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.
Chump change? Is that so?
The bitcoin network is currently running at 460.28
PetaFLOPS according to bitcoinwatch.com. According to Wikipedia, the fastest supercomputer on Earth is
Titan, A XK7 model by Cray and installed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. It has a benchmarked sustainable rating of 17.59 PetaFLOPS and an as-installed cost of $97 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_10_ranking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(supercomputer)
So to match wits with the Bitcoin network
right now would cost at least $2.5 Billion. And that presumes that the network doesn't grow before that monster is built!
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.
I don't doubt that this will be possible, but full clients won't be necessary for at-home reserve miners, they just need to join a mining pool. Pool miners don't need full clients
now.
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?
A similar argument was had about the Internet before it came to be. One side believed that everyone would need to have a supercomputer to abstract the details of the network from the users, the other side thought that all users would have to educate themselves about computers and networkds to participate. Turns out that they were both right, and the just right mix has been here all the time. Bitcoin is so flexible as to permit that just right mix, but is rigid in the important aspects of the system. You worry too much.
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?
I don't think you have any idea how often I am sucked into these kinds of re-occuring newbie conversations. Most of the old salts have long ago chosen to ignore such repetitive "problems". The long and short of it is, it's not a problem, you're not the first to think it is a problem, so if you insist on resolving said problem there are numerous alt-coins that should fit your sensabilities better than Bitcoin.
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.
And the miners don't have the final say on such things, but
only miners get first access to those coins.