[markjo]

Dollars are unlimited. The government can print however many they want, and they typically do just that.

Incorrect.  The value of a dollar is, at least in part, proportional to the number of dollars in circulation.  Having too many dollars in circulation has the effect of devaluing the dollar and that generally is not considered a good thing.

What's to stop someone from changing the protocol to allow for more bitcoins to be generated?

Nothing. The problem lies in that you will be the only one to have changed your protocol. You are now a bitcoin network of 1. Congratulations on your expansive but worthless collection of Markjo-coins.

  Also, if the number of bitcoins is to be limited, how can they generate enough for everyone to use?

You can have 10^-8 bitcoin.

So you're saying that no one can ever change 10^8 to 10^12 at the source?

  What's to prevent bitcoin hoarding?

Nothing. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with hoarding.

Incorrect.  If no one is spending bitcoins, then what's the point?  Currency only has value when you try to exchange it for something else.

[Rushy]

Incorrect.  The value of a dollar is, at least in part, proportional to the number of dollars in circulation.  Having too many dollars in circulation has the effect of devaluing the dollar and that generally is not considered a good thing.

The only thing the value of the dollar is correlated to is how much people think it is worth. USD inflation is about ~1% a year but the Federal Reserve prints more money than 1% of the total amount in circulation in a year.

So you're saying that no one can ever change 10^8 to 10^12 at the source?

Of course they can. Bitcoin is open source, you can change whatever you want to. Getting millions of other people to change theirs too is the problem. Bitcoin is a network, there is no giant server that says "BITCOIN" on it and controls the whole network.

If no one is spending bitcoins, then what's the point?  Currency only has value when you try to exchange it for something else.

Well then, its a good thing people are spending bitcoins then, isn't it? You need to come up with some better points, markjo. I won't entertain your trolling forever.

[Alchemist21]

You skipped my question about 3rd parties.

[Rama Set]

I am not sure if tis has been covered elsewhere but what inherent properties, if any, of bitcoin makes it a secure currency against counterfeiting and money-laundering?

[Rushy]

You skipped my question about 3rd parties.

There is no third party in bitcoin. You have a sender and a receiver. No one else partakes in bitcoin transactions. Miners record transactions, they can not modify them in any way. You don't get to choose which blocks your transaction goes into, I'm not even sure why you would want to.

I am not sure if tis has been covered elsewhere but what inherent properties, if any, of bitcoin makes it a secure currency against counterfeiting and money-laundering?

Bitcoin can not be counterfeited as of today. If for any reason elliptic curve cryptography is broken in the future then my previous statement will no longer be true. However since cryptography is prevalent throughout the internet, bitcoins would be my least worry if elliptic curves are broken.

Money laundering is a different beast entirely. Bitcoin addresses can be traced, so it isn't exactly a good currency to use for theft or other illegal activities in the first place. That said, it has been used for money laundering. The dollar would actually win out between the two as being the best vehicle for illegal activity.

[Alchemist21]

Oh.  I thought transactions were mediated by a 3rd party client.

As for the transactions it's good that they can't be controlled, because otherwise I could see a situation where a ring of hackers modify their client to artificially increase their number of bitcoins and use each others' clients to validate the change for the network.

[Rushy]

Oh.  I thought transactions were mediated by a 3rd party client.

As for the transactions it's good that they can't be controlled, because otherwise I could see a situation where a ring of hackers modify their client to artificially increase their number of bitcoins and use each others' clients to validate the change for the network.

A client that is different from the others cannot modify the others, even if there are more of them. Each version of Bitcoin is not just an updated client, it is literally a different network. This is why Litecoin, Peercoin, Dogecoin, etc. exist. They are Bitcoin clients, just with minor (or in the case of Peercoin, major) changes.

There is nothing stopping me from turning Bitcoin into RushyCoin. The problem lies in convincing everyone to use RushyCoins instead of Bitcoins, a feat no competing network has accomplished.

[Vindictus]

Can I tip you in dogecoins?

[Rushy]

Can I tip you in dogecoins?

I'd prefer you donate to a charity. I never seriously ask for money, the donation address below is a joke.

Unless of course you plan on giving me a billion dogecoins, I'll take that.

[Benjamin Franklin]

@Ben Franklin, either ask a question or make a real argument. I have no time for your petty one word replies.

Why do you post incorrect things in a thread where you are supposed to be answering questions? You should at least disclose when you're talking about things you don't understand.

[Rushy]

Why do you post incorrect things in a thread where you are supposed to be answering questions? You should at least disclose when you're talking about things you don't understand.

Point out precisely why and how it's wrong and I'll correct my statement. Continue to post one-word replies with no evidence and I'll simply ignore you entirely.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Point out precisely why and how it's wrong and I'll correct my statement. Continue to post one-word replies with no evidence and I'll simply ignore you entirely.

There is not an unlimited supply of US dollars. If there was, it wouldn't be a viable currency, by definition.

[spank86]

Point out precisely why and how it's wrong and I'll correct my statement. Continue to post one-word replies with no evidence and I'll simply ignore you entirely.

There is not an unlimited supply of US dollars. If there was, it wouldn't be a viable currency, by definition.

There's not an unlimited supply of anything, the supply of US dollars does however have the potential to be almost unlimited, far more so than bitcoin.

[Benjamin Franklin]

There's not an unlimited supply of anything, the supply of US dollars does however have the potential to be almost unlimited, far more so than bitcoin.

...I find it far more likely that someone would find a way to exploit Bitcoin to produce infinite bitcoin than I do that the Federal Reserve would order infinite dollar bills, and that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and would then proceed to attempt to produce infinite dollars.

Of course, I don't see either of those events at likely, just one more so. Regardless, the control of the money supply is quite closely monitored and regulated. Hence, it is not unlimited. To suggest that there is an unlimited supply, or the "potential to be unlimited" is pretty clear evidence you haven't even read some basic Wikipedia articles, let alone taken an introductory Economics class.

[Thork]

There's not an unlimited supply of anything, the supply of US dollars does however have the potential to be almost unlimited, far more so than bitcoin.

...I find it far more likely that someone would find a way to exploit Bitcoin to produce infinite bitcoin than I do that the Federal Reserve would order infinite dollar bills, and that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and would then proceed to attempt to produce infinite dollars.

Of course, I don't see either of those events at likely, just one more so. Regardless, the control of the money supply is quite closely monitored and regulated. Hence, it is not unlimited. To suggest that there is an unlimited supply, or the "potential to be unlimited" is pretty clear evidence you haven't even read some basic Wikipedia articles, let alone taken an introductory Economics class.

They don't need to print the money on to notes. Just type the number into a computer. In that sense US dollars are limitless. They can transfer 1000 trillion dollars into the treasury account if they like. But they won't because it would ruin the seriously good racket they have going right now.

[Pete Svarrior]

They don't need to print the money on to notes. Just type the number into a computer. In that sense US dollars are limitless. They can transfer 1000 trillion dollars into the treasury account if they like. But they won't because it would ruin the seriously good racket they have going right now.

That's not how money works, not even in America.

[spank86]

There's not an unlimited supply of anything, the supply of US dollars does however have the potential to be almost unlimited, far more so than bitcoin.

...I find it far more likely that someone would find a way to exploit Bitcoin to produce infinite bitcoin than I do that the Federal Reserve would order infinite dollar bills, and that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and would then proceed to attempt to produce infinite dollars.

Of course, I don't see either of those events at likely, just one more so. Regardless, the control of the money supply is quite closely monitored and regulated. Hence, it is not unlimited. To suggest that there is an unlimited supply, or the "potential to be unlimited" is pretty clear evidence you haven't even read some basic Wikipedia articles, let alone taken an introductory Economics class.

I'm aware of the consequences of producing infinite money, but the potential IS there, and money can also be forged fairly effectively (even assuming you actually require a paper copy), certainly easier than a bitcoin can currently be forged assuming you have an internet connection to verify it.

[Thork]

They don't need to print the money on to notes. Just type the number into a computer. In that sense US dollars are limitless. They can transfer 1000 trillion dollars into the treasury account if they like. But they won't because it would ruin the seriously good racket they have going right now.

That's not how money works, not even in America.

they'd have to send bonds the other way. I didn't want to make a huge detailed post just to tell Franklin that he is wrong again.

[Pete Svarrior]

they'd have to send bonds the other way. I didn't want to make a huge detailed post just to tell Franklin that he is wrong again.

Being wrong is not a good way to tell others they're wrong. It creates a (false?) perception that only legitimises their claims.

[Alchemist21]

If it was truly unlimited I don't think the trillion-dollar platinum coin idea would have been shot down.