> The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the currency infinitely. We just get into smaller and smaller fract

> The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the currency infinitely. We just get into smaller and smaller fractions of "satoshi's" or whatever the base unit may be. You can subdivide Bitcoin to a very tiny fraction indeed, and in that sense, the supply is quasi infinite. However, if you own _one_ Bitcoin, you own exactly 1/21millionth of the entire supply of the stuff there will ever be, and that will never change for as long as you hold on to it. In that sense, the supply is absolutely finite. A close analogy is gold: if you assume for a second that there is a finite amount of gold on the planet (not an unreasonable assumption), then: you could cut up a gold coin down to its individual atoms, and that would be a whole effing lot of them (not practical, obviously, which is why gold didn't last as a currency. OTOH, Bitcoin, being digital doesn't have that problem). And if you own one ounce of gold, you own a never-changing fraction of the supply. So: Gold supply, according to definition one (divisibility) is infinite. But according to definition two (they don't make any more of the stuff), it's finite. I am of the opinion that the second definition is the one that matters when it comes to understanding the properties of Bitcoin as a financial instrument.