Why stop at 21 million?

[BuhTuglia]

Okay, "possible stupidity" spoiler alert here...

Okay, just thinking... If BtC is adopted big time, and the price shoots through the roof... what would it hurt to maybe cut the block reductions in half and mine 42 million (or maybe just 31.5 million) coins? Would the extra coins hurt the value that much? Is 21 million going to be enough if the whole world adopts the coin? I'm actually more worried about the effect on the blockchain if hundreds of millions of transactions start showing up... Anyway, can somebody give me a clear answer why we shouldn't mine a few more, other than "this is the way Satoshi said it should be"? And yes, I realize that we could go to 16 places past the decimal point...

russell

[beetcoin]

if a large share of teh world invests into cryptocurrencies, i don't think bitcoin is enough.. which is why i speculate LTC does have some real intrinsic value.

but the number of BTC doesn't matter all that much.. it can be split up.

[Birdy]

Would the extra coins hurt the value that much?

If you go for 42 mio, that would cut everyones Btc-wealth in half.

Unless there is an extremely good reason for this, I don't think you would get the users to agree with that change.
(And even with an extremely good reason it will be nearly impossible, I guess ^^)

Is 21 million going to be enough if the whole world adopts the coin?

Yes.

[Cryptolator]

There will be in fact 2.1 quadrillion Satoshi, which is in my opinion, enough !

[cGull]

Yeah, what Cryptolator said. Since the Bitcoin is highly divisible it doesn't really matter. People just need to get used to all those decimals!
Wiki:21 million coins isn't enough; doesn't scale

[WayTooGosu]

That would be as if America just started printing out more bills. It would simply lower the value of their bills.

[Cryptolator]

That would be as if America just started printing out more bills. It would simply lower the value of their bills.

Yes, or in one word: Inflation !

[niothor]

Then bitcoin will be no more different than fiat money.
We could not print but mine how many we want.

It would mean failure of the whole concept.

[emilia79]

It seem to be an arbitrary number.

But this would avoid what central banks & reserves are doing... Mostly The US Fed. Res.

Printing money, Q. Easing ... battle among central banks ...

We have a maximal sum, we'll have to cop with that.

[BuhTuglia]

That would be as if America just started printing out more bills. It would simply lower the value of their bills.

Isn't that what we're doing?

Okay, grumble grumble, you guys have convinced me. Bad idea. So in the future my whole net worth may not even be one decimal point? Sobering thought.

Thanks guys!

russell

[DeathAndTaxes]

That would be as if America just started printing out more bills. It would simply lower the value of their bills.

Isn't that what we're doing?

Okay, grumble grumble, you guys have convinced me. Bad idea. So in the future my whole net worth may not even be one decimal point? Sobering thought.

Thanks guys!

russell

Your net worth measured in tons of gold is unlikely to be more than a fraction.  It hasn't stopped people from buying much smaller gold coins.

All money, all units are arbitrary.  Money has to be scarce or it doesn't work.  
Commodity based money attempts to constrain the supply by a scarce resource.
Fiat based money attempts to constrain the supply based on the whims of a cartel of bankers.
Crypto based money attempts to constrain the supply based on math and logic.

Money is merely an accounting system.  It is a way of keeping score. 


As for why can't we change Bitcoin.  Well the reality is that 42M BTC would work equally well, so would 1000 quintillion BTC.  Bitcoin would probably have worked fine with a fixed money supply (recycling old coin), or a continually inflationary one, or the system we have now however in the long run the difference between 0.5% growth in money supply, 0% growth in money supply, and 0.5% reduction in money supply is really immaterial. 

So if they all could work why not change it?  Well first if they all can work there really is no reason TO change it.  The larger issue is that Bitcoin is a consensus system.  Participation is voluntary.  The rules are known in advance.  This creates a social contract.  People who have chosen to use/adopt/hold Bitcoin have chosen to do so under the premise that the rules won't be changed.  Bitcoin makes it nearly impossible to change the rules and as such rules that don't need to be changed probably never will.  To change the money supply, rate of minting, or the irreversibility of transactions (to include confiscating "lost" coins) is probably impossible.  However if you could it would break the social contract.  It probably would kill Bitcoin.  If you can change one rule you can change them all.  A Bitcoin only has value because people believe they can exchange it for goods, services, or other currencies (either today or in the future).  Breaking the social contract would be a loss of confidence in the entire system and likely a fatal collapse.

[niothor]

That would be as if America just started printing out more bills. It would simply lower the value of their bills.

Isn't that what we're doing?

Okay, grumble grumble, you guys have convinced me. Bad idea. So in the future my whole net worth may not even be one decimal point? Sobering thought.

Thanks guys!

russell

Do you now have a decimal point of all the bills running around or getting printed?
With a bitcoin economy at least you will now I have right this 0.00045% of it , and nothing can change that.

[niothor]

That would be as if America just started printing out more bills. It would simply lower the value of their bills.

Isn't that what we're doing?

Okay, grumble grumble, you guys have convinced me. Bad idea. So in the future my whole net worth may not even be one decimal point? Sobering thought.

Thanks guys!

russell

Your net worth measured in tons of gold is unlikely to be more than a fraction.  It hasn't stopped people from buying much smaller gold coins.

All money, all units are arbitrary.  Money has to be scarce or it doesn't work.  

Commodity based money attempts to constrain the supply by a scarce resource.
Fiat based money attempts to constrain the supply based on the whims of a cartel of bankers.
Crypto based money attempts to constrain the supply based on math and logic.

As for why can't we change Bitcoin.  Well 42M BTC would work equally well, so would 1000 quintillion BTC.  Bitcoin however is a consensus system.  Participation is voluntary.  The rules are known in advance.  This creates a social contract.  People who have chosen to use Bitcoin have chosen to do so under the premise that the rules won't be changed.  Bitcoin makes it nearly impossible to change the rules and as such rules that don't need to be changed probably never will.  To change the money supply, rate of minting, or the irreversibility of transactions (to include confiscating "lost" coins) would break the social contract.  It probably would kill Bitcoin.  If you can change one rule you can change them all. 

+1 For the post but..
Why did you say "probably would kill Bitcoin". I think that once we start printing or mining or god know what term I should use more bitcoins than the original 21 planned it will be a 101% chance of failure of the entire system.

[DeathAndTaxes]

+1 For the post but..
Why did you say "probably would kill Bitcoin". I think that once we start printing or mining or god know what term I should use more bitcoins than the original 21 planned it will be a 101% chance of failure of the entire system.

I work a lot with probabilities so using words like probably, likely, mostly are just a force of habit.  I don't want to presume to know the future.  Maybe Bitcoin would survive a change in minting.  I seriously doubt it but it is possibly (highly unlikely IMHO but possible).

Still even the risk simply isn't worth it.  For a fork to have any chance would require a critical mass of users, merchants, exchanges, service providers, developers, advocates, etc.   The worst possible scenario is two incompatible protocols both calling themselves Bitcoin with significant support behind them.  That is a recipe for disaster.   This is why IMHO there will be no hard forks of the protocol beyond either non-controversial changes or a "we change it or Bitcoin is dead anyways" scenario (crtotographic break of ECDSA or SHA-256).  I certainly won't support them and I feel there are enough pragmatic people which will do the same.

[tasorrog]

I find it good that thay have a limitation

[rolanberry]

Posting to get out of Newbie section! o-o

I hope Bitcoin becomes mainstream.  I hope that the SI/Metric naming of Bitcoin units becomes standard.  Then maybe this will lead the way to finally converting to the metric system in the United states! woo~

[LupinS]

I think its right, that BTC has limit of 21 millions, that makes it more valuable.

[swapcoiner]

I think it is not possible to generate beyond 21 million.

[Speaker]

Posting to get out of Newbie section! o-o

I hope Bitcoin becomes mainstream.  I hope that the SI/Metric naming of Bitcoin units becomes standard.  Then maybe this will lead the way to finally converting to the metric system in the United states! woo~

BTC won't be the reason the US will adopt the metric system. The US won't ever have the metric system lol (it'd be nice)

Bitcoin is mainstream now btw. I don't know why people don't think that already.

BTC has the same system that the US dollar has. Instead of it having worth because of the amount of something (like the dollar used to be before it it became a federal reserve note), it has value because of how much is there (circulation).

[trumbadera]

I think its right, that BTC has limit of 21 millions, that makes it more valuable.

Owning one BTC is good share of 21 million Bitcoins. Not long and owning 1 BTC means really a lot of wealth.

21 millions will be the max