Fredrik Bergman Name and picture from twetch — not on-chain. The signature is; the profile is not.

If you can’t understand the inflation/deflation discussion in the thread me repeating it won’t help you more.

What’s your point? Mine is that lost units probably will be recovered and that’s good because a more stable supply (less in-/deflation) is better than a less stable supply (more in-/deflation), agree?

Damnit speed limit!

The current system wouldn’t technically malfunction, society however would, same as with Bitcoin and deflation.

If we are back at “deflation just means your savings are worth more” I rest my case.

I do not mix three concepts of deflation, it’s the appreciation of money’s purchasing power. Also, I have never justified to reallocate funds that anyone claims. Please cite were any other definition or advocacy occurred.

Appreciation due to adoption/usage is real growth and not avoidable deflation. A lost unit is not. I have never said that money should be designed to lose value. Inflation is just as bad. How exactly was any of this stated? I dont understand the last part.

No again. The point is to make all benefit from competing equally in a system being rationally incentivized, which it seems to be even in this regard as far as possible already. It’s a feature or at least not a bug just as zero bound interests are today.

A lost unit is not a use case equivalent of holding why it contribute to “unnecessary” deflation. However there seem to be an organic solution, I.e hard fork, anticipated to meet that issue already.

That’s exactly what we are discussing and it’s not isolated to early adopters but to all “unnecessary” favoring of deflation that incentivize holding rather than usage and building.

Your “solution” dont account for loss of units and deflation.
Famous last words “ it matters not if it's quantity decreases by a slow loss”.
Dont you see that it is the future economic statement corresponding to “credit growth matters not to the economy”?

No, can you explain the logic how you earn purchasing power by simply holding? How did you deserve that? Who has to pay? Is that a “fair” market structure in the long run?
Lending it out at interest is something different which Bitcoin doesn’t affect.

If money are gaining purchasing power simply by holding there is a as big problem as inflation. You just haven’t lived to experience it yet.

I don’t think you have read or understood the whole thread...

U dont know that but maybe, however Bitcoin shouldnt favor any outcome more than necessary meaning in one way or another maintaining 21m units in use which seem to be the anticipated case already. And holding is of course a use case but a lost unit is not.

I dont want anything but understand if Bitcoin is deflationary but it seems like a HF is coming in the future to balance it the best possible way either you want it or not. I wouldnt expect this to affect any other code interfaces.

The reason to prefer deflation is natural i the current time and is rational today but when we grow old if the system clings on to that notion we will be the central bankers of 2070 looking like crazy for deflation instead with profound impact on society.

It’s hard to propose to change how money works. It’s kind of a law of nature and only our understanding improves. The protocol (white paper) is set in stone, not the code. I wouldn’t expect as much code volatility going forward as looking back.

It will happen anyhow with regard to BSV king in my thread, you will have to adapt like a capitalist. With that said there already seems to be a more organic solution anticipated urging to balance the deflation/inflation issue not far from what I proposed.

It was never arbitrarily, you still would have to mine it with POW if you read thoroughly. Rather than the economics I’m more surprised that it again already might be an anticipated technical solution expected.

The 80 year threshold was however arbitrary. Yes, effectively it will be the same thing from the economic perspective of balancing the inflation/deflation issue but more organic than a centralized decision.

I think Craig talked about other similar solutions to what you are talking about in the article? However that is seldom possible for all the already lost coins.

You mixing up economics with code. I talked about economics, you are the one talking about code changes. Bizarre taking the brute force argument in the same sentence as defending property rights, you don’t see a contradiction here?

What’s bad economic theory? That neither inflation nor deflation is by definition good or bad? In real terms its the same effect or do you mean that you have earned it better by taking it with brute force?

@4 when will it be possible to pay to promote twetches in the top lists?

Almost there... But when the first private key is brute forced the algorithm would be requested to be changed by the market->consensus HF->either there would be a threshold established or you would need to move your coins to not risk being brute forced?

That must mean an eternity longer than my initial proposition of 80 years? I dont understand how that would work. I mean if it where dependent on the difficulty which is adjusting we should be able to remine early blocks already, right? Care to elaborate?

Ok, I think I get it. Again, thx a bunch, to learn somethying is what you hope for when starting a discussion!
/Pay @175 $1

Sorry, I’m just not there yet. Do you mean like brute force private keys? Aren’t they the same throughout time? Or do you mean that since they (probably) stay in the same place there could be enough time to actually do it?

Thx a bunch!
Even though I don’t see any support for your thesis on sha256 in it?
However, it seem to support my initial point but lacking all details on how to handle lost coins, right?

Hey just got this from another in my thread. Read it as it exactly mentions your analogy to gold but with a twist to my favor.
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/fixing-op_fals/

Sure but Bitcoin isn’t gold and there are so many other things that are bad with it as money that other forms have been far more effective and therefor preferred by the market. Remember how little value exchange actually been settled with gold historically