Topic: what are the chances that more than 21 million bitcoin will be created? (Read 2924 times)

no chances

Precisely this. If we reach for instance 15-20million and the developers or whoever decide/agree upon increasing the number of coins to let's say 42million. I wouldn't ever touch Bitcoin again and would move everything into an (or more) altcoin.

If it came down to there being a ever decreasing supply of Bitcoins, lets say only 10 left in the world in this hypothetical situation, You could take on another 0 to the end of it. You would still need full consensus but if it were down to the wire supply could be generated.

Lay me 100,000:1 odds then.  Free money for you.

none, because it started with 21 millions, and wont be bitcoin anymore with more than 21kk coins.

even if possible to change, impossible let everyone agree with that, this would only destroy the coin

Yes.  That was the push to identify 10^-6 BTC = 1 bit.  So now we have 21 trillion bits.  Right you you can buy 2238 bits for a dollar.  

Then the value of BTC will drop and nobody wants that. Food thing about BTC is that you know exact number that would be mined if you will go by the principle " Ok we need more coins, lets vote and make more " then there is no difference with a country thats printing out money on a daily basis.

There are no chances I believe. The code doesn't allow that. Changing the supply wouldn't be damaging for Bitcoin too.

If I trim a branch off of an oak tree I've changed its specific configuration of atoms, but it's still an oak tree. Moreover, it's still the same oak tree as it was before.

If I set the tree on fire, the ashes which result are not an oak tree any more.

Clearly not all changes are equal, so it's not correct to say sat that since we've made minor alterations to the Bitcoin software over time that means Bitcoin has no unalterable definition.

There are characteristic of Bitcoin that, if they were not retained, would represent the "setting on fire" type of change as opposed to "pruning the tree" type of change.

Of course we are.

However, I do believe there's a fundamental difference between this and other examples you've given such as the oak tree. Bitcoin, being a currency - and a purely digital one at that - is defined by what people think it is. If the system continues to work as it does now, but people stop believing in it, it becomes meaningless.

Whereas the oak tree is still there regardless of whether we look at it, talk about it, call it different names. With the oak tree, the specific configuration of atoms matters. With Bitcoin, the agreement of people matters.

Hence, we have the power to mutate Bitcoin with the power of thought and agreement, in a way we cannot with the oak tree.


Notably, this has happened before (P2SH and some bug fixes come to mind). People agreed that Bitcoin should be changed, and viola, Bitcoin was changed, without anyone supposing we're now using an alt.


This discussion has practical consequences beyond the OP's opinion. When I accept bitcoins as payment, I do so because I believe they will have value now and in the future (as with any other currency). I believe this because I believe Bitcoin will be used, and that there will be no more than 21M bitcoins. "Used" is a human-centric concept and thus is influenced by perception and marketing. If people use the name "Bitcoin" to refer to a new protocol, it has a different effect on the survivability of the old protocol than if people used a different name.

So "will a protocol that has a different inflation schedule than the current Bitcoin exist" is a different question from "will a protocol that has a different inflation schedule than the current Bitcoin exist and be called 'Bitcoin'". A positive answer to the latter doesn't bode well to the value of bitcoins I can currently obtain, thus a negative answer to it is what I need to be assured in accepting bitcoins. This again is a practical consideration, not a purely philosophical one.

I see that change to be at about 0%. They agreed on 21 million bitcoins.

Some will, and that is all it takes. the big money will move on to something other than mining. the little guys will stick around. difficulty will adjust down and the transaction fees will be enough.

I think it's likely, people won't be satisfied with just the transaction fees

If a government puts pressure on you you could loose all your wealth. Governments have various ways of putting pressure on you. They can cut you off from the banking system, attack your physical infrastructure, send some uniformed thugs your way etc. The more money at stake the easier it is to pressure you. So go along or you loose all your coins.


What about Grisham's law? Bad money drives out good.

I agree with you ,if they will try to create more bitcoins then will be the end of bitcoin.The value will drop a lot,people will lose the trust in bitcoin.

I vote to call the current, origninal bitcoin "Bitcoin: Original Recipe" and any forks "Bitcoin: 2.0, Bitcoin: 3.0, etc"

if the protocol stays as is. then there will be only 21mill coins. however there can also be 'bitcoin debt'

take mtgox. for instance. while karpeles hold and spends real bitcoins, users are left with 800k bitcoin debt


after an ultimate winner of which fork will continue as master. those that have accepted bitcoin from the dead fork will be left with bitcoin debt

also some people think their binary based database balances on exchanges, represent REAL bitcoins. which in a utopian world of audited and transparent exchanges would be true. but at the moment there are many cases that debt can occur.

so be cautious about trading BTC-E codes, offchain transactions, or buying debt off people. as your not trading actual bitcoins, just database balances.

so be careful although there maybe only 21million ACTUAL bitcoins ever made. some businesses and people may trade their 'fake' bitcoins (debt/database balance) which exceeds 21mill

A dollar is worth 4 quarters.
Oh wait, we just sub-divided it differently to 10 dimes.
No wait, 20 nickels.
Hold on, 100 pennies.
But no value changed. Same thing with Bitcoins.

having a constant number of coins created means inflation in % converges to 0.
e.g if the total coin supply is 10 coins and 1 coin is created each day then the inflation rate is 10% on the first day 9.09% on the second day 8.33% on the third day etc.
this means that eventually dogecoin's inflation rate will be practically 0.