Handle the 21M Limit

[BCEmporium]

Having more World currencies gives us diversity and choice. Have just one renders a monopoly, as now Mt. Gox have for an instance on BTC.
If BTC becomes as bad deal you've no alternative, equivalent to BTC, at the moment, do you?
Stability will be in the interest of those holding or investing in the coins if more BTC-like currencies are available.

Like anything else, currencies also work by the rules of the market and concurrence.

[1714769891]

1714769891

[1714769891]

1714769891

[grondilu]

There already is a limitation on chains I accept: the longest one. period.

Not exactly.  You also only consider block chains whose first block is the one that is hard coded in the code.

I wonder if we could not rewrite bitcoin without this hard coded genesis block.

Instead, the software would listen to any blocks, and would create the largest block chain it can, whatever the first block is.

[tomcollins]

Having more World currencies gives us diversity and choice. Have just one renders a monopoly, as now Mt. Gox have for an instance on BTC.
If BTC becomes as bad deal you've no alternative, equivalent to BTC, at the moment, do you?
Stability will be in the interest of those holding or investing in the coins if more BTC-like currencies are available.

Like anything else, currencies also work by the rules of the market and concurrence.

You could make alternatives to BTC.  It would have to actually be improved in some way, rather than being a clone.  But the more cryptocurrencies that exist, the more instability you will see in each of their prices as people have to gamble about which ones take off.

[grondilu]

But the more cryptocurrencies that exist, the more instability you will see in each of their prices as people have to gamble about which ones take off.

I also had this concern for some time.  I'm not sure however it is a serious problem.  Currencies don't devaluate one another.  Printing sterlings doesn't hurt dollars.   Gold is not threatened by silver.  Etc.

The fact that there are many cryptocurrencies on the market might confuse some people.  But once they make their mind and chose one, everything goes fine.  Just let the market adjust prices between them and, if the economy wants it, one particular currency will emerge.

I actually think that the fact that people can create a new block chain at will is a good thing.  If they do so, it will mean that bitcoin has reached a point where too few people have hoarded bitcoins, so that it makes bitcoins less usefull for the economy.  People then need more money to do their business, and there is nothing wrong for them to create some.

It might be the free market solution for the "bitcoin will create a deflationnary spiral" mantra.

[tomcollins]

But the more cryptocurrencies that exist, the more instability you will see in each of their prices as people have to gamble about which ones take off.

I also had this concern for some time.  I'm not sure however it is a serious problem.  Currencies don't devaluate one another.  Printing sterlings doesn't hurt dollars.   Gold is not threatened by silver.  Etc.

Of course they devalue each other.  If you NEED dollars to buy something, and it is not for sale in any other currency, that will make dollars more valuable.  And I'm talking exclusively about having prices be unstable.  As demand for each currency changes in relation to each other, the value relationship between each also changes.  Some will eventually become unused and worthless.  Some will have flaws and become worthless.  Some might take off.

The fact that there are many cryptocurrencies on the market might confuse some people.  But once they make their mind and chose one, everything goes fine.  Just let the market adjust prices between them and, if the economy wants it, one particular currency will emerge.

I actually think that the fact that people can create a new block chain at will is a good thing.  If they do so, it will mean that bitcoin has reached a point where too few people have hoarded bitcoins, so that it makes bitcoins less usefull for the economy.  People then need more money to do their business, and there is nothing wrong for them to create some.

It might be the free market solution for the "bitcoin will create a deflationnary spiral" mantra.

Choosing one works, until you find somewhere you'd like to spend it that doesn't accept it and only accepts a different one.

Deflationary spiral is also a myth.  Oh noes, the prices be falling when the economy grows!  How horrible is it that you can now buy more free stuff!  Better give money to the politically connected so that we don't have that happen!

[grondilu]

Choosing one works, until you find somewhere you'd like to spend it that doesn't accept it and only accepts a different one.

Doesn't matter as long as you can exchange cryptocurrencies quickly on a global market.

But I admit this would deserve a more thourough thinking.

Deflationary spiral is also a myth.

Yeah I know but we keep hearing about it all the time as an argument against bitcoin.

[BCEmporium]

"People gambling on which takes off"... people is already gambling on it with Bitcoin alone.
Also you "need" USD (if you're on US that is, here it would help you much, as everything goes on Euros) for buy and sell stuff, whatever currency doesn't make you able to buy and sell stuff is an useless currency.
And up to this point, I've to give credit to that guy with carrots, taken you can't buy anything on BTC and you would actually be a foul to attempt to run a business in this currency as you can't know how much it worths - up to last week 1,xx USD, in the week before 0,6x/0,7x USD, now 3.xx USD, some months ago 1.xx, tomorrow ? USD. It's not quite "trending up", it's bumping wildly without consistency. Fiat currencies goes a few pips up, a few pips down, this one bumps from gold to rubbish.
And see here an issue? Everything goes around USD, most (rather say ALL) of us think on USD or EUR or a fiat and stable currency, nobody thinks on BTC.

Deflation ain't never a good thing, unless the currency causing deflation isn't in use at all. Hey! Now you can buy more stuff with less currency. Right... but so you will earn less of that currency. Again, it just doesn't quite "hurt" in BTC because nobody is trading nothing on BTC, everybody is "thinking" on USD.
And I'm speaking somewhat against myself, as I'm one of the BTC "pioneers", I generated several thousands of coins in the beginning.

But back to the beginning, instead of Euro/Amero/Asian... it could be silver BTC/bronze BTC/iron BTC...

[Raulo]

BCEmporium,

If you want to get rid of this awful deflationary BTC, I can exchange them for testnet coins for you. You will have a part of an alternative blockchain right now. Exchange rate: 500 testcoins for 1 BTC. 10000 testcoins available. You can call it BTC/silver (or bronze).

[grondilu]

But back to the beginning, instead of Euro/Amero/Asian... it could be silver BTC/bronze BTC/iron BTC...

Indeed I think the metal analogy is better than the geographic one.

[xf2_org]

Despite the announced 21 M limit, Bitcoin is limitless. All it can is hold 21 M per block chain, but we can create how many block chains we want.

What this leads to?

Well, for starters to its primarily goal BTC is useless, growing in value so fast it renders a totally useless currency for trading (other than trading BTC themselves). So my believe is that we need more block chains to operate, so we could have:

Your implied premise is faulty.

Any brand new block chain will be just as volatile as bitcoin, if not more so, once people take an active interest in it...  and it will not have the chain strength of the bitcoin main chain.

Welcome to the real world, where a tiny market can rocket 1000% once a big player or two enters the market.

[tomcollins]

Choosing one works, until you find somewhere you'd like to spend it that doesn't accept it and only accepts a different one.

Doesn't matter as long as you can exchange cryptocurrencies quickly on a global market.

But I admit this would deserve a more thourough thinking.

Deflationary spiral is also a myth.

Yeah I know but we keep hearing about it all the time as an argument against bitcoin.

And rather than entertain that notion, we should just continue on, if they are scared to use it, let them stick with their inflationary money.

[tomcollins]

"People gambling on which takes off"... people is already gambling on it with Bitcoin alone.
Also you "need" USD (if you're on US that is, here it would help you much, as everything goes on Euros) for buy and sell stuff, whatever currency doesn't make you able to buy and sell stuff is an useless currency.

Exactly, which is why it is so damn volatile to begin with.  There is no way to accurately value it, so that's why it's so much speculation.  And because of this "flaw", you want to *increase* it?  This is like saying a one-legged man runs slow, therefore we should cut off his other leg.

And up to this point, I've to give credit to that guy with carrots, taken you can't buy anything on BTC and you would actually be a foul to attempt to run a business in this currency as you can't know how much it worths - up to last week 1,xx USD, in the week before 0,6x/0,7x USD, now 3.xx USD, some months ago 1.xx, tomorrow ? USD. It's not quite "trending up", it's bumping wildly without consistency. Fiat currencies goes a few pips up, a few pips down, this one bumps from gold to rubbish.
And see here an issue? Everything goes around USD, most (rather say ALL) of us think on USD or EUR or a fiat and stable currency, nobody thinks on BTC.

Yes, but making it more volatile won't make it more stable.  It's a small market.  Making it smaller won't help.

Deflation ain't never a good thing, unless the currency causing deflation isn't in use at all. Hey! Now you can buy more stuff with less currency. Right... but so you will earn less of that currency. Again, it just doesn't quite "hurt" in BTC because nobody is trading nothing on BTC, everybody is "thinking" on USD.
And I'm speaking somewhat against myself, as I'm one of the BTC "pioneers", I generated several thousands of coins in the beginning.

But back to the beginning, instead of Euro/Amero/Asian... it could be silver BTC/bronze BTC/iron BTC...

You don't earn less.  Deflation only occurs when the economy is growing.  If you are producing the same amount as before, your purchasing power stays the same.  If you are producing less, your purchasing power drops.  If you are producing more, you get more purchasing power.  What's the problem?

Did you expect it to replace the USD this fast?  If so, that's flawed thinking.  This is not going to happen quickly (if at all!).

[BCEmporium]

xf2_org,

So you imply the whole BTC concept is faulty, as the maximum amount will force people into tiny decimals of an overwhelming expensive currency...

Raulo,

I think those "secondary" bitcoins should be within BTC and not separated, to not spread within several block chains, nor to surpass the actual bitcoin (let's call it Gold Bitcoin for this essay purposes). To "split" we already have namecoin, for an instance.

So the client would look something like this:



Another surplus of this is to get people into bitcoin, as newcomers will be able to generate a few silver coins, much lower in value than gold but enough to get them interested.
From an outside point of view I understand some of my friends when they look at me as sort of a "freeloader" for my early generated coins and their current value...

[BCEmporium]

tom;

Deflation is a "money trick" not quite connected to production. It's a nightmare due specially to its social consequences, obviously BTC is somewhat safe of this due to not be "currency" anywhere. How could you explain to someone you'll pay him less? Will he understand? And if don't, you will bankrupt to pay him the same he's already getting... to the end it causes massive bankruptcy and spikes unemployment. A normal reaction of a government would be to change currency, or its name.
Again... it may not apply to BTC, at least just yet.

[xf2_org]

So you imply the whole BTC concept is faulty, as the maximum amount will force people into tiny decimals of an overwhelming expensive currency...

Nothing of the sort was ever expressed or implied.

This has been discussed many times here on the forums, search around.  Once "a bitcoin" becomes expensive, and people are using 0.00001 bitcoins to purchase a coffee, some user friendly moniker such as "mBTC" or "nanocoins" will be used to save people from having to type all those zeroes after the decimal point.  Your coffee will cost 10 nanocoins.

And I wouldn't be here, if I didn't think bitcoin had a good chance of being successful, or at least, making a useful, positive impact on the world.

[TiagoTiago]

Regular money is more like bread

Bitcoin is more like wine

[Xenland]

Regular money is more like bread

Bitcoin is more like wine

I couldn't have said it any better, Bitcoins won't fail because of some simple flaw found in most centralized systems unless you've read the detailed description, checked the source code and possibly went to MIT for cryptology I highly doubt you'll find a flaw in this system after "taking a look at the details". Like someone else said they wouldn't be here if they didn't think it would work and I highly doubt thousands of people are investing in computers dedicated to mining bit coins if they thought all that Time, energy and centralized money backed money went to nothing.

[BCEmporium]

You insist to forget one thing, the currency doesn't conduct trade, people does, so prior to "nerd thinking" you've to think on "the people" side.
Nowhere in Earth general population will stick with a currency where you need to go on nanoX or picoY or microZ, so if that's the idea, rather bury bitcoin for business now, as it only business will be to trade btc for fiat currency and back to btc again and to fiat currency...

[Xenland]

You insist to forget one thing, the currency doesn't conduct trade, people does, so prior to "nerd thinking" you've to think on "the people" side.
Nowhere in Earth general population will stick with a currency where you need to go on nanoX or picoY or microZ, so if that's the idea, rather bury bitcoin for business now, as it only business will be to trade btc for fiat currency and back to btc again and to fiat currency...

That doesn't really prove a valid point all your really doing is calling it a different name. Currency is currency. I would pay for goods & services in microPennies in real life if i got payed in nanoPennies or vice verse or  so whats your point? What is the people side? are nerds not people and if they're not please explain because I'm pretty sure we nerds arn't aliens coming to destroy every world currency with cryptocurrency.

[BCEmporium]

Xenland,

When comes to economics, a very large slice of it is psychological. A bit like deflation, it's a nightmare due basically to psychological behaviors not by itself; say you earn 500, your coffee costs 1, at some point your coffee costs 0.5, your boss wants to cut your income to 250, this will alter your state of mind as you, "in your mind", are getting less (regardless you do the same with it or not).

People will never accept any currency they can't aim for the "unit". That's why gold ended up replaced for trade, even before banknotes regular trade was done with mostly bronze coins.
And here we go again, the existence of silver, bronze and other less precious metals didn't hurt gold's value.