Quote from: kwukduck on August 12, 2017, 07:20:45 PM

The only thing tail emission does is potentially dilute the coin supply into oblivion and suppress the price.

Really? The only thing?

Please continue to make stupid statements like that. When we have intelligent pro-level FUDsters attacking us we might have something to worry about, but not from this.

Quote from: aminorex on August 12, 2017, 09:51:54 PM

very likely on par with the rate of random loss.

Essentially guaranteed because to the extent that the rate of random loss is smaller, the coin supply and potential for loss will grow, and to the extent the rate of loss is larger, the coin supply and potential for loss will shrink. So there will have to be a rough (averaged over time) equilibrium where the two offset each other.

A coin with a fixed rate of emission and unknown (but reasonably assumed to be related in some positive manner to total supply) loss will reach an effectively fixed money supply. I don't know how you can get better money than that in terms of neutrality and predicability.

The argument for a shrinking money supply being better or more attractive to holders because of expected greater scarcity makes no sense. If a money supply that shrinks at 1%/yr is good, then shrinking at 2%/yr would be better, etc. Where does this end?