bitcoin supply discussion/suggestion

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4522

Merit: 3426

Quote from: lottery248 on August 13, 2015, 04:07:49 AM

... i would suggest to terminate the hard limit of possible supply and fix the 1% minimum inflation, why? ...

There have been hundreds, if not thousands of posts, just like this one and the answer has always been that you are looking for a solution to something to a non-problem.

mrbrt

hero member

Activity: 707

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on August 13, 2015, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: tss on August 13, 2015, 07:01:54 AM

yes. unfortunately it is not a joke. that is a great feature for xt and they actually have discussed it. i can't find the quote but hearn has spoken of increasing the supply in order to keep mining going with the zero fee initiative.

The problem is that people aren't seeing this. I would definitely like to see the block size increased but not with Bitcoin XT, and not like this.
Hearns intentions are not pure and increasing the supply would damage Bitcoin beyond repair.

You could also say that increasing the block size, which would further centralize the network, would damage bitcoin beyond repair.

Scaccomatt0

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1000

https://cryptoworld.io

the supply number makes no difference. If we have 21m, 42m, 50t btc, nothing change but the value.

The supply limit must not change. The only thing that will change is the price.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: tss on August 13, 2015, 07:01:54 AM

yes. unfortunately it is not a joke. that is a great feature for xt and they actually have discussed it. i can't find the quote but hearn has spoken of increasing the supply in order to keep mining going with the zero fee initiative.

The problem is that people aren't seeing this. I would definitely like to see the block size increased but not with Bitcoin XT, and not like this.
Hearns intentions are not pure and increasing the supply would damage Bitcoin beyond repair.

Quote from: Kazimir on August 13, 2015, 06:10:57 AM

There is no problem with Bitcoin's supply.

I concur.

tss

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on August 13, 2015, 04:47:19 AM

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 13, 2015, 04:39:17 AM

I think you should go ask Gavin and Mike, maybe they will add your suggestions to their Bitcoin XT.

Good one.

yes. unfortunately it is not a joke. that is a great feature for xt and they actually have discussed it. i can't find the quote but hearn has spoken of increasing the supply in order to keep mining going with the zero fee initiative.

MUFC

hero member

Activity: 500

Merit: 500

Quote from: lottery248 on August 13, 2015, 04:07:49 AM

i would suggest to terminate the hard limit of possible supply and fix the 1% minimum inflation, why?

because the abandoned coins are increasing, destroying the supply of bitcoin, leading to the decreased of actual supply, in that case, we would not have enough coins for the demand.

Lol. When coins are lost this is actually great news for anyone who owns bitcoin because it has the potential to make them more valuable. The more coins lost or out of circulation means the rarer they are and if demand is high the value will rise. If it ever becomes a problem more decimal places can be added as well but we're a long way off from that.

Ghostface

member

Activity: 68

Merit: 10

There is no issue at all with the number of coins in supply even if ones are lost. The fixed number of coins is partly what makes bitcoin fair for all. If you mess with that then it just becomes like fiat if you can add more into the supply.

coinableS

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1186

Quote from: Stifler on August 13, 2015, 04:32:57 AM

should we add proof of stake to the bitcoin? NO
should we increase the supply limit (i mean to have more bitcoins)? NO
is the maximum supply (apparently) good? YES
is the bitcoin deflationary a good deal? YES
is bitcoin sustainable based on supply? YES
would you sure that newbies would be easy to get with bitcoin in the future? YES

The number of bitcoins that will ever be available should never be changed. It's 21m and that should be set in stone.

I 100% agree. Is OP just trolling?
Once the block debate is over we'll have this crazy idea floating around. It's not the first time recently someone has pointed out about increasing the amount of available coins. Just wait 5 years when we will almost be at 21 million distributed.
Sometimes I wonder if these are just planted insurgents from the banks that purposely try to derail the community and turn us against each other.

Kazimir

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1011

There is no problem with Bitcoin's supply.

Whether there are 21 million, or 58400 trillion, or only 3 million, or only 0.5 bitcoins available worldwide, makes NO difference whatsoever.

It's digital, thus infinitely divisible, therefore there is never a shortage of units.

The divisibility up to 8 digits is essentially just a software limit. When the need arises, we can easily increase that and process a billionth or a trillionth of a bitcoin.

Bitcoin Seller

full member

Activity: 567

Merit: 148

Satoshi Nakamoto on June 21, 2010: "Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone."
source : http://crypt.la/2014/01/06/satoshi-nakamoto-quotes/
21 millions are fine and any changes will simply destroy bitcoin , if it's really till 2140 all mined then why would we care we would be all dead

RustyNomad

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 251

Quote from: lottery248 on August 13, 2015, 05:02:24 AM

Quote from: amiryaqot on August 13, 2015, 05:00:34 AM

i also voted for 21 million as original planned by Satoshi, increase in supply even made it double to 42 million can destroy the value of it, everything going smoother with current limited supply to no need to make new experiment there.

i am not asking to double it, i mean to recover the lost coins.
i guess i just got a wrong thing here.
why shouldn't we majorly decrease the hard limit then?

How will you know which coins are actually 'lost'?

I have some that has not been touched in a very long time and doubt I will touch them in the next 3 to 5 years. So how will you know whether they are lost or just lying there idle like mine?

TinEye

hero member

Activity: 639

Merit: 500

Quote from: lottery248 on August 13, 2015, 05:02:24 AM

Quote from: amiryaqot on August 13, 2015, 05:00:34 AM

i also voted for 21 million as original planned by Satoshi, increase in supply even made it double to 42 million can destroy the value of it, everything going smoother with current limited supply to no need to make new experiment there.

i am not asking to double it, i mean to recover the lost coins.
i guess i just got a wrong thing here.
why shouldn't we majorly decrease the hard limit then?

better to leave the supply unchanged, and also no general consensus will ever be in agreement for changing it, if you want to have those coins back i'm sure there must be other better ways, maybe by forcing a collision in some way? or with a future hard fork maybe, but it's better to have those coins lost because the remained coins will have more value

lottery248

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1006

beware of your keys.

Quote from: amiryaqot on August 13, 2015, 05:00:34 AM

i also voted for 21 million as original planned by Satoshi, increase in supply even made it double to 42 million can destroy the value of it, everything going smoother with current limited supply to no need to make new experiment there.

i am not asking to double it, i mean to recover the lost coins.
i guess i just got a wrong thing here.
why shouldn't we majorly decrease the hard limit then?

amiryaqot

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

i also voted for 21 million as original planned by Satoshi, increase in supply even made it double to 42 million can destroy the value of it, everything going smoother with current limited supply to no need to make new experiment there.

lottery248

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1006

beware of your keys.

i am dead, just don't lemme see if the actual avaliable supply is insufficient.
if the dead address could be recovered, i would not need to talk about this.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: lottery248 on August 13, 2015, 04:28:03 AM

of course it would be fatal, but consider about dead coins (the coins that could not be sent due to the loss of the key).
again, bitcoin could only be divided up to 100 million, what if majority of the coins were in the dead address?
think again; limited supply in which the dead coins cannot be recovered, we will lose supply.

See, you're spreading FUD. A single Bitcoin can be divided into 100 million pieces, i.e. 100M Satoshi. However, we are talking about a single (1) Bitcoin here. The total amount would be 2,100,000,000,000,000. That is 2.1 Trillion Satoshi compared to 4 Trillion USD in circulation . Unless you think everyone will be using Bitcoin in 5 years, we are fine.

Changes to the protocol can be made to make it even more divisible (e.g. 1 BTC = 1 000 000 000 000 of X). Inflation is never the right path.

Quote from: lottery248 on August 13, 2015, 04:39:11 AM

AFAIK the actual avaliable supply is about 9 million.

No.

Quote from: lottery248 on August 13, 2015, 04:39:11 AM

i am sure that bitcoin avaliable supply is zero in 2140 due to the abandoned wallet - as majority of the people were dead and left their wallet.

No.

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 13, 2015, 04:39:17 AM

I think you should go ask Gavin and Mike, maybe they will add your suggestions to their Bitcoin XT.

Good one.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

I think you should go ask Gavin and Mike, maybe they will add your suggestions to their Bitcoin XT.

lottery248

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1006

beware of your keys.

again, what about the dead supply?
every time people lost their wallet, those coins are dead forever, no one would be able to take them back.
at least get the division into 1 out of at least 100 billion per coin.

that's why i would wish for unlimited possible supply, i just wanna wish to recover those coins lost. AFAIK the actual avaliable supply is about 9 million.
i am sure that bitcoin avaliable supply is zero in 2140 due to the abandoned wallet - as majority of the people were dead and left their wallet.

RustyNomad

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 251

Quote from: lottery248 on August 13, 2015, 04:28:03 AM

Quote from: Lauda on August 13, 2015, 04:19:36 AM

I did not even need to read anything in this thread aside from the title.

Anything that would fundamentally change Bitcoin would ultimately be fatal. Changing the supply or implementing POS would mean that Bitcoin is not different from fiat at all.
If that is ever the case, I'll be the first one to sell my coins and leave. Stop proposing inflation, and there are enough coins for everyone.

of course it would be fatal, but consider about dead coins (the coins that could not be sent due to the loss of the key).
again, bitcoin could only be divided up to 100 million, what if majority of the coins were in the dead address?
think again; limited supply in which the dead coins cannot be recovered, we will lose supply.

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on August 13, 2015, 04:23:47 AM

As Satoshi planned 21 million. To increase the number of bitcoins mined would probably destroy bitcoin & everything thst Satoshi intended. The price would plummet if the 21 million cap was ever agreed to be lifted. The reason bitcoin is so valuable (or has potential to be) is because there are only 21 million ever to be mined.

hope you understand that the supply could not be divided into less than 100 million, thus newbies might not be able to start with bitcoin easily if the bitcoin skyrocketed.

From my understanding bitcoin can be divided further should there be a need for it. The 100 million or 8 decimals is not fixed.

If the 21m limits is lifted bitcoin is as good as dead. It would be similar to somebody finding out a way to artificially 'make/create' gold tomorrow. If that happens gold will be so to say worthless, same with bitcoin.

Stifler

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

should we add proof of stake to the bitcoin? NO
should we increase the supply limit (i mean to have more bitcoins)? NO
is the maximum supply (apparently) good? YES
is the bitcoin deflationary a good deal? YES
is bitcoin sustainable based on supply? YES
would you sure that newbies would be easy to get with bitcoin in the future? YES

The number of bitcoins that will ever be available should never be changed. It's 21m and that should be set in stone.

Topic: bitcoin supply discussion/suggestion (Read 1248 times)