4 ms·

It is highly divisible though, there’s 2.1e15 satoshi and 2.3e14 cents in the world (re google). It can lose 90% of itself before being unable to replace cents.

by wruza 2y ago

It is highly divisible though, there’s 2.1e15 satoshi and 2.3e14 cents in the world (re google). It can lose 90% of itself before being unable to replace cents. Also, the network can just agree to change the protocol to fix this issue, should it arise. Countries do redenominations all the time.

the_sleaze_ 2y ago
I think the fundamental appeal of Bitcoin is the lack of ability to change the protocol based on any external factors at all. Otherwise it's just fiat all over again
- notpushkin 2y ago
  But you can change the protocol – you just need to convince people to use your version, i.e. make a softfork. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork (Or a hardfork, if your changes have to apply to all transactions, though this would be extremely tricky.)
  - j16sdiz 2y ago
    and update the hardware wallets if needed
- geysersam 2y ago
  Of course the protocol can change if a large majority of miners agree to the change. It's just a question about updating the source code. The fundamental appeal of bitcoin is the lack of ability to change the protocol without buy-in from a sufficient fraction of the community.
- wruza 2y ago
  What it really is is basically a consensus between participants. Once the consensus about a change gains critical mass, that change just happens, by someone coding it into the software and people updating to it. The change (fork) becomes mainstream and the old version becomes fringe. And vice versa, if consensus never achieved. There will be people who stay on old version anyway. It’s up to who believes in what, based on available software based on ideas that are worth new code.
eagerpace 2y ago
How can anything ever be changed once 51% is abandoned? I also think there will be a gold rush of hacking old wallets one day when the encryption is broken. Not sure if that will happen before or after btc failure though. You can’t upgrade security on lost wallets.
- speakfreely 2y ago
  I think you're confusing proof of work with proof of stake. The integrity of the Bitcoin network is enforced by the miners agreeing on the rules, not by anyone staking their ownership for governance.
  - pineaux 2y ago
    What about if you hack a lost wallet and then you transfer the coins to yourself. No proof of work needed then. It is just there, in your wallet.
    - jeffhuys 2y ago
      Just… really suggest you take a deep dive into blockchain technologies. You’re confusing a few things.
    - bavell 2y ago
      Sure, all you have to do is compute until the heat-death of the universe. No proof of work needed!
wqaatwt 2y ago
Why would the people who are getting richer and richer by hoarding btc and not engaging in anything productive ever agree to that? > Countries do redenominations all the time That’s not really the same, in several fundamental ways.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  They don't need to increase the supply of bitcoin, the nodes can simply be updated to recognize that a satoshi is also divisible by a billion.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    That would be terrible for the economy and everyone not sitting on piles of bitcoin. It’s hard to imagine a financial instrument that’s less suited to be used as an actual currency than bitcoin. Even going back to the gold standard would be a better idea.
- wruza 2y ago
  I mean, what I'm about is really the same, just the other way round. Countries usually erase zeroes after hyperinflation adds them, cryptocoins can just add extra zeroes due to deflation. No change in value, just higher granularity. The rest left me puzzled, can you elaborate? Why should the money holder do anything productive? Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto?
  - notahacker 2y ago
    > Why should the money holder do anything productive? Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto? This question works better the other way round. Why should people that do all the work and take all the investment risks to make the riches get continually decreasing returns on their efforts whilst the people that sit and HODL get continually increasing returns on doing nothing?
    - robertlagrant 2y ago

by wruza 2y ago

the_sleaze_ 2y ago

I think the fundamental appeal of Bitcoin is the lack of ability to change the protocol based on any external factors at all. Otherwise it's just fiat all over again

notpushkin 2y ago
But you can change the protocol – you just need to convince people to use your version, i.e. make a softfork. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork (Or a hardfork, if your changes have to apply to all transactions, though this would be extremely tricky.)
- j16sdiz 2y ago
  and update the hardware wallets if needed
geysersam 2y ago
Of course the protocol can change if a large majority of miners agree to the change. It's just a question about updating the source code. The fundamental appeal of bitcoin is the lack of ability to change the protocol without buy-in from a sufficient fraction of the community.
wruza 2y ago
What it really is is basically a consensus between participants. Once the consensus about a change gains critical mass, that change just happens, by someone coding it into the software and people updating to it. The change (fork) becomes mainstream and the old version becomes fringe. And vice versa, if consensus never achieved. There will be people who stay on old version anyway. It’s up to who believes in what, based on available software based on ideas that are worth new code.

eagerpace 2y ago

How can anything ever be changed once 51% is abandoned? I also think there will be a gold rush of hacking old wallets one day when the encryption is broken. Not sure if that will happen before or after btc failure though. You can’t upgrade security on lost wallets.

speakfreely 2y ago
I think you're confusing proof of work with proof of stake. The integrity of the Bitcoin network is enforced by the miners agreeing on the rules, not by anyone staking their ownership for governance.
- pineaux 2y ago
  What about if you hack a lost wallet and then you transfer the coins to yourself. No proof of work needed then. It is just there, in your wallet.
  - jeffhuys 2y ago
    Just… really suggest you take a deep dive into blockchain technologies. You’re confusing a few things.
  - bavell 2y ago
    Sure, all you have to do is compute until the heat-death of the universe. No proof of work needed!

wqaatwt 2y ago

Why would the people who are getting richer and richer by hoarding btc and not engaging in anything productive ever agree to that? > Countries do redenominations all the time That’s not really the same, in several fundamental ways.

jazzyjackson 2y ago
They don't need to increase the supply of bitcoin, the nodes can simply be updated to recognize that a satoshi is also divisible by a billion.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  That would be terrible for the economy and everyone not sitting on piles of bitcoin. It’s hard to imagine a financial instrument that’s less suited to be used as an actual currency than bitcoin. Even going back to the gold standard would be a better idea.
wruza 2y ago
I mean, what I'm about is really the same, just the other way round. Countries usually erase zeroes after hyperinflation adds them, cryptocoins can just add extra zeroes due to deflation. No change in value, just higher granularity. The rest left me puzzled, can you elaborate? Why should the money holder do anything productive? Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto?
- notahacker 2y ago
  > Why should the money holder do anything productive? Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto? This question works better the other way round. Why should people that do all the work and take all the investment risks to make the riches get continually decreasing returns on their efforts whilst the people that sit and HODL get continually increasing returns on doing nothing?
  - robertlagrant 2y ago