rich1.0npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0https://nostr.ae/npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-08-22 📝 Original message:I agree, it is only a good idea in the event of a quantum computing threat to the security of Bitcoin. On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion. The idea that we > can change the rules and steal coins at a later date because they are > "stale" or someone is "hoarding" is antithetical to one of the points of > bitcoin in that you can no longer control your own money ("be your own > bank") because someone can at a later date take your coins for some reason > that is outside your control and solely based on some rationalization by a > third party. Once the rule is established that there are valid reasons why > someone should not have control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons > will then be determined to be valid? > > I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (he was cryo-preserved at Alcor if > you aren't aware) after 100 or 200 years expecting his coins to be there > only to find out that his coins were deemed "stale" so were "reclaimed" (in > the current doublespeak - e.g. stolen or confiscated). Or perhaps he > locked some for his children and they are found to be "stale" before they > are available. He said in March 2013, "I think they're safe enough" stored > in a paper wallet. Perhaps any remaining coins are no longer "safe enough." > > Again, this seems (a) more about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better in > bitcoin-discuss at best vs bitcoin-dev. I've seen it discussed many times > since 2010 and still do not agree with the rational that embracing allowing > someone to steal someone else's coins for any reason is a useful change to > bitcoin. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 630000 or >> 840000 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and >> neat with the halving interval. We can look at this like so: >> >> B - the current block number >> P - how many blocks behind current the coin burning block is. (630000, >> 840000, or otherwise.) >> >> Every time we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and check for stale >> coins. These coins get burnt up and pooled into block B's miner fees. This >> keeps the mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likely to >> stop mining due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep moving >> their money around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving it. >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170822/f68d99c8/attachment.html>