Should bitcoin be limited to 21 million?

[jackg]

I have mixed views on this because most currencies stay stable with some sort of inflation. Quite frankly you shouldn't be inflating by 2% per month as thst a huge market but I don't think anyone would be against an increase for this to be accepted as a currency.

The alternative view is that this is what altcoins are for and most of the people won't see the last block with the initial rewards being taken up but at a point where we're at a low number of bitcoins per block it may come in handy to increase inflation slightly although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

[1715413101]

1715413101

[1715413101]

1715413101

[1715413101]

1715413101

[hosseinamin]

Inflation in national currencies help governments maintain their economy. Inflation in bitcoin may result in increase or Its security or more profit for miners.
I don't know What's good for bitcoin. But I think bitcoin being deflationary will not make much difference to world economy.

Maybe the right question is. How much security is needed?

[RocketSingh]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

[mda]

I would say keep it at 21 millions for the sake of experimentation. Never before has existed anything like this, even gold suffers from small yearly inflation.

[seoincorporation]

The 21 million is a lie.

We know that's the total of bitcoins but don't forget about the zeros after the point... 8 zeros have the trick. We don't need to fork the chain to add more bitcoins, if we change the transaction fees to 1 satoshi, and let the price goes to the moon (10sat=$1dllr), then those 21 million would look like an enormous number.

[ABCbits]

While i don't like deflation (especially on long run) and big inflation, few things such as 21 million coin supply is one of Principles of Bitcoin that shouldn't be changed and will be disagreed by majority of Bitcoin community.

--snip--
although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

It won't happen as bitcoin mining difficulty simply decreased and miners with most efficient ASIC and low operational cost still can mining with profit.

[darosior]

While i don't like deflation (especially on long run) and big inflation, few things such as 21 million coin supply is one of Principles of Bitcoin that shouldn't be changed and will be disagreed by majority of Bitcoin community.

--snip--
although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

It won't happen as bitcoin mining difficulty simply decreased and miners with most efficient ASIC and low operational cost still can mining with profit.

It is now a principle, but it was not until 2014. The finite monetary supply was added through bip42 : https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki .

[domob]

It is now a principle, but it was not until 2014. The finite monetary supply was added through bip42 : https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki .

Thanks for the information, i didn't know that. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact such change will be accepted, at least without culture change or serious commitment from some Bitcoiner to make this change.

BIP42 is a fix to an accidental bug that made the money supply larger than anticipated.  I think it is pretty clear that Satoshi did intend to make the money supply capped at 21 million right from the start.

IMHO this is actually the most important principle of bitcoin that there is (besides perhaps decentralisation), so any proposal to increase the supply will likely be strongly rejected.

[elda34b]

If the problem is mining incentives, I think miners will likely accept higher fees when that time comes, and people will use 2nd layer to avoid spending too much fees on on-chain transactions. We also don't know what's the price of 1 sat at that point so it is still tricky. My best guess is that if no inflation really cause people to stop mining, hash rate will decrease and maybe the price too, but it will reach an equilibrium where cost and profits stays more or less stable.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

It is now a principle, but it was not until 2014. The finite monetary supply was added through bip42 : https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki .

Though the 21 million supply was never mentioned in the code of the bitcoin, calculating the block rewards certainly yields the number nearing 21 million.
But as far as we know, satoshi in his announcement of the version 0.0.1 has said that the circulation would be always 21 millions and when this runs out the nodes will mine the blocks for the transaction fees.

Total circulation will be 21,000,000 coins.  It'll be distributed
to network nodes when they make blocks, with the amount cut in half
every 4 years.

first 4 years: 10,500,000 coins
next 4 years: 5,250,000 coins
next 4 years: 2,625,000 coins
next 4 years: 1,312,500 coins
etc...

When that runs out, the system can support transaction fees if
needed.  It's based on open market competition, and there will
probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free.

Also, as seoincorporation pointed out, the price wouldn't be stable for the miners to mine the coins at a loss along with the difficulty. The difficulty adjusts every now and then with miners not able to profitably mine the coin leaving the market and new ones entering. Never think of the total supply as just 21 million. If each satoshi is worth more or less of a dollar, then total bitcoins value is insanely very high. I have read somewhere that, satoshi designed the system keeping in mind the inflation rates. The fiat money is infinite and hence if more numbers are required they can be printed and the price wouldn't change. Bitcoin is inversely proportional to it. The more demand rises, the price of the coin rises simultaneously since no other extra coins would be created.

[Farul]

I Don't Think So
Because It Would Make The Network More Vulnerable To Attack (Near The End)

It won't happen as bitcoin mining difficulty simply decreased and miners with most efficient ASIC and low operational cost still can mining with profit.

Less Difficulty = Less Miner = Less Secure

BTW At That Time, There Is A High Chance People Will Switch To Another Blockchain/Payment Method

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Viewing bitcoin as an investment asset gives investors the impression bitcoin has 21 million supply (technically it does) but when you consider bitcoin as more of a currency then you'll realize the 21million total supply isn't a limitation since it can be divided by 0.00000001 sat that means there are possiblity of 1 satoshi equaling $1 at 1 Bitcoin  equivalent to $100,000,000. I don't see the 21million total supply as a limitation but a preventive measure put in place to prevent inflation. We need to start thinking in satoshi if we want bitcoin to achieve it's initial purpose of creation which is to be used as a currency.

[HeRetiK]

Viewing bitcoin as an investment asset gives investors the impression bitcoin has 21 million supply (technically it does) but when you consider bitcoin as more of a currency then you'll realize the 21million total supply isn't a limitation since it can be divided by 0.00000001 sat [...]

We know that's the total of bitcoins but don't forget about the zeros after the point... 8 zeros have the trick. [...]

Bitcoin's fungibility changes nothing about its deflationary nature. Fungibility allows for practical usage despite deflation.

---

As far as fiat currencies are concerned I've come to appreciate their inflationary nature (within measures, obviously) as our current economic system would be unsustainable without an inflationary money. Inflation allows for credit and thus growth and progress, without it mankind would stagnate. Needless to say inflation has its downsides, but all in all it appears to be indispensable for the way our economies work.

That being said, I don't believe Bitcoin necessarily needs to be inflationary to be useful and stable in the long run. An economy where Bitcoin would be the one and only money around would suffocate but that is not and likely never will be the case. However as long as Bitcoin lives side-by-side with inflationary currencies (regardless of them being alts or government issued fiat currencies) I believe a mutually beneficial equilibrium can be achieved.

As far as miners are concerned I agree that things may become tricky. High variability caused by the majority of mining income being provided by transaction fees rather than a stable block reward could lead to some challenges. I don't think that this problem is unsolvable though. At any rate we should have plenty of time to consider our options, considering that the block reward will be reduced gradually over a very long timeframe, allowing for an ongoing observation of how miners behave and what security issues we might face.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

From version 0.1.5
I think with the lost coins and other factors it will be under 21 million coins total somewhere around the 20.5 million coins is a good estimate.

Code:

int64 CBlock::GetBlockValue(int64 nFees) const
{
    int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;

    // Subsidy is cut in half every 4 years
    nSubsidy >>= (nBestHeight / 210000);

    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}

unsigned int GetNextWorkRequired(const CBlockIndex* pindexLast)
{
    const unsigned int nTargetTimespan = 14 * 24 * 60 * 60; // two weeks
    const unsigned int nTargetSpacing = 10 * 60;
    const unsigned int nInterval = nTargetTimespan / nTargetSpacing;

Some of the things that in bitcoin that should not be changed unless there is full consent and I would agree that there MAX_MONEY for bitcoin should not be increased if the supply is inflated we become nothing more than the central banks printing press and it would have a negative impact on bitcoin.

Some of the principals and fundamentals in bitcoin should always be.

1. Increase of the total number of bitcoin issued above and beyond the 21 million.  While precision may be increased the proportions must stay the same.

2. Rules that add any requires or explicit centralization like changes that would require that transactions or blocks be signed by any central organization.

3. Deletion or revocation "and or I believe" Redistribution of coins that are deemed to be either lost or unused.

The Fundamentals

    21 million coins TOTAL.
    No censorship = Nobody should be able to prevent valid tx's from being confirmed on the network.
    Open-Source = Bitcoin source code should always be open for anyone to read, modify, copy, share.
    Permissionless = No gatekeepers should ever prevent anybody from being part of the network
    Pseudonymous = No ID should be required to own or use Bitcoin.
    Fungible = All coins are equal and should be equally spendable.
    Irreversible Transactions = Confirmed blocks should be set in stone. Blockchain History should be immutable.

If we lose the above we're going to have a "Bad Time"

 

[Carlton Banks]

I have mixed views on this because most currencies stay stable with some sort of inflation.

False

1. Currencies with inflating supply do not stay stable. Name one, you'll be wrong (again)
2. Bitcoin's supply inflates

[aliashraf]

Bitcoin (or any other coin) being capped is a strategic mistake for two important reasons:

1- It leaves network insecure because of the lack of incentive. I'm aware of arguments about hypothetical very high prices and fee system that is supposed to compensate for mining costs. They are simply wrong because either fees have to skyrocket or the block size, neither is good for the ecosystem.

2- Every single year a portion of coins are lost. People lose access to their keys, make mistakes in using the system sending bitcoin to a nonredeemable address, generate dusts in wallets, ... it is unavoidable and through centuries the total circulating coins will reach to absolute zero, it is just a matter of time.

As of 21M being a principle, it is not! A minor improvement doesn't heart and once the community has found a way out of its governance crisis, it would be absolutely possible to set a floor for inflation to resolve both issues.

[mda]

I see this question more as political than technological one. There are powerful groups interested in preserving their money emission monopoly. By removing the cap you are offering them ammunition that will be used against yourself.

[ralle14]

I see this question more as political than technological one. There are powerful groups interested in preserving their money emission monopoly. By removing the cap you are offering them ammunition that will be used against yourself.

If they're given more incentives then Bitcoin will remain secure but I think it's unlikely that the majority would agree on increasing Bitcoin's max supply because we're not sure about the future price of Bitcoin.

For me let it stay limited, it might be too early to discuss about this since we don't know what would Bitcoin look like once we're near towards the last blocks.

[peonminer]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

This. There is no reason to increase the supply of BTC. You will only dilute the asset that is the functional use of BTC. It's already working the way it is. No reason to change that.

[libert19]

Pretty sure Bitcoin won't be unprofitable to mine, it is very popular and due to it's low supply and high demand, price will stay healthy.

[Artemis3]

Bitcoin should retain its 21 million limit. Induced inflation is not needed, this is where the Austrian school of economics trumps over all the others that unfortunately rule most of the world today, tho they wanted gold because something like this did not exist a century ago...

"Deflation", along with 100% reserve banking, allow for true savings (accumulation) of capital. Bitcoin happens to provide these two today.

You have to stop and think if it is really "deflation", when its actually everybody else that is inducing inflation. You say "stable" only when they appear in sync with each other, but to remain "in sync" they have to undergo inflation, and the difference is how big or small the discrepancy on their respective inflation is.

So if the JPY had 1% annual inflation and the USD had 0.8%, it would "appear" that the USD "gained", but it fact both were losing, induced by their own gov. Then if something comes along and its value remained and 0%, it would appear as if it was "gaining" value, only because everybody else was losing it.

But truth be told some bitcoins are getting lost forever, so there really is some deflation going on as well, just not that much.

[pooya87]

if stability of the price is your goal then you have to realize that bitcoin is currently not stable mainly because it is still growing and since that is going on you should expect big rises like what we had in 2017 which sometimes end with a big bubble and that has to burst and the final result is a roller-coaster while price continues to rise overall.
having no cap will not change this, but what it will change is that when bitcoin reaches mass adoption if it has no cap it will continue to decline. but with cap it can become stable.

[Kakmakr]

Why would people willingly devalue their wealth by adding more coins to the max supply that are defined by the Bitcoin protocol? One of the strongest pillars of this technology is the simulation of scarcity with a fixed limited supply of coins. I think once you mess with the total coin supply, investors will stop buying more coins. <It is all about the perception of scarcity and knowing what the total supply of coins will be in the future>

This is also something that are lacking in other commodities like Gold and Silver. <They do not know when a new massive deposit will be discovered> 

[kyucryp]

maybe that should be done. and all altcoins must have a limit on the number of coins that can be mined. if all crypto has a limit, the price of cyrpto will reach a stable point when all crypto has reached its maximum point. and crypto will have a very expensive value. if crypto does not have a limit, the crypto price will always fluctuate and will not reach a stable point.

[PrimeNumber7]

I see this question more as political than technological one.

Yes, exactly.

There are absolutely arguments for both a fixed coin supply and for an ever increasing coin supply. There are also arguments for a 100% premine/presale and for miners to mine the coin supply over many years. All of these arguments are economical and political.

[Dreamchaser21]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

This. There is no reason to increase the supply of BTC. You will only dilute the asset that is the functional use of BTC. It's already working the way it is. No reason to change that.

Exactly, if we want a more expensive bitcoin then we should stay with the current supply and I think it will be hard for Satoshi to increase the supply since he is still unknown. There is no need for us to increase it and yes bitcoin is working very fine and for sure if we continue to invest on this market even if the supply is limited we can still expect a smooth transactions.

[posi]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

In addition, Bitcoin been more of an asset than currency is what will make people have more interest in it and if the total 21 million supply which was planned change today it displease some people and the banking sector who are actually after Bitcoin will definitely laugh. However, I believed the limited number of Bitcoin was also sett as a means where Bitcoin will give chance for another coin to take the crown as we both know no one can ever be king.

[pawanjain]

I have mixed views on this because most currencies stay stable with some sort of inflation. Quite frankly you shouldn't be inflating by 2% per month as thst a huge market but I don't think anyone would be against an increase for this to be accepted as a currency.

The alternative view is that this is what altcoins are for and most of the people won't see the last block with the initial rewards being taken up but at a point where we're at a low number of bitcoins per block it may come in handy to increase inflation slightly although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

We all know that Satoshi was a genius. If he had capped the supply to 21 million then it would have been done for a reason.
Inflation is not needed in the case of bitcoin since a limited supply means that after the limit is reached there would not be further halving resulting in increase in price.
If inflation would have occured with bitcoin then it's price would have dropped further low and even would have lead to a crisis.
The 8 digits behind the decimal are far more sufficient for bitcoin to be used as a currency.

[Questat]

The 21 million is a lie.

We know that's the total of bitcoins but don't forget about the zeros after the point... 8 zeros have the trick. We don't need to fork the chain to add more bitcoins, if we change the transaction fees to 1 satoshi, and let the price goes to the moon (10sat=$1dllr), then those 21 million would look like an enormous number.

I agree with this, 1 whole bitcoin now is so expensive and might have a higher value in the future, but we have satoshis.
If the wild prediction of the experts that 1 bitcoin will turn into millions, then we should be transacting using satoshis instead of BTC as most of us can't afford to have at least 1 BTC that time.

[AjithBtc]

According to Satoshi 21 million is the calculated number for bitcoin. As every four year there is a halving the demand is increasing as the supply is getting limited. If there is no limitations and it can be created upon the necessity with something as a backing same as countries print currencies on necessity will make bitcoin to be same as other currencies around the world.

[zbig001]

Inflation is not needed but miners need reward to keep the network secure.
If the only incentivization of mining would be transactional fees, will this currency be really secure?

Satoshi promoted the idea of merged mining

(...)
Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power.  This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one.  Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength.  It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.

If in the future merged mining would gain a lot of significance, Bitcoin miners could easily make money on the sale of merged mined coins.
There would be no need for high transaction fees to maintain Bitcoin mining profitable (when block reward will reach zero).

[Leonardo7]

The bitcoin has already been programmed to be 21million total supply, I see no need agitating for an increase, the community trying to reach a consensus to increase the total will tell on the integrity of the bitcoin, which I believe it's impossible to increase the total supply now.

[kryptqnick]

Quite frankly you shouldn't be inflating by 2% per month as thst a huge market but I don't think anyone would be against an increase for this to be accepted as a currency.

Well, most of currencies are regulated, so we have no idea how they'd do if they were set free. Cryptos fluctuate too much in comparison with currencies that require lots of people whose work is to make sure they're stable.

The alternative view is that this is what altcoins are for and most of the people won't see the last block with the initial rewards being taken up but at a point where we're at a low number of bitcoins per block it may come in handy to increase inflation slightly although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

Once all of the bitcoins are mined, the price will increase along with the demand. The only problem here is with scalability, but we already have a rather good even though not widely accepted solution, presented by the Lightning network. As for mining, it's unprofitable only for some time. Unprofitability -> some miners leave -> the difficulty rate adjusts -> mining gets profitable for those who stayed. Not to mention that if the prices rise, the problem is gone.

[BurgerCash]

I have mixed views on this because most currencies stay stable with some sort of inflation. Quite frankly you shouldn't be inflating by 2% per month as thst a huge market but I don't think anyone would be against an increase for this to be accepted as a currency.

The alternative view is that this is what altcoins are for and most of the people won't see the last block with the initial rewards being taken up but at a point where we're at a low number of bitcoins per block it may come in handy to increase inflation slightly although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

Bitcoin used to have two selling features - a fixed supply, which meant it could outlast fiat currencies, and transaction throughput.
The Bitcoin community decided that transaction throughput is unimportant for now, and we focused on the digital gold marketing.
If we ever break the 21 million bitcoin rule, bitcoin will be neither p2p electronic cash nor digital gold. It will slowly fade into irrelevance.
This limit should never be broken.

[Linkkoin]

Practically limit is much lower because many of the early Bitcoins are lost for good, as lost with the memory sticks and hard discs.

[tunapa]

It’s a good one , firstly it will avoid excesses and also increase scarcity. I don’t see any need in increasing the supply as long as we want to make it generally acceptable for transactions and as currencies. If any increase is made, people will lose trust and it means increments can be done at anytime they wanted.

[davis196]

I have mixed views on this because most currencies stay stable with some sort of inflation. Quite frankly you shouldn't be inflating by 2% per month as thst a huge market but I don't think anyone would be against an increase for this to be accepted as a currency.

The alternative view is that this is what altcoins are for and most of the people won't see the last block with the initial rewards being taken up but at a point where we're at a low number of bitcoins per block it may come in handy to increase inflation slightly although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

The 21 million total bitcoin cap isn't as important as most of the people think.Great mining difficulty reduces the mining of new bitcoins and keeps the supply low.The 21 million cap is just a psychological barrier that creates some trust amongst the newbies that the bitcoin price will keep going up,as long as there is increased demand for btc.Inflation would be bad for btc.

[Pursuer]

I have mixed views on this because most currencies stay stable with some sort of inflation. Quite frankly you shouldn't be inflating by 2% per month as thst a huge market but I don't think anyone would be against an increase for this to be accepted as a currency.

The alternative view is that this is what altcoins are for and most of the people won't see the last block with the initial rewards being taken up but at a point where we're at a low number of bitcoins per block it may come in handy to increase inflation slightly although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

The 21 million total bitcoin cap isn't as important as most of the people think.Great mining difficulty reduces the mining of new bitcoins and keeps the supply low.The 21 million cap is just a psychological barrier that creates some trust amongst the newbies that the bitcoin price will keep going up,as long as there is increased demand for btc.Inflation would be bad for btc.

what are you talking about? the cap that bitcoin has is one of the most important features of it that has set it apart from all other currencies that for 100 years had no cap whatsoever! and the number that was chosen (21 million) is a pretty good one, although Satoshi never said anything about why it was chosen but now we know that it is appropriate as it is not too much to negate the cap (like most altcoins make the mistake of having such a huge one) and it is not too small to cause users feel there is scarcity.

[Carlton Banks]

mining difficulty reduces the mining of new bitcoins and keeps the supply low.

no it doesn't, the difficulty adjustments keep the supply increases regular. That's like bitcoin basics fact no. 2 or thereabouts

The 21 million cap is just a psychological barrier that creates some trust amongst the newbies that the bitcoin price will keep going up,as long as there is increased demand for btc.Inflation would be bad for btc.

Bitcoin's had supply inflation since the first block, and will continue to inflate it's supply until the last block

[gesdan]

bitcoin is not "limited" at the first time we should know that bitcoin has max supply 21 Million coin, not more, not less, and its not limited right now because it already limited on the first time we know about bitcoin

[r1s2g3]

Half of the users here are saying that 8 decimal in bitcoin will solve the prize. But actual question will be ,why miner will be mining if 21 million bitcoins are mined? What will be the actual incentive afterwards?

I guess this is not the topic for our guessing but it is topic for core dev team to tell us , how they see future sustainability of the BTC.

[X7]

The consensus was always 21M, a lot of people and companies invested in btc with this being the primary motivator. Supply / Demand.

If we suddenly up and changed this a lot of people would leave btc imo, especially since it is already divisible by 100M per token making fungibility a non-issue.

[kaya11]

Better that way, 21 million as it is. More problems I guess will rather come if it increases. Most people don't wanna to do this, they don't want something to devalue their investments for sure. In order for Bitcoin developers to increase Bitcoins supply everyone must agree, and as I said most of them would not want to especially the miners.

[fiulpro]

If Bitcoin reached it's maximum value then there won't be anything to mine anymore considering Bitcoins , thus it will be bad for  the miners.
Moreover I think for the new investors it will become very difficult, to start a new and invest again , so there will be a demarcation in the society and the people who are owning Bitcoins will be benefited because it's value is bound to rise then sooner or later.
I think it will both be good and bad.
But I don't think how it will affect the normal processing , because we can just divide them in whatever number we want.
Therefore except mining it's going to be okay I Think.

[pawanjain]

Half of the users here are saying that 8 decimal in bitcoin will solve the prize. But actual question will be ,why miner will be mining if 21 million bitcoins are mined? What will be the actual incentive afterwards?

I guess this is not the topic for our guessing but it is topic for core dev team to tell us , how they see future sustainability of the BTC.

It is quite simple because once the supply limit of 21 Million BTC has been reached, the mining rewards will be over. Which means for every block a miner mines there will be 0 mining reward.
In this case the only profit the miner will get is the transaction fee. So instead of the mining reward. the miner will be mining the transactions to get the transaction fees.
This will indeed decrease the overall profit of a miner but it is known thing thing for now.

[KingScorpio]

I have mixed views on this because most currencies stay stable with some sort of inflation.

False

1. Currencies with inflating supply do not stay stable. Name one, you'll be wrong (again)
2. Bitcoin's supply inflates

there is still nothing you can do against change in social and political climate, it could wash you away like a tsunami wave.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

Half of the users here are saying that 8 decimal in bitcoin will solve the prize. But actual question will be ,why miner will be mining if 21 million bitcoins are mined? What will be the actual incentive afterwards?

As I have already said in one of the other topics, the incentive is more than enough for the miners to carry on the mining process profitably. So people do think on the other hand, that should they pay more for each of their transaction to be mined? The answer for that should be NO, since tx size plays a significant role in the tx fees. If the miners can include more transactions in a block, then those minimal fees paid for each transaction should be sufficient enough for them to process the tx successfully.

For instance if you consider the legacy tx and a segwit tx, the latter one has lesser size and hence we can pay lesser fee for that. According to consensus each block capacity can include 1 MB, hence if the tx has lesser size the miners can include more tx and can earn from them. Along with that being said, off-chain solutions are quite important in scaling the network. At one point of time in future, common bitcoin users would create channels with whom they frequently transact and they don't want to pay the fee each time they are transacting.

[BeGoods]

bitcoin is not "limited" at the first time we should know that bitcoin has max supply 21 Million coin, not more, not less, and its not limited right now because it already limited on the first time we know about bitcoin

Yeah right, the total supply has been limited since the initial launch, it didn't happen yesterday dude. but not all bitcoin supply has been successfully mined at this time.

[anodyne]

I see this question more as political than technological one. There are powerful groups interested in preserving their money emission monopoly. By removing the cap you are offering them ammunition that will be used against yourself.

Very well said. This much tells a more political side than emphasizing technological impact. Moreover, this idea for the Bitcoin to get limited only to 21 million, is something I don't think could happen.

[johnduckett]

The issue limited to 21 million bitcoins is clearly intended to have a positive effect on its price, because if a good is scarce and more people are looking for it, its price will rise, however, we must ask ourselves and the practicality of the cryptocurrencies? As mentioned here, for this are the other Altcoins, but what will happen to Bitcoin when a project really becomes massive? There is the risk that its price falls a lot.

[r1s2g3]

Half of the users here are saying that 8 decimal in bitcoin will solve the prize. But actual question will be ,why miner will be mining if 21 million bitcoins are mined? What will be the actual incentive afterwards?

As I have already said in one of the other topics, the incentive is more than enough for the miners to carry on the mining process profitably. So people do think on the other hand, that should they pay more for each of their transaction to be mined? The answer for that should be NO, since tx size plays a significant role in the tx fees. If the miners can include more transactions in a block, then those minimal fees paid for each transaction should be sufficient enough for them to process the tx successfully.

For instance if you consider the legacy tx and a segwit tx, the latter one has lesser size and hence we can pay lesser fee for that. According to consensus each block capacity can include 1 MB, hence if the tx has lesser size the miners can include more tx and can earn from them. Along with that being said, off-chain solutions are quite important in scaling the network. At one point of time in future, common bitcoin users would create channels with whom they frequently transact and they don't want to pay the fee each time they are transacting.

This topic is not as simple as it sound.
1.) Why I should pay high transaction fees when cheaper alternatives are available.
2.) Network is secure because network is providing incentives (new bitcoins) for mining. Are you assuming that in future that miner will get 2 to 3 bitcoins as fees in mining transaction.
3.) forget LN, if mining stops then anyone can reverse any transaction with small amount of hash power. Do you know what will happen when you close that channel.

It clearly require devs to tell us , how bitcoin network will be secure when there is no mining incentives.

[bilal_jan321]

There will be 21 million BTC that will be generated ever and with current computing power, last BTC will be mined in 2140.
This finite supply of BTC will make it inflation free as limited supply always result in higher value. We have already seen how BTC jumped from 0 to 19000 USD (thanks to its limited supply). In my opinion, the price of BTC has only one way to go i.e. in an upward direction, as supply will lessen with time.

[Mpamaegbu]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

Exactly! The 21million capped supply of Bitcoin is its saving grace. I bet you bitcoin won't remain the same once as little as 100 more is added to it. It will nose dive to its death. It's a trust thing. Hodlers and investors don't take such things easily. They feel betrayed. We have seen coins suffer for this additional supply and we have seen coins appreciate once unsold are burnt after ICOs. Bitcoin won't be any different.

[Malsetid]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

Exactly! The 21million capped supply of Bitcoin is its saving grace. I bet you bitcoin won't remain the same once as little as 100 more is added to it. It will nose dive to its death. It's a trust thing. Hodlers and investors don't take such things easily. They feel betrayed. We have seen coins suffer for this additional supply and we have seen coins appreciate once unsold are burnt after ICOs. Bitcoin won't be any different.

I agree. Leave it as it is. Some coins are even burning supplies in order to boost value so adding supply isn't a good idea. If that's even possible. Having a finite number in circulation may one day bring bitcoin's value well above the all time high especially when the last satoshi is mined.

[ralle14]

Agreed to that. Dev should not add any more supply and leave bitcoin at 21 million cap. If the last block is mined then bitcoin will be rarer and its price will significantly gain value. I think that adding more supply will kill bitcoin and it will just be another flooded coin in the market.

You only looked at the bad side of having an increased supply. In return the network is less vulnerable to attacks if there's more bitcoin to mine.  

Exactly! The 21million capped supply of Bitcoin is its saving grace. I bet you bitcoin won't remain the same once as little as 100 more is added to it. It will nose dive to its death. It's a trust thing. Hodlers and investors don't take such things easily. They feel betrayed. We have seen coins suffer for this additional supply and we have seen coins appreciate once unsold are burnt after ICOs. Bitcoin won't be any different.

Adding a hundred is not a big deal imo if it's reasonable enough to do it but I hope there's a better solution.

[oriontab]

The number of bitcoin (fixed at 21 million) is not really that important since it is divisible even to the 6th decimal or more.What is important is the economy it supports.The price adjusts accordingly. Bitcoin will work perfectly even if the total supply is 1 million. Also,the fixed supply creates a deflationary currency

[tunapa]

Not being limited will not make any positive impact this am definitely  sure of. It depends only on how the supply is being used. For over a decade we have known that bitcoin total supply is 21 million. There is plan for it which am sure will be achieved.

[rodel caling]

According to the study of the expert bitcoin limited to 21 million after that bitcoin will become expensive because of high demand but lack of bitcoin circulating in the world.
But in own view their have a solution of that problem because the new techonology are still upgrading and possible to discover again how to resolve to get bitcoin in mining.

[shesheboy]

should be ?  we arent ask if bitcoin should be limited or not because ever since bitcoin was created it is already intended to have a 21 million cap   .  alot of us are expecting that the price can rise if the max supply was reached ( which is good ) but the fees can also skyrocket ( which is bad )  . 

idk to some people out there especially to those who are constantly buying a bitcoin if they will like to see the price rise or not but im sure they dont , because that will be a big obstacle for them to obtain a bitcoin  if the value will become too expensive  .

[TimeBits]

This is what happens to limited supply's like gold and bitcoin
 
The start: everyone getting it from nature "mining"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q41RW6bxpM4

The end: the only way is killing another player for his limited supply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYJVG1fKnRo

I really hope Nakamoto comes back and adds a way for time mining via addresses on a side chain

[r1s2g3]

I really hope Nakamoto comes back and adds a way for time mining via addresses on a side chain

It is open source code and we do not require Nakamoto to do the changes. All we require the consensus in the community.
I guess we are discussing about future and we have more than 2 decades to solve this problem.

[Jating]

I really hope Nakamoto comes back and adds a way for time mining via addresses on a side chain

It is open source code and we do not require Nakamoto to do the changes. All we require the consensus in the community.
I guess we are discussing about future and we have more than 2 decades to solve this problem.

And I guess the consensus is that bitcoin should be limited to 21 million as it is how it was originally design by Satoshi himself.

Of course there are advantage of having more bitcoin, but on the contrary, it makes bitcoin one of the most desirable assets because the total supply is limited. Which mean the price could really go up in the future as more demand will sets in.

[pey]

I believe it is limited to 21 million to make an unit of Bitcoin equal to $1 in the very long term when Bitcoin is totally adopted.

''My choice for the number of coins and distribution schedule was an educated guess. It was a difficult choice, because once the network is going it's locked in and we're stuck with it. I wanted to pick something that would make prices similar to existing currencies, but without knowing the future, that's very hard. I ended up picking something in the middle. If Bitcoin remains a small niche, it'll be worth less per unit than existing currencies. If you imagine it being used for some fraction of world commerce, then there's only going to be 21 million coins for the whole world, so it would be worth much more per unit. Values are 64-bit integers with 8 decimal places, so 1 coin is represented internally as 100000000. There's plenty of granularity if typical prices become small. For example, if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro, then it might be easier to change where the decimal point is displayed, so if you had 1 Bitcoin it's now displayed as 1000, and 0.001 is displayed as 1.''

@satoshi

[1Referee]

I believe it is limited to 21 million to make an unit of Bitcoin equal to $1 in the very long term when Bitcoin is totally adopted.

If the supply was capped at 100 million BTC it would still be able to do so.

The 21 million is already a number that will never ever hold much weight due to how many coins have been lost and will be lost in the future, and how second and third layers can split even 1 satoshi units in smaller fractions.

Considering that Lightning is Bitcoin's killer app and most likely road to mass adoption, it makes more sense to start thinking about calculations based on Lightning units. 1 satoshi for example can be split into 1000 smaller fractions with Lightning. Right now it's hard to imagine that these small units matter, but in the future they definitely will.

[arpon11]

i think this question of bitcoin being limited to just 21 million is a little bit to useless at the moment because it has already being created and can not be recreated as there is no possibility of that existing again. we can consider it not recreateable and that makes it limited to its supply

There is nothing any person can do about the number of bitcoin that will be mine and it is truth that there is no reason of asking if it number can be increase from 21million in future!  I don't think we are going to have another whitepaper and road map on bitcoin again and that is the major reason why we have altcoins.  We should be able to mine the remaining bitcoin in few years to come though bitcoin mine or rewarding is going to reduce next year I think the remaining units to be mine will happen before our eyes and from there the market will start to determine the price of bitcoin.

[pey]

I believe it is limited to 21 million to make an unit of Bitcoin equal to $1 in the very long term when Bitcoin is totally adopted.

If the supply was capped at 100 million BTC it would still be able to do so.

Exactly, ''It was a difficult choice'' so 21 million supply is not that magical, but it might be so as well considering how much deliberation went into this decision.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

i think this question of bitcoin being limited to just 21 million is a little bit to useless at the moment because it has already being created and can not be recreated as there is no possibility of that existing again. we can consider it not recreateable and that makes it limited to its supply

I have been following this topic quite closely, but now they are being rambled upon with just no idea on what is being discussed about and what happens from a technical standpoint. Foremost, satoshi has never mentioned 21 million as the supply in the code. But rather they have been mentioned only in the announcements.
Could you please explain what does recreation and possibility of existing again mean?

With the halving taking place, each block generates coins which are diminishing over the years. This is probably the reason which makes the supply to be limited.

That's how it's build, it's only 21 million in total supply for bitcoin but we have more than that if we use satoshi.
Actually when it first came out, people are maybe transaction one who BTC but since the value has increase, we can expect we will be transacting more in satoshi in the near future and that makes the name satoshi more popular than BTC.

It's a brilliant idea by satoshi, I can call this a perfect one.

The 21 million supply can be changed but they need to be forked to do so. The transactions will be moving to off-chain payment networks and developers will find a way in including more transactions in the blocks.

[minersday]

The 21 million is a lie.

I definitely think so. Maybe the 21 million Bitcoins stated  in its whitepaper as the total number of bitcoin was just an estimation made by Satoshi to give the general public an assumption of the total number of Bitcoin which will be mined if Bitcoin comes a globally used digital cash. I don't think Bitcoin is actually limited to the total number of 21 million, there are more available if the assumed number is exceeded.

[jademaxsuy]

As more and more people had been mining and owning bitcoin 21M supply of bitcoin will.not be enough. Probably it may soon mined all bitcoins to which it will affect the market price increasingly. Well, many will going to happy about it.

I think there are only few bitcoins left and those users aiming to get one should start buying now.

[jackg]

A couple of points after reading responses here:

1. I don't think Satoshi put much thought into th 21 million coins.
2. Non physically backed contracts already exist... Thus we have seen some inflation so far.
3. This topic is open to opinion however some are posting here without thought...

[Janation]

I think he never thought about this in the past.

I mean as far as I know he also said that he is not expecting anything from it, I think what he said there is that, there is either a lot of transactions or none of it. If he reduced the total supply, I think the price of it now is high enough to make it one of the best investments right now but if we will be adding or increasing the limit, that will make the price lower since we are following the demand and supply of it. For me, I think it is better to stick in 21M rather than increasing that.

[TimeBits]

I have mixed views on this because most currencies stay stable with some sort of inflation. Quite frankly you shouldn't be inflating by 2% per month as thst a huge market but I don't think anyone would be against an increase for this to be accepted as a currency.

The alternative view is that this is what altcoins are for and most of the people won't see the last block with the initial rewards being taken up but at a point where we're at a low number of bitcoins per block it may come in handy to increase inflation slightly although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

Watch this video, this is what happens with limited supplies (4 mins in if you can`t wait I show a simulation of gold/bitcoin in the future)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7TLFyK_3Pk

Do we start a 100m dash race because we showed up early? or do we all start the race at a set time?
Why do younger generations not even get a chance to mine? The are forced to be the slaves.

[denzkilim]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

That's correct and having a fixed supply helps to increase the price of Bitcoin over time, I know it might sound ridiculous but in my point of view, limited supply has an effect to the value in the long term. Even if the mass adoption of Bitcoin will happen in the future I don't think that it will be used as a currency because the volatility is still there and it will continue to fluctuate and most merchants and service providers do not like a payment method who constantly and dramatically change its value at any time. 

[Twinscoin2017]

I think bitcoin has no limit because bitcoin is really not depend on any institution or government its price is always depend upon the demand or its users, so i think if bitcoin will become more popular through the help of new tehcnology there will maybe a great posibility that it will really rise up high soon.

[killat]

Limiting Bitcoin to 21 million will definitely conserve its price overtime as this will avoid the hyperinflation.

Also, with less and less Btc remained to be mined and with new halvings coming,  the rewards from mining should decrease and this will help the price, too. Basically,  you mine less btc, but a more valuable one.

[market-beta]

if in my opinion it doesn't need to be limited bro. because the price of bitcoin is unstable and even soars it is very good. for investment either long term or short term.

[TheUltraElite]

if in my opinion it doesn't need to be limited bro. because the price of bitcoin is unstable and even soars it is very good. for investment either long term or short term.

I am really amazed at the lack of general concepts about Satoshi's ideology that people in this forum have started to express. Bitcoin was and is supposed to be made scarce day by day in order to make it a deflationary currency. That's how it was envisioned. You all should go through Satoshi's white paper once a while if you have never heard of it, yet.
The fact that Fiat is printable every when it's needed is one of the reasons of its current state. I don't understand why people are failing to understand these simple things. 21m is the golden number.

[jak3]

yes, don't think bitcoin as profit or loss commodity it is not made like that. it is not intended to be in a market, that's what people treat it nowadays but bitcoin was made against government and banking system where no money fraudulent or corruption can happen. Bitcoin is limited so no supper price drops can be seen which is common when banks print new money in addition to the old money.

[TheKeyLongThumbI]

The scarcity of bitcoin is one of the top reasons why people are buying and holding it for a long time. It's like a property that increases in value through time. But if ever they planned that, I think people would sell their btc right away. It should be limited only to 21 million because less means it is much more valuable.

[ðºÞæ]

Bitcoin is limited to 21 Million, anything not limited to 21 Million  is not Bitcoin.

[pushups44]

Yes, bitcoin should be limited to 21 million, because this scarcity is what makes bitcoin so appealing to many investors. If bitcoin had more inflation, or even changed its inflation rate through a fork, it would take away the perception of its immutability for investors. Bitcoin would then be just like any fiat currency.

[brotherwood12]

i think bitcoin was limited (?) , i mean it mined time by time , and harder also , and the end we cant mined it anymore (?)

[Vishnu.Reang]

I am not in favor of increasing the overall supply, as it may cause a crash in the exchange rates. Also, the existing holders may end up with losses. However, I am in favor of re-denominating Bitcoin. A possible formula is 1 old Bitcoin = 1,000 new Bitcoin. There is a lot of complaint from some noobs that Bitcoin is very "expensive". After the re-denomination, the exchange rate will be around $6 per coin.

[jackg]

Limiting Bitcoin to 21 million will definitely conserve its price overtime as this will avoid the hyperinflation.

Also, with less and less Btc remained to be mined and with new halvings coming,  the rewards from mining should decrease and this will help the price, too. Basically,  you mine less btc, but a more valuable one.

I never mentioned hyperinflation?

Inflation might be needed at some point in order to ensure bitcoin continues to live on. Think of what you've said, what happens if we end up with only 1 bitcoin left in 200 years (it's possible).

if in my opinion it doesn't need to be limited bro. because the price of bitcoin is unstable and even soars it is very good. for investment either long term or short term.

I am really amazed at the lack of general concepts about Satoshi's ideology that people in this forum have started to express. Bitcoin was and is supposed to be made scarce day by day in order to make it a deflationary currency. That's how it was envisioned. You all should go through Satoshi's white paper once a while if you have never heard of it, yet.
The fact that Fiat is printable every when it's needed is one of the reasons of its current state. I don't understand why people are failing to understand these simple things. 21m is the golden number.

It's not deflationary either. It's inflationary at the moment still and will be until 2100+ it isn't particularly an issue for us but for our ancestors to determine what should happen.

Why is 21million so golden? If it were 100 million, I'm sure you'd be piping on about that. It isn't even 21 million since Satoshi has 1 million untouched and some blocks are without a coinbase or with a lower coinbase.


@TimeBits, gold is inflated, that's clear. That market will crash at some point. The UK and US governments own 1/5th of the amount of gold that has been mined and they both have sold more gold than they have.

Also, there is a lot of gold in places like the ocean, that could potentially be mined if we work out how to economically extract it.

[TheCoinGrabber]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

Besides most other asset (land, precious metal) is limited anyway. It seems the current system of just keeping on printing money is unsustainable. Bitcoin is divisible enough that even if it remains valued in fiat and rise astronomically, people can just switch to using smaller amounts.

[soulripper]

Bitcoin are limited to 21million only. Not more and not less from that. The price might go higher and higher but bitcoin supply will remain the same. Its not just like fiat where you can prints it out and make it more in the market. Bitcoin is limited and that make peoples wanted to hodl it for a long term.

[lamadu3]

Bitcoin is limited to 21 Million, anything not limited to 21 Million  is not Bitcoin.

LOL. You are right. Now, I know how to explain the sense of Bitcoin to those guys who ask me about it. I wonder if the price of Bitcoin goes to the Sun when the last BTC is mined or fall to the bottom.

[olamidey]

I'm very sure Satoshi deliberately wanted 21 million bitcoins.thats not disputeable. Presently not up to that but as miners keep mining with blocks being created every no and then, it's just soon that we will get to the finite end of Bitcoin and the rush for the price increase will begin. All the price speculations now will only be achievable when bitcoins reach the max supply.

[acheampong64]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

Very good. That's the way I see the future of Bitcoin to be. Ideally, Bitcoin will become more of a n asset class and people will store their wealth in it (the store of value cliché) and then the many altcoins we see around may do the monetary job. Nevertheless let's not forget many of these ALTs are shitcoins and will need to die for better ones to come. I believe Bitcoin being limited to the 21 M will provide scarcity which brings forth incremental valuation.

[pixie85]

It should be because it makes it stable in our minds. We know what to expect like when you have a unique car that you know only a number was made and there will never be more. Limited things are more valuable and make great collectibles.

We could change it by voting but I don't think that people will ever agree to do it. It would destroy the value.

[Questat]

We could change it by voting but I don't think that people will ever agree to do it. It would destroy the value.

If I understand it correctly, only where there is a hard fork of bitcoin where we can change its supply.
That has been done with some fork of bitcoin but bitcoin is still the number 1, people are trusting bitcoin over other coins and if there are changes in supply it would certainly affect the holders, bitcoin then is not a good coin for long term hold, we should preserve its origin.

[ranman09]

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

I too think for now bitcoin as an asset. Without the 21 million cap, maybe it woun't be a great investment and prices wouldn't be pegged to go up.

[FIFA worldcup]

yes, don't think bitcoin as profit or loss commodity it is not made like that. it is not intended to be in a market, that's what people treat it nowadays but bitcoin was made against government and banking system where no money fraudulent or corruption can happen. Bitcoin is limited so no supper price drops can be seen which is common when banks print new money in addition to the old money.

The reason we are seeing bitcoin price growth is that bitcoin quantity cannot be increased from 21 million. Why everyone is so sure that bitcoin will cross 5000$ or even 100,000$ ? Only because when the demand will increase and more users will enter in crypto space, we will only have 21 million bitcoins and therefore their value will increase very high indeed.

[AmirSolo]

hi, in my opinion if it wasn't limited to 21m, then we won't seen the price of it even grow. just like a Fiat currency that if a government keep printing them the price of it falls and there will be stagflation in the country.

[uray]

I have mixed views on this because most currencies stay stable with some sort of inflation. Quite frankly you shouldn't be inflating by 2% per month as thst a huge market but I don't think anyone would be against an increase for this to be accepted as a currency.

The alternative view is that this is what altcoins are for and most of the people won't see the last block with the initial rewards being taken up but at a point where we're at a low number of bitcoins per block it may come in handy to increase inflation slightly although if it becomes unprofitable to mine it'll be the node owners doing the mining which wouldn't be a bad thing (each node miner with a few chips to mine with like the gekkos side hack makes - id be into that).

There is no point in changing the initial codes about the limited amount of bitcoins, we have an identity on what bitcoin is all about and we do not want to change the structure, we need to improve on certain things when it comes to transaction speed and transaction charges and that can be tackled with increase in blocks or lightening network or any other feasible method, other than that we do not need any changes what so ever that could change the face of bitcoin.

[DreamStage]

Yes, bitcoin should be limited to 21 million, because this scarcity is what makes bitcoin so appealing to many investors. If bitcoin had more inflation, or even changed its inflation rate through a fork, it would take away the perception of its immutability for investors. Bitcoin would then be just like any fiat currency.

But then if we overreach the 21 million you will probabily not be able to buy more
So a new limit will have to be imposed / created just like INT vs LONG values.
Or take an example with ipv4 vs ipv6. There will always be a necessity on increasing the imposed limits in a near future.

[BitHodler]

hi, in my opinion if it wasn't limited to 21m, then we won't seen the price of it even grow. just like a Fiat currency that if a government keep printing them the price of it falls and there will be stagflation in the country.

Bitcoin is in its very early stage and for that reason the limited supply isn't the most important aspect of buying it. Ethereum has no limited supply, yet it kept going up hard because the demand greatly exceeded the supply.

With how crypto in general grows, and as long as the rate of inflation isn't an exorbitant percentage, the increasing demand will always outperform the rate of inflation, and I don't see this end in the coming 10 or so years.

Eventually it will matter, but for now it really doesn't. Bitcoin is a tiny drop in an ocean of capital that need a regulatory framework to consider it a safe and interesting enough asset class to allocate capital to.

[TimeBits]

hi, in my opinion if it wasn't limited to 21m, then we won't seen the price of it even grow. just like a Fiat currency that if a government keep printing them the price of it falls and there will be stagflation in the country.

Bitcoin is in its very early stage and for that reason the limited supply isn't the most important aspect of buying it. Ethereum has no limited supply, yet it kept going up hard because the demand greatly exceeded the supply.

With how crypto in general grows, and as long as the rate of inflation isn't an exorbitant percentage, the increasing demand will always outperform the rate of inflation, and I don't see this end in the coming 10 or so years.

Eventually it will matter, but for now it really doesn't. Bitcoin is a tiny drop in an ocean of capital that need a regulatory framework to consider it a safe and interesting enough asset class to allocate capital to.

hi, in my opinion if it wasn't limited to 21m, then we won't seen the price of it even grow. just like a Fiat currency that if a government keep printing them the price of it falls and there will be stagflation in the country.

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

I too think for now bitcoin as an asset. Without the 21 million cap, maybe it woun't be a great investment and prices wouldn't be pegged to go up.

Bitcoin is less of a currency and more of an asset class. Finite supply is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. No compromise on it will be accepted.

I mean let us put the price of fiat measured as bitcoin aside, and just look at bitcoin or gold(limited supplies).

What happens in the future?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7TLFyK_3Pk

Ok granted you can work for ones coins, but why not start the race at the same time? Why are we enslaving our future people. Why don`t they get to mine? To anyone being born after 2030 bitcoin looks like a 100% premine and someone else`s money supply.

I think time and duration is the answer, we all make it at a constant (unlimited) we all stop making it when we die (limited) we all go to work for a certain amount of duration, and could get paid in time/duration representing coins. 

Thoughts?