Maybe. Others have made that argument before. So far, it's been proven wrong. The rewards are already pretty small, and things are still working. Maybe it could happen after block rewards go to zero? I don't know. But we'll find out if you're right over the next six years!

> So far, it's been proven wrong.

How can a prediction of what happens after 2050 (i.e. after a total of 10 halvings to make subsidy negligible) have been proven wrong "so far" ??

there is set amount of bitcoins to mint

transaction fees were intended to keep miners active

The "transaction fees won't protect against reorgs" argument assumes that miners count the value of future block rewards at 0. This is poor logic that models mining as a single game of the prisoner's dilemma. Modeling it as a repeated game arrives at the opposite conclusion: that most miners will cooperate to some degree, because the future value of their rewards depends on it.

I say this as someone very much opposed to the "deflationary" model, because I think it's bullshit that generates a "landed gentry" (thanks, spez) that can forever dominate the distribution of a currency. If you're going to make a currency, inflation of some degree is required to ensure fair(er) distribution over time.

I just think the idea that, when block rewards dissipate, miners will suddenly lose the ability to think more than one block into the future should be called for what it is: bad logic. It's also readily disproved by the most trivial glance at their history of long-term, forward-looking investment.