It'a all about how fast block chain size approaches infinity with number of transactions/time approaches infinity and the ratio between those two derivatives.
I see coins aging could be a viable on-chain scaling solution (scenario where coins that was not been moved for full halving period will automatically return to coinbase). If this will be the case - full nodes will only require to store blockchain for the past halving period since anything that remained unspent will transfer to the coinbase. This is drastic and, perhaps, cruel measure to take but that will also solve satoshi't billions, burned and lost coins problem.
This idea has a name,
demurrage. Its not by any means your original invention; it is regularly proposed and shot down in various places. Its a horrible idea, which
will never be implemented in Bitcoin, period; and the reasons you give are the worst possible reasons for it. (Some people make economic arguments for demurrage, which I ignore here as irrelevant.)
Since this will
never happen in Bitcoin, I suggest that you should go put all your money in Freicoin (FRC), a coin created by people who make economic arguments for demurrage. Freicoin is currently
ranked #675 on coinmarketcap.com, with a current market cap of $485,681 (27 BTC). (Current Bitcoin market cap: $307,305,229,550.) The idea that you should need to spend your money to not lose itwell, that idea is exactly as popular as it should be.
Please be advised:
- As explained earlier on this thread, the accumulated size of the blockchain is the least problem for scaling. Solving that would solve nothing. No, its not all about how fast block chain size approaches infinity with number of transactions/time approaches infinity and the ratio between those two derivatives. No, thats not how Bitcoin works. For starters, go read up on the UTXO setfor starters.
- There is no problem with [Satoshis] billions, burned and lost coins. First of all, it is a total non-problemeven for coins which seem to be really lost, such as those sent to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE, 1111111111111111111114oLvT2, or 1QLbz7JHiBTspS962RLKV8GndWFwi5j6Qr. Consider by analogy the scenario of a shipload of gold which gets sunk in waters too deep for retrieval, effectually reducing the worlds gold supply. Does that hurt the value or usefulness of gold as money? Of course not! But thats not even the most important point: Absent any evidence, who the hell are you to peremptorily decree that a coin is lost?
Do you know what happened to Satoshi and his private keys? I hate it when I see people salivating over Satoshis coins, declaring them a problem. What if he laser-engraved the private keys in corrosion-resistant nickel alloy plates and secreted them in a treasure cave for the benefit of his posterity, the future Nakamoto Royal Line? What if hes still around, lurking in the forum or posting under another nym?
More generally, who the hell are you to find a problem in the unknown numbers of people who have simply made long-term plans? As opposed to children, adults measure long-term starting in decades. There are people out there who have moved a portion of their assets into a Bitcoin cold wallet, and written the BIP39 seed phrase therefor into a sealed Last Will and Testament. What makes you think you can steal their childrens inheritance?
If you think the foregoing comes off as harsh, stop and consider that Bitcoins value derives from its promise of
safe, secure, stable currency in which everybody can participate without anybodys permission, according to a set of rules declared in advance and known fairly to all. Any change to those fundamental rules which seized away peoples coins would instantly destroy Bitcoin altogetherwhich is why
it will never happen. No, I havent been harsh; not by half.
Firstly, not everyone sees that as a problem and I think you would struggle to find consensus for stealing peoples' property just because you believe they aren't using it when it's been there for a while. And secondly, the very act of moving idle coins around and reintroducing them into circulation would result in more transactions, which places more burden on the network. I have coins I haven't moved in four years and they're not going anywhere, thank you. This sounds very much like altcoin territory as it likely decimates Bitcoin's predictable supply ethos when "new" money would come flooding back into the economy every halving.
Not to mention the miners that grabbed the first block after that got approved could completely fuck the economy if the coinbase reward included Satoshi's stash along with all the other coins presumed lost. It would literally be the biggest block reward since crypto was invented. Potentially worth trillions of dollars depending on what the price is at the time. Those miners would be newly anointed Gods on Earth and everyone would lose confidence as it all comes crashing down. Think it through to conclusion, please.
The less-unreasonable demurrage proposals dont throw giant lumps back into the coinbase, for this obvious reason. Anyway, its irrelevant to Bitcoin.
Aside: To find a private key associated with a public key Hash160 of all zeroes would be worth the current exchange equivalent of about $1.2 million. It is highly probable that such a key existsthat
many such keys exist!though I myself would not try searching therefor in the
public directory of all private keys. Are those coins burned? This is a philosophical question, though not a very deep one. The same applies as for the infamous BitcoinEater: There is an overwhelming probability that many, many private keys exist for that; though its worth less than the all-zeroes case.
For backup and protection of your long-term assets, among other use cases, Ive been toying on the mental whiteboard with a little idea involving secret sharing and similar magic. Ping me if curious.