6 ms·

. . . but the quantity of all crypto-currencies is unlimited.

zachlatta 13y ago
There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins. I recommend giving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin a read.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Nothing stops anyone from making their own personal variant of Bitcoin, however. Or 10 of those variants. Or a million. In other words, the limit applies only within a single system, and there is no limit on the number of such systems.
  - PilateDeGuerre 13y ago
    This comment is a classic type of comment in which the commenter ignores the social context of a technology.
  - skriticos2 13y ago
    People care about Bitcoin. They don't care about other variants much. This gives Bitcoin value and not the other variants. In other words, creating another blockchain is easy but convincing enough people that the variant coins are worth something is hard. Very hard.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "convincing enough people that the variant coins are worth something is hard. Very hard." Somehow, people managed to be convinced that Bitcoin was worth something back in 2009. What makes the current situation different? Whatever convinced people that Bitcoin had any value in the first place might convince people that some new alternative you started this morning has some value.
      - aaronem 13y ago
        > What makes the current situation different? Bitcoin.
      - wmf 13y ago
        Obviously an altcoin would have to be as much better than Bitcoin (in the ways people care about) as Bitcoin was better than the preceding stuff. A system that is decentralized and doesn't require mining could have this property.
        aaren 13y ago
        How would coins become valued without mining? Isn't this the way that bitcoins actually become valued in terms of existing currency?
        wmf 13y ago
        No, mining just prevents double-spending. The value comes from elsewhere.
        aaren 13y ago
        People spend money on mining - power, equipment, time. This amounts to them buying bitcoins (from the set that haven't been mined). This gives bitcoins a value in terms of existing currency (dollars etc.). They might accrue value in other ways (how?), but does this process not bootstrap the bitcoins into having some initial value?
        betterunix 13y ago
        "does this process not bootstrap the bitcoins into having some initial value?" No, because nowhere in that explanation is there any mention of demand for the mined bitcoins. If nobody were willing to accept a Bitcoin payment, the cost of Bitcoin mining would be irrelevant because the value of Bitcoin would be zero.
    - mrtron 13y ago
      People care about tulips. They don't care about other variants much. This gives tulips value and not the other variants. Both are true statements.
      - skriticos2 13y ago
        Three things: 1. Bitcoin has good utility value as a currency. You can transfer it to anywhere on the planet, it's decentralized and has a monetary base cap. Tulips are de-cetnralized at best, but are otherwise quite a bad currency. 2. The tulip mania lasted only one season. It went up, peaked and then crashed. Bitcoin is closing it's fifth season and it had several major dips of which it came out stronger than it was before. Absolutely no similarity here. 3. This is getting old. Come up with something new please, will ya?
  - nazgulnarsil 13y ago
    Winner seems to take all so far in terms of network hash rate. No alt-coin has anywhere near the security that BTC does.
jaekwon 13y ago
People say that too, but the amount of crap alt-coins demonstrate just how far ahead of the curve Bitcoin is, and by the network effect it is the one that really matters. Litecoin is good for getting in and out of Bitcoin w/o staying in cash, when you suspect sudden movements in Bitcoin. Remember Ripple? Mindshare keeps falling on that one.

There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins. I recommend giving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin a read.

betterunix 13y ago
Nothing stops anyone from making their own personal variant of Bitcoin, however. Or 10 of those variants. Or a million. In other words, the limit applies only within a single system, and there is no limit on the number of such systems.
- PilateDeGuerre 13y ago
  This comment is a classic type of comment in which the commenter ignores the social context of a technology.
- skriticos2 13y ago
  People care about Bitcoin. They don't care about other variants much. This gives Bitcoin value and not the other variants. In other words, creating another blockchain is easy but convincing enough people that the variant coins are worth something is hard. Very hard.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "convincing enough people that the variant coins are worth something is hard. Very hard." Somehow, people managed to be convinced that Bitcoin was worth something back in 2009. What makes the current situation different? Whatever convinced people that Bitcoin had any value in the first place might convince people that some new alternative you started this morning has some value.
    - aaronem 13y ago
      > What makes the current situation different? Bitcoin.
    - wmf 13y ago
      Obviously an altcoin would have to be as much better than Bitcoin (in the ways people care about) as Bitcoin was better than the preceding stuff. A system that is decentralized and doesn't require mining could have this property.
      - aaren 13y ago
        How would coins become valued without mining? Isn't this the way that bitcoins actually become valued in terms of existing currency?
        wmf 13y ago
        No, mining just prevents double-spending. The value comes from elsewhere.
        aaren 13y ago
        People spend money on mining - power, equipment, time. This amounts to them buying bitcoins (from the set that haven't been mined). This gives bitcoins a value in terms of existing currency (dollars etc.). They might accrue value in other ways (how?), but does this process not bootstrap the bitcoins into having some initial value?
        betterunix 13y ago
        "does this process not bootstrap the bitcoins into having some initial value?" No, because nowhere in that explanation is there any mention of demand for the mined bitcoins. If nobody were willing to accept a Bitcoin payment, the cost of Bitcoin mining would be irrelevant because the value of Bitcoin would be zero.
  - mrtron 13y ago
    People care about tulips. They don't care about other variants much. This gives tulips value and not the other variants. Both are true statements.
    - skriticos2 13y ago
      Three things: 1. Bitcoin has good utility value as a currency. You can transfer it to anywhere on the planet, it's decentralized and has a monetary base cap. Tulips are de-cetnralized at best, but are otherwise quite a bad currency. 2. The tulip mania lasted only one season. It went up, peaked and then crashed. Bitcoin is closing it's fifth season and it had several major dips of which it came out stronger than it was before. Absolutely no similarity here. 3. This is getting old. Come up with something new please, will ya?
- nazgulnarsil 13y ago
  Winner seems to take all so far in terms of network hash rate. No alt-coin has anywhere near the security that BTC does.

jaekwon 13y ago

People say that too, but the amount of crap alt-coins demonstrate just how far ahead of the curve Bitcoin is, and by the network effect it is the one that really matters. Litecoin is good for getting in and out of Bitcoin w/o staying in cash, when you suspect sudden movements in Bitcoin. Remember Ripple? Mindshare keeps falling on that one.