Topic: Bitcoin's 21million total coin supply hinders it immensely - page 2. (Read 6028 times)

Majority of people are morons

We need to make their life easy so they swap their fiat for bitcoins

Definitely, a 1:100 or 1:1000 split would help a lot

IMHO the only major problem that would eventually arrive would be lost coins.

In all other types of currency, there's a rough track record of i.e cash in various denominations still "alive" and there's no limit for resupplying them when needed.

With Bitcoin, we only know the total number of actual (still accessible) coins can't reach 21 Million anymore due to all the coins already lost (how high that number may be, nobody knows for sure).

Since Bitcoins can "vanish" or become inaccessible for various reasons of the digital world (forgotten/non-recoverable passwords, lost paper wallets, hardware failure etc.), over time it will just keep shrinking in numbers.
I assume the most coins got lost already in the early days (i.e. people mined a relatively large number of coins but forgot about them due to low valuation and "no action" at that time or just lost them / no backup etc...)

Ah, come on...That's overstating it a bit.  Being able to do long division with a paper and pencil however...

(One might detect that I am an aging USian...)

Bitcoin is probably not meant to be used by the innumerate.

These days if you can count makes you one of the "elite".

Thanks - and  You're right, American...

So provided I did comprehend the above like I thought I just did - it would go up in value but not denomination, like 25c is 25c even when the value of the dollar rises and falls. I get that much but I wasn't sure that this principle applied to the virtual currency or bitcoin per se.

Is there a calculator that makes it easier to make the exchanges with? I know the exchange site I went to calculated it but it was coinbase and the way that was set up was it wanted me to enter a btc amount and then it calculated it to usd amount for what I'd pay.

Is there one that does the opposite first - I can put in $10 or my own amount and it tells me the btc number and I can enter that in the coinbase?

While here, do yall recommend coinbase for a first purchase or is there one that's better to start with? I'm ready to do it but still need to bone up on the process part and the keys, where to do all that stuff.

Thanks again

How do you call a fraction of a dogecoin? A puppycoin?

Well said. Here is the proof
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/31/wave-retirements-hitting-hoover-dam-workforce-as-government-scrambles-to-fill/

This why gold never caught on. There is only something like 150,000 tons of gold. So only 150,000 people can use gold. No wonder it's worthless.

Lucky 

Fear.

Yet another sign we are near the bottom of this bubble collapse cycle. As for me, I am going to stuff some more fiat bills into my local Robocoin ATM today.

the solution is putting x number of satoshis into a wallet, and encrypting the Private Key in a CAST-5 hash where Px is the xth prime number

WordCoin!

or jump right ahead to QuadCoin!

No matter the total supply every Bitcoin will always inevitable be worth more than 1USD, only an American would be egocentric enough to expect 1USD=1BTC (because BTC is only in the U.S. right?)

It seems to me that this discussion is similar to the official one where it was proposed that micro-BTC be the default unit https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3862

Doesn't that valuation mean 1 satoshi is worth £2*10^5 / 1*10^8 = £2*10^-3, or £0.002 or 0.2p ? I think you missed a factor of 100.

If it becomes a problem, a soft-fork can add more precision. (There are 12 spare bits due to the 21 million BTC limit being smaller than what will fit in a 64-bit integer, and we can add more bits if we have to.)

Inflation of fiat is irrelevant here. If a loaf of bread cost 2 satoshi, that would be a problem for Bitcoin even if 2 satoshi happened to be £500.

I think this topic is irrelevant. Have you ever used Yen currency ? Bitcoin numbers will be something like that just opposite. Right now 1 ¥ = 0.009642$

21million does not hinder anything apart from the day bitcoin is as widely acceptable as gold. bare with me:

in comparison gold, there is only 171,000 tonnes of gold. yes everyone would love to own a tonne of gold each, but they cant. so instead they buy bars, ounces, grams, etc. even then people would love to afford to own not a whole "tonne", but atleast a whole "bar", because they know that telling their friends they own a "bar" is a nice thing to say. and so there are ingots, ounces and grams for the divisions of gold

bitcoin is divisible by 8 decimals. so like gold people will buy divisions of bitcoin, all will funny names that get developed in the future, EG (maybe: Bitmills, Ksats)

the better part of bitcoin is storage, transmission and also the fact that it cant be faked by having a thin layer of bitcoin molded around a cheap altcoin, and trying to be sold as a real authentic bitcoin.

in the future people will compare the term:
"100 grams of gold" to "100sat of bitcoin"
"gold bars" to "bitmills"
"gold ounces" to "microbitcoins"
etc etc, whatever the terms may be

now lets get back to the point:
so lets continue using the gold vs bitcoin
the rarity 171k gold tonnes vs 21m bitcoins

on the bases of rarity (ignoring price) 1 tonne is as rare as 122.8bitcoin. now lets price that up
1 Tonne of gold is worth £26,684,500 (based on a spot price of £830 per ounce, multiplied by 32,500 ounces to give you the tonne figure)

if we divide that £26.6845 million price valuation by the equivalent rarity amount 122.8btc, then we get a bitcoin rarity value of £217,288.07(~$300k for you yanks) per bitcoin, (when bitcoin gets as popular as gold and demand requires it)

simply put, on a rarity scale compared to gold. 1 bitcoin is the equivalent to roughly £200k/$300k (rounded numbers so don't knit-pick)

which is more then enough, because this allows for each person of all 7 billion to only need to invest £651.86 (to own 0.000031btc) where £1(~$1.50) is 4 or 5 satoshi

which makes it harder to transmit under 20p (30c). so i agree "Bitcoin's 21million total coin supply hinders it immensely"
but here is the kicker.....

when £1 ($1.50) is worth 5sat due to being as widely or more accepted than gold, we would be talking about decades not weeks. and at that time 1 loaf of bread, 2 litres of milk will cost in fiat terms over £$10 due to government fit printing (inflation), making under 20p/30c fiat amounts useless where nothing can be bought that cheap.

so the kicker is scale-ability of bitcoin will work, and 21million does not hinder anything, unless 7 billion people invested 3 weeks wages into bitcoin right now, before governments have finished fucking up the fiat printing inflation.

Shit, if you can't handle all those zeros, decimal places and precision just use scientific notation.

1 Satoshi: 1.00e-8
21 million: 0.21e+8

The point has been made that we would be better off if the currency units had a distinct name from the network and technology (Bitcoin).
I like Fin and Fins as suggested as a tribute to Hal Finney.

We could have 1 fin = 0.001 BTC so that the money supply limit would be 21 Billion fins, a number that is more acceptable by the lay person.

Okay, on the one hand we have your "because I say so", on the other hand here is some maths.

You desire for Bitcoin to have enough supply for everyone in the world to have a whole one. You want to achieve this by multiplying the supply a factor of 476. For sake of differentiation let's call your Bitcoin modification a Paulcoin.

If a Paulcoin has 476 times the supply of Bitcoin and everything else being equal then

1 paulcoin = 0.00210084 bitcoin

Meaning that if we never did investigate this Paulcoin, the inhabitant of this hypothetical future world that you envision will have a bitcoin that they can only divide 210 thousand times in comparison to your ideal of 100 million times.

My point is that a minimum unit 210 thousand times smaller than the whole is not practically any different to a minimum unit 100 million times smaller than the whole and that even if we assume a limited supply is a problem, what you have suggested is not significantly different than the status quo.

No one is going to be worrying that they can only divide it 210 thousand times, not 100 million times. No one is going to be limited by that.

It would be like someone saying that the US cent is unwieldy and they wished they had something worth 0.00000476 cents instead. The difference being that if it actually somehow did become unwieldy then it could be fixed in software anyway!

Again I have to say, if your argument is that a limited supply is a real issue, simply multiplying that limit by 40 or 476 as we have seen in this topic so far is not going to make too much of a difference. I would think you'd need to consider a coin with a continual yearly supply.