Bitcoin is NOT mathematically limited to twenty one million bitcoins

[senin]

Just a short question, WHY?

Why would anyone consider this, want this or support this? It s like asking if it would be possible for BTC to be official currency of Mars.

Strictly speaking, I prefer arguments that the number of created bitcoins is limited to 21 million. This means that bitcoin will eventually grow in the course, since under equal conditions of its circulation its quantity will constantly decrease due to the loss of access to it due to various objective reasons. If it continues to be produced in large quantities and further, then the effect is somewhat reminiscent of inflation.

[skyline247]

Bitcoin is NOT mathematically limited to twenty one million bitcoins.

I do not support raising the cap at this time but if we had overwhelming support like we did for Segwit we could raise the limit to any number we could dream up.  

I would have no issue changing the code to allow a 1 bitcoin reward for every block forever... to ensure a strong distributed mining community.  

I understand this must sound like blasphemy to the majority of the community but it irks me to see such a false statement about bitcoin repeated over and over again in every Bitcoin youtube video out there; there has to be a better way to phase it.

  While you are right, yet another reason (perhaps the strongest) we will need to create more coins is that they will always get lost. There are thousands of coins lost already - which will never be found.
  Given that coins will continue getting lost as long as we use Bitcoin, the price will go up ans demand increases and supply diminishes naturally. While this is good for Bitcoin owners/HODLers, the simply reality is we are going to need more coins at some point (whether it be 100 or 200 years in the future).
  Just imagine when large transactions inevitably get lost in the future. Twenty one million coins seems like a lot, but on a global scale it is nothing.

[Scorpion]

It's not really a false statement when it is in fact true at the moment. Yes we there could be a proposed changed by the users but I think most people don't see a real purpose in doing so, because once again Bitcoin is divisible all the way down to .00000001. So increasing the maximum distribution of the coin really doesn't serve any purpose and in fact will devalue Bitcoin to current holders.

[cellard]

I've seen no such statement of Satoshi's.  Please provide a link.

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring.  It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.

If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade.  The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both.  The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.

Of course we can't know exactly what satoshi had in mind, but that is irrelevant. What we know today is: We don't need to risk a hardfork in 3 months, there's enough space with 1MB (and now with segwit) to roll with it for at least a safe year while additional research is made on that possible hardfork to 2MB. Doing it in 3 months is just stupid. Why would you risk the current uptrend with another massive crash again due hardfork drama when we don't need to? Let's do things right for once.

[odolvlobo]

Satoshi set the 1MB cap as a temporary measure, but he predicted that users would get "tyrannical" against raising it because of not being able to run nodes and so on.

I've seen no such statement of Satoshi's.  Please provide a link.

...while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. ...

Nice, but that statement was not a prediction. It was a hypothetical scenario used to show how one block chain is not necessarily suitable for all applications.

[investinator]

Satoshi set the 1MB cap as a temporary measure, but he predicted that users would get "tyrannical" against raising it because of not being able to run nodes and so on.

I've seen no such statement of Satoshi's.  Please provide a link.

...while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. ...

Nice, but that statement was not a prediction. It was a hypothetical scenario used to show how one block chain is not necessarily suitable for all applications.

Satoshi was a visionary for his time but it isn't like he was infallible so take anything he says with a grain of salt and perhaps don't try to read too much into what he meant by it.

I think the Segwitx2 agreement is the best temporary solution to scaling and incorporates elements from both sides of the argument as to how to proceed forward.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -

I would argue that Satoshi was offering a hypothetical example of why it might make sense for different use cases to each have their own blockchain (DNS, currency, etc) rather than try to have a single blockchain that can be used for every possible purpose. He wasn't saying that
Bitcoin users ACTUALLY might get "tyrannical" against raising the block size, but instead that BitDNS users shouldn't be dependent on what Bitcoin users want since they're each likely have different needs. Or did you think Satoshi was also predicting that BitDNS users were going to actually "be completely liberal about adding any large data features"

[ebliever]

One thing that is not emphasized strongly enough on this topic is that it is very difficult to envision a scenario in which there would be a positive reason to increase the coin supply beyond the current plan. Adding more coins dilutes the value of existing coins, so the current community of bitcoin users will naturally oppose such a change. Miners might like the idea of earning more coins with an enlarged block reward, but the course of events with the recent UASF and resulting SW2X outcome vs. Bitmain's efforts proves that miners who oppose the market will be forced to back down. At worst miners would create a "21M+" fork, and users would support the legacy fork, forcing hashrate to shift back to the economically valued chain and defeating the attempt to change the coin supply.

[d5000]

Satoshi set the 1MB cap as a temporary measure, but he predicted that users would get "tyrannical" against raising it because of not being able to run nodes and so on.

Also, Satoshi did NOT have the current understandings of what different blocksizes would mean, he did not predict mining pools, he did not predict a lot of things.

ALL the experts point to a hardfork in 3 months being stupid, we should evaluate segwit for a longer time then take a more informed decision.

I totally agree here. My post was not about advocating for a 2MB hardfork in November. I also would like a longer evaluation period before any hardfork.

But there is - in the Bitcoin community - a difference between the 21 million rule and the blocksize. In the "blocksize war" there are notable different opinions, with a relatively large group of Bitcoiners agreeing to each position: The "extreme big blockers" that don't want any limit and would even be OK with gigabyte-large blocks, "moderate big blockers" (2-8MB) and "small blockers" (at most, 1 MB with segwit). In contrast, the 21 million supply cap is nearly unanimously agreed on - so it's much more difficult to change it with a hard fork. That's what the post was about.

One thing that is not emphasized strongly enough on this topic is that it is very difficult to envision a scenario in which there would be a positive reason to increase the coin supply beyond the current plan.

A reason that could reach a bit of support would be the deflationary nature of Bitcoin, once we reach a supply between 20 and 21 million and the block rewards are worth less than the coins lost in addresses whose private keys aren't known anymore. There are disagreeing views about deflation, according to the economic schools, but there could be a group with some support on that reasoning. Only that I don't think it will ever reach consensus (what would be necessary to raise the cap in an undisputed hard fork).

[cellard]

Satoshi set the 1MB cap as a temporary measure, but he predicted that users would get "tyrannical" against raising it because of not being able to run nodes and so on.

Also, Satoshi did NOT have the current understandings of what different blocksizes would mean, he did not predict mining pools, he did not predict a lot of things.

ALL the experts point to a hardfork in 3 months being stupid, we should evaluate segwit for a longer time then take a more informed decision.

I totally agree here. My post was not about advocating for a 2MB hardfork in November. I also would like a longer evaluation period before any hardfork.

But there is - in the Bitcoin community - a difference between the 21 million rule and the blocksize. In the "blocksize war" there are notable different opinions, with a relatively large group of Bitcoiners agreeing to each position: The "extreme big blockers" that don't want any limit and would even be OK with gigabyte-large blocks, "moderate big blockers" (2-8MB) and "small blockers" (at most, 1 MB with segwit). In contrast, the 21 million supply cap is nearly unanimously agreed on - so it's much more difficult to change it with a hard fork. That's what the post was about.

One thing that is not emphasized strongly enough on this topic is that it is very difficult to envision a scenario in which there would be a positive reason to increase the coin supply beyond the current plan.

A reason that could reach a bit of support would be the deflationary nature of Bitcoin, once we reach a supply between 20 and 21 million and the block rewards are worth less than the coins lost in addresses whose private keys aren't known anymore. There are disagreeing views about deflation, according to the economic schools, but there could be a group with some support on that reasoning. Only that I don't think it will ever reach consensus (what would be necessary to raise the cap in an undisputed hard fork).

It's pretty much guaranteed that a change in the total supply would diverge into 2 different coins, but what worries me is if it's viable or not, to not have any inflation.

I need to see some reputable coders to speak on this. I have not seen any Core devs arguing about this so that is a good indicator there's nothing wrong with it (Unless you buy into the Core dev conspiracy theories).

I've heard some critique about it, claiming that if there is no inflation, when the reward is negligible (so that's in like 10 years) we will see problems, so we'll find out, we don't need to wait 140 years for the last BTC to be mined.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
when the reward is negligible (so that's in like 10 years) we will see problems,
- snip -

It's difficult to predict when the reward will be negligible.

In 10 years the subsidy will be 3.125 BTC per block.
At the current exchange rate, if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's nearly $8600 per block.  Is that "negligible"?

In 11 years the subsidy will drop to 1.5625 BTC per block.
At the current exchange rate, if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's nearly $4300 per block.  Is that "negligible"?

Of course, there is a real possibility that the exchange rate could go up over the next decade or so.

In 15 years the subsidy will drop below 1 BTC to 0.78125 BTC per block.
If the exchange rate is $300,000 per bitcoin, then even if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's still $234,375 per block.  Is that ""negligible"?

[cellard]

- snip -
when the reward is negligible (so that's in like 10 years) we will see problems,
- snip -

It's difficult to predict when the reward will be negligible.

In 10 years the subsidy will be 3.125 BTC per block.
At the current exchange rate, if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's nearly $8600 per block.  Is that "negligible"?

In 11 years the subsidy will drop to 1.5625 BTC per block.
At the current exchange rate, if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's nearly $4300 per block.  Is that "negligible"?

Of course, there is a real possibility that the exchange rate could go up over the next decade or so.

In 15 years the subsidy will drop below 1 BTC to 0.78125 BTC per block.
If the exchange rate is $300,000 per bitcoin, then even if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's still $234,375 per block.  Is that ""negligible"?

Well, from what i've heard, looking at the algorithm curve, it "looks" negligible in paper. The line becomes too steep, almost straight.

You mention $300,000 per coin. Well then yes, that would be awesome for us holders, and we wouldn't probably have a problem, but we need to get there. The thing is, nobody knows, what we know for a fact is what we have now: how the curve looks like. The price is an unknown variable. Satoshi predicted that BTC will either be a lot or nothing, so I guess if everything goes ok, we should be at 6 figures per BTC in the next decade, when the line becomes almost straight, otherwise we may face serious problems. Let's just hope it's a self fulfilling prophecy and we hit these dreamy 6 figure per coin prices. Back in 2012 $1000 felt dreamy, who is to say we can't hit $100,000+.

[Granxis]

twenty one million bitcoins ! It may be too much, but in the future, this number will come to us less, because I see those seeking bitcoin on hard disks, will be lost and dead.

[FiniteKez]

Again I'm not asking for support to raise the cap, I'm just pointing out it could be raised and that we should stop referring to it as some aspect of Bitcoin that is mathematically limited by fundamental laws of the Universe because its not, its consensus limited.

Its a "fundamental principle" of the Bitcoin community yes, its  strongly held as one of our core tenets. But it could still be changed. So stop saying its limited without pointing out what its limited by.
Other things about Bitcoin irk me too, like the wallet should be called a key chain. Bitcoin is inflationary not deflationary. Or how 60% of all bitcoins have never been spent and are likely lost forever But no one takes this into consideration when calculating the market cap of Bitcoin.


It just irks me and I'm pointing it out.

Currently bitcoin is limited to a total number by the rules of math and code. Yes, if you could get everyone to agree to change the code then the limit could be increased. Hell, if you could get everyone to agree we could change the code so that every block required a cat gif be attached. Literally any part of bitcoin could be changed with enough support, but we assume these things as reasonably core tenets since it seems unlikely for them to change. So the bigger question is why would we ever want to raise the cap?

[RodeoX]

The day we change the 21 million limit is the day bitcoin becomes valueless. I would divest at least 90% of my coins and move into gold.
Not that this is going to happen.

[Whosdaddy]

I would have no issue changing the code to allow a 1 bitcoin reward for every block forever... to ensure a strong distributed mining community.  

Here we need to understand one thing, in next 10 to 20 years, the tx fees to be collected from the transactions included in one block might be summing up more than 50 bitcoins also (the original block reward).

Hence there will be no point of thinking about one bitcoin reward for every block for ever. I do not understand how it will ensure a strong distributed mining community when they are already having enough reasons to be part of bitcoin community.

[DooMAD]

There seem to be quite a few people in the thread repeating the same general theme:

Well I would like to also point out that if the 21 million cap limit was increased then what we have is no longer Bitcoin.

Even if 99.97% of the users still call it "Bitcoin" it won't be Bitcoin to me. It would be a PoS coin. Not proof-of-stake, but piece-of-shit.

Same for me. The rules were set in stone, anything that raises the total amount of coins is a scam and not Bitcoin.

The day someone raises the 21 mio limit, is the day that bitcoin will crash in price. SO many will get out at that point because it's the whole idea behind btc.

The day we change the 21 million limit is the day bitcoin becomes valueless. I would divest at least 90% of my coins and move into gold.
Not that this is going to happen.

But RoftheN hits the nail on the head with this:

There will always be people who will only support a bitcoin with 21 million coins. Even if there's weekly forks of bitcoin with more supplies, those forks/chains can be ignored and us 21bitcoin supporters will always support the true 21 million coin blockchain. Even if it has 8MB or 40MB blocksizes and other upgrades, as long as the supply is not increased.

This couldn't be more right.  People trying to change the cap wouldn't be some foregone conclusion.  The only way you can change the supply is a hardfork and a hardfork means there will always be a 21 million supply chain we could continue using.  One would naturally assume that the chain with the raised supply and the money printing would be a minority fork.  But even if it wasn't and we ended up in the perverse (and highly unlikely) situation that the 21 million supply chain was in the minority, there's still sheer bloody-minded belligerence to consider.  And there are probably always going to be enough of us with such a mindset for that to count for something.  I'd like to think we would continue to breathe life into our preferred chain, even if the odds were stacked against us.

For example, mining is generally the last thing I'd see myself doing in Bitcoin, but if there were ever a situation where the rest of the world went insane and decided to support a chain with a larger supply, even I'd seriously consider ordering some shiny new hardware and pointing it at a pool supporting the real thing.  Whatever happens, it's never going to be unanimous, so it's merely a question of how far you're willing to go to defend your ideals.  Those of you who would dump are free to do that, but my first instinct would be to fight it and trust the market to see sense in due time.  Plus, if they ever did go down the route of money printing, sooner or later, that chain will inevitably crash and burn, no matter how much support it might have.  So I'm certain that, in some form or another, there will always be a 21 million cap.

As we've already established, it's not a mathematical limit, but a principled one.  And in some ways, principles can prove stronger.

[RodeoX]

On a related note bitcoin is NOT limited to being called bitcoin. Just a few tiny tweaks and it could be called bitloin. 

Woah. Think about that! 

[HeRetiK]

In 15 years the subsidy will drop below 1 BTC to 0.78125 BTC per block.
If the exchange rate is $300,000 per bitcoin, then even if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's still $234,375 per block.  Is that ""negligible"?

Exactly. So far the growth of Bitcoin relative to fiat has always offset the loss of declining block rewards - and then some. Assuming that Bitcoin is still alive and kicking in 15 years this trend is likely to continue. Worst case the Bitcoin fiat price can't keep up with the block reward halving, in which case less electricity will be spent on mining. But as long as Bitcoin exists, mining will always find a profitable optimum of more or less hashpower. That's the beauty of it.

On a related note bitcoin is NOT limited to being called bitcoin. Just a few tiny tweaks and it could be called bitloin. 

Duuude. So what you're saying is that Bitcoin is NOT grammatically limited to the name Bitcoin? :O

[DannyHamilton]

On a related note bitcoin is NOT limited to being called bitcoin. Just a few tiny tweaks and it could be called bitloin. 

Duuude. So what you're saying is that Bitcoin is NOT grammatically limited to the name Bitcoin? :O

Mind blown.