9 ms·

I mean, the 21 million cap is just a line of code no? No reason why if enough people agree to it they could just print more. Or they could fork and print more n

I mean, the 21 million cap is just a line of code no? No reason why if enough people agree to it they could just print more. Or they could fork and print more no? I find it strange that people speak of bitcoin's scarcity as if it were a physical thing.

ve55 6y ago
Getting most people to agree to such a fork is likely impossible
- mindcandy 6y ago
  Agreed. There have been 21 million forks of Bitcoin with all manner of modifications. You don't hear about them because practically no one agrees with them enough to mine/trade/use them. You could make your own fork in an afternoon. The hard part is convincing anyone else to care.
- guidovranken 6y ago
  It has happened before. Ethereum Classic is the "original" version of Ethereum, but it's a nondescript altcoin, while the one that reversed transactions is the number #2 in the world. I don't see why that can't happen to Bitcoin if the network participants (ideally normal users but practically the miners) and major stakeholders can benefit from it.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    They won't benefit because that will tank the price like nothing else.
  - ve55 6y ago
    That's a good point and example, but I just don't imagine them thinking they would benefit from it is all. The future holds many mysteries, so it's at least possible, but I definitely would not bet on it, knowing what I do now.
sunshinerag 6y ago
It isn't as simple as that. Not only have you got to change that line of code, you need to convince all users of bitcoin to run that version of the code including miners. Otherwise you have forked the coin and you might be the only user of it (your version is incompatible with the rest).
- glitchc 6y ago
  You don’t need most to agree. Just the basic majority (50%+). And of course that’s exactly what the major mining consortiums will do: Collude to increase the limit when it’s reached. After all, the rewards are in the mining, not the transaction fee.
  - latchkey 6y ago
    The transaction fees are extremely relevant to miners, it is currently the icing on the cake, but will become more relevant over time.
  - yunesj 6y ago
    > You don’t need most to agree. Just the basic majority (50%+). And of course that’s exactly what the major mining consortiums will do You don't need anyone else to agree to start mining your own fork / altcoin. However, even if most of the miners change the protocol, it doesn't mean that the users will.
    - glitchc 6y ago
      Sure, but my coin isn’t worth $20,000. Or even $2.
  - gruez 6y ago
    The miners aren't the only ones enforcing the limit, so is every other bitcoin node out there. Just because you have 51% of the mining capacity doesn't mean everyone else (merchants, users, exchanges)[1] will agree. If they decide to unilaterally change the block reward all that would do is cause them to mine worthless blocks. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority
rjurney 6y ago
Isn’t this what Bitcoin Cash is? I’m really asking, but I thought so.
- mindcandy 6y ago
  Bitcoin Cash is about trying to make transactions faster and cheaper by increasing the block size (and rate?). Upside: Might be able to use it directly to buy coffee with a reasonable UX. Downside: would likely lead to a small number of huge machines managing the world's blockchain. The Bitcoin Core group really wants people in poor nations to be able to run their own Bitcoin nodes on their cell phones eventually. They value decentralization above UX.
  - almostdigital 6y ago
    No, they want Bitcoin to be a "store of value", whatever that means. Poor people being able to run a full node on a low-end phone is pointless when a transaction fee due to the artificial block size limit is more than a months wages.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Poor people being able to run a full node on a low-end phone is pointless when a transaction fee due to the artificial block size limit is more than a months wages. or just wait for a lull in the transaction volume and pay pennies per tx? eg https://blockstream.info/tx/3b9ce26a827b014e5f6cda461f5fa11260b020d214c67ab54f8300f0f3e3a143 https://blockstream.info/tx/3b9ce26a827b014e5f6cda461f5fa112... from last block only paid 14 cents.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    I'm not sure why every user needs to run a full node. Satoshi himself said that SPV clients would be enough for most users: "Simplified Payment Verification is for lightweight client-only users who only do transactions and don't generate and don't participate in the node network. They wouldn't need to download blocks, just the hash chain, which is currently about 2MB and very quick to verify (less than a second to verify the whole chain)."[0] It's not clear what benefit the user or the currency gains from having 90% of users running full nodes instead of, say, 50% or 10% doing so. In any case, when people in poor nations have phones that can manage uninterrupted 24/7 connections to the bitcoin network, they'll probably also be able to afford 2 TB of storage (currently costing about $50) which would be enough to store 10 years of 4 MB blocks. [0] https://blockchain.news/wiki/satoshi-quote-on-trust https://blockchain.news/wiki/satoshi-quote-on-trust
deadbunny 6y ago
Sure it's a line of code but if you fork and change that line of code you need to find consensus on the network to accept your fork as the "true" Bitcoin. See Bitcoin cash for an example.
steeve 6y ago
Why would they agree to that? Deflation is what guarantees the investment for most users.

ve55 6y ago

Getting most people to agree to such a fork is likely impossible

mindcandy 6y ago
Agreed. There have been 21 million forks of Bitcoin with all manner of modifications. You don't hear about them because practically no one agrees with them enough to mine/trade/use them. You could make your own fork in an afternoon. The hard part is convincing anyone else to care.
guidovranken 6y ago
It has happened before. Ethereum Classic is the "original" version of Ethereum, but it's a nondescript altcoin, while the one that reversed transactions is the number #2 in the world. I don't see why that can't happen to Bitcoin if the network participants (ideally normal users but practically the miners) and major stakeholders can benefit from it.
- scotty79 6y ago
  They won't benefit because that will tank the price like nothing else.
- ve55 6y ago
  That's a good point and example, but I just don't imagine them thinking they would benefit from it is all. The future holds many mysteries, so it's at least possible, but I definitely would not bet on it, knowing what I do now.

sunshinerag 6y ago

It isn't as simple as that. Not only have you got to change that line of code, you need to convince all users of bitcoin to run that version of the code including miners. Otherwise you have forked the coin and you might be the only user of it (your version is incompatible with the rest).

glitchc 6y ago
You don’t need most to agree. Just the basic majority (50%+). And of course that’s exactly what the major mining consortiums will do: Collude to increase the limit when it’s reached. After all, the rewards are in the mining, not the transaction fee.
- latchkey 6y ago
  The transaction fees are extremely relevant to miners, it is currently the icing on the cake, but will become more relevant over time.
- yunesj 6y ago
  > You don’t need most to agree. Just the basic majority (50%+). And of course that’s exactly what the major mining consortiums will do You don't need anyone else to agree to start mining your own fork / altcoin. However, even if most of the miners change the protocol, it doesn't mean that the users will.
  - glitchc 6y ago
    Sure, but my coin isn’t worth $20,000. Or even $2.
- gruez 6y ago
  The miners aren't the only ones enforcing the limit, so is every other bitcoin node out there. Just because you have 51% of the mining capacity doesn't mean everyone else (merchants, users, exchanges)[1] will agree. If they decide to unilaterally change the block reward all that would do is cause them to mine worthless blocks. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

rjurney 6y ago

Isn’t this what Bitcoin Cash is? I’m really asking, but I thought so.

mindcandy 6y ago
Bitcoin Cash is about trying to make transactions faster and cheaper by increasing the block size (and rate?). Upside: Might be able to use it directly to buy coffee with a reasonable UX. Downside: would likely lead to a small number of huge machines managing the world's blockchain. The Bitcoin Core group really wants people in poor nations to be able to run their own Bitcoin nodes on their cell phones eventually. They value decentralization above UX.
- almostdigital 6y ago
  No, they want Bitcoin to be a "store of value", whatever that means. Poor people being able to run a full node on a low-end phone is pointless when a transaction fee due to the artificial block size limit is more than a months wages.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Poor people being able to run a full node on a low-end phone is pointless when a transaction fee due to the artificial block size limit is more than a months wages. or just wait for a lull in the transaction volume and pay pennies per tx? eg https://blockstream.info/tx/3b9ce26a827b014e5f6cda461f5fa11260b020d214c67ab54f8300f0f3e3a143 https://blockstream.info/tx/3b9ce26a827b014e5f6cda461f5fa112... from last block only paid 14 cents.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  I'm not sure why every user needs to run a full node. Satoshi himself said that SPV clients would be enough for most users: "Simplified Payment Verification is for lightweight client-only users who only do transactions and don't generate and don't participate in the node network. They wouldn't need to download blocks, just the hash chain, which is currently about 2MB and very quick to verify (less than a second to verify the whole chain)."[0] It's not clear what benefit the user or the currency gains from having 90% of users running full nodes instead of, say, 50% or 10% doing so. In any case, when people in poor nations have phones that can manage uninterrupted 24/7 connections to the bitcoin network, they'll probably also be able to afford 2 TB of storage (currently costing about $50) which would be enough to store 10 years of 4 MB blocks. [0] https://blockchain.news/wiki/satoshi-quote-on-trust https://blockchain.news/wiki/satoshi-quote-on-trust

deadbunny 6y ago

Sure it's a line of code but if you fork and change that line of code you need to find consensus on the network to accept your fork as the "true" Bitcoin. See Bitcoin cash for an example.

steeve 6y ago

Why would they agree to that? Deflation is what guarantees the investment for most users.