It makes sense. Something akin to what the central banks do by setting interest rates, but algorithmic, leading to a 'natural' (rather than manipulated) level of inflation. But different, because it's directly tied to security. I haven't thought whether it would be an issue if it works in one direction only (halvings, but no doublings), but it might.

When I was learning about Bitcoin, I heard "It costs you nothing to store your bitcoin (as opposed to, say, gold). You get security for free." and thought it sounded wonderful, but too good to be true. There is no free lunch and all that...

I understand a lack of inflation is aligned with Austrian economics, but the Austrians didn't know a monetary system whose security was tied to inflation. So it's a new concept to wrap one's head around.

But then, I wonder (and again, I haven't thought about it much, it's just some loose thoughts), if Bitcoin's security relies on there being no single entity large enough to thwart it (likely a superpower nation state, like China or the US) and "large" is relative to the size of the population, and if Bitcoin successfully decentralizes power making nation states and corporations weaker (which it may or may not), then that alone may make a 51% attack increasingly harder, mitigating the effect of the falling block rewards.

It's hard to predict what will happen - we're trying to make sure a system whose behaviour is modelled by exponential functions will work well over timeframes that exceed our lifespan. It's not hard to imagine that even Satoshi may not have gotten it 100% right.