the halving interval. We can look at this like so:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e B - the current block number\n\u003e\u003e P - how many blocks behind current the coin burning block is. (630000,\n\u003e\u003e 840000, or otherwise.)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Every time we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and check for stale\n\u003e\u003e coins. These coins get burnt up and pooled into block B's miner fees. This\n\u003e\u003e keeps the mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likely to\n\u003e\u003e stop mining due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep moving\n\u003e\u003e their money around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving it.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170822/d6bb3614/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}