{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] (npub1sg…ppx3c)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3c","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-07-09\n📝 Original message:To clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. Attributing the observed lack of inflation (eg fee %) to loss is an assumed relation.\n\nEven if the amount of loss was known (which it is not), there remains an assumption in the correlation of non-lost coins to price. Demand determines price, not the amount of something in existence, hence the folly of S2F (1/monetary-inflation).\n\ne\n\n\u003e On Jul 9, 2022, at 08:15, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 07:26:22AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Due to lost coins, a tail emission/fixed reward actually results in a stable money supply. Not an (monetarily) inflationary supply.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e This observation is not a proof of lost coins, that is an assumption.\n\u003e \n\u003e To be clear, are you claiming that there is no proof that coins are lost?\n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/octet-stream\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220709/ea261b14/attachment.obj\u003e"}