Take the 2-minute tour ×
Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Why did Satoshi pick 21 million as the number of bitcoins to be created? What is the significance of that number?

share|improve this question
1  
I thought this question had already been asked, but I can't find it. –  Lohoris Mar 17 '13 at 15:59
    
I added the finance tag since this question is asking about not just the math behind how 21 million blocks was created, but the reasoning behind all that math from an economic perspective (assuming there was one) –  makerofthings7 Mar 18 '13 at 5:31

7 Answers 7

up vote 32 down vote accepted

Here's a mathematical explanation:

Calculate the number of blocks per 4 year cycle:

6 blocks per hour
* 24 hours per day
* 365 days per year
* 4 years per cycle
= 210,240
~= 210,000

Sum all the block reward sizes:

50 + 25 + 12.5 + 6.25 + 3.125 + ... = 100

Multiply the two:

210,000 * 100 = 21 million.

Economically, because the currency is effectively infinitely divisible, then the precise amount doesn't matter, as long as the limit remains fixed.

share|improve this answer
15  
Good explanation, but you're just postponing the answer. Why 4 years per cycle? Why was 4 years per cycle picked as the number for years per cycle? –  Andrei Mar 17 '13 at 17:41
9  
All this info makes sense, but doesn't really answer the question! –  B Seven Mar 17 '13 at 18:29
2  
If you check my original answer, you'll see I ended with "but I don't know the economics behind it". I see that has since been edited - not by me. –  Chris Moore Mar 17 '13 at 21:24
1  
No, slightly less than 21 million, because of the rounding error on the last halvings. –  Andrei Mar 17 '13 at 21:42
1  
I think we best conclude that nobody knows why Satoshi chose for 21 million or 4 years per cycle. But I would not recommend accepting this answer as correct. In fact it only answers "What's the maximum amount of bitcoins that can exist?". –  Steven Roose Mar 19 '13 at 20:20

I don't know if this was thought up ahead of time, but it sure makes sense in hindsight.

The reason 21 million is the right number is because people don't know how to value currencies.

For instance, right now a Euro is worth $1.30 USD and a Japanese yen is worth about a U.S. penny. Ask someone which currency they would rather hold right now and most will answer Euro, because $1.30 is worth more than $0.01.

Of course, that relative unit value means nothing. Ask most currency traders which currency is better to hold and most (today) would probably say Japanese yen, because what matters is whether the value will go up or down, relative to the other being compared.

When bitcoin hit parity with the U.S. dollar in Feb 2011, it gained a sense of legitimacy that helped propel it on a tremendous pace, rising over 30X that level just four months later.

If there had been more than 6 million coins issued by then, the total dollar value of all bitoins would probably have been about the same, and thus the exchange rate would then have been lower. So let's say there were instead 60 million coins issued by Feb 2011, and each one worth a dime. That 60M X $0.10 is the exact same total dollar valuation the 6M X $1 has ($6M) for all bitcoins combined. Tthe difference is that because it had become "worth more than a dollar", and as a result people attributed greater interest and respect for it. Had it not been "worth more than a dollar" so early, it might have taken a whole lot longer to get the name recognition and attention it did that has helped attract the participants that Bitcoin has today.

Bitcoin today stands on "dollar parity"'s shoulders.

That may sound bizarre but ask that Euro / Yen question to different people yourself and then ask the reason why their answer was given.

So the number needed to be a low enough number so that while total dollar valuation of all bitcoins was still in the single-digit millions it would reach parity with the U.S. dollar at some point.

share|improve this answer
    
So why not 16 million (3y cycle)? Why not 26 million (5y cycle)? –  Pacerier Jun 9 at 10:00
    
And why not 17 million (40 btc reward)? Why not 25 million (60 btc reward)? –  Pacerier Jun 9 at 10:05
    
Why not a 3 yr cycle? Perhaps because that would cause the first & second halvings to occur too soon (and thus too high of a concentration of coins going to those who mined or bought early). Without knowing in 2008 what the level of traction Bitcoin would have a few years later, using four years made sure that if it took three years for Bitcoin to get any publicity (e.g., what happened with the Gawker Silk Road story in May, 2011) there was still a good year left of mining at the 50 XBT/block rate before the first halving -- thus distributing Bitcoin to a bit wider set of early adopters. –  Stephen Gornick Jul 26 at 22:33

Wikipedia (Gold):

A total of 174,100 tonnes of gold have been mined in human history, according to GFMS as of 2012.[2] This is roughly equivalent to 5.6 billion troy ounces or, in terms of volume, about 9261 m3, or a cube 21.0 m on a side.

Since Bitcoin is often compared to gold, total number of bitcoins matches total amount of gold mined in human history which can be imagined as a cube 21 m on a side.

As it is not so imporatant how many Bitcoins will exactly be mined. Satoshi could have easily chosen almost any number. He could just adjust block reward halving (210 000 blocks), reward sizes (50, 25, 12.5 ...) etc to match some particular number.

share|improve this answer
2  
+1 This could actually be the answer. –  Pacerier Jun 9 at 10:06

The exact number of Bitcoins is not important. Whether the end result is 1 million or 100 billion makes little real difference.

The important aspect here is the process, not the quantity.

  1. New Bitcoins enter the system in an orderly, predicable way.
  2. Outside forces cannot arbitrarily flood the currency with new money.
  3. An incentive is provided for people to apply their CPU power to make the currency more secure.
  4. Eventually, Bitcoin has to be self-supporting through transaction fees. Hence the tapering off of blockchain rewards.

Having said all that, there are some psychological advantages to having a low limit like 21 million. It was inevitable that people would see Bitcoin as being "more valuable" if the exchange rate for a whole Bitcoin was over $1. Ensuring this "high exchange rate" but making the coins highly divisible was probably a conscious design decision.

share|improve this answer
    
This doesn't actually answer "Why 21m?".... –  Pacerier Jun 9 at 10:03
    
And the answer is "why not?". I was just trying to explain why the exact number doesn't matter. –  slashingweapon Jun 12 at 14:54

It is the result of a 50 bitcoin reward half life of 210,000 blocks.

Reward starts out at 50 bitcoins and halves ever 210,000 blocks. This works out to be 2.1 quadrillion monetary units of currency (satoshi). This is probably the largest number estimated to be needed for a global currency and some padding for attrition.

share|improve this answer
    
Why 50 and not 55 or 60 or 45? –  Pacerier Jun 9 at 10:16

This was done based on production rate mostly. They did take some things into account but the number doesn't have a real economical explanation rather than the fact that they had to stop production somewhere to maintain a value.

share|improve this answer

Very simple answer: The reward for Bitcoin Miners had been 50 Bitcoins per Block for the first 210,000 Blocks. For the next 210,000 blocks it is the half of 50 (=25). Take the geometric series and you'll be getting the total amount of nearly 21 Million Bitcoins (nearly, because a geometric series converges to his boundary value, but never reaches it!).

share|improve this answer
1  
You're just restating previous answers –  dchapes Jul 17 at 14:36

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.