Quote from: HandcraftedBreads on March 07, 2023, 07:52:14 PM

Quote from: mv1986 on March 07, 2023, 07:26:57 AM

as has been said before here Bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis to keep functioning properly.

In the case bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis, that's even better. Recycling would refer specifically to preserving the original fixed supply and comply with the law of conservation of energy.

Quote

@HandcraftedBreads, you should also take into consideration that the incentive for the vast majority of those who have a say about protocol changes is essentially zero regarding your proposal. Unless the economic viability of the protocol is so badly threatened that the wealth contained by the network is seriously at risk, you won't ever convince the majority of voting power to vote in favor of that protocol change. A fork is a possibility and you could decide to shift your wealth from Bitcoin to the new fork operating on your newly proposed rules. Speaking of which, this is what you could actually do. Introduce the new rule into the protocol, get a fork going and see how people react to it. Wink

If an idea is good, it doesn't need to convince, but to present itself at the right moment. This idea isn't directed to create a different path; there is no interest in gains, apart from the good of the system and the network.

A system where energy is permanently lost is destined to collapse. A recycling system that is completely neutral and autonomous could significantly contribute to ensuring the self-sustainability of Bitcoin over potentially infinite time.

This is where again the nature of Bitcoin being open source comes into play. Everyone can contribute and for a contribution to reach consensus among stakeholders, the incentives would only have to be strong enough. I am all with @stompix here because "not your keys not your crypto" should never equate to "yours keys, your crypto for only until X". As if you were renting a temporary box on the blockchain to store your wealth, but this would fundamentally violate the third component of the bundle of rights broadly defining what property rights are about:

1. the right to use the good
2. the right to earn income from the good
3. the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation)

That is just against THE core principle Bitcoin is based on. Bitcoin is about the inviolable right of permanent ownership. If Bitcoin comes to a point where its economic viability is at risk, people would follow their preferences, maximizing their utility. This means if Bitcoin is "bad" or becoming "bad" because it is a system where energy is permanently lost [is] and therefore destined to collapse, people will just withdraw their money from it. It is their free will to either stay in or leave the system.

It seems your theory is based on the presupposition that there is only one cryptocurrency or only one way to store wealth in general.

I am just wondering whether your idea of "permanently lost energy" is technically correct. It might be philosophically correct, but the energy consumed to have mined now dormant coins is still contained by the network. If it leads to increased scarcity, the energy consumed to have mined now dormant coins leads to potentially higher prices, potentially higher competition for transaction costs (if there is no block reward anymore), leads to more energy required to mine transaction cost rewards for a lower number of coins remaining in circulation. Hence, the energy consumed to have mined now dormant coins has a direct influence on the energy required to mine for transaction cost rewards.

Scarcity in its broadest sense has a value, and hence, an energy preserving function. If another network incorporates your 131 years activity verification requirement and people deem that a better solution for their needs, they will remove their wealth from the Bitcoin network and shift it into the network they deem to be the right one based on their preferences , usually following utility maximization.

The beauty about Bitcoin's protocol has always been its open source nature. People are free to tweak the code and propose it to the public. We have true competition between cryptocurrencies, other currencies and conventional options to store wealth, but we have also competition among cryptocurrencies.

In terms of Bitcoin I am 100% with @stompix as there is no other cryptocurrency, or any other form for wealth preservation and protection, as Bitcoin. Bitcoin is as valuable as it is today because the rule

"3. the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation)"

has never been put seriously into question let alone ever been effectively violated. If you own they keys, and you are the sole owner of the keys and have sole authority over them, it is your crypto. The moment this rule would be altered through a hard fork, you would realize that the fork without your proposed rule won't drop in value while the fork with your idea would come out as much less valuable at best.

I want to clearly say that I like this type of discussion. I know these questions have been brought up, but sometimes discussions still take different angles from the ones before. I think these discussions are one reason why we are all here.