[six years ago]

The following quote is from a thread six years ago during the period when ETH was going IPO.  Obviously ETH has proven to be a very successful alt-coin and a great investment for most investors, but I am curious about the future issuance of ETH coins since ETH does not have a hard max coin limit like bitcoin.  If I understand correctly, annual issuance of ETH capped at 18,000,000 per year.  The Ethereum white paper (https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/), argues that over time the ETH supply growth rate trend towards zero.

In hindsight, any thoughts about how ETH's coin issuing model is doing today?
Has the ETH 'team' injected more coins over the years "to address other issues that may arise" or have they showed reasonable constraint?
Any predictions on what it will mean to ETH's value in the next 6 years?

Man...i have just opened the Terms and Conditions page :

"....for technical reasons EthSuisse may need to change the annual rate of new creation to a value lower than 26% to account for changes to the Ethereum mining algorithm or to address other issues that may arise. There is no guarantee that this percentage will be accurate or that this rate will continue at the same level....."

For FIAT, a 25% inflation rate would spell disaster. But not even 26% is guaranteed. Unbelievable !!!!

26% of ETH sold in the IPO is the guaranteed maximum.
Since the yearly inflation is a fixed amount of ETH, it is a decreasing percentage as the years go by,
and will at some point become less than even the few % of ETH that inevitably gets lost every year.

1. Ethereum supply is 100% controlled by "the team".
2. The team can "inject" anytime any qty of coins into the market "to address other issues that may arise".
3. Ethereum is issued by "the team", not by the network. Nothing is hard-coded. There is no guarantee that the team will not inject 10.000.000 ether to "maintain" the network stability on the "long term".

Do you really think that bitcointalk's readers are retarded

You tell me that "26% of ETH sold in the IPO is the guaranteed maximum.", when the he TOS states that "There is no guarantee that this percentage will be accurate or that this rate will continue at the same level".

The real problem is that issuing new ether coins is NOT a transparent, hard-coded process. It's up to Vitalik and his team how much coins are going to be created next month.

A lot of smart people are reading this forum. Do you think they are all blind ??

[a virtual poker game]

I read this article and I was curious.  Does the pre-release code really includes a virtual poker game?
https://news.bitcoin.com/a-deep-dive-into-satoshis-11-year-old-bitcoin-genesis-block/

"The pre-release Bitcoin code also contained early framework for an IRC Client, a peer-to-peer marketplace and a virtual poker game."

I am curious what folks think of this new alt-coin?  The fact that David Chaum is behind it is the old reason I am curious.  He had an long crypto history/background. --> "Chaum is known as the father of the first digital currency, Ecash. His 1982 dissertation is also hailed as the inspiration of Satoshi’s bitcoin white paper and the first known work that proposes a blockchain protocol. "

"a new digital currency, Praxxis, that has the security, speed, and scalability to grow into a replacement of physical cash"...the aim of the new digital currency is to serve as a proper payments vehicle, fulfilling Chaum's view of Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision for bitcoin to be a "purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash." ..."Praxxis protocol is also quantum-resistant, meaning that the protocol can survive hacks generated by quantum computers. "

Article was published August 2019
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/36791/crypto-forefather-david-chaum-issues-new-digital-currency-intended-as-a-paradigm-shift-from-bitcoin

beyond my ability to comprehend if this is valid or not:
https://www.coindesk.com/watch-ecash-creator-david-chaum-on-his-new-quantum-resistant-cryptocurrency-praxxis

Please excuse another newbie question...I did search first, but I didn't find a close enough thread to satisfy my curiosity.
In 2018 this article calculated a much larger number but it wasn't as conservative and it used later transactions https://www.leaprate.com/cryptocurrency/bitcoin/lost-bitcoins-satoshi-coins/

I am continuing to explore the early bitcoin blockchain using blk00000.dat covering 2009-01-03 to 2011-04-24 time period.

Out of the ~6M bitcoins mined in these early days, I calculate ~1.716M bitcoins sent to 34,327 output addresses remain untouched today (~28.6%!). 
By 'untouched' I mean that the address' total received matches the final balance meaning that the address was used once for mining then completely dormant for the last decade.   

Questions: Are these generally considered 'lost'?
Is it reasonable to assume most were mined by 'satoshi'? I know 'satoshi' might suddenly become active and dump his 1M+ any day... 
I assume there would be similar dormant accounts if I looked after 2011-04-24, but I figured those dormant accounts during these early days are more likely to remain dormant i.e. lost.

here is my simplistic methodology in a nutshell:

• 1) extracted 119,965 coinbase transactions from blk00000.dat each mining 50 bitcoins using a single output address (only 73 had multiple so I ignored them for these calculations) using pyblockchain's BlockchainFileReader
• 2) looked up current balances for each of the 34,327 output addresses using chain.api.btc.com
• 3) summed up bitcoins for any of these output address where the total_received matched the final balance (i.e., none were ever sent)

Thanks again for your insight!

I am trying to gain a better understanding of Bitcoin's blockchain by studying the earliest coinbase transactions from blk00000.dat.  I have encountered a couple of anomalies that I was hoping to have some of the subject matter experts here help me understand.  Here is my first question.  I did attempt to make sure this wasn't explained already and I did find this related thread from Jan 2011:   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2924.0

In this thread author observed that same thing I did that I was surprised to find. Namely multiple coinbase blocks with the same output address. In blk00000.dat I counted 85 distinct output addresses that each have two coinbase blocks.  This topic covers this interesting anomaly mostly, but there is one pair of blocks with the same output address that is especially odd that I was hoping to get some more insight:

two confirmed coinbase transactions both going to the same output address: 15w6iQpfmsKwHswaUoWNWhyjAftrU1b3yB (odd/rare), both at almost the same time (2010-07-26 14:11:19 vs. 2010-07-26 14:11:42) (glitch ?)

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/8e23d308dbf39973133184a3261f9b9d0d7fd54c1cfd62407ff3cf7ac9b6b4bc   (@2010-07-26 14:11:42)
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/555948071157710897c957e16c91687d81116d01089a167e2978b86a295df762 (@2010-07-26 14:11:19)

This address isn't dormant/dead address either.  It received and sent bitcoins later in 2010 and even in 2015. However,  the two original coinbase transactions are interesting because one 8e23... mined coins were spent, but the mined coins from 5559... transactions were not.  Are the coins from 5559 actually legit and unspent?

Can someone take a look at these transactions and help me understand what likely happened?

Thanks in advance!