HEIR

heir

An Autobiography of Anthony Trollope by Anthony Trollope, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . RALPH THE HEIR—THE EUSTACE DIAMONDS—LADY ANNA—AUSTRALIA. here RALPH THE HEIR—THE EUSTACE DIAMONDS—LADY ANNA—AUSTRALIA. In the spring of 1871 we,—I and my wife,—had decided that we would go to Australia to visit our shepherd son. Of course before doing so I made a contract with a publisher for a book about the Colonies. For such a work as this I had always been aware that I could not fairly demand more than half the price that would be given for the same amount of fiction; and as such books have an indomitable tendency to stretch themselves, so that more is given than what is sold, and as the cost of travelling is heavy, the writing of them is not remunerative. This tendency to stretch comes not, I think, generally from the ambition of the writer, but from his inability to comprise the different parts in their allotted spaces. If you have to deal with a country, a colony, a city, a trade, or a political opinion, it is so much easier to deal with it in twenty than in twelve pages! I also made an engagement with the editor of a London daily paper to supply him with a series of articles,—which were duly written, duly published, and duly paid for. But with all this, travelling with the object of writing is not a good trade. If the travelling author can pay his bills, he must be a good manager on the road. Before starting there came upon us the terrible necessity of coming to some resolution about our house at Waltham. It had been first hired, and then bought, primarily because it suited my Post Office avocations. To this reason had been added other attractions,—in the shape of hunting, gardening, and suburban hospitalities. Altogether the house had been a success, and the scene of much happiness. But there arose questions as to expense. Would not a house in London be cheaper? There could be no doubt that my income would decrease, and was decreasing. I had thrown the Post Office, as it were, away, and the writing of novels could not go on for ever. Some of my friends told me already that at fifty-five I ought to give up the fabrication of love-stories. The hunting, I thought, must soon go, and I would not therefore allow that to keep me in the country. And then, why should I live at Waltham Cross now, seeing that I had fixed on that place in reference to the Post Office? It was therefore determined that we would flit, and as we were to be away for eighteen months, we determined also to sell our furniture. So there was a packing up, with many tears, and consultations as to what should be saved out of the things we loved. As must take place on such an occasion, there was some heart-felt grief. But the thing was done, and orders were given for the letting or sale of the house. I may as well say here that it never was let, and that it remained unoccupied for two years before it was sold. I lost by the transaction about £800. As I continually hear that other men make money by buying and selling houses, I presume I am not well adapted for transactions of that sort. I have never made money by selling anything except a manuscript. In matters of horseflesh I am so inefficient that I have generally given away horses that I have not wanted. When we started from Liverpool, in May 1871, was running through the . This was the novel of which Charles Reade afterwards took the plot and made on it a play. I have always thought it to be one of the worst novels I have written, and almost to have justified that dictum that a novelist after fifty should not write love-stories. It was in part a political novel; and that part which appertains to politics, and which recounts the electioneering experiences of the candidates at Percycross, is well enough. Percycross and Beverley were, of course, one and the same place. Neefit, the breeches-maker, and his daughter, are also good in their way,—and Moggs, the daughter's lover, who was not only lover, but also one of the candidates at Percycross as well. But the main thread of the story,—that which tells of the doings of the young gentlemen and young ladies,—the heroes and the heroines,—is not good. Ralph the heir has not much life about him; while Ralph who is not the heir, but is intended to be the real hero, has none. The same may be said of the young ladies,—of whom one, she who was meant to be the chief, has passed utterly out of my mind, without leaving a trace of remembrance behind. Ralph the Heir St. Paul's I also left in the hands of the editor of , ready for production on the 1st of July following, a story called . In that I think that my friend's dictum was disproved. There is not much love in it; but what there is, is good. The character of Lucy Morris is pretty; and her love is as genuine and as well told as that of Lucy Robarts or Lily Dale. The Fortnightly The Eustace Diamonds But achieved the success which it certainly did attain, not as a love-story, but as a record of a cunning little woman of pseudo-fashion, to whom, in her cunning, there came a series of adventures, unpleasant enough in themselves, but pleasant to the reader. As I wrote the book, the idea constantly presented itself to me that Lizzie Eustace was but a second Becky Sharpe; but in planning the character I had not thought of this, and I believe that Lizzie would have been just as she is though Becky Sharpe had never been described. The plot of the diamond necklace is, I think, well arranged, though it produced itself without any forethought. I had no idea of setting thieves after the bauble till I had got my heroine to bed in the inn at Carlisle; nor of the disappointment of the thieves, till Lizzie had been wakened in the morning with the news that her door had been broken open. All these things, and many more, Wilkie Collins would have arranged before with infinite labour, preparing things present so that they should fit in with things to come. I have gone on the very much easier plan of making everything as it comes fit in with what has gone before. At any rate, the book was a success, and did much to repair the injury which I felt had come to my reputation in the novel-market by the works of the last few years. I doubt whether I had written anything so successful as since . I had written what was much better,—as, for instance, and ; but that is by no means the same thing. The Eustace Diamonds The Eustace Diamonds The Small House at Allington Phineas Finn Nina Balatka I also left behind, in a strong box, the manuscript of , a novel of which I have already spoken, and which I subsequently sold to the proprietors of the newspaper. The editor of that paper greatly disliked the title, assuring me that the public would take Redux for the gentleman's surname,—and was dissatisfied with me when I replied that I had no objection to them doing so. The introduction of a Latin word, or of a word from any other language, into the title of an English novel is undoubtedly in bad taste; but after turning the matter much over in my own mind, I could find no other suitable name. Phineas Redux Graphic I also left behind me, in the same strong box, another novel, called , which then had been some time written, and of which, as it has not even yet been published, I will not further speak. It will probably be published some day, though, looking forward, I can see no room for it, at any rate, for the next two years. An Eye for an Eye If therefore the Great Britain, in which we sailed for Melbourne, had gone to the bottom, I had so provided that there would be new novels ready to come out under my name for some years to come. This consideration, however, did not keep me idle while I was at sea. When making long journeys, I have always succeeded in getting a desk put up in my cabin, and this was done ready for me in the Great Britain, so that I could go to work the day after we left Liverpool. This I did; and before I reached Melbourne I had finished a story called . Every word of this was written at sea, during the two months required for our voyage, and was done day by day—with the intermission of one day's illness—for eight weeks, at the rate of 66 pages of manuscript in each week, every page of manuscript containing 250 words. Every word was counted. I have seen work come back to an author from the press with terrible deficiencies as to the amount supplied. Thirty-two pages have perhaps been wanted for a number, and the printers with all their art could not stretch the matter to more than twenty-eight or -nine! The work of filling up must be very dreadful. I have sometimes been ridiculed for the methodical details of my business. But by these contrivances I have been preserved from many troubles; and I have saved others with whom I have worked—editors, publishers, and printers—from much trouble also. Lady Anna A month or two after my return home, appeared in , following . In it a young girl, who is really a lady of high rank and great wealth, though in her youth she enjoyed none of the privileges of wealth or rank, marries a tailor who had been good to her, and whom she had loved when she was poor and neglected. A fine young noble lover is provided for her, and all the charms of sweet living with nice people are thrown in her way, in order that she may be made to give up the tailor. And the charms are very powerful with her. But the feeling that she is bound by her troth to the man who had always been true to her overcomes everything,—and she marries the tailor. It was my wish of course to justify her in doing so, and to carry my readers along with me in my sympathy with her. But everybody found fault with me for marrying her to the tailor. What would they have said if I had allowed her to jilt the tailor and marry the good-looking young lord? How much louder, then, would have been the censure! The book was read, and I was satisfied. If I had not told my story well, there would have been no feeling in favour of the young lord. The horror which was expressed to me at the evil thing I had done, in giving the girl to the tailor, was the strongest testimony I could receive of the merits of the story. Lady Anna The Fortnightly The Eustace Diamonds I went to Australia chiefly in order that I might see my son among his sheep. I did see him among his sheep, and remained with him for four or five very happy weeks. He was not making money, nor has he made money since. I grieve to say that several thousands of pounds which I had squeezed out of the pockets of perhaps too liberal publishers have been lost on the venture. But I rejoice to say that this has been in no way due to any fault of his. I never knew a man work with more persistent honesty at his trade than he has done. I had, however, the further intentions of writing a book about the entire group of Australasian Colonies; and in order that I might be enabled to do that with sufficient information, I visited them all. Making my head-quarters at Melbourne, I went to Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, then to the very little known territory of Western Australia, and then, last of all, to New Zealand. I was absent in all eighteen months, and think that I did succeed in learning much of the political, social, and material condition of these countries. I wrote my book as I was travelling, and brought it back with me to England all but completed in December, 1872. It was a better book than that which I had written eleven years before on the American States, but not so good as that on the West Indies in 1859. As regards the information given, there was much more to be said about Australia than the West Indies. Very much more is said,—and very much more may be learned from the latter than from the former book. I am sure that any one who will take the trouble to read the book on Australia, will learn much from it. But the West Indian volume was readable. I am not sure that either of the other works are, in the proper sense of that word. When I go back to them I find that the pages drag with me;—and if so with me, how must it be with others who have none of that love which a father feels even for his ill-favoured offspring. Of all the needs a book has the chief need is that it be readable. Feeling that these volumes on Australia were dull and long, I was surprised to find that they had an extensive sale. There were, I think, 2000 copies circulated of the first expensive edition; and then the book was divided into four little volumes, which were published separately, and which again had a considerable circulation. That some facts were stated inaccurately, I do not doubt; that many opinions were crude, I am quite sure; that I had failed to understand much which I attempted to explain, is possible. But with all these faults the book was a thoroughly honest book, and was the result of unflagging labour for a period of fifteen months. I spared myself no trouble in inquiry, no trouble in seeing, and no trouble in listening. I thoroughly imbued my mind with the subject, and wrote with the simple intention of giving trustworthy information on the state of the Colonies. Though there be inaccuracies,—those inaccuracies to which work quickly done must always be subject,—I think I did give much valuable information. I came home across America from San Francisco to New York, visiting Utah and Brigham Young on the way. I did not achieve great intimacy with the great polygamist of the Salt Lake City. I called upon him, sending to him my card, apologising for doing so without an introduction, and excusing myself by saying that I did not like to pass through the territory without seeing a man of whom I had heard so much. He received me in his doorway, not asking me to enter, and inquired whether I were not a miner. When I told him that I was not a miner, he asked me whether I earned my bread. I told him I did. "I guess you're a miner," said he. I again assured him that I was not. "Then how do you earn your bread?" I told him that I did so by writing books. "I'm sure you're a miner," said he. Then he turned upon his heel, went back into the house, and closed the door. I was properly punished, as I was vain enough to conceive that he would have heard my name. I got home in December, 1872, and in spite of any resolution made to the contrary, my mind was full of hunting as I came back. No real resolutions had in truth been made, for out of a stud of four horses I kept three, two of which were absolutely idle through the two summers and winter of my absence. Immediately on my arrival I bought another, and settled myself down to hunting from London three days a week. At first I went back to Essex, my old country, but finding that to be inconvenient, I took my horses to Leighton Buzzard, and became one of that numerous herd of sportsmen who rode with the "Baron" and Mr. Selby Lowndes. In those days Baron Meyer was alive, and the riding with his hounds was very good. I did not care so much for Mr. Lowndes. During the winters of 1873, 1874, and 1875, I had my horses back in Essex, and went on with my hunting, always trying to resolve that I would give it up. But still I bought fresh horses, and, as I did not give it up, I hunted more than ever. Three times a week the cab has been at my door in London very punctually, and not unfrequently before seven in the morning. In order to secure this attendance, the man has always been invited to have his breakfast in the hall. I have gone to the Great Eastern Railway,—ah! so often with the fear that frost would make all my exertions useless, and so often too with that result! And then, from one station or another station, have travelled on wheels at least a dozen miles. After the day's sport, the same toil has been necessary to bring me home to dinner at eight. This has been work for a young man and a rich man, but I have done it as an old man and comparatively a poor man. Now at last, in April, 1876, I do think that my resolution has been taken. I am giving away my old horses, and anybody is welcome to my saddles and horse-furniture. "Singula de nobis anni prædantur euntes; Eripuere jocos, venerem, convivia, ludum; Tendunt extorquere poëmata." "Our years keep taking toll as they move on; My feasts, my frolics, are already gone, And now, it seems, my verses must go too." This is Conington's translation, but it seems to me to be a little flat. "Years as they roll cut all our pleasures short; Our pleasant mirth, our loves, our wine, our sport. And then they stretch their power, and crush at last Even the power of singing of the past." I think that I may say with truth that I rode hard to my end. "Vixi puellis nuper idoneus, Et militavi non sine gloria; Nunc arma defunctumque bello Barbiton hic paries habebit." "I've lived about the covert side, I've ridden straight, and ridden fast; Now breeches, boots, and scarlet pride Are but mementoes of the past." About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Anthony Trollope (2004). An Autobiography of Anthony Trollope. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5978/pg5978-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

RALPH THE HEIR—THE EUSTACE DIAMONDS—LADY ANNA—AUSTRALIA.

The AI Revolution: Reimagining Governance, Society, and Human Consciousness in the 21st Century

In a company, the Second-in-Command, also known as the COO, fills a vital role.  COOs complement and support the CEO in a variety of ways.  The COO’s specific role depends on the CEO’s needs, the company’s stage, and the overall strengths of the leadership team. There are seven main ways that COOs support the CEO.  These COO types are the executor, the change agent, the mentor, the other half, the partner, the heir apparent, and the MVP.  Each type has a different method of aiding the CEO.  For instance, the change agent leads specific business changes, whereas the MVP stays in the company because they are too valuable to lose. Across all seven types, there are three consistent traits of successful COOs.  The first trait is acuity.  This means that COOs can easily understand complex concepts and handle multiple tasks at the same time.  The second trait is organization, meaning that COOs can define priorities and allocate the proper time, energy, and resources to tasks.  Finally, successful COOs excel with process and structure.  This refers to the ability to reduce complexity, systematize processes, create clarity, and provide consistency. Despite their utility, successful COOs are exceptionally rare.  In fact, for every four CEOs, there is only one COO.  This leaves 75% of CEOs without the support of a COO.  Additionally, other challenges abound for COOs, causing extensive problems that inhibit success.  For example, many COOs struggle with worker shortages, a lack of clarity regarding their role, and supply chain disruptions. Even amongst all of these challenges, there has been a resurgence in the COO role, with the position rising up to 16% between 2018 and 2022.  With this in mind, it becomes increasingly important to identify and implement modern solutions that will allow COOs to successfully fulfill their roles. Peer groups and coaching emerge as some of the most effective ways  that individuals can support COOs.  Peer groups involve recurring meetings with other COOs.  They have four key benefits.  More specifically, peer groups can improve decision-making capabilities, increase goal attainment, enhance innovation and the identification of growth opportunities, and fuel continuous learning and professional growth. COO Coaching is also highly successful and helps COOs in several ways.  It improves clarity and accountability, keeps the company aligned and moving forward, and accelerates results.  Coaching can increase individual performance by 70%, team performance by 50%, and organizational performance by 48%.  Overall, coaching can result in a return on investment of up to 788%. Finally, business operating systems can also be useful to COOs.  This system increases valuation with world-class Key Performance Indicators, breaks down silos and increases retention, and helps achieve business goals within 12 quarters. COOs have a big and important task, and they need support to effectively reach their goals.  Modern solutions such as peer groups and COO coaching, as well as innovative tools and systems, can go a long way in supporting COOs and boosting business. Companies should focus on empowering COOs with proper training, guidance, and resources.  In turn, efficiency will increase and revenue will boom. In a company, the Second-in-Command, also known as the COO, fills a vital role.  COOs complement and support the CEO in a variety of ways.  The COO’s specific role depends on the CEO’s needs, the company’s stage, and the overall strengths of the leadership team. There are seven main ways that COOs support the CEO.  These COO types are the executor, the change agent, the mentor, the other half, the partner, the heir apparent, and the MVP.  Each type has a different method of aiding the CEO.  For instance, the change agent leads specific business changes, whereas the MVP stays in the company because they are too valuable to lose. Across all seven types, there are three consistent traits of successful COOs.  The first trait is acuity.  This means that COOs can easily understand complex concepts and handle multiple tasks at the same time.  The second trait is organization, meaning that COOs can define priorities and allocate the proper time, energy, and resources to tasks.  Finally, successful COOs excel with process and structure.  This refers to the ability to reduce complexity, systematize processes, create clarity, and provide consistency. Despite their utility, successful COOs are exceptionally rare.  In fact, for every four CEOs, there is only one COO.  This leaves 75% of CEOs without the support of a COO .  Additionally, other challenges abound for COOs, causing extensive problems that inhibit success.  For example, many COOs struggle with worker shortages, a lack of clarity regarding their role, and supply chain disruptions. 75% of CEOs without the support of a COO 75% of CEOs without the support of a COO Even amongst all of these challenges, there has been a resurgence in the COO role, with the position rising up to 16% between 2018 and 2022.  With this in mind, it becomes increasingly important to identify and implement modern solutions that will allow COOs to successfully fulfill their roles. Peer groups and coaching emerge as some of the most effective ways  that individuals can support COOs.  Peer groups involve recurring meetings with other COOs.  They have four key benefits.  More specifically, peer groups can improve decision-making capabilities, increase goal attainment, enhance innovation and the identification of growth opportunities, and fuel continuous learning and professional growth. COO Coaching is also highly successful and helps COOs in several ways.  It improves clarity and accountability, keeps the company aligned and moving forward, and accelerates results.  Coaching can increase individual performance by 70% , team performance by 50%, and organizational performance by 48%.  Overall, coaching can result in a return on investment of up to 788% . performance by 70% performance by 70% up to 788% up to 788% Finally, business operating systems can also be useful to COOs.  This system increases valuation with world-class Key Performance Indicators, breaks down silos and increases retention, and helps achieve business goals within 12 quarters. COOs have a big and important task, and they need support to effectively reach their goals.  Modern solutions such as peer groups and COO coaching , as well as innovative tools and systems, can go a long way in supporting COOs and boosting business. Companies should focus on empowering COOs with proper training, guidance, and resources.  In turn, efficiency will increase and revenue will boom. COO coaching COO coaching

The Underrated Power of the COO

Silicon Valley: With Swords & Shields

Four Thousand Years of Blood, Snot, and Tears

চার হাজার বছরের রক্ত, স্নোট এবং অশ্রু

Viertausend Jahre Blut, Rotz und Tränen

Cuatro mil años de sangre, mocos y lágrimas

Quatre mille ans de sang, de morve et de larmes

चार हज़ार साल का खून, बलगम और आँसू

4000年にわたる血と鼻水と涙

4천년의 피와 콧물과 눈물

Quatro mil anos de sangue, ranho e lágrimas

Четыре тысячи лет крови, соплей и слез

Dört Bin Yıllık Kan, Sümük ve Gözyaşı

Bốn ngàn năm máu, nước mũi và nước mắt

四千年的血、鼻、泪

At some point, too many people will have lost too much Bitcoin that they will meet to talk about it. Later, they will opt to do something about it. There can only be a (decreasing number) of bitcoins Lost cryptocurrency is a unique beast, quite different from lost information for 2 reasons: 1. We can continue maintaining its value. Right? Is it really still valuable? 2. Other people know it is lost. They simply check the blockchain. Whereas with lost information, nobody else can tell except those who have lost that intel. Take Bitcoin as an example. We still say 'There can only be 21 million'. But if this includes even lost bitcoins, then we are counting our losses as assets! That is very strange. Imagine if you were an accountant for a major company. The company deals in all sorts of assets, but sometimes writes some physical assets off as lost either due to theft, fire outbreak, or irreparable damage. But to your shock, the manager insists that not only do you keep counting those assets, but also, count them as fully functional assets whose value is going up every year. "But they are damaged", you might say. "Yeah, but they are still our assets" "What, how?" "There is hope we can recover them exactly as they were before they were lost. And then some". It’s hard to fathom. It indeed feels like Alice in Wonderland, where cards talk, a piece of cake can make one bigger, or smaller, and a cat can disappear leaving only its grin behind. Bitcoin and most crypto are the same. The question is thus; Is real value riding on all coins? Even when some are lost? Certainly, supply and demand economics might make all the coins feel equally valuable hence we would say that if Bitcoin is at $70,000 then the market cap is $1.47 trillion. But taking the figures as per this reddit post on lost bitcoins, if 6 million are lost then only 15 million coins are existing which are backed by a market cap of $1.05 trillion. Less by $420 billion. This does deflate our dreams and begs the question --> are we kidding ourselves? The road to Zero bitcoins By some estimates, 4% of 21,000,000 bitcoins continue to be lost every year. How many shall be lost, going forward? Let's assume this 4% holds true. 4% × 21,000,000 = 840,000 bitcoins. This is very steep. Well then, in 15 years, we shall lose 840,000 * 15 = 12,600,000 Add 6 million to this batch and circa 2039, 'There can only be 2,400,000 bitcoins' When will they be finished? Now, a little hope is in order. The 4% cannot hold steady forever, so it would be wise to say it too will be a declining figure as we progress. Because as Bitcoins get more valuable, people will be more careful with their keys. It is inevitable. Taking it at face value though, we shall run out of bitcoins to trade within the next 18 years. So Circa 2042. I hope the naysayers will be back to tell us they told us so, or to plead guilty of doomism and explain why there are still many millions of Bitcoins being traded daily. However, it certainly looks like way before the year 2137 when the last satoshi will be mined, we shall hit a big wall as per the coins lost vs the coins in the available supply. When enough is enough, for lost Bitcoins Assume at the time this shocking reality hits the Bitcoin community, we have only 4 million coins tradable around the world. Assume even Michael Saylor shall have lost some of his keys/coins. What then? Well, the price of a single coin, feeling so much demand, will spike to about $10 million, and then it will dawn on everybody. Bitcoin has a $40 trillion market capitalization and not a $210 trillion market capitalization. Right now, this is an elephant 🐘 in the Bitcoin room, but it is still a baby and we are all happy to pet it and feed it with careless abandon. Soon, however, it will become a giant. A big fat frustration. At $10 trillion per coin, the fees to move even a few sats will likely be thousands of dollars because; a) the Bitcoin reward is smaller. b) miners have also lost their coins. c) losing coins to hackers will be most likely (hackers will be sniffing all over every wallet, waiting for the SSL to get some slight holes) Everybody will be losing coins. It will be wild. But before I proceed? Why do people lose keys hence coins? Well, if you are using the key every time, sometimes changing it this way and that way to maintain your security (because AI powered cameras may be watching), it so happens that you are bound to make a mistake and lose the key. Or else, be hacked (since you cannot fathom changing the key all the time). Like smart people must have said, meat brains are not good at holding random numbers or random sequences of words. Luke Dash Jnr, a seasoned cypherpunk, was hacked last year. He lost 200 bitcoins. Elon Musk may have lost his Bitcon keys back in '20. So, shit happens. To hard fork those lost coins back, or not. That is the question So here's the thing. We wake up and Bitcoin is seizing up. Crashing into its mass and threatening to take our financial dreams with it when it turns into a black hole of lost keys / burned coins. We also wake up and realize that the debt spiral is still sucking us down with it, even as we hodl Bitcoin. Climate is now a real issue and oh, AI is giving us headaches. Too many addictive cat videos. Too many coins are lost, the blocks are always full so confirmations take decades, the core software is too large, the fees are too high. So we sit down, like AA group members, and decide that continuing to preach financial freedom yet the currency is fast tending towards technological obsolescence, is like being high on alcohol and thinking that one is blissful for other reasons. We need to quit the 'lost coins are good for all' alcohol. In short, it will be time for a hard fork. The Hard Fork --> Bitcoin ver. 2.0 Innovation comes full circle. After factoring in the reality of available supply and not merely supply, we could let Satoshi Nakamoto's 2 million or so coins be our target practice and our saving grace. One shot and bull’s eye. Trillions of dollars pour down from the Bitcoin piñata. Like manna from the heavens. Right? Alas, There shall only be 4 million bitcoins and the value of lost coins, if "re-supplied" to the blockchain, will quickly deflate the value of the 4 million coins existing. Overall, lost coins would have helped the remaining coins get valuable to that point. Say $10 million per BTC. If you un-lose them by the most brute force of them all -- a hard fork -- you shock the demand economics and viola, have worth-less bitcoins than you started with. Now whoever is holding their previously un-lost bitcoins cannot be happy about that. It begs the question, what would they do? Refuse the hard fork outright. Obviously. Indeed, even if the value of the bitcoins would overall increase the market cap of the available supply, we can be damn sure it would reduce the value of each individual coin. Supply and Demand. Economics 101. The Big Question: Is this a financial revolution for the better, or for the worse? For example, let's say we had 4 million coins left. We then redeem the coins in the wallets of those proven deceased without any heir. Say Satoshi Finney is that first choice. At $10 million per coin, 4 million coins give up a market cap of 40 trillion USD. Add 2 million coins to the available supply but have the price shocked from 10 million to only 7 million. Total availability supply = 6 million. 6 million x 7 million USD = 42 trillion dollars. It is a good financial explosion. But to whom? Who gets the money?? Who makes the ultimate sacrifice of accepting to end up with less money than before? If rational and educated human beings cannot agree on simple (obvious) things like "Are fossil fuels necessary for economic progress or not?", how can they agree on how to share this pie? It is a financial explosion, except the majority will not want it. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine General's problem. Somebody needs to solve the "Goodness of the community over the Goodness of the individual" problem. Of course, with my limited brains, I know most people are wary of a Marxist dystopia sliding in during this very crucial process. E.g. The coins could instead be coded to go to a handful of powerful individuals, whereas before it seemed like they would go to people who deserved a financial turnaround. Especially in the wake of what we see today with government debt ballooning, government operatives hoping to snatch some of this reclaimed BTC so as to help the government pay its gigantic debt is not an impossibility. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not the best kind of sandwich. At some point, too many people will have lost too much Bitcoin that they will meet to talk about it. Bitcoin Later, they will opt to do something about it. There can only be a (decreasing number) of bitcoins L ost cryptocurrency is a unique beast, quite different from lost information for 2 reasons: ost cryptocurrency is a unique beast, quite different from lost information for 2 reasons: 1. We can continue maintaining its value. Right? Is it really still valuable? Is it really still valuable? really 2. Other people know it is lost. They simply check the blockchain. Whereas with lost information, nobody else can tell except those who have lost that intel. Take Bitcoin as an example. We still say 'There can only be 21 million'. But if this includes even lost bitcoins, then we are counting our losses as assets! That is very strange. Imagine if you were an accountant for a major company. The company deals in all sorts of assets, but sometimes writes some physical assets off as lost either due to theft, fire outbreak, or irreparable damage. But to your shock, the manager insists that not only do you keep counting those assets, but also, count them as fully functional assets whose value is going up every year. " But they are damaged ", you might say. But they are damaged " Yeah, but they are still our assets " Yeah, but they are still our assets " What, how? " What, how? " There is hope we can recover them exactly as they were before they were lost. There is hope we can recover them exactly as they were before they were lost. And then some ". And then some It’s hard to fathom. It indeed feels like Alice in Wonderland, where cards talk, a piece of cake can make one bigger, or smaller, and a cat can disappear leaving only its grin behind. Bitcoin and most crypto are the same. The question is thus; Is real value riding on all coins? Even when some are lost? Certainly, supply and demand economics might make all the coins feel equally valuable hence we would say that if Bitcoin is at $70,000 then the market cap is $1.47 trillion. But taking the figures as per this reddit post on lost bitcoins , if 6 million are lost then only 15 million coins are existing which are backed by a market cap of $1.05 trillion. reddit post on lost bitcoins Less by $420 billion. This does deflate our dreams and begs the question --> are we kidding ourselves? The road to Zero bitcoins By some estimates , 4% of 21,000,000 bitcoins continue to be lost every year. some estimates How many shall be lost, going forward? Let's assume this 4% holds true. 4% × 21,000,000 = 840,000 bitcoins. This is very steep. Well then, in 15 years, we shall lose 840,000 * 15 = 12,600,000 Add 6 million to this batch and circa 2039, 'There can only be 2,400,000 bitcoins' When will they be finished? Now, a little hope is in order. The 4% cannot hold steady forever, so it would be wise to say it too will be a declining figure as we progress. Because as Bitcoins get more valuable, people will be more careful with their keys. It is inevitable. Taking it at face value though, we shall run out of bitcoins to trade within the next 18 years. So Circa 2042. I hope the naysayers will be back to tell us they told us so, or to plead guilty of doomism and explain why there are still many millions of Bitcoins being traded daily. However, it certainly looks like way before the year 2137 when the last satoshi will be mined, we shall hit a big wall as per the coins lost vs the coins in the available supply. When enough is enough, for lost Bitcoins Assume at the time this shocking reality hits the Bitcoin community, we have only 4 million coins tradable around the world. Assume even Michael Saylor shall have lost some of his keys/coins. What then? Well, the price of a single coin, feeling so much demand, will spike to about $10 million, and then it will dawn on everybody. Bitcoin has a $40 trillion market capitalization and not a $210 trillion market capitalization. Right now, this is an elephant 🐘 in the Bitcoin room, but it is still a baby and we are all happy to pet it and feed it with careless abandon. Soon, however, it will become a giant. A big fat frustration. At $10 trillion per coin, the fees to move even a few sats will likely be thousands of dollars because; a) the Bitcoin reward is smaller. b) miners have also lost their coins. c) losing coins to hackers will be most likely (hackers will be sniffing all over every wallet, waiting for the SSL to get some slight holes) Everybody will be losing coins. It will be wild. But before I proceed? Why do people lose keys hence coins? Well, if you are using the key every time, sometimes changing it this way and that way to maintain your security (because AI powered cameras may be watching), it so happens that you are bound to make a mistake and lose the key. Or else, be hacked (since you cannot fathom changing the key all the time). Like smart people must have said, meat brains are not good at holding random numbers or random sequences of words. Luke Dash Jnr, a seasoned cypherpunk, was hacked last year. He lost 200 bitcoins. Elon Musk may have lost his Bitcon keys back in '20. So, shit happens. To hard fork those lost coins back, or not. That is the question So here's the thing. We wake up and Bitcoin is seizing up. Crashing into its mass and threatening to take our financial dreams with it when it turns into a black hole of lost keys / burned coins. We also wake up and realize that the debt spiral is still sucking us down with it, even as we hodl Bitcoin. Climate is now a real issue and oh, AI is giving us headaches. Too many addictive cat videos. Too many coins are lost, the blocks are always full so confirmations take decades, the core software is too large, the fees are too high. So we sit down, like AA group members, and decide that continuing to preach financial freedom yet the currency is fast tending towards technological obsolescence, is like being high on alcohol and thinking that one is blissful for other reasons. We need to quit the 'lost coins are good for all' alcohol. In short, it will be time for a hard fork. The Hard Fork --> Bitcoin ver. 2.0 Innovation comes full circle. Innovation comes full circle. After factoring in the reality of available supply and not merely supply, we could let Satoshi Nakamoto's 2 million or so coins be our target practice and our saving grace. One shot and bull’s eye. Trillions of dollars pour down from the Bitcoin piñata. Like manna from the heavens. Right? Alas, There shall only be 4 million bitcoins and the value of lost coins, if "re-supplied" to the blockchain, will quickly deflate the value of the 4 million coins existing. Overall, lost coins would have helped the remaining coins get valuable to that point. Say $10 million per BTC. If you un-lose them by the most brute force of them all -- a hard fork -- you shock the demand economics and viola, have worth-less bitcoins than you started with. Now whoever is holding their previously un-lost bitcoins cannot be happy about that. It begs the question, what would they do? Refuse the hard fork outright. Obviously. Indeed, even if the value of the bitcoins would overall increase the market cap of the available supply, we can be damn sure it would reduce the value of each individual coin. Supply and Demand. Economics 101. The Big Question: Is this a financial revolution for the better, or for the worse? For example, let's say we had 4 million coins left. We then redeem the coins in the wallets of those proven deceased without any heir. Say Satoshi Finney is that first choice. At $10 million per coin, 4 million coins give up a market cap of 40 trillion USD. Add 2 million coins to the available supply but have the price shocked from 10 million to only 7 million. Total availability supply = 6 million. 6 million x 7 million USD = 42 trillion dollars. It is a good financial explosion. But to whom? Who gets the money?? Who makes the ultimate sacrifice of accepting to end up with less money than before? If rational and educated human beings cannot agree on simple (obvious) things like "Are fossil fuels necessary for economic progress or not?" , how can they agree on how to share this pie? "Are fossil fuels necessary for economic progress or not?" It is a financial explosion, except the majority will not want it. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine General's problem. Somebody needs to solve the "Goodness of the community over the Goodness of the individual" problem. Of course, with my limited brains, I know most people are wary of a Marxist dystopia sliding in during this very crucial process. E.g. The coins could instead be coded to go to a handful of powerful individuals, whereas before it seemed like they would go to people who deserved a financial turnaround. Especially in the wake of what we see today with government debt ballooning, government operatives hoping to snatch some of this reclaimed BTC so as to help the government pay its gigantic debt is not an impossibility. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not the best kind of sandwich.

Is Lost Cryptocurrency Still Valuable, and Can We Reclaim It? 

Creating Scrollable Lists using Protocol-Oriented Programming and UICollectionViewFlowLayout

581 Stories To Learn About Non Fiction

Dissecting Video Games and If They Are Art: A Non-Gamer's Analysis

ভিডিও গেম ব্যবচ্ছেদ করা এবং সেগুলি যদি শিল্প হয়: একটি নন-গেমারের বিশ্লেষণ

Videospiele analysieren und ob sie Kunst sind: Die Analyse eines Nicht-Spielers

Diseccionando los videojuegos y si son arte: un análisis de un no jugador

Disséquer les jeux vidéo et s'ils sont de l'art : une analyse d'un non-joueur

विच्छेदित वीडियो गेम और यदि वे कला हैं: एक गैर-गेमर का विश्लेषण

ビデオ ゲームを解剖し、それがアートであるかどうか: 非ゲーマーによる分析

비디오 게임을 분석하고 그것이 예술이라면: 비게이머의 분석

Dissecando videogames e se eles são arte: uma análise de quem não é jogador

Анализ видеоигр и являются ли они искусством: анализ негеймера

Video Oyunlarını İncelemek ve Sanat Olup Olmadıklarını: Oyuncu Olmayan Bir Analiz

Phân tích trò chơi điện tử và liệu chúng có phải là nghệ thuật: Phân tích của một người không phải là game thủ

剖析视频游戏以及它们是否是艺术：非游戏玩家的分析

Ned Segal's Complete Indemnification Agreement With Twiter

Stories, News & Mentions about HEIR

Heir’s Stories on HackerNoon