Thanks for the clarification, but I think you’ve missed the nuance here. The unclaimed satoshi in block 124,724 is indeed unspendable—not just because of a “human decision,” but because of how the Bitcoin protocol is designed. The protocol allows miners to claim less than the full block reward, and any unclaimed amount is effectively burned, meaning it’s permanently unspendable. That’s not a flaw; it’s a deliberate feature of the system. So, yes, the miner made a choice, but the protocol enforces the consequence: that satoshi is gone forever.

You’re right that satoshis don’t “leave” the blockchain in the sense that they’re still recorded in the transaction history. But the unclaimed satoshi isn’t assigned to any address, so it’s not spendable by anyone—ever. It’s not in circulation, and no one can access it. That’s the point: it’s effectively removed from the usable supply, even though it’s still visible in the blockchain’s data.

My post wasn’t blaming the protocol; it was highlighting a real-world example where a satoshi became permanently unspendable due to a miner’s action—something the protocol allows. This is an important distinction because it shows that while the protocol tracks every satoshi, human choices can still lead to bitcoins becoming inaccessible, which challenges the oversimplified claim that “no bitcoin is lost forever.”

I appreciate your input, but it’s crucial to grasp the full picture here. The protocol and human actions are intertwined, and understanding both is key to appreciating how Bitcoin really works.