rich1.0naman naman [ARCHIVE] (npub170…0rw80)https://yabu.me/npub170nq032tl9edal23vwpkv44m6l02qw5m2q8qv9j6jn0urdssadlqr0rw80njumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2022-07-10 📝 Original message:Hello , Thanks for the correction - it however boils down to the same principle : diluting other holders, possibly excessively, if you miscalculate the coins "lost". Which boils down to the same question again : How would you definitively know that coins are "lost" or simply not accessed for x amount of time? Regards, thenoblebot On Sat, 9 Jul, 2022, 9:48 pm Peter Todd, <pete at petertodd.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 09:43:49PM +0400, naman naman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This approach raises the obvious question : If someone hasn't had access > to > > their coins in a long time (yrs, decades, however you want to define it) > - > > and they wish to access/move them after such a time - isn't your proposal > > simply taking away their ability to do so? Some might call it : stealing > > their coins. > > > > How does one conclusively prove that "lost" coins are "lost forever"? > > Re-read the article: > https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary > > It has nothing to do with re-assigning ownership of coins. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220710/0ae17a8a/attachment.html>