Destroying Bitcoin is NOT Acceptable

[Dudeperfect]

I just came across this news, although it's quite old but still transactions are taking place. These guys are burning bitcoins intentionally and that's really painful part.

Proof of Burn

No reason is enough satisfactory for this kind of shitty practice. Whatever the reason is, I strongly feel that burning (destroying) bitcoins is not acceptable. It's too much worst for the long term. What do you think?

Experts, Please blow your torch if I'm going wrong.

[Lauda]

There's nothing wrong with proof of burn. What are you talking about? You haven't given any reasoning behind your opinion.

It's too much worst for the long term. What do you think?

No, it is not. Generally, it reduces the total supply that is available which can be seen as a positive thing for those who put importance on the price of a singular Bitcoin in fiat equivalent.

[Dudeperfect]

There's nothing wrong with proof of burn. What are you talking about? You haven't given any reasoning behind your opinion.

It's too much worst for the long term. What do you think?

No, it is not. Generally, it reduces the total supply that is available which can be seen as a positive thing for those who put importance on the price of a singular Bitcoin in fiat equivalent.

I might be completely wrong, but I honestly think that we have already lost much coins and that's not the way we are expecting it. What's the meaning of throwing away coins (not even in someone's pocket but in to the unknown area). Coins are for created for spending and since it has limited supply it becomes more important to safely store available coins.


Let's consider most optimistic picture.  Almost 50% of earth population will be using bitcoins in next 20 years, at that time we might have just 18 million coins (assuming coins are getting lost). It's completely admissible if it's kind of accident (or say hack) but intentionally reducing the supply is against fundamentals of his concept in my opinion.

It would definitely prove beneficial to other coins in circulation but it's not according to pure values.

Long story short : If you have 1 of the 2 rarest antique pieces in the world, to increase the value of your antique piece you are not supposed to destroy another antique piece.

[franky1]

using proof of burn to cause a small drop in circulation is acceptable .. emphasis small drop.

but using it as a tool to convert someone over to a different cryptocurrency could kill bitcoin if everyone done it
EG if someone wanted (madeupname) instantcoin because they were sick of waiting for confirms/increasing tx fee.. once they moved over to instant coins, they are stuck with it. they cannot burn the instantcoin to retrieve their old bitcoin in a swap, as those bitcoins are gone! forever!

anyone is free to throw away their coins but i do not suggest any dev's use burning coins as a method to hype up an sidechain(altcoin) they want to convert people over to.

anyone thinking the opposite should just go play with their altcoin and leave bitcoin alone. if you dont wanna keep bitcoin. maybe donate it to seans outpost or a charity

[Lauda]

What's the meaning of throwing away coins (not even in someone's pocket but in to the unknown area). Coins are for created for spending and since it has limited supply it becomes more important to safely store available coins.

The reasoning behind proof-of-burn can be found in the link that you've provided. Have you even completely read it?

Let's consider most optimistic picture.  Almost 50% of earth population will be using bitcoins in next 20 years, at that time we might have just 18 million coins (assuming coins are getting lost). It's completely admissible if it's kind of accident (or say hack) but intentionally reducing the supply is against fundamentals of his concept in my opinion.

Bitcoin is divisible, so it won't matter. Examples of units:

1 BTC = 1,000 mBTC (millibitcoin)
1 BTC = 1,000,000 μBTC (microbitcoin)
1 BTC = 100,000,000 Satoshis

We are talking about 18 Million (your number) times 100 Million. If that ends up not being enough, the developers could introduce an even smaller unit than a Satoshi.

Long story short : If you have 1 of the 2 rarest antique pieces in the world, to increase the value of your antique piece you are not supposed to destroy another antique piece.

False analogy.

[franky1]

If that ends up not being enough, the developers could introduce an even smaller unit than a Satoshi.

please learn bitcoin..

at code level. there is no bitcoin, only satoshis..
its at GUI level that converts 100,000,000 sats into one bitcoin.. again for emphasis GUI level

so if you were to make 1 sat turn into 10 sats by moving a decimal.. the reality is you are creating (imagining the 18mill coins after loss scenario) 180million bitcoins

after all 100million of the smallest unit. doesnt make there be more fractions at code level, but makes more 'groupings' at code level, but is then just baited and switched at GUI level to hide the fact that there are now 10x more coins

seems lauda's mindset is burn bitcoin to bait people to an altcoin. to then later magic up more bitcoin..
(facepalm)

[HaXX0R1337]

I just came across this news, although it's quite old but still transactions are taking place. These guys are burning bitcoins intentionally and that's really painful part.

Proof of Burn

No reason is enough satisfactory for this kind of shitty practice. Whatever the reason is, I strongly feel that burning (destroying) bitcoins is not acceptable. It's too much worst for the long term. What do you think?

Experts, Please blow your torch if I'm going wrong.

I think that it is a stupid practice, It does not increase the price so much.
And as already someone said, if you would have 2 pieces of something really rare, you dont destroy the second one to increase the price, right?

[pereira4]

The people that wont to destroy Bitcoin implicitly give it legitimate and power since they are scared that it may become way too big to destroy, but the thing is that already happened, bitcoin is now too big to fail. Haters will suffer the consequences.

[davis196]

I just came across this news, although it's quite old but still transactions are taking place. These guys are burning bitcoins intentionally and that's really painful part.

Proof of Burn

No reason is enough satisfactory for this kind of shitty practice. Whatever the reason is, I strongly feel that burning (destroying) bitcoins is not acceptable. It's too much worst for the long term. What do you think?

Experts, Please blow your torch if I'm going wrong.

Burning bitcoins is like burinng money.

I don`t think that people are stupid enough to burn money.

Everyone is free and has the right to burn his own money,if he wants.

It doesn`t matter if it`s bitcoins or USD.

[pereira4]

Oh wait, I just understood that you meant actually destroying Bitcoin as in sending the Bitcoin into irrecoverable addresses and whatnot. Well, this is a very simple answer: It's their Bitcoin and they can do whatever they want with them, including "destroying" them. It changes nothing. It actually makes the holder's bitcoin more valuable since the supply shrinks and therefore it becomes a more scarce item.

[defined]

t it's not according to pure values.
Long story short : If you have 1 of the 2 rarest antique pieces in the world, to increase the value of your antique piece you are not supposed to destroy another antique piece.

Ownership means you can do what you want with it. If the owner wants to destroy it, why would your opinion about it have any influence?

[Carlton Banks]

If that ends up not being enough, the developers could introduce an even smaller unit than a Satoshi.

please learn bitcoin..

at code level. there is no bitcoin, only satoshis..
its at GUI level that converts 100,000,000 sats into one bitcoin.. again for emphasis GUI level

Franky, you're the one making mistakes.

There is no such thing as a Satoshi at the code level either, the balance attributable to a given public key is an unsigned 64-bit integer. Your favourite Bitcoin ideologue Mike Hearn was the first to suggest what Lauda is referring to.

[franky1]

Franky, you're the one making mistakes.

There is no such thing as a Satoshi at the code level either, the balance attributable to a given public key is an unsigned 64-bit integer. Your favourite Bitcoin ideologue Mike Hearn was the first to suggest what Lauda is referring to.

the unit of measure starts at 1, when there are 100,000,000 of these units the GUI calls that allotment 'a bitcoin'.
however the single unit is called a satoshi.

at code level as you say is integer.. meaning there is no decimal. so there are no 0.XX of something, instead its multiples of something ..meaning. it starts at a satoshi and moves up.. but does not start at a bitcoin and move down.

learn bitcoin
learn integer

have a nice day

p.s i do not idolize hearne. its just your warped mindset that thinks anyone that wants bitcoin growth must be REKT. sorry but your days of controversy are nearly up. time for you to find a new hobby, maybe playing with monero would entertain you more. we know how you lot love your monero altcoin

[cpfreeplz]

There's nothing wrong with proof of burn. What are you talking about? You haven't given any reasoning behind your opinion.

It's too much worst for the long term. What do you think?

No, it is not. Generally, it reduces the total supply that is available which can be seen as a positive thing for those who put importance on the price of a singular Bitcoin in fiat equivalent.

If 10% of bitcoins are destroyed then your bitcoins are now worth more because the available supply is lower. It's basically supply and demand, and it's a positive linear correlation.

[Carlton Banks]

ROFL Franky, you're telling me to learn about Bitcoin and integers (as applied to programming), after your ignorant outburst? Please


And your words betray you: you claimed not to support Hearn, and yet here you are saying his non-scaling plans were the only way to grow Bitcoin's throughput? The real scaling solution is in final testing stages. Your coup failed, a long time ago.

[dearbesz1219]

I just came across this news, although it's quite old but still transactions are taking place. These guys are burning bitcoins intentionally and that's really painful part.

Proof of Burn

No reason is enough satisfactory for this kind of shitty practice. Whatever the reason is, I strongly feel that burning (destroying) bitcoins is not acceptable. It's too much worst for the long term. What do you think?

Experts, Please blow your torch if I'm going wrong.

In the first place we have our own free will to choose in, So if someone want to burn his/her bitcoin we do nothing about it, Its his/her choice to do it. But if ever they did burning, many of the member in bitcoin community will get  affected in some other way.

[franky1]

ROFL Franky, you're telling me to learn about Bitcoin and integers (as applied to programming), after your ignorant outburst? Please


And your words betray you: you claimed not to support Hearn, and yet here you are saying his non-scaling plans were the only way to grow Bitcoin's throughput? The real scaling solution is in final testing stages. Your coup failed, a long time ago.

firstly going offtopic to answer the mis-informed altcoiner above who loves to derail topics.

i have never been a gavin or hearne fanboy. i much prefered BU(you did too.. funny that.. even funnier is your favourite alt has the same scaling attributes you are trying to fight against bitcoin implementing)
now then.
the 2mb solution was not a hearn/gavin idea. it was a community idea that was an accceptable balance for growth while chilling out the cries of the misinformed "100gb blocks in a few months doomsday "armageddon"".
i seen 2mb as an acceptable conclusion and compromise to the "armageddon" cries. neither due to hearn or gavin or anyone else.. it was just logic prevailing.

however the misinformed people (like yourself) had other plans. you want to centralize and destroy bitcoin to move everyone over to sidechains(altcoins).
you were misinformed also because if everyone used the same 2mb rules there would be no controversy or control.. but instead you beleived by trying to cry that bitcoin-core should not move with the community they would dominate and control or they would lose control by going with community wishes.
hello wake up. no one should have control..
your controversy that you and your friends started actually diluted growth descussions for the community and instead turned it into making blockstream paid employee's gaining power to control bitcoin more centrally..

as for the scaling solution
lol the only plan you "beleive" is the one where your fearless leader Gmaxwell is going to opt that monero becomes the sidechain to be the "The real scaling solution"

and dont even try to make it sound like you are talking about segwit.. segwit is not a scaling solution.. its just a one time potential boost.. not an ongoing solution that scales.

and i still have not got an answer about your opinion of lukeJR releasing code to the real scaling solution.. which funnily enough is 2mb..
are you for it. or will you rekt him too

P.S: it made me laugh when you tried to defend the whole satoshi/bitcoin unit measure by talking about integers. i mean come on. even someone as naive as yourself must know that not only are integers not divisible, but you could not even argue your way to say that a bitcoin is the unit of measure.
1800000000000000 units =18mill bitcoin..(based on scenaro where 3mill coins are 'lost')
add an extra 0
18000000000000000 units =180mill bitcoin..


now for the ontopic thing
go on admit it you would love bitcoin to burn its coins so everyone uses monero. i know ur cohorts do. gmaxwell loves his monero. as do ur other friends.. kind of makes it obvious where you want bitcoins endgame to land.

in my opinion burning coins for the sole purpose of locking people into a sidechain is bad.
people are free to destroy their own funds by just deleting their keys or sending funds to known bitcoin burn addresses which have no keys for personal reasons.. but in no way should it be utilised as a tool to push people over to an altcoin, nor as a widely used thing to cause drastic loss of coins out of circulation, in a ploy to puersuade the community to agree to magically create 10x more coins later

 

[Carlton Banks]

Someone wake me up when it's stopped jabbering lol

[unamis76]

I too think this a total waste of money, but to each their own thing. It would be much better to donate the coins or distribute them in another way, burning them doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It at least makes (theoretically) everyone else's coins worth more.

[MingLee]

People might be burning their Bitcoin, but it does technically increase the value of the rest of the remaining Bitcoin once it all inevitably gets mined. Even if we have only something like 18 million coins left, you add on some decimal places beyond one satoshi and increase the value. Namely when it goes beyond $1m/Bitcoin. It all ends up working out as long as everything is done correctly.