How likely is it that future hard-forks will increase the number of bitcoins?

[botolo86]

Most of the people keeping bitcoins as investment think that the value will go high, the more users use bitcoins. This is a demand/offer reasoning and it's based on the fact that the current protocol allows only X bitcoins to be mined.

How likely it would be that a future hard-fork removes this limit or just increases the number of bitcoins in circulation? This would destroy the value of bitcoins already mined.

[Lauda]

For that to happen almost everyone would have to agree to those rules. Keep in mind that almost everyone is against this. Something like this would most likely have a catastrophic result indeed. You should avoid people who are open to changing the fundamental rules of Bitcoin.

[rimbit]

Doesnt really matter...
Bitcoin cant stand on its own 2 feet in its current form...

Companies with vested interest in Bitcoin are now propping up the network, so expect them to start sucking the life out out of Bitcoin, before pulling the nodes out of the system

https://www.btcc.com/news/article/btcc-deploys-100-full-bitcoin-nodes-across-five-continents

Wont last long...

[DooMAD]

Doesnt really matter...
Bitcoin cant stand on its own 2 feet in its current form...

Companies with vested interest in Bitcoin are now propping up the network, so expect them to start sucking the life out out of Bitcoin, before pulling the nodes out of the system

https://www.btcc.com/news/article/btcc-deploys-100-full-bitcoin-nodes-across-five-continents

Wont last long...

That's a touch dramatic and alarmist.  All they're doing is providing a fast-track service for their customers.  Hardly network breaking.  It's not like we'd be lost without their nodes.

[Lauda]

That's a touch dramatic.

You've missed a very important piece of information in their signature:

[ANN] Rimbit - We removed mining - As Bitcoin continues to fail, Rimbit will pick up the pieces

What a joke.

It's not like we'd be lost without their nodes.

Exactly. Especially, not now when one can run a pruned node easily (lower storage requirements).

[NUFCrichard]

I think it is very unlikely that the max number of coins will be changed in the future.

Look at the situation now, it obviously makes sense to increase the blocksize, but it hasn't happened.  Increasing the total number of coins would be a decision based purely on taste, not a clear wrong or right.  There is no way 50% or more of miners would go for it, expecially when it would be a negative for them if they hold any of the coins that they mine.

[Kprawn]

What would be the economic or financial benefit for the people owning coins now? None... It would de-value their currency/price and who would allow that? Let's say for instance all diamonds are

mined and someone decides to accept Cubic Zirconia as real diamonds with the same value... would people owning diamonds be happy? No. The people who own most of the Bitcoins also have a

say, in what they want to accept or what not... and I am fairly sure they will not allow anyone to increase the Bitcoin cap.

[twister]

Don't see this happening, the debate and difference of opinion on block size etc. are one thing but most (if not all) would be against this and hence it won't ever happen.

[RodeoX]

I would put the chance of that happening at zero chance. We cant even come to consensus about something that absolutely must happen, much less agree to fork the most unpopular idea in bitcoin.

[Denker]

There is no reason to do so because 1BTC=100.000.000 satoshi.
These are more than enough units.
I can not see this happening for a good reason.

[botolo86]

There is no reason to do so because 1BTC=100.000.000 satoshi.
These are more than enough units.
I can not see this happening for a good reason.

Bitcoin has way more branding power than Satoshis. If Bitcoin increases its value, we will reach a point where adoption will be blocked by the general perception that Bitcoin is too expensive.

Also, but correct me if I am wrong, Bitcoins are comparable to shares of a company. The whole Bitcoin network is controlled by the total number of Bitcoins. If you don't have Bitcoins and need to transact in Bitcoin, you need to buy some and become "shareholder", even if this is for the fraction of time you need to complete the transaction. Expanding the number of Bitcoins would mean open the network to new users and avoid having a centralized control.

[adamstgBit]

There is no reason to do so because 1BTC=100.000.000 satoshi.
These are more than enough units.
I can not see this happening for a good reason.

Bitcoin has way more branding power than Satoshis. If Bitcoin increases its value, we will reach a point where adoption will be blocked by the general perception that Bitcoin is too expensive.

Also, but correct me if I am wrong, Bitcoins are comparable to shares of a company. The whole Bitcoin network is controlled by the total number of Bitcoins. If you don't have Bitcoins and need to transact in Bitcoin, you need to buy some and become "shareholder", even if this is for the fraction of time you need to complete the transaction. Expanding the number of Bitcoins would mean open the network to new users and avoid having a centralized control.

you do understand they can buy 0.0100001BTC right?

[Amph]

it more likely that miners hard fork the client to run their new bitcoin without the halving than the supply being increased

[DannyHamilton]

How likely it would be that a future hard-fork removes this limit or just increases the number of bitcoins in circulation?

This will not happen.  It would require the consensus of all the users.  Such a consensus would not be possible.

This would destroy the value of bitcoins already mined.

This is why the consensus of the users would not be possible, and why that hard fork will not happen.

Bitcoin has way more branding power than Satoshis.

There is nothing magical or enforced about Bitcoin's branding.  It is more recognizable right now because that is the unit that people work with.  If people start working with Satoshis (or microbitcoin or millibitcoin, or nanobitcoin), then those will become the recognizable units.

If Bitcoin increases its value, we will reach a point where adoption will be blocked by the general perception that Bitcoin is too expensive.

-sarcasm alert-
Right, just like how adoption of U.S. dollars is blocked by the perception that 1 metric ton of it is too expensive.
-end sarcasm-

People will buy and transact with whatever the appropriate transactional unit is. That unit won't be too expensive, because it will the appropriate size for transacting with.

Also, but correct me if I am wrong, Bitcoins are comparable to shares of a company. The whole Bitcoin network is controlled by the total number of Bitcoins.

You are wrong.

Bitcoins really aren't much like shares of a company at all.  They are more like kilograms of gold.  The Bitcoin network is controlled by the peer nodes (even if they don't have any bitcoins at all).

If you don't have Bitcoins and need to transact in Bitcoin, you need to buy some and become "shareholder", even if this is for the fraction of time you need to complete the transaction.

In the same way that if you don't have British Pounds and you need to transact in British Pounds, you need to buy some and become a "shareholder" in British Pounds.

Expanding the number of Bitcoins would mean open the network to new users

Cutting the existing bitcoins into smaller pieces would also open the network to new users.

and avoid having a centralized control.

Creating more bitcoins wouldn't do anything to change the decentralized nature of bitcoin.

[botolo86]

Also, but correct me if I am wrong, Bitcoins are comparable to shares of a company. The whole Bitcoin network is controlled by the total number of Bitcoins.

You are wrong.

Bitcoins really aren't much like shares of a company at all.  They are more like kilograms of gold.  The Bitcoin network is controlled by the peer nodes (even if they don't have any bitcoins at all).

I am thinking about Bitcoin becoming an internet protocol that could be used for other purposes, e.g. colored coins, proof of existence and other apps that would work over the Bitcoin/Blockchain layer. In order to work, these apps need Bitcoins as their "fuel", even the smallest transaction. But if 1 BTC = $10,000, then even the smallest transaction will be too expensive to incentivize the creation of apps. This is when there could be consensus on mining more Bitcoins to decrease its value and give more "fuel" for apps.

[DannyHamilton]

I am thinking about Bitcoin becoming an internet protocol that could be used for other purposes, e.g. colored coins, proof of existence and other apps that would work over the Bitcoin/Blockchain layer. In order to work, these apps need Bitcoins as their "fuel", even the smallest transaction. But if 1 BTC = $10,000, then even the smallest transaction will be too expensive to incentivize the creation of apps.

If BTC = $10,000 then you can get 10 Nans (nanobitcoin) for $0.0001

This is too expensive to incentivize the creation of apps?  100 individual transactional units for $0.01?

Regardless, lets imagine that 1 BTC = $100,000,000.  Then each transactional unit will cost $1.  If that is "too expensive to incentivize the creation of apps", you know what will happen?  One of two things:

• Demand will drop due to the lack of potential uses and the price of bitcoins will drop until it reaches an equilibrium where the incentivized uses create the demand that supports the price.
• People will find other uses that are incentivized at that price.  The new uses will increase demand, and the price of bitcoins will increase until it reaches an equilibrium where the incentivized uses create the demand that supports the price.

This is when there could be consensus on mining more Bitcoins to decrease its value and give more "fuel" for apps.

-sarcasm alert-
Right.  Those that are holding valuable bitcoins will create consensus to reduce the value of what they hold.  Because they aren't willing to use their valuable bitcoins for apps, but they are willing to destroy the value of their valuable bitcoins and then use the reduced value for apps.
-end sarcasm-

[Meuh6879]

How likely it would be that a future hard-fork removes this limit or just increases the number of bitcoins in circulation ?

to obtain this result, you MUST convert the 7200 nodes of Bitcoin network to this ... change.
OK ... HAVE YOU LOOSE YOUR FUCKING MIND ?!?!?



NODES only work and run regulary client update to support the truth nature of Bitcoin network.
NODES DON'T UPDATE if the client change the fondamental aspect of this Bitcoin network.

It's like that, a decentralized network.
It's ONLY smart people at the end of the (network) line.

[Yakamoto]

Most of the people keeping bitcoins as investment think that the value will go high, the more users use bitcoins. This is a demand/offer reasoning and it's based on the fact that the current protocol allows only X bitcoins to be mined.

How likely it would be that a future hard-fork removes this limit or just increases the number of bitcoins in circulation? This would destroy the value of bitcoins already mined.

I would highly doubt for there to be any consensus related to removing the Bitcoin cap. This is for the same reason you mentioned, such a fork would absolutely destroy the value of the coins mined, and any future coins. Luckily, everyone has to agree on it to move, or for such a thing to actually take effect.

[johnyj]

Bitcoin's rule is not enforced through software, but the community consensus. Anyone with a little bit IT expertise can hard fork bitcoin and create 1 billion bitcoin at will on his fork, but that fork will become his own pet and I guess no one will be interested in it

For example, when we had the first reward halving, there was a fork with 50 bitcoin forever block reward, but since no one really interested in running that version with unlimited coin supply, it just died

[Soros Shorts]

Also, but correct me if I am wrong, Bitcoins are comparable to shares of a company. The whole Bitcoin network is controlled by the total number of Bitcoins. If you don't have Bitcoins and need to transact in Bitcoin, you need to buy some and become "shareholder", even if this is for the fraction of time you need to complete the transaction. Expanding the number of Bitcoins would mean open the network to new users and avoid having a centralized control.

I don't quite agree with this analogy but ...

A publicly listed company that does well splits its shares. A company that needs more money issues more shares and dilutes existing shareholders. As a shareholder which would you prefer?

Using Satoshis as units instead of Bitcoin is like a 100,000,000 for 1 split.