<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1287e20y3ple0k202xuas3h9h0yfx6ravfxcycd9jauan8cne9pusj45an7</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1287e20y3ple0k202xuas3h9h0yfx6ravfxcycd9jauan8cne9pusj45an7</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2017-08-22&#xA;📝 Original message:This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion.  The idea that we&#xA;can change the rules and steal coins at a later date because they are&#xA;&#34;stale&#34; or someone is &#34;hoarding&#34; is antithetical to one of the points of&#xA;bitcoin in that you can no longer control your own money (&#34;be your own&#xA;bank&#34;) because someone can at a later date take your coins for some reason&#xA;that is outside your control and solely based on some rationalization by a&#xA;third party.  Once the rule is established that there are valid reasons why&#xA;someone should not have control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons&#xA;will then be determined to be valid?&#xA;&#xA;I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (he was cryo-preserved at Alcor if&#xA;you aren&#39;t aware) after 100 or 200 years expecting his coins to be there&#xA;only to find out that his coins were deemed &#34;stale&#34; so were &#34;reclaimed&#34; (in&#xA;the current doublespeak - e.g. stolen or confiscated).  Or perhaps he&#xA;locked some for his children and they are found to be &#34;stale&#34; before they&#xA;are available.  He said in March 2013, &#34;I think they&#39;re safe enough&#34; stored&#xA;in a paper wallet.  Perhaps any remaining coins are no longer &#34;safe enough.&#34;&#xA;&#xA;Again, this seems (a) more about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better in&#xA;bitcoin-discuss at best vs bitcoin-dev. I&#39;ve seen it discussed many times&#xA;since 2010 and still do not agree with the rational that embracing allowing&#xA;someone to steal someone else&#39;s coins for any reason is a useful change to&#xA;bitcoin.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev &lt;&#xA;bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 630000 or&#xA;&gt; 840000 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and&#xA;&gt; neat with the halving interval. We can look at this like so:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; B - the current block number&#xA;&gt; P - how many blocks behind current the coin burning block is. (630000,&#xA;&gt; 840000, or otherwise.)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Every time we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and check for stale&#xA;&gt; coins. These coins get burnt up and pooled into block B&#39;s miner fees. This&#xA;&gt; keeps the mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likely to&#xA;&gt; stop mining due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep moving&#xA;&gt; their money around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving it.&#xA;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list&#xA;&gt; bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&#xA;&gt; https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170822/0237425a/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>