>I'm retarded

If you're talking about losing private keys, the only solultion is for Core devs to increase the max # of Bitcoins in circulation, but we shouldn't have to worry about that for a while.

>>51603241
Value explodes.
Though obviously everyone will move to another coin first, one that uses constant-inflation and PoS (or PoR).

>>51603341
Are the core devs capable of doing that?

>>51603357
So is this the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be abandoned by all its users for another coin?

>>51603369
I don't see why they wouldn't be.

>>51603385
Someone could fork bitcoin to support PoS like they're forking bitcoin v.s. bitcoinxt right now, but it's probably going to be better to move to a coin with intrinsic value (namecoin, filecoin, ethereum, safecoin, etc.) anyway, and modern coins have a lot of interesting improvements that would be hard to backport to bitcoin.

From my understanding, this isn't an issue since you can have a transaction with varying precision. Something like 3.1415926 bitcoins would work.

>>51603441
You end up with floods of 0.00000000000001 btc transactions which are both awful to get the right amount of 0 to not 10xspend (or worse!) and fucks the network performance as there's not enough margin to pay the network for the transaction. Moreover, you need a modified client because the default client has a hardcoded minimum donation to the network if the transaction is not between so and so amount of information.

>>51603241
>eventually won't the supply of Bitcoins be damaged by their inevitable
"Eventually" here is much longer than the foreseeable future.

>>>/biz/
You had your chance to infect the board two years ago.