I've watched a couple of "documentaries" on BitCoin and they both seemed to feel the "what happens when every hash token has been found?" is a gocha. And yet, the answer seems obvious. You create a new blockchain. How about: TwoBitCoin? This is what we do when we run out of currency. We print more. Am I missing something? I understand the need to increase the complexity of the hash but don't understand why we need to scale the complexity to prevent miners from discovering coins. Why not let the coins be discovered over a specified period of years (approximately) and then just start a new blockchain to exist *along side* the current blockchain? Any thoughts?
New blockchains have flooded the space for years, almost anybody can start their own any time. Litecoin, XRP, Ethereum, Dogecoin... these are all blockchains that came after Bitcoin. There are hundreds more. Bitcoin does not "run out" in the sense that there is no more to go around. Its divisible down to 18 decimal places, so if demand is high and supply is low, price of BTC goes up and smaller fractions of it are worth more. Miners keep "mining" once the last block is found, but they are not finding new blocks, they are processing the transactions which will pay them the fees.
None of those non-Bitcoin blockchains are Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is currency, it should be possible to issue more. The new Bitcoin would need to be Bitcoin and be processed the same way as existing Bitcoin, much the same as add currency needs to look and spend the same. The idea of never making more Bitcoins assumes the people manage the currency are motivated to drive the price of existing coin up. That's probably what Bitcoin holders assume and it might be the case but it is not a certainty. People who own companies seem to assume management wants to drive up the stock price so they love corporate expansion. These same people seem confused when the company dilutes the stock issue with about the same amount of new stock as corporate buy-outs, to keep the value of the stock the same. I'm not saying this is right or ethical but it happens nearly 100% of the time.
It sounds like you are talking about a hard fork of the bitcoin blockchain - because this would require cooperation by a fairly large majority of miners and nodes, I'd say a hard fork to increase the hard cap of 21 million bitcoin by any amount is just about as likely as getting a constitutional amendment passed in the United States. In other words, theoretically possible, but highly unlikely given the current environment. When the hard cap is hit, who knows what would change - an increase in the hard cap would certainly mean more income for miners in the short term, but could potentially hurt trust in the network long term.
I understand what you are getting at, but you are missing my point. Bitcoin does not need to "issue more shares". Bitcoins are divisible to 18 decimal places. Its not as if 21M people can each hold 1 Bitcoin, then there will be no more. That is not how it works. 1000 people can hold 0.001 BTC, or 10,000,000 can hold 0.0000001 BTC and so on. That is what is supposed to drive the price higher over time, the scarcity. If you take away the scarcity then bitcoin is worth zero. This already happened in 2017, its called Bitcoin Cash.
