hostmaster made a claim that "scarcity" would be greater in the future without specifying that the declaration was dependent on the assumption that bitcoin would gather steam.
I pointed out that there is no guarantee that "scarcity" would be greater. (It is entirely possible that bitcoin won't gather steam, and as such "scarcity" could be lesser in the future due to the increase in supply).
The fact that you assumed that bitcoin would somehow gather steam in the future explains why (as you've pointed out) your declarations "make no sense".
Now, if we choose to discuss what will happen to scarcity if bitcoin "gathers steam", then I would agree that the assumed increased demand would logically lead to an increase in scarcity, but to declare that "there will be more scarcity for Bitcoins as near 2040" regardless of the future popularity of bitcoin would be a false statement.