Nick Szabo  🔑

Any change to the 21M cap will turn into another ho-hum fork with marginal following.

That's by far the most likely outcome among current Bitcoin cognoscenti. But if you took a vote of macroeconomists, the vast majority would vote to change it to add inflation. That's what their theology tells them to do.

They know of nothing else, theology is definitely the correct word. Do you think the Austrian mind set needs to take hold more to ensure bitcoins future world domination? Or will it just become self evident, a la Gresham's Law?

Most needed: (1) and most important, factual, as free of ideology as possible, archeology-based (and to some careful extent based on traveller/missionary/ethnographer reports) study of origins and various histories of money, (2) the Austrian critique of central banker theology.

So essentially what you're saying is that your entire blog could be Masters' Level Economic Theory that would change hearts/minds.

@NickSzabo4 can you elaborate on the last part please?

Bitcoin would, in economic essence, turn into bit gold: https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/04/bit-gold-markets.html … Essentially layer 1 would become defungibilized and we'd have to add a "layer 1.5" to refungibilize it, using decentralized exchanges, thus somewhat less trust-minimized than the current Bitcoin.

@NickSzabo4 thank you for always having the time to reply to questions, I really appreciate it.

How does its costliness provide a fallback supply limit? Wouldn't supply be limited solely by the emission schedule of any future fork?

Didn't get how the 21 million schedule can fail due to social engineering?

"Bad governance" might be a better word than "social engineering." The point is that it's one hard fork away from being inflated. Preventing that fork depends on vigilant maintenance of a strong dogma against such inflation among those who develop and deploy Bitcoin nodes