Bitcoin Executive Says 21 Million Cap Increase Inevitable

[galbros]

Actually, by doing it via the block reward they could possibly get miners to sign on.  If the miners support it, then such a fork should be possible.  Still hate the idea.

Miners are not dumb, they know how block reward increase would do nothing  other than decrease value per bitcoin.. And why would they support that move? They wouldn't.
The idea is disgraceful and idiotic to any true bitcoin supporter, and i believe such fud is only being spread either by those who want to decrease bitcoin price, or damage bitcoin community.

cheers

I don't like the idea, not at all, but I was under the impression that many miners, especially the ones in China, dump their bitcoins pretty much as soon as they get them, witness the slow price erosion over the last year or so.  Anyway, if they have dumped all their prior coins, they would be happy to see the block reward increased and not care that the overall number of coins is increased as that loss would not be felt by them.

jehst makes an interesting point, I wonder if there are enough rich bitcon holders to make enough side payments to miners.  I think it would be a very short run type thing but agree it would be bad for everyone.

I don't like this idea, I hope this is fud and there is some source that says such a hard fork cannot be done, but I think we have to admit the possibility of it.

[ajareselde]

Actually, by doing it via the block reward they could possibly get miners to sign on.  If the miners support it, then such a fork should be possible.  Still hate the idea.

Miners are not dumb, they know how block reward increase would do nothing  other than decrease value per bitcoin.. And why would they support that move? They wouldn't.
The idea is disgraceful and idiotic to any true bitcoin supporter, and i believe such fud is only being spread either by those who want to decrease bitcoin price, or damage bitcoin community.

cheers

I don't like the idea, not at all, but I was under the impression that many miners, especially the ones in China, dump their bitcoins pretty much as soon as they get them, witness the slow price erosion over the last year or so.  Anyway, if they have dumped all their prior coins, they would be happy to see the block reward increased and not care that the overall number of coins is increased as that loss would not be felt by them.

jehst makes an interesting point, I wonder if there are enough rich bitcon holders to make enough side payments to miners.  I think it would be a very short run type thing but agree it would be bad for everyone.

I don't like this idea, I hope this is fud and there is some source that says such a hard fork cannot be done, but I think we have to admit the possibility of it.

What is it that you don't get? If the mining reward increases for let's say double, it is clear that the price will correct itself accordingly, so even the miners that would be receiving double
the amount of coins would still make the same cash as they do now. 25 * 250 = 50 * 125

Also, the far more destructive side fact would be the loss of trust in bitcoin and it's rules, because if you have one case of changing payout size, there's good chance it wouldn't stop at only that change,
few years after, there would be another idiot wanting another block payout increase.

cheers

[galbros]

What is it that you don't get?

Miners only care about the marginal bitcoin they mine.  The loss in value is borne by all the holders of bitcoin, which may not be very many miners at all.  So the miners gain proportionally - assuming perfect price correction their income stays the same, everyone else's value drops.

It's just like fiat money, if you don't have any money to begin with, you don't really get all bent about inflation and this is obviously inflationary.

Yep, agree that doing this is bad for long term health of bitcoin.

[fryarminer]

Bitcoin Executive?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[lin0sspice]

It will be like Fed is printing new dollars lol
There will not be bitcoin anymore.
Stupid idea period!

[electerium]

Actually, by doing it via the block reward they could possibly get miners to sign on.  If the miners support it, then such a fork should be possible.  Still hate the idea.

Miners are not dumb, they know how block reward increase would do nothing  other than decrease value per bitcoin.. And why would they support that move? They wouldn't.
The idea is disgraceful and idiotic to any true bitcoin supporter, and i believe such fud is only being spread either by those who want to decrease bitcoin price, or damage bitcoin community.

cheers

and if bitcoin does not become a preferred method of transfer p2p between individuals by 2024, 95% of all coins will have been mined.

Who will buy into a commodity where 95% has been mined if there isnt a legacy rail, such as NASDAQ, built into the bitcoin blockchain?

[WhatTheGox]

When exactly is he suggesting this might happen? I doubt anyone would support this in the next 10/20 years this seems like something that could be attempted by gov intervention later on down the line if the world has converted to bitcoin.

[Amph]

Bitcoin Executive?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

it does look like a ghood troll attempt from the beginning, no one in his right mind would be pro to this, it would not benefit anyone, to have the supply limit increase

the whole point is to have it as a low as possible and this is basically going in the opposite direction

[Kprawn]

The people who wants this to happen, will not use the Bitcoin protocol to do this.

The banks already said, they are VERY interested in the Blockchain technology. They will employ the best Bitcoin engineers out there to develop a Blockchain type technology that would suite all their requirements. {Even the ability to increase the so-called capped coin limit}

They will mimic the current fiat model and decide when and how this limit would be changed in small increments. {Giving them the ability to create money out of thin air, like they do with fiat money today}

I am not worried about Bitcoin... I am worried about what Banks are cooking up. {The digital equivalent of fiat} Adoption would not be a problem, because it would be backed and forced by the governments. 

[Xialla]

my second job is vice president of internet and I have to confirm, what bitcoin executive said.

[NorrisK]

Increase cap by 100% = decrease each coin value by 50%
So, he wants 100% inflation which is very bad

Maybe he'll add PoS after all bitcoin has been mined

It is not like coin value halves on the news that the potential cap 200 years from now is doubled... Value is based on what is currently available and the rate on how it becomes available.. Not some magical number it might one time be.. Imagine they did this with fiat. In 100 years we will have 10 times the amount of fiat in circulation. WTF? My fiat is now suddenly and magically worth 1/10 of before this news???

[Netnox]

What a joke, you increase supply if you want to destroy bitcoin. Good luck with that, btw its divisble to Bits.

[Q7]

If the limit is changed, that would totally removed the purpose and objective on what bitcoin is about in the first place. I don't understand why we need to come to that, fact is at current scenario with supply slightly above 14 million, it is already more than enough to meeting existing demands, not to mention that we still have further small divisible number as a backup plan. If the demands scale accordingly and there's a need for liquidity, we always have an option. That is already built into bitcoin.

[coinpr0n]

Seems like it was just his sarcastic / roundabout way of saying that increasing the block size is equivalent to block reward increase (btw, a statement which I do not agree with): "Preventing the Bitcoin block reward from halving in July 2016 is the evil twin of a block size increase." - @jonmatonis

[ajareselde]

If the limit is changed, that would totally removed the purpose and objective on what bitcoin is about in the first place. I don't understand why we need to come to that, fact is at current scenario with supply slightly above 14 million, it is already more than enough to meeting existing demands, not to mention that we still have further small divisible number as a backup plan. If the demands scale accordingly and there's a need for liquidity, we always have an option. That is already built into bitcoin.

You're getting it wrong; op is full of bs, as is his source for this "news". He took statement from Jon Matonis and misrepresented it as hot but fake news.

Jon Matonis ‏@jonmatonis  Jun 19
.@CoinSlumIt If two people can easily propagate a Bitcoin XT code version to increase block size, couldn't it also be done for block reward?

Note from the above tweet that he's only saying it would be possible, not that anyone in his sane mind would agree to such a thing, i know i wouldn't.
Pure bs news and thread, and making the thread title ".. bitcoin  executive .." where the truth is that he is only Bitcoin Foundation Director, and a former one to be exact.

cheers

[futureofbitcoin]

All the people who think that increasing the limit is against the "purpose and objective" of bitcoin and will make everyone completely lose confidence in it has no idea what bitcoin is about in the first place.


Bitcoin is not about having 0 adaptability and flexibility, eventually becoming unsuitable since society is always changing. Bitcoin is about programmable money; it's about having the flexibility to change and make it adapt to changing conditions, to add functionality that previous generations have not thought of before. That's where it beats out inflexible and unchanging government money. And that's what makes bitcoin valuable.


There's no reason having a set schedule of some small amount of emissions every block after 2140 would completely destroy the price. Such an update will only be made if it's near certain that it is required to keep the blockchain alive, probably because miner fees are simply not sufficient to keep the blockchain secure enough.


Perhaps there will be a small segment in the population who will be against such an increase. They can have their original fork. But those people would only be a small fraction of bitcoin users; probably only a fraction of the users today. They might have their 1 billion market cap, while the new chain can have a trillion dollar market cap.

[ajareselde]

If the limit is changed, that would totally removed the purpose and objective on what bitcoin is about in the first place. I don't understand why we need to come to that, fact is at current scenario with supply slightly above 14 million, it is already more than enough to meeting existing demands, not to mention that we still have further small divisible number as a backup plan. If the demands scale accordingly and there's a need for liquidity, we always have an option. That is already built into bitcoin.

You're getting it wrong; op is full of bs, as is his source for this "news". He took statement from Jon Matonis and misrepresented it as hot but fake news.

Jon Matonis ‏@jonmatonis  Jun 19
.@CoinSlumIt If two people can easily propagate a Bitcoin XT code version to increase block size, couldn't it also be done for block reward?

Note from the above tweet that he's only saying it would be possible, not that anyone in his sane mind would agree to such a thing, i know i wouldn't.
Pure bs news and thread, and making the thread title ".. bitcoin  executive .." where the truth is that he is only Bitcoin Foundation Director, and a former one to be exact.

cheers

Microguy is well known for his anti-bitcoin BS, The guy is a piece of shit who failed pretty much at everything in life. His full name is Greg Matthews. His "ex-business venture" is www.microguy.net then he jumped on Altcoin scam scheme. He obviously does not give a shit about bitcoin or crypto, only wish to make a quick buck.

Figured as much. The sad thing is that a lot of new bitcoin users come to forum to learn more about it, only to find such FUD threads and claims, and they can't tell weather its bull or not.
btc i see that you placed this member on your personal radar, love the commitment 

cheers

[MicroGuy]

If the limit is changed, that would totally removed the purpose and objective on what bitcoin is about in the first place. I don't understand why we need to come to that, fact is at current scenario with supply slightly above 14 million, it is already more than enough to meeting existing demands, not to mention that we still have further small divisible number as a backup plan. If the demands scale accordingly and there's a need for liquidity, we always have an option. That is already built into bitcoin.

You're getting it wrong; op is full of bs, as is his source for this "news". He took statement from Jon Matonis and misrepresented it as hot but fake news.

Jon Matonis ‏@jonmatonis  Jun 19
.@CoinSlumIt If two people can easily propagate a Bitcoin XT code version to increase block size, couldn't it also be done for block reward?

Note from the above tweet that he's only saying it would be possible, not that anyone in his sane mind would agree to such a thing, i know i wouldn't.
Pure bs news and thread, and making the thread title ".. bitcoin  executive .." where the truth is that he is only Bitcoin Foundation Director, and a former one to be exact.

cheers

Microguy is well known for his anti-bitcoin BS, The guy is a piece of shit who failed pretty much at everything in life. His full name is Greg Matthews. His "ex-business venture" is www.microguy.net then he jumped on Altcoin scam scheme. He obviously does not give a shit about bitcoin or crypto, only wish to make a quick buck.

Figured as much. The sad thing is that a lot of new bitcoin users come to forum to learn more about it, only to find such FUD threads and claims, and they can't tell weather its bull or not.
btc i see that you placed this member on your personal radar, love the commitment  

cheers

Guys, please explain exactly where is all this FUD you're talking about? I think it's important to talk about these issues, not pretend like they don't exist. We don't need another reddit.com/r/bitcoin where critical (or satirical) commentary is practically banned.

... and I'm not anti-bitcoin!!!

[jonald_fyookball]

All the people who think that increasing the limit is against the "purpose and objective" of bitcoin and will make everyone completely lose confidence in it has no idea what bitcoin is about in the first place.


Bitcoin is not about having 0 adaptability and flexibility, eventually becoming unsuitable since society is always changing. Bitcoin is about programmable money; it's about having the flexibility to change and make it adapt to changing conditions, to add functionality that previous generations have not thought of before. That's where it beats out inflexible and unchanging government money. And that's what makes bitcoin valuable.


There's no reason having a set schedule of some small amount of emissions every block after 2140 would completely destroy the price. Such an update will only be made if it's near certain that it is required to keep the blockchain alive, probably because miner fees are simply not sufficient to keep the blockchain secure enough.


Perhaps there will be a small segment in the population who will be against such an increase. They can have their original fork. But those people would only be a small fraction of bitcoin users; probably only a fraction of the users today. They might have their 1 billion market cap, while the new chain can have a trillion dollar market cap.

I don't agree that only a small segment will be against an increase.  Why would that be the case since everyone (not just early adopters) would suffer from inflation?

Also, regarding if transaction fees alone will be able to secure the network, consider the average
daily transaction volume is already $50M USD.  https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd.  Say in the future this only becomes $200M usd.  Then you could still raise $500,000 in transaction fees using a quarter of one percent transaction fee.  I think anyway you slice it, transaction fees will be adequate in all but the most bleak of scenarios.

[MicroGuy]

So he is just spreading fud, if this succeeds then slippery slope fallacy all the way to unlimited bitcoins? Or am I taking it the wrong way?

You should read the entire Twitter conversation. He's simply putting "food for thought" out there and fueling this important discussion.



Quit making FUD = Facts U Don't like! (Using words like FUD, TROLL, and SCAM, are intellectual escapes, ways of dodging discussion)