Sorry for my delayed response. This is really just too easy... let us continue.

Uh huh... nothing at all unhealthy about it.

There are several faulty lines of logic used here. First of all the bitcoins were lost for a long time, but they were found again when the person found the private key in a dusty box. This is not really how bitcoins are lost, they are lost when private keys are destroyed and not recoverable. However, in this case, the private key was written down physically so it was possible to find it again. At this fictional point in the future, it will have been a very long time since the market saw any single account holding such a large amount of bitcoins. As far as the market is concerned, there is essentially only 100 bitcoins in active circulation. Also keep in mind that I am describing bitcoin as it is now, where coins cannot be re-mined, to illustrate why infinite deflation is unhealthy. Reintroducing an amount of coins which appears to be equal to the entire amount left in circulation after hundreds or thousands of years of deflation in the money supply, is going to cause some large upsets. Now in the case where it's possible to re-mine coins, if that person found the key sitting in an old dusty box, and it had remained untouched for over 100 years, the coins would already be gone. In fact if he found those coins 99 years after they were first active, he could use them; but in such a scenario the re-mining process has ensured a stable money supply, meaning his newly acquired 100 bitcoins will have no dramatic effect on the market because there are still nearly all bitcoins in circulation.


Once again this is not the "same thing". When bitcoins are lost they become inaccessible. Gold at the bottom of the ocean is still accessible to those who have the motive. We drill oil from some insanely deep places. And if we lose a majority of our gold in the ocean, there's going to be an extremely big motive for people to go get it. Furthermore, and more importantly, it's very unlikely that we will ever lose a considerable amount of gold in a place which makes it virtually impossible to recover. Bitcoin is entirely different. It's extremely easy to lose with one wrong move, and any single time that any amount of BTC is lost, it goes into a state where it's virtually impossible to recover. Nearly every time we lose gold it's going to be in a state where it's fairly easy to recover. So there are clearly some huge flaws in this analogy, just like all your other analogies.

Arguing against something is different to demanding we stop talking about it. And maintaining a stable money supply does not equate to making your bitcoins worthless.

So let me ask you this. Would you prefer if gold could just vanish into thin air? Price deflation is going to happen whether or not the money supply decreases. As I stated on the other thread, lost coins are going to play a very small role in price deflation compared to growth of the bitcoin economy. This is why the price of gold and silver increases regardless of the fact that gold and silver don't vanish into thin air, and why Austrian economists prefer them over currencies which can be infinitely inflated; because these limited resources are great at holding value and even increasing in value despite the fact that the supply isn't actually getting smaller.

Here's one reason I can think of why infinite deflation is not healthy, and I'm sure there are many more potential problems. Consider an example where at some point far in the future enough coins have been lost that we only have 100 left in active use. Now imagine a day where someone digs up an old private key out of a dusty old box in the attic of their new house, and that key gives them access to an address which holds 100 bitcoins, or even more. Imagine what that would do to the economy if that person now owned more wealth than the entire economy combined. This is just one simple reason why it's inherently unhealthy.

Honestly if you don't want to hear this then don't read this thread or participate in it. No one is forcing you to. I see no reason why we should stop this discussion just because you want us to stop. It'll be over when it's over, and no sooner.

I never said it would certainly destroy bitcoin, I said it's not economically healthy, any more than infinite inflation is economically healthy. Sure, you could theoretically have infinite inflation, the Government certainly seems to think so, and the value of the currency will simply continue to adjust according to the amount in circulation. But there are still problems with any system which inflates infinitely or deflates infinitely, especially over the very long term. My basic argument is based on the premise that a stable money supply is superior to anything which inflates or deflates infinitely. I'm not saying it's needed to avert some coming doomsday, but it is superior.

That is no where near "exactly" what I am proposing. That's forceful extraction of wealth against ones will. My system has a very simple way to avoid one having their coins taken, and the coins are re-mined through complex calculations like they are now, not just redistributed. In reality one can easily leave coins sitting unused for as long as they want, assuming they continue to re-activate the coins each time it's necessary. So once again your analysis is entirely flawed.

As long as you continue to present sensationalist out of proportion arguments I am not going to respond to you.

When you begin making rational and sensible arguments which have some grounding in reality I will pay attention.

You're not convincing anyone.

Thank you for at least trying to present an economic analysis and not insults. However what you said here is completely illogical.

Lets try another comparison with gold.

Some times gold is lost. Some times gold is found. Apart from the gold being mined, the supply remains relatively stable, gold doesn't appear from thin air and it doesn't disappear into thin air. So far this is exactly like bitcoin, but it's missing one thing; the ability to find lost money.

The ability to bring lost bitcoins back into the system does not equate to anything you just described above. Now please examine what you just said once again.

It has nothing to do with value redistribution, and everything to do with recovering lost coins in order to maintain a stable money supply, which is aligned with the Austrian theory more than a system which can allow coins to disappear into thin air.

The only time it would be anything like you describe, is if we didn't give any chance for people to prove ownership of coins, and just redistributed them willy nilly regardless of if they seemed lost or not.

Yes you may propose the concept of coin recycling as theft, but Rudd-O is now directly accusing me of trying to steal his bitcoins.

1) I wont be stealing anything because I will be dead by the time it happens
2) this system doesn't allow anyone to specifically target any coins to steal
3) the coins will need to be re-mined and not just easy to take at will
4) I argue it's not theft if you are given every chance to secure ownership

lol the only lies I see here are from you trying to suggest I'm planning this all to steal your coins 100 years from now. Get a grip man, we can all see that is totally false no matter how you try to spin it. I'm suggesting this because I believe it has economic validity, and is more aligned with the Austrian line of thought which Bitcoin was built upon. You witched to condescension and derision in this thread long before I did, so what does that say about you Mr. Super Righteous bitcoiner.

lol you guys really are living in your own little fantasy world aren't you. "Those there mainstream folks are coming to steals our coins yall! Rabble rabble rabble rabble!!!"

Yes... my plan here is to implement this change, so that 100 years from now, I can re-mine your inactive coins when you fail to claim them, never mind the fact that mining isn't exactly the same as getting free coins, or that I'll probably be dead by then. Would you listen to yourself, you're the one trying to manipulate others here with your delusional logic.

So basically your argument also boils down to the fact you don't want to do this simple thing every 100 years or so... but you take it further and say "oh it's harder for me because I make my private keys hard to access and it costs me a lot of money when I access them. Although I could make it so I don't lose a lot of money when I access them but I don't roll that way.". Saying this shouldn't be implemented because it would ruin your obscure plan is simply absurd. The benefits of it outweigh your freedom to implement your obscure plan.

You could store the key in many other things which don't immediately lose a great deal of value when opened, but still provide the same amount of indication that it has been opened. I fail to see your point.

It's only unnecessary today because we don't have a system which requires it to be done. It would become necessary if we wanted to implement a system capable of recycling lost coins. The "ritual" would have a clear purpose and meaning in that case, making it useful and necessary. And it's not theft if you are given every possible chance to avoid something being taken but still allow it to be taken. Your entire argument basically boils down to "I don't want to have to do this one little thing every hundred years or so". I mean please.

That would be cutting open the gold bar, not destroying it. And if you did put it in something which had all its value destroyed when opened, it would eventually have to be opened anyway unless you plan to leave the coins sitting there forever, so it's a stupid idea either way and would be your own fault for implementing such a ridiculous idea.

I never proposed "destruction" of anything as an answer, that's the opposite of what I want. This has nothing to do with taking things from you and reallocating them or destroying them simply because you failed to use them. It's an effort to recycle truly lost coins to ensure a stable money supply. Destroying coins would do the absolute opposite of that.

In that other thread about the design contract, it was suggested that when the cryptography protecting coins is weakened to such a state where it needs to be updated, old coins which aren't transferred into the new system within a specified time frame should be destroyed to avoid sudden inflation. I do not agree with that idea at all for two reasons:

1) the time frame for transferring the coins in that case will be very small, and as such will be more akin to theft for those who fail to do so.
2) it will create a truly irreversible decline in the money supply, where as I'm attempting to ensure we have a limited yet stable supply.

Yeah, and everybody, except people like you, know what theft is. It's not leaving something untouched for over 100 years and then crying about it when it's taken, when you have countless decades to stop it from being taken.

That's a valid point, but I would argue that their "donation" did in fact have an effect for the duration before it was re-mined. It wont have an everlasting effect, but it will be a very long time before that effect is reversed.

They should have to so that they can prove the active state of the coins and show that they aren't lost, in order to establish a system capable of recycling old coins. That is the price to pay, the trade off for achieving such a system. Yes they "have to" do something that might inconvenience them in a slight way, but it's something which only needs to be done very infrequently, making it almost irrelevant. It does not effect ones ability to store coins offline, it just makes it that tiny bit harder for people who want to store coins in the same address for more than 100 years.

lol ironically I just finished eating a sandwich before making this reply. The only reason you feel it's such a threat is because you are equating it with theft, but that's a very large stretch to make and has no real basis in reality. Your coins will in no way be endangered because what I'm proposing offers a very large window of time to ensure you don't lose your coins. So there is simply no reason to get so upset about it. Especially when it's so unlikely to happen because of people on your side of the fence. Just because I propose it, doesn't mean it's going to happen. There's simply no reason to get your panties in a such a bunch at the mere proposition. I'm allowed to propose any idea I want, and I expect to have a civil response and discussion about it, not be attacked as if my idea was on the verge of happening.