Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Newar]

Good luck finding that consensus!

[Grafzep]

 - the difference between Doge and Bitcoin is that there isn't a cap to the total number of Dogecoins created,
 whereas Bitcoin will only ever have a max of 21m coins (unless the protocol changes).

Its nothing to do with the protocol - if it were then there may be some guarantees that this 21m cap will be concrete.

No, its simply an arbitrary value ( actually - its an 'operand') in the code that can be changed at any time without having any effect on previous, existing or future transactions.
So, in otherwords, where most 'protocol' changes would, at the very least, require a "hard fork", the change in the cap to 22M or 42M or infinite cap could be made in the next minor version release.

I dont know where people who are supposed to understand these things get the idea of a hard limit to bitcoin. Its only a 'guide' or estimate. It can change once enough people want it.

Its just one line of code!!

The 21 million cap, is as concrete as peoples trust in Bitcoin..... or rather peoples trust in Bitcoin is as concrete at the 21 million cap.

That's why he's trying to FUD it.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[plasticAiredale]

 - the difference between Doge and Bitcoin is that there isn't a cap to the total number of Dogecoins created,
 whereas Bitcoin will only ever have a max of 21m coins (unless the protocol changes).

Its nothing to do with the protocol - if it were then there may be some guarantees that this 21m cap will be concrete.

No, its simply an arbitrary value ( actually - its an 'operand') in the code that can be changed at any time without having any effect on previous, existing or future transactions.
So, in otherwords, where most 'protocol' changes would, at the very least, require a "hard fork", the change in the cap to 22M or 42M or infinite cap could be made in the next minor version release.

I dont know where people who are supposed to understand these things get the idea of a hard limit to bitcoin. Its only a 'guide' or estimate. It can change once enough people want it.

Its just one line of code!!

If someone was to change this "one line of code" if definitely would be considered a "hard fork", regardless of consensus from the core devs. You need 50% plus 1 among the miners to decide to follow. Minor version releases are minor because they don't contain any controversial changes, not because of the amount of work or line changes that were made.

[criptix]

 - the difference between Doge and Bitcoin is that there isn't a cap to the total number of Dogecoins created,
 whereas Bitcoin will only ever have a max of 21m coins (unless the protocol changes).

Its nothing to do with the protocol - if it were then there may be some guarantees that this 21m cap will be concrete.

No, its simply an arbitrary value ( actually - its an 'operand') in the code that can be changed at any time without having any effect on previous, existing or future transactions.
So, in otherwords, where most 'protocol' changes would, at the very least, require a "hard fork", the change in the cap to 22M or 42M or infinite cap could be made in the next minor version release.

I dont know where people who are supposed to understand these things get the idea of a hard limit to bitcoin. Its only a 'guide' or estimate. It can change once enough people want it.

Its just one line of code!!

The 21 million cap, is as concrete as peoples trust in Bitcoin..... or rather peoples trust in Bitcoin is as concrete at the 21 million cap.

Nah, Peoples trust and use of bitcoin will be seperate to that cap. However, dreams of hlding a $32K or $4.4m Bitcoin are as concrete as an arbitrary line of code.

Also, the rules are pretty explicit in saying that this can be changed - with consensus. The move from 1mb to 20mb blocksize is technically far more complex.

really? Then ltc, doge and other alts would have already surpassed btc long time ago.

Check the whitepaper and why bitcoin was invented in the first place. You will then understand why the limit of 21 mil btc wont be changed

[derpinheimer]

Epic dumps are not that epic anymore.

neither are the walls that epic these days in BTC terms....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg1860117#msg1860117


ahhhh, those were the days...

...and I heard even further back before I was born, they had spectacular fun on gox pre 2013, throwing btcs around like confetti

Wasn't that wall like 40k at its peak? That one burned me hard.

[Newar]

Epic dumps are not that epic anymore.

neither are the walls that epic these days in BTC terms....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg1860117#msg1860117


ahhhh, those were the days...

...and I heard even further back before I was born, they had spectacular fun on gox pre 2013, throwing btcs around like confetti

Wasn't that wall like 40k at its peak? That one burned me hard.

~30k I think. It was fun.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

If someone was to change this "one line of code" if definitely would be considered a "hard fork", regardless of consensus from the core devs.

Definition of hard fork is:

A hard fork is any change to a protocol that is not backwards compatible.

This would very definitely be backwards compatible. A

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

really? Then ltc, doge and other alts would have already surpassed btc long time ago.

Check the whitepaper and why bitcoin was invented in the first place. You will then understand why the limit of 21 mil btc wont be changed

You are saying it "wont" (subjective), I'm saying simply that it "can" (objective)

Can you point me to a document where it explicitly states that the 21M cap is a fundamental part of what bitcoin is?

[empowering]

If devs decided to make this change,  miners and nodes would then have the option to follow or not, essentially what you are suggesting would be a fork/ hard fork, saying it ain't so ^^ is semantics.

You can test your theory, create a hard fork of BTC now, increase the limit to 42 million and convince all of the nodes and miners to follow you.

I will give you my vote now.

NO

[empowering]

really? Then ltc, doge and other alts would have already surpassed btc long time ago.

Check the whitepaper and why bitcoin was invented in the first place. You will then understand why the limit of 21 mil btc wont be changed

You are saying it "wont" (subjective), I'm saying simply that it "can" (objective)

Can you point me to a document where it explicitly states that the 21M cap is a fundamental part of what bitcoin is?

Sure... but then you will not have Bitcoin... you will have something else, something that is not Bitcoin... it will be Bitcoin vers.B

Bitcoin, as we know it = 21 million coins.

That is kind of the whole point.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Good luck finding that consensus!

In soviet Russia, Consensus find YOU!!

Yeah, thats true. This is the only protection in place. A unanimous consensus, which should mean everybody.
But consensus has a habit of chasing as well....

[plasticAiredale]

If someone was to change this "one line of code" if definitely would be considered a "hard fork", regardless of consensus from the core devs.

Definition of hard fork is:

A hard fork is any change to a protocol that is not backwards compatible.

This would very definitely be backwards compatible. A

So how exactly would the current version of Bitcoin accept the creation of the 21000001st bitcoin?

Yes, you can easily change the code to modify the coin-introduction function.

However, if you did, all your blocks would be ignored by people that use the original client, and more importably, you'd ignore theirs, effectively separating you in a different network with all those who run your modified client.

What guarantees are there that the supply will be limited? The fact that the community has agreed on accepting bitcoin's rules, which dictate how many coins are introduced.

Whats the point of arguing the semantics anyway. It's not gonna happen, FUD or whatever you are doing is a little pathetic.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

If devs decided to make this change,  miners and nodes would then have the option to follow or not, essentially what you are suggesting would be a fork/ hard fork, saying it ain't so ^^ is semantics.

You can test your theory, create a hard fork of BTC now, increase the limit to 42 million and convince all of the nodes and miners to follow you.

I will give you my vote now.

NO

Its not a theory. Its there in the code.... 

[michaelGedi]

Epic dumps are not that epic anymore.

neither are the walls that epic these days in BTC terms....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg1860117#msg1860117


ahhhh, those were the days...

...and I heard even further back before I was born, they had spectacular fun on gox pre 2013, throwing btcs around like confetti

Wasn't that wall like 40k at its peak? That one burned me hard.

~30k I think. It was fun.

ah yes:




I remember that moment with fondness: I'd bought in at 250, right before it crashed. Lost 30%, but the pump on the dead cat bounce that was coaxed by this wall was so extreme I doubled my initial investment by flying by the seat of my pants to the 150ish peak  


EDIT: they said that volatility would die down, and it seems it has decreased since those days. I mean, look at this. 30% increase in a few hours...!

[tarmi]

go usd swaps, go bitcoin, go bulls!

wanna see 300 stable and 24 mil of longs!

[empowering]

If devs decided to make this change,  miners and nodes would then have the option to follow or not, essentially what you are suggesting would be a fork/ hard fork, saying it ain't so ^^ is semantics.

You can test your theory, create a hard fork of BTC now, increase the limit to 42 million and convince all of the nodes and miners to follow you.

I will give you my vote now.

NO

Its not a theory. Its there in the code.... 

Ah ok, simple then.

Off you pop then, get cracking,  let me know how it goes.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Whats the point of arguing the semantics anyway. It's not gonna happen, FUD or whatever you are doing is a little pathetic.

You are confusing an attack by a rogue client and an accepted consensus. Im talking about an ageement o change the cap being possible. If it was accepted by the community, then there is no difficulty in raising the cap.

As an aside, coins are not numbered. There is no serial number. They simply exist as the inputs and outputs of a transaction. Your line about "introducing the 210000001st coin" leads me to believe you dont actually understand this.

Any Fear is purely your own. Im only stating some points about the 21m cap that was mentioned earlier.

[aztecminer]

If someone was to change this "one line of code" if definitely would be considered a "hard fork", regardless of consensus from the core devs.

Definition of hard fork is:

A hard fork is any change to a protocol that is not backwards compatible.

This would very definitely be backwards compatible. A

So how exactly would the current version of Bitcoin accept the creation of the 21000001st bitcoin?

Yes, you can easily change the code to modify the coin-introduction function.

However, if you did, all your blocks would be ignored by people that use the original client, and more importably, you'd ignore theirs, effectively separating you in a different network with all those who run your modified client.

What guarantees are there that the supply will be limited? The fact that the community has agreed on accepting bitcoin's rules, which dictate how many coins are introduced.

Whats the point of arguing the semantics anyway. It's not gonna happen, FUD or whatever you are doing is a little pathetic.

because watching bitcoin @300 is like watching blue bars of microsoft installs ..

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Ah ok, simple then.

Off you pop then, get cracking,  let me know how it goes.

So thats it then? No killer argument to put me in my place? No clusterbomb of a nuggett from the White Paper to show that the 21M cap is sacricant and can never be changed?