Existing stakeholders will obviously want to keep the status quo.
Late adopters, especially those with money to effect change, will undoubtedly want to level the playing field (until they have a sizeable stake) at which point it's time to make alt currencies illegal.
Topic: Democratic vote is held; Bitcoin limit is lifted to 900Million. How do you feel? - page 4. (Read 4979 times)
April 24, 2013, 04:19:15 AM
April 24, 2013, 04:12:30 AM
The vote power in bitcoinland is proportional to the mining power. If the majority of the miners want to stay with 21 m cap, bitcoin remains bitcoin.
Ultimately it's based on what the people people want to pay will accept as money. This is probably a point in favour of the 21 m cap sticking, because miners would have a strong economic incentive to vote to print themselves a load more money, especially when the block rewards dry up.
April 24, 2013, 04:02:14 AM
It's the year 2020. Bitcoin has gained major traction.
Less than a tenth of a percent of the world's population holds 90% of all available Bitcoins.
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million.
Your options are to let them fork and be done with them or simply go along with it, knowing you're going to be diluted to a fraction of your previous value.
I see this as a very real possibility, especially once a large country decides to get the hump that it's not calling the shots and will start it's own alternative e-currency which can be easily (no artificial barriers here) converted from their own issued fiat and all under their own control.
Less than a tenth of a percent of the world's population holds 90% of all available Bitcoins.
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million.
Your options are to let them fork and be done with them or simply go along with it, knowing you're going to be diluted to a fraction of your previous value.
I see this as a very real possibility, especially once a large country decides to get the hump that it's not calling the shots and will start it's own alternative e-currency which can be easily (no artificial barriers here) converted from their own issued fiat and all under their own control.
I believe this is certainly possible. It essentially comes down to the question whether future miners and users could always be trusted to maintain the initial Bitcoin protocol rules. I can imagine a future where there is enough political power to create a fork with different rules and force businesses by law only to accept the new, diluted bitcoins.
A blockchain with the old rules would probably still be maintained, but these coins would undoubtedly lose their value to some extent. I do not know if this scenario is very likely, because we have to account for the way some future population looks at Bitcoin and the rules in the protocol. But, as Bitcoin is build on consensus, technically it would definitely be possible.
April 24, 2013, 03:44:22 AM
as a majority, they could create their own e-currency now that it's been proven to be useful/necessary.
Oh let them create an alternate currency. I can assure you that bitcoin isn't the last cryptocurrency the world will use.
That won't happen overnight though and bitcoin owners could take positions in that new currency once it's starting to raise significance. Just like with bitcoin - big USD holders could buy into BTC if their eyes were open wide enough.
April 24, 2013, 03:42:14 AM
How would they control 50% of the vote if one person gets one vote (through the use of a particular client)?
And how would you identify an actual person? Would you require me to identify myself with some govt-issued ID?
I don't mean a balloted vote. I mean by your adoption of their client and thus your hashing power. Run 10 clients on 10 pcs if you like but you're limited by your total hash rate.
April 24, 2013, 03:40:41 AM
The vote power in bitcoinland is proportional to the mining power. If the majority of the miners want to stay with 21 m cap, bitcoin remains bitcoin.
My theoretical situation is the bulk of people are unhappy with the fact that early adopters own the bulk of the currency.
In this scenario, they own the bulk of hashing power (let's say by 10%) and even if they don't, as a majority, they could create their own e-currency now that it's been proven to be useful/necessary.
April 24, 2013, 03:40:15 AM
How would they control 50% of the vote if one person gets one vote (through the use of a particular client)?
And how would you identify an actual person? Would you require me to identify myself with some govt-issued ID?
April 24, 2013, 03:34:45 AM
The vote power in bitcoinland is proportional to the mining power. If the majority of the miners want to stay with 21 m cap, bitcoin remains bitcoin.
April 24, 2013, 03:31:28 AM
I think I missed out on Gold.
How about we hold a democratic Vote to melt down all Gold an mix it up with 90% plumb to increase the supply? I would be all for it.
No, seriously, I can't Imagine that would be accepted by a majority of Bitcoiners and all that would disagree would simply not update their client. Therefore you would have a new coin. That's basically the same as starting a new coin right now.
How about we hold a democratic Vote to melt down all Gold an mix it up with 90% plumb to increase the supply? I would be all for it.
No, seriously, I can't Imagine that would be accepted by a majority of Bitcoiners and all that would disagree would simply not update their client. Therefore you would have a new coin. That's basically the same as starting a new coin right now.
Perhaps I wasn't very clear in my initial post.
People would either fork or start their own blockchain.
So in that sense, the analogy would be to standardise on Bitcoinium instead of gold. You'd be left to trade with gold whilst everyone else starts up with Bitcoinium.
(Or it would be like everyone agreeing to bring down a giant gold asteroid and adding it to the existing gold supply but everyone would get a shot at mining that thing).
April 24, 2013, 03:27:57 AM
I can't see that happening. Holders of 90% of bitcoins would manage to control >>50% votes and I doubt they'd vote that way.
How would they control 50% of the vote if one person gets one vote (through the use of a particular client)?
April 24, 2013, 03:27:10 AM
I think I missed out on Gold.
How about we hold a democratic Vote to melt down all Gold an mix it up with 90% plumb to increase the supply? I would be all for it.
No, seriously, I can't Imagine that would be accepted by a majority of Bitcoiners and all that would disagree would simply not update their client. Therefore you would have a new coin. That's basically the same as starting a new coin right now.
How about we hold a democratic Vote to melt down all Gold an mix it up with 90% plumb to increase the supply? I would be all for it.
No, seriously, I can't Imagine that would be accepted by a majority of Bitcoiners and all that would disagree would simply not update their client. Therefore you would have a new coin. That's basically the same as starting a new coin right now.
April 24, 2013, 03:24:19 AM
Less than a tenth of a percent of the world's population holds 90% of all available Bitcoins.
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million.
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters...
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million.
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters...
I can't see that happening. Holders of 90% of bitcoins would manage to control >>50% votes and I doubt they'd vote that way.
April 24, 2013, 03:17:05 AM
mob rule?
Mob rule, democracy by majority, 5 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner... call it what you will but if enough people like the idea of Bitcoin but feel they've missed out because they weren't early adopters/are jealous etc., that's pretty good motivation for them to start their own blockchain.
Just imagine a room of 100 people. They all like the idea of Bitcoin. 10 people hold 90% of the wealth. Why wouldn't the other 90 people start their own blockchain and conduct business amongst themselves?
They see it's a good idea. They know they're screwing the other 10 early adopters but hey, the vast majority benefit themselves. They'd probably see it as fair because the majority benefit.
April 24, 2013, 03:08:19 AM
mob rule?
April 24, 2013, 03:01:06 AM
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million
Under what circumstances do you think you'd get a majority? And how is such a vote going to be managed with full security? Not going to happen.
When the majority of users have fractions of a coin and they hear that the playing field will be 'levelled' with the adoption of the new protocol.
April 24, 2013, 03:00:06 AM
It won't be bitcoin if it's not 21 mil.
Let's say it'll be called USCoin but the protocol will allow 900M coins - update your clients now!
April 24, 2013, 02:58:01 AM
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million
Under what circumstances do you think you'd get a majority? And how is such a vote going to be managed with full security? Not going to happen.
April 24, 2013, 02:57:01 AM
It won't be bitcoin if it's not 21 mil.
April 24, 2013, 02:55:22 AM
It's the year 2020. Bitcoin has gained major traction.
Less than a tenth of a percent of the world's population holds 90% of all available Bitcoins.
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million.
Your options are to let them fork and be done with them or simply go along with it, knowing you're going to be diluted to a fraction of your previous value.
I see this as a very real possibility, especially once a large country decides to get the hump that it's not calling the shots and will start it's own alternative e-currency which can be easily (no artificial barriers here) converted from their own issued fiat and all under their own control.
Less than a tenth of a percent of the world's population holds 90% of all available Bitcoins.
A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million.
Your options are to let them fork and be done with them or simply go along with it, knowing you're going to be diluted to a fraction of your previous value.
I see this as a very real possibility, especially once a large country decides to get the hump that it's not calling the shots and will start it's own alternative e-currency which can be easily (no artificial barriers here) converted from their own issued fiat and all under their own control.
Jump to: