Topic: Bitcoin Executive Says 21 Million Cap Increase Inevitable - page 4. (Read 5240 times)
Actually, by doing it via the block reward they could possibly get miners to sign on. If the miners support it, then such a fork should be possible. Still hate the idea.
I stopped reading at "Bitcoin Foundation". They can say whatever they want about Bitcoin, as they have nothing to lose... If he thinks the coin cap will be raised, he's out of his mind.
Jon Matonis is a former Bitcoin Foundation director, which makes his opinion even more worthless than the current director's. Since Bruce Fenton proposed removing Satoshi from the founding members the whole organization has become a liability to Bitcoin. Bitcoin would be better off without the Bitcoin Foundation and the stupid proposals of it's directors.
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. As many have pointed out - if this ever happens successfully, the value of bitcoin will be significantly destroyed. Jon Matonis is an early adopter and holds a large % of his wealth in bitcoin, so he is obviously opposed to increasing the size. Please understand the context of his words before making a premature judgement on what he means.
Thanks for this, I too found it weird why he would want the cap raised.
If there's a fork, the traditional 21 million cap fork will continue to exist. Likely supported by all the biggest holders who will be able to establish their own mining operations to secure it. The new fork will just be an altcoin. They may even change the name of it. All of us will have coins on both forks. That hardcap fork will only happen once. So we'll deal with the pain and move on. From then on, you can choose whether you want a hardcap or no hard cap. Each fork will have a different hash rate and a different market value.
21 million cap increase would be a good idea, a good idea to kill Bitcoin. No one will support such a fork. The headline on that website is out of context as usual so is the subject in this thread.
Also chuckled at "Bitcoin executive".
Also chuckled at "Bitcoin executive".
I really doubt that anyone wants the limit raised. No one will benefit from this, not even new adopters. There might be a pshychological disadvantage to using satoshis, but to me this is an interesting part of bitcoins. The currency has its own flavor and does not need to pretend to be fiat in order to have success. As the usa continues to print money and give out freebees to banks, i can see the average person slowly beginning to see the advantage of a 21 mil cap.
I stopped reading at "Bitcoin Foundation". They can say whatever they want about Bitcoin, as they have nothing to lose... If he thinks the coin cap will be raised, he's out of his mind.
Interesting. Anyone who proposes this is out of their mind. We've already argued in the past the there are enough coins because they can be divide.
If the supply ever changes even to 22 Million, we could almost safely say that Bitcoin would die afterwards. I'm not sure how other holders feel but if this ever happens I'm jumping ship and never coming back (I think that this is one of the rare scenarios in which I would do that).
If the supply ever changes even to 22 Million, we could almost safely say that Bitcoin would die afterwards. I'm not sure how other holders feel but if this ever happens I'm jumping ship and never coming back (I think that this is one of the rare scenarios in which I would do that).
Yeah, thinking the same.
It's highly unlikely that such a cap increase would take place without a fork and two competing chains. But even though it's clear that I would never support a cap-increased fork, the consequences would still be disastrous because of the loss of trust.
The same is true (albeit to a lesser degree) if we see a Bitcoin-fork because of the blocksize-drama. While it's clear that I will never support a Hearndresen-Coin, a lot of trust and value will be lost in the process - even on the surviving Bitcoin-chain.
ya.ya.yo!
the price will collapse as people realize bitcoin is just like fiat.
Precisely.
It is suicide and everyone knows it.
the source of the article is altcoinpress.com. While I am not familiar with this news service, I think their domain should be a pretty good indicator of their ability to be fair and balanced to Bitcoin. (Note that I have pretty much zero interest in reading the article nor did I)
In others words, there is nothing to see here and you can move along.
In others words, there is nothing to see here and you can move along.
Alternative currencies are VITAL to pointing out flaws and improving upon Satoshi's design. Burying your head in the sand is probably not useful.
Your statement is insane, noone is burrying their head in the sand, it's just that this whole thread is misleading people with low quality content that has zero chances of being valid.
Bitcoin will not increase it's max. of 21 million, and Jon Matonis is an idiot if he believes that is to happen.
BTW your thread title is wrong on so many levels, pure FUD.
This thread is misrepresenting the Truth
Be Careful
Be Careful
Agreed.
the source of the article is altcoinpress.com. While I am not familiar with this news service, I think their domain should be a pretty good indicator of their ability to be fair and balanced to Bitcoin. (Note that I have pretty much zero interest in reading the article nor did I)
In others words, there is nothing to see here and you can move along.
In others words, there is nothing to see here and you can move along.
Alternative currencies are VITAL to pointing out flaws and improving upon Satoshi's design. Burying your head in the sand is probably not useful.
IMHO raising the cap of bitcoin will lead to it being no different than fiat. Guess it will depend on how this is done and in which quantities and over which time period it's done.
If it's a matter of 'just' doubling the number of coins then bitcoin, again imo, is no different than fiat.
If it's a matter of 'just' doubling the number of coins then bitcoin, again imo, is no different than fiat.
How, exactly, would such a change roll out? There is actually no point in the code (that I could find) that specifically imposes such a cap. The only thing that this cap comes from is the method which the block reward comes from, simply dividing by two. There is a point where the rounding used in the code simply returned zero, and that was when the block reward went to zero. This just so happens to be just under 21 million Bitcoin, which is likely just a coincidence, not a specifically hard coded thing.
That's exactly what Matonis' tweet suggested: "[...] fork revising block reward that increases 21m cap." It's the block reward that would be increased, and in turn this would increase the total supply.
Not sure if he was being sarcastic or making a point, but I suggest reading his tweets directly and not the press articles.
I highly doubt anyone with a sizeable stake in bitcoin would want to 21 million cap to be increased.
The idea of users paying anything but the most trivial of fees for the (fairly amazing) service seems like garlic to a vampire to an interesting set of the 'thought leaders' in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Alternative sources of infrastructure funding would be to have permanent inflation which seems to be what Matonis is alluding to and is wildly popular in mainstream monetary systems these days, or to have costs subsidized in exchange for user exploitation much like certain industry players do with e-mail, cloud storage, etc.
Pick your poison. Actually, never mind. Various others have a plan for you.
It's not really permanent inflation if the inflation is low enough that it will just barely cover for lost coins. Kind of like having lost coins funding for the blockchain's security, rather than to make other people's coins worth more.
OP: just look at the blocksize debate....
good luck with increasing the 21mio cap - that will never happen
good luck with increasing the 21mio cap - that will never happen
it could be considered a good thing, only if a very big amount of bitcoin wiill be lost in the future, due to incompetence of major online wallet companies
and the value of bitcoin will not increase too much for compensating the lost coins
and the value of bitcoin will not increase too much for compensating the lost coins
first xt now this. take it how you will. the propaganda test campaigns have begun.
This thread is misrepresenting the Truth
Be Careful
Be Careful
In others words, there is nothing to see here and you can move along.
The idea of users paying anything but the most trivial of fees for the (fairly amazing) service seems like garlic to a vampire to an interesting set of the 'thought leaders' in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Alternative sources of infrastructure funding would be to have permanent inflation which seems to be what Matonis is alluding to and is wildly popular in mainstream monetary systems these days, or to have costs subsidized in exchange for user exploitation much like certain industry players do with e-mail, cloud storage, etc.
Pick your poison. Actually, never mind. Various others have a plan for you.
Jump to: