Democratic vote is held; Bitcoin limit is lifted to 900Million. How do you feel?

[nevafuse]

I see this as a very real possibility, especially once a large country decides to get the hump that it's not calling the shots and will start it's own alternative e-currency which can be easily (no artificial barriers here) converted from their own issued fiat and all under their own control.

It wouldn't be in the best interest of the rich or poor to vote to increase to 900M.  If anything, it would be worse for the poor because the rich can probably afford better mining equipment to scoop up all the new coins further increasing the gap.

Even if a large country tried to start their own alt chain, it would still have to compete with bitcoin.  And if the only difference was an increase in the cap, I doubt it'd gain many followers.  Why chose something not as widely accepted & inflating at a higher rate with less users?  I guess they could attempt to require users to use it, but I question how successful that would be. 

I personally believe cryptocurrencies will make large governments extinct.  Not many people are willing to pay for space shuttles, tanks, and other people's healthcare & retirement instead of their own food & shelter.  And a cyrptocurrency is a lot easier to move around & hide than fiat & gold.

[crazy_rabbit]

Just seems goofy to lie around in bed in the wee hours of the mornin contemplating odd fantasies like this.

+1

[Isokivi]

A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million

Under what circumstances do you think you'd get a majority? And how is such a vote going to be managed with full security? Not going to happen.

a wise man on thse forums once said "Democracy is the original 51% attack."

[nebulus]

Not going to happen because...

1) people that are holding won't allow the value of their wealth decrease
2) people that are holding have the majority vote

[Come-from-Beyond]

It's the year 2020 2015. Bitcoin (and other ctyptocurrencies) has gained major traction.

Less than a tenth of a percent 0.0001% of the world's population holds 90% of all available Bitcoins.

A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million.
Google launches its own alternative of Bitcoin with the total number of coins adjustable by the number of world's population.

[kgo]

You wouldn't need to actively choose.  If there is a fork your old coins are on both forks.  Then you can spend them on the original fork AND the new fork assuming both forks have users.

[DoomDumas]

The fork could be called BernankeCoin, and I will stick with the original bitcoin for sure !
I think this possibility is very very thin..  Before going there, we will already been using Satoshi, and I'll not care at all if x% of the BTC owner own 90% of the coins..

I dont see a problem here..  And I wish I'll be in the "x%"

[Come-from-Beyond]

Before going there, we will already been using Satoshi, and I'll not care at all if x% of the BTC owner own 90% of the coins..

I dont see a problem here..  And I wish I'll be in the "x%"

I do care if x% of the BTC owners own 90% of the coins. I do see a problem here. And I don't wish to be in the "x%". I'm glad u and me will be in completely different forks.

[matthewh3]

They may only be 21Million bitcoins but how many Satoshi's are they plus extra zeros can be added when needed.

[Come-from-Beyond]

They may only be 21Million bitcoins but how many Satoshi's are they plus extra zeros can be added when needed.

This still does NOT change "x%" ratio.

[flix]

Here's the thing, there is no vote.  Mining doesn't matter.

Any block that exceeds the generation curve in the software is rejected.  Doesn't matter if 99.9% of the world population want it, the blocks are still not valid.  Doesn't matter if 99.9% of the hashing power on the planet wants it, the blocks are still not valid.

There may be a new thing, a thing that is not-bitcoin, and people may use it.  But bitcoin blocks will continue to follow the original generation rate, forever.

this

[Come-from-Beyond]

Here's the thing, there is no vote.  Mining doesn't matter.

Any block that exceeds the generation curve in the software is rejected.  Doesn't matter if 99.9% of the world population want it, the blocks are still not valid.  Doesn't matter if 99.9% of the hashing power on the planet wants it, the blocks are still not valid.

There may be a new thing, a thing that is not-bitcoin, and people may use it.  But bitcoin blocks will continue to follow the original generation rate, forever.

this

Imagine someone forked Bitcoin by changing only the rule for Subsidy. And now any value less or equal 50 BTC is allowed. Those who own coins in legacy Bitcoin now have them in Bitcoin++ too. They run bitcoind and bitcoinppd, just in case. What will happen in a year? I think userbase of Bitcoin++ will be higher than Bitcoin, coz newbies will likely join Bitcoin++.

[odolvlobo]

Before going there, we will already been using Satoshi, and I'll not care at all if x% of the BTC owner own 90% of the coins..

I dont see a problem here..  And I wish I'll be in the "x%"

I do care if x% of the BTC owners own 90% of the coins. I do see a problem here. And I don't wish to be in the "x%". I'm glad u and me will be in completely different forks.

You, like most people, overlook the fact that the amount of money is the world is a tiny fraction of the amount of wealth.

Let's imagine that 1% of the people in the U.S. own 90% of the dollars in the world. If you were in that 1%, you would have about $1 million in cash (1% of 300 million people owning $3 trillion dollars). While that is a lot of money, I bet it is a lot less than you expected.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Before going there, we will already been using Satoshi, and I'll not care at all if x% of the BTC owner own 90% of the coins..

I dont see a problem here..  And I wish I'll be in the "x%"

I do care if x% of the BTC owners own 90% of the coins. I do see a problem here. And I don't wish to be in the "x%". I'm glad u and me will be in completely different forks.

You, like most people, overlook the fact that the amount of money is the world is a tiny fraction of the amount of wealth.

Let's imagine that 1% of the people in the U.S. own 90% of the dollars in the world. If you were in that 1%, you would have about $1 million in cash (1% of 300 million people owning $3 trillion dollars). While that is a lot of money, I bet it is a lot less than you expected.

Good point. I'll think about it.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think there is a massive misunderstanding about how Bitcoin works.   You can't change Bitcoin.  Ever.  All you can do is fork it.  As long as single user is running the current Bitcoin code the network will still exist.  So the best you can hope is that such a massive supermajority of USERS (not miners but users, exchanges, merchants, bitcoin holders, developers, service providers, etc) jump to your fork that the existing fork simply dies off.

There is no voting.  There is no mechanism to halt the existing (current) fork.  There is nothing miners can do to fork the current blockchain to stop.  So Bitcoin as it exists today will always exist if people want to use it.  Now could a fork of Bitcoin becomes more popular than Bitcoin well it certainly is possible but it would have to compete on its own merits not through some dubious "democratic" process or by decree from a cartel of miners.  If Bitcoin2 is superior then it may replace Bitcoin, if it isn't then it likely will die out.


As an example say you think blocks should have a reward of 100 BTC and never decline to expand the monetary base.  You can change this TODAY (this very second).  No you don't need anyone permission, no you don't need to hold a global vote, no you don't need 51% (or 66% or 99.9%) of miners.   Fork the project, distribute your new client and start mining.  Your "newBitcoin" is now incompatible with the rest of the network.  If you send some "newBitcoin" coins generated from future blocks to MtGox, MtGox won't "see" them.  That is because they are looking at the current fork.  Convince MtGox to use your fork and they will see them.

TL/DR
You can't change Bitcoin.  Not today, not ever.  All you can do is fork it.
When you fork Bitcoin the current Bitcoin will exist. 
People are free to use either fork.
You can't force the existing/current fork to stop. 
Unless your fork has overwhelming support it is unlikely it will get any traction over the existing and well implemented current fork.

[mobile4ever]

It's the year 2020. Bitcoin has gained major traction.

Less than a tenth of a percent of the world's population holds 90% of all available Bitcoins.

A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million.

Your options are to let them fork and be done with them or simply go along with it, knowing you're going to be diluted to a fraction of your previous value.

I see this as a very real possibility, especially once a large country decides to get the hump that it's not calling the shots and will start it's own alternative e-currency which can be easily (no artificial barriers here) converted from their own issued fiat and all under their own control.

Make another cryptocurrency. This is the bitcoin forum.

[Eich]

Bitcoin is not a democracy. Thank god its not. There are already alternatives to BTC that offer larger caps and lower difficulty. take your pick.

[virtualmaster]

This is a highly improbable scenario.
It is the same if you would ask depositors in a country if they wish a 900/20=45 fold inflation and they would vote yes.

[johnyj]

It's the year 2020. Bitcoin has gained major traction.

Less than a tenth of a percent of the world's population holds 90% of all available Bitcoins.

A democratic vote is made across all Bitcoin adopters and they vote to bring the total number of mineable Bitcoins to 900 million.

Your options are to let them fork and be done with them or simply go along with it, knowing you're going to be diluted to a fraction of your previous value.

I see this as a very real possibility, especially once a large country decides to get the hump that it's not calling the shots and will start it's own alternative e-currency which can be easily (no artificial barriers here) converted from their own issued fiat and all under their own control.

It's year 2013, USD has gained world wide traction

Less than 1% of the world's population holds 90% of all available USD

A democratic vote is made across world and they vote to inflate the total amount of USD in existence to reduce the early adopter's wealth

FED started to print USD like crazy, unfortunately those printed money just went into commercial banks' pocket

[Gabi]

The vote power in bitcoinland is proportional to the mining power. If the majority of the miners want to stay with 21 m cap, bitcoin remains bitcoin.

Not true, litecoin has much less mining power than bitcoin but it exists. Lifting the limit would be a hard fork, so it will be like Bitcoin2. Totally unrelated with bitcoin. Exactly like litecoin is unrelated with bitcoin.