20:05:30 <br-m> <quadriocellata:matrix.org> Why is moneros mining reward set to trend towards 0%? If number of coins lost < coins from mining reward, wouldn't this eventually lead to an incentive problem for miners? 
20:06:15 <br-m> <quadriocellata:matrix.org> @quadriocellata:matrix.org: I asked this question recently on reddit and I'm looking for a more in depth discussion on the topic
20:23:29 <sech1> Number of coins lost will eventually balance out the number of coins mined every year
20:26:28 <br-m> <quadriocellata:matrix.org> I agree that is a possibility, but isn't it true its a possibility lost coins>number of coins mined or <? Where does your certainty come from?
20:30:02 <sech1> because over time the total number of coins will keep increasing, so will the total number of coins lost per year (assuming a fixed % of all coins is lost every year)
20:31:38 <sech1> for example, if 1% of all coins is lost every year, the real Monero supply will stabilize at 15.77M (yearly emission times 100)
20:33:20 <sech1> so in the long long term, mining incentive = % of coins lost per year
20:33:25 <sech1> it's never 0
20:33:31 <br-m> <rucknium> If you want a mathematical argument and you're ready to believe, you can read https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
20:33:45 <br-m> <quadriocellata:matrix.org> Thankyou for giving the first convincing argument on the topic. I'd missed what was staring me in the face. If I'd modelled it or even written down the maths, it also would have popped out.
20:34:29 <br-m> <quadriocellata:matrix.org> I apologise for my laziness on the topic. I'll take a look at the website, thanks Rucknium 
20:34:51 <br-m> <rucknium> FWIW, I don't completely believe Peter Todd's argument. In the long run we're all dead, after all.
20:35:16 <br-m> <rucknium> It assumes the stability of human economic behavior throughout the rest of time.
20:38:46 <br-m> <midipoet:matrix.org> Does Peter Todd's hypothesis account for potential population decline due to climate change?
20:41:29 <br-m> <rucknium> Technically, I think his argument works as long as there is at least one living person for the rest of time. It's an asymptotic argument. As time approaches infinity, you get his result.
20:46:56 <sech1> The argument only needs the "coin loss constant", then it's mathematically correct
20:47:19 <sech1> Of course no one knows, maybe in the future humans will become perfect at keeping their coins and passing them to their heirs :D
20:48:49 <midipoet> It works as long as there is "one" living person and the economic activity is considered normal, no? I am not sure that's the case in the long run. Of course there will be a population, but I think economic activity will consistently move away from what we consider normal, until the economic models for understanding the economy begin to break down/veer further from a correct analysis. 
20:50:47 <br-m> <quadriocellata:matrix.org> midipoet: If thats the case, then who needs monero, FIAT, gold etc ?
21:00:25 <midipoet> You still need money when the economy doesn't act rationally and/or according to established and accepted models. It's just that the models used to understand the economy (or predict future economic behaviour) become more and more inaccurate. 
21:01:01 <midipoet> Having said that, I am neither an economist nor a mathematician! 
21:04:16 <br-m> <quadriocellata:matrix.org> I deleted the message since I think we got off topic :D Its an interesting idea though, and its hard to speculate what things very far in the future will look like.
21:04:28 <midipoet> Agree
21:05:49 <midipoet> But in a dystopian future when cryptocurrency has more practical/fundamental (as someone said) value, people will definitely want to lose it less.