Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[nullius]

Ancient modern history dates back to ancient Greece? Mhe... when great Greek cholars like Thales, Hippocrates, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle arrived in Egypt the great pyramids of Egypt where already ancient.

Perhaps that may be why the Greeks accorded the Egyptians a great respect for their antiquity.

Why the need to discount the Greeks?

The Greeks invented the philosophical, naturalistic way of thinking that is the foundation of modern science.  Other great civilizations existed; but outside of a few relatively isolated instances of inspired thinkers, their investigations of the natural world were mostly pragmatic, and they never even thought to be objective.  Insofar as is known to history, only the Greeks developed a trend toward doing what later became science and moreover, doing it for its own sake.  Thus, the modern world does indeed descend from the Greeks.

Without the Greeks, you would not now have the Internet with which to make that post, and there would be no TV and smartphones...  Wait, now I hate the Greeks.  Damn it, they also invented democracy.  Lunatics.  The ancient Egyptians, Hindus, and Chinese were much wiser and moreover, saner!

I love history it gets really crazy the more i search.

Most of what you think you know about history is wrong.

That’s not personal.  It is just a general observation.  Most of what people believe to be “history” is fake news, either twisted or just made up by somebody with an agenda somewhere along the line—the Bible being only the worst and most notorious example.  Indeed, if you want a neat demonstration of just how bad the problem is, peruse the idiot-bait on Wikipedia and follow the “verifiable” citations to so-called “scholars” who crank out arrant nonsense “supporting” or “investigating” the historicity of completely fictional stories.


I wrote the foregoing yesterday, but did not consider it to be finished.  I have not edited it, because I really think it’s done now:

in his worldwide bestseller "Sapiens - A brief history of humankind" (which is a great book, that I can deeply recommend, even for historians) Harari explains why our ability to cooperate with strangers to build kingdoms and other large entities was an important driving force of history. shared beliefs (or intersubjective truths) like religions and money were the tools humans used to cooperate. progress was happening but was relatively slow. then came the invention of limited corporations (yet another shared belief/intersubjective truth) a few hundred years ago. since then we treat limited corporations as legal entities that can be sued and held liable for their actions/products. (before that the liability was always on the founder/owner and that crippled any progress for millennia.) Harari argues that it was the invention of limited companies that brought all the economic progress of the last couple of hundred years. he writes it was capitalism via limited companies, technology and science that were the main driving forces.

Nice narrative.  And another case in point.

Ironically, just now when I saw this, I was writing a condemnation of Globalist Capitalism—another guise of International Communism, with stock market enterprises that own the State in lieu of State-owned enterprises.

Highlighting has been very purposefully selected, word by word.  The tail wagging this historical dog has been underlined.


Edit:

"Sapiens - A brief history of humankind"

Discovered and read it during the lockdown (thank you Wuhan), instant classic which you simply can't put down. You can borrow it for free on The Archive.

Being anti-copyright in principle, I just checked:  Several copies in multiple languages are available on libgen.  Just in case you do not want to “borrow” with DRM invading your computer, or fork over to a bigcorp propaganda mill.

[cAPSLOCK]

banks existed for 500 years. their business model is to allocate our money over space and time. for 500 years there was no better way to send money to someone than using a bank. it became so embedded in our lives and minds that banks are custodians of our money that we started to believe it's natural that they keep&handle our money. now, with bitcoin achieving digital scarcity, that 500 year old business model is threatened. with bitcoin and some more adoption the "be your own bank" meme is true.

but... as mentioned by capslock, that does not mean they go away tomorrow. ever since desktop publishing the paperless office did not happen. there is the digital web with news sites, but you can still buy a printed newspaper. there are ebooks, but lots of people (like myself) prefer analog books.

if something was dominant for 500 years it will stay another 50 years even with business model gone digital and p2p.

I agree with this entirely.  Where I see nuance is in the realm of the definition of "bank".  Taken as a whole banks perform several ultimately essential functions.  Essential as in "somebody's gotta do em".  It's like plumbing.  Something we take for granted entirely, but an age old trade without which the world as we know it would not even be CLOSE to being able to exist.

Just as email replaced some of the functions of the post office, it did not replace them all.  And other functions like package delivery became MUCH more important in the internet age thanks to Amazon, EBay et al.

So the successful banks for the future will be the ones that isolate the still needed functions that work as the "plumbing" of digital society.

-Payments
-Security
-Contracts

I think these are the areas where banks will need to focus.  The first one scales bitcoin.  The second keeps it safe, and helps it remain legitimate.  The third?  Well that's the really fun one.  All kinda of conditional financial instruments will be coded into banking PLATFORMS.  Ethereum has the mindshare on this, but many will realize that a blockchain is actually NOT where we want to do contracts.  Contracts will be anchored in Bitcoin and run atop using proprietary trusted systems, just like it is now.

As those systems emerge, the ones that are proved to be needed, and can be replaced safely and efficiently in the FOSS world will be.

Ethereum has it backwards, IMHO.  It's a hammer looking for nails.  The tools we need will be developed FOR the needs, and most likely rooted into the security of Bitcoin.
 

[LUCKMCFLY]

Hi guys, it's nice to read this type of article where you keep encouraging hodl ..

New Bitcoin bull run? Whales and institutions accumulating, data shows

Bitcoin continues to retest $11,000 as market data hint at an optimistic trend

Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-bitcoin-bull-run-whales-and-institutions-accumulating-data-shows

[Hueristic]

I am in Bitcoin because, in my confirmed empirical experience, the banking system “doesn’t work well”. 

Banking is working Exactly as intended, to control people.

[hv_]

The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.

**A little Saturday read inspired by your post... I will merit you, but I just dumped all my merit on Hal Finney.  You can't be mad about that right?***

[...post too long for quoting, body removed, click here to go to it...]

Happy Saturday!

Very good post, thanks.

I hope jbreher and the other big blockers read it (I'm saying this in a positive way, not intending to offend anyone...).

Happy Saturday everyone!

The electronic settlement layer of the world will be adopted cause of efficiency, cheap txs by good enough security and simplest stable protocol design where no consensus governance is ever neede cause it was set in stone 10y ago.

I wonder why it's hard to see and get real on that

But it ll take time, cause the globe still thinks best option is Corda (by Mike Hearn) , Hyperledger by IBM or DAML ... cause here they ve minimal governance/ compliance risks and easy smart contract solutions in once.

Why go on open system if risks are too high by any means?

Set things in stone is first option to reduce risks, not some 'high' market cap

[nullius]

Nice rant, rolling, loaded with bait-and-switch rhetorical chicanery, bold inversions of the truth, and some smug attempts to intimidate by bluster a nobody who is not thereby impressed.

What it boils down to, in translation:  “Banks and financial manipulators rule the world, whether you like it or not—nyah, nyah!”

First, the bait and switch—I replied to this point, which I will quote at some length so as to make obvious the obvious:

how do you determine on-chain transations to cost so much?

He can’t.  His post is just a roundabout way of saying, “Bitcoin cannot scale, and will thus become a banker’s toy as bone-crushing transaction fees force everybody into the next generation of Paypal.”  Baloney.

[...]

The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.

I could see perhaps something on the order of magnitude of $100 (in today’s current value) on-chain transaction costs, but $1000+?  Smells like FUD.

[...]

The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.

That would turn Bitcoin into a bankers’ wet dream:  The totally controlled, centralized, regulated basis for a cashless dystopia in which everybody can be tracked, traced, and forced to ask permission to use money.

That is not a new allegation, and it’s not true.

The fact is, whether you the bankers like it or not, cryptographic cleverness will continue to enable technologies that put the individual in direct control of his own money.

Whereupon you ignore what I said (just as you pointedly omitted Lightning from your list of off-chain transaction media), and jump from quote-unquote “the transaction costs alone will ensure it” to:

99% of people don't have the mental ability to deal with private keys, wallets or anything of the sort. They want a bank account and a debit card. Their attention span is about 3 seconds. There is no way they will ever grasp crypto. They may want to invest in crypto or hold it but it will be at a bank or brokerage and governments will impose their restrictions on those accounts just like they are doing now.

So, which is it, rolling?

Is your argument that most people are passive, ovine meat-robots?  I would not argue with that.  I did not argue with your brief mention of that point in your prior post—which was tossed off seemingly obiter dictum, amidst your vehement insistence on the primacy of transaction costs.  Actually, mass stupidity is the principal point of a plurality of my recent writings.

Or is your argument that “transaction costs alone will ensure” that individuals who want financial freedom will be unable to control their own money unless they are rich?

Sounds like the kind of rant the bigblockers went on just prior to forking off. You are welcome to get out now and go chase another shitcoin dream. Bitcoin will be just fine without you.

You are the one throwing bigblocker “Bitcoin won’t scale!!!” arguments, only with the twist that you think that’s a good thing.  Or at least, a “hah hah, little guy, you’re just totally fucked—bow down to your masters!” thing.

Is your binning me with the bigblockers intentional irony, whereas you seem afraid to mention the Lightning Network?  You know—the thing the bigblockers don’t believe in, which makes scalable, decentralized, private, trustless, permissionless off-chain transaction costs negligible.

Boldface is rolling’s; highlighting is mine:

The free market will decide what Bitcoin becomes, not an opinion of what it should be. For better or for worse, those with all the money now, will largely be the ones with all the money in the future. Bitcoin is open to everyone including the banks, governments, and billionaires. This will push out the little guy, just like in every other industry in history.

= “STFU and kneel in awe of the ‘free market’, i.e. the slavemarket owned by banks, governments, and billionaires.”

That is your opinion.

Of course, Bitcoin is open to everyone.  As I recently noted, “I myself tend to distrust institutional corporate holders; but there is nothing that I can do to stop them.”  Bitcoin being open to everyone is my point.  Whereas I suggest that you contemplate your blatant self-contradiction that I have highlighted.

On-chain will be for the big boys. If you don't like it, become one of the big boys by filling your bags now while BTC is still dirt cheap.

It is the bluster of a typical proletarian—the type who probably believes that $10 million is a lot of money.

In substantial essence, you are a worshipper of plutocracy.  Too bad for you that the big boys won’t pat you on the head for wanting so very much to be one of them.  Anyway, Bitcoin doesn’t care for your opinions.  It will scale, whether you like it or not.


(Aside to Jay:  As you may have surmised, I am not your typical prole in terms of contact with actual wealth.  And I have a pretty good idea of how the world actually works.  I am much less idealistic about Bitcoin than I tend to let on:  It is a tool.  It is an excellent tool, and timely at this moment in history; but it is just that.)

Personally, I'm pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines.

-Greg Maxwell around the BTC all time high Dec 2017. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015455.html

I almost quoted that myself, in my prior reply to rolling—in anticipation that some people may object to my discussion of potential fees on the order of $100 value (which was explicitly admitted handwaving in the absence of the crystal ball that none of us has).  No, transactions cannot remain cup-of-coffee cheap—cannot, as Bitcoin slowly transitions to what is effectually a fee-based security model.  The amount of fees produced by the fee market set a practical upper bound on hashrate as block rewards fall toward the point of economic irrelevance.  In the long term, on-chain fees that are too low would cause Bitcoin to fail—wherefore the champagne.

Maxwell made that statement at a time when on-chain transaction fees were close to bank wire transfer rates.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that Maxwell, of all people, was arguing that the future of Bitcoin belongs to banks (!).  He is probably the single most out-of-context quoted personage in the Bitcoin world—other than Satoshi.

For my part, I think that Bitcoin will converge on optimal fees—neither too high, nor too low—as on-chain improvements pack more transactions into a block (e.g., forthcoming Segwit v1 will make much more efficient use of block space for certain types of transactions), and layering developments move most transactions off-chain.

[Biodom]

in his worldwide bestseller "Sapiens - A brief history of humankind" (which is a great book, that I can deeply recommend, even for historians)

(...)

bitcoin is on its way to deliver another big leap forward

(...)

Discovered and read it during the lockdown (thank you Wuhan), instant classic which you simply can't put down. You can borrow it for free on The Archive.

I liked "Sapiens" a lot too, next book "Homo Deus"- a tiny bit less, but very much liked the third book "21 lessons for the 21st Century".

[nullius]

Story of my life:

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Cassandra was so accursed as punishment for sexually rejecting a god.  What the fuck did you do?

The question is rhetorical—none of my business.  And don’t ask what I did.

I am in Bitcoin because, in my confirmed empirical experience, the banking system “doesn’t work well”.  

Banking is working Exactly as intended, to control people.

Whereas it’s been obvious for years that TPTB are approaching Bitcoin via co-option.  Those too worried about a ban which would be difficult, expensive, and inconvenient to enforce should remember that tyranny interprets freedom as damage, and routes around it.

Why fight Bitcoin openly, when you can shear the sheep all the better by herding them into Paypal 2.0?

New and improved!  Don’t worry.  Be happy, grinning idiots.  It is just like the comfortable collar that you have always enjoyed on your necks; but it’s more better, now that the upgraded collar is leashed with Blockchain!

For the bankers, the fly in the ointment is that Bitcoin still allows self-control by highly motivated individuals who take matters into their own hands.  It is imperative to keep it that way.

[rolling]

More ranting...

If you can't sum up your argument in a few sentences, you're pulling a JJG and trying to prove your point with walls of text rather than logical argument.

My argument is people are idiots and the few who aren't will be priced out of the market by high fees. Bitcoin scales just fine, you're just looking at it wrong. The highest value use cases will survive and the everything else will be done off chain or die, including your ideology. This is the free market I'm talking about.

I have no problem with Lighting and I think it and other side-chains will have their use cases.

I'm not a worshipper of plutocracy and the world isn't going to change just because you will it to. Things are just what they are.

[Torque]

Something to ponder tho...

What is the difference between ?

1. A banking system that issues IOUs backed by Gold/Silver.

2. A future with "bitcoin banks" that issue private digital currencies backed by Bitcoin.

^{A: Nothing, nada, zilch. First it's backed 1:1 to build and insure public confidence and trust. Then it gets fractionally reserved. And finally they go off the "Bitcoin standard" (i.e., The "Gold standard" of the future) and back their private digital shitcoins with literally nothing, while they inflate them to infinity. Repeating history all over again.}

[Biodom]

https://news.bitcoin.com/analyst-1500-bitcoins-lost-every-day-less-than-14-million-coins-will-ever-circulate/

While I am of the opinion that 21 mil "theoretical" coin number should not be touched, this number '1500" lost every day is actually quite interesting.
If true, this means 600 (from 1500-900)X1304 (days until April 15, 20024, which is the midpoint between Feb and June 2024, theoretical timing for next halving)=782K coins lost until next halving.
After that, if losses at 1500 a day continue, we would be losing roughly 1050 a day on balance or about 1.5 mil more coins until 2028 halving.
8 cycles (~30 years) at this level or slightly increasing due to halvings and ALL coins would be gone, poof, evaporated.

Maybe his 1500 number is incorrect, though, it is difficult to pin down.

EDIT:
As a purely theoretical exercise, I can see the following happening if most or almost all coins are really lost in 30-40 years:
1. Remember the "stone" money (Rai stones)? In one curious occasion one stone accidentally drowned, but was still used by villagers to do transactions in a "virtual" chain of custody. They were referring to it as if it was present even when it was not accessible.
2. If losses of coins will exceed certain %, I am sure that there will be a proposal to make some reference to Satoshi's coins (if they are still not moved) to be such lost "stone".
3. Of course, that would be fractional reserves and the "bad" cycle would start anew.

[friends1980]

in his worldwide bestseller "Sapiens - A brief history of humankind" (which is a great book, that I can deeply recommend, even for historians)

(...)

bitcoin is on its way to deliver another big leap forward

(...)

Discovered and read it during the lockdown (thank you Wuhan), instant classic which you simply can't put down. You can borrow it for free on The Archive.

I liked "Sapiens" a lot too, next book "Homo Deus"- a tiny bit less, but very much liked the third book "21 lessons for the 21st Century".

Thx for the tip. I've been an avid reader ever since I was a child, and been very frustrated for years about not having the time or the energy to read more, because of the general rat race and a 12+ hours a day-job. My wife and I were quite upset about the fact that we needed an actual virus lockdown to finally find and get some time again to read books in quiet solitude (Milan Kundera, anyone? Dostoevsky? Oh and Harari, obviously).

That being said, I need no Lambo, no private Caribbean Island with a butler and a jet, but simply enough BTC "moon" to be able to read books whenever I feel like it... Let's call it my little definition of "freedom".

[edit: sorry double posting - connection lagging for a sec]

[friends1980]

https://news.bitcoin.com/analyst-1500-bitcoins-lost-every-day-less-than-14-million-coins-will-ever-circulate/

While I am of the opinion that 21 mil "theoretical" coin number should not be touched, this number '1500" lost every day is actually quite interesting.
If true, this means 600 (from 1500-900)X1304 (days until April 15, 20024, which is the midpoint between Feb and June 2024, theoretical timing for next halving)=782K coins lost until next halving.
After that, if losses at 1500 a day continue, we would be losing roughly 1050 a day on balance or about 1.5 mil more coins until 2028 halving.
8 cycles (~30 years) at this level or slightly increasing due to halvings and ALL coins would be gone, poof, evaporated.

Maybe his 1500 number is incorrect, though, it is difficult to pin down.

It was the very first thread I opened when I arrived on these boards, over 3 years ago: what influence will disappearing Bitcoins have on the price and the future of the coin? I used the example of dying without leaving your keys to anyone.

Little did I know back then, that the Bitcoin Discussion boards were packed with shitposters. Apart from some of my first Merits, I've actually never received a clear answer to my question and the thread was soon spammed to forgetfulness (and in the meantime it has been locked, it seems).

Maybe not a bad idea for a relaunch in the Serious Discussion boards...

[rolling]

https://news.bitcoin.com/analyst-1500-bitcoins-lost-every-day-less-than-14-million-coins-will-ever-circulate/

While I am of the opinion that 21 mil "theoretical" coin number should not be touched, this number '1500" lost every day is actually quite interesting.
If true, this means 600 (from 1500-900)X1304 (days until April 15, 20024, which is the midpoint between Feb and June 2024, theoretical timing for next halving)=782K coins lost until next halving.
After that, if losses at 1500 a day continue, we would be losing roughly 1050 a day on balance or about 1.5 mil more coins until 2028 halving.
8 cycles (~30 years) at this level or slightly increasing due to halvings and ALL coins would be gone, poof, evaporated.

Maybe his 1500 number is incorrect, though, it is difficult to pin down.

EDIT:
As a purely theoretical exercise, I can see the following happening if most or almost all coins are really lost in 30-40 years:
1. Remember the "stone" money (Rai stones)? In one curious occasion one stone accidentally drowned, but was still used by villagers to do transactions in a "virtual" chain of custody. They were referring to it as if it was present even when it was not accessible.
2. If losses of coins will exceed certain %, I am sure that there will be a proposal to make some reference to Satoshi's coins (if they are still not moved) to be such lost "stone".
3. Of course, that would be fractional reserves and the "bad" cycle would start anew.

The 21 million number is not theoretical. If any version tried to change it, that would be a fork and no longer BTC.

The number of coins in circulation is irrelevant. For every lost coin, you can view it as a redistribution of its value across all remaining coins. Even if there was a single coin left, it would still work. If that means a satoshi is worth more than people want it to be, the devs could create a unit of account less than a satoshi and all would be well.

This is a non-issue.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

@Mistuhbailey
Bitcoin halving fractal pattern playing out.







https://twitter.com/mistuhbailey/status/1307344551359766529?s=21

[Biodom]

https://news.bitcoin.com/analyst-1500-bitcoins-lost-every-day-less-than-14-million-coins-will-ever-circulate/

While I am of the opinion that 21 mil "theoretical" coin number should not be touched, this number '1500" lost every day is actually quite interesting.
If true, this means 600 (from 1500-900)X1304 (days until April 15, 20024, which is the midpoint between Feb and June 2024, theoretical timing for next halving)=782K coins lost until next halving.
After that, if losses at 1500 a day continue, we would be losing roughly 1050 a day on balance or about 1.5 mil more coins until 2028 halving.
8 cycles (~30 years) at this level or slightly increasing due to halvings and ALL coins would be gone, poof, evaporated.

Maybe his 1500 number is incorrect, though, it is difficult to pin down.

EDIT:
As a purely theoretical exercise, I can see the following happening if most or almost all coins are really lost in 30-40 years:
1. Remember the "stone" money (Rai stones)? In one curious occasion one stone accidentally drowned, but was still used by villagers to do transactions in a "virtual" chain of custody. They were referring to it as if it was present even when it was not accessible.
2. If losses of coins will exceed certain %, I am sure that there will be a proposal to make some reference to Satoshi's coins (if they are still not moved) to be such lost "stone".
3. Of course, that would be fractional reserves and the "bad" cycle would start anew.

The 21 million number is not theoretical. If any version tried to change it, that would be a fork and no longer BTC.

The number of coins in circulation is irrelevant. For every lost coin, you can view it as a redistribution of its value across all remaining coins. Even if there was a single coin left, it would still work. If that means a satoshi is worth more than people want it to be, the devs could create a unit of account less than a satoshi and all would be well.

This is a non-issue.

sure...from a protocol point of view, but not from a practical usage point of view.
the fact that you would make progressively smaller and smaller units for it to work on a planetary basis strikes me as odd.
Mathematically it can work, of course, but what is the practicality of having 10^-3 btc for all earthlings to use while considering 21mil as 'unobtanium'?
Imagine in such economy someone suddenly digging up a bottle in their backyard that great-great-grandpa has buried and which has 1 "full" btc in it, private code perfectly preserved and unaffected by whatever happened in the interim. Suddenly, there is a X1000 world-wide inflation. It is all theoretical, of course, but worthy of pondering over.

EDIT: an interesting "thought" experiment would be to launch a few thou (or more) btc with the private code protected by a strong encryption (or strong multisig) into Sun-Earth L2 spot. Just in case if btc losses would be catastrophic at some point in the decades ahead. If needed, future humanity can retrieve such btc.

[600watt]

https://news.bitcoin.com/analyst-1500-bitcoins-lost-every-day-less-than-14-million-coins-will-ever-circulate/

While I am of the opinion that 21 mil "theoretical" coin number should not be touched, this number '1500" lost every day is actually quite interesting.
If true, this means 600 (from 1500-900)X1304 (days until April 15, 20024, which is the midpoint between Feb and June 2024, theoretical timing for next halving)=782K coins lost until next halving.
After that, if losses at 1500 a day continue, we would be losing roughly 1050 a day on balance or about 1.5 mil more coins until 2028 halving.
8 cycles (~30 years) at this level or slightly increasing due to halvings and ALL coins would be gone, poof, evaporated.

Maybe his 1500 number is incorrect, though, it is difficult to pin down.

EDIT:
As a purely theoretical exercise, I can see the following happening if most or almost all coins are really lost in 30-40 years:
1. Remember the "stone" money (Rai stones)? In one curious occasion one stone accidentally drowned, but was still used by villagers to do transactions in a "virtual" chain of custody. They were referring to it as if it was present even when it was not accessible.
2. If losses of coins will exceed certain %, I am sure that there will be a proposal to make some reference to Satoshi's coins (if they are still not moved) to be such lost "stone".
3. Of course, that would be fractional reserves and the "bad" cycle would start anew.

I remember a scientific study about this topic. the researchers came to the conclusion that bitcoin is far too safe and rare to be used as money since people make mistakes and people die and in both cases coins are lost forever, the number of circulating bitcoin would shrink so drastically that it would be rendered useless. this was coming out around 2013, can't find it via google.

[friends1980]

https://news.bitcoin.com/analyst-1500-bitcoins-lost-every-day-less-than-14-million-coins-will-ever-circulate/

While I am of the opinion that 21 mil "theoretical" coin number should not be touched, this number '1500" lost every day is actually quite interesting.
If true, this means 600 (from 1500-900)X1304 (days until April 15, 20024, which is the midpoint between Feb and June 2024, theoretical timing for next halving)=782K coins lost until next halving.
After that, if losses at 1500 a day continue, we would be losing roughly 1050 a day on balance or about 1.5 mil more coins until 2028 halving.
8 cycles (~30 years) at this level or slightly increasing due to halvings and ALL coins would be gone, poof, evaporated.

Maybe his 1500 number is incorrect, though, it is difficult to pin down.

EDIT:
As a purely theoretical exercise, I can see the following happening if most or almost all coins are really lost in 30-40 years:
1. Remember the "stone" money (Rai stones)? In one curious occasion one stone accidentally drowned, but was still used by villagers to do transactions in a "virtual" chain of custody. They were referring to it as if it was present even when it was not accessible.
2. If losses of coins will exceed certain %, I am sure that there will be a proposal to make some reference to Satoshi's coins (if they are still not moved) to be such lost "stone".
3. Of course, that would be fractional reserves and the "bad" cycle would start anew.

The 21 million number is not theoretical. If any version tried to change it, that would be a fork and no longer BTC.

The number of coins in circulation is irrelevant. For every lost coin, you can view it as a redistribution of its value across all remaining coins. Even if there was a single coin left, it would still work. If that means a satoshi is worth more than people want it to be, the devs could create a unit of account less than a satoshi and all would be well.

This is a non-issue.

sure...from a protocol point of view, but not from a practical usage point of view.
the fact that you would make progressively smaller and smaller units for it to work on a planetary basis strikes me as odd.
Mathematically it can work, of course, but what is the practicality of having 10^-3 btc for all earthlings to use while considering 21mil as 'unobtanium'?
Imagine in such economy someone suddenly digging up a bottle in their backyard that great-great-grandpa has buried and which has 1 "full" btc in it, private code perfectly preserved and unaffected by whatever happened in the interim. Suddenly, there is a X1000 world-wide inflation. It is all theoretical, of course, but worthy of pondering over.

Hear hear. Another example is finding back some written-down private key or seeds in some forefather's archive or in a safe or a book (or in a hidden compartment in the wooden framework of your great-great-grandmother's horrible self-portrait for which you simply didn't have the heart to throw it away because of the emotional value), and if you think about it, it's absolutely not as theoretical as you would think at first glance. It's on the contrary perfectly imaginable and similar cases will most certainly happen in the future.

[rolling]

https://news.bitcoin.com/analyst-1500-bitcoins-lost-every-day-less-than-14-million-coins-will-ever-circulate/

While I am of the opinion that 21 mil "theoretical" coin number should not be touched, this number '1500" lost every day is actually quite interesting.
If true, this means 600 (from 1500-900)X1304 (days until April 15, 20024, which is the midpoint between Feb and June 2024, theoretical timing for next halving)=782K coins lost until next halving.
After that, if losses at 1500 a day continue, we would be losing roughly 1050 a day on balance or about 1.5 mil more coins until 2028 halving.
8 cycles (~30 years) at this level or slightly increasing due to halvings and ALL coins would be gone, poof, evaporated.

Maybe his 1500 number is incorrect, though, it is difficult to pin down.

EDIT:
As a purely theoretical exercise, I can see the following happening if most or almost all coins are really lost in 30-40 years:
1. Remember the "stone" money (Rai stones)? In one curious occasion one stone accidentally drowned, but was still used by villagers to do transactions in a "virtual" chain of custody. They were referring to it as if it was present even when it was not accessible.
2. If losses of coins will exceed certain %, I am sure that there will be a proposal to make some reference to Satoshi's coins (if they are still not moved) to be such lost "stone".
3. Of course, that would be fractional reserves and the "bad" cycle would start anew.

The 21 million number is not theoretical. If any version tried to change it, that would be a fork and no longer BTC.

The number of coins in circulation is irrelevant. For every lost coin, you can view it as a redistribution of its value across all remaining coins. Even if there was a single coin left, it would still work. If that means a satoshi is worth more than people want it to be, the devs could create a unit of account less than a satoshi and all would be well.

This is a non-issue.

sure...from a protocol point of view, but not from a practical usage point of view.
the fact that you would make progressively smaller and smaller units for it to work on a planetary basis strikes me as odd.
Mathematically it can work, of course, but what is the practicality of having 10^-3 btc for all earthlings to use while considering 21mil as 'unobtanium'?
Imagine in such economy someone suddenly digging up a bottle in their backyard that great-great-grandpa has buried and which has 1 "full" btc in it, private code perfectly preserved and unaffected by whatever happened in the interim. Suddenly, there is a X1000 world-wide inflation. It is all theoretical, of course, but worthy of pondering over.

Worthy of pondering but I think the more valuable it gets, the fewer lost coins there will be.

On the other hand, it might be a good idea to bury a bottle in the backyard with one full BTC in it for the great-great-grandkids.

[nullius]

  BTC Dominance

 

Needs illustration.