Topic: Will the need to increase BTC's max supply arise in the future? - page 3. (Read 790 times)

In my opinion, with the current supply of bitcoins 21 million is a slight amount to the whales, even if Bitcoin has been distributed all over the miners, maybe bitcoin is above the peak plus if more and more trends in the community about Bitcoin, the price will still continue to rise because of the supply of a little.

This issue had been discussed even before. It just differ from the previous topic but the thought was in it. The scarcity of bitcoin supply made it more valuable. Imagine, a shitcoin that has 10B supply of token it is useless since you can buy/sell it in a low price. Unlike with bitcoin, there is a volatility. And we all know that the more it fluctuates, the more investors want it to invest. It is good for me to have low supply of bitcoin because as a pioneer of crypto industry, it will be a win-win situation for us. Specially when it moves around 40K dollars above in the future.

Yes and no. I don't think that we will ever need an increase in the max supply, and you have given the reason right there, even if we get very widespread adoption, it'll prolly never go over 500m users, and 10m btc is more than enough, if it isn't, then price will increase and it will fit, as long as the chain can handle the traffic we should be good, there'll be a point where we'll switch from large transactions (0.01 or more btc) and, let's call it regular transaction volumes. To a smaller transactions (sub 0.01) but in much greater volumes, and it'll be dictated once price rises.

IMO, I don't think that is necessary. Since we are talking about the future and talking about the supply, I guess a lot of people are actually using it. That also means the demand is higher making the value of it high so I agree that we should just maybe introduce another denomination or maybe we should't think of that at all since Satoshi might be enough denomination for that.

My best guess is, a lower denomination comes packed with a lower fee as well - as in, you could pay fractions of satoshis per byte (and I think that already could be done without further changes to BTC's structure). If BTC gets to an insane price range such as millions, I doubt the network will still "fight" over the range of sats/byte we currently have as we speak. The more BTC'll be priced, the less sats people will pay for txs - and I think that's quite logical. It'd make no sense to pay hundreds/thousands of bucks per tx, even if we're talking about millions.

In my opinion there is no need to increase the Bitcoin max supply, just fine with 21 million coins. Because there is no need to increase
the supply even Bitcoin can used by everyone in this world. As many people have said, to have Bitcoin you don't need to buy 1 whole
Bitcoin. Moreover, by only having a max supply of 21 million coins, this is what distinguishes it from fiat currency. Because Bitcoin will
become the best store of value.

Using smaller denominations of a Bitcoin is an option. But if fees rise all the way to the moon, it will no longer be feasible. Raising BTC's total supply, should alleviate things a little. If devs still want to keep the 21 million coin hard cap, they'd need to focus on scalable solutions as much as possible. While we already have the Lightning Network, is still not ready for mainstream use. Even in its current state, adoption for second-layer payments is ridiculously low. Maybe it's because people are not aware about the LN or they don't know how to use it?

In the time being, we don't need to worry about raising the 21 million coin limit. Bitcoin will work fine for the rest of our lifetimes. By 2100, I'm sure devs and the community would've found a way to "tackle" many of Bitcoin's limitations. I'd expect a widely-scalable Blockchain network used by millions (if not billions) of people worldwide in a seamless manner. This, alongside high prices on the market (over $100k per coin), should make Bitcoin the best store of value in the whole wide world. If everything works as intended, miners could live off BTC fees without the need to increase the total supply at all. With many Bitcoin forks out there on the market, Bitcoin has essentially "raised" its total supply of 21 million coins. Just my opinion

As for this specific problem (if we can call it that at all), is exactly what we have today embedded in the human value system - millions have actually become too small on that scale, so some are asking why 21 million BTC will not be enough for everyone - which again leads us to the misconception that everyone should have at least 1 BTC - or that it is not possible to buy less of that amount.

When we talk about the last mined block, it should happen around the year 2140, but most forget the fact that in 10 years the percentage of mined BTC will be 99%. For more than 100 years, the total number of BTCs that will remain available for mining will be around 210 000.

I think the opinion of the majority (and mine personally) is that some basic things should not be changed and that they should remain as Satoshi programmed them. Any change in terms of increasing total supply would only be negative.

Personally, I think there is a huge possible for the total supply of Bitcoin to increase considering how the financial systems of the world works. I see the 21 million Bitcoins as the initial budget of the crypto coin to test how the financial economy of the world will accept and cope with it. It is very likely to see the total supply of Bitcoin to be 50 million if the 21 million is exhausted. 21 million of Bitcoins will definitely not be the total supply as the years passes. My reasons are based on how new bitcoins are created whenever a miner confirms a transaction.

I think the core devs already considered that scenario, and surely by that time Bitcoin already became as the global currency. If not then the only choice is to switch from POW to POS or they may introduce a new feature in earning to miners, for instance they can earn just by setting up a node for Bitcoin blockchain network. Like the concept of flash loans or DeFi investment with compounding interest.

In the opinion of many experts, the amount of Bitcoin is exactly 21 million coins, if the Bitcoin supply is enlarged / added, the price of bitcoin will become unstable and will even decrease drastically, they predict that if Bitcoin has been mined all, then the price will be more stable and expensive, so the miners will get adequate fees. most importantly the circulation of the amount of Bitcoin can be evenly distributed throughout the world, and there is no Bitcoin monopoly by the whales.

I believe Satoshi Nakamoto determines the max supply of Bitcoin with full consideration. So increasing the Bitcoin
max supply is not necessary done, because Bitcoin is different from fiat in which Bitcoin is divided into several satoshis.
So everyone in the world doesn't have to owning 1 whole Bitcoin, just 1 satoshi could have a large value in the future.

It good you believe increasing BTC max supply is not the best idea and I don't see it as something important in the future when billion of people is going to use bitcoin cause it shows the purpose of block halving to be meanless cause ATH price of bitcoin market will be affect and what I expect us to be talking about is the solution of things that may hinder the mainstream of bitcoin.

Why are the people so scared about BTC's max supply ? I personally think that it is more than enough because we don't really need 1 whole BTC we could always have it in small amount of Sats.
And Sats could be used for transaction I also don't think that 1 Sat would be $1 in the future so there is no reason for us to worry about the max supply.

no matter how it's implemented, paying for mining security is experimental. we don't know if fees alone will be viable either. that's one of the reasons i'm a small blocker. i want to err on the conservative side re the assumptions we make about security absent a significant mining subsidy. if that damages adoption potential, so be it. adoption shouldn't come at the cost of viability.

there are basically 3 ways we can pay for mining security: 1. fees, 2. inflation, 3. demurrage......or some combination. none of these are attractive to users. nobody wants to pay large amounts just to send money. nobody wants to have their money devalued by inflation. nobody wants to be charged money just for holding it.

still, we need to pay for mining security somehow. and since economics can't be studied empirically/scientifically, we're all just guessing at what the best solution is. we're also tempering that against our own selfish drive towards a tragedy of the commons, where we sacrifice long term viability because we don't wanna pay any of the costs. that's partly what is behind the motivation for big or unlimited block sizes---the other motivation being that it's a marketing point for adoption. you know, "cheap/instant tx".

It will be 21 million Bitcoins at some point, you don't even need to have 1 btc to be a holder. You can hold small amount of Bitcoin since Bitcoin has 8 decimal points and by holding that, in the future when the time comes those small amount of decimal will worth really expensive for each bit i believe

it's unnecessary, what's the point of limited supply then?

Probably not the best idea since having a big supply of bitcoin could easily affect the market price of bitcoin, Stil bitcoin today was still not adopted in a lot of countries that is why bitcoin is getting a very high market price.

In the future when bitcoin becomes a top digital currency for sure billion of people is going to use bitcoin at that point so increasing the supply could help a lot, because the market price might increase in a very high market price if the supply doesn't increase.

That would not be a good idea, it would undermine one of the principles it was built upon. 21m btc stays!!

If the demand for bitcoin keeps growing with time, automatically the small fractions will be valued high. If the supply is increased the demand will fall, and there won't be any difference between the traditional fiat nd the cryptocurrencies.

With traditional fiat whenever required the governments start printing more and more money. This lead to inflation. Continuing the same process with bitcoin won't happen and if such a scenario happens surely bitcoin will also goes worth nothing.

We don't know if 1% would be necessary, or if it would be sufficient. I think that an in-depth analysis would make a great research paper.

It is not clear if it would even be viable. How would you feel about your bank charging you a 1% security fee to hold your money?

To maintain a fixed money supply, the 1% subsidy could be accompanied by a 1% demurrage.