Topic: Destroying Bitcoin is NOT Acceptable - page 2. (Read 2344 times)

I will be glad if many people are burning their bitcoins so we can short the supply and the price will rise eventually since the demand is increasing now. That would be good for the economy as investors will surely make profit in that kind of move.

The statement found in this post is entirely irrelevant to proof-of-burn. People losing coins != people burning coins.

Yet another person who jumps on the "donations by low/middle class will save the world" train, and who posts without even looking at the Wikipedia page.

Well i understand that burn some coins will affect bitcoin in the end, but i consider it a waste, people loose bitcoins all days, being with scam projects, loosing the keys of the wallets, forgeting their passwords, and much more reasons. Soo even reducing the suplly, making bitcoin be more healty, makes no sense with that money could be donated to save childs, soo this is something i dont agree at all.

He has no idea what he's talking about as usual. I had to un-ignore them to see what they actually wrote. I loved that part how introducing smaller denominations would increase the supply.

It does make sense, and people are free to do with their coins as they please anyways. Read the motivation on the wiki link or do some research.


The website works.

I don't think someone keeps track of all eater addresses though. You could take a look around at some of the known ones.

Click the link or use your search engine before asking redundant questions.

This would be my longest post so far, please deal with it.




Yes, so it also applies to weapons. If one is constantly shooting with his gun in front of you then would you still stick to your opinion. Shooter has ownership of gun and he can do whatever he wants (including being a possible threat to your life). So your first reaction would be a self defense and then taking efforts to stop him (if you are brave enough). Exactly in this case, they are burning coins and killing resources (especially rare resources).

We are living in a inter related society and no one can survive on his own. The same thing is about bitcoins, we are actually inter dependent. Whatever we do affects the bitcoin community as a whole irrespective of directly or indirectly, in large sense or tiny sense doesn't matter. The only thing we should understand that 'It matters to us'.





I have exactly same point but through different point of view. Suppose you are getting richer day by day and other people in your country are getting poor and poor day by day. Prima facie you might think it's good for you but since you are living in a country where everything is inter dependent, eventually it's not good for you on larger picture. It's point of difference in micro and macro approach.

Destroying might not be visible on macro level but it's somewhere decreasing the value of it and increasing price of it. I believe in values rather than price so I get offended when I see increase in price on the cost of decrease in values.




Yes it matters if it's bitcoins or USD or any other fiat currency. If you are burning fiat then you can reproduce it but if you are burning bitcoins you can't produce more bitcoins. What you can do is to create an illusion for yourself by playing with decimals and it's values.

I have only a single guilt about it that we are burning bitcoins on the cost of rights of next generations. It's really difficult to tolerate such kind of practices.

It's against the core values and fundamental ethics. Yes, I respect everyone's right to do 'WHATEVER' with his bitcoins but why should I tolerate such practices if it's eventually going to affect me? (It's not about price or demand or supply law but it's about ethics of community).

We can't fake ourselves by playing with fractions and building illusion that bitcoin is still divisible and valuable.



Do we have any satisfactory answer On the Grounds of Morality to this main question of next generation?

It's okay about divisibility and other technical stuff but WHY NOT 21 MILLION COINS FOR US ?

What is their purpose?
Besides, there are lots of other cryptocurrencies out there. If Bitcoin does get burned (which I dont think it would), it would cause an uproar. Something like Bitcoin cannot be taken away

it is actully totally normal but its also in a sense is insane that 8t is destroying those valuable bitcoins from them network its like burning our own money in a log fire and also discussing about it

Origin site is unreachable, so I can't read the article.

How many Bitcoin are these people supposed to have destroyed?
What is their purpose?
I doubt anyone would actually invest the amount of money it would take to change the actual worth of the remaining coins. 
So, as pointed out by others, the people that are doing this probably have some other motive, like advertising the altcoin they are working on.

People might be burning their Bitcoin, but it does technically increase the value of the rest of the remaining Bitcoin once it all inevitably gets mined. Even if we have only something like 18 million coins left, you add on some decimal places beyond one satoshi and increase the value. Namely when it goes beyond $1m/Bitcoin. It all ends up working out as long as everything is done correctly.

I too think this a total waste of money, but to each their own thing. It would be much better to donate the coins or distribute them in another way, burning them doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It at least makes (theoretically) everyone else's coins worth more.

Someone wake me up when it's stopped jabbering lol

firstly going offtopic to answer the mis-informed altcoiner above who loves to derail topics.

i have never been a gavin or hearne fanboy. i much prefered BU(you did too.. funny that.. even funnier is your favourite alt has the same scaling attributes you are trying to fight against bitcoin implementing)
now then.
the 2mb solution was not a hearn/gavin idea. it was a community idea that was an accceptable balance for growth while chilling out the cries of the misinformed "100gb blocks in a few months doomsday "armageddon"".
i seen 2mb as an acceptable conclusion and compromise to the "armageddon" cries. neither due to hearn or gavin or anyone else.. it was just logic prevailing.

however the misinformed people (like yourself) had other plans. you want to centralize and destroy bitcoin to move everyone over to sidechains(altcoins).
you were misinformed also because if everyone used the same 2mb rules there would be no controversy or control.. but instead you beleived by trying to cry that bitcoin-core should not move with the community they would dominate and control or they would lose control by going with community wishes.
hello wake up. no one should have control..
your controversy that you and your friends started actually diluted growth descussions for the community and instead turned it into making blockstream paid employee's gaining power to control bitcoin more centrally..

as for the scaling solution
lol the only plan you "beleive" is the one where your fearless leader Gmaxwell is going to opt that monero becomes the sidechain to be the "The real scaling solution"

and dont even try to make it sound like you are talking about segwit.. segwit is not a scaling solution.. its just a one time potential boost.. not an ongoing solution that scales.

and i still have not got an answer about your opinion of lukeJR releasing code to the real scaling solution.. which funnily enough is 2mb..
are you for it. or will you rekt him too

P.S: it made me laugh when you tried to defend the whole satoshi/bitcoin unit measure by talking about integers. i mean come on. even someone as naive as yourself must know that not only are integers not divisible, but you could not even argue your way to say that a bitcoin is the unit of measure.
1800000000000000 units =18mill bitcoin..(based on scenaro where 3mill coins are 'lost')
add an extra 0
18000000000000000 units =180mill bitcoin..


now for the ontopic thing
go on admit it you would love bitcoin to burn its coins so everyone uses monero. i know ur cohorts do. gmaxwell loves his monero. as do ur other friends.. kind of makes it obvious where you want bitcoins endgame to land.

in my opinion burning coins for the sole purpose of locking people into a sidechain is bad.
people are free to destroy their own funds by just deleting their keys or sending funds to known bitcoin burn addresses which have no keys for personal reasons.. but in no way should it be utilised as a tool to push people over to an altcoin, nor as a widely used thing to cause drastic loss of coins out of circulation, in a ploy to puersuade the community to agree to magically create 10x more coins later

 

In the first place we have our own free will to choose in, So if someone want to burn his/her bitcoin we do nothing about it, Its his/her choice to do it. But if ever they did burning, many of the member in bitcoin community will get  affected in some other way.

ROFL Franky, you're telling me to learn about Bitcoin and integers (as applied to programming), after your ignorant outburst? Please


And your words betray you: you claimed not to support Hearn, and yet here you are saying his non-scaling plans were the only way to grow Bitcoin's throughput? The real scaling solution is in final testing stages. Your coup failed, a long time ago.

If 10% of bitcoins are destroyed then your bitcoins are now worth more because the available supply is lower. It's basically supply and demand, and it's a positive linear correlation.

the unit of measure starts at 1, when there are 100,000,000 of these units the GUI calls that allotment 'a bitcoin'.
however the single unit is called a satoshi.

at code level as you say is integer.. meaning there is no decimal. so there are no 0.XX of something, instead its multiples of something ..meaning. it starts at a satoshi and moves up.. but does not start at a bitcoin and move down.

learn bitcoin
learn integer

have a nice day

p.s i do not idolize hearne. its just your warped mindset that thinks anyone that wants bitcoin growth must be REKT. sorry but your days of controversy are nearly up. time for you to find a new hobby, maybe playing with monero would entertain you more. we know how you lot love your monero altcoin

Franky, you're the one making mistakes.

There is no such thing as a Satoshi at the code level either, the balance attributable to a given public key is an unsigned 64-bit integer. Your favourite Bitcoin ideologue Mike Hearn was the first to suggest what Lauda is referring to.

Ownership means you can do what you want with it. If the owner wants to destroy it, why would your opinion about it have any influence?

Oh wait, I just understood that you meant actually destroying Bitcoin as in sending the Bitcoin into irrecoverable addresses and whatnot. Well, this is a very simple answer: It's their Bitcoin and they can do whatever they want with them, including "destroying" them. It changes nothing. It actually makes the holder's bitcoin more valuable since the supply shrinks and therefore it becomes a more scarce item.

Burning bitcoins is like burinng money.

I don`t think that people are stupid enough to burn money.

Everyone is free and has the right to burn his own money,if he wants.

It doesn`t matter if it`s bitcoins or USD.