Creating more bitcoin

[thirdprize]

Is there anything to stop the core devs saying we want unlimited bitcoin and changing the code to allow it.  I mean, 21 million isn't much. 

[1714864755]

1714864755

[1714864755]

1714864755

[arbiter5]

For that to happen, consensus is going to be needed. The developers can't simply just change the number then boom we have a billion bitcoins. If they could simply do that just by changing values in the code, then bitcoin is fucked.

Not to mention that a hardfork is going to be needed to achieve this, so it's extremely unlikely.

[Duzter]

Creating more bitcoin will disturb the demand to supply availability. When there is something unlimited surely the demand will diminish with time. As of now the market having limited supply, and the same is the key factor for bitcoin to have such an increased market price. Some has been continuously suggesting on bitcoin unlimited which isn't gonna get into reality.

[dothebeats]

For that to happen, consensus is going to be needed. The developers can't simply just change the number then boom we have a billion bitcoins. If they could simply do that just by changing values in the code, then bitcoin is fucked.

Not to mention that a hardfork is going to be needed to achieve this, so it's extremely unlikely.

This, else it will be a fork and I don't think a lot of people would really want to knowing 21 million bitcoins preserve the value of bitcoin in some way. It will also take a lot of convincing and endless debates before the community is convinced for increasing the hard cap on the limit of bitcoins, and even then we're not sure whether a lot of people would support the move/motive or not.

But on a side note though, no one is stopping anyone to create their own version of bitcoin. It's just that be ready to accept rejections in any way possible.

[gentlemand]

The core developers can propose it. It won't make the slightest difference if not enough people choose to run that version.

If you did get a majority there would still be a vehement minority who would refuse and continue with the original chain and so there would be different Bitcoins by that point. The extra BTC chain would have to be the one to fork so it would not be the original one any more.

If EVERYONE agrees and they all switch to the new chain and the original dies then absolutely it's possible. The odds of everyone being on board are somewhere around zero but it will always be a theoretical possibility.

It'll be interesting to see what future attempts there are to change Bitcoin's cornerstones.

[aplistir]

I mean, 21 million isn't much. 

That there are just 21 million units is a common misconception, which we should get rid of.

We can start saying that there are 21000 million mBTC (or mBTC), which is true.

Actually mBTC would be a much more useful unit. As mBTC is currently only about 11$. It would be much easier for new investors to start investing by buying a "WHOLE" mBTC and not worrying if they do not have 11000$ to invest in one full BTC

But yeah. the developers could fork bitcoin and create a new one that has more coins. they probably couldn't change that from bitcoin without everyone agreeing with them.   

[squatter]

Is there anything to stop the core devs saying we want unlimited bitcoin and changing the code to allow it.  I mean, 21 million isn't much. 

This would be a removal of consensus rules -- a hard fork. All existing nodes would ignore the fork. There would definitely be a network split because very few users would "upgrade" to the new version with unlimited supply. The 21 million limit is widely viewed as sacrosanct, so chances are the hard fork chain would just be abandoned.

The Core developers would never attempt this anyway.

[konfuzius5278]

I am not so sure about this "never happen".

Changing consensus algo is a daily thing in crypto because DEV think this our that will work better.

Think of a bit of Bitcoin worth a 1 Mio Dollar, how high TX fee would be in mainnet. So the miner could conclude generate a fork to lets say 210 Mio max supply. And with this fork add some other changes, e.g. block time

I think its the hope of all BTC holders not will change. But technical its no problem. And mass media dont understand.

[hatshepsut93]

Is there anything to stop the core devs saying we want unlimited bitcoin and changing the code to allow it.  I mean, 21 million isn't much. 

Aside from what people above me said about consensus, you should also know that "core devs" isn't some hivemind that unilaterally makes decisions, in fact there's always a lot of discussions about making changes. Even if multiple devs would propose it, it doesn't mean that it will get immediately merged into the codebase and released. We've seen in the past how devs like Gavin Andersen wanted to change Bitcoin, but couldn't convince the rest of developers to do so, and had to leave and work on their alternative vision alone.

[gentlemand]

I am not so sure about this "never happen".

Changing consensus algo is a daily thing in crypto because DEV think this our that will work better.

Think of a bit of Bitcoin worth a 1 Mio Dollar, how high TX fee would be in mainnet. So the miner could conclude generate a fork to lets say 210 Mio max supply. And with this fork add some other changes, e.g. block time

It's not some shitcoin with one developer and a bunch of people waiting to dump who'll blindly follow whatever they suggest.

The highest incentive is to not rock the boat. No one will step out of line expecting others to follow. The longer Bitcoin remains above ground the more set in stone its base properties become. The stakes are too high to mess with them.

[kingpin4321]

21million is more than enough and note that the price also can/would increase in future and there would no be any need for more bitcoin. Bitcoin should not be like money which the government can create

[th3nolo]

Is there anything to stop the core devs saying we want unlimited bitcoin and changing the code to allow it.  I mean, 21 million isn't much. 

that is against the Bitcoin protocol and the Whitepaper itself, obviously, Everybody who believes in BTC as a new SoV won't let anyone create more than 21M BTC, if you want to have something like bitcoin but with more units, you can freely use shitcoins.

[squatter]

I am not so sure about this "never happen".

Changing consensus algo is a daily thing in crypto because DEV think this our that will work better.

This is possible when a cryptocurrency has a tiny number of users -- not with an ecosystem of Bitcoin's size. There are too many stakeholders now. The consensus is extremely hard to change.

Think of a bit of Bitcoin worth a 1 Mio Dollar, how high TX fee would be in mainnet. So the miner could conclude generate a fork to lets say 210 Mio max supply. And with this fork add some other changes, e.g. block time

Miners can fork off, but I think the Bitcoin Cash saga shows what will happen. It'll be even less popular actually, because this fork will dilute everyone's holdings by 10-fold.

[konfuzius5278]

Its always the same discussion. Bitcoin is all. The old members who have much of them because they were cheap these old days of course claim BTC is the only one to save their cash.

But you know whitepaper or not, actual thinking or not. NO one could ever say there will be no such fork as main chain. You only have to see this fork of a fork Bitcoin SV. When you deal with BCH ok, it an opinion. But doing so much SHA256 Hashrate on a guy that claims to be Satoshi.
When you get the mass behind you ( and in this case need only be mass of miners) you will be claimed right

Of course, BTC is is fluid like 100 m train track (which will get a problem later thats my opinion), but even 100 m train track can be made fluid.  

[shield132]

Is there anything to stop the core devs saying we want unlimited bitcoin and changing the code to allow it.  I mean, 21 million isn't much. 

At first bitcoin isn't USD that's in infinite printing action. Bitcoin's supply was limited to make it better and get rid of inflation. 21 million is pretty good number especially if we consider the fact that you can use at least 0.00000001 bitcoin. Connection between demand and price is great, when demand rises, price rises too to cover that need of demand. What if one bitcoin worth 1 million usd? And now calculate 21 million bitcoin * 1 million usd? I think it's fine how bitcoin is today, at least for now. It's another task how much coins we will lose in following years and what actions may be needed to fill 21 million supply.

[muratsink]

bitcoin inventory is limited, there are only 21 million bitcoin.  unless the bitcoin protocol is changed, the BTC supply will be greater.  but the problem that is impossible.  no one can change the BTC protocol.  but sometimes, if there is a Bitcoin protocol that doesn't match the block, then Bitcoin will create a hard fork.  so.  the new protocol will only create new coins.

[Artemis3]

I mean, 21 million isn't much.  

That there are just 21 million units is a common misconception, which we should get rid of.

We can start saying that there are 21000 million mBTC (or mBTC), which is true.

Actually mBTC would be a much more useful unit. As mBTC is currently only about 11$. It would be much easier for new investors to start investing by buying a "WHOLE" mBTC and not worrying if they do not have 11000$ to invest in one full BTC

But yeah. the developers could fork bitcoin and create a new one that has more coins. they probably couldn't change that from bitcoin without everyone agreeing with them.

mBTC is useless, you might as well use satoshis... The exact amount isn't exactly 21 million plus 8 zeroes, there are some satoshis off due to historical reasons, but not many.

Besides 21 million BTC will be reached by the year 2140.

I only use bitcoin and satoshi, don't need anything else. 1 bitcoin is 100 000 000 satoshis, and that's it. One coin from my country buys one satoshi now; and due to it being the worst hyperinflation currently in the world, soon you will need two coins for 1 satoshi, and so on.

[pooya87]

nobody wants unlimited bitcoin supply and i have not seen any core developers saying they want it either! you might want to speak with reference and facts here.
but even if they were, to prevent them you can easily start a node or buying mining equipment and don't follow the chain that is enforcing a rule that you don't want. that is how the decentralized network is supposed to work, devs are just workers not the owners or decision makers specially when it comes to consensus critical matters that are related to basic principles of what makes bitcoin, bitcoin.

[mk4]

nobody wants unlimited bitcoin supply and i have not seen any core developers saying they want it either!

Unfortunately, someone wants it. Peter Todd(not sure if he still is a Bitcoin Core dev).  I mean, his intentions are good and I get it, it's for bitcoin to remain secure, but I still don't agree with it.

There are a few articles about this, but I couldn't find Peter Todd's exact Tweet/statement. Might edit this reply if I find it.

[squatter]

Unfortunately, someone wants it. Peter Todd(not sure if he still is a Bitcoin Core dev).  I mean, his intentions are good and I get it, it's for bitcoin to remain secure, but I still don't agree with it.

There are a few articles about this, but I couldn't find Peter Todd's exact Tweet/statement. Might edit this reply if I find it.

Here you go: https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/697532042553065472

I don't think he was necessarily wrong. The key is that the inflation rate is predictable and beyond the bootstrapping phase, low.

There are basically three options to secure a cryptocurrency: Inflation, fees, or demurrage. Each of them has their merits and the jury is out regarding which is best. In the coming decades, we'll find out whether Bitcoin's fixed supply model was the best choice.