Changing the 21 million bitcoin limit

[inBitweTrust]

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.

The value of bitcoins isn't worth anything unless you can spend it. You are making the wrong assumption that early bag holder aren't already buying boats, luxury cars, land, ect...

Bitcoin is already becoming more diffuse and by the time it ever reaches that value (if ever) Bitcoin will move from matching the distribution of fiat to becoming more diffuse.

Don't let your dream of perfection become an enemy of a better system. Inflation isn't the answer either.

[1714944917]

1714944917

[1714944917]

1714944917

[1714944917]

1714944917

[Kazimir]

I assume that the 21 million bitcoin limit can be changed if there is an agreement to change the Bitcoin specification.

It could be changed if the majority of all users agree to use a new client with a changed Bitcoin protocol.

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.

Right... how the hell would an unlimited supply of bitcoins result in a more stable price than a predictable, limited, already known fixed supply of bitcoins?  

And how the hell would it make Bitcoin more suitable as a general currency? The supply of bitcoins is by NO means a problem whatsoever to act as a general currency.

Suppose that instead of 21 million, there would be a total supply of 314159265 trillion bitcoins. Would that be better?

[R2D221]

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.

Isn't this a contradiction? You say that the 21 million limit was necessary, but we aren't even halfway there and you already want to remove it? Using your own logic, then the limit was never necessary to begin with.

Not that I agree with any of that.

[Kazimir]

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.

Still sounds a LOT better than having a small elite of private companies with the exclusive privilege of creating money out of thin air. You know, like we have right now, with banks and dollars.

[TwinWinNerD]

Reading OPs post history it seems that he is experience the famous "Fear of Missing out" FOMO!

[Anders]

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.

I was suggesting that the miners would earn a fixed amount of bitcoins for every block. This means that there would be no upper limit. More and more bitcoins would be created over time without any upper limit. It would be inflationary but I think the value could remain fairly stable. It would be a deterministic and slow inflation. And the inflation would actually slow down year by year! Because percentage-wise there would be less added each year.

It's just a thought experiment. Too risky to try for real probably because the bitcoin value could collapse if doing a radical change like that.

[inBitweTrust]

It's just a thought experiment. Too risky to try for real probably because the bitcoin value could collapse if doing a radical change like that.

...but it is being tested in reality , right now... there are alts that do this. Invest in them if you prefer to lose value every year.

[TwinWinNerD]

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.

I was suggesting that the miners would earn a fixed amount of bitcoins for every block. This means that there would be no upper limit. More and more bitcoins would be created over time without any upper limit. It would be inflationary but I think the value could remain fairly stable. It would be a deterministic and slow inflation. And the inflation would actually slow down year by year! Because percentage-wise there would be less added each year.

It's just a thought experiment. Too risky to try for real probably because the bitcoin value could collapse if doing a radical change like that.

But what would be the advantage of that?

Distribution will happen as the price rises anyway, no need to have unlimited inflation.

[Ektra]

So basically OP, since 21 million units with 8 decimal places ARE adequate to serve a pretty large economy, what you are really wanting to do is devalue the holdings of current bitcoin investors. (Probably so you can have a bigger window of opportunity to 'get in early' again, eh?)

Miners wouldn't like it if you didn't increase the block reward to compensate, and users wouldn't like it because you would definitely reduce the value of a coin. So... not going to happen. Only way it would happen is by force.

[Anders]

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.

Isn't this a contradiction? You say that the 21 million limit was necessary, but we aren't even halfway there and you already want to remove it? Using your own logic, then the limit was never necessary to begin with.

Not that I agree with any of that.

The limit has been (and still probably is) necessary to make sure the bitcoin value increases over time. Without the 21 million limit bicoin may never have become as popular as it is now. The purpose of removing the limit in the future would be to enable bitcoin to become a huge mainstream currency. Few people except those who already own bitcoins today would like to have a currency that increases to astronomical values.

[Kazimir]

More and more bitcoins would be created over time without any upper limit. It would be inflationary but I think the value could remain fairly stable.

What? Why the hell would it remain fairly stable?  

With an unlimited supply of Bitcoin, it would only remain stable with a similar unlimited supply of economic wealth and traffic to support it. Which is not possible, since we live in a finite world.

Same amount of total value in our economy vs twice the amount of bitcoins = bitcoin price would halve.

So, sorry sir but you're talking nonsense.

[Kazimir]

Few people except those who already own bitcoins today would like to have a currency that increases to astronomical values.

If that's the point, forget it. We can't all have astronomical wealth.

Wealth is relative.

[Anders]

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.

I was suggesting that the miners would earn a fixed amount of bitcoins for every block. This means that there would be no upper limit. More and more bitcoins would be created over time without any upper limit. It would be inflationary but I think the value could remain fairly stable. It would be a deterministic and slow inflation. And the inflation would actually slow down year by year! Because percentage-wise there would be less added each year.

It's just a thought experiment. Too risky to try for real probably because the bitcoin value could collapse if doing a radical change like that.

But what would be the advantage of that?

Distribution will happen as the price rises anyway, no need to have unlimited inflation.

The inflation would actually become less and less every year. That would make the price stable. Not any of this to the moon craziness which would make a tiny percentage of the world's population super rich.

[Anders]

Few people except those who already own bitcoins today would like to have a currency that increases to astronomical values.

If that's the point, forget it. We can't all have astronomical wealth.

Wealth is relative.

We can have a currency which is as fair as possible. Today's wealth is horrendously unfairly distributed. I'm afraid the same would happen with bitcoin if it became mainstream with the 21 million limit.

[Kazimir]

We can have a currency which is as fair as possible. Today's wealth is horrendously unfairly distributed. I'm afraid the same would happen with bitcoin if it became mainstream with the 21 million limit.

Better distribution of wealth cannot be obtained through Bitcoin, or any currency for that matter. The problem is not with the currency.

At least with Bitcoin we solve the problem of having a small elite of private companies with the exclusive privilege of creating money out of thin air.

[Anders]

More and more bitcoins would be created over time without any upper limit. It would be inflationary but I think the value could remain fairly stable.

What? Why the hell would it remain fairly stable?  

With an unlimited supply of Bitcoin, it would only remain stable with a similar unlimited supply of economic wealth and traffic to support it. Which is not possible, since we live in a finite world.

Same amount of total value in our economy vs twice the amount of bitcoins = bitcoin price would halve.

So, sorry sir but you're talking nonsense.

With a fixed rate of new bitcoins, the inflation will become less and less every year, since what is added each year is on top of a growing total amount of bitcoins.

For example adding 10 to 100 is a ten percent inflation while adding the same amount 10 to a larger total of 1000 is only a one percent inflation.

[Anders]

We can have a currency which is as fair as possible. Today's wealth is horrendously unfairly distributed. I'm afraid the same would happen with bitcoin if it became mainstream with the 21 million limit.

Better distribution of wealth cannot be obtained through Bitcoin, or any currency for that matter. The problem is not with the currency.

At least with Bitcoin we solve the problem of having a small elite of private companies with the exclusive privilege of creating money out of thin air.

But with bitcoin there is already a small number of people who have hoarded them. Most people hardly even know yet what Bitcoin is. So it would be unfair for ordinary people to be forced to buy bitcoins for a very high price in the future.

[JohnFromWIT]

He says it's a thought experiment, so just chill if you don't agree with him.

Inflation would mean what you buy today will be worth less next year.
In that case, might as well just hold onto fiat.

[byt411]

More and more bitcoins would be created over time without any upper limit. It would be inflationary but I think the value could remain fairly stable.

What? Why the hell would it remain fairly stable?  

With an unlimited supply of Bitcoin, it would only remain stable with a similar unlimited supply of economic wealth and traffic to support it. Which is not possible, since we live in a finite world.

Same amount of total value in our economy vs twice the amount of bitcoins = bitcoin price would halve.

So, sorry sir but you're talking nonsense.

With a fixed rate of new bitcoins, the inflation will become less and less every year, since what is added each year is on top of a growing total amount of bitcoins.

For example adding 10 to 100 is a ten percent inflation while adding the same amount 10 to a larger total of 1000 is only a one percent inflation.

And why the heck should there be any inflation at all after 21 Million?

You say that it's because the wealth isn't distributed fairly. That's not what Bitcoin was designed for... not to reduce inequality, and not to be distributed fairly either.

Large economy you say? 8 digits is enough, and if more is needed, they can be added with relatively no effort at all.

We can have a currency which is as fair as possible. Today's wealth is horrendously unfairly distributed. I'm afraid the same would happen with bitcoin if it became mainstream with the 21 million limit.

Better distribution of wealth cannot be obtained through Bitcoin, or any currency for that matter. The problem is not with the currency.

At least with Bitcoin we solve the problem of having a small elite of private companies with the exclusive privilege of creating money out of thin air.

But with bitcoin there is already a small number of people who have hoarded them. Most people hardly even know yet what Bitcoin is. So it would be unfair for ordinary people to be forced to buy bitcoins for a very high price in the future.

Erm... Since when is this world fair? Please face reality, nothing is fair. Bitcoin isn't designed for fairness. You're completely missing the point.

[Anders]

wtf is your point, go use dogecoin if you want infinite coins, you wont change bitcoin 21m limit.

So you think bitcoin will become a mainstream currency with the 21 million limit? I doubt it will. Let's see what will happen.