The width of the field is not the problem, the meaning is. Hiding silly codes in the top few bits is just as much work as just making the field wider and changing the scaling factor.
And all of this talk of digits makes me sad. The field is binary. log22.1e15=~50.899 bits
Topic: Is a bitcoin can be divided with more than 8 zeros or not?? - page 2. (Read 4366 times)
I'm not sure what you wrote means znort, but 64 bits is 18.4x10^18, while all the satoshis in existence is 21x10^14, meaning you can get 3 more zeros for free, and a fourth if you presume no one will have more than 9.9999...m bitcoin in a single account.
edit: beaten
edit: beaten
Bitcoin amounts are - as of today - encoded as 64 bit integers.
Moving to 128 bit integers would be more than enough to keep
us safe for a *very* long time...
There would be no need to move to 128 bit integers. Not all of the 64 bits are currently being used.Moving to 128 bit integers would be more than enough to keep
us safe for a *very* long time...
Mmmh. I could be wrong of course, but ... my understanding is that the full 64bit is
used to encode a amount in satoshi and is multiplied by 1e-8 to get an amount of
bitcoins.
Pointers to the code to back your statement ?
Simple math: 64 bits capacity: 1.84x10^19
Maximum number of satoshis in current system: 2.1x10^15
So there's at least 3 decimal places for the taking.
Or better yet, these extra (8+) bits could be used as an exponent, a signed scaling factor of 10^n. Since all existing amounts will have 0's in these highest bits, we simply declare that this means satoshis * 10^0, which is equal to satoshis * 1, making all existing amounts backward compatible. Put -2 in this field (11111110), and the remaining bits will be in hundredths of satoshis.
the blockchain only accepts values in whole satoshi's so unless you develop your own system to send more then a / 100000000th of a BTC the block chain will just grab the / 100000000th's of a BTC and leave you with the remaining useless left overs.
goodluck, trying
goodluck, trying
By the time we get to a point where 1 Satoshi is a usable value, the blockchain might only be used for large balances and settling balances among institutions the way bankwires are used now. Imagine one day they decided USD bankwires could only be sent in whole dollar increments... the world wouldn't end, and your checking account would still be in dollars and cents. Even if the protocol never changes to accommodate this, you might be able to trade in sub-Satoshi units with whatever off-blockchain merchant/banking services evolve between now and then.
I think this is very true.
All the worrying in this thread assumes that people will deal directly with bitcoins transfers for everyday use in the future.
If bitcoin value does explode to the point where it needs more than 8 decimals to function for the everyday user, it is very likely that systems have been built on bitcoin, and that other systems overlay those.
This will of course mean less anonymity and control for the basic user, but this is unavoidable if bitcoin is succesful, just look at Apple: They take away user autonomy and control in a trade for ease of use and coolness, and the average user loves it.
It won't be a problem. For lower values, just use Litecoins.
By the time we get to a point where 1 Satoshi is a usable value, the blockchain might only be used for large balances and settling balances among institutions the way bankwires are used now. Imagine one day they decided USD bankwires could only be sent in whole dollar increments... the world wouldn't end, and your checking account would still be in dollars and cents. Even if the protocol never changes to accommodate this, you might be able to trade in sub-Satoshi units with whatever off-blockchain merchant/banking services evolve between now and then.
Right now the market cap for bitcoins is about $90 million (about $10 times 9 million bitcoins in existence). What percentage of bitcoins do you think has been lost since 2009? What percentage of your bitcoin wealth do you lose carelessly yearly?
Check this thread to give you an idea:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lets-add-up-the-known-lost-bitcoins-7253
The highest total lost bitcoins I see in that (unofficial) thread is the last post at about 73K BTC.
73,000 is .81% of 9,000,000 - the approximate number of bitcoins now in existence.
What's your point? You don't think a currency could work losing less than one percent of its total every 3 years?
It would take over 300 years to completely deplete it at that rate.
And keep in mind those reported losses are as people get used to dealing with this new currency.
even if BTC end up being $2000 each eight decimal places is a very small fraction
Right now the market cap for bitcoins is about $90 million (about $10 times 9 million bitcoins in existence). What percentage of bitcoins do you think has been lost since 2009? What percentage of your bitcoin wealth do you lose carelessly yearly?
Check this thread to give you an idea:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lets-add-up-the-known-lost-bitcoins-7253
The world won't ever need more than 8 decimal places IMO.
Right now U.S. dollars are the world's reserve currency, and there are trillions of them. But those are inflated dollars. That's 1,000,000,000,000 plus (1 followed by 12 zeros).
Have you ever heard people say candy bars used to cost a $0.05 or a gallon of gas $0.10? Now candy bars cost almost $1 and a gallon of gas about $4. That's about 2000% and 3000% inflation respectively.
If there was no inflation then the world's currency supply could be greatly reduced. Just 1 bitcoin could cover the same as $20 to $30 because bitcoins can't be inflated. That's the same as a world currency supply of about 50,000,000,000 dollars (50 billion dollars).
Right now U.S. dollars are the world's reserve currency, and there are trillions of them. But those are inflated dollars. That's 1,000,000,000,000 plus (1 followed by 12 zeros).
Have you ever heard people say candy bars used to cost a $0.05 or a gallon of gas $0.10? Now candy bars cost almost $1 and a gallon of gas about $4. That's about 2000% and 3000% inflation respectively.
If there was no inflation then the world's currency supply could be greatly reduced. Just 1 bitcoin could cover the same as $20 to $30 because bitcoins can't be inflated. That's the same as a world currency supply of about 50,000,000,000 dollars (50 billion dollars).
Actually BTC most definitely will need more than 8 decimal places in the distant future, because certain amount of bitcoin gets destroyed per year due to various factors such as carelessness. it's just that the future is so distant, there's no point worrying about it now.
Right now the market cap for bitcoins is about $90 million (about $10 times 9 million bitcoins in existence). What percentage of bitcoins do you think has been lost since 2009? What percentage of your bitcoin wealth do you lose carelessly yearly?
The world won't ever need more than 8 decimal places IMO.
Right now U.S. dollars are the world's reserve currency, and there are trillions of them. But those are inflated dollars. That's 1,000,000,000,000 plus (1 followed by 12 zeros).
Have you ever heard people say candy bars used to cost a $0.05 or a gallon of gas $0.10? Now candy bars cost almost $1 and a gallon of gas about $4. That's about 2000% and 3000% inflation respectively.
If there was no inflation then the world's currency supply could be greatly reduced. Just 1 bitcoin could cover the same as $20 to $30 because bitcoins can't be inflated. That's the same as a world currency supply of about 50,000,000,000 dollars (50 billion dollars).
Right now U.S. dollars are the world's reserve currency, and there are trillions of them. But those are inflated dollars. That's 1,000,000,000,000 plus (1 followed by 12 zeros).
Have you ever heard people say candy bars used to cost a $0.05 or a gallon of gas $0.10? Now candy bars cost almost $1 and a gallon of gas about $4. That's about 2000% and 3000% inflation respectively.
If there was no inflation then the world's currency supply could be greatly reduced. Just 1 bitcoin could cover the same as $20 to $30 because bitcoins can't be inflated. That's the same as a world currency supply of about 50,000,000,000 dollars (50 billion dollars).
Actually BTC most definitely will need more than 8 decimal places in the distant future, because certain amount of bitcoin gets destroyed per year due to various factors such as carelessness. it's just that the future is so distant, there's no point worrying about it now.
The more time passes, the more that codebase grows, and
the harder it'll get. A very Y2K-ish type problem.
the harder it'll get. A very Y2K-ish type problem.
Yes, I tought it too. Why don't make it as soon as possible? I think everybody would accept this change.
The world won't ever need more than 8 decimal places IMO.
Right now U.S. dollars are the world's reserve currency, and there are trillions of them. But those are inflated dollars. That's 1,000,000,000,000 plus (1 followed by 12 zeros).
Have you ever heard people say candy bars used to cost a $0.05 or a gallon of gas $0.10? Now candy bars cost almost $1 and a gallon of gas about $4. That's about 2000% and 3000% inflation respectively.
If there was no inflation then the world's currency supply could be greatly reduced. Just 1 bitcoin could cover the same as $20 to $30 because bitcoins can't be inflated. That's the same as a world currency supply of about 50,000,000,000 dollars (50 billion dollars).
Right now U.S. dollars are the world's reserve currency, and there are trillions of them. But those are inflated dollars. That's 1,000,000,000,000 plus (1 followed by 12 zeros).
Have you ever heard people say candy bars used to cost a $0.05 or a gallon of gas $0.10? Now candy bars cost almost $1 and a gallon of gas about $4. That's about 2000% and 3000% inflation respectively.
If there was no inflation then the world's currency supply could be greatly reduced. Just 1 bitcoin could cover the same as $20 to $30 because bitcoins can't be inflated. That's the same as a world currency supply of about 50,000,000,000 dollars (50 billion dollars).
Actually, no computer can, not even one with infinite memory, since an infinite amount of memory can only represent a countably infinite range of values, while the range of real numbers (not integers) is uncountably infinite.
Yeah. True. But if you mention that, it's hard not to look like a smart ass, isn't it?
bitcoins won't really be "infinitely" divisible until we extend the protocol beyond the physical limitations of our universe (this will require a hard fork).
Just in case, I created an infinite_divisibility branch we can start working on.
Technically? Yes. Any computer can deal with a wide, arbitrary range of numerical values.
Actually, no computer can, not even one with infinite memory, since an infinite amount of memory can only represent a countably infinite range of values, while the range of real numbers (not integers) is uncountably infinite. Fortunately, it is possible to infinitely divide an infinite range of integers without using non-integers for infinite future expansion (see Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel for details), so this isn't an issue for Bitcoin. Though it's a moot point anyway since no computer in a finite universe can possibly have an infinite amount of memory in the first place, so bitcoins won't really be "infinitely" divisible until we extend the protocol beyond the physical limitations of our universe (this will require a hard fork). I have read some topics that said yes to this answers and other not... So is it technically and easily possible to do that?
Technically? Yes. Any computer can deal with a wide, arbitrary range of numerical values.
Easily? Almost certainly not. I'm not in the dev team, but if you look at the code you'll see that the "amount" field is coded with a fixed size integer, not a BigNum or something. So I guess if we'd really have to divide bitcoins to more than 10^8, a lot of code rewrite would be required.
Also, consider that it would probably require some clear conditional test on the code somewhere:
Code:
if (blocknumber < BLOCK_NUMBER_AT_DIVISIBILITY_CHANGE) {
// do as normal
;
} else {
// use the new algorithm for increased divisibility
;
}
Yes let's make fun of someone for not speaking English as a first language. Hilarious.
If you say its not a tiny bit amusing, you are lying. There's a difference between poking a bit of fun at bad wording due to translation errors, etc, and being a jerk about it.
English isn't necessarily my first language either, kind of learned it at the same time as Portuguese (because of the area I was in) and I started learning Spanish/German when I was a very young as well.
Yes let's make fun of someone for not speaking English as a first language. Hilarious.
Jump to: