Well, there are types of talks about this but one thing is for sure, bitcoin is bitcoin and nothing else is the same. For example you could have wrapped bitcoins as you might heard of, which means you basically have the same amount of bitcoin once over, but that just doesn't mean that there are two bitcoins, it means one of them is wrapped. Secondly you could have layers upon layers of bitcoin products, it all depends on buyer and sellers, the demand and supply, so yes in a way you could have billions of bitcoin layers, and as long as people want to buy it, the price will be alright.
However no matter how many type of tricks the finance world pulls off, no matter how many people are fine with buying it, there are no possible ways that bitcoin could ever change, one bitcoin is still one bitcoin and all the other layers are just the fake version of it.
Topic: The supply issue - page 3. (Read 1090 times)
The only supply issue which exists for some is one that does not allow them to mine BTC in the quantities they want. Given how the whole system is set up, they can always print as much money as they want, dig up as much gold or diamonds as they need, or produce anything in any quantity.
Bitcoin only shows that some of its features irritate some people who would like to control it and adapt it to their needs - but unlike calling the governor of a central bank or the owner of a company, how to influence millions of BTC owners around the world?
Bitcoin only shows that some of its features irritate some people who would like to control it and adapt it to their needs - but unlike calling the governor of a central bank or the owner of a company, how to influence millions of BTC owners around the world?
The 21st million Bitcoin is a dead end. The number does not go higher than that. It is the limit. This fact alone could somehow explain why Bitcoin is scarce. It is not unlimited.
Now, if the future is so positive for Bitcoin that all the billions of people around the world will have to have a share of that supply, then it is not a problem at all as there is indeed Satoshi and even much smaller units of 2nd layer protocols, but such subdivisions do not add supply to Bitcoin. It does not in any way alter the limited supply.
In a more practical note, I think I'd be happy if people would start dividing even a Satoshi up to 10 decimals. That means I have grown rich.
Now, if the future is so positive for Bitcoin that all the billions of people around the world will have to have a share of that supply, then it is not a problem at all as there is indeed Satoshi and even much smaller units of 2nd layer protocols, but such subdivisions do not add supply to Bitcoin. It does not in any way alter the limited supply.
In a more practical note, I think I'd be happy if people would start dividing even a Satoshi up to 10 decimals. That means I have grown rich.
What matters in my opinion is the scarcity and deflationary feature. If you can keep Bitcoin immune to inflation (In whatever way that is sustainable, safe and decentralized) then the 21million cap wouldn't really matter much.
I'm seeing this particular topic on twitter today and it's got me a bit stumped. So I would like to ask my hero bitcoiners here for their advice:
If bitcoin's price and market cap continue to increase, and if a 2nd layer or off-network protocol allows people to subdivide their satoshis into smaller and smaller units, does the whole 21 million BTC supply cap even matter anymore?
Well other says before they saying that bitcoin will be stable and will not move its price even inch, And look where the price of bitcoin right now it is in ATH and people are start having interest in investing in bitcoin even they missed the opportunity to buy when the price volume isn't that high. Other business are now in bitcoin industry even you say your earning small it is alright all people are been there Also even were at 21 million btc supply don't worry that much as long as there are people who wants to use it no there always a way. If bitcoin's price and market cap continue to increase, and if a 2nd layer or off-network protocol allows people to subdivide their satoshis into smaller and smaller units, does the whole 21 million BTC supply cap even matter anymore?
The quantity supplied is not the problem, but the ability to print more currencies, when you say that the quantity supplied is 21 million and you do not change it, this creates value for it, but adding it or printing more is what makes cryptocurrencies similar to the idea of banks.
To increase the price, you need an increased demand A simple offered quantity will not make its price high unless there is an increase in demand.
Bitcoin have limited supply and increased demand.
To increase the price, you need an increased demand A simple offered quantity will not make its price high unless there is an increase in demand.
Bitcoin have limited supply and increased demand.
As far as I know, dividing Bitcoin into smaller pieces doesn't mean that the supply is increasing.
There are 21,000,000 Bitcoins and it will never change. Now if you will divide it into Satoshi, the total number of Satoshis will be 2.1×10^9 or 2,100,000,000,000,000.
I just don't know the reason why people are saying things like that. Math really is hard nowadays :facepalm:
This statements made my day again
. Laughing hard on their statements. Anyway can't blame them though if that is what they understand about it. Debating on them would be hard especially if they only believe in one side.
There are 21,000,000 Bitcoins and it will never change. Now if you will divide it into Satoshi, the total number of Satoshis will be 2.1×10^9 or 2,100,000,000,000,000.
I just don't know the reason why people are saying things like that. Math really is hard nowadays :facepalm:
This statements made my day again
. Laughing hard on their statements. Anyway can't blame them though if that is what they understand about it. Debating on them would be hard especially if they only believe in one side.
I think there is a limit of 21 million BTC which will make BTC different from the others. and this can continue to increase the selling value of BTC. Because the rarer, the more expensive it will be. So surely the team that directly manages BTC has also designed it well so that it can continue to maintain a supply of only 21 million.
You have a strict limit of 21 million and then you decide "and let's divide 1 BTC indefinitely". And why? What is the difference between the infinite division of one whole and the gradual emission of new funds when necessary? These are two absolutely identical processes from the point of view of the end user - only the first one causes fear that this is a bubble, and the second one causes a certain level of inflation.
One process debases the currency by increasing the money supply, the other process makes lower value transactions possible by increasing unit divisibility. These are two very distinct and unrelated things. Why do you conflate them?
In any case, I'm not sure we actually need more divisibility. Even if 1 BTC = $1M, a satoshi is worth $0.01. Do we really need sub-penny value transactions?
21 million bitcoin is a specific number. You cant change that fact even if you try to divide the coin into smaller parts. And if bitcoin can be truly split into several mini parts (such as 0.1 or 0.01 satoshi), it will make bitcoin even more valuable. The supply remains unchanged defeating the inflation that always happens with fiat.
And I do like the idea of splitting satoshi. It will give people more chance to interact with bitcoin, especially those who do not come from the start. Most of bitcoin is currently owned by big companies and whales. Smaller people also have few bucks in bitcoin but when the price keeps increasing, many people cant not have bitcoin if 1 satoshi worth more than a dollar
And I do like the idea of splitting satoshi. It will give people more chance to interact with bitcoin, especially those who do not come from the start. Most of bitcoin is currently owned by big companies and whales. Smaller people also have few bucks in bitcoin but when the price keeps increasing, many people cant not have bitcoin if 1 satoshi worth more than a dollar
But after all, such behavior will cause talk that BTC is a huge bubble. You have a strict limit of 21 million and then you decide "and let's divide 1 BTC indefinitely". And why? What is the difference between the infinite division of one whole and the gradual emission of new funds when necessary? These are two absolutely identical processes from the point of view of the end user - only the first one causes fear that this is a bubble, and the second one causes a certain level of inflation.
If you hate inflation so much, why do you use any money at all? Natural exchange is your salvation, but certainly not the desire for an even greater division of BTC.
Yes because it's still limited supply no matter how much you subdivide the satoshi. In the end, there is a limitation on splitting each satoshi if this become possible due to the value of each satoshi. Splitting a cents is not valuable anymore tho.
A 21 Million supply is still 21 Million supply no matter how many times you split it.
I guess that's the simplest way on how it could be explained. Thank you. A 21 Million supply is still 21 Million supply no matter how many times you split it.
To OP. It might just be wasting time dividing it into many units.
The total will not change.
I am guessing they are trying to make an imaginary Bitcoin out there where they could add more to the total by splitting it.
I don't really know if that's possible but I doubt it is.
All I know is there will be a huge number that will be missing.
While it does not create more Bitcoins to circulate around, I honestly think what truly matters is what the average person thinks about adding another zero after the decimal. Like, would the vast majority of people take that as a supply increase? Because if yes, then it'd be a dangerous move.
I personally support the denomination change as well. It doesn't change anything but solves some of the issues we currently have. Trust me, no real BTC supporter would want a supply increase.
I personally support the denomination change as well. It doesn't change anything but solves some of the issues we currently have. Trust me, no real BTC supporter would want a supply increase.
I'm seeing this particular topic on twitter today and it's got me a bit stumped. So I would like to ask my hero bitcoiners here for their advice:
If bitcoin's price and market cap continue to increase, and if a 2nd layer or off-network protocol allows people to subdivide their satoshis into smaller and smaller units, does the whole 21 million BTC supply cap even matter anymore?
If bitcoin's price and market cap continue to increase, and if a 2nd layer or off-network protocol allows people to subdivide their satoshis into smaller and smaller units, does the whole 21 million BTC supply cap even matter anymore?
If you break up a half cookie into 10 pieces, and put it next to one whole cookie, most children will actually opt for the half cookie because it looks like more to them. This "dilemma" reminds me of that.
Breaking satoshis down into sub-satoshi units obviously doesn't create more BTC, or make the maximum supply unlimited. It just makes smaller values easier to spend. It's just a potential solution should Bitcoin's scarcity cause sky high valuations, so that BTC is accessible to poor people just the same as rich people.
People need to realize that bitcoin supply can not be decreased or increased, it is only 21 million. This is what Satoshi Nakamoto did and inside bitcoin white paper. I do not see how another layer protocol would increase bitcoin supply. Anything that can increase bitcoin supply can only be a bug which will definitely be fixed while bitcoin supply remain 21 million. In the future, even if some bitcoin community propose this, it will only lead to a hardfork in which another shitcoin will be created. This is nothing to be bothered about because bitcoin will remain bitcoin and the supply can not be affected but remain 21 million.
This has been repeated many times in the forum and I can't stress this enough.
Dividing Bitcoin into smaller parts does not create new Bitcoins!
This is the same as the stupid idea,that hardforked Bitcoins are actual Bitcoins and hardforks create new Bitcoins out of scratch.
I don't know why this discussion appeared out of nowhere,since this question has been already answered years ago.
I guess that the FUDsters and Bitcoin haters simply don't know how to shit over Bitcoin right now and they have no valid arguments left.
Dividing Bitcoin into smaller parts does not create new Bitcoins!
This is the same as the stupid idea,that hardforked Bitcoins are actual Bitcoins and hardforks create new Bitcoins out of scratch.
I don't know why this discussion appeared out of nowhere,since this question has been already answered years ago.
I guess that the FUDsters and Bitcoin haters simply don't know how to shit over Bitcoin right now and they have no valid arguments left.
21 million bitcoin is a specific number. You cant change that fact even if you try to divide the coin into smaller parts. And if bitcoin can be truly split into several mini parts (such as 0.1 or 0.01 satoshi), it will make bitcoin even more valuable. The supply remains unchanged defeating the inflation that always happens with fiat.
And I do like the idea of splitting satoshi. It will give people more chance to interact with bitcoin, especially those who do not come from the start. Most of bitcoin is currently owned by big companies and whales. Smaller people also have few bucks in bitcoin but when the price keeps increasing, many people cant not have bitcoin if 1 satoshi worth more than a dollar
And I do like the idea of splitting satoshi. It will give people more chance to interact with bitcoin, especially those who do not come from the start. Most of bitcoin is currently owned by big companies and whales. Smaller people also have few bucks in bitcoin but when the price keeps increasing, many people cant not have bitcoin if 1 satoshi worth more than a dollar
It matters, of course.
This has been a pretty hot topic on Twitter quite recently, with some people thinking that Bitcoin being possible to cut up to smaller denominations makes it's supply sort of "unlimited". It's like saying that you can feed 50 families with one whole pizza because you can slice it up to 50 pieces. I really don't get it. I mean holy crap that Frances Coppola woman on Twitter is totally bollocks.
This has been a pretty hot topic on Twitter quite recently, with some people thinking that Bitcoin being possible to cut up to smaller denominations makes it's supply sort of "unlimited". It's like saying that you can feed 50 families with one whole pizza because you can slice it up to 50 pieces. I really don't get it. I mean holy crap that Frances Coppola woman on Twitter is totally bollocks.
Well...lets say you can sub divide to an infinite amount of decimals...that does mean "supply" never becomes a problem. As in, there will always be enough bitcoin to buy with paper money or other things. Since If I buy 1 bitcoin for 1 $, the 2nd one for 2$, the 3rd one for 4$, the 4th one for 8$, etc. After 30-40 iterations of this....you get the picture. Its the same for if I buy 1 bitcoin for 1$, then 0.1 bitcoin for 1$, then 0.01 bitcoin for 1$, etc.
But the hard cap on supply means that you can't create new bitcoins, only assign higher and higher values to smaller and smaller units of bitcoin. It is why in the long term, assuming bitcoin survives and is still relevant, 1 satoshi will be worth a lot of money and people will go mad searching for lost dust/satoshis on this and that computer/exchange they had in the past.
But the hard cap on supply means that you can't create new bitcoins, only assign higher and higher values to smaller and smaller units of bitcoin. It is why in the long term, assuming bitcoin survives and is still relevant, 1 satoshi will be worth a lot of money and people will go mad searching for lost dust/satoshis on this and that computer/exchange they had in the past.
Yeah, but the hard can does have a loophole.
Lets say out of the 18.5mill issued
2.3 million are locked and have never been withdrawn from
untouched since creation see below this is block 50
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/17iyRRXBHJKbv5DKPPkttWewm3CHdNPGQd
I think these will be reclaimed and recycled in 2049 or 2059
which would mean a development ruling to reclaim abandoned blocks after 40 or 50 years of no withdrawals.
So even if there are 21 mill coins.
it may allow for 23 million with 2 of that being recycled from original 21 mill.
To me this is a more interesting and likely idea than the op's find on twitter today.
Well...lets say you can sub divide to an infinite amount of decimals...that does mean "supply" never becomes a problem. As in, there will always be enough bitcoin to buy with paper money or other things. Since If I buy 1 bitcoin for 1 $, the 2nd one for 2$, the 3rd one for 4$, the 4th one for 8$, etc. After 30-40 iterations of this....you get the picture. Its the same for if I buy 1 bitcoin for 1$, then 0.1 bitcoin for 1$, then 0.01 bitcoin for 1$, etc.
But the hard cap on supply means that you can't create new bitcoins, only assign higher and higher values to smaller and smaller units of bitcoin. It is why in the long term, assuming bitcoin survives and is still relevant, 1 satoshi will be worth a lot of money and people will go mad searching for lost dust/satoshis on this and that computer/exchange they had in the past.
But the hard cap on supply means that you can't create new bitcoins, only assign higher and higher values to smaller and smaller units of bitcoin. It is why in the long term, assuming bitcoin survives and is still relevant, 1 satoshi will be worth a lot of money and people will go mad searching for lost dust/satoshis on this and that computer/exchange they had in the past.
Unless supply somehow increases then yes, but increasing supply might dramatically drop. The price and adding 0s to the end is ultimately a better idea for deflationary assets (the zeros coming after the decimal point).
The 21million is in the code and would require a consensus from miners at least in order to increase the figure.
If anyone wants to prove their tweet, I require 2^64 grains of wheat flour.
The 21million is in the code and would require a consensus from miners at least in order to increase the figure.
If anyone wants to prove their tweet, I require 2^64 grains of wheat flour.
Jump to: