Is the 21 million bitcoin limit unchangeable? - page 6.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: maxmint on March 15, 2013, 04:52:11 AM

So there's this magical limit of ~21 million bitcoins that can theoretically exist at max. Many assumptions about the future of bitcoin are based on this number.

How easy / hard would it be to change this limit? It seems, this function controls how many coins are given to miners for solving a block. If developers decided to change this function, the 21 million number would change too, right? Or is the 21 million number somehow coded deeper in the system?

It's theoretically possible, yes. It's also theoretically possible for the quantum force we call gravity to reverse itself tommorrow, and we are all 'reborn' in the result, that some scientist calls "The big fart" in another 14 trillion years.

I'd give those two about even odds.

MPOE-PR

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 522

Quote from: markm on March 15, 2013, 05:23:55 AM

Exactly, is just like if the government of a country decided to print more money, the people would throw them out of office and... oops...

...Well anyway, the moral of those stories seems to be that it wouldn't be elegant.

Bitcoin is mathematical, and mathematics is elegant, so obviously it cannot happen here.

-MarkM-

Right. Related.

markm

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

It already is toy money, it always has been toy money, it just happens that toy money is better than fiat money. Increasing the number of coins by fiat is just another fiat currency debasing itself the way fiat currencies do, the way that caused Classic Bitcoin to be so valuable in the first place.

-MarkM-

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: markm on March 15, 2013, 10:50:06 AM

On their fork, sure.

I'm afraid THEY will call YOUR Bitcoin "a fork". Anyway, regardless which Bitcoin will be the fork, the majority will use their Bitcoin and your Bitcoin will be just toy money.

markm

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

On their fork, sure.

The Fed and its peons are the majority on the fiat fork too, that didn't stop Bitcoin Classic from arising. Cold dead hands, man, cold dead hands!

(Full node, remember. Not zombie drone peon slavetablet!)

-MarkM-

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: grau on March 15, 2013, 04:56:02 AM

A big portion, likely majority, of user would reject to upgrade to a version that changes this rule.

When 100.000.000 ppl join the Bitcoin world, they can change the rules and they will be the majority.

markm

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on March 15, 2013, 08:39:39 AM

You might wish to read up on the concept with Bitcoin known as the Economic Majority:
- http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Hmm a tiny possible-quibble there, as those who hold bitcoins are maybe somewhat out of luck/power if no one wants those bitcoins / is willing to trade things to them for those bitcoins.

So it kind of seems like really the economic power is in those who want to hold bitcoins, assuming such people even continue to exist for any particular fork, rather than in those who already hold them...

(Its in the economy, not the coins, maybe?)

Its in those who hold the economy, not those who only hold the coins?

-MarkM-

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

Quote from: maxmint on March 15, 2013, 07:45:38 AM

But that's obviously not the case.

You might wish to read up on the concept with Bitcoin known as the Economic Majority:
- http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

linuxnewbie

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

The biggest holders and/or miners of BTC, or their heirs, may rule the world someday. If they go despotic, everyone can just switch to LTC or something else. And so on ad infinitum.

maxmint

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: mezzomix on March 15, 2013, 07:04:20 AM

What do you mean with hard-wired? It's an implemented protocol. You can change the implementation and everybody using this changed implementation will support the the changed rules.

Yes, I understand that now. I was under the impression that the coin limit was somehow fixed forever and could not be altered (like a transaction deep in the blockchain can't be changed anymore). But that's obviously not the case.

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1261

Quote from: maxmint on March 15, 2013, 05:47:48 AM

Quote from: grau on March 15, 2013, 04:56:02 AM

This is not the question of code but consensus that makes up Bitcoin.

Ok, that means the limit is not hard-wired. So it could be changed - at least theoretically.

What do you mean with hard-wired? It's an implemented protocol. You can change the implementation and everybody using this changed implementation will support the the changed rules.

Quote from: maxmint on March 15, 2013, 05:47:48 AM

I'm not saying that I don't trust the community, quite the contrary. But what if circumstances change and it appears to be wise to make a change to the limit? Who knows what could be 10 years from now.
I mean, the current money printing also came gradually over time and people just got used to it.

This is the reason I'm not absolutely happy about how the 0.7 database problem was handled. There is to much power in the hand of a small group of people right now. They make the rules - everybody follow.

prezbo

sr. member

Activity: 430

Merit: 250

Quote from: maxmint on March 15, 2013, 05:47:48 AM

I'm not saying that I don't trust the community, quite the contrary. But what if circumstances change and it appears to be wise to make a change to the limit? Who knows what could be 10 years from now.
I mean, the current money printing also came gradually over time and people just got used to it.

Why would anyone prefer a system where their money is losing value just by holding it to one where it doesn't? It makes no sense.

markm

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

I get the impression that not everyone got used to it.

To the contrary, some people seem to take the position that the Fed can print more bitcoins when they pry their full node from their great great great great grandchild, last of the line,'s dying hand...

-MarkM-

maxmint

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: grau on March 15, 2013, 04:56:02 AM

This is not the question of code but consensus that makes up Bitcoin.

Ok, that means the limit is not hard-wired. So it could be changed - at least theoretically.

Quote from: grau on March 15, 2013, 04:56:02 AM

A big portion, likely majority, of user would reject to upgrade to a version that changes this rule.

I'm not saying that I don't trust the community, quite the contrary. But what if circumstances change and it appears to be wise to make a change to the limit? Who knows what could be 10 years from now.
I mean, the current money printing also came gradually over time and people just got used to it.

markm

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

Exactly, is just like if the government of a country decided to print more money, the people would throw them out of office and... oops...

...Well anyway, the moral of those stories seems to be that it wouldn't be elegant.

Bitcoin is mathematical, and mathematics is elegant, so obviously it cannot happen here.

-MarkM-

grau

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1030

bits of proof

This is not the question of code but consensus that makes up Bitcoin.

A big portion, likely majority, of user would reject to upgrade to a version that changes this rule.

maxmint

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

So there's this magical limit of ~21 million bitcoins that can theoretically exist at max. Many assumptions about the future of bitcoin are based on this number.

How easy / hard would it be to change this limit? It seems, this function controls how many coins are given to miners for solving a block. If developers decided to change this function, the 21 million number would change too, right? Or is the 21 million number somehow coded deeper in the system?

Topic: Is the 21 million bitcoin limit unchangeable? - page 6. (Read 15393 times)