It is kind of weird that once we made GRouPcoin and DeVCoin the constant complaints about bitcoin NOT constantly creating coins seems to have died out.
Maybe all the people who claimed that it is economically vital to keep creating coins forever were just bullshitting?
It would be useful to have them around to re-interate all their arguments, explaining that coins such as GRouPcoin and DeVCoin that keep creating coins forever are far superior to the intrinsically flawed "limited number ever" model exemplified by bitcoin...
-MarkM-
Well, the issue with limited number of coins is that... it's limited. Take the USD, for example. We have inflation because the government keeps adding more money to the pile. Why? Because the population increases. As we have more people, we need more money to help create a sort of middle ground.
I think coins like DVC are really the same. Our population (in relation to the US in the example) would be people coming on board. Think about it like this:
We have 10 coins and 10 people. Each person has one coin. Ten new people jump on board. At any given time only ten coins can be out there, which means hoarding becomes necessary or you have 0.
On the opposite side:
We have 10 coins and 10 people. Each person has one coin. Ten new people jump on board, so we create 10 new coins. As time goes on, each person can end up with their coin. Being that there is no more fear of not having any coins left, they are traded as a currency.
This is a very watered down simplification but it should help illustrate the point. The only downside to DVC is that it continues printing the same number of coins forever. So in the example above, if we got 2 more people we still have 10 new coins. If we got 0 new people, there are still 10 new coins. And if we got 50,000 more people from a village, there are still just 10 new coins.
There should be a way to adjust, in some way or another, the output based on some criteria.