Bitcoin may be finite in number, but it's ultimately infinitely divisible, so it does not matter how many bitcoins are "wasted". Regardless, any property worth tracking in such a scheme is likely worth enough to justify a $0.01 investment in bitcoin.
> Bitcoin may be finite in number, but it's ultimately infinitely divisible, so it does not matter how many bitcoins are "wasted".
Correct.
> Regardless, any property worth tracking in such a scheme is likely worth enough to justify a $0.01 investment in bitcoin.
A doubling of the current price would make transactions of less than 1 US penny impossible. So, if the price goes up 10x, it would be 5 pennies. 100x, 50 cents. 1000x, 5 dollars. So, yeah, it does seem like a non-issue.
However, this policy clearly rules out microtransactions.
The problem is that this minimum transaction size may change in the future. So, lets say you set 10 X MIN_VALUE to equal one stock certificate. If the MIN_VALUE adds a couple zeroes in the future, anyone with less than 10 certificates just lost their property.
Also, maybe you want to allow the user to transfer fractions of your property issue. Stocks can go up 10000x in value and you don't want the issuer to have to perform stock splits. If there is no minimum transaction value, this is easy. With minimum transaction values, the value of a single certificate in bitcoin becomes much more important.
The point is, there are valid reasons to transact small amounts of bitcoin that do not involve micro-transactions. If the user is willing to pay the transaction fee, these should be allowed. The developers are limiting the useful (and profitable) application of the network to fix an issue that can be solved by other means.
It doesn't need to be. But it helps. Imagine if you wanted to create a bunch of smart properties which had very little intrinsic dollar values(lets say, collectible sports cards) - you would be forced to spend a bunch of money to do so.
