Ughhh, I hate that I got suckered into feeding a troll.
Of course if there is community consensus to change the cap it would happen, it could also go the other way down to a 18 million cap, they could do anything with community acceptance. Its a pointless point to make.
As far as not understanding how bitcoin works, I don't have any desire to prove this to you, you can believe whatever you want.
If you can't get the answer you are looking for from the Pieter Wuille quote I included, you are being deliberately obtuse, and I have no need to interact with you further.
Troll being anyone who has a different view to you?  My point all along is that the cap is NOT concrete - which you have now agreed with. Yet many of the predictions of grand wealth with bitcoins are predicated on this fallacy. The Pieter Wuille quote was irrelevant for the reason I stated - He is talking about rogue attacks, Im talking about consensual change. You have already proven you have at best a sketchy understanding of how it works with your "21 millionth bitcoin" statement. I have had a better idea.... instead of miners receiving Bitcoin for their work, they simply get "thank you" notes + links to youtube rickrolls Totally doable. Make it so. ...aaaannddd Still nothing. |
|
|
|
Gah, sorry for stirring up the troll-pot  Why the apology? You made a perfectly valid post, I was just questioning one of the fundamental tenets of that post. And apart from being called a troll, nobody has actually proved me wrong yet. |
|
|
|
Ughhh, I hate that I got suckered into feeding a troll.
Of course if there is community consensus to change the cap it would happen, it could also go the other way down to a 18 million cap, they could do anything with community acceptance. Its a pointless point to make.
As far as not understanding how bitcoin works, I don't have any desire to prove this to you, you can believe whatever you want.
If you can't get the answer you are looking for from the Pieter Wuille quote I included, you are being deliberately obtuse, and I have no need to interact with you further.
Troll being anyone who has a different view to you? My point all along is that the cap is NOT concrete - which you have now agreed with. Yet many of the predictions of grand wealth with bitcoins are predicated on this fallacy. The Pieter Wuille quote was irrelevant for the reason I stated - He is talking about rogue attacks, Im talking about consensual change. You have already proven you have at best a sketchy understanding of how it works with your "21 millionth bitcoin" statement. |
|
|
|
Ah ok, simple then.
Off you pop then, get cracking, let me know how it goes.
So thats it then? No killer argument to put me in my place? No clusterbomb of a nuggett from the White Paper to show that the 21M cap is sacricant and can never be changed? No... because I can ignore the obvious too, just like you. Okay, I no longer want to ignore the obvious. Enlighten me. And Im not being smart, If there is an axiom that states that 21M is the oncrete limit, then I want to know. You owe that to me and other bitcoiners. For our future.... |
|
|
|
Ah ok, simple then.
Off you pop then, get cracking, let me know how it goes.
So thats it then? No killer argument to put me in my place? No clusterbomb of a nuggett from the White Paper to show that the 21M cap is sacricant and can never be changed? |
|
|
|
Whats the point of arguing the semantics anyway. It's not gonna happen, FUD or whatever you are doing is a little pathetic.
You are confusing an attack by a rogue client and an accepted consensus. Im talking about an ageement o change the cap being possible. If it was accepted by the community, then there is no difficulty in raising the cap. As an aside, coins are not numbered. There is no serial number. They simply exist as the inputs and outputs of a transaction. Your line about "introducing the 210000001st coin" leads me to believe you dont actually understand this. Any Fear is purely your own. Im only stating some points about the 21m cap that was mentioned earlier. |
|
|
|
If devs decided to make this change, miners and nodes would then have the option to follow or not, essentially what you are suggesting would be a fork/ hard fork, saying it ain't so ^^ is semantics.
You can test your theory, create a hard fork of BTC now, increase the limit to 42 million and convince all of the nodes and miners to follow you.
I will give you my vote now.
NO
Its not a theory. Its there in the code.... |
|
|
|
Good luck finding that consensus!
In soviet Russia, Consensus find YOU!!Yeah, thats true. This is the only protection in place. A unanimous consensus, which should mean everybody. But consensus has a habit of chasing as well.... |
|
|
|
really? Then ltc, doge and other alts would have already surpassed btc long time ago.
Check the whitepaper and why bitcoin was invented in the first place. You will then understand why the limit of 21 mil btc wont be changed
You are saying it "wont" (subjective), I'm saying simply that it "can" (objective) Can you point me to a document where it explicitly states that the 21M cap is a fundamental part of what bitcoin is? |
|
|
|
If someone was to change this "one line of code" if definitely would be considered a "hard fork", regardless of consensus from the core devs.
Definition of hard fork is: A hard fork is any change to a protocol that is not backwards compatible.
This would very definitely be backwards compatible. A |
|
|
|
- the difference between Doge and Bitcoin is that there isn't a cap to the total number of Dogecoins created,
whereas Bitcoin will only ever have a max of 21m coins (unless the protocol changes).
Its nothing to do with the protocol - if it were then there may be some guarantees that this 21m cap will be concrete. No, its simply an arbitrary value ( actually - its an 'operand') in the code that can be changed at any time without having any effect on previous, existing or future transactions. So, in otherwords, where most 'protocol' changes would, at the very least, require a "hard fork", the change in the cap to 22M or 42M or infinite cap could be made in the next minor version release. I dont know where people who are supposed to understand these things get the idea of a hard limit to bitcoin. Its only a 'guide' or estimate. It can change once enough people want it. Its just one line of code!! The 21 million cap, is as concrete as peoples trust in Bitcoin..... or rather peoples trust in Bitcoin is as concrete at the 21 million cap. Nah, Peoples trust and use of bitcoin will be seperate to that cap. However, dreams of hlding a $32K or $4.4m Bitcoin are as concrete as an arbitrary line of code. Also, the rules are pretty explicit in saying that this can be changed - with consensus. The move from 1mb to 20mb blocksize is technically far more complex. |
|
|
|
- the difference between Doge and Bitcoin is that there isn't a cap to the total number of Dogecoins created,
whereas Bitcoin will only ever have a max of 21m coins (unless the protocol changes).
Its nothing to do with the protocol - if it were then there may be some guarantees that this 21m cap will be concrete. No, its simply an arbitrary value ( actually - its an 'operand') in the code that can be changed at any time without having any effect on previous, existing or future transactions. So, in otherwords, where most 'protocol' changes would, at the very least, require a "hard fork", the change in the cap to 22M or 42M or infinite cap could be made in the next minor version release. I dont know where people who are supposed to understand these things get the idea of a hard limit to bitcoin. Its only a 'guide' or estimate. It can change once enough people want it. Its just one line of code!! |
|
|
|
As interesting as this argument is and what your opinions are on policy can we please try and keep this on topic and not go on too much of a tangent?  Isnt the tl;dr of this topic "Its bad to give money to terrorists"? And its been pointed out that the US government has given significantly more (Enough to give every US citizen a decent standard of healthcare) to terrorists than this guy did, but many people dont seem to have a problem with that. Surely that makes policy a real important issue... |
|
|
|
that's.....5.88....trillion? not too absurd imo
Draghi could print that in a good weekend, to buy shit bonds from douchebag banks. |
|
|
|
32,000$ by mid 2017 is my prediction.
china will have no choice but to reviste its ban on bitcoin use in order to participate in the "digital economy",
Its ironic, but china didn't ban bitcoin, but put in place restrictions to protect consumers against wild speculation, like 1000x growth in 24 months.  https://vip.btcchina.com/page/bocnotice2013hey hey hey, i'm calling for ~100x growth in ~50 months, 1000x growth in 24 months thats totally unreasonable...  typo, sorry!. There are some crazies on here, but that would have been proper window licking mental...  |
|
|
|
32,000$ by mid 2017 is my prediction.
china will have no choice but to reviste its ban on bitcoin use in order to participate in the "digital economy",
Its ironic, but china didn't ban bitcoin, but put in place restrictions to protect consumers against wild speculation, like 100x growth in 24 months. https://vip.btcchina.com/page/bocnotice2013 |
|
|
|
There's a cultural issue at play here.
It's also a perspective thing. Where do you stand on this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sufian_bin_QumuIf we had bitcoin back in 1980's, would you have supported this Jihadist against the russkies? Or would that have been bad, although the US government supported them ( and boycotted the olympic games to boot) Or how about his 'rehabilitation' after guantanimo? Or when he took up the Jihadist cudgel again ( with US support) ? He more than likely blew up the embassy in Benghazi. Now, where do people stand viz. treason when the state is involved? I'm speaking in generalities, btw, this applies to all nations that empower these animals in the interests of commerce. |
|
|
|
Tree hundred today
Tree Fiddy? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
