I think a decent comparison might be made with gold here. Comparing the total amount of gold in the world (estimate) to the amount produced per year may yield some interesting numbers.
I got into Bitcoin because I don't want a similar release to gold. (Or banks!)
I see where you're coming from, and I still have a lot of reading to do that can convince me that banks can totally be ruled out. I've said before that there's nothing really stopping anyone (third party) from issuing promise notes in order to facilitate high volume off-chain transactions. All it would take is just a few people who are willing to accept the tender .. and the day that someone accepts it and then returns the note to the issuer and is rewarded the amount of MRO on the bill is the day that will become a reality.
I could ultimately see that leading to fractional reserve banking. How could we ultimately deal with this, other than slowing the evolution of something like that to a crawl?
Having the value of the coins not approaching infinity (with some form of debasement either through a constant emission, or interest rate) is a good start, but also not having the value approach zero (by having either of those two features not be too aggressive). The only way I can see this happening is with a variable emission (you seem to favor a fixed one) or variable inflation rate .. but you may very well be right about a fixed emission (I don't have the depth to fully understand the long term effects)
Ethereum is the only coin doing it right I think, it'll be a constant supply and people can mine the same amount of Ethereum in a thousand years, but of course it'll be 0.0001% of the supply by then, causing all the Ethereum to hold great value.
At some point, the constant supply will be small enough that the value of the coins would approach infinity .. I can't see out 1000 years but .0001% seems an awfully small number that can easily be overcome.
In the meantime Bitcoin will be earning it's security from transaction fees. Good luck with that.
I can definitely agree with you that security cannot be sustained solely by transaction fees.
Oh and gold? Well gold is 1% now, but there is a limited amount in the Earth. gold is likely to decrease it's percent too, until space mining is a thing.
I was only trying to offer it as an example of a natural restriction on inflation. There's no way the inflation has been a solid 1.5% for 6000 years .. it changes with our ability to produce and mine it (and want it). I would think the 1.5% would be a maximum, and agree that the amount in the ground is finite.
MRO under a 1% scheme would be worse, as the supply will increase every year, causing MRO to lose value year after year forever.
I would prefer not to have a compounding 1% devaluation of everyones holdings for all time. :p
I agree, 1% fixed probably isn't ideal. I also agree that the problem may be solved with an emission rather than a targeted inflation. But I still feel that there should be some years where the inflation is much less than 1% or the emission should be a number much less than the targeted emission, regardless of which method is chosen. A variable rate based on constantly changing variables. I think Aminorex mentioned that we should look at transaction volume, as the number of transactions, and use that as a factor as well.
