Bitcoin Forum

https://www.coindesk.com/with-18-million-bitcoins-mined-how-hard-is-that-21-million-limit

"In a matter of hours, the 18 millionth bitcoin will have been mined and the world’s first cryptocurrency will draw one step closer to its hard-coded cap of 21 million coins."

“In my opinion, [the 18 million] milestone is not that significant in relation to the next halving which occurs May 2020. … On that date, the block [subsidy] will go from 12.5 BTC to 6.25 BTC.”

Yes guys .....we have almost reached a new milestone for Bitcoin and with the next halving within a matter of months, we might see more people realizing that the available Bitcoin pool is getting smaller and smaller by the day.  ;)

“We need to acknowledge that the 21 million cap is aspirational,” said Walch. “If people decide to change that [supply] cap for certain reasons and enough people make that decision, the system will move to it. It’s aspiration, not reality.”

Honey, it's pure aspiration to expect enough people to agree on any change in anything, let alone the hard cap, let alone what it'll consist of.

I'll be dead or in nappies before this becomes a pressing issue. You young chickens can deal with it.

if this Walch character wishes to "aspire" to a different limit, it's easy, all he's gotta do is change a single line of code. then convince at least 1 other person to do it too, although he could just sit on his own private version of Bitcoin's blockchain forever, I'm sure that'll work out :D

don't think I'll be joining him, but I get the argument: early Bitcoin adopters weren't crazy after all, lets all join in, and completely destroy their money's value! Let's use the same economics that got the world into trillions of dollars of debt instead! ::)

Certainly, I am not going to be stressed thinking of something that can happen not in my lifetime. Let them have all the debate they want to the question if there should be more than 21 million coins, that would certainly not my concern anymore but I am just wishing that cooler heads will prevail. At least, with the help of this forum, future Bitcoin leaders can certainly search for this thread and see how some of us are looking at this issue. I am wondering if there will really be big drought of Bitcoin if no additional supply of this asset can be created...or are we not just dreaming in a broad daylight?

this is unlikely

money supply (and even money itself) is a simple concept that just isn't easy to grasp. It's not difficult to convince people that an inflating supply is good when they benefit in the short term, even people who can understand the concepts are happy to deceive themselves of the opposite if it means they have some short term gain.

Bitcoin was designed to stop all that, but using precious metals was a similar idea that has now ended up very contentious, and surrounded with stupid stories and questionable pundits. We can expect the same for Bitcoin (arguably, it already happened, made many times worse by Bitcoin being so technical)

An endlessly inflating amount of Bitcoin is definitely what is best for the future of the currency. Each year the total amount of gold ever mined in human history increases by about 1.x% (obviously, it fluctuates). Conveniently enough it's normally a percentage amount pretty similar to the % by which the human population grows each year, and so the amount of gold available 'per capita' across the world remains about constant. I think that inflation in the Bitcoin supply year-on-year that approximately follows this model would work well.

your reasoning is "cos gold does it"

that's great. no really

Anyone is welcome to fork bitcoin and add inflation, but it will no longer be bitcoin, it will be something else.
Inflatecoin, whatever.

What is best for bitcoin is to not follow fiat down the road of inflation. It might start at 1%, but then the arguments will be it should be 2,5, or 10% in order to be "fair" and the rate will change and it will have no advantage to fiat.

Please, fork it and go elsewhere and don't try to destroy the real bitcoin.  There are plenty of people who will stick with bitcoin or inflatecoin.

Sorry, it does come off that way. That's not my reasoning, I just got sidetracked on making the point that it already happens with gold.

No cryptocurrency that wants to be taken seriously as a means of exchange is going to be able to be deflationary. I know that the Austrian school of thought says that deflation is good for an economy, but we already have a huge problem with people hoarding Bitcoin (every time I hear HODL I want to self-immolate) and refusing to spend it. Not only does that cause problems economically, but with the design of Bitcoin less transactions is a serious issue as it means there is less of an incentive for miners. That will become more of an issue when the block reward approaches 0. Plus I think that a gentle inflation in the supply would be mostly counteracted by people permanently losing their Bitcoin, so it would be very, very slight. Just enough to mean there aren't deflationary problems.

Well, let's see how it pans out. It's still in plenty of ways a giant experiment and that's one aspect of it. If enough people feel the way you do then I guess they will agree do something about the hard cap. It would have to be an awful lot of 'em.

The 'real bitcoin' is meaningless. Changes have already been made to the protocol that go against what satoshi implemented himself. Unfortunately he's not around for us to be able to know his opinion anymore, but I highly doubt that he would have been steadfast in all his beliefs and refused to accept the idea of any change at all because "it wouldn't be the real bitcoin". If there is a BIP vote to add a gentle inflation in, and miners pass it, that is the 'real' bitcoin, because it's been passed by the same people who give bitcoin its inherent value.


Agreed.

no-one has ever made a cryptocurrency with a deflating supply, "demurrage" is the only experiment I'm aware that was ever tried (it wasn't popular)



I'm no expert on austrian economic school, bt if they do say that, it's a massive oversimplification.

are you sure this isn't your massive oversimplifaction? I'm not



Bitcoin has aggressive inflation now

You're arguing for perpetually gentle inflation.


Guess what? Lucky you, if you read about how Bitcoin works (which you appear to have sidestepped ::) ), you will note that Bitcoin's inflation becomes more gentle every 4 years.

So, if gentle inflation is good, you chose the right currency! It gets gentler all the time, gentle FTW

I'm quite aware on how Bitcoin works. I'm sure you don't need me to explain to you that eventually the block reward will become 0, at which point due to the fact that lost Bitcoins are effectively irrecoverable, the currency will become unintentionally deflationary.

I'm trying to have a proper debate but you have instantly resorted to ad hominem and attacked the authority of the writer (saying I don't know how Bitcoin works, which I clearly do, I've been around since 2012 just like you) rather than actually addressing the points being put forward. It's a shame.

Forks always have their aim at 'destroying' the real Bitcoin because they are obviously MUCH better.

An aspect of forks that I am extremely thankful for is the fact that they have donated free Bitcoin to me in form of dividends. Sure, it required me to sell the garbage that was donated to me, but I got an average price of ~0.19BTC for every BCash that I had. Next was BTG that I got like ~0.03BTC for. Where are you gifted the most precious and sound asset like that? Let the forks come. I'm happily dumping that shit for real Bitcoin.

explanations involve understanding the phenomenon you seek to explain, and you're attempting explanation of something you don't get, or have not sufficiently thought through.


When the supply stops inflating (scheduled 120 years from now), only unrecoverable BTC can possibly reduce the supply. Even if deflation is bad, there is no inherent rate of deflation involved in the supply rate ceasing, it's so simple to understand.

You're speculating, wildly, about a future event for which you and I will both probably have long since died. And there are all sorts of way to handle this that don't involve making the same economic mistakes that literally put us all in this position in the first place, so excuse me if I don't patiently walk you through it Mr. "I've been around since 2012 and therefore should already know better".

saying you don't know what you're talking about is not (and wasn't meant as) an insult, it's a fact

we will stick to bitcoin which has been written on the original white paper by the founder with some changes to date, let core people decide the fate of bitcoin in the future in the year 2041, most of us will not alive until that happens though.
All the forks coins have good value among the crypto market, for example; bch could reach around $4355 in 2017, yes it's a good dividend for us bitcoiners.

I think another pretty big concern that is right up there with the 21 million BTC issue will probably be what's going to happen in several years, when there are new technologies that come out?

Do we really think we'll ever even hit the 21 million Bitcoin? Won't other technology render crypto-currencies and bitcoin obsolete, and turn Bitcoin into the VHS of crypto.

Anyway - if that ever does happen (which I doubt will be happening soon), I'm assuming the transactions fees would just climb higher to accomdate the lack of block rewards?

how so? last i checked, there has been no hard fork since satoshi left. that means that any changes made to the protocol were already compatible with the existing consensus from his time.


actually i think it's rather fortunate. could you imagine if bitcoin had its own vitalik buterin?


the failed 2x fork proved that miners and businesses don't get to make those decisions for the network.

i agree with peter todd that a predictable and very low perpetual inflation rate might have been optimal from a long term security perspective, but it's far too late now to entertain these theories. the user base won't have it. the next best option (the only option really) is to keep limiting block size enough so that fees really do replace the subsidy over time, as satoshi envisioned.

I think most still do not realize how much Bitcoin has left for mining, 3 million is still number which for most means quite a lot, but is actually six times less than what has already been mined. What is even more important fact is that year 2140 as the end of mining does not mean anything for today's generations, but the year 2032 will be important because 99% of all Bitcoins will be mined+and 4 more halvings will happen by then.

Why waste time in the distant future when the most exciting things are likely to happen in the next 5-10 years :)

Out of this 18 million, how many are lost coins? The biggest stash is BTC980,000 which belongs to Satoshi Nakamoto. I am not sure about the exact amount of lost coins, but a few months back I came across an article which claimed that 5 million BTC can't be spent, because no one have the private keys to access those coins. Another study measured the amount of lost coins at 4 million. Here is the breakup:



After 2032, I guess the miners will be getting most of their reward from the transaction fee, and not from the block reward. Because by then the block reward will be only BTC0.78.

And who knows what that 0.78 BTC will be worth by then? It could be zero. It could be enough to buy gender reassignment for all of your nearest and dearest. Mining seems so far to be very good at taking care of itself. I'm going to assume that continues.

That's true, but it still doesn't mean Bitcoin has to increase to some random $xxxk price level, especially when there are many platforms offering CFDs and other similar cash settled contracts to trade the price of Bitcoin.

Gold has been bought a lot into by central banks throughout the years, yet it had no impact on the price at all.... this is because of how many cash settled contract platforms there are allowing people to easily gain exposure to gold.

How hard is the limit? It's much more concrete than the debt ceiling on the central banks around the world.

To change the 21 million limit you'd essentially have to have a hard fork in the network, and I doubt that consensus will be reached in terms of actually changing it since people know that this limit is precisely what gives BTC its intrinsic value in the first place.

People should stop worrying about when we hit that. Miners are still going to be incentivised through transaction fees, and the world isn't going to end.

Exactly, I did not for one moment expect that this whole Bitcoin Cap limit would become an issue in this thread. I think a lot of people think it is easy for a bunch of people to reach consensus on increasing the coin cap, but you only have to look at all the drama we had when we wanted to increase the scaling for Bitcoin <BTC> and the fork war that resulted from that.  ::)

Now, imagine what will happen if a bunch of people want to increase the coin cap and effectively reduce the value of people's current coins.  ::)

Lost coins are definitely an interesting story, but all of these analyzes are mostly based on the assumption that something was lost because it didn't move in a certain amount of time. But I don't think it's a very reliable way of determining the amount that is irretrievably lost, many have no reason to move their coins. I can take myself as an example, let's say I bought 1BTC back in 2015, and did not move it from then - is that lost coin?

Satoshi had his own opinion about this problem which I personally agree with :

Not reliable at all. It reminds me of a situation where I'm not exactly sure if it was this or last year, but there was an address with thousands of coins in it that people assumed were lost due to years of inactivity, but it turned out to be one of Coinbase's older cold wallet addresses.

All these 'x million lost Bitcoins' clickbait headlines are the result of news outlets trying to spin up a narrative to convince people of how scarce Bitcoin is. I don't even consider satoshi's coins to be lost. It may very well be that he is THE holder of last resort. Waiting for the day Bitcoin becomes a reserve currency and he directly the wealthiest entity in the world.

It is that the bcash fork made me move my cold wallet holdings in 2017, but if there was no fork, I today would have had a few cold wallets with 5 years of inactivity, and they would remain inactive until the price of Bitcoin hits $100,000.

Also don't forget the funded 2011/2012 casascius coins that news outlets are blatantly blending into their total number of "lost" Bitcoin. Currently there are 3 active 1000BTC coins, which according to "research" of news outlets are lost too.  ::)

It's something no one should worry about.... there was a debate between Bitcoin and BSV proponents not that long ago, where the BSV camp pointed out how ridiculous it is that a Core dev was brainstorming about more inflation.

I'm pretty sure that most of the fud is coming from that direction because they know very well that brainstorming sessions of developers are just brain farts mostly, and never to actually be proposed in a serious manner. Fud galore!

The 'real bitcoin' is not meaningless.  I agree there have been some changes to "what satoshi implemented himself" - certainly the overflow bug was a change in the implementation (that was about a month after I first read about bitcoin on slashdot and started mining), but there have NOT been meaningful changes to what Satoshi *designed* himself.  Implementations may have bugs, designs may have poor design choices, but the root design precepts have not.  Even if all the miners pass it, that alone is insufficient to make that the 'real' bitcoin, see the UAHF and UASF previously.