TheKoziTwo  nice, i was hopping to do something similar, i will take a look on the code when i have more free time and contribute where i can

The advantage that Monero currently has over virtually every POW coin and this includes Bitcoin, is that Monero has a current working solution to the scaling of blocksize question. One needs two things 1) Adaptive limits 2) A tail emission. Solving this problem without a tail emission is far from obvious, In fact I am not even convinced one can even create a viable fee market in the absence of an emission. There is a reason why there is so little progress with the blocksize debate in Bitcoin.

Like ArticMine I like the xmr tail emission schedule for the reasons he stated. I also agree that based on CURRENT transaction volume a fee only model will not work (miners would not be profitable at any reasonable btc transaction fee level).

However I do not think it was "intentionally crippled from the beginning". Satoshi clearly thought that transaction volume had the potential to scale exponentially. I read something about his prediction for a decade or two out (if anyone recalls this please help find the quote) where he though transaction volume would be VERY high or approaching zero. Either transaction volume scales high enough to support miners at reasonable tx fee levels or btc fails. He may not have known which would occur but he certainly did not "intentionally cripple" btc.

edit:
Found the quote. My memory was pretty close:

Quote from:  Satoshi Nakamoto
Feb. 14, 2010: Right.  Otherwise we couldn't have a finite limit of 21 million coins, because there would always need to be some minimum reward for generating.  In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes.  I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/48.msg329#msg329

I put a number of the blocksize-relevant Satoshi quotes into one post a few months ago. Maybe one of them is what you're thinking of: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/68655.msg11625671#msg11625671

The volume of transactions doesn't really matter. If there is no pricing power then it is a break even proposition. You can't break even on each unit and "make it up in volume". As a break even proposition, it can't be used to pay for hashing. It merely pays to actually process the transactions, not to secure the chain.

Look satoshi left for reasons undisclosed before the project was complete, or even in a workable state to scale up at all. That is quite clear. Quoting him now like he had it all figured out is just not logical.

still holding the bag for monerocoin, and are in trade XMR/BTC was very quite profitable

If I were a new user of a coin that really hadn't gotten much of anywhere in the world yet, I would prefer to pay a low price than a high price. The last thing I would want to do is to have to bid up and pay a premium to convince an existing hoarder to part with some of his stash at a profit.

Mining as a mechanism of distribution works equally well whether new users mine themselves or rely on economic specialization in which professional miners are motivated sellers on an exchange and new users are willing buyers.

(Security is probably better in the former case, but that's another story.)

Impossible is a strong word and it is rarely possible to actually prove something impossible.

What we do know is that people have been going around and around on these issues for years (ArticMine is more expert than I am on the history of how long and how many times this has been debated) with few if any compelling solutions. What Monero has come up with seems to be pretty close to the system that is most consistently constructed with all the pieces fitting together and might have a good possibility to work. It doesn't suffer from glaring flaws like someone needing to pick magic numbers on the block size nor failure of the penalty mechanism once the rewards run out nor expecting an open competitive market to offer excess profits for no particularly good reason.

This doesn't mean that it will work, but I really don't see any specific alternative proposals that don't rely far more on essentially blind faith.

The only core flaw I can still see in Monero is no way to incentivize full nodes unless they are also miners.  
  
You'll have to excuse my recent crusade on this topic, and I know we have spoken about this before.  I believe last time the consensus was that perhaps a feature could be added into Monero GUI to send optional donations to full nodes along with transaction fees.  
  
I feel like this would be better than nothing, but I still think this issue should be revisited (especially in light of Adam Back's recent comments: http://coinjournal.net/adam-back-on-the-overlooked-importance-of-full-nodes-in-bitcoin/)  
  
I'm not saying drop the database optimization and GUI for this, but I would like the community to continue brainstorming on ways to make this happen in the Monero universe.  We already have a TKO on all other cryptos; if we can figure out a way to financially compensate full nodes that will go from a Technical Knockout to a Triple Knockout (even a lottery system is better than nothing...  Run a full node for a chance to have all node donations for the week deposited into your address).  
  
Of course, I'm aware it's important we don't break faith with the social contract, nor try to do too much with the core Monero protocol.  Simple is best....  So maybe a voluntary donation system built into the GUI really is the most elegant solution.  
  
I still want to hear if anyone has any other ideas though.