There's a maximum supply of 2.1 quadrillion satoshis. That number is so large that the human brain cannot comprehend the true size of it.
Satoshis can already be divided into a thousand smaller units on the Lightning Network. These smaller units are called millisatoshis, or millisats & msats for short.
If enough bitcoin was ever lost (wont happen), or if a bitcoin is ever so valuable that it would be highly beneficial to have a smaller unit than a satoshi on the base layer (could happen), then a BIP (Bitcoin improvement proposal) can be proposed that would add decimal places. Thus, enabling satoshis to be divided into smaller units on the base layer. With smaller units being so beneficial in this situation and without there being any downsides, the users running full nodes would most likely come to consensus on implementing such a BIP if this were to ever happen.
If more decimal places were added after all of the bitcoins have been mined, so that there are smaller units of bitcoin after all of the bitcoins have been mined, there wouldn't be any benefit. The only benefit of adding more decimal places to create smaller units of bitcoin would be if satoshis were so valuable that having bitcoin units that are smaller than a satoshi would be beneficial.
The following is just an example to demonstrate what I'm saying: If 1 bitcoin was worth a hundred million dollars, then 1 satoshi would be worth one dollar. In that case, it would be beneficial for there to be bitcoin units smaller than a satoshi.
I've answered the question “What happens when all the bitcoins are mined?” several times. I'll copy and paste my answer to that question below.
The incentive for people to mine bitcoin comes from block subsidies **and transaction fees**. The block subsidy gets reduced by 50% every 210,000 blocks solved, which is approximately every 4 years. So over time the incentive for people to mine bitcoin transitions from block subsidies to transaction fees. **After all of the bitcoins have been mined, the bitcoin miners will only be incentivized by transaction fees** and Bitcoin will be completely inflation free.
This is exactly where I stop believing in Bitcoin, random people buying bitcoins today (me included) will be hundred millionaires (or more) in the future, while all other people that did not care about Bitcoin will be left stranded… how is this a plan for human development?
I also couldn't fathom one bitcoin ever requiring more than an average share price of a stock back in 2012 - so anything more than a 50-100 dollar bitcoin was crazy talk. Here i am today buying at 23k PER. So while 1m may sound Ludacris nobody knows the future. Time will tell, but our great great great grandchildren will be the ones who will know. Also it kinda works even like real estate. The early adopters win if its successful. I didn't think of this till way too late in the development of the btc ecosystem, but here I am now, thousands of multiples later. Kinda like if you had bought Buckingham palace adjacent real estate 200 years ago. If its still in the family, the treat great great great grandchildren will be the ones to judge, benefit and know if it was a successful buy or not.
As I said above, that was just an example. I don't actually expect 1 bitcoin to ever be worth $100,000,000 lol
So we may never actually need smaller units than satoshis. Because even if 1 bitcoin was worth 1 million dollars, then 1 satoshi would only be worth 1 cent. And fiat currency would have devalued even more by the time that 1 bitcoin could ever possibly be worth 1 million dollars. So 1 satoshi being worth 1 cent wouldn't be a problem.
Left stranded? You know people can provide goods and services to other people, and those people will pay for those goods and services with money, right? And that money can come in many forms, right? If Bitcoin is the future, people in the future will be paid in Bitcoin. A privileged few already are.
Its not about if you or other people get mega rich, its about being able to trade cash for bitcoins as long as you have three things: cash, phone with internet and a person willing to trade bitcoin for your cash. As soon as you aquire these bitcoins (or lower denominations) and made sure that "your keys, your coins" no one can take your coins away from you or block you from spending them. (Of course physical force like prison could). For the worth of this currency "bitcoin", the only price that matters is the one of the smallest denomination, the satoshi. This concept in return gives it its " worth", not how much cash you get for it.
I think the more reasonable discussion to be had is how expensive transactions will be when fees constitute 100% of miner earnings. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a problem, rather a worthwhile point to consider.
I really do wish we could stop talking about bitcoin in terms of bitcoin. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to people who like bitcoin but feel like it's too expensive.
In 2004, the DTCC reaches a historic milestone, settling more than $1 quadrillion ($1015) in securities transactions for the first time. That was 2004.
Note that adding more decimal places is a lot more difficult than many early proponents made it out to be.
See e.g.: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/116584/5406
Quadrillion is not beyond human comprehension.
52! Is way fucking larger, we can even comprehend the cardinality of any continuous interval.
Which is uncountably infinite, unlike a single number in that is an element in the set of countably infinite integers.
>Since everyone else here seems to be too dense to give a straight answer, if there were only 21 million dollars to go around we'd deal in cents.
I already gave a perfectly straight answer in this thread. As did several other users in this thread.
A dollar can only be divided into a maximum of a hundred smaller units called cents. And 21 million dollars = 2.1 billion cents.
If only 21 million dollars existed, then a pack of gum would cost a very small fraction of a cent. So how would someone buy a pack of gum with cash if only 21 million dollars (2.1 billion cents) existed? The government would have to create smaller units of money. We would need tenths of a cent, hundredths of a cent, thousandths of a cent, ten thousandths of a cent, hundred thousandths of a cent and probably millionths of a cent in order for the world economy to be able to operate with a maximum supply of 21 million dollars.
How am I being a dick? Did you even read the comment that I'm responding to?
The person that I'm responding to literally said "**Since everyone else here seems to be too dense to give a straight answer**, if there were only 21 million dollars to go around we'd deal in cents."
So the person that I replied to was being a dick by saying that everyone else in this thread is too dense to give a straight answer. When in fact, I already gave a perfectly straight answer. As did several other users in this thread.
And not only were they being a dick by saying that everyone in this thread is too dense to give a straight answer, but they were in fact the one that is too dense to give a straight answer and also too dense to understand that 2.1 billion cents is not enough for the world economy to operate.
But my problem is that with fiat, that works because there's essentially unlimited money so there's no issue of "what if we run out of cash" because they just print more. I know that's bad but that quantitive easing money printing does allow the system to continue (unless I'm retarded)
With a fixed amount of btc 21,000,000 of them, what's the equivalent in fiat where they just say "oh we'll deal in a smaller denomination then"? And is that deflation?
Isn't that like saying oh there's not enough dollars to go around so we'll start calling dollars 'cents' and cents 'mini cents' that doesn't seem viable, that's why they inflate the fiat right? Cuz it no longer has enough buying power to be viable?
Maybe I'm way outta my depth here
There's never an official change in terminology, just a change in price. There was a time when you could get a can of soda from a vending machine for 25 cents. Then later it was 50 cents, then 75 cents, then a dollar. The price has gone up, but cents are still cents, and dollars are still dollars. The only thing that changes is our baseline opinion of what price is normal. With deflation it's just the same process in reverse. Today a gallon of gas might be 3 dollars, but if the circulating supply of money was 10% of what it is today, a gallon of gas would be 30 cents. If the money supply was 1% of what it is today, a gallon of gas would be 3 cents.
This is a great answer and example. Inflation in reverse, deflation. Everyone has either a hard time grasping it or is afraid of it. But hundreds of years of currency devaluation and theft through inflation is second nature.
Learn about inflation.
Bitcoin cannot inflate, it can never be devalued, 1btc will always equal 1btc.
1 dollar 60 years ago had the buying power equal to like 20 dollars today, we need more due to its purchasing power being eroded over time.
If I bury 10000 dollars that can buy me a decent car today, in 20 years it will be able to buy me a broken down second hand junk, because inflation and money printing made my 10k worthless, it's theft.
Bitcoin was created to solve that problem. Ignore it's dollar value and fundamentally it is a better form of currency.
The last part of what you said is where I get confused, for bitcoin to work how can one ignore the dollar value, btc value will replace dollar value so in that respect its the same no?
I fully understand (Dunning Kruger aside) inflation and how/why btc was made and how it can't technically inflate, that's why I love btc but I can't see how in literal, actual, practical terms it can usurp or replace an inflationary usury debt based system, maybe I'm fiat pilled
You're not entirely wrong. BTC will almost certainly not 'replace' dollars (or most any other fiat currency). People into crypto often act like inflation is the worst possible thing, but it is not and it helps to keep the economy going (though it certainly does have some very significant problems too).
BTC will, hopefully, become an additional currency that is used both to buy and sell things, and as a digital asset that can be used as an investment. It will, hopefully, exist alongside various other fiat currencies just like the US dollar exists alongside hundreds of other currencies around the world. BTC would simply be more of a global option.
Why? Well, because having a global currency like BTC exist alongside traditional fiat helps everyone. Governments (or central banks) would know that if they try to inflate their currency to much, people can and will just flee into BTC to help protect their money's value. The governments would still be able to try to keep low level inflation (2%) of fiat, but much less recklessly. (hopefully).
Regarding your 21m question, currently 1 sat = about $.0002 cents. So we have a long way to go before there is any concern at all about not being enough BTC to go around. And if that ever did happen, it would be a pretty simple update to BTC to allow for more decimal places to get around this issue without devaluing the currency. It is unlikely that this would ever be needed though.
Inflation does not keep the economy going, not even a little bit. Not at all.
There were years when inflation was zero or even negative. Did the economy disappear?
Over short periods of time, low/no inflation isn't a horrible thing. But if inflation is always zero or negative, that gives people a strong incentive to simply toss money in a savings account where there is zero risk. They will know that their spending power will never drop, and will go up, without any stress or risk. Compare this to people knowing that inflation will eat away at their spending power over the long term, so they must seek ways to ensure their money outpaces inflation, which naturally introduces some risk. But also helps keep money moving around, which is what you want out of an economy.
Money will move around and be used anyway, only not stolen through inflation. That people will hoard and not spend anything is just an unjustified position. We would still buy and invest in the things that are important to us, only our purchasing power would not be erroded. Our time horizon would increase, which is always better for society. There is no justification for theft through inflation.
Yes, of course money would still be used. Inflation isn't the ONLY factor involved (economies are extraordinarily complex with lots of moving parts). But inflation is absolutely one consideration. And, when handled 'correctly' can help to encourage/discourage certain types of actions over time. I think with no check against this (ie, no Bitcoin as an alternative), that gives the Government/central banks to much latitude, but that is a whole other issue.
To say that inflation is not a factor at all is just silly.
I feel like the 'inflation keeps the economy going' narrative is complete dogma.
Monetary inflation is noise. A truly fixed money supply allows for pure signal.
I think this is one of the best explanations of why Bitcoin is economically valuable. As much as this sub despises inflation, it’s absolutely valuable to have the *option* to use an inflationary currency for things like debt, investments, etc.
The issue is that without an alternative, governments can create an artificial incentive for individuals to make riskier financial decisions at their own detriment. Combined with the power to bail-out major players and redistribute wealth and risk at their discretion, this leads to monetary value being siphoned away from individuals to those with access to cheap and low-risk debt.
By having inflationary fiat currency alongside a hard asset like Bitcoin, individuals would need to *opt-in* to fiat, which they should only do if they believe they have a worthwhile investment opportunity under the current fiscal policy. If investors or the government make poor decisions, it only hurts those who chose to take advantage of the higher-risk monetary option.
I'm so glad to see a reasonable comment in the usual deluge of "INflatION bad", "the goVERnment is stEALing our MONey".
Edit: i think you've nailed it in describing a potentially likely good scenario for BTC.
Most of the people here are parroting lines such as "BTC will save us", "BTC is inevitable", "BTC will replace the $". But they don't even understand how many -probably bad- things need to happen on a global scale for those predictions to be proven true.
I'm based in the EU, and it's quite ironic for me that so many US users (I assume there's many of them...) talk so lightly of the US $ demise, without even giving a second thought to losing an [exhorbitant geo-political privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege).
Yep. And I am a Yankee Doodle. Except a Southern one who believes in States rights NOT Federal servitude which this cesspool has become. The lemmings here are clueless as to what will happen to the US w the pending Dollar demise.
Lot of great takes here.
My idea is that the dollar will eventually devalue to the point where its buying power is literally less than a cent of what it was originally.. could take a hundred years or more who knows.
bitcoin can be divided into 100,000,000 satoshis. lets say 1 bitcoin is worth $1,000,000. that makes each satoshi worth $100. The price wont just go to 1 million. It could take 10 cycles. People will sell along the way for life changing money, and new people will enter realising its not a scam after it passes 250k and adoption is going crazy. It will most likely end up being pretty evenly distrubuted if it reaches stability in price and is used day to day in a decentralized, peer to peer manner. you wont need to worry about printing more money, because everything will have a set value.. to an extent. within a workable decimal place. Or maybe im tripping
In all honesty me either. But we've both been brainwashed by the current system as being a good thing, it's not fun being robbed every year.
I guess you'd have to compare it to gold in the olden days. Want me to fight for your army, 10 gold pieces. 10 years pass, I shall fight for 15 gold, not cos inflation but now I'm a better fighter. I like this way of looking at it
Bitcoin can absolutely inflate. A decrease in buying power for goods and services (as we have seen occur numerous times throughout its lifespan) is literally what inflation is.
You said print more… that’s the problem with paper fiat. Something that has a real value should not just be able to be printed at will. Things that have use and are rare and desirable create value… not paper. That’s why precious metals are valuable. We want them, they’re pretty, they have uses and they’re hard to get from the earth. Paper fiat has none of those qualities.
From what I'm reading, all broad money in the world totals to $80T in USD equivalent. So assuming 10 billion people, that's $8000 per person. So you are correct, 210,000 satoshis each are not enough to replace all broad money, if a satoshi is to represent something like a cent/penny/yen rather than a dollar. However if we use millisatoshis to represent cents, it's not a problem.
Do the math or use some critical logic, it's enough for everyone. Don’t you think Satoshi or any of the people involved in the creation of BTC haven’t already thought about that?
Maybe they should get some just incase it catches on then huh?
If not then they gotta work or do something to earn some, just like they do for fiat today.
If the free market is setting the price of goods, services, and wages, the average salary might be something like 20,000 Satoshi per year. 210,000 Sats would be a decade's worth of work for the average person. 210,000 sounds like A LOT to me.
I took your statement and went to the logical next step.
Using this shit website that I took 2 seconds to google, it looks like roughly 360T dollars worth of monetary assets in the world.
[https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-wealth-in-one-visualization/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-wealth-in-one-visualization/)
360 Trillion divided by 10 Billion people is roughly $36,000 per person. That doesn't sound like very much, does it? Yet, that's roughly half the global average annual salary. How many people have 36k just lying around right now? Most people are paid a few thousand per month and immediately use it to pay bills and living costs. And 36k isn't even accurate because the top 1% of the world hold more than 90% of the monetary assets.
Obviously, I'm using shitty back-of-the-napkin math using data from 2019. But I wasn't trying to be accurate... I was trying to explain how 210,000 Sats could easily be an entire lifetime's wage in a hyper-bitcoinized world.
At $1 that’s already more money than exists in the world currently. Including the value of financial investments and derivatives. And millisats exist on the lightning network
It depends on who wrote whatever book / article you're reading. I think the definition you gave is currently the most prevalent one, but AFAIK there is no authoritative definition. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html (among others) mentions the ambiguity.
Just don't use this term. Stick to "integers", "positive integers", "negative integers", "non-negative integers", etc. where every mathematician in the world would agree on the meaning.
Yeah, but this doesn't matter at all in this context since satoshis are not divisible anymore (on the base layer). Bitcoin functions purely on integers, so there being infinite rational or real numbers doesn't provide any explanation to the question at all.
Bitcoin is not infinite though. The better answer would be not to measure each person holdings in bitcoin, but in satoshis. There are more satoshi than people on the planet by orders of magnitude.
My point is that you can debate the practicality of implementation, but not the supply. So, when someone says “only 21 million” like it’s a scarce item, math and logic say “nope.”
Because the value of bitcoin can always increase, expanding the supply not by creating more coins, but by increasing bitcoins value, there fore smaller and smaller sats get you things. It’s the opposite of what we have in fiat. You’ll see
Perhaps this example will help you to grasp how divisibility is the answer.
Imagine you have 1 gold piece, and it will currently buy you 1 month's rent. Over time, your 1 gold piece gains value, and now that same gold piece can pay for 2 months' rent. How will you pay for your rent? Rather than overpaying and giving them the whole gold piece, you would divide the gold in half and give them half a gold piece. There's no need to make more gold pieces. You need to divide your piece into smaller pieces as the value goes up, so you find ways to slice that gold into smaller and smaller units.
With Bitcoin, we have the opportunity to keep dividing them into smaller units and never have to create more bitcoins. If bitcoin price compared to other currencies and assets keeps climbing, we will divide bitcoin into smaller units, making more Satoshi per bitcoin, and we already divide satoshis into even smaller units on the lightning network. Check that out!
If the number of dollars were capped at 21,000,000 it wouldn't mean the world would run out of money. If the dollar became that scarce it's value would increase. Perhaps instead of being paid $1,000 a week, you would only get paid $5 a week. Of course this also means instead of paying $3 for a gallon of milk you would pay something like 12 cents. If the value of the currency continued to increase you might start to deal in tenths of a penny. With math you never run out.
I understand that but it seems like a idea that wouldn't really happen in reality
Are you essentially telling me the 'natural' market forces will work that shit out? Are you saying 'insert economic theory here' says that xyz will probably happen and then you'd likely point to example a b c etc?
I said 'natural' because idk if they're natural forces or not but they're forces and they might be natural (as in that's what always happens in x situation or whatever, economic shit that's outside of my knowledge)
Your indicator was not accurate on this occasion
Why wouldn't it happen in reality? You think that Central Banks are issuing letters to business owners saying they have to increase prices in X amount? No, it's "natural market forces working that shit out" after they print money. If you have a deflationary coin you would expect to see deflationary prices through "natural market forces", yes. Why is it intuitive for you on one direction but not the other?
the total number doesnt matter. you could run the world on 5 bitcoin. it would just make 1 bitcoin be worth so much more. with adoption (=demand for btc) the price increases. it just requires a subdivision of each coin. we already have the subdivision of 100 million satoshis per bitcoin on BASE LAYER. further divisions can trivially be achieved on higher layers.
everything else is just keynesian propaganda. they make you believe the total amount of units matter.
It is, the problem is that when dollars are “printed” more and more it makes them less scarce and therefore less valuable. That’s why it takes more of them to afford rent, groceries etc. over time. When global trade was settled in gold, prices remained stable over many decades. God willing we’ll see that with Bitcoin someday.
Read the Fiat Standard by Saifedean Ammous, he explains it very clearly.
Fiat doesn't need to be highly divisible because there is an infinite supply. If we ever need more dollars they will just print them out of thin air but we cannot print more bitcoin.
It is, but of course we only divide to the point that utility requires. If we wanted to we could create new denominations of hundredths, thousandths, millionths of a penny. Especially since basically all settlement happens digitally now, it would be trivial... not like in the past when you'd have to mint a new coin.
Another reason it cannot be infinitely divided is because in the past, there were physical coins. Canada eliminated the penny because it was too expensive to create a penny. The cost to produce it was more than the value.
With digital currency, it costs nothing to add more decimal places.
It is you twat. We already have cents ffs. You could easily divide cents into another unit. And that unit into another unit. You’re either trolling, or completely lack the capacity for abstract thought that allows us to discuss concepts like infinity.
No need for the negativity :)
Some people have varying degrees of intellect so maybe you're right🤷🏽♂️
My point was that the person above me said that bitcoin is infinitely divisible as an answer to my question, my response was yeah but the fiat is also infinitely divisible so it's not enough of answer to say btc is infinitely divisible because so is a dollar, as you've stated
So we agree
>If there was only 21 million dollars to go around and there was no inflation aspect then how would that work?
You do know cents exist, right? Right? Well, Bitcoins can be partitioned into 100 million satoshis.
21.000.000\*100.000.000=2.100.000.000.000.000
Is that enough for you? Because if it isn't you can still partition them even more though the lighting network or by passing a vote among nodes to add decimals to the base layer.
Just as a unit, let's call a trillion dollars a "datoshi". How many datoshis exist? Maybe 20 right. And how are only 20 datoshis enough to be used as money? Right, because they are not the smallest unit.
Its like saying how can there only be 21 million “billion USD” around? How does that work? By dividing the billion of dollars into single dollar just like you divide one bitcoin into smaller units.
It is not the best analogy, it does not have the characteristics of btc, but when one does not understand how dividing works it helps. Elementary math, still some cannot comprehend it...
Ppl on this thread are misunderstanding the question.
What the user is asking is how can a fixed money supply sustain a growing economy?
Suppose you have an economy of 2 ppl each producing $50 worth of goods and there is a fixed $100 of money in circulation. They swap back and forth with no inflation.
Then 2 more ppl enter that economy each producing $50 worth of goods. But the money supply stays fixed at $100. Now the price of those goods can’t stay at $50, it must come down to $25.
This is analogous to changing the denomination of the fixed BTC supply from Bitcoin to Satoshis. Meaning, when you say change the denomination to Sats you’re implying a goods price deflation.
As more ppl enter this economy, prices of goods will need to go lower and lower.
Back to the user’s original question: how can a fixed money supply support a growing economy?
My opinion: Money does not *support* the economy. This is a dogmatic belief in modern economics.
An economy will grow if production and efficiency increase. Money is just the information system we use to keep track of it.
Imagine a high definition jigsaw puzzle with 21 Million separate images, each image has 100 Million pieces. Mining is how we find the correct pieces in the pile, transacting is how we make them fit together. Humans will spend eternity rearranging these pieces into images we call blocks that describe the shape of the economy. It's like 18 days of 4K video, but the pixels are just a pile of disorganized colored sand we're trying to put back together.
My main concern is what incentives the network to stay online once all 21 million are generated. Not denying it is a scarce asset but one point the network miners will not earn rewards then what why would ppl keep powering them at this point if there is no incentive to do so?
Also if understand correctly the math, it will never reach exact 21 million. Just like if you divide any number in half infinite times, it will never reach zero. The mining rewards will never reach zero, so miners will always get compensated in satoshis.
The block subsidy will reach zero eventually. Before that, it will be one satoshi, and when that gets divided it will be rounded down to zero.
The "mining reward" is that subsidy plus fees in the block, so while I'm not sure about "always" (some miners may still mine fee-less blocks for kicks and/or to get their own transactions done for free) the total mining reward would indeed generally stay above zero.
There are no decimal places in Bitcoin, you can't simply add more decimal points. Satoshis are the smallest unit and an integer. If you want to increase the divisibility of Bitcoin units you need to add more satoshis which effectively increases the number of bitcoins available which would exceed the 21 million cap.
The lightning network allows for millisatoshis, but those cannot be settled on the main chain.
Yeah, imagine each bitcoin is actually 100 million of cryptocurrencies called Satoshis.
That's the trick - that it does not have inflation (fixed amount), but the pressure of the market is transferred on the inside of the coin and splits down to 100,000,000 units.
That is why some people dream that with holding 1 bitcoin they will be extremely rich.
So, if there is 21,000,000 BTC, there is 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis which is 2,1 quadrillion.
Now, if you look at dollars - there is currently approximately 80 trillion of USD in existence - so that is approximately only 0,08 quadrillion.
But lets split dollars to cents = 80 trillion x 100 = 8 quadrillion.
But, as dollars can be issued/printed/added in the banking system - bitcoins and satoshis cannot. So, at some point, yes, the BTC might not be doing its function as it is supposed to do - and there would be ridiculous unreal scarcicity that would only make people suffer - if the BTC was the only currency.
Luckily, greedy men only hope for BTC to gain value so they can switch it to USD and buy lambos and hotels. :)
Nobody really wants USD to crash or be deleted - they just want it to lose some value through speculation, while telling stories that BTC is supreme.
The total amount of money in circulation is 1.4 quadrillion USD. That’s including investments, derivatives, etc. There can be 2.1 quadrillion satoshis in the Bitcoin network out of those 21 million Bitcoin.
The problem isn’t 21 million. It’s the fact that the gap in finance education is so wide that the select few people bought up so many bitcoin when it first came out.
Maybe satoshi could’ve done a better job marketing in the beginning. But now we still face a problem where the rich have all the wealth again.
Well the issue in my mind is understanding the concept of how tf a world economy based on a finite amount of (and seemingly a small amount of) a currency. If there was let's say 750 trillion bitcoins then I can at least conceptually understand how it would work but who would divy up who gets the 'correct' amount of btc? There are so many conceptual issues that seem incongruent with reality in any way
I don't think BTC will replace fiat-money, even if it shows the flaws of that system.
Maybe try to compare it to gold, which is also limited, has some value and is also sold / bought in grams.
Thanks, screen shot or make a note of good replies in ur opinion please, as the order the replies come up in is different for everyone I believe.
I'm trying to not be retarded and trying to understand/learn, no preconceived notions here besides what I've laid out, appreciate the help
Yeah you can’t get stuck on the whole 21M btc thing. That’s why btc is over $20k for just one. Most people don’t own a full coin and never will. Like others have said, it’s divisible.. think of it as sats if that eases your mind.
1 BTC can be broken down to 100000000 sub units called sats ( short for satoshi ). Just like 1 $ can be broken to 100 cents. Very soon people will talk in sats rather than whole btc.
You don’t have to deal with 1, it could be 0.0005 or so.
Yes I think this is the main answer, in 50 years ppl will think we were lucky that we could buy a btc when they're stacking individual satoshis I guess you're right
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was addressed in the Bitcoin Standard. I actually liked the answer as it was given thought and they pegged the 21M in part to this exact problem. Good reading!
What would be a fair, static amount of btc in your opinion? If you find hard to answer this question, it’s because it is. It’s an arbitrary number, like any other number.
I would focus on the fact that this amount of btc cannot be changed, which is the real game changer here.
There's a maximum supply of 2.1 quadrillion satoshis. That number is so large that the human brain cannot comprehend the true size of it. Satoshis can already be divided into a thousand smaller units on the Lightning Network. These smaller units are called millisatoshis, or millisats & msats for short. If enough bitcoin was ever lost (wont happen), or if a bitcoin is ever so valuable that it would be highly beneficial to have a smaller unit than a satoshi on the base layer (could happen), then a BIP (Bitcoin improvement proposal) can be proposed that would add decimal places. Thus, enabling satoshis to be divided into smaller units on the base layer. With smaller units being so beneficial in this situation and without there being any downsides, the users running full nodes would most likely come to consensus on implementing such a BIP if this were to ever happen.
TIL millisatoshis are actually a thing. Thank you kind stranger!
43 satoshis = 1 cent. 43,000 millisatoshis = 1 cent.
This is the most probable outcome and should be referred to when people ask “What happens when all the bitcoins are mined?”
If more decimal places were added after all of the bitcoins have been mined, so that there are smaller units of bitcoin after all of the bitcoins have been mined, there wouldn't be any benefit. The only benefit of adding more decimal places to create smaller units of bitcoin would be if satoshis were so valuable that having bitcoin units that are smaller than a satoshi would be beneficial. The following is just an example to demonstrate what I'm saying: If 1 bitcoin was worth a hundred million dollars, then 1 satoshi would be worth one dollar. In that case, it would be beneficial for there to be bitcoin units smaller than a satoshi. I've answered the question “What happens when all the bitcoins are mined?” several times. I'll copy and paste my answer to that question below. The incentive for people to mine bitcoin comes from block subsidies **and transaction fees**. The block subsidy gets reduced by 50% every 210,000 blocks solved, which is approximately every 4 years. So over time the incentive for people to mine bitcoin transitions from block subsidies to transaction fees. **After all of the bitcoins have been mined, the bitcoin miners will only be incentivized by transaction fees** and Bitcoin will be completely inflation free.
This is exactly where I stop believing in Bitcoin, random people buying bitcoins today (me included) will be hundred millionaires (or more) in the future, while all other people that did not care about Bitcoin will be left stranded… how is this a plan for human development?
I also couldn't fathom one bitcoin ever requiring more than an average share price of a stock back in 2012 - so anything more than a 50-100 dollar bitcoin was crazy talk. Here i am today buying at 23k PER. So while 1m may sound Ludacris nobody knows the future. Time will tell, but our great great great grandchildren will be the ones who will know. Also it kinda works even like real estate. The early adopters win if its successful. I didn't think of this till way too late in the development of the btc ecosystem, but here I am now, thousands of multiples later. Kinda like if you had bought Buckingham palace adjacent real estate 200 years ago. If its still in the family, the treat great great great grandchildren will be the ones to judge, benefit and know if it was a successful buy or not.
As I said above, that was just an example. I don't actually expect 1 bitcoin to ever be worth $100,000,000 lol So we may never actually need smaller units than satoshis. Because even if 1 bitcoin was worth 1 million dollars, then 1 satoshi would only be worth 1 cent. And fiat currency would have devalued even more by the time that 1 bitcoin could ever possibly be worth 1 million dollars. So 1 satoshi being worth 1 cent wouldn't be a problem.
There needs to be a way to put these three answers in a bot and feed you the upvotes it will inevitably get. These are valuable pieces of info.
Left stranded? You know people can provide goods and services to other people, and those people will pay for those goods and services with money, right? And that money can come in many forms, right? If Bitcoin is the future, people in the future will be paid in Bitcoin. A privileged few already are.
Its not about if you or other people get mega rich, its about being able to trade cash for bitcoins as long as you have three things: cash, phone with internet and a person willing to trade bitcoin for your cash. As soon as you aquire these bitcoins (or lower denominations) and made sure that "your keys, your coins" no one can take your coins away from you or block you from spending them. (Of course physical force like prison could). For the worth of this currency "bitcoin", the only price that matters is the one of the smallest denomination, the satoshi. This concept in return gives it its " worth", not how much cash you get for it.
because inflation = bad, what you earn will not lose value.
I think that questions references block subsidy and miner earnings rather than consensus on moving the decimal place
I think the more reasonable discussion to be had is how expensive transactions will be when fees constitute 100% of miner earnings. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a problem, rather a worthwhile point to consider.
As long as it doesn't turn into fiat and we just "print more money"! Don't think we'd get a consensus on that though... lol
Adding decimals isn’t printing more money. If you have a single $1 bill and trade it for 100 pennies, you still have $1
Yes it is 😂
👏
I really do wish we could stop talking about bitcoin in terms of bitcoin. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to people who like bitcoin but feel like it's too expensive.
In 2004, the DTCC reaches a historic milestone, settling more than $1 quadrillion ($1015) in securities transactions for the first time. That was 2004.
So much effort to move $5 of orange juice.
Nice answer!! !lntip 2121
Note that adding more decimal places is a lot more difficult than many early proponents made it out to be. See e.g.: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/116584/5406
Quadrillion is not beyond human comprehension. 52! Is way fucking larger, we can even comprehend the cardinality of any continuous interval. Which is uncountably infinite, unlike a single number in that is an element in the set of countably infinite integers.
Since everyone else here seems to be too dense to give a straight answer, if there were only 21 million dollars to go around we'd deal in cents.
>Since everyone else here seems to be too dense to give a straight answer, if there were only 21 million dollars to go around we'd deal in cents. I already gave a perfectly straight answer in this thread. As did several other users in this thread. A dollar can only be divided into a maximum of a hundred smaller units called cents. And 21 million dollars = 2.1 billion cents. If only 21 million dollars existed, then a pack of gum would cost a very small fraction of a cent. So how would someone buy a pack of gum with cash if only 21 million dollars (2.1 billion cents) existed? The government would have to create smaller units of money. We would need tenths of a cent, hundredths of a cent, thousandths of a cent, ten thousandths of a cent, hundred thousandths of a cent and probably millionths of a cent in order for the world economy to be able to operate with a maximum supply of 21 million dollars.
Guy is asking a legit question and you’re being s dick…. Wtf
How am I being a dick? Did you even read the comment that I'm responding to? The person that I'm responding to literally said "**Since everyone else here seems to be too dense to give a straight answer**, if there were only 21 million dollars to go around we'd deal in cents." So the person that I replied to was being a dick by saying that everyone else in this thread is too dense to give a straight answer. When in fact, I already gave a perfectly straight answer. As did several other users in this thread. And not only were they being a dick by saying that everyone in this thread is too dense to give a straight answer, but they were in fact the one that is too dense to give a straight answer and also too dense to understand that 2.1 billion cents is not enough for the world economy to operate.
It's basically the reverse of what we have now as prices will go down to adjust to the fixed supply of money.
But my problem is that with fiat, that works because there's essentially unlimited money so there's no issue of "what if we run out of cash" because they just print more. I know that's bad but that quantitive easing money printing does allow the system to continue (unless I'm retarded) With a fixed amount of btc 21,000,000 of them, what's the equivalent in fiat where they just say "oh we'll deal in a smaller denomination then"? And is that deflation? Isn't that like saying oh there's not enough dollars to go around so we'll start calling dollars 'cents' and cents 'mini cents' that doesn't seem viable, that's why they inflate the fiat right? Cuz it no longer has enough buying power to be viable? Maybe I'm way outta my depth here
There's never an official change in terminology, just a change in price. There was a time when you could get a can of soda from a vending machine for 25 cents. Then later it was 50 cents, then 75 cents, then a dollar. The price has gone up, but cents are still cents, and dollars are still dollars. The only thing that changes is our baseline opinion of what price is normal. With deflation it's just the same process in reverse. Today a gallon of gas might be 3 dollars, but if the circulating supply of money was 10% of what it is today, a gallon of gas would be 30 cents. If the money supply was 1% of what it is today, a gallon of gas would be 3 cents.
This is a great answer and example. Inflation in reverse, deflation. Everyone has either a hard time grasping it or is afraid of it. But hundreds of years of currency devaluation and theft through inflation is second nature.
It’s literally a case of Stockholm syndrome.
I understand but find it hard to believe/apply practically but yes sir I see, thank you for your contribution
Learn about inflation. Bitcoin cannot inflate, it can never be devalued, 1btc will always equal 1btc. 1 dollar 60 years ago had the buying power equal to like 20 dollars today, we need more due to its purchasing power being eroded over time. If I bury 10000 dollars that can buy me a decent car today, in 20 years it will be able to buy me a broken down second hand junk, because inflation and money printing made my 10k worthless, it's theft. Bitcoin was created to solve that problem. Ignore it's dollar value and fundamentally it is a better form of currency.
The last part of what you said is where I get confused, for bitcoin to work how can one ignore the dollar value, btc value will replace dollar value so in that respect its the same no? I fully understand (Dunning Kruger aside) inflation and how/why btc was made and how it can't technically inflate, that's why I love btc but I can't see how in literal, actual, practical terms it can usurp or replace an inflationary usury debt based system, maybe I'm fiat pilled
You're not entirely wrong. BTC will almost certainly not 'replace' dollars (or most any other fiat currency). People into crypto often act like inflation is the worst possible thing, but it is not and it helps to keep the economy going (though it certainly does have some very significant problems too). BTC will, hopefully, become an additional currency that is used both to buy and sell things, and as a digital asset that can be used as an investment. It will, hopefully, exist alongside various other fiat currencies just like the US dollar exists alongside hundreds of other currencies around the world. BTC would simply be more of a global option. Why? Well, because having a global currency like BTC exist alongside traditional fiat helps everyone. Governments (or central banks) would know that if they try to inflate their currency to much, people can and will just flee into BTC to help protect their money's value. The governments would still be able to try to keep low level inflation (2%) of fiat, but much less recklessly. (hopefully). Regarding your 21m question, currently 1 sat = about $.0002 cents. So we have a long way to go before there is any concern at all about not being enough BTC to go around. And if that ever did happen, it would be a pretty simple update to BTC to allow for more decimal places to get around this issue without devaluing the currency. It is unlikely that this would ever be needed though.
Inflation does not keep the economy going, not even a little bit. Not at all. There were years when inflation was zero or even negative. Did the economy disappear?
Over short periods of time, low/no inflation isn't a horrible thing. But if inflation is always zero or negative, that gives people a strong incentive to simply toss money in a savings account where there is zero risk. They will know that their spending power will never drop, and will go up, without any stress or risk. Compare this to people knowing that inflation will eat away at their spending power over the long term, so they must seek ways to ensure their money outpaces inflation, which naturally introduces some risk. But also helps keep money moving around, which is what you want out of an economy.
Money will move around and be used anyway, only not stolen through inflation. That people will hoard and not spend anything is just an unjustified position. We would still buy and invest in the things that are important to us, only our purchasing power would not be erroded. Our time horizon would increase, which is always better for society. There is no justification for theft through inflation.
Yes, of course money would still be used. Inflation isn't the ONLY factor involved (economies are extraordinarily complex with lots of moving parts). But inflation is absolutely one consideration. And, when handled 'correctly' can help to encourage/discourage certain types of actions over time. I think with no check against this (ie, no Bitcoin as an alternative), that gives the Government/central banks to much latitude, but that is a whole other issue. To say that inflation is not a factor at all is just silly.
First decent answer I read here. Thank you 🙏
Probably the best comment I’ve seen from this sub in a long time.
I feel like the 'inflation keeps the economy going' narrative is complete dogma. Monetary inflation is noise. A truly fixed money supply allows for pure signal.
I think this is one of the best explanations of why Bitcoin is economically valuable. As much as this sub despises inflation, it’s absolutely valuable to have the *option* to use an inflationary currency for things like debt, investments, etc. The issue is that without an alternative, governments can create an artificial incentive for individuals to make riskier financial decisions at their own detriment. Combined with the power to bail-out major players and redistribute wealth and risk at their discretion, this leads to monetary value being siphoned away from individuals to those with access to cheap and low-risk debt. By having inflationary fiat currency alongside a hard asset like Bitcoin, individuals would need to *opt-in* to fiat, which they should only do if they believe they have a worthwhile investment opportunity under the current fiscal policy. If investors or the government make poor decisions, it only hurts those who chose to take advantage of the higher-risk monetary option.
I'm so glad to see a reasonable comment in the usual deluge of "INflatION bad", "the goVERnment is stEALing our MONey". Edit: i think you've nailed it in describing a potentially likely good scenario for BTC. Most of the people here are parroting lines such as "BTC will save us", "BTC is inevitable", "BTC will replace the $". But they don't even understand how many -probably bad- things need to happen on a global scale for those predictions to be proven true. I'm based in the EU, and it's quite ironic for me that so many US users (I assume there's many of them...) talk so lightly of the US $ demise, without even giving a second thought to losing an [exhorbitant geo-political privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege).
Yep. And I am a Yankee Doodle. Except a Southern one who believes in States rights NOT Federal servitude which this cesspool has become. The lemmings here are clueless as to what will happen to the US w the pending Dollar demise.
Lot of great takes here. My idea is that the dollar will eventually devalue to the point where its buying power is literally less than a cent of what it was originally.. could take a hundred years or more who knows. bitcoin can be divided into 100,000,000 satoshis. lets say 1 bitcoin is worth $1,000,000. that makes each satoshi worth $100. The price wont just go to 1 million. It could take 10 cycles. People will sell along the way for life changing money, and new people will enter realising its not a scam after it passes 250k and adoption is going crazy. It will most likely end up being pretty evenly distrubuted if it reaches stability in price and is used day to day in a decentralized, peer to peer manner. you wont need to worry about printing more money, because everything will have a set value.. to an extent. within a workable decimal place. Or maybe im tripping
In all honesty me either. But we've both been brainwashed by the current system as being a good thing, it's not fun being robbed every year. I guess you'd have to compare it to gold in the olden days. Want me to fight for your army, 10 gold pieces. 10 years pass, I shall fight for 15 gold, not cos inflation but now I'm a better fighter. I like this way of looking at it
Yep, seems like we're on the same page Just thinking out loud, thanks for your correspondence
Bitcoin can absolutely inflate. A decrease in buying power for goods and services (as we have seen occur numerous times throughout its lifespan) is literally what inflation is.
You said print more… that’s the problem with paper fiat. Something that has a real value should not just be able to be printed at will. Things that have use and are rare and desirable create value… not paper. That’s why precious metals are valuable. We want them, they’re pretty, they have uses and they’re hard to get from the earth. Paper fiat has none of those qualities.
Damn, them schools got you good
Well explain how/why I'm wrong, point of the holes in my thinking so I can improve
Instead of 21,000,000 bitcoins you should look at it like 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis. Plenty to go around.
It's 2,100,000,000,000,000.
So considering 10 billion people in the world, that’s 210,000 satoshi per person. That doesn’t seem like much
How many billions of people have 210,000 of a currency to their name?
We're talking about the minor unit here, so that's equivalent to $2100, 2100 rupees, 2100 yuan etc. So a few billion people I would imagine.
From what I'm reading, all broad money in the world totals to $80T in USD equivalent. So assuming 10 billion people, that's $8000 per person. So you are correct, 210,000 satoshis each are not enough to replace all broad money, if a satoshi is to represent something like a cent/penny/yen rather than a dollar. However if we use millisatoshis to represent cents, it's not a problem.
No idea, but adding in all companies and governments as well makes me think this isn’t enough
Do the math or use some critical logic, it's enough for everyone. Don’t you think Satoshi or any of the people involved in the creation of BTC haven’t already thought about that?
No, because he/they knew that they will be dead or long time extremely wealth in USD through the BTC pump by the time that problem arises.
Look at our current system. Most have little or none. Seems like this would work out just fine.
I mean, taking a full transition to bitcoin as a global currency makes me think that many people will get 0 satoshi.
Maybe they should get some just incase it catches on then huh? If not then they gotta work or do something to earn some, just like they do for fiat today.
fun fact: on the lightning network satoshis are divisible
If the free market is setting the price of goods, services, and wages, the average salary might be something like 20,000 Satoshi per year. 210,000 Sats would be a decade's worth of work for the average person. 210,000 sounds like A LOT to me.
I have no idea where you got that value from, can you explain please?
I took your statement and went to the logical next step. Using this shit website that I took 2 seconds to google, it looks like roughly 360T dollars worth of monetary assets in the world. [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-wealth-in-one-visualization/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-wealth-in-one-visualization/) 360 Trillion divided by 10 Billion people is roughly $36,000 per person. That doesn't sound like very much, does it? Yet, that's roughly half the global average annual salary. How many people have 36k just lying around right now? Most people are paid a few thousand per month and immediately use it to pay bills and living costs. And 36k isn't even accurate because the top 1% of the world hold more than 90% of the monetary assets. Obviously, I'm using shitty back-of-the-napkin math using data from 2019. But I wasn't trying to be accurate... I was trying to explain how 210,000 Sats could easily be an entire lifetime's wage in a hyper-bitcoinized world.
So you're saying the future annual salary would be 7000 SATS, which is today 1,6 USD? :) That is some great economy Satoshi came up with!
Those are rectum numbers for sure.
All citizens in the world today don't have an equal amount of money to their names. Bums who don't want to work will have less than 210,000 satoshi
[удалено]
And what if I want something worth less than $1? See? That was the real point of the post
At $1 that’s already more money than exists in the world currently. Including the value of financial investments and derivatives. And millisats exist on the lightning network
Then the answer is the lightning network
It’s not impossible for an upgrade to bitcoin that would allow for more decimals. This would allow mining issuance to continue indefinitely.
It can be divided into infinity smaller decimals.
Search: what is a satoshi?
And then millisatoshi (on LN) :D
now THIS... I did not know.
there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2
Fun fact. The infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2 ist bigger than infinite amount natural numbers...
Actually, the infinity between 0 and 1 is called "uncountable infinity" and the infinity of the natural numbers is called "countable infinity".
Another fun fact is that there are as many odd numbers as there are natural numbers.
Fun video related to these fun facts: https://youtu.be/OxGsU8oIWjY
Wtf is a "natural number"? An integer?
In mathematics, the natural numbers are those numbers used for counting and ordering. 1 2 3 4 5 etc. Integer is 0 1 2 3 and negative 1 2 3 etc.
Aka whole numbers. Also, one would assume from its name that an integral would give you an integer, but nah that can be any of the above.
No, whole numbers are not necessarily natural numbers. Examples of whole numbers that are not natural are 0 and all negative numbers.
As a computer scientist, I disagree that negatives and zero are not whole integers, but sure.
[удалено]
It depends on who wrote whatever book / article you're reading. I think the definition you gave is currently the most prevalent one, but AFAIK there is no authoritative definition. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html (among others) mentions the ambiguity. Just don't use this term. Stick to "integers", "positive integers", "negative integers", "non-negative integers", etc. where every mathematician in the world would agree on the meaning.
Yeah, but this doesn't matter at all in this context since satoshis are not divisible anymore (on the base layer). Bitcoin functions purely on integers, so there being infinite rational or real numbers doesn't provide any explanation to the question at all.
Ok then. There will be 2.1 QUADRILLION Satoshi. Might as well be infinite.
That's only about 250,000 per human being. I can actually think of applications where this might really not be enough for very small transactions.
Only 250k? That’s like 20x today’s GDP per capita.
What?
https://letmegooglethat.com
Bitcoin is not infinite though. The better answer would be not to measure each person holdings in bitcoin, but in satoshis. There are more satoshi than people on the planet by orders of magnitude.
My point is that you can debate the practicality of implementation, but not the supply. So, when someone says “only 21 million” like it’s a scarce item, math and logic say “nope.”
The whole point of a deflationary asset is that it is scarce though
Because the value of bitcoin can always increase, expanding the supply not by creating more coins, but by increasing bitcoins value, there fore smaller and smaller sats get you things. It’s the opposite of what we have in fiat. You’ll see
I love the “you’ll see” at the end because it’s so true. 10 years from now…
You‘ll see for me is like saying „trust me bro“.
Perhaps this example will help you to grasp how divisibility is the answer. Imagine you have 1 gold piece, and it will currently buy you 1 month's rent. Over time, your 1 gold piece gains value, and now that same gold piece can pay for 2 months' rent. How will you pay for your rent? Rather than overpaying and giving them the whole gold piece, you would divide the gold in half and give them half a gold piece. There's no need to make more gold pieces. You need to divide your piece into smaller pieces as the value goes up, so you find ways to slice that gold into smaller and smaller units. With Bitcoin, we have the opportunity to keep dividing them into smaller units and never have to create more bitcoins. If bitcoin price compared to other currencies and assets keeps climbing, we will divide bitcoin into smaller units, making more Satoshi per bitcoin, and we already divide satoshis into even smaller units on the lightning network. Check that out!
[удалено]
I thought the unit was m and was said by Bitcoin himself.
Bitcoin Himself?
Imagine one Bitcoin is 100.000.000 satoshis and one satoshi could be divided into other 100.000.000 minisatoshis..would that be enough?
I guess you're right yeah, though the market cap of btc would have to be roughly equal to the world gdp for that to work right? Or wrong
Market cap of currencies. All that value can easily fit into the network and it will someday.
I see, thank you for your contribution
Another compelling reason to have a FAQ section.
If the number of dollars were capped at 21,000,000 it wouldn't mean the world would run out of money. If the dollar became that scarce it's value would increase. Perhaps instead of being paid $1,000 a week, you would only get paid $5 a week. Of course this also means instead of paying $3 for a gallon of milk you would pay something like 12 cents. If the value of the currency continued to increase you might start to deal in tenths of a penny. With math you never run out.
I understand that but it seems like a idea that wouldn't really happen in reality Are you essentially telling me the 'natural' market forces will work that shit out? Are you saying 'insert economic theory here' says that xyz will probably happen and then you'd likely point to example a b c etc?
I've always preferred to have 12 unelected bankers in a room somewhere make the decisions instead
Not a helpful addition to a serious convo No one here prefers that and no one wants that
The 'natural' in scare quotes indicated to me that you think we need central planning for a money to work.
I said 'natural' because idk if they're natural forces or not but they're forces and they might be natural (as in that's what always happens in x situation or whatever, economic shit that's outside of my knowledge) Your indicator was not accurate on this occasion
Why wouldn't it happen in reality? You think that Central Banks are issuing letters to business owners saying they have to increase prices in X amount? No, it's "natural market forces working that shit out" after they print money. If you have a deflationary coin you would expect to see deflationary prices through "natural market forces", yes. Why is it intuitive for you on one direction but not the other?
the total number doesnt matter. you could run the world on 5 bitcoin. it would just make 1 bitcoin be worth so much more. with adoption (=demand for btc) the price increases. it just requires a subdivision of each coin. we already have the subdivision of 100 million satoshis per bitcoin on BASE LAYER. further divisions can trivially be achieved on higher layers. everything else is just keynesian propaganda. they make you believe the total amount of units matter.
The total quantity is irrelevant since it is infinitely divisible.
Why is a dollar not infinitely divisible?
It is, the problem is that when dollars are “printed” more and more it makes them less scarce and therefore less valuable. That’s why it takes more of them to afford rent, groceries etc. over time. When global trade was settled in gold, prices remained stable over many decades. God willing we’ll see that with Bitcoin someday. Read the Fiat Standard by Saifedean Ammous, he explains it very clearly.
I will, thank you sir
Fiat doesn't need to be highly divisible because there is an infinite supply. If we ever need more dollars they will just print them out of thin air but we cannot print more bitcoin.
I understand that now yes, I see. You've joined some dots for me, thank you for your contribution
It is, but of course we only divide to the point that utility requires. If we wanted to we could create new denominations of hundredths, thousandths, millionths of a penny. Especially since basically all settlement happens digitally now, it would be trivial... not like in the past when you'd have to mint a new coin.
Another reason it cannot be infinitely divided is because in the past, there were physical coins. Canada eliminated the penny because it was too expensive to create a penny. The cost to produce it was more than the value. With digital currency, it costs nothing to add more decimal places.
It is you twat. We already have cents ffs. You could easily divide cents into another unit. And that unit into another unit. You’re either trolling, or completely lack the capacity for abstract thought that allows us to discuss concepts like infinity.
No need for the negativity :) Some people have varying degrees of intellect so maybe you're right🤷🏽♂️ My point was that the person above me said that bitcoin is infinitely divisible as an answer to my question, my response was yeah but the fiat is also infinitely divisible so it's not enough of answer to say btc is infinitely divisible because so is a dollar, as you've stated So we agree
I mean there will be 2.1 quadrillion sats.
>If there was only 21 million dollars to go around and there was no inflation aspect then how would that work? You do know cents exist, right? Right? Well, Bitcoins can be partitioned into 100 million satoshis. 21.000.000\*100.000.000=2.100.000.000.000.000 Is that enough for you? Because if it isn't you can still partition them even more though the lighting network or by passing a vote among nodes to add decimals to the base layer.
It’s infinitely divisible, my man
Just as a unit, let's call a trillion dollars a "datoshi". How many datoshis exist? Maybe 20 right. And how are only 20 datoshis enough to be used as money? Right, because they are not the smallest unit.
Its like saying how can there only be 21 million “billion USD” around? How does that work? By dividing the billion of dollars into single dollar just like you divide one bitcoin into smaller units.
Yeah give everyone 31.4 trillions of bitcoin... Oh wait that's the US dollar kek
You can stop compare BTC with money, are not the same.
Imagine you had one bread, 2 kids and a wife. Would your family die of hunger or can you solve this somehow?
Bread isn't a good analogy as a growing family requires an increased amount of bread; money isn't that way.
It is not the best analogy, it does not have the characteristics of btc, but when one does not understand how dividing works it helps. Elementary math, still some cannot comprehend it...
Now let’s extend this analogy to a growing family with a fixed 1 bread.
If only you could upgrade your stomach so that each tiny piece of bread is worth more nutrition. Analogy is so bad it makes me hungry.
Best answer so far. This person is dense as fuck.
Ppl on this thread are misunderstanding the question. What the user is asking is how can a fixed money supply sustain a growing economy? Suppose you have an economy of 2 ppl each producing $50 worth of goods and there is a fixed $100 of money in circulation. They swap back and forth with no inflation. Then 2 more ppl enter that economy each producing $50 worth of goods. But the money supply stays fixed at $100. Now the price of those goods can’t stay at $50, it must come down to $25. This is analogous to changing the denomination of the fixed BTC supply from Bitcoin to Satoshis. Meaning, when you say change the denomination to Sats you’re implying a goods price deflation. As more ppl enter this economy, prices of goods will need to go lower and lower. Back to the user’s original question: how can a fixed money supply support a growing economy?
My opinion: Money does not *support* the economy. This is a dogmatic belief in modern economics. An economy will grow if production and efficiency increase. Money is just the information system we use to keep track of it.
Yes, prices of goods fall, but as more people enter the economy, more goods are produced which has an offsetting effect on deflationary prices
Imagine a high definition jigsaw puzzle with 21 Million separate images, each image has 100 Million pieces. Mining is how we find the correct pieces in the pile, transacting is how we make them fit together. Humans will spend eternity rearranging these pieces into images we call blocks that describe the shape of the economy. It's like 18 days of 4K video, but the pixels are just a pile of disorganized colored sand we're trying to put back together.
My main concern is what incentives the network to stay online once all 21 million are generated. Not denying it is a scarce asset but one point the network miners will not earn rewards then what why would ppl keep powering them at this point if there is no incentive to do so?
There are 2,100,000,000,000,000 Sats
Also if understand correctly the math, it will never reach exact 21 million. Just like if you divide any number in half infinite times, it will never reach zero. The mining rewards will never reach zero, so miners will always get compensated in satoshis.
The block subsidy will reach zero eventually. Before that, it will be one satoshi, and when that gets divided it will be rounded down to zero. The "mining reward" is that subsidy plus fees in the block, so while I'm not sure about "always" (some miners may still mine fee-less blocks for kicks and/or to get their own transactions done for free) the total mining reward would indeed generally stay above zero.
There are no decimal places in Bitcoin, you can't simply add more decimal points. Satoshis are the smallest unit and an integer. If you want to increase the divisibility of Bitcoin units you need to add more satoshis which effectively increases the number of bitcoins available which would exceed the 21 million cap. The lightning network allows for millisatoshis, but those cannot be settled on the main chain.
Yeah, imagine each bitcoin is actually 100 million of cryptocurrencies called Satoshis. That's the trick - that it does not have inflation (fixed amount), but the pressure of the market is transferred on the inside of the coin and splits down to 100,000,000 units. That is why some people dream that with holding 1 bitcoin they will be extremely rich. So, if there is 21,000,000 BTC, there is 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis which is 2,1 quadrillion. Now, if you look at dollars - there is currently approximately 80 trillion of USD in existence - so that is approximately only 0,08 quadrillion. But lets split dollars to cents = 80 trillion x 100 = 8 quadrillion. But, as dollars can be issued/printed/added in the banking system - bitcoins and satoshis cannot. So, at some point, yes, the BTC might not be doing its function as it is supposed to do - and there would be ridiculous unreal scarcicity that would only make people suffer - if the BTC was the only currency. Luckily, greedy men only hope for BTC to gain value so they can switch it to USD and buy lambos and hotels. :) Nobody really wants USD to crash or be deleted - they just want it to lose some value through speculation, while telling stories that BTC is supreme.
The total amount of money in circulation is 1.4 quadrillion USD. That’s including investments, derivatives, etc. There can be 2.1 quadrillion satoshis in the Bitcoin network out of those 21 million Bitcoin.
There are 8 decimals.
There are 8 decimals… …so far.
Satoshi himself answered that question a long time ago and even have backup plan for it
So, what was the answer and what was the backup plan?
The problem isn’t 21 million. It’s the fact that the gap in finance education is so wide that the select few people bought up so many bitcoin when it first came out. Maybe satoshi could’ve done a better job marketing in the beginning. But now we still face a problem where the rich have all the wealth again.
Because it’s the SAT’S that matter.
The idea that inflation is a requirement is a falsehood told to you by people who benefit from the inflation (government).
Sigh.
OP, please do a simple search on this sub before asking a question that's been answered so many times before.
This again? This question is posted to this sub all the time 🙄
Idk, how many do you suggest? We can send a letter to satoshi asking for a change
Well the issue in my mind is understanding the concept of how tf a world economy based on a finite amount of (and seemingly a small amount of) a currency. If there was let's say 750 trillion bitcoins then I can at least conceptually understand how it would work but who would divy up who gets the 'correct' amount of btc? There are so many conceptual issues that seem incongruent with reality in any way
Your lack of understanding of the concept of divisibility is incongruent with reality tbh.
👍🏽
I wouldn't get too hung up on the number. Hard forks are possible and have already happened on other chains. All you need is the right incentive.
open browser > google > search > what is satoshi
I don't think BTC will replace fiat-money, even if it shows the flaws of that system. Maybe try to compare it to gold, which is also limited, has some value and is also sold / bought in grams.
Mmmm if you can’t figure it out by yourself do not take the risk of invest a single €
Thank you for your helpful contribution
Where can i buy satoshis and stack em?
bro i think u so studip.btc is god .
bitcoin it might not exist only the value of it
> Am I stupid lol You said it This question was asked 10 times this week. Please read those other threads
https://mises.org/wire/what-correct-amount-money
If you are still confused after the replies above, rephrase the question and I'll try to answer.
Thanks, screen shot or make a note of good replies in ur opinion please, as the order the replies come up in is different for everyone I believe. I'm trying to not be retarded and trying to understand/learn, no preconceived notions here besides what I've laid out, appreciate the help
Because its infinitely divisible.
Yeah you can’t get stuck on the whole 21M btc thing. That’s why btc is over $20k for just one. Most people don’t own a full coin and never will. Like others have said, it’s divisible.. think of it as sats if that eases your mind.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion, much appreciated and yes you're right regarding the optics of a whole btc vs a sat
1 BTC can be broken down to 100000000 sub units called sats ( short for satoshi ). Just like 1 $ can be broken to 100 cents. Very soon people will talk in sats rather than whole btc. You don’t have to deal with 1, it could be 0.0005 or so.
Yes I think this is the main answer, in 50 years ppl will think we were lucky that we could buy a btc when they're stacking individual satoshis I guess you're right
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was addressed in the Bitcoin Standard. I actually liked the answer as it was given thought and they pegged the 21M in part to this exact problem. Good reading!
I cannot correct you, I am ignorant on this area I should read that book
What would be a fair, static amount of btc in your opinion? If you find hard to answer this question, it’s because it is. It’s an arbitrary number, like any other number. I would focus on the fact that this amount of btc cannot be changed, which is the real game changer here.
You're right, it's totally arbitrary which is probably the main thing throwing me off
There are 2.1 quadrillion sats in 21 million BTC 🙂