Any quantity of money, within reasonable limits, is optimal. There is no benefit in changing the quantity of money. It just introduces distortions and makes economic calculation more difficult.

The move away from the gold standard had nothing to do with people starving to death because of an inelastic money supply. It was the result of the First World War and the resulting huge war debts.

Gold didn't fail, its still the preferred store of value for much of the world. It also didn't change in value, oil has been fairly consistent at 15 barrels an ounce for a long time. The whole concept of growth is debatable too, there was a time when it served a purpose but its gone beyond that and as we push it further and further it results in more and more wastage and inefficiency. Basically we have all we need for everyone to be comfortably well off and the only reason to chase growth is to repay interest.

Some would argue its better as markets are entirely constrained by supply and demand and cant be untethered by things like QE. Imho simple economic foundations are clouded by economic technobabel, if a country spends more than it earns its going to go bust and no amount of creative accounting can prevent that. The Bitcoin markets are interesting because they're unregulated and manipulative actions are often obvious. The market it's self responds and frequently attempts to manipulate result in spectacular failures which goes some way towards proving that market regulation is unnecessary and can cause more problems than it solves.

Maybe you missed the bit where it's impossible for states to pay back central banks due to interest, the amount owed will always be higher than the amount in circulation.

Fiat currencies contain a bug.  Specifically, a race condition.  The inflation rate is determined independently of the growth rate of the economy.  These variables should be unified.

Bitcoin eliminates this bug.

Why would you want to break out? Having my savings continually gaining value doesn't sound so bad.

One example is the deflation we currently have on computer-based products. The argument that people do not spend their money in a deflation, because the money will be worth more in the future, is simply not true. If people thought that way, they would never buy a computer or a mobile phone, but they do.

Add to that the fact that human life is of limited length, so humans have to spend their money before they die. You cannot always wait for tomorrow

This is certainly true for hyper-deflation. It is not true for moderate deflation.

Regarding the assertion that the amount of money in circulation should grow in proportion to the population, although on the surface that seems like a reasonable system, it actually steals wealth from individuals. The key point to realize is that, even if prices are holding absolutely steady over time, it can still be true that your wealth is being stolen from you. The natural tendency, given advancements in technology and improvements in efficiency of production, is for prices to decline. We see that natural tendency most exemplified in the high-tech sector. Computers are continually getting cheaper. This is only because the high-tech sector is advancing at such a rapid pace. The slower moving sectors of the economy do not demonstrate price deflation because monetary inflation is offsetting it. If we had a constant money supply, everything would be getting cheaper over time. The fact that we are seeing prices remaining relatively stable indicates that we are having our wealth stolen from us insidiously through monetary inflation. I opted out of that dishonest system by moving most of my savings into Bitcoin. I don't want to see Bitcoin fall into the same criminal pattern as the fiat currencies

Inflation and deflation are 2 sides of the same coin. Both are bad for participants in the economy, through no fault of their own. Either way, some sectors of the economy benefit unfairly and some suffer unfairly. You can't say that deflation is good and inflation is bad. It doesn't work like that. They're both bad

The changing itself of the value of money up or down as the change works its way unevenly through the economy is what hurts people. Both inflation and deflation change the value of money.

By your calculations, 2030 could possibly be the year that bitcoin will be 100% the dominant currency, fiat will be completely obsolete, hopefully used as toilet paper. This would also be the point where those initial single 1 bitcoin pieces will be worth a small fortune.

Bonus activated for those who posted

Asset backed currencies have been the ONLY succesful models tried. They stood for centuries, none ever "failed" they were all replaced by fiat systems.

Fiat moneys have ALWAYS failed. The ability to "print your way out of trouble" is in fact "printing your way into trouble" and will always end bad for the users (good for the bankers).