21 millions bitcoin in question

[fred21]

Hello,

Hard fork will make possible to extend the number of bitcoin in circulation (more than 21 millions).

However, everyone told me that the majority of node runners will not allow this to happen.

My question is why they will not?

Indeed, this will create more revenu for them, as there will be more bitcoin to mine and not only revenu from transaction fees.

what do you think?

[1715049631]

1715049631

[1715049631]

1715049631

[1715049631]

1715049631

[0xfff]

Hyperinflation is not a good thing for an economy. Bitcoin price would plummet. I do not think the number of bitcoins should ever be increased.

[Yakamoto]

Destroys the value instantly.

Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.

Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.

[arransiv]

If you have 1 bitcoin today, it worth 700+
if you put more 21 million coins in the system, probably 1 bitcoin will worth 350 or less.

And changing the basic make people have a lot doubts about the "decentralized".

Just my newbie opnion here.

[shinratensei_]

Hello,

Hard fork will make possible to extend the number of bitcoin in circulation (more than 21 millions).

However, everyone told me that the majority of node runners will not allow this to happen.

My question is why they will not?

I may think it can destroy the bitcoin value and network. They were running on the limitation of Bitcoin.

Indeed, this will create more revenu for them, as there will be more bitcoin to mine and not only revenu from transaction fees.

what do you think?

If they can get fill up which means it was going out from the limitation of Bitcoin. The network will be going to un-trust about the bitcoin. And a lot of nodes will un-validating about the bitcoin has produced by a hard fork(they were validating up to 21million supply of bitcoin and no more).

[gentlemand]

It's a v interesting question. If you can persuade enough people to fork and enough people to follow that fork then anything is possible.

Humans traditionally aren't very good at looking at long term rewards versus short term gain. Right now enough coins are arriving to keep miners happy. In 15-20 years unless the values are way higher it's conceivable that miners could agitate enough to raise the possibility.

It depends on whether everyone else would fold at the prospect of them abandoning mining en masse. Others may take up the gig. If and when scaling is dealt with perhaps this might be the next future shitstorm. I'll probably be back in nappies by then.

[digaran]

Why not deal with this 21m for now? what makes you want to have more than 21m bitcoins?
It's something in the core code of bitcoin and can't be changed period.

[franky1]

one thing to know

its not 21million rule, thats just named that for the human mind to put the real rule into a less coded, less mathematical concept average joe can understand without their mind exploding, buzzword.

it does create 21million btc. but you have to understand HOW

the rule is actually:
each block reward was 5,000,000,000 units of measure from block 0 to block 210,000(50 btc per block for 210,000blocks)
totalling 1,050,000,000,000,000 units of measure in circulation (10.5million btc)

then it halves for the next 210,000 blocks.
meaning
each block 210,001-420,000 reward was 2,500,000,000 units of measure 210,000(25 btc per block for 210,000blocks)
releasing 525,000,000,000,000 units during this period (5.25million btc)
totalling 1,575,000,000,000,000 units of measure in circulation  (15.75million btc)

then it halves for the next 210,000 blocks.
meaning
each block 420,001-630,000 reward is 1,250,000,000 units of measure 210,000(12.5 btc per block for 210,000blocks)
releasing 262,500,000,000,000 units during this period (2.625million btc)
totalling 1,837,500,000,000,000 units of measure in circulation (18.375million btc)

and every 210,000 blocks the reward halves, releasing half as much and so on and so on until no more units of measure are rewarded

thats whats wrote in code.
which calculates in the year 2140ish each block will only make 1 unit of measure per block.. and then thats it. no more.


bringing the total ever made to just about 2,100,000,000,000,000 units of measure
more precisely 2,099,999,997,690,000 units of measure (20,999,999.9769btc (~21million btc)

the rarity is that at best it can be split up into 2.1quadrillian parts

however human minds dont like big numbers. so the user facing GUI treats
a unit of measure has been called a satoshi (singular 'sat' for short, plural 'sats' for short)
1 unit of measure as 1 sat
100 sats as 1 bit
100,000,000sats as 1btc or 1,000,000 bits
1,250,000,000sats as 12.5btc or 12,500,000 bits
2,500,000,000sats as 25btc or 25,000,000 bits
5,000,000,000sats as 50btc or 50,000,000 bits
and ofcourse
2,100,000,000,000,000sats as 21million btc or 21,000,000,000,000 bits


the main premise is bitcoin would only make 2.1quadrillian sharable units ever. and that was a hard rule no one should change as its an economics rarity thing

now.. here is the thing.. although the code is measured in sats and only the GUI / human brain sees btc..
some banker paid devs are actually trying to play with the units of measure that will be rewarded to mining pools.

EG
instead of:
1,250,000,000sats, being rewarded per block they want
1,250,000,000,000 millisats

code form
1,250,000,000units of measure.. becomes
1,250,000,000,000units of measure

meaning 1000 more units of measure (1000x more split-able and shareable(less rare)) which also extends the minimum life expectancy to change from the year ~2140 to ~2180

this trick is done by although at code level making there be 1000 more units of measure. they still want to play with peoples heads by:
1,250,000,000,000 millisats is a btc.

and
1 unit of measure is a millisat
1,000 units of measure is 1 sat
100,000 units of measure is 100 sats or 1bit
100,000,000,000 units of measure is 1btc or 1,000,000,000 bits

they are hiding the split-ability, separability, (destroying/diluting rarity) by moving how many units of measure is declared a bitcoin.

and yes this is being done by developers funded by bankers


here is another thing,
them same banker paid devs want to mess around with the halving mechanism and even make the individual blockrewards adjustable as a punishment for wanting more transaction capacity in said block
like this https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/commit/ad4c77f1ff2c370f67538e01fd082d231b57f2d0

[achow101]

the main premise is bitcoin would only make 2.1quadrillian sharable units ever. and that was a hard rule no one should change as its an economics rarity thing

Actually the original code had the entire block subsidy cycle repeat every 64 halvings due to some undefined behavior with c++. BIP 42 (which is full of jokes): https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki fixes this by stopping the halving logic after 64 halvings have passed so that there is actually a finite supply. The change has been merged for a few years already.

now.. here is the thing.. although the code is measured in sats and only the GUI / human brain sees btc..
some devs are actually trying to play with the units of measure that will be rewarded to mining pools.

Who is proposing this? I have not seen any serious proposal which proposes any sort of change to the monetary supply (except for BIP 42). Do you have a link to a source?

[franky1]

Who is proposing this? I have not seen any serious proposal which proposes any sort of change to the monetary supply (except for BIP 42). Do you have a link to a source?

rusty russel of blockstream LN fame wants to first introduce millisats into LN. and later change bitcoins measure to comply with LN.

[achow101]

Who is proposing this? I have not seen any serious proposal which proposes any sort of change to the monetary supply (except for BIP 42). Do you have a link to a source?

rusty russel of blockstream LN fame wants to first introduce millisats into LN. and later change bitcoins measure to comply with LN.

Link to source?

[ufaiz50]

which will surely decrease the price of bitcoin, the worst bitcoin become worthless , although the currency failure generally occurs due to hyperinflation which is not possible in Bitcoin. no currency that can be considered very safe from failure and difficult period

[outatime1]

The deflationary character of bitcoin draws some investors because the assumption is that over time, the value of each bitcoin has to increase. If we change bitcoin, then we affect everyone that has put money into it for the investment potential.

[babyjesusftw1]

I think creating more bitcoin sort of undermines the system originally put in place. If you can make more bitcoin, then supply and demand won't be the main cause of price fluctuations. Bitcoin should not be reproduced, because then it's just like the banks and inflation lowering the real value of the currency.

[Decoded]

The point of the 21 bitcoin limit is that there will be a limited amount of bitcoin in existence full stop. If we keep continuously adding, then the currency will become like fiat, with people repeatedly making more and more and inflating the economy. Bitcoin's future is not one of supercomputers mining it, but people like you and me using it.

[Wind_FURY]

Hello,

Hard fork will make possible to extend the number of bitcoin in circulation (more than 21 millions).

However, everyone told me that the majority of node runners will not allow this to happen.

My question is why they will not?

Because changing the rules in the middle of the game will hurt Bitcoin making the price plummet. the miners themselves do not want that to happen and so do everybody else who are into Bitcoin.

Indeed, this will create more revenu for them, as there will be more bitcoin to mine and not only revenu from transaction fees.

what do you think?

What good are those additional mining rewards if the price went down to $1 because of your said changes in your post. Bitcoin's supply cap is a political statement made against the inflationary measures done by the banks to manipulate the economy.

[pooya87]

Hard fork will make possible to extend the number of bitcoin in circulation (more than 21 millions).

However, everyone told me that the majority of node runners will not allow this to happen.

what you are asking is a rare situation, yes it is possible to do a hard fork and increase that cap but there should be a strong reason for that. for example if a very big number of coins were burnt (e.g. 10 million coins lost) and in that case majority of users will come to a consensus and fork bitcoin.

but if it is for the reasons like more revenue for miners or some other weak reasons it will never happen.

[Cubic Earth]

The 21 Million is the current agreement, and very dear to many at that. But sure, if there was widespread agreement to raise the total, it could easily be done. I could foresee consensus emerging around raising the limit in the future if it was decided that the issuance of new coins was the most economically efficient way to pay for the continued security of the network. Paying for security once the block subsidy becomes insignificant is currently imagined to come from transaction fees, but it's possible that could fail to work in a reasonable way. If the network is funded solely via transaction fees, active users pay the whole cost of security, where as savers don't pay anything. I'm not advocating raising the limit, but just pointing out that there may be circumstances in the future where there is widespread agreement that raising the limit is the best path forward.

Some people may argue abandoning the limit is stealing, but bitcoin is voluntary, and that includes the right of people not to use it, or use a modified version of it.

[rajasumi2]

it is good that the bitcoins are finite because
-the price will go higher and higher
-if suddenly too many bitcoins are put into place then the price of bitcoins would go down suddenly
-i think till 2100 the bitcoins should be 21 million then after the bitcoins should increase .
kudoos

[Kakmakr]

I think what he is trying to say is, if there are more Bitcoin to be mined when the Cap is raised, then miners will be able to mine more coins and this would be the incentive to increase it for them. Even if they raised that limit, then the interval will have to be adjusted to, for miners to benefit now.

The problem is, the supply increase will reduce it's value and this will cancel out any benefit that might be gained by more coins that can be mined now. Normal Bitcoin users will suffer the most, because it devalue their money, so they will start dumping their coins, and the price will even go lower.