Topic: what are the chances that more than 21 million bitcoin will be created? - page 2. (Read 2996 times)
May 10, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
I'd prefer that Bitcoin stays at 21 million so I can one day claim to be a millionaire when the price decides to go ballistic and each BTC equals $1 million or more..
May 10, 2014, 09:48:22 AM
As in modifying the code on an agreement with all parties involved, is there a chance people might want more than 21 million Bitcoins?
You don't need to bother with the protocol, there are plenty of alt-coins there with more than that amount
May 09, 2014, 05:23:43 PM
If most of the miners agree to increase the 21 million supply every block reward they will win will be worth substantially less than what it was prior to the 21 million coins, everyone will dump their reserves the moment tyranny will infect BTC.
May 09, 2014, 05:15:48 PM
When people get new bitcoins that aren't spendable in certain locations, it will be interesting to say the least. Then the government will force everyone to "accept all bitcoins".
There will be some groundwork done. Powerful people will be coopted. Developers, mining pool operators, exchange operators, merchants, whales etc. Propaganda will be used to convince ordinary users of the need for change. Then there will be a fork and whichever chain gets the majority's support will become defacto bitcoin. Those who persist with the old chain will have their wealth instantly wiped out.
Governments have a history of taking over private property. The Romans used to do it to every noble family that crossed the emperor. They even stole from soldiers who were away fighting for the empire!
When someone creates a bitcoin fork or spin-off, a user has two sets of coins: his original bitcoins and a new set of alt coins that he gets for free. Users don't really need to pick sides, as their wealth is valid on both chains.
Bitcoins will trade directly against fork-coin on the open market, so right away everyone will have a good idea of the value of a fork-coin. If a powerful group wants to legitimize fork-coin, they would probably sell bitcoins and buy fork-coins in an effort to shift perceived value to the new coin. But what about Satoshi? He would own ~1,000,000 fork-coins too (unless you also want to redistribute wealth on your fork); he could wait until you've spent all your bitcoins buying fork-coins and then dump his fork-coins for bitcoins, destroying the legitimacy of your fork and acquiring more bitcoins in the process.
Satoshi has more economic power than anyone to prevent a fork or spin-off from becoming legitimized.
May 09, 2014, 05:12:02 PM
When people get new bitcoins that aren't spendable in certain locations, it will be interesting to say the least. Then the government will force everyone to "accept all bitcoins".
There will be some groundwork done. Powerful people will be coopted. Developers, mining pool operators, exchange operators, merchants, whales etc. Propaganda will be used to convince ordinary users of the need for change. Then there will be a fork and whichever chain gets the majority's support will become defacto bitcoin. Those who persist with the old chain will have their wealth instantly wiped out.
Governments have a history of taking over private property. The Romans used to do it to every noble family that crossed the emperor. They even stole from soldiers who were away fighting for the empire!
In a fork holders of coins would have coins spendable on both sides of the fork and can with a little ingenuity spend them differently in both sides of the fork. The overwhelming super majority loses in the "inflat-a-coin" fork, the only ones who would benefit would be miners and even that is debatable. The fork and the resulting confusion would have a cost. Miners unlike coinholders also face a real risk, they can't mine both chains and their mining rewards would only exist on one side of the fork. If the choose wrong they run the risk of ending up with worthless coins.
Also we aren't just talking about slack jawed idiots here. If Bitcoin survives and grows the "Bitcoin wealthy" would include major corporations, millionaires, billionaires, sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds, ETFs, family wealth funds, etc and they ALL would have their wealth devalued by raising the cap. It is a pretty easy and transparent choice.
If it happens then Bitcoin is dead anyways. Still it is pretty easy to hedge your bets. Sell off your inflat-a-coins, keep your bitcoin and buy assets this the procedes. If you guess wrong and the old fork dies you can always buy the new coins back with the proceeds.
May 09, 2014, 04:41:14 PM
A significant percentage of the population can be manipulated to support anything, but bitcoin is a consensus system. Hitler did not manipulate 100% of the population to support him. There were many who refused, and who actively acted against him. There was not 100% support for any of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. All of those wars had individuals who publicly spoke out against them.
What percentage need to support it? Is a majority of full nodes sufficient?
No.
Bitcoin is a consensus system. You need 100% to change.
If 2 people refuse to change their software, then they will continue to communicate with each other as peers and will continue to operate the old protocol. They will continue to call their system "bitcoin", and their system will still be the original "bitcoin". Any other system will be an altcoin.
Now if the majority decide to call their altcoin "bitcoin" as well, there will be much confusion, and a lot of complications. The more people that choose to switch, the less confusion there will be, and the more likely that the new system will not fail. At that point you'll have most people calling the new inflationary system "bitcoin", and a set of idealists calling the old system "bitcoin" and using whatever derogatory slang they like for the new system.
Think about it this way...
If Satoshi had decided to call his invention "dollars" instead of "bitcoins" (and left everything else in the design exactly the same), would the fact that the vast majority of people were using a different system called "dollars" have meant that his "dollar" system would automatically switch behavior to be the same as the "dollar" system that everyone else was using? Obviously not. There would just be a lot of confusion with two different monetary systems both called "dollars".
Here's another way to look at it. If the creators of dogecoin had decided to name their system "bitcoin" (and leave everything else about dogecoin exactly the same), there would obviously be a lot of confusion as people tried to talk about exchanging legacy "bitcoins" for "new bitcoins" or vice versa. However, the fact that the new "bitcoin" (dogecoin) (an inflationary altcoin based on the legacy bitcoin protocol) is popular and has many users does not mean that the original "bitcoin" system has become inflationary.
Is it possible to patent name bitcoin?
May 09, 2014, 04:33:39 PM
When people get new bitcoins that aren't spendable in certain locations, it will be interesting to say the least. Then the government will force everyone to "accept all bitcoins".
There will be some groundwork done. Powerful people will be coopted. Developers, mining pool operators, exchange operators, merchants, whales etc. Propaganda will be used to convince ordinary users of the need for change. Then there will be a fork and whichever chain gets the majority's support will become defacto bitcoin. Those who persist with the old chain will have their wealth instantly wiped out.
Governments have a history of taking over private property. The Romans used to do it to every noble family that crossed the emperor. They even stole from soldiers who were away fighting for the empire!
May 09, 2014, 04:18:30 PM
A significant percentage of the population can be manipulated to support anything, but bitcoin is a consensus system. Hitler did not manipulate 100% of the population to support him. There were many who refused, and who actively acted against him. There was not 100% support for any of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. All of those wars had individuals who publicly spoke out against them.
What percentage need to support it? Is a majority of full nodes sufficient?
When people get new bitcoins that aren't spendable in certain locations, it will be interesting to say the least. Then the government will force everyone to "accept all bitcoins".
May 09, 2014, 04:16:23 PM
Im lost...
That happens a lot when you start looking at the technical details of bitcoin.
The root of the problem in this discussion is that it isn't clear what the definition of the word "bitcoin" is.
Meni presents the idea that if enough people agree to change the definition of the word "bitcoin", then bitcoin becomes the new thing.
I present the idea that a thing is what it is, regardless of what people choose to call it.
This is really a philosophical debate, and until you describe what side of that debate you are on, it becomes difficult to agree on an answer.
As an example:
There is an object in my front yard that all english speaking people agree to call an "oak tree". You pose the question, "on an agreement with all parties involved, is there a chance an oak tree could fly on its own accord?"
I assume you are talking about the object currently known as an "oak tree" (regardless of what people choose to call it in the future). So I state, "No. That object can't fly on its own accord. Any object that flys on its own accord isn't that object, even if the majority of people choose to call some other object that flys on its own accord an "oak tree".
Meni states, "If a large enough majority of people look at some other object that flies on its own accord, and agree to call it an "oak tree", then an "oak tree" can fly on its own accord, and the few people who still call that old object an "oak tree" will be using an outdated unsupported usage of the words "oak tree".
As you can see, we are both right. You have to decide if you are talking about the word "bitcoin", or the concept that is currently described with the word "bitcoin". The current concept can't be changed, it will always be what it is (just like an oak tree will always be what it is regardless of how else those words are used). However, people could create a new concept and agree to re-use the name "bitcoin" for that new concept.
So, kind of like "Can 2 gay men be married?" 50 years ago, virtually everyone would have said "Never".
And not because they were unfamiliar with gay relationships, but that gay relationships didn't meet the definition of "marriage".
May 09, 2014, 03:50:54 PM
Dogecoin ALWAYS had inflation.. the messed up at the start and decided it would be best to keep the minimum coin payout.. a good idea IMO. IMO BTC should never go below 1 milibtc pay out but w/e.
I remember back when it came out and the thread said there was a 100 billion upper limit. Those who looked at the code realized there was no such limit. Problem is most people didn't look at the code and assumed that what the thread said was true. Also those who did look at the code didn't publicize their findings well enough to alert the rest. Open source only works if enough knowledgeable people look at the code. We've seen this time and again, most recently with the heartbleed bug.
Well actually even BTC is inflationary at least until we hit 2040. After that we'll experience the real deflationary aspect of BTC.
Indeed this is true. There will be almost 10% inflation within the next 365 days. That's pretty high.
May 09, 2014, 03:44:25 PM
Well actually even BTC is inflationary at least until we hit 2040.
New bitcoins (or fractions of bitcoins) will continue to be released in blocks until 2140.
May 09, 2014, 03:31:25 PM
Well actually even BTC is inflationary at least until we hit 2040. After that we'll experience the real deflationary aspect of BTC.
For now let's just hope we have a solid user base and that our "Designed inflation" doesn't pass the Fiat one.
For now let's just hope we have a solid user base and that our "Designed inflation" doesn't pass the Fiat one.
May 09, 2014, 02:59:08 PM
Dogecoin ALWAYS had inflation.. the messed up at the start and decided it would be best to keep the minimum coin payout.. a good idea IMO. IMO BTC should never go below 1 milibtc pay out but w/e.
May 09, 2014, 02:02:40 PM
5flags I will accept your answer but it happened with dogecoin it turned into an inflationary currency over night, why was that so?
dogecoin IS NOT inflationary.
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1wuhyj/info_clearing_up_missinformation_about_our/
Did you even read what you linked to?
It specifically says:
Quote
We have a 5 billion coin inflation rate
May 09, 2014, 12:48:38 PM
5flags I will accept your answer but it happened with dogecoin it turned into an inflationary currency over night, why was that so?
dogecoin IS NOT inflationary.
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1wuhyj/info_clearing_up_missinformation_about_our/
May 09, 2014, 12:46:03 PM
the thing that is called bitcoin is a collection of core rules one of them is that there are never more than 21mil bitcoins.
if that changes then its an altcoin not bitcoin.
so in essence the question is if its possible that merchants will stop using bitcoin and move to a different altcoin which might have more/less than 21mil coins and/or be inflationary.
if that changes then its an altcoin not bitcoin.
so in essence the question is if its possible that merchants will stop using bitcoin and move to a different altcoin which might have more/less than 21mil coins and/or be inflationary.
May 09, 2014, 12:07:06 PM
There's always a chance, but that is microscopic IMHO.
More than 21 million would defy the creator's main intentions for bitcoin.
More than 21 million would defy the creator's main intentions for bitcoin.
May 09, 2014, 11:58:01 AM
If the masses join.. alas quite high. The masses are completely moronic and never use their brain. If the news tells them something it's true no matter what, :S.
May 09, 2014, 11:46:21 AM
Remember, bitcoin is not a "democracy" and even popular opinion cannot force a change to the protocol.
BIPs have been put to vote by miners. So it is a democracy and majority opinion rules.
And so far, forking changes have been accepted by everyone. It isn't the "vote" that made it possible, its the fact that a consensus was reached that the change was necessary.
I'm pretty confident that a change to the inflation schedule will not reach the same consensus.
May 09, 2014, 11:44:41 AM
The root of the problem in this discussion is that it isn't clear what the definition of the word "bitcoin" is.
Ok I think most people will agree that we are talking about what the majority considers to be Bitcoin. So in that case Bitcoin can be changed to support any number of coins. Case closed
. I disagree, but that's the root of the problem here.
An oak tree doesn't stop being what it is just because the majority choose to call some newly discovered bird an "oak tree".
Jump to: