The number of coins that will ultimately be in circulation at the peak of the DGB life-cycle is a lot of coins: true. This was not a mistake, but a prudent long-term observation. There are 6 Billion + human beings in the world. That figures to less than 4 DGB per person in the world, assuming the population doesn't grow -> which is a pipe dream. That means we are looking at even less than 4 DGB per person.
Many would argue that the world population has no relation to a crypto-currency. A fair argument; I think they are short-sighted. If we are talking about tomorrow, or this year, I think it is a very accurate argument. A true currency, however, doesn't exist today and tomorrow. It has to function 10, 100, 500 years from now.
You guys crack me up
"Many would argue that the world population has no relation to a crypto-currency" < FULL STOP.
Even the dollar amount available in the world has NO relation to the number of people on the planet.
"It has to function 10, 100, 500 years from now."
Really? 500 years? There is not one currency in existence that is 500 years old and you imagine that "digibyte", conjured up in a few weeks time (okay, months) will become the world currency?
Stop trying to make sense of something that doesn't make sense, please.
DGB was created to make a fast buck. (and yes everyone into crypto's is here to make money, except for the very VERY few).
Funny how you cherry pick two sentences out of a multi-paragraph post, and accidentally ignore the surrounding content.
Of coarse crypto-currency is related to the world population; is not the world population the potential user base of an international currency? The argument in the surrounding content, which you seemed to have accidentally missed, was that the choice of the size of the money supply(M) was intended to more accurately reflect the amount of coins that might be required to efficiently create a transactional currency. The judgement that went into choosing the size of the money supply(M) has to consider such things as it is not an elastic currency. There is no fractional-reserve system in cryto-currencies, nor the issuance or re-purchase of bonds to expand or contract the money supply. Therefore, the money supply has to be created in such a way as to estimate and relate to the user base. What else, what other data, would you suggest that decision be based upon?
Once again, concerning the number '500', you have mistakenly latched onto a single number and sentence instead of considering the meaning of the communication. Was '500' over-reaching? Sure! Although, if you consider that the sterling is the predecessor of the British Pound that creates a history of over 1,000 years. Not taken out of context, this sentence was in relation to the same argument explained above. If we only consider those currently involved in the crypto-currency community, then measures of time or user base are inconsequential. You seem to have missed the point, however. The point being made was that the total number of coins wasn't simply conjured out of thin air. It is a VERY rough estimate, but a rough estimate that more closely resembles what the potential requirements of an actual mainstream crypto might require.
Will DigiBytes become the world currency? Probably not. But for all your griping and nay-saying, I don't see a single suggestion for an alternative crypto that has more merit to be adopted mainstream. There are coins that fulfill the requirements, but you seem like you are too busy casting negatives to bother mentioning any of them.
When you have something constructive to say, please, by all means, re-join.
