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?
Not to mention a shrinking money supply ultimately dooms the currency (and all value associated with it). As long as the rate of lost coins is greater than zero, Bitcoin's total supply will eventually
be zero.
So our friend kwukduck would rather have a non-existent currency than a currency that marginally inflates. I won't bother with the rest of his arguments because he's clearly not interested in understanding the issue.