This has already been implemented in here.

It's not possible to accept an invalid transaction. Period. What's possible is to reverse a previously confirmed and, therefore, valid transaction. The odds of successfully reversing a block, so you can reverse a transaction, with a given portion of the hashrate can be seen in the above link.

Who said this? Could we have the study? Millions of coins can have been lost, but the overwhelming majority is definitely not because of deaths.

No, no, no. First of all if you're dead, you haven't lost only your investment, lol. Second, "trusted individuals", the way you say it, can rip you off very easily (while you're alive).

But, a flying spaghetti monster isn't easy to transfer neither to verify, let alone to divide it. It doesn't meet the requirements to be money. However, if we found another object or some sort of global ledger where we can sign our dues (even if those numbers don't represent anything), we can use it as currency.

This is Bitcoin. It doesn't represent ANYTHING. It only gives us an idea of who's paid their dues. If lots believe it can work as money, because it meet the requirements to be one, above and beyond, then who're you to claim it doesn't?

---

Back to the fiat currency: It represents only a title that is recognizable by the state. Do you agree that a person can use a medium of exchange whose usage isn't being forced?

Bitcoin can also be loaned.

LegendaryK is the same guy who considered that checking 3 block explorers is more secure than running your own full node. I'm just leaving this here, no pun intended. Judge accordingly.

---

Just for you to know, you can question me whenever you want for the downsides of PoS that I've mentioned.

This isn't true. Technology efficiency, energy costs and state intervention can also affect the final outcome. There's, indeed, a weak correlation between the price and the difficulty over the long term, but the price, alone, does not determine difficulty.

For example, during the bear market of 2018, the price went from $13k to $3k, but the difficulty was tripled.

You're foolish. And you're foolish not because you support PoS. You're foolish because you don't zoom out.

You're crazy enough to believe that a worldwise PoW ban is likely to be enacted, but not a worldwide crypto-ban, which would make more sense from a government's point of view. You're foolish, because you're not afraid of the scenario that PoS comes next, with your privacy and freedom of choice followed. You hope, cravingly, that the governments will take care of it. A hope for your own pit.
 
Haven't you yet understood that Bitcoin is more than just a currency? It's also a movement.

Where's this "dollar" product? How does it look like? 

It turns out that we disagree of what's money. You say that it's solely debt. I agree with this definition:
And Bitcoin fulfills it.

Europe is not the European Union. Furthermore, they've also tried to ban Bitcoin with the alibi that it helps criminals. They'll always step on a supposedly validly-sounded argument to control you!

They don't care about the environment; their harmful activities can prove it. They don't care if 1% of the users use it for illicit activity; they want to control that 99%. It's the same reason why Binance, Coinbase etc., require KYC. They don't care for those few who'll avoid taxes; there are no studies that reveal tax avoidance reduce due to KYC requirements. They do it to control you.

Also, that EU bill was rejected few days ago.

One's LegendaryK. Who's the other?

When I say "Satoshi's coins" I mean those early P2PK ones. I know that it's an improper title, but what I find even more wrong is to consider those lost. We've no idea who owns what and yet we treat them like they'll never move while we periodically observe some folks who move coins after 10-12 years.

The answer to a question such as "Bitcoin is meaningless" requires further discussion. I can't give you any answers until I ensure we understand money in the same way.

You're perpetually trying to change the subject. Debt isn't inextricably connected with money. It's created after we've agreed on which currency will be used in our transactions. Two entities, a customer and a merchant can agree to settle their transaction with debt, but without using a fiat currency. For instance, the customer gets their product after they've promised the merchant that they'll deliver them precious rocks. That's also debt.

I repeat, the central bank can create money without any citizen's or commercial bank's permission. That money can be later used to increase debt and be exchanged for goods and services. You're describing what happens afterwards the money is created. The central bank can also be used as a metaphor to the "numbers from a software" you've outlined.

To give you an example: Commercial banks could instead of borrowing from the central bank, gather and decide to setup their own digital currency, which will be used later for loans with collaterals etc.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30469383

Yes, but banknotes alone don't create debt. While commercial banks do borrow money from the central bank, the money the central bank creates is out of thin air. They represent nothing.

Yes, there's lending between the central bank and the commercial banks and yes, there's lending between the commercial banks and the households/businesses, but that doesn't show that the dollar, as a unit represents a "thing", as you put it. All I see is trust from the commercial banks and households/businesses to the monetary policy of the central bank, which is controlled usually by one entity, the government.

Why? Why should there be debt, equity, goods etc.? The US government perpetually prints a lot amount of money, and those banknotes don't represent anything anymore. Before 1971, there was a law saying that you can exchange those with gold. Currently, this isn't the case. They're just pieces of paper and people treat them like currency, because they trust their government. In other words, the government says they're the base medium of exchange and people use those to transact with.

Debt is created once there's loaning of money. Printing money, alone, doesn't create debt. Is there anything you disagree with, so far?

The moto is that there'll never be more than 21M BTC.

Lost bitcoins can be categorized in provably lost and non-provably lost. Provably lost coins consist of:

• Those in OP_RETURN transactions.
• Those that were decided to not be claimed by the miners, such as in block 124724 where an unknown miner burnt 0.01000001 BTC (0.01 from fees + 0.00000001 from block reward).
• Those in transactions where the user messed up with the script. For instance, the 2,609 irredeemable BTC where the user failed to push the pubkey to the script.
• Those that are, deliberately, not part of the database, such as the genesis block's reward.

Non-provably lost coins consist of:

• Wallet files, seed phrases and generally private keys that are stated by their owners as lost.
• Those in the so called "burning addresses", such as 1111111111111111111114oLvT2.
• Satoshi's coins. (That I haven't understood yet why)

While in the former, the coins are gone for good, no one can guarantee that the other coins won't be moved in the future. For example, I suspect that due to the revealing of the public keys (of every P2PK output), they'll be brought into circulation at some point in the future because of the development of quantum computing.

There's difference between owning a trillion dollars in cash and owning the FED's printing machine with a trillion dollars. With the latter you exert much more influence to everyone who's using the currency. Let alone, you vote against the collective carryout of the transactions.

Isn't computational cost part of "all values"? From my understanding, we can't divide the "PoW Produced (24h)" with hashrate to find which one has the most effort, because of different hashing algorithms.

That's, pedantically, true. If don't create capital with it, "investing into Bitcoin" may sound grammatically incorrect. Neither do you, though, when you use a fiat currency. Don't mess investments with currencies, let's take it one at a time.

Since I've seen you're keen on definitions, let's see how Wikipedia defines what's "currency":

So, a currency is, by definition, used as intermediary to exchanging. A country may create its own to handle the economy. It, therefore, legalizes its use. People use the currency, because they live inside the country. The administration of it happens from the central bank of the country.

Is everything good so far?

Of course and there's carbon footprint, no one's denying that. Everything's environmentally damaging nowadays, but yet the chancellors dislike only Bitcoin. I deny the validity of this argument to end up on banning PoW. Nobody pays attention to the environmental impact of the money they daily use, but they'll unarguably consider Bitcoin the most damaging. Well, that's the results of propaganda.

Not to mention that is utter nonsense to forbid the calculation of mathematical functions.

Have they taken a look on the energy consumed by fiat money? No, because it's not favoring them. As I've recently said, it's a matter of control, not ethics or economic damage. What is being said about the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies is pure propaganda that is easily sucked.

Hiding from the government requires the best privacy techniques. It's not an individual who'll want to grope your money neither an advertising service that wants to know your activities. We're talking about an entity that has access to every log and chain analysis tool.

If you want privacy with Bitcoin, running your node is a must. To maximize it, don't reuse addresses, be aware to not link UTXOs (coin control), use mixers and do everything through Tor. If you want to be sure you're hidden from the government, then don't use Bitcoin.

And bank notes are nothing but mathematical symbols printed on paper. They gain value, because people use them as currency. Again, it's as simple as that, but you want to prove us you're right and we're all dumb who pay for a "non-existent thing" as you've also said in the other thread.

You're that guy and I don't care what you say; you tell the exact, same kind of bullshit.

Yes. If both of us agree that Bitcoin is money, then we can start exchanging stuff for bitcoins.

You give me food, I give you bitcoins, so there's the food. Same happens with every currency, why shouldn't it happen with Bitcoin?