Quote from: MoonShadow on March 16, 2013, 12:31:42 AM

That limit is unchangable, though, not because of the code, but because of the principle. If there were to ever be a hard code fork on this issue, one would be the true Bitcoin, the other could not be.

I agree in principle and in spirit. If the cap were raised then the spirit of Bitcoin would be dead.

Quote from: MoonShadow on March 16, 2013, 12:31:42 AM

It's also more than a bit rediculous to assume that future users would be running a full node, and could be tricked into supporting such a change simply by turning on an auto update feature. First off, the vast majority of future bitcoin users, if bitcoin is ever truely succesful, will be running light clients or depending upon wallet service accounts; the full client will be the realtively rare animal. Probably as many or more full nodes as presently exist, but still realtively rare overall. Second, a group of end users, both stupid enough to trust their internal security with their money to a remotely controlled automated system AND wealthy enough to ignore the ongoing costs of running a full node would still amount to little, IMHO simply because there are now, and shall be, more than just the main reference client. So whatever percentage is deceived into supporting the change will still be opposed (by default) by those nodes that do not authorize or otherwise cannot participate in an auto update. Furthermore, the break wouldn't go unnoticed for very long, and a great many of the decieved users can and will revert.

This is where our thoughts diverge. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that future users will be running full nodes. To an extent, I hope they do. Even with ASICs supposedly coming out to beef up hashing power 25-fold or whatever amount it's going to be - the total network is and still will be puny compared to the sum of computational hardware found in average homes where Bitcoin is currently seeing the most interest. It would be a matter of chump change to a certain number of governments or individuals to totally wreak havoc with Bitcoin as it now stands. I think we need the individual users to have a full client running on their computers at home, even if they are doing something as minor as CPU/GPU mining or whatever it might come to be. I suspect that people will be able to just pop a small ASIC into one of their computer expansion slots in the future just to do their little part for the network even at a slight loss if it means adding resilience to the network. They can have their light clients running on their Huckleberry Pi-pads to do day to day transactions.

The extent to which I hope all users will run full clients is reached when Bitcoin is so widespread that the average Joe will just accept any old update and not be bothered by it. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same amount of ignorance about BTC that we see all around us about regular old fiat. If Bitcoin should get to that level of acceptance and average users have full clients doing small (but cumulatively significant) hashes, then the time would be ripe to play on that ignorance and break Bitcoin. I would argue that the average user couldn't care less how or why Bitcoin works. They would only care that they can buy their Bud Lite with it. The USD (along with many other currencies) is a perfect example. How has that been working out?

Quote from: MoonShadow on March 16, 2013, 12:31:42 AM

The 21M limit is part of what makes Bitcoin what it is, if you don't like it or don't think it's going to work out, you can either support one of the alt-coins that suits your needs or start your own. Just don't call it Bitcoin.

Where did I say I didn't like it or that I thought it wouldn't work out? I thought I was just discussing some points where Bitcoin could have some potential problems. Shouldn't we be discussing such things?

Quote from: Killdozer on March 16, 2013, 12:20:30 AM

No need for arguing really, this has a really easy answer:
The actual number of bitcoins doesn't matter. They are practically infinitely indivisible, and their price varies according to adoption and the size of the available market. Why would you ever need to change their number? It could have been 1, 10, 1000, or 1e56, it's just a matter of scale and price calculation for merchants.

Because inflation is a tempting motherfucker to those that can get their hands on the money first.

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 16, 2013, 09:38:50 AM

Quote from: maxmint on March 16, 2013, 09:22:07 AM

Think of it this way: if you own 100,000 bitcoins and you know there won't ever be more than 21 million bitcoins, then you currently own 0.47% of the whole "bitcoin pie". Now if the upper limit changes to 210 million (thus the pie getting bigger), then your share of the pie suddenly shrinks to 0.047%.

If 21 million cap is multiplied by 10, then all savings are multiplied by 10 as well. So 100,000 bitcoins will become 1,000,000. It's still 0.47%.

Are you sure about that? As others mentioned here, raising the cap doesn't mean my savings get multiplied too. It's a trivial matter of changing a few lines of code or just like signing a magical paper document and then people's savings have instantly lost 90% of their value.

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 16, 2013, 11:09:06 AM

For me increasing 21m cap is the same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_split. Sorry if u were talking about some other thing.

This would be increasing precision, wouldn't it? You are making the bitcoins that everyone holds more divisible for smaller transactions. That can be good for everyone.

Quote from: lleibowitz on March 16, 2013, 07:14:39 PM

The 21m cap is part of the whole bitocoin idea. This should never be changed.

Amen, brother! Peace be with you! I absolutely agree.