grau
|
|
January 05, 2013, 06:07:01 PM |
|
My two cents: Currently the US-government has liabilities of a bit more than 15*10^12 $, say roughly 10^13 $. Taken all of the other liabilities world wide, I guess their sum is limited by $ 10^14. Moreover I believe all sums of every money availible (converted to US-$ units) is < 10^15 $ at every past point of time. So if you like to be precise on the level of 0.01 US-cent, you need an integer range up to 10^19. Hmm ... 2^64 = 1.84...*10^9. Wow, critical close if everybody would use BTC for his business! ;-) smtp
Bitcoin is cash not liabilities. The magnitude of cash floating around is much less than you calculate.
|
|
|
|
dserrano5
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1974
Merit: 1029
|
|
January 05, 2013, 08:46:06 PM |
|
Personally the only thing I wish was different is 1 [...] and 2 make the subsidies base 2 so there would be a "clean" generation (i.e. 64 BTC, 32 BTC 16 BTC, 8 BTC ... 2 satoshi, 1 satoshis 0).
What would happen when the subsidy was 1 BTC? Half of that is 0.5 BTC and further dividing that by 2 doesn't lead to ... 2 satoshi, 1 satoshi, 0. For that to happen, the subsidy would need to start at 2^n/1e8 BTC, which at n=32 would be 42.94967296 BTC, which is as nerdy as ugly.
|
|
|
|
smtp
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
January 05, 2013, 08:54:34 PM |
|
My two cents: Currently the US-government has liabilities of a bit more than 15*10^12 $, say roughly 10^13 $. Taken all of the other liabilities world wide, I guess their sum is limited by $ 10^14. Moreover I believe all sums of every money availible (converted to US-$ units) is < 10^15 $ at every past point of time. So if you like to be precise on the level of 0.01 US-cent, you need an integer range up to 10^19. Hmm ... 2^64 = 1.84...*10^9. Wow, critical close if everybody would use BTC for his business! ;-) smtp
Bitcoin is cash not liabilities. The magnitude of cash floating around is much less than you calculate. ? What do you call cash? I tried to estimate official existing nominal money amount. And liabilities should be (far) less than existing money world-wide! smtp
|
|
|
|
smtp
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
January 05, 2013, 08:59:30 PM |
|
What would happen when the subsidy was 1 BTC? Half of that is 0.5 BTC and further dividing that by 2 doesn't lead to ... 2 satoshi, 1 satoshi, 0. For that to happen, the subsidy would need to start at 2^n/1e8 BTC, which at n=32 would be 42.94967296 BTC, which is as nerdy as ugly.
The ugly thing is either 10 is no power of 2 or humans are not comfortable to think intuitively in powers of 2! ;-) smtp
|
|
|
|
smtp
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
January 05, 2013, 09:13:06 PM Last edit: January 05, 2013, 10:06:30 PM by smtp |
|
A serious and more non-future aimed thought would e.g. result in: start with say 2^16/1000 BTC half this every 210000 (or what ever fixed number) of blocks -- better choose the time interval 4 years and a certain distant of 10 mins for a new block, do this for 16*4 = 64 years, then we are at 1 mBTC and then hold this constant for ever! So you have a small linear growth in BTC total. Then we need no (new/very artifically and arbitrary changable rules for) transaction-fees! But we should retalk this topic in nearly 64-4 years! smtp
|
|
|
|
grau
|
|
January 05, 2013, 09:30:17 PM |
|
My two cents: Currently the US-government has liabilities of a bit more than 15*10^12 $, say roughly 10^13 $. Taken all of the other liabilities world wide, I guess their sum is limited by $ 10^14. Moreover I believe all sums of every money availible (converted to US-$ units) is < 10^15 $ at every past point of time. So if you like to be precise on the level of 0.01 US-cent, you need an integer range up to 10^19. Hmm ... 2^64 = 1.84...*10^9. Wow, critical close if everybody would use BTC for his business! ;-) smtp
Bitcoin is cash not liabilities. The magnitude of cash floating around is much less than you calculate. ? What do you call cash? I tried to estimate official existing nominal money amount. And liabilities should be (far) less than existing money world-wide! smtp Wrong. Liabilities are certainly magnitudes higher than cash (M0). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
|
|
|
|
smtp
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
January 05, 2013, 09:33:16 PM Last edit: January 05, 2013, 09:45:39 PM by smtp |
|
Bitcoin is cash not liabilities. The magnitude of cash floating around is much less than you calculate.
Image to go to a business bank in 50 years and asking for a credit. The bank offers you say 10 BTC. Will you ask: do I get this as cash? :-) Or if they offer you a 10 MBTC credit -- you are a well-known big-business man and you know that there (will) exists only 21 MBTC world-wide and it is almost the only used currency of importance -- what will you think then? smtp
|
|
|
|
smtp
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
January 05, 2013, 09:37:09 PM |
|
Wrong? I did not state anything about this. I ask you why you considered cash only, or better what you called cash? It looks more you don't know what I talk/think about. And thus set money = cash. Regards smtp
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 08, 2013, 01:35:27 AM |
|
Wrong? I did not state anything about this. I ask you why you considered cash only, or better what you called cash? It looks more you don't know what I talk/think about. And thus set money = cash. Regards smtp What was wrong was the assumption of this statement: And liabilities should be (far) less than existing money world-wide!
Should be... probably. Are... certainly not today.
|
|
|
|
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 668
Merit: 500
|
|
January 08, 2013, 12:07:26 PM |
|
Like other indicated it was a guestimate and the number of coins (and discrete units) is totally arbitrary. Personally the only thing I wish was different is 1 use full 64bit (21M BTC * 1E8 =2.1E15, 64bit ulong = 1.84E19) for units and 2 make the subsidies base 2 so there would be a "clean" generation (i.e. 64 BTC, 32 BTC 16 BTC, 8 BTC ... 2 satoshi, 1 satoshis 0).
Dunno if anyone other than me noticed it (I was once a floating point nut; I contributed the compile-time host- and target-independent FP arithmetic that is in the Clang compiler) but the current usage of 21* 10^6 * 10^8 satoshis means that integer arithmetic in satoshi units (2100000000000000 of them) can be done perfectly within the pure integer part of a double-precision point number. They have 52 explicit bits, 4503599627370496 possibilities, i.e. double-precision values can be used to do bitcoin arithmetic without fear of loss of precision, bigint or long long integer arithmetic is unnecessary. Coincidence? Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|