Look at it this way for a moment. Forget about labels within the ledger: Bitcoins, satoshis and whatever other sub divisions labels may exist in the future, just look at it in terms of units.
Right now the prevailing mindset is that Bitcoin is limited to 21 million units. As we move along people will have to adapt to the reality of 2.1 quadrillion, and then maybe amounts even larger than that.
Talking about the divisibility of the dollar is specious as it is a fiat currency now, it does not now derive it value from any sense of scarcity or a promise of supply constraint.
Topic: Bitcoin crashes when those investing realise 2 things - page 6. (Read 10475 times)
Also, to add further to the discussion, one satoshi is as good for representing information as one Bitcoin. It can be sent from an address to another in the same way, if you disregard fees for one moment. There's no fair value for one satoshi or one Bitcoin, the value is in the network, and the network is a composition of all its smallest accounting units: the satoshis.
Truth is some parallel projects use satoshis to represent colored coins, conveying a new value, possibly 1 euro or 1 ounce of gold or 1 share of a company, to something otherwise (almost) without value.
People, think out of the box for a moment and realize we have a ledger of satohis as accounting units, not Bitcoins.
Truth is some parallel projects use satoshis to represent colored coins, conveying a new value, possibly 1 euro or 1 ounce of gold or 1 share of a company, to something otherwise (almost) without value.
People, think out of the box for a moment and realize we have a ledger of satohis as accounting units, not Bitcoins.
Yep, you're almost there. Now remember that 1BTC = 10,000,000 Satoshi, and you will start to see why it would be more valuable. If we invent new sub units, microsatoshis, 1 BTC is worth even MORE of those.
You can subdivide to infinity, and never change the value of the original unit, only the new unit's value changes.
revans, go and do a basic maths/numeracy course before getting involved in any more discussions about numbers.
I just have to post in a thread with such an epically bad OP.
If you pay me 6% per year in interest on $100, I wind up with $106 at year's end. But if you allow me to compound that twice a year - 3% every six months, I make $106.09. But if you let me compound it monthly, my final balance is $106.1678. Daily $106.183. Each time is more and more.
(wrong) Conclusion: If you allow me to infinitely compound at 6%, I can make infinite amount of money in a year?
Also, to add further to the discussion, one satoshi is as good for representing information as one Bitcoin. It can be sent from an address to another in the same way, if you disregard fees for one moment. There's no fair value for one satoshi or one Bitcoin, the value is in the network, and the network is a composition of all its smallest accounting units: the satoshis.
Truth is some parallel projects use satoshis to represent colored coins, conveying a new value, possibly 1 euro or 1 ounce of gold or 1 share of a company, to something otherwise (almost) without value.
People, think out of the box for a moment and realize we have a ledger of satohis as accounting units, not Bitcoins.
Truth is some parallel projects use satoshis to represent colored coins, conveying a new value, possibly 1 euro or 1 ounce of gold or 1 share of a company, to something otherwise (almost) without value.
People, think out of the box for a moment and realize we have a ledger of satohis as accounting units, not Bitcoins.
Revans, if everyone is screaming stupid at you for bringing a disruptive idea, odds are you are damn right. I agree that adding further decimals will likely have unexpected results. People shouldn't take the gold vs Bitcoin comparison too far.
So when the US removes the penny from circulation and the number of sub units decreases by a factor of 5x that will suddenly cause a massive 400% spike in the value of a dollar.
Who knew? We could solve all the economic problems in the US by simply changing the number of sub units. Write to your Congressman today.
Quote
When exchanges start working in sub units it may dawn on people that the scarcity argument used to promote Bitcoin is disingenuous rubbish.
Let me try to tackle this - admittedly not being an economist.revans - if the Fed is able to print unlimited amounts of US Dollars.
Bitcoin won't be made in unlimited amounts.
Your argument is moreso how the pyschology of the investors will hold up when they realize 21 million is a false number.
My response to that is this: 21 million is a false number, but the concept of scarcity is still intact.
If one stops at a certain point, isn't it, by default, still supporting the scarcity argument?
There is still going to be a limited supply.
As opposed to the US Govt printing unlimited US Dollars.
In 10, 20, 30 years, no matter what happens ... more BTC won't be made.
So wouldn't investors realize that and still feel good about scarcity?
Sure, some uneducated investors (who would pour thousands into something they know nothing about?) may have an initial "What?!" to the news that 21 million isn't the smallest subunit.
But a quick 14 second education on the fact that Bitcoin is still going to be limited, should resolve that.
I think your entire argument here is that when they realize 21 million isnt the number, everyone will run for the hills, with their ears plugged and eyes closed, while screaming.
I on the other hand believe human beings are a little smarter than that, and the 14 second chat about BTC being in limited supply, will resolve their concerns.
In fact I think most investors already realize that BTC is divisible.
The entire reason BTC is going up in value is because people are starting to *UNDERSTAND* it, and realize its potential.
Im interested in your response to this.
From that atomic unit, one could understand the network as being composed of 21x10^N of such units. In this sense, creating further divisions and increasing N has the same effect of devaluing the currency.
It's a matter of point of view, and points of view can change over time.
It's a matter of point of view, and points of view can change over time.
No, no it doesn't. It makes it more divisible. It doesn't devalue it what-so-ever. You will have more, less valuable pieces, but the whole is the same value.
It's not a matter of point of view, it's a misunderstanding. Making something more divisible does not dilute it, it simply allows you to possess smaller pieces. It does not increase the total amount.
Your theory applies to things made of atoms. The real use of a pie is serving as food. Half a pie is 50% as useful as a whole pie, so half a pie is worth half a whole pie and this is an immutable fact.
I am not so sure about that with mathematical abstractions such as Bitcoins, because here what really matters isn't the value of a single coin, but how much monetary value can be represented by the whole network. The value of a single coin is a consequence. Whether we have 21, 21 million or 21 gazillion coins is irrelevant. The value of a single unit will be how the market values the whole network, divided by the number of units. What I am tending to agree here is that our real accounting unit is not the Bitcoin, but the satoshi. Adding further decimals will probably have the same effect as creating more coins.
Maybe this is not an immediate effect, but the market could adjust itself.
My point exactly.
Bitcoins are a conceit for the sake of marketing Bitcoin. It's 21 million ledger units, its 2.1 quadrillion with the already discussed possibility of expanding that.
Revans, if everyone is screaming stupid at you for bringing a disruptive idea, odds are you are damn right. I agree that adding further decimals will likely have unexpected results. People shouldn't take the gold vs Bitcoin comparison too far.
Bitcoins are a conceit for the sake of marketing Bitcoin. It's 21 million ledger units, its 2.1 quadrillion with the already discussed possibility of expanding that.
Nobody has ever marketed Bitcoin as only 21 million ledger units.
There are 21M bitcoins. There will always be 21M bitcoins. No amount of subdivision will increase the number of bitcoins.
Melting a 1 KG gold bar into thousands of 1/100 oz gold coins doesn't magically increase the amount of gold. You still have 1 KG of gold in one unit or thousands.
Bitcoins are just ledger values. You see no issue with more potential ledger values being created on the basis of a Russian doll style fractionisation of existing Bitcoin subunits? This allow for an infinity of potential ledger values.
ROFLMAO. Which is more?
A) $1
B) $1.00
C) $1.0000
From that atomic unit, one could understand the network as being composed of 21x10^N of such units. In this sense, creating further divisions and increasing N has the same effect of devaluing the currency.
It's a matter of point of view, and points of view can change over time.
It's a matter of point of view, and points of view can change over time.
No, no it doesn't. It makes it more divisible. It doesn't devalue it what-so-ever. You will have more, less valuable pieces, but the whole is the same value.
It's not a matter of point of view, it's a misunderstanding. Making something more divisible does not dilute it, it simply allows you to possess smaller pieces. It does not increase the total amount.
Your theory applies to things made of atoms. The real use of a pie is serving as food. Half a pie is 50% as useful as a whole pie, so half a pie is worth half a whole pie and this is an immutable fact.
I am not so sure about that with mathematical abstractions such as Bitcoins, because here what really matters isn't the value of a single coin, but how much monetary value can be represented by the whole network. The value of a single coin is a consequence. Whether we have 21, 21 million or 21 gazillion coins is irrelevant. The value of a single unit will be how the market values the whole network, divided by the number of units. What I am tending to agree here is that our real accounting unit is not the Bitcoin, but the satoshi. Adding further decimals will probably have the same effect as creating more coins.
Maybe this is not an immediate effect, but the market could adjust itself.
My point exactly.
Bitcoins are a conceit for the sake of marketing Bitcoin. It isn't 21 million ledger units, it's 2.1 quadrillion with the already discussed possibility of expanding that.
You see no issue with more potential ledger values being created on the basis of a Russian doll style fractionisation of existing Bitcoin subunits?
None. Absolutely none.
It is no different than taking some 1 oz gold coins and cutting (more realistically melting) them into new 1/100th oz gold coins. The amount of gold hasn't changed. The value of an ounce of gold hasn't changed.
You seem to think subdividing EXISTING UNITS debases like adding ADDITIONAL NEW UNITS so lets look at it in reverse. The US has ~3T in currency. The smallest subdivision is the penny thus there are 300T atomic units in the US. If the US removed the penny and nickle from circulation (which they likely will do eventually) the number of atomic units would drop to ~30T. Do you honestly think simply removing pennies and nickles will increase the purcashing power of a dollar by ten? Really?
If it works one way it works the other way.
THERE WILL NEVER BE MORE THAN 21M BTC. IF YOU HAVE 2.1 BTC you have one millionth of all the bitcoins. We could go to 100,000 units of precision and guess what your 2.1M BTC will STILL be one millionth of all the bitcoins.
Maybe we are not understanding his point.
revans could you possibly rephrase, and be more vebose about it, giving more examples ....
you are a fairly short writer. Lends itself to misunderstanding. Maybe everyone here is missing your point.
Could you take a moment and re-present your case with more detailed explanation?
revans could you possibly rephrase, and be more vebose about it, giving more examples ....
you are a fairly short writer. Lends itself to misunderstanding. Maybe everyone here is missing your point.
Could you take a moment and re-present your case with more detailed explanation?
Bitcoins are just ledger values. You see no issue with more potential ledger values being created on the basis of a Russian doll style fractionisation of existing Bitcoin subunits? This allow for an infinity of potential ledger values.
From that atomic unit, one could understand the network as being composed of 21x10^N of such units. In this sense, creating further divisions and increasing N has the same effect of devaluing the currency.
It's a matter of point of view, and points of view can change over time.
It's a matter of point of view, and points of view can change over time.
No, no it doesn't. It makes it more divisible. It doesn't devalue it what-so-ever. You will have more, less valuable pieces, but the whole is the same value.
It's not a matter of point of view, it's a misunderstanding. Making something more divisible does not dilute it, it simply allows you to possess smaller pieces. It does not increase the total amount.
Your theory applies to things made of atoms. The real use of a pie is serving as food. Half a pie is 50% as useful as a whole pie, so half a pie is worth half a whole pie and this is an immutable fact.
I am not so sure about that with mathematical abstractions such as Bitcoins, because here what really matters isn't the value of a single coin, but how much monetary value can be represented by the whole network. The value of a single coin is a consequence. Whether we have 21, 21 million or 21 gazillion coins is irrelevant. The value of a single unit will be how the market values the whole network, divided by the number of units. What I am tending to agree here is that our real accounting unit is not the Bitcoin, but the satoshi. Adding further decimals will probably have the same effect as creating more coins.
Maybe this is not an immediate effect, but the market could adjust itself.
Maybe we are not understanding his point.
revans could you possibly rephrase, and be more vebose about it, giving more examples ....
you are a fairly short writer. Lends itself to misunderstanding. Maybe everyone here is missing your point.
Could you take a moment and re-present your case with more detailed explanation?
revans could you possibly rephrase, and be more vebose about it, giving more examples ....
you are a fairly short writer. Lends itself to misunderstanding. Maybe everyone here is missing your point.
Could you take a moment and re-present your case with more detailed explanation?
The dumbness is strong with this one.
Let me explain, as you clearly aren't smart enogh to grasp the idea yourself.
Bitcoin cultists talk of individual Bitcoins being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars eventually, which would mean very few people would ever own a whole Bitcoin and so would see their Bitcoin wealth expressed as sub units of a Bitcoin. Now let's say that it is decided that instead of 100M, that a bitcoin can now be divided into 1 billion sub units. As a result those people who hold any number of whole Bitcoins can buy 10x as much Bitcoin wealth from those who only have Bitcoin fractions.
Let me explain, as you clearly aren't smart enogh to grasp the idea yourself.
Bitcoin cultists talk of individual Bitcoins being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars eventually, which would mean very few people would ever own a whole Bitcoin and so would see their Bitcoin wealth expressed as sub units of a Bitcoin. Now let's say that it is decided that instead of 100M, that a bitcoin can now be divided into 1 billion sub units. As a result those people who hold any number of whole Bitcoins can buy 10x as much Bitcoin wealth from those who only have Bitcoin fractions.
You have a whole pie. It's cut into 4 slices.
I have half a pie. It's cut the same as yours, so I have 2 slices.
We decide that instead of 4 slices per pie, we are going to cut them smaller and make 8 slices per pie.
You have a whole pie. It's cut into 8 slices.
I have half a pie. It's cut the same as yours, so I have 4 slices.
What are you on about? We both still have the same fucking amount of pie!
Excellent.
Now explain to me how the US Dollar is debased compared to Bitcoin on this basis.
I already did earlier in this thread. The Fed is making new pies out of thin air and selling them to the market for full price. After they've sold, there is more pie available and your pie is worth less.
With the bitcoin example, we both have the same amount of pie relative to the total amount of pie. We can just use smaller slices.
With the dollar example, we both have less pie relative to the total amount of pie. It doesn't much matter how we slice it, we lost value.
But that isn't true at all is it? Bitcoin is heavily marketed on the basis of 21 million total units, how do you think the market will react one trades start taking place in fractions of a Bitcoin? Or how about when the number sub units allowed is increased? Like I said if the Fed invented a superdollar worth 1 million or 1 billion dollars, would that allay the criticism? If not, why not?
There are 21 million bitcoins. There are 2.1 quadrillion satoshis. If we divide it further, those numbers will not change. There will be new units worth less than a satoshi.
The market already trades in fractions of a bitcoin.
If the fed invents a superdollar, who cares as long as they remove a corresponding number of regular dollars? Yet, they won't. They will create a super dollar on top of all the already existing dollars and spend it at the value of the previously existing dollars. This inflation (monetary) will dilute the value of all the previous existing dollars! Only the initial spender (the Fed) gets full value, everyone else just gets screwed.
I'm starting to think your ignorance is willful.
Bitcoins are just ledger values. For clarity i will ask again as I want to be sure you are a stupid as I suspect.
You see no issue with more potential ledger values being created on the basis of a Russian doll style fractionisation of existing Bitcoin subunits?
Because the percentage you control is the same!
The dumbness is strong with this one.Let me explain, as you clearly aren't smart enogh to grasp the idea yourself.
Normally if somebody didn't understand a concept, I would try to explain it to them. However, others have already tried to do that (see excellently written out pie example by holliday), but you just call them idiots and insist that you are right. Therefore, you have earned my "douchebag of the day" award, which comes with a life-time of ignore.
+1
Because the percentage you control is the same!
The dumbness is strong with this one.Let me explain, as you clearly aren't smart enogh to grasp the idea yourself.
Normally if somebody didn't understand a concept, I would try to explain it to them. However, others have already tried to do that (see excellently written out pie example by holliday), but you just call them idiots and insist that you are right. Therefore, you have earned my "douchebag of the day" award, which comes with a life-time of ignore.
lol, i knew this thread would be full of pwnys and wins.
Because the percentage you control is the same!
The dumbness is strong with this one.Let me explain, as you clearly aren't smart enogh to grasp the idea yourself.
Normally if somebody didn't understand a concept, I would try to explain it to them. However, others have already tried to do that (see excellently written out pie example by holliday), but you just call them idiots and insist that you are right. Therefore, you have earned my "douchebag of the day" award, which comes with a life-time of ignore.
Jump to: