You assertions about what people will do is ungrounded: people do this currently. Notably, Bitcoin currently has inflation, so one could argue that the transition which will occur is the change!
I agree with you, but mainly because I believe changing would be unethical. But the that would also apply if the original design was the other way.
My assertion was related to 'holding fees', not inflation. It was as follows: I don't want what I hold to be confiscated periodically via a 'holding fees'. I am very confident about what I want.
I then made an extrapolation that it could then follow that other people will want what I want. Maybe it is ungrounded because there is no way for me to know other people's preferences. But the fact that there is no *voluntary* system in which people adhere to such rules is telling. If there was real demand for such rules, maybe there would've already been a fork with those rules. I wouldn't mind if there is a fork like that that exists. If people want to create a different version of Bitcoin with those rules and use it, they are free to do so. I will not use it. That much I know.
Even in the case of inflation, its *predictable* supply and issuance is one of the many crucial reasons I hold and use Bitcoin. This policy is disinflationary and has not been changed. It is my preference to want such a system. It has also been the preference of many others, clearly. If there is demand for one that has perpetual inflation (say for example one that doesn't have BIP42), I do not mind people forking off and using that version. I will not use it.
