Topic: 21 millions bitcoin in question (Read 3828 times)
They should have thought that in the first year of bitcoin,this is not the right time for that,people have a high expectations of the price by adding more bitcoin in it's supply,people will get discourage to use bitcoin,they bought bitcoin because of the coming scarcity.so let it stay that way..
What do 3340.50 billions of US Dollars have to do with 21 millions of bitcoins, and how is it related to the issue in question? Scarcity is not binary (either 1 or 0), and as I already said in my other post here, more goods will render the same amount of bitcoins more scarce, consequently, less goods less scarce...
In other words, more bitcoins will be chasing less goods (i.e. Bitcoin less scarce) and vice versa (i.e. Bitcoin more scarce)
Scarcity should not be considered in isolation, it should always be related to something in respect to which it is scarce since otherwise it simply doesn't make sense. Is one bitcoin scarce or not? In your case, the amount of bitcoins should be linked to the amount of goods directly, not dollars. Dollars themselves are irrelevant to this question...
Even if it is one hundred thousand dollars in gold
And then you can say exactly in which case Bitcoin will be more scarce and in which less
In other words, more bitcoins will be chasing less goods (i.e. Bitcoin less scarce) and vice versa (i.e. Bitcoin more scarce)
At one time there was a $100,000 bill that featured a portrait of Woodrow Wilson on it. It was used mainly by banks to transfer large amounts of currency around before the advent of the ACH/EFT system. President Richard Nixon eliminated their use by executive order in 1969. If you are talking one Bitcoin being equal to one $100,000 dollar note then you're getting closer to the truth. However, to equal the dollars in circulation then one Bitcoin needs to be a decimal percentage of what we now call bitcoins of which there are plenty. 2.1 quadrillion of them in fact. That's not really what I would call scarce. In the "one world currency" realm of the future, none of us will ever walk around with one Bitcoin or one $100,000 bill in our pocket.
Scarcity should not be considered in isolation, it should always be related to something in respect to which it is scarce since otherwise it simply doesn't make sense. Is one bitcoin scarce or not? In your case, the amount of bitcoins should be linked to the amount of goods directly, not dollars. Dollars themselves are irrelevant to this question...
Even if it is one hundred thousand dollars in gold
And then you can say exactly in which case Bitcoin will be more scarce and in which less
I think you're lost in semantics. It's either it's day or it's night, it can't be both. The sponge is either wet or it's dry, it can't be both. Either Bitcoin is large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable, it can't be both.
Is one apple scarce or abundant?
The answer to this question in meaningless without additional info. The same with Bitcoin. It can be both less scarce and more scarce at the same time depending on, for example, which number of people you divide this bitcoin between. If it is divided between 20 people, it will be more scarce than If it was divided between 10 people. But it is still the same 1 Bitcoin, anyway. In other words, there is no absolute scarcity in terms of nights vs days (and, consequently, no absolute abundance). If you don't feel quite at home with that, feel free to ask
There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both
There is no real contradiction
First, scarcity is required but not sufficient. I remember I had explained that already, kinda seems about time to repeat the lesson. To be valuable, something should not only be scarce but also useful at that. If some shit is infinitely scarce but utterly useless, it won't have any value. Second, scarcity is not an absolute category (like yes or no questions), something can be more scarce than something else and vice versa. And last but not least, being infinitely divisible doesn't mean that you will have more of it. In this way, it doesn't matter if you divide one Bitcoin into 100 or 100,000 parts, you will still have only 1 Bitcoin in total. That's exactly where your logic fails
Your logic fails when you take a world with an M1 money supply of 3340.50 Billion US Dollars alone and try to run a world with only 21 million bitcoins. I agree that if you don't want to make Bitcoin a national currency then bitcoins are scarce.
What do 3340.50 billions of US Dollars have to do with 21 millions of bitcoins, and how is it related to the issue in question? Scarcity is not binary (either 1 or 0), and as I already said in my other post here, more goods will render the same amount of bitcoins more scarce, consequently, less goods less scarce...
In other words, more bitcoins will be chasing less goods (i.e. Bitcoin less scarce) and vice versa (i.e. Bitcoin more scarce)
At one time there was a $100,000 bill that featured a portrait of Woodrow Wilson on it. It was used mainly by banks to transfer large amounts of currency around before the advent of the ACH/EFT system. President Richard Nixon eliminated their use by executive order in 1969. If you are talking one Bitcoin being equal to one $100,000 dollar note then you're getting closer to the truth. However, to equal the dollars in circulation then one Bitcoin needs to be a decimal percentage of what we now call bitcoins of which there are plenty. 2.1 quadrillion of them in fact. That's not really what I would call scarce. In the "one world currency" realm of the future, none of us will ever walk around with one Bitcoin or one $100,000 bill in our pocket.
Scarcity should not be considered in isolation, it should always be related to something in respect to which it is scarce since otherwise it simply doesn't make sense. Is one bitcoin scarce or not? In your case, the amount of bitcoins should be linked to the amount of goods directly, not dollars. Dollars themselves are irrelevant to this question...
Even if it is one hundred thousand dollars in gold
And then you can say exactly in which case Bitcoin will be more scarce and in which less
I think you're lost in semantics. It's either it's day or it's night, it can't be both. The sponge is either wet or it's dry, it can't be both. Either Bitcoin is large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable, it can't be both.
A basic economic principle is that if you have more of something then it will be worth less, so on the contrary, more bitcoin created will reduced the profit of users not increase it. 
There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both
There is no real contradiction
First, scarcity is required but not sufficient. I remember I had explained that already, kinda seems about time to repeat the lesson. To be valuable, something should not only be scarce but also useful at that. If some shit is infinitely scarce but utterly useless, it won't have any value. Second, scarcity is not an absolute category (like yes or no questions), something can be more scarce than something else and vice versa. And last but not least, being infinitely divisible doesn't mean that you will have more of it. In this way, it doesn't matter if you divide one Bitcoin into 100 or 100,000 parts, you will still have only 1 Bitcoin in total. That's exactly where your logic fails
Your logic fails when you take a world with an M1 money supply of 3340.50 Billion US Dollars alone and try to run a world with only 21 million bitcoins. I agree that if you don't want to make Bitcoin a national currency then bitcoins are scarce.
What do 3340.50 billions of US Dollars have to do with 21 millions of bitcoins, and how is it related to the issue in question? Scarcity is not binary (either 1 or 0), and as I already said in my other post here, more goods will render the same amount of bitcoins more scarce, consequently, less goods less scarce...
In other words, more bitcoins will be chasing less goods (i.e. Bitcoin less scarce) and vice versa (i.e. Bitcoin more scarce)
At one time there was a $100,000 bill that featured a portrait of Woodrow Wilson on it. It was used mainly by banks to transfer large amounts of currency around before the advent of the ACH/EFT system. President Richard Nixon eliminated their use by executive order in 1969. If you are talking one Bitcoin being equal to one $100,000 dollar note then you're getting closer to the truth. However, to equal the dollars in circulation then one Bitcoin needs to be a decimal percentage of what we now call bitcoins of which there are plenty. 2.1 quadrillion of them in fact. That's not really what I would call scarce. In the "one world currency" realm of the future, none of us will ever walk around with one Bitcoin or one $100,000 bill in our pocket.
Scarcity should not be considered in isolation, it should always be related to something in respect to which it is scarce since otherwise it simply doesn't make sense. Is one bitcoin scarce or not? In your case, the amount of bitcoins should be linked to the amount of goods directly, not dollars. Dollars themselves are irrelevant to this question...
Even if it is one hundred thousand dollars in gold
And then you can say exactly in which case Bitcoin will be more scarce and in which less
Destroys the value instantly.
Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There is your answer. Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both
There is no real contradiction
First, scarcity is required but not sufficient. I remember I had explained that already, kinda seems about time to repeat the lesson. To be valuable, something should not only be scarce but also useful at that. If some shit is infinitely scarce but utterly useless, it won't have any value. Second, scarcity is not an absolute category (like yes or no questions), something can be more scarce than something else and vice versa. And last but not least, being infinitely divisible doesn't mean that you will have more of it. In this way, it doesn't matter if you divide one Bitcoin into 100 or 100,000 parts, you will still have only 1 Bitcoin in total. That's exactly where your logic fails
Your logic fails when you take a world with an M1 money supply of 3340.50 Billion US Dollars alone and try to run a world with only 21 million bitcoins. I agree that if you don't want to make Bitcoin a national currency then bitcoins are scarce.
At one time there was a $100,000 bill that featured a portrait of Woodrow Wilson on it. It was used mainly by banks to transfer large amounts of currency around before the advent of the ACH/EFT system. President Richard Nixon eliminated their use by executive order in 1969. If you are talking one Bitcoin being equal to one $100,000 dollar note then you're getting closer to the truth. However, to equal the dollars in circulation then one Bitcoin needs to be a decimal percentage of what we now call bitcoins of which there are plenty. 2.1 quadrillion of them in fact. That's not really what I would call scarce. In the "one world currency" realm of the future, none of us will ever walk around with one Bitcoin or one $100,000 bill in our pocket.
Ok for the miners as they can mine more bitcoin but not for holders,the added bitcoin to mine will push the price to lower so if you buy it at $750 to one bitcoin you'll only get $400 for one bitcoin and of course how many millions people will get disappointed seeing the price drop..
The lost Bitcoin does not disappear. Never. It just sits there, in the wallets, and nothing else happens. This is one of the disadvantages of Bitcoin: the fact that the money is limited. Many, many people will lose their wallets on a long term, so a lot of Bitcoin will be lost. Nobody needs to even want this - it can happen to any of us. For example, a thief can steal the book or notebook or computer or whatever you got in which you stored your passwords but your Wallet ID. In the next second, your wallet can be gone forever. So that amount you had in your wallet is vanished now. This obviously can push the price down, but only if a big amount of Bitcoin will be lost resulting in less Bitcoins available.
It would push the price up because of less supply.
Ok for the miners as they can mine more bitcoin but not for holders,the added bitcoin to mine will push the price to lower so if you buy it at $750 to one bitcoin you'll only get $400 for one bitcoin and of course how many millions people will get disappointed seeing the price drop..
The lost Bitcoin does not disappear. Never. It just sits there, in the wallets, and nothing else happens. This is one of the disadvantages of Bitcoin: the fact that the money is limited. Many, many people will lose their wallets on a long term, so a lot of Bitcoin will be lost. Nobody needs to even want this - it can happen to any of us. For example, a thief can steal the book or notebook or computer or whatever you got in which you stored your passwords but your Wallet ID. In the next second, your wallet can be gone forever. So that amount you had in your wallet is vanished now. This obviously can push the price down, but only if a big amount of Bitcoin will be lost resulting in less Bitcoins available.
It doesn't matter altogether
There cannot be shortage of bitcoins just like there cannot be overproduction of goods. The amount of money is balanced with the amount of goods through market price. If there remains only 1 bitcoin in circulation, the prices will get readjusted in such a way that 1 bitcoin will suffice to support the exchange of all goods produced. Likewise, If the amount of goods increases (which could be loosely called "overproduction"), the prices will again readjust, now in the opposite direction
Ok for the miners as they can mine more bitcoin but not for holders,the added bitcoin to mine will push the price to lower so if you buy it at $750 to one bitcoin you'll only get $400 for one bitcoin and of course how many millions people will get disappointed seeing the price drop..
The lost Bitcoin does not disappear. Never. It just sits there, in the wallets, and nothing else happens. This is one of the disadvantages of Bitcoin: the fact that the money is limited. Many, many people will lose their wallets on a long term, so a lot of Bitcoin will be lost. Nobody needs to even want this - it can happen to any of us. For example, a thief can steal the book or notebook or computer or whatever you got in which you stored your passwords but your Wallet ID. In the next second, your wallet can be gone forever. So that amount you had in your wallet is vanished now. This obviously can push the price down, but only if a big amount of Bitcoin will be lost resulting in less Bitcoins available.
Destroys the value instantly.
Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There is your answer. Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both
There is no real contradiction
First, scarcity is required but not sufficient. I remember I had explained that already, kinda seems about time to repeat the lesson. To be valuable, something should not only be scarce but also useful at that. If some shit is infinitely scarce but utterly useless, it won't have any value. Second, scarcity is not an absolute category (like yes or no questions), something can be more scarce than something else and vice versa. And last but not least, being infinitely divisible doesn't mean that you will have more of it. In this way, it doesn't matter if you divide one Bitcoin into 100 or 100,000 parts, you will still have only 1 Bitcoin in total. That's exactly where your logic fails
it will happen like ETH now, after fork and fork
the value become bad
also
like economic demand and supply law principle
a low supply and a high demand increases price, and in contrast, the greater the supply and the lower the demand, the lower the price tends to fall.
and if this really happen, there will be 2 coin
with bitcoin classic 21m
and bitcoinfork with >21 m
ill stand for classic, with sell all my coin in fork convert to classic
the value become bad
also
like economic demand and supply law principle
a low supply and a high demand increases price, and in contrast, the greater the supply and the lower the demand, the lower the price tends to fall.
and if this really happen, there will be 2 coin
with bitcoin classic 21m
and bitcoinfork with >21 m
ill stand for classic, with sell all my coin in fork convert to classic
Ok for the miners as they can mine more bitcoin but not for holders,the added bitcoin to mine will push the price to lower so if you buy it at $750 to one bitcoin you'll only get $400 for one bitcoin and of course how many millions people will get disappointed seeing the price drop..
Destroys the value instantly.
Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There is your answer. Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both.
I must have glazed over that post when I read this thread the first time.
Agreed but we need to come up with a more compact shtick because it looks contradictory as presented. The gold idea is good but not quite right for the scarcity argument. I thought about comparing it to penny's but they aren't divisible enough and money isn't scarce. I can't really think of a good short answer.
Destroys the value instantly.
Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There is your answer. Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both.
I must have glazed over that post when I read this thread the first time.
Destroys the value instantly.
Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There is your answer. Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both.
I must have glazed over that post when I read this thread the first time.
The idea of increasing the total supply of Bitcoin is a suicidal one. Only people that want to damage bitcoin will support such an outlandish idea. It makes no sense in its very core because bitcoin was designed to be an imitation of gold which is limited. If the supply increases everyone holding loses purchasing power so its pretty stupid and has no positives.
Destroys the value instantly.
Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There is your answer. Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
Having other people control the network and how much Bitcoin units are out in circulation will make the Bitcoin a centralized currency. Because it will not depend on the people making forks whether to add more Bitcoins in circulation. This is the totally destroy the original intent of this technology. Also, if we do allow this to happen, then the prices will become more and more unstable than it is stabilizing.
There will never be 21m bitcoins in circulation because some have already been burned and permanently lost (losing a hardrive with all those bitcoins had to suck).
It's believed that the great and beloved Satoshi lord of all things Bitcoin premined a million coins. If he's dead those coins could be permanently lost which means there will never be more than somewhere less than 20m Bitcoins. If Satoshi is actually a team at the NSA then they will re-enter circulation when the US Gov decides to crash the price of Bitcoin down to nothing
It's believed that the great and beloved Satoshi lord of all things Bitcoin premined a million coins. If he's dead those coins could be permanently lost which means there will never be more than somewhere less than 20m Bitcoins. If Satoshi is actually a team at the NSA then they will re-enter circulation when the US Gov decides to crash the price of Bitcoin down to nothing
Should Satoshi be somehow affiliated with the NSA in respect to Bitcoin development and design, Bitcoin should better be considered as doomed already. And his 980,000 bitcoins would be irrelevant since the NSA obviously wouldn't develop a system for public use without leaving a backdoor. In the case of Bitcoin, that would effectively mean that they could easily get access to any wallet which has been created in the past or will be created in the future by quickly computing the private key through that backdoor. The only way to get rid of such a possibility completely is to change the hashing function behind Bitcoin to something not developed by the NSA or similar entities...
But that would mean a hard fork as far as I understand
I don't actually believe there are back doors in bitcoin that would allow it to be compromised by the NSA or anyone. Claiming it's an NSA invention is kind of my running joke about Andresen being called to speak to the CIA right after he took over for Satoshi. You know, like the NSA employees are being called home for a debrief. LOL
Bitcoin is a cryptographic protocol. Which means it is a enciphering and deciphering tool for messages in secret code (cryptographic) which tells computers how to communicate with each other (protocol). Bitcoin uses a couple of different cryptographic primitives together to form the Bitcoin protocol, SHA-256, RIPEMD-160, and Elliptic Curve DSA on the curve secp256k1 for signatures. The functions Bitcoin performs are not overly complicated for anyone knowledgeable in both cryptography and C++.
Many coders worldwide have looked at and critiqued bitcoins code for both elegance and function. While Bitcoin is anything but sexy programming it functions well for what it's doing. Discovering and plugging attack vectors has caused more code review in Bitcoin than possibly any other single coding project in history. While SHA-256 was created by the NSA, RIPEMD-160 would probably not be loved or used by the NSA because its not secure enough. The NSA has also recently talked about replacing the currently used ecliptic curve cryptography used for signatures in Bitcoin to something more secure. I actually don't believe the security in Bitcoin is sexy enough for the NSA. I could see them building a much better end product than Bitcoin, but it would be closed source and top secret.
Hyperinflation is not a good thing for an economy. Bitcoin price would plummet. I do not think the number of bitcoins should ever be increased.
Also agreed,Bitcoin is doing great with the supply.there's no need to add and besides holders and miners are anticipating the price increase this year onwards,by hard forking it and adding more supply many holders will get their bitcoin reduced it's price,I'll definitely not into this idea..
Jump to: