Bitcoin Forum

I was wondering, if somewhere in future consensus wants more then 21 millions coins due to some reason. I mean, if everyone over network accepts they want 2-3 millions coins more then would it be possible to generate/mine more coins? Or "21 million point something something.. up 10 decimal digits Bitcoin generation" is hardwired in DNA of protocol?

Why would we need to? More decimal points can be implemented so I don't think it's needed.

I agree with Yatsey. Also, the capacity to increase the number of available bitcoins would cause inflation, which is something Bitcoin is trying to avoid.

edit: To add some weight to Yatsey's opinion, there was 1.23 Trillion in USD circulating globally as of Jan 15th. That's 1,230,000,000,000 dollars. Considering cents, you have a possible 123,000,000,000,000 units of USD in circulation. Compare that to 21,000,000,000,000 uBTC. If we ever get to the point where BTC is accepted as much or more than USD, a single BTC, or even uBTC, will be worth so so much.

Seems like you skipped heart of my question. Forget decimal points.  Lets assume a hypothetical situation- that consensus wants to add more Bitcoin for 'x' reason. Then, will it possible?

What I want to know is, are codes of Bitcoin protocol divided into various categories. Like.. scripts/codes/section of protocol that can be altered or modified and others section of codes that can't be modified and will always stay same(giving a damn to consensus wish). Here, I think 1 block per/10 minute is heart of Bitcoin algorithm belongs to section that can not be altered even if consensus wants. Right or wrong?

And here goes question.
1. Is protocol divided in 2 categories? Scripts/sections that can be modified and that can not be modified.

2. If yes then which basic things belongs to which category. (Basic things includes..1 block/minute, 21 million coins, wallet address compitable with Bitcoin protocol.. and any other you can think of)

It doesn't matter. It's not needed so it's a moot point. The protocol can be changed to add more decimals so that's all we need.

Adding more coins would be against the currencies deflationary nature.

Technically the number could be raised (AFAIK), however it doesn't seem to be a likely solution to any foreseeable problems.

To answer the actual question:

Yes, the number of coins can be increased if there is network consensus. Right now, the network will reject any block where the miner awards himself more than the well-known block reward which is currently 25 BTC. If the majority of the nodes runs a modified client where miners are allowed to award themselves, say, 100 coins, then that will be possible.

If it will ever be possible to gain consensus on this matter is an entirely different question.

Technically yes, practically very tough in that period ( Assuming it will be after most of the bitcoins are already generated. )

Another financial technique to increase supply is fractional reserve, but I am sure we dont want that.. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Regards

why should be more than 21mil?

The number is fixed at 21 million, it won't be raised.  It's a deflationary currency for a reason.

It's divisible by 100 million times, so if anything the smaller units would gain in value, as the number of Bitcoins decreased.

For example, people would send eachother mBits and Satoshis instead of full BTC.  One Satoshi could theoretically be $1 some day.   :D

To change the protocol in this way would be going against the fundamentals of what Bitcoin is about.

A little change in the following code may help u to achieve what u want...

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7202d9d9bf6e7442ea8e945b271dcec079ff5239/src/main.cpp#L999

But, the point is, u r running a fork then...

People keep arguing with the purpose of your question instead of the question itself.

To answer directly; yes it is possible to increase the total number of coins, the coin rewards (adjust the curve), the block times, etc. Bitcoin is just software. Just like it's possible to screw up Windows by releasing Vista, it's possible to screw up Bitcoin by increasing the coin limit.

I'm not sure what elements exactly are 'hard-wired' in, but I would assume it would only be the addresses/block chain structure - everything else is malleable. Also as someone else mentioned; since we have the block chain TO DATE, someone could modify pretty much anything they want and release a fork. If enough miners accept it (or a consensus of miners) - then that will become the new Bitcoin in terms of total network capacity.
One interesting thing that can happen is 2 Bitcoin forks running side by side that are just SLIGHTLY competing in some ideological or technological way - would be confusing as hell but you'd essentially have 2 different balances (one on each fork, assuming you're using them).

Hope that helps!

As others have said adding more coins isn't needed nor warranted. There's a thread about adding more decimal places by Gavin here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833.0

Technically yes it would be doable to do it if thats what people decided they want.


As others said though thats not going to happen you can  add more decimal places instead and that's a much more safe and accepted approach.

If everyone agrees, anything can be changed in Bitcoin protocol without fork. But I doubt adding 2-3 millions coins is a thing everyone agrees with :)

No need for more since you can go many decimal spaces.... And why think about something like that when you wont be alive when all coins are mined?

How do you get everyone to agree though?

I was wondering this. Can the developers implement something that maybe most people don't want or isn't that great for the system? How do we vote on wether something is good or not or what happens if it's a split decision?

to get everyone to agree would be something like a bitcoin-QT version x.blah.. where each block suddenly rewards 50coins again and the reward halving is adjusted to make another 5mill coins dropping again. and thus everyone who upgrades their client is obviously in agreement that its what they want.
the opposing side where people do not want the new protocol would simply not download the update. and carry on using the old protocol. that is how bitcoin voting works. if you want protocol changes, download the update. if you dont, then stick with old versions of bitcoin. it may cause a fork and obviously the people with most users on whichever fork win. where value stays the same. and the least users find that they cannot transfer funds to the majority/exchanges/friends/and thus their fork becomes useless.

now from my point of view if bitcoin was to change the limit, the value would crumble to nothing, because once users realise that bitcoin is being flooded with another x amount of coins, the supply vs demand changes. and ontop of this the trust that value would hold/increase would disapear. and along with that people will start to think, if they can mess with the limit once. what is stopping them from doing it many times. and as such bitcoin would be useless as a store of value.

so there is no point in increasing the limit. it wont help anyone personally, and wont help the purpose of bitcoin.

Thanks Rannasha! You perfectly understood my question. It seldom to see perfect communication happening between people with two different frame of mind. Thanks again!

So, should I conclude that everything.. every code in Bitcoin protocol is depended on consensus. If they(unity) wants then can change anything about Bitcoin whether it be block generation/hour, or reward or address compatible with Bitcoin protocol. Hey, I've one more thing to ask, what if in future there are two different forks with some different 'governing rules' ... at that time, coins from one fork would be acceptable in other?If yes, then won't be it just like foreign currency which can be inter-converted?