Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 08, 2012, 03:13:58 PM

Extending Bitcoin to new and wonderful types of transactions is fine, and, actually, I believe Therilith could build most of what he wants on top of Bitcoin using pre-signed fee-only non-final transactions with a lockTime 10 years in the future.

What I want is a solution to the problem discussed in this thread. I'm not sure how what you're suggesting would accomplish that.
My defense of a sunset limit has been based on two things: It not being nearly as horrible and evil as some people seem to think and it being a potential solution to the problem. If the problem did not exist (which I still believe it does), or if someone could offer up a better solution, I would not support the implementation of said limit.

Quote from: Brunic on April 09, 2012, 04:54:14 AM

Value is relative and adapt itself to its market.

You say "market readjustment", I say "significant and harmful economic disruption". Both would be accurate.

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on April 09, 2012, 12:55:17 PM

For now, stick to the matter at hand. And the matter is, we don't need any fix for a problem that neither does exist yet or it is certain it will ever exist.

"Don't try to solve the problem until it actually starts causing trouble".
Meh, I guess it'll be easier to convince people when they're actually staring death in the face, so to speak.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 09, 2012, 01:09:41 PM

If the coins are spent after long inactivity and addresses algorithm isn't compromised then the coins were never lost.

It makes absolutely no difference whether they were lost or not. The problem remains the same.