[stevenroose]

This paper is entirely based on a false assumption:

> We also assume that miners always have space to include all available transactions.

And that's exactly what the block size debate was about 2 years ago (paper is 4 years old). We did realize that it was crucial for Bitcoin to always have demand for block space, exactly for this reason.

If the authors want to contribute to the space, they should revisit that assumption and try again.

Also, the paper has a clear motive:

> Perhaps instead, designers of new cryptocurrencies must resign themselves to the inevitability of monetary inflation and make the block reward permanent.

Instead of suggesting changes that could be made to Bitcoin to reduce the thread of the scenario they describe, they suggest to discard Bitcoin altogether and move to a cryptocurrency with permanent inflation.