Why 1BTC should equal 10^8 satoshi ?

[solex]

I remember this discussion, actually.  

Finney, Satoshi, and I discussed how divisible a Bitcoin ought to be.  Satoshi had already more or less decided on a 50-coin per block payout with halving every so often to add up to a 21M coin supply.  Finney made the point that people should never need any currency division smaller than a US penny, and then somebody (I forget who) consulted some oracle somewhere like maybe Wikipedia and figured out what the entire world's M1 money supply at that time was.  

We debated for a while about which measure of money Bitcoin most closely approximated; but M2, M3, and so on are all for debt-based currencies, so I agreed with Finney that M1 was probably the best measure.  

21Million, times 10^8 subdivisions, meant that even if the whole word's money supply were replaced by the 21 million bitcoins the smallest unit (we weren't calling them Satoshis yet)  would still be worth a bit less than a penny, so no matter what happened -- even if the entire economy of planet earth were measured in Bitcoin -- it would never inconvenience people by being too large a unit for convenience.

Very interesting background. Thanks for sharing!

Unfortunately, the most important factor was missed: inertia to change, and observing the existing convention of 2dp in fiat currencies, and the vast majority of financial computer systems also supporting 2dp.

So, the ideal would have been 21 million million bitcoins, with 100 sub-units each. It would have made for large numbers from early on, like dogecoin has today, but as the network and ecosystem grew, bitcoin amounts would rapidly look sensible in day-to-day transactions. The Italians did fine when it was 1500 lira to the dollar for many years.

[1714038618]

1714038618

[1714038618]

1714038618

[Cryddit]

Assuming you're Ray Dillinger - is that conversation public anywhere? I don't recall reading it on http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg10005.html

Uhh, I don't remember ever agreeing to keep it secret, but we didn't talk about it on the list either.  At that time Hal was elbows-deep in the transaction scripting code, and I was checking Satoshi's work on the crypto on the blockchain architecture. 

Finney had a lot to worry about with the transaction scripting and wound up blocking out about a dozen more opcodes than Satoshi had wanted to, but I found essentially nothing wrong with the block structure.  I am still freakin' amazed how tight he got that blockchain design. 

And, yeah, I'm Ray Dillinger.

[Melbustus]

Assuming you're Ray Dillinger - is that conversation public anywhere? I don't recall reading it on http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg10005.html

Uhh, I don't remember ever agreeing to keep it secret, but we didn't talk about it on the list either.  At that time Hal was elbows-deep in the transaction scripting code, and I was checking Satoshi's work on the crypto on the blockchain architecture.  

Finney had a lot to worry about with the transaction scripting and wound up blocking out about a dozen more opcodes than Satoshi had wanted to, but I found essentially nothing wrong with the block structure.  I am still freakin' amazed how tight he got that blockchain design.  

And, yeah, I'm Ray Dillinger.

Interesting - thanks for posting. I always assumed that all of those initial-state decisions had been made *before* Satoshi posted the whitepaper. I guess because of that comment he made in that list thread to the effect of "I'm almost ready to post the code."

It's a little amusing - if bitcoin continues to grow, economists will no doubt be horrified by the levity (relative to an econ committee mtg) with which these decisions were made. Not saying that's a bad thing, or that they weren't rationally through - it actually shows how strong the system is in that there were many possible "reasonable" initial conditions that could've been selected, since the system is largely self-equilibriating anyway.

Re Finney - if he was blocking bitcoin op-codes, I wonder what he would've thought of Ethereum's scripting lang.


(and I had to ask if you were Ray cuz your early posts on here were signed "Edward")

[jonald_fyookball]

what a complicated confusing mess -- all this M1, M2 stuff,
not to mention hundreds of fiat currencies.

Bitcoin's 21M coins seems so much simpler and better.

[Cryddit]

Interesting - thanks for posting. I always assumed that all of those initial-state decisions had been made *before* Satoshi posted the whitepaper. I guess because of that comment he made in that list thread to the effect of "I'm almost ready to post the code."

He *was* just about ready to post the code.  This was a debate about what value an already-defined constant ought to have.  In fact I've already posted an archive of his code from just a few *days* later in another thread here for historical interest. 

Hal and I were essentially giving it a last-minute looking over to see if we thought there was any way to attack it.  I have the impression that Hal communicated with Satoshi a lot more than I did, but he was looking at a  much tougher problem.  The blockchain structure is essentially a mathematical proof -- very straightforward, you follow it and you can say with reasonable certainty that it's right or not.  But a scripting language is generative.  And generative structures present exponentially more attack surfaces. 

Re Finney - if he was blocking bitcoin op-codes, I wonder what he would've thought of Ethereum's scripting lang.

You're kidding right?  Ethereum's scripting language is limited only by the amount of steps it will run a calculation.  Hal would have pitched a fit about the Denial-of-Service possibilities.

(and I had to ask if you were Ray cuz your early posts on here were signed "Edward")

Yeah, I made up a fake person because at first I didn't want people here to know who I was.  I was kind of afraid they'd get freaky about it.

[qdoop]

.........
And, yeah, I'm Ray Dillinger.

Then this conversation deserves Erdős number 2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number)

Thank you so much for explanations.



PS. Having some FORTH background was impressive to see it used in bitcoin.

[Cryddit]

PS. Having some FORTH background was impressive to see it used in bitcoin.

Both Hal and Satoshi preferred FORTH because it had the simplest (easiest to verify correct/secure) implementation of any useful scripting language.

[CryptoCarmen]

Is totally obvious Satoshi come from financial background.

[Cryddit]

Honestly, I don't think he did come from a financial background.  Had he come from a financial background, block rewards would not be adjusted downwards in 50% increments.  In fact the kool-aid in the financial industry is universally that mild continuous inflation is a good thing, so if Satoshi were educated in that industry, then block rewards would probably eventually start going *up* by a few percent a year to keep the capital dedicated to hashing (ie, block chain security) in a constant proportion relative to the bitcoin money supply (ie, the value that must be secured), and we wouldn't be looking at a 21M coin maximum.  

I am concerned that down the line the sudden drops in hashing reward are likely to create dislocations of  capital and hashing infrastructure.  Meaning, that at some point the financial return on miners' invested capital suddenly justifies only about half of it, and then what do they do with the rest?  

The thing about ASIC hashing infrastructure is that the thing that's required to secure the blockchain -- that is to say, hashing power -- is the very same thing that's required to attack it.  And the weirdo economics here have caused a huge amount of it to be built -- much more than will be financially justified three or four more halvings down the line.  The miners have sunk costs in dedicated equipment, so that equipment is not going to just go away because there's not a financial justification for the amortized expense of acquiring it.  And it's ASICs, so they're not going to be able to switch it as general computing power to any other purpose.

I'm concerned that when the profits from hashing go down suddenly, a bunch of people looking for the most profitable use of their dedicated sunk-cost in hashing infrastructure will start to consider attacks.  Way back when we were working on this, I took it for a lark.   I never *imagined* the current value of Bitcoin or the idea that eventually dedicated farms of ASICs that literally cannot be used for anything else except supporting OR ATTACKING the blockchain would exist.

So I would be much less nervous with a very gradual adjustment to keep the miners in something closer to a steady state.  Gradual adjustments make gradual dislocations, with plenty of time for equipment to wear out, turn into doorstops, blow power supplies, etc.  and keep the amount of active usable infrastructure close to the amount that's financially justified by the declining block rewards.

[jonald_fyookball]

Honestly, I don't think he did come from a financial background.  Had he come from a financial background, block rewards would not be adjusted downwards in 50% increments.  In fact the kool-aid in the financial industry is universally that mild continuous inflation is a good thing, so if Satoshi were educated in that industry, then block rewards would probably eventually start going *up* by a few percent a year to keep the capital dedicated to hashing (ie, block chain security) in a constant proportion relative to the bitcoin money supply (ie, the value that must be secured), and we wouldn't be looking at a 21M coin maximum. 

I am concerned that down the line the sudden drops in hashing reward are likely to create dislocations of  capital and hashing infrastructure.  Meaning, that at some point the financial return on miners' invested capital suddenly justifies only about half of it, and then what do they do with the rest? 

The thing about ASIC hashing infrastructure is that the thing that's required to secure the blockchain -- that is to say, hashing power -- is the very same thing that's required to attack it.  And the weirdo economics here have caused a huge amount of it to be built -- much more than will be financially justified three or four more halvings down the line.  The miners have sunk costs in dedicated equipment, so that equipment is not going to just go away because there's not a financial justification for the amortized expense of acquiring it. 

I'm concerned that when the profits from hashing go down suddenly, a bunch of people looking for the most profitable use of their dedicated sunk-cost in hashing infrastructure will start to consider attacks.  Way back when we were working on this, I took it for a lark.   I never *imagined* the current value of Bitcoin or the idea that eventually dedicated farms of ASICs that literally cannot be used for anything else except supporting OR ATTACKING the blockchain would exist.

So I would be much less nervous with a very gradual adjustment to keep the miners in something closer to a steady state.  Gradual adjustments make gradual dislocations, with plenty of time for equipment to wear out, turn into doorstops, blow power supplies, etc.  and keep the amount of active usable infrastructure close to the amount that's financially justified by the declining block rewards.

Interesting points and perspective.

2 counterpoints:

#1) Don't you think that commercial miners are well aware of the
subsidy schedule and have worked that into their business plans?

#2) Even if jarring displacements occur as you speak of, I
don't understand what conditions there could be that would
make attacking more profitable than mining.  Can you give
an example?

[qdoop]

Is totally obvious Satoshi come from financial background.

Facts indicate quite the opposite I am afraid!

If you design a currency for the web obviously you have to consider Javascript.
Most Javascript implementations internaly represent integers as Double-precision floating-point format.

The IEEE 754 standard specifies a binary64 as having:
Sign bit: 1 bit
Exponent width: 11 bits
Significand precision: 53 bits (52 explicitly stored) This gives from 15–17 significant decimal digits precision.
    

Code:

     21 000 000 000 000 00  (a 16 decimal digit num) of integral currency units (satoshi) 

is the maximum you can get and safe work with in modern Javascript.

I think this says a lot! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Number/MAX_SAFE_INTEGER

[Cryddit]

Interesting points and perspective.
2 counterpoints:
#1) Don't you think that commercial miners are well aware of the
subsidy schedule and have worked that into their business plans?

Yes, I believe that they have.  I hope that they have done so correctly and without making business plans involving malign intent. 

#2) Even if jarring displacements occur as you speak of, I
don't understand what conditions there could be that would
make attacking more profitable than mining.  Can you give
an example?

Sure.  Terrorist wants to spread chaos and make a profit to arm and equip his jihadis.  He acquires massive hashing infrastructure which miners are getting rid of on a secondary market like ebay for cheap, shorts Bitcoin with sixty-day contracts, and starts doing double spends of large amounts, forcing orphaning of chains hours or even days deep.  This will attract media attention and shatter confidence in Bitcoin security, as well as inspiring people to wait longer and longer and let the blockchain get days deep before they consider a payment secure, so he gets profits from his double spends, a huge payback on his short, and as a bonus, strikes a blow against the capitalist swine by destroying the value of their Bitcoin. 

[e4xit]

Honestly, I don't think he did come from a financial background.  Had he come from a financial background, block rewards would not be adjusted downwards in 50% increments.  In fact the kool-aid in the financial industry is universally that mild continuous inflation is a good thing, so if Satoshi were educated in that industry, then block rewards would probably eventually start going *up* by a few percent a year to keep the capital dedicated to hashing (ie, block chain security) in a constant proportion relative to the bitcoin money supply (ie, the value that must be secured), and we wouldn't be looking at a 21M coin maximum.  

I am concerned that down the line the sudden drops in hashing reward are likely to create dislocations of  capital and hashing infrastructure.  Meaning, that at some point the financial return on miners' invested capital suddenly justifies only about half of it, and then what do they do with the rest?  

The thing about ASIC hashing infrastructure is that the thing that's required to secure the blockchain -- that is to say, hashing power -- is the very same thing that's required to attack it.  And the weirdo economics here have caused a huge amount of it to be built -- much more than will be financially justified three or four more halvings down the line.  The miners have sunk costs in dedicated equipment, so that equipment is not going to just go away because there's not a financial justification for the amortized expense of acquiring it.  And it's ASICs, so they're not going to be able to switch it as general computing power to any other purpose.

I'm concerned that when the profits from hashing go down suddenly, a bunch of people looking for the most profitable use of their dedicated sunk-cost in hashing infrastructure will start to consider attacks.  Way back when we were working on this, I took it for a lark.   I never *imagined* the current value of Bitcoin or the idea that eventually dedicated farms of ASICs that literally cannot be used for anything else except supporting OR ATTACKING the blockchain would exist.

So I would be much less nervous with a very gradual adjustment to keep the miners in something closer to a steady state.  Gradual adjustments make gradual dislocations, with plenty of time for equipment to wear out, turn into doorstops, blow power supplies, etc.  and keep the amount of active usable infrastructure close to the amount that's financially justified by the declining block rewards.

That, or the value of bitcoin will increase (in relative terms to native currency) as there will be fewer 'new' BTC being sold off on the market, pushing the price up. Surely that was always the original intention? This is also combined with increased transaction fees (either through purely increased transaction volume or through fee/tx increasing).  Miners not making enough on block subsidy + free/low tx fee tx's can simply stop mining free tx's or tx's with "too-low" a fee.

The free market at it's finest should be able to naturally find the optimum point for all involved (rather than the current system we have of some old guys sitting around and arbitrarily deciding a position [which is sure to benefit them, and *might* benefit the wider economy])...

[jabo38]

Soooooo........ A lot of people don't know very much about Asian culture. Let me explain.  

Counting in Asia developed along a different line.  Basically Asians don't count by sets of 3, they count by 4s.  

So really 100,000,000 is counted in the head of an Asian as 1,0000,0000 and the total number of Satoshi is 2100,0000,0000,0000.

Lots of people don't think Satoshi was Asian, but it seems to me that he sure counts like an Asian.  Or maybe figured that most people in the world use this system of counting.

[robhimself]

Woah, I actually learned something today. Mommy will be so proud!

[RenegadeMind]

Here's the answer to "why 21 million" and "why 8 decimal places":

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7781/satoshis-genius-unexpected-ways-in-which-bitcoin-dodged-some-cryptographic-bullet/

The 21 Million BTC limit

One somewhat controversial property of Bitcoin is its fixed currency supply. There are currently 25 BTC being generated every 10 minutes, and this amount cuts in half every four years. All in all, there will never be more than 21 million BTC in existence. On the other hand, each bitcoin can be split into 100 million pieces (called “satoshis”), so it will not become difficult to use Bitcoin if its value goes up the same way it would become problematic to trade with dollars if each penny was enough to buy a car. Thus, all in all, the total number of currency units that will ever exist stands at 2,100,000,000,000,000: 2.1 quadrillion, or about 250.899. In choosing this figure, Satoshi was much luckier, or wiser, than most people realize. First of all, the number is considerably less than 264 – 1, the largest integer that can be stored in a standard integer on a computer – go above that, and the integers wrap around to zero like an odometer.

Second, however, there is another, lower threshold that the total satoshi count manages to fall just below: the largest possible integer that can be exactly represented in floating point format. Integers are not the only kind of number that computers can store; to handle decimal numbers, computers use a format known as floating point representation. Floating point representation is essentially a binary version of scientific notation. For example, here are some values that you may be familiar with if you studied any physics:

Mass of the Earth: 5.972 * 1024 kg
Mass of the Sun: 1.989 * 1030 kg
Speed of light: 2.998 * 108 m/s
One lightyear: 9.460 * 1015 m
Mass of a proton: 1.672 * 10-27 kg
Planck length: 1.616 * 10-35 m

Notice how scientific notation allows you to express all of these values with reasonable accuracy despite their wildly varying scales. Floating point notation is essentially scientific notation in binary; when you store the number 9.625, your computer stores “1.001101 * 1011” (or rather, it stores 01000000 00100011 01000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000, which is the same thing in high-precision serialized form). In this high-precision form, the “significand” (the part that’s not the exponent) has 52 bits. What this means is that high-precision (more precisely, “double precision”) floating point numbers are good enough to exactly store integers up to 253, but not higher – if you go higher, you start lopping off digits at the end. Bitcoin’s 250.9 satoshis are, in exponential terms, just below this maximum.

Why do we care about floating point values if we have integers? Because many higher-level programming languages (eg. Javascript) do not expose the low-level “floating point” and “integer representations”, instead providing the programmer with only the concept of “number” – represented in floating point form, of course. If Satoshi had chosen 210 million instead of 21 million, Bitcoin programming in many languages would be considerably harder than it is today.

Note that Stefan Thomas in his BitcoinJS library did not take advantage of this, so that library uses a specialized “big number” object instead of a plain number to store transaction output values. When asked about this, Thomas replied that he realized that using regular numbers was possible, but BitcoinJS needed to include the “big number” library regardless, since elliptic curve arithmetic requires numbers up to 2512, so the choice was arbitrary. My own BitcoinJS fork (which also adds other improvements) does use plain numbers to store the number of satoshis, a decision motivated largely by the desire to be compatible with external sources of transaction output data such as sx and pybitcointools.

[Cryddit]

Now that I think of it, we did talk about the floating point format in that discussion.  8-decimal divisibility was the maximum Satoshi would consider, for that reason (although he was a fanatic about doing everything with unsigned integers).   Hal's point about the smallest division being less than a penny, and that being possible even if the whole world's money supply were denominated in Bitcoin, meant no extraordinary measures were necessary.  

One thing I learned, was that in C, numeric overflow is undefined behavior on signed integers, and some compilers (notably gcc, which Satoshi was using) will even eliminate overflow checks, and then drop any error handlers or commands to output debug messages as dead code.  Which is a reason why Satoshi was such a fanatic about using unsigned integers everywhere.  

IOW, if you check for overflow by writing code like

int a,b, c;
.....a and b acquire values ....
if (a > 0 && b > 0 && a+b <= 0) {
errprintf("integer overflow at checkpoint 232\n");
halt(-1);
}
c = a+b;

gcc will eliminate the whole clause because, in its tiny little brain, integer overflow is undefined behavior so it can do whatever it likes with programming statements that depend on integer overflow having semantics.  And since it's trying to make the code shorter, faster, and less complicated, it just drops 'em.

But if you check for overflow by writing
unsigned int a,b,c;
.... a and b acquire values ....
if (a+b < b || a+b < a) {
errprintf("unsigned integer overflow at checkpoint 233\n");
halt(-1);
}
c = a+b;

gcc will actually output the code to do that, because unsigned integers are specified as having modular addition and subtraction so it can't replace the if condition with if(0) and then drop the whole thing.

Not that I ever saw such baroque error checking in the Bitcoin code.

[phillipsjk]

Here's the answer to "why 21 million" and "why 8 decimal places":

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7781/satoshis-genius-unexpected-ways-in-which-bitcoin-dodged-some-cryptographic-bullet/

The 21 Million BTC limit

One somewhat controversial property of Bitcoin is its fixed currency supply. There are currently 25 BTC being generated every 10 minutes, and this amount cuts in half every four years. All in all, there will never be more than 21 million BTC in existence. On the other hand, each bitcoin can be split into 100 million pieces (called “satoshis”), so it will not become difficult to use Bitcoin if its value goes up the same way it would become problematic to trade with dollars if each penny was enough to buy a car. Thus, all in all, the total number of currency units that will ever exist stands at 2,100,000,000,000,000: 2.1 quadrillion, or about 2^50.899. In choosing this figure, Satoshi was much luckier, or wiser, than most people realize. First of all, the number is considerably less than 2⁶⁴ – 1, the largest integer that can be stored in a standard integer on a computer – go above that, and the integers wrap around to zero like an odometer.
...
Notice how scientific notation allows you to express all of these values with reasonable accuracy despite their wildly varying scales. Floating point notation is essentially scientific notation in binary; when you store the number 9.625, your computer stores “1.001101 * 1011” (or rather, it stores 01000000 00100011 01000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000, which is the same thing in high-precision serialized form). In this high-precision form, the “significand” (the part that’s not the exponent) has 52 bits. What this means is that high-precision (more precisely, “double precision”) floating point numbers are good enough to exactly store integers up to 2⁵³, but not higher – if you go higher, you start lopping off digits at the end. Bitcoin’s 2^50.9 satoshis are, in exponential terms, just below this maximum.

fixed.

[Cryddit]

Here's the answer to "why 21 million" and "why 8 decimal places":

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7781/satoshis-genius-unexpected-ways-in-which-bitcoin-dodged-some-cryptographic-bullet/

The 21 Million BTC limit

One somewhat controversial property of Bitcoin is its fixed currency supply. There are currently 25 BTC being generated every 10 minutes, and this amount cuts in half every four years. All in all, there will never be more than 21 million BTC in existence. On the other hand, each bitcoin can be split into 100 million pieces (called “satoshis”), so it will not become difficult to use Bitcoin if its value goes up the same way it would become problematic to trade with dollars if each penny was enough to buy a car. Thus, all in all, the total number of currency units that will ever exist stands at 2,100,000,000,000,000: 2.1 quadrillion, or about 2^50.899. In choosing this figure, Satoshi was much luckier, or wiser, than most people realize. First of all, the number is considerably less than 2⁶⁴ – 1, the largest integer that can be stored in a standard integer on a computer – go above that, and the integers wrap around to zero like an odometer.
...
Notice how scientific notation allows you to express all of these values with reasonable accuracy despite their wildly varying scales. Floating point notation is essentially scientific notation in binary; when you store the number 9.625, your computer stores “1.001101 * 10¹¹” (or rather, it stores 01000000 00100011 01000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000, which is the same thing in high-precision serialized form). In this high-precision form, the “significand” (the part that’s not the exponent) has 52 bits. What this means is that high-precision (more precisely, “double precision”) floating point numbers are good enough to exactly store integers up to 2⁵³, but not higher – if you go higher, you start lopping off digits at the end. Bitcoin’s 2^50.9 satoshis are, in exponential terms, just below this maximum.

fixed.

fixed again.   

[Melbustus]

Honestly, I don't think he did come from a financial background.  Had he come from a financial background, block rewards would not be adjusted downwards in 50% increments.  In fact the kool-aid in the financial industry is universally that mild continuous inflation is a good thing, so if Satoshi were educated in that industry, then block rewards would probably eventually start going *up* by a few percent a year to keep the capital dedicated to hashing (ie, block chain security) in a constant proportion relative to the bitcoin money supply (ie, the value that must be secured), and we wouldn't be looking at a 21M coin maximum.  

I am concerned that down the line the sudden drops in hashing reward are likely to create dislocations of  capital and hashing infrastructure.  Meaning, that at some point the financial return on miners' invested capital suddenly justifies only about half of it, and then what do they do with the rest?  

The thing about ASIC hashing infrastructure is that the thing that's required to secure the blockchain -- that is to say, hashing power -- is the very same thing that's required to attack it.  And the weirdo economics here have caused a huge amount of it to be built -- much more than will be financially justified three or four more halvings down the line.  The miners have sunk costs in dedicated equipment, so that equipment is not going to just go away because there's not a financial justification for the amortized expense of acquiring it.  And it's ASICs, so they're not going to be able to switch it as general computing power to any other purpose.

I'm concerned that when the profits from hashing go down suddenly, a bunch of people looking for the most profitable use of their dedicated sunk-cost in hashing infrastructure will start to consider attacks.  Way back when we were working on this, I took it for a lark.   I never *imagined* the current value of Bitcoin or the idea that eventually dedicated farms of ASICs that literally cannot be used for anything else except supporting OR ATTACKING the blockchain would exist.

So I would be much less nervous with a very gradual adjustment to keep the miners in something closer to a steady state.  Gradual adjustments make gradual dislocations, with plenty of time for equipment to wear out, turn into doorstops, blow power supplies, etc.  and keep the amount of active usable infrastructure close to the amount that's financially justified by the declining block rewards.

That, or the value of bitcoin will increase (in relative terms to native currency) as there will be fewer 'new' BTC being sold off on the market, pushing the price up. Surely that was always the original intention? This is also combined with increased transaction fees (either through purely increased transaction volume or through fee/tx increasing).  Miners not making enough on block subsidy + free/low tx fee tx's can simply stop mining free tx's or tx's with "too-low" a fee.

The free market at it's finest should be able to naturally find the optimum point for all involved (rather than the current system we have of some old guys sitting around and arbitrarily deciding a position [which is sure to benefit them, and *might* benefit the wider economy])...

Yes, the dislocation risk is largest when the value of the system as a whole is smallest. Which is clearly how you'd want it. I think the logic goes:
1) If bitcoin as a whole were high-value, it probably entails high transaction volume.
2) High transaction volume probably entails non-trivial transaction fee revenue relative to subsidy, even if fairly early in bitcoin's emission curve.
3) That transaction fee rev has the effect of drastically smoothing the otherwise severe dislocation that a 50% reward drop would otherwise represent.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ray, but it seems like Satoshi highly valued simplicity; specifically in terms of protocol rules. He probably realized these likely fee/subsidy dynamics and took the trade off of simple code and simple rules, instead of a smoother function that probably would've been more complex to implement and/or presented a larger attack surface somehow. So while a finance guy may have pushed for more intellectual purity, a seasoned engineer would push for simple-to-implement with the hope/confidence that the market would provide the smoothing naturally. Maybe Satoshi was both and the engineer side won out.