Matonis: If Bitcoin XT Succeeds You Can Kiss 21 Million Cap Goodbye

[jubalix]

even if right you would just see LTC or something else take over, and not make the same mistake.

[belltown]

Given how hard it is to agree on a minor and obviously beneficial block size increase to 8 or 20MB, I doubt such a large and destructive change to increase 21M cap can have any chance to happen. Ever.

[croTek4]

Given how hard it is to agree on a minor and obviously beneficial block size increase to 8 or 20MB, I doubt such a large and destructive change to increase 21M cap can have any chance to happen. Ever.

agree with this statement. Raising coin cap would never ever reach consensus. No one would ever be fool enough to even present this sort of change to the core principles of bitcoin.

[scarsbergholden]

Given how hard it is to agree on a minor and obviously beneficial block size increase to 8 or 20MB, I doubt such a large and destructive change to increase 21M cap can have any chance to happen. Ever.

agree with this statement. Raising coin cap would never ever reach consensus. No one would ever be fool enough to even present this sort of change to the core principles of bitcoin.

Great interview, lots of good topics, specially touching foundation topics from the money raised from members and advocacy of the bitcoiners, he actually has some good points about the foundation turning wrong  into crafting regulations.

[MicroGuy]

If there was no one holding a gun to my head, I would say let's go with core developer consensus. The BIP process and democratic methods of core seem to be in the best spirit and best interest of Bitcoin.

However, there is a gun to my head. And I don't want to be murdered in cold blood. Thus, I must side with the person that has his paws on Bitcoin's alert key. I don't see how a consensus, on any level, can overturn the rule and mandate of our mighty Bitcoin Führer.

[jonald_fyookball]

If there was no one holding a gun to my head, I would say let's go with core developer consensus. The BIP process and democratic methods of core seem to be in the best spirit and best interest of Bitcoin.

However, there is a gun to my head. And I don't want to be murdered in cold blood. Thus, I must side with the person that has his paws on Bitcoin's alert key. I don't see how a consensus, on any level, can overturn the rule and mandate of our mighty Bitcoin Führer.

Are you serious?  You run an altcoin and a crypto news site and you can't figure out how consensus works?  I have to thing you aren't that dumb and are just fudding.

The so called 'alert key' is just part of the code, it doesn't do anything except send a warning message, and it too can be forked away from Gavin should the community arrive at a consensus to do so.

[Amph]

this is one of those unnecessary changes, just for the sake of changes... instead of concentrating on more important thing like the tx limit, they waste time talking about thing that do not need any fix and they work fine

one thing that could be changed in the future is the minimum divisibility of bitcoin, if 1 satoshi will be too big in value(aka 1 dollar ecc...)

[Xialla]

uhh, I'm interested in Bitcoin, just because there is already known cap and until now I lived in some stupid dream, that it is "mantra" which can't be changed by any circumstances..omg, first this block size discussion, now this shit..

[forlackofabettername]

Given how hard it is to agree on a minor and obviously beneficial block size increase to 8 or 20MB, I doubt such a large and destructive change to increase 21M cap can have any chance to happen. Ever.

Well, once it comes up there "won't be an alternative" because "network security" and there will also be this mob of sheep-zombies that support that shit much in the same way they support Gavincoin now. Raising the 21M limit will be sold to you as "what the community wants" and "what will bring in big money" and all that punchlines ...

And i mean... after sheep fell for Gavincoin it's really not that big of an issue to raise the limit on coins, really. It could become even inevitable when after a blocksize increase the growth predictions for txs don't happen and that fee market is never established because of it. Running a bloated blockchain with lots of microtx-spam on hot air is hard to do (mind you blocks should grow automatically instead of raising fees in Gavins' phantasy, so with Gavin there will be no fees only endless increase in blocksize). So raising the limit on max coins will be easy once the projected growth isn't happening. People will cheer "network security" and "longevity" to that and there will be talks about big investors now finally buying that BS and so on and so forth ...

[forlackofabettername]

The so called 'alert key' is just part of the code, it doesn't do anything except send a warning message, and it too can be forked away from Gavin should the community arrive at a consensus to do so.

I think that right there is a much more interesting topic!!!


edit:

well, there is that thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102455.0

[NorrisK]

Given how hard it is to agree on a minor and obviously beneficial block size increase to 8 or 20MB, I doubt such a large and destructive change to increase 21M cap can have any chance to happen. Ever.

Why wouldn't miners support an increase in cap? If they can keep mining 25 coins instead of 12.5, ofcourse they are in! Price won't be cut in half, so they win out..

[Lauda]

If only the Core developers would finally agree to raising the block limit we would not have these problems. I've always questioned the hidden motives from both parties.
We can't really know what they are up to, we can just speculate.

I'm pretty sure that even if it comes to this, everyone would either: a) return to Core; b) abandon Bitcoin.
There's no way that I'm staying if it comes to that. Such a move would put Bitcoin in the same bag as the Federal Reserve.

[DooMAD]

Given how hard it is to agree on a minor and obviously beneficial block size increase to 8 or 20MB, I doubt such a large and destructive change to increase 21M cap can have any chance to happen. Ever.

Why wouldn't miners support an increase in cap? If they can keep mining 25 coins instead of 12.5, ofcourse they are in! Price won't be cut in half, so they win out..

Because that would lead to inflation, which reduces the value of each coin.  They might get more coins, but each coin would be worth less.  You have no way of guaranteeing that the price wouldn't be cut in half, or worse.  If enough people dumped their coins and jumped ship because they don't approve of that change, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Bitcoin could return to sub $1 prices.  But again, it's barely even possible that enough people would support that change for even the slightest chance of it actually happening.  So it's not an issue.  And also to reiterate again, attempting to tie this highly unlikely scenario to what's currently happening with XT is baseless and unwarranted.

[WhatTheGox]

People would just switch back to core.  This is a non issue.

Jon explains in the video that he believes user consensus will eventually support a 21 million cap change. He uses various welfare programs as examples.

If you want to pay me what my bitcoins are worth @ the 21 million cap level then fine, if not then no way i support the change, think most of other people would see it this way until bitcoin is more mainstream.

[DooMAD]

This will lead to inflation & bitcoin price could come back to $1.xx again
Increasing block size limit is okay, but this is too much

How about XT using their own blockchain & call their coins as Gavincoin (GVC)

XT is not proposing raising the 21 million cap.  But I'm sure the OP in this thread was hoping a few people might believe that. 

To clarify, someone who was a founding member of a slightly shady and not particularly transparent Bitcoin advocacy group thinks that if a fork is possible to increase the blocksize, a fork is also possible to increase the coin cap.  However, in reality, the likelihood of one bears no relevance whatsoever to the likelihood of the other.

[jonald_fyookball]

The so called 'alert key' is just part of the code, it doesn't do anything except send a warning message, and it too can be forked away from Gavin should the community arrive at a consensus to do so.

I think that right there is a much more interesting topic!!!


edit:

well, there is that thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102455.0

cool.

IMHO, just the fact that people are ready to throw Gavin under the bus for associating with Hearn
leads me to believe the community is far too alert and aware to ever consider raising the 21M.
Such a non issue here.

[forlackofabettername]

XT is not proposing raising the 21 million cap.  But I'm sure the OP in this thread was hoping a few people might believe that. 

To clarify, someone who was a founding member of a slightly shady and not particularly transparent Bitcoin advocacy group thinks that if a fork is possible to increase the blocksize, a fork is also possible to increase the coin cap.  However, in reality, the likelihood of one bears no relevance whatsoever to the likelihood of the other.

ad hominem

[QuestionAuthority]

There's a very short list of people that matter in development. They will figure out what's best for us. We really have no say anyway.

Wladimir J. van der Laan
Gavin Andresen
Jeff Garzik
Gregory Maxwell
Pieter Wuille
Luke Dashjr
Matt Corallo
Mike Hearn  
Peter Todd   

Matonis isn't in this group so his opinion doesn't matter.  

[Vlad2Vlad]

I've been shouting since 2013 that the max "hard" cap was not written in stone and that Roger Ver and Andreas were shills and the max cap would be changed.  I even had a debate on twitter with Voorhees about it when I posted a screenshot where it's actually listed as one of the risks in the Bitcoin ETF application.

It's amazing how I posted that in black and white everywhere and not one person noticed or even believed it.

Face it, Bitcoin worshippers, Bitcoin has been hijacked by banks, corporations and the government.

Enjoy the ride [and the drama].

[jonald_fyookball]

I've been shouting since 2013 that the max "hard" cap was not written in stone and that Roger Ver and Andreas were shills and the max cap would be changed.  I even had a debate on twitter with Voorhees about it when I posted a screenshot where it's actually listed as one of the risks in the Bitcoin ETF application.

keep shouting for all I care.  the max cap isn't changing.  And if it does, we won't use that fork.  have fun with your fud.