5 ms·

> There are 21,000,000 BTC ever ever, you can't print more Untrue. More could easily be printed if that is what the leadership/community wanted.

GenerocUsername 7y ago
That would result in a fork, split adoption, and is not nearly as easy as you imply.
- empath75 7y ago
  There have been multiple forks.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Many of which are considered failures, which is the point.
  - russdpale 7y ago
    Yeh and they all fuckin suck. I wonder why? Its because they compromise on the quixotic properties that make bitcoin valuable.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      What is the substantive meaning behind "fuckn suck"? As an example, most exchanges and processors have both BTC and BCH so if you're not a speculator there isn't much functional difference. (I know there are technical differences, but those differences don't change the fact that they are fungible blockchain tokens)
      - polyomino 7y ago
        the functional difference is that BCH doesn't have a meaningful portion of the SHA256 hashrate, so it's vulnerable to 51% attack all the time. But, it's basically worthless so nobody cares.
        root_axis 7y ago
        That's not a functional difference since it doesn't affect how the coin functions for users. BCH is certainly more at risk for a 51% attack but the risk is an abstract threat, not something that changes the fundamental nature of BCH. Your own logic actually demonstrates this because if some future event caused BCH to have a higher share of the hashrate then your own reasoning would demand that BTC be considered illegitimate without any technical qualities of BTC having to change.
      - BinaryResult 7y ago
        BCH usage is laughable. See for yourself. https://txhighway.com/ https://txhighway.com/
        root_axis 7y ago
        I don't disagree that the usage is laughable, but that doesn't really matter if you're trying to use BCH as a currency instead of a speculation vehicle. BCH converts to cash just as easily as BTC does once its in an exchange.
      - russdpale 7y ago
        There isn't that much difference from a functional perspective. However, they will never achieve the value of bitcoin because many of them have forsaken the properties that give bitcoin its value. There is too much argument over which chain will win, imo, its like asking which nation will win- it doesn't have an answer. We are humans, we excel at patchworked cooperation, which is why we have so many nation states and governing systems. There will be more than enough room for users to have many choices when it comes to blockchains for the foreseeable future.
        root_axis 7y ago
        > However, they will never achieve the value of bitcoin because many of them have forsaken the properties that give bitcoin its value. A subjective opinion that is also irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter how likely you think a fork is to succeed, the argument that computer software is impossible to change because "nobody would ever agree to those changes" is incorrect.
- root_axis 7y ago
  It is as easy as I imply since I specifically said if the leadership/community desire such a change. Saying "you can't print more" is 100% wrong.
jbusma 7y ago
Let's take a vote! Who votes to increase the 21M cap, devaluing your own holdings? Sir, it appears the nays have it..
- pojzon 7y ago
  I dont think anyone with such possibility would put it to vote. They would just do it because they can.
  - plokiju 7y ago
    Bitcoin works by consensus though. Nobody can be in that position. the best you can do is make a fork. Those who don't agree with the rule change will keep mining with the old rules in place
  - jbusma 7y ago
    You would essentially "vote" with which fork you were choosing to acknowledge with your own node, should you be running one. Also I'm fairly certain a majority of hashpower, not just users would need to be on board with the change. You could argue that as the primary beneficiaries of such a change (increase cap => increased distribution to miners) they would be for it, but I think most rational actors see the catch 22 of trying to profit by removing one of the core attributes that makes bitcoin valuable (it's scarcity)
- nosuchthing 7y ago
  It only takes one veto (bug) to nullify the entire network, CVE-2018-17144 for example. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposu...
  - jbusma 7y ago
    this is actually really cool! thank you for sharing I didn't know something this critical had been found in recent years
- root_axis 7y ago
h1d 7y ago
That is no longer Bitcoin, just a forked alt coin. See how well they did in the past. Unless there's some serious flaws preventing further adoption, why bend the rule everyone has been agreeing on?
polyomino 7y ago
Go back and read the whitepaper that's not how this works.
- Blackthorn 7y ago
  There's lots of things in Bitcoin that aren't in the whitepaper. The BTC chain is just what most people are agreeing on at the time. It is extremely mutable. The BTC mining limit is as mutable as anything else in the network.
bduerst 7y ago
Oh well if it's that simple then why has it been so hard just to do something as simple as increase the block size?
- root_axis 7y ago
  Is it possible to increase the block size?
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Anything is Possible with Bitcoin ᵗᵐ Except something as simple as increasing the block size to allow Bitcoin to process more than 7 transactions a second (Visa handles 42,000 tx/s comparatively). Theoretically it is possible, but the way Bitcoin is designed puts changes in control of people who stand to profit from preventing certain changes (i.e. Tragedy of the commons) like block size increases - and they are blocking it. The point is that Bitcoin isn't some piece of software that you can magically push any necessary changes to.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      So is that a "yes, it's possible" or "no, it's impossible"? "Theoretically it's possible" sounds like it's possible. Saying "here are some examples of things that didn't happen" doesn't prove that they, or anything else, can't happen.
      - onion-soup 7y ago
        Yes it is possible and it is already done on Bitcoin SV (original bitcoin). Recently 128 MB block were mined as a proof that bitcoin can scale to hundreds of thousands of transactions per second
        bduerst 7y ago
        > Anything is Possible with Bitcoin ᵗᵐ Just that the network known as Bitcoin can't do that. The block mined just 10 minutes ago was capped at 0.904 MB. Anyone can mine a gigabyte sized block on their own computer, but that doesn't make it Bitcoin (even when branded as Bitcoin SV).

GenerocUsername 7y ago

That would result in a fork, split adoption, and is not nearly as easy as you imply.

empath75 7y ago
There have been multiple forks.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Many of which are considered failures, which is the point.
- russdpale 7y ago
  Yeh and they all fuckin suck. I wonder why? Its because they compromise on the quixotic properties that make bitcoin valuable.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    What is the substantive meaning behind "fuckn suck"? As an example, most exchanges and processors have both BTC and BCH so if you're not a speculator there isn't much functional difference. (I know there are technical differences, but those differences don't change the fact that they are fungible blockchain tokens)
    - polyomino 7y ago
      the functional difference is that BCH doesn't have a meaningful portion of the SHA256 hashrate, so it's vulnerable to 51% attack all the time. But, it's basically worthless so nobody cares.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        That's not a functional difference since it doesn't affect how the coin functions for users. BCH is certainly more at risk for a 51% attack but the risk is an abstract threat, not something that changes the fundamental nature of BCH. Your own logic actually demonstrates this because if some future event caused BCH to have a higher share of the hashrate then your own reasoning would demand that BTC be considered illegitimate without any technical qualities of BTC having to change.
    - BinaryResult 7y ago
      BCH usage is laughable. See for yourself. https://txhighway.com/ https://txhighway.com/
      - root_axis 7y ago
        I don't disagree that the usage is laughable, but that doesn't really matter if you're trying to use BCH as a currency instead of a speculation vehicle. BCH converts to cash just as easily as BTC does once its in an exchange.
    - russdpale 7y ago
      There isn't that much difference from a functional perspective. However, they will never achieve the value of bitcoin because many of them have forsaken the properties that give bitcoin its value. There is too much argument over which chain will win, imo, its like asking which nation will win- it doesn't have an answer. We are humans, we excel at patchworked cooperation, which is why we have so many nation states and governing systems. There will be more than enough room for users to have many choices when it comes to blockchains for the foreseeable future.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        > However, they will never achieve the value of bitcoin because many of them have forsaken the properties that give bitcoin its value. A subjective opinion that is also irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter how likely you think a fork is to succeed, the argument that computer software is impossible to change because "nobody would ever agree to those changes" is incorrect.
root_axis 7y ago
It is as easy as I imply since I specifically said if the leadership/community desire such a change. Saying "you can't print more" is 100% wrong.

jbusma 7y ago

Let's take a vote! Who votes to increase the 21M cap, devaluing your own holdings? Sir, it appears the nays have it..

pojzon 7y ago
I dont think anyone with such possibility would put it to vote. They would just do it because they can.
- plokiju 7y ago
  Bitcoin works by consensus though. Nobody can be in that position. the best you can do is make a fork. Those who don't agree with the rule change will keep mining with the old rules in place
- jbusma 7y ago
  You would essentially "vote" with which fork you were choosing to acknowledge with your own node, should you be running one. Also I'm fairly certain a majority of hashpower, not just users would need to be on board with the change. You could argue that as the primary beneficiaries of such a change (increase cap => increased distribution to miners) they would be for it, but I think most rational actors see the catch 22 of trying to profit by removing one of the core attributes that makes bitcoin valuable (it's scarcity)
nosuchthing 7y ago
It only takes one veto (bug) to nullify the entire network, CVE-2018-17144 for example. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposu...
- jbusma 7y ago
  this is actually really cool! thank you for sharing I didn't know something this critical had been found in recent years
root_axis 7y ago

h1d 7y ago

That is no longer Bitcoin, just a forked alt coin. See how well they did in the past. Unless there's some serious flaws preventing further adoption, why bend the rule everyone has been agreeing on?

polyomino 7y ago

Go back and read the whitepaper that's not how this works.

Blackthorn 7y ago
There's lots of things in Bitcoin that aren't in the whitepaper. The BTC chain is just what most people are agreeing on at the time. It is extremely mutable. The BTC mining limit is as mutable as anything else in the network.

bduerst 7y ago

Oh well if it's that simple then why has it been so hard just to do something as simple as increase the block size?

root_axis 7y ago
Is it possible to increase the block size?
- bduerst 7y ago
  Anything is Possible with Bitcoin ᵗᵐ Except something as simple as increasing the block size to allow Bitcoin to process more than 7 transactions a second (Visa handles 42,000 tx/s comparatively). Theoretically it is possible, but the way Bitcoin is designed puts changes in control of people who stand to profit from preventing certain changes (i.e. Tragedy of the commons) like block size increases - and they are blocking it. The point is that Bitcoin isn't some piece of software that you can magically push any necessary changes to.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    So is that a "yes, it's possible" or "no, it's impossible"? "Theoretically it's possible" sounds like it's possible. Saying "here are some examples of things that didn't happen" doesn't prove that they, or anything else, can't happen.
    - onion-soup 7y ago
      Yes it is possible and it is already done on Bitcoin SV (original bitcoin). Recently 128 MB block were mined as a proof that bitcoin can scale to hundreds of thousands of transactions per second
      - bduerst 7y ago
        > Anything is Possible with Bitcoin ᵗᵐ Just that the network known as Bitcoin can't do that. The block mined just 10 minutes ago was capped at 0.904 MB. Anyone can mine a gigabyte sized block on their own computer, but that doesn't make it Bitcoin (even when branded as Bitcoin SV).