Topic: WHY 21 MILLION BITCOIN CANNOT SERVE THE WHOLE WORLD - page 5. (Read 887 times)

Bitcoin is already divided in to milli-satoshis (msats), which is 0.001 of a satoshi, as the base unit on Lightning Network. For comparison. 1 milli-satoshi is 0.00001 of a US cent.

That's what Lightning Network should address. Instant and almost fee-less transaction which can be used for transactions which require immediate confirmation, such as the often talked about "buying a coffee with bitcoin". You only need to broadcast to the main chain and wait for confirmations when you close a channel, or if you want the extra security when making or receiving a large payment.

I'm curious as to what "far better options" you think we have.

Even if you don't fully understand how divisible bitcoin is, you might understand it by simply understanding the law of economics. It is simply just all about the demand and supply.

It is being discussed a lot of times, you can have 1 satoshi which is .00000001 and if the demand is purely high its value can be enough to supply the 7b people you were talking about. There is actually also no point in allocating bitcoin to each and every person.

I highly expect that the bitcoin user will never go up to a billion. I might be wrong but that is just I simply forsee it

we have USDT,we have ripple,we are going to have libra but these are the better options you are talking about? The prices need to be somewhat stable for currency which is the only thing missing in bitcoin roght now but if everyone see the decentralized payment system will do more good then surely there will be a price range.

The code actually allows Bitcoin to be divisible further: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/122/will-we-ever-need-smaller-amounts-of-bitcoin-than-a-satoshi

So even if we somehow need more satoshis, we can do it. Anyhow, I personally believe Bitcoin will never be a mainstream payment system, history has certainly shown us that Bitcoin is simply not that good when it's used as daily payment and we have far better options.

Bitcoin Cash does exactly that (even if it is not a true Bitcoin)


The latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former

It works wonderful with valuable things that cannot be (easily) substituted with similar things performing the same role or function, and in that case a decrease in supply translates directly into an increase in demand and price (sometimes even with a vengeance). I'm not sure if this is the case with Bitcoin as its volatility prevails over any changes in the total supply (cp. the change in supply over the last couple of years with the price swings we see almost daily). In simple terms, it is more complicated

Apart from that, there is another factor which should be paid precious attention to, and that is utility. If utility goes down along with supply (a possible scenario), then the rise in demand is not guaranteed at all (so neither is the price). In other words, Bitcoin may become so rare that it may lose all utility it might have, and then it will quickly deteriorate and turn into a worthless asset (also a possible scenario). The same thing is going to happen if someone buys 99% of all bitcoins, just in case


I hope you are proved right in the end

Yet, Bitcoin has been in the spotlight for at least 5 years by now, so you can't possibly say that it is "early days still and anything could happen" (people had been telling that in 2013). Indeed, anything can happen (regardless of maturity) but if nothing particularly good happened in the last few years in terms of "many more uses" (more specifically, uses not related to trading and gambling), it leaves plenty of doubt whether and to what extent things are going to change in the future. So what is going to change that didn't or failed to change already?

There are times when your speculations come true when demand & supply is high, but I don't think everyone should mention commas in every transaction with bitcoin. So at that time satoshi will play an important role, maybe people will say more with satoshi value except for the whales who have a lot of bitcoin.

And for me, we don't need to think long about the rest of this bitcoin supply because surely not everyone in the world will adopt bitcoin. Maybe there is bitcoin but fiat they prefer, there are times when bitcoin will switch functions into investment land.

You comparing with an imaginative and non-fundamental value. The few trillions they have tiped into the world has nothing to do with what the world need.

The amount of Bitcoin, even there are over 15% frizzed, can be enough for all of us. and it will be in movement...
A salary in BTC: 0.00001Btc
A car in BTC: 0.001
A house in BTC: 0.01BTC 
(speculations)

Due value is based on demand and supply (and manipulation)....
In any case, the future will give us the answers..

Volatility would always be the main issue that's why no matter how positive I am with Bitcoin it wont really come to a point to reach that full adoption worldwide lets say 100% on the entire population.They wont mind on jumping into something which is volatile and for sure majority would just stick into that traditional fiat currencies we have knowns and also I  don't stress out myself if there would be sufficient supply of bitcoin incase that thing happens.

1 Bitcoin = 100,000,000 satoshis on the main network.

1 Bitcoin = 10,000,000,000,000 satoshis on Lightning (1 main network satoshi = 1000 milli satoshi).

There will never be a shortage of satoshi units. There has been an auction last year where an 'art piece' has sold for 1 milli satoshi which back then was worth $0.000000037 in us dollar value. Obviously more of a publicity type of stunt, but it shows how small payments can actually be on Lightning.

It's much easier to deal with satoshis rather than 0.0000XBTC. It's only a matter of time before satoshis will become the main unit standard instead of BTC.

We need really high price for 1 btc if we want by something on one satoshi

The quantity of bitcoin that will ever be mined is not really of huge importance, it is the economy it supports. 1 satoshi (or 1/100 millionth of a bitcoin ) is a lot to go round. That is small enough for practical use even if bitcoin is the only currency globally, it may mean 1 satoshi becomes 100 usd if the need be

I don't think it's not able to serve the whole world, but every country has different problems to legitimize bitcoin. the more countries that use it the higher the price, while the supply will always be the same. unfortunately there are still few countries that legalize it, so there are lots of whales playing

OP, this idea has been brought up before--I've seen it talked about a few times since I've been on the forum.  And anyone who knows anything basic about bitcoin knows how divisible it is.  It isn't like everyone would need to own a whole bitcoin in order for it to be useful.

And by the way, if bitcoin ever became inadequate for worldwide use because there wasn't enough of it to go around, there are still hundreds of other cryptocurrencies on the market that could step in and fill the void.  Hell, dogecoin doesn't have a cap on the total number of coins and it could easily be used as a currency--and it's not the only one, either.

IMO, adoption isn't catching up to supply in crypto.  There's more than enough to go around.

Currently I believe, the smallest tx fee you can set on a transaction is 1sat/byte.

Again I believe, It is possible to set sub satoshi amounts as a fee. It is not being used now because miners don't accept those transactions. (I am pretty sure I've seen transactions with 0.1sat/byte before)

If bitcoin becomes too valuable, people will start demanding those sub satoshi fees and miners will have to accept those transactions.

Correct me if I am wrong. The only reason why we can't send 500 satoshis for 5sat fee is because the miners don't accept those tx's.

Instead of increasing the total supply, we better find a way to use sub satoshi fees.

A world where a Satoshi is too expensive means that Bitcoin will have absolutely dominated everything. Alts will be innumerable and almost all worthless. I really can't see people being willing to move into something that's going to be vastly more volatile that most people will reject when they attempt to pay for something with it.

I think 2.1Q is enough but even then people can probably find workarounds like the off-chain splitting ralle mentioned.

If all else fails then there's alts. In a world where bitcoin is the main currency, alts would definitely play a larger role than they do today. People can simply convert their satoshi into some other alt and just use that for transaction.

After 20 or 30 years, if the community feels that the circulating supply (21 million coins or 2.1 quadrillion Satoshis) is not large enough, then the community can always split the existing Satoshis to smaller ones by a hard fork. But honestly I don't think that the purpose will arise anytime soon. At least not until BTC overtakes gold in market capitalization.

If you think in that way then why you are still here on bitcointalk and discussing about cryptocurrencies,the reason of cryptocurrency is to eliminate centralised payment system and bring the real value to the the money which we are using.

Internet is almost available everywhere and in future it will be in every corner because we are planning to move to Mars.

We should be realistic in this subject
BTC is not the ideal coin to everyone use around the world, BTC is not easy to use as cash or credit card, a HUGE amount of people doesn't even have access to internet, PCs or smartphones etc
And even with BTC satoshis, it's not enought to serve the world

But if there is a situation everyone started to use cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin become the most preferable crypto still we can use it for the whole well because the smallest unit of Bitcoin is satoshi that is what op is trying to say.

I don't know why you are saying cryptocurrencies will never replace Fiat there are high chances for cryptos to replace most of the banking system in near future.