Perhaps this is just a difference between integer based systems and decimal based systems. In an integer system there’s no way to make it divisible without adding more integers. In a decimal based system, you can go as small as you want but it’s all the same amount of units.

One of my friends was arguing that if you can go to infinitely small amounts that’s a type of inflation and I don’t understand how he thinks that (under a decimal based system)

This has really been my original question (except I didn’t know bitcoin was integer based and not decimal based).

And talking about units was actually tricky

As far as I can see now, if bitcoin was decimal based and infinitely divisible, that alone would not make it inflationary instead of deflationary.

Is ^ true?

This is what I’ve been arguing with my friends about.

Would decimals not have worked because of computational reasons like floating point division errors?

If we, hypothetically, had a world without those errors and decimal math would be perfect, could we have infinite divisiblity without it actually adding more to the total supply?

#asknostr

Could bitcoin have been made with decimals instead of integers for representing wallet amounts and transaction amounts, for infinite divisibility? I’m asking both practically and theoretically.

I really mean “positive real numbers” when I say decimals.

Practically I understand there might be floating point division and rounding errors that could prevent it, and maybe that’s why Satoshi didn’t do it, but what if that wasn’t an issue? If we suspend those types of computational math errors and say, hypothetically we have a world where those errors don’t exist, would a decimal based bitcoin otherwise work? And in that world would it be okay that it’s infinitely divisible, or are there other problems that crop up?

Could you have started with decimals (instead of integers) from the beginning? Then it’s all the same unit, it’s just names like dollar vs penny to describe amounts.

When I say decimals I really mean “positive real numbers” that starts with some arbitrary cap, like 2.1 quadrillion.

Referring to boobs as buns doesn’t bother me as much as I expected

If you keep the distinction between the old units (aka sats) and new units (aka millisats) then it would be fair to say “sats weren’t diluted”?

Spot on

How many sets does it take you to do 300 pull ups?

Feels amazing to ask a serious question, get quality engagement from internet strangers, and then send them real money to show your appreciation

#onlyonnostr

Wait I think I figured it out!

When the government prints money or new gold is mined, that new money goes to a tiny portion of people, it is not evenly distributed, therefore you lose purchasing power as someone holding money outside of those who receive newly minted units.

When you make units more divisble, like adding millisats, that’s like evenly distributing new units to everyone proportionate to their existing purchasing power, so no one’s purchasing power changes.

Is this correct?

Listened to podcast and now I understand that:

Bitcoin currently is not infinitely divisible, there are simply 2.1 quadrillion Satoshis.

(This is a new thing I learned today thanks to you)

What I still don’t understand, is that if we were to actually create millisats (somehow), we would not be increasing the total supply of bitcoin as described here:

nostr:note19et32uy3v44qtk99vuguhu5syf93f4cmmwa2mc7nv8rwl3wt6naqhjnenc

Or am I wrong about the millisats not increasing total supply?

I read those tweets and… I still don’t get it.

Am I a flat-earther but replace “flat-earth” with “infinite divisibility does not mean infinite supply”?

Am I missing some basic logic / reasoning here?

At this point I know more people who say “infinite divisibility means infinite supply” and I’m losing my mind.

nostr:npub1zt8u9mz68x3e6qhey8mhuuqahst4kc587gka7qj84uuhq6t878vsn7yx9r you are too kind to bear with my misunderstanding here, I’m off to listen to that podcast clip now

You are amazing, thanks

I bet scrolling #global is the closest thing we have to understanding how the aliens view humanity

This is what I don’t understand (btw thank you for helping me hash this out):

“multiplication of the number of units that represent the same value therefore inflation”

I think I’m trying to make this point, tell me what you think:

Starting with 100 total and increasing to 1000 causes inflation (aka money printing), but starting with 100 and increasing it to be more divisible DOES NOT cause the same kind of inflation.

Appreciate you. I think the problem my friends are having is more fundamental. If there’s 100 units of a currency, then making it divisible by another decimal place is the same as saying there are 1000 units.

I constructed a quick thought experiment that I think breaks this and this seemed to sway a 3rd friend who I talked to:

Thought experiment:

Scenario 1 - we have 100 units of currency and there are teacups available for purchase. The price of a teacup can never be more than 100 units, even with infinite divisibility.

Scenario 2 - we increase from 100 to 1000 units, and now teacups *could* be priced above 100 regardless of whether or not the original units of currency can be divided or not.

Why someone thinks adding more decimal places is that same as increasing the total pool is still beyond my understanding.

But this is now 3 people (1 who is questioning but not certain) that think these are the same thing. I am losing my mind over this.

Oooh this might help me

#nostr I need your help

I have a very smart friend who thinks that because #bitcoin can be infinitely divisible, it is inflationary. I talked to him for more than an hour and could not find the right language to make him understand.

This is now the second smart friend I have who thinks that #bitcoin is inflationary because it can be infinitely divisible.

#nostr can you help me find the right language / proof to help them understand?

Its being censored