Topic: Is there merit to a fixed supply increase rather than fixed supply cap? - page 2. (Read 534 times)

seriously? THATS your argument?

preeeety sure the devs can handle that. maybe base the tx validation code on something to do with blockhight the tx is in if/when this is implemented.

however you slice (hehe) it adding more bits would require a hard fork (or would it?) so the code would be changed and tested anyway. just like any other new version.

if each american can have 3000bits of gold
and each european cant all have a single bit of gold

then the american gold is less scarce

.
look i knew you lot are part of the LN fangirl club and you are willing to break anything and try anything to make bitcoin more LN compatible. but all your really doing is showing that you do not care about bitcoin at all. you dont care about scarcity or the bitcoin rules. all you want is to make your other network more compatible so that you can make your other network try to function better so that you can try to pull people off the bitcoin network and into your other network

how about just be honest with yourself

FTFY.

if i had a 21 gold nuggets that had 100million nanograms in europe
and i had 21 gold nugget that had 100billion nanograms in america

you can pretend that its just 21 nuggets per country
but reality is europe can only share gold with upto 100million people
  -meaning not all europeans can get a bit of gold
but reality is america can share gold with upto 100billion people
  -meaning americans could get 3000 bits of gold each

so american gold is less scarce



the funny part is when validating a transaction value in a raw tx data
a value from a 2015 transaction of 6.25btc is
100101010000001011111001000000  /100,000,000

but if you put that same /100,000,000 to the deluded 6.25 of the millisat
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000 /100,000,000
you would get 6250btc

think about it. if you change the /100,000,000 to /100,000,000,000
you also break the old transactions by making 6.25 become 0.00625

so the code has to be ripped apart and changed and then using different cludgy math to try to not cause a bug where 6250btc is created when it should be 6.25btc
or avoid a bug where 6.25 old tx is then deemed 0.00625

I think that franky has confused scarcity with shareability. By definition, scarcity is the state of being in short supply. The supply remains the same; the thing that changes is the shareability. These two have nothing in common.

If I own 1 BTC and it can be divided into 100,000,000 people's wallets, but then they also cut each satoshi to 1,000 millisats, it doesn't make my Bitcoin more scarce than before. It just can be divided into more people's wallets. You can only make something scarcer if you change the supply and that is taken directly from its definition.

Just think it in another way. If Bitcoin could be divided into unlimited pieces; if it had not a specific number of decimal places, but could expand indefinitely, would it make it no scarce at all? Get real.

the way i understand it the same bit would still be used (8th). (or whatever it is im not a programmer). not the NEW least significant bit, the OLD least significant bit would still be the one used for halving.

IOW you do count from the "top" (most significant bit) not the bottom (least significant bit). its just easier to use the LSB at the moment as its simpler to code in binary arithmetic (just a single opcode? pretty sure all CPUs have a "number=number-1 opcode).. the code would simply not use the LSB anymore and use the 8th MSB (or whatever the term is again not a programmer but the idea seems pretty simple).

you are again trying to assume the world works at bitcoin creation then split

get out of your delusion.

ask yourself at binary level of bitcoin
where today 6.25btc is shown and logged and fixed at
100101010000001011111001000000  

where as in a new world of millisats how would the millisat representation appear as?
hint: 1001000110000100111001110010101000000000

and then in another delusional world how a system producing 6250btc of 8 decimal would be represented?
hint: 1001000110000100111001110010101000000000

you soon realise both msat (6.25 11decimal) and 6250btc of (sat /100m(8decimal btc))
BOTH appear as
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000

do you get that yet!!!
more sharable binary digits.. or in the case of your new gold analogy.. more particles particles of gold

your trying to say that what was
625000000 nanograms of gold (human mathed at 0.65milligrams and then buzzworded as '6.25gold coin)
and then having
625000000000 nanograms of gold(human mathed at 625milligrams, but buzzworded as still '625 coin')

which is where you are not understanding the physics and the chemistry of sharable units from the nanogram level which in reality is a bigger lump of gold being pretended to be the same as the smaller lump before your delusion started

..

you are trying to confuse the issue with the banana split while avoiding the biology of cell multiplying
something i find strange from someone that is supposedly in the medical field

even you know that the block halving events is not technically btc/2 but binary -1bit

also..
saying that because another network has more decimals in its contracts has nothing to do with bitcoin.
bitcoin network is not the lightning network

if people on LN want to play with 11 decimals so be it. but stop thinking another network is a good excuse to mess with bitcoin

havnt you realised it yet
LN was not created to be compatible with bitcoin.. it was set to function with many coins
it is actually a fact that bitcoin is being changed to be more compatible with LN

if you want to change bitcoin to have more binary digits that can be shared. then that is breaking the 2009 scarcity promise rule

get out of your delusions of the human GUI display and understand the code rules


your top down delusions is just your avoidance tactic of not understanding/ignoring/dismissing the real rule of bitcoin

because bitcoins rule is bottom up not top down

so try to understand, conceive how things work from the binary/smallest unit measure prospective that is the real rule

What you saying would only make sense if the new smallest units (millisats) were worth the same as the old smallest units (sats), but they aren't.

If I split a gold ingot in to 1000 gold coins, there is the exact same amount of gold. I do not have any more to share than I did before, I have not increased the supply, and I have not made it less scarce.

If I split a bitcoin in to ten 0.1 outputs, one hundred 0.01 outputs, one million 100 sat outputs, one hundred million sats, or one hundred billion millisats, there is the exact same amount of bitcoin. I do not have any more to share than I did before, I have not increased the supply, and I have not made it less scarce.

Lightning already uses millisats. If people agreed with your point of view that this is equivalent to increasing the supply by 1000x, then the price should have tanked to $45 per BTC. This obviously hasn't happened, because dividing up sats in to millisats is not the same as raising the supply to 21 billion.

you really do not understand your own analogy.
remember in bitcoin base code, in raw data..
there is not btc.. no banana

when you finally admit or realise or remember that the actual unit of account at binary is

100101010000001011111001000000  ( you refer to it as 8decimal 6.25btc)
and you want to change that into
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000 (11 decimal 6.25btc)

you can clearly see the binary number(banana) is bigger(MORE significant figures)

just because you want to say the human converted basket term still says "6.25 bananas' does not mean the banana is the same size


it means there are more binary numbers to share
emphasis TO SHARE
emphasis SHARE
emphasis less scarce

yes imagine if they decided that a block using standard sats as primary base unit. but they want to increase how many btc is created at 8 decimal by 1000x btc..
guess what the binary unit will be
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000
..
yep
again
it doesnt matter your new prefered HUMAN converted basket term is
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000= (6.25btc of new format) 625000000000msat
or
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000=6250btc(625000000000sat)
its the same shareable units

which is different to the standard/current sharable units of
100101010000001011111001000000
..

can you see the difference in size??
100101010000001011111001000000
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000


you concentrating on "same bitcoin" is nonsense stupidity of misunderstanding because even you should know that at data level of shareable units from 2009 is not the same unit as the human GUI basket term

you can pretend that its the same banana/same size
but when changing
100101010000001011111001000000 to 1001000110000100111001110010101000000000
does then require
btc= 625000000/100,000,000
becoming
btc= 625000000000/100,000,000,000

I actually prefer a flexible system that regulates supply based on current demand and supply. The system regulatory system has to be decentralized, trustless, permissionless, etc. Anyone can participate by having their reserved coins locked automatically when demand & price are low ...unlocked and sold to buyers when demand and price are too high. I actually agree that the price should increase/decrease moderately to prevent the extreme price volatility and make Bitcoin better MoE

Yep. Pretty cool, huh? No matter how damaging it is for the economy, we're fine, because it's benefiting us. Who cares about inflation when you can simply keep your currency and increase your future purchasing power!? Sorry for the irony, but that's Bitcoin. It skips some economic rules we were living by so far and incentivizes those who hold it, because it makes them richer.

At the moment you can't convince anyone to change Bitcoin; especially the market cap. You see, there are tons of users who have bought it to escape the arbitrary inflation of centrally managed currencies, as one had said.

Your entire analogy is flawed because the banana is not being made bigger. It is the same size, but being cut in to smaller pieces. If you add three more decimals to bitcoin, you have not increased the cap by 1000x. The new smallest units are a thousand times smaller then the old smallest units. There is the exact same amount of bitcoin in circulation as there was before, regardless of whether you consider it as 21 million bitcoin, 2,100 trillion sats, or 2.1 million trillion millisats.

If you add more decimals, you are cutting up the same amount of bitcoin/banana in to smaller pieces. Only if you raise the marketcap is the bitcoin/banana being made bigger and less scarce.

Satoshi talked about even moving the decimal point, let alone just adding more decimal places:

Because of the rarity of Bitcoin, the value of Bitcoin has risen.
If there is no upper limit on Bitcoin's supply, then it is no different from ordinary coins.
Others invest in Bitcoin because they have taken a fancy to the scarcity of Bitcoin. If it becomes less scarce, then it has no investment value for these people.

Fixed supply is by far the superior choice because it can be set in stone and everything will work automatically from there. But any other alternative can not be automated and be as good.

For example you said "1% increase per year". Why 1%? What happens when 1% increase is not enough or if it is too much? The problem is that you can't come up with any design that can automatically match the supply with demand to reach an equilibrium so that it can make the price stable. You will either have inflation or deflation. The later is what we prefer in bitcoin hence the fixed supply.

Another thing is the "lost coins" which you mentioned twice. You don't know and have no way of knowing how much bitcoin is lost and will be lost. So again there is no way you could come up with an automatic way of setting a predefined rules to increase the supply based on that.

There is one simple solution to all of this: centralization. In a centralized system the central authority decides how much "money" should be in circulation and prints more of it when needed and decide how much more.
But this system is the fiat system and is tried and failed. Bitcoin won't go that route since one of the main principles of it is decentralization.

bitcoin code does not grow banana's that are then split.....
bitcoin code grows pieces/cells that are then for human linguistics is refered to as a banana when grouped together in a certain allotment(100,000,000 cells)

if i told you that fruit grow biologically cell by cell and a "banana" is defined as 100,000,000 cells.
and you wanted to Genetically modify it so that a "banana" has 100billion cells instead of a 100million

you would spend years stamping your foot "its still a banana" while everyone else is saying no its a GM banana that traditional banana's would be split by your measure into 20 slices of 0.3inch³
where as the new GM banana can be sliced into 20,000 slices of 0.3inch³
meaning 20,000 people can get to taste banana which broke the hard rule even at your human expression. where only 20 people could have a 0.3inch³ slice

.
having a GM banana with more slice capacity. at your human expression level(facepalm)
or having 1000x more cells at DNA code level but you trying to call it a normal banana(facepalm)..
both result as the same thing..

they both allow more people to have a taste. meaning less scarce

..
oh and remember your block reward halving understanding.. where the halving is not btc halved.. but one less binary bit from the smallest unit measure thats actually programmed into the code..!!!

yep even you previously knew(but pretend to forget) that its not a banana sliced. but instead cells combined and human expressed as a 'banana'
where every 4 years the dna of cells is programmed to create half as many cells as previous. growing less per season

you know.. the:
5,000,000,000sat(50btc)
=100101010000001011111001000000000
and to half the reward you just remove the last bit
=10010101000000101111100100000000

well you want to break that hard limit DNA from 2009 and turn
100101010000001011111001000000  ( you refer to it as 8decimal 6.25btc)
into
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000 (11 decimal 6.25btc)

pretending your GMO banana that is 1000x bigger is the same sharable scarcity of slices as a traditional banana is very mis-informing..
giving out 20,000 0.3inch³ slices of a 60inch tall by 10 inch thick GMO banana.
pretending its as rare as giving out twenty 0.3inch³ of a 6inch³ traditional banana
is very very mis-informing and not even factually or practically or biologically or logically correct


you seem to have forgotton the rule of remove one binary bit every 210,000 blocks. hard rule supply limit
and you want to change it to add several binary bits

do you really want to act naive about the concept of the binary limit being broke just to pretend the human linguistics is the same. even though there are more sharable units and what is created is not the same natural rules of what what was the hard DNA code of bitcoin

It's quite an interesting discussion, I must say! 1% increase in fixed supply every year may not sound huge but it will bring the inflation game into bitcoin! It wouldn't hurt the price growth of bitcoin because it entirely depends on the granular level adoption that creates demand which in turn drives the price growth.

For me, it's a good idea. Instead of having a fixed cap, it makes sense to increase the cap by 1% each year. But the current halving pattern must stay as it is to compensate the inflationary nature of fixed percentage increase. It's interesting to see what others are thinking about this proposal.

We each have a banana. We each cut our banana in to 10 pieces. I then cut each of those pieces in half, giving me 20 pieces. You buy a second banana and cut it in to 10 pieces too, giving you 20 pieces as well. I keep cutting my banana in to smaller and smaller pieces, whereas you keep buying more bananas. Only I have the same amount of banana as we started with, whereas you have increased the total amount of bananas.

Subdividing 21 million bitcoin in to smaller pieces is not the same as raising the cap of 21 million bitcoin, regardless of what units you are considering.

Sure. Here are some quotes from Satoshi regarding lost coins and population growth:

Yes, there's a merit to a fixed supply. It makes the crypto or the item that you're talking about much more expensive as time goes by and the demand goes up, not to mention that some will get lost thus causing it to go up much more in the process.

Someone said: "Although the supply of Bitcoin is constant, the population is growing. As more and more people start to join the buying ranks, the rigid money supply will lead to deflationary pressure."

This is the wrong idea of ​​not understanding the status quo. With the continuous improvement of the level of social and economic development and the level of education, the aging of the population will become more and more serious, which is caused by the decline in population growth. At present, some regions, especially developed countries, have seen negative population growth. In fact, our second-child policy was proposed in response to the slowdown in population growth. With the increase in the degree of industrialization in areas with the highest level of population growth (poor or underdeveloped), this downward pressure will continue.

Most of the responses in this thread seem to boil down to "that's how it was from the start, so that's how it should be". I'm keen to understand why it was like this from the start. Did Satoshi (and other developers) not consider the impacts of lost coins and population growth? Did they feel that we should incentivise saving more than investment? Did they feel that the fixed 21m approach doesn't in fact incentivise saving more than investment? Has there been any meaningful discussion by the developers about the implications of the various options apart from "this is just the way it is"?