Topic: Is there merit to a fixed supply increase rather than fixed supply cap? (Read 534 times)

The only thing I can add that comes to mind is that Bitcoin is based on using Integer math - not floating point operations. Using integers precludes the use of decimals. Why use integer math you ask? Simple - far faster processing speed and no rounding errors are possible. I refer you to http://nicolas.limare.net/pro/notes/2014/12/12_arit_speed/ as an example with proofs.

Fucking wish you would.   

Clearly you don't know how.  Forever stuck in the same moment in time, obsessed with the same things.  Stuck on repeat and unable to let go.  It's truly sad.

boring.
more drama from the certain people.

oh well let them live in their fantasy
if they want to play with another network. let them play.
it will be their own fault when they realise LN is another network even if they spend years in their fantasy

no ones interested in their social drama sessions about their loyalty and adoration of another network
especially when they dont even have the talent to make their other network, work. and instead want to cry about how much they want to change bitcoin and ruin bitcoin to make their other network work..
but hey they are so blind they cant even see their own issues and problems

but it is a pitty that they have no morals or brains to understand that their future
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000
representing their desired 11 decimal 6.25 fantasy of a bitcoin rule..  is actually 6250btc under the current rules..

a pitty, but funny how they avoid this conversation


and a little pathetic how they try to avoid any technical discussion and just try to turn to social drama and buzzwords.. especially when they try to poke a bear into reacting so they can then cry they are being victimised saying some has 'dictated' a new course that goes against their fantasy.. pfft.

anyway
moving on

edit to reply to drama queen below
sad, very sad. you are too desperate. you ignore the real technical details just to promote a fantasy.
one day you will learn the real technical details and realise your fantasy is your never ending story you cant escape from. but with your fairy tale. it wont end happily ever after.
LN is 4 years old and still broke. bitcoin worked in its first week. realise the difference in talent you cling onto..
if LN was any good it would not need to suckup, bribe or coerce bitcoin devs

Or completely ignore you and your utterly moronic and totally arbitrary hoops that absolutely no one is obligated to jump through.  You call it whatever you want, we're calling it a Bitcoin layer.  There is no onus upon us to meet some nonsense criteria you literally just pulled out or your arse.  You don't get to determine what is or isn't called a Bitcoin layer.  As usual, you are in no position to dictate to anyone else what can or cannot be built.  You are powerless to change our current course.  You are no one and nothing.  You don't matter.  Get all the way the fuck over yourself.  

Lightning is here to stay whether you like it or not.  

funny part is now you finally accept that
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000
is actually 6250btc under the current rules..

you want to blindly ignore all that and just say "well thats why upgrades happen"
again you are totally willing to break the current rules that should not be touched and create more units..
completely proving the point about more units in binary, are the same thing bottom up as top down

 but you dont care anyway because you want the upgrade to happen 'coz LN compatibility'
(you sound brainwashed into being an LN disciple)

so again one last time. LN is a separate network that has no consensus. no hard rules. no blockchain. nothing significant claimed as any hard rule. so if anything should be changed to cause compatibility. it should occur on the LN network.

so go play around with LN to make it bitcoin compatible and then you might, just might get to call it a bitcoin layer. as long as LN is solely for the bitcoin network... rather than having LN as a multi currency network that has to break the rules of bitcoin to make bitcoin compatible with LN(facepalm)


(but we know that wont happen as thats not the LN plan to change LN to fit bitcoin for sole use for bitcoin!!)

now lick your wounds accept you lost the debate because of the binary data hard rules debunked your wishful dreams. and stop trying to play silly games pretending breaking bitcoin is needed to fit other networks. when its the other networks that should change to fit

And the nodes of 0.1 will consider invalid a block that contains a SegWit transaction. That's why upgrades happen; to make the project better afterwards the consensus from the community. We, obviously, aren't going to enforce anyone for such change if they believe it's not necessary; if there isn't consensus. 

Consensus and argumentation are the requirements make a change in Bitcoin. If we all found a reason why the 2016 blocks isn't satisfying us, we could agree upon changing it. No one enforces us to do anything as long as there's consensus.

That's the first reason I can think of: If you decide to transact anything less than 1 satoshi in LN, it is considered an IOU while it shouldn't. Sure, I don't support that we'll need millisats; at least not before the exchange rate of 1 BTC reaches the equivalent of $1,000,000.

and your proposing to change the rules
can you even listen to yourself

all nodes 0.1 to 0.21 would see
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000
as 6250btc

it would only appear as "still 6.25btc" to new nodes that are breaking the old binary limit
..
lets show you how your being naive.. lets swap shoes and use a different bitcoin feature

lets make it where i suggest the hard rule is 10minute blocks
you would argue no, its actually a hard rule of 2016 blocks over 2 weeks which has many other aspects that protect that. such as difficulty adjustment
and then i rebutt trying to get you to ignore all that and just fixate on a 10minute rule that doesnt have the difficulty adjustments and other protections

..
you and your chums want to break a hard rule by pretending the human expression is the rule and not the fixed binary value and data

you want to change the binary data
you want to change the significant figures
you want to change the math
you want to change the amount of halvings
you want to change the auditing checks
you want to change the other checks
you want to change the values recognised by current nodes
you want to then add alot of cludgy code to the misrepresent numbers
you want to then add more cludgy code to avoid the bugs caused by all of the above

and you pretend 'its the same'.. pfft
stop acting naive. i know you realise the true rules are at the base code level and binary data. and i know you only want to act naive because you only care about getting LN to work by trying to break bitcoin to fit

like i said before.. why not just change LN(the network that has no consensus) to fit bitcoin rather than
break consensus to make bitcoin fit a non consensus network(facepalm)

The Bitcoin's source code is the way the computers will perform the specific tasks we've agreed. The people are those who predetermine the consensus rules.

The 21,000,000 coins isn't just a result from a consensus rule agreement, but also a principle.

SHOW ME THE BITCOIN CODE THAT SAYS
"there will only be 21mill coins"
.. cant? well i wonder why

and ill show you the code that says there were only 5000000000 sats per block from 2009 which half every 210,000 blocks which create a presumed total of
2099999997690000 units ever created

he dod not leave enough room for more subunits
do you not understand the binary

bitcoin code and rule is not based on the btc measure..
the btc measure is a human construct at the GUI  level. not the base binary data level

try and find a transaction anywhere in the blockchain where the value in raw binary numbers for btc is 1.00000000
you will not find it.

it is and has always been 100000000

its truly amazing but not surprising that even after so many posts in this topic and thousands of posts over the years/. certain people dont grasp or want to admit knowing about the real rules and the binary numbers and the actual rules

Actually there's no rule about that. The only rule is that coins will be 21 million. Whether the halvings are 64 or 1,000, the circulation approaches the 21,000,000 BTC as promised.

Okay, so it requires coding, obviously. Is there a consensus change that wouldn't require coding?

Again, the circulation won't exceed the 21,000,000 and that's all it matters. Satoshi didn't promise 2099999997690000 sats neither 20,999,999.97690000 BTC. He considered it enough to just say that they'll essentially be 21,000,000. That's why he left room for more subunits; because no matter the number of extra decimal places, it'd never be more than 21,000,000.

That's a valid point. Not that significant to not attempt implementing the extra subunits if we ever needed them, but it is indeed an extra weight if we measure everything in millisats.

Isn't that part of the coding?

when you realise that bitcoin code has no decimal places
that decimal places only exist in the GUI after some math..

think about this
without changing anything about blockstructure or transaction length or consensus rules
without changing any of the audit checks. without changing any rule

you can play around with the decimal and make it so that there are more decimals..
but then you are impacting how many btc exist.
because a btc is not a code structure. its a human buzzword..
yep you could easily just do the /100,000,000 and change it to 100billion. and have 11 decimal coins.. but now you have 1000x less buzzword 'btc'
WITHOUT breaking the hard rule

because the hard rule is not actually about btc.. its about satoshi

 you will realise the flaws in you and your chums thoughts(im calling you chums because you read from the same flawed scripts)

there is no decimal in a raw tx.
there is no decimal in the blockchain data

when you can actually articulate and understand the real CODE rule and the binary value.. then come back and have a discussion

changing
100101010000001011111001000000  
to
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000

comes with these problems:
a. it breaks the rule around there being 30 more halvings left and increasing that to 40 more halvings
b. it requires alot more cludgy code to cross-convert a utxo value pre change vs post change
    meaning alot more code to check which block the utxo is from to work out if it should be /100m or /100bill
c. the amount of maximum units is no longer near  2099999997690000, but becomes more than that by a factor of 1000
d. to truly emphasise the ignorance of LN people ..
    its not changing the decimal.. as thats 5yo human buzzword.. its actually making there be 1000x more units of measure produced per block
e. changes transaction lengths
f. needs more rules to value check that nothing is lost when converting old value to new value

if people can stop playing the silly word games and actually understand the technical rules. then they will see their flaw


satoshi knew that btc was a human construct after the fact and not the hard rule
thats why in the early years he did not care about 1btc being 2 decimal and saying it can be more.. because the btc thing was not the rule. satoshi put in the hard limit of the satoshi units first. and called an allotment of 100,000,000 of then as a btc as the afterthought. allowing for upto 8 decimals.
so him seeing 2 decimals or 4 decimals was of no harm..

but breaking the satoshi measure is harmful.
pretending its not is just the lack of altnet lovers care for bitcoin because all they want is to make another network compatible without trying to change the other network but wanting bitcoin to change to fit their other network

and the real funny part is
i have explained hard data. actual binary numbers, ive explained the significant figures. and how it impacts how many halvings and how many units of measure. i have explained the flaws and bugs that are possible

but the altnet fangirls all they want to say it 'its just changing the decimals'
sorry but thats not even a whole answer or reason or excuse. thats just ignoring the practical issues ignoring the technical issues and ignoring the changes to the hard rules and audit checks.

Around a page now, we're explaining why increasing the decimal places doesn't change the coins that are circulating. In other words, if we had four more subunits, it wouldn't affect Bitcoin's inflation rate.

The community also wants to replace fiat currency with it, because they believe that money shouldn't be controlled by those who prevail in the society; that money is a social construction and shouldn't be used as an imposition of power and control.

But, we can't have both. One of them has to go. History has proven that keeping a deflationary currency whose inflation isn't managed by the government brings lots of problems to the economy.

Precisely! Bitcoin as it is now is the best method to hedge against inflation. This is why proposed structural changes that deviate from it will, in my view, not attain the needed support required to see that change.

The idea of dividing the coin by introducing more decimals is one way of bringing Bitcoin towards a deflationary system but whether that'll be supported or not is up to the community and because most people in the community want wealth preservation I doubt anything will change.

People like to have an advantage, and apply ways (not others will) to maintain their wealth - that's Bitcoin (and it's likelihood to resist any other changes).

Bottomline, yeah, good idea but it's not going to happen!!!

Again, your analogy is flawed because, as I stated above, the new smallest units and the old smallest units are not the same.

In your analogy I have quoted, the American gold had a larger supply and is less scarce than the European gold, sure. This would be the same as changing from 100 million sats per bitcoin to 100 billion sats per bitcoin. That would absolutely increase the supply and decrease the scarcity of bitcoin.

This is not what anyone is proposing. Creating more decimal points creates new, smaller units, (millisats) which may indeed be more shareable, but do not decrease the scarcity, as BlackHatCoiner has pointed out. It is analogous to comparing 100 million nanograms with 100 billion picograms.

Everyone is allowed to have their own red lines on what rules they wouldn't support changing.  You are clearly stating your aversion to more decimal places and you are entitled to that opinion.  We are allowed to have the opinion that more decimal placed would be perfectly acceptable (likely due to the fact that we're not harbouring petty grudges that cloud our judgement).  One day this debate may end up a matter for consensus.  Until then, it's a largely unfruitful line of discussion.

Also, leave your high and mighty tone out of it.  No one sees you as a "moral compass" sort of figure.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

I guess it was plainly out of the simple fact that Satoshi wanted to create a currency which is not inflationary. The creation of Bitcoin was a reaction to the failed features of fiat, one of which is its infinite supply, which causes its never-ending devaluation. Bitcoin was designed to gain value over time, not to lose it. Increase in users as well as lost coins must have already been looked forward to by Satoshi and they should have been treated as contributories to the intention of Bitcoin having an appreciating rather than depreciating value.

seems the same rules to me. and most everyone else gets this. it would be extensively tested and being open source anyone can audit it.

originally i didnt trust segwit either so i kinda know where youre coming from. the if it works dont mess with it till its absolutely necessary mentality. so its likely 2nd layer will be the thing as time passes.

i dont do lightening atm. ill wait for moar testing, just like i did with segwit.

anyhow peace out  im done.

edit: btw we are talking about just adding "decimal places" not increasing the supply now. i FIRMLY oppose that. that would NOT be bitcoin and i would bail if that happened.

Given how 1 Bitcoin is 100,000,000 satoshis, it's not a problem that the population is growing or that the demand for Bitcoin is rising. We can simply move to thinking about BTC in terms of mBTC or even satoshis when the time comes that it's distributed among that many people that it makes sense. A big problem is transaction fees, but if that's somehow solved, there's enough BTC for everyone. As for 1% yearly increase, it sounds reasonable to me in the long-term perspective, but I agree with DooMAD that not everyone supports such an idea, so it would only create another coin. As for why it was created like this in the first place, the limited supply makes Bitcoin starkingly different from fiat.

I honestly don't know if the above, franky's, post about Bitcoin's bugging risks deserves to be replied.

---

You fail to understand that if we cut a nugget to 100 million pieces and each American can't have a bit of gold it doesn't make it less scarce, but less shareable. That's all it does. If 1,000 of American bits are equal with 1 Europian bit, then they all have the same amount of gold; the ownership of gold in America is just a thousand times cheaper.

wow
so not only do you not care about bitcoin rules
so not only do you not care about scarcity of bitcoin
so not only do you not care about the philosophy of bitcoins reason for creation

but you are willing to also not care about the auditability or the bug risks..
all so that you can get your other network to be more compatible..

dang..
here is a solution for you
mess around with LN. make LN bitcoin compatible. make LN fit the bitcoin rules
LN has no consensus. so LN can be changed easily to fit. so go change LN to match the bitcoin rules
stop trying to change bitcoin to meet LN's flimsy unstructured rule