I only responded to the OP of this thread in that manner because I found this proposal insulting, not to mention baseless and a direct response to the thread I started. So the OP didn't deserve my decency from the get go.

No... I'm describing a change in the rules. In fact it's more like an addition to the rules, something which wouldn't even take effect for like 100 or 150 years from now. We'd probably all be dead by then anyway.

I don't see why you are describing an adjustment to the rules as a violation of the rules. It wont be a freaking violation if the protocol is adjusted to accept the change. And as far as I'm aware, those new protocols wont be accepted by the network unless the majority of nodes accept those new protocols.

Fine... it's not like I'm saying "this must happen" or "it must happen now". It's just a simple discussion about a certain aspect of bitcoin, which I realized will be extremely difficult to implement and have it accepted, but neither is it impossible or some type of blasphemous act as you make it out to be. Lower your guns cowboy.

What I'm suggesting does not undermine the principle of limited quantity in any way. It only suggests a way to maintain a more stable money supply instead of one which deflates infinitely.

That is a just a bunch of guess work, and the simple fact is that your basic premise undermines the principles bitcoin was built on as a limited quantity digital commodity.

The "real bitcoin" will be the one with the majority consensus, that's exactly how bitcoin was designed to work, the majority decision rules. The real bitcoin is the one we all agree is the real bitcoin. Of course you could stick to the "original" or "old" or "outdated" protocol but it wouldn't be the most widely accepted version, and therefore hardly the real one.

Obviously I'm not trying to make friends with the OP. Or you for that matter.

You mean not part of how you want bitcoin to exist.

I'm putting an argument forward for why it should be done, if you don't want to agree that's fine. But some very interesting points have been discussed in that thread, from both sides. I fail to see why we should move our discussion some where else or stop talking about it. Honestly I fail to see the entire point of this thread except that it's just a couple of grumpy folks mumbling about how you're "bored" or sick and tired of hearing about a certain thing. Simply don't read it as I said. Case closed.

Wouldn't that just lead to infinite inflation in the case where we get less coins lost then coins created?

That's a good point. Then the system should be designed so that only withdrawals will prove an address is still active.

Here I am responding to some comments made on the other proposal thread concerning lost coins:

1. It is not theft if after 100 years or more a person fails to indicate that an address is still active. If they want to secure their ownership of the coins then they can take action to prove the coins are not lost.
2. The risk is much worth the long term advantage in my opinion. I don't see why this should be such a controversial decision if we are aiming to make bitcoin better and fairer.
3. That depends on how you see the problem. From my perspective it's a huge improvement to secure the long term viability of bitcoin.

Changing the bitcoin protocol through consensus is not creating a new currency. Bitcoin was designed in a way which allows us to change it if we think an important change needs to be made. It's not just this static thing which which can never be changed. Changing one small aspect of something does not turn it into something entirely separate from the original thing. Discussing ways to recover lost coins is not equal to discussing an alternative currency.

And I will address your other points in my other thread on lost coins because we don't need to turn this thread into a simultaneous discussion about the same thing.

To further illustrate the point I'm trying to make here, let me draw a comparison to gold, as people often like to compare bitcoin to gold in the way they function.

Gold can be lost, but not in the same way bitcoins are lost. When a person loses some gold, it doesn't just vanish into to thin air with virtually no chance of ever being recovered again, in the way bitcoins are lost. It will be some where waiting for someone to find it again at some point, even if they have to mine it out of the ground again. Would any of you really like a world where gold could vanish into thin air, and the supply of gold would slowly get smaller and smaller? Well of course some of you probably would judging by this thread so far.

But my point is that's not a healthy economic system, anymore than infinite inflation is a healthy economic system. Both are fundamentally flawed at a very basic level. Like gold, we need some system which will allow us to rediscover the lost bitcoins and bring them back into the system. The idea of a limited supply is great and fantastic, but it's not just a limited supply, it's an ever decreasing limited supply. It's easy to see that a stable money supply is by far the most superior currency structure, and bitcoin should be designed in the most superior way.

I don't see how discussing lost bitcoins relates to alt coins in anyway. We are talking about changing bitcoin in some way (development and tech discussion), not create a new currency. How about you stop crying like a child and don't read threads which don't interest you. Case closed.

I could ask you what grudge you have against a stable money supply. I have no problem with people who might like to leave coins inactive for long periods of time, my problem is lost coins which create infinite deflation. I strongly feel that infinite deflation could be just as harmful as infinite inflation over the long term. I mean honestly, what is the problem with having to send or remove some BTC to an address which has been sitting idle for 50 or 100 years? Is it really that hard to show the network that the address is still active? All your arguments are clearly based on the point that you want to profit from lost coins, and I find it sad that you are all placing profit over the long term health and stability of the network.

As the first inactive bitcoins start to be re-mined it may cause a little bit of shock and uncertainty, however that will quickly settle down and the system will become accustom to handling the reintroduction of inactive coins and begin to flow nicely as a stable currency system with a stable money supply. There will be no point when the "free money window" suddenly disappears, because once it opens it will stay open... since people will continue to lose coins up until the window opens, and beyond. Once it is open it will stay open indefinitely and miners will always be able to re-mine coins lost 50 or 100 years ago, or with what ever time limit we go with.

Then make the expiration time 100 years, or 150 years... what ever, as long as it can ensure a stable money supply. All one need do to re-validate the address and make it last another 100 or 150 years is send a small amount of coins to the address or remove some.

I doubt it will slow to a trickle, it will slow at a rate proportional to the amount still left in circulation. People are always going to make mistakes no matter how many safe guards are put in place.

The expiration time for any address would start when that address was last active, meaning the last time it had coins sent to or from it. Unless a huge amount of coins were lost at the exact same time (or rather, last active at the same time) I don't see how this concern is realistic.

It would not be unfair if the majority of us agree to change the rules, that's what makes bitcoin so great, we can change the protocol according to consensus if we think it needs to be changed. And I think my arguments here are more than valid. The only people who will consider such a change "unfair" are people who are hoping to gain from it.

This is the most realistic concern but I still hold that we need a stable money supply.

If the coins were re-mined they would be going to people who use their computing power to mine the coins, exactly as they are distributed right now. And it is very different from not re-mining them, for the reasons I have stated thus far. I fail to see any reason why some of you would be so strongly against this idea, and your lowbrow sensationalist remark concerning Bernanke only indicates to me that you have a hidden agenda here.

Infinite deflation of the money supply is no more or less insane than infinite inflation of the money supply. If bitcoins answer and opposal to the current inflationary money system is to take on a form exactly the opposite to that system, instead of reaching a nice balance between the two extremes, then you guys clearly do not want to create a long term fair and stable currency to oppose the mainstream, but something which benefits a few of you in the opposite way that our current money system benefits a few.

There is clearly a reason for it to happen. It seems obvious to me that it's much healthier to have a money supply which remains stable, then to have a money supply which decreases into infinity; that's like the opposite absurdity of infinite inflation, both extremes are moronic in the long term. From a mathematical, practical, and economic perspective, the most desirable option is obvious. Now please enlighten me with the reasons why it shouldn't happen, other than you want your BTC to go up in value due to a decrease in the money supply.

Inflation (of the money supply) will decrease regardless, because new coins are created slower and slower until we reach the limit of 21 million. However, even if this idea was implemented, deflation (in terms of change in BTC value) will still happen because presumably the economic activity within the bitcoin economy will increase on average. Even now the value of BTC is going up because the growth of the economy out paces the creation of new BTC. That is really why bitcoin is deflationary, not because the money supply will get smaller and smaller. Either way I see no reason why it is "paramount" for the money supply to continuously decrease, that is absurd reasoning which could only come from someone who has a lot of BTC stashed away.

edit: made a few specifications to above text to make it clearer.

I know this topic has been discussed in depth before, but I can't be bothered rehashing any old thread or read through some long threads to find an answer to my question. First of all, many of you will think that lost bitcoins don't matter, and I partially agree; the divisibility of bitcoin makes it nearly impossible to have a number of bitcoins in circulation which is too small. But on the other hand it does pose a real threat to the stability and feasibility of bitcoin in the very long term. I mean we will eventually reach a point where there's just a ridiculously small amount of BTC in circulation and I think it's better to avoid that scenario if possible, if only to help alleviate the concerns of people who think this is a real problem.

The solution is quite simple, if an address holding bitcoins remains inactive for maybe 50 or 100 years or maybe even more, then the bitcoin becomes minable again, or some how put back into circulation. If you don't want to lose your bitcoins then simply transfer them before this time period elapses, that seems completely fair to me. I'm aware that this idea has been suggested before, but I never read enough to be sure about how feasible this idea is and what problems may prevent it from happening. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this system. It will ensure that all bitcoins eventually go back into circulation and that seems very healthy to me, rather than a constant decline in the number of bitcoins.

Keep in mind I know very little about the complex inner workings and technical details of bitcoin so keep your answers relatively simple.

Wow that's surprising... Freemasonry linked to a bunch of goon-like idiots who suppress anything that goes against the mainstream.

Why would anyone pay attention to something awful anyway. I mean why even pay attention to some awful shit. 

The name alone is typical of the negative sinister low-life mentality fueled by misinterpretations of Luciferianism ...

lol... I agree with you but there's no need to get so angry and frustrated, because that's exactly the response they want from you. They're playing a childrens game and the way to win is to be the more mature one. There's no need to "fight" them or get angry about this, the way of the wise will win in the end, and we wont need to do anything. Just let bitcoin take its natural course and eventually it will be impossible for them to fight against it. I agree with casascius here, we need to simply play the waiting game and try again in a few months. Partaking in a childish edit war will solve nothing. Let them have their "win" here and now, it means absolutely nothing.