I'm starting to get the sense that Peter Todd and Jameson Lopp are philosophically and economically illiterate. Is it true that Peter wanted tail emissions? I used to think that was potentially a better policy too, up until quite recently, until I realized some things, quite a few points, as to why it would weaken Bitcoin if embraced and is completely unnecessary. They're rather shortsighted if they think they can see everything. It took me a long time to figure out the economics of tail emissions vs no tail emissions to where I understood the tradeoffs.
Discussion
Like a really, really long time. Like really really long. You have to understand how the whole world works really damn well and you could still be wrong. You gotta take this shit seriously.
I don't think tail emission is bad per se, problem is bitcoin was designed to have only 21 million coins, and changing that fundamental property will mean it's as unsound as any other shitcoin.
Yeah that's the clearest thing. But it's even true that if it had been created with tail emissions in mind and never changed the emission schedule, a future fork could have imposed a cap, which would make it potentially more competitive as a store of value, and therefore this fork could outcompete the original issuance fork. This is one of the reasons it's so brilliant that Bitcoin started with a fixed limit on the total there would ever be.