nice effort. but this is basically
forcing people to move their coins. maybe i like to buy 1 bitcoin and hold it for my retirement and i don't care what happens during that time. my retirement is not for (lets say) 30 years. with this you are forcing me to move my coins against my will every couple of years.
and that creates a large number of on-chain transactions that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
i haven't really checked this but i believe UnitedBitcoin (UB) is already doing something similar to this. you may want to see for yourself what the differences are:
https://www.ub.com/Yeah, it's an old idea that went nowhere till now.
Of course the clogging of the chain could be solved by pruning but this "solution" might hurt innocent people.
One case I can think of it is inheritance, both when happening normally or when there is a legal dispute.
You wait for those 1000
BTC and when you finally get the prvkey , they are gone.
Although this May sound horrible, it's quite legally correct. I run a banking group in London, and this is what the regulations call for. When someone is not actively using his personal or real property, it can be subject to adverse possession, where 3rd parties can simply legally take possession of the property after being in possession for quite a length of tim.
It might just be my impression, or I've understand it wrong from the first time....but wasn't bitcoin supposed to get rid of the traditional way banks banks deal with their customers? /s
A central value in bitcoin is that we don't tell each other what to do with each others money.
One line, summing it all perfectly.
This!!! I'm my own bank, I have my coins, those are mine, nobody else should try to touch, spend, divide, decay, move ....whatever them.
The whole point is to make it as easy as possible to not lose any money, while still being able to reusing lost funds (although at a significant delay unfortunately).
I've probably missed the part in which this "solution" does this.