Topic: Democratic vote is held; Bitcoin limit is lifted to 900Million. How do you feel? - page 2. (Read 4979 times)

It's year 2013, USD has gained world wide traction

Less than 1% of the world's population holds 90% of all available USD

A democratic vote is made across world and they vote to inflate the total amount of USD in existence to reduce the early adopter's wealth

FED started to print USD like crazy, unfortunately those printed money just went into commercial banks' pocket

This is a highly improbable scenario.
It is the same if you would ask depositors in a country if they wish a 900/20=45 fold inflation and they would vote yes.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. Thank god its not. There are already alternatives to BTC that offer larger caps and lower difficulty. take your pick.

Make another cryptocurrency. This is the bitcoin forum.

I think there is a massive misunderstanding about how Bitcoin works.   You can't change Bitcoin.  Ever.  All you can do is fork it.  As long as single user is running the current Bitcoin code the network will still exist.  So the best you can hope is that such a massive supermajority of USERS (not miners but users, exchanges, merchants, bitcoin holders, developers, service providers, etc) jump to your fork that the existing fork simply dies off.

There is no voting.  There is no mechanism to halt the existing (current) fork.  There is nothing miners can do to fork the current blockchain to stop.  So Bitcoin as it exists today will always exist if people want to use it.  Now could a fork of Bitcoin becomes more popular than Bitcoin well it certainly is possible but it would have to compete on its own merits not through some dubious "democratic" process or by decree from a cartel of miners.  If Bitcoin2 is superior then it may replace Bitcoin, if it isn't then it likely will die out.


As an example say you think blocks should have a reward of 100 BTC and never decline to expand the monetary base.  You can change this TODAY (this very second).  No you don't need anyone permission, no you don't need to hold a global vote, no you don't need 51% (or 66% or 99.9%) of miners.   Fork the project, distribute your new client and start mining.  Your "newBitcoin" is now incompatible with the rest of the network.  If you send some "newBitcoin" coins generated from future blocks to MtGox, MtGox won't "see" them.  That is because they are looking at the current fork.  Convince MtGox to use your fork and they will see them.

TL/DR
You can't change Bitcoin.  Not today, not ever.  All you can do is fork it.
When you fork Bitcoin the current Bitcoin will exist. 
People are free to use either fork.
You can't force the existing/current fork to stop. 
Unless your fork has overwhelming support it is unlikely it will get any traction over the existing and well implemented current fork.

Good point. I'll think about it.

You, like most people, overlook the fact that the amount of money is the world is a tiny fraction of the amount of wealth.

Let's imagine that 1% of the people in the U.S. own 90% of the dollars in the world. If you were in that 1%, you would have about $1 million in cash (1% of 300 million people owning $3 trillion dollars). While that is a lot of money, I bet it is a lot less than you expected.

Imagine someone forked Bitcoin by changing only the rule for Subsidy. And now any value less or equal 50 BTC is allowed. Those who own coins in legacy Bitcoin now have them in Bitcoin++ too. They run bitcoind and bitcoinppd, just in case. What will happen in a year? I think userbase of Bitcoin++ will be higher than Bitcoin, coz newbies will likely join Bitcoin++.

this

This still does NOT change "x%" ratio.

They may only be 21Million bitcoins but how many Satoshi's are they plus extra zeros can be added when needed.

I do care if x% of the BTC owners own 90% of the coins. I do see a problem here. And I don't wish to be in the "x%". I'm glad u and me will be in completely different forks.

The fork could be called BernankeCoin, and I will stick with the original bitcoin for sure !
I think this possibility is very very thin..  Before going there, we will already been using Satoshi, and I'll not care at all if x% of the BTC owner own 90% of the coins..

I dont see a problem here..  And I wish I'll be in the "x%"

You wouldn't need to actively choose.  If there is a fork your old coins are on both forks.  Then you can spend them on the original fork AND the new fork assuming both forks have users.

Not going to happen because...

1) people that are holding won't allow the value of their wealth decrease
2) people that are holding have the majority vote

a wise man on thse forums once said "Democracy is the original 51% attack."

+1

It wouldn't be in the best interest of the rich or poor to vote to increase to 900M.  If anything, it would be worse for the poor because the rich can probably afford better mining equipment to scoop up all the new coins further increasing the gap.

Even if a large country tried to start their own alt chain, it would still have to compete with bitcoin.  And if the only difference was an increase in the cap, I doubt it'd gain many followers.  Why chose something not as widely accepted & inflating at a higher rate with less users?  I guess they could attempt to require users to use it, but I question how successful that would be. 

I personally believe cryptocurrencies will make large governments extinct.  Not many people are willing to pay for space shuttles, tanks, and other people's healthcare & retirement instead of their own food & shelter.  And a cyrptocurrency is a lot easier to move around & hide than fiat & gold.

Just seems goofy to lie around in bed in the wee hours of the mornin contemplating odd fantasies like this.