[tromp]

Bitcoin's supply is disinflationary, with the yearly supply inflation rate going toward 0 (and reaching it in 2140).

But so is a constant emission, the major difference being that the latter goes toward 0 a lot slower, e.g. taking 50 instead of 12 years to get below 2%. More importantly, it accrues wealth to late adopters as much as to early backers, combining a fairer distribution with reduced spending aversion.

[iamaelephant]

This assumes that every bitcoin ever mined stays in circulation. We know this isn't true. We know that millions of dollars of bitcoin have gone missing, never to be recovered. And if Bitcoin is the real deal (it probably isn't) then we've only just started. If this thing hangs around for decades or even centuries we will see trillions more go missing.

[tromp]

Yes, taking lost bitcoin into account, the supply inflation rate is maybe 25% lower, and long before 2140, emission will be too low to compensate for ongoing coin loss.

In this model of inevitable coin loss, the alternative constant emission will eventually, perhaps in 50 to 100 years, reach a rough equilibrium where yearly emission roughly balances yearly coin loss. Like a softcap instead of a hardcap.