Topic: WHY 21 MILLION BITCOIN CANNOT SERVE THE WHOLE WORLD (Read 887 times)

There is need for adoption, and I think that I will prefer the adoption from the masses so that the distribution of bitcoin can go wide, there was a mate that saw problem with the distribution of bitcoin, because only the wealthy people can really accumulate bitcoin that much at this stage and even the masses would not be able to accumulate it, which means that even in the bitcoin world, it is still the rich people that control us and imagine what they would do when some group of people have so much bitcoin to themselves.

There is need for us to get adoption of bitcoin, this will really create a very good impact and all this issue of bitcoin not being able to meet the need will not arise because that time will come that the smallest of bitcoin is what will be used.

With comparison to the population over the entire world it is completely impossible to make it get supplied to the entire population if there a massive adoption throughout the world. By that time surely the price of bitcoin will increase, and maybe a Satoshi will get termed to be a bitcoin.

In this time we were supposed to think of providing value, we cannot value an asset beyond its purpose. When something is manipulated and given value it easily fails.

I don't think we even need to talk about the whole population of the world since not all of them are fond and willing to use bitcoin. Some hate them, some are thinking that it is a scam. They have their reasons but most likely, not all of the people can use this kind of technology. Despite that it is easy to use.

Even if there's no solution in the future, dividing bitcoins to satoshis is already a lot it only comes down to the price of Bitcoin to know if the supply we currently have is still sufficient for everyone.

I agree we could just use decimals if Satoshis becomes expensive similar to what we have now with mbtc.

Both kinda confuse me and so long as BTC appreciates its Satoshi I prefer of the two I think as its the base unit, its a natural starting point and actually superior to people getting confused over owning a whole Bitcoin and immediately being put off by the price as if they must deal in single whole units.    Obviously we know better but I'm talking about the common perception and ergonomics of propagation of a new currency standard, satoshi is cheap as hell which might explain why the Yen and Japan have adopted BTC a bit more freely.


I'd rather we just keep it simple.  Companies can keep fractions of a SAT on their balance sheet internally if they like.    I dont think SAT being worth too much is a problem for a while.

Well you know I think is as long as we divide the smallest unit of Bitcoins even smaller then you should understand that it will actually all go good .. we could see a good boon soon enough .. it actually could ward off all the problems that comes with bitcoins being not enough for everyone .
I think we could just bring mini Satoshis ...or something in the market .

Yes, the total supply of bitcoin can serve the world, if it was 5,000,000 TS. The sotashi will keep expanding or going up in price as more and more people start using it like we saw a huge price leap in 2017, that is how it works. soon thousands of dollars will just be able to buy a little fraction of satoshi. Not everyone in the world actually have real money, some just have substance and money keeps exchanging hands.

You are seeing it as difficulty because you are still tying it to fiat and you are thinking the equivalent of what it would be in fiat, bitcoin is a currency on its own and it is meant to be spent as currency, I mean if you are buy a milk for 10 satoshi, you pay 10 satoshi without having to think of converting it to fiat, but when you want to start converting fiat to it or vice versa is where it becomes problem.

You have not seen the real currency usefulness of it because we still don’t have many merchants that are accepting it, if they were accepting, you would have seen many people actually spending bitcoin as though they are spending fiat to purchase things on line and in grocery store. When you see people hoping for regulation, it is because bitcoin needs to be accepting and satoshi being a small unit will be spent.

Yeah, satoshi seem to be perfectly fine with me

If Satoshi comes to town, I mean Bitcoin becomes so widespread that you can actually go out and buy a cup of coffee with it just like you do with your dollar (euro or whatever) in every place and at every corner, the Bitcoin price should already be in the many millions (dollars or whatever). So you would in fact be able to drop by and buy a cup of coffee literally for a few satoshi (and then we may start to discuss satoshi subunits)


You'd better ask him first

Yes... fee is a big concern. I still remember the transactions from December 2017, when I was forced to pay almost $50 as the transaction fee. I had the misfortune of doing quite a few transactions when the tx fee was at its peak. Imagine paying for a cup of coffee with Bitcoin at that time. If the coffee costs $3, you need to pay a total of $53 (including the transaction fee) and then wait for 1-2 hours to get the transaction confirmed.

If you keep the prices in Satoshi, then a cup of coffee having a price of $3 (BTC0.0003) would be priced as 30,000 Satoshis. A pizza can cost a few hundred thousand Satoshis. It is still convenient to use Satoshis than Bitcoin (with 4 decimal places). Perhaps you are right. We should stick to Satoshi instead of mBTC.

BTW, Theymos should be happy. Under the current plan, 1 Theymos = 100,000 Satoshi.  

The more diluted and the more people that buy and use and keep bitcoin the more it will be worth so therefore divisions of bitcoin will be worth more and you can now break bitcoin into smaller pieces and still keep the same value as if it were a whole bitcoin. If there are 10 people with bitcoin that is 0.10 btc each if there is only 1 person with bitcoin it is 1 btc. This is not realistic though since it is not taking into account supply and demand and movement or dilution or attraction of the currency but it is more the theory that counts I think.

Theymos should definitely not be involved in this, he is the owner of the biggest bitcoin related forum in the world I will give him that but people already gave too much money to him to make this website better which I am afraid not gonna happen anytime soon so maybe we should name it something more technical instead of emotional. Mbit is not that because it is easy to say and it may not be formal like satoshi but we can just make it formal by collectively call it that and we actually do that right now.

So, putting up another name for something we have all already named in the past and have been using for years doesn't make any sense, we already figured that out years ago. However I would suggest making satoshi more known, like saying a thousand satoshi or 100 thousand satoshi should be more common.

This will only add to confusion

Right now paying for a cup of coffee with Bitcoin is not worth it as you will have to pay insane fees which would be quite comparable to the price of that coffee (if not exceed it). But if Lightning Network gets widespread adoption in this field (and Bitcoin price multiplies), then a few dozen satoshi should be a common price for such things. Thus there is no need for these subunits. They will only confuse people


Theymos may not be happy at all. If anything, 1000 bitcoins should be equal to 1 theymos

Why mass adoption?

The reason why the transaction is getting slower is that a lot of cryptocurrencies are being transacted all over the internet. With the mass adoption and the blockchain not ready for millions and millions of transactions will not help, it will just increase the problem though I don't think that is the problem today since it is already improved in the past year.

But how can bitcoin make one smaller coin while it is unregulated?
The satoshi unit is only a unit of calculation but it is completely impossible to convert to money. This is a big obstacle.

Well.. I was saying that we don't need finer subunits, but we need coarser ones. Right now the transaction fee is in the vicinity of BTC0.0001, so I agree that amounts lower than that are not practical to collect. What I was saying was, suppose if we want to pay for coffee at Barista, then the bill may come to BTC0.0005 or something like that. It is not very convenient to use so many decimal places. If we use mBTC instead of BTC, then it will come to 0.5 mBTC, which is more easier to calculate.

But as I pointed out, mBTC is not a formal sub-unit for Bitcoin and it doesn't have an official name. And suggestions such as mBits and Bitfraction doesn't sound good. We need some unique name for mBTC. Since Satoshi is already taken, I would suggest "Theymos".

1 Bitcoin = 1,000 Theymos = 100,000,000 Satoshi

How can you say that 21 Million bitcoin is not enough? It will circulate in blochchain system through buy and sell. And because of limited supply with higher demand,the value of bitcoin will keep on increasing as the time goes by. So, we don,t need to worry that the 21 Million bitcoin cannot serve the whole world because it is more than enough. The value is very important and I think Satoshi who made it know it already that's why he created bitcoin in a limited supply.

So there is no reason to disagree?

Okay then. Anyway, it is a vicious circle of sorts, in fact, it is even a double vicious circle. It is kinda self-explanatory that merchants are not inclined to accept a highly volatile currency as a means of payment but prices won't become stable unless and until speculation is massively subdued and overshadowed by adoption, i.e. when most coins are used for buying and selling goods. But there is another circle of vice which is less apparent but that doesn't make it less ugly. In fact, it makes the first circle far worse as it just adds more injury to injury

The second circle is, volatile prices discourage people from spending their coins as it makes no sense from an economic perspective. What makes sense, though, is relentless speculation by riding volatility waves. Obviously, most coins end up on exchanges, not in the wallets of merchants. This, in turn, means merchants are disincentivized further from accepting crypto as payment since there is no demand for such payments from the buyers. So the coins end up being speculated, not circulated, which adds more fuel to the furnace of volatility. This closes the vicious circle


Just like you can't force love, you can't force people to spend their bitcoins in a "productive" way. Economically, you would be better off exchanging bitcoins to fiat, then spending some part of the money and buying back if prices drop or exchange more if prices soar (and then buy back when the prices finally drop). You simply can't beat that, and no amount of proselytizing is going to change this simple reality


Personally, I don't feel like we need these subunits as anything less than a few thousand satoshi (otherwise known as dust) is not collectible anyway

I agree with you there. The recent bull run was purely speculative, much like the big 2017 bull run. I would actually much prefer these bull runs not to happen, and just see a much slower but steadier and sustained price rise over several years, which would be based on growing adoption as opposed to pure speculation. These huge runs and crashes usually end in a bunch of a newbies losing a ton of money and rage-quitting bitcoin altogether.

Impossible to say. As I mentioned above, 2 merchants I use are accepting crypto directly without a payment processor, and are using some of that bitcoin to pay some of their staff's wages. I accept merchants are like this are in the minority, but they do exist, and both of these merchants only started doing this in the last year.

Yes, we have a long way to go, but I do think we are heading in the right direction.

They may well be

So I have to take your word for it as I don't know if they really do. Regardless, do these markers really show the expansion in adoption? All of them can as well point in the opposite direction unless we agree adoption equals speculation. If not, all these numbers rising can be easily attributed to speculation expanding, which you should in fact expect given the half-year Bitcoin rally as of recent. You can't seriously ascribe the explosive growth from low 3k to high 13k within just a few months to adoption spreading like weed. Most certainly, what we see is the same old-school speculation at work here


And here we go again (one more time)

How many of these merchants are in fact accepting crypto? If next to none, then this is not adoption. Well, we could indeed consider it half-adoption (for the lack of a better term) if people were actually paying with crypto there (as this is still a good start anyway). But we don't know that. Just adding the payment option is quasi-adoption at best. You can call it a required condition or prerequisite for future adoption but that in itself doesn't guarantee it just like Lighting Network doesn't guarantee it either


Personally, I'm already in that future but it doesn't magically turn Bitcoin into a means of payment. There is a huge distance (and difference) between that and using Bitcoin as a store of value or a hedge (but I repeat myself)