A tax on property already owned is something I'm fundamentally against. Being charged for lack of usage erodes our concept of property ownership, especially when usage itself sufficiently subsidizes the network. The "network tax" was already paid on the acquisition of the asset by the sender, and another network tax will be paid by the current owner upon every subsequent sale or self-transfer. My perspective: HODLers are indeed providing a valuable service to the longevity and growth of network value. They're providing scarcity. -- *George Burke * *Co-founder, Portal * Silicon Valley Bitcoin , Organizer Co-founder, FounderPool San Juan, PR / San Francisco, CA Keybase || OneName *For security, encrypt with my PGP key * On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:13 PM Richard Greaser wrote: > Hi everyone, > > It has become apparent to me that there is an issue where users of the > network holding their coins, are not adding value to the network. > > As miners continue to get squeezed post halving, they would benefit > tremendously from fees being taken from individuals refusing to move their > coins, providing increased security to the network. > > I have written out a proposal more in depth and is attached below. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6512db18-bd15-462e-92fd-7549b5e885e7n%40googlegroups.com > > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAHYx7Bu9SfTgmLoPJ-7v%3DrY%2BC9pS4p4gO3e7gqKurwRuij8ouA%40mail.gmail.com.