Quote from: paulsonnumismatics on April 03, 2014, 09:17:35 AM

Quote from: grifferz on April 03, 2014, 08:08:34 AM

Hopefully you can see that if the supply limit is a problem then a coin with a supply 476 times higher probably isn't going to be enough.

#BecauseIsaySo O_O Actually yes, i think its going to be enough, thats why i proposed that in first place.

Okay, on the one hand we have your "because I say so", on the other hand here is some maths.

You desire for Bitcoin to have enough supply for everyone in the world to have a whole one. You want to achieve this by multiplying the supply a factor of 476. For sake of differentiation let's call your Bitcoin modification a Paulcoin.

If a Paulcoin has 476 times the supply of Bitcoin and everything else being equal then

1 paulcoin = 0.00210084 bitcoin

Meaning that if we never did investigate this Paulcoin, the inhabitant of this hypothetical future world that you envision will have a bitcoin that they can only divide 210 thousand times in comparison to your ideal of 100 million times.

My point is that a minimum unit 210 thousand times smaller than the whole is not practically any different to a minimum unit 100 million times smaller than the whole and that even if we assume a limited supply is a problem, what you have suggested is not significantly different than the status quo.

No one is going to be worrying that they can only divide it 210 thousand times, not 100 million times. No one is going to be limited by that.

It would be like someone saying that the US cent is unwieldy and they wished they had something worth 0.00000476 cents instead. The difference being that if it actually somehow did become unwieldy then it could be fixed in software anyway!

Again I have to say, if your argument is that a limited supply is a real issue, simply multiplying that limit by 40 or 476 as we have seen in this topic so far is not going to make too much of a difference. I would think you'd need to consider a coin with a continual yearly supply.