Bitcoin Forum

As in modifying the code on an agreement with all parties involved, is there a chance people might want more than 21 million Bitcoins?

Precisely zero.

Pretty good chance it will happen if bitcoin survives long enough into the future. Given the right leaders and the right circumstances the masses can be manipulated to support anything you can possibly think off. They got manipulated to support hitler. They got manipulated to support a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anything is possible.

5flags I will accept your answer but it happened with dogecoin it turned into an inflationary currency over night, why was that so?

If that happens I would be really upset and alot of others too will be upset.  I dont think the ones that have the most bitcoins would want that to happen surely it wont be allowed to happen.  Hence reason why Litecoin and others are here.

dogecoin was inflationary in design from the very beginning.  There was a discussion at one point (in December and January) about changing this to remove the inflationary design.  Generating consensus is nearly impossible, and so the developers decided to leave it the way it was.

It was not "turned into an inflationary currency over night".  Instead, it was realized that modifying the core protocol once a consensus based currency has become popular is nearly impossible and so the decision to change it was abandoned.

It might be possible to convince a significant portion of the population to fork off from bitcoin into an inflationary currency.  There will remain a commited set of idealists that will refuse to use the new currency, and they will continue to call their currency "bitcoin".  It will be up to the users of the forked coin whether they want to create a huge amount of confusion by using the same "bitcoin" name for their altcoin.


A significant percentage of the population can be manipulated to support anything, but bitcoin is a consensus system.  Hitler did not manipulate 100% of the population to support him.  There were many who refused, and who actively acted against him.  There was not 100% support for any of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.  All of those wars had individuals who publicly spoke out against them.

all parties involved ...did u say so ? I'll leave a family note to run a full node even after 2140 and not to accept more than 21m ...u wont get a full consensus, so u wont ever succeed to make bitcoin inflationary.

What percentage need to support it? Is a majority of full nodes sufficient?

Thanks for the response guys.

No.

Bitcoin is a consensus system.  You need 100% to change.

If 2 people refuse to change their software, then they will continue to communicate with each other as peers and will continue to operate the old protocol.  They will continue to call their system "bitcoin", and their system will still be the original "bitcoin". Any other system will be an altcoin.

Now if the majority decide to call their altcoin "bitcoin" as well, there will be much confusion, and a lot of complications.  The more people that choose to switch, the less confusion there will be, and the more likely that the new system will not fail.  At that point you'll have most people calling the new inflationary system "bitcoin", and a set of idealists calling the old system "bitcoin" and using whatever derogatory slang they like for the new system.

Think about it this way...

If Satoshi had decided to call his invention "dollars" instead of "bitcoins" (and left everything else in the design exactly the same), would the fact that the vast majority of people were using a different system called "dollars" have meant that his "dollar" system would automatically switch behavior to be the same as the "dollar" system that everyone else was using?  Obviously not.  There would just be a lot of confusion with two different monetary systems both called "dollars".

Here's another way to look at it.  If the creators of dogecoin had decided to name their system "bitcoin" (and leave everything else about dogecoin exactly the same), there would obviously be a lot of confusion as people tried to talk about exchanging legacy "bitcoins" for "new bitcoins" or vice versa.  However, the fact that the new "bitcoin" (dogecoin) (an inflationary altcoin based on the legacy bitcoin protocol) is popular and has many users does not mean that the original "bitcoin" system has become inflationary.

Even in the very unlikely case that half the network supported an increase in the money supply, what would happen is that we'd end up with two coins: bitcoin (as is) and inflate-a-coin.  No one can force another user to accept inflate-a-coin and I know many people will continue to support bitcoin.  Remember, bitcoin is not a "democracy" and even popular opinion cannot force a change to the protocol.  

Viewing coin supply from the environmental lens, there are already cries that bitcoin's inflation consumes too much energy.  So increasing the mining reward when the distribution of coins was already efficiently diffused across the population would also be seen as environmentaly-wasteful.  To increase the money supply for inflate-a-coin then, I think you'd need to popularize a spin-off from the blockchain that employs proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus rather than proof of work because new bitshares (PoS equivalent to bitcoins) could be issued for no cost and by popular opinion (unlike PoW coins where work is required to create them).  

I don't really agree. If everyone who identifies as a Bitcoin user switches to a new protocol, except for 2 people using the original protocol, then the majority will be using "Bitcoin", and the minority will be using "an outdated, unsupported past version of Bitcoin".

They can shout "But we're using the real, original Bitcoin!" as much as they want - but for better or worse, it wouldn't change a thing. History written by the winners and all that.

It matters whether the users of the new protocol are new people, or people who originally used the old protocol but switched to the new protocol.

If the former then yes, it's just two coexisting, similarly named groups. If the latter then no, I would say the Bitcoin system really did evolve into something new.

And at this point we are discussing semantics and can't proceed with constructive debate unless/until the OP defines exactly what he means by "more than 21 million Bitcoins".  We need the OP to define exactly (at a technical level) what "a bitcoin" is meant to be in this discussion so that we can determine if it is possible to have more than 21 million of them.

Im lost...

new video here explains answer to my OP perfectly from Gavin himself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXKZhxL7x9s&feature=share

That happens a lot when you start looking at the technical details of bitcoin.

The root of the problem in this discussion is that it isn't clear what the definition of the word "bitcoin" is.

Meni presents the idea that if enough people agree to change the definition of the word "bitcoin", then bitcoin becomes the new thing.

I present the idea that a thing is what it is, regardless of what people choose to call it.

This is really a philosophical debate, and until you describe what side of that debate you are on, it becomes difficult to agree on an answer.

As an example:

There is an object in my front yard that all english speaking people agree to call an "oak tree".  You pose the question, "on an agreement with all parties involved, is there a chance an oak tree could fly on its own accord?"

I assume you are talking about the object currently known as an "oak tree" (regardless of what people choose to call it in the future).  So I state, "No.  That object can't fly on its own accord.  Any object that flys on its own accord isn't that object, even if the majority of people choose to call some other object that flys on its own accord an "oak tree".

Meni states, "If a large enough majority of people look at some other object that flies on its own accord, and agree to call it an "oak tree", then an "oak tree" can fly on its own accord, and the few people who still call that old object an "oak tree" will be using an outdated unsupported usage of the words "oak tree".

As you can see, we are both right.  You have to decide if you are talking about the word "bitcoin", or the concept that is currently described with the word "bitcoin".  The current concept can't be changed, it will always be what it is (just like an oak tree will always be what it is regardless of how else those words are used).  However, people could create a new concept and agree to re-use the name "bitcoin" for that new concept.

Ok I think most people will agree that we are talking about what the majority considers to be Bitcoin. So in that case Bitcoin can be changed to support any number of coins. Case closed  :P.

BIPs have been put to vote by miners. So it is a democracy and majority opinion rules.

I disagree, but that's the root of the problem here.

An oak tree doesn't stop being what it is just because the majority choose to call some newly discovered bird an "oak tree".

And so far, forking changes have been accepted by everyone.  It isn't the "vote" that made it possible, its the fact that a consensus was reached that the change was necessary.

I'm pretty confident that a change to the inflation schedule will not reach the same consensus.

If the masses join.. alas quite high.  The masses are completely moronic and never use their brain.  If the news tells them something it's true no matter what, :S.

There's always a chance, but that is microscopic IMHO. 

More than 21 million would defy the creator's main intentions for bitcoin.

the thing that is called bitcoin is a collection of core rules one of them is that there are never more than 21mil bitcoins.
if that changes then its an altcoin not bitcoin.
so in essence the question is if its possible that merchants will stop using bitcoin and move to a different altcoin which might have more/less than 21mil coins and/or be inflationary.

dogecoin IS NOT inflationary.
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1wuhyj/info_clearing_up_missinformation_about_our/

Did you even read what you linked to?

It specifically says:

Dogecoin ALWAYS had inflation.. the messed up at the start and decided it would be best to keep the minimum coin payout.. a good idea IMO.  IMO BTC should never go below 1 milibtc pay out but w/e.

Well actually even BTC is inflationary at least until we hit 2040. After that we'll experience the real deflationary aspect of BTC.

For now let's just hope we have a solid user base and that our "Designed inflation" doesn't pass the Fiat one.

New bitcoins (or fractions of bitcoins) will continue to be released in blocks until 2140.

I remember back when it came out and the thread said there was a 100 billion upper limit. Those who looked at the code realized there was no such limit. Problem is most people didn't look at the code and assumed that what the thread said was true. Also those who did look at the code didn't publicize their findings well enough to alert the rest. Open source only works if enough knowledgeable people look at the code. We've seen this time and again, most recently with the heartbleed bug.


Indeed this is true. There will be almost 10% inflation within the next 365 days. That's pretty high.

So, kind of like "Can 2 gay men be married?"  50 years ago, virtually everyone would have said "Never".

And not because they were unfamiliar with gay relationships, but that gay relationships didn't meet the definition of "marriage".

When people get new bitcoins that aren't spendable in certain locations, it will be interesting to say the least.  Then the government will force everyone to "accept all bitcoins".

There will be some groundwork done. Powerful people will be coopted. Developers, mining pool operators, exchange operators, merchants, whales etc. Propaganda will be used to convince ordinary users of the need for change. Then there will be a fork and whichever chain gets the majority's support will become defacto bitcoin. Those who persist with the old chain will have their wealth instantly wiped out.

Governments have a history of taking over private property. The Romans used to do it to every noble family that crossed the emperor. They even stole from soldiers who were away fighting for the empire!

Is it possible to patent name bitcoin?

In a fork holders of coins would have coins spendable on both sides of the fork and can with a little ingenuity spend them differently in both sides of the fork.  The overwhelming super majority loses in the "inflat-a-coin" fork, the only ones who would benefit would be miners and even that is debatable.  The fork and the resulting confusion would have a cost.  Miners unlike coinholders also face a real risk, they can't mine both chains and their mining rewards would only exist on one side of the fork.  If the choose wrong they run the risk of ending up with worthless coins. 

Also we aren't just talking about slack jawed idiots here.  If Bitcoin survives and grows the "Bitcoin wealthy" would include major corporations, millionaires, billionaires, sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds, ETFs, family wealth funds, etc and they ALL would have their wealth devalued by raising the cap.  It is a pretty easy and transparent choice.  

If it happens then Bitcoin is dead anyways.   Still it is pretty easy to hedge your bets.  Sell off your inflat-a-coins, keep your bitcoin and buy assets this the procedes.  If you guess wrong and the old fork dies you can always buy the new coins back with the proceeds.

When someone creates a bitcoin fork or spin-off, a user has two sets of coins: his original bitcoins and a new set of alt coins that he gets for free.  Users don't really need to pick sides, as their wealth is valid on both chains. 

Bitcoins will trade directly against fork-coin on the open market, so right away everyone will have a good idea of the value of a fork-coin.  If a powerful group wants to legitimize fork-coin, they would probably sell bitcoins and buy fork-coins in an effort to shift perceived value to the new coin.  But what about Satoshi?  He would own ~1,000,000 fork-coins too (unless you also want to redistribute wealth on your fork); he could wait until you've spent all your bitcoins buying fork-coins and then dump his fork-coins for bitcoins, destroying the legitimacy of your fork and acquiring more bitcoins in the process.

Satoshi has more economic power than anyone to prevent a fork or spin-off from becoming legitimized. 

If most of the miners agree to increase the 21 million supply every block reward they will win will be worth substantially less than what it was prior to the 21 million coins, everyone will dump their reserves the moment tyranny will infect BTC.

You don't need to bother with the protocol, there are plenty of alt-coins there with more than that amount

I'd prefer that Bitcoin stays at 21 million so I can one day claim to be a millionaire when the price decides to go ballistic and each BTC equals $1 million or more..  ;D

having a constant number of coins created means inflation in % converges to 0.
e.g if the total coin supply is 10 coins and 1 coin is created each day then the inflation rate is 10% on the first day 9.09% on the second day 8.33% on the third day etc.
this means that eventually dogecoin's inflation rate will be practically 0.

A dollar is worth 4 quarters.
Oh wait, we just sub-divided it differently to 10 dimes.
No wait, 20 nickels.
Hold on, 100 pennies.
But no value changed. Same thing with Bitcoins.

if the protocol stays as is. then there will be only 21mill coins. however there can also be 'bitcoin debt'

take mtgox. for instance. while karpeles hold and spends real bitcoins, users are left with 800k bitcoin debt


after an ultimate winner of which fork will continue as master. those that have accepted bitcoin from the dead fork will be left with bitcoin debt

also some people think their binary based database balances on exchanges, represent REAL bitcoins. which in a utopian world of audited and transparent exchanges would be true. but at the moment there are many cases that debt can occur.

so be cautious about trading BTC-E codes, offchain transactions, or buying debt off people. as your not trading actual bitcoins, just database balances.

so be careful although there maybe only 21million ACTUAL bitcoins ever made. some businesses and people may trade their 'fake' bitcoins (debt/database balance) which exceeds 21mill

I vote to call the current, origninal bitcoin "Bitcoin: Original Recipe" and any forks "Bitcoin: 2.0, Bitcoin: 3.0, etc"

I agree with you ,if they will try to create more bitcoins then will be the end of bitcoin.The value will drop a lot,people will lose the trust in bitcoin.

If a government puts pressure on you you could loose all your wealth. Governments have various ways of putting pressure on you. They can cut you off from the banking system, attack your physical infrastructure, send some uniformed thugs your way etc. The more money at stake the easier it is to pressure you. So go along or you loose all your coins.


What about Grisham's law? Bad money drives out good.

I think it's likely, people won't be satisfied with just the transaction fees

Some will, and that is all it takes. the big money will move on to something other than mining. the little guys will stick around. difficulty will adjust down and the transaction fees will be enough.

I see that change to be at about 0%. They agreed on 21 million bitcoins.

Of course we are.

However, I do believe there's a fundamental difference between this and other examples you've given such as the oak tree. Bitcoin, being a currency - and a purely digital one at that - is defined by what people think it is. If the system continues to work as it does now, but people stop believing in it, it becomes meaningless.

Whereas the oak tree is still there regardless of whether we look at it, talk about it, call it different names. With the oak tree, the specific configuration of atoms matters. With Bitcoin, the agreement of people matters.

Hence, we have the power to mutate Bitcoin with the power of thought and agreement, in a way we cannot with the oak tree.


Notably, this has happened before (P2SH and some bug fixes come to mind). People agreed that Bitcoin should be changed, and viola, Bitcoin was changed, without anyone supposing we're now using an alt.


This discussion has practical consequences beyond the OP's opinion. When I accept bitcoins as payment, I do so because I believe they will have value now and in the future (as with any other currency). I believe this because I believe Bitcoin will be used, and that there will be no more than 21M bitcoins. "Used" is a human-centric concept and thus is influenced by perception and marketing. If people use the name "Bitcoin" to refer to a new protocol, it has a different effect on the survivability of the old protocol than if people used a different name.

So "will a protocol that has a different inflation schedule than the current Bitcoin exist" is a different question from "will a protocol that has a different inflation schedule than the current Bitcoin exist and be called 'Bitcoin'". A positive answer to the latter doesn't bode well to the value of bitcoins I can currently obtain, thus a negative answer to it is what I need to be assured in accepting bitcoins. This again is a practical consideration, not a purely philosophical one.

If I trim a branch off of an oak tree I've changed its specific configuration of atoms, but it's still an oak tree. Moreover, it's still the same oak tree as it was before.

If I set the tree on fire, the ashes which result are not an oak tree any more.

Clearly not all changes are equal, so it's not correct to say sat that since we've made minor alterations to the Bitcoin software over time that means Bitcoin has no unalterable definition.

There are characteristic of Bitcoin that, if they were not retained, would represent the "setting on fire" type of change as opposed to "pruning the tree" type of change.

There are no chances I believe. The code doesn't allow that. Changing the supply wouldn't be damaging for Bitcoin too.

Then the value of BTC will drop and nobody wants that. Food thing about BTC is that you know exact number that would be mined if you will go by the principle " Ok we need more coins, lets vote and make more " then there is no difference with a country thats printing out money on a daily basis.

Yes.  That was the push to identify 10^-6 BTC = 1 bit.  So now we have 21 trillion bits.  Right you you can buy 2238 bits for a dollar.   :D

none, because it started with 21 millions, and wont be bitcoin anymore with more than 21kk coins.

even if possible to change, impossible let everyone agree with that, this would only destroy the coin

Lay me 100,000:1 odds then.  Free money for you.

If it came down to there being a ever decreasing supply of Bitcoins, lets say only 10 left in the world in this hypothetical situation, You could take on another 0 to the end of it. You would still need full consensus but if it were down to the wire supply could be generated.

Precisely this. If we reach for instance 15-20million and the developers or whoever decide/agree upon increasing the number of coins to let's say 42million. I wouldn't ever touch Bitcoin again and would move everything into an (or more) altcoin.

no chances