Time preference question: Suppose you sent coins to a timelocked address (made with OP_CLTV). How many years/decades would the coins have to be locked up for so that to you it's just the same thing as just destroying them?
@belcher hmm this is tough to say. I like the idea of leaving an inheritance to my family, so time-locking until after my death would still allow this goal to be accomplished.
Enabling those that I have helped influence to accomplish more in the future doesn't help me in this life per-say, but it also wouldn't qualify as 'might as well have destroyed them', in terms of your ability to have some influence on the future (ie, the very function of money, in some sense).
@Full_node @htimsxela @belcher You wouldn't implement a dead man's switch for 100 years. Idea of a DMS for inheritance is that you keep moving the funds with your non-timelocked branch of the payout script, until you can't anymore, at which point your inheritors can spend from their timelocked branch.
Any mining fees needed for the spends would have to come from the funds that are in there.
@belcher Probably around 200years, it's likely my grandchildren would get the coins if it were only 100years but the probably of key loss/no children/other disaster is high enough over 200years to make me think they are likely gone forever.
Anything longer than 50 years probably incurs significant risks that the coins could never be retrieve, for all kind of reasons that are easy enough to imagine
@belcher coins would have to be locked up for my life expectancy plus margin or until signature scheme can be brute forced so that it's as just destroying them.
With the former I can't possibly access them when I'm dead, same thing.
With the later, they get stolen, so same thing.
Comes down to the probability of you or the coins disappearing, whichever comes first.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!