3 ms·
Why not just divvy them up proportionally among all addresses with positive balances? It's functionally identical, since (to everybody besides you) it's just a
by rory096 11y ago
Why not just divvy them up proportionally among all addresses with positive balances? It's functionally identical, since (to everybody besides you) it's just a change in price level and bitcoin prices aren't sticky like dollar prices are.
Only issue I can see is divisibility: this would inevitably result in some addresses deserving <1 satoshi, leading to discrepancies when rounding.
- joosters 11y agoThis is effectively what happens, because the remaining bitcoins become more scarce and (in theory at least) more valuable as a result.
- viraptor 11y agoIs it really? In practice there's not much difference between money that's never used and money that's destroyed. As long as it's out of circulation, it doesn't affect the economy. Apart from big, public actions of destroying BTC that many parties know about, I'm not sure there's any real value growth from the BTC burning.
- tlrobinson 11y agoThe number of transactions and transaction fees would be prohibitive, and the blockchain bloat is undesirable.