I'm not looking for an authority to form opinions, and I encourage you to do the same.

Explaining how bitcoin incentives will play out using bayesian methods is a fools errand in my book:

- How do we know the rate of lost coins in the future, or the ratio of fees in the reward? Extrapolate from the past? There's no reason to accept that logic

- How do we know that miners need this extra subsidy, when other crypto currencies have never even come close to being adopted as money, and bitcoin is also far from it?

"...academic analysis has found that in this condition [only fees in the reward] block generation is unstable." - So they claim to know how this would work, even though there's absolutely no way to know this.

"The fact is, economic volatility dwarfs the effect of small amounts of inflation. Even a 0.5% inflation rate over 50 years only leads to a 22% drop"

*Only*. Really? Who says that's so low? This line of reasoning looks like taken directly from a Keynesian textbook. And taking bitcoin's current volatility as an example is just a blatant error at least, disingenuous at worst.

I'm all for good explanations, but this is a weak one, because I can substitute these arbitrary numbers and angles with any others that suit my needs. It's statistical cosmetics.

The future of bitcoin and mining is fundamentally unpredictable because humans are. Therefore, I like explanations based on first principles but no amount of statistical trickery will do any good in this matter.

I respect Peter Todd. But this is nothing but a "nice excuse to use some mildly interesting math, in the end it’s totally pedantic."

Austrian economics teaches you a lot on these matters, can recommend those instead.