I am not an expert in Bitcoin, but I studied economics enough to know that its promise of inflation-proof store of value is obviously false.
The claim is well known: no more than 21 million Bitcoins can exist. Unlike regular currency, more of which can be printed at any time, Bitcoin must become inflation-proof once no units can be added.
The problem is, inflation doesn't just occur when "more dollars are printed." Inflation happens when "too many units of any currency chase too few assets." These are the same in a single-currency world: if we can only use dollars, only printing more dollars can dilute their value. Add another currency and this changes: if shops in America accept Euros, the dollar price of everything rises though no new dollars are printed.
Bitcoin is inflation-proof if its the only game in town. Ironically, its existence proves that anyone can start a currency. We already see alternatives like Litecoin with non-trivial market capitalization. These and new currencies are accepted, and compete with Bitcoin for purchasing assets. This competition erodes the value of Bitcoins even if no more are mined.
Consider cryptos as a single currency. End of Bitcoin mining doesn't halt addition of other currency units. Inflation occurs anyway. Litecoin alone has a market capitalization of over 5% that of Bitcoin, today. Created out of thin air, these coins mean Bitcoin's purchasing power is theoretically 5% less than it would be otherwise.
Bitcoin is interesting and vulnerability to inflation doesn't necessarily invalidate its entire premise. I love hearing Andre De Castro speak passionately about the blockchain changing the world. It may be an interesting mechanism of exchange. I just would not rely on it as an inflation-proof store of value. Continuing growth of competing currencies seem at least as likely as the government printing more dollars.