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

[gogxmagog]

didn't democracy go out of style sometime during the Nixon administration?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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

Stopped reading here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

Even under the insanely centralized, old boys club, centuries-institutionalized monopoly fiat money system in the United States, the top **1%** (let alone the top 0.1%) control only 35% of the wealth. Under Bitcoin this distribution will be far flatter, especially without monopoly privilege to print money granted to wealthy dynasties that control other power centers like government, education, and the media, that would allow them to keep the money rather than lose most of it as they spend it on luxuries.

This is a completely unrealistic scenario.

[tvbcof]

I would feel similarly to the way I'd feel when in order to be a 'peer' in the 'peer2peer' solution one need a computer cluster, specially provisioned network connectivity, and datacenter resources.  Both are 'democracy' though, and there is a limit to the amount of bitching I'm willing to do about that form of decision making.

Being the type who tries to look some distance into the future, I've pretty much given up hope on Bitcoin itself achieving anything particularly world-changing beyond demonstrating a proof of concept.  A secondary fall-back hope of mine has always been that there is an outside possibility that they'll make me rich though, and this is more promising than ever.

[benjamindees]

I've pretty much given up hope on Bitcoin itself achieving anything particularly world-changing beyond demonstrating a proof of concept.  A secondary fall-back hope of mine has always been that there is an outside possibility that they'll make me rich though, and this is more promising than ever.

We know.  You mention this in every thread.

Do you think, instead of this defeatist monologue, you might want to actually do anything to change this outcome?

[tvbcof]

I've pretty much given up hope on Bitcoin itself achieving anything particularly world-changing beyond demonstrating a proof of concept.  A secondary fall-back hope of mine has always been that there is an outside possibility that they'll make me rich though, and this is more promising than ever.

We know.  You mention this in every thread.

Do you think, instead of this defeatist monologue, you might want to actually do anything to change this outcome?

Well I guess it's on my mind a lot these days.  It's a minority viewpoint and as such sometimes has some positive cancellation effect in an echo chamber.  Back in late 2011 I also had a minority opinion that Bitcoin was not necessarily dead and had some real potential.  I spoke up then as well, and it is possible that I influenced some people and they ended up being happy for it.

[Timo Y]

A 'democratic vote' doesn't have much weight in creating successful hard forks.   

Even if the majority of casual users update their client to Bitcoin900M, what use is it to them if the major merchants don't accept coins from that branch?

It's only the 'economic majority' that has this kind of weight.

But why should major merchants and stakeholders support a protocol change that devalues their savings?

[oakpacific]

Bitcoin=rule by hashrate, number of nodes/users doesn't matter.

[mobile4ever]

Being the type who tries to look some distance into the future, I've pretty much given up hope on Bitcoin itself achieving anything particularly world-changing beyond demonstrating a proof of concept. 

Nothing like bitcoin has ever existed before. Satoshi was a genius and his idea is so far bullet-proof. The network already created, while this is in beta, is already more powerful than any super computer. You, and the rest of us, can therefore have a little more hope.

[superfastkyle]

It won't be bitcoin if it's not 21 mil.

how can we expect media to take us seriously if even we don't believe this. no wonder they think we will change the rules to benefit some. who are we the federal reserve?

[mobile4ever]

how can we expect media to take us seriously if even we don't believe this. no wonder they think we will change the rules to benefit some. who are we the federal reserve?

+1

[bitbitcoincoin]

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 new thing, say it were to be exactly like Bitcoin but it were to have a limit of 900 million and mining was set to start on a set date so 'everyone' could get in on the action. I could see the late adopters going for that instead. I would appear to give them the same opportunity as the early adopters of Bitcoin but in reality, the ones with money will have the most hashing power.

lol at how pathetic the bolded is

Early adopters(and I am not one of them unfortunately for me), will always be rewarded ahead of those who wait(like me) because they take on extra risk.  The bitcoin system of miners, venders, users and speculators isn't something that has sprung forth overnight, it's taken many years to get to the point where it's at now and we're no where near the finish line for a fully functional global currency.   To replace it will take much more then a bunch of jealous late adopters.   As many have said, you think you can do better?  Do it.

[xcsler]

OK. So let me get this straight:

1. As long as one person is using the current client, Bitcoin as we know it, with its 21m limit, will always exist in its current form. Theree is no vote.
2. If tomorrow, the Bitcoin Foundation had a collective stroke and released an updated client that increased the limit to 900m only a fork would form.
3. Legacy bitcoins (Bitcoin 1.0) could be spent on both forks so current bitcoin holders won't be shafted.

4. Question: People refer to "hard" forks. What is the definition of a "hard" fork and how does it differ from a "soft" fork? ELI5

[2_Thumbs_Up]

OK. So let me get this straight:

1. As long as one person is using the current client, Bitcoin as we know it, with its 21m limit, will always exist in its current form. Theree is no vote.
2. If tomorrow, the Bitcoin Foundation had a collective stroke and released an updated client that increased the limit to 900m only a fork would form.
3. Legacy bitcoins (Bitcoin 1.0) could be spent on both forks so current bitcoin holders won't be shafted.

4. Question: People refer to "hard" forks. What is the definition of a "hard" fork and how does it differ from a "soft" fork? ELI5

I'll add a question to the sentence I bolded. If I make a transaction on the newly created fork-chain, wouldn't this be a legitimate transaction on the bitcoin chain as well? Meaning if someone relays transactions between chains you can't really spend coins from one chain only. Is there a good way to fork the chain without this happening?

[tvbcof]

I'll add a question to the sentence I bolded. If I make a transaction on the newly created fork-chain, wouldn't this be a legitimate transaction on the bitcoin chain as well? Meaning if someone relays transactions between chains you can't really spend coins from one chain only. Is there a good way to fork the chain without this happening?

I'm just sort of guesstimating (this not being a tech thread), but it seems to me that the best way to do this would be to manipulate the address format in backward-ish compatible way such that a spend would be invalid on fork and honored on another.

edit:  I should mention that I own http://bitcoin-legacy.org and have put a tiny amount of thought into such things between other more pressing projects.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

I'll add a question to the sentence I bolded. If I make a transaction on the newly created fork-chain, wouldn't this be a legitimate transaction on the bitcoin chain as well? Meaning if someone relays transactions between chains you can't really spend coins from one chain only. Is there a good way to fork the chain without this happening?

I'm just sort of guesstimating (this not being a tech thread), but it seems to me that the best way to do this would be to manipulate the address format in backward-ish compatible way such that a spend would be invalid on fork and honored on another.

My big question is if that is even possible in a backward compatible way. If not a majority vote fork could possibly be quite disruptive as all their fork-transactions would likely find their way into bitcoin somehow as well. I'm really not sure of the consequences here but think it could need some thought.

[bassclef]

So the idea is to create a fork where one of the fundamental design principles of Bitcoin is broken. Yeah that sounds like a winner to me. 

[mugdesign]

totally agree with you]

[bitcoinminer]

What if we decided that every one dollar USD bill that we cut up into confetti is worth one dollar for each piece of confetti?

[tvbcof]

I'll add a question to the sentence I bolded. If I make a transaction on the newly created fork-chain, wouldn't this be a legitimate transaction on the bitcoin chain as well? Meaning if someone relays transactions between chains you can't really spend coins from one chain only. Is there a good way to fork the chain without this happening?

I'm just sort of guesstimating (this not being a tech thread), but it seems to me that the best way to do this would be to manipulate the address format in backward-ish compatible way such that a spend would be invalid on fork and honored on another.

My big question is if that is even possible in a backward compatible way. If not a majority vote fork could possibly be quite disruptive as all their fork-transactions would likely find their way into bitcoin somehow as well. I'm really not sure of the consequences here but think it could need some thought.

Let's say that the 'real' Bitcoin is called fork-A.  In the case that a person wanted pre-fork coins to be spendable on fork-B, just modify the software such that it would accept both pre-fork keys and a special modification of keys which 'real' Bitcoin does not allow.  Just generate new non-realbitcoin-legal keys if you don't want transactions to be able to be replayed on the 'real' fork-A.  Should be pretty easy I would think.

Interestingly, transactions from the 'real' Bitcoin could be re-played in the 'B' chain.  This would be an easy way to create even more 'deflation' or 'distribution' (or 'theft') or whatever.

Of course there would be nothing to stop 'real' Bitcoin from eventually making 'bitcoin-b' keys legal as well.  But once the blockchians diverge even a little it would probably result in nothing but a giant mess.

As long as 'real' Bitcoin remains vaguely competitive on an operational level, my sense is that it would have nothing to 'fear' from out-of-band sister efforts of the nature described above.