Everybody says Bitcoin is unbreakable, set in stone, yadda yadda yadda.
Not everybody.
Topic: Is Bitcoin really unbreakable? - page 7. (Read 5571 times)
Nothing is permanent. It is very possible that something pops up down the road that will overtake Bitcoin. As of now there is no competition, but a superior cryptocurrency could gain massive popularity at some point down the road and make BTC obsolete.
well, the beauty of bitcoin is that it is opensource. we don't need to worry about another digital currency taking over bitcoin's place. bitcoin can get much better for global usage slowly once the need is there.
Bitcoin has a huge edge over all other cryptocurrencies due to its popularity, but if 20 or 30 years down the road the entire world is using digital currencies, it is very possible that something more optimal is released that takes Bitcoin's spot as the crypto king.
IF it is everlasting, the Nakamoto-san will be known to us all.. 
Frankly, i think bitcoin will become the bootstrap for the next coin, the problem with "double spending" is not yet fully covered, it is still the biggest loop in decentralized world, it still depends on the theory of "if it is too big to solve" kind of approach
Frankly, i think bitcoin will become the bootstrap for the next coin, the problem with "double spending" is not yet fully covered, it is still the biggest loop in decentralized world, it still depends on the theory of "if it is too big to solve" kind of approach
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Isn't it possible, even likely, that at some time in the future a majority of miners would simply implement software changes to increase the amount of bitcoins generated? The incentive to do so is rather large, is it not? Thoughts?
What's the incentive? Why is it likely? I can only guess at why you would come to such conclusions. I think the opposite. I think there is great incentive against changing such a core part of the system and it would be very unlikely to change.
Maybe you conclude that miners want to just 'pay themselves' extra, but if you think about it, many people would disagree and so there would be a fork. And the diluted coin would be instantly deemed inferior due to its reduced scarcity. In turn, no miner in their right mind would waste their hashing power on it.
Don't forget, users have nearly as much power as miners have. They're the ones that are BUYING all those mined coins! If the users don't buy DiluteCoin, (and merchants don't accept it), then miners are hashing a useless coin.
Nothing is permanent. It is very possible that something pops up down the road that will overtake Bitcoin. As of now there is no competition, but a superior cryptocurrency could gain massive popularity at some point down the road and make BTC obsolete.
well, the beauty of bitcoin is that it is opensource. we don't need to worry about another digital currency taking over bitcoin's place. bitcoin can get much better for global usage slowly once the need is there.
Nothing is permanent. It is very possible that something pops up down the road that will overtake Bitcoin. As of now there is no competition, but a superior cryptocurrency could gain massive popularity at some point down the road and make BTC obsolete.
well, the beauty of bitcoin is that it is opensource. we don't need to worry about another digital currency taking over bitcoin's place. bitcoin can get much better for global usage slowly once the need is there.
Hmm those are some good points. Technically, the Fed runs on "consensus" too by means of who people vote for, but they vote on other issues too and then there are levels of appointments from Yellen on down. The main advantage I suppose is the transparency, so that were a large percentage of miners to attempt to increase their mining (which would decrease the overall value of bitcoin but increase *their* percentage of it, much like the gov't printing money), it would instantly be public news and the bitcoin market would factor it in quickly. Nodes that don't generate blocks might not accept the changes, but what if all the miners did? Then there would be no other alternative blockchain for the full nodes to use.
I don't think the profitable miners would drop their mining operatons easilly. As long as the bitcoin has value in terms of fiat money, the miners will keep mining to secure the network. So the blockchain will non stop. The node will get working, and the transactions get moving. The way of the bitcoin running is completely different from the fiat money! Miners and nodes are incentivized to keep its system running.
Hmm those are some good points. Technically, the Fed runs on "consensus" too by means of who people vote for, but they vote on other issues too and then there are levels of appointments from Yellen on down. The main advantage I suppose is the transparency, so that were a large percentage of miners to attempt to increase their mining (which would decrease the overall value of bitcoin but increase *their* percentage of it, much like the gov't printing money), it would instantly be public news and the bitcoin market would factor it in quickly. Nodes that don't generate blocks might not accept the changes, but what if all the miners did? Then there would be no other alternative blockchain for the full nodes to use.
Bitcoin essentially is a consensus, a protocol that people voluntarily follow. You can't really break a consensus since there is nothing to break, it is supported by every participants, not enforced by an authority or military force
In a centralized system, you could change the policy as you want if you are the commander. But in a decentralized system, the participants are connected by a similar interest and consensus, many people join bitcoin community because they prefer limited money supply. If some participants do not like this monetary policy, they can leave and mine their alt-coin with whatever policy they like
If some large mining farm fork the coin and increase the coin amount, they will generate a fork of bitcoin with unlimited money supply, they can even maintain that chain to have enough strong hashing power. However, they can't force people to use their chain, and their chain will be called something else and become useless for bitcoiners, and bitcoiners will still use the original chain
People might never understand what central bank is doing, but bitcoin is open source, even a line of code is changed, it will be examined by many developers. On internet, people won't be fooled like in fiat money system
In a centralized system, you could change the policy as you want if you are the commander. But in a decentralized system, the participants are connected by a similar interest and consensus, many people join bitcoin community because they prefer limited money supply. If some participants do not like this monetary policy, they can leave and mine their alt-coin with whatever policy they like
If some large mining farm fork the coin and increase the coin amount, they will generate a fork of bitcoin with unlimited money supply, they can even maintain that chain to have enough strong hashing power. However, they can't force people to use their chain, and their chain will be called something else and become useless for bitcoiners, and bitcoiners will still use the original chain
People might never understand what central bank is doing, but bitcoin is open source, even a line of code is changed, it will be examined by many developers. On internet, people won't be fooled like in fiat money system
There have certainly been times in our history, even in the recent past, in which the country at large (US) has voted for a Keynesian monetary policy. Isn't it possible, even likely, that at some time in the future a majority of miners would simply implement software changes to increase the amount of bitcoins generated? The incentive to do so is rather large, is it not? Thoughts?
This is a good question, but not only miners would have to accept the change but all full nodes too. In other words you would have to convince everybody using bitcoin (miners and fully validating nodes) to change. That's not an easy task. People that understand Bitcoin's 21 million limit understand it makes coins more valuable than keeping inflationary printing. People would be voting to decrease their own net worth.
There was another coin that tried higher inflation rate. I can't remember the name, but basically the longer you held it the more value it lost, which was to encourage people to spend/use the coins. The theory was the higher transaction activity would create more economic value and the coins would be worth more. I don't think that coin is still around.
Nothing is permanent. It is very possible that something pops up down the road that will overtake Bitcoin. As of now there is no competition, but a superior cryptocurrency could gain massive popularity at some point down the road and make BTC obsolete.
Yes, it is ...
Everybody says Bitcoin is unbreakable, set in stone, yadda yadda yadda. But it seems to me that this is not necessarily the case. Anything about bitcoin, including the amounts generated, method of transferring coins, size of blocks, time to mine blocks, etc. can be changed by changing the software, and in particular the reference client since so many miners use that. Really, if 51% of the bitcoin mining community agrees on a change and implements it, that blockchain will win out over time. So it's more of a democratizing of fiat rather than an unbreakable currency.
There have certainly been times in our history, even in the recent past, in which the country at large (US) has voted for a Keynesian monetary policy. Isn't it possible, even likely, that at some time in the future a majority of miners would simply implement software changes to increase the amount of bitcoins generated? The incentive to do so is rather large, is it not? Thoughts?
There have certainly been times in our history, even in the recent past, in which the country at large (US) has voted for a Keynesian monetary policy. Isn't it possible, even likely, that at some time in the future a majority of miners would simply implement software changes to increase the amount of bitcoins generated? The incentive to do so is rather large, is it not? Thoughts?
Jump to: