3 ms·

It's actually a feature of Bitcoin I really like: unless you carefully plan for your death, no one will be able to inherit your coins. Inheriting money is the

It's actually a feature of Bitcoin I really like: unless you carefully plan for your death, no one will be able to inherit your coins. Inheriting money is the worst possible thing if you believe societies should be meritocracies.

jcims 7y ago
Eh, the idea that people shouldn't be able to control what happens to their assets after their passing is, to me, even worse.
- dooglius 7y ago
  You can, it just takes a bit of work. In fact, you can do so much more because bitcoin transfer can be done in a way that is opaque to tax agencies. It is entirely possible that that is what happened here: I don't get the sense that the money would have gone to the author, or that her family would tell her if they did get the money.
  - jcims 7y ago
    I'm more replying to the parent that says inheritance is the 'worst possible thing'.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  I know we’re going way off topic, but I’d rather keep a higher proportion of my earnings while I’m alive in exchange for losing control of whatever assets I have left over.
lr4444lr 7y ago
I don't think you deserve to be downvoted, but consider the implications of this worldview: no one would rationally invest in any business venture that they might not live to see come to fruition, and that higher wealth to invest correlates with being older.
- denzil_correa 7y ago
  The other implication would be that people genuinely interested in a cause would invest money in such beyond lifetime business ventures. That could fix some of the perverse incentives with such ventures.
- jackpirate 7y ago
  This is simply not true under any standard definition of "rationally." You are assuming a loss function that values only growing the wealth of your family, whereas many other people have different loss functions that lead to different rational behavior.
  - lr4444lr 7y ago
    I never said families, nor did the OP: just that being able to make decisions, protected by law, as to who receives your assets after you die is a desirable thing for long-term productivity. Name 1 other "loss function" that would scale society-wide. Even the charitable impulse requires that there be well established businesses at which the recipients can spend and benefit from the money, businesses which take a lot of time to build without seeing a return on investment.
crusty 7y ago
This doesn't seem like the "feature" that would get you the outcome you want. People more exposed to the traditions and practices of securing wealth for posterity will do so with cryptocurrencies, and others get no aid in avoiding the lose of everything. It just serves to reinforce what was, no merit required.

jcims 7y ago

Eh, the idea that people shouldn't be able to control what happens to their assets after their passing is, to me, even worse.

dooglius 7y ago
You can, it just takes a bit of work. In fact, you can do so much more because bitcoin transfer can be done in a way that is opaque to tax agencies. It is entirely possible that that is what happened here: I don't get the sense that the money would have gone to the author, or that her family would tell her if they did get the money.
- jcims 7y ago
  I'm more replying to the parent that says inheritance is the 'worst possible thing'.
Scoundreller 7y ago
I know we’re going way off topic, but I’d rather keep a higher proportion of my earnings while I’m alive in exchange for losing control of whatever assets I have left over.

lr4444lr 7y ago

I don't think you deserve to be downvoted, but consider the implications of this worldview: no one would rationally invest in any business venture that they might not live to see come to fruition, and that higher wealth to invest correlates with being older.

denzil_correa 7y ago
The other implication would be that people genuinely interested in a cause would invest money in such beyond lifetime business ventures. That could fix some of the perverse incentives with such ventures.
jackpirate 7y ago
This is simply not true under any standard definition of "rationally." You are assuming a loss function that values only growing the wealth of your family, whereas many other people have different loss functions that lead to different rational behavior.
- lr4444lr 7y ago
  I never said families, nor did the OP: just that being able to make decisions, protected by law, as to who receives your assets after you die is a desirable thing for long-term productivity. Name 1 other "loss function" that would scale society-wide. Even the charitable impulse requires that there be well established businesses at which the recipients can spend and benefit from the money, businesses which take a lot of time to build without seeing a return on investment.

crusty 7y ago

This doesn't seem like the "feature" that would get you the outcome you want. People more exposed to the traditions and practices of securing wealth for posterity will do so with cryptocurrencies, and others get no aid in avoiding the lose of everything. It just serves to reinforce what was, no merit required.