Actually, most precious metals are limited. You're relating your percentage holdings to the circulation, not the total supply. Scarcity is present everywhere in the real world. Bitcoin mining is essentially mining gold, just that we are aware of the exact number. Your resources are 100% limited and there will be a day where gold cannot be found in the ground any more. That is akin to Bitcoin mining and the whole idea behind Bitcoin. That is why we call it digital gold.
We don't know much gold is left to be mined even on the very planet we live on, let alone other planets, limited and capped are two different things, precious metals are limited by what can be found, and cash is also limited by how much ink and papers we can produce, everything we know of is limited, nothing is created completely out of thin air, so those metals being limited don't make them equal to Bitcoin in that regards,
BTC inherently is not limited by physics or code either, it's limited, finite and caped by consensus.
It does. The whole point of its worth is because people think of it as something of use. Platinum are on catalytic converters because they are good catalysts, gold is expensive because it is used on chips and contacts, etc. Speculative assets are not currency or good store of value, and is not what P2P Electronic Cash is defined as. I certainly hope people are willing to spend Bitcoin, zero use of Bitcoin also means zero value. The value of Bitcoin is its potential to one day replace fiat, which is why companies are investing and building tech ontop of it.
Only about 10% of Gold is used in industry, the rest is all just stored for its scarcity, in fact, long before people discovered how to use gold in any industry, they used it as a medium of exchange, for daily payments, that evolved to being store of value against government currencies, if we discover something else to use instead of gold in all industries it's being used in, it wouldn't have any major impact on the value of Gold.
Yes, finding a use for something that is already a good store of value is going to increase it's value, but that doesn't mean it has to have a use to actually have value.
That is not very accurate, your store of value will not be worth "less", you would have "less" of it, and there is no inflation in the proposed scheme, inflation is present in the other method which is injecting new BTC into the circulation.
Which is the same. If you were to compare it by the usage of purchasing power parity, you would arrive at the same conclusion. The amount of Bitcoin that you have in the future is less than what you have now. Your purchasing power in terms of Bitcoin has decreased, which has the same effect as an inflation.
That is a very bold claim. It is more than likely that there are "lost" coins, I guarantee that. People are likely to misplace their backups, destroy their PC by accident, intentionally burn those, etc. That is where tail emission can be useful, and how Ethereum manages their supply, albeit in a different manner. Burned coins are arguably lost, coins sent to OP_Return are permanently lost. Regardless, it is irrefutable that coins are being lost.
Nobody can prove that there are any lost coins, can you? if you can't prove it, you can't count it, burned coins are not lost coins, and burned coins won't be subject to fees because they are not there so not sure why you brought that up as an argument, and again, no matter how many "lost" coins are there, introducing new supply will result in more coins in circulation, even if we were to believe that there are 2M "lost" coins, and the actual supply is only 19M and not 21M, it's only a matter of time before we re-generate those 2M coins and above.
That article is B.S to be honest, it's based on a lot of assumption that you can't control or predict accurately.
An intuitive explanation for this result is that in the long run, the initial supply N0 doesn’t matter, because approximately all of those coins will eventually be lost.
Oh really, how? it's fine if you want to argue for the sake of conversation that many people lose their coins, but since you can't know how many coins are or will be lost, you can't even prove they are lost, then the whole argument is flawed.
We did go off-topic a little, but speaking of "lost coins" which OP wants to re-use, I want someone to prove that there is indeed something called lost coins, they don't have to be someone else's coins, they could be your coins, what would be solid evidence that you indeed lost said coins? it's possible to prove that you have something, but it's impossible to prove that you don't.
All coins that are technically spendable are existing coins and are NOT lost, I can't take seriously someone telling a story of how his grandmother threw away his laptop that had 100k BTC, or that Satoshi is dead and can longer access his coins, I could make the same claim that I lost access to my coins, I just can't prove it.