7 ms·

Edit: After rereading the article, I now understand that you were referring to this quote in the article : "The circulation number is not enough". You are rig

Edit: After rereading the article, I now understand that you were referring to this quote in the article : "The circulation number is not enough". You are right, the fact that it's divisible render this point moot. I thought you were saying that dividing coins somehow decreased scarcity (Yes, I've seen many people argue that, believe it or not). Original comment below : I find it really mind boggling that some people don't understand that dividing a pizza into 100M pieces does not give you more pizza.

eloff 5y ago
That's the wrong way to think about it. The number only matters as long as it can subdivided sufficiently to buy the smallest priced thing. You're thinking of it as a fixed sized pie and thinking dividing it doesn't make a bigger pie. But it's not fixed, the whole pie can grow as bitcoin increases in value. It's up to one trillion dollars now.
- 542458 5y ago
  There being a cap is relevant, because it makes your currency deflationary and therefore a poor medium for exchange and a very poor medium to base an economy around (as, among other things, it increases the real value of a debt over time and discourages investment). Small amount of deflation are dangerous - but if everybody used BTC for everything the deflation would be massive and the effects severe.
  - eloff 5y ago
    I agree with you, I'm not sure how that's related to my comment.
- Alain-lf 5y ago
  I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying the price can't increase, I'm saying that dividing coins does not reduce scarcity. Edit: Updated my original comment, turns out I'm the one who misunderstood your point. We actually agree.
  - SunlightEdge 5y ago
    Does it not? Is there a bounded limit to the amount bit-coin can be subdivided? If 0.0000000000001 of a bitcoin is valid for purchases etc. then doesn't the limited supply become meaningless? Yes, technically you are not increasing the size but it feels like word play.
    - panarky 5y ago
      Does subdividing a hundred dollar bill into 10,000 cents somehow increase the supply of dollars?
      - SunlightEdge 5y ago
        So the point is that if bitcoin transactions can occur without a lower bound limit (and I'm still waiting for an answer as I don't know) there is an infinite supply. The dollar point feels more like word play. In retail there is a lower bound limit for dollars and this is 0.01 dollars. Not so with Bitcoin transactions. If 0.00001 of bitcoin etc. Is viable tender then simply put the limited supply of bitcoin might be misleading.
        panarky 5y ago
        There is no lower limit for dollars. In the US, fuel stations price in tenths of a cent. Google Cloud's per-second billing prices resources with a millionth of a cent precision. One troy ounce of gold consists of 3.36x10^27 atoms. There is not an infinite supply of Bitcoin, dollars or gold just because you can divide them into arbitrarily small pieces.
        SunlightEdge 5y ago
        So I said in retail the dollar is limited. I'm aware in finance etc. there isn't a lower limit of dollars. Again (for the third time) are you aware if fractions of bitcoin can be sent from one account to another? Or does it have to be one whole bitcoin? Again I don't know. I'm just thinking theoretically you could convert bitcoin into bitcoin_plus and these coins represent 0.0001 of a bitcoin. And tada you have 100 million coins in circulation etc.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > The number only matters as long as it can subdivided sufficiently to buy the smallest priced thing. Why would I even buy the smallest priced thing with deflationary bitcoin, when I could instead hoard it and wait for it to increase in value? I think most people who have ever used bitcoin as a medium of exchange have kicked themselves when they realized how expensive that thing they bought was at current (very high) exchange rates.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > Why would I even buy the smallest priced thing with deflationary bitcoin, ..? Given the inflationary dollar, you probably wouldn't, but otherwise, you'd need to transact at some point. Perpetual debt against assets is a common trope in tax avoidance. People do use/abuse this. If enough people abused it inflationary money would fail. Deflationary money isn't bad, but the common belief says it is. One example that changed my mind was business investment. Why would you loan money to a business if the money itself might be worth more later? Well you probably wouldn't. Instead, you'd buy a share of the business itself. We've all live in a system of inflationary money and were educated by a system that teaches it's use. We should acknowledge our bias here and keep an open mind.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > We've all live in a system of inflationary money and were educated by a system that teaches it's use. We should acknowledge our bias here and keep an open mind. The problem with that is that deflationary money isn't exactly a new idea. It's been tried before, it's workable, but it has problems. However, it is an idea that favors people who already have lots of money over those who don't, which has fueled background level nostalgia (and nostalgic propaganda) for the idea. Bitcoin had some genuine innovations, but that doesn't mean all the ideas that were baked into it were good ones.
      - reedjosh 5y ago
        > It's been tried before Not arguing... Legitimately asking. Outside of gold or other materially limited resources, what are some examples? > it is an idea that favors people who already have lots of money over those who don't Please elaborate on this. Particularly in comparison to our current debt->create system that seems to benefit those with enough to loan.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > It's up to one trillion dollars now. This sounds sustainable. /s
  - eloff 5y ago
    Doubtful. But if you'd asked me if bitcoin would ever be worth over $50,000 I would have laughed at you. So what do I know. It completely depends on if it finds a sufficiently broad use case or not. So far, not.
    - anonyxyz 5y ago
      It has found a broad use case: hodl.
analog31 5y ago
But George Carlin pointed out that if you break a crumb in half, you get two crumbs.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  like a magnet
eloff 5y ago
Ok, thanks for clarifying. Yeah subdivision doesn't affect scarcity. The arguments the article made were weak, but there are plenty of solid arguments to be made.

eloff 5y ago

That's the wrong way to think about it. The number only matters as long as it can subdivided sufficiently to buy the smallest priced thing. You're thinking of it as a fixed sized pie and thinking dividing it doesn't make a bigger pie. But it's not fixed, the whole pie can grow as bitcoin increases in value. It's up to one trillion dollars now.

542458 5y ago
There being a cap is relevant, because it makes your currency deflationary and therefore a poor medium for exchange and a very poor medium to base an economy around (as, among other things, it increases the real value of a debt over time and discourages investment). Small amount of deflation are dangerous - but if everybody used BTC for everything the deflation would be massive and the effects severe.
- eloff 5y ago
  I agree with you, I'm not sure how that's related to my comment.
Alain-lf 5y ago
I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying the price can't increase, I'm saying that dividing coins does not reduce scarcity. Edit: Updated my original comment, turns out I'm the one who misunderstood your point. We actually agree.
- SunlightEdge 5y ago
  Does it not? Is there a bounded limit to the amount bit-coin can be subdivided? If 0.0000000000001 of a bitcoin is valid for purchases etc. then doesn't the limited supply become meaningless? Yes, technically you are not increasing the size but it feels like word play.
  - panarky 5y ago
    Does subdividing a hundred dollar bill into 10,000 cents somehow increase the supply of dollars?
    - SunlightEdge 5y ago
      So the point is that if bitcoin transactions can occur without a lower bound limit (and I'm still waiting for an answer as I don't know) there is an infinite supply. The dollar point feels more like word play. In retail there is a lower bound limit for dollars and this is 0.01 dollars. Not so with Bitcoin transactions. If 0.00001 of bitcoin etc. Is viable tender then simply put the limited supply of bitcoin might be misleading.
      - panarky 5y ago
        There is no lower limit for dollars. In the US, fuel stations price in tenths of a cent. Google Cloud's per-second billing prices resources with a millionth of a cent precision. One troy ounce of gold consists of 3.36x10^27 atoms. There is not an infinite supply of Bitcoin, dollars or gold just because you can divide them into arbitrarily small pieces.
        SunlightEdge 5y ago
        So I said in retail the dollar is limited. I'm aware in finance etc. there isn't a lower limit of dollars. Again (for the third time) are you aware if fractions of bitcoin can be sent from one account to another? Or does it have to be one whole bitcoin? Again I don't know. I'm just thinking theoretically you could convert bitcoin into bitcoin_plus and these coins represent 0.0001 of a bitcoin. And tada you have 100 million coins in circulation etc.
tablespoon 5y ago
> The number only matters as long as it can subdivided sufficiently to buy the smallest priced thing. Why would I even buy the smallest priced thing with deflationary bitcoin, when I could instead hoard it and wait for it to increase in value? I think most people who have ever used bitcoin as a medium of exchange have kicked themselves when they realized how expensive that thing they bought was at current (very high) exchange rates.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > Why would I even buy the smallest priced thing with deflationary bitcoin, ..? Given the inflationary dollar, you probably wouldn't, but otherwise, you'd need to transact at some point. Perpetual debt against assets is a common trope in tax avoidance. People do use/abuse this. If enough people abused it inflationary money would fail. Deflationary money isn't bad, but the common belief says it is. One example that changed my mind was business investment. Why would you loan money to a business if the money itself might be worth more later? Well you probably wouldn't. Instead, you'd buy a share of the business itself. We've all live in a system of inflationary money and were educated by a system that teaches it's use. We should acknowledge our bias here and keep an open mind.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > We've all live in a system of inflationary money and were educated by a system that teaches it's use. We should acknowledge our bias here and keep an open mind. The problem with that is that deflationary money isn't exactly a new idea. It's been tried before, it's workable, but it has problems. However, it is an idea that favors people who already have lots of money over those who don't, which has fueled background level nostalgia (and nostalgic propaganda) for the idea. Bitcoin had some genuine innovations, but that doesn't mean all the ideas that were baked into it were good ones.
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      > It's been tried before Not arguing... Legitimately asking. Outside of gold or other materially limited resources, what are some examples? > it is an idea that favors people who already have lots of money over those who don't Please elaborate on this. Particularly in comparison to our current debt->create system that seems to benefit those with enough to loan.
pjc50 5y ago
> It's up to one trillion dollars now. This sounds sustainable. /s
- eloff 5y ago
  Doubtful. But if you'd asked me if bitcoin would ever be worth over $50,000 I would have laughed at you. So what do I know. It completely depends on if it finds a sufficiently broad use case or not. So far, not.
  - anonyxyz 5y ago
    It has found a broad use case: hodl.

analog31 5y ago

But George Carlin pointed out that if you break a crumb in half, you get two crumbs.

paulpauper 5y ago
like a magnet

eloff 5y ago

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Yeah subdivision doesn't affect scarcity. The arguments the article made were weak, but there are plenty of solid arguments to be made.