I am leaning towards agreeing with everyone that this discussion should probably just be left alone. It seems like there are quite a few who do think we should change the total amount of coins, but I think that decision will ultimately undermine investor confidence, at least in the short-term. Long term, it really could go either way, but I think that the effects would be so minimal that risking short-term investor confidence is too much of a risk for a very minimal long-term gain (if any).
After thinking about it carefully for a significant amount of time since this discussion came about, I have come to the conclusion that the risk to reward ratio for this decision is simply not good enough for me to be able to support any changes.
Have you heard about the changes in companies' shares in stock markets? They usually come
suddenly and then you have been given a letter, a notification that each share is splitted into 8 (for example).
In such case the value of the owner's shares is the same, but the amount of shares has increased, not doubled but 8 times.
I think that the investors do understand this kind of changes. No one has eaten his words
crypto markets are rarely, if ever logical and most of the counterintuitive. Even though the change would have no effect on the value of stakes, can you really trust such an illogical and irrational market to make the logical and rational choice to ignore such a change?
There just doesn't seem to be enough gained from such a change to warrant making it. Like Amy said the risk:return ratio just isn't good enough for us to go ahead with this..
Why risk having a number that Asians consider unlucky or deadly? They are quite superstitious ,at least in my experience . If something negative were to happen however small they might be more likely to stay away. Isnt it a good thing that we are taking Asian beliefs , superstition and psychology into account ? Its respectful.
Now as long as we have plenty coins to cover a fantastic future does it really matter how many there are?
I will say again that Nemstakes are not a true representation of value as at the moment they fall under certain parameters and that price is not something to worry about.
If anything the change to coin amount would bring increased news coverage and interest.
The superstition is real, which is why I had to really think about this for a while. And of course it is good to take the concerns of other cultures into account, especially when we are dealing with something intended for use by everyone around the globe.
However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is really not even a discussion worth having. Mainly because even though the supply will be 4 billion, this is only in the beginning. The total supply will not be 4 billion for very long, considering it is inevitable that some NEM will be burned for one thing or another. Therefore, to change the original plan simply so we can have something other than 4 billion in the beginning seems like a drastic measure simply to accommodate a superstition that likely will not make much of a difference in any real world scenario.
Again, I live in Asia so I am very familiar with the superstition; but, the more I think about it, the more I think nobody is really going to care and the risk of making any changes to the original plan at this point after nearly a year of nobody caring is just too high, in my opinion.
Also, I know to those of you who are not very familiar with this uniquely Asian superstition this sounds even more silly, but please understand that sometimes things that may seem strange or insignificant to one culture could be vastly important in another. So, I am glad that we are having this discussion but in the end I think we will probably be just fine with 4 billion.
+1
For people who don't want to change
Euro
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/EUR.htmlUSD
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/USD.htmlCNY
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/CNY.htmlAll :
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/I think european should not give their opinion
Well the way you put that could offend the Europeans on here. I hope that wasn't your intent. However, it's true that digital currencies are becoming popular faster in East Asia than they are in North America and Europe.
This isn't a guaranteed thing, I mean PayPal is used by many people in the United States and that userbase is much larger than Bitcoin.
However you also have to remember that digital currencies seems to be attracting the remittance market and $capital bypass market which *drum roll* is predominately East Asian and South East Asian. Other then sending money over there as remittance, nobody in the US is actually interested in acquiring Asian currencies but things like Bitcoin allow people to acquire $USD equivalents.
Oh I certainly am not intending to offend anyone. What I'm saying is all things being equal (which appears to be the consensus from North American's and Europeans here?), 8 is as arbitrary as 4, but apparently is less upsetting to the largest number of people. It also seems like Asia just generally adapts quicker to new technology culturally than European and North American markets. I had Japanese friends laugh at our cell phones (this was the pre iPhone days) in the states and tell us they'd had features like that for years. "Every kid in Japan is already banking by phone" or whatever it was that now escapes me. I believe I read North America has the least inertia with broadband too despite being a major initial developer. I Believe I also read that North America severely lags behind Europe and Asia in math and science. I'm always reading about some viral technology thing going on in Asia that I have never even heard of. Some mobile app, cyborg conversions, biometric implants, whatever. On the other hand I see things like Facebook and Twitter as an American invention (for better or for worse). Maybe American's want to play bejeweled, post pictures of their food or check in to the gym but not take control of their personal finances or use cool prosthetics.
Granted this is somewhat baseless and purely on observation from the news, but it just seems like Asian markets adapt quicker to new ways of doing things, and therefore they seem the natural catalyst to break a cryptocurrency out of its infancy so long as it doesn't get under the noses of regulators too quickly. I remember all the trollbox FUD about "China banning exchanges!" and the purported associated crash of BTC to sub 1000, then 900, then 800 and so on levels earlier this year. There are assertions floating about in the interwebs that much of the value of BTC was Chinese nationals using it to bypass the strict limitations on moving currency in and out of the country. I would just easily believe it was Wall Street investors, drug dealers, and libertarians too, who knows. I would have to guess laundering money, whether criminal or benign in intent is a natural companion to the utility provided by Bitcoin.
If I have offended you with these statements my apologies in advance. For the record, I am in one of those "Slow" North American markets with crappy broadband before you accuse me of elitism.
. No joke. I'm not Asian, and I don't live in Asia, but I was told by a few friends of mine who meet both of those criteria that the general observation is that no one admits it, but everyone privately observes it. Of course that is a generalization, but when I asked many people on their opinion on this exact subject there was never surprise, or even the need to have to explain further, just a quiet nod of the head with a smile. 
