One day, there won't be any bitcoins anywhere

[townf]

Nobody sees a problem around here? Well alrighty then, gimme some of that kool-aid already, woohoo yeah!

Your "problem" is a nonissue. Let's compare it to a gold coin. Over time, through wear, circulated gold coins are reduced in size. This also results in gold dust being produced in the bottom of the coin purse. You would, no doubt, be screaming that eventually, all the coins would be reduced to dust and there would be no way to trade any more. This is true, except for one simple fact: If you put this dust into a crucible, and heat it up, you can make a new coin.

And that's just what will happen, we will make a new coin, probably long before all the bitcoins are lost. And long after we're all dead, by the way. Bitcoin generation will continue until 2140.

Why do you assume I would holler that you can't make new gold coins out of dust? There's no bitcoin "dust" anyway.

Furthermore, new gold is constantly being mined, adding to the gold supply. One day, there forever won't be anymore bitcoins mined. The gold analogy is useless.

You said a "new" coin will be made. I'm assuming you mean a new cryptocoin type, since you can't add to the btc supply by recycling existing bitcoin "dust". I was talking about bitcoin specifically, and a new coin type would be a solution. You are making all my points for me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but btc production will end about 2040, not 2140.

[dancupid]

My computer has 4 terabytes of memory (or gigabytes) I used to have 64 kilobytes (1984).

I'm not sure my point exactly, but I coped with the 'power of 10' change somehow, with the help of God and my family.

Edit - I've embarrassed myself - power of 2 - doh!

[fivemileshigh]

One day, the thermal entropy of the universe will be zero.

In an infinite amount of time perhaps. 

This entropy thing, is it something electrical? If my coffee maker stops running, that will suck.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Because there is a hard cap on the quantity of bitcoins, it is a mathematical fact that one day, there won't be anymore bitcoins. Either that or the currency will fail first.

Disagree. When we get to the point of total supply being less than 1 BTC, we will have enough knowledge and computing power to recover private keys of "lost" coins.

[myrkul]

Nobody sees a problem around here? Well alrighty then, gimme some of that kool-aid already, woohoo yeah!

Your "problem" is a nonissue. Let's compare it to a gold coin. Over time, through wear, circulated gold coins are reduced in size. This also results in gold dust being produced in the bottom of the coin purse. You would, no doubt, be screaming that eventually, all the coins would be reduced to dust and there would be no way to trade any more. This is true, except for one simple fact: If you put this dust into a crucible, and heat it up, you can make a new coin.

And that's just what will happen, we will make a new coin, probably long before all the bitcoins are lost. And long after we're all dead, by the way. Bitcoin generation will continue until 2140.

Why do you assume I would holler that you can't make new gold coins out of dust?

Because that's exactly what you're doing. "Oh noes! all the bitcoins will eventually be lost!" Yes, and all the gold coins would eventually be ground down to dust.

Neither one is an issue, because if ever the bitcoin supply become such that one satoshi is too much for the average transaction, Bitcoin2 will be a simple code fork away. That is, if it hadn't already been created to deal with this (impending) problem.

[mynameismonkey]

The issue I see is that the same people often say two things in almost the same breath:

1. there is a finite supply and that is good because value increases as supply drops
2. it can be infinitely divided to retain usability

But no-one seems to notice that either it's finite or it's not, it cannot be in both states. Further, if the intent is speculation, then (1) is good. If the intent is currency then (2) is good. So which is it?

For the sake of the discussion, I will take neither side. I will point out that if we want a stable currency, we have built in a lifespan that will render the currency useless, as we cannot make more of it. If we want speculation we have built in a ceiling as we can infinitely divide the speculative property.

[Amph]

you will die before that, so why care?

[townf]

Because there is a hard cap on the quantity of bitcoins, it is a mathematical fact that one day, there won't be anymore bitcoins. Either that or the currency will fail first.

Disagree. When we get to the point of total supply being less than 1 BTC, we will have enough knowledge and computing power to recover private keys of "lost" coins.

Then we'll have enough knowledge and computing power to spend other people's money

[Come-from-Beyond]

Because there is a hard cap on the quantity of bitcoins, it is a mathematical fact that one day, there won't be anymore bitcoins. Either that or the currency will fail first.

Disagree. When we get to the point of total supply being less than 1 BTC, we will have enough knowledge and computing power to recover private keys of "lost" coins.

Then we'll have enough knowledge and computing power to spend other people's money

Not all, only old ones, encoded with old signature schemes.

[townf]

Nobody sees a problem around here? Well alrighty then, gimme some of that kool-aid already, woohoo yeah!

Your "problem" is a nonissue. Let's compare it to a gold coin. Over time, through wear, circulated gold coins are reduced in size. This also results in gold dust being produced in the bottom of the coin purse. You would, no doubt, be screaming that eventually, all the coins would be reduced to dust and there would be no way to trade any more. This is true, except for one simple fact: If you put this dust into a crucible, and heat it up, you can make a new coin.

And that's just what will happen, we will make a new coin, probably long before all the bitcoins are lost. And long after we're all dead, by the way. Bitcoin generation will continue until 2140.

Why do you assume I would holler that you can't make new gold coins out of dust?

Because that's exactly what you're doing. "Oh noes! all the bitcoins will eventually be lost!" Yes, and all the gold coins would eventually be ground down to dust.

Neither one is an issue, because if ever the bitcoin supply become such that one satoshi is too much for the average transaction, Bitcoin2 will be a simple code fork away. That is, if it hadn't already been created to deal with this (impending) problem.

Gold and btc are fundamentally different for the purpose of your comparison. Your analogy doesn't make any sense. New gold is found every day. I don't know what else to say.

btc2 being a simple code fork away is a good solution, but why wait all the way until a single satoshi is too big of a unit? Why don't we just recognize the problem now?

[townf]

Because there is a hard cap on the quantity of bitcoins, it is a mathematical fact that one day, there won't be anymore bitcoins. Either that or the currency will fail first.

Disagree. When we get to the point of total supply being less than 1 BTC, we will have enough knowledge and computing power to recover private keys of "lost" coins.

Then we'll have enough knowledge and computing power to spend other people's money

Not all, only old ones, encoded with old signature schemes.

So how does whatever authority that does this know what is lost and what belongs to an old hoarder?

[Stampbit]

Bitcoin's replacement with appear in the next few years that will supersede it in every way, but wont take hold until at least a few years thereafter. Once it does bitcoin will become a collectors item.

[myrkul]

Gold and btc are fundamentally different for the purpose of your comparison. Your analogy doesn't make any sense. New gold is found every day. I don't know what else to say.

But there is a hard limit to the amount on the planet. More bitcoins are being "found" every day, as well. Just because we haven't reached the gold limit doesn't invalidate the analogy.

btc2 being a simple code fork away is a good solution, but why wait all the way until a single satoshi is too big of a unit? Why don't we just recognize the problem now?

Because the "problem" was recognized, and solved, years ago. There's no need to enact that solution yet, because it's too far into the future. When the time comes, the solution will be enacted. As previously stated, that time is far off.

[niko]

Nobody sees a problem around here? Well alrighty then, gimme some of that kool-aid already, woohoo yeah!

Read the comments, and think. Also, do the math. How many satoshis are there?

[Come-from-Beyond]

So how does whatever authority that does this know what is lost and what belongs to an old hoarder?

When the time comes hoarders will move their coins to other addresses with improved key schemes.

[Mastergerund]

So how does whatever authority that does this know what is lost and what belongs to an old hoarder?

When the time comes hoarders will move their coins to other addresses with improved key schemes.

That was my thought. It won't be an "authority" that does this, it will be unscrupulous individuals who discover or gain access to the algorithms and use them to scan the blockchain for old enough addresses that still have coins, access those coins and transfer them to newer secure addresses in their own control.
Some will be "lost" coins, and some will belong to hoarders. As the problem accelerates, most hoarders who are aware of their bitcoin fortune will move their coins to more secure wallets. The paranoid increase their security with some regularity, and higher BTC value tends to increase paranoia.