@Zerglingman @11112011 haven't read the link but supply and demand imply that dormant coins do release their value to the market, it's deflationary pressure

@skells @11112011 That is, prices adjust to account for the amount of coins in circulation rather than the amount in existence?

@Zerglingman @11112011 precisely, check out some of willy woo's work, he does a lot of on chain analysis on this subject

@skells @11112011 If it's caused by, say, savings, that seems easily broken.
I guess that's just called a recession.

I was thinking a more direct approach to it. I like the idea that the amount of bitcoin in circulation cannot ever increase beyond the predetermined maximum, but as-is, it will slowly decrease over time, with no way to correct for that.

@Zerglingman @11112011 people will always lose coins, don't think you need to put bells on a whistle

@skells @11112011 Well that's where borruso comes in. Since all coins will expire, lost coins will leave the system exactly the same way ny other coin will.

@Zerglingman
What you are decribing is the chinese gov's cdbc crypto yuan which expires if you don't spend it within a certain time. This is a communist trick to force negative interest rates onto your savings and give you no way to opt out. This is idiotic.
@skells @11112011

@runfox @skells @11112011 The idea is to eliminate savings entirely, yes. Since you can't save, there's no reason to not put the money into motion; it prevents recession.

@Zerglingman @11112011 @runfox

http://leeconomics.com/Literature/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf

@Zerglingman @11112011 @runfox @skells the reason not to 'put money in motion' is to postpone gratification to save for bigger and more important things

@jeffcliff @skells @runfox @11112011 If money expires, and thus savings are moot, it wouldn't be viable to sell excessively expensive things.
It'd be interesting to see what happens to such things as a result. I'd like to try it out.

@Zerglingman @11112011 @jeffcliff @runfox by all means go ahead, you're going to struggle to persuade those who prefer bitcoin

@skells @runfox @jeffcliff @11112011 Unless I can demonstrate good results.
FWIW I'm not envisioning borruso as a direct competitor to bitcoin. More a direct competitor to fiats.

@Zerglingman @11112011 @runfox @skells why not just use freicoin? http://freico.in/

@jeffcliff @skells @runfox @11112011 >proposed by Silvio Gesell
Aha, it is exactly that.

@Zerglingman @11112011 @runfox @skells we know what happens - we've tried this experiment before with freicoin. It was one of the first post-bitcoin cryptocurrency experiments

what happens is people migrate their day to day spending activity to a cryptocurrency that doesn't have demurrage

@Zerglingman @11112011 @skells How long do you think is an acceptable time until you can steal my savings?

@jeffcliff @skells @11112011 Baiting aside, it's more about "how do we determine when a wallet is permanently lost, without any authority", and "waiting x time" seems the sanest answer.
x should be a big value, since the penalty for being too slow is much less than the penalty for being too quick.
And it can't be something you apply retroactively, it'd have to be in the system from the outset and make it well-known.
So with that in mind, I think a year is a good value. It shouldn't be difficult to press a "I'm not dead" button at least once a year. You can press it once a week to ensure you don't forget.
Meanwhile borruso is ">savings".

@Zerglingman @11112011 @skells

> So with that in mind, I think a year is a good value. It shouldn't be difficult to press a "I'm not dead" button at least once a year.

How about you fix the 'it' shouldn't be difficult' problem first. Presently it *is* difficult.

Secondly: keep your hands off my wallet, thief

@jeffcliff @skells @11112011 "It shouldn't be difficult" as in "if you build an I'm-not-dead button into the system, it will be easy to press it regularly".