You take away half of the money being allocated to security... then your security is going to be half as effective... on a pre-determined day that everyone knows about in advance. Does that really sound like a smart play?
I believe the problem arise from the approach to the halving case. In fiat monetary system, there is no other party to confirm the transactions but for the central banks. Yet, in blockchain, you do not reward the miners; you actually pay a tax to them as a thank for securing their digital assets on a chain.
IF the transaction fees paid to miners cannot compensate for the halving, then there is a serious concern! In the ideal scenario, BTC always goes up while the emission rate is going down. What if we add some other parameters such as global concerns and more attractive cryptocurrencies to flow the liquidity on? Then, the game becomes interesting...
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Luckily Bitcoin is in a very unique position and I don't think the potential loss in security will actually be an issue because it was first to market and has a community entrenched within the infrastructure already.