Whenever I see debate over sig campaigns and wether they should be banned from the forums here it brings to mind threads like these. People posting whatever unfounded FUD and disinformation to bolster their post count. Notice how many posters in this thread have ads in their sigs?
Notice the ad in my sig? It takes one to know one! Doesn't mean this thread is any less crap or OP any less a fa9907
Topic: Bitcoin Executive Says 21 Million Cap Increase Inevitable (Read 5193 times)
Well now we have to deal with this bitcoin executives we didnt ask for talking about adding more cap, i would consider to add the coin that are confirm that to be recover, just by adding 5 to 10m btc price would go down so much just based on speculation.
It's such a perfect thing we have going on, but some many people want to screw with it its becoming "inevitable" odds are a fork, or an increase is bound to happen. Ppl can't just leave things they way they are.
Somebody go ahead and fork it - get it over with. Let's learn empirically how absolutely worthless NotBitcoin is.
Typically those suggesting to raise the 21 million cap dont understand that the decimals on bitcoins can be changed to anything needed. So its impossible to say something like "there will be too few bitcoins for everyone in the world". The thing is that we dont need to give everyone a bitcoin. There are already enough smaller units millibitcoin, satoshies and so on. The simple solution, that was implemented by satoshie, is that the decimals can be made even more.
So i dont see why anyone should demand raising the 21 million cap.
So i dont see why anyone should demand raising the 21 million cap.
It will never happen, never. Everyone on Bitcoin knows it would be the death of it, developers know it, miners know it, users know it.
Attackers with a goal to destroy Bitcoin know that to reach the consensus for the limit to be raised would require such a big amount of resources that it would be pointless.
We are safe against stuff like that.
Typically those suggesting to raise the 21 million cap dont understand that the decimals on bitcoins can be changed to anything needed. So its impossible to say something like "there will be too few bitcoins for everyone in the world". The thing is that we dont need to give everyone a bitcoin. There are already enough smaller units millibitcoin, satoshies and so on. The simple solution, that was implemented by satoshie, is that the decimals can be made even more.
So i dont see why anyone should demand raising the 21 million cap.
So i dont see why anyone should demand raising the 21 million cap.
You know if someone says that the 21M should be raised, they have no idea how Bitcoin works.
Bitcoin is multiplied by division.
There will come a time when people will no longer think in Bitcoin as whole numbers. At that stage Bitcoin will be infinitely divisible, the difference being that those who invests early enough to have whole bitcoins will have their quota go up in value, rather than lose value simply because people want more bitcoin.
Bitcoin is multiplied by division.
There will come a time when people will no longer think in Bitcoin as whole numbers. At that stage Bitcoin will be infinitely divisible, the difference being that those who invests early enough to have whole bitcoins will have their quota go up in value, rather than lose value simply because people want more bitcoin.
Mercia will fight(literally.. murder many people) in attemtps to gain control of the supply of BTC.
The nice thing about bitcoin is so will other countries which will prevent one(for awhile) from taking control.
NEVER underestimate what a politician will do to gain power over something.
You know if someone says that the 21M should be raised, they have no idea how Bitcoin works.
Bitcoin is multiplied by division.
There will come a time when people will no longer think in Bitcoin as whole numbers. At that stage Bitcoin will be infinitely divisible, the difference being that those who invests early enough to have whole bitcoins will have their quota go up in value, rather than lose value simply because people want more bitcoin.
Bitcoin is multiplied by division.
There will come a time when people will no longer think in Bitcoin as whole numbers. At that stage Bitcoin will be infinitely divisible, the difference being that those who invests early enough to have whole bitcoins will have their quota go up in value, rather than lose value simply because people want more bitcoin.
This would kill the value of bitcoin, and people would dump this puppy down to under $100 if this happened! Mr M needs to cool it.
If someone tries to raise the effective cap people will not join the new fork.
Unless there were compelling circumstances to evolve bitcoin.
That said I do expect people to try hard to increase it someday in the future but in the end it's the clients and community that will make that decision if we ever need to approach that question in the future.
Unless there were compelling circumstances to evolve bitcoin.
That said I do expect people to try hard to increase it someday in the future but in the end it's the clients and community that will make that decision if we ever need to approach that question in the future.
The point was that gold is also deflationary and yet as we can all see still being traded, OP said that it will decrease because of deflation. Gold and Bitcoin are very similar in the way of commodities except bitcoin is divisible and can easily be transferred to anyone.
another idfference is that gold total supply is unknown, bitcoin instead not so much and it should remain at 21M
i'm starting to think that satoshi mined 1M+ coins(i don't he dumped his coin), to help reduce it even further and to increase the possible price of it faster
file:///D:/Users/ncuz/Documents/Lightshot/Screenshot_14.png
first ph mmm global
first ph mmm global
Yur doin' it wrung
This is all quite ho hum.
I'm not sure a fork for more than 21M is inevitable, but I regard it as very likely.
So what?
That fork will be NotBitcoin. Bitcoin will continue unaffected.
You wanna use NotBitcoin? Be my guest. I believe the vast majority will prefer to use good ol' Bitcoin - capped at ever-so-slightly-less than 21M units.
The 'problem' corrects itself.
I'm not sure a fork for more than 21M is inevitable, but I regard it as very likely.
So what?
That fork will be NotBitcoin. Bitcoin will continue unaffected.
You wanna use NotBitcoin? Be my guest. I believe the vast majority will prefer to use good ol' Bitcoin - capped at ever-so-slightly-less than 21M units.
The 'problem' corrects itself.
Jon Matonis is not saying that we should increase the 21M cap. He's saying that at some point in the future, someone will try and increase it.
you are right, 
its exactly opposite that FUD topic titleshame on you topic author
You really have a way with words.
This would be fatal for BTC.
Jon Matonis is not saying that we should increase the 21M cap. He's saying that at some point in the future, someone will try and increase it.
you are right, its exactly opposite that FUD topic titleshame on you topic author
I agree, bitcoin needs to remove the hardcap on its controlled supply.
SOmetime very soon, e.g. 2020-2024, 90%+ of bitcoins will have been mined. At that point, one can easily argue that through lost coins + satoshi's coins that bitcoin will become deflationary: the block reward (3.25) will not be able to usurp what is being or has been lost from the network.
That will cause bitcoin to become a deflationary commodity.
Since the block reward cannot defeat what is being lost on the network, bitcoin's value will rise due to its pure scarcity. This will absolutely create a bubble, but one that cannot ever be re-flated... this would be an endgame bubble. If you are looking to exchange fiat into bitcoin somewhere between 2020-2024, you will be faced with a reality where 95% of all bitcoins will already have been mined and its monetary base will decline forever into the year 2100. Also one has to consider that if bitcoin does ever reach a deflationary state, you may also see transactions decrease because people are discincentivized to spend bitcoin when its value is increasing. If that occurs, miners will lose fees, and bitcoin's network security will suffer because the block reward will be negligible.
This is of course assuming that in 2020 bitcoin will be worth more than it is today. This also does not make any assumptions as to what blockstream can accomplish, or bitcoin 2.0.
There's no doubt in my mind that for bitcoin to truly succeed, it's monetary base needs to be expanded.
because where we are today in terms of development is far behind where bitcoin is as a finite commodity (that has been mined 66% already).
This makes no sense, you are assuming if bitcoin increases in value and becomes deflationary (like gold) that it won't be traded but we know that's not true and it still gets traded constantly and consistently.SOmetime very soon, e.g. 2020-2024, 90%+ of bitcoins will have been mined. At that point, one can easily argue that through lost coins + satoshi's coins that bitcoin will become deflationary: the block reward (3.25) will not be able to usurp what is being or has been lost from the network.
That will cause bitcoin to become a deflationary commodity.
Since the block reward cannot defeat what is being lost on the network, bitcoin's value will rise due to its pure scarcity. This will absolutely create a bubble, but one that cannot ever be re-flated... this would be an endgame bubble. If you are looking to exchange fiat into bitcoin somewhere between 2020-2024, you will be faced with a reality where 95% of all bitcoins will already have been mined and its monetary base will decline forever into the year 2100. Also one has to consider that if bitcoin does ever reach a deflationary state, you may also see transactions decrease because people are discincentivized to spend bitcoin when its value is increasing. If that occurs, miners will lose fees, and bitcoin's network security will suffer because the block reward will be negligible.
This is of course assuming that in 2020 bitcoin will be worth more than it is today. This also does not make any assumptions as to what blockstream can accomplish, or bitcoin 2.0.
There's no doubt in my mind that for bitcoin to truly succeed, it's monetary base needs to be expanded.
because where we are today in terms of development is far behind where bitcoin is as a finite commodity (that has been mined 66% already).
There will still be speculators, there will still be people spending a bit of it and there still will be debts that need to be paid.
first,
humans have been mining gold for probably well over 4000 years.
We will mine 95% of all bitcoins inside of 20.
Depending on who you believe, there is most likely more than tens of thousands of tons of gold to be mined on earth. We don't know what the gold market looks like at 95% mined, or the oil market, or any other commodity market.
Your chart is not very analogous for not only those reasons, but also because USD and basically every currency in the world has been devalued tremendously over the course of that chart. Gold today for all intents and purposes is not used as barter or trade or exchange of value.
If the block reward is maintained at 1 Satoshi after 2140, the value of BTC will not drop. These extra Bitcoin (0.0005256 bitcoin) shall only be enough to account for the lost coin every year.
Why?
And why would the price drop anyway?
I believe that the reward from the transaction fees will be more than enough.
No new Bitcoins needed.
You BELIEVE. But that's not necessarily what will happen. It could be that it won't be nearly enough.
To decide now that bitcoin will NEVER need a better emissions schedule is just silly.
If the block reward is maintained at 1 Satoshi after 2140, the value of BTC will not drop. These extra Bitcoin (0.0005256 bitcoin) shall only be enough to account for the lost coin every year.
Why?
And why would the price drop anyway?
I believe that the reward from the transaction fees will be more than enough.
No new Bitcoins needed.
The price of a BTC in 2140 will be in the billions, of course the small % one will get from running a node will be enough. Mining and then procesing transactions will always be a profitable business for someone out there.
If the block reward is maintained at 1 Satoshi after 2140, the value of BTC will not drop. These extra Bitcoin (0.0005256 bitcoin) shall only be enough to account for the lost coin every year.
Why?
And why would the price drop anyway?
I believe that the reward from the transaction fees will be more than enough.
No new Bitcoins needed.
Jump to: