First of all, I would like to thank you guys for posting such critical comments, as they are much more helpful than positive ones.
I would just like to expand further on my arguments, but feel free to tell me if there are any flaws in my line of reasoning.
To start, something can be valuable without being deflationary, at least in the short run.
If the process of inflating the currency is strictly regulated and doesn't happen on the desires of politicians, I can imagine it being a more trustworthy alternative to FIAT currency.
Also, I never said that the supply of this currency should be unlimited, as the supply is strictly determined by the mining difficulty. Since hashpower isn't unlimited, the supply can't be unlimited.
Of course, it was never my intention to change Bitcoin's protocol. Bitcoin is doing a fabulous job at creating digital scarcity, at the expense of providing a currency that people want to spend. The proposed cryptocurrency will of course be an "alternative" cryptocurrency.
Can you guys please explain why the block reward can't act as a way to regulate the price? From my basic understanding, when the price is higher, it's more profitable to mine, which leads to more miners, which leads to a higher mining difficulty, which then can be used to increase the supply and bring the price back to the "normal" level. And the opposite for periods of time when the currency is undervalued. When the currency's price is low, it becomes more scarce, which should increase its price. Does this make sense from a crypto-economics standpoint?
Furthermore, some of you guys think it's more desirable to have a deflationary currency, but I am pretty sure that most economists agree that a slow and steady rate of inflation is good for the economy. The idea being, that it's better to incentivize people to spend/invest money into the economy so that money can circulate and raise the living standards for everyone. Of what use is wealth if it just sits around and doesn't produce goods for all of us to live a better life?
Also, I'm pretty sure that 99% of the reason why Bitcoin's price is increasing is that people FOMO in at every bull run so far, in hopes of profits, not because they actually want to buy something with it.
Of course, I'm saying all that because I don't hold a big number of Bitcoins. It's always the ones that aren't profiting from a system that are looking for a better alternative. The way Bitcoin is right now is that the early adopters have disproportionally large holdings of Bitcoin. It might be a fair argument to say "well bitcoin is open you should have gone into bitcoin in 2009/2010/2011, it's your fault". That's a fair argument to say to many people but not someone like me who is 17 years old. I was a literal baby when Bitcoin started. Of course, that seems unfair to me, obviously. The fact that some millennials easily mined thousands of Bitcoin while I might be lucky if I can acquire one bitcoin in my lifetime if the price increase like it has been, just because they were around at that time. I don't think I or generations after me would like to put up with that. Again, for a store of value, it's perfectly fine, because gold has/had the same unequal distribution (which is why so many wars and revolutions happened that took all the gold they could away from people). But why should a currency have the same unequal distribution over time? An inflationary currency would not incentivize people to hoard it because it would be worth less and less over time.
Also, I don't necessarily wish to become an early adopter of this currency and profit over time, although I don't have a problem with getting rich of inventions/innovations. The fact that the currency is inflationary doesn't make it a very good "early adopter catches the worm" type situation.
Of course, there is no new originality in making just any new cryptocurrency, but if there isn't a cryptocurrency that addresses this issue yet while having the potential of providing a steadily inflationary, more stable cryptocurrency, I don't see a reason why one couldn't try it.
I think people are calling USD and other FIAT currencies a bubble because they are so unpredictable. Any politician can just go out and print as much as they like. This doesn't mean that a slow, predictable, irrevisable rule for inflation can't be a good thing, right?
I think Bitcoin's sharp price increases are due to its fixed supply. If one could regulate the supply algorithmically to adjust for such crazy price differences one could have a more stable currency.
Also, I don't see a problem with why an unstable mining difficulty is a bad thing. Sure, mining the currency will become unprofitable thus reducing the total numbers of miners from time to time. But there are so many other cryptocurrencies to mine that they can easily switch to mining a different cryptocurrency when it becomes unprofitable and switch back to mining this currency when it becomes profitable again.
Of course, it won't be a perfectly stable coin like Tether, but the idea is to at least move in the right direction while still being as decentralized as Bitcoin.
Again I'm not looking for a way to replace "real" Bitcoin, as Bitcoin isn't even pretending to be a normal currency anymore I think. Bitcoin is digital gold, and that's ok. Would this proposal move us closer to an actual digital currency?
This is my response to the replies so far, and thanks again for being critical
