Quote from: aliashraf on October 26, 2019, 09:59:32 AM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on October 26, 2019, 08:36:23 AM

there is a dilemma here. firstly, this scheme of yours involves too much trust---in miners to privately mine transactions without stealing and in p2pkh holders to properly secure their coins. they are theoretically a threat to us all.

In the real world, trust works fine for many use-cases, it is one of them. It is the penalty a lazy or careless wallet owner or a paranoid one has to pay, her decision, not the community.

you're missing the point. i've emphasized the relevant sentence in bold. we---the rest of the bitcoin economy---could theoretically pay for their carelessness. i find that unacceptable.

as a bitcoin holder, their interests are directly in conflict with mine. how do you plan to reconcile this? this network operates on the basis of economic rationality. you seem to expect us to embrace irrational behavior that threatens our financial interests. why?

Quote from: aliashraf on October 26, 2019, 09:59:32 AM

The coins are not lost, they are deliberately destroyed by the majority (by a UASF for instance), it is not part of the deal and reminds me of Ethereum and its centralized ecosystem.

what "deal"? what are you referring to as if some scripture exists re our duty of care obligations? at what point is putting the entire bitcoin economy's well being at stake not acceptable to you?

i don't believe duty of care implies the necessity to protect specifically irresponsible and unsafe behavior that can/will harm other people. it seems like you'd rather see bitcoin burned to the ground before budging on this. is that the case?