You don't understand, I want the verbose academic research paper. Peter Todd in his article about tail emissions, he linked "On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward" It was an interesting read which mostly was around miners being incentivized to mine previous blocks rather than build a new one and I came from that thinking "Well, all that means is that you'd need to wait 6 blocks instead of 1 probably". That's the level of academic research I'm trying to look for with this. Is constant growth of hash rate (at rates higher than the productivity curve or the innovation of faster computers) really necessary for Bitcoin to be secure? What is the real academic analysis. The best theory, though still much less academic than I'd like, is Jason Lowry's Hash War paper in which the hash rate increase is independent of block rewards and rather driven by international warfare. Countries securing their financial position from other countries trying to disrupt it with a reorg.