tbe difference is that the tail emission system pays for network security among all users.
it doesn't shuffle it off on a subset of users and create incentive to hodl.
Weird that you would agree that "known and unchangeable" is the important part
but spend time to spam every thread of mine without actually presenting any evidence for your maximum deflation argument.
I have given some reasons why I'm right, you just conveniently turn off your brain and pretend they don't matter. You're as bad as a redditor. Beyond that I'm merely countering your arguments and your bad faith engagement. I don't need to take you seriously. You've given no coherent arguments of your own that stand up to a minute of scrutiny, perhaps I feel there is not much to say, because a few seconds of thought will suffice?
And yes I understand that the constant number of coins issued does mean holders pay for hodling and not only transacting. To do it the way Bitcoin does it instead is more of an incentive to hodl, but not so much that no investment would ever happen, nor so much that markets would become harmfully hampered from growth or whatever.
If growth in high tech stuff is delayed, so be it. The rest of the market is shit. We need better low tech and medium tech stuff.
Hard money like this helps people to save, helps them to have the capital to invest in better products. And the predictable issuance schedule and low cost of transactions, tail emissions or not, and lack of counterparty risk or recourse thereof, that allows them to be relatively more free of aggression, allows them to create things that people actually value highly and to economize efficiently.
As long as someone is paying for it to an eladequate level (hodlers WILL pay for it when it becomes important to them to do so) and as long as UTXO holders are, by and large, accountable to the security of their own coins, there is no "free rider problem," and there is no injustice in hoarding.
