5 ms·

Bitcoins can only be distributed if you have the private key for it. If satoshi dies and leaves the keys for his heirs, then its just a normal asset. If the key

Bitcoins can only be distributed if you have the private key for it. If satoshi dies and leaves the keys for his heirs, then its just a normal asset. If the keys are gone, then that money is unrecoverable, just like burning cash.

Finnucane 10y ago
So Bitcoin could conceivably be 'burned' faster than new bitcoin can be made. That might be great for a collector's market, but sounds like a bad plan for a useful currency.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  And one wonder why it is being traded more like a commodity than a currency...
- BinaryResult 10y ago
  Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, if a bitcoin is lost forever the remaining bitcoin just increase in value.
  - Finnucane 10y ago
    Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a finite quantity in the first place?
    - aserafini 10y ago
      No. Why would it defeat the purpose of having a finite quantity?
  - eridius 10y ago
    It is? I thought there was a minimum usable denomination, called a "satoshi", that was something like 0.0000001 BTC (I don't know the actual value). Or is this really just a convention enforced by the current clients that can be easily changed in the future?
    - duskwuff 10y ago
      You are absolutely correct. One bitcoin is 100,000,000 satoshis. Transactions are denominated in integer values of satoshis, so it's not possible to subdivide a satoshi. One satoshi is currently worth about $0.0000045, though, so there's still plenty of room left for inflation.
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      It would require a hard fork to increase the data storage for the number field from an int64 to an int128, but doing so would be uncontroversial (way more so than the current debate over the block size). It could be programmed to take effect at a certain block # from several years out, by which point almost everyone would be using a version of the software that would support it. We're not anywhere close to it mattering yet, though; it's several decades out.
DonHopkins 10y ago
At least the carbon footprint of burning bitcoin is smaller than the carbon footprint of creating it.

Finnucane 10y ago

So Bitcoin could conceivably be 'burned' faster than new bitcoin can be made. That might be great for a collector's market, but sounds like a bad plan for a useful currency.

digi_owl 10y ago
And one wonder why it is being traded more like a commodity than a currency...
BinaryResult 10y ago
Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, if a bitcoin is lost forever the remaining bitcoin just increase in value.
- Finnucane 10y ago
  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a finite quantity in the first place?
  - aserafini 10y ago
    No. Why would it defeat the purpose of having a finite quantity?
- eridius 10y ago
  It is? I thought there was a minimum usable denomination, called a "satoshi", that was something like 0.0000001 BTC (I don't know the actual value). Or is this really just a convention enforced by the current clients that can be easily changed in the future?
  - duskwuff 10y ago
    You are absolutely correct. One bitcoin is 100,000,000 satoshis. Transactions are denominated in integer values of satoshis, so it's not possible to subdivide a satoshi. One satoshi is currently worth about $0.0000045, though, so there's still plenty of room left for inflation.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    It would require a hard fork to increase the data storage for the number field from an int64 to an int128, but doing so would be uncontroversial (way more so than the current debate over the block size). It could be programmed to take effect at a certain block # from several years out, by which point almost everyone would be using a version of the software that would support it. We're not anywhere close to it mattering yet, though; it's several decades out.

DonHopkins 10y ago

At least the carbon footprint of burning bitcoin is smaller than the carbon footprint of creating it.