Now imagine, if we take that same demand that we are seeing today and apply it after the halving. Note that I'm not saying demanding is increasing because to say that it is, means basically a wild assumption. It might even be lower than what it is today. So assuming the demand is close to or almost similar as it is today by June/July next year and miner's reward has been cut from 25 bitcoins to 12.5 bitcoins per block. For price to go up, demand has to overcome supply and since now we have taken the assumption that demand maintains and supply has been reduced by half, shouldn't we see price going up? Unless, the factor of decrease in demand is more than half, then it's the opposite. So here, I would say there's every chance with better prospect.
(emphasis mine)I find this assumption especially interesting here. If no traders give a thought to block subsidy then it may be valid. However, if sufficiently many traders make this assumption and follow the logic, they will have a strong incentive to demand more bitcoins today and fewer bitcoins in the future, hence corrupting the assumption.
This reminds me of
"Guess 2/3 of the average". A number of players each secretly write down a number from 0 to 100 (inclusive). The numbers are then collected, and 2/3 of the average is calculated. The player with the number closest to 2/3 of the average wins.
Your logic puts in mind the strategy "choose 100/3" which calculates this to be the best value based on the assumption that most other people are not giving any thought to their goal and are simply selecting numbers at random.
To clarify, I don't claim that this is a bad assumption (indeed, assuming all bitcoin traders are hopelessly incompotent is far more accurate than assuming they are all perfectly rational) but I do find it interesting.
