> Actually neither gold nor Bitcoin has a fixed supply.

It does. There's an upper limit to how many bitcoins can be mined. We haven't reached this limit yet but it will eventually happen.

Which was acknowledged, but it's not clear why that upper limit would be relevant to economic decisions today. Nobody's investing today based on predictions of exactly what the world will look like in 2140; they're making predictions over at most a couple decades, and over that period the Bitcoin supply will see a significant continual increase.

How significant is it really? There will be less than 15% change in the total supply and the majority of that actually will happen in the next few decades.

If you ask me personally, I'm not convinced the number of base units in existence is an important metric for any currency. (In the US dollar for example, this is called the "monetary base", and neither fans nor detractors of American monetary policy point to it very often.) It's just an illustration of the fact that the value of Bitcoin can't come deterministically from its restricted supply - if it did, that 15% supply increase would equate to a 13% loss for all holders.

I try to answer that in

https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su...

By that time we either break SHA256 or burn the entire planet to fuel the virtual greed.

Bitcoin's supply will be logarithmic where as gold will increase linearly. In the long run that makes a big difference. I'd take linear or logarithm supply over the exponential USD supply that we are currently seeing https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

As is noted under the graph, this big spike comes from a redefinition of the underlying metric, not an organic increase.

Just read that. This redefinition is so dumb. This metric is now worthless for statistic models.

Can't argue with you there.