This already sort of exist and is called proof of burn, people send coins to a wallet X that no one is the owner, the amount of coins you send to this wallet X is your stake.

The way you talk about it, the closest thing from your idea would be a proof of burn coin where you send some amount of coins Y to someplace and each minute Y/(43200 [amount of minutes in 30 days) coins go to wallet X (that are removed from wallet X and sent to wallet Z after 1 minute).
The amount of coins at wallet X now would be the stake.

OP is equating having a gun that a item not made to kill inocent people but that can be used by a evil person to kill inocent people, to abortion.

He is like saying "if you are allowed to remove someone life, why cant you abort".
The thing is you arent allowed to remove someone (inocent) life and no one (excluding anarcho egoists) think you should be, you are allowed to have gun and thats a different thing. Being able to use a knife or thinking you should be able to use a knife dont automatically make you think you should (or imply you should) be allowed to kill inocent people with knifes.

The abortion is the killing of the person itself and the only way to separate abortion from killing is if at the future we invent some technology were we get the baby or fetus from body A and put it at body B without 0% chance of the fetus/baby dying at the process.
If and when that technology exist you will be able to say "if right to bear Arm is a god given right, abortion also is" and almost no one would complain about getting a baby/fetus from body A and sending it from body B (assuming it 100% failproof).

This is false analogy.

Abortion is equivalent of using a gun to kill inocent people, and not equivalent to having a gun.

No one (excluding arnarcho individualists, and almost no one is a anarcho individualist) think the act of using a gun kill an inocent person should be considered ok thing to do.

Congratulation you found the answer
"Electronic payments initially would all be based on different kinds of credit cards ... these were already in use in 1969 to some extent. Not as much as now. But people would have credit cards with the electronic strip on it and once they got used to that then it would be pointed out the advantage of having all of that combined into a single credit card, serving a single monetary system and then they won't have to carry around all that plastic.

SURVEILLANCE, IMPLANTS, AND TELEVISIONS THAT WATCH YOU
    So the next step would be the single card and then the next step would be to replace the single card with a skin implant. The single card could be lost or stolen, give rise to problems; could be exchanged with somebody else to confuse identify. The skin implant on the other hand would be not losable or counterfeitable or transferrable to another person so you and your accounts would be identified without any possibility of error. And the skin implants would have to be put some place that would be convenient to the skin; for example your right hand or your forehead. At that time when I heard this I was unfamiliar with the statements in the Book of Revelation. The speaker went on to say, "Now some of you people who read the Bible will attach significance to this to the Bible," but he went on to disclaim any Biblical significance at all. This is just common sense of how the system could work and should work and there's no need to read any superstitious Biblical principals into it. As I say, at the time I was not very familiar with the words of Revelations. Shortly after I became familiar with it and the significance of what he said really was striking. I'll never forget it.
"
https://100777.com/nwo/barbarians

PS: I knew digital currency would become this big before I even knew bitcoin existed (that was back at 2012) and never spent a single cent at any digital currency and I am here just for the theoretical side of it. Before you call me a religious nut, I didnt even knew the bible talked about it, before deciding to not using digital currency.

A better explanation, of my hypothetical idea.

The coin would have transactions fees like almost every coin out there.

The first coins would be distributed by some method that is is not proof of transactions fees, maybe by proof of work mining during the first X days, or IPO followed by X days of proof of stake.

After the proof of work (or IPO with stake) inital stage, everytime during the mining, the network will look for the amount of money each miner wallet spent with transactions fees since the start of the coin, and pick an random miner wallet weighted by the amount of money they spent to pay transactions fees since the coin started.
This is different from the more common proof of stake, where the random miner wallet is weighted not by the TOTAL amount of money they spend to pay transactions fees since start of the coin, BUT by the amount of coins they have at their wallet at the moment.



Its just some idea I had, I wont create any coin based at it, and I was curious and decided to ask if it would work.

proof of transactions fees would be literally proof of stake but with all the trancations fees you paid being the stake instead of your current amount of money.

Would a hypotethical proof of transaction fees work as a mining method?

Imagine at the first month coins are mined by proof of work and then after it the miner is selected based at the amount of money they used as transactions fees, would this hypotethical proof-of-X work?

If anything bitcoin sort of don't have limited supply because it will take an extreme amount of time before it reach the max supply and NOT because of forks.

Imagine a coin max supply  will be reached after the heat death of universe, we would never reach a max supply and the coin would be always getting a influx of new coins like a coin with inflinite supply, bitcoin does that, but in a WAY, WAY, WaaaaaaaaaaaAY smaller scale.

This is the future of digital currencies.

They will be used worldwide.

The proof of X that will be used is proof of identity, each person will have a chip at their forehead or arm, that will work as their identity and mine it. The chip will be issued by the government, one chip per person (more chips per person at the cases of corruption of course).

The coin will not have extreme privacy, the government will be able to know what do you spend.

extremely high supply is good because, this means you will always have enought coins to be represent wealth disparity and to be used.

If you have only 1000000 (without decimal) and the market cap is 1 billion dollars, each coin is worth 100 dollars, if you want to spend less than that it become a problem, this hypothetical coin here is also a bad coin to represent wealth, some kids have less than 100 dollars, while some guys have more than 1 billion, this coin hypothetical coin can't represent this wealth disposition.

It will be usually said you can just increase the max supply later but it would require consensus, also if you add more coins distributed mining (instead of adding more decimal places, or multiplying everyone amount of coins by X) you will inflate the coin a thing not wanted by anyone with a brain.


Having a extremely high supply also means you can buy coins no matter how much the market cap is, you can always "enter the game".
There is also the fact its easier to sell coins, because you dont have to rely at a few rich guys buying your coins, you can have many not so rich guys buying it.

Digital currency WILL be used and worldwide.

It will be centralized and it will use proof of identity.

The state will issue a chip at birth that is also your wallet, this chip will secure (mine) the coin, with each person automaically mining it. It will be said to population that since each person can only have one chip, it will be secure.

Would change anything if two miners were picked by proof of stake or proof of hold (lowest amount of coin wallet had at some point of time at the last X days is the stake), and then select the real miner between those 2 miners by using proof of work?

One question.

Lets imagine there is a coin where each year each wallet lose 1% of all coins. There are 100 coins and each coin value is 99 dollars, so the market cap is 9900 dollars.

At the end of the year everyone will lose 1%, the means the amount of coins will go to 100 to 99, and the market cap will continue the same 9900, this means  the value of each coin is now 100 dollars.

If you had 10 coins worth 99 dollars, you had 990 dollars worth of coins, at the end of year if you didnt spend the money you will have 9.9 coins * 100 dollars = 990 dollars too.

As you see at the example the guy didnt lost any wealth by not speinding his coins, so the question is: how someone lose wealth from demurrage?

The only ones that would lose wealth are the ones that lose coins by rounding down during the demurrage process.

Sim, mas existe uma diferença entre algo não ter valorização infinita, e você forçar a moeda a inflacionar através da criação de novas moedas.

Estava pensando sobre moedas 100% premined (sem ico), onde apos o momento em que a moeda se "inicia", nenhuma moeda a mais vai ser criada.

Cryptomoeda sem no minimo deflação e descentralização  e NADA da no memso.

There are tons of proof of stake variants not at the list:

lowest amount of coins you had at the last X days is the stake
amount of coins you had at X days ago is the stake

amount of transactions your wallet made is the stake
amount of transactions your wallet made is the stake, transaction fees goes back to be mined after Z days
amount of transactions your wallet made at the last X days is the stake
amount of transactions your wallet made at the last X days is the stake, transaction fees goes back to be mined after Z days
amount of transactions your wallet made between X days ago and X - Y days ago is the stake
amount of transactions your wallet made between X days ago and X - Y days ago is the stake, transaction fees goes back to be mined after Z days

at any time send coins to a place that cant be traded or get back, all coins there are stake
at any time send coins to a place that cant be traded or get back, coins spend X days there before being destroyed, all coins there are the stake
at any time send coins to a place that cant be traded or get back, coins there X days ago are the stake.
at any time send coins to a place that cant be traded or get back, having coins there keep increasing variable and this variable is use to stake
at any time send coins to a place that cant be traded or get back, coins spend X days there before being destroyed, having coins there keep increasing variable and this variable is use to stake
at any time send coins to a place that cant be traded or get back,  having coins there X days ago keep increasing variable and this variable is use to stake

at any time send coins to a place that can't be traded, after X days you get back the coins to your wallet, all coins at this place are the stake
at any time send coins to a place that can't be traded, after X days you get back the coins to your wallet, all coins you had there Y days ago are the stake
at any time send coins to a place that can't be traded, after X days you get back the coins to your wallet, having coins at this place keep increasing variable and this variable is use to stake
at any time send coins to a place that can't be traded, after X days you get back the coins to your wallet, having coins at this place Y days ago keep increasing variable and this variable is use to stake

Not only big banks aren't nervous, but digital currency will be used at the fiat currency worldwide.

I was only complaining about the fact it was not 100% premined and new coins are generated. An alternate version of clams coins without new coins generation would probably be the fairest distribution ever and I would think it would be an very awesome idea.

So the bit, doge and litecoin holders were initially given 4.6 clam coins.
And in just one minute you can earn ~22% of the coins people receive?

Fair distribution my *ss.