there is a one thing that I can't still figure out. #bitcoin is being lost on daily basis. why not have tiny amount added daily for that and also for miners?
#asknostr
Discussion
Because if one of the 100 million shitcoins out there isn't what you are looking for I'm convinced #Bitcoin with that feature also wouldn't be what you want ?
today we have new bitcoins allocated to miners and this doesn't make it shitcoin, why the same thing extended would make it shitcoin? shitcoins usually pre-mined and given for free to company owner or whoever. that is not the same
I guess I just dont understand the benefit... How many btc are lost per year? Do you know? Ive had some BTC sitting for about a decade in a wallet, it hasn't moved once... Should it be replaced?
The blockchain doesn't know what is lost and what isnt...
Who is served by even a trickle of supply increase per year? Just miners I think... Everyone else loses value even if its slight.
The simpler answer, let the price go up as BTC is lost. As its lost, the available supply shrinks. This is good for everyone holding it. There's enough zeros there to last quite a long time... Perhaps humanity won't need money by the time it actually becomes a real problem.
main benefit is incentive for miners, second - compensation for lost bitcoin.
if one day miners will not have incentives to mine you will not have incentives for hodl. or fees wlll go trough the roof.
I'm not sure if just enrichment of 1% hodlers is the best future for bitcoin.
but of course it is almost impossible to find proper value for this inflation.
it will be very weird if one day all bitcoin will be sitting in wallets not moving. so we invented new form of diamond?
Because that's where it starts. Once there is a facility for creating more bitcoin, someone will eventually find a way to control it, and then provide seemingly good reasons to make more.... War, theft, recessions, fixing a paper bitcoin seller before they bankrupt, etc.
Its also a math thing. The algorithm is limited to the designated amount.
There is also certainty with how much bitcoin will ever exist, which makes it much easier to determine its worth.
If the algorithm added it itself, no one would control it, just as is the case now.
No.
lost bitcoins increase the value of the un-lost. So any lost coins are actually a gift to all BTC hodlers
Go ahead. Fork Bitcoin with a small amount of base inflation to account for presumably lost Bitcoin. See how many nodes choose to run the code. If you don't know how to write the code yourself, you can hire someone else to do it.
Good luck.
Did I say that I want to do that? Did I say that bitcoin with small inflation would be better?
You literally did:
> "why not have tiny amount added daily for that and also for miners?"
Adding to the supply, even in "tiny" amounts, is the very definition of monetary inflation.
there is a question mark. question mark means it is a question and not a suggestion. question mark also means I'm not sure and want to hear arguments.
Experimentation such as nostr:nprofile1qqstwf6d9r37nqalwgxmfd9p9gclt3l0yc3jp5zuyhkfqjy6extz3jcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumrpdejqzyrhwden5te0dehhxarj9emkjmn9q9w8wumn8ghj7urjdau8jtnwdaehgu3dwfjkccte9eshqup0xvmkgdrrxvekydnyvscnzef3x56nxcenvsmkzctzvfjkgv35vf3k2wtpx5cxvcehxfnrwvf5xc6xgveevcuxvdfjvdjnsvmzv43kvwqa45pq3 suggests beats arguments any time.
This is patently false. Suggestions are often stated as questions, in many examples, such as:
How about we... ?
Why don't we... ?
Why not do... ?
Have you considered doing... ?
What about doing... ?
Should we... ?
Shall we... ?
And the list could go on and on. See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/suggestions for reference.
Your phrasing was clearly a suggestion of something you believe could be advantageous, as you present it as a possible solution to your perceived problem of "Bitcoin being lost on a daily basis." It is further evidenced by the fact that you have been arguing in favor of your suggestion against everyone who has given you reasons why it is a bad idea.
Moreover, you have not acknowledged the validity of any arguments presented against your suggestion, or presented any reasons you can think of for why it would not be a good idea. That being the case, you clearly are not at all unsure whether your suggestion ought to be implemented, but have rather already determined it would be a good idea.
So go for it. Fork Bitcoin with the change you want and see if anyone wants to run it. If it's actually a good idea, you'll probably get the majority of node runners to switch.
