Hmm, that was interesting to read! So I’m a little bit in trouble now, of what or whom to believe 
Photosauce is telling me, that a 1024 points curve is more accurate than a 4096 points one.
And RawPedia told me before:
-Output Profile-
…
“RT_sRGB is a higher quality version of the standard sRGB profile, which surprisingly is inconsistent between implementations. RT_sRGB was custom-made for RawTherapee by Jacques Desmis and has 4096 LUT points, as opposed to the lower quality 1024 point sRGB profiles. Applications that aren’t color managed and won’t take advantage of RT_sRGB will fall back on sRGB.”
-Working Profile-
…
“Note that the working profile will only specify the red, green and blue primaries, gamma will not change as RawTherapee’s processing pipeline is floating point with no gamma encoding (that is gamma = 1.0). Some tools (like curves and histograms) will still display with a gamma (usually sRGB gamma) which is hard-coded for the tool and stays the same regardless of working profile.”
Furthermore you can adjust TRC manually by “Tone Response Curve: Custom”
For Output Profiles I understand the demand for “space saving” tiny profiles as they will be embedded to each JPG. But in my personal opinion I think that it doesn’t matter to save a few KBs with each photo on todays TB-drives. And as I don’t know under which enviroment my photos will be displayed outside my system, I don’t mind about (mostly) invisible color or tone deviations. I’m not responsible for other people’s equipment 
So, what is wrong or right, black or white? 
Btw, another interesting topic about working profile TRC: