←back to thread

190 points aorloff | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
throw0101d ◴[] No.44467342[source]
Personally I think that this can be considered on the "bug" side of Bitcoin's finite number coins: if, over time, they are lost, then there's a smaller quantity† of currency that is useable to actually do stuff with.

This can make the 'rate of deflation' that occurs worse:

* https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deflationary_spiral

* https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2014/06/the-perils-of-bitcoi...

* https://crypto.bi/deflationary/

† I am aware of satoshis.

replies(8): >>44467392 #>>44467410 #>>44467413 #>>44467486 #>>44467668 #>>44467917 #>>44469713 #>>44469776 #
TheDudeMan ◴[] No.44467486[source]
Losing some bitcoin is effectively equivalent (over the long term) to distributing it to all other holders (proportionally). So this is fine.
replies(3): >>44467729 #>>44468490 #>>44469425 #
throw0101d ◴[] No.44468490[source]
> Losing some bitcoin is effectively equivalent (over the long term) to distributing it to all other holders (proportionally). So this is fine.

To those that have, more will be given. What about those that do not have?

replies(1): >>44468546 #
1. wmf ◴[] No.44468546[source]
Slavery.