Wow, didnt realize such a large opposition but i believe you haven't understood my idea. Nevertheless I do hope that you all prove me wrong for the sake of bitcoin which i also am part of.

Considering the hard fork, I understand it will be multiplied twice for each part, but those who dont believe in a stable non-deflationary side will sell most likely that part and later on realize that they chose to bid on the wrong side. If they decide to keep both sides then that is good for each one who does this.

Furthermore to remention the quantity theory of money, someone mentioned if Price x purchases remains constant then yes velocity can increase by a decreased money supply. But realistically in a deflationary condition price will not stay constant and the more people see the deflation the more they keep onto the coins to see prices go further down and by keeping the coins transactions will also decrease, so it is inevitable a down spiral of both money supply and velocity of transactions, my prediction is not soon but at some point in time if unchanged will.

So back to my suggestion is that to create new bitcoins is not to create inflation but to keep a steady rate of 0% inflation. If this is not conducted then we will have a hyperdeflation at some point which means that essentially people lose interest in something that is not useful for transactions and economic activity anymore and will look for other mediums of exchange. Cause in the end money is suppose to be a medium of exchange. If you want to store value you should look for something tangible.

As for hater comments, I feel pity cause even if frozen amounts are not moved they will likely lose most value anyway by staying on the wrong side of a hardfork.

Again, I believe people are missing out on the big picture here.

I am not mentioning only to destroy the old, I am just suggesting create enough new ones so that the transaction flow stays solvent.
Basic economics of the quantity theory of money: Money supply x Velocity of transactions = Price level x Amount of goods/services transacted
If more and more people store bitcoins and avoid purchases then the result will be less and less transactions and less incentives for miners making the currency vulnerable from new miners for an attack whom have a better plan on dealing with the situation.
Hardforks seem to be unavoidable so I just hope for you to choose the best side of the situation based on your knowledge.
I do predict in the next halving of rewards will have a significant change in who stays to mine to overtake the network.

As for central control, yes central control is inevitable but I don't see it as a bad thing cause it will be centrally controlled by the world and not some specific nation. If it isn't then I don't see how practical it is to store something intangible opposed to metals or other tangible items because right now bitcoin is simply functioning as a shock absorber so gold prices dont fly too high.

Overall my statement is whether it would be possible to make protocol respond and confirm wallets that get synced, if not then the whole concept might be more complicated then I thought, again I am no programmer, I am an economist who is just hoping that the digital currency would be more practical in use in open markets than just being stored for value.

In the end when businesses realize that no one is interested in making transactions with a bitcoin since everyone is looking to just store it, they will be turning to alternative digital currencies making the whole project here a ghost prototype.
And in the end it is better to store something tangible than intangible.

So if this replacement is impossible then the idea left is to expand creation of new coins to a level that is related to the frozen amounts in order to keep stability in transactions and incentives for miners and businesses to keep going.

In the end by 2140 if things dont change, most likely no transactions will be done cause everyone wants to store bitcoin since no new bitcoins are created then it seems to me like a "blackhole" is going to be created since miners will be gone since no incentives left, although I must say it will happen quite faster when people realize the trend in transactions is decreasing.
If transactions stay stagnant then all we are doing is creating some employment opportunities for miners until the better system emerges.

Again I am not here to argue that programmers here are not good enough, I am just referencing the history of money markets in order not to repeat it.

I was hoping you can translate the logging into account as synchronizing your wallet. But as I am not a programmer I am not sure if such a protocol can be implemented.

Going through the archives and finding an interesting post regarding how to replace lost bitcoins.

I would agree that, just like in the banking system, every 5,10 or 20 years, bank accounts that have been forgotten are taken over as they are considered that the client passed away and did not mention it in his will to be given somewhere else.

Thus if we are to see Bitcoin or any digital currency overtaking the financial system, it is definite that bitcoins that are unused or unaccessible for a given amount of years should enter into the pool of distributing to the miners as a bonus incentive of the standard rate they are currently given.

Reading through plenty of negative comments of sitters not willing to login to their account for many years even though they might have access to it or want to live in a remote area without accessing it for many years.
I have to say the following, gold is precious throughout time because even if lost, it can be found as any treasure is found. Unfortunately the same cannot apply for bitcoin as lost hard-disks or accounts are essentially lost.
Someone can argue, "but we can implement more digits therefore the deflationary condition will just be adjusted".

Here is where bitcoins value will be lost, because just like businesses dont appreciate inflation, the same applies for deflation. Everyone prefers stability, therefore if bitcoin is to become a main medium of exchange it needs to consider its stability of promised coins. Otherwise competitor currencies will adopt this strategy and bitcoin is looking at a gloomy future as businesses will not be willing to adopt it since it will be hard to find anyone with actual bitcoins if people are willing to abandon them in forgotten accounts.