4 ms·

But the destruction would of course (obviously) be implemented in the protocol. Just like in Bitcoin, it's not up to each user to be honest and prevent double-

• jacques_chester 9y ago
  This is why I brought up the cold wallet. The network can check that transactions occurred, but it can't really make people perform them. It's a ledger system. If someone doesn't post a coin destruction event, how do I know why? Is it because they're cheating? Because of a cold wallet? You might say "I will make coin destruction a precondition for any other transaction". Now the incentive of a hoarder is to sit on their wallet while destruction is high and only enter the market when destruction is low. This means liquidity is tied to how far off the peg you are, which isn't a desirable property. OK, how about summing up the destruction tally for any wallet that's inactive, to be paid in a lump sum? Now you're telling me that my wallet can be completely drained over time by a destruction tax that realises only if I open my wallet. Not very attractive. OK, maybe you just destroy the net of coin creation and coin destruction at transaction time. This seems more likely to work, though I'm unsure whether I can evade it by changing addresses. I'm also unsure what incentives miners have to validate coin destruction. There's also the problem of how it cope with truly heavy amounts of capital flow. Watching a numerical balance surge up and down during a single day might be unattractive to a lot of holders.