Changing the 21 million bitcoin limit

[Anders]

You mean the integrity of the value of bitcoin? The Bitcoin system would remain the same.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

These changes require the consent of every bitcoin-holder:

    Increasing the total number of issued bitcoins beyond 21 million. Precision may be increased, but proportions must be unchanged.

Deviation from this changes a fundamental property of Bitcoin so you essentially are created an Alt. While hypothetically possible that 100% of people would consent to this change it is extremely unlikely knowing what we understand about human nature(we are selfish and are not going to adopt a change that destroys our savings and framework we depend upon), and the fact that miners don't solely control the vote but users do on this change.

Prohibited changes? Decided by who? Some Bitcoin dictator? Bitcoin Central Authority?

[shorena]

The limit was set so that the creation of new Bitcoin is constant and predictable, unlike modern fiat currencies. And also decentralization, of course, but the point is to create a decentralized currency where no central authority can control the amount produced.

But the creation of bitcoins would still be predictable! It's just that the amount of bitcoins that miners earn would remain constant instead of being reduced over time. It could become too inflationary I don't know. Would be interesting to test the idea on a separate block chain so to not totally crash the actual bitcoin value.

Once a predetermined number of coins have entered
circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation
free.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf chapter 6


/thread

Completely inflation free yes, but deflation full, which can be problematic too.

Yes, there will be minimal deflation from lost coins. E.g. lost privat keys or lost passwords to wallets.

[TheBullOfWallStreet]

Won't work for obvious reasons.

[inBitweTrust]

Completely inflation free yes, but deflation full, which can be problematic too.

So far Bitcoin is proving otherwise as spending increases during deflationary bubbles as proven by merchant services. So much for that deflationary spiral myth propagandized by Keynesian economists.
Their are plenty of Inflationary options if you don't prefer a longterm deflationary currency. Perhaps you should stick with stellar or fiat if you prefer inflation.

[TwinWinNerD]

The limit was set so that the creation of new Bitcoin is constant and predictable, unlike modern fiat currencies. And also decentralization, of course, but the point is to create a decentralized currency where no central authority can control the amount produced.

But the creation of bitcoins would still be predictable! It's just that the amount of bitcoins that miners earn would remain constant instead of being reduced over time. It could become too inflationary I don't know. Would be interesting to test the idea on a separate block chain so to not totally crash the actual bitcoin value.

Dogecoin did that. Look at the price

Dogecoin has no upper limit but it has a fixed rate of 5.2 billion coins every year in the future. I was thinking that the rate would be determined only by the mining, say 25 bitcoins per block as was the initial bitcoin rate.

Keeping the same blockreward and having a fixed rate are the exact same thing.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[allsopfree]

how can you change something that is settled allready, and why would you want to change it anyways ?

[byt411]

You mean the integrity of the value of bitcoin? The Bitcoin system would remain the same.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

These changes require the consent of every bitcoin-holder:

    Increasing the total number of issued bitcoins beyond 21 million. Precision may be increased, but proportions must be unchanged.

Deviation from this changes a fundamental property of Bitcoin so you essentially are created an Alt. While hypothetically possible that 100% of people would consent to this change it is extremely unlikely knowing what we understand about human nature(we are selfish and are not going to adopt a change that destroys our savings and framework we depend upon), and the fact that miners don't solely control the vote but users do on this change.

Prohibited changes? Decided by who? Some Bitcoin dictator? Bitcoin Central Authority?

By the majority of the community. If you don't agree, then you can fork the blockchain and continue your own branch as an altcoin.
You might as well put up a poll and find that you are the only 1 that supports this ridiculous idea.

[Snoop Dogg]

im curious to know about when production will stopped but when transaaction fee will rape little bit..

[Anders]

The limit was set so that the creation of new Bitcoin is constant and predictable, unlike modern fiat currencies. And also decentralization, of course, but the point is to create a decentralized currency where no central authority can control the amount produced.

But the creation of bitcoins would still be predictable! It's just that the amount of bitcoins that miners earn would remain constant instead of being reduced over time. It could become too inflationary I don't know. Would be interesting to test the idea on a separate block chain so to not totally crash the actual bitcoin value.

Dogecoin did that. Look at the price

Dogecoin has no upper limit but it has a fixed rate of 5.2 billion coins every year in the future. I was thinking that the rate would be determined only by the mining, say 25 bitcoins per block as was the initial bitcoin rate.

What difference does that make? You are still digging an infinite hole, with an unlimited supply. It's one of the best ways to destroy Bitcoin. Are you from the Bitcoin Foundation, or the NSA?

Look. It's a terrible idea. Make a shitcoin to test it out if you want, but so far, I haven't seen and I don't expect to see even 1 person to agree with you at all.

I will make a cryptocurrency called fiatcoin. Just kidding! But seriously I think it could be worth testing. I will check out dogecoin which is not exactly what I had in mind but seems similar to my idea.

[inBitweTrust]

Prohibited changes? Decided by who? Some Bitcoin dictator? Bitcoin Central Authority?

No, by the inherent design of the protocol. Even if 99% of the community decides to increase the 21million limit they cannot force the remaining users to upgrade their client and adapt he changes. There would simply be a hard fork where 99% of the community decided to destroy their savings and money supply while the remaining individuals retained the foundational principles that define bitcoin and thus the value in their currency.

[byt411]

The limit was set so that the creation of new Bitcoin is constant and predictable, unlike modern fiat currencies. And also decentralization, of course, but the point is to create a decentralized currency where no central authority can control the amount produced.

But the creation of bitcoins would still be predictable! It's just that the amount of bitcoins that miners earn would remain constant instead of being reduced over time. It could become too inflationary I don't know. Would be interesting to test the idea on a separate block chain so to not totally crash the actual bitcoin value.

Dogecoin did that. Look at the price

Dogecoin has no upper limit but it has a fixed rate of 5.2 billion coins every year in the future. I was thinking that the rate would be determined only by the mining, say 25 bitcoins per block as was the initial bitcoin rate.

What difference does that make? You are still digging an infinite hole, with an unlimited supply. It's one of the best ways to destroy Bitcoin. Are you from the Bitcoin Foundation, or the NSA?

Look. It's a terrible idea. Make a shitcoin to test it out if you want, but so far, I haven't seen and I don't expect to see even 1 person to agree with you at all.

I will make a cryptocurrency called fiatcoin. Just kidding! But seriously I think it could be worth testing. I will check out dogecoin which is not exactly what I had in mind but seems similar to my idea.

Why do you even think this is a good idea, and how do you think it will help Bitcoin?

[Anders]

The limit was set so that the creation of new Bitcoin is constant and predictable, unlike modern fiat currencies. And also decentralization, of course, but the point is to create a decentralized currency where no central authority can control the amount produced.

But the creation of bitcoins would still be predictable! It's just that the amount of bitcoins that miners earn would remain constant instead of being reduced over time. It could become too inflationary I don't know. Would be interesting to test the idea on a separate block chain so to not totally crash the actual bitcoin value.

Dogecoin did that. Look at the price

Dogecoin has no upper limit but it has a fixed rate of 5.2 billion coins every year in the future. I was thinking that the rate would be determined only by the mining, say 25 bitcoins per block as was the initial bitcoin rate.

Keeping the same blockreward and having a fixed rate are the exact same thing.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Oh, I forgot. Bitcoin has a fixed rate of one block per 10 minutes on average. Ok, that would be a fixed rate of new bitcoins per year.

[ranochigo]

im curious to know about when production will stopped but when transaaction fee will rape little bit..

At around 2140, the reward would be very small. Miners would be earning their BTC mostly from transaction fees. I don't see a point to have a coin with infinite limit, the price would decrease as coins are released to the market everyday. It is just like fiat, money being printed everyday without limit.

[inBitweTrust]

im curious to know about when production will stopped but when transaaction fee will rape little bit..

Unlikely because of the free market nature of mining. Manufacturing of ASIC's cannot be tightly controlled and is highly competitive. All it takes is a small percentage of miners who offer free or low cost transactions and that will force large miners to be reasonable with prices.

[Anders]

Why do you even think this is a good idea, and how do you think it will help Bitcoin?

If bitcoin is to become really mainstream, rivaling the U.S. dollar, then if bitcoin would remain deflationary, then those people who own bitcoins today, which is like a tiny, tiny percentage of the world's population, would become disproportionally super wealthy. Not good.

So, ok, if you want that kind of lopsided distribution of wealth or want bitcoin to remain a small currency, then I guess the current rate will do.

[inBitweTrust]

Why do you even think this is a good idea, and how do you think it will help Bitcoin?

If bitcoin is to become really mainstream, rivaling the U.S. dollar, then if bitcoin would remain deflationary, then those people who own bitcoins today, which is like a tiny, tiny percentage of the world's population, would become disproportionally super wealthy. Not good.

So, ok, if you want that kind of lopsided distribution of wealth or want bitcoin to remain a small currency, then I guess the current rate will do.

Bitcoin has a similar distribution of wealth as fiat right now so this is not the case.

Bitcoin is likely to become more distributed in the future as well because it doesn't afford easy ways for the rich and powerful to lobby and print more wealth in existence for their own benefit.

What, you don't think early bag holders have been taking profits and diluting their Bitcoin shares with each bubble?

[Anders]

Bitcoin will have more value than today because of 21M limit. It is easy to see. If this limit changeable, bitcoin will not survive I think.

I think the 21 million limit has been good and necessary for bitcoin to become the success it is today. However, in the future the 21 million limit will prevent bitcoin from becoming a huge mainstream currency. Those who own bitcoins today would then become too superwealthy.

[Anders]

Why do you even think this is a good idea, and how do you think it will help Bitcoin?

If bitcoin is to become really mainstream, rivaling the U.S. dollar, then if bitcoin would remain deflationary, then those people who own bitcoins today, which is like a tiny, tiny percentage of the world's population, would become disproportionally super wealthy. Not good.

So, ok, if you want that kind of lopsided distribution of wealth or want bitcoin to remain a small currency, then I guess the current rate will do.

Bitcoin has a similar distribution of wealth as fiat right now so this is not the case.

Bitcoin is likely to become more distributed in the future as well because it doesn't afford easy ways for the rich and powerful to lobby and print more wealth in existence for their own benefit.

What, you don't think early bag holders have been taking profits and diluting their Bitcoin shares with each bubble?

Bitcoin would go to $1,000,000 if it became as big as the U.S. dollar. Those who own bitcoins today would become trillionaires. Totally unfair.

[iluvpie60]

I assume that the 21 million bitcoin limit can be changed if there is an agreement to change the Bitcoin specification. As the specification is today, miners earn less and less bitcoins over time. If miners earned the same amount of bitcoins over time, then there would be no upper limit for how many bitcoins can be mined. That would perhaps make the price of bitcoin more stable and make bitcoin more suitable as a general currency.

By changing something liek this you are making bitcoin worth less than it currently would be worth. No one is going to go for this, the units of measure allow it to go down to 8 decimal places therefore eliminating any need for a "whole number".

This doesn't need to be done. Making the limit higher is the same thing as adding more decimals to the end(in a different sense).

[RodeoX]

There is never a need to change the total. 21 million is an arbitrary number and the system would work if there were 16 Billion or only 33 bitcoins. If you understand bitcoin then you will understand why is is utter foolishness to change this number. It would gain nothing and severely hurt the price of bitcoin. I, for example, would divest at least 70% of my position.