Reward Payout vs World Population

[nayrB16]

Besides, a constantly increasing world population is NOT sustainable, so let's not base our systems on the idea that it is. Sound good?

Define "world". As a proponent of space exploration, I see things a bit differently.

Although making Bitcoin work over a one hour latency is a rather interesting task...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/world

Most definitions of "world" contain "earth" and that is how I used it.

I think it would be easiest to have new block chains on any planets / stations we inhabit in the future, and exchange between the two (several).

I love the foray into the SiFi possibilities.

[Realpra]

Besides, a constantly increasing world population is NOT sustainable, so let's not base our systems on the idea that it is. Sound good?

I once read a debate between a nobel prize winning economist and a physicist (note not the best we had).

... the economist had to retract almost every single statement and BASIC assumption.

He ended up talking about virtual castles and virtual worlds where growth could continue - which neglects computing costs/how nice the matrix is - the physicist let him limp off at this point I think.


One of the best arguments was that the planet surface would literally boil in 100-200 years if our economic/energy expansion continued.


On topic: yeah keep my BTC protocol stable, I like it that way.

[thezerg]

1) The fact that coins are occasionally lost is not a problem to anyone except the person who lost the coins. Increasing the rate at which coins are mined, or mining them forever at a constant rate, doesn't help the person who loses his coins. It's a non-solution to a non-issue.

2) If ever the Bitcoin community generally agreed to remove the 21m bitcoin cap and extend mining at a constant rate indefinitely, the whole experiment would collapse and fail.

2: I disagree in a way that ultimately agrees.  The great thing about FOSS is that somebod(ies) would NOT change their client protocol, and so the blockchain would fork into BTC and BTClinear.  Hacks would quickly be put in place the diverged clients don't find each other, instead of having to reject other-fork blocks.  Everybody who owned coins before the split would now own both BTC and BTClinear.  Prices between BTC and BTClinear would diverge, since BTClinear's supply increases it is likely its price goes down vs. BTC.  So everyone would go back to BTC as BTClinear becomes worthless, or both are used and BTClinear becomes an altcoin like litecoin.

What's fascinating about this process is that it might actually be used for a protocol change that has some possibility of success (IDK maybe more secure in some way), where BTC forks BTCultra and the original protocol slowly loses value against the new one.

3) There is absolutely no net benefit to removing the cap. Do no equate money with wealth... the fact that more money is printed doesn't mean the world is better off. Market's adjust to the supply of money - if you tinker with the supply of money, you screw up the market.

4) The growth rate of world population is entirely irrelevant when determining what the proper amount of money is. Few people understand this, but it's true.

3 & 4: so long as your currency is infinitely divisible!  And luckily for us bitcoin is highly divisible now and if needed we can add as many more zeros as needed after the decimal point via a protocol change.
 

[Stephen Gornick]

Everybody who owned coins before the split would now own both BTC and BTClinear.  Prices between BTC and BTClinear would diverge, since BTClinear's supply increases it is likely its price goes down vs. BTC.  So everyone would go back to BTC as BTClinear becomes worthless, or both are used and BTClinear becomes an altcoin like litecoin.

What's fascinating about this process is that it might actually be used for a protocol change that has some possibility of success (IDK maybe more secure in some way), where BTC forks BTCultra and the original protocol slowly loses value against the new one.

Sure, with a client that can work with both bitcoin as well as the fork, you would then already have the new forked currency distributed widely starting out on the day the fork is introduced.  But that initial distribution would be about only thing that this fork would have in common with Bitcoin, versus any other altcoin.

[adamstgBit]

Besides, a constantly increasing world population is NOT sustainable, so let's not base our systems on the idea that it is. Sound good?

Define "world". As a proponent of space exploration, I see things a bit differently.

Although making Bitcoin work over a one hour latency is a rather interesting task...

just send the message through subspace

you gata watch more star trek...

 

[evoorhees]

One of the best arguments was that the planet surface would literally boil in 100-200 years if our economic/energy expansion continued.

Right.    The planet's surface would "literally boil" if we kept producing goods and services? It amazes me how fragile some people think the Earth is.

So strange that it's been getting colder for the past twelve years...

[FreeMoney]

What's fascinating about this process is that it might actually be used for a protocol change that has some possibility of success (IDK maybe more secure in some way), where BTC forks BTCultra and the original protocol slowly loses value against the new one.
 

If there are ever major changes to be made that require a hard fork I think that is the way it has to be done. Probably if it is generally expected that nearly everyone will eventually change we'll just call the new one bitcoin also.

It would be extremely interesting if something very different decided to award units for destroying bitcoins in order to bootstrap itself. You'd be able to buy this new money essentially anonymously and very easily.

[Dalkore]

In October 2011 World population was estimated to have surpassed the 7 billionth person. Since then world population has increased by a net growth of around 45million people (August 11 2012, about 10 months later)

The current Bitcoin block reward payout of 50 coins is scheduled to decrease to 25Btc at the 210,000 block around early to mid December. The Bitcoin network is designed to mine around 144 blocks or currently 7,200Btc a day which equals ~2,628,000Btc a year

At the current rates the world population is increasing 17x faster than the yearly payout of mined Bitcoins.

Already we have diminishing returns of mined bitcoins when measured against population growth. The way the system is designed with a hard limit of 21 million bitcoins theoretically means that eventually they will all be lost due to forgotten passwords, deleted wallets, crashed computers without backups....etc.

I propose we should change the bitcoin protocol to leave block mined rewards at 50Btc indefinitely that way there will always be a steady predetermined supply of coins, that will grow at a much slower rate than the global population

It's my opinion that this will cause slightly less hording of bitcoins knowing there is no longer a hard limit to reach on the bitcoin network causing exchange price spikes and also prevent theoretical eventual loss of all bitcoins.

Your thoughts?

No, that would violate a basic tenant for Bitcoin and go against major principles.   What will happen is the price will go up for a nominal Bitcoin ie: 1 and that may be very very expensive in time.

[dancupid]

What happens on the day this fork happens? What do we do?
I'd have the original client that accepts the Satoshi model and I have a new client that accepts the new fork.
Both clients register my bitcoins as intact. I have apparently doubled my bitcoins overnight but in two different forks.
Some exchanges move over to the new model. Most don't. Some allow exchange between the fork and the original.
Either way my bitcoins are intact and I can simply exchange them between the two and let the market decide.  I can hold onto both and see what happens.
Though I suspect that my bitcoins in the new wallet would tend to zero value almost immediately and I would stick with the original fork since that's where my bitcoins are worth the most. Miners would see the collapse of their fork, the difficulty would collapse with the price and people would stop mining it (give it a day or two). 
But I would still have my new Bitcoins and would be able to exchange them for real bitcoins if there were any idiot buyers out there.

[Vladimir]

Let's say that you got thousands of votes here, 100% in favor of this change.  And then let's say even the group of core developers somehow lost their sanity and agreed to make this change.  It would not make any difference.

Here's why.  Come December when block 210,000 arrives, there will be a blockchain fork between those using clients that follow the original protocol (which drops the reward to 25 BTC per block) and those that have clients that follow these new rules.  Any coins starting from block 210,000 and on that are still at the reward of 50 per block (i.e., follows the new rules) are worth less because they won't be accepted in many places (i.e., only at the places that use a client that follows the new rules).

I personally won't be using any client that includes this change and as a result my client will reject any blocks mined using the new rules.  It won't even relay them.
...

Also consider that in this scenario everyone who hold any BTCs will now still hold BTCs and also grandfathered inflatoBTCs in the forked chain. I personally would immediately dump all my magically created out of nowhere inflatoBTC to the highest bidder for real BTC. It would be reasonable to assume that most rational market participants would do about the same. Care to speculate what would happen with your inflatofork and inflatoBTC exchange rates? Yep, correct! iBTC market price of exactly 0$ before long.

[zebedee]

It's my opinion that this will cause slightly less hording of bitcoins knowing there is no longer a hard limit to reach on the bitcoin network causing exchange price spikes and also prevent theoretical eventual loss of all bitcoins.

Your thoughts?

Hoarding (also known as saving) is good.  It is unfortunately a common misconception that there is anything wrong with saving.

[Adrian-x]

Assuming Bitcoin is going to grow to over $100,000 per BTC1 I think Satoshi got it almost perfect. It would be improved if the distribution was optimised to benefit the early adopters of Bitcoin.
I am assuming we are still in the very beginning of the innovation stage of the for technology adoption curve.  The image below would help it scale BIG.
I would switch my miners in a heartbeat to this new model if it were introduced. (Obviously it would have to be intended to handle billions of transactions per day.)  

[runeks]

It would be an improved if the distribution was optimised to benefit the early adopters of Bitcoin.

As far as I can see, your example is less of a benefit to early adopters, compared to the current supply growth.

The image below would help it scale BIG.

Why? Why should supply grow at its highest rate at some random mid-point?

With Satoshi's model of supply, we have one factor decided on from an educated guess: the halving rate (~4 years). With your model we have two such factors: 1. the mid-point (of highest monetary inflation) and 2. the growth rate before and after this point. Why not choose three factors that determine the supply, or maybe 18 factors? I think the point is that supply isn't that important, and - not the least - that each supply curve will have its advantages and disadvantages, and trying to predict these is futile. In any case I think we can spend our time improving the protocol in much more important aspects than wrt. to the supply curve.

[Adrian-x]

As far as I can see, your example is less of a benefit to early adopters, compared to the current supply growth.

Sure it is less, but there would still be a huge benefit and it would ensure many more early adopters and I suspect allow the network to grow bigger, spreading the overall benefit and encourage adoption over a longer period.
I suspect we are in a catch 22, growth in Bitcoin adoption will now = an increase in price of Bitcoin, that is good for savers but bad for economic growth and bad for new adopters. 

Why? Why should supply grow at its highest rate at some random mid-point?

Good point, I don't know it should, but for that matter why should it start fast and fissile out in 4 year?
I think easy mining rewords encourage network growth, and adoption of Bitcoin, so I imagine the party would go on longer and provide more benefit to a larger user base.     

With Satoshi's model of supply, we have one factor decided on from an educated guess: the halving rate (~4 years). With your model we have two such factors: 1. the mid-point (of highest monetary inflation) and 2. the growth rate before and after this point. Why not choose three factors that determine the supply, or maybe 18 factors? I think the point is that supply isn't that important, and - not the least - that each supply curve will have its advantages and disadvantages, and trying to predict these is futile. In any case I think we can spend our time improving the protocol in much more important aspects than wrt. to the supply curve.

You may be right. I won't move from Bitcoin because I am totally invested in it, I will be sad to see it stop growing because savers are reworded by saving - by that very nature saving discourages spending and disseminating Bitcoin's. The new curve would allow a competitor to Bitcoin to start and not discourage later adoption. Alas without it I will become a victim of my own savings and continue to hoard my Bitcoin's and hope you sell your first.