|
maxmint (OP)
|
 |
March 15, 2013, 09:52:11 AM |
|
So there's this magical limit of ~21 million bitcoins that can theoretically exist at max. Many assumptions about the future of bitcoin are based on this number. How easy / hard would it be to change this limit? It seems, this function controls how many coins are given to miners for solving a block. If developers decided to change this function, the 21 million number would change too, right? Or is the 21 million number somehow coded deeper in the system? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
grau
|
|
March 15, 2013, 09:56:02 AM |
|
This is not the question of code but consensus that makes up Bitcoin.
A big portion, likely majority, of user would reject to upgrade to a version that changes this rule.
|
|
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
March 15, 2013, 10:23:55 AM |
|
Exactly, is just like if the government of a country decided to print more money, the people would throw them out of office and... oops...
...Well anyway, the moral of those stories seems to be that it wouldn't be elegant.
Bitcoin is mathematical, and mathematics is elegant, so obviously it cannot happen here.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
maxmint (OP)
|
|
March 15, 2013, 10:47:48 AM |
|
This is not the question of code but consensus that makes up Bitcoin.
Ok, that means the limit is not hard-wired. So it could be changed - at least theoretically. A big portion, likely majority, of user would reject to upgrade to a version that changes this rule.
I'm not saying that I don't trust the community, quite the contrary. But what if circumstances change and it appears to be wise to make a change to the limit? Who knows what could be 10 years from now. I mean, the current money printing also came gradually over time and people just got used to it. |
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
March 15, 2013, 10:52:03 AM
Last edit: March 15, 2013, 11:07:10 PM by markm |
|
I get the impression that not everyone got used to it. To the contrary, some people seem to take the position that the Fed can print more bitcoins when they pry their full node from their great great great great grandchild, last of the line,'s dying hand...  -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
prezbo
|
|
March 15, 2013, 11:59:04 AM |
|
I'm not saying that I don't trust the community, quite the contrary. But what if circumstances change and it appears to be wise to make a change to the limit? Who knows what could be 10 years from now.
I mean, the current money printing also came gradually over time and people just got used to it.
Why would anyone prefer a system where their money is losing value just by holding it to one where it doesn't? It makes no sense. |
|
|
|
|
mezzomix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1253
|
|
March 15, 2013, 12:04:20 PM |
|
This is not the question of code but consensus that makes up Bitcoin.
Ok, that means the limit is not hard-wired. So it could be changed - at least theoretically. What do you mean with hard-wired? It's an implemented protocol. You can change the implementation and everybody using this changed implementation will support the the changed rules. I'm not saying that I don't trust the community, quite the contrary. But what if circumstances change and it appears to be wise to make a change to the limit? Who knows what could be 10 years from now.
I mean, the current money printing also came gradually over time and people just got used to it.
This is the reason I'm not absolutely happy about how the 0.7 database problem was handled. There is to much power in the hand of a small group of people right now. They make the rules - everybody follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
maxmint (OP)
|
|
March 15, 2013, 12:45:38 PM |
|
What do you mean with hard-wired? It's an implemented protocol. You can change the implementation and everybody using this changed implementation will support the the changed rules.
Yes, I understand that now. I was under the impression that the coin limit was somehow fixed forever and could not be altered (like a transaction deep in the blockchain can't be changed anymore). But that's obviously not the case. |
|
|
|
linuxnewbie
Member
Offline
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
|
|
March 15, 2013, 01:17:44 PM |
|
The biggest holders and/or miners of BTC, or their heirs, may rule the world someday. If they go despotic, everyone can just switch to LTC or something else. And so on ad infinitum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
March 15, 2013, 01:47:34 PM |
|
Hmm a tiny possible-quibble there, as those who hold bitcoins are maybe somewhat out of luck/power if no one wants those bitcoins / is willing to trade things to them for those bitcoins. So it kind of seems like really the economic power is in those who want to hold bitcoins, assuming such people even continue to exist for any particular fork, rather than in those who already hold them... (Its in the economy, not the coins, maybe?) Its in those who hold the economy, not those who only hold the coins? -MarkM- |
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
March 15, 2013, 03:30:00 PM |
|
A big portion, likely majority, of user would reject to upgrade to a version that changes this rule.
When 100.000.000 ppl join the Bitcoin world, they can change the rules and they will be the majority. |
|
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
March 15, 2013, 03:50:06 PM
Last edit: March 15, 2013, 11:07:55 PM by markm |
|
On their fork, sure.
The Fed and its peons are the majority on the fiat fork too, that didn't stop Bitcoin Classic from arising. Cold dead hands, man, cold dead hands!
(Full node, remember. Not zombie drone peon slavetablet!)
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
March 15, 2013, 03:58:39 PM |
|
On their fork, sure.
I'm afraid THEY will call YOUR Bitcoin "a fork". Anyway, regardless which Bitcoin will be the fork, the majority will use their Bitcoin and your Bitcoin will be just toy money. |
|
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
March 15, 2013, 04:18:55 PM |
|
It already is toy money, it always has been toy money, it just happens that toy money is better than fiat money. Increasing the number of coins by fiat is just another fiat currency debasing itself the way fiat currencies do, the way that caused Classic Bitcoin to be so valuable in the first place.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
March 15, 2013, 07:34:14 PM |
|
Exactly, is just like if the government of a country decided to print more money, the people would throw them out of office and... oops...
...Well anyway, the moral of those stories seems to be that it wouldn't be elegant.
Bitcoin is mathematical, and mathematics is elegant, so obviously it cannot happen here.
-MarkM-
Right. Related. |
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
March 15, 2013, 07:41:45 PM |
|
So there's this magical limit of ~21 million bitcoins that can theoretically exist at max. Many assumptions about the future of bitcoin are based on this number. How easy / hard would it be to change this limit? It seems, this function controls how many coins are given to miners for solving a block. If developers decided to change this function, the 21 million number would change too, right? Or is the 21 million number somehow coded deeper in the system? It's theoretically possible, yes. It's also theoretically possible for the quantum force we call gravity to reverse itself tommorrow, and we are all 'reborn' in the result, that some scientist calls "The big fart" in another 14 trillion years. I'd give those two about even odds. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
March 15, 2013, 08:17:03 PM |
|
It's theoretically possible, yes. It's also theoretically possible for the quantum force we call gravity to reverse itself tommorrow, and we are all 'reborn' in the result, that some scientist calls "The big fart" in another 14 trillion years.
I'd give those two about even odds.
Do u give those even odds or u wish those have even odds? (Don't bother answering this question) |
|
|
|
|
batcoin
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
In Gord We Trust
|
|
March 15, 2013, 09:59:26 PM |
|
Bitcoin is mathematical, and mathematics is elegant, so obviously it cannot happen here.
Man, those sound like famous last words... From my understanding it could happen and easier than one might think. It all depends on the diligence of those who download the software and run nodes for the network from what I understand. If they are lazy and set their client to automatic update (which is something that I suspect would be implemented in future releases) or they just upgrade because there's a new release, a majority of the network could unwittingly accept the change. I'm not saying that I don't trust the community, quite the contrary. But what if circumstances change and it appears to be wise to make a change to the limit? Who knows what could be 10 years from now.
I mean, the current money printing also came gradually over time and people just got used to it.
Why would anyone prefer a system where their money is losing value just by holding it to one where it doesn't? It makes no sense. When people don't have the first clue on how their money actually works, how can they know enough to care? They just listen to the asshole on TV who says that inflation is BAD! Deflation is BAD! Stagflation is BAD! and they say HELL YEAH BIOTCH! and head off to work to flip burgurz. Take what I have to say with a grain of salt, though. I am just an amateur with an asshole opinion. Now I am off to spin pizza dough. |
If you have more than 0.01BTC and complain about early adopters, please consider donating to this address: 1P11Dz4mhDcJvetHqEJu35KNEVqSRmqo3b
General Tips: 1P4YfrYwQKKtfwszzb2aHgLVLiWQCrJfwi
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
March 15, 2013, 10:16:49 PM
Last edit: March 15, 2013, 11:29:39 PM by markm |
|
Bitcoin is mathematical, and mathematics is elegant, so obviously it cannot happen here.
Man, those sound like famous last words... Oh I'm sorry, was the sound turned down or did the sound effects department not adequately convey the sound of irony dripping copiously from said words?   -MarkM- EDIT: Hint: "can't happen here" aka "it cannot happen here" is a proverbially famous famously proverbial "these are last words, epitaph writers please take note of them" indicator. (As in "The proverbial 'it cannot happen here'" ) (Yet somehow, strangely, weirdly, mathematically, not to be confused with "hash collision"... Hmm, as in things that make one go hmmm..) |
|
|
|
|
