Alternative inflation schedule graph

[Meni Rosenfeld]

On several occasions I've tried using the popular inflation schedule graph in my presentations, but quickly realized it's not really readable in front of an audience. I therefore designed my alternative version of it:



Key changes:

• The text is much larger.
• The horizontal axis has tick marks only every 4 years. (There is still a grid line every year though.)
• Instead of a vertical tick mark every 3M coins, the 21M range is divided to 8 segments. I think having round numbers is trumped by having the tick marks aligned with the halving points.
• I added dots in every halving point.

I kept the end year of 2033, it's as good as any other.

I'm throwing it here for feedback and for discussion whether it should replace the previous graph wherever it appears.

According to demand I can revert some of the changes or make new ones.

Mathematica code:

Code:

g[n_Integer] := 21 (1 - 2^-n)

g[x_] := g[Floor[x]] + (x - Floor[x]) (g[Floor[x] + 1] - g[Floor[x]])

f[x_] := N[g[(x - 2009)/4]]

Plot[f[x], {x, 2009, endyear}, 
 Ticks -> {Table[a, {a, 2009, endyear, 4}], 
   Table[{a, PaddedForm[N[a], {4, 2}]}, {a, 21/8, 21, 21/8}]}, 
 PlotRange -> {{2009, endyear + 0.001}, {0, 21}}, 
 AxesOrigin -> {2009, 0}, Mesh -> 5, 
 GridLines -> {Table[{a, GrayLevel[0.85]}, {a, 2009, endyear, 1}], 
   Table[{a, GrayLevel[0.85]}, {a, 0, 21, 21/8}]}, 
 MeshStyle -> Directive[PointSize[Large]], 
 PlotStyle -> Thickness[0.005], Frame -> False, 
 PlotLabel -> 
  Style["Total bitcoins in circulation over time (millions)", 24], 
 TicksStyle -> Large]

[1714170710]

1714170710

[1714170710]

1714170710

[1714170710]

1714170710

[1714170710]

1714170710

[1714170710]

1714170710

[1714170710]

1714170710

[iain]

Your new one is definitely superior. The first thing people do with the old one is squint hard at it and try to visually read off the dates and circulation amounts at the kink-points. Your new one gives it all on a plate! Keep up the good work!

[Sukrim]

There's still the issue with people claiming no new coins will come into generation after 2033 (since a similar graph is posted on wikipedia etc.) - maybe you can somehow indicate more clearly that it will still go on in the future?

[wachtwoord]

Sure you can. Just add the asymptote @ 21 M

[wareen]

Thanks Meni!

I always had the same problem when doing Bitcoin presentations but I never got around doing a better graph. Since I don't have Mathematica installed, here's a slightly modified gnuplot version:

Code:

f(x) = 21*(1-2**((2009-x)/4))
set xrange [2009:2033]
set xtics 2009,4,2033
set mxtics 4
set yrange [0:21]
set ytics ("2.6" 2.625, "5.3" 5.25, "7.9" 7.875, "10.5" 10.5, "13.1" 13.125, "15.8" 15.75, "18.4" 18.375, "21.0" 21)
set title "Total bitcoins in circulation over time"
set ylabel "million BTC"
set xlabel "year"
set title "Total bitcoins in circulation over time"
unset key
set samples 7
set grid mxtics xtics ytics 
set style line 1 lt rgb "#4040FF" lw 3
plot f(x) with lines ls 1, f(x) with points ls -1 pt 7 ps 1.2

I went with a single decimal digit for the amount to increase clarity and added axis labels but that's just personal taste.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

There's still the issue with people claiming no new coins will come into generation after 2033 (since a similar graph is posted on wikipedia etc.) - maybe you can somehow indicate more clearly that it will still go on in the future?

I know, and I don't know if this can be fixed. The 21M asymptote exists as a gridline and there's a fairly visible gap between it and the graph height in 2033.

I went with a single decimal digit for the amount to increase clarity and added axis labels but that's just personal taste.

I've been pondering the best representation, I think a single digit is too inaccurate (doesn't give a good sense of what the numbers actually mean). 3 digits would have been more clumsy but have the advantage of being exact.

[wachtwoord]

There's still the issue with people claiming no new coins will come into generation after 2033 (since a similar graph is posted on wikipedia etc.) - maybe you can somehow indicate more clearly that it will still go on in the future?

I know, and I don't know if this can be fixed. The 21M asymptote exists as a gridline and there's a fairly visible gap between it and the graph height in 2033.

In the first figure the asymptote can be shown quite easily. Just use a red dashed line and it will be very clear. (In the bottom figure this indeed won't work due to the gridline)

[wareen]

I went with a single decimal digit for the amount to increase clarity and added axis labels but that's just personal taste.

I've been pondering the best representation, I think a single digit is too inaccurate (doesn't give a good sense of what the numbers actually mean). 3 digits would have been more clumsy but have the advantage of being exact.

I would agree if the x-axis showed blocks instead of dates, but four significant digits are imho a bit much when in reality we're already more than 2% off. Maybe we should call it "nominal amount of bitcoins in circulation"? But yeah, I guess this is a case where you just can't make it correct, easy to understand and look good at the same time.

[Sukrim]

Maybe let it go only to 2027 (more clear that 21 million are not reached there) and ad a red dashed/dotted line at 21 million? The dot at 2033 is already maybe too close to 21 million anyways, and 14 years into the future is still a long time.