Absolute scarcity is a bullshit term, better for entrancing the minds of the already convinced than persuading those who aren't.
It's trivial for someone to make a shitcoin that's more scarce then delete the keys so it remains forever more scarce.
But we don't care if something else is absolutely more scarce, because Bitcoin's scarcity isn't nearly as important as its:
• uptime
• network effects
• verifiability
• permissionlessness
• difficulty to censor
• resilience
• predictability
Well that I am talking to the already convinced here feels like a fair assumption. Not trying to persuade anyone.
The invention of the wheel was a significant turning point, even tho it got replicated countless times after its invention
OK, lemme approach this from a different perspective:
Bitcoin isn't absolutely scarce.
If it were, any change to the final supply would be absolutely impossible. Yet some, including a few major figures like Peter Todd, want to change the final supply, increasing it through tail emissions.
If they form a fork that achieves the heaviest Bitcoin chain in terms of PoW, then Bitcoin will no longer have a fixed supply.
This is quite unlikely, but not impossible. If Bitcoin had achieved "absolute scarcity" it would be impossible. Therefore absolute scarcity is not a feature of Bitcoin, highly probable scarcity has been achieved at best.
