> if you were given the choice of having two currencies

If having = "to personally own with the hopes that the price goes up", then you pick a currency with limited supply.

If having = "to have it be the currency on which your entire economy runs", you should pick a currency which doesn't have a limited supply.

Dollars were in limited supply too, and they aren't anymore for a very good reason. Here's Ray Dalio trying to summarize some of the relevant economic principles in a video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0

To be fair, the question was "with inflation" or "without inflation" (inflation rate of zero). A currency with a limited supply results in deflation as the economy grows. Deflation gives an advantage to savers, the same way inflation gives an advantage to debtors. A currency with an unlimited supply which is supplied at the same pace as economic growth results in zero inflation. And that's nice because then the government isn't giving anybody an artificial advantage. Zero inflation means a level playing field.

> To be fair, the question was "with inflation" or "without inflation" (inflation rate of zero).

As you're pointing out, currencies don't have built-in inflation or deflation, that's why it didn't make sense to answer the exact question that the parent comment was asking.

I would pick a stable currency with a predictable 2% CPI inflation rate. Why? Because I don't want people to sit on their money and do nothing with it. Remember all these people that regretted spending their Bitcoin? With a deflationary currency every payment you do with your currency is regrettable. You will always think that if you had waited 50 years longer your kids would have become trillionaires.

Note the talk of Bitcoin's being deflationary refers to the technology, not the exchange rate.