This is correct.
This is incorrect
- mainly because there is no way for all coins to be consumed, so there may be times where a farmer must do a lot more GETs before eventually receiving a coin, but it will always be possible to receive a coin.
- also because coins are never received by farmers for PUT requests. Farmers can only receive a new coin from the network for GET requests.
This is not right. There’s a subtle difference between ‘coin supply’ and ‘farmer income’. You maybe think they’re more closely related than perhaps they really are.
On one hand (the ‘supply’ hand), you’re right that “increasing the supply of coins” does come from storing new data. On the other hand (the ‘income’ hand), “increasing the supply of coins” is unrelated to “whether or not farmers have income”. Supply affects the amount of income but not whether income exists or not.
To rephrase that last point, the “the way the number of available coins changes” is a different concept to “the amount of income for farmers”. But it’s quite a subtle difference. It’s not right to say that ‘a reduction in the supply of coins can stop farmers being paid’. It is right to say ‘a reduction in the supply of coins can reduce the amount that farmers are being paid’. But farmers are always paid.
Consider the concept of “the number of available coins”. This changes in several different ways, sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing. But now consider a different concept, “the farming income”, which may pay more sometimes, it may pay less other times, but there is no point in time where farmers do not have an income.
It’s a subtle difference, but important to understand. Hopefully this clarifies, if not we’ll keep discussing because I’m sure this is a difficult distinction for many other people too!