what about altcoin with unlimited potential supply?

[lottery248]

have been seeing the altcoins such as dogecoin, peercoin, reddcoin, which has unlimited potential supply, however, have been seeing them falling since the end of 2016. so i would wish to ask about something: is the altcoins with that matter unable to sustain? why is those altcoin unpopular?

disclaimer: my PC is not fast enough to synchronise any of the blockchains so i didn't have any Qt wallet, idk if other feature matters.

[1714884858]

1714884858

[1714884858]

1714884858

[wrxbuzz]

Doge continues dumping, it has no future because it has unlimited total supply, the inflation is the enemy of a currency.

[lottery248]

Doge continues dumping, it has no future because it has unlimited total supply, the inflation is the enemy of a currency.

that's not all the way true, from me. because there are increase of the world population, would that count?
the problem is, that kind of cryptocurrency must be reliable if most of the cases, such as problems of premine, or its security. you cannot simply hype that currency thus popular, or limit the maximum supply thus better demand.

[AusKipper]

I think coins with an unlimited supply could do fine, as long as the inflation is low enough (ie, 3% or less per year, or has a baked in trend that will mean it gets to 3% or less within a reasonable time frame)

Monero has unlimited supply, and I like that one, and its doing ok.

To fund the block chain you either need an inflation in coin supply, or transaction fees. So if you dont pay one way you will pay the other.

Thats my understanding of it anyway.

[VanDeinsberg12]

have been seeing the altcoins such as dogecoin, peercoin, reddcoin, which has unlimited potential supply, however, have been seeing them falling since the end of 2016. so i would wish to ask about something: is the altcoins with that matter unable to sustain? why is those altcoin unpopular?

disclaimer: my PC is not fast enough to synchronise any of the blockchains so i didn't have any Qt wallet, idk if other feature matters.

Too many inflation will make the price of the coins is always down. I just give you an example such as lisk. every year the new coins have always been producing.
All of the just have the early hype for the adopters. Mostly the people are not interesting again on their inflation. and they will move to the other fixed supply of the coin.
You can see EDR coin. their supply is trillion.

[nanonymousx]

does ripple pretty much unlimited supply?

[robelneo]

Doge continues dumping, it has no future because it has unlimited total supply, the inflation is the enemy of a currency.

I agree inflammation is a big factor,Dogecoin cannot keep up,even though there are a lot of merchants using dogecoin,the community need to convert new users,in three to 4 years dogecoin will find it hard to keep up with the inflamation,they might do a hardfork .

[jacaf01]

Doge continues dumping, it has no future because it has unlimited total supply, the inflation is the enemy of a currency.

The problem with Doge is that for some time now, there is no real development coming  from the team, what the market feed on is news update. I think the price will continue to tank unless someone with a good reputation comes on board to savage the sinking ship.

[dinofelis]

Limited supply is a silly concept in an open currency market.  The idea of "limited supply" came from the concept of "sound money".  Sound money theory is based upon a steady-state situation (the money "came from long ago") and has the monopoly of currency.  Essentially, the sound money theory is the theory of gold being the single monetary asset on which every other asset is based.

What the sound money theory is after, is that there cannot be seigniorage, that is the unavoidable value transfer from the economy to the creator of new monetary tokens.  If the supply "has always existed", and cannot increase, there cannot be any seigniorage.  That's the fundamental idea behind sound money.  The other tenet is that with a fixed amount of monetary tokens, it behaves as a perfect collectible, and there will be a fair market of demand for storage of value, correctly filled in by the market cap of the monetary supply (which is fixed).

But this is totally ridiculous with crypto.  First of all, crypto tokens MUST be created because they don't exists "since ever".  So the seigniorage is there.  And second, crypto tokens don't have the monopoly on the money market: there are other crypto tokens, there is fiat, there is gold....
So the hypotheses of sound money doctrine are in any case not respected in the case of crypto.  As such, there's no point in keeping to its conclusions.  There IS seigniorage, there ARE coins created, and there IS a variable market share.  So whether this coin creation will stop "one day" or "at infinity" doesn't matter AT ALL.

In fact, no tail emission gives much more problems of instability and exacerbates the initial unfairness of seigniorage than it solves problems which don't exist.
 

[thebatletbet]

all altcoin still use limited suply, dogecoin, reddcoin is youre write still use limited suply
if unlimited suply coin can die, because suply and demand not balance, only alwyas dump can die

[Arvydas77]

does ripple pretty much unlimited supply?

Actually, Ripple has limited supply of 100,000,000,000 XRP but it is not a problem with supply the problem is with the quality of blockchain. There are different algorithms and different blockchain solutions. Altough I like the concept of Ripple I see major problems of its blockchain security. Currently, the best blockchain is provided by New Economy Movement (NEM) and people are just unaware of its potential. When they will understand it I expect the price of NEM to skyrocket.

[kryptqnick]

I guess unlimited supply is a bad thing for a currency, because it suffers from inflation this way. Litecoin is limited and works a lot like btc with its own halvings and reward sums. And it is one of the most popular coins now. I think eventually we'll see a few coins as strong as bitcoin but it will take time. Ltc and Ethereum are among the most promising, I suppose.
Maybe it would be great if there was altcoin with the total sum less than bitcoin. That would be interesing to look at. Maybe there already is such a currency though, I don't know.

[Ayers]

they are not that bad if done right, for done right i mean the inflation must be very low over time, lower than doge and lower than many other unlimited supply, the reward for mienrs should increase very slowly, but additionally you need to add some nice feature to make it interestin to follow

[alyssa85]

Doge continues dumping, it has no future because it has unlimited total supply, the inflation is the enemy of a currency.

Doge's dollar price is stable. It is falling in bitcoin terms only because bitcoin keeps strengthening against the dollar.

[shanem]

There are so many coins now compared to a few years ago. The price of those coins with unlimited supply will keep dropping till it reaches 1 satoshi.
I don't like coins with unlimited supply as the inflation will reduce the value of each coin just like fiat.

[BTCLovingDude]

well, when these coins give out so many coins for example in their blocks, as their new block reward or as their stacking reward to people who run a wallet, all these people dump these new coins they get as a reward on the market and create a big sell pressure. to be honest i am surprised some of these coins are still alive even.
that is why the supply and the way it is being distributed matters as far as price is concerned.

[ttookk]

I think this is very dependent on the coin and its specific usecases.

Ethereum for example has no fixed limit and looking at its functionality, there is merit to that: in case of Ethereums success, based on increasing computational power, we would have an ever-growing system, in which, due to a rising number of users and uses, the price per ETH would stay the same or even rise.

Apart from that, with ETH being more of a "ticket" than an value storage tool, the fact that ETH prices decline should not matter, because they are not meant for holding in the first place.

[Rockie1234]

have been seeing the altcoins such as dogecoin, peercoin, reddcoin, which has unlimited potential supply, however, have been seeing them falling since the end of 2016. so i would wish to ask about something: is the altcoins with that matter unable to sustain? why is those altcoin unpopular?

disclaimer: my PC is not fast enough to synchronise any of the blockchains so i didn't have any Qt wallet, idk if other feature matters.

I think there's a number of reasons: firstly these coins all have their own feelings. Redd was a good idea but never really took off, just never reached enough people after its release. Peercoin again just didn;t get enough exposure/investors. Dogecoin was just a joke coin which is now slowly dying.
But yes, of course, unlimited supply means inflation and generally lower value coins.

[Shady]

Once all DogeCoin are mined and more users amass to it's technology the amount continuing circulation will be depleted to it's full capacity and make prices increase without fear of backing failure.

Coins with no added amount are put up against risks of population drops or held value. There are some alts that will return or even rank higher than others and I think Doge is that and maybe some more mentioned here. If Satoshi makes more Bitcoin to help sustain the environment it'll all even itself out. As rates increase, more has to be here for that to happen again.

[CraigWrightBTC]

have been seeing the altcoins such as dogecoin, peercoin, reddcoin, which has unlimited potential supply, however, have been seeing them falling since the end of 2016. so i would wish to ask about something: is the altcoins with that matter unable to sustain? why is those altcoin unpopular?

disclaimer: my PC is not fast enough to synchronise any of the blockchains so i didn't have any Qt wallet, idk if other feature matters.

Altcoins that has large numbers of supply is like dogecoin depend on the developers,
investors, comunity of coins and the most important for the coins is innovations,
fixing bugs and the aim long time of coins.
 If there are not innovations that take new investors, the will be dead slowly,
as we know dogecoin's price is decreasing.

[freebutcaged]

There is no potential either unlimited or with a certain cap, it only devalue the coin.

[jossiel]

Those alt coins that has unlimited supply to product is like their into suicidal. If your an investor of those coins, it's like you supported them and seeing good for awhile.

But in the end, you'll see that people are finally realizing that there's no use if they'll keep on supporting that coin since it can be supplied with no limits.

It has something to do with demand and supply, if there would always be supply, it will be drown for sure.

[el kaka22]

have been seeing the altcoins such as dogecoin, peercoin, reddcoin, which has unlimited potential supply, however, have been seeing them falling since the end of 2016.

Altcoins are always working as testing phase for bitcoins. These mentioned coins could be consider for what would have happened with bitcoins with unlimited supply. (Here we cannot be staying calm without remembering Mr.Satoshi and his fore-vision on how a new momentary system should be). I believe there will be more time before we can make any conclusion on the future of these coins. But as of now I am not seeing any demand for them to surge up again.

is the altcoins with that matter unable to sustain? why is those altcoin unpopular?

Almost 90% of cyptocoins users cannot deny that they are adopting cryptocurrencies with speculations. But with uncaped coins, we cannot be sure how the future will be. In other words there would be no minimum guarantee too. I too doubt about their sustainability.

[phr0stbyt3]

If there are altcoins which have unlimited supply then I don't they will ever reach the price of bitcoin or even get high prices in general because if it has unlimited supply anyone can get it and then it wouldn't be rare it will become more like the currency we use daily so we will barely see any increase in price of such a coin.

[olushakes]

have been seeing the altcoins such as dogecoin, peercoin, reddcoin, which has unlimited potential supply, however, have been seeing them falling since the end of 2016. so i would wish to ask about something: is the altcoins with that matter unable to sustain? why is those altcoin unpopular?

disclaimer: my PC is not fast enough to synchronise any of the blockchains so i didn't have any Qt wallet, idk if other feature matters.

Unlimited supply is one thing that will cause price to drop and it does not even work in the real world not to talk of the crypto world and that is why government does not just go ahead and start printing money as they want because of the issue of supply and even in elementary economics, one characteristics of money is for it to be relatively scarce if its going to be worthy which unlimited supply negates and that is a fundamental flaw from the beginning of the project.

[Spoetnik]

Imagine if Wayne Gretzky's first hockey card was printed non stop since 1979.
How much would it be worth ?

Or the First Superman comic etc..

Imagine if the US Fed reserve had never employed quantitative easing.

You all fail to grasp that these are SUPPOSE to be currencies.
What happens when you make too much of something ?
How is that not the most obvious point in the history of human civilization ?
How is it we have people here defending unlimited supply ?

What happens when humans keep pumping out babies until they cover every square inch of earth ?
There will be dumb fucks puttering around defending it making excuses for it, that's what  

So..

Maybe Coindesk will re-post their coin cloning is good story (the more the better)
You think i'm kidding ?
Why We Need All The Altcoins We Can Get

[dinofelis]

What happens when you make too much of something ?
How is that not the most obvious point in the history of human civilization ?
How is it we have people here defending unlimited supply ?

I think you are confusing three notions.  One is "unlimited" supply, the other is "infinite supply" and the third is "arbitrary supply".  You are arguing against "infinite supply" and "arbitrary supply".  Obviously, nothing with infinite supply can have any other market value than 0.  If the amount of coins in circulation are INFINITE, then of course, they are worth nothing.

Arbitrary supply means that there are entities which can create, *at any moment*, *any finite amount of extra supply*.  Although arbitrary supply means that at any moment in time, there's a finite number of coins in circulation, the amount of coins at the next moment is simply UNCERTAIN.  It could be N + n.  It could be N + 500 n.  The entities capable of supplying arbitrary amounts of coins, have access to arbitrary amounts of seigniorage, and can hence give themselves just ANY fraction of the market cap.  If there are 1000 coins in circulation today, they could decide suddenly that tomorrow, there are 1 million coins in circulation.

Although arbitrary supply could mean a finite market price for those entities NOT capable of creating coins, if they *really need it*, but they will try to have their minimum demand for it, so the market price of it will be whatever is the inelastic demand for it.  For instance, if I were a dictator, issuing coins at will, and making a law that any person on the street NOT in provable possession of k coins, will be shot on the spot without any further form of process, then the inelastic demand for my coins will be m x k, where m is the number of people not wanting to get shot.  I could print 100 times more of these coins, some smart dealers will buy them at some price from me, to sell a small part of it way way more expensively to the poor people needing these coins.  There WILL be a finite market price for these coins, even if I can emit an arbitrary supply of it.
BTW, this is more or less what a fiat system does, and the k coins are your due taxes which create an inelastic demand for fiat money.   But without the use of violence to impose an inelastic demand for them, usually they are worthless.

However, "unlimited supply" doesn't mean "infinite supply" nor "arbitrary supply".  It simply means that at a moment in time, the supply is N coins, and at a later moment in time, the supply is N + n coins.  Both these numbers are finite and KNOWN.

Now, whether that suite diverges AT INFINITY or not doesn't matter.  ANY emission scheme has a finite amount of emitted coins before the earth gets burned by the sun turning in a red giant 5 billion years from now.  

A coin emission that emits 5% of its existing stash every year will still have a finite and limited amount of coins in circulation 5 billion years from now.  The only difference between a coin with "unlimited supply" and a coin with "limited supply" is at time = infinity, when the coin (earth, humanity....) will not exist any more.

With a given emission scheme of which one can deterministically predict the amount of coins in circulation AT ANY FUTURE MOMENT, there is no difference between a coin with "finite supply" and a coin with "unlimited supply".  Take the coin with "unlimited supply", calculate how many coins there will be 5 billion years from now, and that is a finite number.  Well, what's the difference between such a coin, and a coin that will emit the same number of coins over 100 years, and then not emit anything any more ?  It simply took LONGER for the "unlimited supply" coin to get there, than the "limited supply coin" !  So it seems that the inflation of the "limited supply coin" was worse than the "unlimited supply coin".

Bitcoin, at this moment, still has several percent inflation.  It is worse in that respect than an unlimited supply coin with an emission rate of 1% inflation continuously.

I took the earth's end as ultimate limit, but of course, all monetary assets break down at a certain point, undergo hyperinflation, and are left for worth zero.  This will happen to every fiat currency (there is not one single fiat currency that has more than, say, 1000 years as far as I know) ; it will happen to every crypto currency, yes, to bitcoin too.  In 50 years, 150 years, or 500 years or 5000 years, bitcoin will be worthless, and forgotten apart from some historical fact.

This is the time scale over which an emission scheme should be looked at, and every scheme will have issued a finite amount of coins when the coin hyperinflates and becomes essentially worthless.  So there's no difference.

Monetary assets don't last for eternity, even though the monetary belief in it takes that for granted.  But the real idea is to get rid of it (in the hands of "greater fools") like a hot potato before it hyperinflates.  In the mean time, you can use it as a store of value, currency or speculative asset.