To be fair, you guys are asking me all the time about "theoretically possible", "at all possible" etc. - there are a lot of things "theoretically possible" in Bitcoin too.
Like what? That there can be more than 21 million bitcoins without a protocol change?
There has been already a protocol change in Bitcoin to prevent that a few years ago (there was a bug that could issue more BTC than what was intended).
That's my point, that to change the 21 million cap on BTC requires a protocol change.
Next time please quote me completely, you missed this part:
(e.g. "there will be 21 million BTC" is provably wrong - there will be for sure less than that because some miners did non issue themselves all 50 BTC in coinbase in the past)
I said there will be LESS than 21 million BTC, not more.
I personally didn't miss that part. I thought it was obvious having LESS than a capped amount is more beneficial to all holders of the commodity in question. It's having MORE than a perceived capped amount that results in the problem (which is the problem I have with Ripple).
When were the dollar bills in your wallet printed?
Well, you've got me there. If you want to put Ripple on par with non-transparent Central Bank fiat currency I'll concede that.
Who originally mined all the inputs in your Bitcoin wallet?
It doesn't matter. Stop pretending it does.
ALL of the records needed to check
all of the bitcoins in existence are available
now.
I mean, of course it is important to know where stuff comes from, we're talking about ~10 days and a few hundred transactions here though, not about how Ripple works since then.
Somehow I get the impression you already know this, but let me spell it out for anyone who doesn't: it only take
one unaccounted for transaction to allow for trillions (or more) in unaccounted for currency units, because it's all only data.