That makes sense, however the incentives may still be there, some might want to increase the 21 million cap so they can still mine, some might do it for the sake of it, we don't know what reasons anyone will have, we just know that attacks on the blockchain might be fairly easy and don't cost much, and that itself is an issue.

however , as far is economic is concerned, your theory is valid , if bitcoin is worth so little that it becomes easy to attack , it won't be worth the attack in the first place, economically it makes no sense.


That's another major concern as well, very well addressed by you.


100$ is a lot of money to most people , as far as using it to store a blockhain that doesn't pay you anything, those who would always need to run nodes regardless of the cost would be mining pools and businesses receiving payments on the blockchain, at that point , most pools will close down , if price doesn't "moon" many individuals will lose hope and simply shutdown their nodes , this takes us back to your statement:


everything goes down to that, decentralization of nodes , decentralization of mining , security and adoption will always depend on bitcoin to be worth a minimum price of x number, this puts us in a very difficult race against time.

But as I said earlier ;


if the fiat system collapses by then and bitcoin does become a real mean of payment which is attached to no fiat value, we won't have to worry about any of this.