Should bitcoin be limited to 21 million?

[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