Topic: bitcoin community votes on creation of more bitcoin (Read 2164 times)

Your title is misleading. It makes it seem like there is consideration to create more bitcoins when your actually just asking a question. There should never be consideration to create more bitcoins because that is one of the things that makes bitcoin unique. Creating more coins would also effectively be creating infinite coins because then it would be established that creating more coins is okay and creates the possibility again in the future. 21 million bitcoins should be the absolute maximum amount. Why do people continuously forget it is infinitely divisible?

I think the people or groups who are interested are people who want the ability to have a stealth tax (inflation) on everyone else in order to skim money from a large number of people either for their own pockets or for the power they'd get from being able to hand it to others. 

These are the people who want power and wealth and are willing to skin everyone else to get it no matter the consequences to people, states, or the world.

OK, that makes sense thank you for a great explanation. Who are the potential people or groups that would be interested in a fork to create a new coin?

I believe this is not a concern until we reach close to 21 Million bitcoin. It will give enough potential to rise the price. Once we're close to the end of the mining, we may not reach the close soon, we consider based on the demand and usage of the coin.

Why is there a need to increase the maximum amount of Bitcoins? Changing this value would be very bad for the coin

Imagine somewhat extreme magnitude of your proposed solution. You have 2 "bitcons" (meaning after coin limit is raised, you can still call it bitcoin or you can call it inflatecoin). Suddenly not some 1000 or 1 000 000 or 21M new coins are created but several millions of billions of new "bitcoins". These coins are (soon) distributed between people, so almost everyone now has hundreds or thousands of bitcoins. Do you think your 2 bitcoins would still have some meaniningfull value? People would not accept something which is abundant as very valuable.

Let's look at what happens:
1. You have bitcoin as it is now.
2. Someone decides to fork bitcoin to create a new coin that includes some inflationary provisions.
3. At this point you have the original bitcoin and the inflate-a-coin fork.
4. Every person who had coins on the original fork has coins on both forks right after the hard fork.
5. Bitcoin continues along with the 21 million limit.  Inflate-a-coin also runs in parallel - assuming you got people to switch to this new fork.

So you have the smart people who are saying, "inflate-a-coin is not a good store of value, so I'll sell my inflate-a-coins and buy bitcoin with them.  Then I can buy back more of the inflate-a-coins later if I want to for some reason and get more of them since they are losing value due to the programmed inflation." 

thanks for the response.  What does this mean that "smart people would sell their inflate-a-coins..."  How will these coins differ from Bitcoin?  So if I have 2 bitcoin in a wallet online are they still bitcoin?

If the bitcoin community succeeds in implementing an inflationary policy, people will lose faith in its utility as a store of value.

Why on earth do you want to increase the bitcoin supply? There should be no need whatsoever. Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, it is not going to "run out". Simply creating more coins is unethical and "cheating".

If someone changed their code from the 21 million limit to a higher inflating limit, it becomes an alt-coin and bitcoin itself goes on with the 21 million coin limit.  

There would be a fork between the two block chains, one fork would be bitcoin, the other inflate-a-coin or something like that.  Everyone who had coins pre-fork would have coins on both forks.  

In all likelihood, the fork with the inflation built in would lose value quickly since it would not hold value over the long term.  Smart people would sell their inflate-a-coin coins and buy the real non-inflated bitcoin.

I agree, very good question and topic.  I have the same question, can it ever go past 21 million coins and who and how is it decided?

If they decided to change the total amount of bitcoins then i would just up and quit bitcoin. You cant just go out and do that, it undermines bitcoin as a currency and a store of value, besides what would be the point? It can be broken down further so theres more bits in a btc which amounts to the same thing but wouldnt destabilise the whole thing.

I think that what you are trying to achieve is in effect funding of public good by taxation and taxation by inflation. Bitcoin serves as protection against imposing such ideas involuntarily.

But the problem is that people differ in opinions about what "needs" to be done, people differ in their view what is "great" (and what is greater, and what priorities should be), isn't it?
If you just created more Bitcoins (or Altcoins or any other currency) out of thin air to fund such activity, you would effectively force every bitcoin holder to participate in its funding. (Because everyone's bitcoin would loose some value when additional ones are created unexpectedly.) You would be doing what every government does by "printing money" and "stimulating economy", because "they know better than the owners what is right to do with other people money".

So the solution is simple: Tell people about that great activity that needs to be funded and convince then that it is right thing to do. Either:
1) they (enough of them and/or few wealthy ones) will fund it voluntarily.
or
2) Not enough people will fund it voluntarily and activity crashes and stays unrealized.

Case 1) is problem solved and it is called free market.
Case 2) means that said activity perhaps was not so great and necessary after all.

I think the most valuable feature of bitcoin beyond decentralization is the limited supply, if a hard fork would happen the trust in bitcoin value would be seriously damaged,  i beleve actually the objetive should be to solve the block size discussion, it is the short term big problem

You cannot change the code now. Its too late.

If the developers do that change then all the previous blocks as well as the Genesis block will become invalid and incompatible with the new chain.

Hard fork is not the ultimate solution to every problems. Try to understand that.

You have misunderstood the situation.


To be considered "confirmed" and secure against doube-spending, yes the transactions have to be a part of the blockchain.  The deeper they are in the blockchain the more difficult and expensive it is for someone to control enough hash power to modify the transaction.


Nope.  First they choose the transactions and order them into a block of transactions.  Then they generate a number, called a merkle root, that is dependent on the exact selection and ordering of the transactions.  Then they build a header for the block.  The header includes the merkle root, which is why they have to choose the transactions and order first. Then they repeatedly hash the header, incrementing a value called a "nonce" with each hash attempt until they either find a hash that is lower than the current target, or receive a valid block from a peer. Then they start the process all over again.  If they find a hash that is lower than the current target, then they broadcast their block to all connected peers.


Recently a lot of hash power has been added to the network. Therefore, the network has compensated by increasing the difficulty (by lowering the target hash value).  The network adjusts the target every 2016 blocks in an attempt to keep the average rate of block solving around 10 minutes per block.  If hash power is removed from the network, then the target will be increased which will make it easier to find blocks.


I'm not sure what you mean by "velocity of transfers".  Perhaps you're talking about "velocity of money"? If so, are you talking about the "transactions velocity of money" or the "income velocity of money"?  I assume you must be talking about the transactions velocity of money, since you can currently get a reasonable estimate from the blockchain, whereas I'm not aware of any significantly trustworthy studies on the income velocity of money with bitcoin. It certainly seems that the transactions velocity has been generally increasing since the creation of bitcoin (with occasional temporary decreases).

Regardless of whether your're talking about income velocity or transaction velocity, how does this relate to the discussion in this thread?

As I understand it, transactions have to be recorded in a new block that is added to the blockchain. Miners spend their time finding these blocks, and then they parcel the transactions in the new block. It's getting harder to find blocks, and the velocity of transfers is increasing.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood the situation.

Why would you want to create more than the specified 21million BTC? Whats your reasoning behind it?

this is a great thread and a good question.

Hopefully more people can weigh in on their thoughts. I really would like to know exactly how that would happen
or how it would be decided