[New_California]

Because the 21m hard cap and change resistance are the definition of Bitcoin.

If these are taken away for any reason, the result would be indistinguishable from shitcoins.

[galeos]

I suppose that might be true, but we can imagine a situation where there is no choice in the matter:

If network security cannot be maintained without sufficient inflation, then it surely it doesn't matter how philosophically wedded some users are to the 21m cap. It would lead to a hard fork, with two resulting coins:

1. An unchanged 'Capped-supply Bitcoin' 2. A new 'Permanent-subsidy Bitcoin'

Given a total breakdown in network security of the 'Capped-supply Bitcoin' (and its associated collapse in value), we would expect users to deem the, still secure and therefore higher value, 'Permanent-subsidy Bitcoin' to be the 'true' Bitcoin going forward, no?

[ashwagary]

For the unaware, a protocol hard fork would result in participants owning bitcoin on two chains.

A fork is possible if fees become an issue, participants will then vote with hash power, nodes, and value.