Many thanks for the profound explanation. I'm not that good at math and maybe that's why I still think it's impossible without totally ruining Bitcoin to make those changes. Since there's no way miners want to ruin Bitcoin they would never agree on making those changes to the code. But theoretically you are right I think. At least I can't prove otherwise.
Why would changing the code ruin bitcoin? Does anyone holding bitcoins care about the limit on the number of bitcoins or the fees the miners are making? All they care about is a price increase. Why should removing the limit on number cause the price to drop? Ethereum is an excellent example that shows that nobody cares about the mathematics of the coin, all they care about is if they think they can sell it to someone else at a higher price in the future.
In fact, you could make a good argument that removing the limit on the number of bitcoins would cause the price to go up
as it makes the system more viable.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, the limited emission of bitcoins to a finite number, creates many fundamental problems, macro-economical, but also technical/economical.
My macro-economical complaint with bitcoin is that it is designed to be highly speculative, will never stabilize and will hence never be a unit of account, which will always make it a marginal means of payment at best, and a gambler's/speculator's/investor's toy dominantly.
But its reducing emission causes a lot of problems on lower levels too. The whole fee market battle by miners comes about because their block rewards will dry up in the future. Who says fee rewards, says scarce transactions, and hence artificially obstructed transaction system. The reduced block rewards have also pushed the competition in mining to the extreme.
An emission curve that emits less assets when more users come in, gives HUGE seigniorage advantage to early adopters, and pushes speculation to unseen heights. Even if the idea was to come to a limited amount of coins, the largest emissions shouldn't have happened when nobody was around. This turns bitcoin into rare paintings of which a few early collectors have HUGE amounts, leading to a very unequal distribution of coins (not by the normal functioning of a market but by early bird adopters), which give rise to big whales, which can then play the market like they wish with their significant stash (read: pump 'n dump, corner, crash, ....).
The reducing block reward will also make the security by PoW *relatively speaking* less and less secure. After all, the PoW securization is financed by the rewards, which reduce. An attack has thus a cost, in relationship to the total amount of reward per block, which is decreasing in BTC. It can be increasing in $$ of course, but in BTC, it is decreasing. The *incentive* for an attack, however, will remain formulated in BTC: it is the ability to undo a transaction a few confirmations ago. As such, the ratio between attack cost and attack incentive, is decreasing with effective block reward decrease.