What is stopping the 21 million limit from being increased?

[Sergeant Major]

Maybe this has been mentioned before, but I didn't bother to search.

Bitcoin has a "hard" 21 million limit.  So what's stopping it from being increased?

It is coded into the software?  Has no one ever updated software before?  You're telling me that someone the Bitcoin software is the one piece of software in the world that can't ever have its number adjusted?

I'd love to see what would happen if the 21 million limit was increased.  One of the founding principles of Bitcoin would be gone.  Prices would instantly crash like never before.

I'd still buy some, just to have some, in case prices ever rose again.

[Charles-Tim]

If there should be any change in the 21 million limited supply, there must be a consensus. But who is going to agree that bitcoin supply should be increased? No one. There can not be such a proposal, not to talk of consensus from node runners because anyone that like the progress of bitcoin will not want its price to fall because of making it inflationary.

[Cookdata]

Bitcoin has a "hard" 21 million limit.  So what's stopping it from being increased?

The simple answer is you are creating more supply and demand will reduced, the economics scarcity of Bitcoin will die immediately.

If there is a concern regarding an increase in supply of Bitcoin, a  consensus agreement must be reach. You can't push what's not agreed on the network. If there is an agreement to increase the supply which is unlikely, then expect an update to be roll out for miners and node.

It is coded into the software?  Has no one ever updated software before?  You're telling me that someone the Bitcoin software is the one piece of software in the world that can't ever have its number adjusted?

I'd love to see what would happen if the 21 million limit was increased.  One of the founding principles of Bitcoin would be gone.  Prices would instantly crash like never before.

I'd still buy some, just to have some, in case prices ever rose again.

There is one over flow incident that created 184B BTC in 2010. You can see the detail in this block https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/74638

A new version of Bitcoin(the client was release) and the 184B bitcoin became invalid.

If you have it on your mind to see Bitcoin supply increase, I will assume you are selfish person that want to destroy Bitcoin.

[stwenhao]

So what's stopping it from being increased?

The code of all old nodes. Even if 99% miners will start producing coins out of thin air, then still, they will be hard-rejected by all old nodes.

It is coded into the software?

Yes. If a block is invalid, then all following blocks also are.

Has no one ever updated software before?

There were many updates, but lots of them were backward-compatible. Which means, that many changes are possible, but there are some rules, which are set in stone, and are hard to change. For example: the maximum block reward is hardcoded, and if you try to increase it, then the whole block will be invalid.

You're telling me that someone the Bitcoin software is the one piece of software in the world that can't ever have its number adjusted?

It can be adjusted, as long as you keep proportions unchanged. For example, Lightning Network uses millisatoshis, instead of satoshis, as the smallest unit. And it is possible to change the software of some second layer, to provide some features there. But then, they won't be present on the main layer.

I'd love to see what would happen if the 21 million limit was increased.

If it will be a typical hard-fork, then it would be just another altcoin, not the first one, and not the last one.

In case of a soft-fork, it is a matter of what users will do. Because if the chain will be splitted, then it is quite likely, that people will keep holding the original coins, and start selling the forked ones. And then, even if there will be a soft-fork, then it will still need majority support, otherwise a minority chain can be easily turned into an altcoin.

And then, there are also no-forks, like what Lightning Network did with millisatoshis. Then, nothing spectacular will happen, just a different proportions will be used to peg coins in and out, like 1:1000, instead of 1:1, as used in LN.

But who is going to agree that bitcoin supply should be increased? No one.

There were users proposing things like tail supply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755

So, of course, there may be some users, willing to change the rules. But then, they should really know upfront, what they want, because it is easy to end up with an altcoin. And in that case, there are better ways to make an altcoin, than to keep all Bitcoin properties, depending on what is the purpose.

There can not be such a proposal, not to talk of consensus from node runners because anyone that like the progress of bitcoin will not want its price to fall because of making it inflationary.

Forking the mainchain is nothing new. People will just sell the coins they don't want, and buy the coins they want, and everything will continue as usual.

[Ruttoshi]

If bitcoin 21 million fixed supply is increased, I don't think that investors will have trust and confidence in bitcoin anymore because the price will drop and bitcoin will become like every other shitcoins out there. Bitcoin will lose her trust and credibility because it will compromise the network security and it will affect miners incentives.

Bitcoin will lose the purpose of her creation which is financial freedom and decentralized nature.

[goldkingcoiner]

If there should be any change in the 21 million limited supply, there must be a consensus. But who is going to agree that bitcoin supply should be increased? No one. There can not be such a proposal, not to talk of consensus from node runners because anyone that like the progress of bitcoin will not want its price to fall because of making it inflationary.

I absolutely agree with this.

Nobody wants to vote for a proposal to create inflation in Bitcoin, thereby making each coin worth less. If that ever happens, I am going back to fiat as it would be the ultimate proof that Bitcoin has failed.

Good thing the community has to weigh in on these kinds of decisions. Otherwise we would have chaos.

[Halifat]

I think it's not going to be possible unless there's a global consensus.

Bitcoin is very guided, which is why nothing can be done to it because it has undergo so many processes, and to change it's software, you have to rerun the software globally to a new one.

Bitcoin is guided or controlled by nodes and apart from the 21 millions total supply, any new version created will be rejected by an existing node. Developer or miners don't control it which is why they can not change the total supply.

[pooya87]

Bitcoin is not some software that can be updated. It is a set of rules that shape the Bitcoin Protocol and because Bitcoin is decentralized, no individual can just change these rules without breaking the chain. Any change has to be accepted by a supermajority of the network, in other words we have to reach consensus. And there is no consensus for increasing the cap (since there is no need for it) so it cannot be changed.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Consensus is not the best answer to this question, because consensus is not immutable. In fact, as we're experiencing in the real world, it is very possible to program consensus and conceive majority.

The real reason is that what determines "bitcoin" is something called "economic majority". This is the kind of majority that selected Bitcoin in 2017 instead of Bitcoin Cash. In short, it is a sum of market signals that will ultimately determine the rules of the "original bitcoin". If someone changes the hard cap to 22 million, then he is immediately disconnected from the network, and needs to convince the economic majority that his bitcoin is the original, or the one they should sell their BTC for. It's infeasible to accomplish, though, if you understand game theory and use some common sense.

[Son Of Blockchain (SOB)]

 Unlimited supply of Bitcoin would cause inflation of the coin cause the demand for it would be less when more people would have it at ease but when the supply is not too much like it is currently there would be more demand for it making it more scarce and very valuable as time goes.
 Satoshi was very wise enough to make Bitcoin decentralised and created limited supply of it to be mined for a reason, and your question is one of the reasons, so it won't be inflated like Fiat and depreciat over time like shitcoins.

[Zaguru12]

Unlimited supply of Bitcoin would cause inflation of the coin cause the demand for it would be less when more people would have it at ease but when the supply is not too much like it is currently there would be more demand for it making it more scarce and very valuable as time goes.
 Satoshi was very wise enough to make Bitcoin decentralised and created limited supply of it to be mined for a reason, and your question is one of the reasons, so it won't be inflated like Fiat and depreciat over time like shitcoins.

OP didn’t say unlimited but to increase the amount probably to a higher amount but as you have rightly said it will create more demand and less supply which actually increase the price of this coin, so bitcoin having this little supply is actually the way to go. But you need to understand that it is not only the low limit of a Coin that actually guarantees a high demand of it, although it’s part of the reason but seriously there are other advantages like the trust one has for the coin and this is exactly what make many people to actually trust the network. Now imagine a consensus is reached to increase the cap, wouldn’t that even break the trust people have for bitcoin, they will be scared to that many fundamentals would be broken too in the future

[PrivacyG]

Consensus is not the best answer to this question, because consensus is not immutable. In fact, as we're experiencing in the real world, it is very possible to program consensus and conceive majority.

The real reason is that what determines "bitcoin" is something called "economic majority". This is the kind of majority that selected Bitcoin in 2017 instead of Bitcoin Cash. In short, it is a sum of market signals that will ultimately determine the rules of the "original bitcoin". If someone changes the hard cap to 22 million, then he is immediately disconnected from the network, and needs to convince the economic majority that his bitcoin is the original, or the one they should sell their BTC for. It's infeasible to accomplish, though, if you understand game theory and use some common sense.

I believe this is the most accurate.  Consensus is indeed not the most accurate answer.  In fact Bitcoin is a very interesting concept.  Imagine every body who chose to vote for Kamala would be led by her and every body who supported Trump would be led by him instead of the minority, which is the Kamala voters, being led by Trump.

Bitcoin allows you to choose who to support when splits of the community happen.  The 21 million Bitcoin limit has an EXTREMELY low chance of being changed because it makes Bitcoin scarce and deflatable.  Increasing the number means inflation and this is exactly what Bitcoin is against.

But no body stops Bitcoin from changing this limit.  There are actual Bitcoin clones under different names, you can do this too.  As BlackHatCoiner says however, either others will support your idea and believe it is worth something or it will die like all the other Bitcoin clones out there.  It also does not mean that a Bitcoin clone with less supply will be better.  There are a lot of things to consider such as chain security.  If the security of the clone is bad, it will either die or some thing bad will happen.

There are a lot of people who moved to Bitcoin Cash and still think even to this day that Bitcoin Cash is the better version of Bitcoin.  And at the end of the day Bitcoin is not all about price, to some people it really is better and good for them.  The great thing here is that you can choose.

[odolvlobo]

Bitcoin has a "hard" 21 million limit.  So what's stopping it from being increased?

Nothing.

I have no doubt that there are existing versions of Bitcoin with a different cap. A key concept is how consensus is managed. The rules of Bitcoin are not enforced globally. Instead, each node has a set of rules, and it rejects blocks and transactions from any other node that has incompatible rules.

In your scenario, if someone removes the 21 million rule from their node, then as soon as they accept or produce an incompatible block or transaction, they will be incompatible with all of the other nodes in the world. Your node, as well as all of the other nodes, will stop interacting with it.

That is the basic premise, but what happens if everyone but you changes the rules on their nodes? Then, you will become the "outcast". A key point is that "Bitcoin" is just a name that is regulated only by social consensus.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash is an example of the process of social consensus. When Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash split because of incompatible consensus rules, both sides called their network "Bitcoin". Eventually one group gained overwhelming support and retained the Bitcoin name, while the other begrudgingly became Bitcoin Cash.

[tromp]

Bitcoin has a "hard" 21 million limit.  So what's stopping it from being increased?

The simple answer is you are creating more supply and demand will reduced, the economics scarcity of Bitcoin will die immediately.

No; scarcity does not require a capped supply [1].

[1] https://tromp.github.io/blog/2020/12/20/soft-supply

[gogarza63@hotmail.com]

I had a thought that once a satoshi had a value of .25 cents it would maybe make sense in that it hurts to price people out. Then I thought when that time comes it won't be exchanged in this way. Valuation methods will change as economies shift. I'm not sure what I mean by this. 21 is such a cool number. That's Prime Time baby. "If you eat good you play good. If you play good you look good. Eat good play good. Pay good and that's all good." Deion Sanders.

[Ronsbit]

Limited supply means higher demand, so who would bother to get more of it when the supply is on the high side? Do you not think that would result in the devaluation of the bitcoin price? This is what the community would never agree to, and I do not think any consensus reached for that reason would hold any ground. The moment inflation sets in, bitcoin is good as nothing, and that might possibly be the end for cryptocurrency.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

Maybe this has been mentioned before, but I didn't bother to search.

Do it different next times, please.

Learning must start from searching, not from only asking. Because many things can be found from searching and by doing it, you can learn more quickly than just asking and asking.

Bitcoin has a "hard" 21 million limit.  So what's stopping it from being increased?

It can be changed technically but practically and financially nobody want that change which only damages Bitcoin scarcity and value.
Can Bitcoin's hard cap of 21 million be changed?

[Doan9269]

It's possible to make a change, because all that is needed is to rewrite and change the protocol in other to make it align in consensus to the changes made, but this is impossible to do, because it undermines the trust that comes with that 32 million total supply, if we could remember, that in the last, this same related issue caused the separation that birth to Bitcoin cash, that is why I said that it's not about being impossible to achieve, but not going to take place because of loss of integrity, some are quite getting this.

[Cryptohygenic]

Maybe this has been mentioned before, but I didn't bother to search.

Bitcoin has a "hard" 21 million limit.  So what's stopping it from being increased?

It is coded into the software?  Has no one ever updated software before?  You're telling me that someone the Bitcoin software is the one piece of software in the world that can't ever have its number adjusted?

The 21 million bitcoins limited supplies is sealed to the  bitcoin core that can not be manipulated to increments because, the computerized network encoded will never permit it to be unravelled.
The developer at Satoshi Nakamoto has already pegged it untampered that the bitcoin node would resist any inclined changes from the decentralized core.

I'd love to see what would happen if the 21 million limit was increased.  One of the founding principles of Bitcoin would be gone.  Prices would instantly crash like never before.

You might wait forever because it may never happen. Talking about one of the founding principles, are the one to gone him down? who are they? The speculated Satoshi has never been verified if it was a single or group of persons. Why do you also think bitcoin price will fall so bad all for when a founder of it whom you don't even know is gone?

[Alpha Marine]

The 21 million bitcoins limited supplies is sealed to the  bitcoin core that can not be manipulated to increments because, the computerized network encoded will never permit it to be unravelled.
The developer at Satoshi Nakamoto has already pegged it untampered that the bitcoin node would resist any inclined changes from the decentralized core.

This is not entirely true. In theory, the Bitcoin hard cap can be changed. It's a code after all, and codes can be rewritten or unwritten. It won't happen because the consensus won't allow it. Increasing the total supply of bitcoin will reduce the trust people had in bitcoin, and that is in nobody's interest (except those who are against bitcoin). The good thing is that Satoshi was smart. The people who it may be in their interests to increase the total supply (miners) can't do it, whle developers that whose interests are that the hard cap stays that way are the ones who have the ability to change that hard cap.

Like BlackHatCoiner pointed out, whoever feels they want to increase the hardcap can take their code elsewhere and get a different version just like we've seen with BCH, but he has to convince people into going along with him and good luck with that. Something Bitcoin cash haven't been able to do and even BSV couldn't. At least they all have the same max supply of 21 million.