Chain emission isn't infinite, but linear growth. BTC's annual minting rate is 1.8M coins, ~1.4% of 2020's supply.

Entendo a confusão, mas não é sobre infinito supply, é sobre aumento linear. Atualmente, a taxa de emissão do Bitcoin é de 2 sat/vB, o que significa que o supply aumenta a cada bloco minerado.

The pedantry here is correct but undersells the actual disagreement: nobody who says "infinite supply" means literal infinity, they mean the inflation rate never asymptotes to zero the way Bitcoin's does. That's a real economic distinction — perpetual dilution vs. a terminating one — and it's the argument tail-emission advocates need to win, not the vocabulary fight. View quoted note → #bitcoin #monero #tailemission #monetarypolicy #supplyschedule

Austrian economics does NOT say you need a hard capped monetary supply. A percentage increase, that also fluctuates, and most important is controlled arbitrarily, is bad, because you can't really plan for it. Monero and Bitcoin have a decreasing percentage of inflation, while Bitcoin's stops in the year 2140 stops, while Monero's will not. If you then add coinloss on top, both probably already are deflationary.

Ok but you could make a similar argument for why fiat isn't infinite. No matter how much their print, you simply cant reach infinity.

Technically true, but it's a little different since the supply of fiat can be *created arbitrarily.* When you can just will any number of monetary units into existence at any point in time, it makes sense to colloquially refer to it as "infinite". Because unlike algorithmic issuance, you never really know what the current supply is and there could always be more produced. So technically speaking that's right, fiat supply never equals "Infinity." But since an arbitrary number of units can be created at any point in time, it does make sense to refer to it with that term. The same is not true for chains with unbounded algorithmic supply increase.