5 ms·
Not to belabor the obvious, but it is not the opposite. It's a case study, of the effect. The number is not 21 million. It's currently 21*10^8 via fractional t
by jack9 9y ago
Not to belabor the obvious, but it is not the opposite. It's a case study, of the effect.
The number is not 21 million. It's currently 21*10^8 via fractional transactions and expandable (meaning practically and theoretically infinite).
- jstanley 9y agoDo you think that increasing the number of decimal places actually increases the supply? If everyone started talking about cents instead of dollars that wouldn't mean there's 100x as much money... 1 cent would still be worth 1/100 of a dollar. Likewise, if you started dividing down to 1/1000 of a dollar it wouldn't be inflation. Each 1/1000 of a dollar would still be worth 1/1000 of a dollar. Edit: and if you suddenly replaced every dollar with 1000 newdollars, those newdollars are also worth 1/1000 of what they were before.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- runeks 9y agoSo, if I divide a pizza into 2e8 pieces I have more pizza than if I only split it in half?
- jack9 9y agoPizza has intrinsic properties, like physics that constrain it. You have more pizza pieces numerically, yes. I'm wondering why you think this is a compelling analogy.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pishpash 9y agoWhen people say they expand the money supply it means diluting the existing holders. The actual unit of accounting doesn't really matter. Subdividing bitcoin units does not dilute existing holders.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- olalonde 9y agoIt's currently 21*10^8 via fractional transactions First, if by fractional transactions you meant satoshis, the math is 21 * 10^14 (21 million bitcoins * 10^8 satoshis per bitcoin). Second, there is no question that Bitcoin is deflationary in the long term. The fact that it can be split in smaller units doesn't change that at all.