Topic: There are only 21 THOUSAND bitcoins - page 2. (Read 6462 times)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkbQDEXJy2k

Cool.

And who is the "king" of Bitcoin? MtGox?

Yeah actually the king of Bitcoin declared it official just yesterday.

mbits

Yes excellent

That is a lot of zero's

Well stated.

Yeah, Bitcoin is really just a point system. When you have trustless, distributed, perfect memory of who has how many points, you don't actually need "money." And of course the point unit doesn't actually matter. What matters is what percentage of the total amount in circulation you control, but it's just easier for our brains to work with "coins."

that's why you should buy some bytecoins... and when your done, I have some great desert land to sell you

2100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
give or take a few

Stop all this division! It's like your stealing from me when you say there are only 21k bitcoins. Your new ledger leaves me with only a few Satoshi.

Apples are indefinitely divisible.  Do we have 1 apple or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 apples?

Still one apple....doesn't matter how you slice it.

Apparently there are not many mathematicians here. Of course after normalizing the problem there is only 1. People into Finance would call it 100% which is not really much different to saying 1.
For any limited resource that only has speculative value it only matters which share of that resource you hold and what value all of that resource has. That said, people use units of account that relate to their every day transactions which for now for the most people are in the cɃ order of magnitude or mɃ for expressing all you really need to know about the price of any purchasable good. If you move stocks, you will stick to Ƀ or kɃ. MɃ certainly is only interesting for Satoshi himself and maybe one other individual.

…So? Bitcoins were made to be divisible in 8 units… (or 1 byte)

This is great, really, it's like the red pill of perspective.

It is an argument of semantics to say there are 11 million (or 21 million) BTC's when each one is (currently) divisible by 8 decimal places.

What is Source to content and stats? That would be useful. Thanks.

We can all agree that the 21M figure was contrived to show the world that a limited number of bitcoins will ever be mined, along with showing the handsome algorithm curve for its creation.

If a lower amount were used (via minus a couple zeros) then the price would have skyrocketed too high, to quickly, spooking too many. Likewise, if a higher amount were chosen, this too would spook the masses for a set of dis/similar factors.

For the common layman, mining or investing in Bitcoin will never be on their radar. But, Bitcoin is something of which could be very beneficial to them, directly a/o indirectly, whether they use it or not.

Down the road, the average Bitcoin user would know, or care less what the exchange rate is, as long as they don't see their dollar, et al., fluctuate wildly on their handware device of choice. If fact, they may not even see a total amount of bitcoins figure (useless they opt to display that option), again, just the amount they have on account based in their local currency. Bitcoin will just be the most honest way to keep score via its back end accountability consisting of ones and zeros, sans any major manipulations in the exchanges.

I'm sure that the above has been expressed a myriad of times more eloquently, but opted to try to put Bitcoin back in perspective, hoping others will expand or correct, if need be, my assessment.

There is some psychological logic to it - it's pretty much like a stock split when it comes to publicly traded shares. It's fair to say that causes quite a lot of confusion as well.

With the large number of decimal places available to Bitcoins though, I'm not convinced it's necessary. The new 'norm' would just be a mBTC. Trading 0.001 BTC is just fine (assuming 1 BTC is worth a lot and fees aren't too big), but buying 0.001 shares in a company isn't really done.

So a possible alternative to using mBTC then. Just change the definition of BTC across the board.

So if 1BTC = $100 today, let's move the decimal so that 1BTC=$1. Instead of seeing a measly balance of 4BTC in my wallet, I'll see 400BTC.

Nothing really changes but it would encourage noobs IMO (who are perhaps put off by the idea of having to buy one whole bitcoin/dealing with decimals).

Of course when 1BTC=$100, we'll have to do it again.

If the project is still around in 2150 or whenever it is, I suspect they'll change the code to have an approximate 2% yearly inflation of available bitcoins.

I'll be dead by then so I won't really care.