Bitcoin Forum

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-devs-can-undo-21-million-cap-but-cannot-force-changes

Bitcoin developers can theoretically remove the 21-million-Bitcoin supply limit from the source code, but miners are unlikely to accept such a change, according to one analyst.

I'm sure this comes as a huge relief for all of you guys.

Then they go on to say this:

Like most other codes, Bitcoin’s source code can be modified, meaning the 21-million limit is theoretically changeable. However, such a change will have to be accepted by miners to be effective, according to Josef Tětek, a Bitcoin analyst at the hardware wallet firm Trezor.

The more people write about how the 21 million limit can be changed, the more its going to get into peoples' heads that maybe it should be changed. That way they could own more bitcoin and get richer. That's how they would think about it.

I mean — not really, because this really isn't anything new to start with. Bitcoin's supply cap is one of Bitcoin's main selling points, so it's very unlikely for the community in general(not just the miners) to support such a huge fundamental change.

That is wrong. The value of Bitcoin doesn't come from miners, but it comes from the community and the users actively transacting with it. Even if the miners were to adopt it, if the community doesn't support it or people don't use it, then Bitcoin becomes useless. It is to their best interests to support the sentiments of the majority given their billions of dollars in investment.

Most people understand basic economics regardless, so the supply cap probably won't gain any traction.

But they can't do that even if they tweak the code right? There's releases and those releases are reviewed by several developers before they can be deployed right? So even if there's one rogue developer that will do just that, I don't think that it's going to get through and the article says theoretically which means they've got no proof even if there's already a code there already that can prove it because it can't really be done.

Actually I see no point in fiddling with the supply cap;

1) If you have no cap at all, then that means kind of unlimited supply and the value will go down the  drain....

2) another higher cap lets say 100 millions, just the same as now just pushed back a couple of years....

3) 2 versions of bitcoins, one with a cap and the other without a cap -sounds not really promising

So I think this topic can be ignored for a long time

:)

Changing that limit would be a hard fork... Especially if you'd also change the rules for the block reward (which you would HAVE to do to increase or remove the supply limit).
Nodes running the "old" fork (with a ~21.000.000 supply limit) will start to reject all blocks whose block reward does not conform to the "old" rules (block reward halving every 210.000 blocks, starting with 50 BTC), and since the "new" fork will need to adjust this logic to replace (or remove) the supply limit, they'll actually HAVE to change this rule.
The fork could probably do something like: wait untill the next halving when the "old" chain's block reward becomes 3,125 BTC, then change the client's sourcecode to keep this block reward forever (disable halving in the future), that way your new chain will be "compatible" with the old chain for another ~4 years, but as soon as the next halving happens, the old chain will start to reject blocks with a 3,125 BTC block reward.

In, the end, you'd have 2 bitcoins: Bitcoin_super_unlimited and Bitcoin. Everybody who controlled unspent outputs on Bitcoin by the time of the fork will have the same value on both chains, and one of them *might* die off (even tough some forks actually exist for a long time, albeit not as popular as bitcoin).

Personally, i don't think you'd have to worry about this as a "normal" user. I think the chances are very slim anybody would tamper with the supply limit and risk a hard fork for something that will probably do the community no good... There are more pressing matters TBH. I worry a lot more wether a solid, mature L2 network will exist by the time the block reward becomes so small we'd have to pay $80 per transaction in order to keep the miners interested in mining bitcoin... I also worry about people spamming the mempool with crap transactions pushing the fee waaaaay up... People that want to start meddeling with the controlled supply aren't even in the top 10 when it comes to worries about our network and our community.

Sometimes I feel like cointelegraph articles are written by artificial intelligence.
Anyone can change the total number of Bitcoins to more than 21 million, and this has already happened, but this requires a hard fork, and then the resulting new coin will not be in the name of Bitcoin and will not be of the same value, and most likely it will not have any value. The reason for this is that there are not 21 million Bitcoins, but ~ 2.1 quadrillion sats which is more than any fiat money.

I am not a tech guy and don't know what could be done and what could not be done. I am sure 90 of Bitcoin users do not care about what are the developers doing. However, a large part of the community knows that the Maximum supply of Bitcoin is 21 Million and it cannot be changed. Since scarcity increases the demand, Bitcoin's price should be more valuable day by day.

Now, If devs make any changes to its supply, I don't see any reason why people still should trust Bitcoin. A lot of us invested in it knowing the max supply cannot be changed. If they could change it to some bigger numbers, and there are more coins in circulation, my Bitcoin will lose value due to oversupply. Bitcoin will become like other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum.

I think many people would oppose if the 21 million bitcoin limit was removed because one of the things that keeps the price of bitcoin going up is the scarcity of bitcoin. If the bitcoin limit is changed, for example, to 100 million, I am sure the price of bitcoin will fall and perhaps people's trust in bitcoin will drop drastically because bitcoin is no different from fiat which can be controlled for the interests of certain groups

Apart from that, more bitcoin does not make someone richer because the price of bitcoin will definitely fall and will not be like the current price. Moreover, if people's trust in Bitcoin is lost, Bitcoin's glory will collapse and it will no longer have high value.

That CT article would be accurate if word "Bitcoin devs" replaced with "anyone".


Not really, anyone who somewhat familiar with Bitcoin technical detail would just say it's something obvious.


Actually it's one of less worse CT articles i've read. My only major complaint is they treat Bitcoin Core source code as source of truth when it's supposed to be reference implementation.

If people did think about it in the manner you describe, then I think they are setting themselves for a huge fall. One of the things Bitcoin is synonymous with, is the fact it will have a limited 21 million supply. Without a maximum supply it will be less appealing to investors. Look at Dogecoin for example, it has an unlimited supply but do we want Bitcoin to go the same way?

It will never happen because miners simply would not cooperate. If in some extremely likely event this was to happen then Bitcoin is dead. Thankfully it will not happen.

The Bitcoin ecosystem is resilient, in my opinion. The source code can be changed, but miners and the community have the true power. This decentralized decision-making mechanism underpins Bitcoin's integrity. I believe the Bitcoin community would fight any attempts to dilute its primary value offer. Not only code, but collective trust and belief.

Dont forget these talks' educational value. Bitcoin's fundamentals are better understood every time this question comes up due to considerable debate and study. Bitcoin's long-term health and adoption depend on this. These debates allow the community to reaffirm its commitment to the values that have made Bitcoin a financial revolution.

Bitcoin has its value because of limited total supply, caps at 21 millions.

The Bitcoin developers don't need to remove it and make a bigger total supply. Bitcoin community have no need to increase it because it will cause inflation and price will decrease. With increasing total supply from 21 millions to 42 millions, price will decrease like 50%. People will no longer believe in Bitcoin when it happens, as if it can be doubled from 21M to 42M, in future it will be able to double more to 84M. No cap at all and we already see how the US. dollar and many fiat currencies lose their purchasing power with inflation.

How is the 21 Million Bitcoin Cap Defined and Enforced? (https://blog.lopp.net/how-is-the-21-million-bitcoin-cap-defined-and-enforced/)
Purchasing Power of the U.S. Dollar Over Time (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/purchasing-power-of-the-u-s-dollar-over-time/)

Is anyone here like me, I find it a bit strange that since the bitcoin ETFs was approved, topics and questions about bitcoin supply have been appearing more and more? There are even more proposals to change the bitcoin supply.

If the supply of bitcoin changes, it only proves that bitcoin has become centralized and the future will likely be like fiat, gradually losing value until it becomes useless. I hope developers, miners will never agree to this stupid idea.

Limited supply is not the only factor that helps bitcoin achieve its high value, but it is an important factor as well as what differentiates bitcoin from other centralized assets in the world. It's stupid that someone came up with the idea of changing the supply and spreading it in the past few days.

You're not the only one in question about the sudden interest in topics everywhere in the crypto space about Bitcoin surpassing it's 21 million supply, especially after the ETF approval. This theory might be to test the waters to see people's reaction about the possibilities of Bitcoin surpassing the 21 million. I don't think that it'll be a good development for Bitcoin investment if this were to happen, because this is one of the researched reason why many people invested in it, knowing that the limit will always create scarcity in the future which will make it to continue to retain it's value and relevance. I hope that the propaganda remains in theoretical level and it'll not be practical now or in the future.

Bitcoin Spot ETFs need to buy many bitcoins but I believe they know that increasing the total supply is not good for them and for all. The value of Bitcoin is from its total supply and of course other factors but it's undeniable that with only 21M bitcoins in total supply, it helps Bitcoin and Bitcoin Spot ETFs are unique. The only Spot ETF type with limited supply.

Bitcoin Spot ETF Tracker (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482670.0). Investors in Grayscale exits but other investors are participating in and we will have more new investors, more new big capital to join this market.

https://www.coinglass.com/pro/gray/Grayscale

It will end up in this list https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/forks

If someone really think they can change the protocol, they should try by themselves to make pull request and let's see what the response they will get from the developers.

However, we need to give credit to @Kakmakr because cointelegraph is quoting his post. :P (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482236.msg63528416#msg63528416)

https://imgvb.com/images/2024/01/24/3e822842a6bdd372982cf21f14e55f77.png

Changing the "21 million supply" code from the Bitcoin source code is a very big change from Bitcoin and it not only requires approval from the miners, but also from the community which has always appreciated the 21 million Bitcoin supply as an advantage of Bitcoin and that makes it different compared to fiat whose supply can be increased at will.
I think that if one of the parties submitted a request to change this supply, most people in the community would not agree to it because it would be the same as changing the basis of Bitcoin and disrupting Satoshi's vision where he said that the supply of Bitcoin would remain at 21 million and it will not increase forever and it is appropriate for us to throw away this desire because it will only erase Bitcoin's credibility.

I have a stupid question:

With all the new ETF Funds coming on the market, what happens if the funds buy all the existing 21 million bitcoins, in hope of future price increases ?

If no fund is selling bitcoins and no new bitcoins are created,there is no market,  that could lead to a major sell off, because nobody wants to be the last seller with the lowest price...

So will be interesting to see how the ETF Approval will play out finallly....

Bitcoin doesn't have a set FIAT price... It's supply and demand... There'll always be people willing to sell if the price is high enough, and people to buy when it's low enough.
If the ETF funds are hell-bent on buying 21.000.000 BTC, it would be impossible, since a big chunk is either lost or not yet mined as coinbase rewards. But even if they wanted to buy every available BTC, they'd probably have to pay billions of USD per BTC for the last satoshi's.

If the demand is bigger than the supply, the price will rise... And that's the situation you're describing. If an ETF fund is hell bent on buying up all the BTC on the exchanges, sellers will increase the price since there is a limited supply and ETF funds and "normal" investors have to outbid each other to get their hands on some BTC. At some point, long time holders will be enticed to exchange their holdings aswell.

A good amount of Bitcoin are yet to be mined. Also a lot of Bitcoins are lost and almost 1.1 million Bitcoins are locked in a wallet which is believed as Satoshi's wallet. So there is no way these fund houses will be able to buy the entire circulation. Every buy transaction needs a seller as well. If big fund houses starts buying Bitcoin in bulk, majority of the minors will probably choose not to sell them. The situation is lot more complicated than we can think.

If there is no circulation, Bitcoin's price may come to zero. Because any currency system thrives on how much it is being used and not on how much is on holding. So there is a very high possibility of the market collapse if one or two corporates try to capture the entire circulation of Bitcoins.

Simple example why more doesn't mean richer:

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/01/24/kPpom.jpeg

Hope that settles this and don't have to write 500 lines and reasons why this is wrong!

Oh also:

This is BS!
Bitcoin hashrate is around 5 million worth of S19, to think there are more than 1 million unique individual miners in the world is nuts.

OK, valid points- so lets just talk about the available Bitcoins and the Bitcoins that will be mined in the future.

If funds control a large chunk of the available Bitcoins, and maybe only 10 percent of the Bitcoins are waiting to be mined in the future. Then the funds will maybe look at their options.

Funds are generally set up to make a return of investment, lets say they look for 10 percent per year. If the prices for Bitcoins deliver this on average the funds will be happy - all cool. But if the prices go so high that the trading volume goes seriously down, that indicates at this high price level there are very few buyer willing to pay this level

. So maybe as a fund manager if you see this coming you will try to get out early, as long as there are enough buyer for all your bitcoins at the current price level......

So in my view there are certain risks regarding Bitcoin prices going up forever....

So what then is the essence of convincing people about what's only theoretically proven but not practically proven could be change? Because the truth of the fact remains  that the limitation place on the total amount of Bitcoin in circulation is simply the reason why Bitcoin has the value it has today. That is due to the law of demand and supply, which illustrate that the "when the demand of a product is higher than it's supply, then the price goes up" but "when the supply of a product is higher than it's demand, then the price decreases". Hence I support developers need to leave Bitcoin the way it was initially created, because we never can tell, a slight modification can alter a different thing altogether.

woah. are you sure? if it requires a hard fork then i guess that offers a bit more protection to the bitcoin community.


yeah i don't know how they would get around that.

Forfeit of stale addresses will get pushed bigly down the road.

And address not doing a withdrawal after 40 or 50 years is stale and is forfeited back into rewards.

To me this may happen in 2060 or later not now.  I can see the argument of why it will be done. Also every argument against it is meh to me.

I will be 103 in 2060 it would be fun to get that old just to see if I am right.

They will end in a list of Bitcoin forks that are all altcoins, not Bitcoin. Most of those forks are dead projects or not dead but can not succeed like Bitcoin because they lack of competent and skillful developers and strong communities which are vital elements for successful projects.

List of Bitcoin forks (https://forkdrop.io/list-of-bitcoin-forks)
How many Bitcoin forks are there (https://forkdrop.io/how-many-bitcoin-forks-are-there)

We can quickly check quality of those projects by checking their Githubs that lack of development activities (commits) and surely can not compare with serious development activities on Bitcoin Github.

Or according to another hypothesis, someone deliberately wants to destroy bitcoin so they made this proposal. Previously there was virtually no way to stop the growth of bitcoin, and no one could destroy bitcoin. But with the idea of increasing the supply of bitcoin, that would make bitcoin more centralized and it would be easier to destroy bitcoin. I don't think this kind of idea being spread has any good intentions and it's clear that someone hasn't given up on destroying bitcoin.

Really bad things will happen if developers and miners agree to increase the bitcoin supply.

I don't know why so many topics about changing 21 million bitcoins have been posted lately just because Dimon said it would be changed. Anyone who knows anything about Bitcoin already understands how this works. Yes, the core devs, or you, or anyone, can change the limit, and in doing so it would be a hard fork which would create an altcoin and Bitcoin would keep going with the 21 million cap.

Dimon's statement about changing the cap was so stupid nobody should even be thinking about it for a second, you just laugh off the crazy lies Dimon says about Bitcoin. Really no need for people to go on and on about changing the cap just because one bitcoin hater lied about it recently. Everyone in Bitcoin knows the cap can't be changed, all you can do is create an altcoin with a different cap.

As far as I know, Satoshi himself included in the Bitcoin code the removal of the limit on 21 million bitcoins in 2140 after the end of mining. This is a little-known feature of the code. But as far as I know, this was cut from the code early on in Bitcoin. Now we can only argue whether this is good or bad. In general, we would not have lived to see this period in any case. After all, 2140 is very far away. Even our grandchildren will not live to see it. And it is unknown whether Bitcoin itself will remain by that time. Perhaps by then its technology will be outdated and we will, for example, carry out transactions with the power of thought).

This will never happen. For various reasons, but the most obvious one is that your hypothetical would mean there is literally nobody interested in owning or continuing to own bitcoin, while for some reason people interested in the ETFs have numerous trillions of dollars to pump into BTC ETFs. And of course there are plenty of people who simply would keep on holding on to bitcoin as the price rises, maybe sell a little bit and get rich off that and keep holding long term.


Anyway the market for Bitcoin ETFs is tiny compared to the entire market cap of bitcoin. Maybe ETFs end up owning a tenth of the supply in the long run.

And, If there was no market for bitcoin there would simply be no market for bitcoin. This would have already happened. There is no reason why ETFs existed would suddenly make it so there was no longer any market for bitcoin. Why would tens of millions (eventually hundreds of millions, and billions) of people suddenly decide they no longer want bitcoin just because ETFs exist, while at the same time billions of people decide that they want bitcoin but only wrapped in an ETF package. This sort of thing just doesn't happen in economics. You're essentially asking what if there was no market for bitcoin, well then bitcoin would be at zero already, which it isn't, and ETFs don't do anything to make that happen.

That's really not how human psychology ever works. People WANT to buy when something becomes more valuable. Bitcoin going up forever, first of all assumes people keep buying, and also as a result they will keep buying because people want to own assets that grow their wealth.

Funds, ETFs, people, companies, govts, etc, they are all just market participants. There is no "funds" that acts as a single entity. You're talking about what happens when a significant amount of market participants decide the price is too high and they sell. Well we know what happens, and it is completely normal. We see it all the time in Bitcoin, we see it all the time in any asset. The price goes down, and people who understand the value of the asset buy in cheaper. This literally happens in a big way every four years with Bitcoin. It's not some hypothetical, just look at the market cycles. Hell just look at the monthly volatility. just look at what happened this month. Price dropped 20% because people decided to get out for a bit. That's all you are describing. You aren't describing some doomsday scenario when people suddenly decide they don't like owning assets that increase their wealth and everyone sells bitcoin to zero for the reason that it is so successful haha. ;p

Thank you for your reply. It is just for a short time now I have a more detailed look at Bitcoin. What I learned is that there are plenty of angles to Bitcoin.....

Actually in 2013 I was asked to buy some Bitcoins, but I was doubtful about the future of Bitcoin, my main concern was to go to bed wealthy and wake up and Bitcoin could be worthless because of a hack or so.

Anyway good luck for all here :)

In the scenario you mentioned in the OP, if there is no hard fork there would be no alteration to the supply. It would split the chain again and those that wanted the newer increased chain to be what they deemed to be the real Bitcoin would use it and those that rejected it would keep using the chain that is being used now.

As an example, when BTC was forked to create BCH (under the guise of it being the real Bitcoin) the supply remained 21 million but as time went by it was clear BCH was rejected by the masses and was never considered as the real Bitcoin and I would be inclined to think the same would happen if there was another fork but this time to increase the supply.

Can you prove that statement? I'm not sure if we know for sure that there couldn't be some way to inflate the supply in a controlled manner without doing a hardfork.


And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. technically though it doesn't really increase the total supply of 21M. it just makes more of it useable.


As it should be. Someone that doesn't touch their money for 40 or 50 years clearly doesn't need it. Let it be used by people to do some good.



I'm not sure anyone said it WOULD be changed, they just said it COULD be changed. Theoretically. Now maybe they are trying to stir up a bit of controversy by even bringing it up to make bitcoin look worse than it actually is but that's a different issue I guess.

I don't think the bitcoin network has any way of counting how many bitcoin all the utxo's add up to other than adding them up the long way and if they happened to add up to more than they should for this particular point in time, I don't think there's anything they could do about it. You might say that can't happen that they add up to more than they should for this particular point in time. Hopefully not but if they did then something went wrong and it can't be fixed.  :o

Huge relief from what? Anyone who learned the basics of Bitcoin always understood this. We don't need any analysts to tell us that. This could only be interesting to some outsiders who are thinking about buying Bitcoin, or to those who bought BTC without doing any research.

If it is a question just to hypothetically inflate/increase the numbers then I would be speculating but it probably could be amended and pushed out as an update without the need for a fork. In reality, if the supply was to be altered those holding the current coin should be able to select which fork is the chain they accept with consensus.

It would be interesting to read what a developer thinks is or is not possible about altering the supply cap.

not every change to the bitcoin core necessarily results in a hard fork. people just go along with many of the changes. i could see something like that happening where most of the people using bitcoin were oblivious to how it worked or anything like that and a very tiny group of people just snuck in changes however they wanted them to be. and that would be that!

we are a very tiny minority (here on this forum) of all the people using bitcoin. the more popular bitcoin becomes, the more tiny we get. and the public at large wouldn't even know anything about how bitcoin works. so if that's the type of audience that the core devs have to work with then they might be able to sneak in a max supply increase. it wouldn't really affect them (the public) anyway to the extent that they would really notice (not at first!). if the government can print money out of thin air then i guess bitcoin can too. :o

not to get too far OT but isn't that what all this Bitcoin ETF is about, pretending like you're buying bitcoin on a stock exchange but in reality no one really knows if that bitcoin really exists...so in a sense, there's some overinflation possibility already. but its fake overinflation but that can still hurt people.

Just because some fraudulent bankster said something somewhere that nobody even heard, it doesn't mean anybody had any concerns to be relieved now :D

As for the supply, there are certain things that are considered Principles of Bitcoin, capped supply is one of them and it is impossible to change any of these principles specially without any reason.

Any change that is not backward compatible is a hard fork. Changing the supply is one of them and it is not a change that you can just "sneak in" without people noticing!!!

value stored in byte form on the blockchain is measured in sats..
yep the blockchain does not understand what a BTC is
btc however is just a GUI expression (just math multiplication at display level of software)
expressing sats amounts in a more compact way for visual ease of user experience

the REAL RULES of bitcoin is actually
starting from 5000000000 units awarded per block, where rewards half every 210,000 blocks

without breaking any code of unit audit rules of the blockchain. coalitions of economic nodes(merchant services/exchanges), devs and mining pool nodes can simply decide that a btc is not sats/100m but sats/1m where by someone with legacy 0.5btc now has 50btc in new math and there being 2.1b btc total eventual circulation, and would not break the unit logic of blockchain data to cause more units. thus no need to even need hardforks or breaking of blockchain logic

EG gold exchanges changing from "gold"=1kg to "gold"=1 ounce to "gold"=10grams.. without having to find/mine more actual gold

..
devs can also break the blockchain logic rules. to cause more units to be produced per block in multiple ways. such as not half every 210,000 block. but this would require majority consensus (again though mainly just the devs, economic nodes and mining pool nodes), where by users nodes would just update blindly to stay in communication and in sync with the services of the network

There'll be always technical people and group who watch Bitcoin Core development though. It's also worth to mention such change can't be done stealthily since not everyone use Bitcoin Core.


Yeah, but such problem is outside of Bitcoin network. Although people who buy Bitcoin through ETF wouldn't even think about it.

It's scary to think that if miners and devs are from a same group that want to make a huge change like increasing the 21-million limit, it could happen in the future. It's unlikely though bc they don't have the incentive to do it yet.

you're right after all. BTC is just an informal definition for "100 million satoshis". satoshis have a meaning. you can't make more of them. their supply is fixed.

the problem with that is it doesn't really increase the supply. everyone still has the same percentage ownership of the blockchain as they did before you redenominated what a bitcoin is.

pretend like all the bitcoins have been mined. then you have x% ownership of that total. no matter how you rename a bitcoin or anything. contrast that with if the block reward did not go to zero and there was no max supply then that x% ownership would become less and less over time. no matter how you define a bitcoin or anything.

but no one is going to pay more for "gold" than they did before you renamed 1kg to only 1 ounce unless they like giving money away. their lifetime savings at that.

but doesn't that take us back to a "hard fork"? but they wouldn't spin it like that they would say it is necessary for bitcoin. and say satoshi's million bitcoin or however many he has are gone forever so we might as well recover those by introducing an inflating supply to counteract people like satoshi who lose their bitcoin or never use it. 21 million in active circulation is different than just 21 million issued. so i kind of can understand why it would be good to have 21 million in active circulation if the goal is for bitcoin to be used worldwide in as many ways as possible by as many people as possible...



that's why i think something like that could happen. so many people just blindly go along with whatever the download on bitcoin.org is. they don't question anything. they just want to run bitcoin.

If you view Bitcoin as having "only" 21 million "Bitcoins", that sounds like a kind of very limited number of coins you can buy.

If you view Bitcoin as having 21 million x 100 million Satoshis, that sounds like an pretty high number of units.

Good luck to explain to someone that an idiotic high amount if units (Satoshis), that can be sold individually, are a sure bet to increase in value.....

Just saying....

When it is time for people to consider how many satoshis they can buy with capital they have, it will be a time for very lucrative value of Bitcoin.

Satoshi per dollar (https://charts.bitbo.io/satoshi-per-dollar/) is an interesting chart and today we will get about 2,500 satoshi per dollar. I believe Bitcoin will continue to grow in its value so the possible bought satoshi with one dollar will decrease and become smaller than 2,500 satoshi/ dollar.

that's because it is.

that's because it is!


you can't do anything with an individual satoshi. that's one of the scams in bitcoin is having small amounts trapped in a wallet that you can't spend unless you put more money in. ever heard of that game throw good money after bad?  :o but if you're going to be in the bitcoin game you have to accept some things. one of those being that a certain amount of satoshis might be worthless...

https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/what-bitcoin-dust/

Dust is merely a term for small amounts of bitcoin; you have it in your wallet; it’s yours as those funds are attributed to your private key. However, the value is so tiny it’s currently unusable and unspendable.


as an example: you want to pay for a cup of coffee with your shiny new bitcoin wallet. the problem is, it only has $3 worth of bitcoin in it. but the transaction fee is $10. you're better off carrying cash.

average joe cant handle large numbers like receiving 625000000 sats, they prefer 2 decimal numbers
and the stupid part of mass psychology of economics is people also dont like to receive 0.78125, as it feels small..  so in 8 years we will start to see people want to shift the decimal when explaining whole block coin rewards
there have been many discussions as to no longer want to talk about whole btc and instead use mbtc where 0.78125 btc is the same as 781.25mbtc
or even jump straight to ubtc aka bits(100sat) where in 8 years, 0.78125000 may be called  781250.00bits

but then there has been a tribe of people screaming that if we start measuring in mbtc or ubtc, by calling new names like "bits" that people will be confused thinking it breaks or deletes or isnt bitcoin any more but some other altcoin. so they want to name mbtc or ubtc as "bitcoin" by them saying that instead of saying 1KG of gold was just "gold". and 1 ounce of gold is now "gold"
where they rename 781250.00bits to be 781250.00 "bitcoin"

OK.... I just try to understand the implications of these unit seizes.....

Satoshi tried to make sure that there are enough units when he created Bitcoin. Because the plan was to make it impossible to inflate the total amount of units. So in case Bitcoin goes to the masses there are no shortages in suppy. Kind of like IP addresses. In a closed system all fine.

But Bitcoin is interacting with fiat currencies and has a kind of dynamic exchange rate, currently about 45 000 USD per Bitcoin or maybe 2,500 satoshi/ dollar.
Now imagine a point in the future where the rate is 100 satoshi / dollar. This would make current Bitcoin holder very rich, 1 million USD per Bitcoin.

What happens if developer come up with an offer with similar options as Bitcoin, maybe called Titcoin and lower transcation fees and people start using Titcoin, that would mean Bitcoin would become kind of worthless, as there would be no buyer, because they can get the same or better functionality from Titcoins.......

And then the cycle starts again......

lets forget about the creator coming back.. there is no back door take-over secret key. so lets abolish that narrative

however
if core devs and their sponsors seen that people wont buy whole bitcoins due to deflation making bitcoin a large lump of fiat to buy 1btc and also due to bitcoin network fee's cant trade single sat denominations.. this causes a small window of utility of 0.0x -> # <- 0.00005xxx where people can function inbetween
so the devs and sponsors made a subnetwork they want to push people onto. which had some new currency unit the bitcoin network did not understand which is called 'msat' which is
1sat=100000msat
or also
1btc=10000000000000msat
(reminder/emphasis: the bitcoin network does not understand msat and would need to break all blockchain audit logic and value understanding to make it understand msat)
so these msats are not bitcoin network understood units, but units created in the subnetwork to peg at a 1sat=100000msat IOU rate

where the idea is that they want the bitcoin network to be kinda useless, expensive, annoying to average joe,
annoying to use and a slim window of sats utility people can function within, where the hope is people abandon using bitcoin and lock bitcoin value to then use pegged IOU's valued in msats which they will never get to settle/claim back to bitcoin(due to closing session fee's) and instead spend away their value to institutions within the subnetwork, who when all value is spent by the user, the institution on the other side of the subnetwork channel then settles back to claim the bitcoin sats as their hoard

..
now welcome to the real conversations of real things happening right now.. instead of the FUD religious rhetoric of satoshi resurrections

i prefer no decimal places or at most two. and the reason is, for the us dollar nothing goes below the 2nd decimal place. that's the penny. it doesn't get any smaller than a penny. there is no unit of physical currency smaller than the penny. and a penny is usable. you can use it as a part of a transaction. take it from anywhere and throw it in a transaction. if someone sets a low enough price you can even buy something with that penny not even using anything else. unlike bitcoin. a satoshi is worthless by itself. you can't use a single satoshi. that's one thing i find unattractive about bitcoin is that dust limit thing. very confusing and i'm sure there's millions of dollars of "dust" that is lost forever.  :o

You never know the future. Not so long ago some people were thinking the same of a single Bitcoin, now they are digging up landfills to find an old Harddrive with a couple of Bitcoins on it...

:)

Bitcoin would have to skyrocket in price for a single satoshi to be worth picking up off the ground I would think. In other words, skyrocket way higher than to 1BTC=$1,000,000. Because even if bitcoin was worth that much which it might never be, a satoshi wouldn't even be worth a single penny. imagine that. :o

If their mindset is like that, then what about the basic principle of Bitcoin that only 21 million Bitcoins are available.


Developers have access to introduce whatever they want, including canceling the 21 million Bitcoin supply limit, but they cannot force changes on anyone.
In theory, if they change the fixed supply of Bitcoin, it will only increase the number of Bitcoins for them, but financially they suffer huge losses because the price of Bitcoin continues to fall due to the increasing supply.

Bitcoin's code is available for everybody to play with. It is public. So, anybody can change the codes as they deem perfect. No need for any permission. And then they can run their own version, too. That's it. Anybody who wishes to change the total supply of Bitcoin can download the software, tinker on the part about supply cap, and voila! You now have your own version of Bitcoin that has 1 trillion in supply limit. Enjoy your version!

By the way, the title is wrong. Undo is a wrong term. Redo might be more apt.