Why bitcoin supply will NOT cap at 21M BTC [NOT PLAUSIBLE]

[brenzi]

Government loyalists can threaten all they like, I have made copies of some of the early versions of the source code just in case they try anything as I'm sure other people have, they will not win.

And what do you intend to do with your backups in case of manipulated bitcoin releases? Start your own blockchain? With a market cap of 0$? For the kids to play with?

[1714011074]

1714011074

[1714011074]

1714011074

[BurtW]

Government loyalists can threaten all they like, I have made copies of some of the early versions of the source code just in case they try anything as I'm sure other people have, they will not win.

And what do you intend to do with your backups in case of manipulated bitcoin releases? Start your own blockchain? With a market cap of 0$? For the kids to play with?

You have got that backwards.  Even if a majority of full nodes and miners opt to go with the protocol changes you suggest that is the new branch after the hard fork.  The blocks that continue to build on the original blockchain using the orginal protocol supported by clients that use the original protocol supported by miners that still use the original protocol is the original chain.  That is still Bitcoin, even if you attempt to name the new alt coin created by the hard fork "Bitcoin" it is still just another alt coin.

As I suggested it should be called "UnCoin" since the supply would be manipulated and controled by the UN in your ideal scenario.

[BurtW]

No government would be able to control the BTC money supply. To have that level of control would be like controlling the internet.

Government doesn't need to control Bitcoin on the technological level. That's exactly my point. All the govmt needs to do is make sure BTC holders have more wealth when forking to altered bitcoin sources and giving up decentralization. No majority will reject personal benefit (or the smaller loss) just for ideology.

Upon a hard fork that you suggest the Bitcoin holders at that time get BOTH.  The pre fork coins can be used and spend on both blockchains.  Get it now?  So if the goobermint forces a blockchain fork I would be very excited.  I get to keep, use, horde the original Bitcoins and I get an equal number of UnCoins to do whatever the hell I want to with, including selling them to the UnCoin backers like you in order to increase my real Bitcoin holdings.

I say quit talking about it and fork the chain already.  If/When they do it will be a happy day for all Bitcoin supporters!

[counter]

I guess I'm not that surprised by more of these claims now after so many have been addressed and disproved over the years as far as I'm concerned.  I mean there has been alot of talk about the 51% attacks and now I'm fairly certain it's all just people looking into it a little to much and it's just become hyped. 

Not saying the discussion is bad just sharing another opinion.

[Ibian]

No government would be able to control the BTC money supply. To have that level of control would be like controlling the internet.

Government doesn't need to control Bitcoin on the technological level. That's exactly my point. All the govmt needs to do is make sure BTC holders have more wealth when forking to altered bitcoin sources and giving up decentralization. No majority will reject personal benefit (or the smaller loss) just for ideology.

A few months learning about bitcoin will teach people more about money and politics than twenty years studying under the present educational system will. That done, there is no going back to trusting governments and banks. It won't even be a matter of ideology.

[brenzi]

Government loyalists can threaten all they like, I have made copies of some of the early versions of the source code just in case they try anything as I'm sure other people have, they will not win.

And what do you intend to do with your backups in case of manipulated bitcoin releases? Start your own blockchain? With a market cap of 0$? For the kids to play with?

You have got that backwards.  Even if a majority of full nodes and miners opt to go with the protocol changes you suggest that is the new branch after the hard fork.  The blocks that continue to build on the original blockchain using the orginal protocol supported by clients that use the original protocol supported by miners that still use the original protocol is the original chain.  That is still Bitcoin, even if you attempt to name the new alt coin created by the hard fork "Bitcoin" it is still just another alt coin.

OK, got your point. But I think, you're missing one important point:

Let's say you've got N BTC now. You would be cheering because after such a hard fork you will have N oldBTC plus N newBTC. You're wrong if you think that this makes you more wealthy. If the majority uses newBTC, then this will mean that the real value of your oldBTC will pop to close to nothing, because no one will want to buy those coins because no goods can be legally bought with them anymore. Of course, some illegal trade could continue using oldBTC. But this will be a small fraction of the original market (For those, something like zerocoin would be more attractive anyway).

Probably the real value of newBTC will also drop because all the hoarders see no point in hoarding anymore as an inflationary policy will be applied to newBTC.

As I suggested it should be called "UnCoin" since the supply would be manipulated and controled by the UN in your ideal scenario.

I just want to make clear that this is not "my ideal scenario". I'm not judging anything of this with my liking or disliking. All I say is what I think could happen.

[brenzi]

A few months learning about bitcoin will teach people more about money and politics than twenty years studying under the present educational system will. That done, there is no going back to trusting governments and banks. It won't even be a matter of ideology.

Interesting point. I myself learned a lot about the nature of money and the mechanics of money supply since I first learned about bitcoin. But "we" early bitcoiners are avantgarde and think more about its nature than anyone who starts to use Bitcoin when it already has become mainstream.

I doubt that this education you mention will change the way of the world.

[Lethn]

I don't know anything about programming cryptocurrencies, but I'll upload it to some place like piratebay for people to download for sure, I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already done this regardless but I'm keeping the code on hand just in case the U.S actually tries something because they might target torrents as well if they get angry enough, it's good to be prepared for anything.

I do believe that as the devs go deeper to the point of no return with the U.S government that eventually they'll be threatened into making changes, they'll either be forced to make them or they'll go down fighting and bring down the whole site with them, just like with what happens regularly to Bittorrent sites.

[BurtW]

OK, got your point. But I think, you're missing one important point:

Let's say you've got N BTC now. You would be cheering because after such a hard fork you will have N oldBTC plus N newBTC. You're wrong if you think that this makes you more wealthy. If the majority uses newBTC, then this will mean that the real value of your oldBTC will pop to close to nothing, because no one will want to buy those coins because no goods can be legally bought with them anymore. Of course, some illegal trade could continue using oldBTC. But this will be a small fraction of the original market (For those, something like zerocoin would be more attractive anyway).

You still don't get it.  Something like this might cause a setback and create a great buying op that is true.  However in the long run oldBTC would recover its value and more and newBTC would be inflated to nothing just like every other fiat inflation currency.

Probably the real value of newBTC will also drop because all the hoarders see no point in hoarding anymore as an inflationary policy will be applied to newBTC.

Probably t The real value of newBTC will also drop by design because all the hoarders see no point in hoarding anymore as an inflationary policy will be applied to newBTC.

Fixed that one for you.

As I suggested it should be called "UnCoin" since the supply would be manipulated and controled by the UN in your ideal scenario.

I just want to make clear that this is not "my ideal scenario". I'm not judging anything of this with my liking or disliking. All I say is what I think could happen.

Not true.  You made the following judgment:

Moreover, those governments would first need to agree on who should be given the power over BTC money supply. I hope it will not be the fed but an international entity (with a UN mandate?).

[BurtW]

Interesting point. I myself learned a lot about the nature of money and the mechanics of money supply since I first learned about bitcoin. But "we" early bitcoiners are avantgarde and think more about its nature than anyone who starts to use Bitcoin when it already has become mainstream.

I doubt that this education you mention will change the way of the world.

Now that you have learned a little more about how Bitcoin actually works perhaps it is time to change the title of your thread.  At this point you must agree that "Why bitcoin supply will NOT cap at 21M BTC" is very misleading.  A more accurate thread title would be:

"What if the government(s) started their own alt coin?"

I do believe that as the devs go deeper to the point of no return with the U.S government that eventually they'll be threatened into making changes, they'll either be forced to make them or they'll go down fighting and bring down the whole site with them, just like with what happens regularly to Bittorrent sites.

All that drama about forcing the current Bitcoin devs to do their bidding is totally unnecessary.  All the code is open source.  Anyone, including the goobermint, can hire a bunch of programmers and create their own alt coin to compete with Bitcoin.  The goobermint can do this fairly and let the market decide or they can do it unfairly by outlawing all competition.  They can create their new alt "UsCoin" or "UnCoin" as either a brand new alt or as a hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain.

But, if they are going to create a centrally controlled alternative to Bitcoin they do not need to go through all the trouble of creating a decentralized solution.  They can simply create a new form of electronic fiat currency that acts kind of like Bitcoin.  In fact there is no reason to do that because, except for a very small amount of cash left in the system, the entire world fiat currency system is exactly that:  a centrally controlled electronic fiat currency system.

So this entire thread boils down to the one single question:  Will the goobermint attempt to outlaw Bitcoin and all other decentralized currencies or not?

[BurtW]

I doubt that this education you mention will change the way of the world.

It already has.

[Erdogan]

[...]

Probably the real value of newBTC will also drop because all the hoarders see no point in hoarding anymore as an inflationary policy will be applied to newBTC.

Probably t The real value of newBTC will also drop by design because all the hoarders see no point in hoarding anymore as an inflationary policy will be applied to newBTC.

Fixed that one for you.

[...]

As long as there is an inflation safe alternative, both mechanisms will depress the value. Inflation of supply will depress the value, and people running away from it will also depress the value.

[brenzi]

Not true.  You made the following judgment:

Moreover, those governments would first need to agree on who should be given the power over BTC money supply. I hope it will not be the fed but an international entity (with a UN mandate?).

Ok. got me there. ;-) However, my OP intends to be judgement free.

Interesting point. I myself learned a lot about the nature of money and the mechanics of money supply since I first learned about bitcoin. But "we" early bitcoiners are avantgarde and think more about its nature than anyone who starts to use Bitcoin when it already has become mainstream.

I doubt that this education you mention will change the way of the world.

Now that you have learned a little more about how Bitcoin actually works perhaps it is time to change the title of your thread.  At this point you must agree that "Why bitcoin supply will NOT cap at 21M BTC" is very misleading.  A more accurate thread title would be:

"What if the government(s) started their own alt coin?"

You're certainly not short of arrogance.

I disagree. Your title is of course a possible scenario. But as I'm talking about bitcoin, this is covered by:

So the bitcoin community will face a choice:

• Stick to the fixed supply model and get banned from legal commerce. This would destroy BTC value and bitcoiners would lose a lot of money (or more precisely: wealth) within short time.

What you suggest (gov starts its own altcoin) will only open a possibility for bitcoiners to flee the sinking boat

[brenzi]

Probably t The real value of newBTC will also drop by design because all the hoarders see no point in hoarding anymore as an inflationary policy will be applied to newBTC.

Fixed that one for you.

Don't forget that bitcoin is nominally a HIGHLY inflationary currency today (~11%). Is its real value declining? Sometimes ;-), but not in general. And certainly not "by design".

Real value of a unit of currency does not solely depend on nominal inflation of money supply. You need to consider the growth of the market the currency serves.

[RodeoX]

The day we create more than 21Million BTC is the day the first 21Million are valueless. There is no need whatsoever to change the total number of coins. It is an arbitrary number and does not matter. Even if there were only 1 BTC it would work.
Think of bitcoin as more like a pie we are cutting into slices. The number of slices is irrelevant. 

[BurtW]

I'm talking about bitcoin, this is covered by:

So the bitcoin community will face a choice:

• Stick to the fixed supply model and get banned from legal commerce. This would destroy BTC value and bitcoiners would lose a lot of money (or more precisely: wealth) within short time.

What you suggest (gov starts its own altcoin) will only open a possibility for bitcoiners to flee the sinking boat

As discussed in this very thread and in hundreds of other threads just like this one:  The total number of Bitcoins specified in the Bitcoin protocol cannot be changed.  Bitcoin will end up with (slightly less than) 21 million coins, end of story.  The only thing you, the government or anyone else can do to get more is to change the protocol to allow more coins but in doing so a hard branch will be created.

Even if there are only a handful of people left in the entire world mining, using and doing transaction on the original blockchain - the one with the 21 million coin limit - that chain is still Bitcoin by definition.  Even if the value goes to $2.00 per BTC some of us will still mine it, use it, and support it, just like we did the last time it was $2.00 per BTC.

There are already what, over 100 alt coins?  There will be more and maybe someday a government controlled and backed one.  It is all good.  Let the market decide which coins live and which coins die.

[brenzi]

The day we create more than 21Million BTC is the day the first 21Million are valueless.

Not true. Value comes from trust. Some people's trust will drop to zero if the money supply formula is changed in the source code and a hard fork has taken place. Those can stick to the old code and run the 'old' chain.

But other people will trust a centrally controlled BTC fork, because:

• they don't care about centralization (or just don't understand what all the fuss is about)
• it would be the only fork that can be used for purchasing goods legally

There is no need whatsoever to change the total number of coins. It is an arbitrary number and does not matter. Even if there were only 1 BTC it would work.
Think of bitcoin as more like a pie we are cutting into slices. The number of slices is irrelevant.  

This is true if you see bitcoin only as a store of value or a medium of exchange. But it doesn't make sense if you want to use it as a unit of account.

If a good costs 3 BTC today and you expect it to cost 2 BTC tomorrow, you'll probably wait until tomorrow with purchasing that good if you can. Today's central banks are doing what they can to avoid such a deflation. And that is why they will certainly want to regulate crypotocurrencies if they become relevant.

[brenzi]

[...]
Even if there are only a handful of people left in the entire world mining, using and doing transaction on the original blockchain - the one with the 21 million coin limit - that chain is still Bitcoin by definition.  

Alright. Call it what you like. If you define bitcoin as the thing that works exactly like satoshi designed it, then I agree. It doesn't matter what you name it, the OP applies all the same.

Even if the value goes to $2.00 per BTC some of us will still mine it, use it, and support it, just like we did the last time it was $2.00 per BTC.

I wish you good luck. Where will the security come from? If 90% of the hashpower goes to the legal fork, how easy will it be for those miners to perform 51% attacks on the genuine-bitcoin chain that now only has 10% of the original hashpower?
There is no chance that multiple bitcoin forks or altcoins based on the same mining algorithms can coexist long term. The biggest one will win because it's the only secure network.

[zimmah]

governments will not have that kind of power once a large enough group of people realize that the infinite printing of fiat money causes almost all the problems in the world.

Once bitcoin reaches mass adoption, or even before that, a lot of people will know that the 21 limit and the decentralization are what makes bitcoin have value, and what makes it different from fiat.

I think most people would rather fight to keep bitcoin as it is than to fall from one fiat to the next fiat. As fiat is essentially worthless and people are starting to gradually wake up to this fact.

[BurtW]

I wish you good luck.

Thanks.  We will see how it goes.