Can bitcoins be lost out of existence?

[dc7d]

If that were to happen, the code would change to expand the limit, and everybody would upgrade.
But only if the whole network agreed...

Not the whole network, only the major part of it. There are many "new" and only a few "old" miner. Maybe the new one want a greater piece of the cake? Why shouldn't they outvote the early adopters?

[adamh87]

i could imaginage one day someone figures out how to make a new coin that is "backed" by bitcoins

so if there were only 100,000 coins left in existance they could be turned into billions of "
newcoins"

I don't think it's a problem though

[Kazimir]

i could imaginage one day someone figures out how to make a new coin that is "backed" by bitcoins

so if there were only 100,000 coins left in existance they could be turned into billions of "
newcoins"

What good would that be? By definition there is never a shortage of units with Bitcoin, no matter if there are only 21 million or only 100,000 or only 3 in existence. They're infinitely divisible.

Obviously, for practical reasons, people would not be dealing with 0.0000065 BTC but with "6.5 nanoCoins" or some similar convenient unit.

[gchil0]

I feel bad for all those people who formatted their hard drive, losing their wallet.  I originally installed the client in the middle of summer, and turned it off since it was already hot.  Just wish I had left it running longer!   

[adamh87]

i could imaginage one day someone figures out how to make a new coin that is "backed" by bitcoins

so if there were only 100,000 coins left in existance they could be turned into billions of "
newcoins"

What good would that be? By definition there is never a shortage of units with Bitcoin, no matter if there are only 21 million or only 100,000 or only 3 in existence. They're infinitely divisible.

Obviously, for practical reasons, people would not be dealing with 0.0000065 BTC but with "6.5 nanoCoins" or some similar convenient unit.

they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know

[Rodyland]

they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know

In the current version of the software, yes.  However this is something that can be changed if the need ever arises (such as BTC1 = US$1M for example).

[DannyHamilton]

they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know

In the current version of the software, yes.  However this is something that can be changed if the need ever arises (such as BTC1 = US$1M for example).

While not impossible, this wouldn't necessarily be an easy change.

There are significant considerations about the largest value an integer variable can hold in the program.  More importantly, it would change the way the blockchain represents the values and would therefore create a forked blockchain unless you could get EVERYONE to switch to the new programming and all of them to do it at the same time.

There are other possible solutions. A couple of examples are an alternate cryptocurrency for small amounts, a new cryptocurrency that is backed by bitcoin, or a cryptocurrency that is designed to smoothly replace bitcoin.  Other solutions may also present themselves in the future (necessity is the mother of invention).  Seeing as possible solutions exist, and even better solutions could be discovered, I just don't see a reason to be concerned right now about the possibility that 1 Bitcoin could be worth more than $100,000,000 someday.

[Rodyland]

they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know

In the current version of the software, yes.  However this is something that can be changed if the need ever arises (such as BTC1 = US$1M for example).

While not impossible, this wouldn't necessarily be an easy change.

There are significant considerations about the largest value an integer variable can hold in the program.  More importantly, it would change the way the blockchain represents the values and would therefore create a forked blockchain unless you could get EVERYONE to switch to the new programming and all of them to do it at the same time.

There are other possible solutions. A couple of examples are an alternate cryptocurrency for small amounts, a new cryptocurrency that is backed by bitcoin, or a cryptocurrency that is designed to smoothly replace bitcoin.  Other solutions may also present themselves in the future (necessity is the mother of invention).  Seeing as possible solutions exist, and even better solutions could be discovered, I just don't see a reason to be concerned right now about the possibility that 1 Bitcoin could be worth more than $100,000,000 someday.

Ignoring this, which nails it IMO

Seeing as possible solutions exist, and even better solutions could be discovered, I just don't see a reason to be concerned right now about the possibility that 1 Bitcoin could be worth more than $100,000,000 someday.

You're right that changing from 8dp to something else would require a fork.  However if memory serves this has already been done at least once, with clients maintaining backwards compatability until a majority of nodes are running the new version, at which point clients automatically move up to the new version of the protocol.

[DannyHamilton]

You're right that changing from 8dp to something else would require a fork.  However if memory serves this has already been done at least once, with clients maintaining backwards compatability until a majority of nodes are running the new version, at which point clients automatically move up to the new version of the protocol.

Correct.  As I said, it can be done, but it isn't "simple".  It requires more than just a "majority", you need to get as close to a 100% adoption of the new software as possible.  Any number of users at all on the old software would cause a fork.  Changing the software is a possible solution, but not the only possible solution.