Burn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known.
It's just semantics.
In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.
Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.
I am with svk and many others. Recycling for reuse is not burning. And it is not just semantics.
Your post lead me to a different thought though.
BTS share are made of primarily carbon.
When they are recycled they are turned to.....Graphene of course.
OK so I re-read the post on project funding and I see what I was missing:
https://bitshares.github.io/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/
While it still doesn't qualify as what I consider burning, as long as the amount "burnt" or going into the reserve fund exceeds the amount being paid to witnesses and workers, the amount of freely available BTS will decrease. This will have the same effect as burning, as the shares will not be in circulation but held by the blockchain, however the funds may need to be released later on if the amount being "burnt" starts to decrease and falls below the sum of witness and worker pay.
In the end I think it's quite clever, it lets the blockchain build up a rainy-day fund of sorts that can be used to maintain witness and project funding in the case transaction volume falters for example.
I say shame on you BM for twisting the definition of "burning"
You're smart enough to know the difference so why inject this confusion? Is it sophistry to manipulate people to believe a "burn fund" is a good idea or just an off the cuff remark / sloppy language? (I don't want to believe that, but it is a valid question, albeit rather bluntly stated) For the reasons well described above burning fees in BitShares 2.0 is not the same thing, that's just the cold hard facts.
But lest you walk away thinking I'm down on the idea, think again. I agree it is a rather clever way to produce a "rainy day" pool of funds which the shareholders can vote to do with as they may. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable. It is a form of money supply control either way you look at it.
It is important to note that although BitShares 2.0 provides this new facility to divert a portion of fees into a special "recycle / rainy day" account, I don't believe it prohibits true fund burning by transferring funds to a non existent or "null" account address. BM, can you confirm that? If such a true burn address does not explicitly exist, anyone is free to create a new account and throw away the private keys, then advertise the public key
With that in mind burning is indeed possible, whether it's alive and well is another matter.Like it or not the BitShares ecosystem is not a true (i.e. pure, self regulating) free market economy, no matter what version you're talking about. Any type of regulation of the money supply by any "control group" (such as developers, delegates, the FED or governments) other than the market forces of supply and demand is an attempt to alter the free nature of the ecosystem. Any such control group plays god with the economy.
Theoretically, a true free market is one where the amount of money in existence is always balanced with the value of goods and services available for trade. That relationship is extremely dynamic and involves many variables. New people entering and leaving the workforce, the impact of new inventions and methods, natural disasters that destroy people and property are some of the big factors.
Until there is a way to take humans out of the control loop (god role) and replace them with some "perfect" system of automatic control to dynamically adjust the money supply based on accurate measurement of all those factors in real time, we will have to settle for human decisions that attempt to manually adjust the controls to achieve a balance that although not perfect, will be good enough to stimulate the growth of creativity and prosperity without the need for violence and aggression.
I think humanity is still far too primitive to do a good job at playing god with the economy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for improvement. I believe BitShares 2.0 is a major improvement over anything prior to it in the evolution of blochchain technolgy.
Lets each take an active role and work to make it the best it can be!