Topic: 21 millions bitcoin in question - page 3. (Read 3828 times)

My "FTFY" is correct assuming BTC purchasing power = OJ's nutritious value.

You won't increase market cap by x1000 by introducing millisatoshis.

I do understand where you're coming from and you're not wrong saying that it's essentially creating x1000 more bitcoins and changing definition of what "bitcoin" is, but that would have zero effect on the price, other than maybe caused by psychological discomfort and few bad press hits (I. Kaminska from FT would be all over it).

It's definitely not the same as i.e. changing 21m cap to 100m etc. It's essentially the same as dividing shares of a company, i.e. from 10 to 10,000, it won't have any effect on % holding of each shareholder and will have no effect on the value of share capital. So what's the issue?

nope... the unit of measure has moved from X to xxxx
they would just resized the barrels. to keep an artificial human visual accounting limit of 21 million barrels. yet each barrel contains more litres.

EG
lets break it down into binary


1 sat is 00000001
you cannot go any lower!!

1btc is 101111101011110000100000000

however adding more units does not mean that 1btc stays the same
for instance, lets say.. going to millisats.

1btc - 101111101011110000100000000
becomes
1btc - 1011101001000011101101110100000000000

do you notice that although there are only 21m btc.. not just the unit of measure has changed but it also affects how
it is stored on your computer.

in short anyone holding a value of 1BTC now. would be only holding 0.0001btc if a change happened. because the immutable blockchain has the value LOCKED as:
101111101011110000100000000
which cannot suddenly be magically changed to
1011101001000011101101110100000000000
to ensure you still have the new "1btc"

the bait and switch however would be hidden in code.
it would also require people to redownload and resync the entire blockchain to store 1btc as
1011101001000011101101110100000000000
instead of
101111101011110000100000000

its not a case of having an orange and instead of selling a whole orange, your selling segments of oranges at a fraction of the price
its having a basket of oranges that you just call an orange. an then the individual (old) oranges you then call segments.

which means if you do the maths and look at the code. farmers have to farm for longer. but on the fruit stall sign you have stated there are still 21 million oranges (new baskets) but your fruitstall is more crammed (more bytes of data, more units of measure)

i understand the greed mentality of "yes i can buy one bitcoin (basket of oranges) and it will feed more people(more units of measure). the issue is that 1btc (basket) will drop in price due to supply and demand

FTFY

There will never be a number of 21 million in existence because hundreds of thousands of coins, if not millions got lost.Especially in the early days when Bitcoin was worth nothing.
But even that is imo no reason why there should be an increase of the coin amount limit happening.
If we need to do something then add one or two more decimals. But trying to change the limit is ridiculous.Scarcity is one of Bitcoin's most important features.
And if we start to change this once there will be attempts to repeat this again and again and there won't be no difference to fiat and QE anymore.
No no and again no!!!!!

the rule is 2.1quadrillion units of measure limit.  quantified as baskets of satoshis called bitcoins equating to a 21million bitcoin limit for easy human understanding.
the hard rule about rarity and scarcity is how obtainable individual amounts, not baskets volume.

every time the price rises someone always tries to demand that the units of measure changes to go above 2.1quadrillion exchangeable units of measure limit

here is just one of the early ones.. from 2011. pretty much within 2 months of satoshi leaving people wanted to go against satoshi's design (facepalm)


it was not the first attempt and wont be the last

its an endless cycle. price rises, people then want to be able to split up their holdings to hand out to more people (double profiting in their mind) but if it actually happened the opposite to their greed would actually result

I do not think this is possible. Because of the halving that happens every about 4 years, the price of Bitcoin will have to rise for it to be sustained amd to continue existing. I do not think we'll ever reach 21 million - it's going to become harder and harder to get mined every time.

The limits set by Nakamoto were 21 milion bitcoins, and the price is growing based into the miners reward and taking into consideration there will be only 21milion bitcoins, the code were made to work with those limits, and i really believe changing something as the supply of bitcoin will damage bitcoin in value and structure.

I think that now do not need any increase in Bitcoins.

day 1.

day 2.

day 3.

This is basic economics supply and demand. Less the supply high the price, more the supply less the price. I am a bit skeptical releasing so many so soon. This shall crash the price, so in a way I don't think it should happen so soon so much.

bitcoin unlimited are not proposing a fork in the way you are suggesting.
seems you need to research some more.

if you did not realise it BU has released and full code running since 2015. running on bitcoins mainnet.
core for instance have made many propositions. such as rusty russels millisats, luke Jr's tonal bitcoin both of which change the units of measure.

also its actually core making demands for BU to fork off.. (not very community spirited for what bitcoins ethos of open no barrier of entry, WAS)
anyone thinking only CORE should exist with no diverse counterpart to level the playing field are people that want a dictatorship where there are no ways to veto out bad rule changes

cores latest implementation that meant to offer extra new features is not actually running. yep. they deactivated the segwit wallet. you cannot make a segwit transaction right now. and are required to download yet another implementation after activation.

BU doesnt require you to download endless implementations.. getting spoon fed by devs in a oliver twist script of "please sir can i have some more"

core so far have had atleast 5 implementation releases concerning the ability to make segwit possible and its still not ready to run live.
also even after activation its not 100% running live. they will make you wait for the activation, wait for the grace period, then wait again until they deem it ok for users to make segwit transactions by requiring you download yet another implementation.

please research and dont preach the 'core' choir especially when you dont understand that satoshis 2009-2013 "qt" is nothing like blockstream funded employee and volunteer intern handled "core" of 2014+.

be realistic

Exactly if we increase the amount of bitcoin we will just kill bitcoin. It is just like saying if government can just print more money why doesn't it print and give it to poor.

Nodes don't get any revenue, miners do.


Increasing the number of base units by x1000 could have some ugly psychological effect, but in reality it changes nothing, every balance would be multiplied by the same factor and the cap of 21m units called "bitcoin" would still be in place. The only difference from the users' perspective would be more decimal places.
There's nothing controversial about that, and afaik that was suggested from the start if BTC price was to go up to some incredible levels.

Kept reading and couldn't find a better reply than this. It summarizes the whole thing.
ANYONE LOOKING FOR CLEAR ANSWER TO THE OP, CHECK THIS OUT!

I don't agree that they will increase the number of bitcoin in circulation since we are always depending in the demand and supply so i think it is not good that they modified again the number of bitcoin. .it can affect the market and yeah like other said the price can also affected and it can decrease the value.. Because we are relaying in demand and supply..

Maybe this is possible but we have to think will this be realy good for Bitcoin? I don't think so, I beleive that the overall amount should stay limited. Inflation is not good for Bitcoin this would lead to the decrease of price, lack of interest for Bitcoin and the end it could fail and be replaced with something else. Not a good scenario.

How would more coins benefit us? The point of Bitcoin is to have a fixed capital and not have it changed whenever we want. Having a higher max capital would just lower the value per coin and no one would benefit. The price of Bitcoin is relative to the total number of Bitcoin, just like how gold is precious because of its rarity.

To my great surprise, thread starter obviously has never heard about a phenomenon called "inflation". You can increase the number of total Bitcoin and miners may earn more Bitcoin, but the buying power of every single Bitcoin will decrease proportionally to the increase in the number of total Bitcoin. For example every citizen of Zimbabwe was a multi billionaire at the height of hyperinflation a few years ago, however nobody had any reason to be happy about it...

The absolute total limit of 21 million coins is the holy grail of Bitcoin. Changing it would lead to immediate death of the currency, because it is one of the foundations of Bitcoin's value. If that is ever done, Bitcoin would have become a fiat currency. Therefore any attempt in that regard is considered devil worship and will unlikely be approved by miners.

ya.ya.yo!

It is indeed true that if the number of bitcoins in circulation will increase the price of bitcoin will potentially decrease. If it decreases in price it will affect many sectors in the bitcoin industry. I am included in the list of the affected person, for me it is a disadvantage, we all long for a price increase and a sudden price deflation will not help but create more trouble.

creating more coins would diminish the value of the current coins.  thats the whole point of the 21 million limit.  creating more will never be an option, it would be shot down from day one and never achieve consensus