Quote from: mv1986 on Today at 07:26:57 AM

@stompix don't be so hard on @HandcraftedBreads! Wink

I think it is worth having that discussion and I must say that I also had these thought experiments on my mind years ago. What if this or that happens and can the supply ever become too scarce to keep up with the economic requirements of (monetary) policy and society. I think it is nice to have these discussions and see what everybody has to say. It is not that there is no point thinking about it, but as has been said before here Bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis to keep functioning properly.

No, it's actually no point debating this anymore as it has been already labeled a waste of time a decade ago.
It has been debated since Satoshi was still on this forum, it's about time we quit

Quote from: satoshi on June 21, 2010, 05:48:26 PM

Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone.

It's no point trying to reinvent the wheel, and certainly not by taking control over other people's money in name of economic stability.
That's why Bitcoin exists in the first place, so you don't get locked out of your account once a bank decided 50k is enough for you and the rest goes Cyprus-style donations.

Plus the whole thing is a waste of time, let's assume Satoshi is still in control of his coins and passes down the keys to his family but those want to keep the coins intact. They will still sign a message and keep the coins but the coins won't be in circulation, so how does this help anything?
You would still have 1 million coins missing from daily activities and things will be the same, all you have is the confirmation they are not lost!
Economic impact, zero!

Quote from: mv1986 on Today at 07:26:57 AM

@stompix even though I concur with you that taking away coins from dormant addresses and reintroducing them into the system goes against my expectations and understanding of how Bitcoin is supposed to work (and will hopefully always do), the signaling to the network whether or not a wallet is still active would not necessarily have to be done using a centralized service right? Couldn't it just be a signed message to the network and the protocol would do the work? No centralized entity needed.

No, there will be a centralized entity that will decide how much time you have before your funds are taken away from you.
Automation doesn't mean it's not centralized, it will be the same as banks, once you go over a limit based on the decision of the government the money above the limit is not yours anymore, it will still be a protocol that central authority decided on a whim for how long can you keep your funds (account) unused.