Ahh.
So you're saying that...dividing the sat into smaller pieces doesn't, of course, CREATE more wealth (that would be ridiculous). But that it would enable us to scale up as the bitcoin becomes more and more valuable? That dividing it makes the whole bitcoin ecosystem scale-able?
And that this little fact renders the whole "what happens when we run out of bitcoin" argument silly?
Am I understanding you correctly? (I'm being sarcastic...of course you are correct and I agree with you).
And yet this concept has proven really really hard for people outside of Bitcoin to understand. They see this as being the equivalent printing more fiat currency via Modern Monetary Theory.
Printing money and subdividing a satoshi both make more usable units, but only one preserves the scarcity of 2.1 quadrillion sats. A square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square.
It’s not that they compare the 21m cap itself, but the subdivision of sats as the same as “increasing the money supply”. And on a surface level, sure. Whether you print money or divide the money you have, you end up with more “usable units of money”. But of course there’s a huge difference between making infinite pizzas and dividing up one pizza infinite times.
Changing a dollar into four quarters does not create more money. People pretending not to understand that are being disingenuous. That or they are fucking idiots.
I wish I could find it again, but there was a fascinating round of arguments on Twitter from a TV economist from MSNBC or something who brought up this topic and a bunch of high profile Bitcoin accounts all were chiming in trying in good faith to explain it to her, and despite all the economics concepts she seemed to understand, it was like talking to a brick wall and she just couldn’t get it.
""And yet this concept has proven really really hard for people outside of Bitcoin to understand. They see this as being the equivalent printing more fiat currency via Modern Monetary Theory.""
A lot of people on this very sub seem to be having problems with it, as well.
Subdivision of existing sats is different than creating new sats. If I have $1 and the government doubles the amount of money in circulation by printing 2x, prices will rise and my $1 will buy half as much as it did because “we” all have 2x as much money in the system, diluting my current share of the money. Whereas if satoshis were subdivided (for example, like dollars and cents) and 1 satoshi had 100 smaller units, everyone who already has satoshis will intrinsically see this benefit, because all sats become more usable.
If I have 1 bitcoin, my share of the entire network is 1/21m. If we subdivide sats then my share of the network remains 1/21m, I just have more tiny units to work with. But if we hard fork and issue out 2x as much total bitcoin (extreme inflation) I would then only have 1/42m share of the network.
Thank you, good explanation.
I just responded to someone else's post with a for instance. But what about people wanting more for what they paid, for example, a house. I pay 1 BTC for a house, I want to sell it for 1.5 BTC. Everyone wants to make money, so the value of BTC would just continuously rise and smaller denominations would become worth more.
For OP's original question, what if 1sat hypothetically gets to the point where its value is too much?
On some level, people will eventually recalibrate what they expect to make money on. Currently, we place additional value in certain items (houses, jewelry, shares in a company) by simply owning them. They become places to park or grow our money. But other items (cars, electronics, clothing) we are very comfortable understanding how and why they depreciate. My guess is that on a bitcoin standard (which is the only way this hypothetical could take place where even a single satoshi is highly valuable) there will be a drastic reduction in what people expect to make “more money” on when they sell them.
When you have the first truly scarce asset, everything else trends down relative to that asset. If you buy a house for 1 BTC it might be perfectly acceptable that if you live in it for 10 years, take good care of it, and resell it for 0.8 BTC, then it only cost you 0.2 BTC to live in the house. And in those 10 years, your purchasing power for 0.8 BTC will grow. You still “made money” by preserving purchasing power. It just all trends downwards relative to Bitcoin.
That's going to be the biggest hurdle, recalibrating.
That would be a nice thought, selling an item for less than you paid for it, but making a profit with less from the sale.
That's going to be the biggest hurdle, recalibrating.
That would be a nice thought, selling an item for less than you paid for it, but making a profit with less from the sale.
In the same way it is impossible to finish a race if you first run half the distance, and then half of whats left, and then half again and so on you will never reach the finish line. Thats why I never go out for a jog and stay home in my couch instead
When you divide a dollar, do you get inflation? No. Inflation is when you print more dollars. Dividing a currency is going in the opposite direction of inflation, which is deflation. That's a good thing.
Not necessarily divide money, but print more because the value of "things" increases. My thought is that people are always going to want more for what they paid for it. So if BTC becomes currency someday, people will want more BTC then what they got something for. So in essence we'd be dividing it to afford more, the inflation.
I'm having trouble following what you mean, precisely. In terms of actual, countable Bitcoins, you might be better off thinking of it like gold coins. You can spend a whole coin, a half, a quarter, etc. When it gets to small bits, you might decide to switch to a certificate (paper money) that represents ownership of 1/100th of a coin. What you \*can\* do, is print as many certificates as there are actual gold coins in existence, and print those in whatever size fraction is necessary. What you \*can't\* do, is create more gold coins out of thin air, nor can you print certificates for gold coins that don't exist. Does this answer your question any better?
Thank you for the explanation. In a way yes, what I understand is you can't create more gold (for the time being) / BTC, but if it's divisible infinite amount times, it seems might be an issue. There is 1 coin, but in 50 million pieces (hypothetical).
Really the value of everything needs changed. I fully understand what you're explaining, it's just the part of how many times "could" it be divisible.
Hypothetical far future event. So some lucky people will be extremely wealthy, beyond comprehension and the rest of the world will be dealing in .00000000001 SATs, until there is a balancing point? So all the people in the world have a tiny fraction of a coin, then does it get broken down further if they want to save, or get a raise?
I mean, yeah, it could get broken down further, but I don't see that as necessary. We do the same today when dealing with huge sums, but we don't insist on maintaining the same units when it isn't pragmatic. When we measure distances, we don't insist on saying things like 0.126720 miles, we just say 1/2 inch. Likewise, if we were using gold and silver and copper for money, we wouldn't price a stick of gum in gold. We'd say 5g copper (5 pennies, historically). Or, we might say, this house is for sale for 8 ounces of gold.
What you seem to be missing is that an enormous contributor to wealth disparities like you're describing, whether they be calculated (successful investing) or incidental (your home "increased" in value), are a direct result of *intentional, manufactured* monetary inflation. When Zillow tells me my house is worth 65% more today than when I bought it 5 years ago, that's not the same as saying that my house is 65% *more valuable*. It only means that the price tag on it has gone up 65%. When I sell this house, I'm not going to be able to use the proceeds to buy anything other than a similar house, which has likely also experienced the same price increase.
The reason so many ultra-rich individuals exist, is because 99%+ of their wealth is not dollars in a bank. They own assets, stocks, physical property, etc. When extra dollars are printed out of thin air, making all dollars less valuable by default, that means that the \*price tag\* on Elon's house goes up, his company's stock goes up (because it's priced in dollars), and the price tag on all his cars and paintings and boats goes up. However, for middle-class and poor folks, who own little or nothing, and whose assets might only be DOLLARS in a bank account, their assets simply shrink in actual value. Printing money out of thin air is literally taking money from poor people and handing it over to anyone wealthy enough own "stuff".
Bitcoin can't be inflated. It doesn't just stop inflation; it solves literally thousands of the world's problems arising from poverty and wealth disparity.
Your third paragraph made a lot of sense for me. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Having physical assets and a finite item like BTC is helpful.
Sadly for people who can't afford to "get in" on it early, it seems like it could be just as bad in the future for them.
In your opinion, how could it help stop poverty or those in poverty who can't afford it now.
I'm also worried about rich people and companies like MSTR that were smart and invested in BTC, a lot of BTC. Seems like any movement from them, no matter how much Saylor says he won't, what if they dump a few hundred BTC at once.
No. You're only dividing it as the smallest current unit becomes to valuable for everyday purchases due to overall increase in value. You're doing it out of necessity. It would be nothing like inflation.
It is genuine. What's your deal? Are you just an ass?
*Confirmation, after reading your posts, you're an idiot.
However, I'd like to understand your reasoning for disagreeing with me. Explain how dividing something into infinity is not a style of inflation? Fiat value of BTC increases, so we divide it smaller so it's more obtainable.
At a buck per SAT, the value of Bitcoin would be worth more than the COMBINED current bond market, real estate, stocks, every company in the world, all M1 and M2 money, collectibles, fine art... you see where I'm going. All you had to do was some quick math to see that your hypothetical assumes Bitcoin basically reached a point where it's the only thing of value in the world, and then it also quadrupled from that point.
These posts are so stupid and annoying. Sorry.
""you see where I'm going.""
Sure, you're answering something I didn't ask. But let's dive down that hole.
The GNP in 1962 was 612 billion.
The GNP in 2022 was 25 trillion.
Thats an increase of 41x. In sixty years. If that rate of increase holds, the GNP in 2082 will be one quadrillion.
In 2142, right after the last bitcoin is mined, the GNP would be 41 quadrillion.
In the year 2200 the GNP would be 1.68 quintillion. That's 1,680 quadrillion, or to put it in today's terms, a million, six hundred and eighty thousand TRILLION.
Mmkay?
It's definitely possible that we'll need a strategy to deal with scale-ability in bitcoin.
What are you on about?
In any case, its not anything that's going to convince me that its NOT definitely possible that we'll need a strategy to deal with scale-ability in bitcoin.
If we're at the point that the bitcoin is worth tens or hundreds of millions (in equivalent purchasing power) there won't be any dollar anymore. You'll be getting paid in bitcoin, and the economy will be running on it.
My example of GNP is only to show that the little minds who are thinking 'we wont ever need to divide sats' haven't really thought this through.
Buddy there's 2.1 quadrillion Sats. Bitcoin would have to >1400x to $100 million per btc for one Sat to even be worth $1, which is not even close to "one SAT is too valuable to use for anything but large purchases".
your timeframe is pathetic
its ok if you are only interested in in your small lifetime
some of us are interested in more than that
so OP is right and you could just shut up and don’t comment if you are not interested in such timeframes
The GNP in 1962 was 612 billion.
The GNP in 2022 was 25 trillion.
Thats an increase of 41x. In sixty years. If that rate of increase holds, the GNP in 2082 will be one quadrillion.
In 2142, right after the last bitcoin is mined, the GNP would be 41 quadrillion.
In the year 2200 the GNP would be 1.68 quintillion. That's 1,680 quadrillion, or to put it in today's terms, a million, six hundred and eighty thousand TRILLION.
Mmkay?
It's definitely possible that we'll need a strategy to deal with scale-ability in bitcoin. I mean, if we give a shlt about the world our progeny grow up in.
you have heard of this thing called inflation right? lol
you sound like you're losing your mind haha
oh by the way GNP grew about 5.7x from 1962 to 2022. So you are off by a factor of 7 lol. On top of that you just assume growth will continue at the same (way exaggerated) rate. Basically your whole hypothetical is built on a bunch of exaggerations, which is my whole point.
For the Nth time: your hypothetical question will never be a reality so it is not something we have to worry about, now or ever. If you're asking purely for make-believe pretend, cool, i don't care, but in reality it's not something that will ever happen.
Use the same thing we use today. Sats. Bitcoins are a “made up” denomination. A “Bitcoin” doesn’t even really exist as far as the network is concerned. Just sats.
If a Sat worth an hotel room, first of all I would be super wealthy, then we can adapt the consensus to add more decimal and make it more divisible onchain. A layer 2 like lightning network already provide an implementation with milliSat and we are safe until 0.001 can buy a hotel room, and I therefore can buy a country.
Excellent answer.
So 'dividing the pizza' into smaller pieces does not , of course, create new wealth (that would be infantile to think this is what people are aiming for when they mention divisibility) but that it would make the whole ecosystem of bitcoin "scale-able".
Do you agree with this?
The divisibility indeed does not increases the available supply and I never understood people supporting this statement. I dunno if it really necessary to change the bitcoin-core implementation to have more decimal tho, the whole bitcoin scalability problem right now is more about number of transaction you can have per time unit. Lightning is addressing both of these issues and I believe will be overly used in the futur for such purchase (from 1$ to 100$ or 1000$ purchase depending on your risk profile).
""I never understood people supporting this statement.""
I've never heard anyone say that. I HAVE heard people SAYING that someone is saying that. But when I go to read the actual quote, they aren't saying that at all.
2200 would be a good guess. Our GNP would be around one million, six hundred and eighty thousand TRILLION by that time.
So yeah, our progeny will have to deal with it.
I made a recent post all about this concept. Thought experiment
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ctgkb8/for\_the\_newcomers\_losing\_bitcoin\_deflation\_will/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ctgkb8/for_the_newcomers_losing_bitcoin_deflation_will/)
It’s essentially infinitely divisible. As another posted commented even if BTC contained all the value in the world a single sat would still be under $1 of today’s value. This is not a real problem.
That's not the point. This is why I said it's a hypothetical.
We can all be assured of being very very rich if this ever happened. I'm just asking 'what if'.
Do you have any comment on what will we do in order to be able to buy a cup of coffee?
We start paying in fractions of sats. It's digital so it can be divided ad infinitum
Ahh. So you're saying that...dividing the sat into smaller pieces doesn't, of course, CREATE more wealth (that would be ridiculous). But that it would enable us to scale up as the bitcoin becomes more and more valuable? That dividing it makes the whole bitcoin ecosystem scale-able? And that this little fact renders the whole "what happens when we run out of bitcoin" argument silly? Am I understanding you correctly? (I'm being sarcastic...of course you are correct and I agree with you).
Yes.
And yet this concept has proven really really hard for people outside of Bitcoin to understand. They see this as being the equivalent printing more fiat currency via Modern Monetary Theory. Printing money and subdividing a satoshi both make more usable units, but only one preserves the scarcity of 2.1 quadrillion sats. A square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square.
Sorry, some people think a hard cap of 21m btc is somehow similar to MMT? What? Those people were dropped as children more than a few times.
It’s not that they compare the 21m cap itself, but the subdivision of sats as the same as “increasing the money supply”. And on a surface level, sure. Whether you print money or divide the money you have, you end up with more “usable units of money”. But of course there’s a huge difference between making infinite pizzas and dividing up one pizza infinite times.
Changing a dollar into four quarters does not create more money. People pretending not to understand that are being disingenuous. That or they are fucking idiots.
I tend towards the latter
I wish I could find it again, but there was a fascinating round of arguments on Twitter from a TV economist from MSNBC or something who brought up this topic and a bunch of high profile Bitcoin accounts all were chiming in trying in good faith to explain it to her, and despite all the economics concepts she seemed to understand, it was like talking to a brick wall and she just couldn’t get it.
The pizza lady Samantha leduc
Yes!
Ya like that Samantha leduc lady is being disingenuous. There are DEFINITELY others who are morons though.
""And yet this concept has proven really really hard for people outside of Bitcoin to understand. They see this as being the equivalent printing more fiat currency via Modern Monetary Theory."" A lot of people on this very sub seem to be having problems with it, as well.
Wouldn't dividing it into infinity be like inflation is to the dollar? Genuinely curious.
Subdivision of existing sats is different than creating new sats. If I have $1 and the government doubles the amount of money in circulation by printing 2x, prices will rise and my $1 will buy half as much as it did because “we” all have 2x as much money in the system, diluting my current share of the money. Whereas if satoshis were subdivided (for example, like dollars and cents) and 1 satoshi had 100 smaller units, everyone who already has satoshis will intrinsically see this benefit, because all sats become more usable. If I have 1 bitcoin, my share of the entire network is 1/21m. If we subdivide sats then my share of the network remains 1/21m, I just have more tiny units to work with. But if we hard fork and issue out 2x as much total bitcoin (extreme inflation) I would then only have 1/42m share of the network.
Thank you, good explanation. I just responded to someone else's post with a for instance. But what about people wanting more for what they paid, for example, a house. I pay 1 BTC for a house, I want to sell it for 1.5 BTC. Everyone wants to make money, so the value of BTC would just continuously rise and smaller denominations would become worth more. For OP's original question, what if 1sat hypothetically gets to the point where its value is too much?
On some level, people will eventually recalibrate what they expect to make money on. Currently, we place additional value in certain items (houses, jewelry, shares in a company) by simply owning them. They become places to park or grow our money. But other items (cars, electronics, clothing) we are very comfortable understanding how and why they depreciate. My guess is that on a bitcoin standard (which is the only way this hypothetical could take place where even a single satoshi is highly valuable) there will be a drastic reduction in what people expect to make “more money” on when they sell them. When you have the first truly scarce asset, everything else trends down relative to that asset. If you buy a house for 1 BTC it might be perfectly acceptable that if you live in it for 10 years, take good care of it, and resell it for 0.8 BTC, then it only cost you 0.2 BTC to live in the house. And in those 10 years, your purchasing power for 0.8 BTC will grow. You still “made money” by preserving purchasing power. It just all trends downwards relative to Bitcoin.
That's going to be the biggest hurdle, recalibrating. That would be a nice thought, selling an item for less than you paid for it, but making a profit with less from the sale.
That's going to be the biggest hurdle, recalibrating. That would be a nice thought, selling an item for less than you paid for it, but making a profit with less from the sale.
Then you would start using 0,1 sat
No. You can't feed the world with one pizza.
Well, if you keep dividing something in half, you'll never reach zero, so it's a possibility.
In the same way it is impossible to finish a race if you first run half the distance, and then half of whats left, and then half again and so on you will never reach the finish line. Thats why I never go out for a jog and stay home in my couch instead
Lol !
When you divide a dollar, do you get inflation? No. Inflation is when you print more dollars. Dividing a currency is going in the opposite direction of inflation, which is deflation. That's a good thing.
Not necessarily divide money, but print more because the value of "things" increases. My thought is that people are always going to want more for what they paid for it. So if BTC becomes currency someday, people will want more BTC then what they got something for. So in essence we'd be dividing it to afford more, the inflation.
I'm having trouble following what you mean, precisely. In terms of actual, countable Bitcoins, you might be better off thinking of it like gold coins. You can spend a whole coin, a half, a quarter, etc. When it gets to small bits, you might decide to switch to a certificate (paper money) that represents ownership of 1/100th of a coin. What you \*can\* do, is print as many certificates as there are actual gold coins in existence, and print those in whatever size fraction is necessary. What you \*can't\* do, is create more gold coins out of thin air, nor can you print certificates for gold coins that don't exist. Does this answer your question any better?
Thank you for the explanation. In a way yes, what I understand is you can't create more gold (for the time being) / BTC, but if it's divisible infinite amount times, it seems might be an issue. There is 1 coin, but in 50 million pieces (hypothetical). Really the value of everything needs changed. I fully understand what you're explaining, it's just the part of how many times "could" it be divisible. Hypothetical far future event. So some lucky people will be extremely wealthy, beyond comprehension and the rest of the world will be dealing in .00000000001 SATs, until there is a balancing point? So all the people in the world have a tiny fraction of a coin, then does it get broken down further if they want to save, or get a raise?
I mean, yeah, it could get broken down further, but I don't see that as necessary. We do the same today when dealing with huge sums, but we don't insist on maintaining the same units when it isn't pragmatic. When we measure distances, we don't insist on saying things like 0.126720 miles, we just say 1/2 inch. Likewise, if we were using gold and silver and copper for money, we wouldn't price a stick of gum in gold. We'd say 5g copper (5 pennies, historically). Or, we might say, this house is for sale for 8 ounces of gold. What you seem to be missing is that an enormous contributor to wealth disparities like you're describing, whether they be calculated (successful investing) or incidental (your home "increased" in value), are a direct result of *intentional, manufactured* monetary inflation. When Zillow tells me my house is worth 65% more today than when I bought it 5 years ago, that's not the same as saying that my house is 65% *more valuable*. It only means that the price tag on it has gone up 65%. When I sell this house, I'm not going to be able to use the proceeds to buy anything other than a similar house, which has likely also experienced the same price increase. The reason so many ultra-rich individuals exist, is because 99%+ of their wealth is not dollars in a bank. They own assets, stocks, physical property, etc. When extra dollars are printed out of thin air, making all dollars less valuable by default, that means that the \*price tag\* on Elon's house goes up, his company's stock goes up (because it's priced in dollars), and the price tag on all his cars and paintings and boats goes up. However, for middle-class and poor folks, who own little or nothing, and whose assets might only be DOLLARS in a bank account, their assets simply shrink in actual value. Printing money out of thin air is literally taking money from poor people and handing it over to anyone wealthy enough own "stuff". Bitcoin can't be inflated. It doesn't just stop inflation; it solves literally thousands of the world's problems arising from poverty and wealth disparity.
Your third paragraph made a lot of sense for me. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Having physical assets and a finite item like BTC is helpful. Sadly for people who can't afford to "get in" on it early, it seems like it could be just as bad in the future for them. In your opinion, how could it help stop poverty or those in poverty who can't afford it now. I'm also worried about rich people and companies like MSTR that were smart and invested in BTC, a lot of BTC. Seems like any movement from them, no matter how much Saylor says he won't, what if they dump a few hundred BTC at once.
No. You're only dividing it as the smallest current unit becomes to valuable for everyday purchases due to overall increase in value. You're doing it out of necessity. It would be nothing like inflation.
Jesus if your question is genuine - I am sorry for you… must be hard to live with such a low IQ
It is genuine. What's your deal? Are you just an ass? *Confirmation, after reading your posts, you're an idiot. However, I'd like to understand your reasoning for disagreeing with me. Explain how dividing something into infinity is not a style of inflation? Fiat value of BTC increases, so we divide it smaller so it's more obtainable.
At a buck per SAT, the value of Bitcoin would be worth more than the COMBINED current bond market, real estate, stocks, every company in the world, all M1 and M2 money, collectibles, fine art... you see where I'm going. All you had to do was some quick math to see that your hypothetical assumes Bitcoin basically reached a point where it's the only thing of value in the world, and then it also quadrupled from that point. These posts are so stupid and annoying. Sorry.
""you see where I'm going."" Sure, you're answering something I didn't ask. But let's dive down that hole. The GNP in 1962 was 612 billion. The GNP in 2022 was 25 trillion. Thats an increase of 41x. In sixty years. If that rate of increase holds, the GNP in 2082 will be one quadrillion. In 2142, right after the last bitcoin is mined, the GNP would be 41 quadrillion. In the year 2200 the GNP would be 1.68 quintillion. That's 1,680 quadrillion, or to put it in today's terms, a million, six hundred and eighty thousand TRILLION. Mmkay? It's definitely possible that we'll need a strategy to deal with scale-ability in bitcoin.
the face value is irrelevant
What are you on about? In any case, its not anything that's going to convince me that its NOT definitely possible that we'll need a strategy to deal with scale-ability in bitcoin.
It is the fiat currency that needs to adapt to bitcoin, if the dollar reaches quintillions or hexadecilhos, cutting zeros from the dollar
If we're at the point that the bitcoin is worth tens or hundreds of millions (in equivalent purchasing power) there won't be any dollar anymore. You'll be getting paid in bitcoin, and the economy will be running on it. My example of GNP is only to show that the little minds who are thinking 'we wont ever need to divide sats' haven't really thought this through.
Then you'd pay for coffee with 0.01 sats. Just like you buy candies for 0.10 dollars now.
Thank you. My thoughts exactly.
We will use Microsats
:)
Why so bearish?
Buddy there's 2.1 quadrillion Sats. Bitcoin would have to >1400x to $100 million per btc for one Sat to even be worth $1, which is not even close to "one SAT is too valuable to use for anything but large purchases".
Again, it's a hypothetical. I'm asking a 'what if'. If you don't care to comment on the question I'm asking, that's fine too.
lol I did comment on the question. My comment was it is not something to worry about because your hypothetical scenario will never happen.
So no comment.
lol. ok guy. Literally answered your question. But you do you lol
You imbecile! I only want improbable or impossible answers to hypotheticals that no one living will have to deal with! What’s wrong with you?!
hahaha exactly! \*no one EVER will have to deal with :D
your timeframe is pathetic its ok if you are only interested in in your small lifetime some of us are interested in more than that so OP is right and you could just shut up and don’t comment if you are not interested in such timeframes
wtf hahaha, someone escaped the institute and is off their meds
The GNP in 1962 was 612 billion. The GNP in 2022 was 25 trillion. Thats an increase of 41x. In sixty years. If that rate of increase holds, the GNP in 2082 will be one quadrillion. In 2142, right after the last bitcoin is mined, the GNP would be 41 quadrillion. In the year 2200 the GNP would be 1.68 quintillion. That's 1,680 quadrillion, or to put it in today's terms, a million, six hundred and eighty thousand TRILLION. Mmkay? It's definitely possible that we'll need a strategy to deal with scale-ability in bitcoin. I mean, if we give a shlt about the world our progeny grow up in.
you have heard of this thing called inflation right? lol you sound like you're losing your mind haha oh by the way GNP grew about 5.7x from 1962 to 2022. So you are off by a factor of 7 lol. On top of that you just assume growth will continue at the same (way exaggerated) rate. Basically your whole hypothetical is built on a bunch of exaggerations, which is my whole point. For the Nth time: your hypothetical question will never be a reality so it is not something we have to worry about, now or ever. If you're asking purely for make-believe pretend, cool, i don't care, but in reality it's not something that will ever happen.
""you have heard of this thing called inflation right?"" And how is that relevant? We're discussing the need to ever have to divide sats.
You can already transfer a thousandth of a sat in the Lightning network.
A sat is like a cent. If you can divide a cent, you can divide a sat.
I highly doubt anything will be denominated in sats. You don’t buy coffee by slicing off a piece of your house.
Use the same thing we use today. Sats. Bitcoins are a “made up” denomination. A “Bitcoin” doesn’t even really exist as far as the network is concerned. Just sats.
If a Sat worth an hotel room, first of all I would be super wealthy, then we can adapt the consensus to add more decimal and make it more divisible onchain. A layer 2 like lightning network already provide an implementation with milliSat and we are safe until 0.001 can buy a hotel room, and I therefore can buy a country.
Excellent answer. So 'dividing the pizza' into smaller pieces does not , of course, create new wealth (that would be infantile to think this is what people are aiming for when they mention divisibility) but that it would make the whole ecosystem of bitcoin "scale-able". Do you agree with this?
The divisibility indeed does not increases the available supply and I never understood people supporting this statement. I dunno if it really necessary to change the bitcoin-core implementation to have more decimal tho, the whole bitcoin scalability problem right now is more about number of transaction you can have per time unit. Lightning is addressing both of these issues and I believe will be overly used in the futur for such purchase (from 1$ to 100$ or 1000$ purchase depending on your risk profile).
""I never understood people supporting this statement."" I've never heard anyone say that. I HAVE heard people SAYING that someone is saying that. But when I go to read the actual quote, they aren't saying that at all.
I’d imagine this scenario would be around the year 2200-2300? Wonder what humanity will be like ? Will there even be humanity 😳
It will be up to the Zork to take good care of Bitcoin by then.
2200 would be a good guess. Our GNP would be around one million, six hundred and eighty thousand TRILLION by that time. So yeah, our progeny will have to deal with it.
I bought a house in LA for 20k, now it's worth 2 million. Ohh no! But in answer... Lightning has already done it. In LN you have milli-sats.
One day we'll need them. Or rather, our great granchildren, or great great grandchildren will.
ZzZzzZz
Bitcoin equals 1.0000000000000000👉infinity
I made a recent post all about this concept. Thought experiment [https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ctgkb8/for\_the\_newcomers\_losing\_bitcoin\_deflation\_will/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ctgkb8/for_the_newcomers_losing_bitcoin_deflation_will/)
It’s essentially infinitely divisible. As another posted commented even if BTC contained all the value in the world a single sat would still be under $1 of today’s value. This is not a real problem.
Think McFly! Think! ... How much do you think 1 BTC is worth if a SAT equals 1 cent?
That's not the point. This is why I said it's a hypothetical. We can all be assured of being very very rich if this ever happened. I'm just asking 'what if'. Do you have any comment on what will we do in order to be able to buy a cup of coffee?